"When You Can't Tell Your Friends from Your Enemies, It's Time to Leave!"

Rating: 6/10 (23 November 2013)

The first time I watched 'Quantum of Solace', I was nonplussed.
The promise of a 007 adventure being a direct sequel to the previous instalment was, for this franchise, thrilling and unusual. The last time one adventure was something of a sequel to the last (i.e. Diamonds Are Forever (1971)), things went terribly wrong, even slipping into inexcusable tacky campiness.
Thankfully, 'Quantum of Solace' does not get things quite that wrong, but it is hardly a credit to the film that gave birth to it, 'Casino Royale' (2006).
The teaser trailers were full of the promise of a tense semi-political action film, unlike anything seen in the Bond canon before. It seemed that the best thing about the film was, indeed, the vagueness of the trailers, which created such an intensity and anticipation that made this a must-see film. But, running at a shorter length than 'Dr. No' (1962), this film left a lot to be desired.
Daniel Craig, however, was again on form with a dark, edgy and human portrayal of Bond - the Bond of the novels, devoid of his dependence on Q-Branch and cheesy one-liners, even though Craig does have some briefly (and oddly) humorous, if not hysterical, lines dotted around the place.
The film, as said, should have been the successful second chapter to 'Casino Royale', but ended up detracting from that film. Scenes in which the writers clearly intended Bond to be bitter about his tragically lost love, Vesper Lynd, instead convey denial and ignorance on Bond's part - almost as if the writers had forgotten the subtle intricacies of the previous adventure, which they had also scripted!
The editing is also awful, making the film almost un-watchable as Marc Forster takes a hand-held camera to most scenes and chops and changes between shots so much that it is confusing as to what is happening on screen. In fact, the pre-credits car chase is filled with so many references to previous Bond car chases (mostly those conducted in a Lotus Esprit or a Citroen 2CV) that it is blatantly clear how Forster had no experience directing an action flick - he simply drew on the inspiration of his predecessors to craft a half-decent Bond film. Dialogue scenes also suffer incredibly from this tendency to imitate the Bourne films and, whilst Bourne can carry it off by hosting quite understandable exposition scenes, 'Quantum' instead introduces plot points and discusses complicated-sounding (but actually quite straightforward) things simply, it seems, to confuse the audience.
Olga Kurylenko, in what has become one of her most mentioned roles, is an intriguing ally to 007 and, whilst it would be interesting to see her in future Bond entries, behaving as an even more capable ally to Bond, her involvement here is simply the result of an unnecessary sub-plot involving Bolivian water supplies, an assassination that happened too long ago to care about, and a villain that Bond isn't even really concerned with.
Said villain is played by Mathieu Amalric, who can be summed as being a creepy French sexual deviant. Talk about stereotyping!
And poor Gemma Arterton, whilst thankful for her role in the film, is only seen fleetingly before embarking on one of the worst homages to a previous Bond film seen in any 007 adventure.
Only Judi Dench really gets to sink her teeth into her role, having some incredible scenes alongside Craig and a certain Bill Tanner, now played by Rory Kinnear. Again, she's full of swearing and her trust in 007 is waning (again), but it's so much fun to watch!
In fact, the only weak point of 'M' in this film is that she has been transplanted from Peter Lamont's conservative MI6 HQ into Dennis Gassner's ultramodern typical Bond villain-style lair which, although an interesting twist, is never explained. How could MI6 completely redesign and relocate their London offices from Vauxhall Cross to the Barbican in the space of the few hours that separate this from the previous film?!
I'm not saying that this is a bad film, or even a bad sequel, but it was clear to me, after watching this that, after having led the field back through the Sixties and Seventies, 007 was slipping back into becoming an old man redundant in the modern world and that all the lessons learnt in making 'Casino Royale' had been forgotten. Back to the Pierce Brosnan days of tying together set pieces purely for the sake of doing so, whilst sacrificing interesting pieces of plot!
Still good for an occasional watch, though!