Here is our community member review page. If you've seen the movie and have an opinion, click the EasyEdit button and go to work... you might even meet someone that agrees with you. Please visit our film review suggestions page if you need some help getting started. Keep in mind that if you don't register for the wiki, you're review won't be featured on this page.

Please reserve this page only for reviews, not discussions. If you'd like to go back and forth with someone, you can do it in our QoS discussion threads.

Gettler	Well, I'm new here, so I won't go off on a tangent and wear out my welcome, but I didn't like it. Whereas Casino Royale had breaks between the action, QoS jumps all over the place. The villain was weak and most of the time the camera movement was so choppy I didn't know what the heck was going on. I actually did like the opening song of the movie, but wasn't a huge fan of the opening credits. Those who like a certain missing 'key' classic element will be surprised to see its inclusion in the film, though not where you'd expect it. This film, if anything, made me grow even more tired of Dench's role as M. She is such a concerned grandmother in this film...it's just annoying. I'd like to see M changed to someone who might channel some Bernard Lee - he appears in the film as the foreign secretary, played by Tim Pigott-Smith. His words in the film were among some of the best, and considering how annoyed I was by that point in the film, they almost seemed to help parody the film. The plot was thin...etc etc. The action was too choppy as I've already said. Many people are calling this a 'Bourne wannabe' and I can see their point - the second unit is comprised of some of the Bourne people.
DarakuTenshi	I liked it quite a bit. At first I thought this really didn't feel like a Bond movie as such until I sat and thought about it for a while. Since this is supposed to be a young James Bond and many of the Bond trade marks were not present can be explained. Such as the no gadgets present was because Q branch had not been introduced yet. Or the whole Bond James Bond that too had not been used because Bond had not yet met Sylvia Trench where he mocked her after she introduced her self as Trench, Sylvia Trench.Trench. And he followed up with well... you get the point. But I think it would be nice on Bond 23 to get back to the good old Bond again.
QuartermasterQ	Why are they taking all the great stuff out of Bond? Dont get me wrong I loved Casino Royale, its plot, Craig's performance, everything that was in it. But its the stuff thats not in it. They took out Q and Moneypenny, and now in this one, QOS, theyre takin out his line "Bond. James Bond." and no more vodka martinis shaken not stirred. Who cares if they want to break from tradition, tradition is part of what James Bond is and is why the movies are so memorable and unique. Bond isnt Bond without Moneypenny and cool gadgets from Q. and his drink and his line are trademarks. Whats happening to the films?
mkfeeberg	t really would've helped to have a Moneypenny or a Q. One or the other, at the very end. They didn't do either one. Apologies if anybody considers that to be a spoiler...I think it's sort of on the line, maybe. This debate shown in the trailer about whether Bond was motivated by duty or by revenge -- it was a pretty silly argument to be having, wasn't it? Her Majesty's Government really didn't have a dog in the hunt. Some bug-eyed creepy dude is gonna starve a bunch of poor people out of their, uh, precious resource, and extort some fat smelly deposed-general dude out of a bunch of money...I don't even follow what any of this has to do with introducing Stephen Obanno to Le Chiffre.Chiffre. Or getting the money back when it goes missing. I've complained before about those henchmen attacking Roger Moore in the belly-dancer's dressing room in Beirut, how the spoiler later on in TMWTGG entirely deprives them of purpose other than the "it's time for a fight" thing. That whole action sequence before the opening credits? That's kind of like more of the same. Those bad-guys didn't belong there, y'know? I know we've been anticipating this thing for years, and it hurts to admit it, but someone's gotta say it... 1. It seems he didn't even sleep with his leading lady. That would be a first, wouldn't it? 2. The camera was shaky during the action scenes. 3. The villains were weak. 4. Generally, there were so many Bond elements missing that it ended up not having a great deal to do with Bond. Any one of those four, or two of those four, could be overlooked partially or entirely. As a whole, they create a real problem. The consensus that has emerged from Rotten Tomatoes is (and this is rare) an echo of my opinion. It's definitely "fresh"; it's a decent film. It does not rate as higly as Casino Royale,Royale, and in that sense, fails to satisfy. It is the nature of sequels to be inferior to what inspired them -- but I'm afraid this is something of a case of overpromising and underdelivering. Nice effort, Mr. Forster. Good-enough results. Adequate contribution. Didn't suck. Still and all, let's make this your one-and-only. I've got the impression your passions are invested in something else. Having said that, Daniel Craig met, and surpassed, expectations.
lg007	My Friends and I watched it on Nov 6. Great action scenes, lots of twists to keep any bond fan at the edge of their seat. Not a big fan of the missing characters (Q, Moneypenny) and the title sequence. Finally, Craig's first proper gunbarrel.
e007bond1016	I thought it was a great movie. I dont see it as being a "bourne wannabe" when it was nothing of the sort. Things were crazy and mixed up because they were supposed to be. Bond has been through into a world of chaos. M's part in the movie was great as well. There was life for M. she was no longer just sitting around in an office. I love how they utilized the gunbarrel although I wont mention what I mean in case others havent seen it but trust me you will know. This movie indicates that he is now Bond. He will have missions women, gadgets, cars, everything Bond has had before and I cannot wait until the next film. I would also like to mention that I loved the way ***SPOLIERS***** Fields was found dead. Anyone notice what classic Bond scene that looked like? Goldfiner...
Cedric(006)	First off, I'd just like to say the movie started out the best way to draw any sane individual - with action, sweet ass moves, and to top it off mates - a sweet action sequence. The car chase was brillently put together, better than that World Record 9 flips in Casino Royale.Royale. Quantum of Solace'sSolace's beginning has to be the best thus far in the series -the action was there. The character (and double agent) Mitchel was brillently cast and played. He began to circulate "Oh my lord - can we really trust anyone" For God's sake, he was M's body guard for 6 (or was it 8) years! And then he shoots to kill M and Bond. By the way, that scene was brillently set up: "We have members everywhere, isn't that right..." (BOOM). Plus, didnt look like M got hit by the way she flinched? The Mitch chase was great as well. Again, they went back to what worked well in Casino Royale - A freerunning scene. So now we have two good qualities Casino Royale had that QOS has - A car chase and a freeruunning sequence. The sad , and low point, cam when Rene Mathis died. Bond again feels that quality from Casino Royale.Royale. The loss of a loved one. Didn't like how he just threw him in the garbage though - but that is the way he would have wanted it. Another good reference came in the Oil scene with AKA Fields - her ENTIRE body was covered in oil. Does that remind anybody of someone <cough..Goldfinger..cough><cough..Goldfinger..cough> Ironoically enough, we see Bond give Greene an oil can to "drink after the 20 or so mile" Haha. Good stuff. That too brings another great scene - the duel royale between Greene and Bond. Finally, a Quantum agent who can duke it out with Bond, even though he did grunt every time he swung. Oh age does have a factor! Plus, it had that "Oh my lord, I just crapped my pants" factor. Did any literally piss themselves when that plane came shooting over Bond. When I went and watched it, I lifted out of my seat. All-in-all, I enjoyed QOS. I don't care what anyones says, a top 3 Bond Film. I'll just have to re-watch some of my other top film choices tonight!
Boothroyd	I enjoyed QOS--it wasn't as good as Casino Royale,Royale, maybe not even at the level of most of the Connery Bonds, but it was ahead of most of the others. Definitely in the top 10. As one of the shortest of the films (one reviewer said THE shortest, but I'm not sure given Dr. No)No) it could have been great if it were 30 minutes longer and that half-hour had been devoted a little more to plot and character development. Story had potential, there just wasn't enough of it between the action sequences. I was a bit disappointed in the tight editing of some of the action sequences; it made the film appear that some of the stunts were "staged" during film stops, whereas other Bonds were noted for groundbreaking stunts done with wide angle shots so you could see the stunt was actually filmed and not a camera trick. I agree they were "Bourne" stunts, not Bond stunts. Craig, however, is excellent--I'm convinced his mix of "cold brutality" and suppressed emotion is exactly what the original Fleming books intended for Bond and no film Bond has accomplished that since the first few Connery films. "Gadget" use was limited to some cool computer screens and a couple of electronic "bugs" small enough to fit on a business card, and none of those were undue "plot drivers." (I may never forgive the producers for the "invisible car" in Die Another Day--thatDay--that was a low point in the Bond franchise.) Still, even an "average" Bond is far better than most else that passes these days as an action flick. I was pleased--well worth the price of admission and eventually a DVD to own.
Dmeyers	So, I liked it too. I'm an out Craig fan, but did find the film lacking in a few areas. First, the good news. The chemistry between the players was great; particularly with M and Bond. The Bond girls were strong, but not exceptional. I thought the stunt work and cinematography was great! I also really enjoyed the Opera scene. The juxtaposition of events and music was great - and you got to see Bond actually do something clever. Finally! The bad. The villain story arch felt secondary to revenge - which I will admit was probably the intent. It was too fast with too little character development. I would have liked a little more traditional Bond in the film too. It felt more Bourne than Bond in the first half, but finally worked in some elements, including a great nod to GFinger, towards the latter half. Overall, great movie, top 5 Bond film.