New on DVD Nov 14 2008 @ 03:00 am
REVIEW: Quantum of Solace
Directed By: Marc Forster
Written By: Paul Haggis and Neal Purvis & Robert Wade
Starring: Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Judi Dench, Mathieu Amalric, Giancarlo Giannini, Jeffrey Wright
Running Time: 106 minutes
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and some sexual content
While Quantum of Solace remains myopically focused on its priorities, wasting time is certainly not one of them. Action, however, is, and 10 seconds past the slinky credits (serviceable, but not nearly as clever as Casino Royale’s, an observation that sadly applies to the entire film) Daniel Craig is whipping his Aston Martin around paper-thin curves as gun-toting suits rat-a-tat-tat him and any innocent vehicles nearby. It’s an exhilarating opener, full of intense Craig grimaces and physics-defying maneuvers, but it sets a bombastic tone that Solace is unable to escape from. This is action Bond, paint-by-numbers Bond, boring Bond. Why risk one of the most lucrative franchises on planet Earth with, you know, interesting stuff?
I suspect that I’ve failed to conceal my disappointment from you. Quantum of Solace is by no means unenjoyable, but dangit Bond, why’d you have to go and butter me up with Casino Royale, promise me emotion and pathos and a reason to believe that you were more than just a plastic action figure; and then give me a sequel with none of those things? You’re a tease, double-oh seven, and a cruel one at that. Sigh.
Daniel Craig, seconds from shooting lasers out of his eyes.
Apart from the Bourne-style action and a steely-eyed Daniel Craig, Casino Royale was a successful reboot for one reason: Bond became a character rather than a caricature. For this reason the climactic death of Vesper Lynd (a Bond girl who – finally! – was more than just a rump with a smile) carried real weight; she wasn’t disposable, and you could see the rage boiling underneath Bond’s cool exterior. Since Solace is a conspicuous sequel, you’d expect the catharsis of a Maximus-esque “And I will have my vengeance…” moment, with Bond coolly putting the fear of god into responsible parties at the end of a silenced PP7, but alas, nowhere to be seen. Oh sure, there’s plenty of brooding at bars, accompanied by mournful glances at tattered photographs, but it’s all lip service. Director Marc Forster (primarily known for Oscar-begging dramas like Finding Neverland and The Kite Runner) is always itching, itching, itching to get to the next action extravaganza, and while they’re magnificent to behold (an Italian rooftop chase ending in trapeze-style acrobatics might be the best slice of action-porn since the The Matrix Reloaded’s freeway finale), they eschew all the spicy ingredients that made Royale such an unexpected treat.
Olga Kurylenko as Camille. Is that a spray-on tan I spy?
Forster should probably be exonerated from any blame. His Sony overlords, blinded by visions of limitless Bond booty, are content to put the franchise on auto-pilot, replacing risky drama with bullets and bluster (much safer, that way). Vesper, an actual match for Bond in wit, is followed by Camille (Hitman’s Olga Kurylenko), just another pretty face with a Past (that we haven’t reverted to Christmas Jones is, at the very least, a small mercy); and the villain (Mathieu Amalric, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) is impotent, executing yet another global get-rich scheme that’s just a few hairs shy of Lex Luthor’s send-California-to-the-sea real estate blitz. That he’s given a physical showdown with Bond (who previously dispatched 347 much nastier goons) just adds to the parody.
Quantum of Solace is two steps back for the franchise, and while it hasn’t descended to Pierce Brosnan levels of silliness, it’s happily reneged on Royale’s tantalizing promise. While Bond junkies will find plenty to love, the obscene reams of cash soon to be filling Sony’s coffers will dissuade them from any future gambling (milk that heifer!), ensuring that subsequent installments will maintain the status quo. And I’ll be there, ticket in hand, more “Bond, James Bond” please, but I won’t be happy about it.
on Nov 14 2008 @ 11:51 am 1. Daniel said …
I haven’t read your full review as I need to finish my own thoughts, but I can only say I was devastatingly disappointed by QoS. As a stand-alone movie it may have some merit, but I can only judge it relative the rest of the Bond series, in which case I find it only mediocre – at best. More thoughts to come…
on Nov 14 2008 @ 1:19 pm 2. Josh Ickes said …
Having only gotten into Bond a year or so ago I was rather surprised to find that I enjoyed both the books and the movies. For wholly different reasons for the most part. Casino Royale actually seemed to join the best of both worlds for the first time, with shades of the books noir-ish tones coming through. I’m saddened though not surprised to hear that Quantum looks like a return to bland Bond.
on Nov 14 2008 @ 2:44 pm 3. james said …
yep, that sounds like my lament as well…
on Nov 14 2008 @ 4:31 pm 4. Daniel said …
Well I’ve broken it down somewhat forcefully. As a “Bond junkie” I actually found nothing to love.
But you’re right, the franchise is off in a completely new direction, and all fans of the classic Bonds can do is sit and stew about it.
on Nov 14 2008 @ 4:48 pm 5. Evan Derrick said …
Did you like Casino Royale, Daniel? (I’ll have to hop over and check your review) My disappointment with this film mostly stems from my genuine enjoyment of Royale. I’m not a classic Bond aficionado by any stretch of imagination.
on Nov 14 2008 @ 4:58 pm 6. Daniel said …
I liked it as a relief from Die Another Day and The World Is Not Enough (and even Tomorrow Never Dies, to an extent), but I haven’t had a desire to rewatch CR since I saw it in the theater. Certainly it had some solid action sequences and a handful of the usual Bond elements (location, a sweet car, etc.), and I also gave it a “pass” for coming in as a prequel of sorts, since Casino Royale had never been adapted like that.
I gave no such pass to Quantum of Solace, which takes nothing from Ian Fleming anyway. It was just made up during the production of CR, and I think it lacks a lot of what made the old Bond movies so great, namely a spirit of fun. Like Pierce Brosnan in his later movies, the problem with this movie isn’t with Daniel Craig, but with an insistence to unnecessarily continuing to develop a character that’s been just fine for about 50 years.
on Nov 14 2008 @ 6:49 pm 7. Evan Derrick said …
I’ve never read the books or extensively watched the older films, so I probably don’t have a great handle on the ‘character’ of Bond. But what I loved about Casino Royale was that Bond wasn’t just a stereotype anymore (which, in large part, he had become through the Pierce Brosnan years). I liked the new character development, the fact that Bond had depth and emotion and seemed like a real person. But since I have no attachment to the historical Flemming Bond, I’m all for evolution, which it seems that you are not.
on Nov 14 2008 @ 10:18 pm 8. Josh Ickes said …
“Book Bond” (to me at least) is a sort of logical progression of the noir hero. Sam Spade with a government appointment if you will. In Casino Royale there are no grand schemes, what plans there are fail. No goofy gadgets, Bond survives through sheer determination and will.
Much of dénouement of the book is spent with Bond, thinking, trying to discover what manhood means to him. Trying to figure out if he is capable of real love, of giving up the lifestyle he’s used to for a more domestic one.
That’s the kind of Bond that we saw in the last movie, to a certain degree.
I have only read the first 3 or 4 books, I have no idea if he eventually winds up as a campy shadow of his former self.
“Movie Bond” on the other hand is mostly a device that delivers action, babes, and one liners. Something which I totally appreciate on it’s own level.
on Nov 15 2008 @ 10:37 am 9. Sam Juliano said …
Fine review, but I must say I hated this film.
on Nov 15 2008 @ 12:07 pm 10. Patrick said …
Quantum of Solace is entertaining at least… a fantastic job with the styling and picture quality, but the movie as a whole could stand to lose six or seven fewer chase scenes
on Nov 15 2008 @ 12:34 pm 11. Alexander Coleman said …
I found this movie to represent the shedding of Bond, James Bond (he never utters the line) and the true launching of Bourne, James Bourne. Bond has been reduced to just another action movie thug here with Michael Bay hyper-action-movie-editing.
Like Daniel, I was devastatingly disappointed by this movie, all the more so after seeing Casino Royale the day before and finding it better than I originally thought. That was a mistake, because this Bond movie has almost nothing in the way of character development or simply intelligence that the 2006 Bond film had.
Click on my name for my review.
on Nov 15 2008 @ 2:27 pm 12. Sam Juliano said …
I am hearing reports that a number of people will be filing lawsuits against the filmakers for the loss of their hearing after seeing this film. At least 100 or so people ran out of the Edgewater multiplex where I saw it, holding their ears, screaming as they dashed for their cars. It was quite a site.
on Nov 17 2008 @ 11:08 am 13. Rick Olson said …
And I’ll be there, ticket in hand, more “Bond, James Bond” please, but I won’t be happy about it.
And I’m sure you’ll hate yourself in the morning.
on Nov 17 2008 @ 1:25 pm 14. Alexander Coleman said …
A splendid review of marked (and very deserved) ambivalence, Evan.
on Nov 18 2008 @ 11:14 pm 15. Film-Book dot Com said …
A very nice companion piece to Casino Royale. I’ve got to get my ass moving on my review. Damn SEO.
on May 29 2011 @ 2:24 pm 16. J Perry said …
I intended to write you one bit of note to help say thanks a lot as before considering the nice advice you have featured above. It is certainly seriously open-handed with people like you to deliver publicly exactly what a number of people could possibly have distributed as an e book to help with making some dough for their own end, most notably seeing that you could possibly have tried it in case you wanted. These smart ideas additionally worked as the easy way to realize that the rest have similar desire similar to my own to figure out much more related to this issue. Certainly there are thousands of more pleasurable instances up front for people who go through your site.