The loathers have preconceptions about what a Bond film should be, and if The New Bond doesn’t meet the standards, it fails the test. I can understand this. It’s fair. When someone wants or expects a particular product and doesn’t receive it (QOS is NOT like any Bond film to come before it), then they have every right to be disappointed.
What’s unacceptable are the claims that QOS is somehow a P.O.S. It’s not. It is what it is, and sh’t it ain’t.
I didn’t like the titles sequence at all. Although I enjoy the titles song enough on its own merit, I don’t think it suits Bond or QOS at all. What’s more, I don’t think it suits the titles sequence at all, and I don’t think the titles sequence suits Bond or QOS at all. To my eyes and ears, it was four minutes of total dysfunction.
And so passes the nadir of the film. The only thing I can give a definitive
to, though I have a few nitpicks regarding some of the handling of the action:I loved the infamous ‘quick editing’ during the car chase, but after that it seemed unnecessary to me. I found its application a little frustrating during the rope swinging battle, and totally ridiculous during the catacomb chase scene prior. It wasn’t really needed during the boat battle either, which I found to be the least visually understandable sequence of the film. Obviously Bond has taken a cue from That Other Spy Series© and I do hope that it is a salute and not a commitment to follow. Personally, I’ve seen enough of it. I think it’s a fad nearing the end of its welcome, and that it undermines the hard work of the stunt choreographers and stuntmen.
Also, I think they took Bond’s invincibility just one small step too far. I love me an indomitable Bond when the setting calls for it, and if there ever was a Bond actor who could sell it, it’s Craig, but I think with the amount of realism the film attests to, Bond is too close to immortal. Believe it or not, I was totally fine with his roof-jumping, rope swinging and plane diving. It’s when a handcuffed and closely guarded Bond disables three agents (who must know his penchant for physical defiance) in an elevator that my suspension of disbelief is broken. It’s as if I’ll believe anything when it’s Bond against nature, but when he’s pitted against his own type – ie. ‘humans’ - his prowess can only be exaggerated so much. Is that weird?
But, end the Bourne comparisons there. This is not Jason Bourne part 4: The Bourne Influence.
Those are the negatives. Which leaves everything else:
The acting was stupendous; every face is worthy of attention even, and sometimes especially, during moments between dialogue.
Bond’s relationships are real. Every. Single. One. And this is made all the more amazing considering the film’s short running time. The M-Bond relationship gets the award for ‘most improved’. There is finally something there which I can sink my teeth into (without hurting my fillings). The Mathis-Bond relationship is very interesting as their conversations dance around the specifics of the past, and their final moment together is cold and hard, tender and heartfelt, all at once. I seem to remember reading complaints from other members regarding this scene. I’d browse their reviews trying to avoid spoilers, so I never got to the meat of their arguments, but I cannot comprehend the existence of any rational complaint. For all of the deaths Bond has had on his hands (other than Vesper’s) no other in the series comes close to reaching the character depths of Mathis’. As for the Felix-Bond relationship – well, this is a tease. Bond-Felix will have a trilogy of their own. In CR, the agents are introduced and a friendship is sparked. In QOS, it is tested. I am confident that in Bond 23, we will see it established. Can anybody remember any Bond film with as many significant relationships? (Careful not to confuse relationships with mere interactions.) And in the light of so much depth, his emotionally vacant exploit with the vacantly-named Agent Fields (wink, wink) develops its own sense of poignancy, where, in the past, the off-screen meaning behind Bond’s empty relationships was as empty as the on-screen relationships themselves.
The visuals, including Camille and Fields, were luscious, and I loved the artsy introductions to each locale.
Dark Bondian humor – my favorite kind of Bondian humor - is prevalent, and I think has grown even more mature since Casino Royale. Nods to the previous films are sometimes obscure, sometimes obvious, but at all times handled expertly. At last, we’ve figured out how to honor Bond’s (worthy) history with tact and grace.
Additional indication that Bond is growing up are the subtitles for the Non-English dialogue. A nice touch.
Greene is smarm incarnate, and is not underused. He’s used as much as previous Bond villains, only minus the long exposition in which every detail of a fairly simply and narrow-minded plot is painstakingly revealed to us, the audience, via Bond. Personally, I didn’t miss it. Not to mention that Greene lives up to his promise of being a cheap and frighteningly wild foe in combat. Steel-toed boots recommended.
Finally, the Algerian bo’ plot revelation was very satisfying, although it felt a little tacked on and epilogue-like. I’d rather it have been incorporated into the film. I’ll make sure that I see it done that way when I direct a Bond film.
In conclusion:
QoS is a thrilling, visually ground-breaking (decidedly ground shattering for Bond, and to some extent probably probing new territories for cinema as a whole) and welcomed addition to the series.
I feel comfortable saying Quantum of Solace is the first Bond film EVER that can claim to be thematic. Yes, Bond has tinkered with the themes of trust, revenge or guilt before, but they were always treated as passing add-ons that would emerge periodically on an ad-hoc basis as the scene suited. Never before have we seen them woven into the structure of a film, subtly and powerfully. After leaving the film I felt that not only had I been treated to a high-wire, taught and stylish action experience, I also felt that I had been delivered a message that was never physically spoken.
Unless I’m mistaken, that’s something only good movies are able to do.
