New Bond Blows Away Franchise Record: 'Quantum Of Solace' Triggers $70.4M Wkd

144 Comments »

1. Now that Quantum is a hit (was there ever any doubt?), can MGM get rid of the Bourne-style editing of the action sequences? It is WAY too fast; you can’t understand what the hell is going on.

   Comment by John — November 14, 2008 @ 4:11 pm

2. John: MGM didn’t have anything to do with making this movie. Sony and the Brocollis ran development on it. MGM gets a title card since the property was originally theirs. They get the franchise back on their own after Quantum, which probably means the next one will be an utter disaster.

   Comment by Anymore — November 14, 2008 @ 4:47 pm

3. …and as fan I thought it was definately a winner. Daniel Craig makes it not only watchable but captivating; he does more to reveal the professional isolation of a man like Bond than anyone before him. too much ‘Bourne’ maybe? But what’s wrong with that? So it’s not a comedy?…I grew up with Roger Moore and I loved those campy send-ups but these grown up versions are the movies I wanted to see then…I just didn’t know any better. Opening sequence is great.

   Comment by JWCM — November 14, 2008 @ 5:04 pm

4. I agree, the action shots were shot terribly. Blah.

   Comment by JM — November 14, 2008 @ 5:08 pm

5. I agree.

   Comment by Ed — November 14, 2008 @ 5:08 pm

6. Smash it! Love it!

   Comment by Aaron — November 14, 2008 @ 5:09 pm

7. Yeah folks, this Bourne-rapid cut style is getting really annoying. I can see why filmmakers are tempted to use it in thinking by chopping it up into billions of pieces they’re evoking high tension, but it really just gives you a headache in the end.

   Comment by Alboone — November 14, 2008 @ 5:12 pm

8. This is what a great script will get you and if you can’t tell what is going on in the action scenes I suggest you get off the Zoloft.

   Comment by Karl — November 14, 2008 @ 5:17 pm

9. The movie was boring even at 1 hour 40. I would expect word of mouth to quickly kill this pic after the first weekend. Critics have really gone for backhanded praise and they’re right: this lackluster effort feels like filler until someone comes up with a story as good as CR’s. And Craig has zero chemistry with either Bond girl, and there’s more self-pity than rage in his performance. It truly is Bourne, James Bourne now.

   Comment by anon — November 14, 2008 @ 5:24 pm

10. This bond movie was the worst ever. What ever happened to the Bond with the cool gadgets and eclectic taste for his gals. Both gone MIA! He seemed like a hybrid of Jason Bourne and Jackie Chan. What’s wrong with people wasting $$ on this dumb flick!

    Comment by Neo — November 14, 2008 @ 5:25 pm

11. I’m really excited to go see it tonight!!

    Comment by Gordon — November 14, 2008 @ 5:37 pm

12. dear god bring martin campbell back for the next one - and i heard bond is going black after craig?!? give me a break! never thought the aclu would infiltrate mi6! if thats true, bond is going to go the route batman took when schumacher cut the nuts off the bat

    Comment by bill clay — November 14, 2008 @ 5:38 pm

13. Yeah, I’m SURE they’re gonna make BIG changes to a movie that opens with $70m. Ooooooooh they’ve learned their lesson……..

    Comment by CAJ — November 14, 2008 @ 5:39 pm

14. The best marketing for “Quantum of Solace” was “Casino Royale” much like the best marketing for “The Dark Knight” was “Batman Begins.”

    Off-topic I: I’ve seen the new trailer for “Watchmen.” The first trailer was a laughable disaster. Talk about a 180 degree turnaround. The new trailer actually makes some sense. The visuals actually promote a story and establish some character relationships rather than just representing a collection of confusing random images that few understood (and none recognized) except for the existing fans. The new trailer is such a turnaround from the earlier one that it’ll be interesting to see whether this helps expand interest in the film.

    Off-topic II: Despite me writing earlier that much of the hype about “Twilight” is vapor, interest has clearly been expanding this week. We’ll see how solid that interest is (and whether it continues to rapidly build) next week.

    Comment by Harold — November 14, 2008 @ 5:43 pm

15. The movie was amazing and the box office is showing that. To all you who feel it is too “bourne”-ish… I am thinking the majority of you are older. This is a new / different generation bond. The times have changed, get used to it. Did you ever read the books?

    I didn’t mind some of the earlier movies but I love the passion Craig brings. When he kills someone, he is really killing them. Think back to Pierce Brosnan and pretty much all the other bonds… when they were in love, or a tough spot or had to kill someone there was nothing you could relate to in their character. No passion. Bond was not human.

    The new bond is AMAZING!!

    Comment by Younger Generation — November 14, 2008 @ 5:45 pm

16. just saw it and it was really good! I don’t know what people are talking about when they say it wasn’t good. Man this is raw and fun!

    Comment by Bill — November 14, 2008 @ 6:13 pm

17. Not up to Casino Royale (or many other previous Bond films, imo). I expected much more and was disappointed. MIA were the Bond theme and clever opening sequence found in previous films. Aside from the annoying Bourne style filming sequences, the film lacked a true “villain”. The villain in this film was no more menacing or interesting than an average dentist. Craig, though, did fine and carried the film.

    Comment by Sigmond — November 14, 2008 @ 6:14 pm

18. Who cares… Go see it, things that defy physics
    and broads who wouldn’t give you the time of day in real life. When you get out, Obamoron will have your mortgage payment check ready for you.

    Comment by Jack Sparrow Aye — November 14, 2008 @ 6:18 pm

19. … but so what? It was great entertainment. Something even non-Bond fans can enjoy.

    And, Neo, you paid to see the film, too - so you tell us, what is “wrong with people wasting $$ on this dumb flick!”

    Comment by Yeah it was Bourne-ish — November 14, 2008 @ 6:21 pm

20. Um, haven’t seen it in the theater yet, watched most of it on one of “those” websites…I just got laid off, don’t have 20 bucks to spend at the movies, but, yeah, the action editing and some of the scenes were direct ripoffs of The Bourne series, especially the foot chase across the roofs. Bourne, I mean, Bond, just seems a souless killer at this point. Judi Dench is fabulous. I want to see more of her. She scares me more than Bond. She’s badass. More strong, mature women please. Jeffrey Wright having nothing to do in movie after movie is fucking embarrassing. (In case you haven’t noticed, Hollywood, the next President will be black, can we get Jeffrey more than 2 lines in a movie for fuck’s sake?) I only liked Casino Royale because of Craig’s muscles. More muscles, please.

    Comment by peggy — November 14, 2008 @ 6:46 pm

21. great movie- the old campy Bonds were a travesy, the Roger Moore’s were classic but a bore by today’s standards, yes the beginnign action sequences were ala Bourne chop, Only place I agree, but overall the movie is a winner. Casino was horrible. Now if they, can platform off and amp up the story. To hell with the original books!

    Comment by Cubist — November 14, 2008 @ 6:50 pm

22. If u think Bond is too fast paced for u then u need to prepare for a life at the postal service or something.

    The Bond series is for teenage boys or old men who do not know better. If u find yourself liking Bond movies you have some profound questions to answer to yourself. The Bourne series, as much as i dislike Damon as a human, is a plausible and properly done sequence of film. Really excellent. This bond horse shit is not appropriate to the 21st century. End of goddamnd story

    Comment by MCLOUGHLIN — November 14, 2008 @ 7:04 pm

23. People flocked to this movie because of their absolute LOVE of Casino Royale and Daniel Craig — which stands as the best bond film ever made. I wish they kept the same director over Marc Forster. Those expecting casino royale 2 might be slightly disappointed — but hey it’s got chases galore, the great daniel Craig. Not to be missed. And I’m so glad that a Bond film finally got a chance to open on a weekend on its own — instead of always opening second to another blockbuster like what would have happened (originally opening Nov 7th againgst madagascar)if not for Harry Potter == thanks harry!

    Comment by Jake — November 14, 2008 @ 7:05 pm

24. I hate that headache Bourne cut and splice.

    It is a screw you to the audiance.

    I have to close my eyes.

    Comment by tsar7 — November 14, 2008 @ 7:08 pm

25. Definite letdown following the high expectations of following Casino Royale. As though scenic locations introduced with diverse fonts, Minority Report computer technology and Bourne action scenes could carry the movie. Perhaps if they added a plot it might have stretched to 2 hours.

    Comment by Rex — November 14, 2008 @ 7:10 pm

26. Hi,

    I’m Mr. Smith. I’ve yet to see the new James Bond movie, but internet folk have so I thought I’d pass along their opinion as my own. This film was ‘too fast’, and had far too many ‘quick cuts’ and ‘fast editing’ tricks.

    Also, this is clearly not ‘James Bond’ but rather ‘Jason Bourne’. Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars the 22nd film in this ‘40 year’ franchise has made, I’m going to declare it ‘dead’ and no longer relevant.

    I hope to see this ‘James Bond’ movie this weekend and see if my prejudiced assumptions match other realities. I just wonder how many of these internet people who offer their opinion are getting theirs first hand, or second like my own.

    Comment by Mr. Smith — November 14, 2008 @ 7:18 pm

27. Saw “Quantum of Solace” this evening. A surrealistically photographed movie without plot. All action and surface. The Ukrainian girl is fresh and pretty. Craig has grit. Thoroughly modern and mindless entertainment. A hit.

    Comment by gt saj — November 14, 2008 @ 7:22 pm

28. Saw Quantum this morning in N. VA outside of D.C.. Three quarters full theatre at 9:30 am. “Bourne” heavy— from the hyper editing to dressing down Bond for most of the film in almost the exact grunge look. Sophistication out— horrific rap-crap theme— uninteresting main titles, No gun barrel logo opening—NO James Bond theme, and a VERY mediocre score as well perhaps do to the non existent theme song— never intros himself, “Bond. James Bond.” Not only up the nostrils filmaking which cancels out the rest of the frame, but the overuse of “Bourne” twenty thousand cuts per second is beyond annoying but un-Bond like. NO comparison between an “action” pro like Martin Campbell who helmed “Casino” who knows where to place a camera and Forster who tediously gives the airey/fairey artsy approach which misses 60% of the action and backround. Craig looks and seems literally constipated throughout apparently needing to take a dump or the underwear is a size too small. Sad part is that a good film is there for the making as the script is very well written and in the hands of a Director who understands not only action but Bond this Part 2 of what is clearly meant to be a 3 or 4 part story arc could have been just as great as “Casino Royale”. Broccolis’ need to get off their “Bourne” mania/fears and trust the legacy of their Dad and Harry Saltzman— they should rewatch Goldfinger and recapture that once potent mix of seriousness, style, wit and FUN!!!
    Bring back Moneypenny and Q with new actors who have a new take on the characters to match Craig’s gilt-edged Bond— don’t be afraid to slow the action a milimeter from blur to actually be able to see the punch land— give Craig a quip or three, and dialougue that is more than a grunt or a whisper. SHOW US THE MONEY and let the camera linger for 30 seconds on the scenery of the locations— it’s why we have watched since 1962 and don’t race through every setting and set, let Bond walk a time or two— he does’nt have to sprint everywhere after all he is not in afoot or box office race with Jason Bourne.PLEASE, let’s here that guitar riff as 007 speaks the words that fall so tripingly off the tongue: “The name is BOND, James Bond.”. DAMN RIGHT.

    Comment by DJT — November 14, 2008 @ 8:02 pm

29. Comment by Mr. Smith — November 14, 2008 @ 7:18 pm

    Mr Smith. Go watch the movie and leave all the comments and reviews behind. Enjoy the movie for what it is, entertainment, which I must say was lacking in this year’s crop of movies, except for a few

    All those who commented that the new Bond is like Bourne obviously prefer Bourne and can’t differentiate btw Bond and Bourne

    If you are like many who thinks the Bond gadgets are just too silly to marvel at, Bond girls are such a cliche, Bond’s villians are way too over-the-top acting, then you will enjoy the new Bond flick, just like many did with Casino.

    The new Bond is all about the modern Hero that relies not on gadget, babes or suave to save the world or his own arse. The new Bond is about brain, brawn and alittle bit of luck. There you are. Licence to be entertain is tagged with the movie.

    Go watch it.

    Comment by Armand — November 14, 2008 @ 8:07 pm

30. Fingers crossed for Bond B.O above 70M. Anything more is an afternoon delight!!1

    Comment by Armand — November 14, 2008 @ 8:09 pm

31. I predicted it would do $70m+ and maybe even $80m on an internet movie forum (KJ) a while ago. So NO-ONE is a stretch. This was always going to be huge OW after the great WOM on Casino Royale.

    Comment by Gez — November 14, 2008 @ 8:10 pm

32. bunch of bitchy little girls. black bond maybe, not proper love interests, too fast action scenes..jeez. for the girls here, violent action takes place in seconds.

    i read the books from the library as a child back in 1965. have bought all the movies on dvd out of principle.

    bad villians, bad kats and bad bond is the name of the game.

    i do have a problem with a black bond though, that would throw fifty years of continuity right down the loo.

    Comment by ircknemcke — November 14, 2008 @ 8:12 pm

33. Oh yeah, something kept nagging me as I was watching the movie on my laptop. Daniel Craig looked familiar. Notice his tight, tan pants, dark shirt and jacket. Blonde, blues eyes, he’s a dead ringer for Steve McQueen in Bullitt. He could be the next McQueen, which would be great.

    As a previous poster said, if they could get the right mix of drama and crafty wordplay like Goldfinger, they’d really hit the ball out of the park. I do like the new emphasis on realistic action, however, it’s still too much of a Bourne clone. They need to find their own way. And as I said before, more muscles please. More naked Craig. That’s why Casino did so well, women liked the eye candy.

    Comment by peggy — November 14, 2008 @ 8:35 pm

34. “Fifty years of continuity” has to be preserved with a white Bond, but it’s fine if the new films’ scores and action sequences are completely inconsistent? Hypocritical much? Who are these fascist frat boys who need every franchise rebooted, anyway? The world was turning on its axis just fine before Hollywood decided to save it anyway with “badass” versions of Superman, Batman and Bond. This industry gets new ideas as often as Haley’s Comet comes around.

    Comment by drispe — November 14, 2008 @ 8:45 pm

35. Craig is a great “re-invented” Bond but Quantum of Solace was a let down although any Bond movie without Halle Barry can’t be all bad. As a Bond fan I knew this movie was to be about Bond’s character development following CR which was fine but the technical plot and villan development was weak. Anyways, I look forward to a great Craig as Bond movie the next time out. We just need a script that is as good as the new edgier Bond/Craig style.

    Comment by Rob — November 14, 2008 @ 8:52 pm

36. bet it doesn’t do $70mm. Most of the shows were not sold out at The Grove in Los Angeles (a huge destination for movie goers). For a typical big movie, this would have sold out every show after 6pm. Only one of the remaining 5-6 shows was sold out when we walked out of the theater a little after 7pm. I think this is hype by a competing studio so they can raise expectations and try to turn the Monday headlines into a “disappointing outing for Bond — only $50mm”.

    Liked the movie but not as good as CR.

    Comment by Eddie — November 14, 2008 @ 8:53 pm

37. Yes the editors should be fired. But overall a really good, satisfy action movie. D.C. did a great job. I only wish he had more to say. The girls were fantastic. I hope to see more of them in other movies. I didn’t like the James Bond theme left to see and hear at the very end. That was really wrong. I hope that doesn’t ever happen again. Being suave and witty,witty would be so out of place in this type Bond movie.

    Comment by Ja — November 14, 2008 @ 8:57 pm

38. Horrible film. Nothing Bond about it at all and quoting from the Bourne franchise rather heavily.
    I doubt the next installment will do as well, try as hard as they might of turning it into a series of films you need to watch as opposed to previous stand-alones.

    Comment by IDM — November 14, 2008 @ 9:12 pm

39. that movie was pretty lame. Not horrible, just forgettable. Screenplay written by big guns but they must be overrated because I almost fell asleep.

    Comment by Kyle — November 14, 2008 @ 9:18 pm

40. Our economy is tanking and people still flock to the theater. This is why the movie industry owns the news media, the government, and the public school system. People would rather be entertained than informed. Americans have no one to blame but the face in the mirror.

    Comment by BB — November 14, 2008 @ 9:24 pm

41. WELL, WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT. The show started bad, from the beginning song…Blahhhhh; went downhill from there. Sorry, but I would not waste my time or money on this one. You really want to see it, wait a couple of months and you should be able to rent it.

    Comment by JLS — November 14, 2008 @ 9:28 pm

42. this film sucked saw it midnight showing was terrible. worst 007 of all time

    Comment by gayaya — November 14, 2008 @ 9:28 pm

43. Our economy is tanking and people still flock to the theater.

    Life sucks sometimes. We need the movies. Get over your self-righteousness.

    Comment by Rory L. Aronsky — November 14, 2008 @ 9:40 pm

44. The movie was terrible.

    Comment by ME — November 14, 2008 @ 9:46 pm

45. Have any of you twits evere read the books? This is how Fleming portrayed Bond. Bourne who has nothing to do with this. Bond was Licensed to kill. Read the books. Like read Tom Clancey and then watch totaly different movie, or Stephen Hunter then watch Shooter. Hollywood has to put liberal poltical agendas in everything - read the auther. Did you ever think he did not bed this gal because it would offend the Muslim audince. Get a brain and learn how to read. Craig is the best.

    Comment by Ian fleming — November 14, 2008 @ 9:48 pm

46. This movie was bad. Why is bond so ugly now? Craig has a nice body but that face…

    Comment by marie — November 14, 2008 @ 10:16 pm

47. Funny, Grabber, Kick ass, Killer, People were laughing out loud at the clever irony of it. When Bond said “That wasn’t very nice” the guy behind and right cracked up. After that it was just very gripping and humorous at the same time. Something with that balance is hard to do and this one was deadly serious and the humor came as a result of realistic story telling. The plot was hard for me to follow at key points because of the pace. Now I see a reason for that kind of tempo and pace because people will buy the movie and watch it over and over to understand the clever story behind it. I did love the clear shot at the sham of environmentalism. Bravo - Thank you D.C. and the beautiful bond girls in this film, but especially the brilliant people that put this guaranteed successful franchise together decade after decade. No one in Hollywood can claim this kind of success except the wonderful 007.

    Comment by Bondo — November 14, 2008 @ 10:42 pm

48. Haven’t seen it. Won’t see it. Casino Royale didn’t do anything for me. And I think it’s really because of the “new and improved James Bond”. Daniel Craig, I knew James Bond - and you, sir, are no James Bond.

    God, just look at the movie poster: Craig looks like his anus is chafing but he’s being forced to walk alongside this woman who seems disgusted with him as well. Some chemistry, huh?

    If they wanted to do something different they should have invented some other superspy and started another franchise. In fact it’s as if they did so, and then bought the “James Bond, 007″ title to stick on it.

    No Q? No Moneypenny? No quips? No gadgets? These things are James Bond. The 007 franchise has certain inescapable conventions to it, which are nonexistent in this film. Whatever the new Bond is (Bourne or whoever) it ain’t Bond, James Bond.

    Comment by Ace — November 14, 2008 @ 10:43 pm

49. For those of you who loved Casino Royale…. WOW. That movie totally sucked. No plausible story line that I can remember. You have people chasing others thru sequences that are fun to watch, but what the hell is the story about? Does anyone give a shit about story? Obviously not any more.

    As for the rapid action cutting. Yeah, well when you have a director who can’t shoot an action sequence that’s what you get. Ever have a look at THE ROCK, as a prime example. It’s garbage. (Except The Rock, to me, is hysterically funny bad)

    As far as a good Bond film, I’d guess the best was Goldfinger. Would it hold up today? Don’t know. Haven’t seen it in thirty years…. Do they have to follow the Bond structure? Can’t say. Personally I always loved the set ups, the cars, and the gadgets. It used to be that the first 10-12 minutes of Bond were the best. They had really well done action sequences. Personally I don’t care if they want to follow the tradition or not. No that’s untrue. I kinda like tradition when it plays. But maybe audiences aren’t old enough to care.

    As for the “fire the editors” comment. That’s beyond lame-assed. You think it’s THEIR film? I’d be willing to bet they cut their asses off with the material they had. This doesn’t mean I like that style. I despise it. One of the editors cut on or two of the Bournes and I hated that style just as much.

    Oh, and Go read the books. Who says the screenwriter has to be true to the book? Fleming was an OKAY writer but I don’t think you need to read the book to justify a crappy film. Bond of old was basically a good looking sexist prick who was involved in sexy cool government spying. Yeah, that’s fine writing with a keen understanding of the feminine mystique. Good stuff there.

    Oh and BB - Holy God, how on earth did you come up with that conclusion? “Our economy is tanking and people still flock to the theater. ……… Americans have no one to blame but the face in the mirror.” The only thing missing in your thesis is that The JEWS own the film business, thus the government and the public schools. BB, my conclusion: Americans have YOU to blame with that kind of thinking.

    Great, well-directed action sequences? Glad you asked. Top of my head: Bullit, Treasure of the Sierra Madre. (The fight in the bar for one) French Connection, Die Hard. The Great Escape. Seven Samurai. and I’m sure there are a lot more… But it ain’t gonna be this Bond film or Casino Royale. Oh how I wish the barre wasn’t so low.

    With that said, if you enjoyed it. Fine. It’s your dime, so to speak. But to those with the comments I ranted over. I’m sure other parts of your brain work really well.

    Comment by flabbergasted — November 14, 2008 @ 10:44 pm

50. After all that’s said and done, it’s a fun movie to watch. Action sequences galore and it takes you away from ho-hum reality.

    Bond’s hook-ups aren’t as hot as it was with Vesper (best “Bond girl” to date) which is somewhat disappointing.

    The theme song is horrible!! Why not they get Sharon Jones to do it?

    Comment by Imagine That! — November 14, 2008 @ 10:49 pm

51. Went and saw the movie this AM. Quelle Disappointmente! Starts out with a chase scene with fast cuts. I found that annoying. Later on in the flick, many scenes were shot with the auto stab switch on the camera turned OFF. Yeah, Yeah, I know, that’s the way they’re doing them now and if you don’t like it, blah, blah etc. Actually fell asleep at one point because things were dull; was awakened by a 90-db gunshot. Thought maybe I may come back and see it again at another time because, after all, the Brits liked it, right? Wasn’t sure what I had missed and what was going on. Then it occurred to me. Maybe the makers of the movie didn’t WANT me to know what was going on! And, Oh, By The Way, I read and loved all the books but I sure don’t remember any Quantum of Solace book, at least, not by Fleming. Just maybe I missed that, too. Speaking of missing things, I’ll also miss the DVD when it comes out. Think that will be soon.

    Comment by TiBonAnge — November 14, 2008 @ 10:58 pm

52. Lousy opening credits and music.
    Too “Bournish” with the editing.
    Lots of busyness which kind of distracts from the sheer implausibility of aspects of the plot.

    That being said, Craig is the quintessential Bond. Merci-f***ing ruthless! He’s, barely more than a killing machine with little heart and even less soul. Almost a mixture of Patrick and Schwarzenegger’s terminators, but with more rage and less conscience. Funny how the government was more afraid of Bond, than the villians.

    Didn’t really like the movie as much as I had hoped, but I could watch Craig’s borderline psychotic Bond all day long.

    Comment by Michael — November 14, 2008 @ 11:05 pm

53. I just saw the movie with my wife - neither one of us knows what the plot was; of course, we are assuming that there was one.
    Daniel Craig is the best Bond, bar none!

    Mr. Director, could you please knock off the Bourne-style editing nonsense

    Comment by llevi — November 14, 2008 @ 11:18 pm

54. quantum is a mess - save your money - the story is flat, one-dimensional, and incoherent. nothing but bourne style, headache inducing, impossible to follow action sequences, every actor is under-utilized, and they couldnt have picked a weaker bitch of a villian - save your cash

    Comment by bill clay — November 15, 2008 @ 12:41 am

55. “#

    Have any of you twits evere read the books? This is how Fleming portrayed Bond. Bourne who has nothing to do with this. Bond was Licensed to kill. Read the books. Like read Tom Clancey and then watch totaly different movie, or Stephen Hunter then watch Shooter. Hollywood has to put liberal poltical agendas in everything - read the auther. Did you ever think he did not bed this gal because it would offend the Muslim audince. Get a brain and learn how to read. Craig is the best.

    Comment by Ian fleming — November 14, 2008 @ 9:48 pm”

    Dear Ian,

    Perhaps it is you who needs to “get a brain” so you can learn how to spell.

    Comment by OddJob — November 15, 2008 @ 12:44 am

56. Shaken, not stirred…

    Comment by The Average White Guy — November 15, 2008 @ 1:38 am

57. Film is a crashing disappointment.

    Hope they make their money this weekend, cause come next weekend and the next bond film, they won’t be so lucky.

    I was psyched, psyched, psyched to see this film. I probably wait for the DVD (download?) of the next.

    Fire Marc Foster!

    Comment by bummer — November 15, 2008 @ 2:26 am

58. Found the film enjoyable and entertaining.

    Comment by Bob — November 15, 2008 @ 4:06 am

59. Half the reason the Bond film is doing the big boxoffice this weekend are the people flocking to see the new STAR TREK trailer on most of the US prints.

    At least I got to see Bond in the theatre that started the whole megaplex craze beofre they shut down for good. Studio 28 closes Nov 23rd. So sad.

    Comment by DaveM — November 15, 2008 @ 5:20 am

60. If you love the CHEESY Bond films of the past, then don’t go watch this film. If you want to see a Bond film closer to Fleming’s vision, then the Craig films are for you.

    And for all you poster’s complaining that the action scenes are “bourne-like”….get over it! The movie is a mix of edge-of-your seat action, satisfying revenge against the bad guys, deeper introspection into both Bond characters: James and M. I also enjoyed the lack of bimbo characters this craig series is continuing to avoid (think Denise Richards, Teri Hatcher, 70’s bimbo’s)

    Don’t go into the film as if you were a NYT critic, because you’re not…and critics overanalyze films to death anyways. They got it wrong on this one.

    Comment by Alex — November 15, 2008 @ 5:27 am

61. I am a BIG James Bond fan. However, this was one of the worst movies I have ever scene. The “choppy” photography is just a crutch for POOR camera-ship. The story line did not flow. Poor editing. What a disappointment.

    Comment by cbjames — November 15, 2008 @ 6:48 am

62. Just watched it, again, to another sell-out crowd. The fans was cheering, laughing and a couple of ‘gasping’ was heard when Bond was chasing the baddy in the town square. Same reaction from those in UK.

    This movie is a blast. Opening day of 26M is no small feat for a movie that RottenTomatoes give only 35% good rating. Once again confirmed my theory of the disconnect between the publics and the so-called critics who gets to watch it for free.

    I guess the non-fans was so protective of Bourne that they would not be able to detach themselves from Bourne with any spy movies. I find it rathe funny cause it seems that they think the previous Bond never did ran around, never fight with their hands etc.

    I mean, I like Bourne and am a fan but I know to differentiate Bond and Bourne.

    Anyways, am glad some of us and those who spent 26M enjoyed the movie. Here’s hoping for a 65M opening weekend.

    Comment by Armand — November 15, 2008 @ 6:58 am

63. Loved CR, disappointed with S. I enjoy the updated , improved stunts, etc. but where has the drama, comedy, etc. of Dr.No,Goldfinger, Thunderball, etc. Where are my gagets?

    Comment by Dr. No — November 15, 2008 @ 7:06 am

64. I’m in the older crowd now, but like the fast-paced action. However, I noticed that a number of people — teenagers alike — were wondering & asking “what happened?” in too many scenes.

    The pace is OK, but the content was not as seamless as Bourne. In the Bourne series, you pretty much know what’s going on.

    I’d thus fault the editing more than the cinematography. Many of the fast-paced shots were very clear, but the overall problem…to use a single word…was ‘context’ — the flow was just too interrupted.

    Comment by Austin Knight — November 15, 2008 @ 8:02 am

65. The reason they do that mish-mashed, chopped up editing has nothing to do with “tension”. It’s about the money. It’s cheaper to do it this way as it requires a lot less material and the source take can be much shorter. This way they can cover up the filming/take mistakes.

    They want you to think it is some modern, revolutionary method of filming/editing (and a lot of people buy it) but it just isn’t the case.

    Those edits are poor movie-making and detract from the movie.

    Comment by Tom Craig — November 15, 2008 @ 8:03 am

66. Saw it last night in Dallas in a packed theatre. Will go see it again, no doubt.

    Daniel Craig is amazing. He oozes charisma in this role. If you don’t believe that, look around you in the theatre at how many women are now “Bond fans”. My husband used to have to drag me there when it was Brosnan and the silly gadgets. Now, we go at my insistence.

    Yes, the action is too fast and too much, and the opening theme song is very “un-Bond like”, and it may be a little bit too Bourne. The story line is confusing and not obvious, but Craig looks amazing, dressed to the nines (even in the grunge scenes) by Tom Ford. Fabulous. Fabulous. Fabulous. They should make him Bond for life. Why aren’t there more men like this. *sigh*

    Comment by Double-Oh 7 — November 15, 2008 @ 8:08 am

67. I have read all the books, own all the movies, loved Casino Royale for the emotional depth and bringing the movies inline with the books.

    I have seen every Bond movie on the opening day. This one at the 12:01 am showing. Usually about 1/3rd of the way through the movie, I am plotting how I can arrange my schedule to come back within a few days and see it again.

    Not this time. I could care less if I ever see the flick again. I had hoped that the new reboot of the series would carry the dialog and emotions that were found in Casino Royale. It did not, instead we were treated to a visual slam fest of bad cuts, dialog left out and jumpy conclusions. I have a friend who worked in CR and QOS. When she returns to town next week, I plan to ask her about the scenes that were left out.

    I feel that Marc Foster blew a golden opportunity to add depth and emotion to this series and instead went for the easy answer - manipulate the audience with lots of explosions and fast action.

    I found myself bored with it all.

    Craig and Judi Dench were great, as always!

    Somehow, I feel that there is more to this flick and that the editing is to blame.

    Comment by Love the book — November 15, 2008 @ 8:58 am

68. Saw QoS at a sold-out 800p Friday night show outside Seattle. Audience largely young (sub-25) men, and they were mostly shaking their head sadly as they filed out during the credits. My son and his friends were unanimous: “Way to wreck a Bond movie.”

    All the Bourne comparisons aside, QoS is like being trapped in a blender for 105 minutes with men with guns and propane explosions. You exit disoriented and confused. I watched it very carefully and can’t remember most of it this morning. I couldn’t tell what was going on much of the time. And Craig plays Bond as a beautiful cipher. There’s no character development. Judi Dench is the best part of the movie.

    I would look at second-weekend dropoff very carefully as the buzz on the sidewalk after the show from young men 14-20 — Bond AND Bourne fans — was just scathingly bad.

    Comment by TomF — November 15, 2008 @ 9:35 am

69. “Craig looked familiar. Notice his tight, tan pants, dark shirt and jacket. Blonde, blues eyes, he’s a dead ringer for Steve McQueen. . ”

    I pointed this out to my son driving home from the movie - Craig lifted Steve McQueen’s wardrobe; not a bad thing because until Casino Royale no one has been able to come remotely close to the King of Cool since McQ’s death, and Craig may well take the title over.

    Comment by Fran — November 15, 2008 @ 9:57 am

70. horrible edit job, action sequences impossible to follow, story is weak, directing as well, AND the terrible use of shakeing cam. a headache.

    Comment by veikko — November 15, 2008 @ 10:04 am

71. I’m amazed by the number of people who think this film was shot in a “Bourne” style.
    First, the Bourne films are great. The “Bourne” style was not originated in the Bourne films. Don’t act like jerking cameras and fast editing was first seen in those films.
    Secondly, if watched and not enjoyed, then you’re retarded. This film was, if nothing else, the completion of “Casino Royale”. It was Bond doing his job, as well as memorializing his “feelings” for Vesper.
    Lastly, if you are a true fan of Bond, you will enjoy this movie. If you like Connery, Brosnan, and even the lesser Bonds Moore, Dalton, and Lazenby you will enjoy this movie.

    GO WATCH IT! Form you own opinion. F the critics, professional and amateur.

    Comment by Amazed by stupid people — November 15, 2008 @ 10:08 am

72. Just saw it last night. Non-stop action from start to finish. The first scene was extremely intense and gave you the idea of how this ovie was going to go. It was great!! Fast? Yes! Some scenes it was hard to tell what was happening or how he got out of that tight spot because things were happening so quickly. Would have been nice to see more of those details. But overall, I’d say it was very good.

    Comment by Brunnette77 — November 15, 2008 @ 10:16 am

73. Yes, people still see movies even in this economy. You still have to have fun… maybe not as much. It’s good to get out a little. Look at the Three Stooges - a hit during the depression. People need to get their minds off their problems for a short time and have some fun.

    Comment by Brunnette77 — November 15, 2008 @ 10:19 am

74. I love JB

    Comment by Maria — November 15, 2008 @ 10:27 am

75. Saw it last night, I have enjoyed the new Bond. I don’t mind the “bourne-ish” elements and I’m a 54 yr old non MTV generation old fart. I think what’s needed now is a dialed up super bad guy ala “Dark Knight” Bond should be saving the planet not just keeping some rich, ethically challenged suits from getting the next no bid contract!

    Personally I thought the TOSCA opera scene was the most in keeping with the franchise. Very unique, inventive.

    Keep em coming!

    Comment by Davey — November 15, 2008 @ 11:51 am

76. This editing in this movie sucked. The action was way to choppy and I got a headache.

    no gadgets at all

    Bond should be cool and calm he shouldn’t be a crazy man hell bent on revenge.

    Bond is a spy and he did nothing of the sort in the movie.

    At the end of the movie the girl should say,
    ‘oh James….” and that never happened.

    Comment by Joe blow — November 15, 2008 @ 12:00 pm

77. Too bournish? Who cares! This is an action movies. Let it rip. Please don’t drag generation gap, blah blah into this. Oh regarding Black Bond, how about black Kim Jong II as in Team America? This is a movies not a social experiment! duh!

    Comment by John — November 15, 2008 @ 12:49 pm

78. Is that a good, solid opening for “Slumdog Millionaire” which has already been given a Best Picture and Best Director nomination by the industry? I know Searchlight is gonna go really slow to protect their spends and wait for award recognition to hit

    Comment by steamfreshmeals — November 15, 2008 @ 1:19 pm

79. Incoherent cinematography, a plot that was left on the cutting room floor, endless chase sequences that just get boring after a while - This as a poor movie.

    Plus, it is no wonder they released it all over Europe before showing it in the States! Americans get tired of every film making the US government the villain. This was over the top. Meanwhile, a real Hitler wannabe South American dictator in training is given a free pass.

    No thanks. I’ll watch some real 007 DVD’s instead.

    Comment by Rick — November 15, 2008 @ 2:19 pm

80. Even though the movie was all action, I actually found it to be kind of boring. The Russian chick was lackluster, the action scenes were badly edited and the villain was pretty non-menacing. It still had some good moments, like the opera scene, which was pretty damn awesome. Overall, it pales in comparison to Casino Royale.

    Daniel Craig sure is good though. Wish he’d taken his shirt off more.

    Comment by Kat — November 15, 2008 @ 2:47 pm

81. That rock, mud, and concrete burn makes as much sense as anything in this movie. Worst Bond movie not by quantum but by light years.

    Comment by downsteamJim — November 15, 2008 @ 3:20 pm

82. Everyone praises Goldfinger, but I remember it as the mission that Bond completely botched. Connery’s Bond was a complete klutz - he got two sisters killed, played some golf, crashed the company car, and then spent the rest of the film as a hostage. He had to be rescued by about four different people and never did accomplish anything useful except to distract the bad guys. In the end, he couldn’t even figure out how to stop the A-bomb, which would have exploded, had not the authorities arrived at the last minute. This was the first ‘campy’ Bond film.

    Comment by Lev — November 15, 2008 @ 3:53 pm

83. Who would have thought that the gay anti-gun version of Bond would be such a big seller. Oh well. Not me.

    Comment by Freemon Sandlewould — November 15, 2008 @ 4:32 pm

84. I went to watch “quantum” today. Overall, I think it’s a step in the right direction. I never watched the “Bourne” movies, but I tend to agree, the rapid changing was almost anoying. I’ve watched a couple of the bond movies, and there’s something that makes Bond, well Bond. Whether it’s the theme music, the flirting, or whatever, most of it was missing. The gadgets were always cool, but I understand the point of view that there’s little out there that could impress.

    Overall, I thought it was a decent movie. It wasn’t stunning the way I hoped it would be, but it’s a welcome relief from the lack-luster movies that have come out recently.

    One thing that I was intrigued by was the age group. I saw more of the 45-70 age group than I saw the 18-24 year olds.

    Bond is Bond. Don’t need to make him Bourne or anyone else. They need to get Bond back on track. Bring back the opening action-packed opening sequence, real villains, sense of humor, the woman that he rescues, and the theme song. Make the action sequences have more substance than a bunch of cut-aways.(not that they’re bad, but that they’re trying to cover a lack of substance in some of it)

    Comment by average movie guy — November 15, 2008 @ 4:41 pm

85. A movie. An adventure. Bad or good, doesn’t matter, it isn’t James Bond. Just got home seeing it.

    Comment by Gabor — November 15, 2008 @ 4:49 pm

86. good movie, great movie, keep building on the story line

    Comment by bashmentyard — November 15, 2008 @ 5:47 pm

87. Bond is Bomd—These movies are just plain fun–I`ve seen`em all and it doesn`t get old–Keep it up James!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by Hugh — November 15, 2008 @ 6:19 pm

88. I’m loving Craig as Bond.Don’t compare this one to the first,because they’re both one long story (with an hour missing,I suppose).I thought it was great! You’ll be rewarded,just pay attention.I heard the Bond theme at least once during the movie,and they played the traditional theme during the credits.I was tired of the reality-bending ‘toys’,and if you’re going to ‘rip-off’ a movie,make it the Bourne series.I heard Craig did many of his own stunts,and it shows.I’m liking the crap-kicked-out-of-him Bond.
    Craig made a comment that it was time for a Black Bond.I thnk he was saying that on his own. He’ll be around for a while before they think of changing Bonds!

    Comment by Passenger57 — November 15, 2008 @ 6:37 pm

89. This is by far the most self-reflecting Bond movie made so far. What I came away with…Bond has grown up. The world is a dangerous place, and to whom much is given, much is required. His Don Juan-like philandering quick trigger finger, while still a source of ironic and knowing laughter, suddenly becomes a life and death matter. The play boy is waking up to a sense of responsibility for others at last. I know this change may be disappointing to some, but its refreshing for me.

    Comment by aldarion — November 15, 2008 @ 6:49 pm

90. Saw it last night. Great acting, so-so movie. I always think Craig is stellar as Bond; it’s unfortunate for him that the writing, editing, and directing were not as solid this time out.

    In the few places it wasn’t going 100mph, there was the rare opportunity to catch a small window into Bond’s character.

    We got to see some of his humanity in the scene with Mathis. Ironically, the last person he held like that was Vesper….they even played the same background music to reinforce that. I found it to be a touching and ironic scene, but there wasn’t enough of that sort of thing in this film. We walked into the movie already endeared to Bond, but if we hadn’t seen Casino Royale, we might not be, and this movie wouldn’t cause us to feel that way on its own.

    On the other side, we also got to see his inhumanity — like when he stabbed the guy on the balcony and then had to hold him down until he expired. Ewww! That was the dark side of Bond. He’s a trained killer, able to skip the emotion when necessary.

    I hope the next flick brings us less action, more plot, more dialogue, some witty quips and further character development. But this one’s still worth seeing, so go for it.

    Comment by BondFan — November 15, 2008 @ 6:52 pm

91. You who think this movie is “amazing” !!!
    What planet do you live on?

    This movie was a total disaster and hard to follow…who’s who in the end?

    Opening sequences and chase scene were fast, blurry and downright stupid.

    The action shots terribly.

    The Skydive sequences impossible / phony / and unrealistic.
    I have hundreds of jumps from 15 thousand feet and let me tell you Bond and Olga Kurylenko would have died in that landing, regardless the fact they had only one parachute…blah…blah….

    Comment by AIRBORNE — November 15, 2008 @ 7:00 pm

92. The action sequences were absolutely unwatchable! I had to look away several times due to the frenetic shooting and editing. We’re not all X Box addicts with an attention span of 2 seconds, max.

    What a shame, because Craig was wonderful (again) as was the rest of the cast. I know this because there were some scenes that were shot like a movie, rather than a speed metal video.

    Comment by buffy — November 15, 2008 @ 7:10 pm

93. I also hope the next flick brings us less action, more plot, more dialogue, some witty quips and further character development.
    At over 7 dollars per ticket this movie is not worth seeing

    Comment by Skydiver — November 15, 2008 @ 7:18 pm

94. Daniel Craig is great as Bond, the action is great,but this movie has no soul. I will not go to another opening night again.

    Comment by TBONE — November 15, 2008 @ 7:49 pm

95. I can’t recall the last Bond movie I saw. I think Die Another Day. Let me tell you, as a female, I not only want to go back and watch Casino Royale, I will watch every Daniel Craig movie that comes out after this. He is HOT and fantastic as Bond! And I was mesmerized by the action sequences. Good job, Sony!

    Comment by Keri — November 15, 2008 @ 7:49 pm

96. No bond has not grown up. MI6 came out WWII stone cold killers. Children have been fed a diet of Cartoon Killers. Emotional developement??? CR showed he was a just a killer with no emotion. He may have had weak moments, or moments in his mind trying to justify to himself why he could be a detached killer. But there is no way the GENERAL PUBLIC can understand how a educated mind can come to grips with killing. Lot of college grads in Iraq with sniper rifles killing every day. Lot of Brit Tommeys in WWI hacking Germans to death with sharpened shovels.Fleming did not make Bond into a cartoon character as the movies did.
    Craig is the Best, you need to look closer to his potrayal of a killer. Giddy Rodger Moore after he killed a bunch of people was not close to a real human. No proffessional killers have a darker soul. Sorry if some assh…. does not like my typing. But during the day that is what I pay Money Penny to do while I’m on the rifle range - you can type, but you can’t put to many shots into a 6″ circle at 600yds can you girlie?

    Comment by Ian fleming — November 15, 2008 @ 8:28 pm

97. Apparently, those criticizing the cut action scenes in Quantum have never seen From Russia with Love, in particular the fight scene on the train.

    This latest Bond is arguably more Bond-like than many of the recent Bonds: secret organization, girl’s body covered in oil (remember Goldfinger?), loyal Bond cohorts (e.g., Mathis), an Aston-Martin. I could go on.

    I wonder if the fact that the bad guy looks like Al Gore and is an “environmentalist” is why some critics are giving this movie a bad rap.

    Comment by Gary — November 15, 2008 @ 9:15 pm

98. With the story continuity, this film, as well Casino Royale, are finally Bond films Ian Fleming would have enjoyed. It takes Bond back to the basics as written, depending on skill and sheer guts, not waiting to be save by the lastest invention by “Q”. As a fan of Bond from the first movie through to the present, the Movies have always been changed to reflect the current culture and not what Fleming wrote. Frequently the only resemblance to the book is the movie’s title, as what was filmed had nothing to do with what is written. For those of you that want a sample of preservig the Bond storyline should read Devil May Care” the Bond book that came out earlier this year. Unlike the books by James Gardner, the Fleming estate took great pains to find an author who would follow Flemings lead and storyline. The fact is with the two films where Timothy Dalton played Bond people complained that they were too dark and gritty and there was minimal use of gadgets, now that it has come full circle to Flemings vision, people are disappointed that it is not what they expect from Bond.

    Comment by Doc1138 — November 15, 2008 @ 10:43 pm

99. Absolutely horrid … money and time wasted. The chase scenes were worse than predictable, they were deja vu. The acting was mediocre and the choreography was choppy and haphazard.

    The left wing tripe was also so bad I had to stuff my mouth with popcorn in order to keep the bile down. The US, of course, was the either inept or corrupt and passing reference to the dictator Aristide’s failed governance in sympathetic laments along with the ridiculously hilarious comment about the ChiComs and the ‘merkins going after the oil and the Ruskies passively sitting on the sidelines took two fists of popcorn to keep me from upchucking.

    Oh, and Craig is only an average actor. He also isn’t very suave with the ladies. Wham! Bam! Thank you, Mam.

    Comment by Sailfish — November 16, 2008 @ 12:21 am

100. Fantastic plausable story, best acting ever in a bond film, the women were fantasically erotic because they are no longer just sex objects but smart, gritty women. I like these stories, best of the franchise. Craig is masterful and Strawberry took the most attractive award.

     Comment by mike ames — November 16, 2008 @ 12:23 am

101. Really interesting posts regarding this movie…
     First, I really think Mr. Craig is a very good Bond. Nevertheless, what I have heard from those whose opinions I respect who have seen the movie boils down to this: the plot gets lost in the editing. That’s it. When I heard this repeatedly, I kept thinking of Craig’s interviews wherein he said that Q would be back as well as the gadgets in the next JB film, which it would seem (unfortunately accordingly to a poster) will revert back to MGM. And it got me thinking that maybe it is time for a remake of Dr. No. I remember the novel as well as the first Bond installment…very few gadgets, more realistic spy shit. But in a remake, this time the “monster” that kills the locals could be really cool a la CGI and best of all, we could have the 21st century version of Ursula Andress in a skimpy bathing suit with a kick-ass knife on her hip!
     One last major point: Daniel Craig was AWESOME in Layer Cake, a fucking great movie.

     Comment by Irving Thalberg's Ghost — November 16, 2008 @ 12:28 am

102. Gee, with all the negative comparisons to the Bourne series you would think those movies were flops. Don’t think so. No Bond character has even come close to matching the universal appeal of Sean Connery, until now. I’ve seen every Bond movie and to be honest they were beginning to produce nothing but tongue in cheek scripts with Chaplinesqe type acting. As far as fast paced action, these last two Bond movies are every bit as exciting to watch as the first 20 combined. Smart marketing by Sony making this a sequel to the very successful Casino Royale. Anticipation does wonders for box office appeal. When does the next one come out?

     Comment by dbinpv — November 16, 2008 @ 1:22 am

103. Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever since Sean Connery. His cold, calous nature is what Ian Flemming truly wanted to represent when writing his novels. I am glad to see the corny, retro-style Bell Bottoms Bond and his stupid invisible cars gone.

     Glad to have Bond shooting people again… I don’t necessarily think that this movie was a “Bourne” approach as much as it is just plain badass. Daniel Craig has a demeanor that Matt Damon can never match…

     Comment by GWC — November 16, 2008 @ 4:33 am

104. 71M weekend!!!!!

     It doesn’t get any better than this. WoW! 2 of my fav movie this year are hits in their own rights and millions others must have agreed.

     1st was DK and now JB. Darn! Harry would have made ending to 2008 if not for stupid WB delaying it to 2009.

     Comment by Armand — November 16, 2008 @ 5:01 am

105. Craig is great but not a great movie. Choppy, weak, weak/no story. The villain is trying to make a water monopoly in Bolivia, who cares….Terrible action shooting, choppy, awkward.

     Comment by JBH — November 16, 2008 @ 6:14 am

106. Saw CASINO ROYALE at home with the wife…she took a phone call halfway through and didn’t ask me to pause the film; and never came back to ask “What happened?”

     She has no interest in QUANTUM, which is why I’ll wait for video.

     I have fanboy friends who were going to see matinees when it came out. I have to pick my spots and this film did not pique my curiosity.

     I liked the Brosnan Bond, and one gadget per film wouldn’t hurt them, would it? Maybe they look at the “real world” and the way technology is moving, they didn’t want their fantasy tech to look obsolete in 2-3 years.

     Comment by MrJeff — November 16, 2008 @ 7:05 am

107. It was a Ford commeercial! Automotive product drops outpaced the lack of visual continuety. There was an effort to discredit the use of hydrogen fuel cells (in that desert hotel) as being somehow explosive. Ford is the one car company that is pushing lithium ion fuel cells as against hydrogen. “So let’s just make a movie that shows just how dangerious those damned hydrogen fuel cells are!” I sense that Ford had a major part of putting this sad story together.

     Comment by JP Welder — November 16, 2008 @ 7:41 am

108. Quote: “God, just look at the movie poster: Craig looks like his anus is chafing but he’s being forced to walk alongside this woman who seems disgusted with him as well. Some chemistry, huh?”

     Your analysis of the poster is actually spot-on with the relationship of these two characters in the film. If you had watched the movie you would know this. You’d prefer the poster lie to customers and present something that you will not see in the film?

     the_logician

     Comment by the_logician — November 16, 2008 @ 7:49 am

109. Built for a new generation of fans who are adicted to video games with fast moving action. The editing leaves us old fart Bond fans wanting but I still enjoyed the flick and I’m glad I went to revive my secret self image as 007….

     Comment by Smith — November 16, 2008 @ 8:12 am

110. It was great…Could have been titled “INDIANA BOND”.

     Comment by Jimmy — November 16, 2008 @ 8:17 am

111. The fabulous:

     - The opera scene. Dramatic, edgy, brilliant.
     - The final Mathis scene. Emotional. A direct connection to the feel of CR.
     - The last shot - the love knot left in the snow and the banter between Bond and M. Not just the dialogue but the look, the body language, all of it.
     - Craig, as always. Amazing.
     - Olga - she’s much better on screen than in the still photos we’ve seen of her. Lovely, and one of the better Bond girls, for sure.
     - Craig’s wardrobe. Even grunged up, the man is so suave. Thank you, Tom Ford.

     Missed opportunities:

     - The oily salute to ‘Goldfinger’. Great in concept, but they swept through it so quickly, it was almost a throwaway. They didn’t let it sink in with the viewer long enough before they were off to the races again. And it would have been more effective if we’d cared about the Fields character, but we didn’t. She wasn’t on screen long enough for us to know her at all.
     - The heat factor — Craig is incredibly hot, and we are overdue for an iconic seduction scene…but we didn’t get one. The scene with Craig and Arterton was a split second of sultry, and then it was gone. Darn! I would have liked for him and Olga to get together - they had much better chemistry than Bond and Fields. Maybe next film? Olga was strong enough as a character, they could bring her back.
     - Too much Ford, not enough Aston Martin. I hear they cracked up 3 or 4 Martins filming this, and in the end, we got to see about 2 minutes of that car. Major disappointment.
     - The Vesper boyfriend scene was anti-climatic and almost the forgotten goal of the film.

     Still, it was well worth seeing, just to watch Daniel Craig. But then I would pay to watch that guy sit and read the phone book. Shirtless, of course. *sigh*

     Comment by MyWordismyBond — November 16, 2008 @ 8:29 am

112. Craig is the worst James Bond in the history of 007. Don’t waste a nickel (or whatever the Brits call it) on this pretender.

     Comment by tpete4 — November 16, 2008 @ 8:55 am

113. Is it possible that the “quick edits” during the fight scenes were used to avoid an “R” rating, like with the Bourne films? Similar types of edits were done in Alien v. Predator, another PG-13 film.

     I found the editing during the fight sequences, especially the first one involving Bond and Craig Mitchell, to be especially distracting.

     Comment by David — November 16, 2008 @ 8:58 am

114. 4 of my friends saw QOS Friday night independent of each other…..every one of them disliked it-including myself. This 007 chapter is way off base.

     Comment by Dee — November 16, 2008 @ 9:14 am

115. Casino Royale was much better. This movie had POOR filming with blurred,disconnected action scenes. The women didn’t have the allure,charm and dynamics…and the adversary was mild and lacked uniqueness.
     I wouldn’t watch this over-baked disappointing Bond movie again.

     Comment by Gunder Erickson — November 16, 2008 @ 9:33 am

116. The new Bond Girl,Olga Kurylenko,is HOT but Daniel Craig reminds me too much of Vladimer Putin.

     Comment by Dougle — November 16, 2008 @ 9:36 am

117. Saw two movies this weekend. Bond and Changeling…Daniel is a great Bond. Reminds me of Sean and Timothy who I loved. But I don’t like the way they have taken some of his coolness away. His calmness. But then I thought with them retooling the franchise, we are seeing the early Bond. Less together. He is like a little boy finding his way. Understandable. I think as the movies continue, we will see that evolution into a man more in control. OT .. Saw Changeling with the boyfriend. He was into the Bond movie. I have seen Changeling twice. Loved it. I was happy to see an adult movie. Tired of the tween dramas and sophomore comedies. Excellent movie. He actually loved it, and wants to see it again. YES I fainted.

     Comment by debra — November 16, 2008 @ 10:16 am

118. Quantum of Solace is entertaining at least… a lot of high quality visuals, but the movie as a whole could stand to lose six or seven fewer chase scenes

     Comment by Patrick — November 16, 2008 @ 10:42 am

119. After seeing the movie last night, yes the comparisons to the Bourne series are just, but you know what…it works. This movie got the job done. The crowd was sufficently entertained as well as I. D.C. is Bond and is ten times better than Connery. Yeah I said it. DANIE CRAIG IS BOND! SUCK ON THAT HATERS! And for the people who say that there was no story either didn’t see the movie, fell asleep, or just wanted another Casino Royale. One scene alone(the opera scene)sets up a whole cadre of villains to come. Awesome! Not as good as Casino Royale, but a pretty damn good spy action flick. I have no problem putting this in the top ten of the franchise. I can’t wait for the next one. Oh and that Star Trek trailer rocked the house. May 8th can’t come sooner enough!!!!!!

     Comment by Alboone — November 16, 2008 @ 10:44 am

120. Good:
     Craig is a truly believable borderline sociopath killer, which is what a pro has to be, or become, to survive and complete their jobs. Read the works of the OSS,MI:6,MACV/SOG,Mossad veterans and you can see this.

     The gadgets did not rule the movie and make it cartoonish.

     Showed the fear that bureaucrats have of the tools they use.

     Bad:
     The over use of chop editing. It has its place, if used to show the feel of fighting where your training takes over and you are running on alpha and your brain is only partially keeping up to the overall gestalt. Or during a car wreck when you are going “OH sh!T” when you realize it is going south and then maybe recall a point where the car goes bottoms ups and starts to throw neat sparks. Used on occasion for showing that somethings the body goes through the brain can’t keep up with is gtg, used all the time and it seems like a crutch.

     The plot was a bit on the weak side. If they had just shown Bond walking away from a tussle or a wreck the movie would have had enough in it to be an hour long (with commercial interruptions) TV movie, maybe.

     Comment by MixedEmotions — November 16, 2008 @ 11:14 am

121. I honestly don’t understand what people find so damn difficult about the plot … this was a similar criticism lobbied at THE DARK KNIGHT, but that seemed slightly more apt. The plot of both CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE is so straightforward and simplistic, you’d have to be legally retarded in order to struggle with its supposed “complexities.” Evidently, movies needed to be extremely “dumbed down” for some of the detritus of society to enjoy. A shame …

     Comment by Maurice Greene — November 16, 2008 @ 11:19 am

122. “The reason they do that mish-mashed, chopped up editing has nothing to do with “tension”….They want you to think it is some modern, revolutionary method of filming/editing (and a lot of people buy it) but it just isn’t the case. Those edits are poor movie-making and detract from the movie.

     Comment by Tom Craig”

     FINALLY, someone gets it right. Using hyperpaced editing techniques isn’t artistic it’s smoke and mirrors to hide mediocre talent and a plain lack of any idea what to do.

     Solace is awful. It starts with a thrashy mess of a car chase that immediately says Bourne clone. Then we’re into the unimaginative, low-budget opening titles and utterly forgettable song (Bond films have a history of truly pedestrian songs but this is one of the worst)…which hands us over to what? A lame story about international bad guys conspiring to boost utility rates. An idea ‘torn from the headlines’ I guess but utterly uninteresting nonetheless.

     Daniel Craig does all he can with a role that’s little more than ‘Terminator in a tux’. There’s no wit, glamour, humor or sexual chemistry. Olga Kurylenko was deliciously sexy in Hitman but here she’s just unendingly bland (it’s obvious the director had zero interest in her) and Solace will probably kill her career. And just because a military thug ‘did things’ to her mother and sister doesn’t imbue her with the abulity to pull off Olympic-class gymnastics and martial arts moves.

     And here’s a question: Solace starts with Bond out to avenge Vesper’s death, which leads us to Mr. White and his secret organization, Quantum. But then by coincidence it seems Bond gets tangled up with an entirely different super-secret group of conspirators, the Bolivian bad guys, which leads him to the opera house where he overhears the Bolivian conspirators having a conference call (yeah right#$%^). But Mr White is in the audience, too, and doesn’t take part in the conversation and doesn’t get up to leave with the Bolivian conspirators. So, does this mean the BCs are a completely different group than White’s Quantum? WTF is this whole movie about, Quantum or Bolivia? And if there are two distinct groups and the opera group have nothing to do with Quantum then what’s the basis for criticizing Bond for killing everyone out of vengeance when the people he’s killing aren’t even involved in the initial grievance?

     And note to Canadian writer Paul Haggis: did she really have to be a Canadian agent? Yeah, right, is this a Bond film or Austin Powers? A distracting self-indulgence.

     Comment by RTPNG — November 16, 2008 @ 12:00 pm

123. Saw QOS on Friday night at the Arclight at Sherman Oaks (where tickets are now $13.50 or MORE). It was
     TERRIBLE - just awful, what a mess! Boring as hell, poorly directed, confusing, sucky script, awfully cut - only Craig was good. You couldn’t tell who was doing what, who got shot, why, etc… Didn’t like the girls, couldn’t understand what characters were saying due to all the accents, ridiculous set pieces… The whole crowd was restless and bored. Yeah, a Bourne carbon copy - except in those flicks we LIKE the characters, the scripts are good and it’s exciting and fun. Boy did this one blow. I was ready to leave after about 20 minutes. Word is gonna spread and it’s going to sink. Especially with Twilight coming. Get some new writers and bring Martin Campbell back.
     I liked Casino Royale but this one is a turkey. Don’t waste your money.

     Comment by Walt — November 16, 2008 @ 12:12 pm

124. Neither Sean Connery or Roger Moore(or Lazenby or Dalton) EVER said “THE name is Bond, James Bond.” They ALWAYS said “MY name is Bond, James Bond.” I can’t believe how many reporters get this famous line wrong!

     Comment by Town — November 16, 2008 @ 2:00 pm

125. Bourne is a James Bond clone, not the other way around. JAmes Bond has been around since the 195os. Bourne wouldn’t exist without the popularity of Bond.

     I do think they need to bring back more wit and clever plotting to the next one. This one was too direct and serious. I don’t want to see camp or anything, but Bond needs to crack a joke or a smile now and then. Like a real person would.

     And also, I like Judy Dench, but I think they need to replace her. They need someone more like the Old M, who is a tough Boss. And I think someone like Mopneypenny is also needed to ground Bond more.

     Comment by James Hudnall — November 16, 2008 @ 3:48 pm

126. Giancarlo Giannini is THE single best thing in this movie. His intro scene, the plane scene, his banter with Bond about Fields, and his final scene are without a doubt the best scenes in the film.

     It is no coincidence that he is the clear link to Vesper, from the far superior Casino Royale.

     Comment by John — November 16, 2008 @ 4:11 pm

127. I was very disappointed in the movie. The disjointed action scenes, the awful movie theme, and a plot that was weak all contributed. I am a major fan of Daniel Craig, but a previous viewer was right when they said zero chemistry with either female lead. Basically, Casino Royale was fantastic, but I give this a dismal 3 out of 5, and my “3″ is just for Daniel.

     Looking forward to Twilight, tho.

     Comment by Michal Ann Joyner — November 16, 2008 @ 4:35 pm

128. Maurice Green, there is a difference between the criticism of the Dark Knight’s plot complexity and the complexity of the QoS plot. One is complex, layered, and has a logical progression of storyline and character development. The other is a mish-mash of 50 cuts a minute scenes, weak plot-points, little character development, and really nothing to set it apart from the new generic breed of action flicks. There is no need to dumb it down, because it was so lazily written to being with that the only way to possibly make any logical sense of the plot is to suspend any rational brain functions you had to begin with. Your post is like comparing the complexity of the ceiling of the Sistine chapel to the complexity of a 2 year old’s coloring book. One has a clear intent and artistic merit to it and the other is just a bunch of scribbles and wrinkled pages that make no real sense at all.

     Comment by yankeedjw — November 16, 2008 @ 5:34 pm

129. John said …”Now that Quantum is a hit (was there ever any doubt?), can MGM get rid of the Bourne-style editing of the action sequences? It is WAY too fast; you can’t understand what the hell is going on.”

     I agree with John. I been going to the movies to see Bond since 1968 and action scenes were fast enough. Since Craig’s take over of Bond the editing has been super fast in the action scenes. I actually cursed out loud in this one. The wife had to quit me down.

     Comment by Neil — November 16, 2008 @ 6:14 pm

130. Evidently, “the global economic crisis” took the weekend off.

     Comment by efdnkwd — November 16, 2008 @ 6:31 pm

131. I like Daniel Craig but his version of James Bond is way to cold. This 007 being sold to a new generation is more of an anti-hero than a hero. You can only go joyless for so long!

     Comment by entertainmenttodayandbeyond — November 16, 2008 @ 6:35 pm

132. Worst economic times since the Great Depression indeed.

     Comment by Patrick — November 16, 2008 @ 7:53 pm

133. “Casino Royale” was the best Bond yet. It has gorgeous visuals, spectacular but fairly believable action, good writing, and artistic pacing.

     The new Bond has none of this. It was apparently more expensive to make, and yet looks cheaper on the screen. The writing was not great, and had a lot of ragged edges. The plot overreached to try to portray a global network of evil, but the film never really sold a sense of urgency in opposing it. Particularly after the artsy titles of the last film, the new titles disappointed.

     Irritatingly, political idiocy seeped into the script: There was at least one exchange wherein Bond’s dialogue overtly affirmed the idea that Marxist (yes, by name) governments truly represent average peoples’ interests. At another point, the script overtly feeds us the idea that the Aristede government in Haiti was toppled by the US, and did not fail because Aristede was corrupt and evil, but because he was a good man trying to help his people. Good grief, spare me the ignorant propaganda.

     Re: the new, fashionably choppy action sequences: I’m thoroughly convinced that this technique is essentially a device to cover up deficient filmmaking with cuts that disguise its shortcomings. The choppy editing itself becomes the action sequence, and the skills of a cinematographer become secondary. Filmmakers can get away with it (after a fashion) because a new generation raised on videogames doesn’t know the difference and better filmmaking would be wasted on them.

     Bottom line: I bought the last movie in Blue Ray. I won’t buy this one.

     Comment by Jerry B — November 17, 2008 @ 3:53 am

134. All you critics of this bad ass bond should think back to the good old days of……pierce brosnan? tim dalton? goldeneye was ok i guess, but thats it for the recent films. I only saw half of casino and haven’t seen quantum. THIS GUY’S A BAD ASS. Get over all the hype from films you saw 30 years ago because it’s never gonna be the same again. And if if you didn’t like the bourne films then there’s something wron with you (even though Damon’s a dumb ass) Sarah palin??? sarah palin????? stop talkin politics if you ain’t in the game duder

     Comment by jared — November 17, 2008 @ 5:22 am

135. Worst Bond movie since Timothy Dalton’s “Lincense Renewed” (I think that was the name– Bond meets Miami Vice).

     I saw Quantum with my 15 year old son and we both thought it sucked out loud even though we both thought Casino Royale was one of the best of the series. I couldn’t understand what was happening half the time (and I’m not that old). I’m not asking to return to the Roger Moore days, just make it more Bond-like and do away with the hand-held camera shit, a style which got old about five years ago.

     Saw it Friday night and Saturday morning I couldn’t even remember any set pieces or what the movie was about.

     Comment by here in flyover — November 17, 2008 @ 5:33 am

136. My first ever bond movie… where were all of the cool gagets and bond girls… he never even said, “the name is Bond, James Bond.” The poor bartender even made a lame attempt at the “shaken not stirred” line… My husband was humiliated when we left, do to these ommissions.

     Comment by myname — November 17, 2008 @ 7:43 am

137. Poor production standards resulted in grainy, sometimes blurry film quality. The camera work was about 4 or 5 grades below what people expect from a Bond film. The dialogue was flat and humorless.

     Maybe they’ll pull it off and get big crowds of people like me expecting a movie at least as good as the last one in the franchise.

     You can’t go gritty and realistic with a Bond film. The whole charm of the character is that he is always near death or dirt but he’s never really touched and he’s sharing one-liners, drinks, and beds as he goes along obviously having the time of his life.

     This episode got stuck in the mud.

     Comment by Jack G. — November 17, 2008 @ 9:31 am

138. I stopped watchin Bond films when Connery/Moore left. This is such an embarrassing joke using a geek like this clown!

     Comment by AJ — November 17, 2008 @ 9:55 am

139. One thing’s for sure, MGM has a job on its hands trying to redeem this boring, pointless, generic Bond outing. Please someone tell me what is remotely memorable about the villains, the settings, the girls, the Chinatown plot, the opening credits, or anything else in this pitiful movie. Worse still it tarnishes Casino Royale with its ham-fisted bungling of Bond’s feelings for Vesper–who we are to believe was seduced and duped by some nightclub crawling douchebag straight out of an SNL sketch.

     Comment by anon — November 17, 2008 @ 10:01 am

140. I liked the Canadian shout-outs. It was a sly nod to Fleming; the “me” in the novel The Spy Who Loved Me is a Canadian woman who Bond rescues.

     Comment by John — November 17, 2008 @ 11:09 am

141. Nothing new of substance coming out of Follywood in years. I haven’t wasted my time going to a movie in over 5 years.

     And considering they made over 70M on this bore, will they share any of this wealth with the poor? I doubt it since they are such feaks.

     Hans

     Comment by Hans Jurgen — November 17, 2008 @ 11:15 am

142. I’m a long time Bond fan.

     This one and the one before are pure crap.

     This guy is the worst Bond ever.

     No trick toys or gimmicks. No humor.

     God this shit sucks.

     Get another Bond or don’t bother making anymore.

     I will not go and see this Ahole they call the new Bond.

     Comment by Joh — November 17, 2008 @ 12:48 pm

143. I was very disappointed with Quantum. I had much higher expectations as I think this is the best, most dark Bond ever. However, the story was lame and hard to follow. I too am over the crazy action editting. It makes me sick to my stomach to watch it. I really wish there was a lot more of the classic, suave, smooth bond tradition in this film.

     Comment by Julie — November 17, 2008 @ 12:54 pm

144. This is Bond as he was in the beginning of his career, before he was suave and witty. Quantum is setting up part 3 in the Casino Royale trilogy. This is bringing back one of the best features of the early bond movies; the Anti-bond, who was Blofelt. As to the gadgets, we all carry bond-like gadgets in our pockets today so it has lost some of it’s wonder.

     I do agree about the editing. One needs to stand back to marvel at Bonds solutions to the predicament he is in, not be in the passenger seat.

     One other aspect that has been missing and is still missing is Bonds wide range of obscure knowledge and photographic memory. Oh well. Still I loved the movie.

     Comment by cliff — November 17, 2008 @ 2:11 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website

XHTML ( You can use these tags): <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> .