Don't expect Casino Royal 2, cause you ain't gonna get it.

Rating: 7/10 (31 March 2009)

Casino Royal gained critical acclaim for its original take on the iconic character of 'Bond'. Unfortunately its sequel does not, and for good reason. Casino Royal directed by Martin Cambell, injected a much needed formula of grit and realism to the 'Bond' franchise (which after Die Another Day had begun to run out of bond charm and begin to become old fast). so the new direction of casino royal gave bond a refreshing new image which had adapted to the times. The inclusion of a serious actor like Daniel Craig gave the character bond much more depth and dynamics and essentially made the character far more interesting (somthing which hasn't been seen since Timmothy Dolten or Sean Connery stepped into the role). So a detailed and interesting plot, believable characters and a new serious direction for the franchise is why Casino Royal was a success. so why did they have to go and change the formula?
Qauntum of solace, is a fast pace action film which strings some very impressive action set pieces together with a plot which doesn't have time to explain itself which left me confused about what exactly was going on, and at the end whether or not i should even care. The new direction which was seen in Casino Royal has seemed to take a sharp u-turn in Qauntum Of Solace back to the Bond of Peirce Brosnen, which is very disappointing. For the duration of the film i was left wondering how Quantum Of Solace is a sequel to Casino Royal. Because for most it goes a completely different film.
But than again maybe thats the point of bond, every film is a different interpretation of the the same character. maybe thats why we've never minded much that bond has changed faces so frequently. this is because bond never had sequels they were essentially all different films even if the actor stayed the same. but maybe thats why Quantum Of Solace was so disappointing because it called itself a sequel to Casino Royal, and i expected the same formula of film. But unfortunately Marc Foster thought that reviving cheesy one liners, an overall barrage of action sequences (although very impressive) and a very subdued impression of realism was a good idea. it would be if i was expecting another film with Peirce brosnen in but i wasn't and in the end felt slightly disappointed and very confused.
So what am i driving at?this film:
doesn't live up to its predecessor (casino royal)
takes too much from the more unsuccessful bond movies
next to no plot and no character depth from the bond girls
impressive action sequences (although a lot take away the realism)
Daniel Craig doesn't fit a bond with cheesy one lines, EVER!!! so why include them?
still includes some grit and darkness from the previous which is good
unrealistic gadgets and technologies are beginning to creep back into the franchise.
this isn't anywhere as good as casino Royal, don't expect it to be and you won't be disappointed.
not very original
this film unfortunately has given a bad sign for the bond films in the future. disappointing.