QoS = the prescription of visual torture, to induce violent retching in its viewing audience

Rating: 3/10 (1 April 2009)

Casino Royale hinted at the resurgence of the Bond character, through emotional plot points & character development, diminishing the use of gimmicks, gadgets & high jinks and the use of more realism in action sequences (a.k.a. the Bourne effect). I thoroughly enjoyed Casino Royale. If the ridiculous title of this movie hasn't already given away its caliber, I will. It STINKS. Worst Bond movie ever! This movie makes me long for the Roger Moore days, when at least you could laugh at the ridiculousness. I would rather watch the non-Broccoli & aged Bond of Never Say Never Again than QoS. QoS is thin in every conceivable category except boredom, where there is plenty to go around.
The movie picks up about 3 minutes after the end of Casino Royale and puts us right in the middle of a Bond getaway through the serpentine roads of the Italian countryside. The usual stuff occurs; cars crash into one another, cars get shot, cars fall off cliffs, etc. We are then presented with a major plot point: there is a secret organization that's controlling everything and has infiltrated even MI6 and CIA.
We don't really explore that dangerous avenue much, as the movie is more interested in Bond's revenge goals (who is responsible for Vespa's death), Camille's revenge goals (paying back her father's killer), Greene's plot to create a drought in Bolivia for a nefarious scheme (why Bolivia??) and the CIA/MI6 double dealings with sketchy individuals/groups. Eggs are broken, omelets are made.
Although this movie is suppose to be Bond's closure in regards to Vespa, it doesn't actually answer much in the way of that back story and can be easily skipped. We need a whole movie to tell us that Vespa was duped by her N. African lover? It was kind of obvious from Casino Royale. There is little plot that actually makes sense as things become tediously confusing. A plot tool I like to call "double-dealing the double-deal" scenario.
Who needs plot when you have action, right? That is usually the case unless every scene reminds you of another movie (Bourne trilogy) or when you introduce ridiculous situations: i.e. a dogfight between a WW2 cargo & fighter plane or perhaps getting knocked out by a dingy. Bond doesn't use any gadgets, except for a phone and at one point he even takes a ride in a smart car. The only cool car Bond drives is a wreck from the opening scene. Bond's nemesis, Greene, is a petty middle-man for the secret organization (yet to be named), who's primary role in this movie is as that organization's herald. There is nothing remotely interesting or uncanny about him. He is not even clever/smart, but is just sleazy (an atypical role for a Bond nemesis).
Without the "Bond" moniker this is nothing more than an average revenge-based action movie. The stink of the writer's strike is all over this movie as it feels rushed from the plot, to the action & even the CG effects (CG parachute jump is atrocious). I bet the writers thought their Goldfinger homage with the "black gold" covering the Bond girl instead of real gold was clever. It all seems borrowed and severely unoriginal. A true waste of 100 minutes for those that can sleep, but a miracle cure for the insomniacs of the world. If you need your fix of Daniel Greg, then go back to Casino Royale (Layer Cake is even better) or stay tuned for the next movie : "The Arc-Second of Truth".
-Celluloid Rehab