Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2008 > November > 14 > Entry
Little ‘Solace’ found as new Bond movie misfires
Ever since the new James Bond film was named Quantum of Solace, people groused endlessly about how lousy the title was. I thought the complaints were stupid then, and having seen the film, I still think the complaints are stupid because the real problem isn’t the title - it’s the movie.
I have been tremendously forgiving of the 007 series over the years. I even liked Die Another Day, which many fans think of as the James Bond film that would be playing in hell’s multiplex. It’s not - that’s A View to a Kill. But Quantum of Solace is the first movie since then that has missed the mark. And that’s a real letdown after the triumph of Casino Royale.
Quantum of Solace falls short in the most crucial way - it botches the action scenes. And if a Bond film can’t get those right, you don’t have a movie. It’s that simple.
Other reviewers have lamented that Quantum tries too hard to imitate the Bourne movies with their fast cutting and brutal action scenes, but I don’t think that’s the problem in and of itself. That style could have worked. Casino Royale had a bit of Bourne in it too. Indeed, both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace used personnel from the Bourne movies who helped make their action scenes so effective.
However, Casino Royale had one of the best action directors working today, Martin Campbell, who also made Goldeneye. The director of Quantum of Solace, Marc Forster (Stranger Than Fiction, The Kite Runner), does not have good action skills.
He drops the ball right at the very start. The film opens with a slam-bang car chase immediately, but there is no establishing shot to lay out the players. The scene is edited so rapidly and the camera is so close to the action, I kept losing track of what was where and who was who. That has never happened in a Bond film before.
A fight scene that followed shortly could have been great, but the shots were such a jumble, I couldn’t even tell Bond apart from the villain. When you keep asking yourself incomplete questions like “Who’s the … ? Where did … ? Why is …?”, the action isn’t delivering.
It’s especially a shame because the story, by the same team that wrote Casino Royale, had a lot of potential. I liked its gritty, low-key vibe. Unlike most Bond films, Quantum qualifies as a sequel because it continues where Royale left off. Bond (Daniel Craig) is trying to track down the people responsible for betraying Vesper, his love from the last film. The trail leads to a shadowy organization called Quantum and a sinister businessman named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric).
Those who need Q, Moneypenny, witty puns and the other old standbys to have a good time, will be disappointed. Those staples haven’t reappeared. But whatever Quantum’s failings, they do not belong to Craig, who remains intensely compelling. He doesn’t get to play as wide a range of emotions as he did his first time out, but his intense charisma gives the movie its best moments. Both new Bond girls deserve a better film, particularly Olga Kurylenko, who plays an excellent slow burn as a woman who wants revenge just like Bond does. Gemma Arterton is fetching as Fields, a field operative who disappears too quickly.
Also not used to his full potential is Amalric (excellent in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) who should have made a great villain, but who isn’t really allowed to pose much of a threat. As written, he’s not as dangerous as a Bond villain needs to be, and that undercuts the story.
Still, Quantum of Solace could have survived that flaw if its action scenes were well filmed, and they’re not. And I lay that blame at Forster’s feet. He’s a talented director, but he’s wrong for Bond, and he has set the series back.
As for that infamously weird title, here’s what Quantum of Solace means: It means a certain amount of peace or relief. It’s what I didn’t find enough of in this movie. Quantum of Solace isn’t the worst James Bond film, but it is the most disappointing.
GRADE: C+
Permalink | Comments (7) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Comments
By Roger
November 20, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
I couldn’t agree more.By richard abanono
November 20, 2008 4:41 AM | Link to this
more power pierce brosnan…you are best james bond ever!By Jason
November 18, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
Hey Robinette, it was better than your movie.By SOLACE
November 17, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this
I personally thought, as a James Bond fan it was very good. I wasn’t disappointed even though it didn’t have the car of the future in the movie as it usually does. But overall I thought it was very good!By Sam
November 17, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
The film was amazing. Yes the action was fast,but it was more realalistic than before. Who gets shot at then 5 seconds later gets out of the way??? The action was REAL speed. And the story was great. And Olga Kurylenko made it worth all $10 bucks.By kevin
November 15, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
you suckBy SRCputt
November 14, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
When I first heard Marc Forster, I thought it was a strange choice. Now that I’ve seen the film, I know it was a terrible choice. The action is simply incomprehensible. The basic plot was fine. The performances are solid. But the action photography is shockingly poor for a big budget film. It’s a doggone shame.