![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
When ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
darth_hamster said that the Skyfall trailer looked good but she'd not actually seen either of Daniel Craig's Bond films I went to the DVD shelf and offered up Casino Royale. She quite enjoyed it and so when I noted that I had Quantum of Solace, and it followed directly on from the events of the first film, we watched that too.
I have to say I remembered Quantum of Solace as, well, not being that good really. But it does benefit from being watched as a double-bill with Casino Royale, perhaps because the ongoing plot from the first film comes to the fore rather more and so diverts from the rather weak and unfocussed plot of the second.
(In fact, this is Quantum of Solace's problem. Even the day after watching it, I have to think hard to answer the question 'what happens in its first half?'. The classic structure of a Bond film has the first half setting up the Big Bad leading up to a confrontation in the second half. But for Quantum of Solace the set-up is provided by Casino Royale; the first half the film is reduced to providing a new aspect of the Big Bad, which works OK in the context of both films taken together but less so standing alone.)
However, on rewatching Casino Royale I noticed a plot hole so huge I'm surprised I've not seen more mention of it. (Indeed, looking online for discussions of plot holes I mainly find complaints about the unlikelihood of the outcome of the card game.) Yes, this is a Bond film, but it is one that tried to reboot the sequence into more contemporary realism, so it's not so easy to arm-wave it away.
( Huge spoilers )
darth_hamster said that the Skyfall trailer looked good but she'd not actually seen either of Daniel Craig's Bond films I went to the DVD shelf and offered up Casino Royale. She quite enjoyed it and so when I noted that I had Quantum of Solace, and it followed directly on from the events of the first film, we watched that too.I have to say I remembered Quantum of Solace as, well, not being that good really. But it does benefit from being watched as a double-bill with Casino Royale, perhaps because the ongoing plot from the first film comes to the fore rather more and so diverts from the rather weak and unfocussed plot of the second.
(In fact, this is Quantum of Solace's problem. Even the day after watching it, I have to think hard to answer the question 'what happens in its first half?'. The classic structure of a Bond film has the first half setting up the Big Bad leading up to a confrontation in the second half. But for Quantum of Solace the set-up is provided by Casino Royale; the first half the film is reduced to providing a new aspect of the Big Bad, which works OK in the context of both films taken together but less so standing alone.)
However, on rewatching Casino Royale I noticed a plot hole so huge I'm surprised I've not seen more mention of it. (Indeed, looking online for discussions of plot holes I mainly find complaints about the unlikelihood of the outcome of the card game.) Yes, this is a Bond film, but it is one that tried to reboot the sequence into more contemporary realism, so it's not so easy to arm-wave it away.
( Huge spoilers )
