FILM: Quantum Of Solace

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387]

A flawed but interesting direct sequel to Casino Royale.

Marc Forster was an unconventional choice as a director, having no experience in action. Which shows in this film .

The previous one had 2 of the best set up action sequences of the decade. QoS has a lot more action, but none of theme really memorable.

The action scenes are well coordinated, but the way they are shot and edited make it difficult to get any lasting impression from them. Casino Royale also had a lot of quick cutting and tightly framed shots, but Campbell and Stuart Baird always made sure there were some wide shots available that gave the viewer a sense of clarity. I actually noticed a distinct lack of "overview" shots in this film. It's hard to get ones bearings.

What Forster does do it make a film that looks like no other Bond film. The locations feels worn-out and used. Old buildings, chipped paint, dust, sweat dryness. No longer the picture perfect holiday location of Bond-films of old.

The story is decent, but lacks focus. Vital pieces of info are given on the go. Quantum seems to operate largely like SPECTRE. Since they seem to own the rights to SPECTRE I still wonder why they did not use it?

Daniel Craig returns as a Bond hell-bend on revenge. His cold as ice demeanour is impressive. Craig never looks anything less then totally believable in the role. Even when knocking out 4 of M's goons in a lift. Like CR he totally own the role, and the film. Because of Bond's single-minded anger in this film, some of the humour that was there in Casino Royale is gone. (hope it will return in Skyfall)

Olga Kurylenko looks breathtaking even with a nasty scar on her back. And is good enough an actress to sustain a somewhat dramatic role. Still not sure why Bond didn't sleep with her.

Gemma Arterton is great in her all too brief role of the women Bond did sleep with. Utterly British, yet slightly not see.

Mathieu Amalric is reptilian as the main baddie. Like an evil Roman Polanski.

Cinematography is good, even the shaky cam is not THAT bad, but the movie is ruined by the editors. They chose to convey as much visual information as possible by cutting quickly, instead of maybe lingering on a shot that could have told the audience as much as 4 shots lasting 1 second.

The few times they the film does rely on longer shots to build suspense 9the opera scene) it really works.

The title song is not very good. The production sounds amateurish. Like they were going for big and brassy, but didn't know how to do it. Alicia Keys is one of the best vocalists around. But the mixing of her voice is just odd.

David Arnold's score however is rather great. Love his snarly brass and jagged rhytms. Love the way he sneaks little cameo's of previous themes and motifs in there.

I can sort of see why they made this film they way they did. It certainly tries to continue with the path Casino Royale set out on. But it also tries to resemble the current trend of action films. Bond films tend to be best when they do their own thing.

Some people choose to hate the film. I can't. Craig is too cool. It's too good looking and I like that it tries to give both Bond and M some real depth.

*** out of ****

[Richard P 5,303]

It's by far the worst Bond film I've seen (I've seen all of them from the Brosnan era onwards).

The story had such a lack of focus that it just bored me, to the extent that I guess I missed some bits of information along the way, as it became harder to tell what was going on. By the end of the film, I just didn't care, beyond sort of hoping that Bond and the girl made it out of that building in the middle of the desert.

I did come away with a greater appreciation for Arnold's score though. Weirdly, I like it more than I do Casino Royale, which I thought was a very entertaining film.

[crocodile 9,724]

So Roman Polański is not evil then?

Karol

[Xander Harris 9,675]

Still not sure why Bond didn't sleep with her.

Because Bond switches his heart back on with her.

Some people choose to hate the film. I can't. Craig is too cool.

That sums it up. Craig is the most interesting Bond as far as I'm concerned. He made even a mediocre flick like Quantum pretty entertaining.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387]

In some significant ways this film resembles Licence To Kill. It features a Bond out for revenge, largely but not wholly stripped of his humor. Both feature mostly Southern Americans locations and have a scene where M reliefs 007 of duty.

QoS is by far the most cynical of the Bond film, featuring political back stabbing in every turn. It paints an ugly picture of an Intelligence community where the CIA happily looks the other way in exchange for American oil concessions.

Casino Royale was the longest Bond film and this is the shortest. And the short length is an issue because of two reasons.

The plot is very murky, and very hard to follow, the most convoluted one since Octopussy, which started as an investigation into an egg and ended with a nuke.

The main reason for this is because of the 2008 writers strike which affected many films and TV shows. There is actually an interesting plot in there, and story elements worth exploring, but it all doesnt come together very well. A longer film which took the time to properly take it's audience though the story would have been better.

The second reason why I wished this was longer is because it's been edited to an inch of it's life. Not just in the action scenes (more about those later), but even the usual transition scenes have loads of half second cuts often making it hard to properly establish the scenery. Transition scenes from one location to another should give the viewer a breather, but the tight editing style constantly feel like you should be on edge.

It's the same several times in rather important dialogue scenes. Cut a bit too quickly, at the expense of their impact. A film with such a solemn mood should linger on that a bit more. So the complicated, unfinished script and the fast editing make this film hard to follow at times.

And now for the action scenes. It's very normal for the Bond films to take inspiration of the popular films of the era. Which is why 007 went to Harlem in LALD, went into outer space in Moonraker and went after Colombian drug lords in LTK.

The Bourne films were big at around the time this film was made, and it's pretty obvious in it's style.

Paul Greengrass used a style of shooting and cutting that tried to make the action as visceral and kinetic as possible, and though the action is his Bourne films is pretty hard to follow it really does work for those films. But sadly director Marc Foster is no Paul Greengrass, so the Bourne style is imitated in the films many action and fight scenes (eleven in total), but instead of putting you on the edge of your seat they make you desperatly trying to work out what is going on, and who is where.

Casino Royale produced two of the best action scenes of it's decade, and had a few other ones that were pretty good as well. Those also had some quick cuts and shaky cams. But never to these extremes.

Long shots, distant shots, shots held for a few seconds to show where the characters are in relation to each other or their environment. These are all very important is making an action scene into more then just a collection bangs and whallops. Martin Campbell and his editors understood this. Marc Foster apparently didn't

The movie is often well shot, and it's action scenes have some amazing individual shots in each of them. But there's far too little sense of space, and therefore impact. An action scene happens, last a few minutes and is soon forgotten. I did rather like the hotel room fight early in the film, recalling the 60's Bonds, but even that one ends too fast.

Thankfully the actors are actually quite good. Daniel Craig plays a Bond looking for revenge so the humor that was there in Casino Royale is severely tones down (Again resembling Dalton's Bond in LTK.)

But Craig does shine in the few moments of levity allowed to him in this film. He has a tendency to underact these moments instead of trying to milk them, which would really work well in the next film.

Like Casino Royale Craig's Bond is completely bad-ass. Both invulnerable, yet somehow human at the same time.

Judi Dench gets a bigger role here, and spends much of the film distrusting Bond and everyone around her. Once again Dame Judi (who can do cynical as good as anyone) is in excellent form and the few scenes she has with Craig are strong.

Olga Kurylenko looks fantastic and is also actually a very good actress. I liked her in this though her character could ahve used a few more rewrites. Why does she go straight to Greene after he just tried to have her killed? Why is she a member of Bolivian Intelligence (the film mentions this and then does nothing with it). The decision to not have 007 sleep with her was controversial, but I don't actually mind it.

Bond does sleep with Strawberry Fields. Though for some reason she is never named Strawberry in the film (why come up with a silly Flemmingesque name and not use it?).

Gemma Arterton actually built quite a credible acting career on the back of this film and she's good in an underwritten role.

Again, Bond does sleep with her, but there isnt even any kind if seduction scene? Why not?

Her death makes little impact because by that time the character had already been forgotten. Also the recall to Goldfinger doesn't really work because oil doesn't really play much of any part in this film. (the script has a hard time pinpointing what the stakes are)

Despite the quick editing, I do like the look of this film. Unlike every other Bond film is eschews exotic locations and goes for a parched, used up feel which is effective for this story (its not something I'd want for all of them though). Though some CGI was used, many of the stunts and action shots do feel like they take place in a realistic setting. But again, the editing lessens the impact.

This film properly introduces Quantum, in one of the films most impressive scenes in Austria. Obviously subsequent films were going to return to this, but in 2013 EON finally got the rights for SPECTRE back. Since the actor playing Mr. White will return in the upcoming Bond films one can assume that Quantum will make place for SPECTRE in some fashion onscreen.

I love the score. A continuation of Casino Royale, with a wonderfully guttural brassy style. It doesnt have the high point of CR, but also far less of the atmospheric filler. The theme song is one of the most forgettable entries. An attempt at Barry's big band style, but sounding weirdly amateurish.

As a follow up to Casino Royale, one of the best of the Bonds, it doesn't quite work. They focused too much on the hard and gritty style of that one and the Bourne films but forgot about the humor and romance that also made Casino so great. It does have a lot of interesting stuff though, and I like way it puts Bond in a more ugly, cynical world then usual.

It's the weakest one of the Craig films so far. And I cant imagine SPECTRE will be weaker then it. I still like it, though I would want to see a version with properly edited action scenes.

[Jill Sandwich 11,166]

My least favourite of any Bond film. Hated the editing, hated the mean spiritedness. The movie is repellant in every way.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

I would give this film one out of five stars... Like Drax, one of my least favorite Bond films.

[Sweeping Strings 3,421]

I've seen worse ... I'm not saying it's great, the writer's strike and MGM's uncertain future at the time did them no favours at all. But for the most part I enjoy its action (even with the ADD editing), Medrano and Greene are suitably nasty pieces of work (and Bond at least gets a series-tradition punch-up with Greene, something which both CR and Skyfall denied us). Also the scenes that close the film with Bond apprehending Vesper's ex-lover have a proper 'espionage thriller' feel to them.

[Sir Hilary Bray 235]

Can't stand it and am not likely to bother with it again for a while until the next Bondathon. Merde.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387]

I've seen worse ... I'm not saying it's great, the writer's strike and MGM's uncertain future at the time did them no favours at all. But for the most part I enjoy its action (even with the ADD editing), Medrano and Greene are suitably nasty pieces of work (and Bond at least gets a series-tradition punch-up with Greene, something which both CR and Skyfall denied us). Also the scenes that close the film with Bond apprehending Vesper's ex-lover have a proper 'espionage thriller' feel to them.

Nice! A positive post.

With SPECTRE returning in the next film, and with Skyfall being a more fitting follow up to CR, this film is already a bit redundant.