DecoyMusic.com

Picking up literally minutes after Casino Royale ended isn’t the only way that the latest Bond film bucks tradition by trying to maintain continuity within the series; references to Casino Royale are peppered in all throughout the film, and the script attempts to make Bond’s emotional journey a continuation rather than a new construct. But unfortunately this actually ends up being the weakest element of the film; while I usually enjoy sequels that depend very much on their former films, here Quantum of Solace feels very much like a self contained story that has elements of Casino Royale forcibly shoehorned in. Vesper Lynd’s connection to the baddies is tenuous at best, and the whole subplot about Bond being driven by rage and revenge is flimsy, undoubtedly the weakest and most glossed over part of the film.

Subplots and big plots alike get short changed in Quantum of Solace; at a brief 106 minutes (purportedly the shortest of the 22 Bond films) and stuffed to the brim with one action sequence after another, the film doesn’t manage to fit in as much story as it could or perhaps should. I say perhaps because this is both good and bad; it’s welcome to have a lot of the meandering that was present in Casino Royale (one hour to the get to the card game that the plot supposedly hinges on?) excised, but on the other hand Quantum of Solace doesn’t feel nearly as epic as its predecessor. In his review of the film, Devin from CHUD.com said he felt that Quantum of Solace was like “a film version of a novel filling in the 'secret adventure' that James Bond has between Casino Royale and whatever movie is next” and I certainly have to agree with him. It’s not as if the pacing is off - the film exists comfortably within its relatively brief running time without sacrificing set up or climax - but more that the whole thing seems rushed in the sense that everyone just wants to get it over with in order to wrap up the loose ends from Casino Royale via a lot of explosions and fist fights. It’s hard to tell the timeline (Bond is in three very different locales within the first 15 minutes of the film, and it seems like he has traveled between them in minutes) and the action scenes come at you so fast its almost as if they are stacked on top of each other at times.

Daniel Craig continues to impress here as the steely-eyed James Bond, even more so because he has a lot less meaty of a role than he did in Casino Royale. What with the fighting and the running and the chases in all manner of transportation (seriously; there’s a car chase, a boat chase, a brief motorcycle chase and even a plane chase) it’s easy to see how the pathos could get pushed to the wayside. When compared to the small scale, self-driven need for funds that drove Le Chiffre, Mathieu Almaric as the villain Dominic Greene has a suitably Bond-ish and more enjoyably grandiose world domination scheme (albeit realistically realized as per these reboots’ more rational tone), but his sniveling personality and lack of any weird quirk leaves him somewhat bland and overall overshadowed by the Bond villains of films past.

Despite its too fleeting nature and often failed attempts at injecting emotion, there is still much to enjoy in Quantum of Solace. Its action is expertly staged and exciting (although still far too Bourne influenced). There’s more humor here than there was in Casino Royale, and the light hearted jokes are certainly a welcome return to the franchise. And while the stories may not bridge as well as the filmmakers no doubt hoped, stylistically Quantum of Solace is an excellent companion to Casino Royale. The look and tone fits, and director Marc Forster injects all the artful imagery that Martin Campbell did back in 2006 and then some. Looking at it as just another action movie, Quantum of Solace is certainly a success for the genre - but in terms of upping the ante from the expectation shattering Casino Royale, this one doesn’t manage to succeed all across the board.

Grade: B

- Jeff Latta

It was enjoyable, but I still left the theater disappointed. I enjoyed the storyline and characters, but the action sequences were kind of meh. All the quick edits made the car and boat chases damn near impossible to follow (and this is coming from someone who loved the Bourne films).

It was also severely lacking in much of the humor that makes Bond...well, Bond.

You know. I've seen ONE Bond film in my life. One with Peirce, and Halle when I was like 9 or 10, Since then, I've never, ever wanted to see another Bond film in my life. Now I love action and espionage and what-not, but its never caught my attention after that horrible experience. Am I really missing that much?

I think a lot of the humor was there just more subtly. craig's bond is so badass and sure of himself that it makes it very enjoyable when he's seemingly "caught"

You know. I've seen ONE Bond film in my life. One with Peirce, and Halle when I was like 9 or 10, Since then, I've never, ever wanted to see another Bond film in my life. Now I love action and espionage and what-not, but its never caught my attention after that horrible experience. Am I really missing that much?

the action sequences were kind of meh. All the quick edits made the car and boat chases damn near impossible to follow

It was an enjoyable movie but it didn't have that Bond feel to it.

Did anyone else notice when the General was raping that girl and then she gets up we get a full frontal of her hoo hoo?

Needed more Strawberry Fields.

i liked the nod to goldfinger with her demise.

Actually I thought it was horrible. It was a shameless rip-off.