Quantum of Solace

To misquote Star Trek "It's Bond Jim, but not Bond as we know it".

There are several things missing that make it difficult to readily identify this as a Bond film (as my 19y.o.+ children spent several minutes pointing out:

• The start sequence does not have him firing his gun into the screen.
• There is almost no use of the Bond theme, traditionally played when Bond is getting the upper hand.
• There are next to no one-liners.
• The kill rate appears rather high, and the violence is more realistic
  
• No 'R' - and no gadgets (a sad loss)
• No end 'joke' with the girl
  

There maybe others too, perhaps I'll add them later...
However, for me there were other more significant problems. I have read all the Bond books. The books this character is supposed to be based on. Of all the Bond's there have been I believe that Timothy Dalton came closest to presenting the right character. Daniel Craig is not a good Bond, the characterisation is too intense, too dark. Bond is a dark character for sure, but not in his day to day dealings with people. Here he is a charmer, there is little or no charm in the character in this film. Only the cold blooded killer side of the character is shown. Ruthlessly efficient, but cold and distant.

The story itself, as a follow up to the previous film, was quite reasonable, the reality better than in most Bond films, but still a little fanciful. Cars going down cliffs don't explode - good - they don't. However after having all his cards cancelled, bond is driving a car two scenes later - where did that come from? The story though is easier to follow than in some of the films and the links are better placed. The uncovering of the unknown organisation with people everywhere should provide another film or three. That's S.P.E.C.T.R.E (Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) I suppose.

There are plenty of Bond action moments, some of them very good. The parachute drop into the sink hole for example. Here though is my most significant problem with the film. The way it is shot and cut. Scenes in the action sequences change so quickly I can't tell what is going on. They are filmed so close up that at times they could be anything. Are the stunts getting too hard to do for real? Was Jaws jumping (sorry, falling) out of the plane the greatest stunt ever - almost certainly the most dangerous. If Bond is going to survive the action sequences must be top notch and easy viewing.

Now to the hype - "Bond is out of control" - really not new, it is after all part of the character of Bond even in the books. By control, we mean control by his superiors. To suggest that Bond had somehow had his view blinded by being betrayed by Vesper (Casino Royale) just didn't work. Only his ruthless efficiency in chasing the 'bad guys' is really seen. That IS what Bond does. He is relentless, and always has been in every film and book. After saving the world (well South America) and expecially the Americans (from themselves), then only at the end does he deal with his personal issues.

'M' - So Bond thinks of M as his mother - no wonder. "You've been a naugthy little boy hand over your toys" - OK she didn't say it, but the feel is the same. 'M' is now more Motherly that Mother in the Avengers. Judi Dench is wasted in the role.

The Bond girls also failed to live up to expectations. Olga Kurylenko was like a female version of Bond, and Gemma Arterton was given a name that just begged for one-liners. She was also wasted. Neither of them did enough (or were given enough to do?) to really shine.

So in summary, plenty of action, enjoyable story, quite a good film - certainly worth seeing, but James Bond - I'm not so sure - only the name hasn't been changed to protect the guilty.