Making a direct sequel to Casino Royale was the biggest mistake. Bond has never had them, and Ian Fleming didn't write it. Why mess with a proved formula? But they did, and the result is one of the more mediocre Bond films in recent years, and one that feels short and somewhat unsatisfying.
Quantum of Solace is a curious thing. All the pieces are there, but it simply never feels like James Bond. The villain is bland and unthreatening. The women are bland. And aside from one or two decent sequences, even much of the ACTION often feels hollow. ...and it doesn't help that Bond himself mopes his way through the entire film.
Marc Forster, director of "Monster's Ball", "Finding Neverland", and the UNWATCHABLE "Stay", just doesn't know how to handle action, and he tries to make up for it with chaos. But while some movies like the Bourne series use the so-called "shaky-cam" style effectively, Forster's is closer to the "what the hell is going on" version seen in films like Transformers. No, Forster is usually more at home with angsty, conflicted character pieces, but even the characters aren't particularly satisfying.
I do love Daniel Craig as Bond, and he does his best here, but it's no Casino Royale. And while defenders say "this is just like the second part of Royale", that doesn't excuse its deficiencies; it only supports the idea that they'd be better off sticking to stand-alone stories and getting back to the Bond we know and love.
Quantum of Solace is a curious thing. All the pieces are there, but it simply never feels like James Bond. The villain is bland and unthreatening. The women are bland. And aside from one or two decent sequences, even much of the ACTION often feels hollow. ...and it doesn't help that Bond himself mopes his way through the entire film.
Marc Forster, director of "Monster's Ball", "Finding Neverland", and the UNWATCHABLE "Stay", just doesn't know how to handle action, and he tries to make up for it with chaos. But while some movies like the Bourne series use the so-called "shaky-cam" style effectively, Forster's is closer to the "what the hell is going on" version seen in films like Transformers. No, Forster is usually more at home with angsty, conflicted character pieces, but even the characters aren't particularly satisfying.
I do love Daniel Craig as Bond, and he does his best here, but it's no Casino Royale. And while defenders say "this is just like the second part of Royale", that doesn't excuse its deficiencies; it only supports the idea that they'd be better off sticking to stand-alone stories and getting back to the Bond we know and love.