Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Quantum of Solace - Dark Horizons review.


18 replies to this topic

#1 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 20 October 2008 - 03:17 PM

I would say this is more positive than negative. :(




The twenty-second Bond film arrives amidst huge expectations and it is a curious work, with some stunning set pieces amidst a flurry of extraneous action scenes. This would be the first time in the franchise's history that a Bond film be a direct sequel to its predecessor, "Casino Royale", itself a strong adaptation of the Fleming novel.

However, insisting on taking the character on an extended journey from 'Royale', screenwriters Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis have concocted a rather dark and sinister tale and a consistently darker interpretation of the character that was never part of either the Fleming basis of the character or previous interpretations from Sean Connery to Timothy Dalton. Craig's 007 is a little lighter in tone than in 'Royale' but his thirst for revenge plays havoc with an iconic character who, in 'Solace', is very grim. Of course the Bond films have never been about character development, and this one is no exception.

The film opens with a frenetic car chase through the back streets of Sienna, Italy and while it opens with a bang, not a whimper, its fast cutting visual approach employed by director Marc Forster doesn't serve the film that well. One has the distinct feeling that the opening is a generic action film and takes some time for it to settle into a Bond-like rhythm. Once it does so, "Quantum of Solace" evolves into a fine work, offering some verbal drollery that "Casino Royale" lacked.

There are some stunning set pieces in 'Solace' that prove what a formidable filmmaker Forster is, including a collage sequence during the staging of an opera which is beautifully done, counterbalancing the tragedy of that Puccini opera with gun play between Bond and those that make up this secret Quantum organization that Bond is trying to pull down.

There is an extraordinary mid-air chase sequence which is breathtaking, and cinematographer Roberto Schaefer, a frequent collaborator of Forster's, knows how to shoot in the film's disparate locations, accentuating a striking visual tone for the major locales that range from Haiti to earthly browns that represent Bolivia. Sharply edited by Matt Chesse, who cut many of Forster's films including the likes of Kite Runner and Finding Neverland, edits with precision, and Forster's direction is crisp.

Clocking in well under two hours, the shortest Bond film in years, one wonders how much was cut as the film's narrative seems to be less fluid than in 'Royale' and other Bond films, but Forster does elicit first rate performances from the fabulous Mathieu Amalric who makes for an interesting, complex villain, and the luminous Olga Kurylenko who is a very different Bond girl from what we are used to.

"Quantum of Solace" is visually striking and moves at a frenetic pace, but its over abundance of action sequences detract from a fluidity that is needed. Ardent fans of 007 will long for a return of a more charming, humorous Bond, but then the Connery films are in a league of their own. The film's title song is also mediocre and seems to suggest that the franchise caters for a young audience without really doing justice to Fleming's creation.

'Solace' is not a bad film by any means; it's energetic, entertaining and looks stunning. One hopes that moving forward the franchise develops the sly sense of humour that beautifully defined the earlier films. "Quantum of Solace" is a superb action film but only a 'good' Bond movie.



#2 NATO Sub

NATO Sub

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 182 posts
  • Location:Scotland

Posted 20 October 2008 - 03:33 PM

I am starting to wonder if all the reviewers were shown the same movie..!

Craig's 007 is a little lighter in tone than in 'Royale'

...offering some verbal drollery that "Casino Royale" lacked.



#3 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 20 October 2008 - 03:55 PM

Always goes to show what critics consider typical for Bond.

#4 QuantumM66

QuantumM66

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 60 posts
  • Location:resides at an MI6 safe-house in Helsinki, Finland

Posted 20 October 2008 - 04:03 PM

http://www.darkhoriz...s08/081020e.php

The reviewer/reporter does a lot of Hollywood
interviews, for example to Dark Horizons website,
whose first QOS review this is (that is, before
webmeister Garth Franklin reviews it himself).

This review gives me the impression that Mister
Fischer would've wanted QOS to be longer.

Well. The jury's definitely out on this one.

Unless Daniel Craig would be as good as he is
in the film - and no reviewer so far has disputed
that - QOS is fast garnering a rep as perhaps the
most controversial Bond movie
since LTK in
1989. Pretty amazing, but as hardcore 007 fans, I
think we can live with that, huh?

Personally, I welcome a radical departure like
this one.

Edited by QuantumM66, 20 October 2008 - 04:05 PM.


#5 Qwerty

Qwerty

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 85605 posts
  • Location:New York / Pennsylvania

Posted 20 October 2008 - 08:09 PM

[Moderator's Note: Topics merged]

#6 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 20 October 2008 - 08:14 PM

concocted a rather dark and sinister tale and a consistently darker interpretation of the character that was never part of either the Fleming basis of the character or previous interpretations from Sean Connery to Timothy Dalton.

is the reviewer suggesting that Pierce Brosnan's take on Bond was dark? Clearly the reviewer has never read Fleming either (YOLT comes to mind).

#7 supernova

supernova

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 209 posts

Posted 20 October 2008 - 08:47 PM

"'Solace' is not a bad film by any means; it's energetic, entertaining and looks stunning. One hopes that moving forward the franchise develops the sly sense of humour that beautifully defined the earlier films. "Quantum of Solace" is a superb action film but only a 'good' Bond movie."


This sounds a little silly considering we are on Bond 22!

#8 Mister E

Mister E

    Resigned

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPip
  • 2160 posts

Posted 20 October 2008 - 08:48 PM

concocted a rather dark and sinister tale and a consistently darker interpretation of the character that was never part of either the Fleming basis of the character or previous interpretations from Sean Connery to Timothy Dalton.

is the reviewer suggesting that Pierce Brosnan's take on Bond was dark? Clearly the reviewer has never read Fleming either (YOLT comes to mind).



Did he also just say that Fleming's Bond was never dark ? DOCTOR NO ? LIVE AND LET DIE ? None of the Bond films have been as gritty as those two books.

#9 ForMathis

ForMathis

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 214 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 20 October 2008 - 08:59 PM

Don't read, you'll just flame me (GB):

Spoiler


#10 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 20 October 2008 - 09:06 PM

Don't read, you'll just flame me (GB):

Spoiler


you may be right. maybe.

#11 Tarl_Cabot

Tarl_Cabot

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10505 posts
  • Location:The Galaxy of Pleasure

Posted 20 October 2008 - 09:10 PM

"superb action film but only a 'good' Bond film?" I'll take that after 4 consecutive films, or 7 years from Brosnan era mediocredy.

A "good" Bond film is all this fan wants. :( I never expected this series to shut out the Oscars.

#12 double o ego

double o ego

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1261 posts
  • Location:London, England

Posted 22 October 2008 - 02:53 PM

Honest and fair review. However, anyone expecting another actor to recapture the sly charisma of Connery, you'll be waiting eons (pun intended).

#13 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 22 October 2008 - 02:57 PM

Yes, it's all the more exciting.

#14 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 30 October 2008 - 07:09 AM

"'Solace' is not a bad film by any means; it's energetic, entertaining and looks stunning. "Quantum of Solace" is a superb action film but only a 'good' Bond movie."


Again and again and again...

... all these reviewers want the Bond films to become like they were.

If QOS is considered a superb action film then it just does what a good Bond movie should do.

#15 Royal Dalton

Royal Dalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4542 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 02:42 PM

... all these reviewers want the Bond films to become like they were.

If QOS is considered a superb action film then it just does what a good Bond movie should do.


What does "like they were" mean? Does it mean fantastical villains with some physical abornmality? Bond Girls with slightly sexually degrading names? Invisible cars and futuristic gadgets? I'm not sure we can go back to that time and that place, and I don't think I want to either.

Invisible cars aside, I think we can. And now would be a good time to do it.

#16 Royal Dalton

Royal Dalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4542 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 03:24 PM

Bond films don't have to be uber-real. Fleming's books weren't. They had Pussy Galore and all the rest of it.

With a serious Bond like Craig, you can have megalomaniacal villains and outrageous plots and he'll anchor it in reality. Just as Connery did in the early days.

As Craig said last night: "He's very much Bond now, and we can do anything. Submarine bases, here we come!"

#17 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 30 October 2008 - 03:30 PM

Invisible cars aside, I think we can. And now would be a good time to do it.


Why though? Why now? We've just established Craig as Bond and now we're thinking of bringing more humor and fantasy back into the series? I don't see Craig going along with that. I dont' see Craig being able to pull off a "Christmas comes more than once a year" type joke.

Oh please, Gravity. Do you make leaps of logic on purpose just to provoke longer threads?

I'm sure Royal Dalton wasn't suggesting they also bring back bad writing. There were no 'Christmas comes' clunkers in the early films, but there was still the fantasy factor.

#18 Jet Set Willy

Jet Set Willy

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 195 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 03:31 PM

I agree with Gravity. Why turn the Bond films back to farcical, comedy-routine moments again. I'm loving this new change in 007.

#19 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 03:33 PM

Yep. Whenever the series goes dark, people kick up a fuss. I don't get it.