I wish I understood Quantum of Solace..

I really do..

Good movie the acting and the action makes up for the crappy plot.

I liked it.

What's not to understand? I can see how it would be somewhat confusing if you hadn't seen or didn't remember Casino Royale, but I thought the plot was pretty straightforward. And well done.

I enjoyed it, and I'm with malkav11. There isn't much to not understand.

Oh yeah I love the different feeling of Bond. I rather have Serious over smooth talking playboy.

My favorite part was the beginning. I love car chases. And I don't understand all the hating of QoS.

It was a good movie but lacked in storytelling. I thought?

I thought it was meh, a lot of parkour and bullets and explosions but not much of a plot. Granted this is a Bond movie we're talking about, but even most Bond movies are pretty self-contained. This was basically an extended ending to Casino Royale.

That's what I loved. A true sequel finally. I just thought it was complicated.

Ugh. QoS sucked hard.

Isn't this supposed to be "Early" in the Ian Fleming timeline for Bond, though?

Yes it is, but as with Casino Royale, they changed part of the plot to make sense in today's economy and other things in that same vein.

Such as in Casino Royale, they play poker instead of baccarat because everyone and their mother has probably seen poker on tv and would understand that because baccarat is confusing as hell

While I liked the movie and I think that Daniel Craig makes the best modern day Bond ever, it veered dangerously close to the Bourne flicks.

Well I certainly don't mind the modernization of the world around Bond, but seeing as how Bond is not yet the level of suave debonair playboy as when he is portrayed by Connery, he would not yet have that Mystique that Jace was complaining about a lack of. The character is in its infancy.

Well... there's a difference between mystique and skill. I think Bond had plenty of mystique in CR. He was suave, clever, charming, and mysterious in his personality. He personified Bond's ego just fine in my opinion, and they did a good job of making him feel youthful, which is good because like MisterEnrolled said, he's not up to the Connery point in the timeline yet.

But his actions as a soldier were completely unpolished. My favorite example of this is him breaking through the drywall during the initial chase scene with that freejumping guy, but there are examples throughout the movie. They did a great job making it feel like Bond was working to be a secret agent. It didn't come effortlessly. There were times when he messed up. Other times he was just unpolished. This is how they show Bond's novice status, not with a lack of personality.

So, in my opinion the mystique is an aspect of personality, not of performance. Though they can and often do intersect, they are independent things. This is exactly why Jason Bourne works as a character. He does the same secret agent spy stuff, but when he does it, he doesn't even know why or how. He does it with a complete lack of personality, and the best moments in the first Bourne movie are when Bourne takes down three guys, looks around, looks completely astonished, and runs away in a panic. That's an extremely telling, powerful, intense, puzzling moment. Jason Bourne is the antithesis of James Bond; Bond does the same stuff as Bourne, but with an absolute excess of personality, and that's why Bond works as well as he does. Anything in-between is just "meh" and there are countless examples of spy movies that were "meh."

If that's the case, Bond should carry his personality and mystique from one movie to the other, even as he evolves as a soldier and secret agent. I don't feel like that happened going from CR to CoS. It wasn't that Bond went backwards, it was that he went nowhere. There wasn't a pronounced lack of personality, Ala Bourne. There was just emptiness. Bond felt flat and boring in this movie. Nothing he did was mysterious, or suave, or clever. He was just... there. Daniel Craig is an amazing actor and an amazing Bond, and he did the best he could, but ultimately Bond just wasn't written in a captivating way for this movie. He meanders from scene to scene, dispatches bad guys, and that's basically it. It felt like an empty suit. I felt like there could have been any number of characters in Bond's position doing the same things Bond was doing, and that's unacceptable for a Bond movie. James Bond is one of a kind even for a secret agent; that's why he's such a unique, interesting, entertaining character. Everything he's doing should feel like something only Bond should be doing, not just in terms of technical prowess but in terms of style. I have to believe the character. I didn't believe it.

Jace I strongly agree and you made me laugh!

I hope you liked Casino Royale though?

Agreed.

Maybe Bond is still reeling from the loss of Vesper? If the woman I loved died and betrayed me at the same time, it wouldn't matter if my brain was programmable - I'd be as emotional and blinded by revenge as Bond was portrayed to be in QoS.

Because we are never given a glimpse at Bond prior to his adult life, we must see his character in QoS as teen-like. He's going to be very sloppy and at times backpedal and go nowhere. He must learn to rely on himself. He made progress toward that by being subversive to M in QoS, and at the end by abandoning his heart.

I like how Bond thought he could erase Vesper by sleeping with Fields.

I didn't see that really on his mind. I took it as an easily eaten snack for Bond.

How was the nudity? This is my main concern.