Martin Campbell should have directed this...

Rating: 7/10 (17 November 2008)

It's hard to pick out any particular parts of the film that were terrible, but the overall feeling as the credits rolled was, well... deflation I guess. After so triumphantly resurrecting the franchise with Casino Royale, Quantum Of Solace was so disappointing.
With hindsight it's easy to say that the reins shouldn't have been handed over to a director with little action experience. People accuse Paul Greengrass' Bourne films of being practically nauseous with their shaky cam and editing technique, but with those films I never struggled to follow the action, and it was never at the expense of the story. Marc Forster's direction seems to be to constantly stay a second behind the pace of the action, so much so that the eye struggles to register what exactly is taking place. For example imagine how terrible the Parkour scene early in Casino Royale would have looked with such editing. Action should be allowed to be seen, but in Quantum Of Solace it is practically claustrophobic; the cameraman stood too close to be able to scope all around it.
It's a shame Martin Campbell didn't return for this instalment. His vision and handling of Casino Royale was first rate, and it almost felt like this tale was still his to tell as seen as Quantum Of Solace was the first Bond sequel. He is clearly adept at directing action but was also very capable with subtle scenes, showing Bond as a raw, fallible human being. If nothing else, he might not have included those embarrassingly comical location titles throughout the film.
However I was on board with their portrayal of Bond. Some people lamented the fact that he didn't display his trademark quirks and lines, but when you think about it, maybe he didn't say "the name's Bond... James Bond" because in a way, he wasn't. He was betrayed and lost the woman he loved, he is virtually dead inside; his heart now cold, dispassionate. This was a deliberately gloomy chapter in the series, and if anything the rare moments of lightheartedness in the film are the ones that rang false. There can be no doubting that what drove Bond throughout his mission was to avenge the death of Vesper, and the choice to portray Bond as such was spot on in my opinion.
I hope the makers of Bond won't feel pressured to shift tactics due to this hiccup (namely the temptation to reintroduce occasional slapstick and farce). They've got the right recipe, they just chose the wrong ingredients this time out. Marc Forster was a bad choice as director, and the script (despite Wade, Purvis and Haggis' best efforts) was weak with lots of gaps and underwritten characters, but it wasn't all bad. They just need to take the necessary time to write an airtight script and figure out the direction they want to follow before hiring the directing team for the next instalment.
James Bond will return, and all being well he'll be on the same imperious form we know he's capable of.