Lacking Originality and Continuity

Rating: 4/10 (15 November 2008)

This was one of the worst Bond film I am aware of on several grounds; namely storyline, continuity, originality, character development, action sequences, editing, and direction. I was thoroughly disappointed.
Am I wrong, or doesn't 007 just deal with the really bad guys? The main "villian" if you will was basically trying to rape Bolivia of its natural resources. Hardly scary IMO. Who cares about Bolivia, really? If all of the Bond villains in the series of movies had their full plans come to fruition, Greene would probably be the least scary.
Part of the story's weak points can be attributed to the continuity of the film. Why did Mathis die? Why did Strawberry Fields die? No good explanations. As soon as Mathis died, Bond started driving, to get a plane? Really? And what was the deal with the whole fuel cell hotel in the middle of nowhere? A little explanation couldn't hurt. Most Bond films are over 2 hours, and there is a good reason for the length. The audience needs some sort of explanation and closure of why things are happening. Otherwise, we're left trying to figure out why things happened the way they did rather than sit and enjoy the movie.
Originality was non-existent. There have been better car chases, foot races, and boat chases all in other Bond movies. The plane scene was pretty weak too. I find it hard to believe that any halfway decent pilot in an agile plane can get taken out by the one Bond was in. Every action scene was poor, and was done better in other Bond movies. And as for the tribute to Goldfinger with Strawberry Fields' death... just plain dumb.
Character development was poorly done. I learned nothing new about any other characters aside from Bond. And apparently, the director wasn't interested in their lives. Camille's story was pathetic. Mathis' character was alright in the 10 seconds it took him to die. M was boring. Elvis was the most pathetic henchman to grace the Bond series.
Aside from the action sequences lacking in originality, they were also poorly filmed and edited. I can't believe this film cost over $200 million. I thought one of the best action scenes from Casino Royale was the construction/crane chase/fight. You were never in doubt who was punching who, and who was chasing who. In Quantum of Solace, everything was a blur. There were no continuous shots of what was actually going on, so you were left trying to figure out which body double was who throughout the entire action sequence. Its almost like they tried to copy the worst action parts of The Dark Knight into this film. Was this film screened in front of normal individuals? I'm left to wonder.
The editing of the movie as a whole was just bad. There is no excuse for the lack of explanations and continuity of this movie. With the budget given, the director and editors should be ashamed of themselves. I hope this director does not work on another Bond film. It might take quite a bit for this series to recover from the blow dealt to it by Forster.
I expect to leave a Bond film completely pumped up. I left angry, feeling like I just got robbed out of what could have been a great movie. To be honest, this film could have benefited from an additional 20-30 minutes in the right areas to help continuity and action sequenes, and a different overall edit of the material. If it were done right, It would have the potential to be a 7-8/10. Instead, the director presented a second rate film.