My review: "Quantum of Solace"

[Blue_Tires]

Picking up where “Casino Royale” left off, our favorite English super-spy is hot on the trail to see how wide a conspiracy reaches by questioning his only link, Mr. White (Jesper Christensen)...

For starters, the opening song and title credits are just as bad as everyone has been saying – close your eyes, cover your ears and count silently for 180 seconds. Carly Simon, you are missed...Maurice Binder, you are sorely missed – Someone please exhume his grave and have him and his artistry cloned.

(As an aside; while driving home, “Smooth Operator” by Sade came on the radio and I was thinking “Why has she never done a Bond theme song? She couldn’t be ANY worse than the procession of acts that followed after Duran Duran’s “View to a Kill” in 1985...)

The frenetic, handheld-camera action starts early and is laid pretty thick throughout the movie, with the requisite chase scenes, explosions and shootouts in exotic locales in Haiti, Europe (the Austria sequence is the best in the movie) and Bolivia. Bond, still feeling the hurt from Vesper Lynd and spurred on by a burning vengeance, meets a kindred spirit in Camille (Olga Kurylenko), who is seeking another kind of revenge...

The primary villain in this movie (although he is a mere cog in a much more complex apparatus) is a natural resource snatcher disguised as environmentalist, Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric)...Judi Dench gives her standard performance as a “mother hen” M, and Jeffrey Wright is back as Felix Leiter, albeit in a much smaller role. Also reprising his cameo of Mathis is the great Giancarlo Giannini, making the most of every minute he is on screen...This Bond movie is surprisingly brief, and with another open ending, seems more like a prologue or a chapter than a full sequel (as a standalone, the story is nowhere near as strong as “Casino Royale”).

Having loved “Casino Royale,” which I thought laid down a great foundation for the new Bond, I had high hopes for this one...I’m not going to say I didn’t like it, but I think it was a step back...IMO, this was missing that certain je ne sais quoi (maybe one-liner humor? A better villain?)...Even though this movie has a few major homages to earlier ones, my fanboyism was hoping to see an appearance by either Moneypenny or Q – I personally would have loved to see their re-imagining...The certain ‘something’ is what separates a Bond film from a Bourne film, and more than a few times, that was what this was dangerously close to feeling like...

Overall, I think the franchise is in good shape...After a lot of naysayers (myself one of them) made a few jokes, Craig has fully grown into the Bond role without letting it define him...The writing has been better without being over-the-top, and the role of women has come a long way from helpless, needy ‘damsel in distress’ archetypes. And Dench is stealing more scenes (in a good way) with each passing film...And despite the awkward title, you will get the meaning by the end...

Rating: 3.5 stars out of 5

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. I pretty much agree with you - I, too, thought the story is still lacking something

My movie partner and I discussed it over dinner, and I think it's because the movie tried to follow the 'vengeance for Vesper' line along with the 'let's introduce an entirely new evil organization that's even more sinister and powerful than SPECTRE or any other one we've seen'.

It was too much.

It's my same complaint about Spiderman III and X-Men III - movies should stick to one story at a time; otherwise, it doesn't work well. You can do multiple story lines in a novel, because you can have 500 pages or 1000 pages. But a movie is still pretty much limited to 2 hours or so. One story at a time, people.

And I love that M is being used so much more in recent Bond films than previously done - it's really fleshing out the role, and how the Ms interact with the rest of the British government and so on. I especially love it because Dench is so fucking awesome; but I think it also a lot more fun to be having M traveling around and getting involved in stuff.

I also have a big complaint about the quick edits, which complaint is not lobbed solely at this Bond film, but way too many recent action movies. We don't need half-second edits, people. We can't fucking focus on anything. It was kind of hip and trendy and cool at first, like ten years ago, but it's fucking overdone and obnoxious now.

[Blue_Tires]

13. QFT:

"I especially love it because Dench is so fucking awesome..."

Having re-watched Casino Royale today, I did notice that the chemistry Craig shared with Eva Green was not present with Kurylenko (and i know it's different because her character was more developed and bond actually loved her)...And I do agree about the overkill with the shaky-camera quick cuts...too much of that hurts my eyes...

I guess I was really hoping to find out more on Mr. White...the movie veered on a different track and never seemed to come back...and upon further review, the Greene character didn't have much of a sinister screen presence -- But of course Le Chiffre set the bar pretty high.

[kay1864]

2. Good, but cut a bit too tightly, I thought

Yeah, there's a need for pacing, but there's also a need for audience comprehension. One opening scene left me going "OK, who just got shot?" In fact this was the shortest Bond movie to date, at 106 minutes.

Jeffrey Wright is back as Felix Leiter, albeit in a much smaller role.

According to imdb, it was originally longer, but a lot of scenes were re-written on the set, and his part was shortened (too bad, the actor does well with the character).

Glaring error with Mathis (his locale), if this movie takes place one hour after the last one.

What homages were there, other than Goldfinger?

[Blue_Tires]

3. the other two homages i saw were less obvious

1. The boat chase scene (Live and Let Die)

2. The Bond Girl hellbent on avenging her family's murder by one of the movie's bad guys (For Your Eyes Only)

[Deja Q]

23. Walking in the desert - The Spy Who Loved Me

Bond becoming rogue, seeking revenge - Licence to Kill


There were a dozen or so total, and I wondered if they were deliberate; making coy references to previous movies is patronizing, not to mention non-sequitur given the franchise's reboot.

[Blue_Tires]

29. good eye...i missed those...

the "walking in the desert in evening clothes" should have been obvious to me....

[Blue_Tires]

9. i was thinking about this line today:

"Glaring error with Mathis (his locale), if this movie takes place one hour after the last one."

Unless at the end of Casino Royale, there was a sizable time gap between the time when Bond saw the 'Mr. White' message on Vesper's phone and the time when he shows up in White's driveway...Kind of a reach, but it fits

[Bryan]

4. Just got back, really liked it

Enjoyably weighty and dour. I mean, it wasn't The Constant Gardener, but I never thought I'd see a Bond film where the villain is a utilities magnate who's in bed with the CIA and the evil master plan is an attempt to steal control of a third-world country's water supply via a military coup.

[Hippo_Tron]

5. The plot was not well developed *spoiler*

I really do like the Latin American dictator theme and I like that they are going with reality based terrorist plots instead of the super weapons of the Brosnan era. That being said, Greene wasn't particularly well developed and they did not do a particularly good job establishing how he was such a major threat. I kept thinking to myself, "Okay so he wants to control Bolivia's water, big fucking deal." The problem was that they clearly decided to brush aside the seriousness of the villain's motives because the story was primarily about Bond getting revenge for Vesper.

Unfortunately when they decide to use Quantum again in future movies I'm going to have a hard time taking them seriously. From the trailers with the "The first thing you should know about us is that we have people everywhere" line, I thought Quantum was going to be established as a serious threat to the security of the free world. But apparently they just want Bolivia's water.

[Blue_Tires]

10. true

i also wanted a more fleshed-out, sinister villain...this one was kind of soft and nerdy, and I was hoping to see more of a focus on Mr. White this time around...

oh well...bring on the third part!B-)

[Deja Q]

16. He was ancillary to the plot

They built up the whole movie making and connecting dots about "oil shortage, water shortage, no right or wrong it's just necessity, America this, China that, blah blah blah". Bringing up various leaders of the terrorist org or how they put in a new leader in Bolivia every other week is suggesting this nameless organization is the big baddie that will keep Bond going forever, like the Energizer bunny on solar cells, is misplaced - like you said, who will care? What sort of dots are the viewers supposed to put together, and at some point the story has to clarify which dots are the correct ones.

At least Greene's method of killing women and framing Bond ensured we got some satisfaction at the end, I suppose.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. Exactly, it didn't connect the dots

I guess it wasn't that the plot wasn't sinister enough, it's just that they didn't show how sinister it was. The scenes showing people not being able to get water just didn't do it.

I don't know if you saw Iron Man, but the scene where Tony Stark is watching the weapons his company makes being used to slaughter innocent people were really well done. That's the kind of scenes that the movie needed. The plots in Bond movies can be complicated but the ramifications should not be. The audience should not have to think about what the stakes are if Bond fails to stop the bad guys. It should be blatantly obvious.

[Frank Cannon]

6. I'm just going to see the Star Trek trailer

If there's a decent Bond movie attached to it, then so much the better.

[Blue_Tires]

12. aw man....i must have missed the trailer

i only saw the ones for the next adam sandler, the davinci code sequel and tom cruise's nazi film

[Deja Q]

15. I saw that trailer... A farting skunk wouldn't stink as bad.

Looks like they're retconning TOS and Roddenberry's vision, and JJ Abrams is involved. Like the doofus behind "Gladiator" and "Star Trek Nemesis", JJ Abrams is best left playing with tiddleywinks instead of ruining solid movie series...

In TOS, Kirk broke the rules and prime directive - when he felt it would better the society he visited. Not because he was some James Dean rebel wannabe who's driving and crashing cars and one day sees a starship being built, with some other character saying how space is a violent place, blah blah blah...

Indeed, the Mastercard commercial was more entertaining... and we don't need to be reminded that the Mastercard logo looks like a cross-section of Ronald McDonald's gonads...

And the release date was moved from 2008 to May 8 2009 -- which is 3 weeks before the big blockbuster movies make their opening weekends. Somebody lost faith in this reboot of Trek, and I bet they did so with good reason. The early May time period is to movies what Friday nights are to television. The death slot.

[Blue_Tires]

19. i just saw the youtube, since i missed it in the theater

WHAT IN FUCK'S NAME WAS THAT SHIT?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????????????????????????

WHY is some punk teen wrecking a midyear corvette that in the 23rd century would literally be worth more than it's weight in gold??

WHY do movie sound technicians INSIST on using the 'tire burnout squeal' sound when a car is on a dirt road?

this one may need to stay in the editing bay a little longer, because so far i am not amused (i seriously hope I'm wrong about the teaser, but I will NOT allow Hollywood to fuck up another series)...

[Deja Q]

22. JJ Abrams and John Logan - if they teamed up, that might produce something good...

On the other hand, they'd be more likely to create the worst drek ever scribbled for any screen, big or otherwise.

[Frank Cannon]

25. It plays much better on the big screen, I assure you

I find it impossible to discuss plot points or even sound effects of a movie from a two-minute trailer released six months in advance. We don't know what the story is on the Corvette, nor will we until next summer.

[Frank Cannon]

24. Ah, yes, like those other early May premieres: Spider-Man and Iron Man

Those movies did terribly! :D

Fact is, Star Trek was supposed to premiere this Christmas, but the studio thought it would compete favorably as a summer blockbuster, so they had to move it to May. They actually moved it because they had MORE faith in the film, not less.

I am a huge, lifelong fan of the original series, and I remain cautiously optimistic about this movie. The franchise desperately needed a reboot. It had become so mired in "canon" and technobabble as to be completely paralyzed. The producers had entirely run out of ideas, and no matter how hard they tried, they just couldn't recreate the "magic" of Roddenberry's original show. This movie might just be the closest, most honest attempt to bring that back. I actually was very pleased by what I saw in the trailer.

I also feel better knowing that the word on the street is that Kevin Smith has seen part of the film, and he likes it a lot. He would be someone who I think would be quite critical of it if he had a reason.

[Deja Q]

26. Good point...

Spider-Man III, I presume? :evilgrin:

I'm a lifelong solid fan of Trek (Kirk era) and I'm still not sure why they need to reboot it.

However, that you're cautiously optimistic makes me feel less depressed over it.

What next, "Maude" gets re-made. For the big screen too...

[Frank Cannon]

27. Spider-Man was hurt less by the fact that it opened in May...

than by the fact that it truly was a dog turd of a movie.

Keep an open mind about this Star Trek movie. From what I've seen and heard about it, you may be pleasantly surprised.

[Frank Cannon]

28. Spider-Man was hurt less by the fact that it opened in May...

than by the fact that it truly was a dog turd of a movie.

Keep an open mind about this Star Trek movie. From what I've seen and heard about it, you may be pleasantly surprised.

[AlCzervik]

7. just got back from seeing, it had some problems but overall i thought it was entertaining

not as good as good as Casino Royale, kind of felt like a bridge movie you know, to get us to the next one. Compared to some of the drek i've seen it was a good time. Anyhow when i was getting my diet coke the girl behind the counter said it was dead in there even yesterday, that's how bad the economy is, no line at all and we got good seats.

[VoodooGuru]

8. I really liked it.

I haven't seen a good Bond film in a while, but I was really hopeful for this one. I got to see this one on a pass Thursday night, first date out with my spouse in a long time. We loved it.

The action WAS hard to follow in a lot of spots. It was in no way perfect, but Craig makes a great Bond, and I thoroughly enjoyed his performance. I'm looking forward to the next one, now!

And by the way, I completely disagree with you about the theme. I liked it, but I like Jack White.

[Blue_Tires]

11. really? that HAS to be one of the three worst Bond themes ever

almost as bad as Madonna, imo

maybe if the opening credit visuals were not so unimaginative, the song would not have stood out so much to me...

[VoodooGuru]

30. Call it a matter of taste, I guess.

Personally, I have to give the dishonors in worst Bond themes to The Living Daylights and Thunderball (Tom Jones, wtf?)

[Deja Q]

14. The lyrics are mostly good, but the accompanying music drowns them...

The title's visuals were a neat experiment, sans gun barrel logo... :(

Overall, Quantum of Solace (QoS) is pretty darn good -- but not without flaws...

The villains are there, but they seem peripheral to the plot (terrorist organization, which also ensures the new Bond franchise will never run out of material)... the real villain seems to be its fatalistic approach on saying "oil crisis" and "water crisis" and how the villains have no sense of right and wrong, it's out of necessity that they do what they do. (novel, most people prefer human villains; not anthropomorphic ones based on current fears and perceptions.)

Yes, QoS was a letdown in some ways. But in others, especially suspense and action pieces, even those where you know something is going to happen, the timing is perfect.

The open ending of Greene's death could be closed, in that his terrorist buddies found him and shot him after getting information or whatever trite excuse anyone wants to use. Just leaving him in the desert with a can of motor oil to drink, which he did, was a poetic ending -- and did not need to be ruined by adding some bullet holes to his head for no significant reason; his killers did him a favor, perhaps...

I too loved the "Bond girl". Definitely one of the better entries...

I too miss Q and Moneypenny...

And I knew little could top "Casino Royale", so they just made it and let it be itself. The fact Daniel Craig continues to show he IS James Bond -- in terms of character, the franchise is secure. As for plots? We need another "From Russia with Love" or "For Your Eyes Only" that take a slightly OTT concept (decoder, whatever) and add astute realism to it. I think that's what's missing from QoS.

3 stars out of 4.

[Deja Q]

17. And I have this to say about that Mrs Fields lady out to rein in Bond:

Bond loved Mrs Fields' cookies... :evilgrin: :rofl:

[Blue_Tires]

18. yeah, i was ALL over Ms. Fields

I thought she looked way better than the other one...

[Deja Q]

21. I preferred "the other one", despite the irony of forgeting her name...

:silly: