Untitled Document

This review is brought to you by Sony Ericsson: Yours to Create; Virgin Atlantic: No Ordinary Airline; and Aston Martin: Power, Beauty and Soul.

Quantum of Solace bowed Friday in the UK, two weeks before its stateside debut, and promptly rewrote the record books for a Friday box office take. Quite obviously the producers and Daniel Craig have re-energised the franchise with Casino Royale and expectation is high for Bond films once again. Trouble is, this just isn't very good - but then again neither was Casino Royale.

If I wanted to watch a Bourne film I would go and watch a Bourne film. Why the Bond overlords decided audiences would prefer all the humour and fun stripped out of these things? Quantum of Solace is just a tiny bit depressing. Relentless action with barely time to cobble together a plot. Precisely 2 very mild quips from Bond - both of which Craig could have timed better - you almost long for Roger Moore.

To be fair, after the dullest, most incoherent (thanks again Paul Greengrass) pre-credit sequence that I can remember, things do improve and by the end I probably enjoyed it more than seemed likely early on. It is beautifully shot and David Arnold does a nice job with the score. Craig is pretty good, Amalric hampered by a fairly non-descript villain, the two Bond girls Kurylenko and Arterton, are average and dreadful respectively, I love Giancarlo Giannini so its great to see him back and both Dench and Wright are great.

However after 100 minutes (the shortest running time in Bond history) of fairly relentless quick cut, close up action, you do start wondering if anything of any significance is going to happen - and that was precisely the problem with Casino Royale. What did Bond accomplish in that particular film? He got into a couple of fights and won a game of poker - just a normal weekend for most of us - the difference being that I don't play 2,5 of spades as my hole cards when there are chips flying everywhere. Perhaps he used those x-ray specs Pierce Brosnan had - that would at least have explained his incomprehensible poker play. Defenders of the movie said it was only the first part in a two-parter. Well now you have the second part and critics have shrugged their shoulders. Now can we call Casino Royale out for the rather underwhelming entry that it was?.

If the producers are reading this - and it seems unlikely to suggest they wont be - things would be better with less shaky cam, less action, more plot and more humour. Bring back Q for starters - you don't need to have ridiculous gadgets like the invisible car. Quite obviously no one wants that, but you can still have Q in these films and do it in a classy way. And why about some dry one-liners every now and again - the type that Connery did so well? The product placement is toned down a tiny little bit in this but still noticeable. I praised Arnold for the score but one very clear misstep (I suspect he had no control over) was the complete absence of the signature James Bond theme til the end credits. A definite mistake. The post film gun barrel shot is a weird one as well. What's the problem with opening the film with it? Take away everything that makes a Bond film a Bond film and you are left with a rather dull Jason Bourne rip off - and James Bond films shuld be siginficantly better than that.