If you go into the movie looking at it as Casino Royale Pt. 2 and not it's own movie you'll be pleased. As it's own movie the action is directed and edited quicker and more sloppy than the Bourne movies, and Bond seems to be the only character that gets developed. Marc Forster isn't an action director and it shows. It's almost like he bought the book "How to Direct Action for Dummies by Paul Greengrass."

That being said, I still enjoyed this movie a lot. It was a welcome change of pace to the regular Bond formula. The movie focuses on Bond getting revenge, and it makes for a very fun film. The only down side is that since they spend so much time developing Bonds revenge scenario, you never really feel satisfaction when he finally gets revenge.

I only wish the movie was longer. It seems that they didn't want this film to drag anywhere as Casino was criticized as doing, so instead they just made the quickest dirtiest film possible. Overall a worthy sequel to Casino Royale with a great Goldfinger reference and some good Bond quips.

I know I just talked it down, but all these things are very minor in the grand scheme of things. It was worth admission, and I'm sure I'll pick up the DVD when it comes out.

Oddly enough, SAJN's comments seem to be in line with what competent critics are saying.

copy paste is a wonderful tool

Seeing movies at midnight is a pretty childish thing to do

Damn. You guys figured me out. I didn't see the movie at all, I simply went to rottentomatoes.com and stole everyone else's review. Or maybe I just got back from the film after purposefully avoiding reading any reviews on it, so I could have a nice discussion about it with all of my friends who also happen to be overly critical film majors like myself.

...

Nahhhh.

haha, we're not your friends, we're internet, and we don't even like you

[you don't have any friends]

I thought the chase scenarios were some of the better I've seen (though it seemed like they turned everything into a chase...). I'm enjoying this Bond's personality far more than the previous though.

(And the fact that the Bond Babe was not only hot, but a complete badass was rather nice.)

You people are slow.

/me runs

In a nutshell:

Casino Royale > Quantum of Solace

Had some good moments (e.g. bringing Mathis back - not a spoiler, he's in the trailer.)


That's because they hired the second unit director from the Bourne movies, I believe. And it showed. This was more a Bourne movie than a Bond movie.

And the opening credit sequence had the worst tracking - that compositor should be ashamed of himself.

It is VERY much a middle film. It sets it up for a third rather nicely, but the movie itself was ho-hum with some good action.

That may be, but I think it safe to assume:

Casino Royale > Quantum of Solace > everything > piles of **** > Die Another Day

Apparently I'm childish, because I almost went this morning, but our plans got messed up. I'm glad, after reading this thread.

You mean the Camera Operator & Director?

No.

Quantum of a Shoelace

haha film school

No no no.

Goldeneye > Casino Royale > Quantum of Solace > everything > piles of **** > Die Another Day

Goldeneye pwns.

To be honest, Casino Royale was far from my favorite bond movie. It's impossibly difficult to see Daniel Craig as "James Bond" :S

moonrapker > octopussy > di\amonds are frever > casino royale (david niven)

Correction for myself... All three could have had a part in that possibly..

The Director for not noticing such bad tracking (as you say it is, I have not seen the film so I cannot say) and allowing it to be put into the film even after edits.

The Camera Operator, if he was not a very good op and was shaky or didn't do it as it was planned. Or for unforseen circumstances where it was not possible for him to achieve it.

The compositor for designing such a bad tracking shot, if meant to be intentionally shot that way.

I forgot to correct myself on that earlier

As for the movie.. Was the Star Trek trailer shown before this? I heard it was shown at some screenings and was absent at others. If so, how was it?

I heard there was a new T4 trailer for this, did you see it?

I only saw a new Valkyrie and Star Trek trailer, among other older trailers.

I saw that Star [trek] trailer and I was like **** yes cool STar Trek and I saw the Watchmen trailer and I dunno if it was on intiernetios before this but it was the best so far IMO

Also, Casino Royale was better, yeah...

This was too short, too abrupt in its delivery of plot points... there was some intrigue or mystery hinted at involving this organization and this plot, but then they just... killed the bad guys in a big fight and it was over... suddenly.

The film didn't give the viewer enough time to settle into new information that was presented, or new locations or scenarios, it was just like bam bam bam

and it was really cool, fun to watch, and i had a blast, but it coulda been a bit more subtle.

In that desert scene where they show that Gila Monster or whatever lizard, some dude a few rows over goes "A snake!" and for some reason it was the most hilarious thing and everyone laffed.

Too many chase scenes paired with an incredibly dry plot, made for a major letdown for me..

Although Gemma Arterton looked incredibly hott, as always.

(edited due to my damn mobile dying mid post)

yes x100000

fail

epic longcat

I liked it, more than Casino Royale, but that may be because I hate poker. I like Daniel Craig's version of James Bond, because it seems to be more about the actual guy than the technology - previous films have spent too much time on what nifty gadget Q's cooked up this time.

I'm sort of confused at people complaining about the plot--was there a point in time where these movies had good plots?

Considering it was a followup of Casino Royale, which had a great plot, yes, there was at least one point.

It was a fun bond film. As a standalone movie went, I wouldn't have been too impressed. But, as this is part of a story arc, I thought it was fine. I'm looking forward to the next one.

Apart from one or two general Bont-ities missing or mixed up I'd say it was a pretty dang good [Bond irrelevant] film.

Also have I ever mentioned that I can't believe some of you actually sit there and rather than watch the film you're too busy assembling opinions on the technical ability of the cameraman.

I saw it opening night, thought i was pretty good. They left alot unanswered which is good and bad I was kind of hoping they would give at least some more info on quantum, but I guess we will just have to wait

still no traditional bond film tho

Quantum is basically the reboot's Spectre I guess.

Expect another 4 films before you see the head honcho.

^ win.

It might be SMERSH the precursor to SPECTRE

I saw it earlier this afternoon (was rather packed for a 12:50 PM showing) and I thought it was an entertaining film. It definitely doesn't compare to Casino Royale, but it was still good fun. The movie felt less like a James Bond movie and more like a Jason Bond flick, but this isn't such a bad thing (I can do without some of that infamous shaky cam though). I like the fact that Bond doesn't fall in love and bangs Elena.

I have a couple of issues with the movie, most of it have already been stated by some of you. The intro music wasn't that great compared to Casino Royale. In Casino Royale, the intro music's leitmotif was used throughout most of the movie, giving the movie a sense of identity. I wasn't able to identify a central theme for the movie (although the beginning of the intro music sounded like it came from Casino Royale).

In Casino Royale, the action scenes moved the plot along, but in Quantum of Solace it seems to be the other way around. The script could also be better. There were a lot of memorable lines and witty exchanges in Casino Royale, but there weren't much of that from what I recalled in Quantum of Solace. Then again, the movie does focus more on Bond's desire for revenge so I guess that means less time to be charming and witty. That also brings me to another point, I recall Daniel Craig stating how we're suppose to see Bond grieve more, but I don't really see too much of that ( aside from the whole "I can't sleep" and denial of Vesper loving him .

Don't get me wrong, it was still a very entertaining movie. It just had a lot to live up to with Casino Royale being such an awesome movie. Apparently the ending leaves room for another direct sequel. We'll see if Daniel Craig will (hopefully) return for the next one.

They're the same thing!