Well, I reviewed the previous effort by Daniel Craig, so here we go with the next instalment: Quantum of Solace, with Daniel Craig in his second outing as Ian Fleming’s hero. It is the 22nd film in the series, which is quite something in itself, when you think about it. I went to see the film with pretty high expectations after what I thought was a great debut by Craig in Casino Royale.
Quantum of Solace – which has absolutely nothing to do with the short story Fleming wrote in a collection – is a sequel to the first Craig film. Having been betrayed and left heartbroken by the death of Vesper Lynd, 007 goes after the organisation that is behind the death of Lynd. We are led on a series of furious chases and action scenes in Italy, the Caribbean and Latin America. The direction of the movie is handled at an incredibly high tempo, much in the manner of the Bourne films starring Matt Damon. (Poor Matt, I haven’t been able to think of him in the same way again since watching Team America: World Police).
This is a very violent film. Craig did several of the stunts himself and got quite badly hurt in some of them. If you want lots of fight scenes, with minimal dialogue and no gags, this is for you. The problem, is that I think that Craig and his directors are trying far, far too hard to react against what they rightly regarded as s the foppish versions of Bond served up by the likes of Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan. QoS is a still a good film but it could have been much better with a bit more variation of pace, and a bit more opportunity for Craig to show how 007 is developing as an agent and as a person.
Supporting actors are generally good, if not as strong as in Casino. I like the chap who plays Felix Leiter, who is not the character of the books but I reckon is going to be a regular feature of future Bond films. Judy Dench is wonderful as M; in fact she holds much of the film together. But the other women in the film are not very strong characters and not a patch on Green’s Vesper.
I will give this film seven marks out of a possible 10. I would give Casino Royale 9 stars. The Bond franchise has definitely been rebooted by Craig, but the film-makers must not turn Bond into a humourless brute. The character created all those years ago was a tough bastard all right, but he was a bit more than that.
I was surprised and shocked after watching QoS…It was a terrible movie,may be because it is a sequel. I felt as though it was released for the namesake.I was expecting new technologies,gadgets and great stunts.It was more or less like a 90’s movie….
“Quantum of Solace” is definitely not upto the mark…My rating is 1 out of 5
I haven’t seen the movie (and probably won’t in the theater; I’ll wait until it’s on Cable), but if it’s as Johnathan describes it I doubt that I’ll enjoy it much. Action movies require a liberal dose of humor to relieve the tension. That was part of the allure of the Bond movies: James was always quick with a bon mot, and while some of them were quite strained at least he made the effort. Subtle sight gags were also prevalent, and highly enjoyable.
Doesn’t the daughter of the late Albert Broccoli now direct these films? Sound like she lacks her father’s deft touch.
Maaaaatt Daaaamonnnn…
I think you’re being much too generous in your assessment. The whole backstory of Vesper working all along for the baddies (as opposed to just doing a deal with them when Bond’s being tortured) makes no sense, and neither does the Mathis storyline (Le Chiffre told Bond that he was “my man”); those bothered me a bit in the otherwise brilliant last one, but here those two points are key to the main plot.
And there are a couple of scenes which make me wonder if there was a big last-minute re-write, both involving Olga and Greene; the dialogue and sequence of both of these are so lame something’s not right. The second one he kind of half-heartedly tries to throw her off a balcony (for some reason) and Bond just walks up and takes her on his arm and wanders off. What the dickens was that all about?
It’s also the complete lack of suspense at the end that really irked me; he breaks in, they all die, end of the film.
Craig was good, Kurylenko was lovely, but Dench is getting too old, the love interest hardly said anything at all, Alaric seemed under-used and a bit confused, and the chase scenes gave me a headache.
I’d give it 4 out of 10 at the most, perhaps 3.
Bad guy Bolivian General – yawn.
The worst damage to Bolivia has been done by popular rulers – such as the Revolutionaries of 1952 or the elected President of today.
But that would be a bit too deep for a James Bond flick – so we get more pap.
“..minimal dialogue and no gags..”
As I watched it with chinese subtitles, and I don’t speak Spanish, there were a few apparently funny scenes (e.g. the hotel switch) that escaped me – there was laughter in the aisles, but presumably nobody here thought those scenes were funny (?).
However, I largely agree with you Jonathan. I loved the fight scenes, but I have to agree that the dialogue was sparse and Bond was left largely one dimensional because of it.
Still, one element which was present in the film, if horribly under-developed, was the morality of Bond’s character which did at least provide a hint of contrast to the nihilism all around him – particularly of the politicians. The Felix character was memorable on similar grounds.
And at least the bad guy was a pretend environmentalist! If only the politicians could have been shown to be such two-faced bastards as well.
St. Petersburg branch of Communist Party calls Bond Girl a traitor.
Pretty funny stuff in that article: