User Score
6.4 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 412 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 68 out of 412

Review this movie

  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. AndyM.
    Nov 16, 2008
    5
    I'm no rabid Bond fan, so this review won't be based on Quantum's adherence to the books or how it compares Sean Connery's films. In a nutshell, this movie had no great plot. It tried to be intellectual, but the plot was just a mess. So one would think action would make up for all of this, right? Well, there is a LOT of action, but I hate how it was shot. The car chase at the beginning has a camera so frantic and jumpy that it's nearly impossible to decipher what's going on. It gets a little better after this, but not much. The "Bond girl" in this movie got a lot of hype, but she wasn't THAT good looking. The complete and utter lack of sex didn't ruin the movie, but it certainly could've helped things. Oh, and there are no gadgets, save for... touchscreen technology, which is so 2 years ago. So why a 5? It's got some stunning scenes (when you can see what's going on) and Daniel Craig plays a cool Bond, so that helps. This is... a rentable, I think. Expand
  2. HarryP.
    Nov 2, 2008
    5
    This has got to be the worse James Bond film i have ever watched.... Pierce was a better bond.. But even Casino Royale beat this... this just isnt Bond.
  3. AnthonyF
    Jul 16, 2009
    5
    Never have I been this critical with any Bond film. The Man with the Golden Gun was pretty bad, but this one was just off the charts. Never have I seen a Bond film suffer from an identity crisis this bad. The film is a mess. The screeplay's a mess, the action scenes are a mess and even the climax is a mess. I don't think James Bond needed to be restarted, I think he needed a good screenplay thrown his way. Expand
  4. DavidA.
    Nov 14, 2008
    5
    This was a Bond movie in name only! No gadgets, little humor and very little character development. I was actually glad the movie got over so I could leave. When you find yourself checking your watch during a Bond movie, you know it's boring. Good stunts but missing all of the critical elements that makes you look forward to a new Bond movie. Disappointing.
  5. BobK.
    Nov 16, 2008
    5
    High on action shots, but the action depicted is not credible human action but rather more like one of those Chinese action films. The premise of the story seems rather unengaging.
  6. Aug 30, 2010
    5
    A huge disappointment after the stellar Casino Royale. Hopefully the next 007 film can try to bring back the Bond we all know and love. I don't like this brooding antihero guy.
  7. Nov 20, 2012
    5
    This movie is a toss-up since License to Kill. A corny and weak plot so unimaginable winds up being concentrated on something else. Also the movie is short despite five good action scenes and there's nothing else special in this one.
  8. Dec 31, 2011
    5
    It really sorted of abandoned all plot in exchange for good action sequences. I did like however that Craig was able to show a more serious side then he did in the previous film, Even though it made his character come off a bit of an emo (but thats because of the poor script, not Craig himself). Also the film was pretty much a knock off of The Bourne Ultimatum. The action sequences reminded me a lot about that film and it made Quantum Of Solace look cheesey.

    Overall the film is a huge step down from the first film, I expected better.
    Expand
  9. 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.
  10. AndrewR.
    Nov 15, 2008
    4
    Ok but pales next to Casino Royale. Way too frenetic and needed plot help.
  11. 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 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
  12. 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 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. JasonR.
    Nov 16, 2008
    4
    Hugely disappointing. No character development. Terrible editing. Wow, they really blew it.
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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 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
  20. 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 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
  21. 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 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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 but they could've done way better. Expand
  27. BenjaminG.
    Nov 20, 2008
    3
    Just another Action Movie, not Bond anymore.
  28. 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 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
  29. 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.
  30. 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 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
Metascore

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.