Quantum of Solace

To tell the truth, I found it hard to decide how to review this movie because of the fragmentized beginning (a great mistake from Forster) and pathetic opening credits, but in the end the pluses outweighed the minuses (I didn’t mind that Bond didn’t drink Martini ;-). We start where we finished. Without any explanation at all, we are plunged into the action (a bit Miami Vice-style) and the beginning is then a march-past of incredible action scenes, not as flawless as in Casino Royale, but first-rate action all the same. Both Bond girls were also great, and personally I liked Gemma Arterton more than Olga Kurylenko, even though she was given less room to perform. And the powerhouse and also best-working component of the movie is the flawless Daniel Craig thanks to whom everything is as it should be. (11/28/2008)

The first Bond that is practically without a beginning. It takes a while to get used to the fact that the film starts essentially in the middle, so we don't get a lot of character analysis and explanations of who is working for whom. Quantum of Solace is almost exactly on the well-worn tracks of Casino Royale, and that is a good thing. Daniel Craig has achieved something unprecedented, he has perfectly defined the contemporary action hero, which no one has been able to do in the past 10 years. Ethan Hunt is too action-oriented and not believable enough, Jason Bourne is an emotionless machine, but Crags's portrayal of James Bond is a thrilling persona that fits perfectly into the current trend of the perfect man: a rough, charismatic, and intelligent killer who is like a fish out of water without a luxury suit. Thankfully, there are emotions and love, but presented intentionally in a subdued manner, and delivered in precise doses, and Bond is breathtaking in those moments with the accompaniment of a gentle piano. Forster knows exactly what is in nowadays and he is careful. Perhaps it is only in the last two Bond movies where they managed to bring rawness to the action, meaning that finally the blows are hard enough, the falls are rough enough, and the running is fierce enough; no frills, no clever cameras shortening this or that, absolutely fierce, uncompromising, and devilishly fast action without any time for thinking. It could almost be said that the adrenaline can be felt through the screen. Casino Royale plus Quantum of Solace: timeless filmmaking. (03/15/2009)

007's character was never one I had to have on a poster above my bed, and he could name the proportions of all the women who had slept with him. Still, I have always appreciated how "trendy" he can be, not only in terms of dressing but also in filmmaking. The present is ruled by the brawlers on speed who solve problems with the elegance of a bulldozer, and this is exactly the category that James Bond had to conquer. He did it perfectly. We can argue about how much the plot would stand on its own without the previous poker kick-off, but Marc Forster goes much further. The hackneyed blockbuster rules are shattered, the characters behave erratically, and even the hero straddles the line where good meets evil so closely that it's hard to discern which one of them has the upper hand in his actions. Craig is brilliant, handling the torn emotions and the cold fights without blinking an eye, Amalric's villain oozes respect, and Olga is an elegant addition who fills her role to perfection. Forster's work is obviously not to everyone’s taste, but when I read criticisms about art, I shake my head in disbelief and boldly put Quantum of Solace on my personal list of top films. (11/11/2008)

In Daniel Craig's Bond, has become fashionable for film fans to criticize the loss of style and almost all the ingredients that made Bond Bond. I have never been a fan of the Bond legend or a die-hard action movie fan, so the loss of some typical elements for this film doesn't seem painful to me. What I do miss is a greater lightheartedness, the typical self-ironic lines, and light-hearted jokes. The pace is brisk and the style corresponds to what viewers could see in the previous 21 Bond films. Director Marc Forster does not offend me with his style, and I appreciate his direction much more than some more famous films in the series. The excessive action prowess doesn't sit well with me either, as the hero can take care of dozens of enemies without blinking an eye, without even getting out of breath, and also the fact that the villains, such as Mathieu Amalric's portrayed character, have such a short lifespan. But that's how the Bond fairy tales go. Overall impression: 60%. (11/06/2008)

After a calm, focused and full viewing, I am increasing my rating. My main gripe that he doesn't get into Bond's more elaborate motives has gone down the drain. Forster put exactly as much psychology in there as the story needed, and he hid Bond's inner rebirth dilemma in the second plan. Only a person dulled by the current popcorn production and who is unable to read between the lines can call 007 a terminator. If Campbell gave Her Majesty's agent the right to kill and a human heart, Forster stripped him of a clear world and a recipe for identifying good and evil. It's too bad that Dominic Greene has so little space on the screen. Amalric managed to portray him wonderfully without unnecessary overplaying - no longer as a clear villain, but as a guy who balances on the edge in a world where clear boundaries can no longer be drawn. Where he has to go to bed with the bad guys, because the good boys all died. And James? Is only his service really pushing him forward like the other Bonds? Hardly. However, by pure chance, the path of revenge coincides with the path of lesser evil (least amount of consolation). A well-chosen duet with the charismatic Kurilenko culminates in a double catharsis – one of the characters finds revenge, whilst the other apparently definitively finds himself. However, Forster certainly did not shoot any Casino Royale action film, which one will appreciate only after a careful viewing. For example, the fantastic interplay between Bond and Mathis, or the cute maternal relationship between M and 007, proves that Marc remained who he was and managed to bring intimate emotions and attention to detail into the story. The moment when the big world man Bond finds himself among the suffering Bolivian farmers is magnificent, because it thematizes Bond's pilgrimage from the untouchable Dandy to the proletarian slugger, who, in addition to suffering, is also able to see the consequences of his actions and the upheaval of so-called good in today's world. It is a sad paradox that perhaps the most intimately-conceived Bond production cost such a sum (it really is not visible, because Forster presents even the most effective action scenes as an aesthetic rhyme about many clever details and precise tempo). My impression is clearly positive. Quantum Of Solace is something like an intimate psychological action film, which works with unconventionally "high" resources within a typically "low" plot. The film feels much more thoughtful than wild. It is unfortunate that Forster did not get his extra 20 minutes, and thus he needed to force too much of a drastic edit into the otherwise very sensitive tone of the narrative. Thanks to the soundtrack, which goes even further below the surface and doesn’t bother with effective rumbling, I give it five stars. Not everyone will appreciate this Bond film, but from my point of view it is one of the best and certainly the one that most defies conventions. (10/23/2008)