QOS by contrast is excellently plotted, seamlessly integrating Bond's arc and the villain's storyline in a way CR failed to do (if Vesper is integral to Bond's character, having her show up halfway through the film seems like a misstep, the film split like that isn't bad but could've been better IMO).
In fairness, the film followed the novel quite closely in this regard, so if you really don't like this plot point, then IMO it's more reasonable to fault the original source material on which the film is based. (Edit: Ah, reading your reply more closely, I see that you're criticizing the point at which Vesper enters the film, not the timing of Bond's discovery of her betrayal. And that
is quite different from the novel. Sorry about my misunderstanding! However, I didn't have a problem with that, either. I actually thought it was a rather interesting twist, to have it appear as though Solange was going to be his love interest, only to have her be the sacrificial lamb on the way to Bond finally meeting Vesper.)
For me, the timing of Vesper's betrayal, and the way in which Bond discovered it, was brilliant (and I know the Fleming fans won't like this, but I felt it was better portrayed in the film than in the book). Not having read the novel yet, I had no idea this was coming (though in retrospect, watching the film as many times as I have, it's easy to see the clues that were there all along). So for me -- and also for my husband -- that came as a brutal shock. We both felt a kind of betrayal similar to what Bond experienced, and so it had a much more poignant emotional impact than, say, "The World Is Not Enough" (which seemed to be going after the same thing). It is through Bond's growing trust in Vesper, so cruelly torn away in the Venice sequence, that we see why Bond became the way he did.
I've said this many times, but on first viewing I did not enjoy "Quantum of Solace" nearly as much as "Casino Royale" and found it rather disappointing, and I fault the much-maligned editing for this (and also
possibly the film's length, which others have mentioned). However, second and subsequent viewings caused me to do a 180, and my attitude now is that it is a flawed yet still-brilliant film. I don't consider it to be quite as good as "Casino Royale" . . . but I find it a satisfying follow-up. It's in "Quantum of Solace" that we see Bond become more fully who he is. He's no longer so bitter, having come to understand the reason for Vesper's betrayal -- after all, she too was betrayed -- and he also knows that, as M had guessed, Vesper did indeed love him, had even sacrificed her life in the hope of protecting him. So now he knows that love is a very dangerous thing, not only for himself, but for the people he becomes involved with. And through Camille, he comes to understand that revenge is a poor substitute for the real thing: human connection. In her, he sees what he could become if he allows his thirst for vengeance to consume him.
So Bond emerges from "Quantum of Solace" a somewhat less cynical man than the hard-bitten Bond at the end of "Casino Royale" . . . but also more cautious, too. He knows that human connection is a luxury he can't afford. His experiences have taught him a great deal about what he needs to know to succeed and survive as a double-O. I think this story was needed to see the more fully formed Bond as he moves forward . . . or, so we hope.
Edited by byline, 13 July 2010 - 06:33 PM.