In theaters. 106 minutes. Rated PG-13
When we left James Bond in Casino Royale, his special-lady Vesper had just betrayed him because she was blackmailed. Bond (a tough Daniel Craig) spends the majority of Quantum of Solace pursuing the blackmailers. The film opens mid car chase just seconds after the close of the last film. He’s taking Mr. White to an interrogation with M (Judi Dench) and other British agents. Before it is over, Bond’s pursuit will lead him to Haiti, Austria, Bolivia, Italy, and Russia. He will meet 2 beautiful women (Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton) and many bad guys (including Mathieu Amalric - Munich) who are part of a secret organization trying to get control of some land in Bolivia (among other things) . . .
For this second Craig installment, Bond producers chose Marc Forster to direct. In recent years, Forster has built a solid resume with intimate, emotional dramas like Monster’s Ball, Finding Neverland, and Stranger Than Fiction. It’s a risky choice that pays off with character development, but not the action scenes, which have quick cuts and fast shaky camera moves. The ubiquitous comparisons to Jason Bourne’s recent cinematic adventures are apt since at least 2 of the action scenes feel like take-offs: The Bourne Ultimatum’s roof-top chase and The Bourne Identity’s hand-to-hand house fight. There’s even a denouement in a Russia apartment reminiscent of The Bourne Supremacy’s last scene. I preferred the longer takes in Casino Royale, too, but instantly recognized the inspiration for these scenes: Banlieue 13. Of course, if you rip off a French film, most Americans won’t notice.
In addition to the fuller (and less archetypal) characters, Quantum of Solace has better, more beautiful locations: craggy rock formations, parched desert locales, and beautiful Italian vistas. It’s also better paced, coming in 38 minutes shorter than its predecessor. The climax here is more satisfying as well, partly because it gives not one, but 2 characters gratifying closure. The film strives for complexity, with governments changing sides and the line between heroes and villains intentionally blurred. Americans are portrayed as oil-obsessed opportunists. (Outstanding Goldfinger homage, by the way). But even when most characters don’t know who the good guys and bad guys are, the audience does. Bond may be hellbent on revenge, but there's never any doubt of his noble intentions.
Craig continues to be a dominant presence, dispatching of bad guys efficiently and discovering things intelligently. Jeffrey Wright and Giancarlo Giannini show up again in excellent support. Amalric is good enough as the main bad guy. The stunning Kurylenko has some great moments, remembering her past – the film gets a lot out of her back story with very little screen time. And once again, Bond has a great last line. Some people will complain about the action scenes and they’re probably right. I didn’t particularly care for the similar scenes in the Bourne trilogy either, preferring longer takes. But everything else works a little bit better. Craig’s Bond may be more murderous and less suave, but he’s hardly nihilistic. There’s a lot to care about in this terribly complex, paradoxical world - as brief but important exchanges with Dench and Kurylenko prove. B+
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Quantum of Solace - B+
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I love Craig as bond, but overall did not like this as well as the last. the globe-spanning, world-dominating organization needs to be retired for good from the Bond repertoire. Also, the lifting from bourne bothered me more than you. That said, we get into Dench's M psyche a little more in this one, which was nice, and the climax was, as you mentioned, more meantingful. Actually, one of the best climaxes (?) of any bond I'd say. B from me. Was that a passing nod to The Ark of the Covenant? It seems odd if it was, but felt that way a little to me.
I'm not sure what you mean by Ark of the Covenant. I must have missed the reference. Are we talking the actual Ark or the Spielberg-Lucas version of it?
I'd probably give Casino Royale the tie-breaker because of the action scenes were so much better.
Better get used to "Quantum", the new world organization (previously known as SPECTRE). There were a lot of members (future bad guys) in that opera audience.
I'm working on the meaning of the sand motif, but haven't spent a whole lot of time thinking about it since it's just a Bond movie. But this is the kind of thing Forster would work in.
B- or maybe C+ for me. Not good. Dumb action sequences throughout (notably the drop from the airplane and the initial fight on the ropes and pulleys with WAY too much CGI) with terrible perspective. 80% of the fight sequences were shot about 3X too close to even tell what was going on.
No clever lines, no plausible or interesting story and a simple and pointless love interest. Nothing worked well except Craig and Wright. But, I didn't like Casino Royale that much either. And after watching Amalric's one eyed performance in Diving Bell, its hard not to notice his bug eyes the whole time.
The Bourne films are in another league.
I like Craig much, much better than Damon, who's merely a smartass pretty boy. But, the Bourne movies are better-directed and written. Better supporting players too, with Cooper, Cox, and Allen.
The Bond movies aren't known for the most realistic action scenes or the sanest plots. But I'll still argue this is a pretty good entry into the Bond canon. It looks like I'm in the minority with QoS, though. We'll see how much the movie makes next weekend (indicating word of mouth).
Post a Comment