RSS 2.0Quantum of Solace
I’ll keep this review short and not so sweet: Quantum of Solace sucked. I was really looking forward to a good old new Bond film with exciting chases, droolworthy gadgets and gorgeous Bond-Girls (or should I switch the adjectives for those last two?). The tried and tested Bond formula – always entertaining, right? Nope. What a disappointment.
The first scene, traditionally a chase, was edited so violently that I could barely work out who was chasing who. It made me wonder if I’m getting too old for modern, fast-paced action movies, but Arjan has assured me it was the editing that caused confusion and not my aged brain in this case 
. The opening titles were simply boring and the rest of the film was spent trying to figure out who’s who and what the bloody hell was going on. I’d give you a plot summary if I could, but I can’t. Something to do with Bolivia and revenge and a bad guy called Dominic.
What I missed the most was humour. Daniel Craig’s Bond has none basically. Also, no Q again: so no gadgets and no cool cars (Ford does not count as a cool car). Boo hoo. The only really high-tech scene is when MI6 briefs M with a holographic computer stolen taken straight from Minority Report.
Another thing that bothered me was that throughout Quantum of Solace, many references are made to characters and events from the preceding Bond film, Casino Royale, which makes you feel you’re missing out on important information if you haven’t seen Casino Royale. This only adds to the complete confusion of the script.
To end this negative review I ask a question: can anyone explain the title of this film to me? Thanks in advance.
suzero (90 posts)Suzanna Noort - TV/video director/editor and multimedia something. Amsterdam, Netherlands
9 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I can’t say I hated it that much. The editing didn’t bother me, but that first chase did require an awful lot of ‘suspension of disbelief’.
I’m quite happy the humour is gone though, and Q. All that silly business that kept the Bond franchise from ever becoming decent espionage movies.
Comment by Roy — Sun March 29, 2009 @ 22:02Nooooo…. it’s tradition!
Comment by suzero — Sun March 29, 2009 @ 22:20This film led me to just one conlcusion: ‘whateva!’ I even disliked the Bond song. Worst Bond film in 20 years
Comment by Arjan — Sun March 29, 2009 @ 22:35right there with you Suze!
Comment by mariken — Mon March 30, 2009 @ 19:49Exept for the the gadgets. Did not miss the gadgets. I know it’s supposed to be tradition and all, but that invisible car was just downright ridiculous.
I really didn’t get much of the movie either. I spent 2/3rds of it trying to figure out what I just saw which distracted from the what was happening. I have to admit though, I did miss Q and the gadgets. I understand Roy’s comments about becoming decent espionage movies but that’s never what the bond movies were after. They are Bond movies. Cheeky jokes (*coughPussygalore*), unbelievable stunts and gadgets are what made the first films what they were. If you take away from the basis of the franchise then you’re just making a whole new type of movie with the same name; a blasphemy to die-hard fans of any movie.
I like Craig but not in the role of a Bond. He’s too ridged and stoic. When it comes to his love interests I find I’m unbelieving that he has any interest at all. The only portion of his acting that is really great is when he gets on vendetta kicks (which is what Quantum felt like to me). I can MAYBE understand Casino and Quantum as a character buildup of HOW Bond became who he is but with the unemotional qualities that they’ve imbibed into Craig I don’t know how these two could be a prequel to anything Connery or Dalton-esque.
And lastly on my long rant, I am in complete agreement with the chase scenes. I find I often either get bored trying to keep up or lose interest instantly. I’m not a big fan of the seeming trend to start using 2nd person steady cam type chases. More often then not I feel myself getting motion sickness when all the action becomes bumpy and bouncy for the sake of “realism”.
Comment by Benjamin — Mon March 30, 2009 @ 20:23If I told you that the second unit was the same guys (action director et all) from The Bourne Supremacy… that should tell enough.
They are trying to infuse some new blood into the Bond franchise and they must’ve felt threatened by the Bourne-trilogy (which I don’t understand, as these can perfectly exist next to each other). I do think Craig is a bit too cold sometimes, and he lacks the humorous understatement that Connery gave his Bond (while still being tough as nails). Also, I don’t believe him to be the womanizer, as he seems to be too involved chasing the bad guys.
This was not a good Bond movie. I recently saw some bits of The Living Daylights and I have to admit that Timothy Dalton did not make such a bad Bond after all. Craig really has to loosen up a bit, or his James Bond will become tedious and predictable.
Comment by paco — Wed April 1, 2009 @ 0:31The moment the music started, my expectations lowered. Then the Signature Bond theme song didn’t play, which sets the tone for the much anticipated Bond Experience.
It didn’t feel like a Bond movie b/c they tried to change everything so it wouldn’t resemble the Bond movies we know and love and gladly pay for. Why make it a James Bond movie at all? Call it “Gritty, Grumpy, Boring Rogue Spy and no Chemistry or Fun Toys Movie”. Seriously, did you even have to make the Martini annoying? I was snoring by the time they finished explaining what went in it.
If Paul Haggis wants to be self serving, please do it with something you create, not go and ruin this previously fun Bond Franchise. The audience wants the wry, clever wit and smooth character. We want the fun technologies, cars with outlandish capabilities and stellar music.
And Marc Forster as the director didn’t do anything to liven it up, but did the exact opposite. We expect and want to be swept away in escapism, that is what Bond used to give us. Even the little details like missing the Bond music that used to come flooding in when he gets busy with the bondgirls. There wasn’t even any kissing in this movie. They showed Field after she supposedly slept with him saying she was mad at herself. Well I was mad the whole movie.
Matt Chesse and Richard Pearson chopped up the movie so badly in editing you can’t even tell what was happening in the action scenes.
To add insult to injury, they play the Bond theme at the end of the movie. What’s the point? so we could miss what we lost even more? It made me wish that what I just saw wasn’t the real movie and the real one was now going to come on.
Until someone that understands the culture of Bond comes in and gives us a kickass REAL Bond movie again, I won’t bother wasting my time and money watching another one.
Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, you should be ashamed of yourselves for what you have done to Bond.
Comment by yvo — Mon April 13, 2009 @ 9:47While, I , too found the film to be disappointing, I think…no, I know I liked it a little bit better than some of you. Not by much though. A small smile crossed my face when there was a MI-6 tech guy, (could he part of Q branch?) but since it was never said, that smile faded. I found Bond “not being trusted”/”rouge” etc flimsy as well. These themes were somewhat explored in the previous incarnation, specifically License To Kill and Die Another Day. I did like the shout out to Goldfinger though. Sadly, in doing so, it gives the impression that a classic Bond baddie will also be re-invented, perhaps the “brains” behind the Quantum terrorist network? Was he the guy who didn’t stand up at the opera? Who knows. Eventually, who cares.
As far as the action goes, I thought the plane scene was good, and I loved an early foot chase.
Olga fares better in this film than she did in Max Payne and Hitman. She also didn’t do anything for me. Her character was here, there, gone, back again…
Still, I don’t miss the camp. But I did miss the big final act action set piece. Underwhelming and unsatisfactory.
Comment by Darren Seeley — Sun April 26, 2009 @ 4:26The action scenes are great if you have the stomach for that Michael Bay style that is so popular today. I’m going to slightly go against you here Suz and say that I appreciate this grittier and rough Bond. However, let me pose a question, if this wasn’t James Bond but some other British Operative with a different name, would there be such a divide in the audience?
It seems to me, as we get older, we want things to remain the same.
Comment by Jose — Sun June 14, 2009 @ 6:36