# Quantum of Solace Already Breaking Records



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

It hasn't opened in the USA yet (opens Nov 14th) and Quantum of Solace has already taken in $130 million on 9800 screens in 57 countries. It is expected to reach the $150M mark before it opens here to what is expected to be record breaking numbers for the USA.

It's on my "must see" list.


----------



## JM Anthony (Nov 16, 2003)

Just saw it earlier today with #1 daughter. It is a great movie in and of itself and the best of the Bond series. Some aspects of the plot could have been a wee bit stronger, but the movies definitely has the right mood, and I think Craig captures the true spirit of Bond. Some great action sequences.

John


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

I'll see this no matter what and I'm sure I'll enjoy it when it comes out on Blu Ray, but a couple of my favorite critics have panned it.

Robert Wilonsky (from the Ultimate Trailer Show) basically said it was terrible.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

I have done extensive research on the title of this film and the definition of the term "Quantum of Solace". The fact of the matter is that it means _nothing_, therefor, the title of this movie has no meaning. Did the producer just play word scramble to come up with that?

Since I no longer go to theaters, I haven't seen the film yet and may not even when it comes out on disc. I'm a patient man -- I'll wait and watch it 'free' on HBO HD.

I just don't want to pay good money to see a movie whose title has no meaning.

:sure:


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

"Quantum" means "quantity" or "amount."

"Solace" means "comfort" or "consolation."

So I would take it to mean "A quantity of comfort."

It was the title of an Ian Fleming short story, although the movie is not based on that story.

Now if you are saying the title has no meaning in regards to the plot of the film, maybe that's so. But it's not like they picked a title like "Orange of elephants."


----------



## jodyguercio (Aug 16, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> "Quantum" means "quantity" or "amount."
> 
> "Solace" means "comfort" or "consolation."
> 
> ...


Using your definitions of the words of the title, one could take this to mean that Bond was looking for a "Quantum of Solace" in the fact that he was going to try and avenge the death of Vesper from Casino Royal. I havent seen the movie yet just the trailer and what has been written about the film so far.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Makes better sense with some background on the title as it pertains to the Bond character... I'm sure it ties in with this particular movie somehow, though I haven't watched it yet:

http://www.tjbd.co.uk/news/quantum-of-solace/quantum-of-solace-what-does-it-mean.htm


----------



## cweave02 (Oct 12, 2007)

Can't wait to see it. I took the title to mean that there really is no quantity - or measure, for solace.


----------



## njblackberry (Dec 29, 2007)

I enjoyed the film much more than I had expected. Many of the criticisms made are justified, but it was a very well done movie. A bit short compared to many Bond movies, but excellent nonetheless.


----------



## JM Anthony (Nov 16, 2003)

spartanstew said:


> I'll see this no matter what and I'm sure I'll enjoy it when it comes out on Blu Ray, but a couple of my favorite critics have panned it.
> 
> Robert Wilonsky (from the Ultimate Trailer Show) basically said it was terrible.


Wow! That's surprising. I usually see eye to eye with Robert on films, but not this one. As I said earlier, the story line isn't the strongest, but the rest of the film is first rate.

John


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

There's never been a doubt that Bond sells.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

I purchased one of the 3 movie BD bundles from Amazon and the package included a code to redeem for two free (up to $10.50 each) tickets to Quantum. I was definitely going to go see it anyway (I've seen every Bond film since For Your Eyes Only (except the License to Kill because Dalton was so bad in Living Daylights)) so this was just a nice bonus, now I just have to find time to go - I'm looking forward to it!


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

I saw it . . my immediate impressions (without writing a treatise) about the movie and general direction Bond movies are heading: 

This modern Bond behaves as a psychopathic killing machine who lacks the sophistication of a Connery era Bond. Although, I believe Craig has a proper Bond presence and temperament he isn't being allowed to develop his character into someone we get to know. For the movies, I'll take a debonair style Bond.

If you think Bond movies are about 'Bond Girls' you might be somewhat disappointed. Although the girls are very pretty, don't expect 'sex bombs' like Claudine Auger or Ursula Andress and they don't exude the sophistication of a Maud Adams or Jane Seymour. Modern Bond girls seem to be tending towards Sci-fi channel style 'super chicks' who kick the stuffing out of the bad guys and are smarter than Einstein. 

Maybe they are running out of evilness. Gone are the days of SPECTRE with insanely evil sophisticated plots spreading dominance through worldwide chaos. The organization Bond now confronts has 'people everywhere' but operates more akin to a gang of dope pushing street thugs. 

M's office now looks like a gigantic iPhone rather than the nerve center of British Intelligence. Then, relations between the CIA and British Intelligence have been severely strained and they are no longer fully cooperating with the US going alone for its own interests. Is there some anti-American message there? 

They do include lots of action scenes but you really can't see them. I actually experienced a headache from the 'Spaz-cam' shooting style. Many scenes go by so fast that I couldn't follow the continuity. To worsen matters, the dialog was often unintelligible. I hope they fix this for the next film.

One more thing, I wish they told me Casino Royale is a prerequisite to the storyline before I bought my ticket. Is Bond turning into a Flash Gorden style serial?

--- CHAS


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

HIPAR said:


> Maybe they are running out of evilness. Gone are the days of SPECTRE with insanely evil sophisticated plots spreading dominance through worldwide chaos. The organization Bond now confronts has 'people everywhere' but operates more akin to a gang of dope pushing street thugs.


In this era of complete moral relativism, I'm not sure most people even know what "evil" is anymore. Society has spent the last few decades trying to convince everyone that there's no such thing; that "bad guys" are really victims, and we just need to understand them, etc.

Bond was always about "good vs. evil", and the lines were very clear. Today's writers don't have much practice with such well-defined distinctions, Bond or otherwise.


----------



## Captain_Canuck (Dec 3, 2008)

it was a good movie but confusing. Daniel Craig still does a good job as Bond tho 7/10


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

I give it 1.5 stars. Horrible screenwriting.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

I thought it was an okay movie. Casino Royal was way better. It was not bad acting or anything like that just the story was a little lack luster for a normal Bond film. I liked it but expected better I guess. I still think Daniel Craig is the right person for the job for the time being.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

I thought it could have been maybe 5-10 minutes longer with some more plot development in the right places and it would have rocked. We had watched Casino Royale the night before and that helped, but QoS does not stand alone too well IMO.


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

haha it was a great movie. watched it on sunday and i loved it


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

the movie was kind of confusing though. i wish it had a better plot


----------

