Quantum of Solace: The AMG Review
November 14th, 2008 | 3:25 pm est |
James Bond embraces the Jason Bourne model with Quantum of Solace, a rough-and-tough 007 adventure whose aspirations are admirable, even if the aesthetics are not. Back once again is Daniel Craig as the thuggish brute who pummels his way to solving the mystery continued from the previous installment. Stripped away of nearly every trait that the character has worn so well, this isn’t the cinematic Bond of yore, rather a closer fit to the Ian Fleming mold of sophisticated brawler. Tonally, Quantum of Solace is a sobering hangover from the rousing experience of its predecessor. Where there was finely crafted action in the first, in its place are jarring action set pieces where disorienting camera moves and rapid editing rule the school. The days of the series’ escapist entertainment are momentarily shelved, thanks to the unsteady hand of indie filmmaker Marc Forster, who seems far out of his league when painting on a canvas this large. What he brings to the table is a yearning to delve more into Bond’s psyche — it’s just too bad that he felt the need to ape Mr. Bourne, Bond’s cinematic cousin, when it came to crafting its action scenes, of which there are many. Dour, hyper-stylized, and completely gadget-less — nobody does it better? Not in this case.
The film opens just where the last left off, with Bond bringing into custody a member of the secret society responsible for the death of his love, Vesper. But before any answers can be wrought, the criminal, Mr. White (Jesper Christensen), escapes, with the 007 agent hot on his heels. Working with M (played by the returning Judi Dench), Bond globetrots until he finds himself in South America, where he encounters Camille (Olga Kurylenko), another soul yearning for vengeance. Their mutual connection is Dominic Greene (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly’s Mathieu Amalric), a businessman whose ties to the mysterious organization put him on the top of the suspect list. With the help of fellow agent Fields (Gemma Arterton) and returning CIA comrade Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright), Bond and Camille make their last stand against the ones who have done them wrong, with the hope that this will close a chapter in both of their tortured existences.
Tortured is certainly one word for the film. While there are no rope-swinging knocks at Bond’s manhood here, the entire film feels a bit too concerned with tying up the loose ends left over from Casino Royale. This newfound focus on dramatics is commendable — and no doubt the reason that Forster was brought onto the project, but at what cost was this realized? For starters, the film was put in the hands of someone utterly clueless as to how to handle the intense storytelling. With little regard for pacing, the artsy director plops in action scenes seemingly whenever he feels like it, likening the picture to a bad musical where songs just appear out of nowhere. Relying on the current cinematic landscape forged by Bourne is another monumental mistake for the series, and the sooner they rectify this, the better. Moreover, the film needs at least some iota of fun injected into it. Escapist entertainment this is not. A valid continuation of the franchise’s sensibilities this is not. Audience members who are cool with that could find the proceedings to be a further breath of fresh air, though purists may likely walk away wondering whatever happened to the Bond that they know and love.
Performance-wise, Craig wins with his take on the role. His bullish Bond is a force of nature, narrowly determined to stop at nothing until he gets what he wants. Though still a continuation from what came before, there’s something different in his performance here that doesn’t quite promise anything other than this character staying as severe as he is here, which is too bad. As far as the rest of the cast, Dench again scores as M. Given more screen time than ever before, she’s the rock that has spanned two generations of the character and who will hopefully continue to add to the experience. Additionally, Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton both add their own flavor to the material, with Kurylenko pushing the Bond Girl mold into new dramatic territories. As the slimy bad guy, Mathieu Amalric excels, yet is missing a bit of over-the-top aplomb in his villainy. One interesting misstep is the wonderful Jeffrey Wright, who suddenly becomes a gruff Eastwood type under Forster’s direction. Subtle he is not, but then again, neither is the film.
Clocking in at a brisk 105 minutes (the shortest in the series’ history), this rare direct follow-up hopefully will put to rest the leftover emotional baggage of the character and leave Bond open to a bit more familiar interpretation in the future. While not the natural step after the end of Royale, it is its own animal — and an unexpected one at that. The film will no doubt find its fans and lose just as many, but one thing is for sure — this isn’t the last we’ll see of the daring agent. Let’s hope next time the producers understand that Bond can stay mature without bowing down to current film trends and artistic ambition. People need to believe that there is still one number that they can always count on — it’s time to stay true to that promise.
Thanks for the review, I am a young ‘Bond’ fan and i only started watching bonds since ‘Goldeneye’, i haven’t missed one movie since and i make sure i watch some golden oldies when i can.
I am still excited to see this movie, because i loved ‘Casino Royale’ and i hope since this is the first ‘Bond’ sequel, i don’t mind it being too much action and not much plot, as long as after this, they move forward and further show Bond’s development.
I don’t care too much about the latest string of movies made purely just to tie up loose ends, i don’t think movies should always try and feel like they should. The director’s answers to all the unanswered questions usually lack ‘oomph’ and are just cheap answers to offer closure to people without imaginations. Even then, people who wanted the answers are usually not happy with the answers, because then all of the endings they’d thought should of happened didn’t happen or worse…the romance you wanted to happen in the movie happened between the two main characters, and you lose all that sexual tension, that made the show fun to watch in the first place(X-files movie).
In saying that, i hope this ‘Bond’ movie doesn’t fall into that trap and leaves the movie goers with some answers and questions of their own.
But yeah, i like Daniel Craigs version of ‘Bond’ and i look forward to what he does with him in the future.
Quantum of Solace was entertaining for sure, but sometimes i got the feeling that the movie was making fun of itself… everywhere pane of glass Bond crosses was broken, he can’t get a gallon of milk from the store without it turning into a chase scene, and every time he punches someone in the face, they die
Quantum of Solace is a fine action film. However, it lacks the glamour that made the series famous. Sure, Connery was a tough guy too, but he was a gentleman too. Additionaly there’s no irony, no black humor in Craig’s interpretation of the character. I really don’t like the “thuggish brute who pummels his way”. He looks like more like a KGB agent than an MI6’s.
Anyway, I loved the the musical score (not the crappy title song) and the plot . Hope S.P.E.C.T.R.E comes back.
Jeremy Wheeler apparently doesn’t feel paid assassins should be ruthless and/or brutal.
QOS was sort of a step backwards to License to Kill. One critic described that one as “James Bond does a Charles Bronson movie”.
There were many things that went wrong in the film: the jarring editing of the action scenes, for one. Daniel Craig has such a strong physical presence it’s a shame the director didn’t have enough confidence in his star to just hold the camera still once in a while during the fight scenes.
The staging of other scenes was off as well. Compare the discovery of Strawberry Fields body to that of Jill Masterson’s in “Goldfinger” and you’ll see what I mean.
Then, there was the villain, Dominic Greene. If there’s one thing the Bond series has shown us, it’s that a dull villain with a dull master plan makes for uninteresting viewing. Granted, his plan seemed chillingly logical, but how many people really care about water rights in Bolivia? I’ve no desire to see is another bad guy with a killer satellite, but the conflict needed to be more universal.
Finally, if there was one thing the film was sorely missing it was panache. It’s the thing that’s always separated Bond from his imitators. With luck, we’ll see some next time.
no puedo creer que sigan con la franquisia, quantum es la peor pelicula de la serie junto con casino royal, david craig es peor james bond de la historia…
English translation: I cannot believe they’re continuing with this franchise, quantum is the worst film of the series along with casino royal, david craig is worse James Bond in history ..
I enjoyed the movie as an action movie, but I feel I didn’t enjoy a BOND movie. I accept Daniel Craig’s character as a viable 007, but he didn’t evolve here. The film seemed okay, up until the end, which wasn’t. There was no ‘BOND’ climax. It didnt tie together at all. It fizzed out, a no show. No style. Incomplete. Confusing cinematics. Who was the villain? I was trying to decide from three. No, make that four (Vespers ex at the end). No classy plot or dialogue. Unbelievable too, the way Craig escapes being hit by bullets: low-level pulp. The airplane sequence was confusing and aweful, lacking that special BOND moment where it appears he’s finished but somehow from sheer cool ingenuity he manages once again to escape certain death. And then there was the lack of new technology that was often a feature of Bond films. Like, if he was to zip up to his suit some material attachments to transform it into one of those ‘flying jackets’ I’ve seen? None of that. I appreciate the money that went into this film, but, I am afraid it will be one of the worst.
They may as well have got Tom Cruise to direct this film as it is just as screwed up as ‘Mission Impossible’ was stuffed by Cruise and his violent and stupefying ideas.
ATTENTION SONY PICTURES - Get back to the REAL BOND and maybe you won’t poo-the-pooch with the next version like you have with this one. Firstly please don’t have the intro overlayed with a screeching song that nobody would ever play or want to endure again. The plot is disjointed and obscure, the action is bland and way over the top and just too much violent action and death.
I guess your script writers have no real imagination and continuity anymore. You just need to get back to basics and have a hard look at what Ian Flemming was trying to say, before you ruin a good thing with another dud.
I have been an avid fan of Bond for 30 years and this current offering is a dismal disappointment. What a shame as technically and visually it could have been a masterpiece. Better luck next time or its goodbye to Bond. What a sad waste of resources and talent.