I know they wanted to move away from the Dr Evil school of Bond baddies but WTF.

Bond goes around wacking people left right and centre cos there's some dude who's bought all the water rights to a company and is now screwing the inhabitants of that country....

Hell Thames Water have been doing that for decades and they didn't need to kill anyone to do it.

Whatever next? Bond coming up against some seriously evil tycoon whose advertising broadband but people aren't actually getting the speeds advertised...

Unless they condenced the entire plot and put it on screen during the 90 seconds when I was having a pee that's got to be the most plotless pile of poo ever!!!

All I long I kept on thinking- "and the big exciting "Quantum" secret is going to be....." and then it ended.

So the first movie leads onto the second and the second talks about "Quantum". Talk about dragging it out!! I think they got the script writers from Heroes and Lost on board.

"let's pretend that there's a plot and have lots of speculation and people will have fallen asleep before they realise there isn't"....

I agree the plot was very thin - wafer thin even.
but the action and stunt scenes were fantastic. Daniel Craig is a great Bond, portayed as the ruthless cold hearted bastard he should be

I'll give it a pass then. I much prefer the Connery type approach - a bit of humour goes a long way. Should get Mike Myers to do the Dr Evil.

But where were the gadgets?

Nick

I didn't miss the gadgets or the typical Bond schmoozing of women. And the action was good. But it didn't make up for a total lack of plot. The best thing was the landscapes....

I absolutely loved Casino Royale, must have seen in 20 times so was really looking forward to Quantum of Solace.

Revised my expectations due to dodgy reviews.

Sad to say I was still disappointed. I really was a poor version of Bourne. As my mate put it: "frankly, Bourne does Bourne better".

That fight scene with the other agent was a less good rip off of the Morroco fight scene in Bourne (where he kills the guy with the book).

What was going on with all the electric/hydrogen cars... in Haiti!

As soon as they said the hotel was powered by fuel cells it was obvious it was going to blow up. (And why use fuel cells in the desert, what's wrong with solar!!!).

Gemma Arterton was a major disappointment- she's hardly Eva Greene is she!!!

They really did balls up the storyline didn't they!!!

I don't mind the lack of gadgets and frankly I much prefer the rougher, tougher, greater realism of the Daniel Craig era but it really wasn't worth £7.50!!!

Cheers,
James

I couldn't agree more with comments.

I watched Casino Royale again before watching this and realised that that film wasn't all that great either. Some good action scenes but a bit too much soppy stuff. The producers also made a point of saying there was to be no gadgets etc in the film and that it was going to be as real as possible.
Well I better make sure that I include the defibrillator as standard in my locost to pass the SVA!!
Also, how on earth can a full size four story building vanish into a canal in Venice? Where did the producers get their ideas from, the canals in Venice are only around 15ft deep. It must be that famous Venetian triangle.

As for the new film, I thought that the Bond character is better but the plot was wafer thin. And as for some of the fight scenes, WTF was the running through the kitchen/opera/fight scene? Was the cameraman trying to win the Turner prize for artistic content? felt like I was on a waltzer.