Quantum of Solace Review [3]
Posted by Joseph Lee on 11.17.2008
007 is back, and he's pissed!
Starring:
Daniel Craig as James Bond
Mathieu Amalric as Dominic Greene
Olga Kurylenko as Camille Montes
Gemma Arterton as Strawberry Fields
Dame Judi Dench as M
Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter
Story: Picking up where Casino Royale leaves off, James Bond has captured Mr. White and is taking him to an isolated area for interrogation. Mr. White reveals that "we have people everywhere" in regards to his organization and soon escapes. Bond continues his hunt for White while searching for more information on Quantum after he runs into Dominic Greene.
Fun Trivia: This is the 22nd official James Bond movie in the EON Productions franchise, the second to feature Daniel Craig as James Bond, the sixth to feature Judi Dench as M and its the 25th James Bond movie overall.
I'm a huge fan of the James Bond movie franchise. I haven't seen them all yet, but I've enjoyed most of what I've seen. The franchise has had it's ups and downs, but for the most part it's been solid for twenty-five films, which is something you can't say about other film franchises. I went into Casino Royale with an open mind. I didn't care that Daniel Craig had blondish hair(really, that's a stupid reason to not see that movie no matter how you look at it) and thought that as long as he was decent that's all we needed. As it turns out, Casino Royale was a very fun movie and one of my favorite films of 2006. Needless to say, I was excited about the sequel.
The first thing you should know about Quantum of Solace is that you need to have seen Casino Royale beforehand. This is a direct continuation of the storylines and characters presented there. It's not required, because I think it should be easy to follow if you haven't seen it. Bond wants vengeance for the death of a loved one. Some characters are mentioned from the previous entry, but it shouldn't be hard to figure out who is who and what you need to know for this installment.
Daniel Craig continues giving James Bond the depth and development that he's been lacking for a long time in this installment. While I don't think he should be called the best Bond ever just yet, he's getting close. This is coming from a huge Connery fan. But even Connery never handled the character as gritty and vengeful as Craig is here. Only Lazenby and Dalton have come close. Craig also recaptures some of the classic Bond charm that some felt was lacking in the previous entry. Judi Dench returns as M and she plays a conflicted leader well. She doesn't trust Bond's motives but wants to believe he is doing what's best. Jeffrey Wright isn't on the screen for very long, but he is entertaining when he is.
The new players this time around are Mathieu Amalric (Dominic Greene), Olga Kurylenko (Camille) and Gemma Arterton (Strawberry Fields). Greene is actually an improvement over previous Bond villain Le Chiffre. Amalric plays a sleaze rather well, and eventually you want to see him get what's coming to him. This is different from Le Chiffre, who cried blood and was more of an annoyance than an outright villain. Kurylenko is the newest Bond girl, and she's actually a somewhat developed character, seeking revenge of her own. Gemma Arterton plays a more stereotypical Bond girl, complete with ridiculous name and the usual result that Bond girls receive.
This film is more of an action movie than the previous entry, and it makes perfect sense. If Bond is seeking revenge he's not going to take time to sit down and talk with his enemies. He's going to beat some people up! Bond gets a lot of kills and some of the action scenes are great (especially those involving vehicles). The fight scenes are my biggest problem with the entire movie. The editing was a little choppy, and it made a few of the fight scenes difficult to watch. It was hard to tell who was hitting who, or really what was going on. The final scene splices two fights together and that makes it even more difficult. It could have used a little more polish, in my opinion.
Even with the problem of the editing, everything else is top-notch. The direction from Marc Forster, the screenplay from Paul Haggis, and the acting are all up there. The action is as good as it needs to be. This also has almost all of the classic Bond elements: the girls, the fights, the gun barrel and the opening song (a pretty good one, too). There's even a Goldfinger homage that I absolutely loved. The only Bond element missing (yet again) was Q and his gadgets.
The 411: Quantum of Solace is every bit as good as Casino Royale. It's full of action and retains most of the Bond charm and elements that have made the series so popular. Daniel Craig continues to leave his mark as 007, and everyone else holds up their end of the bargain, except for the editors. But that's not enough to detract from the entire movie. If you were a fan of Casino Royale, or if you are a fan of 007, go check this one out.
Joeseph,
Did we see the same movie? No character development, no clear threat to the world, a very lose plot, no gadgets, the bond girl is at best a 7 out of 10, terrile camera work and a very weak ending.
This is the worst bond film of all time. Period -full stop!
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 17, 2008 at 02:47 PM
"id we see the same movie? No character development, no clear threat to the world, a very lose plot, no gadgets, the bond girl is at best a 7 out of 10, terrile camera work and a very weak ending.
This is the worst bond film of all time. Period -full stop! "
First where was the character development in Die Another Day, Tomorrow Never Dies, Moonraker, Diamonds are Forever, etc
Not every bond movie had a clear threat to the world. From Russia with Love was just a secret organization trying to get revenge on Bond and get a decoding device and that was one of the best Bond movies
Loose plot, in a Bond movie no way.
No gadgets is a fair criticism however the last movie that was gadget based was critically panned
Liking a Bond girl is a matter of taste I doubt their is a single person that wis attracted to every Bond girl
The camera work is basically what's popular today
The ending was weak because he is still going to go after the organization and thus isn't the end of story arc. It would be like if Star Wars stopped as the Empire Strikes Back and all the plot points were never resolved.
Oh and the only reason I'm being critical of your post is because you said it was the "worst bond film of all time". Which implies that you have a lot of knowledge about Bond films which you clearly don't
Posted By: J.J.T. (Guest) on November 17, 2008 at 04:46 PM
That was a very thoughtful burn, J.J.T.
Posted By: jmac (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 07:05 PM
J.J.T. you are now the oficial owner of John
Posted By: bimbi887 (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Can people on this site (commenters and writers both) EVER fully grasp the difference between "lose" and "loose"?
"Lose" refers to the outcome of an event ie, "to lose the game" or "You'll lose your keys".
"Loose" refers to anything free from something which that binds or restrains: "I need to loosen these ropes" or "This tie has become loose".
PLEASE learn the differences.
Posted By: Guest#4394 (Guest) on November 21, 2008 at 03:31 PM
Personally, I thought the girl was drop-dead gorgeous. Amazingly exotic, yet familiar. Nice. :D
Posted By: Christopher Warrior (Guest) on November 25, 2008 at 10:19 AM
yeah great movie, really enjoyed it. yes it the empire strikes back of this story arc. really like daniel craig. the aesthetic in the action sequences is meant to be disorientating - that's the point.
big credit goes to the Bourne movies for showing them how to make Bond relevant again.
Posted By: simon (Guest) on December 09, 2008 at 12:22 AM
