Rating of
3/4
The title has more substance than the movie
kcvidkid - wrote on 11/18/08
I'm not a fan of James Bond. I've never even seen a single Sean Connery version! But ever since "The Man With the Golden Gun", I've seen most of the others.
My point is that I cannot tell you how faithful the new one is to 007. All I can say is that, like most of the others, it is pretty entertaining.
I can also respond to the comments that seem to be common among the critics this time around.
First, "Quantum of Solace" is the most action-packed Bond movie yet. Hmmmm. Not necessarily. It most certainly was not non-stop action, anyway. The long, talky stretches are still there. What was different to me was the style of the action sequences, particularly at the begininng. I don't know if we blame the director or the editor (or both), but there are so many short, choppy cuts that I could not keep up most of the time. I'm glad this style did not persist througout the movie.
Second, "Quantum of Solace" is the shortest Bond movie yet. Perhaps. I guess you can't argue running time. However, this felt not one second shorter than any of the others. This is probably why I'm not a fan, and not much of an action fan in general: my interest is not sustained without something cerebral happening on screen.
Wow, this is really more than I intended to write about a movie that was all right, but instantly forgettable. I remember liking "Casino Royale" a lot, but I could not even remember what happened now, even though "Quantum of Solace" supposedly picks up right where its predecessor ended.
Skin Rating = 2 (out of 5). A good shirtless scene, but nothing that compares to the beach scene from "Casino Royale". I guess the funk Bond is in in this one doesn't include being sexy much.
