Reviews

Definition of a Bond film: A sophisticated spy story, injected with humour, gadgets, sex, action and locations to provide the viewer with a fun and escapist experience.

Does Quantum of Solace deliver this? Not really.

Though many complain about the plot, I think it's interesting, though confusing. Many twists and turns, but likely to lose you, and the emphasis on deceit and politics isn't really what I want from a Bond film.

Very little humour, taking away an element of fun that has been ever-present in it's 21 predecessors. No tongue-in-cheek at all, I'd even go so far as to say this is a "serious" film. One of the first words leaping to mind about a Bond film should not be serious.

Gadgets...what gadgets? Just some stuff you could pick up from a Sony shop (though M's table was impressive!)

Sex- not much going on here either, it's over in a couple of minutes, very poor quality. Of the two beautiful women he stars with, Bond instead spends the last scene with M!

Action, pretty good, though as many here have acknowledged, the filming technique for the car/boat chases was irritating and didn't really deliver. Some of the fights were good, but where's that fun edge to the fights that every Bond BUT Craig has managed?

Locations: Very impressive. The locations, sets and music score are the only things faultless in this film.

To conclude, a Bond film that doesn't deliver what you really want and expect from a Bond film, though it has its moments.

This film is saturated with absurdity, in an attempt to wow audiences with special effects they have already seen countless times in the likes of Die Hard and Bourne. Nothing new in this film, just a number of Hollywood cliché's, including the sob story told by a narrator in the third person, which ultimately turns out to be their own sob story, and even the Star Wars idea of the central character seeking to avenge their father's death, only for the villain to say "No, I am your father".

The rest of the plot comprises of special effects, absurdity (laughing AT not WITH the film), excessive blood and shooting and swearing and achieves nothing by doing so. James McAvoy totally lets himself down in this role- he was brilliant in "Last King of Scotland", but doesn't do himself justice as soon as he starts speaking in a pretty naff American accent. His character isn't that believable, and his excessive swearing makes him more unrealistic, instead of realistic. The rest of the cast, including veteran Morgan Freeman, are paper-thin characters, which also lets them down as actors. As the characters die, it is difficult to be upset as you barely know them or sympathise with them.

Although there were some interesting twists in the end, they fail to salvage a film that's only purpose was to try and lure people in with mindless violence, blood and bad language with very little substance. The script is also quite poor, like many modern action films. In my view, this is trying to outdo Goodfellas in violence, bad language and blood, but otherwise would fail miserably in competing on the scale of quality and credibility. A further demonstration of unoriginality in Hollywood film-making.