Quantum of Solace Review
James Bond's Latest Adventure on DVD. Is it worth a rent?
Of all 22 James Bond films, Quantum of Solace, has to be one of the worst. What happened? At the very least Bond has always been able to provide passable entertainment.
Marc Forster to Bond's Rescue?
What’s more shocking is that, out of all the films, this one has the most prolific director. It was directed by Marc Forster, a true treasure of the cinema who, up until now, out of 7 films, has never made a bad one, all of which are great films, and two of those which are absolute contemporary classics.
Also putting pen to paper once more is Paul Haggis who won back to back writing Oscars for Million Dollar Baby and Crash. There’s more talent at work here than any other Bond picture, so how could they have turned in something as dismal as this?
Continuing Where Casino Royale Left Off
Quantum of Solace is one of, if not the only, sequel to a Bond film that makes references to the events in the film that preceded it. Therefore, Bond is still distraught over the death of his love Vesper from Casino Royale.
The film opens, literally, right off the bat with a high speed car chase in Italy. Who is chasing Bond and why isn’t of as much importance as how many hurdles Bond can avoid, or how many machine gun rounds the villains can shoot off without ever coming close to hitting him, as they never do.
This scene, which has really nothing to do with the rest of the movie, is an instant reminder of how hard it is to care about action sequences that come without explanation or grounding. To be simply tossed into action is remarkably disorienting and uninspiring to say the least.
But then again, that’s more or less the approach to the whole film, which moves from one exotic location to the next and one chase and shoot-out to the next. By the time the film hits the 20 minute mark there has already been four. It’s heedless excess.
Quantum of Solace: Big on Action, Small on Plot
Needless to say, Quantum of Solace isn’t big on plot. That’s kind of remarkable since it is credited as being written by four writers, one of which, as mentioned, was Haggis, whose previous endeavors have always been all plot from start to finish. And, what’s there of the plot is nearly incomprehensible as it gets lost within the nonstop action.
The Plot
No matter. Dominic Greene, an environmentalist who plans to steal Bolivia’s water supply is hardly the most interesting of Bond villains, who in the past have been deviously enjoyable caricatures (remember La Chiffre’s bleeding eye in Casino Royale?).
In the grand scheme of things, Greene’s evil plans aren’t really that big of a deal and come to a climax in a hotel in the middle of the desert, which apparently was built for no greater purpose than to blow up because there are no roads leading to it and nothing but sand as far as the eye can see. Who would stay here? If ever a place screamed secret villain headquarters, this would be it.
Can Bond be Criticized for Too Much Action?
It may seem silly to criticize a Bond film for having too much action, but it seems justified here. One can accept endless action scenes as long as 1) they are interesting and 2) they are well executed, neither of which criteria is met here.
Take that opening car chase, which is so rapid fire that it might as well have been edited in a blender and, to make matters worse, is filmed mostly in close up.
Close up may work for Forster in strong emotional dramas, but every good action director should know that the more you pull out, the more involving the experience is. Close up is just plain disorienting, losing the action, all the players and accelerating the editing into overdrive just to keep up.
Remember the excitement of that extreme long shot in Casino Royale as the camera flew over Madagascar while Bond chased a villain atop a large construction crane and how the sight of the ground below gave the scene the complete and utter sense of danger?
CGI and James Bond
However, there are two memorable shots in Quantum of Solace. One, on a motorbike, that was better two years ago in the Bourne Ultimatum and one, as Bond and a villain fall together through a skylight and onto a scaffolding setup which, of course, is clear CGI.
There is no way of telling how much of the action in Casino Royale was aided by computers but if it was, it was not noticeably so. That’s the charm of Bond films, the action, no matter how over-the-top, always appeared possible. The CGI in Quantum however draws attention to the stunts' artificiality, taking Bond out of the real and into that of the video game.
Daniel Craig as Bond
Daniel Craig returns as Bond for the second time. Craig is a valuable actor and a good choice for Bond, both smooth and confident. Yet you’d never know that here if you’re just joining the series, as this Bond is given remarkably little depth.
He is reduced to a simple action hero, going from one stunt to the next. This Bond has none of the poise or charm of previous Bonds; he has no down time for it.
That’s a shame because in Casino Royale Craig was allowed the time to make Bond both human and enjoyable. This time Bond is barely more than a second rate Jason Bourne. Bourne was written to work without a back story. When James Bond doesn’t have one, it feels like getting short-changed.
Rating: 2 out of 5
What do you think about this article?
More in Film & TV
Latest Articles