There was a rather negative review in The Express, but the complaints seemed to be based around the lack of humour and ongoing ommission of Q and Moneypenny. Geez, I wish some of these guys could just let it go. We are witnessing the genesis of a different Bond and personally I am loving it. Can't wait to see this one.
This looks to be the first American review, from the CNN website. It's a fairly good review, though, like others, it says that QoS simply isn't as good as CR and it uses the dreaded "B-word" (that's Bourne):
Daniel Craig Shakes and Stirs as Bond
By CNN's Glen Scanlon
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Phwoar. You can just about hear the collective exhale from the women in the audience when Daniel Craig turns and smolders at the screen for the first time in the latest Bond movie "Quantum of Solace."
Craig's Bond is not keen on the cheesey comic turns of Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan's smarmy charm. He's a cool killing machine wrapped in a perfectly fitting, crisp suit. He is, frankly, sex on a stick.
Following further in the footsteps of the highly energetic and wildly popular Bourne series, director Marc Foster has upped the ante with a series of bone-shaking stunts.
Craig's Bond is constantly bleeding, always bruised. It's a neat way of externalizing his battered emotional state following the death of girlfriend Vesper Lynd at the end of "Casino Royale."
Bond wants revenge but also needs to balance his loyalty to Queen and country, represented here yet again by the tough motherly figure of Judi Dench's M.
"Quantum of Solace" starts off with a full throttle chase and the foot is only lifted from the pedal for the briefest of moments during the film.
Bond has grabbed Mr White (Jesper Christensen), the shadowy figure from the end of "Casino Royale" who is connected to Lynd's betrayal and death.
It's a pity more isn't seen of Mr White, a figure reminiscent of the menacing, chain-smoking "Cancer Man" from the "X-Files" series.
However, he is bound to reappear in future Bond films. This is a point which marks the current films out -- it is the first time the the plot line from an earlier episode has seriously been continued and looks set to keep running. It is a definite strength.
Mr White escapes, but Bond -- quickly piling up the bodies with a ruthlessness that leaves M exasperated -- stumbles on to Dominic Green, played by French star Mathieu Amalric.
Green is part of a mysterious organization called Quantum, who are hellbent on world domination of a type through the destabilization of third-world countries and the annexing of their natural resources.
While Green is the film's main villain, there are a lot of them including a dodgy Bolivian general (Joaquín Cosio) -- a very traditional, too cliched Bond baddie -- who dreams of dictatorship.
He is the link to Bond's prime female helping hand -- Olga Kurylenko's striking Camille, who is also intent on revenge.
Bond fights his way through Italy, Haiti, Austria and Bolivia. There are some incredible scenes, including a head-spinning moment in a plane. It's raw, exhilarating and quite tiring stuff.
Perhaps the best moment is in Austria, when at the opera, Bond coolly breaks into a secret conversation of Quantum's members. It's beautifully shot and more deft than some of the film's racier moments.
There is strikingly little dialogue in the film, which does harm the development of the characters. Bond's brief fling with Gemma Arterton's agent Field is shallow even by the franchise's typically low standards.
Still, this is part of what Bond films have always been about.
While not as engaging as "Casino Royale," Craig's captivating physical presence and the all out action will have most fans already looking forward to the next installment.
There is strikingly little dialogue in the film, which does harm the development of the characters. Bond's brief fling with Gemma Arterton's agent Field is shallow even by the franchise's typically low standards.
Still, this is part of what Bond films have always been about.
While not as engaging as "Casino Royale," Craig's captivating physical presence and the all out action will have most fans already looking forward to the next installment.[/i]
This review, from a fairly trustworthy source like CNN, does seem to confirm some of my concerns with QoS, which I've stated in another thread. It looks like the Bond crew has again fallen into the pattern of a second film in an actor's tenure that is weaker than the debut (FRWL would be the only exception, in my mind). CR felt special because of the high calibre of its writing (showcased in sparkling dialogue like the one between Bond and Vesper on the train), and because it had casino scenes that were classy and suspenseful, provided a nice change of pace after the frenetic action of the first act, and elevated the film above most other espionage/action thrillers (all the Bourne films included). Now, the producers seem to have dropped the ball in not utilizing the best asset in their possession (no, not DC; I'm talking about Haggis) to the fullest. Why would they hire a screenwriter of his calibre and not push him to produce a character-driven screenplay filled with crackling dialogue? Or does the blame rest with Haggis himself? After the sterling effort he put forth in CR, maybe he's resting on his laurels a little in QoS? Perhaps without the inspiration and framework provided by Fleming's original story, Haggis is left floundering a little (after all, spy films are not really his forte; I think he is much more at ease writing dramas like Million Dollar Baby and Letters from Iwo Jima). (BTW, it may not be a bad idea to do more faithful adaptations of other Fleming novels on the screen. After all, if the producers had the guts to do a reboot with a faithful CR adaptation, they might as well fully commit themselves and go all the way in that direction. Just a thought).
Anyway, I'll go see the film with my mind as open as possible, hoping that I may still be pleasantly surprised. After all, it was unrealistic to expect the very high standards of CR to be maintained, so without comparing QoS to its predecessor, I may still find it a worthwhile entry in its own right.
Ah, media bias is an interesting phenomemon! Here are two headlines from major British media outlets, both concerned with the reviews that followed the QoS press screening:
Why didn't you write a review of CR, Tee Hee...did you like it or not..?..I assume not...DC not to your liking...no problem...your time will come again...
I hope so, but I have my doubts. Audiences around the globe have responded enthusiastically to the new direction the series has taken; the producers would be fools not to give them more of the same. A return to the traditions of old (i.e. gadgets) does not seem likely any time soon.
Just give it 4 more films, then you may see a change in direction that pleases you. Brosnan was a good Bond...not my Bond...but good none-the-less...I didn't enthuse about his Bond films..I enjoyed them...some more than others...I'm not a big 'gadget-fan'...or I should say...gadgets for the sake of gadgets...one of the best lines in the series is from OHMSS : "This time I've got the gadgets, Q. And I know how to use them" )
Don't worry Tyler, that's actually a positive. Christopher Tookey is one of the biggest jokes on the UK film criticism scene. You should see the list of turkeys he's given great reviews for!
Christopher Tookey is indeed a monumental dick, but what worries me is that this is a guy who has given four star reviews to every Bond film since GE, no matter how mediocre they might have been, and given that all of Brosnan's films were mediocre, how bad must he have found QoS? Still, Peter Bradshaw is generally on the mark so I have a feeling that I'll be agreeing with him more than Tookey.
The fact that QOS is getting mixed reviews, is making me very happy! - it'll probably mean that i'll like it! (given the fact that i've never agreed with a critic, in the whole of my cinema-going life!!).
I love the fact that CR fans seem to be disliking this film, or think it not as good - given the fact that I thought that CR was even more pretentious, and bloated, than even the awful GE and TWINE were.
A 106mins, actioner, would be right up my street!,
the films have had a huge lack of just getting the hell on with it - for years!!.
The films have got bogged down with a number of problems, from the "Shark-Jumping" AVTAK, onwards - such as tone, pace etc.,
hopefully Forster can keep things bubbling-along, in the films slower moments - something that they have largely failed miserably at, for a long while.
Too often - like in Campbell and Apted's case (and Glen, on a bad day!) - the films have been far too static, in the dialogue, or "quieter" scenes, interspersed with action, which then seemed out of place - because of how poorly paced the 1st Unit stuff was,
from DN - OP, the films seemed not to suffer from this problem.
I haven't liked a Bond-Film, coming out of seeing it for the first time, since LTK,
and the "soul" of the series, has largely been missing since OP (for want of a better expression, to explain a certain indescribable essence, which has somehow been missing from the series since then?),
I think it must be the pretentions, seriousness, problems in tone and pace, have somehow drained some element from the proceedings.
I PRAY for a return to form for the series, from the current director.
I love the fact that CR fans seem to be disliking this film, or think it not as good - given the fact that I thought that CR was even more pretentious, and bloated, than even the awful GE and TWINE were.
A 106mins, actioner, would be right up my street!,
the films have had a huge lack of just getting the hell on with it - for years!!.
-{ -{ -{ A hearty welcome to our new member Danny-Boy!
Don't worry Tyler, that's actually a positive. Christopher Tookey is one of the biggest jokes on the UK film criticism scene. You should see the list of turkeys he's given great reviews for!
I second this! I can never wait to see any film Tookey gives 1 star to. It usualy means its great. If memory serves he gave one of the Bourne films 2 stars and Terminator 3: Rise of the machines 4!!!!! I kid you not.
Subbed the review for The Big Issue, he sort of likes it but says it's 'like an over-extended epilogue to Casino Royale rather than a stand-alone adventure', also short on humour. Three out of five.
I PRAY for a return to form for the series, from the current director.
You'll be dissapointed. The gunbarrel is at the end of the film and the Bond theme has been surpressed until then also.
OUCH!
That really feels like suppressing the "Bondisms", and completely needlessly, in their particular case,
it's like they're embarrased to admit that it's a "Bond-Film" - that's bad! X-(,
leaving out of the odd film, the asking for a Martini, or even the "Bond, James Bond" line, and I can get over that,
but what now looks to be the continual messing around with the gunbarrel, and lack of the Bond theme, is an ENTIRELY different matter! X-( - they're a hallmark of the series, and get the audience going.
I love the fact that CR fans seem to be disliking this film, or think it not as good - given the fact that I thought that CR was even more pretentious, and bloated, than even the awful GE and TWINE were.
A 106mins, actioner, would be right up my street!,
the films have had a huge lack of just getting the hell on with it - for years!!.
-{ -{ -{ A hearty welcome to our new member Danny-Boy!
Another three out of five for MSN review. Don't read it, some spoilers you don't need. They say it's a bit of a downer and again, so few jokes. Not a prob though for us Bond fans who like it a bit more serious.
"Italy where Bond is quarry in a quarry. This sequence is breathtakingly economical and Bond ends it in cheer-inducing fashion. Bond then enters glorious Sienna, Italy and delivers a vital piece of intelligence."
And I didn't even know sienna Miller was in QoS!
:v
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I've been waiting for somebody to go there...congratulations, Number24 {[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Here's a review I came across this morning, from a site called Megastar. The site doesn't seem to allow cutting-and-pasting (I tried--Lord, how I tried!), so you'll have to click the link. Long story short: four out of five stars.
Also, QoS now has a "Tomatometer" at RottenTomatoes. Only 12 reviews at the moment, 10 "fresh" and two "rotten." So far, the consensus seems to be that QoS simply isn't as good as CR but still entertaining in its own right, and Craig is terrific.
So far, the consensus seems to be that QoS simply isn't as good as CR but still entertaining in its own right, and Craig is terrific.
And that consensus is fine with me! One can't expect it to be better than a remarkable film like Casino Royale...
But as long as it's a good, smart, thrilling film, which still holds the integrity of the Craig era and doesn't cop out, I'll be a big fan. I don't care if it's a shorter movie. Short can be better. Bond is back, and still strong, as far as I can see.
i watched it last night and really wanted to like it but it does have problems...the quasi serious motivation talky scenes dont mesh with the frantic action scenes at all...crank meets the notebook...leaving craigs bond a laboured soul searching thug no more flemings bond than old roger was...
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited October 2008
Some reviews talk about how exposition is given short shrift...this is going to be one of those pictures where there'll be a view for every viewer
hmm...think I'll reserve judgment
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Stuart McKirk in The London Paper gives it 3 out of 5. Says it's an odd beast, a dog that miaows. Usual complaints of it being more like Bourne than Bond, no gadgets (so what) and ends a bit muted. Mentions a very good action scene though. And Craig's Bond is too much of a b@stard...
So far, the consensus seems to be that QoS simply isn't as good as CR but still entertaining in its own right, and Craig is terrific.
And that consensus is fine with me! One can't expect it to be better than a remarkable film like Casino Royale...
But as long as it's a good, smart, thrilling film, which still holds the integrity of the Craig era and doesn't cop out, I'll be a big fan. I don't care if it's a shorter movie. Short can be better. Bond is back, and still strong, as far as I can see.
I love Casino Royale. The film was far from perfection. It isn't hard to make a better film then it.
Another "the-film-is-less-than-CR-but-Craig-is-great" review from The Scotsman:
Film review: Quantum of Solace
Date: 26 October 2008
By SIOBHAN SYNNOT
(12A)
Director: Marc Forster
Running time: 95 minutes
***
NATURALLY muscular, whereas the average Hollywood blockbuster is on human growth hormones, Bond (Daniel Craig) is back this week and thirsting to avenge the death of Vesper Lynd in the previous film. Quantum Of Solace picks up an hour after the end oADVERTISEMENTf Casino Royale and many shots are fired and many more things blow up when he uncovers a link between the woman he loved and a Spectre-ish cartel of shady businessmen who call themselves the Quantum, which sounds like the kind of dynamically empty corporate brand name the men choose for themselves in the opening episode of every series of The Apprentice.
Quantum's leader is the shark-eyed Mr Greene (Mathieu Almaric) who hides his nefarious plans behind an eco-friendly business conglomerate and has a sidekick who enjoys opera and has a pudding bowl haircut.
Don't henchman have time to look in the mirror? There's no time to fret about this in the terse, swift Quantum Of Solace. Bond barely has time for his usual kiss kiss alongside the bang bang. Instead there's some cross-gender Bonding with Camille (Olga Kurylenko), a pillow-lipped Bolivian on a revenge mission of her own, and a strengthening of the ties between Bond and M (Dame Judi Dench), the only woman who truly understands him, at least until she gets so cross that she takes away his credit card and deprives him of his licence to spend.
Quantum Of Solace isn't as astonishing as Casino Royale, which had an immediacy that took your breath away, although the pacing and the fighting are still as relentless as the Bourne pictures that provide a template for this rebooted 007. Yet unlike Casino Royale, the storytelling feels fractured and the character development has been muffled. The choppy style appears to be the result of some ferocious editing which has left subplots and payoffs on the cutting room floor. One minor instance is Gemma Arterton's Agent Fields, who refuses to tell Bond her first name. Thanks to a big pair of movie shears, you now have to wait until the credit roll to find out that it is Strawberry.
It is inevitable that Quantum has also yielded some of its ability to surprise us. Two years ago, we had a bit of squeak over Casino Royale's nod to Dr No, with Daniel Craig wading out of the ocean like a genetically-modified Ursula Andress. This time, when one of the Bond Girls comes to a sticky end in a way that pays tribute to Goldfinger, the scene feels like furniture.
Yet even in a flawed sequel like Quantum, we can all feel like we're getting what we want from Craig's 007, unless what you desire is Daniel Craig grinning. He may crack noses and ribs, but never a smile. A lot has been made of Craig's body since he revealed a set of turtle-shell abs in Casino Royale, but in Quantum Of Solace the camera allows itself to linger on what's above the neck. With his aqua eyes, jug ears and a rough, rocky countenance, Craig has a face only a parole officer could love but he may yet make parole officers of us all. After two movies' worth of running, jumping, and some electrifying hand-to-hand combat, Craig is the series' most physically skilled Bond – although I'd like to see him in a comedy soon, if only to confirm that he still has all his teeth.
Here he moves with feral elegance and allows a growing awareness of his work's lethal consequences for the innocent as well as the guilty to flicker briefly across that stony face.
Maybe Bond is still an action figure whose default setting is beating up bad guys, pulling out a gun and running across roofs. But if boys have to be boys, it's a huge relief to know the new Bond age is confident enough to keep them conflicted about it.
I kind of wonder if this reviewer saw an early print--95 minutes is about 10 minutes less than other reviews have indicated. Oh, well.
Comments
Here a couple more reviews:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/film/movie_reviews/article1730883.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/10/18/bfquantum118.xml
Daniel Craig Shakes and Stirs as Bond
By CNN's Glen Scanlon
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Phwoar. You can just about hear the collective exhale from the women in the audience when Daniel Craig turns and smolders at the screen for the first time in the latest Bond movie "Quantum of Solace."
Craig's Bond is not keen on the cheesey comic turns of Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan's smarmy charm. He's a cool killing machine wrapped in a perfectly fitting, crisp suit. He is, frankly, sex on a stick.
Following further in the footsteps of the highly energetic and wildly popular Bourne series, director Marc Foster has upped the ante with a series of bone-shaking stunts.
Craig's Bond is constantly bleeding, always bruised. It's a neat way of externalizing his battered emotional state following the death of girlfriend Vesper Lynd at the end of "Casino Royale."
Bond wants revenge but also needs to balance his loyalty to Queen and country, represented here yet again by the tough motherly figure of Judi Dench's M.
"Quantum of Solace" starts off with a full throttle chase and the foot is only lifted from the pedal for the briefest of moments during the film.
Bond has grabbed Mr White (Jesper Christensen), the shadowy figure from the end of "Casino Royale" who is connected to Lynd's betrayal and death.
It's a pity more isn't seen of Mr White, a figure reminiscent of the menacing, chain-smoking "Cancer Man" from the "X-Files" series.
However, he is bound to reappear in future Bond films. This is a point which marks the current films out -- it is the first time the the plot line from an earlier episode has seriously been continued and looks set to keep running. It is a definite strength.
Mr White escapes, but Bond -- quickly piling up the bodies with a ruthlessness that leaves M exasperated -- stumbles on to Dominic Green, played by French star Mathieu Amalric.
Green is part of a mysterious organization called Quantum, who are hellbent on world domination of a type through the destabilization of third-world countries and the annexing of their natural resources.
While Green is the film's main villain, there are a lot of them including a dodgy Bolivian general (Joaquín Cosio) -- a very traditional, too cliched Bond baddie -- who dreams of dictatorship.
He is the link to Bond's prime female helping hand -- Olga Kurylenko's striking Camille, who is also intent on revenge.
Bond fights his way through Italy, Haiti, Austria and Bolivia. There are some incredible scenes, including a head-spinning moment in a plane. It's raw, exhilarating and quite tiring stuff.
Perhaps the best moment is in Austria, when at the opera, Bond coolly breaks into a secret conversation of Quantum's members. It's beautifully shot and more deft than some of the film's racier moments.
There is strikingly little dialogue in the film, which does harm the development of the characters. Bond's brief fling with Gemma Arterton's agent Field is shallow even by the franchise's typically low standards.
Still, this is part of what Bond films have always been about.
While not as engaging as "Casino Royale," Craig's captivating physical presence and the all out action will have most fans already looking forward to the next installment.
This review, from a fairly trustworthy source like CNN, does seem to confirm some of my concerns with QoS, which I've stated in another thread. It looks like the Bond crew has again fallen into the pattern of a second film in an actor's tenure that is weaker than the debut (FRWL would be the only exception, in my mind). CR felt special because of the high calibre of its writing (showcased in sparkling dialogue like the one between Bond and Vesper on the train), and because it had casino scenes that were classy and suspenseful, provided a nice change of pace after the frenetic action of the first act, and elevated the film above most other espionage/action thrillers (all the Bourne films included). Now, the producers seem to have dropped the ball in not utilizing the best asset in their possession (no, not DC; I'm talking about Haggis) to the fullest. Why would they hire a screenwriter of his calibre and not push him to produce a character-driven screenplay filled with crackling dialogue? Or does the blame rest with Haggis himself? After the sterling effort he put forth in CR, maybe he's resting on his laurels a little in QoS? Perhaps without the inspiration and framework provided by Fleming's original story, Haggis is left floundering a little (after all, spy films are not really his forte; I think he is much more at ease writing dramas like Million Dollar Baby and Letters from Iwo Jima). (BTW, it may not be a bad idea to do more faithful adaptations of other Fleming novels on the screen. After all, if the producers had the guts to do a reboot with a faithful CR adaptation, they might as well fully commit themselves and go all the way in that direction. Just a thought).
Anyway, I'll go see the film with my mind as open as possible, hoping that I may still be pleasantly surprised. After all, it was unrealistic to expect the very high standards of CR to be maintained, so without comparing QoS to its predecessor, I may still find it a worthwhile entry in its own right.
From the BBC:
The 22nd James Bond film, Quantum of Solace, has had a warm reception from critics
From The Guardian:
Other than Daniel Craig's supremely tough turn, critics have expressed dissatisfaction with Quantum of Solace
Where's Eliot Carver to settle the matter?
Just give it 4 more films, then you may see a change in direction that pleases you. Brosnan was a good Bond...not my Bond...but good none-the-less...I didn't enthuse about his Bond films..I enjoyed them...some more than others...I'm not a big 'gadget-fan'...or I should say...gadgets for the sake of gadgets...one of the best lines in the series is from OHMSS : "This time I've got the gadgets, Q. And I know how to use them"
Everything turns full circle....
Christopher Tookey is indeed a monumental dick, but what worries me is that this is a guy who has given four star reviews to every Bond film since GE, no matter how mediocre they might have been, and given that all of Brosnan's films were mediocre, how bad must he have found QoS?
I love the fact that CR fans seem to be disliking this film, or think it not as good - given the fact that I thought that CR was even more pretentious, and bloated, than even the awful GE and TWINE were.
A 106mins, actioner, would be right up my street!,
the films have had a huge lack of just getting the hell on with it - for years!!.
The films have got bogged down with a number of problems, from the "Shark-Jumping" AVTAK, onwards - such as tone, pace etc.,
hopefully Forster can keep things bubbling-along, in the films slower moments - something that they have largely failed miserably at, for a long while.
Too often - like in Campbell and Apted's case (and Glen, on a bad day!) - the films have been far too static, in the dialogue, or "quieter" scenes, interspersed with action, which then seemed out of place - because of how poorly paced the 1st Unit stuff was,
from DN - OP, the films seemed not to suffer from this problem.
I haven't liked a Bond-Film, coming out of seeing it for the first time, since LTK,
and the "soul" of the series, has largely been missing since OP (for want of a better expression, to explain a certain indescribable essence, which has somehow been missing from the series since then?),
I think it must be the pretentions, seriousness, problems in tone and pace, have somehow drained some element from the proceedings.
I PRAY for a return to form for the series, from the current director.
You'll be dissapointed. The gunbarrel is at the end of the film and the Bond theme has been surpressed until then also.
Dont sit on the fence there JD
Totally agree with you though.He really is a waste of time as a critic.I usually really enjoy the films he gives turkeys.
If he doesn't like QoS, it can only be a good thing
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I second this! I can never wait to see any film Tookey gives 1 star to. It usualy means its great. If memory serves he gave one of the Bourne films 2 stars and Terminator 3: Rise of the machines 4!!!!! I kid you not.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
OUCH!
That really feels like suppressing the "Bondisms", and completely needlessly, in their particular case,
it's like they're embarrased to admit that it's a "Bond-Film" - that's bad! X-(,
leaving out of the odd film, the asking for a Martini, or even the "Bond, James Bond" line, and I can get over that,
but what now looks to be the continual messing around with the gunbarrel, and lack of the Bond theme, is an ENTIRELY different matter! X-( - they're a hallmark of the series, and get the audience going.
I'm glad Bond's got the PPK back, though. :007)
Ta, mate! {[]
Roger Moore 1927-2017
"Italy where Bond is quarry in a quarry. This sequence is breathtakingly economical and Bond ends it in cheer-inducing fashion. Bond then enters glorious Sienna, Italy and delivers a vital piece of intelligence."
And I didn't even know sienna Miller was in QoS!
:v
I've been waiting for somebody to go there...congratulations, Number24 {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0830515/usercomments
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Also, QoS now has a "Tomatometer" at RottenTomatoes. Only 12 reviews at the moment, 10 "fresh" and two "rotten." So far, the consensus seems to be that QoS simply isn't as good as CR but still entertaining in its own right, and Craig is terrific.
And that consensus is fine with me! One can't expect it to be better than a remarkable film like Casino Royale...
But as long as it's a good, smart, thrilling film, which still holds the integrity of the Craig era and doesn't cop out, I'll be a big fan. I don't care if it's a shorter movie. Short can be better. Bond is back, and still strong, as far as I can see.
Reviews from 7/8 sources
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7679989.stm
hmm...think I'll reserve judgment
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I love Casino Royale. The film was far from perfection. It isn't hard to make a better film then it.
http://www.theshiznit.co.uk/review/quantum-of-solace.php
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Film review: Quantum of Solace
Date: 26 October 2008
By SIOBHAN SYNNOT
(12A)
Director: Marc Forster
Running time: 95 minutes
***
NATURALLY muscular, whereas the average Hollywood blockbuster is on human growth hormones, Bond (Daniel Craig) is back this week and thirsting to avenge the death of Vesper Lynd in the previous film. Quantum Of Solace picks up an hour after the end oADVERTISEMENTf Casino Royale and many shots are fired and many more things blow up when he uncovers a link between the woman he loved and a Spectre-ish cartel of shady businessmen who call themselves the Quantum, which sounds like the kind of dynamically empty corporate brand name the men choose for themselves in the opening episode of every series of The Apprentice.
Quantum's leader is the shark-eyed Mr Greene (Mathieu Almaric) who hides his nefarious plans behind an eco-friendly business conglomerate and has a sidekick who enjoys opera and has a pudding bowl haircut.
Don't henchman have time to look in the mirror? There's no time to fret about this in the terse, swift Quantum Of Solace. Bond barely has time for his usual kiss kiss alongside the bang bang. Instead there's some cross-gender Bonding with Camille (Olga Kurylenko), a pillow-lipped Bolivian on a revenge mission of her own, and a strengthening of the ties between Bond and M (Dame Judi Dench), the only woman who truly understands him, at least until she gets so cross that she takes away his credit card and deprives him of his licence to spend.
Quantum Of Solace isn't as astonishing as Casino Royale, which had an immediacy that took your breath away, although the pacing and the fighting are still as relentless as the Bourne pictures that provide a template for this rebooted 007. Yet unlike Casino Royale, the storytelling feels fractured and the character development has been muffled. The choppy style appears to be the result of some ferocious editing which has left subplots and payoffs on the cutting room floor. One minor instance is Gemma Arterton's Agent Fields, who refuses to tell Bond her first name. Thanks to a big pair of movie shears, you now have to wait until the credit roll to find out that it is Strawberry.
It is inevitable that Quantum has also yielded some of its ability to surprise us. Two years ago, we had a bit of squeak over Casino Royale's nod to Dr No, with Daniel Craig wading out of the ocean like a genetically-modified Ursula Andress. This time, when one of the Bond Girls comes to a sticky end in a way that pays tribute to Goldfinger, the scene feels like furniture.
Yet even in a flawed sequel like Quantum, we can all feel like we're getting what we want from Craig's 007, unless what you desire is Daniel Craig grinning. He may crack noses and ribs, but never a smile. A lot has been made of Craig's body since he revealed a set of turtle-shell abs in Casino Royale, but in Quantum Of Solace the camera allows itself to linger on what's above the neck. With his aqua eyes, jug ears and a rough, rocky countenance, Craig has a face only a parole officer could love but he may yet make parole officers of us all. After two movies' worth of running, jumping, and some electrifying hand-to-hand combat, Craig is the series' most physically skilled Bond – although I'd like to see him in a comedy soon, if only to confirm that he still has all his teeth.
Here he moves with feral elegance and allows a growing awareness of his work's lethal consequences for the innocent as well as the guilty to flicker briefly across that stony face.
Maybe Bond is still an action figure whose default setting is beating up bad guys, pulling out a gun and running across roofs. But if boys have to be boys, it's a huge relief to know the new Bond age is confident enough to keep them conflicted about it.
I kind of wonder if this reviewer saw an early print--95 minutes is about 10 minutes less than other reviews have indicated. Oh, well.