FILM: Quantum Of Solace
Posted 28 November 2011 - 04:07 PM
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 ****
Posted 28 November 2011 - 07:30 PM
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.
Posted 28 November 2011 - 07:40 PM
Posted 29 November 2011 - 12:34 AM
Because Bond switches his heart back on with her.
Still not sure why Bond didn't sleep with her.
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.
Some people choose to hate the film. I can't. Craig is too cool.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users