Quantum of Solace Blu-ray

First off, I will just say that my only qualm about this picture was its length. In the past, a certain pedigree has been expected of Bond films' runtimes; they are LOOONG. This is typically not a bad thing, if done right, and the film doesn't drag on. However this flick clocks in about 45 minutes less than Royale, and I thought it could have used just a little more substanence. That said, grain of salt and all that, this was a very good movie. I stood up at the end and escorted my girl out of the theatre with me and said "Wow, that was a great movie." In the end that is all you can ask for. For those on here looking for an unbiased view, or one not laced with peoples' hatreds and indolences, this is where you should look. They burned the poor man at the stake in '05 when he was announced as Bond, they continued to bust his chops after Royale, (which was both a commercial and critical success by the way) and they continue to stone him after this effort. And it is just wrong. 'Bond Purists' 'Old Timers' and all of their ilk share in their own naiveity. They stamp their feet begging and whining for Connery back, and lash out at anything else, reguardless of how evidently well the movie/actor has done. The fact of the matter is, Daniel Craig, under the production of the current crew has brilliantly opened up a new avenue of 007 that people have never been introduced to, or seen in the near 50 years since Fleming wrote Casino Royale. His performance adds such great contrast and depth to a man we all thought we knew absolutely everything about after 20 films, but yet he manages to bring something very new to the stale cookie-cutter James Bond portrayed over the last 40 years. Not that these are bad performances... just stale. Hell, I own every Bond film. This is a great film, and definitly worth a watch if you into James Bond, the spy genre, action or all of the above. I would recommend watching Casino Royale before this if you have not seen it yet, as this movie is a continuation of that picture, which further separates QoS and Royale from every other Bond film. Never before has continuity ever been fully utilized in the 007 universe, and they do it well here. As I said before, don't look to the bad-teeth feet-stampers crying for a Connery/Moore clone to come back. Watch this film, and judge for yourself. Read more

To all you haters out there who keep on talking trash about "Quantum of Solace", you need to stop smoking whatever you're smoking. There are so many facets to this amazing film that pays homage to the true Bond films that contain lots of action, entertainment, and fist-fights with villains (e.g. "Tomorrow Never Dies", "Goldeneye", "Die Another Day", etc.). Here's why "Quantum of Solace" is above the pathetic "casino royale" and "skyfall": 1. More action (that's what Bond is famous for and must include to be worthy of being a Bond film) 2. More fist fights (that's what Bond is famous for and must include to be worthy of being a Bond film) 3. More car chase scenes (that's what Bond is famous for and must include to be worthy of being a Bond film) 4. More of a classic hero against villain story, thank God, instead of the ever-so-boring "skyfall" (that's what Bond is famous for and must include to be worthy of being a Bond film) I still do not understand why people think "casino royale" was a good Bond movie. Do I want/did I pay to watch Bond play cards for about 75% of the movie? Hell no. I can watch people playing cards anytime at a casino or on television. Now to that other pathetic Bond movie, "skyfall". Do I want/did I pay to see Bond go back to his empty orphan house? That scene was so dull, mundane, boring, and depressing. To other reviewers who know what "skyfall" was referring to, kudos on actually not nodding off during that pathetic Bond movie. You probably took several grams of caffeine before watching "skyfall", which is why you were able to not nod off during "skyfall". Read more

first i want to say more's the pity the 2-disc version is not available on blu-ray - although i didn't inspect the disc menu that closely - perhaps the same features are there. I'll revise this review if they are. The blue-ray version is good - great quality transfer of video and sound Second - as far as the film goes: actually the character development is 1) consistent with the original bond novels, which actually do explain why (the old) bond is such a misogynistic womanizing s.o.b.; the Craig movies offer considerably more than any Bond films that precede them; to say there's no character development is a short-sighted criticism. Niven, Connery, Moore, Dalton, Brosnin -- have i overlooked anyone? Who can possibly say that "character development" was even attempted with any of these? Did that impeded the fun of watching Sean Connery swagger across reel after reel? I think not! However I liked this the first time I saw it and it improves on re-view. Bond's character definitely develops, playing out the sequelae to his relationship with Vesper; M is at her authoritative best; many of the supporting characters are a little cardboard-cutout and the girl-being-rescued is - at first blush I found her boring, but by the time the film reached it's climactic scene, which is pretty eye-popping, I liked her a lot better. I won't say why. Ultimately there's still a lot of big-strong-man protecting beautiful-helpless-woman dynamic (*yawn*) but hey - it's Bond. You can only change so much. And only so much has really changed since the "pussy galore" days - it's pretty contemporary. I think the biggest problem this film suffers is that it IS more of a regular Bond film. There are plenty of action-packed scenes, typical bond women, a coherent story-line, quippy one-liners. I loved the complexity of the first film; I loved that Bond was both tough and vulnerable. On the other hand, if you look at the reviews of Casino Royale, half the people are complaining about that very element. Just goes to show you can't please all the people all of the time. But it is true that in the original novels, the whole reason Bond treats women the way he does is because of the pain in his broken heart. Men; they never do deal with their feelings, do they? My final word: I never thought I'd find myself saying this, but Daniel Craig is the BEST BOND EVER. I am an old, old Bond film. I've seen every Connery film at least five or ten times. Sean Connery to me WAS the epitomy of Bondness; he had a rich combination of animal magnetism combined with smooth manners, quick reflexes, athletic and intellectual credibility, as well as... well let's say that voice is enough to reduce me to a puddle of jello (and yes, I am female). But Connery was ALL swagger. Craig is a delicious balance between bad-boy machismo and the sense that he needs a little rescuing himself. The dialogue and plot development in this film capture that quality well. I never in a million years would have believed any actor could out-Bond Connery, but Daniel Craig IMO has done it. He brings a comparable level of unbridled masculine energy as typified Connery, and combines it effortlessly with a truly three-dimensional presence. He is both more sophisticated and rougher around the edges - truly Bond for the new millenium. Bond films are still a feminist's outrage, but at least these have been updated to our current cultural norms, which are unfortunately not much less sexist, but certainly a slightly smoother cocktail - no vermouth this time, shaken, not stirred. Read more