Quantum of Solace

User Score
6.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 582 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 81 out of 582

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream 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

User Reviews

  1. 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.
  2. AndrewR.
    Nov 15, 2008
    4
    Ok but pales next to Casino Royale. Way too frenetic and needed plot help.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. JasonR.
    Nov 16, 2008
    4
    Hugely disappointing. No character development. Terrible editing. Wow, they really blew it.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. Mar 12, 2016
    4
    Quantum of Solace is a bit of a mess. Its action is over the top and makes it look as though Michael Bay took over direction at some point given its affinity for hard to follow action and explosions. The story is a bit much and I did not love the revenge angle too much. If the story was more fleshed out, I think the film would have benefited. As it stood, the film was too short. OlgaQuantum of Solace is a bit of a mess. Its action is over the top and makes it look as though Michael Bay took over direction at some point given its affinity for hard to follow action and explosions. The story is a bit much and I did not love the revenge angle too much. If the story was more fleshed out, I think the film would have benefited. As it stood, the film was too short. Olga Kurylenko's character has very little to do here other than look good, aside from the minor sub-plot that feels shoehorned in. That being said, that is where the negatives just about end. The non-action direction from Marc Forster is quite stylish, and the acting from Daniel Craig and Judi Dench is fantastic. Quantum of Solace has style for days and is not afraid to use it, but it truly is style over substance here with a pretty worthless plot. Quantum of Solace is an entirely mediocre effort from director Marc Forster. Expand
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Jul 26, 2015
    4
    What is so sad about Quantum of Solace is the tremendous step down it was from Casino Royale. The only thing that makes this a Bond movie is Bond himself. All the style, action, and fun is sucked out and replaced by painful mediocrity.
  23. 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.
  24. Nov 7, 2015
    4
    Well, in 2015 this web-site told me that this movie is 'new or notable' so I decided to write a review. It's bad. There're so many movies about 007 (LOTS) that I'd rather call it cliche than something new. Movie is absolutely not satisfying. Plot is trash, all the sh*t happening is trash. Rather no than yes.
  25. Oct 30, 2015
    4
    Yes, it's true what they say. 'Quantum of Solace' is a silly, choppy action movie that felt less like a Bond movie and more like a Bourne movie.

    Daniel Craig still maintains the role magnificently well, doing what he can in a silly action film. Olga Kurylenko makes a good Bond girl and Mathieu Amalric is an okay Bond villain. I don't remember him as much as previous villains, especially
    Yes, it's true what they say. 'Quantum of Solace' is a silly, choppy action movie that felt less like a Bond movie and more like a Bourne movie.

    Daniel Craig still maintains the role magnificently well, doing what he can in a silly action film. Olga Kurylenko makes a good Bond girl and Mathieu Amalric is an okay Bond villain. I don't remember him as much as previous villains, especially Mads Mikkelsen ('Casino Royale'), and then Javier Bardem ('Skyfall') four years later.

    I am not sure whether 'Quantum of Solace' would have been a much better movie if it wasn't a follow up to the great 'Casino Royale' (2006). It felt more like one of those dumb, gimmicky Pierce Brosnan movies after 'Goldeneye' (1995), this movie reminded me of 'Die Another Day' (2002), I was afraid that this current series of Bond movies would fall into that routine of dumb action and gimmicky moments. After starting off so well in 'Casino Royale' (2006), I feared this movie would end Daniel Craig, luckily he survived this one.

    I just hope we never see another dumb action Bond flick ever again.
    Expand
  26. Apr 1, 2016
    4
    A reviewer may come to a new James Bond movie — “Quantum of Solace,” directed by Marc Forster and opening Friday, is the 22nd official installment of the series in 46 years — with a nifty theory or an elaborate sociocultural hermeneutic agenda, but the most important thing to have on hand is a checklist. It’s all well and good to reflect upon the ways 007, the Harry Potter of BritishA reviewer may come to a new James Bond movie — “Quantum of Solace,” directed by Marc Forster and opening Friday, is the 22nd official installment of the series in 46 years — with a nifty theory or an elaborate sociocultural hermeneutic agenda, but the most important thing to have on hand is a checklist. It’s all well and good to reflect upon the ways 007, the Harry Potter of British intelligence, has evolved over time through changes in casting, geopolitics, sexual mores and styles of dress.

    But the first order of business must always be to run through the basic specs of this classic entertainment machine’s latest model and see how it measures up.

    So before we proceed to any consideration of the deeper meanings of “Quantum of Solace” (or for that matter the plain meaning of its enigmatic title), we need to assess the action, the villain, the gadgets, the babes and the other standard features.

    The opening song, performed by Jack White and Alicia Keys (an intriguing duo on paper if nowhere else), is an abysmal cacophony of incompatible musical idioms, and the title sequence over which those idioms do squalling battle is similarly disharmonious: conceptually clever and visually grating. The first chase, picking up exactly where the 2006 “Casino Royale” left off, is speedy and thrilling, but the other action set-pieces are a decidedly mixed bag, with a few crisp footraces, some semi-coherent punch-outs and a dreadful boat pileup that brings back painful memories of the invisible car Pierce Brosnan tooled around in a few movies ago.

    Picturesque locales? Bolivia, Haiti, Austria and Italy are featured or impersonated, to perfectly nice touristic effect. Gizmos? A bit disappointing, to tell the truth. Technological advances in the real world may not quite have outpaced those in the Bond universe, but so many movies these days show off their global video surveillance set-ups and advanced smart-phone applications that it’s hard for this one to distinguish itself.

    What about the villain? One of the best in a while, I’d say, thanks to a lizardy turn from the great French actor Mathieu Amalric, who plays Dominic Greene, a ruthless economic predator disguised as an ecological do-gooder. The supporting cast is studded with equally excellent performers, including Jeffrey Wright and Giancarlo Giannini, both reprising their roles in “Casino Royale.”

    And the women? There are two, as usual — not counting Judi Dench, returning as the brisk and impatient M — one (Gemma Arterton) a doomed casual plaything, the other a more serious dramatic foil and potential romantic interest. That one, called Camille, is played by Olga Kurylenko, whose specialty seems to be appearing in action pictures as the pouty, sexy sidekick of a brooding, vengeful hero. Not only Daniel Craig’s Bond, but also Mark Wahlberg’s Max Payne and Timothy Olyphant’s Hitman.

    James Bond is a much livelier character than either of those mopey video-game ciphers, but he shares with them the astonishing ability to resist, indeed to ignore, Ms. Kurylenko’s physical charms.

    This is not out of any professional scruple. The plot of “Quantum of Solace” is largely propelled by Bond’s angry flouting of the discipline imposed by his job, and anyway when did James Bond ever let work get in the way of sex? No, what gets in the way is emotion. 007’s grief and rage, the source of his connection to Camille, are forces more powerful than either duty or libido.

    Mr. Brosnan was the first actor to allow a glimmer of complicated emotion to peek through Bond’s cool, rakish facade, and since Mr. Craig took over the franchise two years ago the character has shown a temperament at once rougher and more soulful than in previous incarnations. The violence in his first outing, “Casino Royale,” was notably intense, and while “Quantum of Solace” is not quite as brutal, the mood is if anything even more grim and downcast.

    The death in “Casino” of Bond’s lover Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), along with the possibility that she had betrayed him before dying, provides an obvious psychological explanation for his somber demeanor in “Quantum.” But while the exploration of Bond’s psychology makes him, arguably at least, a deeper, subtler character — and there is certainly impressive depth and subtlety in Mr. Craig’s wounded, whispery menace — it also makes him harder to distinguish from every other grieving, seething avenger at the multiplex.

    “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.
    Expand
  27. Apr 2, 2016
    4
    Marc Forster Has a License to Confuse and Bore in Quantum of Solace.

    Those of us who adored Casino Royale, the 2006 reboot of the haggard, self-parodic James Bond franchise, had some trouble trying to decide where to place it among the series' finest. Was it better than Goldfinger? Probably not, but close. The Spy Who Loved Me? Maybe so. From Russia With Love? Nope—missed it by this
    Marc Forster Has a License to Confuse and Bore in Quantum of Solace.

    Those of us who adored Casino Royale, the 2006 reboot of the haggard, self-parodic James Bond franchise, had some trouble trying to decide where to place it among the series' finest. Was it better than Goldfinger? Probably not, but close. The Spy Who Loved Me? Maybe so. From Russia With Love? Nope—missed it by this much, to quote another secret agent. Granted, it's all shades of bullet-gray when it comes to Bond, historically riddled with silly, soporific misfires that looked the same regardless of who wore the tux and gulped the gin and gave the girl one last gasp before she drew her last breath.

    But Casino Royale was a welcome break with a wearying tradition: It was the first James Bond movie since On Her Majesty's Secret Service to portray 007 as something more than a suave, Kennedy-era caricature—a handsome head perched upon a tailored suit and a martini glass. Daniel Craig, an art-house bombshell if there is such a thing, brought to Bond warmth, humanity, and, above all, gives-a-damn decency heretofore lacking since George Lazenby's sole stint as Connery's stand-in. More than just a good time spent riding shotgun in a tricked-out ride with a bad boy, Casino Royale was a love story masquerading as a spy thriller, with Bond falling for his collaborator and eventual betrayer, Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), who was working for . . . ?

    That, alas, is the question allegedly answered by Quantum of Solace, which takes its title from an inconsequential Ian Fleming short story and is the first Bond movie to serve as a direct sequel. Allegedly, because Craig's second outing as Bond is as frustrating, sloppy, and brusque as its predecessor was engaging, sleek, and unhurried. At 106 minutes, it's the shortest of the Bond films, but it feels like one of the longest as it bounces hither and yon only to wind up stranded in a Bolivian desert, where baddie Dominic Greene (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly's Mathieu Amalric) is sucking the sand dry of its underwater river. Yawn. Used to be, Bond villains were larger-than-life Evil Geniuses who at least had Grand Aspirations to take over the world, bwah-haw-haw. Now, the bad guy's just a phony environmentalist with a thing for deposed dictators and dry wells.

    At least, that's what Quantum of Solace seems to be about, though most of the time it's simply too hard to tell—or too pointless to care about—courtesy of the haphazard direction of Marc Forster, who demonstrates by negative example why Bond movies are best served by journeymen with something to prove rather than would-be A-listers slumming it. From its very first moments—we enter the film mid–car chase—Quantum is a spastic, indecipherable, unholy, and altogether unwatchable mess. Between swerves and smashes, we simply have no idea who's doing what to whom, where they're doing it, or why. What's meant to be kinetic and cathartic serves only to disorient, to keep the audience at a head-scratching distance.

    It's as though Forster (Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland) and his two editors (longtime collaborator Matt Cheese and, get this, Get Smart and Bourne Supremacy vet Richard Pearson) filmed Quantum on a roller coaster and cut the movie with a food processor set on "indecipherable." Consider the scene, only moments after the car chase, where Bond and M (Judi Dench, even more disagreeable than she was in Casino Royale) question the mysterious Mr. White (Jesper Christensen, reprising his role from the previous film) about his role in Vesper's double-cross and death. The interrogation, but of course, turns into a shoot-out, with Bond chasing the assassin across rooftops and through broken glass ceilings—a reprise of Casino Royale's thrilling parkour sequence, perhaps the franchise's singular Great Moment. But Forster, whose biggest action sequence to date involved Halle Berry and Billy Bob Thornton getting it on, interrupts the action with needless, irritating cutaways to inconsequential doings (dunno what, can't say, wouldn't matter anyway) elsewhere that render the entire scene a confounding, alienating muddle. Which is to say nothing of the klutzy opera-house shoot-out stolen from The Godfather: Part III only moments later.

    Written by Neil Purvis and Robert Wade (whose association with Bond dates back to 1999's The World Is Not Enough—yes, the one with Denise Richards) and Casino Royale pinch hitter Paul Haggis, Quantum of Solace may ultimately prove Bond's worst enemy to date. It's both frantic and boring, a surprising and wholly unnecessary attempt to gin up the revived franchise by turning Bond into Bourne.

    If nothing else, there's no need to worry about where Quantum of Solace fits in the Bond pantheon—it's easily one of the worst.
    Expand
  28. BenjaminG.
    Nov 20, 2008
    3
    Just another Action Movie, not Bond anymore.
  29. 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
  30. 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.
Metascore
58

Mixed or average reviews - based on 48 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 24 out of 48
  2. Negative: 2 out of 48
  1. Reviewed by: Wally Hammond
    Nov 5, 2015
    60
    So much dash, flash and thrill...there’s scant time left for character, let alone, story, fun, seduction, humour or wit.
  2. Reviewed by: Andy Lowe
    Nov 5, 2015
    60
    This is 007 in mid-story crisis; a festival of blaring action set-pieces propping up a scrappy script and undercooked characters.
  3. Reviewed by: Tim Robey
    Nov 5, 2015
    80
    Quantum of Solace offers next to no solace, if we mean respite, but in plunging its hero into a revenge-displacement grudge mission, it has the compensation of a rock-solid dramatic idea, and the intelligence to run and run with it.