Quantum of Solace

What is apparent from its screenplay and its exposition of 007 is that this 22nd Bond movie was supposed to be a revenge-driven, ferocious and almost furious culmination of Casino Royale. And the producers entrusted it to the artsy director who amputated all of Casino Royale’s powerful limbs and arranged flowers in their place. All the great action, the Bond car and all the stylish opening credits and interesting locations are absent and the bad guys look like they stepped out of a Pasolini movie. The only thing that makes Quantum of Solace a Bond movie, what keeps it kicking and earns it a third star in my rating, is the still great Daniel Craig (Olga Kurylenko is nice, but she’s still just a female background character in Bond’s world). This is the first Bond movie after a very long time that didn’t make me feel that heroic excitement I used to feel after watching action movies as a little boy. (11/03/2008)

The only problem about this otherwise splendid action movie is that it just isn’t a Bond movie; not one bit. Which might piss double-o-seven fans off a little, but in view of the fact that I not a particular aficionado of the character, nothing stopped me from having a great time. For the first time since From Russia with Love. What Marc Forster gets away with in this commercial blockbuster is not only endearing, but often admirable. The action scenes are ingenious and fantastically edited together. And what’s the best thing about the twenty-second Bond movie? Well, I maybe repeating myself, but the simple fact that this isn’t a Bond movie, but “just" a gripping, honest-to-god action thriller, at last with an interesting, non-two-dimensional hero with a face like a pissed gorilla in a suit. (11/06/2008)

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)

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)

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)