Quantum of Solace…


Daniel Craig is now my favourite Bond. When Casino Royale was released I thought it was a close call between him and Sean Connery, but now I’m convinced.

That said, I think Quantum of Solace is far from being a great film. Most of the action sequences were well off the mark. The shots were so close up and shaky that it was impossible to see what was going on. When will Hollywood learn that excessive and inappropriate use of shaky camera is not cool?

The fact that this is a sequel to Casino Royale also presented me with a problem. I’ve not seen that film in ages so I was struggling to remember how some of that film related to this one.

Anyway, I think it’s worth the money, but it didn’t totally rock my world.



Author: Tim...

DBA, Developer, Author, Trainer.

5 thoughts on “Quantum of Solace…”

  1. I have seen it a few weeks ago and I also notice the shaky effects. Due to a wrong sitting I saw the first part in German and the second part in English and I was sitting in first rank. Not something I would remember much except that the Bolivian people spent half of their money on water (they will settle on Rum over time)


  2. The plot/story was well “dodge”. To me the film was a load of action sequences tenuously strung together, much more so than other action or bond films that I’ve seen recently.

    Plus, when I saw it, the sound was incredibly loud. Surely that can’t be an indicator of getting older – I’d be asking them to turn it up, wouldn’t I?

  3. They may as well have got Tom Cruise to direct this film as it is just as screwed up as ‘Mission Impossible’ was stuffed by Cruise and his violent and stupefying ideas.

    ATTENTION SONY PICTURES – Get back to the REAL BOND and maybe you won’t poo-the-pooch with the next version like you have with this one. Firstly please don’t have the intro overlayed with a screeching song that nobody would ever play or want to endure again. The plot is disjointed and obscure, the action is bland and way over the top and just too much violent action and death.
    I guess your script writers have no real imagination and continuity anymore. You just need to get back to basics and have a hard look at what Ian Flemming was trying to say, before you ruin a good thing with another dud.
    I have been an avid fan of Bond for 30 years and this current offering is a dismal disappointment. What a shame as technically and visually it could have been a masterpiece. Better luck next time or its goodbye to Bond. What a sad waste of resources and talent.

  4. I’m glad they got back to basics. The equipment was getting over the top cheesey. If you go back to the Connery films, they didn’t use all that. It was more basic stuff that was more believable. As far as music choices, almost all of the old bond music was horrible. The last two had good music for the opening scene. Shakey film work is part of todays filming style for action. It gives a feeling of being involved in stead of just watching.
    This was also the first time a bond film actual continued from the last so there had to be changes from the traditional bond. I didn’t hear people complain about Broson driving a BMW, it’s always been Aston Martin.
    Oh well, it’s just a movie and I liked it.

Comments are closed.