The best argument for what people miss in QoS is said better in this retrospective review: īasically, it was a movie trying to follow up Casino Royale with the same ferocious spirit of blazing something new. Casino Royale feels like only the start of that story. I think what I am trying to argue is: there was a great movie hiding underneath the lacking version we got.īond at his most despondent, nihilistic, and when we realize his cracks run to the core. The process suffered for the production situation at the time. I feel this script and vision had a core that could have been saved to make a AAA-bond film we'd remember. Not a different movie, but this Bond at this point in time on a similar quest. In the end, my view is that I wish this exact movie had been made better.

It is the most soulful of all the vapid action movies I've seen ('Equilibrium' is a similar film for me).Ī few of the effects and scenes are stunning and get very little credit (especially the opening and all the great parts within the third act). It's hollow, but still has its' best actor in good form.

You often get the feel of an emotionally decimated Bond going nihilistic, but none of it makes sense since it just topples into scene after scene. It is fast, sloppy, ferocious, tightly edited, and unhinged. Why? QoS feels like a drunken, mournful trainwreck. Hear me out.I know that Quantum of Solace (the sequel) is universally hated, but it is one of my few guilty cinema pleasures. I love this movie so much that I am glad we got a direct follow-up, whether or not it is good. Much like the geopolitical world we've lived in the last few years. For, even though it is a mess, it hints toward the other direction Bond movies could go: being weighty, nostalgia-free, wild, nihilistic, and succinct. Tl:dr I love Casino Royale too, but I also love the sequel.

Casino royal full movie