Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Updates:

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Director: Marc Forster

Time Out rating

Average user rating

202 reviews

Movie review

From Time Out London

Revenge is a dish best served cold. Which, along with mean and lean, is how Daniel Craig plays 007 in Marc Forster’s slightly disappointing, furiously-paced, hi-tech, slash-and-burn sequel to the more leisurely, luxurious first ‘reboot’, ‘Casino Royale’.

James Bond – you’ll have to remember his Christian name as the arrogant cad neglects to announce it – is grieving the loss of lover and betrayer Vesper Lynd (Eva Green). You’d best remember the plot – and Lynd’s necklace – of the earlier film, too, as director Forster throws us immediately, eye-smackingly into the frenetic activity and globe-traversing travel that is the angry, increasingly unorthodox, ‘soul-destroyed’ world-saving agent’s way of dealing with betrayal, grief and loss.

Eight minutes of highly impressive, parallel-edited, SFX-assisted, stunt-laden action are up before the ears, eyeballs and brain get their first momentary repose. Before then, our hero chases down Mr White in the Aston dodgem-car through Alpine tunnels. Cough or blink and you’ll miss how our bold spooks link the last film’s Le Chiffre to bug-eyed faux environmentalist Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a destabiliser of US backyard governments with a laughable, pudding-basin haircut-ed sidekick. Almost immediately, he hops, skips and jumps across Siena’s roofs and the horse-loving, harlequin-ed Palio crowds – and we soon follow Bond ‘running wild’ from the palatial villas of Italy to the slums of Haiti, the neo-Reifenstahl opera houses of Vienna, and the menacingly beautiful, otherworldly moonscapes and deserts of Bolivia.

So much dash, flash and thrill – so many boat chases, tight rope-dangling fight scenes, bi-plane dogfights, architectural flourishes and flat-table computer displays – there’s scant time left for character, let alone, story, fun, seduction, humour or wit. You can sense the older, traditionalist viewers wanting to go home early to take their nostalgia pills. True, there are some cute one-liners – presumably the product of Paul Haggis’s polish of Neal Purvis and Robert Wade’s screenplay taken from producer Michael G Wilson’s first inspirational treatment and itself repeatedly pencil-marked by Forster and Craig.

Also, new Bond Woman Olga Kurylenko is impressive as 007’s Latin helpmeet Camille. But, strange for a supposedly ‘humanising’ franchise, Craig’s Bond comes dangerously close to being a cipher himself: only a ‘Bourne’-again, action superhero could perform his physical feats.

It’s a cynical movie, too: half the Brit agents are double and all the US spies seem untrustworthy – save Felix Leiter, of course, whom the excellent Jeffrey Wright reprises in arguably the film’s sole sympathetic, low-key performance. (Though, intriguingly, Judi Dench’s ‘M’ has gone all maternal – couldn’t she be renamed ‘SM’, for Surrogate Mum?) Okay, maybe real life is, pace Hobbes, brutal, nasty and short – like this movie. But can’t we sneak in the odd moment for some occasional quiet conversation, maybe even a leisurely martini or a game of baccarat, even if we can’t afford luxury rail travel or – God forbid – some protracted, guiltless sex? Go on, Bond, next time, indulge yourself a little more. We like to watch.

Author: Wally Hammond 2008-10-20 13:31:15

Time Out London Issue 1993, 30 October – 4 November, 2008

Bookmark

User reviews of this film

Jimmy said...

Posted on Nov 20 2008 23:58 Bang,crash, wallop. Charmless Bond. No story line. No humour. Minimal dialogue. Wished I'd gone to the pub instead.

Report as inappropriate
Steph said...

Posted on Nov 20 2008 13:18 Absolute rot. Dire, boring, wooden. The worst Bond film I have ever seen. Apparently I fell asleep for 10 minutes in the middle of it. Bring back a good story, a non-pretentious, manly, chasrismatic and comedic Bond - that would be a good start.

Report as inappropriate
gareth said...

Posted on Nov 20 2008 08:49 I went and saw this on tuesday (18th novemeber) and i can honestly say that this was the worst of the "blockbuster" movies i have seen this year. An impossible to follow story line, awful theme song, and a frankly unlikeable James Bond.
DOnt get me wrong, Bond should always have a hard - even cruel edge to him, but there should be something about him that you instinctively like. DC did this really well in Casio Royall, but here the character becomes amazingly 1 dimensional. Apart from that, my biggest grievance is that we only heard the word Quantum (referring to the shadowy organisation) towards the end of the movie - explained to bond, not to us!!!
Please go back to the methods and style used in the Connery and Brosnan films, dry wit, danger, gadgets and hot chicks - not just explosions and guns.

Report as inappropriate
Ross said...

Posted on Nov 19 2008 20:04 Very disapointing ,don't bother .Casino Royal was great but I'm afraid this had far too many speeded up silly scenes where you could'nt see what was going on.The worst Bond film ever I hope when they make the next one they go back too BASICS !!!

Report as inappropriate
Marion said...

Posted on Nov 19 2008 19:36 Didn't understand any of it,
What a lot of "----"

Report as inappropriate
Arunaras said...

Posted on Nov 19 2008 16:17 gripping action movie. lacks the hi-fi nature & the grandness of usual Bond movies. Daniel Craig is good, but he is not a bond material.

Report as inappropriate
OO MAMA said...

Posted on Nov 17 2008 20:23 Spook D – I wish to answer your question about the blowing up of buildings, seemingly, for no apparent reason. These explosions feature quite often in big budgeted action films. They also feature them in porn films, I understand that they are called blow jobs.

Report as inappropriate
Spook D said...

Posted on Nov 17 2008 18:06 DC carries the film and is great. There weren't enough peaks and troughs but I was happy to sit and watch it anyway. One biq question. Er, WHY did the big building blow up at the end? Is it me or have they got so used to incliding it they forgot to write in an explanation?

Report as inappropriate
Ben Shooter said...

Posted on Nov 17 2008 09:38 all those people who call themselves 'true bond lovers' are talking out of there rear ends.....the purpose of the latest two bond films, CR and QoS, is to give us the background to how bond became bond. Casino Royale portrayed the human origins of Bond - falling in love, being sickened by his first kill, and generally almost mucking it all up by being overconfident. Now QoS gives us Bonds journey through anger and vengence as he slowly develops into the Bond we all know and love - the cold, calculating, suave, deadly, womanising machine that will happily tell you a joke before sleeping with your wife and then slitting your throat, all in the name of british security. These fillms ARE totally true to Ian Flemings visoin of Bond and hats off to the directors. To the rest of you - go back and read the books and try again to understand Bond!

Report as inappropriate
Michael said...

Posted on Nov 16 2008 16:04 I can't believe how over "hyped" this move was. I love Bond films and even like Daniel Craig as the "new" Bond... but this movie just stunk! This is not a Bond film, it's a second rate attempt to be Jason Bourne. I wish I had walked out, but I kept looking for something to redeem it... no such luck. The opening scene is the best and it's all down hill from there - and that's not saying much either because the opening is also one of the worst in Bond history. I like that they are trying to "rough" up the Bond character a bit and make him a little more human... but this is rediculous! In my top 5 worst Bond movies ever!

Report as inappropriate
Kay said...

Posted on Nov 16 2008 11:48 No Miss Moneypenny, no "Q"; no customised Aston Martin with hi-tech mods; no decisive "M" reassuring us that the country is in safe hands; no continuity; no reference to Bond's educated "Britishness"; in short, no point. He could have been any skilled assassin working for any agency in the world. This film won't win any new Bond fans and will alienate established ones. What a wasted opportunity! And next time could we have some variety in the action sequences? The "Bourne" style jerkiness is fine for one or two, but what about variety? Some distance shots to give us an overview; some slow-motion so we can wonder at his athleticism; split screen so we can see what the arch foe is doing while his minions are being slaughtered - and more dialogue please! Our hero is multi-faceted he's not a one-dimensional killing machine. Where's Ian Fleming's creation? He's not in this film....

Report as inappropriate
Liz Watson said...

Posted on Nov 16 2008 10:24 This was so disappointing. I love Bond films but this film was appalling. I hate the close up action where you can't see what is going on. What is this new way of filming - close up action, action and more action, it is ridiculous - at least they've stopped making them 3 hours long - I really would have walked out then! There is little continuity to the very lame story. Where's Moneypenny these days? Unfortunately, it was absolute rubbish in my opinion. If they bring out the next one in the same way I certainly won't be going.

Report as inappropriate
Andi said...

Posted on Nov 15 2008 23:28 WORST BOND FILM EVER FROM CAST TO STORYLINE TO DIRECTION TO EDITING. EVEN THE THEME TUNE WAS HORRIBLE. IT WAS NOT A BOND FILM. IT WAS SOME SECOND RATED ACTION/VIOLENT FILM.

Report as inappropriate
A MacRae said...

Posted on Nov 15 2008 21:32 The quality of QoS will only known twenty years from now when we look back and remember the depression of 2008, Bond has stood the test of time reminding us of our strenghths and weaknesses in a snapshot of time. remember we all get older but Bond is timeless.Long may he last.

Report as inappropriate
a.j said...

Posted on Nov 15 2008 20:10 i waited a long time for this movie. i never imagined james bond to be this cruel.. the bond theme revolves around, romance, action, humour, gadgets and so on.. but this one was just more vengeance and utter violence.. this movie was made just for the sake of it... i guess just for the profit.. i feel before they make another bond movie, they should think of the audience especially the james bond fans.... this movie was utter nonsense and a total waste of time.....

Report as inappropriate