007 - Quantum of Solace (SPOILERS)

horacethegrey

First Post
Whew. It seems only yesterday when I geeked out over a little film called Casino Royale, when in fact it's been actually 2 years. :) Yet here we are again, with Daniel Craig's second outing as her majesty's secret service man. So the real question is, does it live up to the hype?

After watching it today, I'd have to say... yes, more or less. It may not be good as Royale, but it's still a damn good Bond film.

Let's start off with the negative stuff first. My main beef with this flick is just how frantic the pace is. Director Marc Foster has shamelessly plagiarized the playbook written by Paul Greengrass. We've got handheld cams filming fights, car chases, roof chases, boat chases... hell, one might wonder if they stumbled into a Bourne film by mistake. All these action scenes are held together by a plot that's paper thin. It's not stupid mind, but hardly original or engaging. The quickened pace doesn't leave much room for those quiet moments that made Casino Royale such a delight to watch. They are there though, like Bond's tense reunion with Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini), a scene that's also quite funny BTW. Light moments like these are rare, and consequently much of the charm Craig displayed in the previous is largely absent here.

Despite that, Craig is still in top form as 007. Though for the most part his fists do most of the talking, which he does quite beautifully. :] Alongside Craig is the stunning Olga Kurylenko, who's a more than a match for him in the action department (much better than Halle Berry, thank God :hmm:), but can hold her own in the dramatic scenes as well. She's no Eva Green (then again hardly any actress is), but she's a worthy succesor and hopefully has a bright future after this. Judi Dench of course is still here, and does a fabulous job once more as M, as is Jeffrey Wright as Felix Lighter. Special kudos however must go to Giancarlo Giannini for returning as Mathis.

The renewed Bond franchise is merrily chugging right along, and Quantum of Solace only helps it build up steam, rather than derailing it. It's a worthy entry to the saga of 007, and only makes you hungry for more.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Plane Sailing

Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
I gave it only 6 out of 10. It was an OK film, but I wouldn't bother watching it again. I think you've touched on the two main aspects that didn't work for me.

a) Paul Greengrass-like shakey cam & quick/cut madness. A cheap way of not having to really think through action scenes that work properly IMO. Spoils my enjoyment of any film that contains that editing style. May it die a death and lie in an unmarked grave soon!

b) As you say, there is a frantic pace to the film and one of the side effects is that poor Daniel Craig never really gets an opportunity to "act". I like dialog in a film. I like to see the emotion and interaction which seemed so rarely there.
[sblock]
And by emotion I don't mean doing the 'sitting down and cuddling a traumatised person' scene again. It was good in casino royale, but here it comes over as weak retreading of the earlier movie IMO.
[/sblock]

It will do well anyway because of the halo effect of Casino, but I sure hope they do a much better job on the third.

Cheers
 

Fallen Seraph

First Post
I am not sure how valid of a question it is since haven't seen it yet. But how do you think your rating/view of the film would alter when comparing it as both a single separate-film or as a "Second Act" of Casino Royale? Given it's direct connection to the previous film.
 

Plane Sailing

Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
My rating might have gone up to a 6.5 if it didn't follow on from Casino Royale - my main problems with the film stand as-is, but the actual connection with Casino Royale suffers for a few reasons:

[sblock]
1. The Retcon relating to Mathis
2. Effectively undoing the ending of Casino where Mr White is shot
3. the entire connection could be summed up as (a) there is a big mysterious organisation which nobody knows anything about and which we are none the wiser at the close of the film and (b) the man who was 'tortured and killed' to turn vesper was actually an agent of the bad guys who just pretended for a living (5 mins at end of the film reveals that).
[/sblock]

i.e. I didn't think it was a great film to start with, but I feel that they messed up what continuity they attempted with Casino Royale.

Cheers
 

frankthedm

First Post
So about how much shaky-cam is there? Are there any long scenes of it or several small scenes strung together?

Those vulnerable to motion sickness want to know.
 

Megaton

First Post
Sooo excited for this one. It's been crushing in the overseas markets. It's still 2 weeks (more like 1 as it's 8 days) away for us in the US. I loved Casino so my admission was punched as soon as I heard the sequel was in the works.
 


Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
So about how much shaky-cam is there? Are there any long scenes of it or several small scenes strung together?

Those vulnerable to motion sickness want to know.

Lots and lots and lots. All the action scenes are filmed like that, and there are very few non-action scenes.
 



Remove ads

Top