Quantum of Solace

You'll find no plot synopsis here folks. Amazon has been goodly enough to handle that for us all.Was this film as good or as great as Casino Royale? NOW WAY. Was it a good addition to the new Bond mythology? HELL YES! This is a direct sequel to Casino Royale...literally. It starts right after the end sequence of the previous film, bypassing the usual Bond firing at the screen(though, settle down fan boys, you get it at the end--I know, I know, change make you scared...). Basically, the opening helps establish the previous films plot, or the fact that there was an even larger plot at work, one involving new Bond evil organization called Quantum, of course. New Bond virgins, ones who skipped Casino Royale, will find it fairly hard to catch up to speed on this film. They also won't feel the impact of how much Vespa's death in the previous film really effects his current mission. It's not impossible to figure it out, but not as satisfying. So see Casion Royale, and consider the opening act of this film the final moments of the first.When I said this film starts right after the last film ends, I really, REALY meant it. The opening logos fade and we're slammed right into the tail end of a car chase(apparently, Bond is being chased by some thugs working for the man he shot at the end of Royale). The opening chase is fast and brutal. You feel all the car hits and collisions. I'm really not a fan of this ultra-choppy editing style, similar to that seen in Michael Bay's atrocious Armageddon, but in this film it really works to solicit the right tone, feel, and impact that the action sequences strive for. On the action sequences, this one is loaded with them. There's an action sequence about every five to ten minutes, whether its a car chase, foot chase, fist fight, knife fight, or plane old-fashioned gun battles---oh and a boat chase to boot. I guess they forgot to include the ski chases from previous Bond adventures. What I will say about the action sequences is that they are short and sweet. This film doesn't make the mistake of so many recent action films of letting the action sequences run on too long. They show up and leave an impression before the audience has a chance to be bored, unlike the technically brilliant but totally dull freeway car chase from the bloated Matrix Reloaded. Action in modern films seem to spend waaaaay tooooo much time in the set pieces. They feel inconsequential to the actual plot or character. They are just there to show off effects and stunts and things blowed up real good. It gets really boring. This film, by its main character's nature, every violent act holds weight while also being exciting.Of course, we have the new Bond, who is in my opinion the best Bond of all time. Of course, his films have better writing and no one will ever forget Connery's iconographic portrayal, but as far as a dramatically engaging Bond, Craig has got them all beat. His basic struggle in this film is the transition of a brutish, but charming thug who needs to put aside his personal feelings(revenge for the death of Vespa in Casino) and just get his job done effeiciently with less ending up dead. Bond goes back and forth. He seems indifferent, at first, to the deaths he performs, but you can see in Craig's eyes that it's taking a toll on his psyche. It's not in the dialogue, it's in his face and his movements. Whoa, an actual film that shows us things rather than having lengthy speeches and convoluted expositional dialogue about it. Now I know American audiences like to have everything spoon fed to them, especially when it comes to action spectacles like this, but if more movies would take this route films could become great again. The new Batmans and Watchmen are also helping in leading this charge.Also, a great addition to the new Bond series, started in Casino Royale, is the relationship between Bond and M. Their relationship comes off on the surface as combative, but with actors like Dench and Craig in the roles, we get hints of a deeper respect. A hint of two professionals getting to know each other grooves, constantly testing each others' merits. Awesome stuff. M and Bond never electrified together in scenes in any of the previous Bond pictures. It's smart writing and even better acting.The film does have some weak spots that keep it from a solid 5 stars. Firstly, the villain is more slimey than imposing, but the realistic world this Bond takes place in doesn't really have room for any Blofelds, at least not in the skin previous Bonds portrayed him in. The final action set piece is slightly lackluster. Emotionally it's a power house for our new Bond girl and for Bond himself but the pyrotechnics don't overshadow the ones seen in previous action scenes. The new Bond girl doesn't leave as much as an impression as the Eva Green in the first film. She's good but her story and relationship with Bond doesn't plunge the same depths. Though, the couple share an interesting exchange before they say goodbye. The editing style, like I mentioned, is choppy and fast,so some might find it disorientating. I find it works for once, but others might still be turned off by it. The film also doesn't breath as much as I felt it should. It jumps from one place and one action sequence in fast succession. I felt a couple more quiet moments would've been welcome. But that's about it.This is Bond by way of Jason Bourne, but Bond is and always will be a more interesting character. I'm just talking about the Bourne films, not the novels. So settle down. Like the new Batmans this film goes for realism, while still being absolutely silly and unbelievable.The villains main plot has to do with ecological terrorism, and GASPS, the enviroment. So, those who pull their political leanings into everything will hate the film and accuse it of the further brain-washing that Hollywood pushes on us common folk. Brain-washing, that apparently, have no effect on them, and only them. Ugh! Enviormental issues are topical now, just like they were way back in the early 90's. A film trying to plant itself in the modern times would be ignorant to not use it. There are gadgets in the film, despite what fan-boys say, but they are smaller and truncated to be more believable. They're not gloated on or masturbated to, and they rarely help Bond in ultra-convenient moments. Still no Q. Get over it. He may or may not show up in this new series of films. Besides the film's plot has no room for an action/plot stopping Q sequence. The humor is dry and dark. If you like it broader check out all of Roger Moore's cannon as well as the last two Brosnan Bond films, they're loaded with broad humor and puns. It must be comforting to know that if you hate the new Bond, you have 20 other old Bonds to satisfy you.People who don't like the new Bond go on and on about how the filmmakers don't seem to know why people like or go to Bond films. Really? Bond like many other comic book-like characters go through changes. Bond books were much different than most of the films, maybe with small exceptions on the two Dalton films. These movies not only modernize and make Bond relevant again, they hue close to the Ian Flemming books. This is a good thing. Though, I warn readers of Flemming that this film has nothing to do with the actual short story Quantum of Solace. How could it? That was a very short story that consisted of a Bond inner monalogue while he was by himself. I guess they just thought the title sounded good, and the name of the villain organization would be nifty if they called it Quantum? Dunno, don't really care.Finally, if you can't handle brutal violence taking the PG-13 rating to the edge, then skip this. There's many cartoons and other older Bond films with inconsequential violence and silly inventions. Take your pick. If gadgets, one-liners on the cheesy and sexually charged innuendo side, silly Bond girl names, Q comedy sequences, globe trotting for the sake of new foreign location to put the tired action, lack of danger, volcanic hide-outs, and a story that you can't really get dramatically involved in outside the action sequences are the only things that you judge a Bond film on, then please move on and let the rest of us enjoy the innovation, oh, and the scary changes.PS: The new Bond theme song isn't as good as previous films. It's better then some, but not as good as Casion Royale, but on the whole it fits the tone of the new film. The first direct Bond sequel.LATER

Daniel Craig is a great Bond. A lot of action in his movies as Bond.

I'll be brutally honest here. The first time I saw this movie, I thought it was the worst Bond film I had ever seen. I came away from it thinking I had watched the end of one of my favorite action heroes, that this was it, the directors and the writers had moved so far away from the old films that there was no hope of reconciling Sean Connery's Bond with the Bond of Daniel Craig. The character had moved on, and I was going to miss the old Bond.I hadn't liked Casino Royale the first time I saw it either. Bond became a kind of John McClane, an American action hero, rather than a British one. It was a move in the wrong direction, I was sure.Then I saw Skyfall. Again, not my favorite Bond film by any stretch of the imagination, but what that film did is it put Casino and Quantum in perspective for me. These are origin films. With each film, you can see Daniel Craig nudging towards his own version of what has come before. This film is also the third act of Casino Royale - as a stand-alone film, it is terrible, in terms of the direction and editing. The villain is a further disappointment - Greene is the weakest villain in the series. But Greene is not the villain in this film - the villain is Quantum. And Quantum is no joke.I am not going to try to compare Quantum to SPECTRE in terms of which one is better. SPECTRE operated in the Cold War, Quantum operates in a different world. Both had fingers in many different pies. If memory serves, however, SPECTRE never got so close to eliminating the head of MI6, or to making as much a joke out of it, as Quantum.The storyline in Quantum is excellent. It is difficult to follow due to some poor editing/directing choices (the montage fight sequences at the beginning and middle of the film distract from what is happening, making a disjointed sequence). The dialogue in between is either hurried or overly melodramatic (the writing itself was good...this was largely a film that was great in principle, but poor in execution). A lot of the poor execution has to do with Casino's flaws - Casino's last half hour should have been the first half hour of this one. And for coherency's sake, the same director team should have been brought on board. But once it all clicks into place, it is a solid story. The fact that it took several viewings for everything to click is a testament to poor direction more than poor writing.Quantum is jam-packed with brilliant ideas. It is so jam-packed with brilliant ideas that a lot gets missed due to a relatively short running time and action sequences that take the attention away from what actually makes the movie work: A good plot, if not terrifically paced; a sense that MI6 has been directly threatened; tie-ins to Casino Royale and resolution of some of the loose ends; some great dialogue; insight into what drives the characters (the Bond girl is not just eye candy this time - she has a history, and she's not a villain); a decent Bond girl; a great death scene which nods to one of the old Bond films; a great way of killing off a villain (indirect but vicious); and a great setup of the dynamic between Bond and MI6 that carries on from Casino Royale and continues in Skyfall. But mostly, the development of the Bond character.This is a Bond film that unlike most of its predecessors is about Bond. In the films leading up to the reboot, Bond is a device. He is a smarmy, self-possessed agent with a detached sense of humor that goes along with his personality and the ability to pull off some showy stunts. He also has a huge amount of luck on his side. Craig's Bond is still rough around the edges, lacks that humor, but definitely has a lot of the smarm and the stunts working in his favor. Here, we start to see Bond grow into the role that we already know from the first 20 films. I'm not suggesting that Daniel Craig will become Sean Connery at some point, but that he will become a Bond we recognize, but will remain uniquely his. It may take two films after Skyfall to accomplish it. I, for one, will sit back and enjoy the ride.

Not sure what’s going on with this movie and is the least watched in my 007 Collection. Only gets 3 stars on the basis it is Bond. If it wasn’t a Bond movie, it would probably score just 2. Thankfully after this, the high quality was restored.The Blu Ray itself is of a high standard both in picture and sound. If you’re a fan of the movie then you can’t go wrong as the presentation and menus are top notch as you’d come to expect.

I have been a 007 fan ever since the days of Dr. No. However, this was very disappointing for many reasons. The main baddy was unconvincing, the plot difficult to follow, the action scenes far too quick to appreciate, the script not very sharp, and I felt that I had seen it all before, but done much better. Daniel Craig is an acceptable Bond, but lacks the wry humour and wit of Roger Moore and Sean Connery. Perhaps I have been rather generous in awarding it three stars. Two stars would be more appropriate.

Great film

I have always been in love with all the different Bonds over the years, but Daniel Craig is absolut my favorite.The plots are always the same; beautiful women, bad guys, good guys and a lot of action.

Nothing wrong with the DVD but simply the worst of the 4 Danial Craig Bond films Disjointed story does not flow not very good