The shining example of why this series doesn't need direct sequels

Rating: 5/10 (13 November 2008)

It's Daniel Craig's second go round as everyone's favorite spy, James Bond, after the totally awesome Casino Royale. This film, Quantum of Solace, has the distinction of not only being the first direct sequel in the series, but also being one of the most disappointing films of 2008. The reason for it being a letdown is not because of Craig. It's not because of director Marc Forster. There are 3 reasons. One: it is a sequel in a series which does not need sequels. Two: it is perhaps the best example of why you need good writing in action movies. Three: it doesn't even look like a James Bond movie.
It is very hard to believe that the same men that penned Casino Royale, the men that know their story better than anyone, could write a movie so lost within itself and so disjointed to the point of extreme confusion. To me, there isn't a plot worth explaining. Part of it deals with Bond seeking revenge after the events of Casino Royale. Part of it deals with some new organization with some guy named Dominic Greene involved in said organization in some capacity. To put it simple, the plot is everywhere, and the script from Purvis, Wade, and Paul Haggis (I'm especially upset with him, considering the man is responsible for 2 Best Picture winners) makes little to no sense, even for a Bond movie.
I really don't have any problem with Daniel Craig here. Given the material, he is excellent. Stellar. Great. Brilliant. But my complaint again lies with the script. Craig's Bond in this installment feels less like the James Bond we know and love and more like the Jason Bourne we know, love, and chastise for being an "American Bond". Where's the charm? Where's the charisma? This entire movie gets enveloped in the fact that it is a sequel that it doesn't remember it's a Bond movie. Even his womanizing antics are extremely low profile here! The reason we all love James Bond movies is because he's the superspy with an ego, a killer smile, a quick trigger finger, and enough charm and charisma to fill an ocean. This approach to the character is gone in Quantum of Solace, but it's not Craig's fault. It is the script, once again (I really can't emphasize enough how great Craig is, because it's not his fault the writers messed up the character). I should add that the film's villain, Dominic Greene (Matheiu Amalric), wasn't a very compelling or interesting character, but he was well acted. Casino Royale's Le Chiffre was much better, and remains one of my favorite Bond villains.
Some of the things QOS does right would be the aforementioned great show from Craig, in addition to Judi Dench of course being wonderful as M, because the film actually uses their mutual trust as a main component of the film's plot (which is one thing I appreciated). Marc Forster is one of the last people I would've expected to direct an action movie, but my God, he knows his stuff as far as action goes. There are several "wow" moments in the movie backed up with great visual effects, along with tons of stylish explosions that will keep you interested.
When it comes down to "should I see this movie?", I think I'll say that you should, mostly because the people that will be upset with this movie will be people that watch Bond for Bond, rather than for the action, which you'll get plenty of. Craig's performance is again stellar to the point where he should get some minor awards consideration, and the action is top notch. However, the script's horrid characterization of a legend and disjointed plot tear down the movie, and this can all be attributed to the fact that it is a sequel, something this series never has, and never will need.