30 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

Hmmmm...

Quantum Of Solace Review
By Jim Hall

Daniel Craig returns as James Bond in the hotly anticipated sequel to Casino Royale
When Casino Royale closed with a vengeful Daniel Craig looming over a man connected to the death of Bond's girlfriend, it instantly became the greatest of 007 finales - a brilliant climax to a movie which reinvented the Bond franchise by subverting most of its sacred laws. But could the series keep it up?

It's the precedent set by Casino Royale that gives Quantum Of Solace its biggest problems. It can't go back to the comforting style of the older films, but if it distances itself from them much further, it will stop being recognisably Bond at all. This results in an unsatisfying compromise; a thriller that feels embarrassed to be a Bond movie instead of revelling in glamour and action.

The plot has Bond (Craig) and M (Dench) uncovering the existence of a powerful criminal syndicate, responsible for the death of Bond's lover Vesper (Eva Green). Bond is immediately off the leash, whacking anyone with even the faintest link to the group before he's had a chance to question them. This is turned into a running joke and the pithy comments from M eventually undercut the grim intensity displayed in Craig's kamikaze Bond.

Sure, the villain has a psychotic henchman, there are Bond girls and the showdown is at a hi-tech complex in a remote locale, but all these are treated with the sniffy reluctance one would expect from Brian Sewell judging a charity watercolour contest.

More is needed to remind audiences of why Vesper - only glimpsed here in a Polaroid snap - was this important to Bond. She is, we must assume, the reason why the grumpy action man isn't up to his usual bed-hopping form. 007 only gets to sink the Bismarck once, with lightweight government girl Agent Fields (Arterton), and this is so perfunctory as to appear one step up from seeing Bond shuffle off to the bathroom with a copy of 'Razzle'. If that sounds glib it's because this scene pussyfoots around a golden chance to show an unpleasant truth about Bond's attitude towards women, both in general but more specifically, bearing in mind his experiences in the previous movie.

The Bond films are such collaborative enterprises that it's difficult to blame the shortcomings on any one department, but director Marc Forster (responsible for emotional dramas such as Finding Neverland and The Kite Runner), who was brought in specifically to lend the series his own touch, seems fatally uncomfortable with action scenes.

The film still has plenty of explosive thrills, but these are lumped together, bookending the movie as if to clear the way for a narrative which is happiest delivering low-octane exposition when it could really use a big set-piece every 15 minutes.

In the vital roles of Bond girl and Bond villain, Olga Kurylenko plays revenge-driven Camille and Mathieu Amalric is phoney philanthropist Dominic Greene. Both do sterling work in parts that feel deliberately truncated in case, heaven forbid, anyone should mistake this for a 007 adventure.

The film's ending makes it clear there's still a concluding chapter to come, but doesn't bother imparting the news with any great sense of urgency. If there was really such a determination to break with the past, this would have been the perfect time to give the Bond films their first genuine cliffhanger. Even Judy Dench hissing, "No... I am your father" would have sufficed.

Verdict
A good thriller but the whole package is underwhelming, and no matter what changes are introduced to the franchise, underwhelming is something a Bond movie should never be.

http://www.channel4....age=1#reviewnav

[marktmurphy]

Sounds reasonable- the cliffhanger idea is a good one.
I wonder how long before the reviewer gets mauled and insulted here because he didn't give a 100% glowing review?

[stamper]

Pretty fair assessment to the movie. I agree with this guy. Don't start firing shots at me

[SecretAgentFan]

"The film still has plenty of explosive thrills, but these are lumped together, bookending the movie as if to clear the way for a narrative which is happiest delivering low-octane exposition when it could really use a big set-piece every 15 minutes."

So, this reviewer thinks that there is not enough action during the narrative?

Also, he is clearly one of those who want Bond films to be totally formulaic (and probably hated the old ones for being formulaic).

This does not mean that I´m against this reviewer because he did not like the film 100 per cent. It just means that I question his judgment, based on the inconsistencies of his perspective.

Maybe this is the time to clear the air.

While people hooked on the negativity of some reviews complain about those who question the reviews for their merit, some dismiss those who do not like QOS. Both attitudes are not okay. If I gave the impression of being one of the latter I apologise.

Yet, I prefer those reviewers who appreciate QOS for being non-formulaic, who don´t utter Pawlowian-like comparisons to "BOURNE!BOURNE!" and who basically are open-minded towards what the new Bond era tries to achieve.

[sharpshooter]

Is it that these reviewers think that there is too much action, or it is not done well? I would gladly accept a lot of action scenes if they were done well.

[marktmurphy]

Also, he is clearly one of those who want Bond films to be totally formulaic (and probably hated the old ones for being formulaic).

No- he makes it clear that he thinks the film ends up as an uncertain compromise between the old and new. He's describing what he believes the end product has turned out to be rather than how he wishes it had been made; stop trying to put words in his mouth.

[SecretAgentFan]

Also, he is clearly one of those who want Bond films to be totally formulaic (and probably hated the old ones for being formulaic).

No- he makes it clear that he thinks the film ends up as an uncertain compromise between the old and new. He's describing what he believes the end product has turned out to be rather than how he wishes it had been made; stop trying to put words in his mouth.

I´m not trying to put words in his mouth.

Consider this:

"It can't go back to the comforting style of the older films, but if it distances itself from them much further, it will stop being recognisably Bond at all. This results in an unsatisfying compromise; a thriller that feels embarrassed to be a Bond movie instead of revelling in glamour and action."

QOS seems to distance itself from the older films (just like CR did). This reviewer, however, claims that more distance will lead to no recognisable Bond at all. - Hence, my claim, that this reviewer does not favor a fresh approach. Instead, the reviewer considers the new approach a mistake. But just because the Craig Bond era tries to do things differently does not mean that it won´t be Bondian anymore. Bondian means it can comprise more than the known clichés.

Also, a film cannot feel embarrassed. It´s the reviewer´s interpretation. And this one comes from the perspective: the more QOS strays from the formula the less it is a Bond film.

[Royal Dalton]

He misspelt Judi Dench's name, so he obviously didn't understand the film. Probably didn't even really see it, etc.

[HildebrandRarity]

I wonder how long before the reviewer gets mauled and insulted here because he didn't give a 100% glowing review?

...or how long before the HilderbrandRarities come out and say "perhaps they could have had a few extra minutes here and there for character, non-action plot and dialogue..."

And how long after that that the ZorinIndustries come out and say "the movie is as long or as short as it needs to be to tell the story efficiently..."

[Dell Deaton]

Pretty fair assessment to the movie. I agree with this guy. Don't start firing shots at me

Ditto.

[Zorin Industries]

I wonder how long before the reviewer gets mauled and insulted here because he didn't give a 100% glowing review?

...or how long before the HilderbrandRarities come out and say "perhaps they could have had a few extra minutes here and there for character, non-action plot and dialogue..."

And how long after that that the ZorinIndustries come out and say "the movie is as long or as short as it needs to be to tell the story efficiently..."

1 hour and 8 minutes. And I still fail to see how a better told story is not preferable to padding out a film unnecessarily?

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

I'm starting to get fairly worried

[HildebrandRarity]

I wonder how long before the reviewer gets mauled and insulted here because he didn't give a 100% glowing review?

...or how long before the HilderbrandRarities come out and say "perhaps they could have had a few extra minutes here and there for character, non-action plot and dialogue..."

And how long after that that the ZorinIndustries come out and say "the movie is as long or as short as it needs to be to tell the story efficiently..."

1 hour and 8 minutes. And I still fail to see how a better told story is not preferable to padding out a film unnecessarily?

...but you don't know if "a little more" dialoge and character development would not make a "better story told", do you, my dear Zorin?

Neither of us has seen this movie...but by many accounts, including this chap and stamper, the film could have used a bit more of character development. 3 or 5 minutes worth. Not an extra 30 minutes simply for the purpose of "padding out" the affair.

There IS a happy medium some where. Non?

[Zorin Industries]

I wonder how long before the reviewer gets mauled and insulted here because he didn't give a 100% glowing review?

...or how long before the HilderbrandRarities come out and say "perhaps they could have had a few extra minutes here and there for character, non-action plot and dialogue..."

And how long after that that the ZorinIndustries come out and say "the movie is as long or as short as it needs to be to tell the story efficiently..."

1 hour and 8 minutes. And I still fail to see how a better told story is not preferable to padding out a film unnecessarily?

...but you don't know if "a little more" dialoge and character development would not make a "better story told", do you, my dear Zorin?

Neither of us has seen this movie...but by many accounts, including this chap and stamper, the film could have used a bit more of character development. 3 or 5 minutes worth. Not an extra 30 minutes simply for the purpose of "padding out" the affair.

There IS a happy medium some where. Non?

I fail to see how an extra 3 or 5 minutes of anything would add a film more character development. I also find Stamper's views odd to say the least. He damns the film and assumes everyone else will then says how a now deleted minute's worth of footage would have changed his mind, when a) he doesn't know what that footage is and his fickle take on SOLACE is only underlined when makes such statements.

[HildebrandRarity]

I fail to see how an extra 3 or 5 minutes of anything would add a film more character development.

Adding or taking away 3 to 5 minutes can, indeed, make a difference to one or two characters' backstory and motivations.

Perhaps they actually took away a minute here and two minutes there to make the movie "better" from their point of view. So, maybe, they think they have a cracker of movie.

I'm hoping it is a cracker.

Fingers crossed.

[kneelbeforezod]

Also, he is clearly one of those who want Bond films to be totally formulaic (and probably hated the old ones for being formulaic)

If you can read that review and conclude that all he wants is for Bond films to be totally formulaic, then you're just not being fair.

It's a perfectly reasonable review from someone that didn't quite love the film. I know you're not necessarily doing it, but I'm getting sick of how every mildly critical review gets dismissed by fans.

We have to just accept that while no individual review is perfect, taken collectively, a lot of people just aren't connecting with this film.

And it, who cares? There's still every chance we will love it.

I also find Stamper's views odd to say the least. He damns the film and assumes everyone else will then says how a now deleted minute's worth of footage would have changed his mind, when a) he doesn't know what that footage is and his fickle take on SOLACE is only underlined when makes such statements.

Yes I have to say I agree with that. If Stamper's right, and the mere adding of a "cliffhanger" ending would rescue the film and make it CR quality, then frankly we're in for a corker with or without said cliffhanger!

[Royal Dalton]

I fail to see how an extra 3 or 5 minutes of anything would add a film more character development. I also find Stamper's views odd to say the least. He damns the film and assumes everyone else will then says how a now deleted minute's worth of footage would have changed his mind, when a) he doesn't know what that footage is and his fickle take on SOLACE is only underlined when makes such statements.

Stamper's prone to hyperbole (and he's not alone in that respect), but he's right to say that leaving a scene like the White one in (whatever it contained) could have changed the message of the film completely.

Also, he is clearly one of those who want Bond films to be totally formulaic (and probably hated the old ones for being formulaic)

If you can read that review and conclude that all he wants is for Bond films to be totally formulaic, then you're just not being fair.

It's a perfectly reasonable review from someone that didn't quite love the film. I know you're not necessarily doing it, but I'm getting sick of how every mildly critical review gets dismissed by fans.

We have to just accept that while no individual review is perfect, taken collectively, a lot of people just aren't connecting with this film.

And it, who cares? There's still every chance we will love it.

Exactly.

[bondrules]

I wonder if one day they show the 130mn uncut version of the film to the reviewer, he would feel the same way

[SecretAgentFan]

The question is: Was there ever a longer version of QOS? I understand there was another quick scene at the end that would have set up Mr.White surviving. That was cut so Bond 23 was not burdened with being another sequel.

Why do so many here assume that other scenes that were cut were so important? Most scenes that get cut are superfluous.

[Royal Dalton]

Why do so many here assume that other scenes that were cut were so important? Most scenes that get cut are superfluous.

Well, there's a difference between taking out Scene 23, where Bond makes himself a cup of tea, and removing the very last scene from the film.

Of course, nobody knows if the film would be better with that scene included. But it was obviously written into the script for a reason, and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out on the DVD.

[SecretAgentFan]

Exactly what scene are you referring to? What is happening in that scene and where do you got information on it?

[Royal Dalton]

As I'm sure you know, I'm referring to the scene with White and Bond that concluded the film in the shooting script.

I have absolutely no idea what was in that scene, apart from the fact that White is pointing a gun at Bond (which implies that the tables have been turned on our headstrong hero).

But, as I said, it was written into the script and shot. So it was obviously there for a reason.

[richyawyingtmv]

People need to remember, Channel Four gave Casino Royale a dreadful review, much worse than the one here. And I'm fairly certain it was the same reviewer.

Edited by richyawyingtmv, 22 October 2008 - 03:21 PM.

[Colonel Moon]

People need to remember, Channel Four gave Casino Royale a dreadful review, much worse than the one here. And I'm fairly certain it was the same reviewer.

so what

[SecretAgentFan]

As I'm sure you know, I'm referring to the scene with White and Bond that concluded the film in the shooting script.

I have absolutely no idea what was in that scene, apart from the fact that White is pointing a gun at Bond (which implies that the tables have been turned on our headstrong hero).

But, as I said, it was written into the script and shot. So it was obviously there for a reason.

Very interesting - I really did not know that this was part of the actual script. Does anybody know more?

[bondrules]

As I'm sure you know, I'm referring to the scene with White and Bond that concluded the film in the shooting script.

I have absolutely no idea what was in that scene, apart from the fact that White is pointing a gun at Bond (which implies that the tables have been turned on our headstrong hero).

But, as I said, it was written into the script and shot. So it was obviously there for a reason.

Very interesting - I really did not know that this was part of the actual script. Does anybody know more?

It appears that the characters in the theatrical release of QoS had little dialogue and were not as fleshed out as one would have hoped, considering that Forster was hired for exactly that purpose.....I don't remember a Forster film where he didn't try to develop characters....with dialogue

Edited by bondrules, 22 October 2008 - 03:40 PM.

[jaguar007]

As I'm sure you know, I'm referring to the scene with White and Bond that concluded the film in the shooting script.

I have absolutely no idea what was in that scene, apart from the fact that White is pointing a gun at Bond (which implies that the tables have been turned on our headstrong hero).

But, as I said, it was written into the script and shot. So it was obviously there for a reason.

Very interesting - I really did not know that this was part of the actual script. Does anybody know more?

Secretagentfan,
Take a look at this link (spoilers)
http://commanderbond.net/article/5669

[SecretAgentFan]

Thanks! But do you know what exactly happened in that scene? If I read Stamper correctly, White shoots Bond in that scene?

[Harmsway]

Thanks! But do you know what exactly happened in that scene? If I read Stamper correctly, White shoots Bond in that scene?

Nobody knows exactly what happened in that scene. Stamper's just guessing as to its contents.

[HildebrandRarity]

The reason why that White-with-gun got axed from the ending is because it's a ending. !

Thank goodness they axed it from the film. Gives Q0S the potential of being The Greatest Bond Film Ever™ instead of a film to be continued.

PS

And that pic of Jesper with the gun pointed and his legs crossed over like a woman makes him look like a unic.