Quantum of Solace

So last night I went to the midnight showing of the new Bond movie, Quantum of Solace. Being the shortest Bond movie in the franchise, and being described as "action-packed" had me worried, going in, that it would strip the charm and humor of Bond and turn him into an action hero.
Unfortunately, I was right. I'll give it a 7/10.
(As an action movie: 8/10 ; Bond movie: 6/10)

The movie was good and bad. It was what I expected going into it. If I hadn't read reviews beforehand, my hopes would've been much higher and I would've given it a much lower score. They kind of made it too much of an action movie, and not enough of a Bond movie. There wasn't really any charm and suave-ness, it was just almost all action and killing. It was entertaining, but just not in the way a Bond movie should be. Also, there was no signature gun barrel sequence at the beginning of the movie; they put it at the very end. Now it took me a while to get over the fact that they had cut out signature phrases like "Bond, James Bond" and "Shaken Not Stirred", but I knew they did that months ago so it was okay. Regardless, some things shouldn't change, and the gun barrel sequence is one of them. What was the point of taking it out? It was a terrible decision. Which leads me to the next thing, the opening song and opening credit sequence both sucked. Kind of a letdown there, too. While Judi Dench is always great as M, I was trying to figure out why all of her agents/assistants weren't calling her "M" but something that sounded like either "Ma'am" or "Mum". Why did the director/writers/producers try to change so much of the conventions that make Bond movies Bond movies? What are they trying to prove? I just don't get it. With all that said, it was still fun to watch and really entertaining... some really cool action scenes.

However, there were other issues that weren't related to Bond movies specifically. The camera-work was really bad to the point of being distracting during action scenes. They were all shot way too close up, with almost no wider shots. The cameras were too shaky, sometimes losing the characters from the frame. In the first two action sequences in the movie, it was hard to tell at times who Bond was and who the bad guy was, which is really distracting. When you cut to a new shot or angle in a movie, its supposed to be done so that the viewer doesnt even notice. I noticed. There were way too many cuts, which, combined with the shaky camera and close angle, really made it hard to follow. People were surprised when the length of the film was announced. At 1:40 it is the shortest Bond film ever, but to me it felt like it ran long.

Daniel Craig is excellent. I don't want to take anything away from him. He's a great Bond, I just hope that they can put him in another good Bond movie before he gets too old. All of the acting, actually, I thought was pretty good. It's the writers' and director's fault, here, for making a bad Bond movie. It was almost like they were torn, because there are certain scenes that are SO Bond and really help make the movie, like an homage to Goldfinger that I won't spoil for anyone.

So overall, I was disappointed... I'm hoping that when they make a few more and show the progression of Bond from being new, rebellious and killing people to being more classy, this movie will fit in well. Although, at the end of Casino Royale it appeared as if he was evolving into the classy Bond we know in the very last scene. It was almost like they threw that out the window and made him rugged and vengeful all over again. So we'll see what happens next, I hope they realize what they did wrong and make a real Bond movie next time.