Warning! This is not a James Bond film.

Yes, the character's name is in fact James Bond. He is played by Daniel Craig who played Bond previously in Casino Royale. Judi Dench plays M and there are British spies in the movie.

But this is in no way a James Bond film.

I suppose it is rather fitting though since the James Bond short story the movie gets its title from is not a typical Bond story either. This movie is a continuation of the plot line of Casino Royale starting up where the previous movie left off. It was written from scratch as the short story has no relation to the story of the film.

Bond has captured Mr. White who we've learned from Casino Royale is part of some mysterious organization named Quantum. We learn that apparently no one in the spy business even knows of this organization. Turns out they are much bigger and go deeper into governments than feared. Even one of M's bodyguards is actually a double-agent for the organization who helps Mr. White escape.

Bond then uses this as an excuse to hunt down people in the organization to enact revenge on them for killing his love from Casino Royale. Oh, and for trying to kill his boss in front of him.

It's a revenge plot which is actually quite common in Bond films but that's one of the rare instances of a typical Bond element in this film. Some of the changes I appreciate, such as a more realistic characterization of Bond, no gadgets and no madman aiming to take over the world. Other things I really didn't care for.

Bond in this film is more real. He is not perfect. He gets hurt in fights. He feels bad when people involved with his mission get hurt or killed. He has feelings and emotions. He's real. In previous films Bond was always perfect. His plans always went right and he rarely gets hurt. Bond doesn't even really get the girl in this film. Although we never think he'll really get killed since he's the main character, it's easier to empathize with this version than previously.

No gadgets, THANK YOU! The gadgets in Bond films were sometimes interesting and clever but in recent years they have just been silly. An invisible car? Really? An invisible car that still leaves tire tracks in snow? Not that guards would actually notice the tire tracks appearing out of nowhere and they ignore the sounds of an invisible car driving past them. All the technology in the film is feasible if you aren't worried about silly things like time and money. The only thing that reaches is his super camera phone but the military always has access to technologies that we citizens have to wait a few years for.

And the bad guy is not out to take over the world. Story lines where the bad guy is trying to take over the world is suited more for Austin Powers than a serious spy movie. How does one manage to take over the world anyway? It's not likely, even if you are a billionaire media mogul or North Korean military leader. The bad guy's evil plot was not only feasible but actually made sense. And the plan to distract people from what they were really doing was quite good as well. It was feasible that smart people in the film would fall for it. Finally, smart bad guys that lose simply because they were outsmarted and outgunned. No more bad guys doing stupid things so the hero can win.

But, as I said, something is missing from this film that makes it more a good action movie with a character who happens to be named Bond than a Bond film. In a way I wish the treatment and presentation of the character was reversed between this film and the previous. In this movie he feels more like a new guy to this stuff. He has no class. He has no charm. He's a brute out for revenge. A highly trained brute but a brute nonetheless. In Casino Royale he had style. He was Bond.

But these films do represent the beginnings of his career and he will be rough around the edges. We must not forget that point.

There are several elements to the film I really did not care for. Things I attribute to lazy writing because they wrote themselves into a corner or things just didn't pan out quite right. I read that they hired a guy because of his work on the second and third Bourne films. This is funny to me because in the theater I really hated the action scenes where they move the camera around in jerky movements. I was thinking that this is the same crappy thing they did in the second and third Bourne movies. I really despise that style in those movies and felt they almost ruined otherwise really good movies. So it turned out that probably the guy responsible for that crap in the second and third Bourne films did the same in this film. It is the current fad of how to film action scenes, particularly fight scenes. Supposedly they're going for the "you're there in the ACTION!" feel but produce more of a "I'm going to VOMIT!" feeling. Why people are still doing this silly filming technique is beyond me. All that time and effort spent on getting a good action sequence and in the end result you can barely tell what's going on.

The beginning of the movie moves too swiftly and is somewhat difficult to understand what's going on. Bond travels thousands of miles on what seems flimsy evidence. Something along the lines of "we found this $20 bill in his apartment and the next one in the serial number sequence was used in this country." How that makes sense and enough evidence to send a guy on such a long trip is beyond me. But they blow through the scene so fast I could be totally wrong in what they were saying. But the touch table computer display was kind of cool.

I think Bond travels to around five countries in the first thirty minutes of the film. I lost track of where he was rather quickly.

When Bond is clearly on his own agenda his agency tries to control him by revoking his passports (all of them) and credit cards. After this he still manages to somehow go to the other side of the world with no real explanation of how he managed to do this with no money or passports.

Eventually Bond gets on the proper path of what's going on and things slow down to where you can understand what the plot actually is. We're treated to what I would call classic Bond scenes such as fancy hotels, black tie parties and Bond in no way trying to maintain his cover. He's always walking around telling people he's Bond.

There are lots of action scenes but most are not very exciting or interesting. At one point Bond manages to get a small plane to crash into a mountain simply by flying aggressively with his much bigger and slower plane. Despite the fact the pilot of the smaller plane could have easily followed behind shooting at them at his leisure. Lazy writing.

I won't even spend much time on the super luxury hotel in the middle of the desert that gets electricity from fuel cells powered by hydrogen tanks spread throughout the hotel. Such a hotel obviously exists for spies to start gun battles inside so that it'll provide a dramatic element to their mission. After all, if the hotel isn't blowing up around you then it's just too easy.

Like I said, it isn't a bad movie. It's a good action movie. But after the Bourne films and Casino Royale I've come to expect quite a bit from an international spy thriller. Quantum of Solace did not deliver that to me.

Maybe things will be better next time around.