Quantum Of Solace Review

Published 6 years ago by

The supporting cast all fit nicely into their respective roles. Mathieu Amalric delivers one of the best performances of a Bond villain in years. While the part may not be as iconic as Blofeld or Goldfinger because he has no “gimmick,” the actor does make Mr Greene real. The Bond girls Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton do admirable jobs, but their roles are merely window dressing. At least the filmmakers have realized that Bond doesn’t need a female partner a la Halle Berry. Having said that it would seem that Bond sees action everywhere but the bedroom. If he’s not careful Craig’s Bond could become as monastic as Timothy Dalton’s “new man” of the 1980′s -  and we all know how… ahem… wooden he was.

Judi Dench’s M is much improved this time around and her relationship with Bond does show growth, but I still feel that if they were rebooting the franchise they should have dropped her too. Bond needs a father figure, not mothering. His relationship with Felix Lieter (Jeffrey Wright) is also warming up too and Leiter’s character is more than Bond’s one dimensional American buddy for the first time in years.

While there is much to praise about the Quantum of Solace I do have a few niggles. It wouldn’t hurt to have more of that theme music in there and why switch the gun barrel opening to the end of the film? Also, if at some point they are going to have to reintroduce Q and Moneypenny – why keep holding it off? After all Moneypenny is only a secretary and Q is a piece of walking plot exposition. I’m sure Haggis, Purvis and Wade can fit them in without too much trouble.

Quantum of Solace is Bond at his best. Thrilling and entertaining, this new outing highlights yet again why this franchise has been around for over 45 years. While many will try and highlight the Bourne-ification of James Bond they seem to forget that this is the cold blooded killer created by Ian Fleming in the 1950s. Bond isn’t aping Bourne – it’s the other way around. While the action may be more visceral and frenetic it is still pure Bond.

Quantum of Solace puts Bond back on top. I really can’t wait for James Bond to return…

Our Rating:

4 out of 5
(Excellent)

« 1 2

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:

63 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. if you haven’t seen the movie… then don’t! QoS is a failure! lame action, questionable plots, lack of cool gadgets, too much drama, and most of all, its a 45 minute 1-act play dragged, stretched and cursed into a 2 hour film. i love bond films that why i felt cheated. why, bond, why?!

  2. Well, I’m on vacation in Hong Kong, and QOS came out on the 6th, so I got to see it before you guys in the USA, lol.

    Well, I’ll have to say that Casino Royale was definitely much better. QOS was pretty good, the action was pretty intense, but overall, CR had better story telling and more realistic action in my opinion. But this was definitely a blast to watch. So check it out when it comes out. It start right into the action, so make sure you don’t get to the theater late. :-)

  3. See now here’s the problem with letting people other than me review movies for Screen Rant: I would have given this a MUCH lower score. I despised the hyper-quick-cut edits.

    The action sequences actually made me angry because I *wanted* to be able to see what was happening but simply could not take in the “big picture” due to the uber-close ups and camera angle change (literally) every half second.

    I was actually RELIEVED when there was no action on the screen. I also didn’t think too much of the overall plot – the more I think about it the more I think it was very basic and too thin to carry the film.

    My review would have been very different indeed – I’m debating whether I should bother writing one. Don’t want to confuse people with two reviews of the same film on the site.

    Vic

  4. Vic,
    You could always call it
    Quantum of Solace My Take.

  5. Yah, Marc Forster had said he doesn’t want to do another Bond film. I think if they can’t think of another good director, they should go back to Martin Campbell who did Casino Royale. He has proven himself with Bond twice. I liked Goldeneye and Casino Royale, both by Martin Campbell.

  6. Do It Vic. Just distinguish it. “QOS another view” explain up front why you believe it needs a RE-Viewing= a reevaluated review. Take the time to research the points you want to make both historically speaking in the BOND genre and the current artistic choices. Passing fad? New concept that hasn’t found its proper living space, etc. I want it, that’s what your page is about the civil discussion of the differing points of view for this genre of Cinema!

  7. Nice review. I disagree with you about M, on large part because i just love Judi Dench, but also because I think she evens out the masculine-saturated aroma Bond emits.

  8. Vic, what you already wrote is the crux of my problem with the movie. That, and they didn’t attach the Watchmen trailer.

    I don’t know how a butt-ugly actor can play the role of the debonair 007. He could replace Mark Wahlberg in a remake sequel of Planet of the Apes–with no cosmetics. It’s like Teabag in Prison Break being sold as a lady’s man. The best part of a Bond movie, if nothing else works, is the animated title sequence–and the theme song playing (not subliminally playing) now and then.

    What’s with the obligatory roof chase and the falling/glass/rope scene (both in the tv commercials)? I could not get a fix on what was happening?

    Not shaken, not stirred from Not Bond, Not James Bond.

  9. Best movie of the year and every part of the movie has exciting

  10. SPOILER

    Shooting the tank to blow out of the burning building was almost as ridiculous as the time everyone spent in the building that was aflame.

    Watching this movie, I felt like I was swinging upside down with a rope around my foot, hopelessly grasping for an enjoyable scene.

    Without taking the time to look it up, I wonder where I’ve seen the bug-eyed guy before. Was he Toad in X-Men? Was he the psycho guy who lived behind the wall panels from Voyager?

  11. 1: Moore
    2: Connery
    3: Craig
    4: Brosnan
    5: Niven +
    6: Lazenby
    7: Dalton

  12. Great article, Mr. Browne.

    I wrote a review of the movie and I think my viewpoint is indicative of my generation, so it might give you some perspective. I only gave it two out of five. (sorry)

    Anyway, if you can check it out, that’d be amazing.

  13. Unintelligible rush-cut scenes. Not a charming bond movie at all. Where is Jaws and Moore’s self-ironic eyebrow sense of humour. And the raunchiness!??

  14. Are you drunk?!
    Even better, were you drunk when you watched it? ‘Cause I’ve got to tell you, it wasn’t you shaking in the chair, it was the damn camera! I mean, what’s wrong with that director?! You can’t even see the action sceness… ooh and the chases, soooo many boring chases, at one point I was hoping for the bad guys to kill Bond and end my misery.

  15. Chase scenes are used to fill in space. The thing about chase scenes is that you don’t really need to come up with a reason for it, and you can make them as long as you need to get your film to its target length. Notice QOS was the shortest Bond film. If it didn’t have those chases, it would have been even shorter. Not enough content.

  16. well children, and i say that in the nicest possible way, i have to say that i starteed off with BOND in 1959 and with CASINO ROYALE, that was the first bond book i read, n i was hooked on the character, the gambling scenes in the books made my day from then on, well some of u may not know this but the most recent CASINO ROYALE film is the 3rd time that it has been dramatised, and and i m still disappointed in as a bond movie, if craig had been called smithy instead of bond i would of enjoyed it as a good yarn, but i dont see him as bond, and i as a bond fan , well i have to go and see 1 when they bring one out, sometimes i m disappointed, no big deal. SOLACE did nothing for me, and as for rating the players ,

    i got

    1. connery
    2. brosnan
    3. moore
    in that order
    and as fopr the bond girls
    well after USHI only one more came close to compete as an equal n both had the same scene HALLE
    i can name the other bond girls if i think about it, but these 2 i dont have to think to remember them!!

  17. All I have to say is… the parachute scene= dead bond…. honestly… and “Walking” out of a three story pile of rubble! at least climb down it…

  18. that is way off base, it does not hold true to typical bond movies. if you want an action film with a rushed storyline OR better yet one that is severely lacking then go watch a “Bourne” flick…
    when i “Step” into the world of James Bond i EXPECT cool gadgets and gizmos, pretty half nakked girls, cool cars and a
    shoot from the hip wittyness, NOT some crap about your run of the mill guy who sets out to…. im still trying to figure that out, revenge/duty/redemption/failure? anyways bond is and will ALWAYS be a secret agent that is cool under pressure has all the toys and a cold and calculating ladies man and killer and this hack of a film wont change that. yes it made money but for those who truly love films it was a failure on SOOOO many levels hated it so much that i had to call in 3 friends to give it the thumbs down it deserved… dont change a formula that has worked for years and that people have grown to love is the moral of this story.

  19. Unintelligible rush-cut scenes. Not a charming bond movie at all. Where is Jaws and Moore’s self-ironic eyebrow sense of humour. And the raunchiness!??

  20. Nice to see that someone else enjoyed this movie just as much as I did. I didn not think it was as good Casino Royale but I thought it did a GREAT job of picking up where the other one left off. I do agree that some of the stunts were pretty ridiculous, but I really enjoyed the continuiung story, Daniel Craigg’s portrayal of a conflicted James Bond, the story, and teh fact that they had the same sinister organization from the last film in this one. I thought that this movie delivered all that need to be delivered

  21. I just hope they get a good action movie director in for the next one so we don’t have someone trying to overcompensate for a lack of action movie experience by putting in an action scene every two minutes… I think this is one of the few times where the action just got old because you saw it so often and almost all of it was some kind of chase, whether by foot or by car, or by plane…

  22. To S the baddiew in the hotel room fight died from exsangiunation (bled out) not too hard when you get stabbed in the neck the hand the forearm and the femoral artery, you can see him stab him in the inner thigh with those manicure scissors and that giant pool of blood under him would be more than enough to make you pass out, Short story i was almost mugged and carjacked but the guy got a few puncture wounds with a bic pen, in the forearm and just under the clavical the cops found him 3 blocks away passed out from blood loss, i hit the radial artery so yeah a sharp pair of scissors is more than enough, I LOVED the sound of him getting brained with that laptop PRICELESS!!

  23. Casino Royale was a very good movie, but not really a James Bond movie. Even compared to the less gadgetry filled world of Dr. No, Craig looses a vital part of the Bond mystique, which I think there is wide agreement here.

    I mention Casino Royale, because when we see Craig and crew in a bad movie, it becomes really clear this is not James Bond but rather Jason Bourne movie. In fact, you could replace Bond with Bourne and I don’t think anyone would notice. Bond movies are supposed to have *grand* stunts, not just car chases and roof chases with falling tiles. Bond movies are supposed to have state of the art chases. Didn’t James Bond sort of invent – or at least bring to western consciousness – the jet ski and other extreme sports? And what about the famous tech gadgets? James Bond is basically defined by introducing the world to the spy camera, the GPS tracking device (OK, just radio controlled), and wrist watch lasers. But apparently now the Bond movies are content with providing ridiculous web content on wall sized glass screens.

    Connery’s best movie he says is ‘From Russia With Love’ – because it has both romance and action in it. That is why I thought Casino Royale was a good movie – it also was an action movie that turned on characters. But Quantum really didn’t add any character development that the other movie had. At the end, Bond becomes bitter – but he was bitter at the end of Casino Royale as well.

    The Bond franchise was ruined by it’s own success. As Rodger Moore grew older and older, the franchise sort of grew old and lazy along with him.
    The Timothy Dalton movies were supposed to create a new, grimmer Bond more like the original, without the fancy villains and gadgets. That failed. Sound familiar?