review by Silent J
Quantum of Solace 2008
Rewatched Jul 15, 2012
Silent J’s review:
It's been a fun ride, but my journey to watch every single 007 film has ended now that I've rewatched the twenty-second Bond film, Quantum of Solace.
Unlike other Bond films, this is a direct sequel to Casino Royale. In fact the only other direct sequels in the Bond franchises are From Russia With Love and Diamonds Are Forever (a slight sequel though). This film's predecessor, Casino Royale, was an outstanding return to form for the franchise and in my opinion the very best Bond film. It left plenty questions wide open for a bigger story and left me wanting more. Unfortunately, we got more in Quantum of Solace and it's disappointing to say the least.
While Quantum of Solace is nowhere near as impressive as Casino Royale, Daniel Craig is just as excellent as James Bond. While in the last film he played a man still in the process of becoming the James Bond we all know and love, here he is 100% Bond an he is just as fantastic. Even if the material he's given is weak, Craig manages to make it work. He's charming, he's brutal, he's ruthless, he's cruel, and he's cool. Literally, the complete embodiment of the character Ian Fleming imagined in his novels. The more I see from him, the closer he is to becoming my all time favorite Bond.
The main Bond Girl is Bolivian agent Camille Montes played by Olga Kurylenko. She's a good, interesting character and Kurylenko does a decent job in the role. Not as memorable as past Bond Girls but she's not bad either. There's also Gemma Arterton as Agent Strawberry Fields, who is something left more to be desired. Arterton is pretty bad in the role but much of that has to do with the script. The character isn't handled very well and on top of being poorly developed, she just comes an goes like that *snaps fingers*. If she's gonna come and go so fast then what's the point of her character? It makes her a bit generic if you ask me. I would also like to praise the fantastic supporting cast of Giancarlo Giannini as René Mathis, Jeffery Wright as Felix Leiter, and especially Judi Dench as M. The smartest decision director Marc Forster made while making this was giving M more screen time. What makes her so interesting is not only how much of a mentor and motherly figure she is to James Bond but how she's probably the only woman (other than Moneypenny) Bond has never been sexually attracted to. The two again share terrific chemistry and it's great to see their relationship evolve as the films go on.
The main villain is Dominic Greene played by Mathieu Amalric. The villain is neither a threat nor particularly memorable. He's just a generic Hollywood villain who only has a plan so he can predictably be thwarted by the hero in the end. It also seems like Amalric underperforms in the role, which is kinda understandable. The script does'nt give him much to work with and it's hard to do anything when your script does'nt give you anything to do.
You might have realized I've used the word "generic" a lot in this review. Well, that's because it is and it's even more noticeable on repeat viewing. Not just a generic Bond film, but a generic film altogether. Like you could easily replace Daniel Craig with Jason Statham and call this Transporter 4 and you'd probably get the same result. It's not just generic because it isn't as good as Casino Royale, but the script is just so messy, handles the characters poorly, and lacks a story. It's just slambang action. Some of which rips off the action in Casino Royale minus the emotional resonance. Sometimes it feels like the action happens for no reason while the high octane action looks great, there's nothing that keeps you interested in it to care. The film trades what made the last film so smart with bad writing and good action. Still, the soundrack is great, a lot of the action scenes are pretty impressive, much of the cast is impressive, and Daniel Craig is especially impressive as James Bond.
Well, it looks like this Bond series is over. It feels great and it was fun to get through all of these films and to see every Bond film. This recent film is less of a band and more of a whimper, but that doesn't change the fact that this is one of the greatest franchises out there and it's amazing how long it's lasted. Not many franchises can go on for 50 years like this one and I would'nt mind if it lasts another 50 years. Now I'm just eagerly anticipating Skyfall...
Totally agree with this review, it was easily one of the weakest Bond films. Done nothing to dent my anticipation of Skyfall though. Especially not with Sam Mendes directing.
Agree with everything but the action part. It's pretty horribly filmed. The action killed this film for me. Shaky cam/quick edits ruined the potential of many of the action scenes, especially what could have been the one of the best Bond openings if Foster would learn that the camera needs to be kept still, and we should see what happens.
I wonder if the action sequences were so poorly filmed if it is because Marc Forrester is not know for making action scenes w d he tried to make them to artsy.
Probably the first. The shaky cam nonsense ruins some great setpieces. In fact, the best action beats are the few times the camera is actually still for a cool shot (Bond and random henchman falling through a roof, Greene running away from exploding glass). If anything, his artistic aesthetics helped prevent this from being a bigger disaster than it could have been, but that's not saying too much. I will also say he had a better sense of geography than most directors, but once again, this doesn't really help when you can barely see shit.
That being said, the sound design of the film was incredible.
@Josh Agreed. In fact, after seeing every Bond film out there, I'm even more excited for Skyfall.
@Cinebro I think while some action scenes may be badly filmed and some rip off scenes from the previous films, I thought there were some impressive action sequences, but that's just me.
@Sara Thank you. I actually would have given this a 3 on my first watch. With this being my second or third watch, this kinda gets worse on repeat viewings.
@Aaron Definitely the first. He's not as experienced with action scenes as he is with drama (ironically this film lacks any drama) and it made for some sloppy shots. I don't think Sam Mendez will have that problem with Skyfall since he's done some impressive action for films like Road to Perdition, which is amazing in my opinion.
This movie was a complete, full-fledged disaster.
Yes it was. I liked some of the action, but the only thing that really saved this film for me was the fantastic acting talent, especially in Daniel Craig.
Nice review - It's a film I was very disappointed with after CR, when I first saw it I thought it was terrible! But I've watched it a couple of times on Blu Ray now and it's grown on me a little, that said it's still only 3 stars at best.
Craig is the main saving grace of this film, I really like his take on Bond.
Skyfall - looks stunning, just hope the injection of humour they've rumoured doesn't spoil it! I think Mendes is an excellent director, but he's not done much action, my only other concern!
Thanks. I think Mendes should do a fine job with the film. I think he proved with Road to Perdition that he could do some impressive, intense and gorgeous looking action scenes (even if they weren't the slambang stuff Bond is known for) and I've been told he shot some great action scenes in Jarhead, which I have'nt seen.
This film isn't perect by any means ... I gave it 3 stars myself ... but it does have its moments.
There is something about that opening car chase scene that I just love so much. It just seemed liked the perfect way to kick-start this film. The opera scene where Bond spys on all the "Quantum" officials was pretty epic ... but then after that, the film just gets a bit dull.
And I agree with your take on the villain ... there was nothing really note-worthy about him. VERY forgettable.
It has a nice wrap up for what it is considering it was a direct sequel to CASINO ... but ovrall, a good but underwhelming film. You gotta remember to ... this film went through the "writer's strike" at the time as well, so just think, it could of been much worse ... but still, one of the more forgettable Bond entries. Only reason to watch it, is for Craig's performance once again.