322 replies to this topic

[Mercator]

Why is so wrong to have not the liking for Dancial Craig as the Bond? I jest kennet understand this. DLibrasnow is professional journalist who getted free ticket to see film does not like it and says so. He then does us all favors by telling us not to waste our money and see the POS that is QOS. This is fair no? He does not need to go into details why the film has badness. His favorite film is Never Say Never Again and A View To The Kill and The Spy That Loved Me - my favorite too. I do not think he should be blames for trying to tell us all not to watch because he did not like it. Many of us here do not like Dancial Craig as Bond. But we hide why. We do not like that he does not look like Fleming's Bond (he doe'nt). We do not like why the films have no descent music or settings (James Barry and Ken Adams have still life, no? Whey they kennt be rehired?). Are we so wrong to say we do not like this films, now, no? Why must we be put in the jail of this? Like DLibrasnow, I have liking for the old way they made Bond films and I really will not be pleased until they go back. I liked pretty girls, Q, gadgets, Moneypenny, good jokes all these things many said made Bond. Who pretends no? We have only honesty. Fleming no one reads anymore and is not of note to current Bond films - has not been since his last title novel, Moonraker was filmed. Short stories are not so good. So, I defend DLibrasnow - only was he saying not to see Quntum of Soalce the movie to prevent us from our time wasting. He has seen so we don't have to. And we just don't have the liking for the new movies. Is this crime, now, no? Let us all live with the opinions of the others.

Edited by Mercator, 15 November 2008 - 03:50 PM.

[MattofSteel]

"Quantum" is a Bond film in name only. The action's uninspired and I think the quick-jumpcuts were done to try to give it some excitement and it just comes off as confusing and annoying. I mean, I didn't even realize that they went back to the classic Walther PPK until the last scene in the movie! I still don't know what the story was meant to be about, it's hard to follow, and I really didn't care about what was going on regarding the story or the characters.

Very good points. While I liked the film, I do believe that we've gone as far as we can go with the minimalist, stripped-down approach to Bond before the audiences begin to revolt. It's time to bring back title sequences with naked women...Moneypenny...Q....an interesting gadget here or there....interesting, evocative titles....appropriate humor (didn't care for Craig's line "She's sea sick")...the gun barrel sequence....action sequences that you can follow...and a somewhat more linear storyline.

SONY took a huge gamble rushing this film forward without a proper script, and I believe the quick jump-cuts were actually designed to disguise how thread-bare the plot was. My guess was that it was designed to keep the characters moving and the audience engaged so that they'd not notice that there was little plot to speak of moving the story along. At the end of the film I still don't know why Greene wants the water in Boliva, and if they did explain it I missed it because some of the dialogue is incomprehensible. Bring back the Martini shaken not stirred....the name "Bond....James Bond".

Bring Martin Campbell on as a full-fledged producing partner; he's the only person outside of EON who knows what makes this series work. Get us a director who's not looking to make an artistic, avant garde film statement, or trying to use the Bond films to perform some expiremental camera techniques. Give us some amazing color posters that feature different parts of the movie instead of some stripped down, bare-bones version of Bond and Camille walking in a desert. Let's actually bring some of Bond back into the next Bond movie.

I kind of agree with what you're saying here. It's an interesting road Bond has been taken down, and I don't begrudge them for trying - I still had a good experience.

But we've gone as far as we can.

I have absolute faith. The Bond films always have adapted and walked the tightrope of balancing the product and the franchise, and I have complete faith Bond 23 will be more traditional.

But that's....the point, isn't it? This was Bond's origin story. He's not supposed to be Bond until the final scenes of the film.

[SPOTTER]

Yes, to say that Quantum of Solace is the worst 007 movie in history is rather harsh.. (that honor goes to Never Say Never Again, but that's just my opinon for I know you like it). Anyways, I still have to see Quantum and will by no means be put off seeing it by your negativity.. I'll respect your views that you didn't like it but some how I feel your letting your initial emotions get to you in posting such a scathing review.. Perhaps you might decide to give the film a second chance (and many have said a second viewing makes it a lot better..)

I agree. I was one of those who had to watch it twice. The film in my opinion is not up there with CR but it's a good film. I have seen it 3 times now and I have enjoyed the film. I'd rank it somewhere in my top 10 maybe.

The trouble with QOS is that it strays a lot from what many call James Bond. Bond is 40 years old so you can't just come along and totally change it in 2006 and expect everybody to just love it. The success of CR was down to it being more than just a Bond film. It was also a intelligent thriller and DC is a quality actor. QOS was always going to have trouble living up to its predesessor but as a film on its own it's very enjoyable.

[double o ego]

But that's....the point, isn't it? This was Bond's origin story. He's not supposed to be Bond until the final scenes of the film.

And that is what so many people fail to realise.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

But that's....the point, isn't it? This was Bond's origin story. He's not supposed to be Bond until the final scenes of the film.

And that is what so many people fail to realise.

Quite so... and that's why the gunbarrel was perfect where it was.

Everyone should take Dlibrasnow's opinion with a grain of salt.

This movie has flaws yes, but in end everyone who calls themselves a bond fan needs to see it and decide for themselves.

I have a feeling a majority of you won't be disappointed because anyone who says that 'it's a Bond film in name only' or there 'weren't enough Bond elements' either has no idea what a Bond movie is or just didn't pay enough attention.

[SecretAgentFan]

I never use the word "retarded" in that respect and never would. I just question the judgement of people who think that this film is abysmal. An Ed Wood film is abysmal. But not the work of talented artists like those who worked on QOS.

With your ancient, juvenile minds you have developed negative reviews too fast for your minds to conceive what you are doing. You are on the verge of destroying the entire Bond series. Because all you of on CBN are idiots. You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!

Thanks for your communique, Gravity. Haven´t seen that particular Ed Wood film, though, but now I see that your post is excellently funny.

Thanks for clearing that up!

And thanks for remaining a good sport during this whole debate.

[avl]

Brother, you sure said it. It is the absolute worst of the bunch. It's the only Bond film I'll never watch again. Horrible beyond description. But one good thing may come of it: it may compell many to reassess the other Bonds and to appreciate their efforts more. Brozza looks better and better to me after viewing this one. But I don't blame Craig a bit: the blame falls squarely on Forster.

Unbeleivable. Its almost as if Eon put out two versions of the movie. A crap version for all the hand-wringers to criticize, and a great version for the rest of us sheep to enjoy. I for one am just fine being a sheep on this one. Outstanding film.

I guess you could refer to the rest of you as "the easy to please".

DLibrasnow thinks Never Say Never Again is the best Bond film ever so I'm going to have to take this review with a grain of salt.

I want to apologize to DLibrasnow. 'Quantum of Solace' isn't the worst Bond movie in history but let's just say Marc Forster makes Lee Tamahori look like Terence Young. Please forgive me Darren because you were right to slam this pile of crap.

Yep, at least Tamahori knew how to compose for widescreen (last Bond shot in anamorphic). At times Forster doesn't have a clue what to do with the frame.

May I rephrase a quote on this thread, please?

Please don't act like people are retarded for liking it - because plenty of us think it was very good.

The amount of sheer hyperbole about this film cracks me up

[Kristian]

At the end of the film I still don't know why Greene wants the water in Boliva, and if they did explain it I missed it because some of the dialogue is incomprehensible.

Interesting. The group of folks I went with understood everything just fine. Greene was hoarding the water in the reservoir and planned to double the charge for the water rights. Crystal clear... (no pun intended)

Edited by Kristian, 15 November 2008 - 04:51 PM.

[Bureau Of Weapons]

He then does us all favors by telling us not to waste our money and see the POS that is QOS. This is fair no? He does not need to go into details why the film has badness.

Yes I think he does actually. If I'd heeded the advice of one of my very best friends I'd never have seen OHMSS to this very day.

Every Bond fan should allow themselves to go to see the film and make up their own mind about it.

[DLibrasnow]

I still can't believe I'm typing this and I don't want to blast "Quantum". Like the original poster said so well, I really wanted to find SOMETHING posiitive to say or like about "Quantum" but I can't. While I'm not going to see it again in theaters and, right now, don't want it on DVD, maybe I'll feel better seeing it a second time around.

Oh, and regarding the gunbarrel...sorry but that "silly walk" entered my mind, too! Maybe I was just too jaded to care in the end?

Thank you...that's how I feel too. However I did (after struggling to) come up with some positive points in my review.

...because anyone who says that 'it's a Bond film in name only' or there 'weren't enough Bond elements' either has no idea what a Bond movie is or just didn't pay enough attention.

Glad you were not refering to me there. Since my favorite 007 movie is Never Say Never Again that's not a charge that can be leveled at me.

[__7]

[/quote]I have absolute faith. The Bond films always have adapted and walked the tightrope of balancing the product and the franchise, and I have complete faith Bond 23 will be more traditional.

But that's....the point, isn't it? This was Bond's origin story. He's not supposed to be Bond until the final scenes of the film.
[/quote]

You know, I'm glad someone has pointed this out. These films are supposed to show Bond in his early days, I would expect things to be different. I also predict that the next one will be a bit more traditional (they tied the whole revenge/Vesper thing off pretty well, and there was a sense of closure in that last exchange b/n M and Bond - "I need you back." "I never left.") But I hope that while going a bit more traditional they also keep it in that "new direction/Fleming/Craigian" vein.

[DLibrasnow]

As to why I should give details - why should I have? I was not being employed to write the review. I wrote about a gut reaction to the movie (whicdh I still believe some hours later) and went out of my way to avoid spoilers. It's my opinion and not open to discussion as such. No amount of ranting and raving about how stupid or retarded I am for not liking their beloved movie is going to change my conviction that Quantum of Solace is the worst 007 movie in history.

Personally I am sick and tired of the cheap shots people have taken against me in response to this review. Am I to follow their example by jumping into their threads and tearing them down. I have never attacked someone in such a manner for their opinion. perhaps I should start since that is clearly accepted practice on CBn.

Three CBn staff members have participtaed in the attacks - though one did apologize later.

[avl]

As to why I should give details - why should I have? I was not being employed to write the review. I wrote about a gut reaction to the movie (whicdh I still believe some hours later) and went out of my way to avoid spoilers. It's my opinion and not open to discussion as such. No amount of ranting and raving about how stupid or retarded I am for not liking their beloved movie is going to change my conviction that Quantum of Solace is the worst 007 movie in history.

I imagine that no amount of reasoned debate will change your conviction either!

[__7]

As to why I should give details - why should I have? I was not being employed to write the review. I wrote about a gut reaction to the movie (whicdh I still believe some hours later) and went out of my way to avoid spoilers. It's my opinion and not open to discussion as such. No amount of ranting and raving about how stupid or retarded I am for not liking their beloved movie is going to change my conviction that Quantum of Solace is the worst 007 movie in history.

Personally I am sick and tired of the cheap shots people have taken against me in response to this review. Am I to follow their example by jumping into their threads and tearong them down. I have never attacked someone in such a manner for their opinion. perhaps I should start since that is clearly accepted practice on CBn.

Woah, easy. Speaking for myself, I'm just defending the film as vigorously(sp?) as you are attacking it. Isn't that fair? For me, it's nothing personal I just don't get why (when we're all pretty knowledgeable Bond fans around here) the film is so polarizing.

[SecretAgentFan]

As to why I should give details - why should I have?

I actually thought that this is a debate. Sorry, if I misunderstood this. If you open a review thread just to state your gut reaction and end it right there then... well, that´s kind of ranting about something and then saying: Oh, I don´t want to deal with a reaction to my ranting.

Personally I am sick and tired of the cheap shots people have taken against me in response to this review. Am I to follow their example by jumping into their threads and tearing them down. I have never attacked someone in such a manner for their opinion. perhaps I should start since that is clearly accepted practice on CBn.

I don´t like the cheap shots at anyone either. But if one states his opinion on a message board you have to expect others to debate it. Don´t overreact now - brutal attacks are clearly not accepted practice on CBn.

[Goldbadge]

The movie is misunderstood by most people, I think QOS will stand the test of time very well and someday will be viewed as one of the best Bond films.

Yeah that´s right I didn´t like the film because I misunderstood it,what a crock of you know what.Okay can you explain to me how Bond knew that Camille was to be killed.If I remember correctly he had his sat on a motorbike the whole time,Has he suddenly developed Superman´s hearing.At first I thought he planted a listening device and then realised on second viewing that he didn´t so please explain me that,man I´d better stop or I´ll drive myself insane thinking about this totally retarted movie

You're not serious right? He bled the one baddie out on the balcony (cut and sliced him in the right spots too), went downstairs and got the case meant for the baddie, from the desk clerk, then went outside, at which time Camille recognized him I guess because he was carrying the case. Bond gets in, opens the case, and sees the gun and picture of her, and knowing the guy he just killed might of been a hitman, figured his target was the pictured person. (Camille). Oh and he saves her because he figures if Greene wants her dead, she must be worth saving for intel.

Yeah not only did he knock the man of the Bike but in doing so he sent the bike into the air....So now not only had Bond got Superman´s hearing but also his strenght...Jaysus I´d better stop....The worst Bond movie in the Franchise,and it deffo has the worst Gunbarrel......Bring On Bourne 4

That bike appeared to have the throttle on the left (some do still), which i think is what Bond grabbed to cause the wheelie. Either that or he released the clutch. It also appeared to be a Trials type bike, which wheelies very easily.

Edited by Goldbadge, 15 November 2008 - 08:10 PM.

[mario007]

I am startled by how people missed the perfect charcter arc bond has from the bigining of CR to the end of QOS. The GB definetly belongs at the end. He goes from killing people without any regard (out of control in CR & begining of QOS) to becoming efficent at it (Slate) to the end of the movie where he is in control of his emotions(Yusuf). The consequences of revenge and the aftermath is another mindblowing angle in this movie! I think this script is better than Haggis's contrived and spoonfed 'Crash'. TDK went from good start to a poor finish ... QOS went from a great start to an outstanding finish! More James bond pleeeeeeease! I hope the boxoffice will gaurentee a 2010 relase for bond 23.

[/quote]In fact Quantum of Solace is such a horrible experience that it actually makes The World is not Enough shine in comparison - and pretty much evceryone on here knows how much I dislike the 1999 Pierce Brosnan effort.

But don't blame Daniel Craig. Craig is hampered here by a script that makes no sense and a director who obviously has no idea what makes a good action movie. Indeed to refer to this as Bourne-like is an insult to the Bourne series.

If EON plan on making more Bond movies like this - then I wish they wouldn't bother - just put Bond to bed and leave us with our good feelings towards the character, rather than sour our impressions with more like this POS.

I really wanted to like this movie. I read the reviews and shrugged them off as just critics being critics, but they were unfortunately right. This movie gets a big thumbs down. I want the two hours back I wasted on this Marc Forster garbage.
[/quote]

Edited by mario007, 15 November 2008 - 08:24 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

1. Brosnan movies are not bad, get over with it everyone, the ing CGI was 'OMFG' for the time and you know you liked it.

Brosnan movies ARE bad, get over with it, BlackFire.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

1. Brosnan movies are not bad, get over with it everyone, the ing CGI was 'OMFG' for the time and you know you liked it.

Brosnan movies ARE bad, get over with it, BlackFire.

If Brosnan's movies were BAD, I (as LOTS of every people in the world) haven't been a James Bond fan, a James Bond collector, a CBn Forum member or a writer in a Bond site!

To simplify

Brosnan fans, don't mess up with Craig

...and...

Craig fans, don't mess up with Brosnan.

Thank you

[mario007]

I don't think M followed Bond's adice to keep sweating mathis ... that is why M says at the end of CR you don't trust anybody do you bond?

Even if she did follow bonds advice I think its as simple as this ... time elapsed between bond on the yatch after Vespers death and him tracking down White ... I would say couple of months! that is why White is suprised to see bond at the end of CR ... if I recall correctly White was there when bond was holding Vespers dead body.

[Kristian]

1. Brosnan movies are not bad, get over with it everyone, the ing CGI was 'OMFG' for the time and you know you liked it.

Brosnan movies ARE bad, get over with it, BlackFire.

If Brosnan's movies were BAD, I (as LOTS of every people in the world) haven't been a James Bond fan, a James Bond collector, a CBn Forum member or a writer in a Bond site!

To simplify

Brosnan fans, don't mess up with Craig

...and...

Craig fans, don't mess up with Brosnan.

Thank you

We'll say what we want. When we want. It's a free country. At least, the U.S. is.

And to the person who actually believes we were all secretly-dazzled by the lovely CGI in DAD but are afraid to say so... may I suggest you turn off your PlayStation and read a book for a change.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Regarding to QOS, I saw it for the second time last night, and I think is a good Bond, not as great as CR, but good anyway (it's not easy measure up with, according to many, the best film of the series).

What really drags down this movie are the action scenes, I even think that they are interesting in the script and in the making, but they're poorly showed in the screen, because of the bad editing, the extreme close up, shaky cam, etc, and overall because Marc Forster doesn't know how to direct action, hence he delegates pretty much of his responsibility in the trendy (of Bourne fame) but incompetent, second unit director, Dan Bradley.

But if you can ignore the action scenes in this movie (wich abounds in the first third), you have the chance to enjoy a pretty entertaining and some emotive film. And that is tendency of the Craig's Bond movies that I really appreciate.

With the Brosnan era, and even with some earlier ones, they concentrate the plot in the first third, and then they went for some kind of orgy of action, and I have to say that the action in the Pierce's years was even worst than in QOS. Because in the latest film you only have bad directed and edited sequences, while in the Brosnan's flicks you also have completely unbelievable action, that turned OO7 in a comic book character.

[double o ego]

As to why I should give details - why should I have? I was not being employed to write the review. I wrote about a gut reaction to the movie (whicdh I still believe some hours later) and went out of my way to avoid spoilers. It's my opinion and not open to discussion as such. No amount of ranting and raving about how stupid or retarded I am for not liking their beloved movie is going to change my conviction that Quantum of Solace is the worst 007 movie in history.

Personally I am sick and tired of the cheap shots people have taken against me in response to this review. Am I to follow their example by jumping into their threads and tearong them down. I have never attacked someone in such a manner for their opinion. perhaps I should start since that is clearly accepted practice on CBn.

Woah, easy. Speaking for myself, I'm just defending the film as vigorously(sp?) as you are attacking it. Isn't that fair? For me, it's nothing personal I just don't get why (when we're all pretty knowledgeable Bond fans around here) the film is so polarizing.

This is because people don't understand that their not watching a typical Bond film. CR wasn't supposed to be a typical Bond film but if when looked at closely and can get past Craig's apperance, CR is pretty much a typical Bond film, albeit a good one but that's not what was intended. QoS in many ways does the job CR was supposed to and as many Bond moments as there were, imo there were too many for a film that is supposed to be an introduction and pre-Bond shinanigins movie.

Once people realise that QoS is a film about a man that is learning and has learnt how to be the standard character, only then will people apprecoate QoS for what it is. The sad thing is, it will eventually be recognised but not for a good few years yet. I don' want to insult anyone but please, lets apply some foward thinking here. Anyone expecting the norm or usual standard Bond stuff, having been made aware that this is also an origin moie is, fair to say an idiot.

[Daddy Bond]

I am startled by how people missed the perfect charcter arc bond has from the bigining of CR to the end of QOS.

Speaking of timelines and character arcs...how does Mathis manage to get an island villa in Italy from the British government for his new "retirement" when, at the end of Casino Royale, Bond is telling M to have her people keep "sweating" Mathis? One hour later, maybe two, Bond has Mr. White in the boot of his car and Bond shows up on Mathis' door-step a few days later, at most. Mathis' island villa would seem to suggest some time had passed between the events of Casino Royale and now, yet according to a strict storyline interpretation, only a matter of days could have passed. Mathis talks about Vesper as if she's been dead for a long time...tells Bond to forgive her and forgive himself....yet again, she's only been a dead a few days. Right? Have I missed something?

But how much time passed between Bond telling M to sweat Mathis and Bond confronting White? When I watched the film, I was guessing weeks or days had passed, when he finally confronted White.

The movie is misunderstood by most people, I think QOS will stand the test of time very well and someday will be viewed as one of the best Bond films.

Yeah that´s right I didn´t like the film because I misunderstood it,what a crock of you know what.Okay can you explain to me how Bond knew that Camille was to be killed.If I remember correctly he had his sat on a motorbike the whole time,Has he suddenly developed Superman´s hearing.At first I thought he planted a listening device and then realised on second viewing that he didn´t so please explain me that,man I´d better stop or I´ll drive myself insane thinking about this totally retarted movie

You're not serious right? He bled the one baddie out on the balcony (cut and sliced him in the right spots too), went downstairs and got the case meant for the baddie, from the desk clerk, then went outside, at which time Camille recognized him I guess because he was carrying the case. Bond gets in, opens the case, and sees the gun and picture of her, and knowing the guy he just killed might of been a hitman, figured his target was the pictured person. (Camille). Oh and he saves her because he figures if Greene wants her dead, she must be worth saving for intel.

Yeah not only did he knock the man of the Bike but in doing so he sent the bike into the air....So now not only had Bond got Superman´s hearing but also his strenght...Jaysus I´d better stop....The worst Bond movie in the Franchise,and it deffo has the worst Gunbarrel......Bring On Bourne 4

That bike appeared to have the throttle on the left (some do still), which i think is what Bond grabbed to cause the wheelie. Either that or he released the clutch. It also appeared to be a Trials type bike, which wheelies very easily.

Thank you! I'm not trying to put people down, but this is a movie where you have to think (see my review for much more detail). It never occurred to me that someone would miss how Bond knew Camille was due to be killed and how the bike did a wheelie. The world can't be getting this simple minded. No offense intended.

[Kristian]

Thank you! I'm not trying to put people down, but this is a movie where you have to think (see my review for much more detail). It never occurred to me that someone would miss how Bond knew Camille was due to be killed and how the bike did a wheelie. The world can't be getting this simple minded. No offense intended.

Dear Lord, yes... Are there truly people out there with barely enough brain cells to rub together to figure out that LARGE PHOTO OF WOMAN plus GUN in SUITCASE means THIS IS THE BITCH THAT I WANT YOU TO KILL?

You're right, Big Daddy. QOS is a lean, mean, bullet of a Bond movie that dares you to keep up with it. Clearly, not everyone is up to the task.

[stromberg]

Thread's getting a bit out of hand, isn't it?

Keep it civil, please, Ladies and Gentlemen.

[Bonita]

A few random thoughts:

I would be shocked if anyone who thought Never Say Never Again was even watchable liked this film. This is no personal attack, but since Never Say Never is in my opinion the worst Bond film ever conceived, one that has no element of a character I recognize as Bond, no style in its direction, a climax that lacks any suspense, excitement or scope, a score that was almost banned by the UN as being an assault on human rights, a Bond woman who lacks any sexuality, a brittle lack of humor, a scene where 007 faces off with the villain over a...video game, and a laughably neurotic villain, well, those who find it their cup of tea just aren't going to enjoy the kind of filmmaking I like (now let's all give a nod to the fact that Connery appeared in the film, charmingly caught an apple behind his back, and that Barbara Carerra (sp?) was fun in an over-the-top kind of way).

Point being that those who want to see Bond shadowed by Mr. Bean are just not going to like the same Bond I like.

A few notes on Quantum:

This is a great film. The top three reasons for this are: Daniel Craig, Daniel Craig and (lest we forget) Daniel Craig. He makes Bond real. Richard Maibaum said, "you can't spoof a spoof." Craig and Eon have done what was tried and missed (for wider audiences) in OHMSS and LTK. They have torn away the spoof. They have embraced Bond as a character.

Now I fully respect the right of people to prefer double-taking pigeons, invisible cars, Thatcher impersonators, Bond dressed in clown make-up, assassinations via poisoned hooks on butterfly puppets, John Cleese kicking his legs around from beneath a big inflatable jacket, 007 straightening his tie underwater, villains who are personally so rich they could simply buy South Korea rather than go to war with the nation, iceberg submarines, union jack balloons, and parrots who deliver important clues. These elements from past James Bond films do shine with a certain kind of brilliance...for some. And who wouldn't want to see Never Say Never Again again just to try to figure out once and for all how Fatima goes from skiing on one ski to skiing on two?

For me, I can keep the warm memories of those Bond adventures alive in the scrapbook of my mind, realizing that some of these moments just cannot ever be topped. And if we can't ever approach the intellectual ambiguity of these great moments and more, well, why not just stop watching?

There is a good reason for that. The Bond filmmakers somehow decided that they wanted to start making interesting movies again, films that didn't feel like stale re-treads of Goldfinger or (more often) Matt Helm & Flint films. They thought, hey, why not go back to Ian Fleming? Why not play this guy straight? Why not see if an introduction of visual style back into the series might not make these films more than passing entertainments and fodder for trivia contests?

And you know what? They have made a film the just knocked my socks off. This is a film where Bond finds himself on a journey where even he does not know how much is about revenge and how much is about the mission. This is a story where Bond finds not, as in Fleming's story, the exact amount of comfort for love to exist, but the amount of comfort for him to continue to exist, for him to quieten the rage within.

Someone up above noted the timeline of Mathis. Fascinating point, but one must realize that Bond's recovery is complete on Aug. 4, 2006 (date of Vesper's meeting with Gettler and her later death). This is just under one month after the bombmaker gets his text from Dimitrios (July 6, 2006). The remaining events of the film until Bond's torture seem to take what? 10 days? Are there any other date stamps? So for grins, let's say Bond is tortured by Le Chiffre on July 16. He signals M to take Mathis in on July 20 maybe? So that's two weeks there. Bond says to M to keep sweating Mathis, but was he already cleared by then? Could be. But then there is another gap, a gap during which Bond gets a new suit, some serious weaponry, get a new DBS and plans with MI6 to bring Mr. White into Sienna for questioning. Now the Palio is run twice a year - early July and mid-August. Did they set up Mr. White in 10 days? Is the scene with Bond shooting him set in 2006? Maybe not. How long did this take to set up? One month? Six? A year? Two years? That gap has no timeline. But it is certainly possible that the gap is long enough for MI6 to set up Mathis.

And to those who hate the film, please take comfort in the fact that there were those who thought Bond was dead when he popped up from underwater beneath a seagul, or when he cradled the head of his dead wife in OHMSS, or at the introduction of Sheriff J. W. Pepper. For others, the end came with Bond aboard a space station. Yes, sometimes the series leaves you behind. You say, how can I hold my head up and say I like any of this crap? But the films continue. And as the 1980s proved to me, no matter how bad you think Bond movies can get, they are always able to make one that is far, far worse. And no matter who low the nadir, there are always fans out there who love those films like they were their own children.

I hope the Never Say Never Again league holds firm and tight. Wave your banner high! For me, I'll be watching Quantum of Solace over and over until the next Bond film arrives.

keep dancing...

[CM007]

The movie is misunderstood by most people, I think QOS will stand the test of time very well and someday will be viewed as one of the best Bond films.

Yeah that´s right I didn´t like the film because I misunderstood it,what a crock of you know what.Okay can you explain to me how Bond knew that Camille was to be killed.If I remember correctly he had his sat on a motorbike the whole time,Has he suddenly developed Superman´s hearing.At first I thought he planted a listening device and then realised on second viewing that he didn´t so please explain me that,man I´d better stop or I´ll drive myself insane thinking about this totally retarted movie

You're not serious right? He bled the one baddie out on the balcony (cut and sliced him in the right spots too), went downstairs and got the case meant for the baddie, from the desk clerk, then went outside, at which time Camille recognized him I guess because he was carrying the case. Bond gets in, opens the case, and sees the gun and picture of her, and knowing the guy he just killed might of been a hitman, figured his target was the pictured person. (Camille). Oh and he saves her because he figures if Greene wants her dead, she must be worth saving for intel.

Yeah not only did he knock the man of the Bike but in doing so he sent the bike into the air....So now not only had Bond got Superman´s hearing but also his strenght...Jaysus I´d better stop....The worst Bond movie in the Franchise,and it deffo has the worst Gunbarrel......Bring On Bourne 4

That bike appeared to have the throttle on the left (some do still), which i think is what Bond grabbed to cause the wheelie. Either that or he released the clutch. It also appeared to be a Trials type bike, which wheelies very easily.

Okay then explain how Bond knew that Camille was to be killed when Camille who was about 30-40 feet closer to Bond couldn´t figure it out and that´s even after she knew what was in the Case.

Actually Bond does neither.He Hits the Handlebars with an uppercut or something forcing the bike to go upward if memory serves me right.

I love it when people try to explain the inexpicible

[Loomis]

I would be shocked if anyone who thought Never Say Never Again was even watchable liked this film. ... Point being that those who want to see Bond shadowed by Mr. Bean are just not going to like the same Bond I like.

Don't be so sure. I happen to love NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, but I also happen to love QUANTUM OF SOLACE. For the record (as though anyone cares), the only Bond film I dislike is THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH - all the others I dig, albeit - obviously - to varying degrees.

And I guess it was only a matter of time before someone asked this, but why, Bonita, do you end every post with the words "keep dancing..."? What is this a reference to? Or is it simply that you want us to, well, keep dancing?

[jaguar007]

I actually thought QoS had most of the James Bond formula in place, it was the way it was filmed and edited that made it not seem like a Bond movie. It does not feel like a big budget Hollywood blockbuster film at all. It feels like a European independent action film. More like La Femme Nikita or The Professional than Bond, or Bourne for that matter. Many people have called this movie "a mess". I can see how someone who likes mainstream Hollywood films would feel that way, however if you enjoy foreign films or more arthouse type films, you will enjoy Quantum of Solace. Those who do not like the foreign art house films don't like QoS. It does follow the James Bond formula, it is just filmed and edited differently. I am very middle of the road on this film.