Variety gives negative Quantum of Solace review,saying it's too short and inferior to Casino Royale
Keith
The shortest and certainly the most action-dense Bond ever, Quantum of
Solace plays like an extended footnote to Casino Royale, rather than a
fully realized
stand-alone movie. Producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli,
possibly knowing they couldn't immediately top the previous pic's
sheer stylishness, have radically reshuffled the series' traditional
elements, but also allowed incoming helmer Marc Forster to almost
throw the baby out with the bathwater. Played with a cold, mechanical
efficiency that recalls the "Bourne" movies, with almost no downtime
or emotional hooks, Quantum will find some solace in beefy initial
returns but looks unlikely to find a royale spot in Bond history or
fans' hearts. Unusually, pic opens in the U.K. and other territories
Oct. 31, 2 weeks ahead of it's Stateside bow.
Though pic is the first in the series in which the action follows
directly from the previous film, the differences in tone, look and
tempo are instantly apparent. As the camera zooms across northern
Italy's Lake Garda to pick out Bond (Daniel Craig) being chased in his
Aston Martin by armed villains, it's clear that the elegance of the
franchise that CR director Martin Campbell resuscitated, is already a
thing of the past. Even David Arnold's music seems to punch the clock
rather than elevating the visuals.
Thanks to his sheer physical prowess, Craig -- less muscular this time
around, and more panther-like -- still manages to make the character
look as if he's in control, even when he's being hunted by various
villains and at least two major spook agencies and even though seems
to have suffered a personality bypass. However, the plot is
unengaging: basically a grim series of near-escapes as Bond hunts (but
is mostly hunted) between Latin America and Europe. From the
grittier lensing by Forster regular Roberto Schaefer, through the
distractingly antsy editing by Matt Chesse and Richard Pearson, to the
close-up second-unit work by Dan Bradley, Quantum has a generic, in-
your-face functionality and a restlessness that just wants to push the
movie on to the next chase/shootout/slugfest, rather than -- in the
traditional Bond way -- relishing the spaces in between.
Part of this different feel is simply due to the pic's brevity : At
105 minutes, it's the shortest Bond of all, 4 minutes shorter than
even Dr. No and Goldfinger and 39 minutes shorter than it's immediate
predecessor. However, it's a also a direct product of Forster's
staffing: Both Pearson and Bradley worked on the Bourne films, while
the former was Oscar-nommed for United 93. Still, none of this
matters in the early reels, as the opening 15 minutes sweep the viewer
along in a genuine adrenaline rush. Bond arrives, bloody but unbowed,
in Siena, Tuscany (during the famous Palio horse race, natch); attends
the interrogation, with M (Judi Dench), of Mr. White (Jesper
Christensen), his captive from the end of Royale; and pursues an
assassin across the city's tiled rooftops. So far, so good, if a
little different.
Bond and M realise they've stumbled onto a seriously nasty
organization that, per Mr. White, "is everywhere, but you haven't even
heard of it." Via clues on a tagged dollar bill, the trail leads to
Port-au-Prince, Haiti (repped by Colon, Panama City), where Bond bumps
into feisty Camille (Ukrainian model-actress Olga Kurylenko). She
unwittingly leads him to her untrusting, and seriously untrustworthy,
lover, Dominic Greene (France's Mathieu Amalric, oozing bug-eyed
villainy). Greene, head of eco-bizzery Greene Planet, is negotiating
with a Bolivian general, Medrano (Joaquin Cosio), to finance his coup
in exchange for rights to a strip of desert. Camille, whose parents
were killed by Medrano, is canoodling with Greene only to get access
to the general.
At the 40 minute mark, as Bond follows Greene to Austria for what
turns out to be a high-tech conference call by highups of the
mysterious org, Quantum, the film's relentless, plot-driven momentum
is already threatening to turn 007 into just a cipher in his own
franchise. The Bond Identity anyone ? He's even hunted by his own
MI6, as well as the CIA, which is in cahoots with Greene. Between
the action sequences (well staged, but claustrophobic and
undifferentiated) and brief moments of reflection -- Bond with M, Bond
with ontime colleague Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini, returning from
Royale), Bond with Camille -- there's a big, black hole at the center
of Quantum. For starters, there's little to distinguish Ian
Fleming's agent here from any other action franchise hero, apart from
his taste for fine hotels and drink. But mostly, it's the growing
realization that the reason for the whole sequel is actually spurious.
Though references to Bond's late love, Vesper Lynd, pepper the script,
and his desire for revenge provides an explanation for the plot
whizzing around the world every few reels, the script by Royale
writers Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (with Haggis taking a
more senior role this time) never tackles Bond's grief head-on or
gives him any meaningful dialogue as he aims for closure. Stripped of
"Royale's" humor, elegance and reinvented old-school stylishness,
Quantum has little left except its plot, which is rudimentary and
slightly barmy, in the line of the Roger Moore pics of the '70s and
'80s. Craig, physically fine as a human killing machine but stripped
here of any humor or warmth, doesn't generate any onscreen heat with
his putative femme lead, Kurylenko, who most of the time looks as if
she's wandered onto the set of the wrong film. The distaff side
briefly livens up with an extended cameo by Gemma Arterton, as an MI6
agent in Bolivia, who recalls perky Bond women of the ''60s.
However, the real female lead in Quantum is Dench, whose M this time
plays a much fuller role, popping up in the most unlikely places and
engaging Bond in badinage. Dench's style is always welcome, but the
sheer frequency of her appearances actually diminishes what should be
a remote, deus ex machina role.
Other roles, including Jeffrey Wright's encoring CIA agent, Felix
Leiter, aren't much more than bits. Giannini comes off best, sharing
at least a few precious moments of character development with Craig's
Bond. Title is lifted from a Fleming short story (in the 1960
collection For Your Eyes Only) in which Bond and the Governor of
Nassau have a postprandial chat about the amount of comfort/love
(Quantum of Solace) needed to keep any relationship alive, and how
when the quantum stands at zero, it's time to bail out. Hopefully,
that's exactly what Wilson and Broccoli will do in Bond 23 -- and
return to the mischievous elegance of Royale.
Phil Gerrard
now where I think critics ought to receive some kind of special bonus if
they manage to review the movie without reaching for the Bourne comparisons,
but that aside, Elley both seems to know what he's talking about and has
nailed a lot of what made CR work IMO. Specifically, he's one of the few
critics who's drawn negative comparisons between QOS and CR rather than
talking in general terms about the Bond elements the movie lacks (which,
let's face it, could mean almost anything given the huge variations in tone
between individual Bond movies to date).
If QOS disappoints those critics who it would appear like their Bond movies
generic and predictable, well, that's not something which makes me worry
that I won't like it. If it disappoints somebody who enjoyed CR for many of
the same reasons I did, *that's* cause for concern in my case.
Best
Phil
Will
"Keith" <kif...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f947464-cb6b-404b...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
There are a few portions of this review in which I disagree. First, the
reviewer says that QOS is "stripped of CR's humor." Sorry, but I didn't find
much humor in CR. It was one of the most serious bond films to date. I'm not
sure which version of CR he watched. Certainly not the one I watched. I
prefer a more serious Bond film, so if QOS lacks humor, that's a plus in my
book. Also, he says the sheer frequency of Dench's appearances diminish the
film. Again, Dench is a big plus in my book, so the more the merrier. She is
a tremendous actress and I welcome her multiple appearances in the movie.
Since I have not seen the film I cannot quibble with much of the review.
However, I do find the 1 hr 45 min run time to be a bit problematic,
especially if you want to build characterization. I would love to know what
is on the cutting room floor in this film, and why. An extra 10-15 mins of
dialogue and characterization is not going to sink this film, especially
since filmgoers are used to 2 hr Bond films.
Phil Gerrard
> There are a few portions of this review in which I disagree. First, the
> reviewer says that QOS is "stripped of CR's humor." Sorry, but I didn't
> find much humor in CR. It was one of the most serious bond films to date.
> I'm not sure which version of CR he watched. Certainly not the one I
> watched.
Gosh, I don't know about that, Will. I thought there was a good deal of
humour in CR - or perhaps a better word might be 'wit'. It wasn't about
cheap one-liners and belly-laughs, but it was definitely there AFAIC.
Indeed, one thing I loved about CR was that it handled the humour in an
adult, Howard-Hawks-style, sophisticated manner rather than resorting to
schoolboy innuendo. For the first time since the '60s they got the balance
exactly right.
I'm all for the Bond films taking a more serious approach than they did in
the '70s, but Fleming's books themselves weren't devoid of dry humour. Even
a relatively grim short story such as TLD includes acidly witty comments
about Bond reading a dreadful pulp novel before having to commit what he
regards as a murder. I don't think the films should ever lose that,
although I have no desire to see them return to cheap comedy either.
> Also, he says the sheer frequency of Dench's appearances diminish the
> film. Again, Dench is a big plus in my book, so the more the merrier. She
> is a tremendous actress and I welcome her multiple appearances in the
> movie.
I think that may turn out to be a classic case of YMMV. Nobody else who's
reviewed the movie has complained about this.
> Since I have not seen the film I cannot quibble with much of the review.
> However, I do find the 1 hr 45 min run time to be a bit problematic,
> especially if you want to build characterization. I would love to know
> what is on the cutting room floor in this film, and why. An extra 10-15
> mins of dialogue and characterization is not going to sink this film,
> especially since filmgoers are used to 2 hr Bond films.
I'm with Godard on this in that I believe that in a perfect world a movie
would be as long as it needs to be. There are two-hour movies I've seen
which would have worked better had they been half-an-hour long, and vice
versa. Brevity isn't everything, and nor is length. Heck, 'The Godfather'
feels like a longer movie than it is and is all the better for it, given its
epic scope - you ought to feel like you've lived through a chunk of history
by the end of it - whereas 'Seven Samurai' feels amazingly fast for its
running time. The exact running time of a movie is irrelevant, it's a
question of whether that time is used wisely and appropriately. Indeed, my
worry about QOS, like yours, is that it may be too short for what it's
trying to do.
Best
Phil
Phil Gerrard
we've seen so far that Craig hasn't entirely lost the lightness he brought
to bits of CR. The stuff with Fields and the riposte to Camille ('Is that a
compliment?') are anything but grim AFAIC.
However, it may be that the perceived 'darkness' which critics seem to be
having trouble with is a result of EON trying to take the development of the
character a bit more seriously than they have in the past. Previously Bond
would be back to his merry, quipping self within minutes regardless of what
tragedy had befallen him. It may be that with QOS EON are trying to do with
Bond what Fleming did in YOLT, to portray how the events of the previous
adventure have affected him, and that some critics aren't ready for that:
they expect Bond to bounce back like he always did.
Whether that'll actually work within the context of the movie is another
question. We'll see.
Best
Phil
Russell Watson
wrote:
>Posted: Fri., Oct. 24, 2008. Quantum of Solace. By DEREK ELLEY.
>
>The shortest and certainly the most action-dense Bond ever,
About time they tightened them up. My biggest beef with Bond movies in
general (beyond the obvious utter waste of time that were the Roger
Moore years) is that they are all too long. At some point in them I
always start getting a little squirmy anticipating the end that must
surely be near, only to have the thing run another half hour or so.
moviePig
Iirc, the Bond books were fairly short and tight... not to mention
devoid of obligatory Busby Berkeley extravaganza finales. *Any* movie
that runs 2 hours and 11 minutes (OCTOPUSSY) had damn well better be
memorable... and if it's an action movie, it had better be epic...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
GSHATTERHAND
that Bourne is dreary and boring while Bond has always been action
packed and fun.
Using Bourne as a model is the dumbest thing the producers ever did.
Red Cloud
Bond still around?? I thought he retired. Didn't he
work for CIA, the gov't job? If Bond was real person,
he was about 65-years-old. How comes he does not
get old? I probably watch this movie if Grandpa Roger Moore came back.
"Russell Watson" <russell...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:v339g4t9e3cvc71ui...@4ax.com...
Russell Watson
frozen in time by the Hollywood convention of occasionally bringing a
new, younger actor into the role. It's not linear storytelling: the
early-'60s Bond of Dr. No and Goldfinger is not the Bond of "Casino
Royale". Think of it as the multiple universes of DC comics. Craig is
the Earth One (our dimension) Bond...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 03:34:06 GMT, "Red Cloud" <mmdi...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Will
"Phil Gerrard" <phil.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1pPMk.253096$zj5....@newsfe12.ams2...
> Will wrote:
>
>> There are a few portions of this review in which I disagree. First, the
>> reviewer says that QOS is "stripped of CR's humor." Sorry, but I didn't
>> find much humor in CR. It was one of the most serious bond films to date.
>> I'm not sure which version of CR he watched. Certainly not the one I
>> watched.
>
> Gosh, I don't know about that, Will. I thought there was a good deal of
> humour in CR - or perhaps a better word might be 'wit'. It wasn't about
> cheap one-liners and belly-laughs, but it was definitely there AFAIC.
> Indeed, one thing I loved about CR was that it handled the humour in an
> adult, Howard-Hawks-style, sophisticated manner rather than resorting to
> schoolboy innuendo. For the first time since the '60s they got the
> balance exactly right.
>
I might go along with 'witty' to describe the humor elements in CR, but I
certainly didn't find much tongue-in-cheek humor in the film. We could be
playing semantics, however. IMHO, movies like MR, OP, and AVTAK were loaded
with too much tongue-in-cheek humor which hurt the films. There is very
little of it in CR, to its benefit.
> I'm all for the Bond films taking a more serious approach than they did in
> the '70s, but Fleming's books themselves weren't devoid of dry humour.
> Even a relatively grim short story such as TLD includes acidly witty
> comments about Bond reading a dreadful pulp novel before having to commit
> what he regards as a murder. I don't think the films should ever lose
> that, although I have no desire to see them return to cheap comedy either.
>
I agree - and I prefer the humor apparent in TB, GF and CR to that 'winking
at the camera' humor which was apparent with many of Moore's films and some
of Brosnan's films.
>> Also, he says the sheer frequency of Dench's appearances diminish the
>> film. Again, Dench is a big plus in my book, so the more the merrier. She
>> is a tremendous actress and I welcome her multiple appearances in the
>> movie.
>
> I think that may turn out to be a classic case of YMMV. Nobody else who's
> reviewed the movie has complained about this.
>
>> Since I have not seen the film I cannot quibble with much of the review.
>> However, I do find the 1 hr 45 min run time to be a bit problematic,
>> especially if you want to build characterization. I would love to know
>> what is on the cutting room floor in this film, and why. An extra 10-15
>> mins of dialogue and characterization is not going to sink this film,
>> especially since filmgoers are used to 2 hr Bond films.
>
> I'm with Godard on this in that I believe that in a perfect world a movie
> would be as long as it needs to be. There are two-hour movies I've seen
> which would have worked better had they been half-an-hour long, and vice
> versa. Brevity isn't everything, and nor is length. Heck, 'The
> Godfather' feels like a longer movie than it is and is all the better for
> it, given its epic scope - you ought to feel like you've lived through a
> chunk of history by the end of it - whereas 'Seven Samurai' feels
> amazingly fast for its running time. The exact running time of a movie is
> irrelevant, it's a question of whether that time is used wisely and
> appropriately. Indeed, my worry about QOS, like yours, is that it may be
> too short for what it's trying to do.
>
I believe this is the most expensive Bond film to date, so it's surprising
that it is also the shortest. This tells me they spent a lot of money on big
sets, traveling and action sequences. Since we were promised an exploration
of Bond's character as he deals with the loss of a loved one, I would expect
there to be some interesting dialogue and characterization in the film. Most
of the reviews I've read said the movie is heavy on action and light on
dialogue. That is not a good thing, given the aforementioned expectations
that we would explore Bond's character as he deals with loss/redemption,
etc. I'll reserve judgment, of course. But I'm a bit skeptical of the
running time at this point.
> Best
>
> Phil
>
Paul Clarke
I wouldn't worry that they're doing this -- the "Bond is Bourne" meme
was fucking tiresome and almost entirely inaccurate for CR, and I don't
expect that to change with QOS.
Paul Clarke
> that it is also the shortest. This tells me they spent a lot of money on big
> sets, traveling and action sequences. Since we were promised an exploration
> of Bond's character as he deals with the loss of a loved one, I would expect
> there to be some interesting dialogue and characterization in the film. Most
> of the reviews I've read said the movie is heavy on action and light on
> dialogue. That is not a good thing, given the aforementioned expectations
> that we would explore Bond's character as he deals with loss/redemption,
> etc. I'll reserve judgment, of course. But I'm a bit skeptical of the
> running time at this point.
>
>> Best
>>
>> Phil
Just pause for a moment and reflect how amazing it is that we are
concerned that there may be less character development in this one. It
goes to show how CR was a watershed for the Bond series.
Phil Gerrard
> I might go along with 'witty' to describe the humor elements in CR, but I
> certainly didn't find much tongue-in-cheek humor in the film. We could be
> playing semantics, however. IMHO, movies like MR, OP, and AVTAK were
> loaded with too much tongue-in-cheek humor which hurt the films. There is
> very little of it in CR, to its benefit.
I think the semantics point hits the nail on the head. The more comment
I've read about QOS and indeed CR, the more it seems that some writers are
using words and concepts such as 'humour', 'tongue-in-cheek', 'comedy',
'wit', 'gags', and 'jokes' as if they're interchangeable, or as if they mean
the same to everyone, neither of which I think is true at all. Heck, 'The
Importance of Being Earnest' and 'Disaster Movie' both fall into the comedy
category, yet it's hard to imagine two pieces more different..
> I believe this is the most expensive Bond film to date, so it's surprising
> that it is also the shortest. This tells me they spent a lot of money on
> big sets, traveling and action sequences.
I wouldn't be so sure of a direct correlation here. Without a full and open
audit of what was spent and where, it can be very difficult to judge how a
film's budget related to what one sees on screen. OK, you can tell the
difference between a 3 million dollar movie and a 100 million dollar one
pretty easily by watching the films in question, but the difference between,
say, a 120 million dollar movie and a 150 million dollar one isn't the sort
of thing I'd like to make a judgement on without seeing an itemised budget.
What's spent isn't necessarily what ends up on screen.
Best
Phil
Phil Gerrard
> I wouldn't worry that they're doing this -- the "Bond is Bourne" meme was
> fucking tiresome and almost entirely inaccurate for CR, and I don't expect
> that to change with QOS.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Bond phenomenon created the
conditions which gave rise to Bourne in the first place. Bourne owes a hell
of a lot more to Bond than Bond ever will to Bourne, and some current
critics would be well reminded of which came first.
Even if it is true that Bond is now imitating Bourne - which I think in its
specifics is arguable given that the franchises have so much in common that
there's bound to be some overlap from time to time - the fact is that the
franchise which on balance is most in debt to the other is Bourne, and
always will be.
I like the Bourne films a lot, and prefer them to some of the later EON
entries, but accusing Bond of becoming a Bourne imitator carries about as
much weight with me as accusing Bond of becoming a Matt Helm imitator during
the '70s. Yes, in both cases I can see the similarities and maybe even the
influences of a rival franchise, but everything that's there had its first
precedents *long* before Helm or Bourne came along.
Best
Phil
Phil Gerrard
> Just pause for a moment and reflect how amazing it is that we are
> concerned that there may be less character development in this one. It
> goes to show how CR was a watershed for the Bond series.
Yes, that's it in a nutshell. There's a real possibility that the problem
may end up being that QOS is a victim of CR's success. Even with all the
doubts and worries I've had about QOS after all that I've read recently,
I've had to step back and ask myself whether I could imagine a Bond movie
like this being made even five years ago.
AFAIC, whether QOS succeeds or fails, at least it's *tried* to go in what I
think is the right direction. I think that leaves the franchise in a
healthier place than it was in the '70s or than it appeared to be after DAD,
and providing the box-office isn't a disaster, it should at least provide
more of an opportunity for EON to get their act together with a more serious
take on Bond than happened after LTK.
Best
Phil
Rob.
> Will wrote:
>
>> There are a few portions of this review in which I disagree. First, the
>> reviewer says that QOS is "stripped of CR's humor." Sorry, but I didn't
>> find much humor in CR. It was one of the most serious bond films to date.
>> I'm not sure which version of CR he watched. Certainly not the one I
>> watched.
>
> Gosh, I don't know about that, Will. I thought there was a good deal of
> humour in CR - or perhaps a better word might be 'wit'. It wasn't about
> cheap one-liners and belly-laughs, but it was definitely there AFAIC.
> Indeed, one thing I loved about CR was that it handled the humour in an
> adult, Howard-Hawks-style, sophisticated manner rather than resorting to
> schoolboy innuendo. For the first time since the '60s they got the balance
> exactly right.
>
> I'm all for the Bond films taking a more serious approach than they did in
> the '70s, but Fleming's books themselves weren't devoid of dry humour. Even
> a relatively grim short story such as TLD includes acidly witty comments
> about Bond reading a dreadful pulp novel before having to commit what he
> regards as a murder. I don't think the films should ever lose that,
> although I have no desire to see them return to cheap comedy either.
>
There are moments of humor. But not Moore humor.
RichA
"Rob." <occasiona...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:490df72d$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
Thank God.
Simon
> humour in CR - or perhaps a better word might be 'wit'. It wasn't about
> cheap one-liners and belly-laughs, but it was definitely there AFAIC.
I agree. In fact the part where Bond is teasing Vesper about their
undercover identities was one of the best moments of showing the
lighter side of Bond in a Bond film.
Simon