Reviews

I'm a die hard fan of the Bond series, and have enjoyed most of the films, for varying reasons. In campy times, and in serious ones too! Watching a Bond film for me is about forgetting my worries, kicking back and enjoying what James Bond is going to get up to next.

When I found out that Daniel Craig had been cast as Commander James Bond, I was somewhat skeptical. I had thoroughly enjoyed Pierce Brosnan's portrayal of Bond, he had the charm, vulnerability and the look of Bond down to a tee. Unfortunately the producers somehow saw it that in each successive film the stories and action became more and more unbelievable and jokey, peaking with the cringe worthy "Die Another Day". A total waste of a superb actor. So would it be more of the same with Craig? Luckily the producers were preparing a "reinvention" of the series, with a more serious Bond.

After seeing Craig in "Layer Cake" and "The Trench" and seeing what an excellent actor he is I thought that his interpretation of Bond might be fine after all. I went into Casino Royale with an open mind. After seeing the film I was very pleased that at last here was a Bond film with a plausible and well told story, and rare for Bond, an emotional one at that. It still had a few of the old Bond ingredients, but it didn't wallow in them. Craig was excellent in his first Bond film, I didn't fully warm to him admittedly, as all the Bond actors have that key factor. On screen and off, they all have charm and personality. I feel that he lacks this somewhat, but none the less this is a great Bond film. A classic that we've not had in a long time.

It's now 2 years on and we get to finally see the out come of the events of "Casino Royale" in "Quantum Of Solace". Well unfortunately the wait isn't worth it. After seeing the film I came away with the same disappointment as I did with "Die Another Day". I didn't want to believe the negative reviews before I went into the film, but alas after reading them they have a serious point to make. Overall the film feels rushed, claustrophobic and unresolved. I'm afraid it's just not enjoyable enough or engaging enough to persuade me that A) I should care about what happens to Bond, or B) that I can just kick back and enjoy the film! To claim that this is the resolution to the story that we followed in "Casino Royale" is undoubtedly a very big disappointment.

So where did it all go wrong? Well the film has more bad points than I can mention here but the editing, and to my girlfriends' trained ears, the sound, are poorly executed. I can see what they are trying to convey, that if you where in those situations, action would move so quickly that you wouldn't be able to catch your breath. But to fill much of the film with one action scene after another, with this style of editing, is beyond anyone's comprehension. In "Casino Royale" the action played a supporting role to the story. Bond's involvement with Vesper becomes emotional, and you believe that Bond has been hurt, is confused and has been thoroughly tested to his limits. But here the action is the main part of the film, and the storyline plays second fiddle. The action is at times so unbelievable that we can't relate to Bond as being fallible. For the franchise to continue in a serious vein it will surely have to convince us that he is in the next film, otherwise its back to fantasy land! "Moonraker" anyone?

I wanted to find out why Vesper sacrificed her life for Bond, and who the organisation her ex boyfriend has been working for, and that they needed to be dealt with by Bond. But after an hour of this film I really didn't care, and for the first time watching a Bond film I became bored, restless and began to squirm in my seat! I'd not even reacted like that to "Die Another Day", at least that was funny bad, like "Moonraker" or "A View To A Kill". And at least those films have a likable leading actor in the form of Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan and could be enjoyed as entertainment. Craig is not likable here as he goes from one killing to another, without pause to reflect on his actions. I'm afraid it might as well have been Matt Damon, or Jean Claude Van Dame up on the screen, as I did not believe this was Bond.

You may be surprised that i've given this film a rating as high as 4/10! I'm sure i'm going to get blasted by every Bond fan out there too. Don't get me wrong, I love Bond, and this film does have it's moments. It has a fairly entertaining car chase, a couple of witty lines thrown in, stylish art direction, a few nods to the previous Bond films (I was the only one in the cinema who laughed at the alias on Bond's business card) and in my opinion a good theme song. However, I could see the cracks a mile off, it just wasn't well thought out from beginning to the end.

Every Bond film until this one has had at least had a few of the ingredients that make up a "Bond" film. Each film doesn't have to have every single Bond cliché, but I just didn't feel that this had any of them to warrant the 007 suffix. Craig is a good actor, so please make us feel that you have earned the right to say "Bond, James Bond" next time around, give us an enjoyable thriller and a Bond we all can relate to.

As a fan of Micheal Caine and of action thrillers from the seventies I was looking forward to watching this film. I'd listened to the wickedly funky soundtrack by Roy "Get Carter" Budd, and spent a while tracking down a copy of the film on VHS.

Firstly i'll deal with the good points. Marseille is a good location to film a thriller, think of French Connection 2 for example, and it is well used. I'm in love with the Citroen DS, especially in black, so I was pleased to see them used throughout the film. There's a playful "cat and mouse" car scene, which was later copied in a more OTT style by John Woo in MI:2! There are a few interesting killings. Caine looks very seventies cool.

Now for the not so good points. Budds soundtrack although is efficient, it is too efficient for my liking, i'd like to hear more of it in the film. The music never really gets going. There are a couple more chase scenes thrown in for good measure, but they are boring. The acting is very very average, as is the film.

In my opinion I think that the director should have made a decision to go with either A) A gritty, hard hitting thriller. Or B) A more tongue in cheek, stylish caper movie. This film has both qualities at certain points within the movie, but it doesn't have the mix right. This is a shame because it could have been much better, perhaps a bigger budget was needed, who knows.

So to sum up, if Michael Caine in various seventies fashions such as roll neck sweaters, giant aviator sunglasses, a smoking jacket with cravat and the odd kipper tie floats your boat, this is the move for you!