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

Martin W said...

Posted on Nov 15 2008 20:05 I think there are two different groups of people posting here. Those who were happy to watch any old mindlessly violent, slam blam, bang bang kill, spill and thrill adventure movie and then thoese who actually enjoy a James Bond movie. This movie, QOS, is definitely the former but all too lacking in the humour subtle dialogue and varied pace of a true Bond picture. The fact that you had to be able to remember the plot of Casino Royale, a movie watched over a year ago, in order to make any sense of what was going on, did not help at all. I aggree that the editing and fast blurred, half-baked action stunts looked visually impressive, but only if you wanted an award for artistic impression. As a dramatic background or underlying plot strengthener, they were absolutely useless. One was left with the impression that teh entire budget was for special effects and the script was an afterthought. If Craig brought some humanity into the Bond character with Casino Royale then he has unfortunately ended up in Quantum of Solace with a vengeful, generally indestructable, human with no Bond left in him. I think he should be given another chance but I think the producers, writers and directors should probably follow in the footsteps of Mr Greene and let somebody who knows what they're doing take over behind the cameras and production.

Report as inappropriate
Ben C said...

Posted on Nov 15 2008 16:27 Okay, when everyone raved about how brilliant "Casino Royale" was and how the franchise was re-invigorated, and Daniel Craig was the Bond who was truest to Ian Fleming 's creation, I didn't agree, but I didn't say anything.
But now, after seeing QOS, I've got to say it - it's all wrong. Bond was cruel, but he had charm. He often grinned, cracked jokes, enjoyed fine wine, flirted with women. He wasn't a bundle of misery, drenched in grief.
Daniel Craig (everyone says) is a fine actor, but he's so damn serious. The franchise needs to lighten up or else it will go under.

Report as inappropriate
malone said...

Posted on Nov 15 2008 14:23 I have been lucky enough to have seen every Bond film as it has premiered (so you can tell I'm middle-aged!). I was preared to be horribly disappointed but salute the franchise for boldness. I found the film so compelling, in its acting, cinematography, editing and imagery (loved the black and white motif) that I nearly stood and applauded at the end. And I'm a traditionalist at heart! The huge blus eyeball and Tosca soundtrack were perfect and perhaps an homage to the man crawling out of the window in Marilyn Monroe's face in From Russia With Love. The more obvious link was to Goldfinger, where Shirley Eaton is found covered in gold paint - here Fields is covered in oil. Daniel Craig is growing into the part and Judi Dench superb. I, for one, hope Barbara Broccoli has the courage of her convictions.

Report as inappropriate
janie said...

Posted on Nov 15 2008 13:56 Not only the worst Bond film, but possibly the worst film I've seen. Several people walked out, and I was tempted to follow suit, only I kept on thinking that it would improve (it didn't). Since when has James Bond been a cold-eyed thug? No quips, no smile, no warmth, no dialogue. And don't start me on the editing! Enough is enough. This is just a licence to mint money.

Report as inappropriate
Josie said...

Posted on Nov 15 2008 00:00 Disappointing. No gadgets or Bondness. Too much killing. Weak storyline.Seemed as if they were trying to appeal to different type of audience but most people went because they enjoy the Bond formula - this wan't Bond. I hope the person who says they will get it right and Bond will return is right.

Report as inappropriate
AP said...

Posted on Nov 14 2008 18:56 I have grown up with the Bond films but this was the worst I have seen.No story,too much action and killing. Could have been added on to the end of Casino Royale.

Report as inappropriate
L and L said...

Posted on Nov 14 2008 16:29 its the most crap bond film ever and we regret going to see it and spending £5+ on tickets .... it wasnt worth the waiting or spending the money in our opinion..DONT GO AND SEE IT..haha

Report as inappropriate
AJ said...

Posted on Nov 13 2008 17:51 Sooo disappointed.Saw it this afternoon looking for a bit of escapism,humour,glamour , memorable characters and a good theme tune.The stunts were amazing but to much.I only hope the people of Port Au Prince made some money out of it!

Report as inappropriate
blakesey said...

Posted on Nov 12 2008 15:00 Watched it yesterday and I’m glad it was before 5pm ‘cos it was cheap. We’re in a credit crunch after all! However 3 mins in I was starting to feel ripped off by the quick cutting, close up camera work that lost all sense of action and drama in a car chase that could have rivalled anything John Frankenheimer put on film. It looked like the camera had fallen off its winch and was crashing about DC’s feet in the Aston Martin. I felt sorry for the stunt driver who almost lost his life driving one of the Alfas. He must be pissed off watching that back. Marc Forster isn’t an action director. He does art films. And the fact that he’s a krout should have been a No…No…No in the first place! I think the producers need to spend some time with Amy Winehouse in Rehab and get some perspective on what the public want as well as listening to her much touted Bond theme tune. In TND Pierce Brosnan quipped to Elliott Carver before sawing him in half “you forgot the first rule of mass media Elliott. Always give the public what they want.” The Bourne Trilogy has been done and brilliantly. It makes no sense for the Bond franchise to rip them off. Jason Bourne and James Bond exist in completely different worlds anyway. And the other JB Jack Bauer can sleep sound knowing the Bond films haven’t come up with anything new to threaten the action series in Fox’s crown. Sony must also be gutted. There was hardly any product placement and what’s worse the film hasn’t even opened in the States yet. It will be interesting to see how it does there. You are only as good as your last hit. But judging by the majority of the bad reviews for QOS, it’s going to take some serious head crunching at EON to sort it out. DC does the role justice. He’s made the right decision to bear the Walther PPK. And if it wasn’t for Judy Dench the film would have lost what little sense of plot and suspense it had. They are both great actors. Give them something other than the repeated themes of trust and betrayal to chew on and back them up with a good plot and story lines with archetypal arch villains to remember instead of ones to forget. But don’t worry. It’ll be 2 or 3 years before the next one. Plenty of time for them to mess it up again! My only suggestion to the producers is to leave treatments and screenplays alone and don’t mollycoddle the plot like the family pet. But first point on the agenda - post blank cheques to Vic Armstrong and Martin Campbell and get them back. They’ll sort it out. James Bond will return.

Report as inappropriate
Markus said...

Posted on Nov 12 2008 14:37 Without a doubt this film is full of the expected action, locations and adventure we all come to expect of the Bond series. For the fans it's a must see moving at a 1000miles an hour - an increadible adreneline rush to the far corners of the planet. That said this Bond was a very messy, poorly edited screenplay. I worked hard at trying to keep track of what was supposed to be happening and how this was meant to provide some structure to the film arc of Bond unravelling the Vespa venture. I had a definite sense of being in a stormy sea with no engine or rudder. Quantum did provide some sense of increasing threat with the slow revealing of a secret, unassalably powerful organisation inserting its invisible claws into world affairs. However this was not the polished, crisply directed effort of Casino Royale. Bond, in my view, hasn't yet lost his 'Bondyness' but this particular effort certainly lost me!

Report as inappropriate
Richard said...

Posted on Nov 12 2008 10:43 Generally a very exciting, involving film. Excellent stunts and action. I think it would have been nice to include one or two more 'typical Bond' elements just to keep the Bond fan support base in tact, for this film was a move away from 'tradition'. It was more like Mission Impossible than Bond. Then again, Bond DOES need to be reinvented somewhat for a modern audience and to keep the surprises going.

Report as inappropriate
Andy S said...

Posted on Nov 12 2008 09:47 How can this be slated so much? All the Bonds apart from Dr No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, GoldenEye and Casino Royale are awful. Craig has created a Bond utterly convincing and totally motivated. Roger Moore always looked like he couldn't care less, Dalton lacked charisma and Brosnan in his final three films was playing it for laughs.
This movie was gritty, intelligent, believable and a superb follow up to the low-key Royale. The action scenes were fantastic and a real pop-corn treat for a Saturday night. Brilliant.

Report as inappropriate
Tom McMaster said...

Posted on Nov 12 2008 06:43 Great film, thoroughly enjoyed it from start to finish. The action just kept flowing along. The best Bond movie i've seen in quite a while. Daniel Craig was superb as usual.

Report as inappropriate
mizziti said...

Posted on Nov 12 2008 02:41 While I sometimes lean towards sentimentality, I think it's a shame that some don't appreciate this film because it's doesn't closely resemble previous Bond films. I bet that if the movie featured some generic action hero instead of Bond, most that panned this movie would have a different opinion. I have seen too many movies that showcase gadgets; it's refreshing that the technology featured here was understated and flowed with the storyline. I don't think the movie is perfect and definitely not better than Casino Royale but it was a good change of pace.

Report as inappropriate
sienna said...

Posted on Nov 12 2008 00:50 i have never seen so many gorgeous people and locations in an intelligent script which is a novelty for a bond movie

Report as inappropriate