Columbia Pictures | Release Date: November 14, 2008
6.3
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 601 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
297
Mixed:
220
Negative:
84
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
0
DavidW.Nov 22, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
DorothyL.Nov 23, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JIMBNov 24, 2008
this movie is by far better than the all the horror mivies being made today. at least bond uses more realistic toys in the new movies and not all the old gimimicks, car that dissapear, watches that can left 2 people without taking your arm this movie is by far better than the all the horror mivies being made today. at least bond uses more realistic toys in the new movies and not all the old gimimicks, car that dissapear, watches that can left 2 people without taking your arm off? Hope the new writers keep it real in the future as well. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JohnnyG.Nov 24, 2008
What's wrong with a little action? Not as good as Casino Royale of course, but still good nonetheless. I had low expectations due to hearing poor reviews from people who had high expectations, so when I went into the film I left feeling What's wrong with a little action? Not as good as Casino Royale of course, but still good nonetheless. I had low expectations due to hearing poor reviews from people who had high expectations, so when I went into the film I left feeling very relieved and anything but dissappointed. True, I have not scene any bond film other than a Brosnan's or Craig's, but I have to admit, for what this film was, it was a good one. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DH.Nov 20, 2008
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. 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
teriwanTNov 27, 2008
Worst Bond movie ever? I think not! In fact, I think that was Die Another Day. Ring any bells? Thank you Daniel Craig for reinstating my faith in the franchise. Sure, this film is not perfect, but its a definate step in the right direction. Worst Bond movie ever? I think not! In fact, I think that was Die Another Day. Ring any bells? Thank you Daniel Craig for reinstating my faith in the franchise. Sure, this film is not perfect, but its a definate step in the right direction. My only two complaints about this one are that the villian could have been more menacing and the action scenes not so poorly edited. Otherwise it was a very enjoyable night at the movies for me. I like the fact that they are moulding the character closer to Ian Flemmings original ideas of Bond and not the horrible cheese-and-wine character that Brosnan portrayed with his stupid remarks and lame jokes. Can't wait to see what they will do with the next installment! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
LarryNov 28, 2008
On balance, no better or worse than "Casino Royale." Had its strengths, plus real weaknesses. Craig is a special Bond, as was Connery. The development of his relationship with 'M' has been excellent, probably the best element of On balance, no better or worse than "Casino Royale." Had its strengths, plus real weaknesses. Craig is a special Bond, as was Connery. The development of his relationship with 'M' has been excellent, probably the best element of two movies. Plot was thin, but not nearly as confusing as I'd been led to believe. Really disliked the denouement scenes in the weird desert hotel. Lacked cleverness and the action was forced on the viewer rather mindlessly. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ASNov 29, 2008
After watching this movie, I've come to realize that many people (and especially critics) just didn't get it. It's part two of Casino Royale. It is a two-movie storyline that explains why he is who he is and why the love of a After watching this movie, I've come to realize that many people (and especially critics) just didn't get it. It's part two of Casino Royale. It is a two-movie storyline that explains why he is who he is and why the love of a woman will never again pull him away from his "job". It wasn't that the plot was weak as many as said. It was simply just an extension of the first movie's plot to wrap up James Bond's introduction to us in this format. There were obvious signs that the next movie will be a new plot in a more traditional Bond way. The first two movies set up who this Bond is...now we go forward. By the way, the entertainment value of this movie is still very high. It is such a good way to introduce the best bond of a new generation. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
BaraS.Nov 5, 2008
Nothing special I must say. After great Casino Royale I expected something even better but no. Nothing like that happened. Evil guy is not so evil. Olga Kurylenko is very nice girl but she´s not charismatic Eva Green. Actions Nothing special I must say. After great Casino Royale I expected something even better but no. Nothing like that happened. Evil guy is not so evil. Olga Kurylenko is very nice girl but she´s not charismatic Eva Green. Actions are easy to forget. My expectations weren´t fulfilled. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
GabrielJ.Dec 11, 2008
well I
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JohnDDec 1, 2008
After readiing the reviews I was expecting to be disappointed, but this Bond movie is one of the most exotic, intelligent and action-packed of all. Some really great sequences - all properly done - (no CGI) - and the close-up / quick cut After readiing the reviews I was expecting to be disappointed, but this Bond movie is one of the most exotic, intelligent and action-packed of all. Some really great sequences - all properly done - (no CGI) - and the close-up / quick cut MTV-style editing places the viewer right in the mayhem. Yes, it's brutal and there are absolutely no Moore-esque one-liners or gadgets, this is a Bond for adults. Recommended. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
TomCDec 2, 2008
What Craig gains in the way of brutish subtlety means a loss of the charm and fun people expect from Bond films. Quantum is perfectly average, reaching the quota for explosions and attractive women, however; the plot is convoluted while What Craig gains in the way of brutish subtlety means a loss of the charm and fun people expect from Bond films. Quantum is perfectly average, reaching the quota for explosions and attractive women, however; the plot is convoluted while falling short of being intriguing, the action scene directing is frustratingly scrappy and most disturbingly it seems that the formally flirtatious attitude of Bond films has been abandoned. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DominicG.Dec 20, 2008
Really enjoyed this movie - so much better than expected after reading mised reviews. The Bond team have truly reinvigorated this frachise just when it was on its last legs. A gripping, suspenseful plot that keeps the audience guessing, Really enjoyed this movie - so much better than expected after reading mised reviews. The Bond team have truly reinvigorated this frachise just when it was on its last legs. A gripping, suspenseful plot that keeps the audience guessing, worthy characters and break neck action sequences. I hope they can maintain this quality standard for the next one. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
PeterHDec 2, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JackS.Dec 4, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
MarkWDec 9, 2008
The first Bond film I liked was Casino Royale the second is Quantum of Solace. I just can't stand the cheese associated with most Bond films so the last two instalments are a welcome relief. Still I guess I can understand why Bond fans The first Bond film I liked was Casino Royale the second is Quantum of Solace. I just can't stand the cheese associated with most Bond films so the last two instalments are a welcome relief. Still I guess I can understand why Bond fans are bitter, there are plenty of intelligent films out there so perhaps the Bond franchise should stick to what the Bond fans like. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
BenW.Oct 31, 2008
Good film. Much faster paced than Casino Royale. Less story more action and that's done incredibly well.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
HarryLeechOct 31, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DazzerNOct 31, 2008
The film is nothing short of an adreline rush to head from start to end. Have to give credit to marc foster the director for pulling off a movie like this. I honestly thought daniel craig was a shambles in the beginning of casino royale, but The film is nothing short of an adreline rush to head from start to end. Have to give credit to marc foster the director for pulling off a movie like this. I honestly thought daniel craig was a shambles in the beginning of casino royale, but he has proved more than worthy of holding the title 007. One the best bond films i have watched! (P.S I also have to admit I hated the intro song, its just not bond style, otherwise would have gave 10!). Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MeJan 16, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
wetwebworkNov 14, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
tdmacNov 14, 2008
I think Craig's take on Bond is fabulous. He's the best Bond thus far, in my opinion. That being said, I think this movie is a bit all over the place given the multiple story lines that run throughout. Some of them are entirely I think Craig's take on Bond is fabulous. He's the best Bond thus far, in my opinion. That being said, I think this movie is a bit all over the place given the multiple story lines that run throughout. Some of them are entirely unnecessary as they do not relate in any way to the characters and occurrences of Casino Royale. Because this movie "intends" to be a sequel to C.R., the added stories only succeed in muddying the water. I wanted to see Bond's emotional journey on being betrayed by Vesper and losing her...and to know more about the organization who set all of that into motion. Instead we get too many stories that end up keeping each story diluted. Great for action and "homages" paid to the series. Daniel Craig and Judi Dench, great. I wanted to see more Jeffrey Wright! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ChristianP.Nov 14, 2008
I was worried when I saw the bad reviews, but after seeing the movie myself, I am so relieved. It got off to a bad start with the close-up heavy car chase that was disorienting and then the theme song was terribly produced and I saw that I was worried when I saw the bad reviews, but after seeing the movie myself, I am so relieved. It got off to a bad start with the close-up heavy car chase that was disorienting and then the theme song was terribly produced and I saw that Paul Haggis wrote it and cringed. BUT all of my fears were put to rest. Daniel Craig is wonderful as Bond and Judy Dench steals her scenes. The villain is a great 21st century bad guy--weasely and corrupt but still pure evil. I'm a bit confused with all these bad reviews on here! Honestly, what were the big problems?! Just as gritty as Casino Royale. I would love to see the next one be more of a spy/espionage film than an action movie though. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
RyanL.Nov 14, 2008
Serious, focused Bond film, nicely bookending the previous chapter, Casino Royale. It's different from past Bonds, but variety has been what's kept this series going for 45 years.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
kylebNov 14, 2008
Just got back from a midnight showing. Don't believe the critics. This is a pi$$ed off and obsessed Bond which Craig plays perfectly. For the straight men who are the target audience, it's a rockin' good time, but that leaves Just got back from a midnight showing. Don't believe the critics. This is a pi$$ed off and obsessed Bond which Craig plays perfectly. For the straight men who are the target audience, it's a rockin' good time, but that leaves out a lot of critics. Only problem I found with it was the villain is pretty weak. One more thing: Best Dialog Ever--at least in a Bond flick. Tightly written and diamond sharp. The audience was straining to not miss a word, and there were many satisfied laughs at the clever lines. The lack of a 40 minute card game is also a bonus. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
MattA.Nov 14, 2008
Ok... so maybe i'm being a little too nice to QoS. I mean...plot wise... it was messy. It used every excuse to get to the next action scene. The "bad guy" was too low-key and not maniacal in the least. The bond girl was nice... but too Ok... so maybe i'm being a little too nice to QoS. I mean...plot wise... it was messy. It used every excuse to get to the next action scene. The "bad guy" was too low-key and not maniacal in the least. The bond girl was nice... but too self- sufficient. So all in all... it wasn't James Bond. Bond himself didn't even seem to be having a good time at all. However... THIS WAS NOT TERRIBLE! The action was fun...well...for the audience i suppose. The scenes were beautiful. Casino Royal gave us too much and left us wanting more. Quantum gives us some hamburger to fill the rest of us up...when we were eating steak. Go into Quantum, as i did, expecting to see a decent action movie. Don't go in hoping to be on the edge of your seat with the plot however. Just smile at the pretty things going boom. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
chrishNov 14, 2008
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?" 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JesseB.Nov 14, 2008
Deep, engaging, shot and edited with far more heart and mind then any previous Bond film, Quantum of Solace proves that quality filmmaking to a franchise DOES improve the end result.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
KidNov 15, 2008
Daniel Craig can be Bond, but the directors won't ALLOW him to reach the pedestal. The last great Bond film was 'Goldeneye'......Bond doesn't need the whole 'Fast-paced-too-quick-for-your-eyes' action sequences Daniel Craig can be Bond, but the directors won't ALLOW him to reach the pedestal. The last great Bond film was 'Goldeneye'......Bond doesn't need the whole 'Fast-paced-too-quick-for-your-eyes' action sequences - it needs a plan, even if the plan is slowly revealed in both revelation and action - Bond isn't meant to be the way they have lately portrayed him. He's a smooth-player, charming, and a planner - and as Roger Ebert said perfectly, not an 'action-hero'. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
BrianB.Nov 15, 2008
Daniel Craig continues to push his role in this economical version of bond who acts first and rarely has time to quip. The suave spy in the tailored suit has never been so kinetic and so engagingly brutal.
0 of 0 users found this helpful