with many layers which need to be peeled back.The heart of the film is Bond's emotional journey as he comes to terms with the death of Vesper, and therefore it feels less consequential than other Bond films where Bond is a key player in a wide reaching plan and plot. The plot does feel somewhat disjointed at times, particularly early on in the film, and it does make some big and sometimes silly jumps, but reaching the end of the film I felt the plot was un-important, it was merely a vehicle to provide a framework and a tapestry to enable Bond's emotional journey to played out and illustrated.Dialogue is scant and is split between brief exposition and some slower deeper conversations, particularly between M and Bond, and Bond and Camille. I think a lot is communicated via other means, through images and sound, through juxtaposition and intelligent montage which will need a second viewing to reveal itself as the first viewing the assault on the senses is somewhat disorientating.Action sequences are shot in a very similar way to Paul Greengrass's Bourne films, and the comparisons are inevitable. They do work though, and are well conceived and shot.Daniel Craig delivers a solid performance, although I have to say I was less wowed than in Casino Royale, but this is because I was not expecting such an intelligent portrayal of Bond in Casino Royale, while with QoS I was, so it was less of a surprise. Again, as in Casino Royale, this is his film, he is a primeval force that pushes the film forward.Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric and Judi Dench are all superb, although they inevitably fade into the background at times as Dan does his stuff, however Giancarlo Giannini holds his own as an emotional core to the film to rival Dan in his few brief scenes. Jeffrey Wright is great but underused. Elvis and Medrano are less consequential than I was expecting.The producers have taken a big risk with this film. More casual viewers who sit back with a bucket of popcorn and expect to be entertained while switching off their brains will not be pleased. The film expects you to understand Casino Royale well, and for you to engage. It could also prove dissatisfying to those viewers who are able to engage but want to see a familiar Bond-structure such as in OHMSS or FRWL, which is why I guess some true Bond fans have expressed concern. It's smart and rewarding but very very different.I guess for the next film a more conventional structure will be required as we get back to Bond-basics, but ultimately I'm glad this film exists, and I think the Bond legacy would be poorer without it. It is the film we should have had after OHMSS. It will be a 'one-off', but it is a triumph - small, introspective and personal.EDIT: Just seen it a second time. What doubts I had at the end of my first viewing are gone.The action sequences are top notch. Either I was too close to the screen the first time or the fast paced editing disoriented me, but on a second viewing I followed them much more easily and marvelled at the brilliance of some of the cuts.The plot makes perfect sense, there are wonderful little moments dotted around the film which I picked up on the second viewing that fill in a lot of the blanks, and also shed a new light on some of the plot turns. This film exists in a much more murky world with switching allegiances and hidden motives.Minor characters, such as Elvis and to some extent Medrano remain sketches but their place in the story is clear and preciseDaniel Craig is Ian Fleming's James Bond unquestionably. This film is much better than Casino Royale or indeed any other Bond movie. In fact, it is a masterpiece. An intoxicating blend of action, suspense and drama.It's a brave move of the producers to make a film like this, as the general public will go into the theatre with pre-conceived expectations of what a Bond film should do, which this film doesn't provide at first. But this really is top-notch stuff and it will earn its place in history

punchiest, diamond-hardest staccato rap-attack they could muster. QoS is a continuous blast from beginning to end. This is the deal – if you want protracted and deliberate plot spoon-feeding, if you can't multi-task, if you are so pussy-whipped to a sissy state that searing, pulse pounding action cinema makes you close your eyes and cry, if you want a Jane Austen costume-drama, you won't get what you want from this film. If, like Chris Tookey of The Mail, you thought that CR was romantic art-house Bond, and romantic art-house cinema is what excites you, then you're going to find this boring in comparison. However, if you want the full-monty kick in the balls, sock in the jaw, rabbit punch to the kidneys, cinematic acid-burn to the eyeballs, gut-wrenching adrenaline rush to the synapses, you're going to have a great time. Craig is all business here, still a revelation as 007. He's not crying any longer much . He's out to cut a swathe through the villains and despatch and destroy, burn and blow-up anything that gets in his path, or threatens to deflect him from it. Cool, muscular, sardonic, full of subtle nuances and mannerisms that communicate so much to the audience – provided they are paying attention, that is. He has now consolidated the domination of another strata of the character – that of the trained killer on a mission. He's perfected the art of dispensing death and destruction with a compelling brutal, cavalier elegance. An absolute joy to watch. As for the content of the film, here is a list of things that the pretenders some of those delusional people who pretended to have seen it prior to release got completely wrong: Camille does not die. Correct. Anyone who said so, didn't see the film and was lying through their scum sucking teeth. Bond does not resign at the end. More later . Bond has not not gone completely rogue. He is supported and sanctioned by M for most of the film: "He's my agent and I trust him." There are some satisfyingly subtle quips and one-liners: "Don't bleed to death." "She's sea sick." Mathis: "I think she has handcuffs." Bond: "I do hope so." "We're teachers on a sabbatical. We've just won the lottery." "Can I make a suggestion? Why don't you people find a better place to meet?" Camille: "Your mother?" Bond: "She likes to think so." And more. As for Arnold's score, it's another triumph of mood, atmosphere and relevance. It pounds daringly during the action, emotionally compliments the quieter moments. The signatures drawn from the theme song are incorporated. As in CR, segments of the Bond theme itself is utilised at key moments throughout. The title sequence banal theme song apart is stark and hard-hitting, incorporating teasing hints of the Bond gun barrel into it's conception. The henchmen have little to do, but Dominic Greene is a fine, vile, villain. Oh, by the way, as far as the audience is concerned, he does die in the end. At Bond's orchestration. Pleasingly referenced are Goldfinger Fields coated in oil – an irony, because "there isn't any" oil . The Spy Who Loved Me Sandor being held over the edge of a high building; the desert trek, etc . Any critic who states that the film consists of a series of completely random action sequences must have been watching something completely different – everything has a logical place, purpose and rationale within the narrative. Plus, anyone who couldn't follow the plot, which is clearly obvious and well defined throughout, has a serious case of receptive dysphasia. My daughter, who is fourteen, had no problems. And she's blonde. Lastly, I totally loved the interplay between Bond and Mathis. Worth the price of admission alone. The poignancy and tenderness yes, tenderness woven into their interaction, especially at a certain critical point, was beautifully rendered. Craig's emotion-wracked delivery of the line: "He wouldn't care," is almost heart-rending. Finally, the ending was a real coup and this is a true spoiler: M: "I need you back." Bond: "I never left." Cue – gun barrel. Cue - Bond theme. The gun barrel, Craig's first classic one, is a terrific way to end the film. Think about those final lines and the inclusion of that iconic image/sequence. What does that say? For me, it absolutely pegs out a stall, lays down an agenda for the future, makes a statement that Bond is here to stay. He will return. Personally I can't wait. Better than CR? No, it's different. Tone, style, content – different. If I believed in such things, I would rate it 8/10. Perhaps more importantly I would conclude ultimately that if you are a Bond fan and a fan of thoughtful action cinema, my guess is you really can't go wrong and you'll appreciate it no end. I can't wait to see it again. That's the truth.

vulnerable, unbelievably tough, and for me, easily the best Bond of all time.

between were well used for maximum effect which I felt helped greatly to build the emotional tension and show how Bond's character is growing-up albeit slowly . The action scenes also felt a little more frenetic than in Casino Royale but they were by no means unwatchable as some have suggested. In fact I liked every scene until the one with the explosions in the desert. It was cool and entertaining though I relived being scared as a child during the Backdraft attraction at Universal Studios! The only detractors I can think of is 1 that the explosion scene was a little overboard. At some point the characters should have just given up and rushed out of the building rather than stubbornly duke it out 'til the building was falling down around them!! 2 The villain s were really bland but then I guess that goes with the realism of the story.

stunning throughout the whole film, but then again would you settle for any less from a Bond girl? It is an absolutely fantastic film, and is a must see for everyone regardless of whether you are a Bond fan or not! Awesome!

wasn't terribly much plot and an agent, who is not infallible.This is of course personal taste, but I have reason to believe, that a lot of criticism contradicts itself.A lot of long-time bond lovers miss the gadgets, the shaken Martini, the "Bond, James Bond"-line, Mrs. Moneypenny and so on and they say this is not James Bond any more.What is Bond then?Is Bond a character solemnly defined by the drinks he orders, the women he gets or the car he drives? If that is SO important and even what makes Bond "Bond" it should be possible to give all these things to Rowan Atkinson for example, put him on a mission and there would be no difference at all to the previous Bond movies.So please help me: What really makes a Bond movie?Or else: If Roger Moore would have had a phone in his shoe, wouldn't he have been much closer to an impersonation of Maxwell Smart than the famous 007? Did the reviewers say "This is not Bond anymore" when Moonraker hit the screens?Back to the movie: well, there's two points of criticism. First, it's the shaky camera. A bit too shaky. Secondly, if one did not watch Casino Royale then it could be a bit difficult to understand.The concept of the series has changed too: There's no gigantic super laser orbiting in space or some kind of devious earthquake machine. No megalomaniac superevil genius watching the world burn from the loneliness of his stronghold.The evil comes slowly, and in this movie it's just a tip of an iceberg Bond discovers. A networking evil, impersonated by people, which are dangerous because they're intelligent, ruthless, able, not alone and not even accounted for by MI6.Future installments certainly will reveal more of all this, gradually. But now, starting with Casino Royale, continued in Quantum of Solace, the viewer will witness the development and evolution, and this for me is the reason why i like the movies better than a lot of Bond movies before them --- they're connected with each other, like chapters in a book, not monolithic. Or better: It's the story of Bond and Felix Leiter and M , not the story of "How Bond defeated the man with the golden gun who actually hired a bunch of sumo-wrestlers to help him rule the world... no really, he did!". Sounds promising to me.And maybe as a "Quantum of Solace" to pre-Craig Bond lovers:There's no indication, that there won't ever be some kind of evil genius with a super laser, nor is there any indication that Bond won't use any gadgets whatsoever again. Maybe he's going to, maybe not, maybe even some kind of Q comes back. And maybe in the next installment Bond will order his Martini shaken, not stirred. And maybe he works on his humour.But then, the viewers know why.

movies made. Quantum of Solace is a direct sequel of Royale, and so I once again had high expectations of it. Perhaps even more so than with Royale, as now I knew Craig is a superb Bond, and I wanted the story to evolve more. Let me start off by saying Solace is not as good as Royale, and for many people that will be a problem, as so many people were expecting an even better movie. While it is an extremely good movie, and a brilliant Bond movie, its just not one of the best and does have a few problems. Still as a Bond fan I still absolutely loved nearly every minute of the movie. It isn't overlong and outstays its welcome like Royale, but neither is it rushed as I feared. The performances are incredibly strong once again and there are some thrilling action sequences thrown in as well.Daniel Craig once again is very strong as Bond, and unlike what a lot of critics have said, is actually good fun. He can deliver a pun quite well, and he also does the dramatic and seriousness of Bond to perfection. In short he is definitely up there in terms of quality with Sean Connery. He feels a bit more comfortable as Bond this time around, he doesn't have to say the famous line which sadly felt a tad forced at the end of Royale. Instead he does get his fair share of brooding, although his verbal sparring with Gemma Arterton is pretty brilliant. The lead Bond girl this time is played by Olga Kurylenko, who I last saw in the dismal Hit-man movie. Thankfully here she plays a very interesting, although different Bond girl. She doesn't appear much for the first half, and her first sequence seemed more random than interesting. However she does develop quite nicely and by the end she is definitely one of the better Bond girls. Lead villain duties go to Mathieu Amalric. I have to say he was a bit of a disappointment after the brilliant Lechiffre in Royale. Amalric is a slimy villain, and he does put in a good performance, but his villain just isn't all that menacing, and I can see him being one of the easily forgettable Bond baddies. Judi Dench gets an awful lot more screen time this time round, and its all the better for it. M has been rewritten as a superb character, and gets some nice bit of swearing to do. Finally Gemma Arterton is fairly decent as a wasted Bond girl. She has way too little screen time, and far too little to do, however she does shine through, and features in one of the more memorable moments of the movie.Quantum of Solace story wise is perhaps where the problems begin to slip in. Royale's story was simple and very easy to follow, while Quantum is nowhere near as confusing as people are making it out to be, the movie is a bit overcomplicated for its own good. The villains plan is nowhere near as diabolical as it really could be, and I feel I need to watch the movie again just to get the intricate details of the movie. However as most Bond fans know story is not always a Bond movies strong point, just look at Live and Let Die, Die Another Day. So long as it manages to entertain I am quite happy. Solace thankfully is a brilliantly entertaining movie for the majority. I will admit, the pre-credit sequence is a very big disappointment. I know the stunts were good, and it should have been thrilling, but I felt so oddly bored by it. However once the credits sequence began, to a song I am steadily coming to like, the movie kicked off. The rest of the action sequences were particularly well done, my personal favourite being a bit in an opera house, extremely well edited. Drama wise the movie is very solid, there are some lighter moments to keep people happy, and some amusing one liners, but the movie for the most part is pretty down to earth.Quantum of Solace as I've said is a great movie, and no doubt many people will love it, although some will be a bit disappointed by it. Either way Craig is still a great Bond, and I cannot wait to see more adventures with him as the lead. Although we could do with a more interesting villain next time round please.

Well, honestly, the answer to that depends almost entirely on what you were expecting. If you were expecting a lengthy, down-to-earth, 'realistic' 'plausible' is probably a better description for "Casino Royale" character-based revenge flick, "Quantum of Solace" is not it. What "Quantum of Solace" does is weave the characterization into the plot and action to the point where we don't have room to breathe. The criticisms against the movie for lacking in character development are downright absurd- it's all there, the movie just doesn't stop and explicitly tell you what it's doing. If you're paying attention to what Bond's doing throughout the film surely you will understand why he is motivated to do those things. It's pretty careful and refined writing from Neal Purvis and Robert Wade with the addition of script polisher/editor Paul Haggis . What "Quantum of Solace" doesn't do is deliver a repeat of "Casino Royale". I'm actually quite amazed at the venomous reaction to the film by fans who seem to adore the more humorous, faster-moving Bond films. I mean, this isn't exactly right up their alley, but it's sure as hell not as drawn-out and slow-moving although I didn't feel that was a bad thing in CR's case as "Casino Royale", it surely doesn't spend most of its time on the dialogue and characterization, and it surely isn't as significantly divergent from the Bond formula as that film was. This is, ultimately, not unlike several Bond films we've seen before. There's snarling foreign villains with accents, a shadowy evil organization with political motivations, there's plenty, plenty of action. The "Bourne" comparisons are especially confounding. So, because Robert Ludlum once took from the Bond character and stories to write his "Bourne" novels, the Bond film series can't go back to Bond's roots in Fleming's great novels for inspiration? I'd say that "Quantum" has more in common with Bond films of the past than any of the Bourne films. If they're talking about the action scenes here, then while they lack the coherence of some of the greatest action scenes in Bond history, they are still much easier to follow than anything in Greengrass' "Bourne" films. Outside the first 15 minutes there's barely anything here that resembles a Bourne film at all, actually. The first two action scenes- the car chase and foot chase- are over-edited for sure, but the rest of the action scenes are grand, particularly the plane scene and climactic action scene at the hotel. The technical aspects of the film are all good, director Marc Forster doesn't mess up which, given the quality of many of his previous films, was perhaps the greatest danger this Bond installment faced the David Arnold score is not one of the great Bond scores, and his or the producers' refusal to use an orchestral version of the score much during the actual film is quite frustrating, but it's quite good and certainly not among the worst scores the series has had. Craig is an absolutely superb Bond, Olga Kurylenko is a find Bond girl and fairly well-developed but not at the expense of Bond or the story, while Gemma Arterton's limited screen time is an unnecessary diversion. Arterton's not the only flaw here, the design is a bit naff at times, and there's several things that could have been done better, especially during the first 15 minutes, but the movie works as a whole, and it's not nearly as humorless as some are suggesting; there's some genuinely funny stuff here, without descending into over-the-top camp. Actually, "Quantum of Solace" sees a welcome return of a deadpan delivery to the one-liners which evokes Connery's best moments. No winking at the camera, no raised eyebrows, just the jokes. Felix grabbing a beer and looking nonchalant as the SWAT team tried and failed to capture Bond, Bond stealing the bike from under the informant "I missed!" , Bond and M at the hotel... So many great moments. "Quantum of Solace" is perhaps not one of the great Bond films, and while I would not like to see "Quantum of Solace" become the template which the Bond series will follow in the future it is only completely satisfying when taken in context as part of a larger storyline , it is still not just a good action thriller, but an often gloriously enjoyable Bond film, and a fine entry in the series. 8/10

Quantum of Solace has a lot of action, but nothing more - I wanted to see there story about revenge - is it worth or not worth to do it and does you heart will find peace after revenge. It's not bad movie - it is very entertaining, but nothing more. Unfortunately...