Personally, I disagree with those complaints. I mean, considering that we last saw Bond at the end of "Casino Royale" as a man broken and betrayed by the death of his true love-turned traitor Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), it makes sense that the follow-up would be a darker and more somber outing. "Quantum of Solace" feels like a solid bridge from the rocky beginning of Bond's career to the suave, sophisticated super-spy he ultimately becomes. This is a natural and needed step; I imagine the next film will bring much more of the classic Bond vibe into the picture.
"Quantum of Solace" has some amazing action sequences. In fact, about 80-90% of the movie is action. That's actually the movie's biggest problem; more of the story would have been nice. The fact that movie's not very long shows that it could have easily supported some additional time; "Casino Royale" had a running time of just under two and a half hours, while "Quantum of Solace" is only about an hour and forty-five minutes. The story is already pretty confusing, and moving it along at such a brisk rate doesn't help make it any easier to follow. The main villain in the film is also a disappointment; he's just a skinny little businessman with an ugly face who's not a particularly interesting character.
But Daniel Craig continues to be an excellent Bond, easily the best since the original Sean Connery. Olga Kurylenko (who played a similar role in last year's "Hitman") also does good work as the requisite femme fatale, although whether or not she qualifies as an actual "Bond Girl" is debatable since they don't really hook up. Rather, she's more of a female version of Bond who teams up with him to bring down the bad guys. Don't worry though, as Bond still gets a few chances to show he's smooth with the ladies.
"Quantum of Solace" isn't as memorable as "Casino Royale," but it's still a strong film in the series that paves the way for more great Bond films in the future. "Quantum of Solace" gets a 4 out of 5.
Posts
