70 replies to this topic

[Bond Bug]

Saw Quantum of Solace yesterday....... and it sucked!

Let’s not make excuses for a dire piece of screenwriting in the new Bond movie. A car chase. Who was chasing Bond? We do not know. A plane chase. Who was chasing Bond? We do not know. Random unexplained, unoriginal action scenes as Bond goes from one "dead end" to another, without the story moving on, rendered the movie a brainless and unsatisfying action-fest, especially when combined with close-up rapid jump-cuts and machine-gun edits that looked like Edward Scissorhands had been let loose in the editing suite to out-Bourne Jason Bourne.

Unlike every other Bond movie that has gone before, the protagonist never explains to Bond or the audience his fiendish plot. Greene, the villain, conveniently mentions it in passing as Bond eavesdrops, and 007 later sees evidence of it, but we are never told the scope of the villain’s plot, how many people it would affect and how it would work without quickly being discovered. We therefore never know fully what the hell is going on, or why, and the lead villain is the weakest in the series - bland, almost zero screen presence and with no given motivation: not exactly an equal rival to pitch against Bond.

It's all very Jason Bourne. Gone is Bond’s charm that we saw in Casino Royale. Gone are his one-liners, Gone is any humor. He is a running, killing machine, a generic action hero who never says "Bond, James Bond," and who throws his friend's body in a skip. This is not James Bond. There was no reason to care about him in a revenge story that had so much opportunity to get inside Bond and share his pain, as suggested in the title. Craig was too deadpan. He could have taken lessons from Harrison Ford on moral fury. Bond did not show fury or anger, not even a raised voice. If it was inside, it was too well hidden. Most of the performances lacked direction: too much at the same level in terms of pace and tone, although Judy Dench as M shined. On the Bond girls, one was forgettable and the other in a very small role stood out like a sore thumb, the performance was so awful.

On the positive, the scenes between Bond and M were strong. The sympathetic locations, photography, the score and a few brief arthouse movie moments lifted the movie above the average action movie, but as the follow up to Casino Royale, Quantum SUCKED big time! As a James Bond Movie, it must be right down there with The Man with the Golden Gun! Let's hope the real James Bond will return.

[DamnCoffee]

Not Bourne in the slightest.

[Loomis]

Saw Quantum of Solace yesterday....... and it sucked!

Let’s not make excuses for a dire piece of screenwriting in the new Bond movie. A car chase. Who was chasing Bond? We do not know. A plane chase. Who was chasing Bond? We do not know.

I haven't seen the film, but I'll hazard a guess that, in both cases, the people chasing Bond are.... *drumroll* ...the baddies. And that's all I need to know.

Seriously, though, I'm happy to fanwank the answers for myself, e.g. that the motorists chasing Bond at the start are Quantum employees and bodyguards for Mr White called Humphrey St. John Fortescue-Tarrant-Turner (who was actually one year below Bond at Eton) and Luigi Fellini-Montecassino. Sorted.

I mean, must everything be spelled out by the filmmakers in tedious detail? For instance, I don't recall TOMORROW NEVER DIES making it clear precisely who was in charge of the "terrorist supermarket" in the PTS. Neither do I recall anyone complaining about that.

[HildebrandRarity]

This is not James Bond. There was no reason to care about him in a revenge story that had so much opportunity to get inside Bond and share his pain, as suggested in the title.

Share his pain?

This is an action adventure film...not Mel Gibson's The Passion Of The Christ Redux.

It was painful enough watching him getting his balls bashed in and seeing Vesper drowning herself.

[Bond Bug]

I am sorry for misspelling Bourne in the title.

[Invincible1958]

A car chase. Who was chasing Bond?

People from Quantum.

A plane chase. Who was chasing Bond?

People from Quantum. You even see how the guy from which Bond borrows the plane goes straight to the telephone after Bond takes off. It's like in the old movies where Bond walks by and someone telephones the bad guy "Bond has just arrived" or "Target just passed by" etc.

[Bond Bug]

Saw Quantum of Solace yesterday....... and it sucked!

Let’s not make excuses for a dire piece of screenwriting in the new Bond movie. A car chase. Who was chasing Bond? We do not know. A plane chase. Who was chasing Bond? We do not know.

I haven't seen the film, but I'll hazard a guess that, in both cases, the people chasing Bond are.... *drumroll* ...the baddies. And that's all I need to know.

Seriously, though, I'm happy to fanwank the answers for myself, e.g. that the motorists chasing Bond at the start are Quantum employees and bodyguards for Mr White called Humphrey St. John Fortescue-Tarrant-Turner (who was actually one year below Bond at Eton) and Luigi Fellini-Montecassino. Sorted.

I mean, must everything be spelled out by the filmmakers in tedious detail? For instance, I don't recall TOMORROW NEVER DIES making it clear precisely who was in charge of the "terrorist supermarket" in the PTS. Neither do I recall anyone complaining about that.

Wow you can defend the movie without watching it! Bond is in a plane and comes under attack. How did they know Bond was there? And with that sort of amazing security how come Bond and Bond girl find it so easy to take out the bad guys after they land?

Care to explain the plot involving "controlling the world's water supply?"

This is not James Bond. There was no reason to care about him in a revenge story that had so much opportunity to get inside Bond and share his pain, as suggested in the title.

Share his pain?

This is an action adventure film...not Mel Gibson's The Passion Of The Christ Redux.

It was painful enough watching him getting his balls bashed in and seeing Vesper drowning herself.

That's fine if you want an action-fest.

Edited by Bond Bug, 01 November 2008 - 11:08 PM.

[Loomis]

Saw Quantum of Solace yesterday....... and it sucked!

Let’s not make excuses for a dire piece of screenwriting in the new Bond movie. A car chase. Who was chasing Bond? We do not know. A plane chase. Who was chasing Bond? We do not know.

I haven't seen the film, but I'll hazard a guess that, in both cases, the people chasing Bond are.... *drumroll* ...the baddies. And that's all I need to know.

Seriously, though, I'm happy to fanwank the answers for myself, e.g. that the motorists chasing Bond at the start are Quantum employees and bodyguards for Mr White called Humphrey St. John Fortescue-Tarrant-Turner (who was actually one year below Bond at Eton) and Luigi Fellini-Montecassino. Sorted.

I mean, must everything be spelled out by the filmmakers in tedious detail? For instance, I don't recall TOMORROW NEVER DIES making it clear precisely who was in charge of the "terrorist supermarket" in the PTS. Neither do I recall anyone complaining about that.

Wow you can defend the movie without watching it!

Well, to be fair, it's quite possible that I'll dislike QUANTUM OF SOLACE. I've really no idea how I'll respond to it, actually. However, the point I'm trying to make is that I don't need every little thing in a movie - especially a Bond movie - spelled out to me chapter and verse.

[Bond Bug]

A car chase. Who was chasing Bond?

People from Quantum.

A plane chase. Who was chasing Bond?

People from Quantum. You even see how the guy from which Bond borrows the plane goes straight to the telephone after Bond takes off. It's like in the old movies where Bond walks by and someone telephones the bad guy "Bond has just arrived" or "Target just passed by" etc.

My problem is there is no clear structure, bo logic, too much vagueness. Obviously it is the bad guys from Quantum, but who are they? Who and what is Quantum? It isn't like Spectre or Zorin Industries where you understand their purpose and their plans. It is all too woolly and random. These are people attacking Bond who we do not know from an organisation we do not know. How interesting is that? In Jason Bourne that is interesting, because Bourne is on a journey that is full of surprises. I never felt that with Bond in QOS.

Saw Quantum of Solace yesterday....... and it sucked!

Let’s not make excuses for a dire piece of screenwriting in the new Bond movie. A car chase. Who was chasing Bond? We do not know. A plane chase. Who was chasing Bond? We do not know.

I haven't seen the film, but I'll hazard a guess that, in both cases, the people chasing Bond are.... *drumroll* ...the baddies. And that's all I need to know.

Seriously, though, I'm happy to fanwank the answers for myself, e.g. that the motorists chasing Bond at the start are Quantum employees and bodyguards for Mr White called Humphrey St. John Fortescue-Tarrant-Turner (who was actually one year below Bond at Eton) and Luigi Fellini-Montecassino. Sorted.

I mean, must everything be spelled out by the filmmakers in tedious detail? For instance, I don't recall TOMORROW NEVER DIES making it clear precisely who was in charge of the "terrorist supermarket" in the PTS. Neither do I recall anyone complaining about that.

Wow you can defend the movie without watching it!

Well, to be fair, it's quite possible that I'll dislike QUANTUM OF SOLACE. I've really no idea how I'll respond to it, actually. However, the point I'm trying to make is that I don't need every little thing in a movie - especially a Bond movie - spelled out to me chapter and verse.

Well I hope you enjoy it as much as I did! I did enjoy it a lot, but the movie is flat IMO. I am still waiting for the perfect Bond movie. Maybe my expectations are always too high.

SPOILER ALERT

Greene mentions his plot to "control the world's water supply"

Bond sees they have built dams. 1/ how could these dams "control the world's water supply." 2/ How long would it take for these dams to be found?

[Alfred Blacking]

Wow, not since The Phantom Menace have I known a film to polarise as much as this one. And I think that your review is even more to the negative pole than mine, and that's saying something. I agreed with your overall sentiments though, and certain bits of your review.

Saw Quantum of Solace yesterday....... and it sucked!
Random unexplained, unoriginal action scenes as Bond goes from one "dead end" to another, without the story moving on, rendered the movie a brainless and unsatisfying action-fest, especially when combined with close-up rapid jump-cuts and machine-gun edits that looked like Edward Scissorhands had been let loose in the editing suite to out-Bourne Jason Bourne.

I agree that it seemed to be a series of action scenes or set-pieces without the necessary strong story linking them together. And I laughed at your Edward Scissorhands comment - it did seem a bit crazy. I've seen people compare this to the Red Grant fight, but I think that only worked because it was one scene within a fairly deliberate film and showed the chaos of close hand to hand fighting. This was probably the majority of the film (I'll take my stop watch next time). I counted 6 chases - and I agree that they didn't really move the story on much.

Gone is Bond’s charm that we saw in Casino Royale. Gone are his one-liners, Gone is any humor.

I agree that the charm, or chemistry, of Casino Royale was gone. I don't agree that the humour was totally missing - I laughed at the lottery joke anyway.

There was no reason to care about him in a revenge story that had so much opportunity to get inside Bond and share his pain, as suggested in the title.

Ah, now, to me this is where you're absolutely spot on. It's also one of the main points that Mark Kermode made (I saw the review on YouTube this afternoon). The editing really didn't give us the chance to explore the pain (I blame the editor/director rather than DC - and the same would go for the small female role you mentioned). And I also felt, I mentioned in my review, that it was a terrible wasted opportunity.

[sark]

So you would rather of had the horrible cliche of the villain explaining his plan to Bond? Really?
And no, I haven't seen it. Maybe I'll hate it. But that, to me, seems like the lamest criticism of a Bond film ever.

[Mr_Wint]

A car chase. Who was chasing Bond?

People from Quantum.

A plane chase. Who was chasing Bond?

People from Quantum.

An awful script. Who wrote it?

People from Quantum.

[MarkA]

And no, I haven't seen it. Maybe I'll hate it. But that, to me, seems like the lamest criticism of a Bond film ever.

Wow this film has kicked up quite a storm on this site like no other I can remember. But please, to knock people for not liking it when you haven't even seen it. Wait, and then come back with your brickbats. There were some pertinent points made

[sark]

And no, I haven't seen it. Maybe I'll hate it. But that, to me, seems like the lamest criticism of a Bond film ever.

Wow this film has kicked up quite a storm on this site like no other I can remember. But please, to knock people for not liking it when you haven't even seen it. Wait, and then come back with your brickbats. There were some pertinent points made

I don't have to see it to make tha observation.

[stamper]

Bond Bug is right,the pre-credits polarise everything that is wrong with the movie.

If you want a brainless action fest with no plot, no vilains (apart from the fact that they are there and they are the vilains) and no logic, you will enjoy it.

If you are looking for CR like quality, you won't. This movie was made for all the guys who thought that CR was "boring", "overlong", "too sentimental", "chick movie" "yawn" "give me Steven Seagal violence anytime over this love boat crap".

[sharpshooter]

I get the impression that you don't like the film. (!)

[Captain Tightpants]

Funny how you only seem to post in threads that support your argument. Can you just not see the others, or do these ones attract you like a magnet?

[Harmsway]

Bond Bug is right,the pre-credits polarise everything that is wrong with the movie.

If you want a brainless action fest with no plot, no vilains (apart from the fact that they are there and they are the vilains) and no logic, you will enjoy it.

If you are looking for CR like quality, you won't. This movie was made for all the guys who thought that CR was "boring", "overlong", "too sentimental", "chick movie" "yawn" "give me Steven Seagal violence anytime over this love boat crap".

Your comments appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

[bondrules]

There was no reason to care about him in a revenge story that had so much opportunity to get inside Bond and share his pain, as suggested in the title.

If this was a revenge story, why didn't he kill the most responsible person for the death of vesper? I haven´t seen the movie, but I understand Bond has a moment where he can make a choice, and he does.....he opts out of revenge.....

Edited by bondrules, 02 November 2008 - 07:42 AM.

[Captain Tightpants]

Spoiler

Apparently, it's because he sees what happens when Camille gets hers and realises that either revenge will give him a phyrric victory at best, or that he won't be able to handle the feeling he gets from it. Bond's a trained, legal killer; not a murderer.

[avl]

There was no reason to care about him in a revenge story that had so much opportunity to get inside Bond and share his pain, as suggested in the title.

If this was a revenge story, why didn't he kill the most responsible person for the death of vesper? I haven´t seen the movie, but I understand Bond has a moment where he can make a choice, and he does.....he opts out of revenge.....

Yes exactly - it isn't a revenge movie. That is the whole point.

[Bond Bug]

Funny how you only seem to post in threads that support your argument. Can you just not see the others, or do these ones attract you like a magnet?

I see the fans of the movie saying how great it was, but I don't see anyone able to explain the plot like how Quantum are going to "control the world's water supply" to quote Greene, or if Bond even got the right person. And if it wasn't revenge, why didn't Bond bring Greene in for interrogation, why did he ignore Ms instructions. Quantum still exists and the secret agent working on the case has failed to gather intelligence. Make all the excuses you like. This movie sucked.

[dee-bee-five]

Funny how you only seem to post in threads that support your argument. Can you just not see the others, or do these ones attract you like a magnet?

I see the fans of the movie saying how great it was, but I don't see anyone able to explain the plot like how Quantum are going to "control the world's water supply" to quote Greene, or if Bond even got the right person. Quantum still exists.

What, like SPECTRE did at the end of Dr. No, FRWL, TB, YOLT, OHMSS and DAF, you mean? And didn't Bond fail to get "the right person" (ie Blofeld) at the conclusion of the first five of those? What tommyrot.

[Captain Tightpants]

Bond Bug, Quantum sought to control the world's single largest untouched supply of fresh water. The Atatcama Desert is the driest place on the face of the earth, and the film implies that this is because it is actually a giant aquifer. By restricting the availablity of water and controlling the largest reserves, Quantum will be able to hold an absolute monopoly when the world needs water in the not-too-distant future. They're just getting in early so that when that time comes, they already hae control, instead of having to fight for it. It's like taking a stratgic hold on an oil reserve because you know that before long, you're going to need it. It might not be today, and it might not be tomorrow, but before long having it now is going to pay off for you.

I haven't even seen the film and I know that much.

[Mr_Wint]

And if it wasn't revenge, why didn't Bond bring Greene in for interrogation, why did he ignore Ms instructions.

Because this movie had no logical constraints. Sometimes it's personal, sometimes it's a mission but most of the time it's a little bit of both or none of it.

[Zorin Industries]

Saw Quantum of Solace yesterday....... and it sucked!

Let’s not make excuses for a dire piece of screenwriting in the new Bond movie. A car chase. Who was chasing Bond? We do not know. A plane chase. Who was chasing Bond? We do not know. Random unexplained, unoriginal action scenes as Bond goes from one "dead end" to another, without the story moving on, rendered the movie a brainless and unsatisfying action-fest, especially when combined with close-up rapid jump-cuts and machine-gun edits that looked like Edward Scissorhands had been let loose in the editing suite to out-Bourne Jason Bourne.

Unlike every other Bond movie that has gone before, the protagonist never explains to Bond or the audience his fiendish plot. Greene, the villain, conveniently mentions it in passing as Bond eavesdrops, and 007 later sees evidence of it, but we are never told the scope of the villain’s plot, how many people it would affect and how it would work without quickly being discovered. We therefore never know fully what the hell is going on, or why, and the lead villain is the weakest in the series - bland, almost zero screen presence and with no given motivation: not exactly an equal rival to pitch against Bond.

It's all very Jason Bourne. Gone is Bond’s charm that we saw in Casino Royale. Gone are his one-liners, Gone is any humor. He is a running, killing machine, a generic action hero who never says "Bond, James Bond," and who throws his friend's body in a skip. This is not James Bond. There was no reason to care about him in a revenge story that had so much opportunity to get inside Bond and share his pain, as suggested in the title. Craig was too deadpan. He could have taken lessons from Harrison Ford on moral fury. Bond did not show fury or anger, not even a raised voice. If it was inside, it was too well hidden. Most of the performances lacked direction: too much at the same level in terms of pace and tone, although Judy Dench as M shined. On the Bond girls, one was forgettable and the other in a very small role stood out like a sore thumb, the performance was so awful.

On the positive, the scenes between Bond and M were strong. The sympathetic locations, photography, the score and a few brief arthouse movie moments lifted the movie above the average action movie, but as the follow up to Casino Royale, Quantum SUCKED big time! As a James Bond Movie, it must be right down there with The Man with the Golden Gun! Let's hope the real James Bond will return.

So the BOND that dumped FIONA VOLPE on a chair is not allowed to dump MATHIS in a trash can? And the BOND that had faceless choppers stalk him in Japan is not allowed to have faceless pilots do the same in Bolivia? And the villains that allow BOND to eavesdrop in a Kentucky stud are not allowed to do the same during a peformance of Tosca?

Bond films cannot keep repeating their narrative tics. DOMINIC GREENE is obviously the antagonist in the proceedings. Do we need to have the DR EVIL master plan moment? No, of course not. GREENE's plot was perfectly clear to me - create a drought in parts of Bolivia by storing water in natural hidey-holes, which in turn devalues and starves the land so it can be bought cheap on the open market by Quantum, then put in a dictator you can control and charge him the earth to buy the water back off you. Quantum then make money both from the water sales and on the land that would regain its value as the water mysteriously returned. It's all there. There's a tiny bit of reading between the lines, but the audience just has to work. We are told how far reaching the scheme will be and how it will affect the normal people through a poignant series of shots of a tap dripping dry and poor families having to get on the bus to anywhere but here.

And for the debate about SOLACE, using far reaching terms like "it sucked" hardly further the cause of those that didn't get it. Nor does referencing the BOURNE films. To paraphrase a greater talent than me, "stop getting Bourne wrong!".

[dee-bee-five]

And if it wasn't revenge, why didn't Bond bring Greene in for interrogation, why did he ignore Ms instructions.

Because this movie had no logical constraints. Sometimes it's personal, sometimes it's a mission but most of the time it's a little bit of both or none of it.

Yes, Quantum's ambiguous, narrative complexity, coupled with Bond's clearly-defined story arc, is one of its major triumphs for me.

Saw Quantum of Solace yesterday....... and it sucked!

Let’s not make excuses for a dire piece of screenwriting in the new Bond movie. A car chase. Who was chasing Bond? We do not know. A plane chase. Who was chasing Bond? We do not know. Random unexplained, unoriginal action scenes as Bond goes from one "dead end" to another, without the story moving on, rendered the movie a brainless and unsatisfying action-fest, especially when combined with close-up rapid jump-cuts and machine-gun edits that looked like Edward Scissorhands had been let loose in the editing suite to out-Bourne Jason Bourne.

Unlike every other Bond movie that has gone before, the protagonist never explains to Bond or the audience his fiendish plot. Greene, the villain, conveniently mentions it in passing as Bond eavesdrops, and 007 later sees evidence of it, but we are never told the scope of the villain’s plot, how many people it would affect and how it would work without quickly being discovered. We therefore never know fully what the hell is going on, or why, and the lead villain is the weakest in the series - bland, almost zero screen presence and with no given motivation: not exactly an equal rival to pitch against Bond.

It's all very Jason Bourne. Gone is Bond’s charm that we saw in Casino Royale. Gone are his one-liners, Gone is any humor. He is a running, killing machine, a generic action hero who never says "Bond, James Bond," and who throws his friend's body in a skip. This is not James Bond. There was no reason to care about him in a revenge story that had so much opportunity to get inside Bond and share his pain, as suggested in the title. Craig was too deadpan. He could have taken lessons from Harrison Ford on moral fury. Bond did not show fury or anger, not even a raised voice. If it was inside, it was too well hidden. Most of the performances lacked direction: too much at the same level in terms of pace and tone, although Judy Dench as M shined. On the Bond girls, one was forgettable and the other in a very small role stood out like a sore thumb, the performance was so awful.

On the positive, the scenes between Bond and M were strong. The sympathetic locations, photography, the score and a few brief arthouse movie moments lifted the movie above the average action movie, but as the follow up to Casino Royale, Quantum SUCKED big time! As a James Bond Movie, it must be right down there with The Man with the Golden Gun! Let's hope the real James Bond will return.

So the BOND that dumped FIONA VOLPE on a chair is not allowed to dump MATHIS in a trash can? And the BOND that had faceless choppers stalk him in Japan is not allowed to have faceless pilots do the same in Bolivia? And the villains that allow BOND to eavesdrop in a Kentucky stud are not allowed to do the same during a peformance of Tosca?

Bond films cannot keep repeating their narrative tics. DOMINIC GREENE is obviously the antagonist in the proceedings. Do we need to have the DR EVIL master plan moment? No, of course not. GREENE's plot was perfectly clear to me - create a drought in parts of Bolivia by storing it in natural hidey-holes, devalue the land so it can be bought cheap by Quantum, then put in a dictator you can control and then him charge the earth to buy the water back off you. Quantum then make money from the water sales and on the land that would regain its value as the water mysteriously returned. It's all there. There's a tiny bit of reading between the lines, but the audience just has to work. We are told how far reaching the scheme will be and how it will affect the normal people through a poignant series of shots of a tap dripping dry and poor families having to get on the bus to anywhere but here.

Perhaps they should have given Greene a black moustache to twirl to make him more easily recognizable as a villain for the hard-of-thinking...?

[Captain Tightpants]

And if it wasn't revenge, why didn't Bond bring Greene in for interrogation, why did he ignore Ms instructions.

Because this movie had no logical constraints. Sometimes it's personal, sometimes it's a mission but most of the time it's a little bit of both or none of it.

Yes, Quantum's ambiguous, narrative complexity, coupled with Bond's clearly-defined story arc, is one of its major triumphs for me.

And if this were a real thing, would Greene - or any other villain - take the time to explain everything to Bond?

[Bond Bug]

Bond Bug, Quantum sought to control the world's single largest untouched supply of fresh water. The Atatcama Desert is the driest place on the face of the earth, and the film implies that this is because it is actually a giant aquifer. By restricting the availablity of water and controlling the largest reserves, Quantum will be able to hold an absolute monopoly when the world needs water in the not-too-distant future. They're just getting in early so that when that time comes, they already hae control, instead of having to fight for it. It's like taking a stratgic hold on an oil reserve because you know that before long, you're going to need it. It might not be today, and it might not be tomorrow, but before long having it now is going to pay off for you.

I haven't even seen the film and I know that much.

Thank you for your reply. This is the best answer I've seen and by somebody who has not seen the movie. Does that say something about the movie? However, I don't intend to sound argumentative, but it makes no sense at all. I mean, how long do you think it would take for somebody to notice?

[Captain Tightpants]

Bond Bug, Quantum sought to control the world's single largest untouched supply of fresh water. The Atatcama Desert is the driest place on the face of the earth, and the film implies that this is because it is actually a giant aquifer. By restricting the availablity of water and controlling the largest reserves, Quantum will be able to hold an absolute monopoly when the world needs water in the not-too-distant future. They're just getting in early so that when that time comes, they already hae control, instead of having to fight for it. It's like taking a stratgic hold on an oil reserve because you know that before long, you're going to need it. It might not be today, and it might not be tomorrow, but before long having it now is going to pay off for you.

I haven't even seen the film and I know that much.

Thank you for your reply. This is the best answer I've seen and by somebody who has not seen the movie. Does that say something about the movie? However, I don't intend to sound argumentative, but it makes no sense at all. I mean, how long do you think it would take for somebody to notice?

As was pointed out elsewhere, that's where Medrano comes into play. Nobody realises the significance of the Atatcama Desert as an aquifer. Medrano's oblivious, and probably thinks he's coming off better than Quantum becuse he gets a country and they get a stretch of barren land with no (apparent) intrinsic value. Quantum's plans hinge on the idea that no-one is aware of the aquifer an once Medrano is in power, they can restrict the water supply and then sell it back to Medrano at whatever price they want, and he'll have no choice but to pay.

This, combined with Quantum's activities in CASINO ROYALE lead me to believe that they're not a terrorist organisation or even a criminal syndicate. They are likely to be a group of excpetionally powerful businessmen who are able to manipulate events on an international scale to make money. I wouldn't be surprised if they are revealed to be the military-industrial complex born out of the Majestic-12 or Bilderberg Group conspiracy theories.

The film doesn't explain it for two reasons: firstly, it assumes you're smart enough to follow what is happening without having to be reminded of the plot every ten to fifteen minutes. Secondly, it's really a case of Bond being thrown into this off-balance. Gone are the days of a villain taking time out to explain what he is doing to Bond (and by proxy, to the audience).