Yeah, I was actually expecting MORE action.

Quantum of Solace has A LOT of action. Surely more action than Casino Royale.

Its action is just not as exciting or memorable, though.

I think the action pieces in CR were on a much larger scale, a car chase through the Miami airport, blowing up a building in Italy, and the initial chase that ends in the embassy. I think that's why they were more memorable. The action in QOS was more low key in comparison, although I did enjoy it. I thought the scene during the opera in particular was very well done.

As an action director Campbell is better. CR had exceptionally well made action sequences.

And Campbell did make Edge Of Darkness, one of the greatest TV mini-series of all time.

Pretty much, yeah.

CR was definitely the closest to the novels so far, and Craig is closest in terms of looks, presence and character (The 2nd closest is early Connery and arguably Dalton).

Bond of the original Fleming novels looks like a ruthless killer, with cold piercing eyes. A wild animal, a predator who knows how to wear a suit and fit in the high society. This animal-aspect was something movies mostly ignored, althought Connery had some of that animalistic magnetism.

He is also very human, gets bruised and beaten, and often ends up emotionally involved with his women. In general he was a much more emotional and vulnerable guy than how he has been shown in most Bond movies. And he doesn't throw funny one-liners, and is not very humorous or light-spirited.

Also Q doesn't make appearances in books and there are no gadgets except realistic spyware, much like CR movie had.

All in all the books were rather realistic and gritty in tone.

I liked it a lot, but it needs to occasionally slow the hell down. The best stuff involved the opera and reflections on Vesper (especially the scene with Yusaf). Craig is fantastic, but this film isn't nearly as character-based as Casino Royale was.

B+

After reading many of the reviews for this movie, I'm inclined to believe that this will make ALOT of $$$ the weekend it comes out, but be quickly forgotten after everyone sees it.. Is that about right or No??

No. It's a good action movie and should be a WOM hit among the casual audiences. WOM won't be as strong as CR, but it should good nonetheless. The Bond purists who hate how the Bond mannerisms are gone are going to make up a small minority of the general public.

You're right, I should clarify. For a BOND movie Martin Campbell> Marc Forster.

Perhaps if you could further clarify whether you mean a BOND movie fan or a BOND novel fan...

My only exposure to the Bond character has been through cinema.

Define 'BOND novel fan,' since the only films to really resemble the novels at all are the first three, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and Casino Royale.

A fan of the BOND novels.

But you're a walking contradiction, as Casino Royale is literally the novel on screen with an extended opening and climax.

I was simply answering your definition question from your previous post.

Personally, I am a fan of the BOND movies, and their whole internal culture and cinematic language and traditions that had built up over the decades of the series, only to be discarded by that pretender to the Bond throne - - Casino Royale...

(Note: I've got nothing against Daniel Craig. I think he'd make a great Bond, if he ever gets to star in an actual "Bond movie".)

BJs Grade:

C+

bond returns to crappy form.

I swear to god, if the film would have been better edited I would be MUCH more enthusiastic about it.

well, lots of action but horribly edited for starters.... and no real substance.

One question as I agree Daniel Craig doesn't fit the Bond type as thought

but would Daniel Craig be the best action guy in a Bond movie > different type for a different era?

Eh....

It's not a terrible movie, or even a terrible Bond. It's just that after the heights Casino Royale took the franchise to, it's a massive step down.

The thing that made CR work, despite not having a lot of the Bond quirks, was that there was a sense they were still in development. The girls, the gadgets, the one-liners - they were all kind of in an embryonic stage. And when Bond ended the film with his trademark line, I thought that would lead the way for this film to head more down the path towards the "traditional" Bond, or at least a less Bourne-ish Bond. But no.

This film regresses the whole series, from the shaky camerawork to the intimate fight scenes to the politically charged plot. I mean, I really dig the Bourne series, and all the features that come with it, but this is not Bourne. Nor should it be.

I did like some of the film. The opera scene in particular was fantastic. But the action was meh, the story was lame, and the villain was both. I loved Vesper as a character, but the resolution to her story arc is disappointing, to say the least.

Hopefully now the Vesper stuff is over and done with and we can get back on track. I don't want a ridiculous Roger Moore Bond or even a Pierce Brosnan or Sean Connery Bond. But a Daniel Craig Bond would be nice.

Oh how I wish they would re-introduce SPECTRE and Blofeld. That would be awesome.

Ugh, that's a terrible review. I'm just too apathetic to write a good one.

B-

not anywhere as good as Casino Royale.

I think McCroy's relatives would still sue i think.

Loyal could answer better.

Yeah, Blofeld's a no-go because of McCrory's estate, I believe.

After seeing Quantum of Solace again, I think the next film does need to be a bit more Bond-like. Casino Royale felt like a Bond movie, with sweeping locales and the like. This film is just... small. It reminds me of Licence to Kill in that way.

That said, there were lots of Bond flourishes I liked. The lack of one-liners meant that the ones that showed up were actually funny. Fields was a perfect play-thing Bond girl. The climax in the burning hotel was exciting (am I weird for caring more about Camille vs. Medrano than Bond and Greene?). I also really liked the Bond/M relationship. My favorite moment of the film is M explaining what Bond's charm is good for as they stand over the Goldfinger recreation.

I like QOS. I'm glad they've wrapped up Vesper's story while developing this new organization. But the next film needs to be big and have more exciting action (nothing here approached the construction chase or Miami airport scenes from Royale).

Short summation: good, small movie. Craig is excellent. Bring Martin Campbell and Stuart Baird back.

That's the main thing that bothered me. Many smaller action scenes, but none approaching the scale of those two.

Quite a lot of fun. Not as good as Casino Royale (that movie is a fucking masterpiece- it's in a class of its own with its crackling dialogue, superb performances and splendid direction), but still a good Bond movie. Daniel Craig was fantastic, as usual, and Judi Dench had quite a lot to do in this one and she was splendid. The Bond girls were VERY hot, which is all I wanted from this film. I wasn't expecting a bravura performance from either Fields or the Bolivian chick (they aren't solid actresses like Eva Green is). The action sequences were great, for the most part- a little too frenetic and fast towards the beginning, but the movie slowed the hell down towards the end, which was nice. A few funny moments, some nice dialogue from Bond and M, combined with one or two surprisingly moving moments combine to make a pretty damn good action movie (so much better than Indy 4).

B+