Badmovies.org Forum

Not really a bad movie, but certainly a disappointment.  I'd rank this one slightly below the "average" Bond movie.  Coulda, woulda, shoulda been better.  But it's basically a pointless action movie and all of the Bond "charm" is missing.  I like how they revamped the Bond image in CASINO ROYALE, but this one goes too far. 

If this hadn't of come after Casino Royale which was fantastic than Quantum of Solace might not see as much as  a huge disappointment.  I thought it was boring actually.

That's kinda the feeling I get, too. I haven't seen it, but the people I know who saw it felt it was so-so, too.

Forgive me but I've seen the trailer and it looks a whole lot better than Casino Royale, really I don't think you can get much less Bond than CR. :thumbdown:

That is the impression I have been getting, just from the trailers.  Too bad.  The "charm" is what makes it a Bond film.

Good.

I've been waiting for a thread on this film, so I could talk about it.

After I saw the film, I knew there was something about it, that bothered me, but I didn't know what it was. Then, on another board, another thread, someone posted how the actions of one of the characters didn't make any sense. Then, I realized what bothered me. How stupidity the villains acted in the film.

Now, there is "reasonable stupidity" and "unreasonable stupidity."

Probably the classic example of "reasonable stupidity" is Kevin, the boy scout in "Lair of the White Worm" getting into a car with a strange woman in it. But . . .

1. The car is hot.
2. The woman is hotter.
3. It's raining.
(a.) He's wet.
(b.) He's cold.
4. He's likely tired. Having come some eight miles or more since noon. And . . .
5. "It'll be getting dark soon."

What he did was stupid, but there were plausible reasons he did it. That's good writing.

As for "unreasonable stupidity," there's "Quantum of Solace."

1. Having a running gunbattle on the open highway, when there's traffic present.

2. Shooting a couple of Italian policemen.

3. Taking somebody on with a knife, when a gun would have been better.

4. Continuing to tail someone, after you've been made.

5. Failing to have the heroine try to identify Bond, when he shows up at the dock.

6. Being anywhere near the body of someone you just had killed.

7. Shooting up the harbor.

8. Not backing up Felix on his failure to recognize Bond.

9. Failing to call Felix on his failure to recognize Bond.

10. Getting up from your seat and walking out, when you've been made.

11. Shooting someone who is not a threat to you.

12. Inviting Bond to the party.

13. Not killing Bond before he has left the party.

14. And not killing the heroine when you had the chance.

Now some of this stupidity I can understand, but all of it? And that was just some of the stupidity I recognized from the villains. I'm sure there were others. And that was just the villains. That doesn't include all the stupidity done by the heroes in the film.

That much stupidity is just bad writing.

I think they got spoiled by the success of CASINO ROYALE and figured we (the gullible public) would accept anything they threw at us in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.  Looks like they were wrong.  I bet the next Bond flick uses some of the old "Bond, James Bond" and "shaken, not stirred" charm from the older films in the series to try to win us all back.

I just watched this on DVD and it inspired me to post a thread about shaky camera angles.  This film excels at it unfortunately. From beginning to end its hard to tell whos shooting at who and whos driving what car at any time.  I'm a bit split on the final verdict.  Its very Jason Bourne(ish) with the fight scenes and Craig as Bond is definitely bad @ss.  But, as Burgo pointed out, he is missing the charm.   Granted by all means he is a rookie in these films.  Still, its not really the Bond I grew up with and enjoyed as a kid.  That and I found the story a bit weak to be honest. 

SPOLIERS

I think at the end where he dropped his ex-wife's jewlery in the snow and let the guy live his a turning point to his character.  It will be interesting to see what is done after that. 

END SPOILERS

I guess my final verdict is slanted.  I enjoyed it but I'm still waiting for something better. 

I watched this one over the weekend; I liked it BETTER than Casino Royale, but not as well as the Brosnan Bond movies.

My Favorite James Bond Has Always Been Roger Moore
A Couple Of Years Ago I Tried Watching One Of Pierce Brosnan's Movies
It Was Pretty Bad And I Haven't Watched Any Bond Movie Made After That

Rubbish film. Too much bad camera work, too many fake explosions. Made just for money, because this franchise has lost all it's cheekiness and charm. Even my step dad thought it was crap, an he's a HUGE Bond fan.

Every 007 movie I've ever seen is amazing. It's like driving a car at top speed! This movie was a light pole.

If you don't get the joke... It was the first bad Bond movie for me.

One of the most disappointing films I've seen.  Bad plot, bad writing, bad villains, the worst action scenes in a Bond film in quite a while (since the Moore era)...  And yes, no charm at all.  It was bland and dull.  Who wants to have villains who are trying to cause a just make some money?  Dull. 

The one good aspect was Daniel Craig, who is still a good Bond. 

On another note, I might add Quantum of Solace made 575 million at the box office.  While this is still 20 million less than the previous film (which came out over 2 years earlier, meaning inflated ticket prices make the gap bigger) I'm still not sure if they'll have learned any lessons from this one...  Too bad.

I just found this movie confusing as hell. From the beginning, any time we got a bit of dialogue, exposition or any sign that the plot might be rearing its head, they found an excuse to launch into another extended chase/fight scene. I like a good Bond chase scene as much as the next guy, but these were practically stacked on top of each other. It took most of the movie for me to figure out what the hell was going on, and why I'm supposed to care. And then what is this SPECTRE-like organization up to? *spoiler* Building dams in South America and gouging people for water, all under the guise of environmental philanthropy, while making political alliances. Yawn. I had hoped for something a bit more.... well..... SPECTRE-like.

That has been the failure of most Bond films since the late 80s - with a couple of exceptions, the villains and their schemes are pretty ordinary by movie standards. But at least Dalton and Brosnan still had the charm and cheekiness and fun. The Craig Bond is kind of lacking in that department.

*Die Another Day spoilers*



For all the flack it gets, I loved how the villain in Die Another Day makes an out-and-out DEATH RAY.  And the fact that he's an Asian guy using surgery to hide as a white guy!  It's so typical of 60s era Bond, the kind of crap Austin Powers mined for material for three films.  And Die Another Day gets tons of flack for that from people who say they love the Connery films.  I don't quite get that one.



**END**

Rented this a few weeks ago, gave it a 1.5/5.  The machine-gun editing left the action sequences incomprehensible.   The general writing/directing/editing left me with no idea what was going on in most of the scenes throughout the movie, and I certainly didn't care.  Craig - what can I say?  He MIGHT be a good Bond, but he barely had any dialog for the first two-thirds of this thing.  After watching it, I can honestly say I've never seen him act.  And what was with that exploding building at the end?  I had no clue (as in most of the movie) why it kept exploding.  Was it the local nitro glycerin storage facility?  It was just comical. 

Easily the worst Bond film I've ever seen, by a country mile.  In fact, I'd have to say it's the worst big-budget action movie I've ever seen.  I really enjoyed watching it on a thin strip across my TV screen.  What was the aspect ration on this thing, about 5:1?

Die Another Day is the main exception. That one was classic Bond in most regards. Funny that my brother, also a fan of the old, cheeky Bond, had nothing good to say about the movie for the simple reason that somebody successfully captured and imprisoned Bond. I tend to agree that it goes against the established rules, but looking at the movie as a whole, and as one of the recent crop, it was the most faithful Bond film to come out since the mid-80s. It had the rich megalomaniac, the freaky henchman, the superweapon, the gadgets, the "friendly" competition between Bond and villain, and the exotic locales. That's Bond.

I loved Mr. Kill from Die Another Day  He existed soley to give Bond a snappy comeback.  And he just says right out "I'm Mr. Kill".  No other introduction.  Not even a "hello" before it.  Just out of nowhere "I'm Mr. Kill". 

I always imagined him, just walking around introducing himself-and saying his name randomly to people.

That was so confusing. I thought it was really weird to have an explosion in the first place, but then it just kept right on exploding. I had to look it up to understand that since this is an "eco-hotel" powered by hydrogen fuel cells, it apaprently has loads of hydrogen fuel stored in flimsy containers all over the place that blow up if they're disturbed. I didn't even know it was supposed to be a hotel. Whatever bit of dialogue explained that must have been lost amid the umpteen chase scenes, and the exterior shots were so bad I couldn't tell what that building was supposed to be. It actually had to start exploding before I figured out that this was the building they were in. The interior and exterior just didn't connect. Granted, my attention might have started drifting toward the end of the movie, but that's only because there was no plot to hold my interest.

Roger Ebert did a nice review of this movie: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081111/REVIEWS/811129989/1023 (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081111/REVIEWS/811129989/1023)

So that thing on the wall that they showed for 1/10th of a second was a hydrogen container  :teddyr: 

The only Bond movie I like is the original Casino Royale with David Niven and Peter Sellers.  Niven is the best Bond ever.

All Bond flicks are boring, so this wouldn't really differ from any others.

Saw it. Skimmed it. Didn't care much for it, but I think I decided I wasn't going to like it from the beginning. [One reason being that it carries over the story from the last film.]

Oh, and coincidently I saw Octop***y today on TV. The action was certainly cheesier [except towards the end], but Bond was WAY more charming.

Actually, of the Roger Moore James Bonds, that is my second favorite. My favorite, of course, being "The Spy Who Loved Me."

I really enjoyed this the second time round.  :thumbup:

But what's the point of having an iconic theme tune if you're not going to use it ?!?!
Bond fights on land, sea and air...so it's pretty cool, and I liked the slimy bad guy.

It did need an action director and better editing, though.