85 replies to this topic

[bond 16.05.72]

Yes. There is so little about this film that interests me. The only scene that really does that is the final one, with Yusuf. Because that moves the story along. That shows us Bond’s resolving something. The rest of the film… seems so pointless somehow.

Yes I agree and I ask myself why some people think this movie is so great. Is it only because they are big Daniel Craig as Bond fans and they can't see through their rose-tinted glasses of him? I mean the movie was more shallow than a very bad Steven Seagal movie, and yet somehow we are supposed to believe it had emotional depth.

Comparing it to a Seagal movie is ridiculous, you didn't like it but that's absurd.

I'm not watching it through rose tinted glasses, I could say the same for people who like the Brosnan era or the truly shocking Moore entries.

You didn't like it and your welcome to your opinion just don't try and justify your view by saying those who liked it are wrong because they don't agree with you.

It's such an arrogant statement and you have been nothing but picking at people who have enjoyed the film.

I liked it and so did others but just because we don't agree with you or don't see the flaws you did doesn't make us wrong or you right.

You seemed to have made it your mission since you've seen it to spread your doom and somehow disprove people who liked it and make them out to be deluded.

It's you is deluded to think you have some kind of superior view of this, state your dislike but don't try and tell me I don't know whats a good film just because you didn't like it!

[Daddy Bond]

Yes. There is so little about this film that interests me. The only scene that really does that is the final one, with Yusuf. Because that moves the story along. That shows us Bond’s resolving something. The rest of the film… seems so pointless somehow.

Yes I agree and I ask myself why some people think this movie is so great. Is it only because they are big Daniel Craig as Bond fans and they can't see through their rose-tinted glasses of him? I mean the movie was more shallow than a very bad Steven Seagal movie, and yet somehow we are supposed to believe it had emotional depth.

Comparing it to a Seagal movie is ridiculous, you didn't like it but that's absurd.

I'm not watching it through rose tinted glasses, I could say the same for people who like the Brosnan era or the truly shocking Moore entries.

You didn't like it and your welcome to your opinion just don't try and justify your view by saying those who liked it are wrong because they don't agree with you.

It's such an arrogant statement and you have been nothing but picking at people who have enjoyed the film.

I liked it and so did others but just because we don't agree with you or don't see the flaws you did doesn't make us wrong or you right.

You seemed to have made it your mission since you've seen it to spread your doom and somehow disprove people who liked it and make them out to be deluded.

It's you is deluded to think you have some kind of superior view of this, state your dislike but don't try and tell me I don't know whats a good film just because you didn't like it!

Everyone take a deep breath and count to three...

[Col. Sun]

Nice review. I agree with most things (except your comment about the Moore era). There is so much wrong with QOS. Perhaps the lack of style, wit and suspense (or anything memorable) is the biggest problem for me.

Lack of style?

R u serious?

QOS is one of if not the most stylish Bond film ever!

Man; so many people are so dumb ignorant about film direction it's not true!

Man! I work in films and I really, really wonder sometimes why we bother to layer the work and create image structure (which QOS over flows with) and conflict, inner-conflict within the lead characters because so many of the audience just want their prime steak burnt to a crisp so it looks like meat but tastes like nothing!

Switch your brain on next time u watch QOS instead of just sitting there like a dummy!

[DamnCoffee]

The PTS wasn't bad. Although it's pretty crucial to be able to remember the end of CR to really enjoy it.

What they should have done, is showed a Casino Royale recap infront of every print. Just a few mins of footage, explaining everything that happened in the previous movie (a mini trailer if you will), then the MGM/Columbia Logo and the PTS.

[The Dove]

*makes feeble attempt to calm the squabbling down* " Come on people now..Smile on your brother. Everybody get together, try to love one another right now!!" LOL

[Judo chop]

Nice review. I agree with most things (except your comment about the Moore era). There is so much wrong with QOS. Perhaps the lack of style, wit and suspense (or anything memorable) is the biggest problem for me.

Lack of style?

R u serious?

QOS is one of if not the most stylish Bond film ever!

Man; so many people are so dumb ignorant about film direction it's not true!

Man! I work in films and I really, really wonder sometimes why we bother to layer the work and create image structure (which QOS over flows with) and conflict, inner-conflict within the lead characters because so many of the audience just want their prime steak burnt to a crisp so it looks like meat but tastes like nothing!

Switch your brain on next time u watch QOS instead of just sitting there like a dummy!

Not the most cordial post ever, but, and I say this as a rabid carnivore, I totally sympathize with the frustration.

[marktmurphy]

I'm on comepletely the same wavelength as you Joyce- the main threat somehow feels utterly unimportant; Bond's story isn't actually moved along by the plot- we end up in much the same place that he was in both emotionally and with regards to Quantum that he was at the beginning of the film; the only scene that actually makes any headway is the Yusef one; any chance to say anything about his state of mind using the girls is thrown away...

For me you're bang on the money. It's a disappointing film.

[Tarl_Cabot]

This thread is such a party pooper...

[quantumofsolace]

I'm on comepletely the same wavelength as you Joyce- the main threat somehow feels utterly unimportant; Bond's story isn't actually moved along by the plot- we end up in much the same place that he was in both emotionally and with regards to Quantum that he was at the beginning of the film; the only scene that actually makes any headway is the Yusef one; any chance to say anything about his state of mind using the girls is thrown away...

No, you're wrong. Emotionally he has found his QOS by finding out the truth about Vesper. Camille helps him to understand about vengeance and the dead. He lets Yusef live. Bond can now move on.
As regards to Quantum, MI6 know much more by the end of the film. They know their name, some of the players and how they can be anywhere and anybody.

Edited by quantumofsolace, 06 November 2008 - 10:16 PM.

[Joyce Carrington]

Emotionally he has found his QOS by finding out the truth about Vesper. Camille helps him to understand about vengeance and the dead. He lets Yusef live. Bond can now move on.

Interesting. Can you explain this to me? What, exactly, did Bond learn from Camille? She only had such a brief scene after she'd had her revenge. She admitted she didn't know what to do next anymore, since this had been her mission for so long, but... how did she feel? Accomplished? Did she regret it? It doesn't seem too clear to me.

[Loomis]

I think we're supposed to feel that at the end Camille realises that she allowed herself to become so totally consumed by her desire for revenge that she left everything else in her life slide and now belatedly discovers that she doesn't even really have a life to go back to now that she's finished with getting revenge. The moral being, presumably, Don't Let Yourself Get Too Fixated On Revenge Lest It Take Over Your Whole Life. Cheers, Eon.

So, yeah, I think Camille feels a lot of regret, which will only increase as her awareness grows of just how much her quest for vengeance has cost her. She doesn't have a happy future, at least in the short-to-medium term.

My one big gripe about QUANTUM OF SOLACE is the dogfight/freefall, a fundamentally Moore-esque/Brosnanesque sequence that isn't even particularly good to look at and just plain doesn't belong in what is otherwise generally an appropriately gritty, Craigian and "back to basics" Bond outing.

[Joyce Carrington]

I think we're supposed to feel that at the end Camille realises that she allowed herself to become so totally consumed by her desire for revenge that she left everything else in her life slide and now belatedly discovers that she doesn't even really have a life to go back to now that she's finished with getting revenge. The moral being, presumably, Don't Let Yourself Get Too Fixated On Revenge Lest It Take Over Your Whole Life. Cheers, Eon.

So, yeah, I think Camille feels a lot of regret, which will only increase as her awareness grows of just how much her quest for vengeance has cost her. She doesn't have a happy future, at least in the short-to-medium term.

That makes sense. Thanks. It adds to something else I accepted as Bond's reason not to shoot Yusuf - the fact that there had already been so much death already during the film (Mathis, Fields, Mitchell, etc.) that seemed so pointless, so Bond stopped seeing the point of killing Yusuf.

[HH007]

Yes. There is so little about this film that interests me. The only scene that really does that is the final one, with Yusuf. Because that moves the story along. That shows us Bond’s resolving something. The rest of the film… seems so pointless somehow.

Yes I agree and I ask myself why some people think this movie is so great. Is it only because they are big Daniel Craig as Bond fans and they can't see through their rose-tinted glasses of him? I mean the movie was more shallow than a very bad Steven Seagal movie, and yet somehow we are supposed to believe it had emotional depth.

No. It's because I enjoyed it. It's allowed.

"Some people", eh? Tchoh! Eh? Just can't be trusted, eh? Shocking.

Exactly. Different strokes, different folks, Bug.

[Bond Bug]

Comparing it to a Seagal movie is ridiculous, you didn't like it but that's absurd

I admit it was a bit offensive to Steven Seagal fans. I watched a Seagal movie tonight. Very enjoyable. Seagal even dropped a man off a building onto the bad guys' car. Very original. Now, I fully respect if some people like Steven Seagal movies or if they like Quantum of Solace. I apologise if I have given any other impression.

Yes. There is so little about this film that interests me. The only scene that really does that is the final one, with Yusuf. Because that moves the story along. That shows us Bond’s resolving something. The rest of the film… seems so pointless somehow.

Yes I agree and I ask myself why some people think this movie is so great. Is it only because they are big Daniel Craig as Bond fans and they can't see through their rose-tinted glasses of him? I mean the movie was more shallow than a very bad Steven Seagal movie, and yet somehow we are supposed to believe it had emotional depth.

No. It's because I enjoyed it. It's allowed.

"Some people", eh? Tchoh! Eh? Just can't be trusted, eh? Shocking.

Exactly. Different strokes, different folks, Bug.

I apologise if I have upset anyone with my thoughtless comments. I was thinking aloud and should not have offended Steven Seagal fans in that way - or those who admire Quantum. I did enjoy Quantum by the way and hope it becomes a huge success at the box office. Yes I did have several issues with the movie, but it is important to keep them in perspective. I am first and foremost a Bond fan and respect that we are all entitled to different opinions.

[MarkA]

QOS is one of if not the most stylish Bond film ever!

Man; so many people are so dumb ignorant about film direction it's not true!

Man! I work in films and I really, really wonder sometimes why we bother to layer the work and create image structure (which QOS over flows with) and conflict, inner-conflict within the lead characters because so many of the audience just want their prime steak burnt to a crisp so it looks like meat but tastes like nothing!

Switch your brain on next time u watch QOS instead of just sitting there like a dummy!

Don't give us that "I work in the film industry so I am right bit", that's like saying I understand why every film is good and any one who doesn't work in the industry shouldn't have a opinion. So anyone who can't play a musical instrument, or anyone who can't paint etc has no valid opinion on those art forms. That is extremely arrogant and a bit stupid.
As for the review Joyce a very level headed assessment which pretty much matches my opinion. Despite the obvious talent and skill involved (and I have liked Forster's other work) I too find the film, flash and empty.

Edited by MarkA, 07 November 2008 - 12:17 AM.

[Bond Bug]

I work in films and I really, really wonder sometimes why we bother to layer the work and create image structure (which QOS over flows with) and conflict, inner-conflict within the lead characters because so many of the audience just want their prime steak burnt to a crisp so it looks like meat but tastes like nothing!

Switch your brain on next time u watch QOS instead of just sitting there like a dummy!

Wow! I've never met anyone in the film industry before. You must be very talented the way you layer work and create image structure. Thanks for sharing a few insider secrets. I wondered how they made Quantum such a deep movie.

[Major Tallon]

QOS is one of if not the most stylish Bond film ever!

Man; so many people are so dumb ignorant about film direction it's not true!

Man! I work in films and I really, really wonder sometimes why we bother to layer the work and create image structure (which QOS over flows with) and conflict, inner-conflict within the lead characters because so many of the audience just want their prime steak burnt to a crisp so it looks like meat but tastes like nothing!

Switch your brain on next time u watch QOS instead of just sitting there like a dummy!

Don't give us that "I work in the film industry so I am right bit", that's like saying I understand why every film is good and any one who doesn't work in the industry shouldn't have a opinion. So anyone who can't play a musical instrument, or anyone who can't paint etc has no valid opinion on those art forms. That is extremely arrogant and a bit stupid.
As for the review Joyce a very level headed assessment which pretty much matches my opinion. Despite the obvious talent and skill involved (and I have liked Forster's other work) I too find the film, flash and empty.

I recall back in the days of the pre-CR "Craig Wars," when I was just a lurker, someone described CBn as "one great big dysfunctional family." It's a description of which I've been very fond over time. It would be great if we all agreed, but that's obviously too much to hope for, and it's interesting to see all the divergent points of view, expressed so brilliantly in so many different posts. Still, might we not strive for a bit of tolerance of others' opinions?

We might call it "A Quantum of Civility."

[MkB]

Sorry you didn't like it, Joyce. It must be really disappointing

And then what are we left with, exactly?

Well, as I pointed out in my own (spoiler-free) review, "there are less "iconic" and visually striking moments in QoS than in CR (like, say, Bond in trunks, the Aston Martin about to run over Vesper then rolling over, the sinking Venitian palace, or the crane fight)". I think that, after CR, this maybe a key explanation of some people's disappointment with QoS: IMO it's a beautiful film, but more "even" than CR, hence lacking in "striking" moments, but to me it isn't a bad film at all.

The boat chase comes to mind. What, exactly is the point of this? Camille tried to shoot him 30 minutes earlier, so now Bond rushes in to rescue her? And what is it, exactly, that makes him decide she’s in danger, anyway? He couldn’t hear what Greene and Medrano were saying.

Well, she's just tried to shoot him because she thought he was Greene's hitman. Since Bond was trying to pass for the said hitman after "coming to a dead end", and according to the old saying "my enemy's enemy is my friend", he actually knows they are on the same side, and that she's in danger, since he (the hitman) was supposed to shoot her, and is observing her from the dockside.
On another level, we may think that since CR Bond also became more protective with women (well, maybe not enough, given another plot development later).

And even if, maybe it would benefit him to know why Mr. White’s organisation wanted Camille dead, so then why leave her again at the nearest harbour (‘seasick’)?

Well yes, this is strange, but maybe she's just a dead weight now (if I may say so, since Bond has learned the identity of the guy who wanted her dead thanks to MI6, his plan is just to go after him and he doesn't bother squeezing her for information? The movie has a very fast pace, and so does Bond. He never stops moving, so this may have to do with the intended rhythm of the action.

Also, the dogfight/freefall scene. Unnecessary, IMHO.

Agreed on this one. The stunt was just not believable to me, and it didn't feel very "Craig-era". Some pointed out to me that theoretically it could be possible to survive this, but, you know, the difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to be credible...

Bond and M. Great chemistry.
Bond flipping over the motorcycle. Damn yes.
Bond preparing to shoot Camille.
Teachers on sabbatical.
The hard-edged professionalism that is perhaps professionalism just to put up a wall and not face the horror of reality – patiently waiting for Slate to bleed to death, dumping Mathis in the garbage, etc.
Bond drunk.
Opening the trunk after the car chase.
Etc.

Well at least that's something
I really believe QoS will age very well, maybe further viewings will make your feelings change.

Bring on Bond 23.

At least we agree on this one!

[Aces High]

Nice review. I agree with most things (except your comment about the Moore era). There is so much wrong with QOS. Perhaps the lack of style, wit and suspense (or anything memorable) is the biggest problem for me.

Lack of style?

R u serious?

QOS is one of if not the most stylish Bond film ever!

Man; so many people are so dumb ignorant about film direction it's not true!

Man! I work in films and I really, really wonder sometimes why we bother to layer the work and create image structure (which QOS over flows with) and conflict, inner-conflict within the lead characters because so many of the audience just want their prime steak burnt to a crisp so it looks like meat but tastes like nothing!

Switch your brain on next time u watch QOS instead of just sitting there like a dummy!

No we are not ignorant about film direction,& as you claim to 'work in film' you seem to think you have some superiority here.Perhaps you should watch & learn a little more.The quality of film direction in movies these days has to be an all time low,with each 'new' flavour too busy in trying to stylise there film while forgetting to tell the story. If you want to talk about style look at Matthew Vaughn,Christopher Nolan, who slip style into the movie without sledgehammer editing & camera angles & still able to get dialogue over to the audience.
Sorry to say that this new guy& his team just is not upto it.Just take a closer look at the lighting & camera angles in the 'Tosca' scene,& then compare the look that Martin Campbell dis with his post Casino scene in Goldeneye.There is style & lushness in the whole scene...something Forster never gives.Sorry your idea may work in some shabby little pot boiler ala 'Wanted' but this is Bond & Bond is the top drawer.As Cubby Broccoli said put the money on the screen.
As for switching on my brain,you'll find my brain a little more cultured than you critic.Oh & I too 'work' in film,but am not so vulgar to drop it in conversation or posting..proberbly because I suspect there are a lot more people more qualified posting on here.alas though you are not one of those I speak of.

[Zorin Industries]

Nice review. I agree with most things (except your comment about the Moore era). There is so much wrong with QOS. Perhaps the lack of style, wit and suspense (or anything memorable) is the biggest problem for me.

Lack of style?

R u serious?

QOS is one of if not the most stylish Bond film ever!

Man; so many people are so dumb ignorant about film direction it's not true!

Man! I work in films and I really, really wonder sometimes why we bother to layer the work and create image structure (which QOS over flows with) and conflict, inner-conflict within the lead characters because so many of the audience just want their prime steak burnt to a crisp so it looks like meat but tastes like nothing!

Switch your brain on next time u watch QOS instead of just sitting there like a dummy!

No we are not ignorant about film direction,& as you claim to 'work in film' you seem to think you have some superiority here.Perhaps you should watch & learn a little more.The quality of film direction in movies these days has to be an all time low,with each 'new' flavour too busy in trying to stylise there film while forgetting to tell the story. If you want to talk about style look at Matthew Vaughn,Christopher Nolan, who slip style into the movie without sledgehammer editing & camera angles & still able to get dialogue over to the audience.
Sorry to say that this new guy& his team just is not upto it.Just take a closer look at the lighting & camera angles in the 'Tosca' scene,& then compare the look that Martin Campbell dis with his post Casino scene in Goldeneye.There is style & lushness in the whole scene...something Forster never gives.Sorry your idea may work in some shabby little pot boiler ala 'Wanted' but this is Bond & Bond is the top drawer.As Cubby Broccoli said put the money on the screen.
As for switching on my brain,you'll find my brain a little more cultured than you critic.Oh & I too 'work' in film,but am not so vulgar to drop it in conversation or posting..proberbly because I suspect there are a lot more people more qualified posting on here.alas though you are not one of those I speak of.

No, I'm Spartacus - I work in "film" too....!

The poster didn't drop it in in any vulgar style. I think he makes some valid points. Not everything needs to be "on the nose" in a film. Marc Forster is YEARS ahead of Martin Campbell as a director. Campbell got lucky with ROYALE as its quality is certainly not mirrored in his other work before. The GOLDENEYE casino scenes are terribly lit. They are certainly not lit with any panache and done so because it is a casino scene rather than a casino scene in a Bond film. The cinematography of GOLDENEYE doesn't help which is truly awful = model work looking exactly what it is (it plays like Thunderbirds in parts), the beach scenes are over-filtered and not in a good aesthetic way and the film rarely tells its story in anything but medium shots of Brosnan. AND the whole film looks like it was filmed in Watford in the winter! It never looks like it left Leavesden Aerodrome. I think Marc Forster and his creative team have worked subtle wonders.

As for "the lighting" and "camera angles" (interesting terminology there from an apparent professional) of the Tosca scene - they are sublime. They play with shadows and light and instantly convey the scale of the theatre, the production of Tosca and the notion of being "in the wings". Much of GOLDENEYE looks like a TV movie now. It has very little cinematic scope to it at all.

quote]

What does intrigue me is the handful of posters on here (not the orgininator of this thread I hasten to add) who seem to be willing for QoS to fail - although they dress it up by claiming to be Bond fans - and glory in every negative review.

I can't remember who it was but one particular known Bond fan has apparently slammed the film but almost in the same breath said how wonderful it was to Sony alumni. That says it all to me.

[marktmurphy]

I'm on comepletely the same wavelength as you Joyce- the main threat somehow feels utterly unimportant; Bond's story isn't actually moved along by the plot- we end up in much the same place that he was in both emotionally and with regards to Quantum that he was at the beginning of the film; the only scene that actually makes any headway is the Yusef one; any chance to say anything about his state of mind using the girls is thrown away...

No, you're wrong. Emotionally he has found his QOS by finding out the truth about Vesper. Camille helps him to understand about vengeance and the dead. He lets Yusef live. Bond can now move on.

That does make sense and you are of course right, but it only comes to the fore in that brief scene at the end. The movie should have been about that, but instead we go off on what amounts to a wild goose chase after Greene for most of it. We're barely even shown how Bond is actually reacting to Vesper's death what with his telling people she was a 'bitch' and that he doesn't care about her, so it's hard to think that he's healed himself much- he seemed fine before. And... it's all a bit trite, isn't it? You can't just focus on revenge and all that stuff- it's all a bit old hat.

As regards to Quantum, MI6 know much more by the end of the film. They know their name, some of the players and how they can be anywhere and anybody.

Which they know just after the main titles. We haven't really got anywhere- unless Greene told Bond lots of stuff at the end; I'm not sure. Did he just tell him where to find Yusef? Was the entire film and pursuit of Greene because of some information Greene gave to Bond offscreen? No idea.

[BoogieBond]

Sorry you didn't like the film. I am stuck in the middle(can't being to try and place it in the Bond list) as I thought it was pretty good, but am not as enthusiastic as others. Probably need a viewing or 2 more to let it sink in.
Yes, I take your point about the Fields seduction, it was almost out of a Roger Moore Bond. I would have preferred Bond to turn the charm on a bit(akin to Solange) rather than a weak line about the stationary.
Glad you liked Craig though, and I also thought the opera scene was a highlight, and to me felt Bondian(Including the build up), with Arnolds music. Did you like it ?

Edited by BoogieBond, 07 November 2008 - 11:24 AM.

[CM007]

Well said Dee Bee Five.

I find myself agreeing with you on this one,I cannot believe people are not protesting at the worst ever pre titles scene.there is just no thrill factor here...& there should be !Just think of the truely exciting pre titles in past 007s,the jump from Goldeneye,the boat chase from World,the chateau fight from Thunderball..& the biggest & best ski jump from Spy.

I think that the PTS was fantastic, better than any of the Brosnan era ones, especially GoldenEye which I just found to be a complete bore tbf.

Ah the Blind leading the Blind

[Bond Bug]

Well said Dee Bee Five.

I find myself agreeing with you on this one,I cannot believe people are not protesting at the worst ever pre titles scene.there is just no thrill factor here...& there should be !Just think of the truely exciting pre titles in past 007s,the jump from Goldeneye,the boat chase from World,the chateau fight from Thunderball..& the biggest & best ski jump from Spy.

I think that the PTS was fantastic, better than any of the Brosnan era ones, especially GoldenEye which I just found to be a complete bore tbf.

Ah the Blind leading the Blind

The editing was so rapid, I had little idea what was going on in that opening car chase. I saw nothing original. Frankly it was the first time I was bored a few minutes into a Bond movie.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well said Dee Bee Five.

I find myself agreeing with you on this one,I cannot believe people are not protesting at the worst ever pre titles scene.there is just no thrill factor here...& there should be !Just think of the truely exciting pre titles in past 007s,the jump from Goldeneye,the boat chase from World,the chateau fight from Thunderball..& the biggest & best ski jump from Spy.

I think that the PTS was fantastic, better than any of the Brosnan era ones, especially GoldenEye which I just found to be a complete bore tbf.

Ah the Blind leading the Blind

The editing was so rapid, I had little idea what was going on in that opening car chase. I saw nothing original. Frankly it was the first time I was bored a few minutes into a Bond movie.

Before repeating this again and again in many threads, please let all the others know that you sat in the second row with obviously a crappy seat.

[Bond Bug]

Before repeating this again and again in many threads, please let all the others know that you sat in the second row with obviously a crappy seat.

I apologise for being so enthusiastic to see the movie that I saw it in a screen that was filled up and some people had to sit at the front. But even so, I would have noticed anything original about the car chase and so would you, but your silence on the originality of the car chase is deafening me!

[I never miss]

I left the cinema on Oct 31st feeling exhilarated having seen QoS. I set my expectations low - which I personally think is a healthy thing for us Bond fans to do (we thus avoid the 'nothing-will-ever-live-up-to-expectations problem that Star Wars fans have had in the last decade) - and I was blown away by the film. It is possibly the best directed film of the series. Yes, it is not perfect, but I would give it an 8/10, which puts it in the top 6 or so.

For the record, I gave CR a 9/10.

[double o ego]

Yes. There is so little about this film that interests me. The only scene that really does that is the final one, with Yusuf. Because that moves the story along. That shows us Bond’s resolving something. The rest of the film… seems so pointless somehow.

Yes I agree and I ask myself why some people think this movie is so great. Is it only because they are big Daniel Craig as Bond fans and they can't see through their rose-tinted glasses of him? I mean the movie was more shallow than a very bad Steven Seagal movie, and yet somehow we are supposed to believe it had emotional depth.

Or people enjoyed the movie for what it was and actually thought it was a good or great Bond film and weren't mentally challenged when it came to understanding what was going on. I must say, hearing someone wanting to have to rewind numerous scenes to follow what was going on says quite a lot at one's comprehension abilities. Take into account that this movie is a direct continuation of CR but tries it's very best to be different at the same time, I fail to see where in lies the problem. The story and plot is simple. So simple it's amazing so many people fail to grasp what's going on.

[I never miss]

I only really have two gripes with the movie:

1. The title song ain't that great.
2. Some of the dialogue is incomprehensible on first hearing (this was true of CR too - I have found Vesper, Mathis and Camille hard to understand at times over the two movies).

These are minor niggles though - I really enjoyed QoS and thought it was a worthy follow-up to CR.

[Colonel Moon]

Very good title sequence was ruined by bad "moaning" song, they should use son from QoS game