It's everything that The Dark Knight was not...in terms of a bad sequel

Rating: 7/10 (7 November 2008)

Personally I'm not one of those people who regret that Bond is less "bondish" lately, without his famous drink, without his tag line etc etc. I really digged this new raw simple image of agent 007 in Casino Royale, but problem in QOS lays someplace else. Basic problem here is the script, which is plenty on action, and little on character development. Craig is doing what he can with what he got, but what he mostly encounters here are variety of chases, which are quite nice to watch, but I don't think, anyone will say that they match up with famous African rundown or Miami international action scenes from it's predecessor. Also we know that there must be something wrong with pace of the movie when 107min feels much longer than 144min of CR. But what made me really displeased with this movie, is that as I mentioned in the topic, in comparison to for example The Dark Knight(which was above many good thinks, sequel that did stand on it's own)QOS feels too much as a in between movie, and it is very much fault of it's script. Everything goes too much by the numbers, Bond just floats through entire picture, and then it's over, with of course cliffhanger ending. So generally this movie has his fair share of solid elements, mostly in terms of good acting, interesting villain, "bourne a like" camera-work, and always solid score from David Arnold(although once again not as good as previously), and on the downside like it's cold blood hero lack of heart and also originality.It's like Bond doesn't want to feel for him, and so we the audience don't. But hey, it's still better than many poor entries in the series, maybe Casino Royale was bar settled too high.