R3view: Quantum of Solace
Director: Marc Forster (The Kite Runner, Stranger Than Fiction, Stay, Finding Neverland, Monster’s Ball)
Writers: Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade
Producers: Michael G. Wilson, Barbara Broccoli
Starring: Daniel Craig , Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, Judi Dench, Giancarlo Giannini, Gemma Arterton, Jeffrey Wright
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Running time: 106 min
It’s been quite a while (since the summer blockbuster season actually) that all of the writers here have gotten together on the same weekend and checked out the same film. Since it seems to be a rare occasion, we thought it prudent to combine our critical forces and release another R3view; which is essentially our initial thoughts on the film divided into capsules explaining each of our positions separately - complete with a star rating. We then include an overall consensus and average star rating for readers to ridicule or praise. So check this out and by all means, leave your own thoughts on Quantum of Solace in the comments section below.
Synopsis:
Picking up mere days after the previous film, Casino Royale left off, Bond is now on a vendetta to find the man responsible for the death of someone he loved. Between the lines, Bond discovers a massive corporate plot to devastate third world countries with a drought and to become sole possessor of the earth’s most precious resource. Then a bunch of stuff happens on top of that which I’m not about to sit here and unravel. Suffice to say that the plot is there somewhere, but hidden under a heap of excitement.
read all of our reviews below…
Andrew:
Bourne. James Bourne. A criticism or a compliment? Well, that depends on where your feelings lie with the previous installments of the 007 franchise. As an action movie thrill ride from the school of hard knocks, it certainly is a compliment. For those looking for something closer resembling the Ian Fleming character with the gadgetry and super villains, you might walk away from the movie asking your friends what in the hell that movie had to do with James Bond; aside from the name of the main character and the opening title sequence. While I don’t long for the cheesiness of the direction the franchise went in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, I would like something that differentiates Bond from other action stars. But with Quantum of Solace, no such differentiation exists. It’s damn near a carbon copy of The Bourne Ultimatum; complete with a roof top chase and a close-quarters, hand to hand fight in an old apartment in Asia.
So putting aside the fact that this is just barely a James Bond movie (yes he drinks a martini and sleeps with women), how does the picture fare as a straight-up action flick? Pretty well quite honestly. If what you want from your film is your hero jumping from one frying pan to the next, you couldn’t do much better than QoS. Forster has certainly proven himself to be a decent action director with a few new ideas and style choices to heighten the tension.
The great thing is that this new breed of Bond has the potential to be a really interesting character with a lot of depth. But while it is hinted at, it’s just never explored deeply enough in lieu of more chases and explosions. I haven’t used the term in a while, but Quantum of Solace does not improve upon its predecessor and simply becomes a quickly forgettable “popcorn flick.” Which again, isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it just doesn’t do for me what it could’ve (arguably should’ve) been.
John:
Before diving into the actual review of Quantum of Solace I thought I would first bring up a gripe of mine and before I talk about the gripe I should say that I have read the other reviews from the Row Three Contributors. When Casino Royale was released in theatres everyone talked about how great it was that James Bond was so like Jason Bourne now. The action was gritty and violent and the story was much more down to earth. Now with QoS some people are complaining about how we have moved away from Bond movies actually being Bond flicks. I’m really tired of this discussion as I feel that it misses the mark completely. Bond flicks have a certain style to them. They are not just action movies but are brochures, which provide a glimpse of a life that none of us will ever live. There are shots in both of the recent movies that would feel completely out of place in any Bourne movie. The first shot of the casino in Casino Royale, the opera scene in in QoS are just two examples that are completely Bond. The similarity between the two franchises comes down to a new style of action more than anything. Both show our hero having to deal with bad guys not in some stylized low violence for but with blood sweat and cuts and I can appreciate it. Before you say this is just a Bourne movie then ask yourself if Jason Bourne ever once had to fight the big bad guy in a building, which was exploding at the time. Bond movies are still on a completely different level of escapism than the Bourne movies.
Now that I’ve said my peace I should actually give my opinion on the movie itself. I can understand wanting to create a feeling of chaos and confusion when filming an action scene but it almost never works for me and by the end of the opening scene I was actually annoyed and expected to not enjoy the rest of the movie. I’ve voiced my opinions before (Doomsday) on poorly filmed action scenes and how it fully ruins a movie for me. Immediately following the opening credits that have the first James Bond song that I truly dislike we are set up for the second big chase scene. Every thing was a bit better than the car scene until they fell through the glass. I am all for CGI in movies but never use it directly in an action scene. The fall through the glass knocked me right back into dislike mode. It was not as bad as the falling glacier in Die Another Day but it was still enough to make me distract me. Things were not looking good for QoS and me.
I continued to watch as the story progressed and I hoped that things would pick up and that I could really get into the escapism of Bond. Everything was going well other than the action. Bond met the femme fatale and the chemistry was interesting. The bad guy is dastardly and charismatic and I enjoyed the connections with the CIA and the grayness of the spy world being explored, even if it was only cursory. I was just getting back into the movie when the next big action scene took place. This time instead of hating it I loved the emotional feeling. The interspersing of the silent fight scenes with the violence and music of the opera was extremely powerful. This action scene is everything that the James Bond franchise should be rolled up into one. It combines the beauty, romance and empathy of the opera with Bond fighting in a violent workmanlike manner through his enemies. This is right where I want want to see Bond flicks. They should now be a combination of style and grace combined with brute force and audacity.
Overall, QoS is a success for me but not a huge one. Craig once again is excellent as a Bond who is coming to terms with who he is. My biggest complaint other than the few initial action scenes is that a few of the smaller characters deserved more screen time as I would have liked to see Felix, Mathis and Greene a bit more fleshed out. By the time Craig is done with Bond we will be ready to move to a more sophisticated Bond that relies on his charm and wit but for now, though I am quite happy to watch the character grow from being a quick thinking brute weapon into that spy.
Kurt:
The latest 007 film should have perhaps been called Quantum & Solace. Meaning no disrespect to the Ian Fleming novella which the film borrowed the only the name, it does serve two purposes. First, to introduce the modern version of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. this time without the acronym. Second, to provide Bond some form of emotional closure, of the revenge variety, after losing his girlfriend in Casino Royale. Quantum of Solace is probably the busiest and erratic chapter in the series history, and very much a middle chapter, but I feel that is actually quite apt. The 45 year old film franchise seems to reflect our times with each film and this one is no different. Here we have the villain who represents an eco-firm and works for a shady mercenary organization that is structured along the lines of Al Qaeda cells, except whose work-for-hire projects to are to destabilize governments in the same manner the CIA did for the past 50 years (this according to Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky). Any semblance of the simplicity of the Cold War or notions of good guys and bad guys in terms of nations (in particular Britain and the USA) is righteously fucked at this point and this film drives that point home hard. For that alone, QoS is an interesting bellwether buried in popcorn cinema.
All of the technical complaints thrown at Quantum of Solace (after all these films are still more technical than art), I’ve heard thus far are actually pretty key strengths: a) An editing rhythm that serves to disorient, b) A convoluted plot without a clear enemy that is driven by equal parts revenge, patriotism and confusion, and c) Further pruning of the out-of-control silliness of the Pierce Brosnan era. Good riddance to the catch phrases and gadgets. If anything the powers that be did not go far enough to make the man mortal or thuggish. Sure he bleeds and sweats, but many of the stunts (one involving a parachute, another involving a roof-top and many panes of glass) give 007 an immortal feel which I hope they fix in the third entry. Still it is a step forward in some of the clunkier moments in Casino Royal with the astronomically unlikely poker hand, or the battery operated defibrillator. The writers have not jettisoned all of the cliches yet, but good on them for trying. We are getting somewhere with each new entry at this point. And I’ll go on record in saying a little Jackie Chan and Jet Li influence in 007’s movements are an interesting first for the series.
My favourite part of the new direction for Bond is the HBO styled intra-film narrative arcs that are going to be carried through the Daniel Craig era. Can you watch many modern TV series out of order and make sense of things? Nope. I recommend that you bone up on the details of Casino Royale, because this films seems to pick up mere moments after the other one left off, and many of the details relating to Bonds motivations are a direct result of his ill fated love affair in the previous chapter. Welcome to the 21st century media-structure Mr. Bond, I hope we get a webisode or two before follow-on. Furthermore, the interesting use of silence to end some of the action sequences and the snappy cross cutting employed by Marc Forster, in particular between a gun fight and a opera (using only the audio from the opera) give bond a style beyond the simple technical aspects of stunts, stunts and more stunts. And yet, there are still are nods back to history. A woman covered in oil is reminiscent of Goldfinger’s opening moments. The credit sequence is the best one I’ve seen in many Bond flicks and a big improvement over Casino Royale’s lackluster tune and graphics. And is there anything more James Bond than this: Just after dealing with a dicey situation and having an anonymous briefcase thrown into his hands as he is leaving the hotel, a gorgeous yet unknown woman pulls up and says “Get in.” Without skipping a beat, he says, “Sure.” Then proceeds to start negotiating business (and potentially sex) without having any real information on what to offer or where to go at that point. Yes, he is totally winging it, like a good field agent probably has to. Daniel Craig’s superspy may be a man of few words, but his actions say things loud and clear and they are very much, “Bond, James Bond.”
Jonathan:
It isn’t quite Casino Royale. That will probably be the biggest complaint among those who have waited eagerly for the follow-up to the highly successful reboot of the James Bond franchise. It’s a justified complaint, as Quantum of Solace doesn’t quite live up to its predecessor, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a thrilling ride and one of the better Bond experiences.
As the only direct sequel in the franchise, Quantum of Solace begins almost immediately where Casino Royale left off. Soon after the betrayal and death of the only woman he ever loved, we have a Bond like no other, one who has no choice but to suppress his broken heart as well as his thirst for vengeance. Soon, he discovers some shady dealings going on with a man named Dominic Greene, a leading member of a powerful and mysterious worldwide organization called Quantum, an organization not even known to the British MI6.
The rest of what happens, you can see for yourself, but if you had no problem following Royale, you’ll have no problems here, especially since they’ve opted to give up some of its complex plot and characterization in exchange for a lot more action (not too mention some heavy political undertones). As a result, many characters, such as Camille (the sexiest Bond girl yet) and CIA agent Felix Leiter, feel a bit underdeveloped, in exchange for more conventional action scenes or perhaps just a desire to keep this the shortest, tightest Bond film yet. The film feels a bit sloppy because of this, but before you can dwell on it, there are more explosions and plenty of punches being thrown to keep you entertained and occupied. Daniel Craig is just so damn good and so enjoyable as this grittier, angrier Bond, its easy to look past the apparent flaws. This film rests on his shoulders and were a lesser actor playing the part, I might not have liked it so much. That’s the power of a brilliant actor. As many are saying, is he the best Bond since Connery? It isn’t a stretch to say so, that’s for sure. This sure isn’t the Bond we grew up with though, not at all - but for me, that works mighty fine.
There are already complaints that this is more Bourne than Bond, but as far as I am concerned, this reinvention isn’t something to complain about. It’s brought the character away from unbearable hokiness (see Pierce Brosnan’s last few efforts) and into the realm of reality, which has only enriched the series by upping the stakes. There is still no fear of Bond’s impeding death - he is James Bond after all - but there is now a sense that he is still just a man after all and not all witty quips and dry martinis.
This is a fast-paced popcorn thrill-ride, but one that surrounds itself with capable actors and a skilled director. It replaces complex gadgets with brutal fisticuffs and ridiculous plot lines with real world politics, keeping the film as grounded in reality as a Bond film should ever try to be. It suffers in the writing area a bit by not developing the plot or the characters, and because of this it falls short of a being a great movie, but it is a good action movie and a respectable entry in the series. If you go in knowing that you’re not going to get the greatness of Casino Royale, but you’re still going to get a solid, action-packed installment into the Bond franchise, you shouldn’t be disappointed.
Consensus:
Looks like for the most part we all had a good time at the theater. Though not without some weaknesses (weaker for some more than others) the newest Bond seems to be a decent chapter in the franchise and if nothing else, an enjoyable time at the theater for action and suspense. Basically the same as any other Bond picture. But what do they care? They made $75 million at the box office over the weekend.
Average score:
(to be technical, 3.37 stars out of 5)
Podcast Video: Relevant Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
Flixster Profile for Quantum of Solace
Comment by busby seo test — November 18, 2008 @ 5:25 am
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 18, 2008 @ 10:21 am
Though it may add something to franchise as a whole, individually this is a mess. The opening chase sequence induced a mild headache that never managed to go away and 90% of the action sequences were dull and uninteresting (even from an escapist point of view). It’s not that the action felt re-used, it simply did nothing for me - it felt as frantic as Transformers but at least with the big freakin’ robots, there was an air of not taking itself too seriously. Here, no such thing. I can accept the argument of the confusion of the scenes adds to the character (sort of parallels what he’s going through emotionally) but it’s not fun to watch. To make matters worse, the talking parts were boring. I didn’t care about Quantum or what they were trying to do and as much as I love Mathieu Amalric, he’s not a convincing villain.
A few things I did love, love LOVE: the editing of the fight sequence during the opera (that was brilliant) and the closing scene with the Canadian. That made for a couple of great laughs (”Thank you” she says as she walks out). And although I didn’t like the opening music, I did love the credit sequence - very nice.
Craig is great but the rest of the film isn’t. I’ve never been a big fan of the franchise and I’ll be very hard-pressed to watch any of the follow ups - especially if they’re more like this.
Comment by Marina Antunes — November 18, 2008 @ 11:12 am
Comment by Andy — November 18, 2008 @ 11:35 am
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 18, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
You bring up the demographic…let me just say this: I saw the 7PM show last night. Full house. Not one empty seat in the place and when we left, there was a healthy line-up for the next showing (which probably started at 10PM). One thing is for sure, this thing is racking in the money.
Comment by Marina Antunes — November 18, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
Sitting in row three for QOS. Not a single bit of queasiness. Weirdness!
Comment by leeny — November 18, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
Overall I did liked Quantum of Solace, the action scenes in particular were impressive, but it doesn’t seem to flow as well as it should. It’s at least 20-30 minutes shorter than CR and it shows, it doesn’t have room to breath. The characters are not as well written as they should be, and although awesome, the action seems unjust. The story is pretty weak and although Amalric did well in the villain role, the actual role itself wasn’t all that great (particularly in retrospect). A dissapointment, I have to say.
Comment by Ross Miller — November 18, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
And you bring up how this was 20 minutes shorter than Casino Royale…yet it felt much, much longer.
I’m done complaining.
Comment by Marina Antunes — November 18, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
But I really liked Jack White and Alicia Keys’ song. But yeah, I love the playing card opening title sequence in Casino Royale a lot more than bodies in the sand (which was kind of cool too, but I’m just saying that CR was maybe my favorite of all the Bond openers). But QoS was probably my favorite of the Bond songs… along with Duran Duran.
Comment by Andrew James — November 18, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
what was with the white dome, net thing (did that make sense?) and the darkness of it - I mean literally it was duller i.e. tough to actually see what was happening.
Comment by Ross Miller — November 18, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
By the end of the song it was just the two singers screeching. If the theatre I was in wasn’t as chalk-full of people I would have expressed my irritation at the annoying song out loud.
Comment by Ross Miller — November 18, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
All the synopsis I read say that, but not sure where they get their info or if it just seems that way. Bond seemed cleaned up and fresh. Wasn’t he all bloodied and wet at the end of CR? It just seemed like he and MI6 had a day or two to recoup… but I guess it could’ve been a couple of hours. I don’t think it really matters.
Comment by Andrew James — November 18, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
Greg made a great point on the filmjunk podcast I thought. It’s too much action and chasing around (which admittedly is cool), but then when the movie drifts away from that for a second, you realize you’d rather go back to the chasing and guns again, as the rest of it is a snoozer.
Comment by Andrew James — November 18, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
I think the problem that Quantum of Solace has is the fact that its a direct sequel to the last one. Many die hard fans of the series (of which I’m NOT one) say that one of the most appealing aspects is that each film is it’s own entity. And even though I’ve not seen that many of the series (particularly pre-Brosnan) that “each one is it’s own film” idea appeals to me. I admire them for trying the sequel thing but sadly I don’t think it worked. As you say the action is just there for the sake of action; maybe as a continuation of CR, say as a 4 hour film, then it would have made more sense. But as a seperate film but just continuing on the story the action that might have been part of the last one doesn’t flow.
Comment by Ross Miller — November 18, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
How could QoS (or any bond film) feel longer than Casino Royale with its needlessly lengthy denouement. The last 20 minutes of Casino was pretty exhausting, considering that it was obvious what was going to happen.
I could have used an extra 15 minutes or so in QoS, particularly with the villain and the CIA, but I’m pretty happy with their mean/lean version here. The story was first and foremost about Bond working out his issues against a geopolitical backdrop, and I’m glad they kept the focus there.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 18, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
I disagree. The story was supposed to be about Bond fuelled by revenge for the death of his girlfriend from the last one. The story of the guy wanting to control the world’s water supply, although fitting in nature for our time, is weak. And since it’s about Bond’s regret and wanting for revenge it should have made you feel more emotionally invested. But it doesn’t, because the film is too busy shaking the camera at Bond running along some rooftops or randomly battering a guy in a Bourne rip-off style fight in some hotel room.
The mysterious Quantum organisation was left too open to interpretation; since you know almost nothing about them there intimidation as the big organisation behind it all is hard to see. And Dominic Greene felt like a replacement, a fronting villain, if you will, for the “real bad guys”. Like I say Amalric was good in the role, and I liked the fact that he didn’t have any gimmicky disabilities or any sort of distinguishable physical appearance and that he was just an exacting, intelligent villain, but like the story and action he was weak, certainly compared to others in the series.
Comment by Ross Miller — November 18, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Comment by Ross Miller — November 18, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
Maybe your screening lamp was a little underpowered. I found it to be only very slightly murky, but then again, that is kinda the point (most of the classic bond openings are dark and silhouette-ish actually). And the lattitude/longitude lines are in sync with the geopolitical nature of the films plot-line. Yea, I love this opening sequence. I like the song too.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 18, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
I like the open-ended nature of the storytelling in Bonds case, they are juggling many plot threads and themes like a modern HBO show. Nice.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 18, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
The last line he says is that he never actually left. That line shows us that Bond really was just doing what he considered to be his job. Sure, there are glimpses that revenge or at least justice are on his mind and he is willing to bend/break rules to get it but really Bond is going after Greene and Quantum because of what they represent and the fact that they were able to infiltrate MI6. This Bond is in many ways becoming a cold hearted brutal killer. My guess is that they take it even farther in the third movie. I would actually love it if they took it far enough that he became an anti-hero even. I doubt they will but I think we’ll continue to see Bond develop down a darker path for now.
Comment by John Allison — November 18, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
It’s hard to explain what I mean. No the screening lamp was fine (:P, as the rest of the film was perfectly bright) but it just looked dull. I know most of the older Bond title sequences are dark and silhouette like but it wasn’t the same here; it was murky and dark as opposed to stark contrast silhouette– again hard to explain what I mean.
But I can’t believe you didn’t like the CR title sequence. I thought that was creative as hell. You mean you didn’t like the Saul Bass style? The breaking up of the figures into spades etc? Urgh! I thought that was AMAZING.
Comment by Ross Miller — November 18, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
Comment by Marina Antunes — November 18, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
I know it wasn’t ONLY and PRIMARILY about revenge, at least not through and through, but there’s certainly a strong element of it. It’s one of the few times (I say that instead of ONLY time because I ain’t seen too many of the series). “I’m not gonna’ go chasing him. He’s not important.” Yes, but if he wasn’t “motivated by his duty” I bet he would have. It just came across, to me anyway, like one of the veins running through the film was revenge and regret for past things and yet we weren’t emotionally invested enough to really care.
Comment by Ross Miller — November 18, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 18, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
If you’re going to reboot your franchise, then give me something to chew on. Not a darker version of the exact same thing.
Comment by Andrew James — November 18, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
Comment by John Allison — November 18, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
If what they’re going for is high octane, shoot em up, then well done. But it seems to me they keep touching on these little things that I want to see explored and then they don’t. It’s a cock tease of a film in that way.
Comment by Andrew James — November 18, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
After On Her Majesty’s Secret Service Bond returns in the next opening to kill Blofield. Every so often they mentioned his wife. There were always glimpses that Bond had truly loved someone before. Now we have Vespa. She is Teresa from On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. I do not think we will ever see true deep character development. We will see Bond drink because of her. We will see Bond seduce and use women because of her and we will see the occasional pining because of her. Normally this would be a weakness but I don’t see it as one here.
Comment by John Allison — November 18, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
I like what you guys have going here. Having multiple reviews responding to one another is a good way to untie some of the complexities of a film, even if, in Roger Ebert’s estimation, that film is just supposed to be popcorn fodder.
For me, the film was worth it for the opera scene and the phenomenally succinct social commentary on oil-dependence that Bond gives with a toss of a can of oil and a one-liner that is as far from the ludicrous and superficial cheesiness that the Bond series had become before this last incarnation. I’ll take that over laser guns and double-entendres any day.
Comment by Ford Seeuws — November 18, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
I understand that we are never going to see a deep, rich character study Bond but the title hints at something a bit deeper, that it’s going to delve into some aspects of the character not done before. Casino Royale managed to have what this one is missing - the fact that you actually care what happens to Bond when he jumps from one building to the other. When he loses someone you care about it, you actually give a shit - in QoS it’s simple action fare (which is awesome in it’s own right) that doesn’t make you care whether the character gets hurt or not.
Comment by Ross Miller — November 18, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
Pingback by Quantum of Suckage, sorry, Solace - Toronto Film Bunch — November 30, 2008 @ 7:14 pm