Film Specs
- Certificate:
12A - Running Time:
106 minutes - Released:
2008 - Country:
United Kingdom
United States of America
- Director:
Marc Forster - Starring:
Daniel Craig
Olga Kurylenko
Mathieu Amalric
Judi Dench
Giancarlo Giannini
Gemma Arterton
Jeffrey Wright
David Harbour
Jesper Christensen
Anatole Taubman
Rory Kinnear
Tim Pigott-Smith
Joaquín Cosio
Fernando Guillén Cuervo
Jesús Ochoa - Genre(s):
Action
Adventure
Spy
Thriller
Quantum Of Solace
03-11-2008 00:00 | 14103 views | Eamonn McCusker | Show Backlinks
It is not long after the events of Casino Royale. On the motorway approaching Siena, Bond (Daniel Craig) is involved in a car chase with two other vehicles. The reason for this chase rests in the boot of Bond's Aston Martin. Shot in the leg and snatched from the street by Bond, Mr White (Jesper Christensen), will, it is hoped, lead to the organisation responsible for the death of Vesper Lynd. Bond escapes those chasing him and, amidst the bustle of the horse-racing, takes White to an MI6 safe house. Bleeding from the gunshot wound to his leg, Bond asks that White try not to bleed to death. But White simply laughs at the efforts made by Bond and by M (Judi Dench) to interrogate him. He hints at the power behind his throne and of having friends everywhere. His organisation, Quantum, knows exactly where he is and will soon be coming for him. Later, M will scoff at this but White is, for now, telling the truth. Nodding to M's most trusted bodyguard, draws his weapons and aids White's escape. Bond goes in pursuit of this agent but White has disappeared. Both M and Bond know how lucky they are to still be alive.
The investigation into this double-agent leads nowhere, at least at first. Bank accounts are clean. There is no cash in the house. Nothing, even, to link him to Quantum. But what concerns M more is that Quantum is an unknown. Neither MI6 nor the CIA have so much as heard of this organisation and yet White spoke of government ministers being amongst their number. But one doctored bank note, found in the double-agent's flat, leads Bond to Haiti. He murders his contact, finds himself being shot at by another and watches a third from outside a warehouse on the quayside. If Quantum is is no closer to being identified, some of its surrounding pieces fall into place. Bond meets Camille (Olga Kurylenko), who leads him to Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), environmentalist and CEO of Greene Planet. Greene, in turn, leads to an exiled Bolivian, General Medrano (Joaquín Cosio), then attempting to lead a bloodless coup in his home country, and to the CIA, who are turning a blind eye to events in Bolivia in exchange for oil. As if events were not already so murky, Bond follows Greene to the shores of Lake Constance in Austria and to a performance of Tosca. Over the sound of the opera, Bond snatches an earpiece of a VIP and hears the members of Quantum discussing Greene's business in Bolivia. From his position high above the stage, he photographs those involved in the conversation and with MI6 identifying those present, Bond learns just how far into government the corruption goes. But power is no obstacle for revenge and Bond still has the memory of the death of Vesper Lynd to contend with.
"The days of hollowed-out volcanoes are long gone!" So said my wife on hearing my complaint that at least you knew where you were with secret and enormously powerful organisations based in oil-rigs, mountaintop ski resorts, outer space and, yes, even hollowed-out volcanoes. Particularly so if their plans involved the stealing of nuclear rockets, the dream of a master race and of world domination. They are the kind of things that were worth taking a risk on. But in the continuing Craig-ening of Bond, such silliness seems long gone indeed. There is no room for grotesque villains, moon buggies and ejector seats in Quantum Of Solace and there's certainly no room for jokes. There are in-jokes, mind you, but they'll only ever make an audience smile in satisfaction, never to laugh. And when the film does finally introduce a young lady flimsy enough to be a Bond girl of yesteryear, who is to be found wearing only a raincoat and a pair of boots, Quantum Of Solace can't quite contain itself in finding a means to rid itself of her. Meanwhile, the Quantum of the title are a powerful organisation so secret that not even MI6 knew of their existence. By the film's end, we're not even sure if Bond has dealt them a fatal blow or not, leaving them open to becoming the SMERSH or the S.P.E.C.T.R.E. of the Daniel Craig era. Only that doesn't seem like quite the thing Craig (and his producers) wants his Bond to be remembered for. No Rosa Klebb here, more villains that satirise headlines while still making a point.
The problem with this placing of Bond in the politics of the real world is that there will be those who would disagree with his meddling. Not unlike Kananga's supply of cheap heroin in Live And Let Die, which would have made many a cash-strapped junkie very happy were it not for Bond's quashing of the supply chain, Quantum Of Solace may look even more archaic than the laser satellites and theft of gold bullion when, some years from now, the British government cut deals similar to those of Quantum to secure a supply of clean water. In this, it's less like a Bond film and closer to The Constant Gardener, albeit that Quantum Of Solace doesn't have that film's heartfelt anger at lives ruined by the expansion of western business. And nor does it have that film's sense of loss.
Comparing Quantum Of Solace to The Constant Gardener reveals one of the greatest weaknesses of this film. In the le Carré adaptation, an entire story was presented, not only of the love affair and marriage of Justin and Tessa Quayle but of the corruption endemic in pharmaceutical companies. le Carré recognised that the spies of the Cold War would simply find employment elsewhere in the world, somewhere their particular set of skills would be most welcome. Quantum Of Solace doesn't make this latter point half as well as The Constant Gardener. Bond may begin this seeking revenge for the death of Vesper Lynd but his involvement with Quantum finds him looking at matters in the black-and-white of the Cold War. There is some talk of matters of national security and of Britain's interest but director Marc Forster uses cheap shots of thirsty Bolivians and of wells having run dry to stress that Quantum are bad. Perhaps knowing that the megalomania of his villain is not quite enough to sustain a Bond movie, Forster has his Quantum resort to cheap gags to illustrate their wickedness, reprise a method of murder from an earlier Bond adventure and turning them into snickering killers or rapists by the film's end. To an audience grown up with Goldfinger, Blofeld and Dr No, these are villains no better than those of Sun Hill, not those who are deserving of Bond's time and effort.
The bigger fault that this viewer had with Quantum Of Solace is how much it referenced Casino Royale and how ill-prepared I was for that. It goes without saying that this may have been my fault. Had I known that this film was going to break with Bond tradition and be a direct sequel to what has gone before, even to its opening immediately after the shooting of Mr White at the end of Casino Royale, I may have done my homework. However, Quantum Of Solace would have done much better had it either refreshed its audience with a quick recap of the events of late-2006 or built the drama anew. In some ways, Quantum Of Solace is not unlike Licence To Kill but Dalton's team had the sense to build their story from scratch. Such is the knowledge that Bond has of several of the villains and to their involvement with Le Chiffre and Vesper Lynd, that I was forced to ask myself, "Am I supposed to know him?" Indeed, my one piece of advice as regards Quantum Of Solace is to be sure to watch Casino Royale beforehand.
It's not all bad, of course. There is still much to enjoy in Quantum Of Solace. The opening car chase is a joy to watch, particularly so given the Bond team's willingness to move away from the comic book action of earlier films to crashes that will having its audience wincing at the suddenness of them. Craig certainly looks the part as Bond, particularly so when he escapes from MI6 in a hotel and, later, from the CIA. He also shows off some of the cold-bloodedness of the character that made Dalton's time in the part so memorable. The pity is that he's been ill-served by a story that's not deserving of Bond. The villain is weak, the British Bond girl is no better and the story of a coup, of Quantum and of natural resources is rather dull. Indeed, for a film that is amongst the shortest of the Bond movies, its languor makes one very nostalgic for the Bond of old. Though never mind volcanoes, the Daniel Craig of Casino Royale would have done.
Comments
Heretic
Posts: 198
Late night, Eamonn? A surprising number of typos and awkward sentences here, given your normally high standards :)
Gun crazy
Posts: 122
But at least he nailed the big weaknesses of this particular movie. By the way, I couldn't stand the chase on the roofs (directly lifted from The Bourne Ultimatum, while Casino Royale was only influenced by The Bourne Supremacy), which ends in the tower (which reduced all realism efforts to zero).
My biggest issue with the movie is actually the editing. It feels rushed and Forster (or his crew) decided to make some arty edits during some crucial scenes. As a result, it doesn't carry any gravitas on its own. And what about the titles during the movie? Did they really have to use fantasy fonts every time we move from one place to another? What next? Animated GIFs and smileys?
Contributor
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by ravenus:
Late night, Eamonn? A surprising number of typos and awkward sentences here, given your normally high standards :)
Was it that obvious? Late night Saturday when I actually fell asleep with the laptop on my knees. Such dedication! I did think I'd fixed most of them, mind.
Still, Dave's gone through it and fixed a few things. I'm using the defence that the Leprechaun Collection has turned my brain to mush and that'll be a few days yet until I'm back up to speed.
Member
Posts: 190
5/10 seems to confirm my theory that Goldeneye was still the last good Bond.
Thanks for the review Eamonn.
Member
Posts: 25
Yeah, the film is really just the conclusion of Casino Royale - the third act in the drama (actually more like a protracted series of climaxes). Very forgettable. The comparison with The Constant Gardener is indeed very telling, Eamonn. Well observed.
Member
Posts: 65
I couldn't stand the chase on the roofs (directly lifted from The Bourne Ultimatum)
Spel chequer
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by JonnyG1:
I couldn't stand the chase on the roofs (directly lifted from The Bourne Ultimatum)
Aye same thing happened after 'The Matrix' came out.
Any film that dared to use the age old technique of Slow Motion was instantly lambasted as a Matrix clone.
Hey ho.
QoS was mighty fine though - enough with the OTT old style Bonds I say.
Contributor & Filmmaker
Posts: 980
Had Quantum of Solace not been a Bond film, I think I would have liked it a bit more. However, when judged as part of the Bond universe, I felt it lacked a number of things that I've come to love about Bond - whilst Craig is growing nicely into the role, the film itself was surprisingly flat and even weak at times. Quantum of Solace remains an entertaining chase film for the most part, but I was expecting a lot more after the initial promise of Casino Royale.
As I have said since the release of Die Another Day in 2002, it really is time to fire writers Wade and Purvis, so they can bring in some fresh talent - with emphasis on the word "talent". I don't know the extent of Paul Haggis' contributions in this film or in Casino Royale, but what I do know from the likes of The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day is that Messrs Wade and Purvis focus on all that is dull about Bond - ridiculous gadgets or repetitive, fantastical near-death stunts (such as the escape from the DC3 in this film - and the way in which they get the parachute open only a few metres above the ground!), weak dialogue and banal villains.
I just hope that Bond 23 is a break from this weak storyline.
------
We do not tell time, time only tells us.
Gun crazy
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by JonnyG1:
You mean the roof chase in The Bourne Ultimatum that was directly lifted from 1987's The Living Daylights? I haven't seen this yet, but I'm sick of the constant Bourne this, Bourne that. You'd think that everything's been copying Bourne these days, but people forget that Bourne was inspired by another spy with the initials JB.
Yep, that roof chase. The Living Daylights had a normal pace for edits. QoS uses that quick cut thing with nearly-subliminal shots. But Paul Greengrass and his editor are much more efficient with their job on The Bourne Ultimatum. The average shot is very fast but you understand where the action goes. The scene in QoS was much more confused. They look similar but one is more efficient.
Frankly, I was not in the "Bond copied Bourne" stuff when Casino Royale was released. It might have borrowed a few things but the franchise had preserved and rejuvenated its own identity. QoS has Marc Forster who seems to have been given much more freedom than previous Bond directors. The problem is that he's lightweight concerning action scenes and fails to give them something memorable. The scene at the opera opens brilliantly then falls flat due to a not so clever use of sound and silence. The roof chase is another part of the problem. You can borrow stuff when you can make it better not when you turn it into something generic.
Originally Posted by Richard Booth:
As I have said since the release of Die Another Day in 2002, it really is time to fire writers Wade and Purvis, so they can bring in some fresh talent - with emphasis on the word "talent". I don't know the extent of Paul Haggis' contributions in this film or in Casino Royale, but what I do know from the likes ofThe World is Not Enough and Die Another Day is that Messrs Wade and Purvis focus on all that is dull about Bond - ridiculous gadgets or repetitive, fantastical near-death stunts (such as the escape from the DC3 in this film - and the way in which they get the parachute open only a few metres above the ground!), weak dialogue and banal villains.
The parachute was a cringe-worthy thing (especially when you get two people sharing the same one) but I also witnessed a few giggles during the final scene with the female agent listening to the tirade by Bond that breaks down all her beliefs within 35 seconds and leaving the room with a whispered "Thank you".
I'm not sure that Haggis is to praise for Casino Royale. Ian Fleming definitely is. Introducing a new criminal organization, more civilian and infiltrated, was a very good idea but it has been poorly developed in QoS. If the movie had not featured Craig and Dench, it might have been the worst episode in the series.
Member
Posts: 25
I've not seen it and i am not sure i am going to which saddens me as a thirty something bloke i should be queing at the door for a new Bond.
One thing i did want to know was, if you took away the names of the chracter is there anything in the film that would identify it as a Bond film?
Are they in danger from trying to distance themselves from the previous films so much that it looses everything that made the series last for so long?
Contributor
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by calathea:
One thing i did want to know was, if you took away the names of the chracter is there anything in the film that would identify it as a Bond film?
Are they in danger from trying to distance themselves from the previous films so much that it looses everything that made the series last for so long?
Good question! If, by a Bond film, you mean having the old gang in place (Q Branch, M, Miss Moneypenny), the gun-barrel point-of-view at the start of the movie, Bond saying, "The name's Bond. James Bond" and things like that, then no, it's not like a Bond film. The gun-barrel bit is now at the end of the movie but I get the feeling they would have just as happy to leave it out completely.
On the other hand, he does drive an Aston Martin, makes the most of his licence to kill, has the luck of the devil and gets to charm a lady by asking her to come and look at some stationery. None of which happens to me on an average day, least of all the stationery thing, so Craig is very much like Bond ought to be.
My personal feeling is that they've sacrificed too much of what made the films what they were for Quantum Of Solace. Had Casino Royale been a one-off as regards these things, there would have been few complaints had we then seen the return of Q Branch or Moneypenny in this but it looks like they're gone for good. Shame, really, as such things have been a big part of my movie-watching past.
Still, that wouldn't be my biggest complaint. That remains that this really ought to be titled Casino Royale 2: Quantum Of Solace as the biggest tradition that it breaks is of Bond moving on. Bourne has been mentioned but at least that saved the murder of Franke Potente for the start of the second film, which then dealt with Bourne's revenge. It didn't kill her in The Bourne Identity, reveal who was behind it, wait two years and then pick up the revenge story.
Member
Posts: 4
I'm not quite sure I understand what the problem is with this being a sequel or continuation. And I am surprised you didn't know this was the case going in. Surely if Casino Royale started the Bond tale again, seeing how the death of Vesper affected him very directly is a rather clever step.
Although I have to admit, I am more surprised by the fact you have rated this lower than Postal...one of the most shameful excuses for a film I have ever seen.
Member
Posts: 65
Do you really want the next film to just tick off the clichés? Film begins, gunbarrel. Pre-titles, titles. Bond flirts with Moneypenny, goes into M's office, gets mission, bad guys scheme, Bond goes to Q branch and banters with a new Q (who will probably, erroneously have a comedian in the role), Bond gets loads of gadgets, introduces himself, orders a Martini, uses gadget, introduces himself again, etc etc. Haven't we had enough of that? Don't you think the latter Brosnan Bonds were full of enough of that rubbish? Bond is not about Q, Moneypenny, gadgets and catchphrases. I think that going back to the source material is the right move and the things that make Bond into Austin Powers should be given a rest for a while.
As far as Bourne goes, I'm confused as to when Bourne became the inspiration for every fast paced action scene of the 21st century so far. I'm sure Bourne also pioneered the art of changing the shutter speed as well. And completely influenced From Russia With Love.
As I said, I still haven't seen it, but I think people ought to put this into perspective, considering some of the films that Paul Haggis did NOT re-write, leaving Purvis and Wade to run amok with their ridiculousness...And I STILL love those movies!
Kitty Kat Attack
Posts: 69
Do you really want the next film to just tick off the clichés? Film begins, gunbarrel. Pre-titles, titles. Bond flirts with Moneypenny, goes into M's office, gets mission, bad guys scheme, Bond goes to Q branch and banters with a new Q (who will probably, erroneously have a comedian in the role), Bond gets loads of gadgets, introduces himself, orders a Martini, uses gadget, introduces himself again, etc etc. Haven't we had enough of that?
Erm... well yes to your first question and no to your second
Member
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by xXJ0N0Xx:
Do you really want the next film to just tick off the clichés? Film begins, gunbarrel. Pre-titles, titles. Bond flirts with Moneypenny, goes into M's office, gets mission, bad guys scheme, Bond goes to Q branch and banters with a new Q (who will probably, erroneously have a comedian in the role), Bond gets loads of gadgets, introduces himself, orders a Martini, uses gadget, introduces himself again, etc etc. Haven't we had enough of that?
Erm... well yes to your first question and no to your second
The Duck
Posts: 707
I think there's even less reason to rehash the old formula -- which I love as much as anyone -- in an age where people can, and do, merrily watch almost any film on DVD or Blu-ray instead of at the cinema. (Obviously there are those that know a cinema is the best way to watch a film, but your average punter now views DVD as an adequate substitute.) I don't think they're an essential element of the formula though; more like a nice comfort blanket that says "this is a Bond film" in big bold letters. Q isn't even in some of the films and you barely notice, and Moneypenny could be cut from most without any impact. Also, don't think they're gone for good -- Craig especially has expressed interest in bringing them back. Now that they seem to have completed the "Bond Begins" journey (which, I suspect, is why the gunbarrel is at the end), I won't be at all surprised if Bond 23 features both Q and Moneypenny. Doubt we'll see a hollowed-out volcano, but one can dream.
Personally, I think the wide negative reaction to the film has been overly harsh, and is down to two things: getting an above-average film in the wake of Casino Royale's utter brilliance; and the hype that this would continue & top the previous entry. It's not a perfect Bond film by any means (put that camera on a tripod and try an extra joke or two), but I think it is still a Bond film.
Regarding the issue of it following too closely to CR... everyone involved seemed to be at great pains in interviews to remind people that QoS was directly connected, so at least they tried. On the other hand, one probably shouldn't make a film assuming everyone watching it will have seen/heard/read enough interviews/previews/reviews to know they need to personally swot up on the preceding movie. Considering Forster deleted a cliffhanger ending in order to free up the franchise, I presume Bond 23 will just continue the easily-remembered elements, rather than requiring a deep understanding of both CR and QoS.
Member
Posts: 65
Well, yes that's the point isn't it? The two films are supposed to re-invent the character and freshen him up, but history has shown that for every gritty spy thriller, we get two or three overblown fantasies with, yes, hollowed out volcanoes. Moneypenny and Q will have a look in, certainly, but hopefully it will sidestep the going-through-the-motions feel that Brosnan's Bonds had.
Member
Posts: 177
Watched it last night. Loved Casino Royale, but thought this was just terrible.
The Wilson Bros
Member
Posts: 80
The first time I saw the film I was quite underwhelmed. I didn't like the style (after loving Casino Royale's epic feel and look). But I gave it a second chance, and I can honestly say a second viewing has never changed my opinion of a film so mcuh before.
I enjoyed the action far more (probably because I knew where it was going so could follow it easier), the story actually made more sense (and it is a fairly good spy story harking of the 60s), and the emotional states that Bond, and M, go through felt much more relevant.
On first viewing, I was underwhelmed. On second viewing I thought it was fantastic. If you can I urge you to see it a second tme, and take your time with each scene. There are some great shots, and the drama side is much better than I initially thought.
Member
Posts: 207
Originally Posted by JonnyG1:
Do you really want the next film to just tick off the clichés? Film begins, gunbarrel. Pre-titles, titles. Bond flirts with Moneypenny, goes into M's office, gets mission, bad guys scheme, Bond goes to Q branch and banters with a new Q (who will probably, erroneously have a comedian in the role), Bond gets loads of gadgets, introduces himself, orders a Martini, uses gadget, introduces himself again, etc etc.
Frankly, that is all there is to a Bond film.
Without that, it's just any other spy action thriller. Well, less than any other really.
If you want a modern update of Bond and jetison all the clichés then well, you've got the Bourne films. And really from what I can tell of the (obviously going for a trilogy) new Bonds, is they are desperately trying hard to match Bourne. So much so that from everything I've read, QoS borrows a hell of a lot from Bourne (including a Film Editor).
Personally I love Bond films, but because it is such a cliché. That's the fun of it. Casino Royale was a departure from what I love about Bond, but still a fantastic film. What I'm reading of QoS doesn't convince me that the standard has been retained and it's trying too hard to be Bourne.
Member
Posts: 65
Actually no, that's not all there is to a Bond film. That's what your idea of a Bond film is. There's a lot more to it. The books are evidence to that and that is what the makers are going for. I'm obviously wasting my time here because everyone seems handcuffed to this damn Bourne thing, so I officially give up. It's the way action films are made nowadays. It's not like Bourne is to the action film what Jaws was to the blockbuster. Bond influenced Bourne and Ludlum still managed to create a character that's different. So forget Bourne, focus on Bond. They are two different characters. The fact is that Michael Bay editing and fast paced action is the in thing and Dan Bradley is a hot ticket right now. So deal with it and I'm sure in a few years you'll get your next Moonraker.
The Duck
Posts: 707
I remember the first time I properly had the Connery vs Moore argument, I simply couldn't understand how anyone could prefer Moore or his films. It is, of course, down to what people want, expect, and think of Bond films as being.
Personally, I think of them as being largely-serious action-packed epic spy thriller/adventures, sometimes with a sci-fi twist. That's why I like most of the Connerys, the Daltons, most of the Brosnans and the Craigs. But others think of the series as a whole as being about this ludicrously unbelievable 'spy' having comic adventures with a raised eyebrow and a frequent quip, and they like some of the Connerys (in a different way), the Moores, and the Brosnans. It's also the root of why the series occasionally feels the need to "go back to Fleming".
No one's necessarily right on this point. Except for the people who agree with me, that is, because that's the viewpoint that comes from sourcing the books in Fleming ;)
Member
Posts: 263
Originally Posted by JonnyG1:
The fact is that Michael Bay editing and fast paced action is the in thing
I've never had a problem with Michael Bay's action, I think it's really good especially in 'Transformers', so I'm not quite sure why people always name-drop him. Yet when I watched Quantum of Solace I was absolutely disgusted at the editing in the action sequences and I found them completely painful to watch, I thought I was going to have a seizure or something.
My mate and I thought QoS was terrible.
Member
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by gasteropod:
Originally Posted by JonnyG1:
The fact is that Michael Bay editing and fast paced action is the in thing
I've never had a problem with Michael Bay's action, I think it's really good especially in 'Transformers', so I'm not quite sure why people always name-drop him.
I name drop him because his is the kind of frenetic MTV editing that has been around for ages already, for better or worse. My point? Bourne is not the inspiration for every shaky cam action scene that is subsequently filmed in modern cinema!
Oh, and I still can't comment on the film because I still haven't seen it yet. Thursday.
Kitty Kat Attack
Posts: 69
Im seeing saturday seeing this review though it pretty much killed my expectations so if it is good it will be a fantastic outing
Page: 1, 2, 3