62 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

You're bang on the money, Harms. That's one of the best reviews of QUANTUM OF SOLACE I've ever read.

[Harmsway]

You're bang on the money, Harms. That's one of the best reviews of QUANTUM OF SOLACE I've ever read.

Why, thank you sir.

[Tybre]

You're bang on the money, Harms. That's one of the best reviews of QUANTUM OF SOLACE I've ever read.

Ditto.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE - Zorin Industries's Review

To paraphrase MR WHITE, “we have people everywhere” ready to criticise QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Some of the critics have already ended their ROYALE inspired affair with Commander James Bond and abandoned him overnight like a bored double agent. But when the dust has settled on QUANTUM OF SOLACE, some deserters may ultimately reassess their allegiances as the 22nd Bond film is a masterful entry in the series and the one that really puts the Persian cat amongst the pigeons.

It is no longer CASINO ROYALE that rebooted James Bond 007 in the cinema. QUANTUM OF SOLACE is the real groundbreaking episode in Bond’s illustrious filmic career. Granted, ROYALE paved a path, but SOLACE allows BOND to strut down it and finally stretch his wings once clipped by VESPER LYND.

Accelerating through a genuinely menacing overture, this Bond launches proceedings with a u-turn spin on the traditional car chase. Multiple cameras and aerial master shots are literally shunted aside for a new and breathtakingly visceral depiction on the car pursuit – one that creates its danger with astute quickfire editing and dirty choices of shots. Knowing that Bond has reinvented the car chase on screen many times over, Marc Forster does exactly that again by getting us and his camera right in the heart of the chase via the fundamentals of cinema - namely editing.

A genuine jeopardy is created as the cars pile up and the Aston almost cries out in pain as it screeches this pre-title sequence to a cool freeze frame and Jack White and Alicia Keys dirty, superfunk grenade of a title song kicks in like a slap in the face. MK12’s parched title graphics are old school Turkish Delight ad with Daniel Craig’s silhouette blasting feisty crumpet off spinning zoetropes and sand dunes aplenty. And whilst this is brilliantly familiar and recognisable, QUANTUM OF SOLACE soon takes no prisoners in the audience as BOND loses and gains his own prisoners and allies as quickly as it does to fire a bullet.

There is genuinely no time to breathe when watching QUANTUM OF SOLACE (the freefall moment is full-on terrifying). The audience has to think as quickly as BOND does. Some may criticise the speed of the first half of the narrative. But in the real world, secret agents probably don’t have enough time to pull a gun on someone let alone stay at their pad for the weekend and overhear villainous schemes in every detail.

The early investigative nature of Bond’s journey is as quick and stylish as it is intriguing and – yet still – oddly familiar. SOLACE is not reinventing the wheel. It just remembers that characters stories – like wheels – need to go full circle to be most effective. All the main characters – M, LEITER, CAMILLE, DOMINIC GREENE, MR WHITE and of course BOND himself – have their own emotional arcs running concurrently or at odds to each other. Rarely have the characters in a Bond film been so rounded and narratively intertwined. And because of that, QUANTUM OF SOLACE emerges as a very mature 007 picture. BOND is perhaps less vulnerable in this film but you can see the bruises of CASINO ROYALE still sting – they are just beautifully underplayed. More importantly, they are not relied on to fuel the story. QUANTUM OF SOLACE is not a wake for VESPER. It is about moving on. The question BOND has to ask himself is when does that happen?

Bond producers Michael G Wilson and Barbara Broccoli often claim to set out to make the new FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE but end up crafting a new THUNDERBALL. QUANTUM OF SOLACE is very much in the FROM RUSSIA camp. Like the other actors sophomore Bond films (THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, LICENCE TO KILL and even TOMORROW NEVER DIES), SOLACE is a lean novella of a 007 film. It unfurls itself without the usual bombastic fanfare and bravado that was still evident and perhaps necessary in CASINO ROYALE. Like its second-round cousin FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, SOLACE is not an overblown story, it doesn’t globe trot for the sake of it and its characters imbue the film with a sort of mournful sadism.

The floating Tosca scenes are indeed the film’s triumph. But they do so without stalling the narrative. Forster and his editors editing choices are stunning as BOND lures his prey out into the open whilst Puccini’s characters do the same on stage. Like Sienna’s Palio paralleled with a glorious and balletic fight on ropes in a disused art gallery, Forster intercuts the tension and finality of Tosca with BOND unearthing Quantum’s big plan via gift-bag earpieces. Characters soon flee but meet in a corridor. Unable to pull their guns on each other, we cut to Tosca’s bullies doing that instead as Puccini’s librettos punctuate BOND on the run and a chillingly effective use of the greatest sound effect of all – silence.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE finally sees a 007 film get away from Bond-As-Icon. The 1990’s did not always allow the character to breathe amidst all the paraphernalia of James Bond plc. Even CASINO ROYALE had to (rightly so) blatantly present the tuxedo, the Aston, the Martinis, guns and girls. SOLACE has these elements in place. It just chooses to not showboat them or at least not use them to tick boxes that don’t further the story or our insight into BOND. The traditional Vodka Martini moment now becomes something that lays BOND’s character wide open. Defeatedly necking multiple Vodka Martinis in a series first for 007 (Craig does bitter drunk very well), the character now claims to not be able to name a drink he once – in happier times - christened a ‘Vesper’.

The cast is a savvy one. Olga Kurylenko’s CAMILLE continues the elegance and sadness of VESPER but is more of an alley cat than a trapped bird. Resourceful and feisty without “being a match for Bond”, there is almost a brother and sister vibe between the two. CAMILLE’s early scenes are perhaps clumsily handled (the first shared scene between her and GREENE is very unclear and the film’s only narrative glitch) but the character soon grows from being a defeatist avenger to someone much more emotionally practical for BOND. If 007 is in need of emotional closure, CAMILLE is his gadget of this film.

Gemma Arterton’s FIELDS is sadly underused, but then a temp secretary who is nearly played as a non-Eton Essex girl might well be. Her demise serves a stark lesson for BOND and M’s anger at him sees FIELDS brief cameo become more influential to his journey than first imagined. The death by oil moment is thankfully not as homage-y as first reported – especially when seen in the context of what happens next.

Judi Dench’s M is less sneering and overly ballsy in this film. She is a constant and reassuring presence for the audience and BOND, but does so without the hammy Purvis and Wade “Cold War” isms. I’m not sure I want to see her act as scolded child infront of Tim Piggot Smith's brief Foreign Secretary (Geoffrey Keen would never have done that - but then he was always a friendlier face in the office always stalling time before he has to see the "PM") but SOLACE is all about working within parameters you sometimes wish were not there.

Mathieu Almaric does well in the deliberately vague role of DOMINIC GREENE. LE CHIFFRE and Quantum’s villains do not need to make themselves clear to the audience. They are batons that BOND just has to stop being successfully handed on. Almaric plays GREENE like a reptilian Roman Polanski. There is obviously a greater plan here with Quantum. But we don’t have to know about it all now. GREENE is an impatient adversary but – again – a very familiar antagonist to the Bond series. Like BOND, FELIX LEITER and even M herself, there is a sense that DOMINIC GREENE too has to prove himself to his bosses – superiors we never see though their tentacles are stretching wide and deep. Only Giancarlo Giannini’s MATHIS is at one with his lot. It is not ideal for his character, but there is a peace to his role in this film rather than blatant exposition. His departure scene sees BOND struggle with his demons all over again – just as he thinks he has got them tamed. Daniel Craig balances loss with anger and fortitude stunningly well. Never has such an astute actor inhabited the role. He is still BOND as hero. We do not have BOND as flawed human like the rest of us. He is still a cinematic hero. A marked and repeated vibe when the film ended was the shared belief throughout a lot of people in the audience that Craig is already the most effective James Bond 007 we have seen. Phrases like “best” are always regressive, but they are definitely discussions people will have in the pub afterwards.

SOLACE does not emerge as a short Bond film at all. It is not devoid of exposition. It just makes the audience work a bit harder - not something we're necessarily used to with James Bond films. CASINO ROYALE naturally ended with BOND recuperating in Italy and that was around the 105 minute mark. The set pieces do not outstay their welcome. A tiny flaw of the African Rundown and Miami Airport scenes of ROYALE was that they were slightly overdrawn. In SOLACE, a car chase, a foot chase, a boat chase and a dog fight are played out as long as they might do in reality. The locations are indeed characters in themselves with Bolivia and its people (because of GREENE’s schemes) adding poignancy to a Bond film we don’t always see. SOLACE also feels like it escaped the necessary but sometimes obvious backdrop of Pinewood Studios. There is no sense of the second unit running away from the first in this. Bolivia and Haiti / Panama are beautifully barren, making way for the obvious parallels between the landscape and the characters mindsets.

Some savvy filmic feng-shui sees the gunbarrel cleverly moved, replacing the over-designed tics of the Brosnan motif with a 1970's simplicity and giving the usually ignored end credits a Bansky-style bloody wall motif on which to scroll the titles. David Arnold’s score is a tad over-egged earlier on (and Mickey Mouses the action shamelessly) but eventually becomes a very dignified project of his. Ignoring the obvious shopping mall pan-pipes he gives Chile and Bolivia a genuine ethnic soul and the likes of CAMILLE’s theme mirrors the dignity afforded ROYALE with VESPER’s theme. Arnold’s work on the Bregenz scenes soar with a driving theme that echoes Richard Robbins’ quintessentially English work on THE REMAINS OF THE DAY. The rest of the score is at its best when it occasionally tips a hat to the early 80’s synth drama of THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY and even THE SWEENEY.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE probably ends with its best scene. BOND tracks someone down and confronts them. But they are not alone and it is the dialogue Daniel Craig has with that person that underlines the stunning economy and narrative care that went into QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Like this film and the Craig tenure itself, the samey “Oh James” moment is replaced with a harsh attack on the job and the betrayals at play. BOND has his own metaphorical Funeral In Moscow, gives a complete stranger their own quantum of solace and - in doing so - finds his.

JAMES BOND is still in a state of repair - underlined by SOLACE continuing ROYALE's maybe / maybe not device of citing set pieces within unfinished and renovated Venetian houses, quarries, art galleries and scaffolding. There will be criticism at how BOND “sort of” leaves GREENE to his own devices at the end, but not when you remember M's mantra throughout the film of "we need them alive" has finally seeped into BOND's consciousness. ‘Repair’ and ‘renovation’ are key themes both in CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Watching them together is much advised. They are sister films cut from the same cloth. But SOLACE actually represents a bolder leap forward for James Bond than ROYALE (which for good or bad now seems very familiar when alongside SOLACE). The 2008 film takes the baton afforded to BOND in 2006 and not so much lets him run with it in the way he wants to, but allows Eon Productions to do likewise. Marc Forster is one of the best directors Bond has had. There is an economy and verve to QUANTUM OF SOLACE. It does not short change the audience at any point. And oddly, the film tips a hat to THE SPY WHO LOVED ME more than GOLDFINGER. Who would have thought that eh? But a rooftop push, a dressed up couple stranded in the desert, enough hotel receptionists to give Valerie Leon a run for her money, a nod to Moore's pseudonymn "Robert Sterling" and a gunbarrel that is very Roger Moore echoes 1977 just as much as it does GOLDFINGER 1964.

James Bond would be a fool to not take Marc Forster along for the ride next time round as – apparently – “James Bond Will Return”. Fancy that?

This is probably the best review I've read of the film. It might even have increased my appreciation for the movie. Good job, Mr. Zorin.

Edited by The Ghost Who Walks, 04 May 2009 - 08:02 PM.

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

My (latest) final verdict: it's hardly a dead loss, but it's a massive disappointment after CASINO ROYALE, and hopefully the Bond people will next time marry QUANTUM OF SOLACE's stylishness to a genuinely intelligent, meaty and surprising script.

Best line in the entire thread.
Spot on.

[marktmurphy]

You're bang on the money, Harms. That's one of the best reviews of QUANTUM OF SOLACE I've ever read.

Yeah, I'm with you too Harms. Nail on the head completely: especially the bit where you're saying how it's straining for significance despite not having any. Such a shame because everyone was up for it, but no-one seemed to have a good idea of what to do with this new James Bond now we've got him.

[Judo chop]

I agree with Loomis except for one word.

QOS is hardly a ‘massive’ disappointment. I can think of any number of Bond films in current existence that might qualify as a massive disappointment as a follow-up to CR, and QOS is far and away better (more impressive, better looking, better acted, better dialogued) and is certainly more courageous, than those.

It’s not as good as CR, though it might have been. There was a high at its release, and some of us are coming down from that high. That stings a little bit, but it’s to be expected. I’m trying to keep perspective here. Outside of CR, QOS is a whole heck-of-a-lot better than any films in a long* chain of recent Bond adventures.

I’m right alongside Harmsway in thinking of QOS as a curiosity – it is certainly a black sheep of the family and is not my first pick as a template for Bond - though I do believe it struck more success that he does.

All in all, QOS is an 8/10. With QOS, EON has definitely hit a few bumps, but they’re bumps on The Right Track™. And it’s been a long time since they’ve been there.

*How long, exactly? Two films? No, try four. No, no… how about six. No… wait… try NINE! Almost half the series! IMO, of course.

[Mr_Wint]

There was a high at its release, and some of us are coming down from that high. That stings a little bit, (...)

A little bit...?

Glad to see that you, Harms and others finally admit that the film isn't so good. I don't what to say "I told you"... but I did bloody tell you

[Harmsway]

Yeah, I'm with you too Harms. Nail on the head completely: especially the bit where you're saying how it's straining for significance despite not having any.

Well, thank you, sir. I'm just callin' it like I see it.

For what it's worth, though, I would give QUANTUM OF SOLACE a 7/10, which is higher than either you or Loomis appraised it. Really, I like the flick. But I do think that QUANTUM OF SOLACE has some big issues, and they can't be ignored. Considering the flick QUANTUM OF SOLACE could and, by all rights, should have been, the finished product comes up quite short.

I'd also like to suggest that the idea that "QUANTUM OF SOLACE is much better than a lot of the flicks in the franchise" doesn't go that far. I do, personally, believe it to be true (though frankly, I don't think it's all that hard to be better than a lot of the flicks in this very uneven franchise). But moreso than any other Bond era, the Craig era feels uniquely isolated from the franchise. And given the close relationship between the two installments, QUANTUM OF SOLACE sets itself to be judged not against the rest of the franchise, but against CASINO ROYALE. You can't really think of QUANTUM OF SOLACE as just "another one of the pack"; it's too dependent on its predecessor.

[Judo chop]

There was a high at its release, and some of us are coming down from that high. That stings a little bit, (...)

A little bit...?

Glad to see that you, Harms and others finally admit that the film isn't so good. I don't what to say "I told you"... but I did bloody tell you

I admit that the film is a top-5 Bond film and gets a score of 8/10.

Is that what you told me? If so, then I admit it... you were right.

[Gustav Graves]

Finally, here is my review . I hope you like it:

Ian Fleming's Bond vs. Broccoli's/Wilson's Bond
by Gustav Graves (Gert Jan Waterink)

It was the scene between the Foreign Secretary and ‘M’ that basically summarizes the secondary theme of the film: Villains are not any longer persons with black character treats. They are persons whose personalities have many shades of grey. Dominic Greene is off course the villain, but he’s also an eco-philanthropist. James Bond on the other hand should be the positive action-hero, but instead kills more people than Dominic Greene does! The theme is furthermore highlighted by scenes of very poor Bolivian people who are literally dying to get some water. David Arnold’s unoriginal Babel-like music stresses this fact as well.

Then there is the post-Bush CIA who cannot wait to see the current Bolivian government thrown overboard by Greene and Co. And MI6 meanwhile has become an incompetent secret service with so many leaks in its organization that it’s almost a not-so-secret service.

Lot of this is off course quite realistic in the real world. Both Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson know how the world has changed since 9/11. The outgoing US government, the CIA, MI6: Ethics seem not so important anymore for them. Many films produced after 9/11 have had similar themes about the founding’s of terrorism. One can think of ‘Syriana’, ‘Lions For Lambs’, ‘United 93’ and more recently ‘The Kite Runner’. Also the Bourne films show us this criticism when the CIA wants to adopt operation ‘Threadstone’, no matter how bleak this will turn out for certain US citizens.

It is exactly the leading character from the Bourne franchise who perfectly succeeded at showing us the bleaker and greyer world of foreign politics and intelligence agencies.

But should Ian Fleming’s character James Bond be used in the same way as Robert Ludlum’s Jason Bourne? It is true that since the start of the franchise in 1962 James Bond was more or less the same character. At times he was a bit darker and a bit grittier, but still a suave British spy. This was the case in ‘The Living Daylights’,‘On Her Majesty’s Secret Service’, ‘From Russia With Love’ and indeed ‘Casino Royale’. But at times Bond also proved to be a funny Brit as well. ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’, ‘Moonraker’ and ‘Live And Let Die’ are good examples of such a Bond.

With ‘Quantum Of Solace’ however, the Bond producers did go too far in their ambition to set a new Bond-standard. Whereas ‘Casino Royale’ was, is and will be an instant classic in the future, the producers decided to go one step further in making Bond a villainous, bad- assassin using his fists instead of his high IQ. It was totally unnecessary.

Bond has always been a suave British agent, who only kills for Queen and Country if he needs to. But even in Fleming’s first Bond novel he never threw a dead friend -René Mathis- in a dustbin. His Oxford past would prevent him from adopting such disrespectful Jason Bourne-like acts. In Fleming’s first Bond novel he’s already quite a cool spy and never puts the British Secret Service in danger. But in ‘Quantum Of Solace’ MI6 has become an incompetent unbelievable detective agency. I would advice PM Brown to cut down money on Broccoli's and Wilson's version of MI6.

All other aspects in Bond’s latest instalment are there, but also quite blunted if I may say. Bond girl Camille is again a vengeful, kung-fu-like man girl who has been written as Bond’s equal. It has been done before (Wai Lin, Jinx Jordan). But where are the real Bond girls who are not afraid of showing their feminine side? I do miss the Tracy’s, Pussy’s, Honey’s and Vesper’s of the Bond-franchise.

While ‘Quantum Of Solace’ lacks plot and a good developing storyline --It’s one of the biggest weaknesses of the film. ‘Quantum Of Solace’ is depending way too much on ‘Casino Royale’s’ storyline and adds a disproportional number of Bourne-like edited action sequences to it.-- the new crime syndicate QUANTUM could be a good starting point for the next Bond flick. Mr White is, luckily, still alive and he could easily be this century’s Ernst Blofeld.

Unfortunately, ‘Quantum Of Solace’ will not be an instant classic in the near future. Film fans will always see this film as a trend follower, not a trend setter. And that’s its biggest weakness. Bond films should be trend setters again, THE example for all other action-thriller franchises. James Bond will, hopefully, return in a real Fleming-thriller, not a Ludlum-thriller.

Rating as a James Bond film: 5.5/10.0
Rating as a general action thriller: 6.5/10

[Otis Fairplay]

I will recycle the review I wrote following the opening weekend. As such, it is slightly dated – not to mention terribly longwinded – but since subsequent viewings has not really changed my impressions and I am feeling rather complacent at the moment I decided against editing it. If you are not a fan of lukewarm, roundabout musings you might like to sit this one out. Nonetheless:

"You needn’t worry. The second is…"


In more than one way, Quantum of Solace seemed pretty unsinkable during its production. For starters, Casino Royale turned out to be the best Bond film in some twenty years with Ian Fleming’s focused if slightly bizarre storyline at its heart, some much needed reintroduced grit and genuine attempts to allow screen-time for proper development of character. A direct follow-up presumably in the same vein sounded promising enough in itself. Having Mathieu Amalric to join Daniel Craig added further gravitas to the cast, and the peculiar choice of a Jack White and Alicia Keys duo for the main title song signalled an unorthodox, open-minded approach. But perhaps most of all, there was Marc Forster, an exciting, daring selection for the director’s chair who when announced seemed to be the oddball logical man to pick up the finer, character-spun threads tantalizingly left dangling at the end of Casino Royale. Even the title might be the best in many years; mysterious, elegant and evocative in equal measures.

And yet. There was the nagging knowledge that in more recent years noted directors like Michael Apted and Lee Tamahori – whose Once Were Warriors I found to one of the most violently gripping films of the 90’s – seemingly were crushed creatively under the weight of the Bond Franchise Machinery™, drowning in perceived script requisites and second-unit spectaculars or, quite frankly, going off the rails altogether. There was also the knowledge that Bond’s last Big Comeback in the public eye was followed by the action-dense, tide surfing but in retrospect quite overwhelmingly undistinguished Tomorrow Never Dies. And there was ‘Another Way To Die’, where the pooled creative talent involved ingloriously turned out to be decidedly less than the sum of its parts. If this was to be seen as a harbinger of things to come, the horizon was starting to betray troubling streaks indeed.

So when the end credits rolled, I was happy to find my darkest premonitions unfounded. Forster’s stated ambition to provide an art-house sensibility to an action film with the impact of a bullet does seem a bit lofty at times, but occasionally pays off handsomely. The juxtaposition of events like the aqueduct chase and the Palio di Siena or the performance of Tosca and the confrontation at the Opera House may not strictly spoken be a terribly original technique, but the likes of which have seldom been seen in the Bond series. There are also a good amount of jarring cuts and framings to show Forster was not chosen for his good name alone, and I find the retro, stylish location captions to be a tasty little treat as well. Admittedly there are also instances of symbolic, dripping taps and disembodied echoing sobs that seem rather misplaced if not slightly silly in the context of a Bond film, but I think Quantum of Solace in the details at least stands out as one of the series most distinct entries so far from a directional point of view.

Yet, the stylized aesthetics come with a price. This is most obvious in the action sequences. Whereas some scenes of Casino Royale – the stairwell fight and the killing of Dryden’s contact particularly leaps to mind – packed some gut-wrenching, gruelling physical realness hardly seen since On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, Forster’s approach takes a more disengaged stance. The viewer is offered the chance to enjoy the blows – and rest assured there are plentiful – on a visual rather than visceral level. To be a bit obvious, Quantum of Solace does not quite make you feel the violence and I can not help but think there is something lost in the trade.

In addition to this, the occasionally furious, rapid-fire editing often conveys the sense of action rather than the action itself, which to put it mildly is hardly unheard of in this day and age. Regrettably, this reinforces the cartoonish or, perhaps more aptly put, video game like quality that to a large degree has permeated the action sequences of the Bond series since its comeback in the mid 90’s. Though the eye candy may be spectacular, I think it harms any film’s ability to deliver a good bite in the long run. Since Quantum of Solace likely stands as the most action-packed Bond film so far, I do find this a matter of concern. The finale with wielded axes, attempted rapes, nasty stabbings with shards of glass, suggested murder-suicide pacts and explosions and yet more explosions aplenty still seems curiously detached, and I am sorry to note I fail to find it particularly more engaging than for example the final plane ride in Die Another Day.

While I think the direction and editing of the film is something of a mixed bag, I find the cast excellent for the most part. Though Dominic Greene seems unlikely to go down in Bond history as one of the more illustrious villains, Amalric’s gleeful sense of Sarkozy sleaze breathes some Blair-ish, lizard like life into the character. Likewise, there may be some corny aspects of Camille but I think Olga Kurylenko by large brings a fine, low-key intensity and it is nice to imagine a nod to Gala Brand at the end. Meanwhile, Judi Dench and Giancarlo Giannini are solid as always, though the latter’s talent seems rather underused in the film. Among the main actors only Gemma Arlington seems a bit out of her depth. On the other hand, her character is not particularly convincing to begin with, though the film wrings a nice Goldfinger homage out of it.

And there is of course Daniel Craig, who put an unmistakable mark on his Bond the first time around and is no less distinct in his second outing. Looking at his body of work, among the leading Bond men I think Timothy Dalton alone rivals him as an actor. Craig projects an arresting, coldly commanding presence in physical as well as more subdued moments like the sequence at the harbour of Port-au-Prince. There is a certain grace to Craig’s movements and he slowly seems to perfect his steely, blue-eyed stare. Granted, Quantum of Solace does not call for a terribly varied palette of emotions, but like in Casino Royale I think Craig’s performance stands as one of the film’s strongest points.

Still, I think the film’s portrayal of Bond leaves some question marks. At times the film seems anxious to underline a lack of sophistication in rather an obvious manner. The wish to distance Bond from the character’s earlier cinematic incarnations while slyly winking knowingly at them at the same time is apparent enough. However, contrary to the filmmakers’ supposed intentions I think a case could be made that the character seems increasingly distanced from verbal, sensual and refined figure of Fleming’s writings as well. This of course begs the question of just who Craig is supposed to portray. Quantum of Solace offers little in the way of clues, as Bond is largely kept quietly in the background. Craig evokes a cold blooded, ruthless efficiency as well as gloomy streaks but I find the script’s eagerness to have other characters reminding the audience of his motivations quite telling and a tad awkward. However imposing Craig’s performance may be, I find James Bond to be less nuanced and in due course a bit less interesting this time around.

And I think it would fair to say my biggest problem with Quantum of Solace lies in the script. It certainly calls for a more streamlined action film than its predecessor, which some may welcome. Personally though, I find that the pace needed to squeeze its action sequences in leaves minute time for more quiet moments, giving little opportunities to let characters, sceneries and locations sink in. More than a few times, the film’s pacing brings back memories of decidedly less appealing aspects of the latter day Bond franchise. I also think the basic storyline – a fair amount of smoke and mirrors notwithstanding – is rather trite and often seems mainly designed to string the set pieces together. The script’s preoccupation with shady dealings of intelligence agencies and flirts with conspiracy theories is a little explored alley in the Bond series. Unfortunately, the eager attempts to create a Bond against the World scenario comes across as rather laboured in the end and certainly does invite the very comparisons with that other film series starring an agent with the initials J.B. that many ardent Bond fans loathe to hear about.

On the whole, the script comes across as rather undercooked. To me, it does not seem totally comfortable with its status as a sequel. It repeatedly acknowledges the importance of the events of Casino Royale but fails to build on them in any significant manner. The numerous invocations of Vesper merely seem a bit lazy in the end. If Bond indeed was damaged goods at the end of the last film, Quantum of Solace offers little in the way of hints. For most parts, it seems to be hard-hitting business as usual with a few, rather obvious attempts to scratch below the surface like the final scene and the conversation in the bar. Regrettably, all in all I think Bond’s Big Emotional Journey comes across as a rather pedestrian charter tour and given the film’s director, I find this a bit disappointing.

On the other hand, while I do harbour more than a few reservations I will not deny it is for most parts an effective, well-crafted film. The narrative unsentimentally drops the excessive weight of Casino Royale and tells the story in a lean manner. The sparse cinematographic approach further underlines this route, and the action sequences pack plenty of punch to the senses. David Arnold also offers some of his strongest contributions to the series, particularly with some melancholic, pensive moments and the suspenseful build-up at the Bregenz Opera.

So: what to make of it all? While Forster does not really seem to be playing to his strengths, it is good to see he left his fingerprints in the film. Still, I would be highly surprised to see Quantum of Solace rank among his more distinguished efforts in the years to come, just as I hardly think the film will be looked back upon as a cornerstone in the Bond series. There is a fair share of outstanding moments, it certainly ranks among the better Bond films of the last twenty years and I think it will stand out as a memorable if rather deviant entry to the series. Still, to me the cast and the stronger aspects of the film itself seem to hint at possibilities beyond that. It would have been interesting to see how Forster could handle a slower, more reflective Bond film, but obviously that was not what he was going for and I think you will have to admire his courage.

There is also the dilemma that the series really has had joined to its hip since its very inception. Given the character of James Bond, his pleasures, his foes, his world and his adventures; just how seriously should the films be taking themselves? There have been times in the series’ history where its dalliance with self-deprecating, knowing blinks at its audience has taken rather unpleasantly farcical turns. But while I usually prefer the more serious entries, there is a balance that needs to be struck in any film. Where ambitions transcend the qualities of the story actually told, there inevitably lurks the danger of the downright pretentious. I do think Quantum of Solace occasionally treads these waters, particularly in Mathis’ last scene where Craig and Gianinni’s fine acting seems to starkly underline the rather banal lines of dialogue and the discrepancy comes off as rather uncomfortable to me. Mind you, as far as problems go this is quite an uplifting one that seldom if ever has popped up in the Bond series before and though I do not think it the film really pulls all its ambitions off I commend it for trying.

Still, one might wonder where the series will go after Quantum of Solace. By mainly picking up on the dark textures, action elements and the occasional stale, serious sense of Casino Royale and refining these aspects, I think the creative team has not really expanded on the premise of the reboot but rather narrowed it down. Though the eventual Box Office returns more than likely will play the deciding factor, I find it hard to believe the series will press on much further in this direction. Personally, I think it might be wise to broaden the creative horizon a bit. I do find Craig’s Bond less invigorating this time, and it would be a shame should he turn into a comic book character too swiftly. Of course, if the series pulls back from the frontline of Quantum of Solace, the question is where it will go. Will it fall back in old patterns or find alternative ways to move forward?

So ultimately, despite obvious virtues I think Quantum of Solace is somewhat brought down by its narration and pacing. Possibly, the crux of the matter is that the Bond films by and large have been struggling script-wise since the days of Richard Maibaum. In Casino Royale, the solid core of Fleming’s novel made the far sketchier narrative of the lead up and coda less of a problem. Stripped of such a foundation, familiar shadows of the not too distant past regrettably come looming in. There is, of course, also the possibility that the bottom line is more troubling than that. The thought that the Bond franchise these days does not quite seem to bring out the best in the talent involved has crossed my mind before, and while I think Marc Forster comes out of his Bond adventure in far better condition than Apted and Tamahori I do notice the reflection lingering in my mind as I try to pinpoint my thoughts on his film.

Either way: Quantum of Solace leaves little doubt that the Bond franchise has been rather radically reinvented since Die Another Day, had anyone missed the point. As for the question whether the series truly has seen any lasting creative rebirth as well, I think its 23rd film will have some answering to do.

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

CBn Reviews 'Quantum of Solace' (2)

Forum members review the twenty-second James Bond film

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Quantum of Solace in one of the few films one can think it was done in a hurry.

It isn't by any means a bad film, but after the excellence of 2006's Casino Royale, a classy Bond film with a solid story, and a magnificient direction by Martin Campbell, the 22nd Bond films lacks of dephness, and the adrenaline charged action sequences that abound in the movie, are ruined by the disastrous editing in charge of Matt Chessé and Richard Pearson and the shakey "Bourne style" second unit direction by Dan Bradley.

The film opens with a useless car chase in the Carrara, on road to Siena, Italy, where Bond, with the villanous Mr White in the boot of his Aston Martin DBS, is chased by a convoy of black Alfa Romeos. The scene is one of the most entertaining moments in the film, though it could have worked better later when 007 chases Craig Mitchell, an MI6 traitor, through the rooftops of Siena. Instead of joining the car chase with the rooftop chase, director Marc Forster decides to show the chase intercutted with the Palio race, the hipic Italian event. This is very artistic indeed, but Bond films should't distract and confuse the audience just to make an "artistic" moment. This is not a novel, Mr Forster, this is a movie. And the same goes for Bradley who puts a lot of very close insert shots who do nothing but make the audience cross. The uninspired main title sequence by MK12 is a flagrant insult to Maurice Binder's and Daniel Kleinman's sorely missed talents, except the idea of making moving dots to reveal the credits which were very good, as it was the shortened version of the theme "Another Way to Die".

Mr White escapes from the interrogation thanks to the aid of Mitchell, killed by Bond after the chase in Siena. Then 007 meets M in London, where a forensic report leads him to Port Au Prince, Haiti. There, a case of mistaken identity leads him to Camille, the "lover"/hater of a man called Dominic Greene, a ecologist who's preparing a coup d'etat with the exiled Bolivian dictator General Medrano, to monopolize the water resources of the country. After Greene gives Camille as "something to sweeten the deal" to Medrano, a boat chase commences in the Haitian harbour between Bond and Medrano's troops. The boat chase is one of the examples of the bad editing of the Chessé/Pearson duo, making a Bond fan pray for the return of Stuart Baird, Ian Sharp and John Grover. The scene is only saved by David Arnold's outstanding soundtrack. Bond then goes to the "Tosca" performance at Bregenz, where Greene assists escorted by his "friend" Gregory Beam and Felix Leiter (who disagrees with his superior's concept of the ecologist). The scenes in Bregenz are classic, enjoyable, well written, sharply photographed, "Superb, Mr Bond, superb" until... Bond's shootout with Greene's henchmen in the dining room intercutted (here we go again) with the death of Baron Scarpia and the shooting of Mario Carvadossi in the stage. The shootout sequences in all the Bond films were great, (i.e.: The Caviar Factory scene in The World is not Enough, the Gypsy Camp shooting in From Russia With Love, the assault to Piz Gloria in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, etc.) where one could enjoy the action because those scenes were enjoyable and not "artistic".

As for the cast, Daniel Craig shows us he's an excelent Bond once again, but he (and his universe) looked "Bonder" in his previous 007 outing. The female counterparts Camille and Fields are quite well played by Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton and Mathieu Amalric's Dominic Greene is a very good and charismatic Bond villain. The Bond/M scenes are well written and played showing us once more the chemistry by Judi Dench, who has a better chemistry with Craig than Brosnan. Giancarlo Giannini's Mathis is great, and Jesper Christensen as the sinister Mr White is fantastic.

And, despite the script is overall good, it pales in comparition to Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis' work in Casino Royale. The background is good, the drama is also good, but its not deep. The audience will always ask "what", "who" and "why" while watching the scenes, some of them are very good (Mathis' lasts moments with James) but some of them don't fullfill the watchers curiosity (007's encounter with Yusef, and the daloge between James and his boss at the end).

The use of the gunbarrel at the end doesn't makes any sense. Bond "became Bond" at the end of Casino Royale, where the gunbarrel was seconds before the main titles because, of course, bond got his 00 number. In the previous film they had an excuse to do so. Here, They don't. What are they trying to mean? Bond becames the Bond we know NOW, and not at the end of Casino Royale as we were meant in 2006? And in Bond 23 (2010 or 2011), where will the gunbarrel be? in the middle? What will be the excuse?

To summarize, Quantum of Solace looks like a mix between the original Bond formula and the Casino Royale formula, and fails to please the historic Bond fans. However, it's not a deplorable movie, but it's just a movie to watch when one is in a hurry, those days you say "Today I'm gonna watch a quick Bond film because I'm to tired to pay attention to a solid film like Casino Royale or On Her Majesty’s Secret Service". Anyway, its not boring as it was A View to a Kill or other loose James Bond films.

As for the qualifications, it would deserve something between a 7 and an 8, perhaps a 7.5.

7.5 / 10

[Bondian]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE remains an oddity in the Bond canon, largely for its tonal and stylistic choices. Never before have we seen Bond try to be so terribly "arty" (though admittedly there's no true artiness on display; even its artiest section - the Tosca sequence - plays like New Wave cinema as captured by a TV commercial director), and never before have we seen Bond played quite so grimly. QUANTUM OF SOLACE isn't so much the Bond of the films, or really the Bond of the books. This is Bond filtered through the lens of the early 1970s thrillers, with all the moral ambiguity and glumness those flicks brought to the table.

That approach offers a kind of novelty in a franchise that has, by and large, played by the same rules for most of its life. That said, the approach comes at a real cost: the flick isn't much fun. CASINO ROYALE was so popular because it mixed character with a great deal of humor and other sources of entertainment value. QUANTUM OF SOLACE, on the other hand, is merely hard-edged and morose, save for a few moments here and there that are meant to remind us of the 1960s Bond hey-day, but only serve to remind us of how little of that 1960s-style fun is there.

Now, of course, Bond's in a dark emotional place in this one after losing his great love in the last flick. But even then, the film strikes me as overly sullen. Ian Fleming dealt with dark material in his original books, too, but he also had a delightfully relaxed sensibility to his novels. Even at the books' darkest hours, Fleming was good enough to keep the affair none too grim, playing up atmosphere, elegance, and exoticism whenever he was given the chance.

Forster, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have much time for things like glamor and elegance. Sure, QUANTUM OF SOLACE is the first film in a while to seriously devote itself to location shooting, but Forster glosses over scenes so quick that atmosphere rarely sinks in. He himself said he wanted the film to be like "a bullet," and it's a shame. So much of the wonderful travelogue element of the Bond franchise is lost in the process.

Now, this might be excused if the characterization and drama in place was really satisfying, but it isn't. Most of the character scenes comprise of pompous dialogue exchanges that don't have enough of the in-between "down time" to make them matter; QUANTUM OF SOLACE is all skeleton, no tissue, expecting us to be moved and engaged just because the lines uttered are straining for significance. It's a shame, too, since QUANTUM OF SOLACE has one of the finest casts ever assembled for a Bond flick, and they're clearly up for more than they're given.

But surely the action delivers? Well, no, not quite. We get a few good sequences, but then the rest are of the mediocre sort that might have appeared in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III or some other watchable but none too interesting blockbuster. Given that they're the most-developed and dwelt-upon sequences in the flick (Forster never takes his time with anything else), it's a severe problem.

But I'm probably seeming significantly more "down" on QUANTUM OF SOLACE than I actually am. In a lot of ways, I really enjoy it, and I hardly think it's deserves to be dragged through the mud. But QUANTUM OF SOLACE is more of a curiosity than a success, and we can only hope that EON gets back on track for the next installment.

Brilliant post, Harms. I agree with you 100%.

Now I have the movie on Blu-ray I've had the chance to study it much closer, but my opinions have not changed. Quantum of Solace is a real let down in all aspects.

Cheers,


Ian

[James Bond Jr]

I'm sorry but I think the Craig-worship is getting out of hand. This film is very exciting and stylish, but its pretty sloppy and dumb at times. I'm reading way too many reviews that skip over its BIG problems like terrible dialogue, excessive action (but good well-done action) and I don't think its as original as people think it is. How this film could be in fans' Top 3 depresses me. Do you seriously prefer this to Bond films with good plot structure, dialogue, well-staged action and subtle acting??

I rated it a 7 because it has the most incredible PTS scene and some cool fight scenes. I think Craig as Bond was sort of lame in this one. Way less dialogue and acting in this one. Mostly looking tough and standard action hero stuff. Nothing really Bond about him. I think the editing is really innovative. It reminds me of the awesome editing in OHMSS.

GREAT action film to waste time with, but mediocre James Bond adventure.

[SecretAgentFan]

Still love it.

[Matt_13]

I give it a 9. Lean, mean Bond film with an emotional and psychological tick. Great action, crisp dialogue (save the Haitian dock scene) and wonderful cinematography. It's a shame we didn't get more travelogue and that the film is hacked up a bit (no shot lasts longer than 4 seconds), however there is a staggering sense of geography and immersion to be found here. It isn't as glamorous as Casino Royale, but it definitely is trying to do a bit more. I can certainly understand the animosity that's leveled against it, I just don't by any stretch of the imagination agree with it.

[byline]

I give it a 9. Lean, mean Bond film with an emotional and psychological tick. Great action, crisp dialogue (save the Haitian dock scene) and wonderful cinematography. It's a shame we didn't get more travelogue and that the film is hacked up a bit (no shot lasts longer than 4 seconds), however there is a staggering sense of geography and immersion to be found here. It isn't as glamorous as Casino Royale, but it definitely is trying to do a bit more. I can certainly understand the animosity that's leveled against it, I just don't by any stretch of the imagination agree with it.

I agree with your take on the "leaner, meaner" Bond film. I wish there were more of a sense of suspended time in some scenes, but that's my only complaint.

[00Twelve]

I give it a 9. Lean, mean Bond film with an emotional and psychological tick. Great action, crisp dialogue (save the Haitian dock scene) and wonderful cinematography. It's a shame we didn't get more travelogue and that the film is hacked up a bit (no shot lasts longer than 4 seconds), however there is a staggering sense of geography and immersion to be found here. It isn't as glamorous as Casino Royale, but it definitely is trying to do a bit more. I can certainly understand the animosity that's leveled against it, I just don't by any stretch of the imagination agree with it.

Totally agreed, for what that's worth.

[blueman]

Interesting, nearly 60% have QOS rated as an 8 or higher. Sounds like most fans are pretty happy with it.

[DR76]

I gave it an "8" because the pacing was too fast in the first half and I didn't care for the Paul Greengrass style editing. However, it was a first rate story that needed to be told, following the heels of the tragedy that occurred in "CASINO ROYALE". It was the movie that "DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER" should have been. Or somewhat close to it.

[Doctor Whom]

I'll give this one a solid 6.

QOS is a bit of a letdown after CR. It's not as bad as some poeple think: Craig is even better here than in CR, and the production is first-rate (it should be -- it cost enough). A lot of people (rightly) criticise the action scenes. I understand the rationale for shaky-cam, but when done poorly, as it is in this film, it just serves to confuse and frustrate the audience. The pre-credits car chase works for me, but that's about it.

[elizabeth]

1. It sucks. Horrible. Terrible. Horrible.

[Mr. Blofeld]

1. It sucks. Horrible. Terrible. Horrible.

Methinks you're the only one, cherie...

[201050]

Late to the game (refugee from the other board), but here goes.

As a life-long Bond nerd (on board since 1973) who was growing tired of the silly direction the Brosnan outings were taking, Casino Royale was a breath of fresh air. Everything about it - actor, story, groundedness, cinematography, fantastic supporting cast - proved to be the Bond film I'd always wished all the others had been. Some had been close, some were way off. Casino Royale quickly became my favorite of the franchise, by far. No silliness, no gadgets, no villains in underground lairs. Just a realistic story of espionage, very well done by Daniel Craig, Eva Green, and everyone else involved.

Enter Quantum Of Solace. I had high hopes for it after seeing what they'd done with Casino Royale. Man, was I disappointed. Weakness of story, loss of focus, the return to wooden villains and one-dimensional Bond Girls - all of it - could have been forgiven if they would have have held the camera still and allowed any image to remain on the screen for more than one second. The Greengrass-inspired shaky cam style that's all the rage in film and TV these days is not something I'll tolerate. I won't chase the image around the screen. I don't go to the theater to work at trying to watch a movie.

For several years, Die Another Day had the unique distinction of being the only Bond film I'd ever watched only once. In 2008 it was joined by Quantum Of Solace, which itself now has it's own distinction in my world - it's the only Bond film I don't own a copy of. One viewing was enough. Too bad. I really enjoyed the Tosca sequence. Interesting, well-written and somewhat easy to follow. I thought the late night airplane\bar conversation between 007 & Mathis was also well done, as was the last scene with Corrine. However, not enough to buy the DVD and watch again. If I happen to come across Quantum on cable, I might watch those scenes again, but that's all.

Here's hoping 23 is back to a Casino Royale feel and style.

Edited by 201050, 04 April 2011 - 06:08 PM.

[MarkD]

Looked more like the title character should have been called Bourned. Even M has more lines. Why is he drinking beer? Where's Q? Where are the gadgets? Why is the movie going so fast?

It's a great action movie, but there's little of it that resembles a James Bond movie.

[Capsule in Space]

The worst film of the series. I was shocked that EON could surpass the awfulness that was Casino Royale, and yet they did.

[jaguar007]

Why is he drinking beer?

It's not the first time Bond has been drinking beer. At least it was not a Bud.

[Major Tallon]

Looked more like the title character should have been called Bourned. Even M has more lines. Why is he drinking beer? Where's Q? Where are the gadgets? Why is the movie going so fast?

It's a great action movie, but there's little of it that resembles a James Bond movie.

The movie goes so fast because the director wanted to place Bond in the middle of a series of lightening-fast set pieces. I would have preferred the cutting to be slower in places, but there are several of the action scenes that are breathtaking in their intensity. As for Q, I don't mind having Q scenes, but, as I've written before, the problem then becomes that they either become irrelevant (why tell us about the BMW's gadgets in "Goldeneye" if they're never to be used?), or they artificially drive the plot. They create a story where Q by sheer happenstance has supplied Bond with the precise gadget he's going to need for that specific mission, an artifical plot device that had become increasingly tired over the span of twenty movies. You think Bond is like Bourne; I think he was in danger of becoming like Batman, with a new utility belt for each mission. You ask where the gadgets are, but Bond in QOS uses the same digital camera with transmission capability and face recognition software that he employed in "Goldeneye" to identify Xenia. Besides, that computer table was pretty remarkable.

Why was Bond drinking beer? Because Bond does on occasion, when it's appropriate to the circumstances (GF, chapter 15; TMWTGG, chapters 5-6; OHMSS, chapter 26). In particular, he has a beer when out with Felix Leiter in an appropriate watering hole (DAF, chapter 10). The beer was particularly appropriate to the bar setting in QOS; it doesn't look to me like the kind of place that would stock Kina Lillet.

Part of the problem with requiring Bond to follow all the well-known movie traditions is that we lose the variety of the settings and the richness of the character. We can take some chances with Bond. His creator did, and the world of James Bond is better off for it.