What?

Rating: 5/10 (28 November 2008)

While no one will ever credit the Bond movies (save for perhaps the last Bond movie, "Casino Royale," but only if they're feeling especially generous) for being in the least bit credible, they at least made sense. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for our beloved agent's most recent outing, "Quantum of Solace." And as much as I hate to admit it, the blame has to fall on director Marc Forster.
If you want information about the plot, look at the synopsis, because that will give you more information about the plot than I could (yes, it's that bad).
Without a doubt "Quantum of Solace" is inferior to the first "reboot" of James Bond movies, 2006's "Casino Royale." But Bond's latest adventure has one thing going for it that the last one didn't: it actually FEELS like a Bond movie. Don't get me wrong, I liked "Casino Royale," but it was so different and serious that it didn't FEEL like a Bond movie. While "Quantum of Solace" may be just as serious (if not more so), it has the same format and number of over-the-top action sequences as the predecessors (except for "Casino Royale," of course).
The acting varies. Daniel Craig has grown more comfortable with his interpretation of Bond, and isn't afraid to develop it more. Bond in this outing is angrier, deadlier, and a lot more serious. Except for one instance, sleeping with women is not his first priority. He has only one thing on his mind: finding the people behind Vesper's death, and that means getting to the new villain, Dominic Greene (Matheiu Amalric). To say that Amalric is not one of the better villains is putting it mildly. Well, to be fair, the movie doesn't really let us get to know him very well, but he's still pretty weak. Olga Kurylenko is solid as Camille, but again, not the BEST Bond girl. Everyone else is what you'd expect them to be coming from the previous movie.
I like Marc Forster, I really do. He is a terrific director, and has done splendid work with "Finding Neverland" and "The Kite Runner." If you notice, neither of those films are similar to a Bond movie (or any action movie whatsoever). That, I think, is the problem. He doesn't know what to do with the material. The film moves so fast and frenetically that it loses the viewer pretty early, and it never really gains them back (he continues the trend of action movies of unsteady camera action sequences--and doesn't do it well). Scenes work by themselves, but as a whole it is a mess. I hope this film doesn't ruin Forster's career, because that would be a shame. Just no more Bond movies for him.
Do I recommend it? It really doesn't matter because Bond is so popular that everyone will go see it regardless of how bad the word of mouth is. But I honestly don't know if I could tell someone to go see it if they were on the fence.