I’m not predisposed to like a Bond film. I’m predisposed to love a Bond film. And I loved “Casino Royale,” the reboot that was objected to by a bevy of Bond fans who dismissed Daniel Craig as “James Blond” or even “James Bland”…until they saw it. Craig remains the main selling point of the sequel, and does the best he can with what he’s handed. And Dame Dench’s M remains stellar.
Other than that, however…I had some major problems both with what was there, and even more, with what wasn’t.
MAJOR spoilers below the cut line, but it really can’t be helped.
I won’t endeavor to describe the plot other than to say that it follows up immediately from “Casino Royale,” with Bond in a state of grief over Vesper’s murder that is so bottomless, there seems to be nothing behind those cobalt blue eyes except a desire to kill anyone and anything that gets in his way…and even some stuff standing to the side.
My problems with the film are threefold, and they’re pretty major.
The action scenes: I had no idea what the hëll was happening. None. I will say that Kath had no problem, but my brain wasn’t wired in such a way that I could track them. As opposed to the seamless, easy-to-follow, but no less thrilling set pieces of its predecessor, QOS left me adrift anytime the film shifted into high gear. When each camera shot ranges from one to three seconds in length (yes, I became so detached that I started counting them off) there’s no time for me to get a sense of where anyone is or what’s happening to them. You know that long shot of Bond falling through a glass roof while fighting another guy? The one you’ve seen in all the commercials? That’s the single longest shot in the entire sequence. It runs about five seconds. By QOS standards, that’s a breather. Basically it’s as if they took each sequence, shoved it in a blender, pressed the button, took the top off the blender, let it spray all over the ceiling, and that’s what they then put on the film.
The villain: Dominic Green. The most unmemorable villain in the Bond canon. He was more of a cipher than Le Chiffre, whose name actually meant “cipher.” No interesting backstory, no particularly unique quirks, foibles or physical tics. A villain so unimposing that he is, to the best of my recollection, the first major Bond villain (and I mean major only in that he’s the prime force in the film) to die while off screen. We hear about it after the fact. Apparently even the movie makers didn’t give enough of a dámņ about him to deem him worthy of an on-screen sendoff.
The scenes that should have been there: In the last ten minutes of the film, we blow past two major emotional and informational points that by all rights should have been seen.
The first is that Bond convinces Green to tell him all about the mysterious organization known as Quantum. I’m not going to spoil the details of that for you here. I couldn’t if I wanted to: We don’t know them. This is just sloppy and lazy writing. Bond is our POV character. What he learns, we learn. If anything, we should be ahead of the curve, knowing the machinations of the bad guys and aware of what Bond is heading into as a means of building suspense. Instead the movie makers cut away from Bond’s confrontation with Green. We don’t know how Bond convinces him to talk. We don’t know what he tells Bond. All we know is that Green says, “I’ve told you everything you wanted to know about Quantum.” Excuse me? Where? When? I didn’t see it. Show, not tell, people. As a paying customer, I’ve got some stake in this, too. I should know about it, same as Bond. I don’t give a dámņ that they’re laying groundwork for the next film. Bond and I should be on the same page; that’s just basic storytelling.
Second is Bond’s eventual confrontation with Vesper’s boyfriend. Vesper is dead because of this guy. Bond is in mourning because of this guy. When Bond finally has him at gun point, it should be a major emotional moment. Bond’s chilly demeanor, everything he’s been holding in, builds to this point. This should be the time when we see the mask slip, when he should let out his grief somehow, in some manner. I don’t care if he breaks down crying or beats the living crap out of the boyfriend in rage until he’s got no rage left. SOMEthing.
Instead nothing. We cut away. Again. We don’t see the confrontation, and it should have been THE emotional setpiece of the film. It was those emotional moments that elevated “Casino Royale,” and it’s the lack of them that lessens QOS. In their haste to make this one of the shortest Bond films on record, the producers and writers cut corners, and it shows.
I know that “James Bond Will Return.” I just hope that when he does, he brings a better script and better direction with him.
PAD
• 
I know that “James Bond Will Return.” I just hope that when he does, he brings a better script and better direction with him.
The first part is unlikely to happen as long as they keep Neal Purvis and Robert Wade on the franchise. I know Paul Haggis was brought in to punch up the emotional side of things, but the majority of the action is left for these two to plot and I guess nobody over there realized that it was their weak scripts, more than anything, that killed the Brosnan run.
While I enjoyed the movie, less so than Casino Royale, I agree with both your main points.
The editing was to frantic and made it difficult to get a real grip on what was happening. For me it was particularly evident in the chase at the beginning. I guess they where trying to grip the audience by the jugular and it kinda works but it is far to frenetic.
The not showing us what is going on for those two scenes is bad but I am not sure they would have been able to properly pull of the later one. Plus I suspect they probably felt they couldn’t have our hero beating the šhìŧ out of Vespers ex, at least not on screen as it could be such a negative image for the character.
However it would be nice to know if it was prior to the meetup with the ex or during the meeting with the ex that Bond found his peace.
Haven’t seen it, but I heard on NPR that the major problem is the director. He’s a non-action director who tried to compensate with action. So he went overboard, and it became the Bourne Identity.
Plus I suspect they probably felt they couldn’t have our hero beating the šhìŧ out of Vespers ex, at least not on screen as it could be such a negative image for the character.
I suspect that you’re correct about that, mores the pity. Bond is supposed to be a real bášŧárd most of the time. That’s what makes his more human moments all the more meaningful.
p.s. I’ve not seen the film I saw that Mr. David’s had real problems with it and decided that I wanted the info to help me decide whether I wanted to see it. Thanks, PAD. I still haven’t decided, but I’m glad that I read your comments, spoilers and all.
This does not gladden my heart at the announcement that the same director will be doing WORLD WAR Z, aka The Movie That Many Of Us Are Willing To Give A Thumb To See.
A major problem has to be having two directors. One for the action sequences and another for the character sequences.
I just can’t believe they’re still using the same writers from the Brosnan films.
Except those were the same writers who did “Casino Royale.”
PAD
Thanks for the warning, Peter. I was so psyched for this movie but I’m also someone who can’t tolerate hyper cutting in action sequences. That type of filmmaking ruined Batman Begins for me–enough that I almost missed the glory of The Dark Knight in which someone in the production crew actually learned from that mistake!
I still think Daniel Craig is the best Bond after Sean Connery and I love the modern direction that Casino Royale went so perhaps the next Bond movie will bring Martin Campbell back to the director’s chair.
“So he went overboard, and it became the Bourne Identity.”
From the way PAD describes this film, it’s a Bourne Identity wannabe; to compare the two would be an insult to the great film that Bourne Identity was. 🙂
Yeah, Peter, that’s what I mean. I can’t believe these same people are writing scripts of such varying quality. (Although I suppose it’s worth noting that Paul Haggis did some major rewrites on Casino Royale…)
Actually, sorry, that’s not what I meant at all. What I meant was, after those last couple of Brosnan films, with such a huge stylistic refocus intended from Casino Royale I find it strange that they went to the same people to write the screenplays for them.
Sigh. I hate to disagree with PAD because he so often comes back with a good explanation of why I should agree that I end up changing my mind. However, I have to disagree with some of his assessment of Quantum of Solace. So, here goes:
1) EDITING. The first half-hour of action is virtually unwatchable to me as well. I agree with Byron Dunn about Batman Begins vs. Dark Knight. Please, please, please let this be the last action movie with a “real fights are confusing, so movie fights should be, too” attitude. Just give us some storytelling, please!
2) THE VILLAIN. Here I disagree. One thing that I noticed about the whole movie is that much of the traditional James Bond Franchise is not so much missing as it is turned WAY down. There’s humor, but it’s not so tongue-in-cheek. There’s charm and elegance, but it’s played in contrast to the heinous dealings that it hides.
The same goes for Dominic Greene, QOS’s antagonist. This is a viciously cruel man who lies with incredible ease. He’s not over-the-top like traditional Bond villains. Instead, he’s totally believable (to me, at least). Here we have a Bond villain who literally trades in people and who routinely (and successfully, until the very end) manipulates and starves entire populations to make a buck. When he gives his former girlfriend to the General to rape and then murder, it’s just plain chilling. No camp, no scenery chewing. Just evil. Modern, easily hidden evil.
3) MISSED OPPORTUNITIES. Again, here, I partially disagree with PAD. The “I’ve told you everything about Quantum” part is a bit of a cheat. I think that even an overview summary on Greene’s part here would have done a lot to help my wife–and other moviegoers like her–understand what was happening (she got lost). However, in the long view, I’d rather have those details work for the next film rather than having the next film serve previously conceived details.
The other two moments that PAD mentions, though, are played here with this film’s characteristic understatedness, and I don’t think they’re ineffective. The (off-screen) death of Dominic Greene works for me because it’s set up very, very clearly by Bond. Bond leaves him in the desert with a can of motor oil and bets that Greene won’t get 20 miles before he drinks the oil. We later find out (with our POV character, Bond) that Greene was shot in the head, but not before he did break and drink the oil in an attempt at suicide. So the bad guy here is screwed not only by himself, but by his organization, as well. No need to see the act on screen, IMO.
Finally, to complain that we do not see Bond’s treatment of Yusef, the man who seduced, betrayed, and coerced Vesper into betraying Bond is to miss the point of Bond’s revenge quest and his character arc in the film, I think. Bond blames both Vesper and himself for Vesper’s death; Mathis sees this in Bond, which is why he says what he does before he dies. Bond’s goal in confronting Yusef is simply to prevent what happened to Vesper from happening again, to save someone else because he could not save Vesper. The emotional climax of that scene is him explaining the situation to the CSIS girl, not him beating/killing/whatevering Yusef. At this point in the film, Bond has grown into his more detached, professional self and knows that there is more to be gained from interrogating Yusef than from killing him. It’s cold, it’s subtle, but it’s in line with the persona Bond must create to survive.
I think that Bill Hunt’s explanation of the film, that it’s really the second half of Casino Royale and not a “Bond film” on its own, is what allows me to have enjoyed it as much as I did. Had I not gone into the film with that attitude, I’m not sure I would have been as interested or forgiving as I was/am.
I hope all that made sense.
Eric
I enjoyed the film. It isn’t nearly as good as Casino Royale, but still fun. I have two tips for people who are going to see it.
1. Don’t try to follow the fight scenes. Think of them as impressionistic pieces. Let them flow over you. I was able to better understand what was going on when I did that instead of actively following the action.
2. Think of this as a bridge between Royale and whatever comes next. (More on this “ghostly” criminal organization and its leader perhaps?)It has a complete plot, but it isn’t as important as the plot points it sets up for the next film.
This movie does have many flaws, but these tips might help you get past them and enjoy the ride.
“I agree with Byron Dunn about Batman Begins vs. Dark Knight.”
actually, I felt that the fight scenes were a little weak in Dark Knight. But that movie was so great it wasn’t harmed by this.
The same goes for Dominic Greene, QOS’s antagonist. This is a viciously cruel man who lies with incredible ease. He’s not over-the-top like traditional Bond villains.
I don’t need him to be over the top. I don’t need him to be camp or chew scenery. He doesn’t need to have razor sharp teeth or metal hands. I need him to be unique. In this aspect, I look for two things–a unique character aspect, and a signature moment. Le Chiffre wasn’t especially over the top, but he was a great Bond villain. Unique character aspect: he weeped blood. Signature moment: he tied a naked Bond to a chair and hammered his balls with a bolo (not to mentioning nearly killing Bond by poisoning his drink.)
The problem with Green was inadvertently pinpointed in the scene between M and the cabinet minister, when he shrugs and says, “Let’s say he’s a villain. If we didn’t deal with villains, we wouldn’t have anyone to trade with.” Green’s an evil bášŧárd, but there’s tons of evil bášŧárdš in the world. He’s no worse than a whole lot of other evil bášŧárdš. He isn’t a Bond-level evil bášŧárd to me. There’s nothing about him personally that makes you say, “Whoa, THAT’S messed up,” and there’s no single moment of pure evil or viciousness that is particularly memorable. Giving the girl over to the dictator and later blackmailing that same dictator comes close, but the girl was actually manipulating the situation so she was going where she wanted to go, so actually he was being used, and neither instance was directed at Bond. He never really had Bond on the ropes at any time. I mean, yeah, he went at Bond hand to hand at the climax, but so what? There was nothing established at any point to indicate that he was particularly formidable in that regard, and indeed he wasn’t especially.
The other two moments that PAD mentions, though, are played here with this film’s characteristic understatedness, and I don’t think they’re ineffective.
The film wasn’t understated. The film was schizoid. That may be part of the problem. The quiet sequences were understated, and the action sequences were incoherent.
The (off-screen) death of Dominic Greene works for me because it’s set up very, very clearly by Bond. Bond leaves him in the desert with a can of motor oil and bets that Greene won’t get 20 miles before he drinks the oil. We later find out (with our POV character, Bond) that Greene was shot in the head, but not before he did break and drink the oil in an attempt at suicide. So the bad guy here is screwed not only by himself, but by his organization, as well.
And that scene should be seen by the audience. Hearing about it after the fact is a cheat, and not seeing it is a lost opportunity. It could have been used to set up the next film, introducing a more formidable, Blofeld-like uber villain as the one who actually takes out Green and is obviously going to be the major menace that Bond will face next time out.
The emotional climax of that scene is him explaining the situation to the CSIS girl, not him beating/killing/whatevering Yusef. At this point in the film, Bond has grown into his more detached, professional self and knows that there is more to be gained from interrogating Yusef than from killing him. It’s cold, it’s subtle, but it’s in line with the persona Bond must create to survive.
The problem is that the first film was about Bond’s growth into that detached, professional self. “The bìŧçh is dead,” he tells M, telling us he’s turned off his vulnerability. “The name’s Bond. James Bond,” he informs us, telling us that he’s arrived. This time he doesn’t say much of anything. The problem is that everyone else keeps saying stuff TO him ABOUT himself. Bond himself provides nothing. Again, we’re being told about his characterization rather than Bond being allowed to show it. I’m not saying he had to kill Yusef. I’m saying we had to see his moment of struggle not to do so. Yusef says, “Make it quick,” and boom, we cut away. Again. AGAIN. I have no problem with Bond keeping the audience at a distance from himself; I have a problem with the producer, director and writer keeping the audience at a distance from Bond. The ONLY reason we “know” that Bond is suffering over the death of Vesper, the ONLY reason we “know” that he blames himself, is because OTHER people TELL us so. That, for me, is a huge problem and a huge weakness in the script.
PAD
I agree with Eric on Dominic Greene’s death–as written it’s better it be off screen. It’s a pathetic death and seeing it would only make you feel sorry for him. Kind of like toecutter’s death in Mad Max or the death of the child killer in WATCHMEN (Which are basically the exact same death, I realize).
It’s a very different thing from most death in a Bond movie and I appreciate it for that. All that said, let’s not make a habit of it.
I like that they are trying new things with the franchize. Some will work better than others but judging by the money QoS has made so far they have successfully rejuvenated the franchise.
Here’s what Roger had to say, on top of only giving it two thumbs down…
“OK, I’ll say it. Never again. Don’t ever let this happen again to James Bond. “Quantum of Solace” is his 22nd film and he will survive it, but for the 23rd it is necessary to go back to the drawing board and redesign from the ground up. Please understand: James Bond is not an action hero! He is too good for that. He is an attitude. Violence for him is an annoyance. He exists for the foreplay and the cigarette. He rarely encounters a truly evil villain. More often a comic opera buffoon with hired goons in matching jump suits.
“You won’t find that out here. The chase, with Bond under constant machinegun fire, is so quickly cut and so obviously composed of incomprehensible CGI that we’re essentially looking at bright colors bouncing off each other, intercut with Bond at the wheel and POV shots of approaching monster trucks. Let’s all think together. When has an action hero ever, even once, been killed by machinegun fire, no matter how many hundreds of rounds? The hit men should simply reject them and say, ‘No can do, Boss. They never work in this kind of movie.’
“The chase has no connection to the rest of plot, which is routine for Bond, but it’s about the movie’s last bow to tradition. In “Quantum of Solace” he will share no cozy quality time with the Bond girl (Olga Kurylenko). We fondly remember the immortal names of Pussy Galore, Xenia Onatopp and Plenty O’Toole, who I have always suspected was a drag queen. In this film, who do we get? Are you ready for this? Camille. That’s it. Camille. Not even Camille Squeal. Or Cammy Miami. Or Miss O’Toole’s friend Cam Shaft.
“Daniel Craig remains a splendid Bond, one of the best. He is handsome, agile, muscular, dangerous. Everything but talkative. I didn’t count, but I think M (Judi Dench) has more dialogue than 007. Bond doesn’t look like the urge to peel Camille has even entered his mind. He blows up a hotel in the middle of a vast, barren, endless Bolivian desert. It’s a luxury hotel, with angular W Hotel-style minimalist room furniture you might cut your legs on, and a bartender who will stir or shake you any drink, but James has become a regular bloke who orders lager. Who are the clients at this highest of high-end hotels? Lawrence of Arabia, obviously, and millionaires who hate green growing things. Conveniently, when the hotel blows up, the filmmakers don’t have to contend with adjacent buildings, traffic, pedestrians, skylines or anything else. Talk about your blue screen. Nothing better than the azure desert sky.
“Why is he in Bolivia? In pursuit of a global villain, whose name is not Goldfinger, Scaramanga, Drax or Le Chiffre, but … Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric). What is Dominic’s demented scheme to control the globe? As a start, the fiend desires to corner the water supply of … Bolivia. Ohooo! Nooo! This twisted design, revealed to Bond after at least an hour of death-defying action, reminds me of the famous laboratory mouse who was introduced into a labyrinth. After fighting his way for days through baffling corridors and down dead ends, finally, finally, parched and starving, the little creature crawled at last to the training button and hurled his tiny body against it. And what rolled down the chute as his reward? A licorice gum ball.
“Dominic Greene lacks a headquarters on the moon, or on the floor of the sea. He operates out of an ordinary shipping warehouse with loading docks. His evil transport is provided by fork lifts and pickup trucks. Bond doesn’t have to creep out on the ledge of an underground volcano to spy on him. He just walks up to the chain-link fence and peers through. Greene could get useful security tips from Wal-Mart.
“There is no Q in “Quantum of Solace,” except in the title. No Miss Moneypenny at all. M now has a male secretary. That Judi Dench, what a fox. Bond doesn’t even size her up. He learned his lesson with Plenty. This Bond, he doesn’t bring much to the party. Daniel Craig can play suave and he can be funny and Brits are born doing double entendre. Craig is a fine actor. Here they lock him down. I repeat: James Bond is not an action hero! Leave the action to your Jason Bournes. This is a swampy old world. The deeper we sink in, the more we need James Bond to stand above it.”
***
His Ebertness is far more eloquent than I.
Miles
they could have done a lot better job transitioning Daniel Craig into a more Bond-like character, maybe a tad less head-butting and a bit more finesse… that way it would seem like they’re just making copies of copies of the Bourne Identity
Peter,
did you catch the Star Trek Trailer before POS?
I need him to be unique. In this aspect, I look for two things–a unique character aspect, and a signature moment. Le Chiffre wasn’t especially over the top, but he was a great Bond villain. Unique character aspect: he weeped blood. Signature moment: he tied a naked Bond to a chair and hammered his balls with a bolo (not to mentioning nearly killing Bond by poisoning his drink.)
Fair enough. I think both of the things you mention are essential for a great Bond villain, and I’ll grant that. However, I liked Dominic Green ten times more than, say, Elliot Carver from Tomorrow Never Dies. That doesn’t make him great, but he was not as much of a disappointment to me as other villains have been.
Giving the girl over to the dictator and later blackmailing that same dictator comes close, but the girl was actually manipulating the situation so she was going where she wanted to go, so actually he was being used, and neither instance was directed at Bond.
I don’t think that much of anything in this movie is really directed at Bond. Sticking with this movie as Part II of Casino Royale, that doesn’t bother me particularly because after the damage to Quantum that Bond has done in QOS, they’ll be gunning for him next time.
The film wasn’t understated. The film was schizoid. That may be part of the problem. The quiet sequences were understated, and the action sequences were incoherent.
I’m not sure I’d go with “schizoid,” but you and I are on the same page with the action sequences.
And [Greene’s death] should be seen by the audience. Hearing about it after the fact is a cheat, and not seeing it is a lost opportunity. It could have been used to set up the next film, introducing a more formidable, Blofeld-like uber villain as the one who actually takes out Green and is obviously going to be the major menace that Bond will face next time out.
I’m going to blame the producers for this one and not the writers. I agree with you 100% that what you describe here would be cooler than what’s (not) on-screen in QOS. At the same time, if they don’t have a clear conception of the uber-villain yet, I’m glad they didn’t rush one to get it in this film.
The problem is that the first film was about Bond’s growth into that detached, professional self. “The bìŧçh is dead,” he tells M, telling us he’s turned off his vulnerability. “The name’s Bond. James Bond,” he informs us, telling us that he’s arrived. This time he doesn’t say much of anything. The problem is that everyone else keeps saying stuff TO him ABOUT himself. Bond himself provides nothing.
I disagree that Bond gives us nothing. His restraint in not allowing Greene to fall to his death, his restraint with Yusef, his increasingly respectful behavior toward M–these things are not things of which he was capable at the beginning of this film.
I have no problem with Bond keeping the audience at a distance from himself; I have a problem with the producer, director and writer keeping the audience at a distance from Bond. The ONLY reason we “know” that Bond is suffering over the death of Vesper, the ONLY reason we “know” that he blames himself, is because OTHER people TELL us so. That, for me, is a huge problem and a huge weakness in the script.
Hmm. I have to say that the movie still works for me here, but I see what you’re saying. I’m sure that in more capable hands (yours, for instance), this could have been done much better. In fact, that brings up something I’d very much like to see: James Bond by PAD. How cool would that be?
Eric
Here’s what Roger had to say, on top of only giving it two thumbs down…
This was not a two thumbs down movie for me. I think Ebert is unnecessarily harsh here.
James Bond is not an action hero! He is too good for that. He is an attitude. Violence for him is an annoyance. He exists for the foreplay and the cigarette. He rarely encounters a truly evil villain. More often a comic opera buffoon with hired goons in matching jump suits.
If I never see a comic opera buffoon with matching goons in a Bond movie again, I’ll be very happy. Why make yet another Austin Powers-worthy Bond film?
You won’t find that out here. The chase, with Bond under constant machinegun fire, is so quickly cut and so obviously composed of incomprehensible CGI that we’re essentially looking at bright colors bouncing off each other, intercut with Bond at the wheel and POV shots of approaching monster trucks. Let’s all think together. When has an action hero ever, even once, been killed by machinegun fire, no matter how many hundreds of rounds? The hit men should simply reject them and say, ‘No can do, Boss. They never work in this kind of movie.’
On the action, we agree. However, what else would the bad guys use other than machine guns? Complaining that they never work against Bond misses the point of the movie. Of course they don’t work–then it wouldn’t be a Bond movie anymore!
Why is he in Bolivia? In pursuit of a global villain, whose name is not Goldfinger, Scaramanga, Drax or Le Chiffre, but … Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric). What is Dominic’s demented scheme to control the globe? As a start, the fiend desires to corner the water supply of … Bolivia. Ohooo! Nooo!
Oh, please. Not every Bond villain needs an uber-grandiose scheme to control the entire world. After sixteen or seventeen of those, it became so cliched that I, for one, am glad to see this aspect of the series toned down. And controlling the water supply of Bolivia through its utilities contracts grants Quantum ever increasing resources with which it can… do whatever evil stuff Quantum does. Personally, I thought the low-keyness of this scheme was part of its brilliance. Ultimately, if Mr. Ebert wants to see more of the same with Bond, I can recommend 20 other movies that would have exactly what he’s looking for…
There is no Q in “Quantum of Solace,” except in the title. No Miss Moneypenny at all. M now has a male secretary. That Judi Dench, what a fox. Bond doesn’t even size her up. He learned his lesson with Plenty. This Bond, he doesn’t bring much to the party. Daniel Craig can play suave and he can be funny and Brits are born doing double entendre. Craig is a fine actor. Here they lock him down. I repeat: James Bond is not an action hero! Leave the action to your Jason Bournes. [From earlier:] The chase has no connection to the rest of plot, which is routine for Bond, but it’s about the movie’s last bow to tradition.
How can there be tradition? This is Bond’s first case! Why would MI6 have a Q-branch? Who knew there even was such an organization as Quantum? Why would M have Moneypenny? So far she’s had a great assistant named Mitchell. That he happened to be a traitor means that she’ll certainly need a more capable assistant in the next one… Hmmm. And just for Mr. Ebert’s information, the chase was Quantum goons trying to retrieve Mr. White, and it’s very, very obvious what’s happening there. (It’s just not easy to follow the action of the scene!)
His Ebertness is far more eloquent than I.
I think “His Ebertness” does not understand at all what they’re doing in this movie and in the last one. PAD hits upon story criticisms which, while I don’t agree with all of them, are perfectly valid and understandable. Ebert, on the other hand… Why watch a new movie if all you want is the same old same old?
Eric
I loved this film and will see it in the theater again. I loved the hotel set piece at the climax. What a cool design.
However the producers have made no secret of this being a trilogy and I think this film suffered from the middle book syndrome. The writers in fear of spilling too many beans, spill really none. We don’t even know yet if this is SPECTER.
If you think of Green as what he really is, just a pawn and not the “real” villain of the trilogy then his off screen death makes sense. He’s just one of the many “red shirts” to die in propelling the story.
Now digressing slightly, we got the Star Trek trailer. I have had less than enthusiastic expectations for this movie, but… Holy crap, if the movie matches the trailer build up, this is going to rock!
I haven’t seen the movie, and didn’t even like Casino Royale that much, although I appreciated the effort. It seems to be a tough balancing act.
How do you balance between being too campy and being indistinguishable from other action movies?
How do you adjust for the present, as far as character complexity and proper treatment of women is concerned, without undermining what makes Bond who he is?
In the last 2 films, Bond has evolved from barely surviving his own recklessness to [spoiler] slipping out of ambush by a room full of the people who outfit him with his gadgets and give him his orders, confronting him with the murder of a lover who saved him. [/spoiler]
In Bond’s film history, when has such a chilling moment been inspired by Bond himself? Bond carried this one by his character, and taking the missed opportunities Peter listed would have sabotaged this movie.
[spoiler] …for which the rape scene served as an effective allegory for. [/spoiler]
The reason the fight scenes are so choppy is because this movie is about the fight for control. The action scenes are the literal battleground for control. They should be chaotic.
The reason Bond gives no confirmation of the other characters’ account of his motives is because they are wrong. Bond gives his own account of his motives: someone tried to kill M.
This movie was the best possible follow-up to Casino Royale.
The reason the fight scenes are so choppy is because this movie is about the fight for control. The action scenes are the literal battleground for control. They should be chaotic.
I’d argue that the need to tell a story that makes sense to your viewer trumps the desire to express chaos through rapid-fire cuts. I’d also believe your argument MUCH more if the action scenes had gotten seriously more understandable as the movie went on and Bond got more and more control of himself. OR if the crazy cutting had gone in and out as Bond’s temper flared. Unfortunately, I didn’t see either of those things happening.
Denny O’Neil once said that Batman is 50% substance and 50% style, and that the style always comes from the artist. (I’m paraphrasing, obviously.) I always took that to mean that no matter how gritty Gotham is or how invisible Batman is or what kind of costume such a man might wear in real(er) life, the artist needs to make it look cool.
Part of “looking cool” in a comic or a movie is having storytelling that people can follow. Both Batman Begins and Quantum of Solace fail in this regard, IMO. In their desire to show a character’s point of view (Batman comes out of nowhere, is hard for the villains to see, etc. OR Bond is not in emotional control), they sacrifice decent visual storytelling.
Eric
It’s a meta-conflict. It’s a conflict drawn in post-modern terms. The scenes you are complaining about are in contrast to the M16 scenes where control is portrayed harmoniously like you at work zooming-in and zooming-out of google maps.
This movie taps into your own relationship with this conflict. And not everyone born after 1970 has a bad relationship with this conflict. The Bond franchise was dying the old way.
I don’t read enough Ebert to know if he says a lot of stupid things, but he missed out on a really simple and good story: James Bond inadvertently sabotages a woman’s revenge for the rape and murder she witnessed of her family, he restores her opportunity, and he doesn’t take advantage of her.
People will be watching the Craig Bond 10 years from now like people still watch the Matrix. That won’t be true for the other Bonds. The comic book industry would do better if it could challenge its existing audience to draw in a wider readership as well.
Again, the movie was about the fight for control, between a man who holds whole nations hostage, and a man who came of age in chaos. I don’t think it’s that great a mystery how Bond interrogated a defeated man.
[spoiler] Bond showed that guy’s next mark the exact same necklace she was wearing, and right in front of him. [/spoiler]
It was a masterful scene.
I watched Cloverfield from the front row of the theater with no problems.
I couldn’t follow half the action sequences in QoS.
This whole “combat is chaotic, so combat camerawork must be chaotic” meme in action direction really annoys me.
I’m a huge Bond fan who hasn’t seen “Casino Royale” yet, never mind “Quantum of Solace”. Starting with “Diamonds Are Forever”, I’ve seen every Bond movie since on opening weekend (if not opening night)…and I still haven’t seen “Casino Royale”. Oh, I read all the rave reviews and I believe them. But I just can’t get past what I call ‘the “Seven Soldiers” factor’ of “…Royale”.
“Okay. The Bond franchise is being rebooted, starting over. At the very beginning of Bond’s career, his first case. Fine. But…Dame Judi Dench is still playing “M”…like she did for the last three or four Bonds…progressively replacing Bernard Lee. Why isn’t “M” a man, a younger Bernard Lee type?? Well…all right…I like Dench. But…shouldn’t “…Royale” be set in the late 1950s or the very early ’60s? No?? It’s going to be set in the present day?? UGH! Who WROTE This, Grant Morrison??!!”
I *do* plan on seeing BOTH movies, though.
But, Mike…come on.
“People will be watching the Craig Bond 10 years from now like people still watch the Matrix. That won’t be true for the other Bonds.”
REALLY?? Dude. People are watching the Connery Bonds, to name a few, FORTY YEARS later!
Hooper
I was speaking casually of people setting aside what they’re doing to watch Craig as Bond, as opposed to Connery on TBS as background noise.
If someone had pitched Casino Royale to me without referring to James Bond, I would have gone to see it in the theater and had a blast. Instead I saw Casino Royale was James Bond, and felt free to skip it.
Does that include the rape scenes? I’m guessing stripping the rape scenes of any glamor with the same kind of editing didn’t annoy you, which leave me wondering why anyone should care why one annoyed you while the other didn’t.
Never liked James Bond myself. I think he is one of those heroes that you need to be a heterosexual male to properly enjoy. Conan the Barbarian is a bit like that too.
The Watchmen trailer looks amazing, though. Extremely faithful to the comic. Even with the rumours of no squid.
Oh, Mikey–
You’re stepping over the line again, Mikey. This was uncalled for–
“Does that include the rape scenes? I’m guessing stripping the rape scenes of any glamor with the same kind of editing didn’t annoy you, which leave me wondering why anyone should care why one annoyed you while the other didn’t.”
Please stop being an idiot.
Re: signature Bond girl names…
The female British agent played by Gemma Arterton, who slept with Bond and then died after being dipped in oil, was named – Strawberry Fields!
But, you had to read the credits to get the joke. True to their form of rejecting Bond traditions, she only identified herself as “Miss Fields” in the movie.
Another gripe, we had to wait for the end credits to hear the famous Bond theme? They’re trying a little TOO hard to distance themselves from the old films.
Yeah, the absence of the Bond music bugged me as well. It made sense to me in “Casino Royale.” He wasn’t “really” Bond yet. It’s not until the end of that film that he “becomes” Bond at which point the classic music blasts triumphantly. But there’s no particular creative reason to have it missing this time around.
PAD
You heard it here, folks: there were no rape scenes in Quantum of Solace, and you’re an idiot if you say there were.
Y’know, maybe what went “wrong” with QoS is that they made the movie Peter wanted to see. Then someone over there read the Black Dossier and said, “Holy Crap, after 20+ movies we need to establish that James Bond hates rape.” And then they reconfigured it into a movie that still works, yet somehow Alan will call you an idiot if you admit exists.
I don’t know why anyone should be made to feel stupid for seeing how establishing James Bond hates rape is the natural choice over pleasing one guy.
OK Guys-
Here is the warning to knock it off.
I am serious. I have had it with these sorts of barking mad attacks that just keep circling the d–m drain with no purpose.
You don’t agree on this. Fine. Take it to e-mail or another part of the internet.
Peter is way more polite about this than I am.
And I am offended right now at how you treat the guy who’s name is on the site by your actions.
This is NOT an invitation to dogpile on the offending parties and I will ask you to stay out of it.
Got a problem with this? You can write me at puppetmaker (at) gmail (dot) com but keep it OFF the board.
Thank you-
Kath
Just saw it today, and I enjoyed it.
Not classic Bond, not as good as Casino Royale, but still worth the cost of admission.
The fight scenes, particularly the opening car chase and the boat chase were very chaotic, looking more like Cloverfield phonecam footage than motion picture shots at some points, but that seems to be what the kids think is cool these days.
I’ve got a wierd feeling that some of the movie may actually be more watchable on DVD than it was in the cinema. Certainly anyone seated at the front of the cinema is going to risk being totally baffled as to what’s going on…
Greene dies offstage? I don’t have a problem with that, in fact it’s quite refreshingly understated.
FWIW, I see Mr White as the potential Blofeld of the rebooted franchise… (Greene? White? Slate? Hmmm.. these bad guys sound more like Spectrum than Quantum)
Bond dealing with Vesper’s boyfriend? We see him leaving the building and telling M “He’s alive”, which could well mean “He’s not quite dead..”.
Personally, I don’t feel emotionally short changed by anything in – or not in – the movie.
Cheers,
With the overuse of the Bourne style fighting now would be the time for some enterprising blockbuster filmmaker to shoot a fight scene in one take, meticulously choreographed. Something like Tom Yum Goong’s amazing one take fight in the casino. Of course, it’s easier to do something like that when you’re working with Tony Jaa.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8kqNSQn5QU if you haven’t seen it before. Blows you away.
Why is everyone blaming Bourne for this? It’s not as though the style started with Bourne and it’s not even the case that Bourne did it before Bond. I found some of the fights in Bond as far back as GoldenEye to be less than what they could be thanks to this style of fight edit.
For whatever reason a lot of the idiots in Hollywood think that quick edits = cool action and have for about a decade or more now.
And in Bourne it did work, didn’t it?
And in Bourne it did work, didn’t it?: “And in Bourne it did work, didn’t it?”
Yes and no. I thought that the movies were okay, but I thought that the fights could use some work. I’m old school. I like a well thought out fight shown in all its glory.
Now, I’m not against the odd quick edit when its for a film that has that over all style. I think the fight at the end of Snatch was good and the style used worked well for the film itself. But Bond’s style doesn’t lend itself to that kind of fight edit and it looks a little out of place in a Bond film.
I still haven’t seen QoS (sounds positively Klingon, put like that) yet, though I plan to. I really want to see a John Woo directed Bond. There’s a guy who can direct an action sequence.
Everyone has their favorite Bond. I usually find myself torn between Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan. I’ll give Daniel Craig time, although he did impress in Casino Royale.
I think this style was appropriate for Bourne. They were trying to show him as a very physical guy, very capable fighter but not with ease. He felt the pain of his muscles, heavy breathing, gravity.
In Casino Royale (which I saw but didn’t like that much, maybe I was not in the right mood when I watched it) they tried to make Bond more physical too, in the same way. I don’t know if this was the right choice, or maybe Ebert is right when he says that “James Bond is not an action hero! He is too good for that. He is an attitude. Violence for him is an annoyance.”
This was not the thing I disliked in Casino Royale. But we do have to ask what is the effect on the persona of Bond of using this style.
I’m not blaming Bourne, in fact I think the Bourne films did the style as best it can be done. It’s like calling camerawork Blair Witch-like. No knock against Blair Witch.
While I loved Casino Royale Am I the only one who
felt the three main action scenes could have been trimmed and as for reboot that anoyed me
first because in actuality Daniel Craig is old for a beginning Bond secondly while well played How do you justify that ond’s true love in boooks and movie was actually Tracy from OMSS
With Bourne, the conflict was that for all the freedom he could create for himself, he was a hostage to his own consciousness and guilt, creating feedback for his own cycle of violence, symbolized by his hydrophobia, in his quest to discover his identity. So the disruptively filmed scenes were the flashbacks that haunted him.
This is in contrast to the conflict for the Craig Bond, which is control. The harmonious control exhibited in the M16 offices is an alien world to the thug-like Bond. In Casino Royale, Bond was ready to leave his violent lifestyle behind, so when he was forced to return to it, it makes sense that he does it with the resolve to serve an ordered agenda, to serve the tastes he acquired that coaxed him to leave in the first place.
So the Bourne franchise and the Bond franchise both incorporated disruptively filmed styles to serve their central conflicts, but for Bond its a change from the glamorized violence previously presented in the franchise. It’s letting go of an obsolete story-character agenda, and if you can see this, I think the changes will relieve you, and you’ll know why.
QUANTUM’S NOT QUITE ROYALE
*** out of *****
3 out of 5
Casino Royale reinvigorated the James Bond franchise, but the one place it stumbled was pacing. Royale’s first hour had extravagant action set-pieces, then it turned into a smaller thriller with a lot of poker playing, and then had a somewhat abrupt ending. Quantum of Solace, the direct sequel to Royale, is less a single movie and more like of the finale to the preceding film. Re-watching Casino Royale before this is practically required. Instead of the overly wordy title Quantum of Solace, they could have called this Casino Royale: The Third Act.
After Vesper Lynd died at the end of Casino Royale, James Bond (Daniel Craig) went hunting for revenge and tracked down Mister White (Jesper Christensen). White is a member of Quantum, a worldwide criminal society that is manipulating governments for profit. Bond’s quest leads him to Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), another member of Quantum who is an environmentalist / murderous terrorist. Joining Bond on his quest is Camille (Olga Kurylenko), a secret agent who is also out for justice. With that very simple plot, a ton of stuff blows up, even more people get shot, and a few martinis are consumed.
If Casino Royale had the smaller vibe of Fleming’s novel, then Quantum is more like the big spectacle Bond movies: there’s a global conspiracy, a shadowy organization running things behind the scenes, a high-tech secret hideaway, and tons of action. Admittedly, the style shift is jarring coming off the low-key Royale. It feels like they took an old Pierce Brosnan script and plugged Craig into it.
Daniel Craig is a great Bond, and he’s a lot funnier in this time with more quips per second. Craig still seems more thug than suave, but maybe it’s time to accept that Bond’s cool as a cucumber era has passed him by. When the movie slows down, Bond is a bit colder and drunker than usual because he’s in mourning for Vesper. As the title promises, Bond achieves his small measure of satisfaction by the end, but you don’t feel as if he did it through his actions, he basically got his solace because the flick was going to end.
Judi Dench gets more dramatic meat and screen-time as Bond’s boss M. She is capable of pulling off the who tries to rein him in. Christensen is only in the film for a bit as the mysterious Mr. White but he makes the most of it. This guy needs to be used more in the next movie. The main bad guy is Mathieu Amalric and he’s awesomely slimy as Greene. He seems more of a weasel than a tough guy but that makes him a more despicable villain. One disappointment is Greene’s non-threatening sidekick with a goofy bowler cut, Elvis (Anatole Taubman). You keep waiting for Elvis to bust out some crazy Oddjob or Jaws style badass moves like other classic Bond villain sidekicks, but he never does.
One actor that stumbles is the primary Bond Girl, Olga Kurylenko as Camille. She’s sort of a She-Bond with all of the skills as James, but the character has none of the flash and Kurylenko has none of the acting skill. This gets especially irritating when the climatic battle cuts back and forth between James Bond’s personal battle (which is cool) to her personal battle (which isn’t nearly as cool). There’s a secondary Bond Girl played by Gemma Arterton who is only in the movie for about ten minutes, but she’s a lot more entertaining than Kurylenko.
Quantum’s dialogue may be fun, but it doesn’t crackle dramatically like Casino Royale did. Oddly, the exact same writers were responsible for this script. Writer Paul Haggis turned in a draft a mere two hours before the Writers Guild of America strike in late ’07, so its development may have been a tad rushed. The script doesn’t have the trademark “shaken, not stirred” martini order or the iconic “Bond, James Bond” line. However, there is a very cool homage to Goldfinger that makes up for that.
The direction by Marc Forster, who previous helmed small dramas like Monster’s Ball and Finding Neverland, is decent if somewhat uninspired. Quantum has more action than character – the first 30 minutes is about five action sequences breathlessly strung together. The opening car chase sequence is fantastic, and maybe one of the best Bond car chases ever, but then comes a shootout / rooftop chase, a hand to hand battle, then another chase with boats before it slows down. It’s so Bam! Bam! Bam! you may mentally tune out of the action.
On it’s own, Quantum of Solace leaves the audience wanting an emotional reason for all pretty pyrotechnics. Royale did that; Quantum of Solace does not. This movie is entertaining, but a little empty. However, if you take Quantum of Solace as the action packed ending to Royale, it’s pretty decent. Quantum will probably play better on DVD viewed back to back with Casino Royale, as a single mammoth four-hour Bond movie. As a solitary film experience, Quantum of Solace is missing a heart.