Quantum of Solace Reviews

[brookystreet]

Quantum of Solace - Review

The heart of the film is Bond's emotional journey as he comes to terms with the death of Vesper and therefore it feels less consequential than other Bond films where Bond is a key player in a wide reaching plan and plot.

Action sequences are shot in a similar way to 'Paul Greengrass's' 'Bourne' films, and the comparisons are inevitable. They do work though, and are well conceived and shot. 'Daniel Craig' delivers a solid performance again, as in 'Casino Royale' this is his film, he is a primeval force that pushes the film forward.

'Olga Kurylenko', 'Mathieu Amalric' and 'Judi Dench' are all superb, although they inevitably fade into the background at times as Dan does his stuff. However 'Giancarlo Giannini' holds his own as an emotional core to the film to rival Dan in his few brief scenes. 'Elvis' and 'Medrano' are less consequential than I was expecting.

The producers have taken a big risk with this film. More casual viewers who sit back with a bucket of popcorn and expect to be entertained while switching off their brains will not be pleased. The film expects you to understand Casino Royale and for you to engage. It's smart and rewarding but very, very, different.

[harrypalmer]

It does seem a very different film - critics and fans don't know what to make of it.

[skywalker]

Nov 1, 2008 11:41:30 GMT -5 brookystreet said:

Quantum of Solace - Review

The heart of the film is Bond's emotional journey as he comes to terms with the death of Vesper and therefore it feels less consequential than other Bond films where Bond is a key player in a wide reaching plan and plot.

Action sequences are shot in a similar way to 'Paul Greengrass's' 'Bourne' films, and the comparisons are inevitable. They do work though, and are well conceived and shot. 'Daniel Craig' delivers a solid performance again, as in 'Casino Royale' this is his film, he is a primeval force that pushes the film forward.

'Olga Kurylenko', 'Mathieu Amalric' and 'Judi Dench' are all superb, although they inevitably fade into the background at times as Dan does his stuff. However 'Giancarlo Giannini' holds his own as an emotional core to the film to rival Dan in his few brief scenes. 'Elvis' and 'Medrano' are less consequential than I was expecting.

The producers have taken a big risk with this film. More casual viewers who sit back with a bucket of popcorn and expect to be entertained while switching off their brains will not be pleased. The film expects you to understand Casino Royale and for you to engage. It's smart and rewarding but very, very, different.

Nice review.

I do intend to go to the cinema and (endure) watch DC strut his stuff. The previews look good and from the reviews I've read so far, DC has been praised, but my concern is that this Bond learning curve should surely be better placed in the hands of a younger looking actor.

I'll reserve judgement until I watch it.

[skywalker]

Quantum Of Solace Review
By Jim Hall
Film4 movie critic

Please note there are spoilers in this review.

Daniel Craig returns as James Bond in the hotly anticipated sequel to Casino Royale
When Casino Royale closed with a vengeful Daniel Craig looming over a man connected to the death of Bond's girlfriend, it instantly became the greatest of 007 finales - a brilliant climax to a movie which reinvented the Bond franchise by subverting most of its sacred laws. But could the series keep it up?

It's the precedent set by Casino Royale that gives Quantum Of Solace its biggest problems. It can't go back to the comforting style of the older films, but if it distances itself from them much further, it will stop being recognisably Bond at all. This results in an unsatisfying compromise; a thriller that feels embarrassed to be a Bond movie instead of revelling in glamour and action.

The plot has Bond (Craig) and M (Dench) uncovering the existence of a powerful criminal syndicate, responsible for the death of Bond's lover Vesper (Eva Green). Bond is immediately off the leash, whacking anyone with even the faintest link to the group before he's had a chance to question them. This is turned into a running joke and the pithy comments from M eventually undercut the grim intensity displayed in Craig's kamikaze Bond.

Sure, the villain has a psychotic henchman, there are Bond girls and the showdown is at a hi-tech complex in a remote locale, but all these are treated with the sniffy reluctance one would expect from Brian Sewell judging a charity watercolour contest. More is needed to remind audiences of why Vesper - only glimpsed here in a Polaroid snap - was this important to Bond. She is, we must assume, the reason why the grumpy action man isn't up to his usual bed-hopping form. 007 only gets to sink the Bismarck once, with lightweight government girl Agent Fields (Arterton), and this is so perfunctory as to appear one step up from seeing Bond shuffle off to the bathroom with a copy of 'Razzle'. If that sounds glib it's because this scene pussyfoots around a golden chance to show an unpleasant truth about Bond's attitude towards women, both in general but more specifically, bearing in mind his experiences in the previous movie.

The Bond films are such collaborative enterprises that it's difficult to blame the shortcomings on any one department, but director Marc Forster (responsible for emotional dramas such as Finding Neverland and The Kite Runner), who was brought in specifically to lend the series his own touch, seems fatally uncomfortable with action scenes.

The film still has plenty of explosive thrills, but these are lumped together, bookending the movie as if to clear the way for a narrative which is happiest delivering low-octane exposition when it could really use a big set-piece every 15 minutes.

In the vital roles of Bond girl and Bond villain, Olga Kurylenko plays revenge-driven Camille and Mathieu Amalric is phoney philanthropist Dominic Greene. Both do sterling work in parts that feel deliberately truncated in case, heaven forbid, anyone should mistake this for a 007 adventure.

The film's ending makes it clear there's still a concluding chapter to come, but doesn't bother imparting the news with any great sense of urgency. If there was really such a determination to break with the past, this would have been the perfect time to give the Bond films their first genuine cliffhanger. Even Judy Dench hissing, "No... I am your father" would have sufficed.

Verdict

A good thriller but the whole package is underwhelming, and no matter what changes are introduced to the franchise, underwhelming is something a Bond movie should never be.

[adam]

'Bond off the leash' ? ! 'Whacking anyone with the faintest link to the group before he's had the chance to question them'. Thought Bond only killed when he had to, ie when someone was trying to kill him. Also thought Bond would question people as well to get information. It's what spys do !

[poirot]

Nov 2, 2008 13:12:10 GMT -5 adam said:

Thought Bond only killed when he had to, ie when someone was trying to kill him. Also thought Bond would question people as well to get information. It's what spys do !

Fleming's Bond didn't enjoy killing in cold blood. But then again, he wasn't really an assassin either. M wouldn't say, "I think Drax may be cheating me. Go kill him." There were plenty of fictional assassins, and that's exactly what they did, but Bond wasn't one of them. Instead, Bond was a spy that went on espionage missions, and was licenced to kill if necessary.

There's a huge difference between that, and what EON are currently trying to pass off as Fleming's creation. They're essentially just taking the "assassin" part, and trying to turn it up to '11'. In this respect, they can appeal to the lowest-common denominator and satisfy the modern appetite for movie violence.

I suspect that- had Craig been given this particular script back in 2005- he would have never signed on for the role.

[garyseven]

I had the "pleasure" of watching Quantum of Solace. I was, predictably, underwhelmed.

This was a distinctly average action/spy movie - in which Craig's character was called "James Bond". I did not enjoy Craig's Bond in Casino Royale. His morose Bond returns. That will delight his new fans, but upset those who feels it is a departure from tradition. Amalric looks more like Bond than Daniel Craig.

Next time, I expect a more traditional type of Bond, even if Craig comes back. Eon have reached a dead end with this re-boot.

[adam]

The clips I've seen on TV DC's voice does sound even more monotone and bland than ever. Maybe there is also a toach of boredom included in his voice. I've read there is hardly any dialogue in the film. Any serious actor who spends six months just looking serious and filming action scenes must get bored.

[Kadov]

This is the worst Bond movie and one of the worst films made in the last, oh I don't know, say in the last 10 years. Eon has really brought the series down to its lowest point in terms of overall quality and sheer idiocy. Take away the multi-million dollar PR campaign, and what you've got is a movie no different than one of those stupid action fests from a Van Damme or a Steven Seagal that usually winds up as a direct-to-video release. QOS makes an outlandish effort like Moonraker look a Felini-esque masterpiece of surrealism. Sarcasm aside, the so-called professional critics (who previously applauded CR and its grittiness but who are now trashing Eon's approach) were dead on in their dismissal of this film. Oh, how things change so quickly in this world! Anyway, for me here are the things that deliver QOS as a fine work of hack filmmaking.

• Let's start with our good friend, old Danny boy. He's aged quite a bit, that craggy mug of his even more pronounced than last time. So right away, the film's got an uphill battle, trying to convince us that this story takes place just minutes after CR but Craig has the look of a 60-year old. So much for a gritty realistic spy film. Maybe Eon was trying to emulate the ending in 2001: A Space Odyssey where the astronaut Bowman was aging in a mysterious way in that eerie finale. Craig has zero star power with no charisma whatsoever. Which is probably why Eon surrounds him with so much action to make us forget how bland he is. Think Dolph Lundgren. In fact, if you place the Swedish actor in this film, you'd get the same outcome. Supposedly, the angle to Craig's Bond in this film is that he's trying to avenge the death of his lost love Vesper. But you never sense that this is his motivation. He drifts from one action to scene to another, from one locale to another, killing enemies, riding motorboats and jumping out of planes. You can argue that this is the fault of the script. At the same time, a good actor would find some form of creativity to interpret the script and the find the room to express that vengeful motivation. Craig has no leading-man quality and simply lacks the ability to draw audiences into the story. His performance stays on one level, a bland thug, so you never care what he does. His Bond is simply not a well drawn character. He also has none of that wicked sensuality that became one of the classic elements of the character. He's basically emasculated, having no strong sensuality in the romantic scene with agent Fields (Gemma Arterton), and he doesn't have Bond's distinctive ability to go bed-hopping with the babes. But what's bizarre is that (at least according to a gay co-worker who also saw QOS) Eon still has this 007 cloaked with traces of that gay or metrosexual essence. I did notice that Craig wears tight-fitted short-sleeve shirts and tight-fitted white pants in some scenes, but make of that what you will. M. G. Wilson has stated that they'll be taking a year off before making the next one. I have a feeling that one thing on their agenda is assessing Craig's stature and whether to start finding a new actor.
  
  
• The story. Forget it. Whatever plot it has makes very little sense. Again, you feel distant from it all and it's difficult to sense why Craig's Bond is doing what he is, or going to different locales. When the producers threw out Haggis' script last year, they obviously didn't have another solid script to rely on. So you get this feeling that they went off to production and made sure to film a list of ingredients. A car chase in the mountains with the Aston Martin? Check. A rooftop chase? Check. Explosions? Check. Speedboat chase? Check. Re-do scenes from previous Bond films? Check. Copy the style of Bourne? Most definitely, this was on the top of their list (all the action and overall look of this film is too reminiscent of Bourne). Meanwhile, they have Judi Dench popping in and out of the story to explain plot elements, which only makes things more confusing. And why is the MI6 boss traveling around the world to catch up with Bond? It's absolutely unrealistic. As for the villain, Dominic Greene, well it turns out she's Eva Green's uncle. Well, that's not true. But considering the stupidity of this film, it wouldn't surprise me if that idea was actually on the minds of Eon at one time. Anyway, what a coincidence that this environmentalist villain just happens to have the surname Greene! And he's got a scheme to restore a dictator to power in Bolivia. If you ask me, this is an uphill battle for the filmmakers to make audiences feel riveted with this kind of plot. Greene isn't even menacing, and for some reason he reminds me of Barry Manilow. His conflict with Bond--which is the major element of a Bond storyline--is weak because you feel that nothing is at stake at the climax.
  
  
• Final thoughts. Marc Forster was way over his head with this film, which is probably why he expressed (in an on-set interview) that he didn't want to do another Bond film. QOS is a mess. The significance of the title is never addressed, and I actually gave up with the story about 30-minutes into the film and became numb at the onslaught of action scenes. The thing that really irks me about this film is that it's got this arrogant, pretentious tone underlying it all. It's like Eon, along with Forster, is trying to present an arty film--but it's pure junk. For example, there's a scene with Bond doing a shoot-out with Greene's agents, and it takes place during a performance of the opera Tosca. It's filmed in slow-motion with fancy intercuts of the opera's scene of fictional gunfire and performers falling dead. Obviously, Forster was trying to emulate the spectacular finale in Coppoloa's Godfather III, but Forster's version is laughable with its slow-motion effect. It's about as artistic as a Ford car commercial. Yet this film, and this new rebooted franchise, has lost its own voice. The emulation of the Bourne films is so obvious, which suggests that the Bond franchise doesn't know how to lead, so it follows. Ironically, the placement of the gun-barrel logo in the end credits is actually an apt symbol of how the series is trailing Bourne.
  

[alex]

Nov 9, 2008 15:05:05 GMT -5 Kadov said:

This is the worst Bond movie and one of the worst films made in the last, oh I don't know, say in the last 10 years. Eon has really brought the series down to its lowest point in terms of overall quality and sheer idiocy. Take away the multi-million dollar PR campaign, and what you've got is a movie no different than one of those stupid action fests from a Van Damme or a Steven Seagal that usually winds up as a direct-to-video release. QOS makes an outlandish effort like Moonraker look a Felini-esque masterpiece of surrealism. Sarcasm aside, the so-called professional critics (who previously applauded CR and its grittiness but who are now trashing Eon's approach) were dead on in their dismissal of this film. Oh, how things change so quickly in this world! Anyway, for me here are the things that deliver QOS as a fine work of hack filmmaking.

• Let's start with our good friend, old Danny boy. He's aged quite a bit, that craggy mug of his even more pronounced than last time. So right away, the film's got an uphill battle, trying to convince us that this story takes place just minutes after CR but Craig has the look of a 60-year old. So much for a gritty realistic spy film. Maybe Eon was trying to emulate the ending in 2001: A Space Odyssey where the astronaut Bowman was aging in a mysterious way in that eerie finale. Craig has zero star power with no charisma whatsoever. Which is probably why Eon surrounds him with so much action to make us forget how bland he is. Think Dolph Lundgren. In fact, if you place the Swedish actor in this film, you'd get the same outcome. Supposedly, the angle to Craig's Bond in this film is that he's trying to avenge the death of his lost love Vesper. But you never sense that this is his motivation. He drifts from one action to scene to another, from one locale to another, killing enemies, riding motorboats and jumping out of planes. You can argue that this is the fault of the script. At the same time, a good actor would find some form of creativity to interpret the script and the find the room to express that vengeful motivation. Craig has no leading-man quality and simply lacks the ability to draw audiences into the story. His performance stays on one level, a bland thug, so you never care what he does. His Bond is simply not a well drawn character. He also has none of that wicked sensuality that became one of the classic elements of the character. He's basically emasculated, having no strong sensuality in the romantic scene with agent Fields (Gemma Arterton), and he doesn't have Bond's distinctive ability to go bed-hopping with the babes. But what's bizarre is that (at least according to a gay co-worker who also saw QOS) Eon still has this 007 cloaked with traces of that gay or metrosexual essence. I did notice that Craig wears tight-fitted short-sleeve shirts and tight-fitted white pants in some scenes, but make of that what you will. M. G. Wilson has stated that they'll be taking a year off before making the next one. I have a feeling that one thing on their agenda is assessing Craig's stature and whether to start finding a new actor.
  
  
• The story. Forget it. Whatever plot it has makes very little sense. Again, you feel distant from it all and it's difficult to sense why Craig's Bond is doing what he is, or going to different locales. When the producers threw out Haggis' script last year, they obviously didn't have another solid script to rely on. So you get this feeling that they went off to production and made sure to film a list of ingredients. A car chase in the mountains with the Aston Martin? Check. A rooftop chase? Check. Explosions? Check. Speedboat chase? Check. Re-do scenes from previous Bond films? Check. Copy the style of Bourne? Most definitely, this was on the top of their list (all the action and overall look of this film is too reminiscent of Bourne). Meanwhile, they have Judi Dench popping in and out of the story to explain plot elements, which only makes things more confusing. And why is the MI6 boss traveling around the world to catch up with Bond? It's absolutely unrealistic. As for the villain, Dominic Greene, well it turns out she's Eva Green's uncle. Well, that's not true. But considering the stupidity of this film, it wouldn't surprise me if that idea was actually on the minds of Eon at one time. Anyway, what a coincidence that this environmentalist villain just happens to have the surname Greene! And he's got a scheme to restore a dictator to power in Bolivia. If you ask me, this is an uphill battle for the filmmakers to make audiences feel riveted with this kind of plot. Greene isn't even menacing, and for some reason he reminds me of Barry Manilow. His conflict with Bond--which is the major element of a Bond storyline--is weak because you feel that nothing is at stake at the climax.
  
  
• Final thoughts. Marc Forster was way over his head with this film, which is probably why he expressed (in an on-set interview) that he didn't want to do another Bond film. QOS is a mess. The significance of the title is never addressed, and I actually gave up with the story about 30-minutes into the film and became numb at the onslaught of action scenes. The thing that really irks me about this film is that it's got this arrogant, pretentious tone underlying it all. It's like Eon, along with Forster, is trying to present an arty film--but it's pure junk. For example, there's a scene with Bond doing a shoot-out with Greene's agents, and it takes place during a performance of the opera Tosca. It's filmed in slow-motion with fancy intercuts of the opera's scene of fictional gunfire and performers falling dead. Obviously, Forster was trying to emulate the spectacular finale in Coppoloa's Godfather III, but Forster's version is laughable with its slow-motion effect. It's about as artistic as a Ford car commercial. Yet this film, and this new rebooted franchise, has lost its own voice. The emulation of the Bourne films is so obvious, which suggests that the Bond franchise doesn't know how to lead, so it follows. Ironically, the placement of the gun-barrel logo in the end credits is actually an apt symbol of how the series is trailing Bourne.
  

kadov, does he become the Bond we know and love in this one? ;D

[brookystreet]

Bond becomes Bond at the end of CR although the gunbarrel at the end of QOS finishes the Bond/Vesper storyline.

[adam]

So you'd give it 9.5 out of 10 Kadov ? I'm surprised they let DC age so much. CGI, botox etc can make someone look younger. His hair should also definatly be longer. Must admit he does'nt look that old in the interviews I've seen him in. I did'nt think he had much charisma in CR but as you said he's even worse in QOS.

The problem the producers had with this film is that it is a sequel. They annonced they were rebooting with a trilogy but just wrote a script for CR. A basic script or story covering three films should have been done in 2005. When they started writing the script for QOS they realised this whole triology thing is'nt as easy as it sounds, especially as CR was complicated in the first place. They realised making another long film with lots of dialogue explaining what's going on will just confuse people even more. So they made a short film with lots of action and little story telling.

[poirot]

This is what happens when you toss out the script just weeks before shooting is scheduled to begin.

[Kadov]

Nov 9, 2008 15:42:09 GMT -5 alex said:

kadov, does he become the Bond we know and love in this one? ;D

LOL! He becomes the Dolph Lundgren we all know and admire starting about 2-seconds into the film.

The more I think about it, this Bond in QOS suffers amnesia because not once does he say, "Bond, James Bond" to introduce himself. This may be one of those arty implications that Eon was shooting for--and of course, the amnesia angle ties in with the film's Bourne emulation.

[Kadov]

Nov 9, 2008 16:22:17 GMT -5 adam said:

So you'd give it 9.5 out of 10 Kadov ?

It's more like a 9.9 out of 10 million. ;D

The problem the producers had with this film is that it is a sequel. They annonced they were rebooting with a trilogy but just wrote a script for CR. A basic script or story covering three films should have been done in 2005. When they started writing the script for QOS they realised this whole triology thing is'nt as easy as it sounds, especially as CR was complicated in the first place. They realised making another long film with lots of dialogue explaining what's going on will just confuse people even more. So they made a short film with lots of action and little story telling.

Very perceptive, Adam. I think you just described the very problem that Eon faced when they sat down and confronted what to do about QOS.