Where to begin? I didn’t really see the point of putting the gunbarrel at the end of the film. Wasn’t the whole point of Casino Royale’s ending that he has now become Bond? I wasn’t really happy when I first heard about Casino Royale’s gunbarrel being moved, but when I actually saw the film I loved the way it was used. It wasn’t the same case this time. At least Casino’s pre-titles had the quirky black and white aspect going for them; Quantum’s opening just makes it feel like a generic action movie. A shame too, as that first tracking shot of the lake is beautiful, and I think would have looked great coming out of the white dot of the gunbarrel. I wasn’t overly impressed the design either. Craig’s walk was perfectly fine, but the actual barrel just looked a bit generic and didn’t have the same striking impact of Binder’s original or Kleinman’s Casino Royale redesign. It looked like the sort of thing you see in Bond parodies or shoddy Bond merchandise. Hopefully in Bond 23 Kleinman replaces it with something a bit more iconic (or just reverts to one of the previous designs, either of which I’d be happy with).
The pre-title sequence had the potential to be great, but was let down by the shakey-cam in the car chase. I usually don’t mind shakey-cam that much – it didn’t bother me in Cloverfield, and while I haven’t seen much of the Bourne films I don’t remember having much of a problem with it. Here it just gave me a headache, and I found myself just begging for it to be over. The fact that it’s probably the first thing you see in the film makes it all the worse. The ending is great however, and elicited a laugh from the entire cinema when we saw Mr. White in the boot.
The opening credits were… alright, I guess. Some very good ideas, and the colour scheme was quite beautiful, but it just too… slow. It didn’t really fit with the music at all, and while the illusion that of it all being done in one “take” (as opposed to cutting to different angles) was a neat idea, the constant moving all over the place of the POV just made me feel a bit nauseous after a while. I did like the use of the sand motif, but the way it just meandered slowly around reminded me of some of Binder’s more uninspired title sequences from the 80s. I thought the image of Bond was way overused; again, reminded me of the way Binder’s later titles used to just stick those same clips of Moore in again and again. Casino Royale’s titles managed to use Bond’s silhouette in various different, dynamic ways – in Quantum of Solace’s it just felt like the same pose over and over again.
I did like the font they used though, it was a nice break from the usual and reminded me of the more unique credits in the older title sequences. On the whole I’m not overly impressed by MK12’s work – it’s perfectly decent, but has nothing on the originality and often breathtaking imagery of Daniel Kleinman’s work. One thing I did really like were the title cards used in each location – they were really unique and captured the feel of the location quite well, I dunno, I like little quirks like these. Particular they way the actually seemed to be part of the landscape, it reminded me a lot of the episode titles in Heroes.
Onto the film itself. One thing I was struck by early on was how based in reality it was. As much as Casino Royale was touted as a more realistic Bond film, compared to Quantum of Solace it really just feels like another escapist Bond adventure. Don’t get me wrong, Casino Royale is a superior film by far, but the realism in this film was quite refreshing (just as it was in Casino after the Brosnan films). Everything, from the increased swearing (which I liked simply because I know it’ll annoy the prudish fans), to surprising amount of political themes and ambiguity – just felt so unBondian. Of course, I can see exactly why people wouldn’t like this film for this exact reason, but once I got used to it I came to really enjoy it. The second thing I was shocked by was the darkness – I wasn’t expecting it to exactly be a Moore outing, but I was surprised at just how dark it got – particularly in Camille’s backstory and Dominic Greene’s final fate (which I loved). The political undertones in particular were a huge shock to me; I really enjoyed the CIA subplot, and like everything else wish it had been developed more.
Plotwise the film is good, if a bit sketchy. While it’s nice that they didn’t spoonfeed the plot to the audience, a tad more exposition would have been nice, particularly as to Greene and Mr. White’s actual status in the organisation and the final details of Greene’s scheme. The inconsequential nature of Greene’s scheme didn’t really bother me, denying people water (which they need to, you know, live) seems pretty bloody nasty to me. Sorry, but I don’t see how the fact it’s happening in Bolivia makes it less threatening – surely the people of Bolivia not getting any water is just as bad as say, England, not getting any. Plus the plot would hardly have the same impact in a first world country. In any case, I think simply trying to overthrow a peaceful leader and replace him with a corrupt rapist (in what would probably be a pretty bloody coup) is a good enough scheme in itself for a Bond villain; the water thing is just the icing on the cake.
Daniel Craig is definitely one of the best things about this film, and I find myself liking his portrayal of Bond more and more. Not just in the dramatic scenes, but in the humorous ones as well – he gets a surprising amount of Bondian one liners in this film, far more than Casino Royale (where he had plenty of funny lines, but they weren’t one-liners as such).The “she’s seasick” line feels like it’s right out of a Connery film. Judi Dench I’m liking more and more as M; she’s one of the few characters who isn’t shafted by the short running time. I particularly like how we keep getting glimpses of her personal life; first the phone call while she’s in bed in Casino Royal, and now the rather bizarre scene where’s she’s applying facial cream. Rory Kinnear as Tanner is… alright I guess. It’s nice to see another Fleming character, but I honestly preferred Villiers and as this interpretation of Tanner basically seems like a Villiers clone I didn’t really see the point in the change.
Camille is a great Bond girl, refreshingly different from Vesper, and I was shocked at the emotional depth of Olga Kurlenko’s performance – she was very average in Hitman, though I’m sure the fact that Hitman was
e also had something to do with that. Gemma Arterton was very good in her precious little screentime, and her banter with Bond was nice bit of comic relief, and one of my favourite moments in the film. It’s a shame she just seems to disappear between the party and her death. It was nice to see Mathis again, but he felt a bit wasted – he appears, travels with Bond for a few scenes, and then dies. Felix’s expanded role was a nice surprise however, though I’m not a massive fan Jeffrey Wright’s portrayal – his Felix doesn’t seem to have much of a personality beside clichéd Jack Lord-esque “coolness”. His corrupt superior Beam was a much more interesting and amusing character, I’d actually like to see him return in a future film; either as a henchman of one of the villains or as a morally ambiguous Zukovsky-esque ally.
Dominic Greene is a fantastic villain; slimy, evil and slightly pathetic, but in a good way. I don’t think he was as underused as some people say; he certainly was a lingering presence throughout the film, but like almost all of the characters in Quantum, really deserved some more screen time to flesh out the character and establish him as a truly nasty bastard. Mathew Almaric’s performance however lifts the character above the lack of screen time and manages to make a memorable villain.
I wish I could say the same for the woefully underused Elvis; who appears in about three scenes, has about four lines and has one of the most anti-climatic deaths in the franchise. A huge shame, as in the few scenes he is in he seems like a profoundly weird person, and could have made a really memorable henchman. When Anatole Taubman was first cast, I was happy that it seemed QoS would have a more involved henchman, which is something I thought Casino Royale lacked (whilst Dimitrios, Obano, etc were good characters, they weren’t “henchmen” as such) – but at least Le Chiffre’s nameless goons got to hurt Bond a bit and rip that chip out of his arm, Elvis does… well, nothing really, besides stand around looking creepy. And what exactly is the point of giving him a wacky name if it isn’t even mentioned on screen (as far as I can recall). Medrano is not given nearly enough screen-time either, which is odd considering he is probably one of the most important characters in the film – both in his role in Camille’s backstory and in Greene’s scheme. Yet, as far as I can remember, he only appears in the boat chase scene and the climax.
And that brings me to Quantum of Solace’s fatal flaw – the short running time. If Casino Royale’s only flaw was it is too long (though on my last viewing the length didn’t bother me at all), Quantum of Solace’s was that it is far too short. When the 106 minute running time was first announced, I said a film should be as long as it needs to be – however, Quantum needed to be longer. There are too many loose ends (and not in the good way), and the length just feels unnatural – its obvious stuff has been cut out of the script. I got the same feeling I get when I watch a film that’s been adapted from a novel where stuff has been cut for time but nothing has been put in to bridge the gaps – what should be major characters appear for only a couple of scenes and certain plot details are only sketchily explained. Whilst I was impressed that despite this the film still manages to focus quite strongly on character, and contrary to what other people have said I feel Bond got a decent amount of character development, many of the characters just don’t appear enough to make much of an impact.
There were some moments that didn’t quite make sense to me because of this – in particular, Fields tripping Elvis during the party – was it on purpose, was it a genuine accident? The scene is never expanded on or explained. I think the film really needed an extra twenty minutes or so devoted to developing the characters (particularly Fields, Medrano and Elvis) and clarifying the plot a tad more. I really don’t understand why Marc Forster was so adamant on the shorter running time – it really feels unnatural, it makes the film far more action-orientated than it should be, and kinda defeats the purpose of hiring the man in the first place; which was, as I recall, to focus on action. Whilst it’s nice that the producers decided to let the director have more free reign, this is one occasion where they should have put their put down and forced him to keep certain scenes in (the fact that a lot has been cut out feels jarringly obvious at times). Hopefully much of this stuff was cut cut out during post-production, and not during filming, and we could possibly get an extended edition released on DVD.
And that’s the odd thing about Marc Forster – he really is the best and worst thing about Quantum of Solace. On one hand, his actual direction is amazing, probably the best ever seen in a Bond film – the film is beautifully shot, and it seems like he was great at working with the actors – the aforementioned performance of Olga Kurlenko is particular stands out for me. On the other hand, the short running really does bring the film down, and the early action scenes are atrocious. Dan Bradley’s Bourne-esque style is a world away from Forster’s, and as a result the often headache inducing second unit work does not seem to mesh at all with Forster’s direction. Admittedly, it’s really only the first two action sequences and the fight in Slate’s apartment that suffer from this, after that the action seems to get a lot more bearable and less shakey-cam, and the Opera scenes and the finale in particular are stunning.
This is also probably one of the least sexiest Bond films. Bond only sleeps with one girl (which admittidly happened in TLD as well, but as that was much more of a love story it didn't really matter), and we don't even see much of that... just a snippet of the aftermath. In fact the closest we get to a sex scene is the rape scene near the end, which is probably the furthest thing from sexy. I dunno why it bothers me, considering my favourite bond is the rather sexless Timothy Dalton, but I guess it's because while Dalton's lack of womanising is one of the things I like about his portrayal, one of the key elements of Craig's Bond is that he IS a shameless womaniser. I understanding he's sill hung up on Vesper, but I think I better way of portraying that would have actually been to show him having a few meaningless flings.
Despite this, there is plenty to like about Quantum of Solace. The opera scene has already been mentioned quite a bit, but is really is an amazing scene – unlike anything scene in Bond before, and definitely Quantum of Solace’s finest moment. The interrogation scene very well executed as well, helped by Jesper Christensen’s performance as Mr. White – the hyena like laugh of his is incredibly creepy. I was surprised that he not only escaped the interrogation, but survived the entire movie. I think I’m probably one of the few people who loved the finale as well – it seemed far more coherent than a lot of the earlier action scenes, the two fights were both very tense and I fought Bond comforting Camille in the fire was a genuinely heart-warming moment – though one wonders why he didn’t just drag her out of there instead of just sitting there with her in a burning building.
Dominic Greene’s fate is probably the cruellest (and one of the coolest) ever given to a Bond villain – the fact his death isn’t even shown actually makes it more effective, as I found myself continually thinking about his last hours in the desert. I was shocked at just how nasty and disturbing it was, and it’s probably one of the few times I’ve actually felt sorry for a Bond villain. I also liked the way Mathis death scene was handled; it could have turned out embarrassingly bad, but Craig’s performance elevates it above that (I shudder to think what it would have been like with Brosnan). Didn’t quite understand him dumping the body in a dumpster though, and the codename thing felt like a pointless addition. Other scenes I of note were Bond’s drunken conversation with Mathis on the plane, and Bond and Camille chat in the sinkhole. I thought the ending with Bond confronting Vesper's lover was great. I was not expecting it at all and it was a very satisfying conclusion to the film.
In fact, apart from the first two action sequences, there is very little I didn’t like in what we actually saw on screen in Quantum of Solace. The worst part of about the film is what we didn’t see – but almost everything onscreen is great. Great villains, great Bond girls, beautiful direction, an interesting plot and a few truly amazing scenes – but none of it is developed enough. Quantum of Solace is a good film, but it had the potential to be a great one, and that is what is so damn frustrating about it.
7/10
Edited by Cyclone49, 22 November 2008 - 01:11 AM.