was actually prescient. So I waited (besides, Zen had already started a thread like that so far be it from me to surpass my masters). I went to see DAD again a week later and then just like that, the heavens cleared and it hit me: I was like “An ICE PALACE? Really? DNA Transplant Therapy? Really? A space laser beam construced in less than 14 months by a White Punk With A Title who just last year was an Asian Punk With A Napoleon Complex? Really? Halle Berry playing a 10-year old boy with breasts? Really?” Well, let’s just say that Paolo may have eventually turned out to be a schmuck, but I will love him always for helping me maintain some perspective during that critical time. And thank you, Zen, for writing that thread. I am your bitch for life now. But I digress. Flash forward back to 2008. So with that in my mind, I was like, “What would Paolo say now? Hmmm….. Maybe I should see QOS again so I won’t be inadvertently praising a POS.” Well, I dragged my current boy-toy Flynn (Italians are hot, but my real weakness are stocky sandy-blond Irishmen so shoot me) to QOS again. By the way, Flynn loved QOS the first time, and was all in favor of me writing a “QOS: Best Bond Movie Ever?” thread. The problem is he also loved ARMAGEDDON. And BAD BOYS. And THE ROCK. And WAR. And (dear God) CON AIR. (Yes, in case you’re wondering, I’m just dating him for sex and because he’s a dead ringer for Russell Crowe – it sure isn’t because of his taste in films) With his suspect taste in films haunting me, I drug Flynn yet again to the cinemas and we subjected ourselves again to 106 minutes of QOS.
And guess what? Like a couple of skanks who just can’t get slapped around enough, WE LOVED IT!!!!!
First, let me add that I can really understand why this film would put a lot of people off. The rapid-fire action scenes, the quick cuts, the lack of rumpy-pumpy with the leading lady, the alleged absence of character moments, the artsy-farty touches like the fonts and the intercutting of action at the Opera and in Siena, the lack of other Bondian touches like “Shaken, not stirred” or “Bond, James Bond.” But in my mind, these elements lent an unconventional angle to a film that was supposed to stand apart from the crowd anyway because it is the first real sequel in the series – and to the reboot, no less, which in its own way was rewriting the rules. This just continues in QOS.
Let me discuss these elements:
1. The Rapid-Fire Action Scenes:
Yes, they moved very fast. But guess what? For the first time in a Bond film, I SMILED each time Bond scored a point against his aggressors (like dropping that hot Blond Quantum Bodyguard off the Opera house roof – who was that actor anyway? Yummy.). I SMIRKED each time his opponent got a bitch-slap, literally and figuratively (like in the PTS when Bond finally gets a grip on his weapon and fires on his pursuers right after they clear the truck and they go a-flying off the edge. Booyah, bitches). I JUMPED at certain points (like Slate bursting out of the bedroom to attack Bond in Haiti). Now, mind you, this is all subjective. One person’s visceral action scene is another person’s Motion Sickness Nightmare. I guess I’m just a pain freak.
2. The Quick Cuts
Didn’t mind these either, because they made the pace go faster. A lot of this ties into the action scenes, so all I can say is that, as with the first item, I thought that they benefited the film by making it lean and brisk. A rolling stone gathers no moss, and a quick-moving film keeps you from falling asleep. Besides, QOS is at its core a Hitchcockian chase film. Accordingly, we can’t have Bond lolly-gagging and smelling the roses. A man-on-the-run film has to, itself, be on-the-run. Also, we have to remember that QOS is the final chapter of CR. A rolling stone moves much faster when it is getting to the bottom of the slope – tbe end of its journey. Same with QOS: it’s the last part of duo-ology, so it has to move like a bullet.
3. Lack of Rumpy-Pumpy with the Leading Lady
Okay, yes. I’m all for Daniel Craig showing some skin just as much as the next nymphomaniac. Hell, even educated, sophisticated, classy women (READ: Not Kristian) like NBC Today Show’s Ann Curry are reduced to asking Danny Boy such erudite questions like, “Pant. Pant. Drool. Do you show your swimming trunks in this one, too? Pant. Slobber. Pant.” But in this case, it would not have been appropriate for him to take Camille “around the world.” He was emotionally damaged. She was emotionally damaged. Yes, you can argue that Hate Sex is one of the best kinds, but not in this case. Timing is everything when it comes to seduction, and frankly these two were too much on the same grim wavelength to stop and play hide the sausage. They would’ve hurt each other and wound up at Bolivian E.R. It also lent a fresh angle to the normally predictable relationship arcs between Bond and his main lady.
I can understand Bond’s dalliance with Fields. It’s just realistic – he’s a man and if I have learned one thing in this life, it’s that men are controlled by their penises. At some point (probably every five minutes) a man will need to empty out his nutsac otherwise he just can’t function. I firmly believe all the catastrophes, disasters, and tragedies in human history were started somehow by men who weren’t getting any. So who can blame Bond for plowing the Fields ? (couldn’t resist). If he hadn’t, he would’ve been walking around in circles in the Bolivian desert and never finished his mission. And I guarantee you that if he hadn’t slept with Strawberry at the hotel, there’s no way Camille would’ve gotten out of that sinkhole without finding out who her real daddy is.
4. The Alleged Absence of Character Moments.
This is definitely untrue. Reminds me of a friend who is a screenwriter who, in his early days, would write scripts where the action stops dead-cold so that the characters can share their life stories At. Great. Length. This, to him, was characterization. He didn’t understand then that Character is Action. Action is Character. We are defined more by what we do, and less by what we say - which is usually bullsh!t anyway. Everything we do matters – even the little things. Bond’s stubborn relentlessness can be chalked up to maybe wanting to avenge a loved one and also a prideful desire not to be punked. Fields’ officiousness melting into complicity can be chalked up to a girl who probably is afraid she will not be taken seriously for her beauty, youth, and unconventional name so she overplays that “all-business” angle, but is easily disarmed by charm – and disappointed at herself for her weakness. Camille’s shock at Bond’s seemingly casual disposal of Mathis touches on the Latin/Spanish tight-knit sense of family and clan – especially since her whole life has become about avenging hers. Her reaction in the fire at the end shows the terrified little girl still hiding underneath the façade of a confident and aggressive young woman. In many ways, she will always be that little girl. Leiter’s cool disavowal of Bond on the plan hints at a reservoir of loyalty under that ambiguous façade. Dominic’s genuine disappointment at Camille’s betrayal coupled with his story about the iron and the girl from his teenage years hint at a needy man who is easily enraged by any hint of treachery. Gemma glancing up at Mathis after asking for him to rub oil into her skin, and realizing, in some way, that it (and other things) will not be. And there are scores of others that could easily be missed if not watched for and though about.
And that’s without talking about the actual moments were the characters do sit down and share life stories. But what’s great about QOS is that even these exchanges are brisk and – here’s the word – concentrated. These scenes are pared down to their essentials. No fat, no overstaying of welcomes, no indulging of egos. Regarding emotion, this is the first Bond film wherein I had tears in my eyes during several exchanges: Bond and Mathis at the villa (by the way, Mathis’s girlfriend Gemma is a hoot and effectively put Mathis in his place like the assertive Italian chick that she is – go, girl). Bond and Mathis on the plane (“Why did you come with me?”). Bond on Mathis on the street with Camille looking on (“We have to forgive each other.”). In fact, it’s almost as if Bond and Mathis have a platonic romance of their own (thank God, too, because I don’t think I could handle a nude Giancarlo Giannini, much as I love him – even I have limits), and watching it get played out is one of the real pleasures (and tragedies) of this film. Then there’s Bond and Camille in the plane, in the desert getting ready, in the SUV at the end, and more poignantly, in the Sinkhole – that shot of Bond’s hand and Camille’s grasping it spoke volumes. I must note that the first time we saw QOS, right at the sinkhole scene, this fat dip[censored] next to us got up and squeeeeeeeeezed his way through to get to the bathroom, therefore ruining my first taste of that beautiful scene. I could’ve strangled the f@cker. I also get the sense with Bond and Camille’s parting that they have some, ahem, “unfinished business” between them, hopefully to be explored in future movie. There’s also the numerous scenes between M and Bond, which is another platonic romance in a film full of platonic romances (Bond-Mathis, Bond-Camille, Bond-Leiter). Their dynamic is wonderful, and it is almost a shame that we probably won’t see as much of it in the next film, as M will probably be confined to the start and end of the movie as before.
Finally, there’s the scene with Corinne and Yusef in Russia. Wonderful, wonderful scene. A nice sense of closure as Bond acknowledges his loss of a good woman, and makes right his disavowal of her by saving another good woman from the same fate. Too bad they didn’t show Yusef getting the bitch-slapping he most surely got. (M: Is he alive? BOND: Yes, but he has a coat rack shoved up his azz.)
If QOS is wall-to-wall action, then remember that Action is Character. Character is Action...
5. Intercutting Between Opera and Siena Horse Race.
Loved these touches for the following reasons:
A. They were new and different.
B. They drew parallels between Bond’ s actions and The World’s actions
Bond chasing Mitchell is a race that echoes the race going on above their heads….
The cloak-and-dagger skullduggery onstage at the Opera is a mirror of the actual mayhem and menace occurring right in the same building for real. Art imitates life imitates art imitates life….
And the fonts for the locations were unexpected – and therefore cool. These location tags are so commonplace that no one really pays any attention to them. By changing from place to place, they caused the audience (well, Flynn and I anyway) to sit up with anticipation each time the locale changed. But then again, we’re just starry-eyed like that. (Too much vodka).
6. Lack of Bondian touches.
Oh. What. Ever. There were Bondian touches everywhere. It’s just that the most obvious and cheesy ones (like ‘Shaken Not Stirred’ and “Bond, James Bond”) were not appropriate for the bleak, grim tone of this outing. Folks act like that by simply not including them this time means THEY WILL NEVER BE INCLUDED EVER AGAIN. Each film is a different from its predecessor (even ones that are strongly linked like CR and QOS). Their absence was something that wasn’t too jarring given that content of QOS, and in my opinion, they don’t really detract from the film.
SUMMARY:
If I were to write a quick synop and blurb on QOS it would go something like this.
QUANTUM OF SOLACE: (2008) Director: Marc Forster. Cast: Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Judi Dench, Mathie Amalric, Giancarlo Giannini, Gemma Arterton.
Sleek, fast-paced follow-up to CASINO ROYALE in which Bond (Craig) traces the source of that film’s events (and the suicide of his lover Vesper) to a shadowy, sinister organization called QUANTUM – a nefarious entity with tentacles everywhere. On the run from both the CIA and MI-6, his sleuthing takes him to Haiti, Italy, Austria, and Bolivia – where he ultimately teams up with a complex, enigmatic femme named Camille (Kurylenko) who has her own vendetta to fulfill. Unexpectedly artful touches, sharp dialogue, dynamic set-pieces, and some potent moments between the characters lend visceral depth to what might have been another action extravaganza. Wonderfully atypical entry into the Bond canon cements Craig as the best incarnation of the super-spy since Sean Connery.
***1/2 out ****
Meow…..
P.S. Am I the only one who find Gregory Beam (David Harbour) utterly and ineffably HOT???? Love that mustasche. I confided this to a colleague just now, and she looked at me like I said I wanted to play Twister with her father wearing nothing but Neutrogena Body Oil.
Edited by Kristian, 18 November 2008 - 07:27 PM.
