Bond "Quantum Of Solace" Review Roundup: Action-Packed If A Little Lacking

The new James Bond film, "Quantum of Solace," opens nationwide today and review are mixed but positive, if not glowing. No one denies the action or beautiful scenery.

The NY Post gave Quantum of Solace 3 stars and called it "The Bond Ultimatum" for its Bourne similarities:

REVENGE is a dish best served with bullets, high explosives and giant rolling flameballs. In "Quantum of Solace," James Bond orders the revenge buffet, deluxe.

We begin just after "Casino Royale," with Bond's girlfriend Vesper dead and her (other, missing) boyfriend suspected in forcing the events that led to her death, which was perhaps the first suicide by drowning in an elevator yet recorded on-screen.

With Vesper gone, the only woman around who understands Bond (a well-scuffed Daniel Craig) is Judi Dench's M, and the way these two hurl flameball glances at each other re-creates the kind of raw sexual tension unseen since the early days of the Siskel and Ebert show. Who needs Moneypenny when you've got Wenchy Denchy?

The New York Times hates the opening song and is a little confused by the movie:

I know grief has always been part of the Dark Knight's baggage, but the same can hardly be said of James Bond, Her Majesty's suave, cynical cold war paladin. His wit was part of his -- of our -- arsenal, and he countered the totalitarian humorlessness of his foes with a wink and a bon mot.

Are these weapons now off limits for the good guys? Or can moviegoers justify their vicarious enjoyment of on-screen mayhem -- and luxury hotels, high-end cocktails and fast cars -- only if there are some pseudoserious bad feelings attached? The Sean Connery James Bond movies of the 1960s were smooth, cosmopolitan comedies, which in the Roger Moore era sometimes ascended to the level of farce. With Mr. Craig, James Bond reveals himself to be -- sigh -- a tragic figure.

"Quantum of Solace," a phrase never uttered in the course of this film (though it has something to do with Greene's diabolical scheme, itself never fully explained), means something like a measure of comfort. Perhaps that describes what Bond is looking for, or maybe it is what this kind of entertainment tries to provide a fretful audience. If so, I prefer mine with a dash of mischief.

The NYDN also gave Quantum of Solace 3 stars:

[It] isn't bland, but it's not exactly Bond either.

In "Quantum," only a few of these callbacks actually click, notably an echo of the gold-painted girl in "Goldfinger." Others are totally mishandled: A major character killed offscreen? A mere walk-on for Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter? A henchman named Elvis whose scariest trait is his bowl haircut? C'mon.

Still, Craig's place as the best Bond since Sean Connery remains secure, and his scenes with Dench are great spy-vs.-spymaster games. Amalric ("The Diving Bell and the Butterfly") makes a nice oily villain. But Bond fans underwhelmed by the whole shebang can take solace that James Bond will return. Hopefully in a better movie.

And HuffPost blogger Darrell Hartman thought the new Bond was good, if not as good as Casino Royale.

Comments

[Secularist]

None of the elements that made "Casino Royale" so great are in "Quantum." Not the humour, not the interesting story line, not the romance, not the cool villain, not the breathtaking action scenes, not even the sex, etc.

Marc Forester (why they hired this maker of cheesy crap is beyond me) films the action scenes in such a way that you are totally confused by what's happening. One moment Bond is in trouble, another moment he's fine and you have no idea how that happened. The story is just as confusing, even though its ridiculousness is on "Moonraker" level.

And I still don't know what the hell "Quantum of Solace" means.

[OSA23]

i enjoyed quantumof solace very much. and to the nagging whiners who like to call quantum solace a bourne knock-off: just what part of quantum of solace did you REFUSE to understand..?

well-written; well-paced; well-directed; well-scored; well-acted; well-constructed.

daniel craig's bond rising on the merits of daniel craig's ability to enter bond AND transform bond into a very enduring character of intensity/­edge/integ­rity. i am now counting down to having the dvd of quantum of solace because for me, the movie represents not a sequel but a continuation of casino royale - blurring the lines AND parameters of what a 'sequel' can AND should do... the storyline works very well because we are given at least several well-defined storylines to ponder and to absorb. to a very certain extent, i am reminded now of the asian films of good guys/ bad guys dichotomy as bond's quest blurs the lines between personal AND professional.....

[NWBrunette]

Enjoy your Kool-aid.

[maca]

I "understood" all of it. I also understand the difference between action and disorientation. The action sequences in this film, like those in Bourne (directed by the same second unit), seemed to be shot by monkeys with ADD, and edited in a Cuisinart. There appeared to be some impressive stuff going on (cars crashing, stuntmen jumping, etc.), but I defy anyone who thinks the action was "great" to tell me where anyone is in relation to anyone else during any action scene. Unless you know the physical map of where the players are, there's no tension to the action. The sequence in which he's chasing the guy and fighting him on the scaffold was a collection of snippets averaging about 6 frames each, no two of which ever "cut on action", the editing term for matching the movements of one shot in another. It's very easy to just cover everything with a dozen cameras and pound it into something in the editing room; it takes some actual talent to orchestrate action with an eye for conveying narrative to an audience.

Story-wise this was an interesting Bond. It was without a doubt the most poorly directed Bond ever. John Glen, who until now was the worst Bond director in my opinion, suddenly looks like Orson Welles.

[Changeling]

I agree.

Besides, I don't even know that I would call QoS a seperate film. It's essentially the second half of Royale.

[bmwracer]

The movie was okay... Lots of action, but all of the quick cuts diluted the intensity of it all.

I found the "Bourne" movies to be more interesting in action and story.

BTW, I saw the movie for free: there was a free ticket coupon with the "From Russia With Love" DVD. :)

[RealityBeatsDenial]

It seems that they've moved back to the tone of the original creator's character and storylines - darker and more intense (similar to what happened with Batman).

The action was great .... and although I liked the debonaire playfulness of earlier Bonds - Daniel Craig hits the mark with the more complex rage-running-deep Bond.

Worth the 2 hours and ticket price, IMO.

[Magella]

BARACK OBAMA TOP TEN:

Fugees - 'Ready Or Not'
Marvin Gaye - 'What's Going On'
Mystique GP -"Vanity"
The Rolling Stones - 'Gimme Shelter'
Nina Simone - 'Sinnerman'
Kanye West - 'Touch The Sky'
Frank Sinatra - 'You'd Be So Easy To Love'
Aretha Franklin - 'Think'
U2 - 'City of Blinding Lights'
will.i.am - 'Yes We Can'

[sb250guy]

WTF?!

[Jo Manning]

It's bad, from the opening song to the incoherent ending. Don't waste your time or money. The only time the film comes alive is in the repartee between Daniel Craig (a buff piece of eye candy) and Judi Dench (a fabulous actress).

[NathaninSeattle]

Booooooooo­ooo!!!!!!! "Quantum" rocked. It's James Bond; seriously it's not supposed to change your life, just entertain like only a shirtless Daniel Craig can. The ending was only incoherent to those who didn't pay any attention to the first and second acts. True, I will admit that without seeing "Casino Royale" you will not see the full picture, but this movie was still golden.

[bondanonymous]

I just saw Quantum of Solace and it kicked ass. Not every Bond movie is going to be like Casino Royale, the critics just don't get it.

[leira07]

i agree, i dont know why i still read the movie critics who use the whole not-bad-bu­t-somethin­g missing formula.. guess most of them take their jobs too seriously and miss the point of a movie - entertainment!
i wasn't too excited about casino royale, but after watching it i loved the way daniel craig made the role his own - and i dont mean the speedos.
im so excited about quantum.. i live in australia so it hasnt opened yet :(

[strifeknot]

Life must be easier for those with low standards. I'm jealous.

[Secularist]

I suppose you liked "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" and "Phantom of Menace" too.

[Hirnlego]

Casino Royale was unbelievably dull. Too much sitting around the poker table...
But at least that CR was better than the Brosnan's last Bond movie.

[Sloan48]

The only reason I watched this movie was because it had the new Star Trek trailer attached to it. It wasn't as good as Casino Royale but it was entertaining. (BTW, the new Star Trek movie is gonna rock! WOW)

[NathaninSeattle]

No way!! "Quantum" rocked the Casbah; Star Trek is going to be lame-o; it looks like "Rugrats in Space."

[MDCambridge]

Casino Royale did not look like a Bourne flick, so the style change was not necessary. I did love the Bourne films, but I also don't want Springsteen to sound like the Rolling Stones; I prefer to appreciate the difference. Fleming's Bond was a blunt instrument, not a sadist (oil can). Hopefully, the third installment will lose the spy envy for the Bourne series.

[OSA23]

i enjoyed the quality and textures of 'casino royale' after having doubts about daniel craig as bond... but unlike the obvious 'critics' always lost in the past and never EVER occupying the HERE AND NOW - i found that daniel craig's bond fits the 21st century, as the late heath ledger's joker fits the 21st century (just as jack nicholson's joker played well in the eighties...). i am looking forward to seeing quantum of solace as i feel that daniel craig's bond works on all levels. people need to STOP useless comparisons to former bonds: this shows a level of ignorance that reveals the individual's unwillingness to adopt and acclimate to the changes required to uphold the essence of a character like bond who represents our inner psyche's ability to thrive and strive under all situations and circumstances.

i direct those willing to invest the time into reading some of the works of joseph campbell to understand the essence of mythology and art.

[maca]

Your comment represents what's wrong with contemporary Holllywood. No one should have to read Campbell to enjoy a film. Unfortunately, all the producers, writers, and directors in town have Campbell and Field pounded into their heads 24/7, and have been conditioned to believe that every story needs "backstory". Lacking the talent to blend in a backstory on a psychological level, most simply resort to having characters TALKING about the past incessantly. Every cop-chasin­g-a-killer story, for example, must have dialog about an incident in the past, in which the hero was chasing a similar killer, let him get away, and people died as a result, and this is now the hero's chance at redemption, and... ZZZZZ. That nonsense does not make anyone care more about a story. The only emotions which matter are the ones you feel, not the ones characters talk about.

I didn't find Quantum any more compelling because Bond loved Vesper; I couldn't feel that emotion since Vesper was portrayed in the last film as someone I was hoping Bond would shoot at the end. In fact, when he said something to the effect of "Go ahead and kill her" to a bad guy, most of the audience at Casino Royale went, "Yeah"! Bond brooding, and M calling Vesper "the woman you loved", made me feel nothing.

That said, my main problems with the movie were direction and editing, not story, which was fairly well written except for the constant talk about the past.

[RJII]

Mmm...aging guy w/ half naked college age girls and lots of bombs and car chases. Boring

[marred]

Ageing guy? Have you managed to stop the ageing process or something have you? Do tell us all how you're getting younger by the day.

[YMCA]

You know what's good about the new Bond movies? They are not like the OLD Bond movies.
People complain that things are overdone and unoriginal, and then, when it is changed, people complain that is has been changed.

This new Bond doesn't need fancy gadgets. It's better, and more original, because of it.

Plus, Daniel Craig is a badass!

[drandamy]

Are you a real James Bond fan? If you are, and have watched very many of the James Bond films, then you will know that there are certain elements that make a "James Bond film". Casino Royale had some of these elements, but Quantum of Solace does not have very many of those elements at all. This film might has well been advertised as "Daniel Craig stars in Quantum of Solace", without any mention of James Bond. As a James Bond fan who enjoys classics like Goldfinger and Dr. No, to Pierce Brosnan's last 007 film, Die Another Day, I find it very difficult to watch a film advertised as being a "James Bond film", but lacks all the characteristics. This includes the gadgets, the cars, the women, the sense of humor, and the martini - shaken not stirred of course. This is not in the best interest of the Bond franchise. As most successful businessmen will tell you, if you have a winning formula, you stick with it. I was excited about this film, and now I wish I had not supported it at the theater. Bring back James Bond!

[dmsdzinr]

I guess MY critique of the Bond Movies was too INTENSE??!!! Unbelievable

[wm1066]

'Quantum of Solace, a phrase never fully explained'
Well if you would have read the story you would have understood the term. The story is about a married civil servant in the Bahamas who has a wife with a wondering eye, he takes all sorts of abuse and then gets transfered leaving her high and dry. And at the mercy of the colony.
Because he leaves her up in the air his bosses treat him poorly and he gets a backwater post.
If only he would have shown her a quantum (meaning small) of solace things would have turned out differently. The story was told to Bond by the Govenor after a boring dinner party. Its not your typical James Bond story. But its a good story by Ian Fleming.

[glaze]

HMMMMMMMMMM...

Judy Dench- "M"- Born 1934.
Daniel Craig- "James Bond"- Born 1968.

Like mother, like SON?

HMMMMMMMMM...