I honestly had no problem with the editing. I know many people have, including my own friend who I saw it with a second time a while back, but for me I have no problem catching everything that is happening between all the quick cuts.
After seeing the film twice now, I can say my opinion hasn't really changed. It holds very well on a second viewing, and while there weren't any new details I could unearth, I was able to absorb the action more and the smaller moments between Bond & M or Bond & Camille.
I still can't pinpoint why exactly people dislike this movie. I saw this for the second time with my friend & his girlfriend; she liked it more than him, and interestingly enough trevanian
, my friend raised the same point that you did: If this Bond is suppose to actually care
about not killing, then why does he kill
every time he's in a fisticuffs?
I think he kills so much in Casino Royale
because he feels like he has to, and he kills so much in Quantum of Solace
because he's exacting revenge. I think it's an evolution of the character, going from killing out of necessity to killing out of desire. I think both movies make a big deal out of, and for a reason.
Anyway, I'm going to see it today, again, for the third time. I'll likely re-explore some of these topics and points when I see it again, but I watch this, and I think about it, and then I go back to a movie like Live and Let Die
, which I saw again recently on TV, and I can't get past a Bond who quips and looks, in all honesty, like a pansy. The Bond I read in Fleming's books was a callous, cold-hearted bastard, and I really think Daniel Craig captures that in his films.