The first thing I have to say to my fellow film-lovers: lighten up! It’s only a Bond film! What do you want? Tarkovsky? (There. I’ve got that out of my system.)
I have to say that though I like Bond movies, I’m well aware of what they are: slick entertainments, lacking in any thematic depth. If they are exciting, with great set-pieces and a continuing run of exhilarating chases, shootouts, and etcetera, why should anybody complain? After all, we know what we’re getting into with a Bond movie; if we don’t like it, we don’t have to go.
In the realm of excitement and great set-pieces, Quantum of Solace stacks up fairly well. Director Marc Forster keeps things humming along, without giving us much time to stop and think about how implausible it all is. That’s a good thing in a Bond movie, because plausibility is not their long suit. The style of this outing owes a lot to Paul Greengrass’ Bourne movies, especially The Bourne Ultimatum. Pumped-up, quick-cutting, hand-held, it’s been dubbed “shaky-cam” by some. Thankfully, the cam wasn’t quite as shaky as that of Bourne Ultimatim; I haven’t heard of any people vomiting in the front row on Quantum.
What I have heard is that people have trouble following the action — on CBS, it prompted David Edelstein to wax nostalgic about the good old days of Hitchcock et al. – but I had no such problem. Your mileage, of course, may vary.
As Bond, Daniel Craig is a cold, efficient killing machine. His eyes are a chilly, gray blue, and contain about as much emotion as a dead fish. His brutality is much remarked upon, chiefly by those who prefer their Bonds to be wise-cracking fops like Roger Moore. As Bond girl Camille, Olga Kurylenko is gorgeous, and brings more acting ability than usual to her role. And as the bad guy Dominic Greene — out to rule the world, of course — Matthieu Almaric is appropriately monomaniacal, and makes us forget his gentle turn in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. At the same time, he is a Bond villain with a little ‘v,’ the modern face of evil: corporate, interchangeable, expendable.
Both Bond and Camille are out for revenge — she for the murder of her family and he for the killing of Vesper from Casino Royale. (And dude! That, like, makes them doubles of one another!) The plot — what there is of it — revolves around each of them hunting that revenge while battling Quantum, the shadowy organization led by Greene, whose aim is to corner the worldwide market in water.
Or something like that. It doesn’t really matter, of course. What counts is that Bond kicks ass, and plenty of it. Quantum of Solace delivers on that score.
RSS 2.0
Rick said, What counts is that Bond kicks ***, and plenty of it. And Quantum delivers that in spades.
Rick, it seem he not only “kicks *** on the “big screen” but at the box office too!….
…. (According to Bloomberg News…Nov 16th) — “The James Bond thriller “Quantum of Solace” opened in first place in U.S. and Canadian theaters with ticket sales of $70.4 million for Sony Corp. and Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., the best-ever debut for the spy franchise.”
And…not only in the U.S., but Canada too! eh?
dcd
I hated this film. The filmakers robbed me of two hours of my time, and gave me nothing by underwritten characters, listless actions and endless pyrotechnics and car explosions. I understand what you are saying Rick about “lightning up” but when I want to lighten up I’ll opt for guilty pleasures. This doesn’t cut it by any barometer of measurement.
But, so what? I didn’t like it. I’m only one opinion. I’m happy it work for you, and you wrote a splendid treatment here. That is what really counts.
dcd,
That it opened at the top has a lot to do with the fact that it was the ONLY credible film opening all weekend. Folks like me will go because, well, there’s nothing else. I liked it ok, it delivered what I want in a Bond film.
Thanks, Sam . . . as I said, I’m not under any illusion that it’s particularly good cinema. Many times during its running time, I shook my head and smiled at the improbability of it all. I just enjoyed it, that’s all . . . I wish I had more choice in the theaters. One multiplex does not a film-festival make …
Thanks so much for your thorough review! Too Shy to Stop writer Adam Shuler also wrote about Quantum of Solace. You can read his review here.
Laryssa, thanks for stopping by. I’ll check out Adam’s review . . .
I hated this movie, and yes, I’m one of the ones complaining about the shaky cam!
Here’s my thoughts about this. I have no problem with this type of aesthetic if it’s done right. I feel that Greengrass and his editors in the Bourne series left just enough in the frame to give us a sense of space and logistics. With “Quantum of Solace”, there’s none of that, especially in the opening chase scene that gave me no idea who was where, which car belonged to whom or what the hell was happening. It lost me from there.
Joseph:
I can see where you’re coming from. It was for me right on the edge, and even went over it a couple of times. But violent confrontations are rarely coherent affairs, they’re often confusing, so much that the participants themselves sometimes lose track of what’s up. I’m willing to sacrifice a little coherency, a little being-sure-every-minute-what’s-going-on, for the kinetic feel of those action sequences, especially the first couple of chases.
The Bourne quick cutting chase scenes need to go the way of the Dodo Bird. I couldn’t even tell which character was Bond in the chase scenes. It is one thing to have fast action and quite another when it makes the film impossible to follow at all. Bring back the classic Bond!
Pam: I feel your pain (literally), but what is the classic Bond? Certainly not that pansy Roger Moore …
I was really expecting the Tarkovsky touch. I’m disappointed.
It would have been “Quantum of Solaris” Heh … get it? Solaris?
If Tarkovsky had directed it I’m sure he would have done an Odd Job on it. But as long as he put his heart into it, it would have come from Russia with love.
Jonathan, I bow to your punner-osity. You definitely have the golden eye when it comes to puns (or is it the gold finger?).
Personally, I’d like to see Rublev, the story of an amnesiac monk’s race across medieval Russia to save priceless icons and the girl he loves. Michael Bay would, of course, direct.
Rick I liked the film as well. Sam and Joseph B. are mad because it wasn’t as good as Casino Royale. Its The Tow Towers to Casino’s Fellowship. Nothing more or less.
I’m glad you liked it, Film-book . . . though I liked “The Two Towers” better.
Film.Book dot Com:
You are actually wrong there. I did not like CASINO ROYALE either. I’m just angered that it wasn’t as good as THE RULES OF THE GAME or BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN!
LOL.
It pisses me off that it’s not as good as “My Three Sons” (that’s a joke …)
I fall with Sam and Joseph, but it also has nothing to do with Casino Royale, which was at least tolerable. No, I’m simply waxing nostalgic about the lothario, witty Bond of decades past. Moore was my favorite, so that gives an idea of what I’m looking for in James Bond. Craig has carved out his own niche of the character, but I’m afraid he was pigeonholed by poor writing here.
Hi, Rick! Happy Thanksgiving!
I found myself annoyed and perplexed by the rhythmless (or was it too rhythmfiul, like a metronome) editing of the action set pieces, especially the first two. But on the whole I found Quantum to be better than I expected. It struck me, being a sequel, as a kind of transition piece between the reconstituted Bond of Casino Royale and whatever shape the series takes when it offers up the first Craig movie to be neither an “origin” or a sequel, but one that exists as a freestanding episode like all the others. I hope the next director/editing team can look beyond the Greengrass template and either offer up something new or take the series in what would be perceived as a radical new direction and look to cooler models of action cinema from the past (the Connery Bonds, of course, but also pictures like Ronin, for example) for their inspiration. Quantum is not a movie I feel moved to see again, but I certainly think it’s a creditable piece of work across the board, with the stated reservations.
I just wanted to also say, Rick, how much I’ve enjoyed your blog over the last year, both its visual format and the writing. I always enjoy it when you stop by my place, and I hope to be a better, more interactive reader of yours in the future!
Daniel, I’m afraid I like a more serious Bond … I thought Moore was the worst one, actually … I’m afraid I’m a Connery purist … although i did, somewhat paradoxically, like Brosnan. Go figure.
Dennis, welcome, and Happy Thanksgiving to you, too.
I just didn’t have as much problem with the action as some did . . . but, like you, I’m ready for a change. I was disappointed that Quantum’s producers — or would Forster make a determination like that? — felt they had to adopt Greengrass’ style. Hope you’re right, that it’s a transitional kind of thing. Are there any fresh ways of doing action, though? I remember the first time I saw the battle in the rain in Seven Samurai It had a fluid, organic quality that is the diametric opposite of the choppy Bourne style …
I’ve always considered SLIFR to be one of the top blogs; I read most every word; I’ll try to comment more often there as well.