Quantum Of Solace Running Time

☮

☮Alyssa☮

New member
According to Cineworld and Vue Cinemas website the running time of Quantum Of Solace is 107 mins. Is that correct or is the running time not yet confirmed? The BBFC site doesnt have it listed so maybe the running time is not confirmed. If it is 107 mins it will be the shortest Bond film since Goldfinger! And the second shortest ever. After Casino Royale running at nearly two and a half hours and being the Longest Bond film surely Quantum Of Solace will be at least two hours long. Also just checked IMDB and they show it as 106 mins. Looks like the longest Bond ever will be followed by the shortest!
 
As long as it's a good film i'm not really bothered by the running time. I'd rather have 107 minutes of excellence over a 3 hour epic that goes on too long. So what if it's as short as Goldfinger? Goldfinger is brilliant, and that just proves my point.
 
As much as I loved Casino Royale, I reckon they could have easily cut out 20 minutes by cutting out various parts - would have made it an even better film.

So long as they have kept the crap out and left the good stuff in (I have faith in the editors), I think this is a great thing.
 
Aww that's a shame! thought it'd be at least as long as it's predecessor quite enjoy 2 hours away with Bond :D :o can never quite understand this general attitude of paying to go see a film you really want to see but complaining about the running time going on for to long, surely if you like it you'd want more? or is it one of those less is more things? 10 years down the line will folks reviews of movies be "Ooooh! that was the best 30 mins of my life! what a great film" as editors cut them down shorter and shorter and shorter!....is there no avid movie goers anymore :confused:
 
The running time of 107 minutes is correct. I've even read it's 100 min, which would be accurate if you take off the end credits.

After the excessive run time of Casino Royale, 107 minutes will be no bad thing. But it does smell of a lack of story if they can't even stretch to 115 min.

Take off the start and end credits, you've got a 95 min Bond movie. That worries me.
 
DepenRAB if there's a lot of padding filling out the run time.

The entire Miami sequence from Casino Royale could have been binned with no ill effect.
 
Does anyone know if there is a pre title sequence and the return of the gun barrel opening? If there is a long opening scene like the last two Brosnan films then once the title song is finished and taking into account the closing credits we could be left with about 80 mins!
 
its not a v good film which is very disappointing - i went to a screening a couple of weeks ago. the first 30 mins are constant action and you don't really get the chance to catch your breath after that - not in a good way either, its all a bit muddled
 
I think the running time being shorter is a good thing. I think Goldfinger, the current shortest Bond film, is the best Bond film ever mainly due to the fact the movie got right into gear from the first scenes, so maybe Quantum of Solace will be the same.
I'm still a bit unsure about Daniel Craig as 007 though, maybe he will grow on me more in this new film.
 
i think this film is going to be EXCEPTIONAL!!!!

and the shortened running time will make it even better ..... and i LOVED the epicness of CR (as it was re-establishing the bond universe)
 
I'm guessing it's shorter because, being a direct sequel to Casino Royale (it begins straight after the last scene), there doesn't need to be as much character development or setting up of a mission. Bond's motives and character are already totally established so they don't need to go through all those motions again. Action all the way!
 
To be honest, i was expecting this negativity from the press. In their eyes 'Casino Royale' is now the standard to which all Bond's should attempt to meet and anything that falls short of that is rubbish. I read a review last night that said it was better than most of the Brosnan ones (and nowhere near the low quality of 'Die Another Day') which surely still says that even if it's not at good as CR it's still better than it used to be in the years previously.

It seem that the main criticism is of the director Marc Forster who evidently doesn't really have a clue how to handle action scenes. Everything i've read about Craig seem to be positive though, so hopefully this will silence the Craig haters once and for all.
 
Back
Top