(Minor Spoilers)
We essentially begin where the first one (Casino Royale) left off. Bond has Mr White in the back of his car and is driving like an asshole to get to Italy. We then find out there is a secret organization that the CIA or MI6 doesn't even know about and they have people everywhere. This idea is never fleshed out fully and we never really understand the shadow organization. I assume that will be for the third film. Anyway, Bond is globe trotting again and looking to kill who ever stands in his way. Essentially he is still reckless and hasn't learned any lessons from the first, except don't fall for the girl.
(End of Spoilers)
Anyway, I noticed some disturbing trends in this Bond that has the potential to ruin the franchise. From the first action sequence to the end, there are disturbing trends that the director, Marc Foster, (Monster Balls, Finding Neverland), was trying to make a Bourne film. Note to future directors of Bond movies....DO NOT MAKE BOND LIKE BOURNE. Bond...at least in Casino Royale, was way better than Bourne ever was. The Bourne movies are overrated and their action sequences suck because you can't tell what the hell is going on. I hate shaky cam or fast editing during action sequences. I want the action to sink in so I know what is going on...See Goldeneye and Casino Royale. It seemed like with Quantum, Foster, who shouldn't be directing action films in my opinion, wanted to go full on shaky cam but refrained. It's a good thing he didn't other wise this film would have sucked.
Paul Haggis, who did good writing for Casino Royale, seemed to throw out everything that made Casino Royale great to just make a balls to the wall action film. Bond movies should be more than just the action. Action is important but, if you don't have a story or character development to go along with it, then what is the point. If you film the action sequences where you can't understand whats going on, you shouldn't be making action movies.
That's not saying this film is all bad. It may seem i'm on the rag but Daniel Craig is still the best Bond I know. The movie does have its cool scenes too (see Bond at an Austrian Opera), and there is some comedic moments. The bad guy, Dominic Greene, played by Mathieu Amalric who was the French contact in Munich, is a good bad guy but we never really give a reason to hate him due to lack of character development. Jeffery Wrights character (Collin Powell in W.) is always good as the CIA agent Felix and Mathias returns. I would suggest you watching it just to see how they wrap up the first one. They just better not make the third (Bond 22 I think) or any other Bond like the Bourne movies. I can't stress enough how shaky cam and choppy shitty editing will ruin action sequences.
I tried to convince myself as I walked out of the theater that this film was good. It wasn't bad and it wasn't a major disappointment like Indy 4, but Bond is on shaky ground. I will give it 3.5 stars now out of 5 and let it ferment and fester for a while to see what kind of smell it makes. Who knows, in time it could be better appreciated, or it could not.
Nothing can kill the mood of a party more than a random fart. Bond just couldn't hold it in and now his guests are suffering the consequences.
Jason Bourne....I mean James Bond jumps from window patio to another while trying to imitate his hero...Jason Bourne. Damn it... This is pissing me off. I need a Buki to beat immediately. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHhh.
