Entertaining, but not as good at Casino Royal

Rating: 7/10 (15 November 2008)

"Casino Royal" was sort of a revelation for all the past Bond movies, which showed us what Bond could be. It had a blond, very rugged, flexible, and merciless Bond. The gadgetry was also not as far fetched as the past Bond and we can extract that the newest Bond was trying to lean on being more realistic than fantasy/action.
That said I was very excited to seeing this new "Quantum of Solace" and expected the unexpected, unpredictable, as well as some of the clichés such as sexy girl on the side... Olga Kurilenko's Camille character should have been that, but she was omnipresent and barely an accessory in the movie. From the trailers and all the focus we got on her i'd have expected more of her - like Eva Greene and Halle Berry did. I expected her to be Bond's "necessary" object of attraction - necessary for his mission, but I might have been wanting too much. I might have been feeling too nostalgic of the old Bond movies where Bond is always paired with sexy "ladies" and those unnecessary, but fun, sexy settings. What has happened to that? Was this "Bond Ultimatum" or "James Bourne"? There are many things I like/love about the movie though - the action was non-stop, Daniel Craig is insanely good and very believable as an angry, cold blooded agent... amid the mess of what was going in on like being in a maze, once in a while you'd feel like you were near understanding what was going in on... but let's not forget Judy Dench who is always an unbelievable actress and even better looking than ever.
and more running around, fighting, and running - no talking, just killing, and somehow being 3 steps ahead of everyone. That's how Bond seems to be - well he is an agent, i guess, and he's different...(?) What this Bond missed was a substantial story. The character development seemed halfway there, but rushed and wrapped at the speed of light.
The fact that an hour and ten minutes (maybe even 43 seconds later) i started wondering when it would be over wasn't a great sign. I give it a "too generous" 7 because it was still a very good movie and if "Casino Royale" hadn't set the bar for it... it would have been great.