007 Quantum

I was looking forward to seeing this film but I'm not sure I was excited to see it. This had been tempered by some average reviews and also some negative ones that suggested that it was simply, not very good as a film - a lot of which have come from ideas over what a Bond film should be. People praised the "reboot" but apparently QOS is unacceptable? I do not think that the Bond films cannot change it up, but if they tried to do a Bond that was a romantic comedy I would be the first to come to this site complaining about "what have they done to Bond?" so I'm not totally for change.

QOS is not that much of a step away from the Bond tradition and it is just more of an action movie than a Bond movie. Yes I thought it was strange that the traditional opening was saved for the end of the film but the absence of gadgets, innuendo, comedy etc didn't bother me one bit – these were what I hated in Die Another Day in particular. Some have had the issue that QOS follows directly on from the previous film and that the narrative flows directly rather than restarting with a new threat. I liked this though as it cuts away the need to establish everything fresh and instead we get the development of the Quantum organisation - a thread that is good for several more films I suspect. Others have complained that the story made no sense (Kermode in particular went on about how little sense it made) - personally I didn't struggle with the overall flow. The specifics of some scenes or characters perhaps were lost on me, but this was mainly because the film didn't spoon feed me - and I'd rather it made me think. It is not a traditional Bond story though but it worked and those scoffing about the exploitation of one country to make money and get power as a trivial plot by the series standards are not seeing this as a part of a bigger, powerful organisation.

Where the "story" side of the film falls down is in the development of the character as Bond – it could have been any character doing the running and jumping. Don't make me wrong, it is not terrible but the title credits made me hope for more. You see, the names I recognised that made me think something would click were the following - Daniel Craig (arguably the best "actor" to play Bond), Paul Haggis (Oscar winning writer - and not for action films but for films where story, script and characters were the whole show), Marc Forster (Kite Runner and Monster's Ball - again, more about characters and material than action). I wasn't looking for QOS to be a no-action, all character affair but I did hope that these talents could do great things with the new, darker character of Bond. But they don't. Yes we have the general continuation of this tough, violent man driven by some twisted sort of vengeful love but it makes very little of it. The scenes between the action do well enough to built the story and connect the action but ultimately they are only "the bits between the action". The cast are still good - but just feel like more was possible. Craig is a good Bond, rough, fit and attractive with dark menace in his very heart. Amalric may not be a typical Bond super-villain but that was the point. Kurylenko is stunning and fits the modern Bond girl role well. Dench does what she does with quality but Arterton offers nothing but a clumsy Goldfinger reference while Jeffrey Wright's performance suggests an interesting character that the script never produces. Giannini's character produces a moment of emotional and superficial coldness in Bond that is good but otherwise I could have done with him or his character.

The action is what the film is about and, while enough to entertain, is never as thrilling or engaging as it should be. This is a problem and it's a problem that Bond struggles to solve - the Bourne problem. I know some people hate rapid editing and tight shots on principle because it causes motion sickness or "you can't see what's happening" but, done well (as in Bourne) it can draw the audience into action and make it a lot more intense. However, it is not something that happens in the editing room alone. For Bourne this approach compliments and is complimented by the choreography of the action and also the filming style. With Bond it feels at times like this style is an afterthought - some of the action scenes work with it but in the majority it only detracts from the scene. It is still noisy enough to do the job and I do like the brutal edge the scenes have but the editing was not a good call here. Otherwise the action is "good", great locations, fast cars, big explosions - just a shame that nothing had me on the edge of my seat.

QOS is different from the traditional, Christmas-afternoon-telly Bond; but clearing away a lot of clutter doesn't bother me as much as it has some viewers. The film works well as a solid action movie but falls short of being anything special. It is so conscious of Bourne that, in imitating aspects of that film, the makers forget to see if it works with what they are doing. The lack of depth and development in the character is also a disappointment given the talent involved in key areas. It is still a solid and enjoyable film that is worth seeing even if it is hard to ignore that most of it could and should have been better than it is.

Quantum of Solace or Quantum so less, as some of its critics may call it, definitely lacks certain aspects of a traditional Bond movie. It may be eccentric in the sense that it may not be able to titillate the esoteric Bond fans as it may lack their eclectic style and taste but it definitely succeeds in projecting a new Bond for the contemporary world who may not be a coeval of a superhero, who despite being vulnerable has got the killer instinct in him, which is the very defining characteristic of Ian Fleming's larger than life human incarnate. This Bond goes about his business in a fashion which is far more realistic compared to the Bond of the bygone era with an incredible passion and utmost devotion which is nothing but inexorable. Though Casino Royale was the pioneer of this graduation but its Quantum of Solace that consummates it and gives Fleming's agent a mystique which has always eluded him hitherto, an aura which gives him an opportunity to be mortal and hence a chance to qualify to be called a human.

Quantum of Solace is loaded with mind blowing action sequences which makes it a high octane extravaganza. The pace of the movie is such that you hardly get time to breathe freely. The plot though comparatively weaker than its precursor, is still good enough to keep one guessing thereby keeping one at the edge of the seat, all the way through.

The only aspect of the movie which should be under the scanner is its editing which is far from just and at times needless and severely annoying. A bit constraint editing under some meticulous vigilance could have done wonders and would have probably helped it, in its quest to be the best Bond movie of all time.

All being said and given what we have, the movie fails to disappoint the audience and will surely redefine the very prerequisites of an action movie and will definitely serve as a benchmark for the movies in the years to come.

http://www.apotpourriofvestiges.com/

Decent story, good pacing but those action scenes sure make you dizzy with all the cuts going on.

Quantum was my least favorite Bond movie for quite some time. After the over-ambitious Spectre, I look back at Quantum with fondness due to its simplicity. Not necessarily in its plot, but in its treatment of Bond as a character and his coming to terms with Vesper's death. It's an epilogue to Casino Royale; Bond is hellbent on revenge. It effectively functions as a discount Bourne film. Daniel Craig is great as always, as is Judi Dench and the rest of the supporting cast. The problems with Quantum lie mainly in the directing and editing.

The film opens with a car chase - Bond is being pursued by thugs. Why? We find out later, but the fact that we have no information at the start makes it really hard to care about the action. On top of that, the camera is moving and cutting every half-second so it's nearly impossible to tell what's even happening. This shaky-cam technique is used throughout the film and it's as disorienting as it is annoying.

We're eventually led to our Bond Girl, Camille, who is a unique Bond Girl for having her own character arc (and her own villain), then she leads Bond to our main villain, Dominic Greene - a businessman who wants to buy a pipeline to control Bolivia's water supply. Not exactly a James Bond-level threat, is it? Greene is no match for Bond physically in any sense, but their final confrontation is gratifying if only to see a villain genuinely, and rightly, terrified of Bond. It's great fun to watch Greene yelp as he's swinging an axe around for dear life while his fuel cell-ridden desert hotel explodes around him.

The rest plays out like a standard revenge story. Camille wants revenge against General Medrano for killing her family, and Bond wants revenge for Vesper by going after the organization that was blackmailing her. The writing is stilted and unpolished, but where the movie mainly fails is in its directing. It's pretentious and tonally clashes with the dark character study of Bond that the script is going for. It also doesn't help when the action scenes keep cutting away to a nearby horse race or an opera.

What we have here is a Bond-Bourne hybrid that had the impossible burden of having to follow Casino Royale. However, it's nice to see a gritty Bond adventure for a change. It's not a great Bond movie, but it's engaging enough to be a good time if you're able to look past its flaws.

Whether or not you liked "Casino Royale", and most people certainly did, Roger Moore fanatics probably excluded (hey, I respect their opinion), it was something Bond had never been before, and it surprised a lot of people and reinvigorated genuine interest in Bond after "Die Another Day" by which point it was frankly becoming an obligation to attend the new Bond film rather than a pleasure. After the emotionally charged story, and particularly the climax, of "Casino Royale", the bar was set very high for the follow-up.

Does "Quantum of Solace" deliver? Well, honestly, the answer to that depends almost entirely on what you were expecting. If you were expecting a lengthy, down-to-earth, 'realistic' ('plausible' is probably a better description for "Casino Royale") character-based revenge flick, "Quantum of Solace" is not it. What "Quantum of Solace" does is weave the characterization into the plot and action to the point where we don't have room to breathe. The criticisms against the movie for lacking in character development are downright absurd- it's all there, the movie just doesn't stop and explicitly tell you what it's doing. If you're paying attention to what Bond's doing throughout the film surely you will understand why he is motivated to do those things. It's pretty careful and refined writing from Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (with the addition of script polisher/editor Paul Haggis).

What "Quantum of Solace" doesn't do is deliver a repeat of "Casino Royale". I'm actually quite amazed at the venomous reaction to the film by fans who seem to adore the more humorous, faster-moving Bond films. I mean, this isn't exactly right up their alley, but it's sure as hell not as drawn-out and slow-moving (although I didn't feel that was a bad thing in CR's case) as "Casino Royale", it surely doesn't spend most of its time on the dialogue and characterization, and it surely isn't as significantly divergent from the Bond formula as that film was. This is, ultimately, not unlike several Bond films we've seen before. There's snarling foreign villains with accents, a shadowy evil organization with political motivations, there's plenty, plenty of action. The "Bourne" comparisons are especially confounding. So, because Robert Ludlum once took from the Bond character and stories to write his "Bourne" novels, the Bond film series can't go back to Bond's roots in Fleming's great novels for inspiration? I'd say that "Quantum" has more in common with Bond films of the past than any of the Bourne films. If they're talking about the action scenes here, then while they lack the coherence of some of the greatest action scenes in Bond history, they are still much easier to follow than anything in Greengrass' "Bourne" films. Outside the first 15 minutes there's barely anything here that resembles a Bourne film at all, actually. The first two action scenes- the car chase and foot chase- are over-edited for sure, but the rest of the action scenes are grand, particularly the plane scene and climactic action scene at the hotel.

The technical aspects of the film are all good, director Marc Forster doesn't mess up (which, given the quality of many of his previous films, was perhaps the greatest danger this Bond installment faced) the David Arnold score is not one of the great Bond scores, and his (or the producers') refusal to use an orchestral version of the score much during the actual film is quite frustrating, but it's quite good and certainly not among the worst scores the series has had. Craig is an absolutely superb Bond, Olga Kurylenko is a find Bond girl and fairly well-developed but not at the expense of Bond or the story, while Gemma Arterton's limited screen time is an unnecessary diversion. Arterton's not the only flaw here, the design is a bit naff at times, and there's several things that could have been done better, especially during the first 15 minutes, but the movie works as a whole, and it's not nearly as humorless as some are suggesting; there's some genuinely funny stuff here, without descending into over-the-top camp. Actually, "Quantum of Solace" sees a welcome return of a deadpan delivery to the one-liners which evokes Connery's best moments. No winking at the camera, no raised eyebrows, just the jokes. Felix grabbing a beer and looking nonchalant as the SWAT team tried and failed to capture Bond, Bond stealing the bike from under the informant ("I missed!"), Bond and M at the hotel... So many great moments.

"Quantum of Solace" is perhaps not one of the great Bond films, and while I would not like to see "Quantum of Solace" become the template which the Bond series will follow in the future (it is only completely satisfying when taken in context as part of a larger storyline), it is still not just a good action thriller, but an often gloriously enjoyable Bond film, and a fine entry in the series.

8/10