Film

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

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Director: Marc Forster

Time Out rating

Average user rating

203 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

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

Email Tweet Share

User reviews of this film

IJWTS wow! Why can't I th said...

Posted on Jan 21 2012 17:22 IJWTS wow! Why can't I think of tinhgs like that?

Report as inappropriate
Hoi Poloi said...

Posted on Oct 07 2009 12:17 Great action scenes: Rubbish plot. Bolivia has supplies of Lithium which will be vital if hybrid cars ever take on. Instead the plot centres (or rather makes a feeble reference) around controlling the countries water supplies. A wasted opportunity. It's almost if they needed two directors- one for the big bangs and the other to work on the storyline.

Report as inappropriate
Bobby said...

Posted on Jan 17 2009 14:17 the Frisat minute is amazing. just so brialliant put together, the first half of the flm is good, it just seems to get not so good, i think they should have had a more paired down second half chasing Vespers lover, and less kitchen sink bond by numbers stuff going on- the plane sequence was poor, the villains base just felt like a set,- the very last scene in the apartment in the snow was good- more tense again-

Report as inappropriate
UnclePippy said...

Posted on Jan 14 2009 09:19 I have tried to find out what the film is like but as usual people can't resist moaning about others rather than tell us what the film was like! Me, I haven't seen it yet!

Report as inappropriate
christine green said...

Posted on Jan 04 2009 14:48 Not one of the best Bond films but I am glad I went to see the film.

Report as inappropriate
martin said...

Posted on Dec 30 2008 13:02 very poor,big chaos,big dissapointment from director.

Report as inappropriate
Rob Dyer said...

Posted on Dec 29 2008 10:44 There is only one word for this film.... shocking.... i felt physically sick watching this. Sick of the the appalling action that is shot so close and chaotically that you can't see what's going on, sick of a weak and feeble storyline, sick of the theme tune, sick of the wooden acting. And the worst thing is I love Bond, I loved Casino Royale, I loved the new look Bond. I've read all the Bond books and loved the old look Bonds as well.
But the director of this film should be put down for what he's done here. There aren't even any positives to try and off set the huge negatives. I walked into the cinema with huge expectations and came out feeling the weight of the world on my shoulders. Don't watch this film even out of curiosity to see how bad it is - it will leave you scarred!

Report as inappropriate
k joe said...

Posted on Dec 27 2008 18:10 Utterly bereft of any entertainment value - do not waste your sponduliks

Report as inappropriate
DV said...

Posted on Dec 17 2008 11:15 Do you think, maybe DrE ,that you are taking the Bond franchise a little too seriously? No I haven't read the books, but I have never been attracted to them. There are so many more interesting things to read about. And as for Bond being a well rounded, 3D character in any of the films, don't make me laugh. His has always been a fantstical, cartoon-like world on screen. The films are merely an entertaining diversion for a couple of hours (and with an Unlimited card for Cineworld, pretty cheap thank you - highly recommended) In this respect, this one did what it was billed to do. Not a great film; I never said it was, but I quite liked seeing a colder side to him. By the end, he has got it out of his system. Imagine this: you are a trained killer and your lover is murdered, would you not lose it for a while? He has finally let someone get close (after losing his parents at a young age - thanks for that) and what happens? Fits if you ask me. The next one will be better. That's called optimism. Chill out, it's just a Bond film. Noone died.

Report as inappropriate
drEvil said...

Posted on Dec 16 2008 21:40 The next one will be better! What a sad mindless automaton must DV be – passing over money to watch a poorly scripted, poorly directed movie, planning hopes on a more acceptable film next time. Read the other reviews DV… Read the books… Bond is supposed to be University educated, hyper-intelligent, calculated, and super-suave and who puts brain before brawn. He was trained to be a secret agent from a teen, being recruited into the service after his parents were killed supposedly in a mountaineering accident. The current re-imagined Bond simply does not fill this mould.
What we have on screen in this new adaptation is essentially a 40 year old street-kid that has been taught to kill like a thug and not a trained assassin. Between fights all he seems to do is a lot of running whilst developing a bit of an Oedipus complex for M – god help us if he beds her in the next Bond movie (potentially entitled a Bucketful of Puke)!!!
His character has about as much depth as a puddle! This is how I imagined Bond to be portrayed if Vinnie Jones had won the role - which was apparently on the cards for a while. For a film to be successful, the producers, directors, scriptwriters and cast must give the audience what they want and must live up to and preferably exceed their expectations. Daniel Craig could make a very good Bond, but the scriptwriters and directors have let us down – big time – and Barbara Broccoli has let Bond fans down the most.
DV, it’s not about being stuck in the 70s, it’s about the continuation of a legacy – 22 films over 46 years based on a single set of characters is a pretty amazing achievement. About the only thing they are trying to keep true to are the Maurice Binder style of opening titles. Daniel Kleinman did an admirable job on these throughout the Brosnan years but his last two have been below par. It’s just a shame to see the legacy whither.

Report as inappropriate
DV said...

Posted on Dec 16 2008 10:49 I'm a big baby who doesn't like change. I want everything to stay the same as it was in the 70's. And I can't understand a couple of very simple plot-lines. Perhaps I'm autistic? Waah waah waah!
Reasonable film. Next one will be better. This one sets up the Bond character and gives him more depth. So to speak. Cool tune from The White Keys too.
Give it a go.

Report as inappropriate
drEvil said...

Posted on Dec 14 2008 21:38 Unfortunately this has to be the worst film of the Bond franchise - even worse than OHMSS. Bond is meant to be much more than a Bourne-style action hero and regardless of how ludicrous a plot, the story needs to have more at stake than keeping Bolivia’s poor thirsty and charging them 20c a litre for Quantum’s supply. But then again, let's digress to the weaker plot of Casino Royale… Bond must play cards to bring down a villain? Why not just bash “Mr I’m so scary because I bleed tears out of one eye and can’t be bothered to get it fixed” le Chiffre over the head, take him back to MI6 HQ and torture him until he talked then either kill him (new Bond) or put him into a situation where he could easily escape just to get killed at the last minute (old Bond)! Wouldn’t that have saved you 90 minutes of your life two years ago!
Bring back a real Bond: suave, sophisticated, calculated, brutal, intellectual. Bring back the gadgets, bring back Ms Monneypenny. And for God’s sake bring back Q – and not a pathetic version as played by John Cleese – how about a more eccentric version ala Stephen Fry or a Desmond Llewelyn clone as in Richard Briers. Also, how about writing some decent opening music! Remember when the Bond themes used to get into the top 10? The last two themes appeared to be sung by constipated cats with anorexia.
Overall a poor film that left me thinking why I bothered sitting though the 116 minutes of shaky CGI enhanced (using the term poorly as the shakes were probably put in to hide all of the bad CGI) footage – It could just have easily been (perhaps should have been) packaged as a Bourne film and enjoyed for what it is… an action film and not a Bond film.
Before starting on the next movie let's hope the writers and directors sit back and watch some of the Bond classics - Connery and Moore - and get a sense of what a good Bond movie should be!

Report as inappropriate
bob123 said...

Posted on Dec 12 2008 15:00 Hey Ho, What a bore! Noisy and confusing from the very start. I read the synopsis beforeI saw the film and still couldn't make any sense of it. There was something about revenging the death of a girl (from Casino Royal), two bond girls, and as usual important plot points were either muttered or buried in noise. I actually fell asleep for a short time in the first half hour, then forced myself to stay awake for the rest only because I'd paid money to be there. . Never (say never) again!

Report as inappropriate
paul said...

Posted on Dec 12 2008 14:39 THIS IS A BRILLIANT FILM.. YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND PEOPLE THAT CASINO ROYALE WAS THE FIRST BOND ( SO 2 SPEAK) THIS IS JUST FOLLOWING THAT.. SO YES Q IS NOT FULLY ESTABLISHED.... THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BOND AND Q IS IN ITS EARLY STAGE... THIS IS LITERALLY FOLLOWING OF DIRECTLY FROM CASINO.. BOND HAD MADE A DECISION..1)THAT HE WAS GONNA KICK SOME ASS FOR VENGANCE OF HIS LAST LOVE AND 2) THAT HE WAS GONNA BE TOTALY DISATTEACHED FROM FUTURE RELATIONSHIPS... SO THIS FILM IS ABOUT ACTION!!!!! AND RIGHLTY SO.. IM SURE ALL YOURE LOVED GADJETS AND CHEESY ONE LINERS ARE COMING YOURE WAY FOR ALL YOU CRITICS OUT THERE.... THIS BOND IS ( IN MY OPINION... THE BEST!!!!

Report as inappropriate
uk said...

Posted on Dec 09 2008 16:28 i like supercol. and the rest as he said are a waste of time and supercilious snobs with pseudo linguistic stash

Report as inappropriate