Quantum of Solace (Video Game 2008) Poster

(2008 Video Game)

User Reviews

Review this title
36 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
truly the worst movie i have seen in a while.
deme19952 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This was absolutely awful. Terrible, worst Bond move ever. To start, we were the only ones in the movie theater at all. I watched the entire hour and 45 minutes and I still have no clue what happened. Every scene was exactly the same as the scene prior. And what's the deal with the "Quantum of Solace." Talk about pretentious. They might have maybe said quantum once, but never, in the entire film, was the word solace even muttered. The film was so boring that we were reduced to talking about whether the lights on the side of the theater wall were changed every season or whether they were the same throughout the entire year. Other conversation topics included AA meetings and texting about Wal-Mart. Although I did rather enjoy being alone in the theater. You could talk all you wanted and nobody would complain. My one friend has an uncle that lives in Panama and she recently visited him there. She insisted throughout the whole movie that the particular scene we were watching was filmed in Panama, but only portions of the movie were actually filmed there. I did have a nice lunch that day; a chef salad with no tomatoes and ranch dressing. I also enjoyed two diet sodas. My friends had a pulled pork sandwich and tuna salad. So all in all the film was depravitous, with a calculatory undertone. The solubity of it was the sum of the fact that we had to walk almost ten blocks in 40 degree weather to see this flop. Disgraceful, how dare they waste my precious time and money for this crock. I should be a movie critic(that was meant to be understood as introspective, do not read aloud by this writer.)...........fade away into the abyss.
20 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I don't believe it!
lionel-142 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I rate this as the most disappointing Bond film of all time. It bears no relationship to the Ian Fleming character he so cleverly created.

Neither does it have any of the excitement and invention we have come to expect of this fantastic series. A very poor script and a visual mess. The editing and pace of this film does not help, and it leaves the audience lost because of the uninteresting plot.

There are no Bond anecdotes whatsoever. Presumably the production team have decided to remove all those traditional moments that most of us thoroughly enjoyed, completely spoiling the subtlety and identity of the whole James Bond character and leaving Daniel Craig virtually without a single moment of humour in the entire boring saga. No gadgets to excite or amuse the audience, and nothing creative apart from one blurry very badly edited chase after another all through the film.

There was not even a titter of laughter at any point from the audience I watched it with, at the Odeon Leicester Square. Surely this must be the most dire Bond film ever made. there is not one single joke or light hearted aside in the entire movie.

Even the girls are very disappointing and fail to add the slightest hint of glamour or sexiness to this extremely boring epic .

It's possible that some of the original John Barry music may have helped the film gather pace, but even that has been reduced to short bursts of the Bond theme at the beginning and end. Instead, the score lacks any particular theme or memorable melodies that normally compliment a decent James Bond film.

I could hardly wait for it to end, and I am amazed that Craig or his agents did not demand some script changes to help keep him in character as James Bond.
21 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This was simply not a James Bond movie.
KayWeston16 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
What can I say? I fear this last installment of 007 will leave lots of die hard Bond movie fans (especially those older than 30) highly disappointed. No John Barry music theme throughout the movie (it only appears after the end titles); no classic line: "The name is Bond, James Bond"; no vodka Martini; no gadgets; no humor; no flirting with the ladies; this is just one of the many action movies out there. Too violent, too many killings, a very weak plot and in general all the characters are depicted in a very superficial way. It's not Daniel Craig's fault - his acting is admirable but it is obvious he had very little material to play with. Bond barely speaks throughout the movie! What were the director and the screen play writers thinking? When I go and see Bond I want to be entertained and I expect all the Bond movie clichés. What a shame if this is the way the future James Bond is going to be like.
19 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A Review for the Actual VG, and the PS2 Version to Boot!
SylvesterFox00718 May 2010
"GoldenEye 007" for the Nintendo 64 set the bar high, for both movie tie-in games and James Bond games. Since then, "Everything or Nothing" and "From Russia With Love" have done an excellent job of allowing gamers to feel like they were James Bond. "Quantum of Solace" for the PS2 is the latest in a long line of James Bond games, and it's decent, but doesn't meet expectations.

First of all, there's a difference between the QoS game for the PS2 and the QoS game for next-gen consoles. While the next-gen version of the game is primarily a first-person shoot, the PS2 version of the game is exclusively third-person, offers a smaller arsenal of weapons, and has much weaker graphics. James Bond looks remarkably like Daniel Craig, but the other characters look more like something from the Nintendo 64 game. Particularly, Olga Kurylenko's character, one of the most beautiful Bond girls in decades, looks decidedly unattractive here. Also, the PS2 game is missing several of the levels from the next-gen version, including only one new level, the Haitian docks, as a consolation.

Level design in other Bond games wasn't exactly complex, but in QoS the missions are far too linear. Most of the game play in the PS2 version of the game consists of running into a fire fight, ducking behind cover, then either "blind firing" from safety or peeking out to try a more precise shot. In some instances it's possible to execute a stealth attack, but rarely worth it. Melee attacks, unlike EON or FRWL, consist solely of a pistol whip, which can be effective, but if you miss you will almost certainly die. There's no departing from the beaten path to execute "Bond moves", no playing with fancy gadgets (fair enough, since Q doesn't appear in either of the movies the game is based on, "Quantum of Solace" or "Casino Royale"). Bond isn't even able to carry grenades, though several enemies are able to lob them at him. There's also absolutely no vehicle levels, which is a shame since the source material provided plenty of great moments to drive an Aston Martin, motorcycle, boat, or a DC3 plane.

The game is at its best when its letting you reenact moments from the films. Locations like the Madagascar construction site from CR and the Sienna rooftops and Perla Las Dunas Hotel from QoS are recreated accurately in the game, so that it feels like you are actually playing through the events of the movies. These are the moments the game makes a worthy movie tie-in. On the other hand, the worst aspects of the game is when it differs from the movies. Across consoles, first of all, rather than traditional cut scenes, most of the story is told through graphics like those on M's computer module in the QoS film. Plot points are quickly communicated through conversations between M and other characters following Bond's progress. Granted, the game has to combine the stories of two major films, but in the end it's still far too brief, and there's no excuse for the "tell, don't show" approach that skips over huge chunks of the plot and doesn't allow the player to be present at events such as Bond's assault on an embassy or the climactic card game in CR.

Major characters are excluded from the plot altogether. While Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelson, and Judi Dench all provide their voice and likeness to the game, memorable characters like Gemma Arterton's Agent Strawberry Fields, Caterina Murino's Solange, and Ivana Milicevic's Valenka fail to appear at all. The characters of Renee Mathis and Felix Leiter, major players in both movies, are left out entirely. Instead, forgettable characters like Elvis, Kratt, and Dimitrios become major boss fights. Apart from Craig and Dench, the other talents from the movie (at least in the PS2 version) are underutilized, only getting a few lines a piece. Also, scenes from the movie like the Bregenz Opera House and the Miama science museum have been changed for video game reasons. While both scenes in the movies were open to the public and crowded with civilians, the game has the locations closed, forcing Bond to sneak around them after hours. Once Bond is finally in the science museum, instead of the movie's captivating body works exhibit, the room contains a few model helicopters and some boring artifacts. The game's credits even spell Judi Dench's name wrong. (They credit "Judy Dench" as the voice of M.) The game is fun while it lasts, but it only takes a few hours to play through once. With no unlockable content and no multi-player for this console, the game has very little re-playability. While fun while it lasts, QoS, particularly on the PS2, doesn't quite capture what it means to be 007, and is worth only a rental, even for hardcore 007 fans.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bond is gone.
j_imdb-1043 June 2009
James Bond lost his sense of humor, he lost his personality, lost his gadgets, lost Q and lost Moneypenny. James Bond, and with him the original 007 concept, is gone. For anyone that likes cell-phones by the way: most of this film is based upon this only surviving gadget. Bond can't even pee without his phone, during half of the movie he is busy making calls ... The action shots are too fast, quick-cut, you can't properly see what is going on. The story is amazingly thin, the characters are flat and boring. A movie that makes no impression at all, a movie to be quickly forgotten. Please, please, please, give us the real Bond back!
17 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
The end of the icon
Dave-18928 November 2008
This is the second Bond film with Daniel Craig and gone are the standards we have come to expect: "Bond, James Bond," "shaken, not stirred." Minor points, yes, but standards nevertheless.

The movie is plot less. Bond is emotionless. The movie lacks in so many ways except one: chase scenes. Characters are introduced without any basis. An unknown organization is named once but without any details. The leader is exposed but with know indication as to what they're up to. A poor end to a once great character (glad I have the old ones on DVD).

Daniel Craig doesn't know how to smile and the movie fails to deliver. A huge disappointment. Thus, the "4" (and I as kind).
22 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
So disappointing
bmw-guy27 December 2009
Who do you blame for such a terrible Bond movie? Would it be the director, producers or both? Certainly can't lay it on the actors given the weak dialogue and lame story line they got stuck with. The action scenes are for lack of a better description, flash cut, meaning that each camera angle shot lasts for no more than a few seconds and when combined it becomes utterly disjointed and physically uncomfortable to watch resulting in a most tedious experience. Suffice to say that this movie failed in every element that makes a BOND movie a BOND movie: actions scenes were unwatchable/boring, bond women/drab, plot/lame, intensity/zero, fun stuff/none. I watched Quantum on my home theatre system via subscription movie channel. However, if I had gone to an actual movie theatre like I have for all previous Bond movies I would have been really offended.

So now for the depressing part; I read that Quantum was the second highest grossing Bond movie to date so my fear is that the producers of the next bond movie will have no incentive to deviate from their current formula and will deliver yet another most substandard effort. I will hope for the opposite, but I'm not holding my breath because Quantum was really, really, that BAD.
11 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Disappointing
thomasrbendall19 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
All action, no plot It was extremely disappointed, especially after Casino Royale was so good!

The plot and characters were weak. The end was dull with no real conclusion, the villain was just left, although he was killed, but not by Bond. I thought the best character was Agent Fields, and she got killed off after about half an hour!

A lot of people have also stated about the title, but I think it's good, It's mysterious, it was designed especially for Bond by his creator (Fleming) rather than by a balding producer or already bald director!

Too much trying to be like Bourne, not enough trying to be like Bond for me. Lets hope the next installment makes up for it.
11 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Bond's revenge makes for a poor plot!
skatman4422 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Bond movies are Bond movies. There are things that one has grown to expect when seeing a Bond movie. Things like great cars, cool gadgets, beautiful women with catchy names and bad guys that give Bond a run for his money. Although Quantum of Solace had great action for a Bond movie it is lacking in the all the other departments. There are hardly any awesome gadgets very few great cars, and the lead actress Olga Kurylenko doesn't show any skin or get with Bond. Since when did James Bond not get the girl in a Bond movie?? How can she even be called a "Bond girl" if she doesn't sleep with James Bond? Despite all this I thought Quantum of Solace had a weak story line. The fact that there was a secret organization that MI6 doesn't know about that is everywhere including within MI6 itself was great and film makers should have run with it as a bad guy like secret service, not a group of powerful people who are buying up land and creating a drought to take water from not important countries. On the other hand yes I get that Bond wants revenge for the death of his lover Vesper form Casino Royale and that sets up for a angry Bond and a movie with lots of action but Quantum of Solace could have went a whole different direction that would have made for a much more interesting film. All-in-all this was great action film that doesn't live up to the Bond quality we have been used to.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Damaged Goods
MGMboy29 January 2009
Some reviewers and fans of the Bond films have complained that this film is a lesser effort in the series and pales in comparison to "Casino Royale". They have missed something important in their assessment of the film. When Dominic Green says to Bond that he and Camille Montez have something in common, that they are both "Damaged goods" he has clearly put before the audience the crux of the film that is "Quantum of Solace". The film picks up only minutes after the end of "Casino Royale" and we are presented with a very damaged and changed James Bond. As revealed in the first film by Vesper Lynd's assessment of him upon their first meeting on the train, James Bond is a man who came up from humble beginnings and was given a privileged education but never allowed to forget his low origins. This has made him a very guarded loner with a chip on his shoulder, a perfect candidate for recruitment by MI6. In his words to her later on in the film,Vesper has "stripped me of my armor." But by the end of that film he is a man scarred by the death of his love, the armor is back on never to be penetrated again. He is now becoming the Bond of legend and a man bent on revenge. So in "Quantum" there is no reason for the old fashioned quips or much humor in this man. Yet if you pay attention the character of James Bond as played by the incomparable Daniel Craig he lets us see that there are cracks in the armor. Something of a human heart still exists in him. This is played out in the scene after the plane crash where Camille asks him about his past. Craig shows it in his eyes in the most marvelous example of his layered and subtle acting style. Craig builds and molds a deeper, darker more complex Bond than we have ever seen before, a character more true to the books than in previous incarnations of Bond. The action in the film is superlative and stylish. The opening car chase is indeed a nail biter only surpassed by the Sienna chase moments later. This too is then topped by the DC10 aerial battle towards the end of the film. The stunts are breathtaking and propel the film at top notch speed. But perhaps the most stunning and original sequence is the gun fight in the restaurant at the Opera house. This is played without sound effect as the score of "Tosca" commands the ear and heightens the emotion of the scene. This is inspired and brilliant film making taking in account all aspects of editing, cinematography, score, and acting. And since I mentioned music I cannot leave out the incredible delicious score by David Arnold who has infused his Bond scores with the much need taste of John Barry. He captures the glorious Barry sound and builds brilliantly upon it. All the principle players give superlative performances. Judi Dench command attention as she always has as "M". Giancarlo Giannini redeems himself and is truly touching as Mathis. Mathieu Amalic is appropriately slithery and devious as the villain Green. As Agent Fields, Miss Gemma Arterton brings a light and fun light to the film. Finally in the role of Camille Olga Kurylenko holds her own opposite Daniel Craig. This is no mean feat and she is wonderful, athletic and touching in the film. In the end Bond does find a quantum of solace and ends the film in a telling way. A small gesture that lets us know he is now moving on but not without a tinge of sadness. This beautiful sad ending is a refreshing and moving way to end a Bond film. "Quantum of Solace" is a fast paced film that demands attention to the small details and respect for superlative performances by all involved from the director Marc Forster to the entire cast and crew.
17 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
big disappointment
columboman25 May 2009
I will have to agree with the majority on here and say that QOS was a let-down This movie bears no resemblance to the traditions of James bond wot soever. No Q, no gadgets, no humor, and most important no real menacing bad guy with his side-kick (example gold finger and odd-job) i hope the next movie does not carry on along the same lines, they need to think hard about the next script and come back with a real traditional James bond theme. all quantum of solace is, is another action movie and to be fair the movie has a lot of action but when you think of the classics made in the past this movie does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath.
11 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Worst Bond flick of all
B RUBBLE12 December 2008
Excluding the original "Casino Royale" with David Niven and I discount, since it was not one of the Broccoli/Saltzmann films, this film has to be the worst Bond Film yet. The plot was so confusing, that I still have no idea what he was looking for or whom the real bad guys were.

The chase scenes were not that exciting although the one with the DC-3 was a little different, but in all the cases the camera work was so jiggly that it was hard to figure who was being chased and who the chasers were. I think that when Spielberg did it for D-Day it made sense, but now it seems everything making a movie seems to think it is the trendy thing to do. Well I disagree. When one can not figure out where the action is going, and who is who, then it has lost its intent.

Not only that it seemed as though the idea was "hey its about time we had another chase" just for the gratuitousness of it rather than leading up to it like most other Bond movies.

The title song has to be the worst yet for these movies and was a real turnoff for me, in fact I turned off my hearing aids about a quarter of the way into it to try and not hear it.

The acting certainly was nothing to talk about either. I think Daniel Craig was fine in his first movie, but this one he seemed about as wooden as Jean Claude Van Damme was in his movies, and George Lazenby in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". The women were totally forgettable also whoever they were.

It looks to me like the Bond franchise has run out of ideas and steam and that it is time to retire this series. Doubt that I will go to another one even though I am a big fan of James Bond, but the movies have slowly declined in quality and interest over the years since "From Russia With Love", and "Goldfinger". I will be content watching DVDs of the better Bond films and re-reading the original stories from Ian Fleming.

Final comment is that this movie was so exciting that wife went to sleep part way thru it.
16 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Bourne Ultimatum 4 ??
axxaa-112 November 2008
In these 100 acionscenes, the movie makers used a Handycam or something. I mean the actionscences are totally blured, you see nothing of the fights. It must be the same cameraman from Bourneultimatum, where the half movie was blured too - in this 007 its imho much more.

Well OK, besides the Actionscenes that nobody in the cinema could follow, the storyline is very confusing too and the bondgirls are so boring.

The next disappointing is, that there is no James Bond anymore. No British upperclass Gentleman, no Ladykiller, no Wodka Martini, no Q, no Moneypenny...buaahhh this movie is so frustrating.

The positive aspects are:

  • 100% nothing, i want my money back !!!!
15 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Craig Delivers Another Royal FLUSH In The Most BORING Bond Film EVER.
GodsStar18 November 2008
I said it when "Casino Royale" dropped and I've got Ebert to agree with me this time. Of Craig's depiction of Bond he writes, "Everything but Bond, who has been replaced by an Identikit action hero mixed in with incomprehensible CGI." As tattered and half-baked as this story was, I can only conclude that this film was a rush-to-market project designed to get everyone a paycheck. Not ONE cool gadget, yet again, and contrived boat chases with boats that look like barely float let alone command cigar boat speeds. I left the theater feeling violated, even at matinée prices.

Undoubtedly, the "X's" and "Y's" opinions will champion their perpetual mediocrity, and CRAIG again, as though he could possibly hold a candle, née, a FLARE, to Connery.

As for me, I'd say wait for cable on this one…on a Sunday afternoon when you have absolutely NOTHING better to do but justify your monthly premium channel purchase.
14 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A Bond movie without Bond!
gemstones16 December 2008
We all know who James Bond is. Even the baddies know it, that's why nearly every Bond movie has some badly accented fellow saying, "Ahh Mr Bond, we have been expecting you". And the Bond we know is a winner, a grinner, tough, likable, sexy, irreverent, slightly flawed, disrespectful of authority and can handle his cars, his drink and his women. Well, guess what? He wasn't in this film! We had some unsmiling robot who rushed around killing people who appeared to have nothing to do with the story whilst being followed by a pre-schooler with a handy-cam. He couldn't handle his grief and so couldn't handle anything else. I am not ready (and I guess the world isn't either) for a maudlin mumbling Bond. The film was a very dark revenge movie with an invisible plot, invisible enemy and no hook to get the audience involved. I came out frustrated, confused and annoyed. Bond is a brand. A very strong brand. However, this film not only failed to enhance the brand, it destroyed a good chunk of it. I do hope that the next Bond movie gets back to its core values. Excitement, glamour, action, humour, sexiness and hero.
15 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
this bond need to be smiling
tommy61986-114 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
the 22nd James bond film.there is a lot of missing elements in this one.the great bad guys name like "goldfinger" not Dominic Greene.underwater adventure,flying on a mission to the moon,going into dangerous tunnel and most of all,the girls that bond fall in love and chase them like he did with penny.we missed "jaws' and that bond's smile and humor way toward his mission..Daniel is great but James bond is not a action hero and doesn't get beat up badly like his early films.there is no high tech car for bond to destroy.no ending kiss on a sailboat..take all the james bond goodie and you have just a plain old action movie.the title suck too.the five star goes to the location scene and for daniel craig not trusting m.the villain,Dominic Greene is not a james bond type villain or scary like the old ones and to top it all it was too easy to catch him and of all the places..a warehouse with a fidel castro look a like or maybe a chavez with only 3 to 4 soldiers...the old bonds usually fight a whole army at the end..this one is for the bones..keep daniel craig,change the character to the old one.
11 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I can't even relate to the title
eric-150110 January 2009
Why the success and big bucks at the box office? Were people just trying to forget the bad economy or what? The opening scenes in Sienna with the typical quick-cut fight sequences that so move directors today made me nervous and bored; the battling men just looked liked two angry Rottweilers. The technology displayed produced a big yawn. Very little of the action took place in exotic scenes...the producers seemed to be intent on filming in ugly terrain. Judy Dench should retire from being M; she just lacks the conviction of her role. I couldn't loathe the villain or sympathize with him either. Halfway through the film, I couldn't wait for it to end. Waste of time & money.
13 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
If you wanna make "Frank Miller-style prequels", hire Frank Miller, or just let it go
jovo-dodik24 July 2009
It probably all started with Frank Miller's "Batman - Year One" - (Now fashionable) Prequels dealing with main character being a little bit different, and "becoming" what he/she will become. Unfortunately, this concept was poorly executed and applied on James Bond universe in Quantum of Solace. This film features great cast and some good action scenes. It's missing the flirting part (except for the short scene, actually the eye contact, in the hotel lobby) where we can see how Bond girls become attracted to Mr. Bond. I suggest the script writers checkout the Thunderball: "Questions, questions, questions... Mr. Bond, you are asking all those questions..." Priceless.

For me at least, Bond movies are: adrenaline + glamour + seduction (which is very much human btw) + exotic landscapes + action (why not)
9 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The truth is somewhere in the middle - as usual
Jonas196923 June 2009
I only give this film a 3 for it's very poor central premise, but let's try a little more nuanced portrayal of 'Quantum'. Both Craig's films are much closer to Ian Flemming's Bond than any previous attempt - no I'm not saying that is a guarantee of quality, but one thing does follow: the 2 dimensional Bond of yore is gone. Personally I'm OK with a more fleshed out character when he is played by someone as deft at portrayals as Daniel Craig. I do miss the gadgets that were never part of Flemming's Bond either, but I can live without them.

Flemming's bad guys were not typically on the scale of the movie villains and that could have been all right. An organization with the motives we see would be a great nuisance to governments and Bond could have been sent to do something that could never be official (if I remember correctly he has a similar task in the book 'You Only Live Twice'). That this type of operation should be such an all powerful one is however totally inconceivable and gives the whole affair a shimmer of the ridiculous.

Summing up: you can't have it both ways either it's the new/old Bond or the movie Bond - here we get a strange combination that doesn't satisfy.
9 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst of Bondsss
edouard_bsd6 February 2010
Unfortunately, this was the worst of all they made with Bond so far... Hope they will never make the "Bond" with the same "star" - Kreig -- somebody pulled him to be a star but he will soon be down cause he's nothing..

Sorry, but this is a true..

Hope not to see him as a Bond anymore.

Hope England has MUCH better actors than that..

Hope this serial will last a little bit longer than 2010

Unfortunately, this was the worst of all they made with Bond so far... Hope they will never make the "Bond" with the same "star" - Kreig -- somebody pulled him to be a star but he will soon be down cause he's nothing.
8 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Finding this one hard to watch
rosegardener20067 August 2009
It would be sad to see the end of James Bond movies, that will come if they keep this up.

We all watch the Bond movies for a reason, for me is watch that shake but not stir dude with his fancy gadgets and sexy ladies. With Craig, why even stir when a Bug Lite seem most appropriate. It's hard to follow the plot when Bond suddenly resemble an longshoremen.

James Bond movies were character and gadget driven, plot falls apart when the main character is not 'it'. In this movie, even the gadgets were not up to the usual standard. Sad.

Sorry.
7 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Truly the best Bond-game since GoldenEye.
Jonas Tigerschiöld1 November 2008
Yes it even surpasses it with gorgeous graphics and realistic looking locales. Having seen the movie, I have to say it has transfered well while not strictly sticking with the plot of it, it has changed details to suit the game more which doesn't hurt, also voice-overs from the cast are thrown in. The villains in this game seem to be a forgetful bunch with cellphones laying around, which is a bit silly, but alright. The guns are all very realistically done and packs a good punch with booming effective sound, also explosions and debris are very authentic looking, so can shoot almost anything and it breaks. The henchmen behave like real human beings when they are hit and have a really good AI. Some bad things about the game is that you can't do fights and are forced to do button-sequences which loses momentum to proceedings. Otherwise this is a very recommended game, and you might enjoy it more if you are a fan of these films (yes you also get to play Casino Royale in the middle of the game as flashback).
6 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Almost as Good as Casino Royale
drpeppersp29 April 2009
-"James Bond-Quantum of Solace" takes place right after "Casino Royale". Seriously, were talking minutes after the first movie. Anyways, a large organization around the world altars the economy and raises chaos to take over countries. Mr. Greene is our main Bond villain, and he buys a large percentage of water in the countries he tries to take over. He then creates drought, then jacks up the price of water. He's meaner then than that though. Throughout the film Bond keeps killing all the leads out of revenge for his last girlfriend. Can Bond control himself or will he be lost in revenge? -I've read other reviews saying that Daniel Craig's performance is ruined by that fact that Bond's character is in a constant rage of fury. I disagree. Bond can be pissy at times, but for the most part he's seems calm to me. This is also a good time to say I think that Craig's portrayal of Bond is once again fantastic. He's very collective, suave, and shows just enough emotion when he feels hurt. I hope that Craig comes back for the third because he may be the best Bond since Connery.

-Sorry for the short post. Lastly, people will enjoy many of the action sequences, especially my favorite part, the car chase in the beginning of the film.

A-
5 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Refreshing Version of 007 as Ian Flemming Intended
idavem28 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Viewed by contemporary standards, the original 007 films exhibited, among other attributes, a sense of the implausible. They were also sexist, while Bond was a caricature of the Fleming character. And each of the films was a lot of fun to watch.

In fact, even back in the day the 007 films were implausible, sexist, and a lot of fun to watch. I'm old enough to have seen those films when they were first released.

The 2006 version of Casino Royale was, if anything, an homage to the original literary vision of what was, in Fleming's mind, a no-nonsense Bond.

That's why Quantum of Solace is, for me, such an enjoyable film. James Bond is no longer a caricature. Instead, he's fleshed out, and is driven by psychological motivations - revenge, patriotism, upbringing. None of these motivations are clear-cut in meaning, either to 007 or to us.

In Casino Royale, in both the book and the film, Vesper was a cipher to Bond, and he ended up both falling in love with her as well as hating her, never quite sure if she'd saved him or betrayed him. And that carried over in Quantum of Solace.

In short, Bond - like Vesper - is human, even if the events around him are, in the classic mold of previous Bond films, still as improbable as ever.

The women are different, too. They are still beautiful, but they are also capable human beings (and M is a woman, now, and a mother figure for Bond).

Fields of course pays the ultimate penalty for immediately falling in love with - and making love to - a double 0. Yet she's not a weak character, and only seals her doom when she purposefully trips one of the chief villain's minions.

The love scene between Fields and Bond is, by both the standard of early Bond films and by today's films, chaste. It was a scene that perfectly communicated what Bond and Fields had just consummated, without showing us anything but the tender aftermath.

Camille, too, is as purposeful as Bond and is as capable as Bond at seeking and achieving revenge.

In the original films, the magnificent Sean Connery was sophisticated, and sure - not full - of himself. Unlike Flemming's creation, Connery was also quick with the quips, quite often of the double entendre variety. Daniel Craig is sophisticated, too (whatever his upbringing), is capable of the occasional quip, but exudes exponentially more confidence in himself than Connery or any of the other movie Bonds could muster.

If he's a spy, 007 is also part Terminator. Nothing keeps him from his appointed task. There could not be the slightest doubt, in the scene when he entered the elevator, handcuffed between two guards, of what about to happen to the guards.

Having read the Bond books, having seen the Bond films, I'll take this version of 007 over all the others. And that's why, for me, this film more than succeeded. Bond has become worth watching in equal measure as much as for who he is as for what he does.
4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Improved but could be better
luc-rolland-129 November 2008
James Bond movies are in a class by themselves. Among others, their flair comes from their incredible car races which usually keep you riveted to your seat. In this movie, the starting sequence shows you two Alfa Romeos almost dominating JB's Aston Martin and it would have been stunning if properly filmed.

The same criticism can be stated for action scenes which happen to be very fast but difficult to watch.

I really liked the complex scenario where we see the CIA about to strike a deal with the villain for desperate political control. If you know about the Middle East, you will see it true. This seems more realistic and closer to reality with almost Ludlumesque intensity where the hero is caught in a serious imbroglio where even his own government will not support mission completion (except the well played M of course).

This movies seems to be moving away from propaganda where the world is portrayed no longer as two sides where everyone is spread between the good and the bad. Now, this movie brings shades of grey which at last makes these movies closer to real espionage.

I am still not sure if I like Craig in James Bond or not. But, we can now appreciate a strong man who goes into a lot of fights.

But one can see some goofs here and there such as why there were so many hydrogen bottles in that building in the middle of the desert.

This movie could have been better, much better.
4 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed