Quantum of Solace

Film

Action and adventure

685.x600.film.quantum.jpg

Time Out rating:

<strong>Rating: </strong>3/5

User ratings:

<strong>Rating: </strong>3/5
Rate this  

Time Out says

Mon Oct 20 2008

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.
99+

Comments

Add +

Release details

UK release:

Fri Oct 31 2008

Share your thoughts
  1. * mandatory fields

Comments & ratings

Rated as: 3/5 (139 ratings)
  • If this was a Roger Moore knock-off, where were all the flunkies in jumpsuits falling off catwalks? It's just an irresponsible comparison to make.

    Toby Esterhaze Fri Nov 21 2008
    Report
  • Bang,crash, wallop. Charmless Bond. No story line. No humour. Minimal dialogue. Wished I'd gone to the pub instead.

    Jimmy Thu Nov 20 2008
    Rated as: 1/5
    Report
  • 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.

    Steph Thu Nov 20 2008
    Rated as: 1/5
    Report
  • 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.

    gareth Thu Nov 20 2008
    Rated as: 1/5
    Report
  • 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 !!!

    Ross Wed Nov 19 2008
    Rated as: 1/5
    Report
  • Didn't understand any of it, What a lot of "----"

    Marion Wed Nov 19 2008
    Report
  • 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.

    Arunaras Wed Nov 19 2008
    Rated as: 3/5
    Report
  • 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.

    OO MAMA Mon Nov 17 2008
    Report
  • 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?

    Spook D Mon Nov 17 2008
    Rated as: 3/5
    Report
  • 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!

    Ben Shooter Mon Nov 17 2008
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. 17
  18. 18
  19. 19
  20. 20
  21. 21
  • Hotwise
  • Cool brands
  • Star