Author Topic: Quantum of Solace  (Read 2043 times)

hal9g

  • Guest
Quantum of Solace
« on: July 25, 2010, 12:07:35 AM »


Title: Quantum of Solace
Year: 2008
Director: Marc Forster
Rating: PG-13
Length: 107 Min.
Video: Widescreen 2.40:1
Audio: English: DTS-HD Master Audio: 5.1, Spanish: Dolby Digital: 5.1, French: Dolby Digital: 5.1, Portuguese: Dolby Digital: 5.1
Subtitles: Chinese, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish, Other

Stars:
Daniel Craig
Olga Kurylenko
Mathieu Amalric
Judi Dench
Giancarlo Giannini

Plot:
On a nonstop quest for justice that crisscrosses the globe, Bond meets the beautiful but feisty Camille (Olge Kurylenko), who leads him to Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a ruthless businessman and major force within the mysterious Quantum organisation. When Bond uncovers a conspiracy to take control of one of the world's most important natural resources, he must navigate a minefield of treachery, deception and murder to neutralise Quantum before it's too late!

Extras:
Scene Access
Feature Trailers
Featurettes
Music Videos

My Thoughts:
Sorry but this movie did nothing for me.  In spite of car chases, boat chases, airplane chases, motorcycle chases and crook chases; and in spite of blowing up or shooting up almost everything he came in contact with, Daniel Craig simply does not cut it as 007 and the acting (with the possible exception of Judi Dench) was simply abysmal.  Not to mention the core crisis of the movie.  Who the hell really gives a rat’s ass who owns the water supply in Bolivia, of all places??  Is this really an international crisis worthy of the interests of MI6 and the CIA?  Even though I’m not a huge Bond fan, this movie is the low light of franchise.
Rating:

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Quantum of Solace
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2010, 01:35:47 AM »
Blimey, this really hit a nerve!  :P I really liked it. The franchise has produced far worse films than this, for a start, Moonraker. And I think Craig is an excellent Bond. :thumbup:

Offline Dragonfire

  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *******
  • Posts: 6911
    • View Profile
    • Dragonfire88 Pbwiki
Re: Quantum of Solace
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2010, 02:17:16 AM »
Monnraker, while silly, was fun. 
This one is tying way to hard to be a Bourne movie.  And all that shaky camera work during the action scenes drives me crazy.  I seriously would like to slap the shit out of whoever started doing that and decided it is a legitimate technique.  All it does it make it so you can't tell who is who while inducing a headache.

hal9g

  • Guest
Re: Quantum of Solace
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2010, 03:04:42 AM »
Blimey, this really hit a nerve!  :P I really liked it. The franchise has produced far worse films than this, for a start, Moonraker. And I think Craig is an excellent Bond. :thumbup:

For me Bond is supposed to be suave and sophisticated.  While he uses brawn where necessary, brainpower is the real power behind him.  He also is supposed to have somewhat of a sense of humor!

To me, this movie succumbed to the notion that to be successful, modern "thrillers" have to have non-stop action.  Unfortunately, when they do this, it leaves no time for the cast to actually display their acting talents!

Maybe if it weren't a Bond film, and just another random international intrigue suspense thriller, I would not have been quite so disappointed.

It may not be the absolute worst of the franchise (in my eyes), but it's in the bottom 5! 

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Quantum of Solace
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2010, 03:26:23 AM »
Monnraker, while silly, was fun. 
This one is tying way to hard to be a Bourne movie.  And all that shaky camera work during the action scenes drives me crazy.  I seriously would like to slap the shit out of whoever started doing that and decided it is a legitimate technique.  All it does it make it so you can't tell who is who while inducing a headache.

I felt insulted by Moonraker. Oh look, everyone likes Star Wars. Let's have lasers!  :yucky:

The Bourne accusation has some merit, certainly, and I'm sure I mentioned it myself in my review. But since then I have seen The Kite Runner, also directed by Marc Foster who is turning out to be a remarkable and unique talent. I should say right now, I like "shaky cam", and I have come to the belief that Foster would only use it because he feels it is right. I'm sure I remember the handheld camera being used in the final section of The Kite Runner; this is Foster's style.

He definitely made a different Bond, but what I'm trying to say is that I don't think he would simply ape a Bourne film. Greengrass has seriously influenced the action genre from United 93 on and fluid, handheld cameras are being accepted as a more real technique. I think there are key differences in Craig's Bond that still separate him from Bourne and in fact, he's still the more interesting character.

Hal, you're also fair when you say they might have succumbed to non-stop action. However, you should always consider what sets this film apart from any other Bond. It's a direct sequel to a previous entry and that makes a big difference. I had hoped that this was in fact the first Bond trilogy and the real point of QoS was to be a simple cathartic revenge mission for Bond, leading into a more developed all-round character for part 3. Unfortunately, MGM's money problems may have stuffed that up. 

In other words, QoS may have made more sense as an Empire Strikes Back episode, so they were willing to bend the formula, take accusations of selling out on the chin, and blow us away with part 3. Kind of a long term idea at proving how much better Bond is than Bourne, by being willing to develop him over three films.