Quantum of Solace (Blu-Ray + DVD Combo)

You'll find no plot synopsis here folks. Amazon has been goodly enough to handle that for us all.Was this film as good or as great as Casino Royale? NOW WAY. Was it a good addition to the new Bond mythology? HELL YES! This is a direct sequel to Casino Royale...literally. It starts right after the end sequence of the previous film, bypassing the usual Bond firing at the screen(though, settle down fan boys, you get it at the end--I know, I know, change make you scared...). Basically, the opening helps establish the previous films plot, or the fact that there was an even larger plot at work, one involving new Bond evil organization called Quantum, of course. New Bond virgins, ones who skipped Casino Royale, will find it fairly hard to catch up to speed on this film. They also won't feel the impact of how much Vespa's death in the previous film really effects his current mission. It's not impossible to figure it out, but not as satisfying. So see Casion Royale, and consider the opening act of this film the final moments of the first.When I said this film starts right after the last film ends, I really, REALY meant it. The opening logos fade and we're slammed right into the tail end of a car chase(apparently, Bond is being chased by some thugs working for the man he shot at the end of Royale). The opening chase is fast and brutal. You feel all the car hits and collisions. I'm really not a fan of this ultra-choppy editing style, similar to that seen in Michael Bay's atrocious Armageddon, but in this film it really works to solicit the right tone, feel, and impact that the action sequences strive for. On the action sequences, this one is loaded with them. There's an action sequence about every five to ten minutes, whether its a car chase, foot chase, fist fight, knife fight, or plane old-fashioned gun battles---oh and a boat chase to boot. I guess they forgot to include the ski chases from previous Bond adventures. What I will say about the action sequences is that they are short and sweet. This film doesn't make the mistake of so many recent action films of letting the action sequences run on too long. They show up and leave an impression before the audience has a chance to be bored, unlike the technically brilliant but totally dull freeway car chase from the bloated Matrix Reloaded. Action in modern films seem to spend waaaaay tooooo much time in the set pieces. They feel inconsequential to the actual plot or character. They are just there to show off effects and stunts and things blowed up real good. It gets really boring. This film, by its main character's nature, every violent act holds weight while also being exciting.Of course, we have the new Bond, who is in my opinion the best Bond of all time. Of course, his films have better writing and no one will ever forget Connery's iconographic portrayal, but as far as a dramatically engaging Bond, Craig has got them all beat. His basic struggle in this film is the transition of a brutish, but charming thug who needs to put aside his personal feelings(revenge for the death of Vespa in Casino) and just get his job done effeiciently with less ending up dead. Bond goes back and forth. He seems indifferent, at first, to the deaths he performs, but you can see in Craig's eyes that it's taking a toll on his psyche. It's not in the dialogue, it's in his face and his movements. Whoa, an actual film that shows us things rather than having lengthy speeches and convoluted expositional dialogue about it. Now I know American audiences like to have everything spoon fed to them, especially when it comes to action spectacles like this, but if more movies would take this route films could become great again. The new Batmans and Watchmen are also helping in leading this charge.Also, a great addition to the new Bond series, started in Casino Royale, is the relationship between Bond and M. Their relationship comes off on the surface as combative, but with actors like Dench and Craig in the roles, we get hints of a deeper respect. A hint of two professionals getting to know each other grooves, constantly testing each others' merits. Awesome stuff. M and Bond never electrified together in scenes in any of the previous Bond pictures. It's smart writing and even better acting.The film does have some weak spots that keep it from a solid 5 stars. Firstly, the villain is more slimey than imposing, but the realistic world this Bond takes place in doesn't really have room for any Blofelds, at least not in the skin previous Bonds portrayed him in. The final action set piece is slightly lackluster. Emotionally it's a power house for our new Bond girl and for Bond himself but the pyrotechnics don't overshadow the ones seen in previous action scenes. The new Bond girl doesn't leave as much as an impression as the Eva Green in the first film. She's good but her story and relationship with Bond doesn't plunge the same depths. Though, the couple share an interesting exchange before they say goodbye. The editing style, like I mentioned, is choppy and fast,so some might find it disorientating. I find it works for once, but others might still be turned off by it. The film also doesn't breath as much as I felt it should. It jumps from one place and one action sequence in fast succession. I felt a couple more quiet moments would've been welcome. But that's about it.This is Bond by way of Jason Bourne, but Bond is and always will be a more interesting character. I'm just talking about the Bourne films, not the novels. So settle down. Like the new Batmans this film goes for realism, while still being absolutely silly and unbelievable.The villains main plot has to do with ecological terrorism, and GASPS, the enviroment. So, those who pull their political leanings into everything will hate the film and accuse it of the further brain-washing that Hollywood pushes on us common folk. Brain-washing, that apparently, have no effect on them, and only them. Ugh! Enviormental issues are topical now, just like they were way back in the early 90's. A film trying to plant itself in the modern times would be ignorant to not use it. There are gadgets in the film, despite what fan-boys say, but they are smaller and truncated to be more believable. They're not gloated on or masturbated to, and they rarely help Bond in ultra-convenient moments. Still no Q. Get over it. He may or may not show up in this new series of films. Besides the film's plot has no room for an action/plot stopping Q sequence. The humor is dry and dark. If you like it broader check out all of Roger Moore's cannon as well as the last two Brosnan Bond films, they're loaded with broad humor and puns. It must be comforting to know that if you hate the new Bond, you have 20 other old Bonds to satisfy you.People who don't like the new Bond go on and on about how the filmmakers don't seem to know why people like or go to Bond films. Really? Bond like many other comic book-like characters go through changes. Bond books were much different than most of the films, maybe with small exceptions on the two Dalton films. These movies not only modernize and make Bond relevant again, they hue close to the Ian Flemming books. This is a good thing. Though, I warn readers of Flemming that this film has nothing to do with the actual short story Quantum of Solace. How could it? That was a very short story that consisted of a Bond inner monalogue while he was by himself. I guess they just thought the title sounded good, and the name of the villain organization would be nifty if they called it Quantum? Dunno, don't really care.Finally, if you can't handle brutal violence taking the PG-13 rating to the edge, then skip this. There's many cartoons and other older Bond films with inconsequential violence and silly inventions. Take your pick. If gadgets, one-liners on the cheesy and sexually charged innuendo side, silly Bond girl names, Q comedy sequences, globe trotting for the sake of new foreign location to put the tired action, lack of danger, volcanic hide-outs, and a story that you can't really get dramatically involved in outside the action sequences are the only things that you judge a Bond film on, then please move on and let the rest of us enjoy the innovation, oh, and the scary changes.PS: The new Bond theme song isn't as good as previous films. It's better then some, but not as good as Casion Royale, but on the whole it fits the tone of the new film. The first direct Bond sequel.LATER

The theme of Quantum of Solace is that Bond and MI6 learn more about their enemy Spectre. In the opening for instance, Mr. White who was captured in the last film says that Spectre has people everywhere and then one of M’s bodyguards shoots her. The story is about Bond attempting to figure out what Spectre wants with Bolivia. It portrays Spectre being like a multi-national corporation exploiting the poor countries of the world.Quantum Of Solace has the usual mix of action, gadgets, international locations, and two Bond girls Gemma Arterton and Olga Kurylenko. Craig is my favorite Bond since the original Sean Connery. Kurylenko is a good pairing because she’s a fighter like Craig. There’s even an ode to Goldfinger where a girl was covered in gold. This time a woman is covered in oil.

Thumbs up for this movie.Four out of five stars.

I'll be brutally honest here. The first time I saw this movie, I thought it was the worst Bond film I had ever seen. I came away from it thinking I had watched the end of one of my favorite action heroes, that this was it, the directors and the writers had moved so far away from the old films that there was no hope of reconciling Sean Connery's Bond with the Bond of Daniel Craig. The character had moved on, and I was going to miss the old Bond.I hadn't liked Casino Royale the first time I saw it either. Bond became a kind of John McClane, an American action hero, rather than a British one. It was a move in the wrong direction, I was sure.Then I saw Skyfall. Again, not my favorite Bond film by any stretch of the imagination, but what that film did is it put Casino and Quantum in perspective for me. These are origin films. With each film, you can see Daniel Craig nudging towards his own version of what has come before. This film is also the third act of Casino Royale - as a stand-alone film, it is terrible, in terms of the direction and editing. The villain is a further disappointment - Greene is the weakest villain in the series. But Greene is not the villain in this film - the villain is Quantum. And Quantum is no joke.I am not going to try to compare Quantum to SPECTRE in terms of which one is better. SPECTRE operated in the Cold War, Quantum operates in a different world. Both had fingers in many different pies. If memory serves, however, SPECTRE never got so close to eliminating the head of MI6, or to making as much a joke out of it, as Quantum.The storyline in Quantum is excellent. It is difficult to follow due to some poor editing/directing choices (the montage fight sequences at the beginning and middle of the film distract from what is happening, making a disjointed sequence). The dialogue in between is either hurried or overly melodramatic (the writing itself was good...this was largely a film that was great in principle, but poor in execution). A lot of the poor execution has to do with Casino's flaws - Casino's last half hour should have been the first half hour of this one. And for coherency's sake, the same director team should have been brought on board. But once it all clicks into place, it is a solid story. The fact that it took several viewings for everything to click is a testament to poor direction more than poor writing.Quantum is jam-packed with brilliant ideas. It is so jam-packed with brilliant ideas that a lot gets missed due to a relatively short running time and action sequences that take the attention away from what actually makes the movie work: A good plot, if not terrifically paced; a sense that MI6 has been directly threatened; tie-ins to Casino Royale and resolution of some of the loose ends; some great dialogue; insight into what drives the characters (the Bond girl is not just eye candy this time - she has a history, and she's not a villain); a decent Bond girl; a great death scene which nods to one of the old Bond films; a great way of killing off a villain (indirect but vicious); and a great setup of the dynamic between Bond and MI6 that carries on from Casino Royale and continues in Skyfall. But mostly, the development of the Bond character.This is a Bond film that unlike most of its predecessors is about Bond. In the films leading up to the reboot, Bond is a device. He is a smarmy, self-possessed agent with a detached sense of humor that goes along with his personality and the ability to pull off some showy stunts. He also has a huge amount of luck on his side. Craig's Bond is still rough around the edges, lacks that humor, but definitely has a lot of the smarm and the stunts working in his favor. Here, we start to see Bond grow into the role that we already know from the first 20 films. I'm not suggesting that Daniel Craig will become Sean Connery at some point, but that he will become a Bond we recognize, but will remain uniquely his. It may take two films after Skyfall to accomplish it. I, for one, will sit back and enjoy the ride.

Enjoyed it.

Also um es gleich mal vorweg zu sagen: die schlechten Rezensionen hat dieser James Bond wirklich nicht verdient.Vermutlich haben die schlechten Bewertungen der bisherigen Renzensenten ihren Grund darin, dass einfach der Vorgaengerstreifen "Casino Royale" eben nochmal ein Stueck besser gewesen ist und m.E. als der (bisher) mit Abstand beste James Bond Film aller Zeiten angesehen werden muss. Dies sollte aber nun nicht dazu fuehren, 'Ein Quantum Trost' nur am Vorgaengerstreifen zu messen; verglichen mit den anderen 'Bond'-Filmen ist er naemlich immer noch ein Spitzenfilm.Kommen wir aber nun zur Bewertung selber....'Ein Quantum Trost' ist der zweite Bond-Streifen mit Daniel Craig nach 'Casino Royale' und bildet von der Handlung her die Fortsetzung von 'Casino Royale'.Hier muss man dann als erstes anmerken, dass Daniel Craig schlichtweg die bisher beste James Bond Verkoerperung darstellt. Daniel Craig fuehrt naemlich die Gestalt des Geheimagenten James Bond da weiter, wo man irgendwann einmal mit Sean Connery angefangen hatte: James Bond ist nun mal ein Kerl der sich hauptsaechlich mit seinen Faeusten (also koerperlich) gegen seine Kontrahenten durchsetzt mit etwas Unterstuetzung durch neueste technische Gadgets. Dabei verfuegt er ueber einen typisch britisch-trockenen Humor und zudem fliegen ihm die Frauen nur so zu....genau DAS ist James Bond! - Und genau DAS verkoerpert Daniel Craig; das ist es auch, warum mit Daniel Craig ein neuer James Bond Massstab gesetzt wurde.Die zwischenzeitlichen Bond Haupt-Darsteller Roger Moore und Pierce Brosnan (Lazenby und Dalton waren nur kurzzeitige 'Ersatzleute') entsprachen in keinster Weise der eigentlichen James Bond Figur: Moore war ein reiner Witzbold mit britischem Humor, waehrend Brosnan noch nicht einmal ueber diese Eigenschaft verfuegte....Mit Pierce Brosnan waere dann die James Bond Reihe wohl auch komplett 'gestorben'; zum Schluss musste man sogar auf so einen Schwachsinn zurueckgreifen wie ein unsichtbares Auto oder aehnlichen Bloedsinn...Brosnan's Bond war wirklich unertraeglich...eine reine James-Bond-Abziehfigur im Smoking, sonst nichts.Die Rettung fuer James Bond kam dann - erstaunlicherweise - durch einen anderen Geheimagenten (mit den gleichen Initialen!) der wohl selbst einmal James Bond als Vorbild hatte: J...ason B...ourne!Die dreiteilige Jason Bourne Reihe hatte hier ganz neue Massstaebe gesetzt:1. Mehrteilig2. Die (westliche) Welt ist ein durchtechnisierter 'Ueberwachungsstaat', der in zumeist stahlblauen Bildern in Szene gesetzt wird3. Jason Bourne ist eine knallharte (emotionsarme) Killermaschine der gegen finstere Maechte kaempft, die die Welt kontrollieren wollen.Wer die Jason-Bourne Reihe kennt, der wird nun bei 'Casino Royale' und vielleicht noch mehr bei 'Ein Quantum Trost' Reminiszenzen an Jason Bourne finden.Zum ersten Mal wurde ja James Bond auch als 'Fortsetzung' gedreht. Die Londoner MI-6 Hallen sind geradezu eine Kopie der 'Treadstone'-Hauptquartiere: nuechterne, unpersoenliche blaue Korridore (kein gemuetliches Moneypenny-Buero mehr...) High-Tech-Ueberwachungsmonitore und Datenbanken ueber alle moeglichen Staatsbuerger, die weltweit ueberwacht und verfolgt werden koennen...Und dann endlich auch wieder ein James Bond, der auch koerperlich so gut gebaut ist, dass man ihm abkauft, wenn er einen (auch durchtrainierten) Widersacher auf Herrentoilette zusammenschlaegt und ihn im Pissoir ertraenkt... Hier uebersehen wohl viele, dass Sean Connery in der damaligen Zeit ja eigentlich auch ein 'gut gebauter' und gut aussehender Typ war, dem man abkaufte, dass er andere k.o.-schlagen konnte und dass ihm die Frauen nachgelaufen sind...wenn ich mir dann Roger Moore oder Pierce Brosnan angucke, dann kommen die doch gar nicht glaubhaft rueber, da sie weder so gut aussehen, geschweige denn den entsprechenden 'Body' besitzen, um die Rolle des James Bond ueberhaupt glaubhaft verkoerpern und rueberbringen zu koennen.Kommen wir zurueck zum vorliegenden 'Ein Quantum Trost':Es wurde von einem anderen Rezensenten angemerkt, dass die Einleitungssequenz erst zum Schluss kommt....ist ja auch verstaendlich, wenn man bedenkt, dass es erstmals eine Fortsetzung ist und daher natuerlich dort anfaengt, wo 'Casino Royale' aufgehoert hat. Die gewohnte Anfangsequenz am Ende zu bringen ist m.E. ein genialer Einfall; man muss doch nicht alles kritisieren...Die Actionszenen sind im uebrigen ganz hervorragend gemacht, sowohl die Verfolgungsjagd zu Beginn, als auch der anschliessende Kampf Bond's ueber den Daechern von Siena und im Glockenturm; der Sturz vom Glockenturm kommt dabei total ueberraschend und ist eine meisterhafte Szene...(Anmerkung: die Szene ueber den Daechern von Siena erinnert stark an Jason Bourne's Verfolgunsjagd ueber den Daechern von Tanger im Teil 3/Jason Bourne Ultimatum!) Und auch die Boot-Verfolgungsjagd in Haiti ist meisterhaft inszeniert.Wie immer bei James Bond gibt's tolle Locations: ein mittelalterliches Siena waehrend des beruehmten Pferderennens, ein traumhaft tropisches Haiti, die Welt des Jet-Set bei den Bregenzer Festspielen und Lateinamerikanische Spelunken (inklusive abgefuckten CIA-Agenten) und Wuestenlandschaften...Kommen wir nun zu den Maengeln des Films: die Story ist insgesamt etwas enttaeuschend und manchmal sehr 'konstruiert' und einige Szenen unglaubwuerdig...aber das ist bei einem solchen Genre nun mal nichts ungewoehnliches. Leider enttaeuschen aber auch einige Darsteller: das Bond-Girl Olga Kurylenko mag ja eine schoene Frau sein, allerdings ist sie keine Schauspielerin und entwickelt im Film auch null Sex-Appeal; eine Gemma Arterton in einer Nebenrolle nimmt ihr locker die Butter vom Brot und entwickelt sich trotz der kurzen Rolle zum eigentlichen Bond-Girl des Films...Hier war eine Eva Green in 'Casino Royale' natuerlich eine wesentlich bessere Besetzung als Olga Kurylenko, die auf ganzer Linie enttaeucht.Weiterhin voellig enttaeuschend auch der Boesewicht Dominic Greene, der mit seinem nervenden franzoesischen Akzent mehr die Witzfigur eines Boesewichts abgibt, als dass man ihm die Rolle ernsthaft abkaufen koennte....auch hier war im Vergleich dazu der Boesewicht LeChiffre in 'Casino Royale' doch ein ganz anderes Kaliber. Gerade die sehr realistisch gespielte Gestalt des LeChiffre hat m.E. viel zur Klasse von 'Casino Royale' beigetragen; es wird ja leider sehr oft von Filmemachern uebersehen, dass gerade die Boesewicht-Gestalten mitentscheidend fuer die Guete des Films sind. (Man denke z.B. an 'Highlander' in dem ein Clancy Brown als Kurgan ja die eigentliche unersetzbare Hauptfigur des ganzen Films darstellt, waehrend ein Christopher Lambert voellig ersetzbar gewesen waere...)Und auch die bolivianischen Putschgeneraele im Hotel in der Wueste sind dann ebenfalls mehr Gestalten aus einem 'Dick-und-Doof'-Film als ernstzunehmende Boesewichte fuer einen knallharten James Bond Streifen.Nun ja, im Vergleich zu 'Casino Royale' kann man durchaus im ersten Augenblick von 'Ein Quantum Trost' enttaeuscht sein (v.a. aufgrund der mangelhaften schauspielerischen Leistung von Kurylenko und Greene/Amalric), allerdings wenn man den Film objektiv betrachtet und in Relation zu den anderen Bond-Streifen setzt, dann wird man sehr schnell feststellen, dass es sich immer noch (nach 'Casino Royale') um den zweitbesten Bond-Film aller Zeiten handeln duerfte; dies nicht zuletzt, da Daniel Craig einfach ein Bond-Typ ist, mit dem man sich problemlos identifizieren kann und auch ansonsten der Film mit seinen exotischen Locations, seiner perfekt inszenierten Action, seinem modernen 'Jason-Bourne'-Techno-Ueberwachungsstaat-Ambiente und seiner professionellen Machart einfach eine tolle Unterhaltung bietet.Ich wuerde eigentlich viereinhalb Sterne vergeben wollen (der halbe Stern Abzug v.a. wegen der o.a. mangelhaften schauspielerischen Leistung einiger Akteure) allerdings denke ich, dass trotz dieser Maengel 5 Sterne o.k. sind, da es trotz allem ein Super-Film ist im Vergleich zu dem ganzen voellig hanebuechenen Transformer- und Vampir-Schrott was man heutzutage sonst im Kino so vorgesetzt bekommt.Fazit: Daniel Craig ist ein James Bond zum Identifizieren und bietet eine tolle Unterhaltung.

Eindeutig ist das der beste Daniel Craig Bond Film. Keine Minute langweilig. Tolle Schauplätze. Daniel Craig in Bestform. Top Action von Anfang bis Ende! Und keine unnötige Überlänge! Top Blu-ray!

Yep as usual, like this film vs Casino Royale, Daniel Craig vs Sean Connery, Connerys' toupee vs Roger Moores', there will no pleasing everyone. But straight off the bat I will agree there is some loose moments - and a lot of very clumsy,short editing going on (fight scenes mentioned mainly in reviews - but what about the start? you barely get more than a 2 second glimpse of the beautiful Aston Martin DBS!!?)But, I actually think such comments miss the point. Starting with a cracking re-working with Casino Royale, the new bond films present a fantastic and vibrant re-imagining - all the key "Bond criteria" is present but with two new and critical points - character development and story telling. Of course the majority of new Bond revisionists will argue that nothing will top Casino Royale (CR for future ref!!) but this film actually in some ways delivers more. CR is the new-laid foundation - but at the end you want to know more, not just in terms or what happens n ext, but what of Bond himself. So in QOS you actually see the cause and effect - not seen since "License to Kill" have we seen Bond driven by revenge - but thanks to the ever-skillful Daniel Craig we see more - yes, the film starts a bit full on and clumsy, but the delightful interchange between Bond and M early on set the mood. He tries to center himself, but is out of control - he is mourning, he is genuinely troubled - but angry at himself and at his betrayal - and this whole side of Bond is new to see and handled superbly by Craig.Like I said the craftwork of the film is not what I am focussed on - its how things develop. The cast is very strong - Denchs' M is so well realised, Jeffrey Wright is also excellent as the new and probably-the-best-ever Leiter, Kurlyenko also delivers some genuine depth and skill to what could easily be a one dimensional caricature and her characters' burning desire for revenge is so intense - it actually seems to perfectly balance out Craigs' vengeful yet out-of-control Bond.Looking from this angle the film is strong - visually it is no less beautiful, some really striking scenes - the theatre scene is just amazing, the character development and interaction progress all the more (the last scene with Bond and Mathis is genuinely affecting - like NOTHING before in a Bond film)so to this end I think its an imperfect but in my opinion braver, deeper more considerate film even than the excellent CR. Which actually strives to look further into the Bond character and give greater depth to his protagonists too. Great stuff!!

Alors voilà craig est de retour, encore plus james bond que dans casino royale. Certains ne sont pas d'accord. Forster est critiqué, parce qu'il est tellement rapide dans ses plans qu'on ne suit pas, et que les gadgets ne font plus "objets rapportés" pour satisfaire les afficionados des bonds traditionnels.Le film est pourtant époustouflant de vivacité ,de modernité, d'énergie et de rigueur. Le jeu de craig est fin, direct, énergique,élégant, et tout cela sans etre comme avec les anciens, caricatural.Les plans choisis par Forster sont léchés, très élégants, et la narrations qu'il met en place est riche( scene de course poursuite tant décriée au début)ou la scène de l'opéra qui mériterait à elle seule une récompense.Ce film ne s'adresse à chacun et aussi aux fans qui aiment l'idée que james est un agent secret véritable, mais profondément anglais et profondément efficace.Ceux qui ne l'aiment pas, sont les fans déçu qui préféraient moore ou brosnan. Moins réalistes et plus caricaturaux ,ils sont désormais loin.En revanche, les bonus comme d'habitude maintenant sur bond, sont pauvres et insipides, et ça c'est regrettable. Le blu ray est très bien, seul défaut de mon point de vu, l'insertion des sous titres anglais sur les partis ou les personnages ne parlent pas anglais ( ou la langue du pays de diffusion) ,ce qui conduit à avoir en haut de l'image ,des sur-titres qui traduisent les sous-titres incrustés en bas de l'écran quand cela est nécessaire.

Replacement dvd for our son