| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 11/03/2008 : 12:28:12
|
Quantum of Solace
Considering screenwriter Paul Haggis is reprising his Casino Royale scribble role here, at least we have someone who's aware of the Quantum back-story. Also considering the deft Haggis directorial touch on Crash, and In the Valley of Elah you'd guess he'd be writing a screenplay he could trust Marc Foster to deliver. That's the same Marc Foster of Monster's Ball, Stranger Than Fiction, and The Kite Runner.
I, for one - in the face of countless critical accusations of Quantum's impenetrability - didn't find the thing that hard to follow. In fact, if you discard the obligatory chase scenes of every description on land, sea, and in the air, that half-page of remaining script does make a kind of sense. It isn't quite worthy of its new epithet: Quantum of Shit.
But directorially, it's a mess and feels so much like a promo for the tie-in game you want to go interactive on it rather than watch it. For this they needed a writer and director? Feh!
Once upon a time when I was London editor of an international film monthly, I was invited to a day-long beano held in the specially created studio of GoldenEye, which was converted from the old Leavesden Aerodrome. Apart from meeting all the stars and catching up with old pal Martin Campbell, one of the most interesting stops was in the mechanical fx hangar. They were working on a remote controlled fighter jet, and we watched as it went through its aerobatics in and over a very realistic looking landscape model.
I recount this because of all the predictable slush in Quantum, if you do happen to concentrate on some of the aerial effects, you'll see how far they've come in 13 years. And, I'm afraid, if you're to get any joy out of this 106 minutes of your life, it is only such minutiae which is likely to provide it.
Whatever you do, don't try to measure the whole by any normal critical criteria - apart from the acting. From Craig to the extras, everyone turns in far more than required. Frankly I don't care if his hair is green, he's a terrific actor and knows how to get both humor and menace into a line like: "That doesn't give us much time" when he's told he's got 30 seconds to get out of a place that's about to be blown up.
His trio of women includes the sultry Camille with her own tragic back-story that forges a bond [did you see what I did there?!] with James's plight as someone who's loved and been betrayed. As played by Olga Kurylenko, the lovely Ukranian fresh out of The Hitman and Max Payne, she's a rufty-tufty sweetie with a vulnerably soft center. Dench as M delivers with dignity the drivel that fails to develop her as a character. In fact, given M's occasional crass innocence it's a wonder MI6 lets her pour out the tea, let alone defend free Britain. She does, however, take solid control in the face of the scarring of the so-called special relationship with the CIA. Serving that lane of the story - the one labelled who-can-you-trust - comes efficient but perky Gemma Arterton, lately seen on UK small screens as Tess of the D'Urbervilles. It's she whom Bond puts to bed, and who's later sacrificed under a total dousing of oil, that black gold which is supposed to evoke the more glittering death of Pussy Galore. And speaking of names, Gemma's character is called Fields. We never get to hear her first name, though it's given in the cast list as Strawberry. So euphemism is something else that's evolved in the Bond timeline.
Making the most of their supporting roles - characters whose primary function is to spout out data - are Mexico's Mr Menace, Joaqu�n Cosio, the ever-wonderful Giancarlo Giannini from Casino Royale, and a chubbier than usual Tim Piggot-Smith.
But it's Mathieu Amalric as Bond nemesis Dominic Green who provides the clue that Haggis, Foster and co were determined to say something with this film other than BOOM! BANG! BOOM! All the clue I'll give you is that his name fronts a fiscal empire to dominate a global eco-market, and that Strawberry's oil is a diversion. Along the way eco-politics is smeared in the mud which, with a film as chaotic as this, promises to mislead audiences unnecessarily.
But, hey - you're going for the chases and the explosions, and the scores of innocent deaths caused by the dangerous driving of our hero. Ain'tcha?!
|
|
|
Chris C 
"Four words, never backwards."
|
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 16:55:07
|
Well said, Baffy.
Mrs C and I have just got back from a mildly disappointing afternoon at the cinema.
It was a half decent Bond movie, but unlike Casino Royale, it won't go into the books as a great Bond movie. Those who are expecting a follow-up that matches or exceeds Casino Royale will be upset.
First, the bad bits: (Warning - there may be minor spoilers)
Personally I don't like action/chase sequences that have an cut every half second - it's like watching a five minute long TV advert, it loses impact and it hurts the eyes and brain. Three of these in the first 20 minutes or so is too much too soon.
Humour: there is very very little, and certainly none of those throwaway remarks we used to get. Something would be nice. I can understand the reasons for a change in Bond's character from previous incarnations, but let's not lose everything.
Excitement: QoS has plenty of action but it's missing a certain something. Reflecting on this on the way home we decided that it was balls-out edge-of-the-seat woo-hoo excitement.
Gadgets: There weren't any. Nothing at all, other than the superphone re-incarnated from Casino Royale. OK, so invisible cars and ejector seats may be a bit passe, but somrething would have been nice.
The good bits:
The acting: What Baffy said. And I was sorry to see the death of one of the characters.
The effects. Nicely done.
The plot - easy to follow.
All in all, it's OK but not great. Daniel Craig is a good Bond, and I think Bond deserves better than a half decent action movie. I have Casino Royale on DVD. This won't be joining it, and I hope the next Bond movie is better. |
 |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 17:41:57
|
I'm still undecided on the film- I feel like I need to see it again since the first time around I was too busy marvelling about the fact it was a new Bond film.
What I do know, though... that theme song sucked big time. I've seen probably the last 6 Bond films in the cinema and I've never heard an audience so underwhelmed by the opening credits music. Also, I'd gotten rather used to the first action sequence nicely flowing into the opening credits- in this film it clunked to a halt like a badly edited student film and then the music struck up.
Or maybe I'm just being too picky. |
|
|
|
Chris C
"Four words, never backwards."
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 23:51:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris C
Philip French, in last Sunday's Observer, on QoS. He doesn't like the title music either. I guess it's time to bring back Shirley Bassey.
Halfway through the title theme it occurred to me they should have stuck with Amy Winehouse regardless of her circumstances. Even if she'd been coked off her face, the song couldn't have been any worse. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 11/04/2008 : 00:07:50
|
I found it easy to follow, much easier than Casino Royale, and I cannot really understand how anyone could object to it on that front. I also prefer the fact that it doesn't keep coming to a conclusion and then carrying on as that film does, which is annoying both in itself and by the consequence of being too long. Otherwise, it is a bit weaker but still good except for the dreadful theme song. 4/5; I gave the previous one 4/5 = 5/5 - 1 for being unfair to Pierce Brosnan.
And a bonus thing about it that I've just realised is that I've now seen a film beginning with every letter of the alphabet at the cinema this year, as well as figures and a punctuation character.  |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 11/04/2008 01:35:40 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 11/04/2008 : 09:16:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
But, hey - you're going for the chases and the explosions, and the scores of innocent deaths caused by the dangerous driving of our hero. Ain'tcha?!
Um... no, actually. What I want to see is the bits of humour and wit, combined with sex appeal and a lust for a bit of danger, while still being intelligent yet vulnerable, that made Bond so loveable in the first place. My type of Bond shows some remorse when an innocent is hurt or killed, but will laugh in the face of his own mortality as is required of someone who may be forced to "remove" a few bad guys in order to save the good ones. I want the sparkle in the eye and whisper of a smile when he's come up with a clever remark or ingenious way to get himself out of (or put someone else into) a bad situation.
If this film doesn't deliver that along with the CGI and chase scenes and explosions, I'm wondering if I should even bother.
(Of course, I will bother - I can't NOT see a Bond film. But I can't promise you I'll be happy, if this is the case.)
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 11/04/2008 : 10:52:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
My type of Bond shows some remorse when an innocent is hurt or killed
Oh dear... you're seriously not going to like this film. Without spoiling anything, the bit with the bin in this film was one of the most shocking sides to Bond I've ever seen. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 11/04/2008 : 11:49:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
My type of Bond shows some remorse when an innocent is hurt or killed
Oh dear... you're seriously not going to like this film. Without spoiling anything, the bit with the bin in this film was one of the most shocking sides to Bond I've ever seen.
I guess the writers didn't read the books, either. While my husband tells me that the Bond that Flemming wrote was tough and sometimes cold, he cared about innocent human life, which made him be so motivated to stop others from destroying it. It all points to the dilema posed in The Dark Knight - can the ends truly justify the means when it comes to taking human lives, and once you take the life of one person over another, aren't you no better than the person who lightly accepts these deaths as 'collateral damage'. Sure, sometimes innocents get killed, but Bond always tried to prevent that, and was always upset or angry when it happened. Every single Bond before the reboot portrayed this attitude, and if Craig's script or director has gone against this, then this is no true Bond movie, if you ask me.
And now that I think of it, I don't recall if Bond was all that moved when he finds Solonge dead, was he? Sure, he was upset by Vesper's death, but that was more than just sex for him.
This is NOT looking good - not for this part of the franchise, and not for Craig as Bond for me.
|
Edited by - ChocolateLady on 11/04/2008 11:55:36 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/04/2008 : 12:06:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Without spoiling anything, the bit with the bin in this film was one of the most shocking sides to Bond I've ever seen.
Gosh - I had a completely different take on that. 
Invisible Spoiler Alert!
We've just seen him being very caring and emotional while Giancarlo is dying, cradling the man and offering his "quantum of solace" while it can still be appreciated by the one person who matters. I think the actual disposal, accompanied by the line "he wouldn't mind" indicates Bond's concern for the living and belief that once you're dead the body has served its purpose as a container for the essence of the person. In practical terms it assures the body will be found, possibly triggering a civil police investigation, playing for time, diverting more sinister interests, etc
See what you think next time around!
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 11/04/2008 : 12:24:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
See what you think next time around!
Yeah, I guess you're right- it would tie in with the brutal practicality of the man. I just thought it quite heartless after consoling the guy to then choose a bin of all things- couldn't he have at least found a park bench or something? |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/04/2008 : 13:12:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
See what you think next time around!
Yeah, I guess you're right- it would tie in with the brutal practicality of the man. I just thought it quite heartless after consoling the guy to then choose a bin of all things- couldn't he have at least found a park bench or something?
In that neighbourhood?!!! 
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 11/04/2008 : 13:25:36
|
I didn't read the spoiler but from this, I think I'm calmed down on that side for now.
Still... are there any good "HA!" scenes in this film? That was sorely lacking in CR.
(Am I right that there were always moments when you'd laugh at something in any of the good Bond films, or I'm enjoying "Dr. Who" too much, and doing some projecting here?)
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 11/04/2008 : 16:24:31
|
| I'm with BaftaBabe on the skip issue. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 02:00:23
|
| I think I'd pass that advice to everybody. A deeply boring movie. |
|
|
|
Airbolt 
"teil mann, teil maschine"
|
Posted - 09/03/2009 : 23:09:25
|
The last post on this thread was nov 2008 so i'm really up to the minute! Anyway , watched it on DVD and was very very underwhelmed . Most of what i thought has been said by posts so i will condense my observations.
1. WTF was the opening music - what are Eon thinking of?
2. The jump cutting of the action sequences was headache inducing. The fight between Bond and the traitor in Italy was so cut as to render it almost meaningless. I was vaguely reminded of the times i played Tomb Raider and had to make Lara jump from roof to roof.
3. Some of the acting was ( as mentioned ) above the level of the film. I hardly recognised Olga Kurylenko as I had seen her as a screaming hysteric in Transporter 3. here she managed to create a halfway credible character and a sympathetic one. Of course, Craig has power in reserve as always.
4. So, with all this acting firepower why did it feel like someone had cobbled together a bunch of cut-scenes from a PS3 game and merged them with a car advert.
5. Just to return to the action scenes. The chase in the first few minutes was just....uninvolving. Compare it to the visceral thump of chases in similar locations in action films like The Transporter or Roninlet alone the Bourne films.
Flat, uninvolving and tedious. |
Edited by - Airbolt on 09/03/2009 23:11:26 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Quantum of Solace [maybe teensy-weensy spoiler]
