Hello, reader. This is your movie review of Quantum of Solace, should you choose to accept it.(Okay, I promise I won’t do that a lot)
The buzz about this movie has been pretty polarized; people like Harry Knowles from Ain’t It Cool News loved the hell out of this movie, whereas people like Roger Ebert (EBERT!!!) thought it was dribble. There seems to be no middle ground on this one. Well, having seen it, I’ll see if I become a militant hater, an exuberant lover, or if I can discover mediocrity once again!
As always, my Batman & Robin Gradation Scale is applied here.
Story
Quantum picks up shortly after the previous movie left off. We’re treated right away to a car chase, which is good I guess. Bond, M and MI6 learn from Mr. White of the existence of some shadow company that’s got their fingers in many sinister pies. Bond follows the trail, all the while hoping to find the ones responsible for Vesper’s death in the previous film. He kills some people, M gets mad, and together with Camille, a Bolivian secret agent, work to take down the evil Dominic Greene, the leader of Quantum.
Well, it’s not exactly a bad story, but I’ll admit, it’s not quite as original as Casino Royale. The whole movie seems sort of like the second part of Casino Royale, actually; like the original movie was, like, 4 hours long, and they had to divide it. Which is fine, I guess. More to the point, though, this movie plays more like your more traditional 007 film. That’s not to say it’s campy, or that James Bond has unbelievable gadgets, or that he’s not any less of a badass than Daniel Craig has played him. But the structure tends to act more like a traditional James Bond plot; the plot revolves around Bond working up the ladder to fight Greene, the head of a large, evil corporation that has some sinister plan in the works, and Bond and Camille (his Bond Girl) reach his hidden lair and the film culminates in a final fight to the death. Still, even this they pull off in the new, awesome style of the Bond films. And I must say, the reference to Goldfinger with the dead, naked woman covered in oil on the bed? Excellent.
Acting
Nothing spectacular, to be honest. But then again, I didn’t find the acting terribly good in Casino Royale either. I mean, Daniel Craig plays an excellent Bond; he’s cold, analytical, somewhat brash, and above all, confident. He actually seems like the type of person who might actually kill people for a living. But there’s not a whole realm of emotional depth to anyone here. Bond seems angry and sullen, but that’s about it. Everyone seems angry and sullen. It’s an angry, sullen movie. The guy who plays the film’s villain is marginally better, as he seems to display more emotion (since he’s putting on a front for the public), but generally, no one in this movie is acting in such a way that it stands out. I’d say it’s satisfactory, but not much more than that.
Action/Special Effects
This is where I was disappointed the most. Casino Royale’s stunts and action sequences were bloody amazing. The shots were clear and stunning. Watching this film on the big screen made one feel they were actually on top of a big crane. Whoever coordinated those stunts deserves some kind of medal. However, the action scenes here (while no less larger in scale) suffered from the “Camcorder Syndrome;” All the shots were quick-edited sequences of close-up, shaky camera work, making the sequences both daunting and confusing. It’s much the same as other films like Batman Begins and Transformers, where the action was just so jumbled, it gave me a headache. However, this does luckily damper a bit as the film progresses. The final action scene in Greene’s lair is much clearer, and the aerial dogfight recreates some of that sense of being high up in the air. However, sadly, at least 50% of the fight scenes are in the first 30 minutes of the movie, so at least half of what we come to see is, really, ruined. Seriously, directors, stop that; I don’t care if you want to recreate the feeling of being beaten up by Batman, or being in the middle of a monster invasion, it’s bothersome.
Music
Dave Arnold returns to the drivers seat scoring this film, and his work is no less well done than it was in the previous film. We’re even treated to some more of his renditions of classic Bond motifs, which are very good indeed. If you like that sort of thing, I urge you to check the score out.
I’d like to discuss the Bond Theme for a moment, which was “Another Way to Die” by Alicia Keys and Jack White. Um, it sort of sucks. I mean, the actual musical score to the song isn’t bad, but with them singing it, it sounds sort of like hip-hop or rap or whatever the kids listen to these days. It had some elements of some more classic Bond music elements, but overall I was largely disappointed. Way to go, Alicia Keys and Jack White. The first duet in Bond Theme history and you go and blow it. Thanks.
Direction
Not bad, not anything astoundingly bad. But it’s clear that Casino’s director played his Bond with much more nuance. Casino Royale created something entirely new, and entirely awesome. I’ll be honest; I was never a fan of James Bond before Casino Royale. I thought he was silly and the plots were boring. About the only Bond-related thing I’d ever loved before two years ago was the Goldeneye video game for N64. Casino changed that. It impressed me so much that not only did it score a 0/4; I retroactively awarded it the Vesty for Best Film of 2006. I feel if you look at Quantum of Solace as the last hour-and-forty-seven of Casino Royale, it works. The characters have already been established, and the plot follows directly from the end of the previous film. If you look at it as a separate movie, it takes a step back towards the more corny James Bond films of the past. However, that’s not to suggest I’m too critical of this, because I do literally mean just one step; it only just touches on the campy stuff and the formulaic plot lines without actually crossing the line into it. Still, I found the pacing to be odd at the beginning of the film, the shots weren’t nearly as stunning, it suffered from that “Camcorder Syndrome,” and the ending was slightly unsatisfactory. The one change the director made that I think was actually really neat was the way in which they superimposed the names of the various locations into the film. If you’ve ever seen Heroes, and the way their episode titles fit in with the scenery, it’s something like that, with specialized font for each locale. That was neat. But besides that, I feel that the directorial changes made were not made overly well, but not horrendously bad.
FINAL SCORE:
1/4
A good film, but not perfect. I think the reason that people are divided by this is because they expected something as amazing as Casino Royale. They were so geared for something as amazing as before (myself included), that something just slightly sub-par seems like crap by comparison. I think perhaps this may be the result of making a sequel that is so directly tied to its predecessor. If they had left Casino Royale as it was, ending and all, and left the rest to our imagination, and then gave us a whole new story for the sequel, it might have felt more self-contained. But for what it was, it wasn’t bad. The story was mostly clear, there were still lots of decent action, and Daniel Craig was still awesome. It just felt different than Casino Royale, or rather more aptly; it’s somewhat too similar to what we’ve seen before. But it certainly was entertaining, I was never bored, and it was worth the $10 to go see it.
I’m just happy that this film ended conclusively, because I’m looking forward to something original for the next one. Here’s hoping.
This review will self-destruct in 30 seconds (sorry),
- Silent G
No comments:
Post a Comment