Quantum of Solace
Movie Review
Quantum of Solace
by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B-
Released: November 14, 2008
Directed by:
Cast:
Though the character has remained basically the same, the James Bond movies have always been products of their time. "From Russia with Love" (1963) came at the height of the Cold War; "Moonraker" (1979) arrived just in time to capitalize on the recent popularity of space-age films. "Casino Royale" reinstalled Bond in a modern, realistic setting, and now, with "Quantum of Solace," the transformation is complete: The 007 series has achieved total Bournification.
The influence of Matt Damon's Jason Bourne films is obvious in "Quantum of Solace," which comes off as an exciting but shallow impersonation of them. Picking up the action mere minutes after the events of "Casino Royale" (it's the first Bond movie to really function as a direct sequel), the story follows Bond (Daniel Craig) as he seeks revenge on those responsible for the death of his "Casino Royale" lady friend. This vengeance-driven 007 is a sourpuss; the film has very little humor or levity. What there is mostly comes from M (Judi Dench), who tells an over-violent Bond, "If you could avoid killing every possible lead, it would be much appreciated." She's snarky, you see.
Tangled up with Bond's agenda is a new evil organization called Quantum. (That word is mentioned twice; the phrase "quantum of solace" is never uttered, alluded to, or laughed at, except in the audience.) Led by a dastardly European fellow named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), who has the chilling Bond-villain characteristic of being European, Quantum is a surprise to Her Majesty's MI6, which up till now has been completely unaware of its existence. Quantum is in the business of destabilizing governments, with Bolivia as its latest client. As payment, Greene wants an expanse of Bolivian desert to use however he wants.
The film is as globetrotty as ever, with Bond bouncing from Italy to Haiti to Austria to Bolivia and various points in between. He woos the requisite Bond Girl, Camille (Olga Kurylenko), and dallies with a fellow government agent, Strawberry Fields (Gemma Arterton). CIA agent Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright) is still an ally. Still no sign of Miss Moneypenny or Q, and the nifty gadgets and dirty wordplay are as scarce as they were last time around. You know the routine.
And it does feel like a routine at times. Mark Forster, having directed non-action flicks like "Monster's Ball" and "Finding Neverland," comes to the Bond franchise determined to show skeptics just how much action he can cram into one film. The first half-hour is thrilling, the violence gritty and realistic, the sound effects suitably crunchy. But then the realization settles in that this is all you're going to get: one action sequence after another, a little bit of plot, and only scant traces of Bond's rakish wit, much less any of the complicated psychology that started to emerge in the last film. (It's a little strange, considering the screenplay is by the same team that wrote the far superior "Casino Royale," Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis.)
This is the shortest Bond film yet, and one of the more action-packed. Daniel Craig, who won over the naysayers with his performance last time around, will probably continue to curry favor here. He's proven himself more than capable of playing the suave but rattled secret agent -- more than capable especially because in "Quantum of Solace," not much is required of him beyond the physical. This is a lesser Bond outing, squandering some of the potential suggested by its predecessor but still worth seeing for its energetic fight scenes and chase sequences. It's no Bourne, though.
Grade: B-
Rated PG-13, a little sexuality and mild profanity, a lot of action violence, some of it fairly intense
1 hr., 46 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 22 comments
November 13, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I'm sad. I loved Casino Royale and was really looking forward to this movie. :(
November 13, 2008 at 9:45 pm
It's not like he said it sucked.
November 13, 2008 at 11:43 pm
No, he didn't say it sucked but there is still room for disappointment when something doesn't live up to expectations. Reading this review after hearing Moore's complaints that the film was very violent, I am also a little sad that this movie seems to be minimizing the parts of Bond films that I loved and adding more violence while offering less movie. If anything, the shorter length is possibly the worst part because it means that they could have kept the action, added in more wit, gadgets, Q, etc. and still kept it to a decent running time.
Just my take on it...
November 14, 2008 at 1:23 am
No, but he did say it's mostly action. Action movies are all well and good, but I was hoping this would follow Casino Royale's formula.
November 14, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Eric is right. I saw this last week and it's rubbish. I'm not a James Bond fan and not an action fan - but I liked Casino Royale. It was an 8/10 on my scale. This is a 4. There was no plot or character to speak of, it was just endless, poorly filmed action. I thought the script was particularly weak. Judi Dench was the only good thing!
November 14, 2008 at 8:39 pm
As a longtime Bond fan, my excitement to see Quantum of Solace fanilly be used in a title (until GoldenEye, all the movies were named after Fleming's stories) disappointment with the failure to introduce Moneypenny and acknowledge Q Branch by name. I am also curious to know why they introduced Quantum when the old films' SPECTRE would have worked equally as well.
It seems like the intent is to cut off links to the past and just doesn't make sense. All that remain are Bond, M, MI6, and Felix (who used to be a minor character).
As an aside, I am curious to know why Diamonds are Forever isn't considered a sequel to On Her Majesty's Secret Service. After Bond's wife Tracy is killed at the end of the earlier movie, the next begins with Bond hunting down Blofeld. That need to hunt is what drives the entire film.
November 14, 2008 at 9:27 pm
who cares, Daniel Craig is hot; are we really going to plot or to look at him? (This is addressed to the ladies, not the men)
November 15, 2008 at 10:22 pm
As a Bond elitist, this movie was not overwhelming, not underwhelming, but just whelming.
Casino Royale worked because of the complex storyline mingled with action. The Dark Knight set the stage for the new-age action movies this year with an intelligent plot and intense action, as well as living up to the hype.
The action was there, the hype was there, the intelligent plot made an attempt, but came up short.
Go see Casino Royale before you see this to understand the continuing plotline, and after you see Quantum, make sure you re-watch CR to make sure you cleanse the pallatte.
I'm HOPING...and those who saw the movie may agree...that the ending monologue is telling as to the sequals and direction of the franchise...as in, next movie we see Moneypenny and Q Branch.
And, being a Bond Elitist, I was also pleased to see many throwbacks to the older Bond movies..
I disagree with Eric, I think it deserves a B. I'm holding out optimism that rewatching will make it better
84/100, B
November 17, 2008 at 6:33 am
Like most everyone else, I think this film was pretty meh. I spent most of the movie in a state of mild confusion, not quite sure what was happening and why, and I wish the camera would have held still during the fight scenes so I could tell what was going on. It was cool, but there wasn't much to hold my interest beyond the delicious sight of Daniel Craig in a tuxedo carrying a gun. "Casino Royale" set the bar pretty high, and I hope that the next Bond movie lives up to it.
Also, I'm of the opinion that they titled the movie "Quantum of Solace" so that they could have two Os in the name and thus have a way to work the 007 logo into the movie posters. Amiright, people?
November 18, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I consider myself something of a Bond fan and I came out of the movie having enjoyed it quite a bit - or maybe that was because I expected to be disappointed.
I agree with brandt's suggestion that the ending hints at the advent of a more "traditional" Bond. After all, let us not forget that Casino Royale was something of a franchise reboot, supposedly more faithful to Fleming's original vision. Eric wrote "You know the routine." Yes, I do, all to well... I liked most of the other Bond entries (with the exception of the Timothy Daltons) but that routine tended get pretty clunky at times. The lean muscularity of Quantum of Solace was quite refreshing. For me it was a worthy tie-up of the Casino Royale story.
November 18, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I'm glad I read Eric's review before seeing the movie. Knowing that it wasn't quite as good as CR, and adjusting my expectations, helped me to enjoy the movie for what it is.
It's still miles and miles above from the Pierce Brosnan Bond movies.
November 19, 2008 at 3:07 am
So, the budget for this is like $200 million. Why would you spend that much on a movie? Rumor has it that most movies have to make 2x their budget at the box office just to break even. So why spend so much money on a franchise that has never broken the $200 million mark domestically? Rumor has it that international revenue is more like 10% profit. It seems so dumb. But perhaps rumor is wrong. Anybody know?
November 19, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Casino Royale was better, but I still enjoyed the experience.
November 19, 2008 at 11:13 pm
I'm with most everyone else on this; QofS is miles ahead of the Brosnan Bond movies, but not as good as Casino Royale. After thinking about why, here are three things I came up with:
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
1. So there's a big, ultra-secret, ultra-powerful organization the CIA and MI6 haven't even heard of and their evil plan is to a.) steal water and b.) sell it back for double the rate? Really? Meh.
2. The Bond girl was bland. She was pouty and one-dimensional... must like Bond himself was. Revenge revenge revenge, blah blah blah. Made it a one-note movie.
3. I think this movie is similar to The Empire Strikes Back in that it exists solely to set up the next Bond installment. The function of Quantum of Solace was to introduce us to the Quantum, make us curious about them, and then leave us hanging so we'd buy tickets to the next movie in a couple years.
My two cents.
November 20, 2008 at 12:15 am
The film did suck! The action that is spoken of was so fast and blurry it was hard to know what the heck was happening. The same old story of bad people wanting all the glory not to mention money and those who are willing to take bribes etc. are so much leftover gravy. It has become boring. The conquest of the required woman was just so expected and such a slap in the face once again to all thinking women. Does he always have to screw a woman in his films? Does his face ever change expression? No wonder the part was easy for him.
November 21, 2008 at 8:50 am
Good review! The Bourne films were way better than Quantum. And I had such high expectations after the nicely done Casino Royale, but oh well.
December 1, 2008 at 11:16 am
I saw it with my Dad over Thanksgiving, who had already seen it once, and he said it was much better the second time because he could follow it better. We also watched Casino Royale again, and that helped. Clearly, this is a lot of work and preparation to understand a movie that you should probably have been able to figure out the first time, but I have to say that I really like the movie now when I think about it, even though it was pretty okay at first (I think I would have given it a flat B). I think they were more focused on echoing the emotional elements of the first movie than repeating them. Note, however, that (SPOILERS), Bond doesn't sleep with the main Bond girl (unless I missed something). That actually seemed almost respectful of Vesper's memory (because in Bond logic, sleeping with Fields was just a one time fling, whereas there was a connection with the other girl). My point is that the character development is there, but it's pretty subtle.
December 1, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Whoa, are you my brother Dave? My sentiments exactly on the movie.
December 14, 2008 at 11:47 am
I saw "Quantum of Solace", and I found it excellent. Daniel Craig was superb, as was the entire cast. Is there a third firm coming out?
December 17, 2008 at 1:47 am
I am so sick of the shaky cam. That is the single reason for why I didn't like the Bourne movies or this movie. Does anybody know what happened during the car chase scene at the beginning? It looked like it was probably sweet but I couldn't tell because the camera was WAY too shaky.
January 30, 2009 at 1:16 am
This film flew with me for the craft that went into making it. It was very well filmed, especially the opera scene from Tosca (a Puccini opera which has some interesting plot parallels to CR and QoS). The scene from Tosca has to be among my favorite movie scenes of the year.
The film was hurt by the editing floor which cut out some explanatory scenes (or so I theorize) about Vesper's necklace. I think there is more there to latch onto than Eric caught in terms of plot development. It was definitely ramping up for a third film though. I would call it an A-.
The opening song was a disappointment, it lacked the depth and style that "You Know My Name" had, and returned to the old style of meaningless platitudes muttered against the backdrop of naked silhouettes of women.
As far as the film's title, I really like it. "Quantum" is a noun that means "A very small amount" and so during the course of the film Bond finds some Quantum of Solace in learning the truth about Vesper.
June 18, 2009 at 7:56 pm
It cost over 321 Million to make this movie. WOW!