User Score
6.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 488 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 75 out of 488
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Cory
    Nov 16, 2008
    2
    Stereotypical action movie-200 hundred guys with machine guns shooting at the main character and nobody can hit him! Even worse, there are way too many characters without introductions that confuse you all movie.
  2. AlexC.
    Nov 17, 2008
    3
    Worst Bond film ever based on many facts: no character development, no depth to the plot, very plain action sequences (with many borrowed from previous films) and way too many loose ends. It seems like all the good scenes were edited out to leave this skeleton with no meat for a story. Wait for video.
  3. James
    Nov 28, 2008
    2
    Extremely poor plot and very far fetched, even for a bond flick. The director expects us to believe bond miraculously survives multiple certain death situations with giving even a hint as to how. I had hopes that the bond franchise had wisened up given a more human nature of casino royale, but they have gone terribly of the rails this time around.
  4. JakeH.
    Nov 15, 2008
    2
    Piss poor.
  5. JamesBond
    Dec 10, 2008
    0
    Village Voice has it right - this was edited in a blender set on indecipherable. Utter garbage. Give me Brosnan or any other Bond for that matter. The director should never be allowed to work again.
  6. RichardS
    Dec 10, 2008
    0
    The worst Bond film of all time. I thought nothing could be worse than Die Another Day. This manages it with some aplomb. The direction is horrible - all split second jump cuts designed to create excitement and stimulate action. It does nothing of the sort, only creating a sense of nausea. The story is boring and flat. Give me back the megalomaniac who wants world control and save me from The worst Bond film of all time. I thought nothing could be worse than Die Another Day. This manages it with some aplomb. The direction is horrible - all split second jump cuts designed to create excitement and stimulate action. It does nothing of the sort, only creating a sense of nausea. The story is boring and flat. Give me back the megalomaniac who wants world control and save me from these weary eco-stories. This has NOTHING in common with any Bond film. No sexiness, no gadgets, no exciting villain, no villain's lair, no henchman, no decent theme, no John Barry music, no intro, no nothing. The worst Bond film or all time, maybe one of the worst films of the year. Expand
  7. JaredJ
    Mar 25, 2009
    0
    Okay, after the horrid "Casino Royale," I thought that this was going to be a lot cleaner. It wasn't. The clasic "Gun barrel" opening was tossed away to the end of the film and done with horrorfying results. Bond is no longer an Agent he is a midless killing machine. Oh and if this is still part of 007's first mission EVER WHY THE *@!$ IS IT IN MODERN TIMES?! After "Die Another Okay, after the horrid "Casino Royale," I thought that this was going to be a lot cleaner. It wasn't. The clasic "Gun barrel" opening was tossed away to the end of the film and done with horrorfying results. Bond is no longer an Agent he is a midless killing machine. Oh and if this is still part of 007's first mission EVER WHY THE *@!$ IS IT IN MODERN TIMES?! After "Die Another Day" we no longer get to see what Bond's next adventure is the re did the whole thing with crappy decisions! No story, tons of action that is poorly developed and RIPS off of Classic bond films! "Goldfinger" is in here but rip offed of it as well as "GoldenEye," "Thunderball," and "Live and Let Die" It has the Bond movie title and logo but it is NOT a Bond film, complete garbage. Expand
  8. SteveC
    Apr 16, 2009
    1
    What a dismal Bond movie. It had none of the character development or plot of the last one. Purely two-dimensional. On top of that, the actions scenes are shot in the increasingly popular super-close style that makes it so you can't tell what's actually going on. I frequently couldn't determine which black car or black suit was chasing the other. Overall, profoundly disappointing.
  9. BenjaminG.
    Nov 20, 2008
    3
    Just another Action Movie, not Bond anymore.
  10. GrantH.
    Nov 5, 2008
    2
    Unfortunately this film couldn't be saved by the awesomeness of Daniel Craig in the role of Bond. It just couldn't overcome the poor, messy script or the shaky 'what the hell is actually happening' camerawork. Worst of all though was the useless bad guy. He just never felt sinister enough for a Bond villain. Absolute shite unfortunately. Here's hoping that the Unfortunately this film couldn't be saved by the awesomeness of Daniel Craig in the role of Bond. It just couldn't overcome the poor, messy script or the shaky 'what the hell is actually happening' camerawork. Worst of all though was the useless bad guy. He just never felt sinister enough for a Bond villain. Absolute shite unfortunately. Here's hoping that the next Bond is closer to the standard set by Casino Royale. Expand
  11. EricO.
    Dec 6, 2008
    3
    I've literally just returned from watching this Bond movie, and while walking out of the theater, my dad commented on what he considered to be the lame plot. Listen- no one should go to a Bond movie expecting a coherent plotline; in fact, they've never had coherent plotlines. Honestly, Daniel Craig is the best Bond since Connery and I don't think anyone can seriously I've literally just returned from watching this Bond movie, and while walking out of the theater, my dad commented on what he considered to be the lame plot. Listen- no one should go to a Bond movie expecting a coherent plotline; in fact, they've never had coherent plotlines. Honestly, Daniel Craig is the best Bond since Connery and I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that. The girls in QOS are perfectly acceptable and the locales are exotic, as should be expected. The major flaw with this film is the quick-cut method and hand-held camera work used by the director during action sequences. Stuntmen were injured while making this Bond film, Craig lost part of his finger during an action sequence, but damned if you can tell what's going on at any point while the action takes place. As Bond films are all about the action sequences, the quick-editing and shaky hand-held camerawork destroys a good portion of the film as a whole. Expand
  12. DanS
    Jan 10, 2009
    4
    Plot, editing, and acting aside, I'm surprised no one seems to be complaining about the rapid-fire attempted rapes near the end. I'm not a huge Bond fan, but part of the fun of these movies is the cartoonishness. Moon-based lasers? Fun. Slightly disturbing brutality? Not so much.
  13. EmanT
    May 4, 2009
    1
    Never before has there been such abuse of the name bond. All those years theve spent building a franchise only to have this aboination to come along. The story was week and confussing, the fighting was good but covereing a girl in oil??? Come up with an orginal idea rather than stealing from other bond films. Everyone envovled is a turd. End of.
  14. AlexH
    May 7, 2009
    0
    A horrible film consisting of no plot, no story, no acting and no sense. James Bond is not a action hero, get that straight Hollywood, and next time actually try to make a new Bond film a good one and a memorable one. "Quantum of Solace" is one of the worst of 2008.
  15. sk
    Nov 23, 2008
    3
    Very very poor bond movie. Bad story, and honestly quite a boring movie to watch. Makes the awesome Casino Royale look like a classic.
  16. DougR
    Feb 7, 2009
    3
    Pitiful Bond movie. The last two are a real let down. No super spy gadgets, cars, etc. Just blow 'em away brutality. A raw film that rubbed me raw. In attempting to make super spying into some gritty, hardcore killer flick, the writers have fallen prey to a neverland that would have the 00 spies bouncing off their asylum walls. Way over the top without the fantasy gadgets...too much Pitiful Bond movie. The last two are a real let down. No super spy gadgets, cars, etc. Just blow 'em away brutality. A raw film that rubbed me raw. In attempting to make super spying into some gritty, hardcore killer flick, the writers have fallen prey to a neverland that would have the 00 spies bouncing off their asylum walls. Way over the top without the fantasy gadgets...too much unreal realism. What can I say to some it up? It was a real downer. Redeeming lines within the thing about forgiveness...that was good. Expand
  17. MichelleS
    Mar 28, 2009
    3
    I really did not enjoy this movie at all. I gave it a 3 because, for an action movie it had some cool action sequences. I didn't care for any of the actors in the movie either. I didn't care for the story.
  18. SM
    Dec 30, 2008
    4
    Although Quantum of Solace was kind of a continuation to Casino Royal, the latter was at least ten times more thrilling and thought-provoking than the former, and I guess this pretty much explains why everyone is disappointed with this new Bond movie. However, there is still enough excitement to watch it once.
  19. AndrewR.
    Nov 15, 2008
    4
    Ok but pales next to Casino Royale. Way too frenetic and needed plot help.
  20. Orson
    Nov 16, 2008
    4
    This Bond sucks as surprisingly as Casino surpassed expectations. The problem? In a first, the action sequences have no rhyme, rythym, or reason. Truly, the first such Bond picture in which these are panful and ineffective to watch. Frustrating viewing. he non-action scenes are actually economical gems, but far too brief to enjoy as Bondian. I wish the film would be re-cut before going to This Bond sucks as surprisingly as Casino surpassed expectations. The problem? In a first, the action sequences have no rhyme, rythym, or reason. Truly, the first such Bond picture in which these are panful and ineffective to watch. Frustrating viewing. he non-action scenes are actually economical gems, but far too brief to enjoy as Bondian. I wish the film would be re-cut before going to DVD. Then I would have something to look forward too (the double DVD release). Instead, I wonder if they even shot enough real action footage to do it. An amazing waste saved only by superior principle actors. Expand
  21. ScottL.
    Nov 20, 2008
    3
    It was not dificult to tell that the was Forster's first time directing an action scene. The scenes were more than a little conrtived and the cuts made you spend more time wondering who was doing what. The acting was merely average. I never got the feeling that Camille was really all that angry, and Bond seemed more like someone had killed his dog, not his lover. The villain was weak It was not dificult to tell that the was Forster's first time directing an action scene. The scenes were more than a little conrtived and the cuts made you spend more time wondering who was doing what. The acting was merely average. I never got the feeling that Camille was really all that angry, and Bond seemed more like someone had killed his dog, not his lover. The villain was weak and his scheme was boring. All in all, this is one of those movies where I wish I had my time back more than my money. Expand
  22. DavidW.
    Nov 22, 2008
    0
    One terrible scene after another. Action set pieces are incoherent. The drama is dialed down. Craig's muscles are the most impressive thing on display. For the Bond movie with the biggest budget, this was a waste of a lot of money.
  23. DorothyL.
    Nov 23, 2008
    2
    As a woman, I was looking forward to seeing Bond in another speedo, admiring his gorgeous physique and relishing in the delight of some outrageous plot to rule the world. Sadly, I was disappointed. The plot was weak, the bad guy looked creepy and there was no seduction. It was all action and not much else. I still think Daniel Craig is the second best Bond, after Sean Connery and hope As a woman, I was looking forward to seeing Bond in another speedo, admiring his gorgeous physique and relishing in the delight of some outrageous plot to rule the world. Sadly, I was disappointed. The plot was weak, the bad guy looked creepy and there was no seduction. It was all action and not much else. I still think Daniel Craig is the second best Bond, after Sean Connery and hope that the next installment will be a true Bond movie, not an action movie about someone getting revenge for a lost love. Expand
  24. DH.
    Nov 20, 2008
    4
    Daniel Craig's physical presence and intensity is definitely a plus for the current Bond series. The action was fast but the plot was a bit vague, giving the impression it was all over too quickly without really knowing what happened. the main drawback I noticed was the subtle anti-American undertones; the American intelligence agent with the moustache that was portayed as a bumbling Daniel Craig's physical presence and intensity is definitely a plus for the current Bond series. The action was fast but the plot was a bit vague, giving the impression it was all over too quickly without really knowing what happened. the main drawback I noticed was the subtle anti-American undertones; the American intelligence agent with the moustache that was portayed as a bumbling oaf, and the sublte comments about "the Americans just in it for the oil". Also; no "Q". I realize they're trying to get away from the sci-fi gadgetry that went overboard during the Brosnan era, but I don't think they should eliminate gadgetry all together. Expand
  25. PeterH
    Dec 2, 2008
    2
    Terrible movie. While Craig has an aura of intensity about him which makes him a wonderful bond, the plot was absolutely terrible. At the beginning I thought that there would be more of a focus on the secretive 'company', but they barely went into that. While I do not like films that are pointlessly dragged out to the extent of wasted time, this was at the opposite extreme; Terrible movie. While Craig has an aura of intensity about him which makes him a wonderful bond, the plot was absolutely terrible. At the beginning I thought that there would be more of a focus on the secretive 'company', but they barely went into that. While I do not like films that are pointlessly dragged out to the extent of wasted time, this was at the opposite extreme; being too short to fulfill the plot or send any message to the audience. It was like trying to fit a 400 pound guy into small size clothing - it does not work. Expand
  26. JackS.
    Dec 4, 2008
    3
    I'm not joking around, what the hell was the point to that movie? It has to be the worst 007 movie ever. The only movie that isn't written by Ian Flemming (he only mad the charecters not the story) turns out to be the worst. I know they could have made something so much better then that. What was the point to all that action? What is the bad thing thats going on right now? Why I'm not joking around, what the hell was the point to that movie? It has to be the worst 007 movie ever. The only movie that isn't written by Ian Flemming (he only mad the charecters not the story) turns out to be the worst. I know they could have made something so much better then that. What was the point to all that action? What is the bad thing thats going on right now? Why is there cars chasing eachother? Is that charecter good or bad? What is Greene trying to do with the world? So many questions are unclear once the movie is over. Everyone who saw it that I know said that they were lost the whole movie. It totally needed more talking and explaining for people to understand what is going on that whole movie. It can't pick off the first movie right when it starts. It is confusing and you have no clue what was going on most of the time until the end. And even still you are still lost in questions what was going on that movie. It was confusing, the action was pointless, it was nothing like the tranditional Bond movies. Ian Flemming is the writer of 007... there is no one else like him. Expand
  27. HarryLeech
    Oct 31, 2008
    0
    This is not a James Bond film, i would have given it a 7 or 8 if it wasn't, but james bond does not drive a ford.
  28. Me
    Jan 16, 2009
    0
    Where was the debonair 007? New 007 has no class, no catchy lines that got laughs, and completely lacks any sophistication as other Bond actors. Furthermore, the movie lacked the most entertaining elements: Where were Q and Moneypennie? Where were the cool gadgets we've come to expect to see in all Bond movies? Again I ask where were the "Phrases that Pay"? Furthermore this movie was Where was the debonair 007? New 007 has no class, no catchy lines that got laughs, and completely lacks any sophistication as other Bond actors. Furthermore, the movie lacked the most entertaining elements: Where were Q and Moneypennie? Where were the cool gadgets we've come to expect to see in all Bond movies? Again I ask where were the "Phrases that Pay"? Furthermore this movie was poorly edited. All action scenes were limited to an ungodly half second. They must have not done any retaked for the flubbed scenes and pieced together all the stuff they liked in the end to make it so choppy and hard to watch/follow with your eyes. Gave me a real headache. A true waste of film and the money DH and I spent to see this poorly filmed, acted and letdown of a 007 film. Truly a big letdown compared to Brosnan, Connery, Moore and Lazenby. Expand
  29. wetwebwork
    Nov 14, 2008
    4
    Slept through most of this. Am I in a position to rate it? Perhaps not, but you shouldn't fall asleep in a Bond film. If any film should keep you awake, it should be a Bond.
  30. chrish
    Nov 14, 2008
    1
    I agree with the Village Voice review - an incomprehensible mess. I don't agree with comparing this film to the Bourne series, because the Bourne series at least had a semblance of a narrative. From the "Where am I? What am I doing?" opening car chase, to the horribly ill-advised homage to Goldfinger's most iconic scene, this film absolutely reeks. The only reason I give it even I agree with the Village Voice review - an incomprehensible mess. I don't agree with comparing this film to the Bourne series, because the Bourne series at least had a semblance of a narrative. From the "Where am I? What am I doing?" opening car chase, to the horribly ill-advised homage to Goldfinger's most iconic scene, this film absolutely reeks. The only reason I give it even a 1 out of 10 - taken as an art film about blind rage, it works on some level. We're lost, disoriented, and, even though Bond and what's-her-name get their revenge in the end, unsatisfied. But "Diamonds are Forever" and "The Spy who loved me" dealt with similar revenge motivation, and they didn't end up looking like a video game tech demo. Expand
  31. wolfiefish
    Nov 15, 2008
    1
    License to Kill is now officially (in my opnion) not the worst Bond movie ever made. Quantum of Solace takes that top spot. Bond had never been so banal. If I wanted to watch ultra violence I would have rented a film about footy hooligans. The action sequences are undecipherable, the dialogue is dull and I've seen better chase scenes from the keystone cops. Boring, boring and even License to Kill is now officially (in my opnion) not the worst Bond movie ever made. Quantum of Solace takes that top spot. Bond had never been so banal. If I wanted to watch ultra violence I would have rented a film about footy hooligans. The action sequences are undecipherable, the dialogue is dull and I've seen better chase scenes from the keystone cops. Boring, boring and even more yawn inducing tat. This film sucks, and should invoke the end of Daniel Craig as Bond. By the way I am a massive Bond fan, and I thought Casino Royale was great, but if this is the way things are going with Bond, then it's time to have a massive re-think. Expand
  32. WilliamC.
    Nov 16, 2008
    3
    Disappointing! The opening theme song was garbage, and the "Bond" theme music never played until the ending credits.Then there's the film itself...Muddled dialog,poorly edited, and seemingly endless action sequences that looked staged and fake. The story line/plot is only evident 7/8's of the way thru the film.I can't blame the actors here , but just about every part of Disappointing! The opening theme song was garbage, and the "Bond" theme music never played until the ending credits.Then there's the film itself...Muddled dialog,poorly edited, and seemingly endless action sequences that looked staged and fake. The story line/plot is only evident 7/8's of the way thru the film.I can't blame the actors here , but just about every part of this film is sub-par.Maybe the weakest,dumbest of all the Bond Films.The Broccoli family laid a egg. Expand
  33. MichalI
    Nov 16, 2008
    4
    The movie started good then as it kept going, it became a boring drag and hit the bottom by the time it ended. Even if you watched casino royale and they were only 2 years apart, you still don't feel any emotional connection to the characters and their stories unlike what the movie seems like it is trying to accomplish. QoS just doesn't deliver.
  34. JasonR.
    Nov 16, 2008
    4
    Hugely disappointing. No character development. Terrible editing. Wow, they really blew it.
  35. DanaM.
    Nov 17, 2008
    4
    I really wanted to like this movie. I really did. But this was a disjointed confusing series of chase and fight scenes. It was very hard to connect with any of the characters. I think Bond spoke between twenty and thirty words the whole movie. Did I say the plot was very confusing? Sorry Bond, no gold for you this time
  36. kvan
    Nov 17, 2008
    4
    Time to retool the franchise again. The plot was horrible, and there was no chemistry between any of the characters. If they didn't bill this as a Bond movie, it would have gone right to DVD.
  37. JacobC
    Nov 17, 2008
    2
    Theres a plot...but its thin, and there is virtually no ending. Also, major questions go unanswered for the viewer, but not James Bond. If you've seen the movie, you know what I mean.
  38. BrianT.
    Nov 18, 2008
    3
    This was definitely in the lower echelon of Bond films. Daniel Craig is good, but this movie is weakly plotted and has an annoyingly thin story line. Some of the action sequences are murky, making it difficult to tell who's who. I found myself getting restless leg syndrome and it wasn't even a very long movie by Bond standards.
  39. KevinF
    Nov 22, 2008
    4
    Remember the good old days when part of the joy of a Bond movie was watching the gorgeous 'dames"...it's a sad commentary on the franchise that the highlight of this movie was again the "Dame". I found myself looking forward to her scenes just because she was the only vaguely human presence in the movie. Don't get me wrong, I loved Casino Royal and thought it was a Remember the good old days when part of the joy of a Bond movie was watching the gorgeous 'dames"...it's a sad commentary on the franchise that the highlight of this movie was again the "Dame". I found myself looking forward to her scenes just because she was the only vaguely human presence in the movie. Don't get me wrong, I loved Casino Royal and thought it was a brilliant re-imagining of the franchise, and I have to say that this movie is well written (I guess that's to be expected when Paul Haggis is involved) but it had no real heart, in both senses of the word. Bond was marginally psychopathic (hard to root for a serial killer) and the set pieces were predictable. God bless Jason Bourne, I think the introduction of a more "Bourne like" texture to Bond is great but I think the director of the next Bond movie would do well to watch the Bourne movies again and figure out that all the great action in the world is hollow unless the audience cares about the outcome and the characters (gosh where have I heard that before) Expand
  40. EliC.
    Nov 22, 2008
    1
    Film history will deem this the worst of the Bond movies. Even 'A View to a Kill' , the Bond film generally listed as the worst, is redeemable because of a good song and the presence of Grace Jones. Nothing in this tedious film saves it except that I hope that we will still see Daniel Craig in the next film. He surely is a great James Bond. Nothing else in this 23rd in the Film history will deem this the worst of the Bond movies. Even 'A View to a Kill' , the Bond film generally listed as the worst, is redeemable because of a good song and the presence of Grace Jones. Nothing in this tedious film saves it except that I hope that we will still see Daniel Craig in the next film. He surely is a great James Bond. Nothing else in this 23rd in the series works. The music is awful, the plot is lame and the editing makes the action unviewable. At a short 105 minutes, this film need at least 30 more minutes to fill out basic plot. I knew that this film was in trouble within the first 15 minutes. After watching the incomprehensible pre-title sequence, I rewrote the screenplay in my head the way it SHOULD have been scripted. Expand
  41. AronJ.
    Dec 1, 2008
    2
    As time goes on, and more bond films come out, the more they strey from who james bond is supposed to be, james bond is becoming more like rambo and Quantum is exactly that, just not james bond anymore, although watchable if you like action movies.
  42. KevinS
    Nov 14, 2008
    1
    Easily one of the worst Bond films... The special effects are ho-hum, the action scenes are poorly edited and make it hard to understand whats happening. The villain is pathetic. And to top it all off, veteran Hollweird leftist and self described Marxist Paul Haggis has infused the script with left wing, politically correct propaganda. Part of the plot also seems to bash America for Easily one of the worst Bond films... The special effects are ho-hum, the action scenes are poorly edited and make it hard to understand whats happening. The villain is pathetic. And to top it all off, veteran Hollweird leftist and self described Marxist Paul Haggis has infused the script with left wing, politically correct propaganda. Part of the plot also seems to bash America for taking advantage of poor countries. This movie REALLY left a bad taste in my mouth. Expand
  43. JamesS.
    Nov 14, 2008
    3
    What a lousy film. All that $$$ on special effects and great actors -- and story boring, and sound terrible (can't understand half of what actors say). Wish I'd stopped at Casino Royale!
  44. Delspencerdeltorro
    Nov 15, 2008
    4
    This movie will definitely be a disappointment for Bond fans. It's not even a good movie in general, let alone good enough to be a Bond movie. Although it contains many references to other Bond films, it doesn't actually seem like it's trying to be one. Almost the entire cast spends the whole film being angry, and the secret organization out to destroy the world is really This movie will definitely be a disappointment for Bond fans. It's not even a good movie in general, let alone good enough to be a Bond movie. Although it contains many references to other Bond films, it doesn't actually seem like it's trying to be one. Almost the entire cast spends the whole film being angry, and the secret organization out to destroy the world is really just causing a drought in Bolivia. Many scenes left more of a "what?" than a "wow!" The classic gun-barrel scene was tacked on at the end of the movie, and it was more angry than suave. The theme song, "Another Way to Die", is pretty good musically, but the title reminds me of the McBane parody from The Simpsons, Die Again Tomorrow. Actually, the whole movie reminds me of this parody, or maybe an action-movie commercial. Expand
  45. RonS.
    Nov 15, 2008
    1
    As bad a flick as casino royale was great Roger Moore now once again assumes the mantle of the best bond.
  46. KevinH.
    Nov 16, 2008
    4
    After the sensational CASINO ROYALE, this is a big disappointment. CR had thrilling stuntwork & coherent plot. Here, we're back to BOURNE-like action sequences that are cut so fast and furious that the audience feels nothing while watching it. And I hope that Daniel Craig didn't do any of his own stunts because the way they were filmed in such fragmented short bursts of After the sensational CASINO ROYALE, this is a big disappointment. CR had thrilling stuntwork & coherent plot. Here, we're back to BOURNE-like action sequences that are cut so fast and furious that the audience feels nothing while watching it. And I hope that Daniel Craig didn't do any of his own stunts because the way they were filmed in such fragmented short bursts of confusion, he needn't have taken the risks. Worst opening credits ever; worst Bond song ever. The plot is a mess and when Bond finally gets the villain at the end (nots not a spoiler), it all happens off-stage (suddenly the villain is saying, "Well, I've told you everything I know..."). The ending will thrill those who like explosions but if you want to know WHY anyone did what they did, you're out of luck. Expand
  47. KimL.
    Nov 16, 2008
    4
    no plot just shootem up mindless violence. the studio put this drivel together to cash in on the success of casino royal. I am sorry I got taken in. I am so disappointed.
  48. Bradlee
    Nov 17, 2008
    4
    If you wanted to see a James Bond Movie, then this isn't it. No cool toys for Bond, barely any Bond references. Could easily have been any action movie. Bottom line, no toys, no sex, barely any action.
  49. ChrisC.
    Nov 18, 2008
    3
    Very disappointing. I like the new portrayal of Bond, it's way more true to the Fleming novels than the campy crap of the overrated Connery ones and the foppish prettyboyness of Brosnan. And I'm happy to see the end of the random devices Bond just happens to come into the exact situation for him to need it. Craig is how Bond should be portrayed. But the action sequences were Very disappointing. I like the new portrayal of Bond, it's way more true to the Fleming novels than the campy crap of the overrated Connery ones and the foppish prettyboyness of Brosnan. And I'm happy to see the end of the random devices Bond just happens to come into the exact situation for him to need it. Craig is how Bond should be portrayed. But the action sequences were terrible. They were so contrived they came off like the Peter vs The Chicken sequences from Family Guy. The villains were completely uncompelling, the writing was just lame. It was just a cookie cutter action flick whose main character just happened to be named Bond. Expand
  50. VS.D.
    Nov 21, 2008
    3
    Ugh. The story was nonsense. It made so little sense that at one point I wondered if the projectionist had skipped a reel.
  51. ScottE
    Nov 22, 2008
    4
    Like many of the other reviewers the story line was much too thin, even for a bond movie. The bad guys were totally forgettable. Their entire diabolical scheme is never even close to coming to fruition which doesn't lead to any sense of urgency to stop them. The American patsy operatives were boring and added nothing. Would have been better to stay home and watch Casino Royale again on DVD.
  52. Mar 3, 2011
    0
    Over dramitised

    I now understand why people kill themselves, with movies like this and Casino Royale, what the h3ll is wrong with the directors of today. I believe the world would be better if the just drowned themselves in a bucket of their own urine and aired that instead of this crap. At least then people would be left with a sense of satisfaction. Very very poor.
  53. Aug 27, 2011
    4
    Daniel Craig still shows himself as one of the best Bonds ever, and I applaud the filmmakers for wanting to veer away from the campy days of yore, but this Bond film is so morose, in a bad way, that it comes across as a bland actioner disguised as something more. Quantum of Solace is an average film, and that's arguably the worst thing one can be.
  54. Dec 11, 2012
    3
    This was a bitter disappointment compared to Casino Royale, ditching a substantial story for a string of action scenes. The plot is ruined by its eco subtext, which gets tedious and annoying. The villain wasn't sinister at all, he was the sort of guy you'd take out for a beer. The lack of originality is incredibly obvious, the action scenes gave me serious deja vu of the M:I series, andThis was a bitter disappointment compared to Casino Royale, ditching a substantial story for a string of action scenes. The plot is ruined by its eco subtext, which gets tedious and annoying. The villain wasn't sinister at all, he was the sort of guy you'd take out for a beer. The lack of originality is incredibly obvious, the action scenes gave me serious deja vu of the M:I series, and Bond's subplot of his eagerness to avenge Vesper Lynd shamelessly borrows from The Bourne Supremacy. The ending is atrocious, since when would Bond leave the Bond girl stranded in a Bolivian desert town? The gaps in logic are bigger than Jupiter, he puts Vesper's father's corpse in a dumpster instead of having a proper burial, and some random guy comes and fights Bond in a hotel with no connection to the plot whatsoever. Worst of all is the shaky cam and rapid fire editing, which dominated the action making it difficult to watch. The only things giving me points to this movie are Daniel Craig's gritty portrayal of Bond, and the holographic table scene, that's all. Topping Casino Royale was always going to be difficult, but Quantum of Solace doesn't even come close. Expand
  55. Jan 24, 2013
    3
    first things first. this movie has some of the worst film editing i've ever seen. it cuts between cameras in literally less than 1 second intervals. and it blatantly ignores decades of bond lore, as well as the scientific laws of time. i heard great things about skyfall so i figured i would catch up with daniel craig's bond beforehand, but i would recommend just skipping this one altogether.
  56. Nov 8, 2014
    4
    This film is a mess. There are good features, the theme song is one of the best yet, Daniel Craig is yet again very good. But really the film is needlessly hard to follow, it feels awfully disjointed and the villain is not a charismatic one. This would all be fine if it was enjoyable during the film, but it's not really, it's a bit boring.
  57. Nov 3, 2012
    4
    A big step back after Casino Royale. The action isn't really rememberable (like the parkour fight in its predecessor) and the actors are bad. You have to put feelings into it to make Daniel Craig endurable - like in Casino Royale. It's just a sequel to it, which is a short movie but is longsome. 'Quantum Of Solace' is not that bad because you can enjoy it as a moderate action movie butA big step back after Casino Royale. The action isn't really rememberable (like the parkour fight in its predecessor) and the actors are bad. You have to put feelings into it to make Daniel Craig endurable - like in Casino Royale. It's just a sequel to it, which is a short movie but is longsome. 'Quantum Of Solace' is not that bad because you can enjoy it as a moderate action movie but they could've done way better. Expand
  58. Jul 10, 2013
    4
    It's not a perfect follow up the phenomenon and just on the average mark. The story is wasted just as the dull villain who may look creepy, does nothing memorable. Other supporting cast are either wasted or good. What this film does deliver is very exciting and outstanding action scenes, with some of the best of the series and touching moments. I still disagree with the fast cut editingIt's not a perfect follow up the phenomenon and just on the average mark. The story is wasted just as the dull villain who may look creepy, does nothing memorable. Other supporting cast are either wasted or good. What this film does deliver is very exciting and outstanding action scenes, with some of the best of the series and touching moments. I still disagree with the fast cut editing like a Bourne movie. Expand
  59. Mar 23, 2015
    2
    Overwrought with complete disregard for any Bond purist to overuse of Bourne flair. This is no Bond film it takes a steamy **** on your memory I've watched several times and then it flies out of conscience into the abyss.

    From the worst Bond intro song to the most unnatural and unyielding story and having no Bond in story is disgusting.
  60. Nov 13, 2013
    4
    Quantum of Solace is an action packed hot mess.
    The entire movie is plagued with absolute horrible direction, compact with terrible cut scenes. It relies heavily on jumpy cameras and snappy one liners that it simply doesn't work.
  61. Feb 17, 2015
    0
    I loved Casino Royale, but this, this is pure **** its the literal blandest film in the bond franchise and its something a bond film shouldnt be, i **** hate bland films, and this one was so mediocre i cant remember anything about its plot, just so unmemorable
Metascore
58

Mixed or average reviews - based on 38 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 20 out of 38
  2. Negative: 2 out of 38
  1. Reviewed by: Kim Newman
    80
    As with "The Dark Knight," the only real caveat is that while it's exciting and imaginative, it's not exactly anyone's idea of fun. To keep in the game, perhaps the next movie could let the hero enjoy himself a bit more.
  2. Reviewed by: Jay Slater
    60
    Quantum of Solace may be explosive with images of fiery infernos, but it's convoluted and confusing, the plot playing second fiddle to its set pieces.
  3. The new picture allows hardly any flourishes of style and character in the 007 tradition, but moviegoers seeking an adrenaline rush will be well pleased.