That was a really interesting review and I agree with lots of it. It's strange to me that as Craig had obviously established himself as a capable actor in CR, that they didn't give him more dialogue. The scenes with M do lift the film as you say and it's just a shame that Judi Dench is maybe getting a little bit old to play that part realistically.
Very thoughtful and well-organised review. Goes over every aspect and analyses it with depth and critical conscience. I, too, agree with basically all of it. Hat off to the writer
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
I can now safely say DC is now my best bond and people may hate me for this but QOS is my best film everrrrrr i loved it so much.
GOOD POINTS
Opening car chase was excellent loads of action
The bond girls were amazing the best yet
The ending of the film was just amazing all the action i loved the ending so much
Pepole will hate me for this but i have to say i really really liked another way to die i thought it wouldn't be that good but i thought wrong
BAD POINTS
Mathis dieing was so wrong i wish they never killed him off he was such a great character and i don't think he would of liked to be put in a bin bond mustn't of liked him )
Fields being Covered in oil just a copy of Goldfinger ridiculous
Well there you go theres my review i may add more points when i see it another time.TND stinks now QOS is my best bond now yeah.
One question don't you think that guy who was with FELIX looked like MR.KIDD out of DAF i do.
10/10
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
I loved the film. Great.
Likes (loves, really):
-Craig
-Actually, all the acting - the performances were stellar
-The action - gripping, intense, and painful
-I like the idea that every kill matters, and Bond isn't a killing machine like Brosnan, with no regard to the consequences - every kill is a struggle, and has consequences
-The cinematography during two of the action scenes in particular - I loved the intercutting of the fight and the horses, or the fight and the opera
-The clothes - man, Tom Ford can make a well cut suit!
The girls - Fields was a little odd looking, but cute and she did her job well. Camille was great, and follows Vesper's lead as a strong, smart leading lady that can really add to the film rather than sugarcoat it
-LOVED Fields covered in oil. That was a cool throwback to Goldfinger
-M. I didn't love her performance in CR, especially in the apartment, where her reaction to Bond seemed a little over the top and, I hate to say it, acted. But Judi was PERFECT this time, really cementing this great mother-son relationship with Bond
Dislikes:
-Another Way to Die. I was embarrassed listening to it. The titles weren't horrible, they made the song a little more bearable
-The dogfight scene was cool, but it wasn't spectacular and was a little too long, and at 2 in the morning, that can be bad
-Actually, on that note, the parachuting didn't look particularly real, which took me out of the experience
-I'm not sure I actually understand why water would be that precious of a resource - I understand that you can sell it if you deprive a country of water, but it seems like oil would be more profitable
-Medrano was a little two-dimensional, but that is forgivable- he wasn't particularly important anyway, just a side character
That's all I can think of now. But I had a LOT of fun watching this film, and, until I watch it again, I'm giving it a 007/007
Just saw QOS in the midnight showing here in Nova Scotia - Canada and I have to say it was a dissapointment.
In fact it was the worse kind of dissapointment in that it wasn't a complete right off ala Moonraker but a hit and miss situation. First as far as Mick G. saying there is double the action, there wasn't. The movie clocks in at a too short 104 minutes and the lack of a good clear story and dialouge is evident. It seems that this movie was made for those who felt CR was slow and did not have enough action. Forester's direction and the co-editing is indeed noisy, brash making the movie hard to follow [Hitchcock + Coppola = Forster? lol - Think Bourne direction but not as good for with all the shakey camera work in the Bourne trilogy I could still follow them. Thank G*D Forster is not returning.].
Speaking of THE BOND SUPREMACY the foof chase though good is clearly derivative of the Bourne movies. Bond jumps from one balcony to the other side [Very cool if I hadn't seen it before].
Gemma Arterton is a waste and meets her doom via an oily homage to Goldfinger Golden girl Shirley Eaton. She's even place on the bed the same as Eaton was but where Eaton's Golden death was an unforgetable iconic film moment Arterton's is treated like an unoriginal after thought. Speaking of borrowing directly from past Bond movies, there is a chase scene that ends on a roof top ala TSWLM ["Where's Fekkesh?" Sandor] and Craig knocks his hand away from his jacket and he falls ["What a helpful chap 2008 anyone?"].
For the record I loved CR and I loved the fact that La Chiffre and Dominic Greene are not the over the top villian like the ol' days. The idea of a group like Quantum being an endless symmetric spider web like network that grow 2 new heads every time you cut off one is cool. It has to be said though where La Chiffre was cool Greene comes across as weak and unworthy of Bond[A weak script begets weak villans]. When the two finally go mano a mano it is unbeliveable that Bond doesn't finish him off in 3 seconds flat. If they had more character development [Hell they had the time?] they could have had a scene where Dominic shows off his prowess. As it stands he's not believable.
And there's the rub folks, character development was forsaken to have a shorter[The shortest]movie almost like an anti-Casino Royale. Don't get me wrong all the actors were great [Minus Gemma Arterton] but like I said in the outset overall, it was a hit and miss situation. If the character development was stronger then maybe one could forgive all the blatant Bourne/Past Bond allusions. As it is, it does not crack my top 10 like CR did.
************************************************
M - " You'll never find solace in an act of revenge 007. In the end you will become as cold as the weapons you vanquish your enemies with."
BOND - " Revenge is not my intention Mom. My methods may seem uncivilized, but I know my responsibilities are to Queen and country...not personal gain."
I saw it last night at a midnight showing, with about 200 college kida. Kid of funny a few of there were wearing Tux's.
The movie is good not great. It's great to see Bond kick a__
I thought the story was easy to follow, could have been developed better.
wish they has lost that whole airplane chase, specially the ending.
The sceen towards the end when Bond holds Camille (during the fire) is brilliant. Look at her face, you can see the youg girl who's house was burnt and sent her on this revenage mission. I found that amazing. I also loved the end.
There's no need to fear--Hardyboy is here! (With the patented Hardyboy Review, of course!)
I saw the film at a noon showing so as to avoid the kids, and as the movie ended only about an hour ago I'm still taking it in. It usually takes me a couple of viewings and a little time must pass before I can really settle on how I feel about a Bond film. The only Bond movie I walked out of in the last 25 years with solid feelings was Casino Royale, which was pretty much love at first sight. All the other films--and this includes QoS--left me with mixed feelings.
Off the top of my head, though, I'm pretty confident in saying that the critics who argue QoS isn't as good as CR are absolutely right, but those who say it's a bad film--or one that barely feels like a Bond movie--are absolutely wrong. Moreover, I'd like to personally slap each and every critic who claims this is more like Bourne than Bond. I'll repeat: Bourne goes through his movies in a state of partial amnesia, killing and kicking butt just so people will leave him alone. Bond is a man on a mission--as he says in the film, he's motivated by his duty, and he sees what his duty is even when his superiors don't. You care about Bond in a way you don't care about Bourne. Once again, Daniel Craig does an excellent job of playing Bond as a driven, no-nonsense assassin who still has a heart and a conscience. It's a good performance.
What else did I like. . .
The look of the film is beautiful. Like CR, this looks like a Terence Young Bond movie, with a documentary-like feel for crowd scenes, architecture that is old but looks lived in, and moments of exotic travelogue. What always bothered me about the Brosnan films is that they could have taken place anywhere--so far in the Craig films it looks as though locations matter.
The action is also well-handled, with the exception of the rooftop chase, which was too frenetic. I especially liked the crosscutting between the shootout/escape and the Siena horse race and between the shootout/escape and the performance of Tosca. The interplay between sophisticated entertainment and bloody battles is especially interesting, and is perhaps a commentary on our culture's tendency to make violence into entertainment. The fights are well-staged and nasty, and they all seem real. You believe this Bond can be hurt.
I really loved Camille. Not only is Olga smokin' hot to look at, I think her character is one Ian Fleming would have appreciated. She's smart and tough, and she has motivation of her own for going after a villain. In fact, her past, involving sexual and political abuse, are reminiscent of Honey Ryder's past.
The return of Mathis was a real treat--as were his scenes with Bond (really, Bond should have this much banter with Felix Leiter, who, in Jeffrey Wright's hands, is a pretty dour soul)--and his death was a real shocker. His parting words and Bond's cradling of the dying Mathis was probably the single best scene in the film.
I also appreciated some things that others didn't. I like the fact the running time was so short--with one exception (which I'll note below), I didn't feel I was cheated out of anything and I didn't think that anything was missing. The movie delivers the goods in a concentrated form, and it takes skill to do that. Some critics have griped that the movie moves too fast and that there isn't any time for character development or dialogue, and I think that's nonsense. There are several slow, leisurely scenes where you can just take in the atmosphere and follow the plot. I also thought the dialogue was good--granted, not as witty as some other films, but also not laden with groan-worthy puns. M especially gets some good lines.
As for what I didn't like. . .
Well, as much as I admired Craig's performance, I thought at times he was too reckless. OK, this quality is supposed to be important to the film, but he's too inclined to take wild and rash actions in broad daylight, right under the villains' noses, and without regard for innocent civilians. This is especially apparent early in the film, when Bond follows Camille to the docks and rescues her. Also, why in the heck does Green just allow Bond to sit there on a motorcycle observing everything that's happening? The whole sequence is implausible and possibly the weakest part of the film. I have to believe Bond would have gone back at night and tried to sneak into Greene's facility.
Greene himself was something of a disappointment. Mathieu Almaric looks creepy and he hinted at a brutal side to the character, but he just isn't on screen long enough--and he isn't seen doing enough nasty things--to create much of an impression of evil. Just once he should have had Bond in his clutches. If there was anything the movie needed to spend more time on, it was Greene.
I also found Fields to be almost entirely superfluous to the plot. Bond boinks her and she dies in a tragically ironic way, yet another sacrificial lamb in the series.
What annoyed me the most was the character of CIA agent Beam, who is yet another yahoo American who'll sell his own mother for a few drops of oil. I have to think this character was Paul Haggis's creation. Yes, we get it, Paul, Americans are greedy and stupid. Do I have to get this message in a Bond movie?
So. . .right now my feelings are a little mixed. I guess I can say I pretty well liked it, but I know that it could have and should have been better. But knowing that Bond will be back (with the gunbarrel at the start, please!) fills me with hope that the next one WILL be better.
Just got back. If "Casino Royale" deserved four and a half stars out of five, "Quantum of Solace" gets a rock solid four.
Pay no attention to the naysayers -- it's a Bond film, but it's a Bond film grown up, as well as stripped of almost all of the expository and formulaic moments we expect from seeing the 80s and 90s Bonds. The film features some of the best photography of any Bond film of the last 30 years, the cast is terrific -- especially Craig, who easily now is my second favorite Bond, very, very closely after Connery, and Wright, who is a better Leiter than anyone who's ever tackled the role, even the great Jack Lord -- the introduction of Quantum as a plausible villain organization is just what the series needs, and the title sequence and theme song work well to contemporize the movie so that it seems a retro and fresh at the same time.
I've read lots of criticism of the Bond girls in this film, which I don't quite understand. Both are capable, given what they have script wise, and stunning in a way that Bond girls haven't quite been for a while (Teri Hatcher? Rosamund Pike?). While Gemma looks model-like but isn't quite as pretty as Olga, she is the better actress -- too bad she wasn't given more time on the screen. Judi Dench is, once again, absolutely wonderful as M.
Reviewers have also faulted the script for being too difficult to follow . . . which is poppycock. All of the necessary information is onscreen in dialogue, some of it expository, though there are moments where dialogue stands in for what should have been scene (such as Bond getting Greene to tell him what he knows about Quantum). I suspect that the script is actually fuller than what we see, and for this I would fault the editing (see below).
David Arnold's score is very Bond-like, especially in the opera sequence, and both the Bond theme and the theme song are woven into his score well. This is the first Arnold score for a Bond film that seems mature and original rather than simply derivative of Barry, and I suspect that the next film, like Goldfinger, will be the one that brings all of the elements together unforgettably -- music, star, story, effects, and action.
So, what's wrong with it? The biggest offense comes in the form of the ADHD editing -- visually, some moments are almost incomprehensible because the cuts are so quick and the camera is shaky. I realize this is some Gen-X attempt to make movies for impatient Gen-Y, but it does get annoying and gives the movie a needlessly frenetic quality that no doubt has helped contribute to some audiences' poor reaction to what seems a lighter and less developed story. I also get the sense that some scenes were written but later cut to keep the film moving so quickly . . . a mistake given that the film's pacing suffers from a refusal to let the audience take a breather. I wasn't crazy about Mathis' death scene, not just because of how quickly it happens but because it is full of clumsy dialogue from what was an elegant character in both the novels and the last film. Of course, Giancarlo Gianinni gives exactly the performance necessary to make his character memorable.
The next Bond film is going to be Craig's Goldfinger -- he is not only supremely comfortable as Bond, but it's obvious that the movies are moving closer to the classic character of the Connery era . . . and for that, I am ecstatic. Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan, while all great Bonds in their own way, are nonetheless caretakers in comparison to the gravitas that Craig brings to the role. In fact, had Connery not beaten him to it, I suspect Craig would be the one that we would be measuring all of the others against.
It's good to have James Bond back.
Edit: I almost forgot to mention the production design, which finds a way to work in what is essentially a 60s-style villain's lair without it actually being a villain's lair. Good use of mid-century-modern design.
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,707MI6 Agent
Hmmmmm. Not sure if I liked this or not. It was hard to follow at some points. And some of the action scenes were to quick to figure out what was going on. I'll have to see it again. Right now it gets 2.5 stars out of 5 stars.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
Okay people we need stay with Bond and not real life politics 'Yes, we get it, Paul, Americans are greedy and stupid'. NoOnes perfect around the global play yard [The 5 top arms dealing countries in the world U.S./CHINA/U.K./RUSSIA & FRANCE facilitate more blood letting [which is greedy and stupid] than any thing on the planet. This is about BOND not foreign policy initiatives.
'Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan, while all great Bonds in their own way, are nonetheless caretakers in comparison to the gravitas that Craig brings to the role.'
Craig who is one of my favorites behind Connery & Dalton gets to bring gravitas to the role because the franchise has changed where it didn't with the 4 successors to Connery [Except for LTK which change the formula and is highly influential tone wise on the present revamp series, weather anyone wants to amit it or not]. All previous Bonds had to adopt to a precise formula template which came with a lot of baggage[Classic baggage but baggage none th less] including Characters - Q & Moneypenny, Catch Phrases - 'Bond, James Bond' & 'Shaken not Stirred', The gadgets etc. Craig minus these constraints gets to use a wider radius of his acting [Before Craig I feel that only Connery & Dalton had the range to convay a Fleming-esque version of Bond], and thus gets to truely put a unique stamp on the series. I believe if Craig stays for another 2 or 3 movies he will finally lay the Moore comedic tenure to rest. A new generation will not accept going back. It would be like the Batman series returning to the "BAM!"/"POW!" era [Which I love by the way]. This present Bond is making way too much money to turn back.
'The next Bond film is going to be Craig's Goldfinger'. Lets hope it is cause QOS was no From Russia with Love. Nuff Said!
**************************************************************************************************************************************
M - " You'll never find solace in an act of revenge 007. In the end you will become as cold as the weapons you vanquish your enemies with."
BOND - " Revenge is not my intention Mom. You may call my methods uncivilized, but know this; what I do, my burdons are for Queen and country...not personal gain."
After a long hiatus from the james bond forums, I return to share with whoever might be interested my take on Quantum of Solace.
I am a longstanding fan of this series, although I have found myself drifting away from the fandom of my younger years. Even so, I am always excited to see a new james bond film--no matter how bad it looks, or how little I know about it.
Casino Royale was a miracle film in many ways. Just take a look at the critical response, and its clear that this film will here and forever be remembered as one of the bests. What made it great were a combination of factors--an ingenious casting choice to replace Brosnan and reignite the series, a girl to rival any other, an academy-award deserved production, and of course a great script. There had never been a better time to be a fan of James Bond...at least since the 60s.
So then there's Quantum of Solace. As many critics have already said, the film doesn't even attempt to beat Casino Royale. I have heard some say that QoS had a bigger budget. If it did, I couldn't tell. The film felt small, concise, and made little progress in the development of Craig's Bond--that is, except in one major facet, which I'll get to in a moment. In essence, I felt that QoS will hold about the same place as TND did for Brosnan, or FYEO for Moore. It isn't terrible, or even necessarily disappointing. It is simply ... forgettable.
Now let me clarify: QoS is a securely BETTER film than TND. I simply have the feeling it will leave a similar lasting impression in the minds of viewers.
What makes the film forgettable? Lack of establishment. Lack of establishing action sequences, lack of establishing relationships, lack of establishing LOCATIONS, lack of establishing character goals, and lack of establishing plot. Yes, you have elements of all these things, but none of them are well ESTABLISHED. This makes character interactions uninteresting, as well as action-sequences and plot points. To me, this was the greatest flaw in the film.
The best element was the development of a relationship between Bond and M. I found all of this fascinating, and enjoyed her lectures and Bond's stubborn yet conflicted loyalty to M more than any of the action sequences in the film. Even the Vesper followup story bored me. As much as I enjoyed Casino Royale, I felt that QoS needed to stop glancing back.
I gave the film a decided thumbs up, with 3 out of 4 stars for Craig's and Dench's fine performances, and for an artful (if somewhat dizzying) production design. I'd like to see Bond 23 move into a longer, more sophisticated and self-dependent narrative. Who knows, maybe QoS will make an effective bridge between Casino Royale and another hard-hitting Bond.
It's all right. It's quite all right, really. She's having a rest. We'll be going on soon. There's no hurry, you see. We have all the time in the world.
I took the afternoon off work and went and saw QOS about 6 hours ago. I thought the film was good, not as good as CR but a good movie. The problem was that the first half of the movie I could have been watching any modern day action movie; it seemed to lack any Bondian moments/scenes. It’s hard for me to put into words, but I didn’t really feel like I was watching Bond until the middle of the movie. I think it was just to many action scenes strung to close together at the beginning of the film.
As I thought about the movie I was trying to figure out exactly what it was that I didn’t like. I enjoyed pretty much the whole movie with the exception of the title sequence and some of the editing of the early action scenes. In the end I decided that it wasn’t that I didn’t like what I saw, I just wanted more. I miss the tradition Bond.:'(
"A blunt instrument wielded by a Government department. Hard, ruthless, sardonic, fatalistic. He likes gambling, golf, fast motor cars. All his movements are relaxed and economical". Ian Fleming
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited November 2008
"'Tosca' isn't for everyone." - Mr White
B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
At the end of the movie when Bond confronts Vesper’s fiancé, do you think the details from that conversation will carry over to the next film? Was Vesper involved in the whole scheme as well and not blackmailed as everyone believed.
When M shows the picture of Vesper’s fiance’s body after washing up on shore, who was that really?
I give it 3 1/2 of 4 stars. It was a great movie but I still don't like that the drivers side is on the American side. I loved the return of the PPK but by the time they got to Bolivia I expected Bond to carry the P-99. I did love the referance to the old Bond moives, can you find them.
Bond: You don't think I enjoyed what we did this evening, do you? What I did tonight was for King and country! You don't think it gave me any pleasure, do you?
Fiona: But of course, I forgot your ego, Mr. Bond. James Bond, who only has to make love to a woman and she starts to hear heavenly choirs singing.
For as distinctive as Casino Royale was in re-defining the Bond series around the conception Ian Fleming had for both the 007 character and his world, Quantum of Solace is even more distinguishable from the traditional James Bond film. In fact, I would argue that it is perhaps the least convention-based Bond film ever. While Casino Royale’s lack of Q, Moneypenny and throwaway humor threw the critics who see every proceeding Bond film as born of the Goldfinger blueprint for a loop, Quantum of Solace takes the series’ very tone in a new direction. Here, action is faster, right and wrong is easily blurred, and we come to realize that at the core of the Bond character is a story not of vengeance, but how Bond makes peace with his profession. Such an approach produced a bold, but imperfect film that is both connected and detached from its immediate predecessor, but very much in keeping with the series’ newfound respect for Ian Fleming.
This lack of convention has left many audiences confused, I think, about the point of Quantum of Solace. Those who see this film as a revenge tale are likely to be disappointed as this film is not about revenge. Bond does wrestle with it, but decides against it because he realizes that it will not be through revenge that he gains the comfort he seeks. If there is any underlying quest throughout the course of the film, it is how Bond grows to be okay with being a professional killer. This is, without question, one of the most important elements of the Fleming novels. Fleming mentions in the Goldfinger novel that, while it is ”his duty to be as cool about death as a surgeon,“ Bond does not like to kill. As we saw in Casino Royale, Vesper opened Bond to the possibility that perhaps he would not have to live such a life anymore. Now that she is gone, Bond is challenged to realize how much she sacrificed for him, so that he can gain the peace within himself to carry out his license to kill without being filled with the ”uncontrollable rage“ M fears he has.
The best parts of Quantum of Solace are the parts that help develop this character arc. Camille’s question of “now what?” after she kills Medrano helps to emphasize the fruitless nature of revenge. Bond’s realization when confronting M at the hotel before meeting up with Leiter that he and he alone is the only person he can trust to perform the ”duty“ required to his country is a key moment in Bond’s development. The same is true for Bond’s reaction to the death of Mathis. His reaction about throwing him in a dumpster, noting that ”he wouldn’t have cared” is a testament to his fatalism towards life, an element Fleming often noted that allows Bond to be able to kill without going insane. And, perhaps most notably, the final scene in which Bond is able to control his rage with Vesper’s boyfriend, and instead, place an emphasis on preventing another loss of life in an intelligence operation by QUANTUM is when Bond finally becomes the trained killer Fleming penned and the film series so often forgot before Casino Royale.
While a real respect for Fleming clearly permeates the screenwriters’ product, true credit has to be again handed to Daniel Craig for his master work as James Bond. For me, there is little doubt that he manifests the character Fleming conceived in the novels. In Casino Royale, I had described Craig in the way Fleming described Bond, “ironical, brutal and cold“. Here, especially in the final scene with Vesper’s boyfriend, Craig possesses ”the look of controlled venom“ Fleming conceived in the You Only Live Twice novel when Bond discovers who he is after. He has taken the time to let us watch Bond grow into a more assertive, witty, and resourceful secret agent. One that is less prone to mistakes, more thoughtful, while still possessing the physical alpha male dominance that he broke ground with in Casino Royale. He is the cornerstone of this film in so many ways.
True credit should also be given to Judi Dench, who is given some of the best dialogue in the film (and some of her best in her many performances as M). Giancarlo Giannini is again wonderful as Mathis, showing off a father-like figure to Bond while helping him grasp the reality of the life he leads. And while Fields is of no real consequence to the plot, her character does provide some great entertainment value, particularly the scene posing as teachers on sabbatical who won the lottery.
Olga Kurylenko as Camille epitomizes the departure from convention that Quantum of Solace wants to show. She may have a role that is far different from that of the ”traditional Bond girl,“ but she serves an important purpose in the overall message of the story: she helps Bond see the fruitlessness in revenge. In doing so, she plays a pivotal role in Bond forgiving himself for not being able to save Vesper. Here, when Bond holds Greene in a death grip, he gets a second chance to save a woman who, because of her fear, in unable to save herself. The feeling of protection one garners from the way Bond holds Camille as the flames engulf the hotel is, I think, meant to be a direct reference to how Bond held Vesper in the shower in Casino Royale. It is a liberating moment for Bond. On a more general note, I was happy that she, unlike so many of her predecessors, did not parade her character around as a ”different“, ”modern“ Bond girl who could be ”Bond’s equal,“ while ultimately falling into the same female mold the old series’ formula established. She is the kind of girl Fleming wrote about, like a bird with ”a wing down,“ and like in Flemings novels, here Bond did not always end up with the girl. I really enjoyed what she brought to the movie.
The film’s additional pluses lie in sharp dialogue that is far more humorous than the critics who insist this film is ”no fun“ think (hats off again to Paul Haggis). The song by Jack White and Alica Keys fits the titles fairly well. I don’t see why it was necessary to get rid of Danny Klieman but the desert motif, failing bodies, and big brass sounds is reminiscent of Maurice Binder’s work on the 1970’s Bond films. Not bad. The Felix Leiter character is again solid, as is David Arnold’s score (excellent use of ”Vesper’s song“ in particular), the locations are beautifully shot by Marc Forster, who juxtaposes the rising tension in both the chase scene with Mitchell and the Opera scene with the action. And speaking of the Opera scene, it is one of the best parts of the film. Forster was able to maximize the use of the film’s many locations without losing pace, well done.
Yet surrounding these positive attributes which help to build the character arc I fleshed out above, there are some elements that keep Quantum of Solace from living up to Casino Royale’s gold standard. Quantum of Solace is far more fast-paced than Casino Royale, which by itself is not a flaw, but requires a heighted sense of attention to really get the most out of every scene. I was amazed at how much of the plot’s construction I missed in my first viewing because some person in the theater made a noise during the cab ride in Bolivia. Quantum of Solace can be a very rewarding film for a viewer, but one has to be an attentive audience member to get the most out of it. A similar critique can be made of the action scenes. While very impressive on the second go-’round, the use of the hand camera shots and frequent edits force the viewer to glue their eyes to the action to comprehend who is shooting/punching who. Again, this can be very intense and rewarding, but one has to be ready to really follow along. More substantively, Dominc Greene is an average villain. He does not offer the darkness offered by Le Chiffre or other baddies, and seems more like just another middle man rather than someone who is moving us up the QUANTUM chain. Medrano and Elvis were, too, overhyped.
In the final analysis, Quantum of Solace is an enjoyable Bond film with plenty to appreciate for those who enjoy the primacy placed on Fleming’s Bond character and his world in this ”new“ Bond series. It leaves us much to go on for future films, namely, how do the Americans and British re-act to knowing that their business deals were not with a shady environmental conglomerate but with a world-wide terror syndicate? The future of Mr. White (strange as he is the only QUANTUM member not to leave the opera, as if he did not want Bond to know he was alive), and the leader of QUANTUM are all still uncertain. What we do know however, as evidenced by the gun barrel concluding both the film and his character arc throughout the past two films, is that Ian Fleming’s (emphasis added) James Bond has finally been given his due. And through a gratifying combination of his 1950’s character with 21st century cinema, he has been given a level of respect over the past two films that is unrivaled since the film series began. An accomplishment indeed.
9/10
(As a frame of reference, I gave Casino Royale a 9.5/10)
I think QOS is a very solid outing by DC. However, I must admit that I was a bit disappointed in the script and I felt that I was watching Jason Bourne on steroids.
The action scenes were great but there was just TOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH action and not enough charachter development. Was it just me or was some of the camera work reminiscent of the Blair Witch Project?
I found it somewhat hard to follow but I will be viewing it again soon. For me, it was sensory OVERLOAD from the opening minute.
I didn't care for the gun barrell sequence at the end of the film. Although I am glad they brought it back I think they should have followed tradition and placed it at the front of the film.
I hope for #23 they go back to the Casino Royale, From Russia With Love motif. I'd like to see a thinking man's movie with SOME decent action...not all action for the entire movie...as I felt this one was.
Like I said...I enjoyed it but I just found it to be a little too much action and not enough plot development and character development.
I'd rank it in the upper half of Bond films but the apple far fell FAR away from the Casino Royale tree.
So having finally seen the film in America i can finally share my thoughts.
I seem to have the same sentiment as most here - the film was basically non-stop action. Not that I am complaining, but I could definitely have used more character development, at least on the part of Greene and maybe White.
Again - this whole M in the field thing is just being over-played... I enjoyed the meetings in the office, and I hope they can return to that in the future.
It is an enjoyable film from an action perspective, and I dont think i've ever left a film so drained!
I think DC did a good job in the role and with what he was given.
I enjoyed the large set-pieces, they had a nice bond feel to them, especially the opera with the giant eye... kinda brought me back to TSWLM and the Egypt scene, very good work.
I could have used two or three more humorous moments, that would have given it more of a Bond feel, and a little less Bourne, but I really cant complain and am in no way claiming it was just another Bourne-esque film.
On the whole, I am VERY excited for Bond 23, and I'm sure I will enjoy this film upon further viewings.
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,707MI6 Agent
edited November 2008
Just curious about something. I went to the second showing at my local theater today. Did anyone else get a QoS keychain? I also noticed small posters on the counter for QoS, but didn't pick one up.
One other thing I noticed. Even though I went to an early weekday showing, the theater I was in was quite big. But, there was only 7 people in a theater that could hold 70 to 100 people. How full were everyones elses theaters? I direct this question to the USA audience.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
Fascinating review Thomas Crown, and thank you very much for writing it. Funnily enough I liked the unanswered questions as it gives the feeling that Bond and MI6 are only now beginning to unravel the full extent of Quantum's reach. And the ending is, for me, the best of the series.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,746Chief of Staff
Off the top of my head, though, I'm pretty confident in saying that the critics who argue QoS isn't as good as CR are absolutely right, but those who say it's a bad film--or one that barely feels like a Bond movie--are absolutely wrong. Moreover, I'd like to personally slap each and every critic who claims this is more like Bourne than Bond. I'll repeat: Bourne goes through his movies in a state of partial amnesia, killing and kicking butt just so people will leave him alone. Bond is a man on a mission--as he says in the film, he's motivated by his duty, and he sees what his duty is even when his superiors don't. You care about Bond in a way you don't care about Bourne. Once again, Daniel Craig does an excellent job of playing Bond as a driven, no-nonsense assassin who still has a heart and a conscience. It's a good performance.
Cannot argue with a word of that...good review HB.
Can I stand behind you to give those critics a slap too ? )
Overall, I enjoyed the movie. I've only seen it once so far, so I have to see it again before I really form a solid opinion about it, but it was good.
I didn't enjoy the title sequence at all. It just seemed sloppy and dated. I was disappointed because I really liked Casino Royale's.
The plot of the movie didn't bother me. Greene's hoarding natural resources and extorting governments...yeah, that sounds like a Bond film. A lot of people have complained that it's not "scary" enough. Well, I think of LALD when Mr. Big's plan was to give away free heroin, or AVTAK where Zorin planned to flood silicone valley or CR where the plan was the bankrupt a villain in a poker game. QoS is like Dr. No; we meet and defeat the villian only to find out that he's a part of a much larger and more evil organization.
I can't relate to the feelings that this isn't a Bond movie. Firstly, it is. I mean, you have James Bond, Felix Leiter, M, Tanner...it IS a Bond movie. It seems like the call from Bond fans is: "No, leave Bond an outdated misogynist. Avoid any attempts at character development. Keep following the same formula for our benefit, long after the masses have grown tired of it."
Should have Bond have handled Vesper's death as the handled Tracy's? Certainly not. When Bond's looking for revenge, I give him immunity. As with LTK, I don't expect cheesy quips or the bedding of multiple women. I like Bond having feelings. Bond was looking for something inside himself (his Quantum of Solace, no doubt), and he seems to have found it.
I expect that all the worriers will realize that Bond 23 will see some elements of the traditional formula being reintroduced. As was mentioned, Bond has to earn these things.
It's a poorly made film. It's irresponsible for any director to be that careless and passive with character development. Doesn't matter if it was Spielberg, Coppola, or Kurosawa, you can't just assume the viewers know more of the plot than you give them.
Well, I went to my second viewing this afternoon. I had some cobwebs in my head last night before I entered the theater thanks to a few martinis at my local Bond bar...perhaps that is why I found it hard to follow...hahaha.
Anyway, as they say in the NFL, "Upon further review"...I think the movie was quite good. Perhaps not quite at the level of Casino Royale but very good.
The scenes with Mathis were my favorites. I also liked the development of the relationship between Bond and M. I think we find in this movie that Bond truly is motivated by his duty. Although I am sure he would have loved to have put a bullet into the head of Vesper's ex, Bond serves a purpose greater than his own desires and this sets the table for the next film and perhaps the toppling of the Quantum organization.
I enjoyed the film quite a bit more today without my martini goggles. I went with a big group last night and I...well, I made a night of it.
I'm also a huge fan of the title. I know a lot of people have scratched their heads over this but QOS was the title I had hoped for as the follow up to CR. I also read recently that Craig pushed for the title. I think it's brilliant and certainly fits into hoe the movie finds its conclusion.
Well, I saw QOS last night and I thought it was pretty decent. As others have stated, it has its flaws, but it is still a Bond movie no matter how different it may feel.
Just a couple of quick observations. No, this is NOT a Bourne film. Bourne comes across as a spoiled brat who after realizing that he needed to assassinate someone in cold blood in front of his kids, now all of the sudden wanted no part of working for his country! Bond would never do that(yes I know he did sort of in LTK, but with intentions of coming back if MI6 would let him), and the minute that plotline creeps into a Bond movie the whole series is finished! So while the filming style and "revenge" plot mimic Bourne, this is still a Bond film when all is said and done.
Other positive points are the film's great locales, great acting and a strong score by David Arnold which probably is his best of the series in that he finally injected more emotion and melody throughout almost every action cue.
I must say I was let down by the jerky camera movements, a trend that has been around for awhile but has been tiring from the beginning. Also, Dominic Greene was given nothing to do and could rank as one of the worst villians of the entire series, though it was not entirely his fault. And yes, a little more time for dialogue would have been preferred ala Casino Royale. Having said that though, QOS is one of the better action oriented Bond movies of the series, certainly better than the CGI disaster of DAD, though the shaky camera elements of QOS almost had the same effect.
Overall, I would say this movie would land in the bottom portion of the top ten for me. Based on first impressions, I would rate this film an 8.5 out of 10. It does contain a lot of memorable scenes, and goes in directions that have never been attempted before. However, record box office or not, just like after DAD it would be well advised that the powers that be at EON move Bond 23 back toward a more balanced direction, with a little more familiarity and tradition restored. If they do that and keep Craig's grittier portrayal of Bond intact, we should have the makings of another Bond classic in two or three years!
Just curious about something. I went to the second showing at my local theater today. Did anyone else get a QoS keychain? I also noticed small posters on the counter for QoS, but didn't pick one up.
One other thing I noticed. Even though I went to an early weekday showing, the theater I was in was quite big. But, there was only 7 people in a theater that could hold 70 to 100 people. How full were everyones elses theaters? I direct this question to the USA audience.
It depends on what time. For CR I went in the afternoon and it was empty. I went to a night showing of QOS and there were only two seats left when it started.
Bond: You don't think I enjoyed what we did this evening, do you? What I did tonight was for King and country! You don't think it gave me any pleasure, do you?
Fiona: But of course, I forgot your ego, Mr. Bond. James Bond, who only has to make love to a woman and she starts to hear heavenly choirs singing.
Again I think that at least the american market has gotten use to the movie Bond and frogets that there is a writen Bond. The new Bond is more like the one that Fleming wrote in his books. Cold and Deadly, it's a license to kill, not to run a comedy club. If you want comedy watch one of the Rush Hour movies.
Bond: You don't think I enjoyed what we did this evening, do you? What I did tonight was for King and country! You don't think it gave me any pleasure, do you?
Fiona: But of course, I forgot your ego, Mr. Bond. James Bond, who only has to make love to a woman and she starts to hear heavenly choirs singing.
Comments
Roger Moore 1927-2017
GOOD POINTS
Opening car chase was excellent loads of action
The bond girls were amazing the best yet
The ending of the film was just amazing all the action i loved the ending so much
Pepole will hate me for this but i have to say i really really liked another way to die i thought it wouldn't be that good but i thought wrong
BAD POINTS
Mathis dieing was so wrong i wish they never killed him off he was such a great character and i don't think he would of liked to be put in a bin bond mustn't of liked him
Fields being Covered in oil just a copy of Goldfinger ridiculous
Well there you go theres my review i may add more points when i see it another time.TND stinks now QOS is my best bond now yeah.
One question don't you think that guy who was with FELIX looked like MR.KIDD out of DAF i do.
10/10
Likes (loves, really):
-Craig
-Actually, all the acting - the performances were stellar
-The action - gripping, intense, and painful
-I like the idea that every kill matters, and Bond isn't a killing machine like Brosnan, with no regard to the consequences - every kill is a struggle, and has consequences
-The cinematography during two of the action scenes in particular - I loved the intercutting of the fight and the horses, or the fight and the opera
-The clothes - man, Tom Ford can make a well cut suit!
The girls - Fields was a little odd looking, but cute and she did her job well. Camille was great, and follows Vesper's lead as a strong, smart leading lady that can really add to the film rather than sugarcoat it
-LOVED Fields covered in oil. That was a cool throwback to Goldfinger
-M. I didn't love her performance in CR, especially in the apartment, where her reaction to Bond seemed a little over the top and, I hate to say it, acted. But Judi was PERFECT this time, really cementing this great mother-son relationship with Bond
Dislikes:
-Another Way to Die. I was embarrassed listening to it. The titles weren't horrible, they made the song a little more bearable
-The dogfight scene was cool, but it wasn't spectacular and was a little too long, and at 2 in the morning, that can be bad
-Actually, on that note, the parachuting didn't look particularly real, which took me out of the experience
-I'm not sure I actually understand why water would be that precious of a resource - I understand that you can sell it if you deprive a country of water, but it seems like oil would be more profitable
-Medrano was a little two-dimensional, but that is forgivable- he wasn't particularly important anyway, just a side character
That's all I can think of now. But I had a LOT of fun watching this film, and, until I watch it again, I'm giving it a 007/007
In fact it was the worse kind of dissapointment in that it wasn't a complete right off ala Moonraker but a hit and miss situation. First as far as Mick G. saying there is double the action, there wasn't. The movie clocks in at a too short 104 minutes and the lack of a good clear story and dialouge is evident. It seems that this movie was made for those who felt CR was slow and did not have enough action. Forester's direction and the co-editing is indeed noisy, brash making the movie hard to follow [Hitchcock + Coppola = Forster? lol - Think Bourne direction but not as good for with all the shakey camera work in the Bourne trilogy I could still follow them. Thank G*D Forster is not returning.].
Speaking of THE BOND SUPREMACY the foof chase though good is clearly derivative of the Bourne movies. Bond jumps from one balcony to the other side [Very cool if I hadn't seen it before].
Gemma Arterton is a waste and meets her doom via an oily homage to Goldfinger Golden girl Shirley Eaton. She's even place on the bed the same as Eaton was but where Eaton's Golden death was an unforgetable iconic film moment Arterton's is treated like an unoriginal after thought. Speaking of borrowing directly from past Bond movies, there is a chase scene that ends on a roof top ala TSWLM ["Where's Fekkesh?" Sandor] and Craig knocks his hand away from his jacket and he falls ["What a helpful chap 2008 anyone?"].
For the record I loved CR and I loved the fact that La Chiffre and Dominic Greene are not the over the top villian like the ol' days. The idea of a group like Quantum being an endless symmetric spider web like network that grow 2 new heads every time you cut off one is cool. It has to be said though where La Chiffre was cool Greene comes across as weak and unworthy of Bond[A weak script begets weak villans]. When the two finally go mano a mano it is unbeliveable that Bond doesn't finish him off in 3 seconds flat. If they had more character development [Hell they had the time?] they could have had a scene where Dominic shows off his prowess. As it stands he's not believable.
And there's the rub folks, character development was forsaken to have a shorter[The shortest]movie almost like an anti-Casino Royale. Don't get me wrong all the actors were great [Minus Gemma Arterton] but like I said in the outset overall, it was a hit and miss situation. If the character development was stronger then maybe one could forgive all the blatant Bourne/Past Bond allusions. As it is, it does not crack my top 10 like CR did.
************************************************
M - " You'll never find solace in an act of revenge 007. In the end you will become as cold as the weapons you vanquish your enemies with."
BOND - " Revenge is not my intention Mom. My methods may seem uncivilized, but I know my responsibilities are to Queen and country...not personal gain."
I saw it last night at a midnight showing, with about 200 college kida. Kid of funny a few of there were wearing Tux's.
The movie is good not great. It's great to see Bond kick a__
I thought the story was easy to follow, could have been developed better.
wish they has lost that whole airplane chase, specially the ending.
The sceen towards the end when Bond holds Camille (during the fire) is brilliant. Look at her face, you can see the youg girl who's house was burnt and sent her on this revenage mission. I found that amazing. I also loved the end.
I saw the film at a noon showing so as to avoid the kids, and as the movie ended only about an hour ago I'm still taking it in. It usually takes me a couple of viewings and a little time must pass before I can really settle on how I feel about a Bond film. The only Bond movie I walked out of in the last 25 years with solid feelings was Casino Royale, which was pretty much love at first sight. All the other films--and this includes QoS--left me with mixed feelings.
Off the top of my head, though, I'm pretty confident in saying that the critics who argue QoS isn't as good as CR are absolutely right, but those who say it's a bad film--or one that barely feels like a Bond movie--are absolutely wrong. Moreover, I'd like to personally slap each and every critic who claims this is more like Bourne than Bond. I'll repeat: Bourne goes through his movies in a state of partial amnesia, killing and kicking butt just so people will leave him alone. Bond is a man on a mission--as he says in the film, he's motivated by his duty, and he sees what his duty is even when his superiors don't. You care about Bond in a way you don't care about Bourne. Once again, Daniel Craig does an excellent job of playing Bond as a driven, no-nonsense assassin who still has a heart and a conscience. It's a good performance.
What else did I like. . .
The look of the film is beautiful. Like CR, this looks like a Terence Young Bond movie, with a documentary-like feel for crowd scenes, architecture that is old but looks lived in, and moments of exotic travelogue. What always bothered me about the Brosnan films is that they could have taken place anywhere--so far in the Craig films it looks as though locations matter.
The action is also well-handled, with the exception of the rooftop chase, which was too frenetic. I especially liked the crosscutting between the shootout/escape and the Siena horse race and between the shootout/escape and the performance of Tosca. The interplay between sophisticated entertainment and bloody battles is especially interesting, and is perhaps a commentary on our culture's tendency to make violence into entertainment. The fights are well-staged and nasty, and they all seem real. You believe this Bond can be hurt.
I really loved Camille. Not only is Olga smokin' hot to look at, I think her character is one Ian Fleming would have appreciated. She's smart and tough, and she has motivation of her own for going after a villain. In fact, her past, involving sexual and political abuse, are reminiscent of Honey Ryder's past.
The return of Mathis was a real treat--as were his scenes with Bond (really, Bond should have this much banter with Felix Leiter, who, in Jeffrey Wright's hands, is a pretty dour soul)--and his death was a real shocker. His parting words and Bond's cradling of the dying Mathis was probably the single best scene in the film.
I also appreciated some things that others didn't. I like the fact the running time was so short--with one exception (which I'll note below), I didn't feel I was cheated out of anything and I didn't think that anything was missing. The movie delivers the goods in a concentrated form, and it takes skill to do that. Some critics have griped that the movie moves too fast and that there isn't any time for character development or dialogue, and I think that's nonsense. There are several slow, leisurely scenes where you can just take in the atmosphere and follow the plot. I also thought the dialogue was good--granted, not as witty as some other films, but also not laden with groan-worthy puns. M especially gets some good lines.
As for what I didn't like. . .
Well, as much as I admired Craig's performance, I thought at times he was too reckless. OK, this quality is supposed to be important to the film, but he's too inclined to take wild and rash actions in broad daylight, right under the villains' noses, and without regard for innocent civilians. This is especially apparent early in the film, when Bond follows Camille to the docks and rescues her. Also, why in the heck does Green just allow Bond to sit there on a motorcycle observing everything that's happening? The whole sequence is implausible and possibly the weakest part of the film. I have to believe Bond would have gone back at night and tried to sneak into Greene's facility.
Greene himself was something of a disappointment. Mathieu Almaric looks creepy and he hinted at a brutal side to the character, but he just isn't on screen long enough--and he isn't seen doing enough nasty things--to create much of an impression of evil. Just once he should have had Bond in his clutches. If there was anything the movie needed to spend more time on, it was Greene.
I also found Fields to be almost entirely superfluous to the plot. Bond boinks her and she dies in a tragically ironic way, yet another sacrificial lamb in the series.
What annoyed me the most was the character of CIA agent Beam, who is yet another yahoo American who'll sell his own mother for a few drops of oil. I have to think this character was Paul Haggis's creation. Yes, we get it, Paul, Americans are greedy and stupid. Do I have to get this message in a Bond movie?
So. . .right now my feelings are a little mixed. I guess I can say I pretty well liked it, but I know that it could have and should have been better. But knowing that Bond will be back (with the gunbarrel at the start, please!) fills me with hope that the next one WILL be better.
Pay no attention to the naysayers -- it's a Bond film, but it's a Bond film grown up, as well as stripped of almost all of the expository and formulaic moments we expect from seeing the 80s and 90s Bonds. The film features some of the best photography of any Bond film of the last 30 years, the cast is terrific -- especially Craig, who easily now is my second favorite Bond, very, very closely after Connery, and Wright, who is a better Leiter than anyone who's ever tackled the role, even the great Jack Lord -- the introduction of Quantum as a plausible villain organization is just what the series needs, and the title sequence and theme song work well to contemporize the movie so that it seems a retro and fresh at the same time.
I've read lots of criticism of the Bond girls in this film, which I don't quite understand. Both are capable, given what they have script wise, and stunning in a way that Bond girls haven't quite been for a while (Teri Hatcher? Rosamund Pike?). While Gemma looks model-like but isn't quite as pretty as Olga, she is the better actress -- too bad she wasn't given more time on the screen. Judi Dench is, once again, absolutely wonderful as M.
Reviewers have also faulted the script for being too difficult to follow . . . which is poppycock. All of the necessary information is onscreen in dialogue, some of it expository, though there are moments where dialogue stands in for what should have been scene (such as Bond getting Greene to tell him what he knows about Quantum). I suspect that the script is actually fuller than what we see, and for this I would fault the editing (see below).
David Arnold's score is very Bond-like, especially in the opera sequence, and both the Bond theme and the theme song are woven into his score well. This is the first Arnold score for a Bond film that seems mature and original rather than simply derivative of Barry, and I suspect that the next film, like Goldfinger, will be the one that brings all of the elements together unforgettably -- music, star, story, effects, and action.
So, what's wrong with it? The biggest offense comes in the form of the ADHD editing -- visually, some moments are almost incomprehensible because the cuts are so quick and the camera is shaky. I realize this is some Gen-X attempt to make movies for impatient Gen-Y, but it does get annoying and gives the movie a needlessly frenetic quality that no doubt has helped contribute to some audiences' poor reaction to what seems a lighter and less developed story. I also get the sense that some scenes were written but later cut to keep the film moving so quickly . . . a mistake given that the film's pacing suffers from a refusal to let the audience take a breather. I wasn't crazy about Mathis' death scene, not just because of how quickly it happens but because it is full of clumsy dialogue from what was an elegant character in both the novels and the last film. Of course, Giancarlo Gianinni gives exactly the performance necessary to make his character memorable.
The next Bond film is going to be Craig's Goldfinger -- he is not only supremely comfortable as Bond, but it's obvious that the movies are moving closer to the classic character of the Connery era . . . and for that, I am ecstatic. Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan, while all great Bonds in their own way, are nonetheless caretakers in comparison to the gravitas that Craig brings to the role. In fact, had Connery not beaten him to it, I suspect Craig would be the one that we would be measuring all of the others against.
It's good to have James Bond back.
Edit: I almost forgot to mention the production design, which finds a way to work in what is essentially a 60s-style villain's lair without it actually being a villain's lair. Good use of mid-century-modern design.
'Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan, while all great Bonds in their own way, are nonetheless caretakers in comparison to the gravitas that Craig brings to the role.'
Craig who is one of my favorites behind Connery & Dalton gets to bring gravitas to the role because the franchise has changed where it didn't with the 4 successors to Connery [Except for LTK which change the formula and is highly influential tone wise on the present revamp series, weather anyone wants to amit it or not]. All previous Bonds had to adopt to a precise formula template which came with a lot of baggage[Classic baggage but baggage none th less] including Characters - Q & Moneypenny, Catch Phrases - 'Bond, James Bond' & 'Shaken not Stirred', The gadgets etc. Craig minus these constraints gets to use a wider radius of his acting [Before Craig I feel that only Connery & Dalton had the range to convay a Fleming-esque version of Bond], and thus gets to truely put a unique stamp on the series. I believe if Craig stays for another 2 or 3 movies he will finally lay the Moore comedic tenure to rest. A new generation will not accept going back. It would be like the Batman series returning to the "BAM!"/"POW!" era [Which I love by the way]. This present Bond is making way too much money to turn back.
'The next Bond film is going to be Craig's Goldfinger'. Lets hope it is cause QOS was no From Russia with Love. Nuff Said!
**************************************************************************************************************************************
M - " You'll never find solace in an act of revenge 007. In the end you will become as cold as the weapons you vanquish your enemies with."
BOND - " Revenge is not my intention Mom. You may call my methods uncivilized, but know this; what I do, my burdons are for Queen and country...not personal gain."
I am a longstanding fan of this series, although I have found myself drifting away from the fandom of my younger years. Even so, I am always excited to see a new james bond film--no matter how bad it looks, or how little I know about it.
Casino Royale was a miracle film in many ways. Just take a look at the critical response, and its clear that this film will here and forever be remembered as one of the bests. What made it great were a combination of factors--an ingenious casting choice to replace Brosnan and reignite the series, a girl to rival any other, an academy-award deserved production, and of course a great script. There had never been a better time to be a fan of James Bond...at least since the 60s.
So then there's Quantum of Solace. As many critics have already said, the film doesn't even attempt to beat Casino Royale. I have heard some say that QoS had a bigger budget. If it did, I couldn't tell. The film felt small, concise, and made little progress in the development of Craig's Bond--that is, except in one major facet, which I'll get to in a moment. In essence, I felt that QoS will hold about the same place as TND did for Brosnan, or FYEO for Moore. It isn't terrible, or even necessarily disappointing. It is simply ... forgettable.
Now let me clarify: QoS is a securely BETTER film than TND. I simply have the feeling it will leave a similar lasting impression in the minds of viewers.
What makes the film forgettable? Lack of establishment. Lack of establishing action sequences, lack of establishing relationships, lack of establishing LOCATIONS, lack of establishing character goals, and lack of establishing plot. Yes, you have elements of all these things, but none of them are well ESTABLISHED. This makes character interactions uninteresting, as well as action-sequences and plot points. To me, this was the greatest flaw in the film.
The best element was the development of a relationship between Bond and M. I found all of this fascinating, and enjoyed her lectures and Bond's stubborn yet conflicted loyalty to M more than any of the action sequences in the film. Even the Vesper followup story bored me. As much as I enjoyed Casino Royale, I felt that QoS needed to stop glancing back.
I gave the film a decided thumbs up, with 3 out of 4 stars for Craig's and Dench's fine performances, and for an artful (if somewhat dizzying) production design. I'd like to see Bond 23 move into a longer, more sophisticated and self-dependent narrative. Who knows, maybe QoS will make an effective bridge between Casino Royale and another hard-hitting Bond.
As I thought about the movie I was trying to figure out exactly what it was that I didn’t like. I enjoyed pretty much the whole movie with the exception of the title sequence and some of the editing of the early action scenes. In the end I decided that it wasn’t that I didn’t like what I saw, I just wanted more. I miss the tradition Bond.:'(
B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
When M shows the picture of Vesper’s fiance’s body after washing up on shore, who was that really?
Fiona: But of course, I forgot your ego, Mr. Bond. James Bond, who only has to make love to a woman and she starts to hear heavenly choirs singing.
For as distinctive as Casino Royale was in re-defining the Bond series around the conception Ian Fleming had for both the 007 character and his world, Quantum of Solace is even more distinguishable from the traditional James Bond film. In fact, I would argue that it is perhaps the least convention-based Bond film ever. While Casino Royale’s lack of Q, Moneypenny and throwaway humor threw the critics who see every proceeding Bond film as born of the Goldfinger blueprint for a loop, Quantum of Solace takes the series’ very tone in a new direction. Here, action is faster, right and wrong is easily blurred, and we come to realize that at the core of the Bond character is a story not of vengeance, but how Bond makes peace with his profession. Such an approach produced a bold, but imperfect film that is both connected and detached from its immediate predecessor, but very much in keeping with the series’ newfound respect for Ian Fleming.
This lack of convention has left many audiences confused, I think, about the point of Quantum of Solace. Those who see this film as a revenge tale are likely to be disappointed as this film is not about revenge. Bond does wrestle with it, but decides against it because he realizes that it will not be through revenge that he gains the comfort he seeks. If there is any underlying quest throughout the course of the film, it is how Bond grows to be okay with being a professional killer. This is, without question, one of the most important elements of the Fleming novels. Fleming mentions in the Goldfinger novel that, while it is ”his duty to be as cool about death as a surgeon,“ Bond does not like to kill. As we saw in Casino Royale, Vesper opened Bond to the possibility that perhaps he would not have to live such a life anymore. Now that she is gone, Bond is challenged to realize how much she sacrificed for him, so that he can gain the peace within himself to carry out his license to kill without being filled with the ”uncontrollable rage“ M fears he has.
The best parts of Quantum of Solace are the parts that help develop this character arc. Camille’s question of “now what?” after she kills Medrano helps to emphasize the fruitless nature of revenge. Bond’s realization when confronting M at the hotel before meeting up with Leiter that he and he alone is the only person he can trust to perform the ”duty“ required to his country is a key moment in Bond’s development. The same is true for Bond’s reaction to the death of Mathis. His reaction about throwing him in a dumpster, noting that ”he wouldn’t have cared” is a testament to his fatalism towards life, an element Fleming often noted that allows Bond to be able to kill without going insane. And, perhaps most notably, the final scene in which Bond is able to control his rage with Vesper’s boyfriend, and instead, place an emphasis on preventing another loss of life in an intelligence operation by QUANTUM is when Bond finally becomes the trained killer Fleming penned and the film series so often forgot before Casino Royale.
While a real respect for Fleming clearly permeates the screenwriters’ product, true credit has to be again handed to Daniel Craig for his master work as James Bond. For me, there is little doubt that he manifests the character Fleming conceived in the novels. In Casino Royale, I had described Craig in the way Fleming described Bond, “ironical, brutal and cold“. Here, especially in the final scene with Vesper’s boyfriend, Craig possesses ”the look of controlled venom“ Fleming conceived in the You Only Live Twice novel when Bond discovers who he is after. He has taken the time to let us watch Bond grow into a more assertive, witty, and resourceful secret agent. One that is less prone to mistakes, more thoughtful, while still possessing the physical alpha male dominance that he broke ground with in Casino Royale. He is the cornerstone of this film in so many ways.
True credit should also be given to Judi Dench, who is given some of the best dialogue in the film (and some of her best in her many performances as M). Giancarlo Giannini is again wonderful as Mathis, showing off a father-like figure to Bond while helping him grasp the reality of the life he leads. And while Fields is of no real consequence to the plot, her character does provide some great entertainment value, particularly the scene posing as teachers on sabbatical who won the lottery.
Olga Kurylenko as Camille epitomizes the departure from convention that Quantum of Solace wants to show. She may have a role that is far different from that of the ”traditional Bond girl,“ but she serves an important purpose in the overall message of the story: she helps Bond see the fruitlessness in revenge. In doing so, she plays a pivotal role in Bond forgiving himself for not being able to save Vesper. Here, when Bond holds Greene in a death grip, he gets a second chance to save a woman who, because of her fear, in unable to save herself. The feeling of protection one garners from the way Bond holds Camille as the flames engulf the hotel is, I think, meant to be a direct reference to how Bond held Vesper in the shower in Casino Royale. It is a liberating moment for Bond. On a more general note, I was happy that she, unlike so many of her predecessors, did not parade her character around as a ”different“, ”modern“ Bond girl who could be ”Bond’s equal,“ while ultimately falling into the same female mold the old series’ formula established. She is the kind of girl Fleming wrote about, like a bird with ”a wing down,“ and like in Flemings novels, here Bond did not always end up with the girl. I really enjoyed what she brought to the movie.
The film’s additional pluses lie in sharp dialogue that is far more humorous than the critics who insist this film is ”no fun“ think (hats off again to Paul Haggis). The song by Jack White and Alica Keys fits the titles fairly well. I don’t see why it was necessary to get rid of Danny Klieman but the desert motif, failing bodies, and big brass sounds is reminiscent of Maurice Binder’s work on the 1970’s Bond films. Not bad. The Felix Leiter character is again solid, as is David Arnold’s score (excellent use of ”Vesper’s song“ in particular), the locations are beautifully shot by Marc Forster, who juxtaposes the rising tension in both the chase scene with Mitchell and the Opera scene with the action. And speaking of the Opera scene, it is one of the best parts of the film. Forster was able to maximize the use of the film’s many locations without losing pace, well done.
Yet surrounding these positive attributes which help to build the character arc I fleshed out above, there are some elements that keep Quantum of Solace from living up to Casino Royale’s gold standard. Quantum of Solace is far more fast-paced than Casino Royale, which by itself is not a flaw, but requires a heighted sense of attention to really get the most out of every scene. I was amazed at how much of the plot’s construction I missed in my first viewing because some person in the theater made a noise during the cab ride in Bolivia. Quantum of Solace can be a very rewarding film for a viewer, but one has to be an attentive audience member to get the most out of it. A similar critique can be made of the action scenes. While very impressive on the second go-’round, the use of the hand camera shots and frequent edits force the viewer to glue their eyes to the action to comprehend who is shooting/punching who. Again, this can be very intense and rewarding, but one has to be ready to really follow along. More substantively, Dominc Greene is an average villain. He does not offer the darkness offered by Le Chiffre or other baddies, and seems more like just another middle man rather than someone who is moving us up the QUANTUM chain. Medrano and Elvis were, too, overhyped.
In the final analysis, Quantum of Solace is an enjoyable Bond film with plenty to appreciate for those who enjoy the primacy placed on Fleming’s Bond character and his world in this ”new“ Bond series. It leaves us much to go on for future films, namely, how do the Americans and British re-act to knowing that their business deals were not with a shady environmental conglomerate but with a world-wide terror syndicate? The future of Mr. White (strange as he is the only QUANTUM member not to leave the opera, as if he did not want Bond to know he was alive), and the leader of QUANTUM are all still uncertain. What we do know however, as evidenced by the gun barrel concluding both the film and his character arc throughout the past two films, is that Ian Fleming’s (emphasis added) James Bond has finally been given his due. And through a gratifying combination of his 1950’s character with 21st century cinema, he has been given a level of respect over the past two films that is unrivaled since the film series began. An accomplishment indeed.
9/10
(As a frame of reference, I gave Casino Royale a 9.5/10)
The action scenes were great but there was just TOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH action and not enough charachter development. Was it just me or was some of the camera work reminiscent of the Blair Witch Project?
I found it somewhat hard to follow but I will be viewing it again soon. For me, it was sensory OVERLOAD from the opening minute.
I didn't care for the gun barrell sequence at the end of the film. Although I am glad they brought it back I think they should have followed tradition and placed it at the front of the film.
I hope for #23 they go back to the Casino Royale, From Russia With Love motif. I'd like to see a thinking man's movie with SOME decent action...not all action for the entire movie...as I felt this one was.
Like I said...I enjoyed it but I just found it to be a little too much action and not enough plot development and character development.
I'd rank it in the upper half of Bond films but the apple far fell FAR away from the Casino Royale tree.
I seem to have the same sentiment as most here - the film was basically non-stop action. Not that I am complaining, but I could definitely have used more character development, at least on the part of Greene and maybe White.
Again - this whole M in the field thing is just being over-played... I enjoyed the meetings in the office, and I hope they can return to that in the future.
It is an enjoyable film from an action perspective, and I dont think i've ever left a film so drained!
I think DC did a good job in the role and with what he was given.
I enjoyed the large set-pieces, they had a nice bond feel to them, especially the opera with the giant eye... kinda brought me back to TSWLM and the Egypt scene, very good work.
I could have used two or three more humorous moments, that would have given it more of a Bond feel, and a little less Bourne, but I really cant complain and am in no way claiming it was just another Bourne-esque film.
On the whole, I am VERY excited for Bond 23, and I'm sure I will enjoy this film upon further viewings.
One other thing I noticed. Even though I went to an early weekday showing, the theater I was in was quite big. But, there was only 7 people in a theater that could hold 70 to 100 people. How full were everyones elses theaters? I direct this question to the USA audience.
Cannot argue with a word of that...good review HB.
Can I stand behind you to give those critics a slap too ?
I'll hold both your coats
I was watching Transporter the other day, thinking, "This is rather like Bourne...."
I didn't enjoy the title sequence at all. It just seemed sloppy and dated. I was disappointed because I really liked Casino Royale's.
The plot of the movie didn't bother me. Greene's hoarding natural resources and extorting governments...yeah, that sounds like a Bond film. A lot of people have complained that it's not "scary" enough. Well, I think of LALD when Mr. Big's plan was to give away free heroin, or AVTAK where Zorin planned to flood silicone valley or CR where the plan was the bankrupt a villain in a poker game. QoS is like Dr. No; we meet and defeat the villian only to find out that he's a part of a much larger and more evil organization.
I can't relate to the feelings that this isn't a Bond movie. Firstly, it is. I mean, you have James Bond, Felix Leiter, M, Tanner...it IS a Bond movie. It seems like the call from Bond fans is: "No, leave Bond an outdated misogynist. Avoid any attempts at character development. Keep following the same formula for our benefit, long after the masses have grown tired of it."
Should have Bond have handled Vesper's death as the handled Tracy's? Certainly not. When Bond's looking for revenge, I give him immunity. As with LTK, I don't expect cheesy quips or the bedding of multiple women. I like Bond having feelings. Bond was looking for something inside himself (his Quantum of Solace, no doubt), and he seems to have found it.
I expect that all the worriers will realize that Bond 23 will see some elements of the traditional formula being reintroduced. As was mentioned, Bond has to earn these things.
I was very disappointed.
Anyway, as they say in the NFL, "Upon further review"...I think the movie was quite good. Perhaps not quite at the level of Casino Royale but very good.
The scenes with Mathis were my favorites. I also liked the development of the relationship between Bond and M. I think we find in this movie that Bond truly is motivated by his duty. Although I am sure he would have loved to have put a bullet into the head of Vesper's ex, Bond serves a purpose greater than his own desires and this sets the table for the next film and perhaps the toppling of the Quantum organization.
I enjoyed the film quite a bit more today without my martini goggles. I went with a big group last night and I...well, I made a night of it.
I'm also a huge fan of the title. I know a lot of people have scratched their heads over this but QOS was the title I had hoped for as the follow up to CR. I also read recently that Craig pushed for the title. I think it's brilliant and certainly fits into hoe the movie finds its conclusion.
Just a couple of quick observations. No, this is NOT a Bourne film. Bourne comes across as a spoiled brat who after realizing that he needed to assassinate someone in cold blood in front of his kids, now all of the sudden wanted no part of working for his country! Bond would never do that(yes I know he did sort of in LTK, but with intentions of coming back if MI6 would let him), and the minute that plotline creeps into a Bond movie the whole series is finished! So while the filming style and "revenge" plot mimic Bourne, this is still a Bond film when all is said and done.
Other positive points are the film's great locales, great acting and a strong score by David Arnold which probably is his best of the series in that he finally injected more emotion and melody throughout almost every action cue.
I must say I was let down by the jerky camera movements, a trend that has been around for awhile but has been tiring from the beginning. Also, Dominic Greene was given nothing to do and could rank as one of the worst villians of the entire series, though it was not entirely his fault. And yes, a little more time for dialogue would have been preferred ala Casino Royale. Having said that though, QOS is one of the better action oriented Bond movies of the series, certainly better than the CGI disaster of DAD, though the shaky camera elements of QOS almost had the same effect.
Overall, I would say this movie would land in the bottom portion of the top ten for me. Based on first impressions, I would rate this film an 8.5 out of 10. It does contain a lot of memorable scenes, and goes in directions that have never been attempted before. However, record box office or not, just like after DAD it would be well advised that the powers that be at EON move Bond 23 back toward a more balanced direction, with a little more familiarity and tradition restored. If they do that and keep Craig's grittier portrayal of Bond intact, we should have the makings of another Bond classic in two or three years!
It depends on what time. For CR I went in the afternoon and it was empty. I went to a night showing of QOS and there were only two seats left when it started.
Fiona: But of course, I forgot your ego, Mr. Bond. James Bond, who only has to make love to a woman and she starts to hear heavenly choirs singing.
Fiona: But of course, I forgot your ego, Mr. Bond. James Bond, who only has to make love to a woman and she starts to hear heavenly choirs singing.