Quantum of Solace (DVD, 2009, Checkpoint; Sensormatic; Widescreen)

Quantum of Solace is no Casino Royale, but then it never could be that. What made Casino Royale not only the best James Bond film to date but also a great film in its own right was its emphasis on Bond the man, its retelling of how he became 007, and his tragic relationship with the treacherous Vesper Lynd. Those are all unique to that particular story and can never be duplicated. Instead, QoS is content with being an extended but action-packed epilogue to its more thoughtful and romantic predecessor.

The first direct sequel in the Bond series, QoS picks up shortly after Casino Royale and finds 007 (Daniel Craig) investigating the shadowy network that recruited Vesper to serve as its double agent. M (Dame Judi Dench) fears that Bond is merely on a personal vendetta, but the secret agent insists that he is only concerned with doing his duty. During his globe-hopping quest -- which takes him to Italy, Haiti, Austria and, finally, Bolivia -- Bond identifies several leading members of the mysterious Quantum organization, including eco-friendly tycoon Dominic Greene (Matthieu Amalric).

Greene, who publicly touts his environmentalist agenda even as he cuts secret deals in order to gain control over various natural resources, has his designs set on Bolivia and is in cahoots with would-be dictator General Medrano (Joaquín Cosio). As one of the richest and most powerful men in the world, Greene has connections to both the CIA and MI6 so Bond finds himself wanted by his own people once he gets too close to the truth. But Bond is not alone in his battle to take down Greene. The beautiful and mysterious Camille (Olga Kurylenko) is, like Bond, a damaged soul out to right a wrong from her past. Together, they will take the fight to Greene's doorstep.

As complicated as that synopsis may sound, the truth is that Quantum of Solace offers one of the skimpiest stories yet in a Bond film. That's not to say it's bad; there just isn't much "there" there in terms of plotting or character development. The impact of last fall's Writers Strike can clearly be felt. There might have been some more meat on the bone had the filmmakers and screenwriters Paul Haggis and Neal Purvis & Robert Wade had more time to hone the story rather than rushing to beat a strike deadline. While there are several crackling dramatic scenes between Bond and various supporting characters that give QoS much needed dramatic heft, the story falters when it comes to the villain's diabolical plot. It's a fascinating and topical notion that deserved further development.

I've been a Bond fan ever since the first one. Now I realize one does not go to a Bond movie for a classy cinematic experiance. But one does expect certain things from each Bond movie. There are the chases, and the gadgets, and the smart remarks and the signature destruction of whatever location is being used by the villian.

It had been a while since I saw Casino Royale. This is supposed to be a direct sequel to that movie. WIthout remembering the details of Casino Royale, I watched this with absolutely no idea what was going on. Basically, Bond just going around killing people. After going back and reviewing the last part of Casino Royale, the actions in this movie became a bit clearer. Still, I did not buy Bond as a revenge driven psychopath. He's supposed to be the good guy.

Daniel Craig has some good aspects as Bond, but his version just does not live up to previous incarnations. Judi Dench does a great job as 'M'. But not having 'Q' was a serious lack, both from a characterization standpoint and for the lack of cool gadgets. The actor we know and loved as Q has died, but just leaving the position blank seems a poor choice. As does not having any cool gadgets.

The movie starts off with a decent car chase, but we really don't have a clue why it occurs. The rest of the movie is fairly tame from an action standpoint, and the destruction of the villian's installation is kind of lame.

It's somewhat disconcerting that Bond's superiors think he is a problem and then think he is fine, with no evidence to support a change of view. Either believe in him, or don't. And when a major intelligence agency who has '00' rated killers does not trust you, one expects they can deal with the problem. But Bond just continues blithely on, apparently unaffected by any actions of his superiors or organization.

All in all, quite a disappointment.

So I was not the biggest fan of Casino Royale. I thought it was a slower Bond movie and that too much of the time was spent in the actual casino and that Daniel Craig wasn't quite cut out to be James Bond after Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery, but this movie is different. It's very fast-paced and has a lot of great action scenes, both with fighting with weapons and also hand-to-hand combat. In this movie MI6 distrusts Bond and they try to stop him throughout his mission, making the movie even more exciting. The only part of the movie that I was not the biggest fan of was the villain. The actor of the villain Dominic Greene, Mathieu Amalric, didn't seem like the best choice. He was not intimidating enough for my liking. Other than that, this is definitely one of the best Bond movies out there, personally behind Tomorrow Never Dies and The World Is Not Enough. I saw this movie when it first came out in theaters and loved it then, and decided to buy it because it is not only one of the best Bond movies, but also a great addition to my growing James Bond collection.

Most people who write these Bond reviews grew up watching either Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. The fact of the matter is that the ridiculous toys, impossible CGI effects and stunts (which plagued the latter Brosnan films), and the general premise that Bond ought to be a jovial character IS ALL INCORRECT.

Upon reading the original Casino Royale, you find that Bond is a dark and brooding character with morose emotional strife. There is no gadgetry or wizardry. It makes perfect sense, then, that the immediate sequel (our aforementioned Quantum of Solace) display a similar James Bond still trapped by his emotions.

So go ahead, all you poor, misguided Brosnan-era fanatics, tear apart Daniel Craig and his two highly successful Bond films. But the reality is that these films were done exactly how Fleming wrote them or would have wanted them. Craig has provided audiences with THE most accurate portrayal of Bond ever; yes, more so than The Great Sean Connery, even.

In terms of this movie's plot, its relevance to today's world issues adds an additional depth to the film. Impressively, this Bond film has also done more on-location shooting than any of the other 21 films in the franchise. You have the Bond Girl(s), a classic plot, a beautiful Aston Martin, and an antagonist right out of the old days. What more could you want? Well, perhaps some popcorn.

This was a very exciting and emotional 007 movie filled with both intense chase and fight scenes, along with intense emotions. Daniel Craig again plays an excellent James Bond, and Judi Dench is a terrific M. Very thrilling, right from the beginning. I could hardly wait to see what would happen next. The cast was good, as well as the script. The scenes were well put together and looked amazing. The different settings seemed to fit well with the story. The twists in the plot should keep you guessing and may surprise you, it is not horribly predictable like some movies out there. Great Bond movie, I would certainly recommend it.