SmallMediumLarge
Quantum of Solace PDF Print E-mail
Written by Arya Ponto   
Friday, 14 November 2008
 
 
Visual:
 
6.0
Audio:
 
5.0
Acting:
 
6.0
Writing:
 
4.0
Overall:
 
5.0
Director(s): Marc Foster
Writer(s): Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis & Robert Wade
Starring: Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, Judi Dench, Jeffrey Wright, Gemma Arterton, Giancarlo Giannini
Genre: ActionAdventure
Website: http://www.007.com
Release Date: November 14, 2008
Rated: PG13

With Casino Royale, we’re supposed to have moved on from the campy-and-stupid Bond that describes the Pierce Brosnan entries. Gone were the gadgets, the silly names—Vesper Lynd being a notable exception—and the constant one-liners. It was a new beginning: a darker and heavier turn but more faithful to Ian Fleming’s original vision of Bond. So why are we back to that frivolous Bond again after only one movie?

Quantum of Solace picks up literally minutes after Casino Royale’s ending, jumping right into a high speed car chase as James Bond (Daniel Craig) races to deliver Mr. White to an MI-6 interrogation with M (Judi Dench). They learn of an organization Mr. White and Le Chiffre from the previous film belong to, called Quantum, a SPECTRE-like outfit with ties everywhere. Including MI-6, they learn, when M’s personal bodyguard of 8 years suddenly tries to kill her. Believing that this group is responsible for his one love Vesper’s death, Bond goes on an investigation that leads him to faux-philanthropist Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), owner of eco-friendly company Greene Planet, and also member of Quantum. Along the way, 007 recruits help from old friends René Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini) and CIA operative Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright), as well as new Bond girls Camille Montes (Olga Kurylenko) and Agent Strawberry Fields (Gemma Arterton). The latter’s name, thankfully, was never announced out loud.

At 106 minutes—38 minutes less than Casino RoyaleQuantum of Solace is the shortest Bond movie ever, yet it’s packed to the brim with long action set pieces, which should tell you how incredibly slight the story is and how badly they’ve dropped the ball in developing Bond’s psychology further, something they’ve started off so well in Casino Royale by making Daniel Craig’s portrayal of the character a broken one. Here, instead of the angry orphan holding onto his humanity by a thread, Bond comes across as a spoiled brat; recklessly killing leads and throwing a hissy fit when he’s not staying at five star hotel suites. Yes, Bond is not supposed to be as hardcore as Jason Bourne; he’s the British gentleman with as much poise as he does body count, but here he just appears stupid, jumping into things without thought. Surely there’s more to being a Double-O agent than physical prowess? The quips don’t help, either.

The villain, Dominic Greene, is not only one of the weakest Bond villains in terms of villainy, but he’s undoubtedly the most forgettable one. Doesn’t matter that he has the coveted name pun. They roped a superb actor like Mathieu Amalric, then they gave him a one-note bourgeois villain with no distinct features, whose presence is so underwhelming that it feels like he’s barely in the movie at all. Brilliant. His one vivid act of villainy is stealing a gimmick from Goldfinger, gruesomely substituting gold with oil—the oil angle coming from the movie’s superficial attempt to update Bond into the “real” world, with its casual mention of Iraq and the oil power play between the British, the Americans and third world dictators. It worked in Casino Royale’s gritty and grounded tone, but in Quantum of Solace—with its futuristic toys, secret headquarters and world domination ploy—it’s just laughable and pathetic.

Marc Foster’s direction doesn’t have the suspenseful touch Martin Campbell did that made even a game of Baccarat as compelling as a gunfight, but instead favors a humanistic eye. In the Siena sequence, Foster repeatedly cuts back to an inconsequential pedestrian who was accidentally shot during Bond’s pursuit. Later, he lingers on a sad woman whose fruit basket is destroyed by the chase. Other times, Foster even shows poor peasants suffering as a result of Greene’s villainous plot. It’s a nice/different mood for a Bond film, but the script doesn’t support this yearning for depth, since it throws chase after chase after chase (and not even particularly good ones) at the story, rarely sparing any time for Bond’s much-needed character development, let alone social consciousness.

It’s just too brisk, too simple, too rushed, too lacking of a purpose. This is supposed to be a revenge-driven chapter, but it’s missing the personal side that would flesh out Bond’s motivation, reducing it to “Bond drinks a lot when he starts to think about Vesper.” It’s just a shopping list of exotic locations for Bond to visit and then blow up, which is not unusual for a James Bond film per se, but betrays the more nuanced approach to this character that Casino Royale initiated.

The one good thing that comes from the film is that it sets up the big bad organization Quantum for Bond to go after in the next movie.

User reviews

Average user rating from: 2 user(s)

To write a review please register or login.

Visual:
 
6.5
Audio:
 
5.5
Acting:
 
6.0
Writing:
 
5.0
Overall:
 
6.0
 
 

Nov 16, 2008, Matt Medlock's review:

Avatar
Visual:
 
6.0
Audio:
 
5.0
Acting:
 
7.0
Writing:
 
6.0
Overall:
 
6.0
When it was announced that Marc Forster was going to helm the next James Bond movie, I was pleasantly surprised. I thought that the director of smart and sharply nuanced films like "Monster’s Ball", "Finding Neverland" and "Stranger Than Fiction" could take the franchise in interesting new directions. Finally, there could be a Bond movie that truly explored the character. Forster was in the perfect position, too. At the end of "Casino Royale", Bond was little more than a shell. The woman he loves betrays him, he watches her die, and is given the opportunity to uncover the truth. The so-called “blunt instrument” was devastated, a wrecked man full of confusion, pain and rage—broken down and ready to be rebuilt. What better time to show the transition of Bond from a ruthless killer to an expert spy.

But "Quantum of Solace" doesn’t seem interested in exploring the Bond character to its limits. We’ve already learned that Bond has no qualms about taking a woman to bed, but after finding and losing love, the events that could have influenced the borderline misogyny he displayed in previous films (which, I suppose, is the future?) are mostly brushed past. True, he cared about some of his conquests, but rarely is he motivated when they leave him or come to a cruel end at the hands of his adversary. So how did he get there? Do we get to see Bond’s vulnerable and human side turn thorny and distanced? Does he lament Vesper’s passing while closing off emotions both inside and out? To an extent, yes, but it’s a glossy examination at best. There’s no gradation to it. Instead, Bond is simply on a single-minded pursuit for revenge, which can pump the adrenaline, to be sure, but leaves a bitter aftertaste. There’s no room for puns, conversation or chemistry. James Bond is no longer James Bond—he might as well be Max Payne.

Forster’s strategy to trade psychology for thrills might be reasonable if it were handled deftly. Jason Bourne is pretty much the same enigma after three movies as he was when he was first fished out of the sea. But at least the Bourne movies were exciting. Forster borrows from them the filmmaking technique that combines shaky cam with light speed editing when devising the action scenes. What once was novel is now becoming tiresome, though. At least Forster doesn’t use it as a crutch for filmmaking inexperience—we know already from "Blair Witch" and "Cloverfield" that a gimmick is not enough to make a worthwhile movie. Its purpose is to give the audience a “you-are-there” mentality, but trades away logic and splendor. And indeed, Forster does deliver a few good sequences—the opera scene (still nearly impossible to follow, though, once Bond begins running), the intense plane chase, the surprisingly brutal showdown in an exploding building—but also a few that are either unconvincing or virtually impossible to follow. The car chase that revs up right off the bat has great kill moneyshots, but haphazard camerawork gives us no sense of space and speed. A chase on rooftops is too similar to Bourne, but the payoff is solid. And the motorboat sequence lacks almost any justifiable thrill. None can compete with the best that past Bond movies had to offer. Where’s the strategy? Where’s the finesse?

But, I forgot. Bond is so motivated by anger in this film, that he hardly has time to think. He just punches, grapples and shoots his way through dozens of enemies without hardly blinking. I realize that this is a franchise reboot, one that’s supposed to explore how Bond became Bond. But "Solace" feels like too much of a wasted opportunity. Some have complained at the lack of humor, and while puns have been pretty much thrown out with the bath water, there are a couple of great lines sprinkled about to keep us smirking (the “lottery” line was hysterical).

The problem with character interaction is that Bond has very little presence with the supporting players. Daniel Craig’s still in top form, but he’s given little opportunity to play off others. Olga Kurylenko is a solid Bond girl, but the emotional dissonance in both her and Bond keep them at arms length almost the entire way (they kiss just once, with all the heat of an English winter). Gemma Arterton’s Agent Fields is more playful, but she has very little to do. And as much as hopping into bed within an hour of meeting Bond is characteristic of the series, it feels awkward with this single-minded incarnation who seems otherwise entirely disinterested in sex. He’s better served with Mathis and Felix Leiter, but like Fields, both of their roles are little more than cameos. And naturally, he and M generate a few sparks, but Craig and Judi Dench couldn’t possibly have miffed that aspect.

Luckily, Forster is in fine form when the adrenaline is toned down. The story moves swiftly but keeps our interest throughout. And he brings a minimalist visual savvy to set-up shots, not to mention the wonderfully art-directed exterior set in Bolivia. There have been plenty of comments about the short running time (the quickest Bond film to date), but only the climax feels inexorably rushed. It’s probably too late to ever again feature a madman with a subterranean lair and hundreds of henchmen (it’s been parodied too many times to ever be taken even halfway seriously), but the ease with which Bond gets to chief villain, Dominc Greene, is rather ridiculous. As for Greene, Mathieu Amalric’s wide and wild eyes and creepy expressions give him a layer of sinister slime, but he’s never terribly imposing—is he supposed to be the mastermind of the still vague Quantum or just another piece to the puzzle? Much like the movie itself, his is a game effort that just can’t justify its worth for so much attention.

What we have isn’t really a Bond movie. James Bond is supposed to highlight glamour and style, but "Solace" is obsessed with grungy realism—a visit to Haiti, a desert wasteland and a trip in a rusted-over VW? He’s a long way from casinos and bikinis here. And as a sequel, it’s a wasted opportunity. We know as little of Quantum at the end as we did within the first ten minutes. Instead, we get a more standard fare action pic that looks great when the camera holds still, which just happens to feature a guy we thought we knew. Is it an extended epilogue to "Royale"? Or is it a middle chapter before a more conclusive and diabolical third part? Either way, it’s worth seeing, but it won’t end up being a favorite in the series.

1 of 1 people found the above review helpful

Was this review helpful to you?
Yes No

Nov 14, 2008, Jason Craig's review:

Avatar
Visual:
 
7.0
Audio:
 
6.0
Acting:
 
5.0
Writing:
 
4.0
Overall:
 
6.0
Arya, I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, there is really nothing more for me to say since you covered everything to a 'T'.

I was happy to see a bit more action in this movie, but not at the expense of expanding on Bond's character.

Your comments about Dominic Greene were spot on too. Such a lackluster character for a Bond film.

Unless you're a hardcore Bond fan and must see this in the theater, I'd hold off until it hits the shelves in a DVD format. What a shame....

1 of 1 people found the above review helpful

Was this review helpful to you?
Yes No

 
Trackback(0)
Comments (2)add comment

November 16, 2008, patrick said:

0
Quantum of Solace was entertaining for sure, but sometimes i got the feeling that the movie was making fun of itself... everywhere pane of glass Bond crosses was broken, he can't get a gallon of milk from the store without it turning into a chase scene, and every time he punches someone in the face, they die.
 

Votes: +1

November 17, 2008, Sean Anthony said:

78
I thought it was an ok movie. I like Craig but his character seems to reserved yet ambitious. Olga K. wasn't a bad Bond girl but she was far from great. She just seemed to gung hoe. Either way I agree with your review for the most part. Do Star Trek simply cause Simon Pegg's in it by the way...haha.
 

Votes: -1


Write comment

busy