3/4  I thought it was worth the wait
As this is the only "james Bond" movie i have seen, have to say that I really enjoyed it. Sorry that i have none to compare it to. i love the visual effects, and all the action. I have reccomended it many time to all of my friends that ... (read full)

2.5/4  Falls way short of Casino Royale
A satisfactory Bond flick, though an emotionally detached and jittery one with virtually nothing more than passably memorable. The action is often, but standard, the villains odious but easily disposed of and the only things that really w... (read full)

3/4  Not as good as Casino Royale
I loved Casino Royale and thought Daniel Craig performed really well. But in this something just doesnt feel right I am not quite sure what it is, but there is just something. I just dont think it is as good as Casino Royale - But it is st... (read full)

3/4  Craig's 2nd Bond grittier, angrier than his first.
Ok follow-up sequel to Casino Royale that cant compete with how great that movie was. My problem with this movieis that it dosen't feel like a Bond movie. It looks like a copy of The Bourne Ultimataum crossed with Rambo. James Bond is not ... (read full)

2/4  75%
Action: 3/3 + Comedy: 0.5/2 + Good vs Evil: 1/1 + Love/Sex: 1/1 + Special Effects: 1/1 + Plot: 0.5/1 + Music: 0.5/1 = 5.5/10 or 75%.

As always the second outting in a series is the action packed thrill ride the first wouldn't be. And th... (read full)

3.5/4  Shaken, but not stirred? Try this!
Daniel Craig’s second outing in ‘QOS’, as James Bond, is every bit as physical and action driven as the first installment, ‘Casino Royale’. Director Marc Forster (Monster’s Ball, The Kite Runner) takes the reins this time and gives us an e... (read full)

2.5/4  Quantum of Solace Quick Review
The action was fantastic! But, that's about all I can say for this movie. Sorry.

4/5 Crisply Entertaining
  by Jiang Xueqin (Toronto, Canada)
Britain's favorite walking phallus has returned in a crisply entertaining film. Previously James Bond films were becoming derivatives of each other, a narcisstic navel-gazing that reached its zenith in "Tomorrow Never Dies" (most of its scenes were lifted from previous Bond films -- a cinematic feat in itself). Now with "Quantum of Solace" the James Bond franchise has come to a sad understanding that its white adolescent market has matured and become more culturally and sexually sensitive. So now that the franchise can no longer just copy itself it's decided to copy a more successful spy franchise: the Jason Bourne series. (The movie's early scene of James Bond chasing and fighting a double agent on the rooftops of Italy is an exact replica of a Jason Bourne action sequence.) And the result is that this is by far the best James Bond movie -- although it's still a very bad Jason Bourne movie.

Previously the best James Bond movie was "Die Another Day," with its comic book feel because James Bond is, after all, a comic book character. In fact the Japanese have shown with Golgo 13 that James Bond really is a cartoon. Golgo 13 is Japan's anime version of James Bond, and he literally just fornicates and kills. With his square face and tight muscular body covered in a trenchcoat Golgo 13 also looks and feels like the walking phallus that we've always suspected James Bond to be.

Golgo 13 is bland and boring, and so what explains his popularity? I suspect it's because of the popularity and pervasiveness and influence of James Bond, and Japan's need for its own walking phallus to direct the sexual angst of Japanese teenagers.

But now James Bond is not so popular, and it's because we're living in a cosmopolitan multi-cultural world; the era of the colonial master as represented by Bond is long gone. So the franchise decided to re-invent itself by going back to the very first James Bond novel "Casino Royale." "Casino Royale" may have been the grittiest and most original James Bond film in a long time but it was also very stupid. But worse than stupid it was also difficult to mass produce and copy because there were -- so unknown to James Bond films -- character development and plot elements.

Giving a walking phallus a back story and human emotions can be a very difficult thing, and so it was very wise of the director to limit as much of the story as possible, and focus purely on the action. There are stupid and there are smart plagiarists: stupid ones copy fully (I once had a classmate who copied another's test, including the name -- an act so stupid I thought it must have been deliberate), and the smart ones know what they can copy (Bourne's fast and tight action sequences) and what they can't copy (culturally-relevant themes such as individual alienation that make Bourne both sympathetic and admirable).

Hopefully, future James Bond films will continue to steal shamelessly but smartly.

5/5 The best Bond ever...
  by Allan Jay Nussbaum (San Antonio, TX)
Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever. The high energy, action packed fight and chase scenes in Casino Royale and Q of S make this the Bond venue that Bond was meant to be. On a scale of 1-10, Craig rates an 11 in the double-oh scheme of things. Hurry up with the next adventure.

1/5 Worst Bond movie ever
  by RAP (Bedford)
No reason to belabor these comments - if you enjoyed the Connery/Bond movies, you will find this to be a deeply and excruciatingly painful degradation of the Ian Fleming novels. I will not watch or purchase another Bond movie with Craig in the lead role - for my money, he is almost the perfect "anti-Bond" - no culture, no sophistication, a deadly dull "tough guy" and totally politically correct - what a bore!!!

3/5 Action seemed forced.
  by BOND "DOUBLEAGENT"
Action was jerky and did not flow well. It really seemed pieced together much like a movie is actually shot. Script did not flow well either. Scenes to short,and to many changes. Hard to follow storyline and hard to keep track of the characters. Casino Royale was much better. A slower pace but with action that would pull you in and end with a spectacular finish.

4/5 Good direction for the Bond series
  by Ben Larkins (Rustburg, VA)
I'll be honest, I came away with some mixed feelings about this one, but in the end it deserves the 4 stars it gets for a few reasons. It took me a while to get used to the different style of this movie, but once I did I believe it became all the more enjoyable. The writer/director/(insert important movie title) people took some liberties with the movie and the Bond franchise that in the end I believe paid off. Even from the start of the credits, I could tell this movie was going to be a bit different, and considering the sequel-esque nature of this film, it most certainly stood out, in a good way.

The action was varied, but each setting that Bond found himself in was quite believable. It didn't feel that him being on a plane or boat was forced down our throat just to fulfill a mandate for more fast-paced scenes, as some critics will lead you to believe.

What separates this movie from a good portion of so many other Bond films of the past is that the mental state of Bond, with all of it's humanity and baggage, comes to light. We see an older and more conflicted Bond. Casino Royale made us believe that Daniel Craig can carry the responsibility of James Bond quite well. Quantum of Solace helps us see the ups and downs of the burden of that responsibility.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie, and enjoyed the pacing, acting, and variety that it brought. I believe that as a sequel, it did justice, and was enjoyable through and through. I wouldn't call it the best Bond movie ever, but what sequel could ever live up to such great expectations?