So what does everyone think? I saw it on Friday, and while I was fairly impressed, I didn't think it quite lived up to its billing.

I didn't feel the same level of tension that I felt in Casino Royale, and the pace was difficult to keep up with at times. I also think that we're getting closer and closer to Bond becoming the new Bourne - lots of grit and hardcore action with lots of plot twists and double crosses. Not a bad thing in itself, but if you compare this movie to something like Goldfinger, The Spy Who Loved Me or Live And Let Die, it's like a completely different series.

Having said all that, it was immensely enjoyable. I don't want to give too much away, but it's definitely worth seeing at the cinema, one of the better films to come out this year.

Haven't watched it, but the title makes me nervous; it's just too silly.
Relativity of Consolation.
String Theory of Succour.
Classical Mechanics of Comfort.
See?

The title is a bit awkward, but it does make sense in a way. A "quantum" is defined as:

1. A quantity or amount.
2. A specified portion.
3. Something that can be counted or measured.

Note that in this case it has nothing to do with science.

"Solace" is defined as:

1. Comfort in sorrow, misfortune, or distress; consolation.
2. A source of comfort or consolation.

... which fits very well with Bond's personal situation after Casino Royale. He sets out to get a quantity, or amount, of comfort after everything he went through in the previous movie.

Shame it has to be over-explained, but it does work.

The new actor looks like a bloody serial-murderer without feelings. It was really hard to relate...

mintsauce:
The title is a bit awkward, but it does make sense in a way. A "quantum" is defined as:

1. A quantity or amount.
2. A specified portion.
3. Something that can be counted or measured.

Note that in this case it has nothing to do with science.

"Solace" is defined as:

1. Comfort in sorrow, misfortune, or distress; consolation.
2. A source of comfort or consolation.

... which fits very well with Bond's personal situation after Casino Royale. He sets out to get a quantity, or amount, of comfort after everything he went through in the previous movie.

Shame it has to be over-explained, but it does work.

That makes much more sense. I guess the old sense of quantum has died out thanks to science using the word.

Apparently you have to see Casino Royale to understand it?

I still haven't seen that...

I haven't seen it but the previews made it seem way to action packed for a Bond film. I probably won't see it.

Seen it. Its alright, bit thinky for a bond film. And its lost the tongue in cheek humour of the old films and is following the bourne ideal of mucho grit and running around through-out. It does continue the story of casino royale smoothly and leaves a lot of juice left in the current villianous organisation. Harking back to the S.P.E.C.T.R.E. days where everything wasn't solved at the end of the film.

And Daniel Craig is a damn fine actor.

curlycrouton:
Apparently you have to see Casino Royale to understand it?

I still haven't seen that...

Yes, it picks up immediately after Casino royale if I remember correctly. Also, HOLY CRAP ITS OUT?? Dang, I wasted my entire weekend with out seeing it, Dang it!

Dele:
The new actor looks like a bloody serial-murderer without feelings. It was really hard to relate...

From what he goes through in each movie; killing hoards of bad guys, all of his gf's and his wife dying, always traveling, you'd have to be pretty cold hearted to get through it all.

Fun Fact: Quantum of Solace was not a book but a short story by Ian Fleming. In it, Bond went to a dinner party, and was bored as hell by the woman he was sitting next to. After the party, he was talking to the host privately, and he mentioned how incredibly boring the woman he'd been sitting by was. The host told him that she was actually an extremely accomplished woman who'd led a very interesting life. The end.

I think they might have changed it a bit for the movie.

Meh, it was well a bit of a disappointment to me. The film isn't complex or thinky corporate_gamer, its just bloody hard to understand whats going on, as plot advancement and explanations tend to occur during the middle of a gunfight or car chase so loud you can barely hear yourself think.

I would say its good if you go there expecting a big explosion filled killathon for 2+ hours, but if you want some of the tension, smarts and depth (I know, depth in a bond film, but casino royale had it at times and the trailer for QOS seemed to suggest the same would happen) that Casino Royale had, then your in for a disappointment. Bond if anything was a bit too dispationate as its hard to symapthise with a man who racks up such a rapid kill count.

No character development or depth, too much action to the point where it became bland and a last minuet lapse into old bond territory makes it an ok but hugly disappointing bond film for me.

I still haven't seen this. I really need to watch Casino Royale first.

Personally very disappointed with the newer bond films, I prefer the kinda.. goofy old ones. I know the newer ones are meant to be more like the old Fleming books, but I personally just feel that having grown up with the original recipe series.

Sean Connery.

It's out?! *pawns kidney for ticket prices*

thebobmaster:
It's out?! *pawns kidney for ticket prices*

IMDB says it's out the 14th of November for the US :(. I knew it was too good to be true. Though considering how the new game release dates are for the rest of the world (i.e. not the US) I'm not going to complain all that much.

Myan:

thebobmaster:
It's out?! *pawns kidney for ticket prices*

IMDB says it's out the 14th of November for the US :(. I knew it was too good to be true. Though considering how the new game release dates are for the rest of the world (i.e. not the US) I'm not going to complain all that much.

...Well, crap. Oh well, that's why we have two kidneys.