I'll just talk briefly about Quantum of Solace...I think I've discussed my personal life enough for one week (and last night's post was about as accurate as it gets right now). We had our employee screening this morning and it was nice to actually be genuinely excited about one of our movies (the last one may have been...Step Brothers? Spider-Man 3?), even though the early reviews suggested a mid-level Bond adventure as opposed to the top-shelf adventure of Casino Royale or Goldeneye (so kill me, I'm partial to Goldeneye over Goldfinger, or some other such Connery/Moore Bond film).
All in all, Quantum of Solace is better than average, but yeah, it's no Casino Royale. I'd say it's on par with...The Living Daylights? And I don't mean that in a bad way, as I actually like The Living Daylights, but absolutely recognize its flaws. For background (as one always has to establish one's Bond preferences before discussing the films), it seems as though I really enjoy one film from each Bond actor...not by design, but by coincidence. I greatly enjoy From Russia With Love, but don't care for any of the other Connery films. I actually feel that Lazenby's On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a great Bond film with fun action that's saddled with too much plot and a mediocre lead actor...but I still really like the movie overall. The Spy Who Loved Me is the best of the Moore films...it's a great movie amidst some true cinematic clunkers from that era (God, I hate Live and Let Die). As previously mentioned, I have a soft spot for Dalton's The Living Daylights and tend to agree that his take on the character would have been more popular twenty years later (but License to Kill is just terrible). And finally, I love Goldeneye, even though the rest of the Brosnan films ranged from "tolerable" (Tomorrow Never Dies) to "one of the worst movies ever" (Die Another Day).
So since I've already determined that Daniel Craig's Casino Royale is probably my favorite Bond film yet, does that mean that I'm predisposed to dislike Quantum of Solace? No...in fact, this may be the movie that ends my "one film per Bond actor" streak (though admittedly, I did enjoy Moonraker and A View To A Kill just a little bit, so that's almost three for Moore). I liked Quantum of Solace. Was it a great cinematic achievement? Absolutely not. There are so many issues with this movie that keep it from being anywhere near "great," but it is sort of fun.
As I've bitched about for months now, Marc Forster (Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland, Stranger Than Fiction) directed this movie, and now that I've seen it, I absolutely and wholeheartedly maintain that he was the wrong director for this film. And ha! He did use stupid graphic overlays in this movie, just like he did in Stranger Than Fiction...it's such a cheesy, stupid, lame, tacky choice. What is this, fucking Alias? This is James fucking Bond...give us wide establishing shots, use dialogue to let us know where we are, don't assert your alleged "cleverness" on this movie by integrating crappy text. And you know what? To that end, don't go to fourteen million different locations in a 1 hour 45 minute movie...I love the fact that Bond films shoot on location and travel the world, but keep it coherent. Bond doesn't need to travel to every goddamn continent in every movie.
But text overlays aside, my biggest problems with the movie were probably a) the pacing and b) how the action was shot. The movie attempts to "never stop for a breath" with its pacing, but we spend so little time with the characters and situations that it all becomes a blur after a while. This is a movie driven by plot, not character (despite Bond's somewhat effective character arc, which was really started in Casino Royale), so we get two and a half hours worth of events crammed into an hour and three quarters (not sure why...Casino Royale was over 2 hours and 20 minutes and felt like a real story). The movie is just too fast...by the time we finally get to spend a little time with the characters, the movie is more than halfway done.
And speaking of things that are too fast, the way they shot the action in this movie is terrible. Yes, it's occassionally thrilling (they do have some really great shots and choreography), but as with so many action movies these days, it's chopped up in an editing blender and you can't tell what's going on or who's crashing into whom (and after a while, you stop caring and just wait patiently for the action to end so you can see who's left standing). It's difficult to know who to blame for this...but at the end of the day, I have to believe that Forster, not the 2nd unit director or even the editors, is responsible, as he maps out the storyboards for the action sequences and guides the editors. And again, some of the action is really goddamn cool...the opening car chase would have been astonishing if we could have stepped back and seen some real choreography. But ultimately, it looks like they were cutting a trailer and not a movie.
Seriously, where did all of the real action directors go? If only James Cameron would stop exploring the ocean or making lame 3-D sci-fi and get back to making awesome fucking action epics (Terminator 2, Aliens, True Lies). You know who's actually a great action director but doesn't get enough credit? Martin Campbell...and that's not just because he did Casino Royale. The two recent Zorro movies (which he directed) are excellent examples of showcasing stunts and action in a coherent and enjoyable way, while Goldeneye is, again, awesome. I don't care what John McTiernan did to get jail time, but bust him out and give him a new action movie (obviously Die Hard is a paragon of action filmmaking, but Hunt For Red October and Die Hard With A Vengeance are no slouches, either).
Anyway...ultimately, while the action is spotty and the story is rushed and the characterizations are dulled, it's still an entertaining movie. I guess it says something about the finished product, seeing as how it (mostly) overcomes those detriments. While I maintain that it's similar to Living Daylights in terms of quality, it also feels like a near-opposite version of On Her Majesty's Secret Service: too short with some cool (but not amazing) action. Daniel Craig is still a great Bond, and the other actors acquit themselves nicely. I guess this movie was sort of a necessary evil: a transition from the broken, wounded character from Casino Royale to the slick, efficient Bond that we know and love. Actually, I thought the character arc was great...there just should have been more of it. All in all...a "B," I think. Maybe "B-".
I might go see Role Models this weekend...I've heard surprisingly positive things about it and I don't have much else to do. But for now, I'm limping to the weekend...only three hours or so left. I think I'll go get some Starbucks to power through the remainder of the day. And as a quick note: after I posted last night, I did write a quick e-mail to that girl to say I had a good time and tested the waters for a future occasion. It appears that one of my cynical options didn't come to fruition, as she wrote back today around noon...but I haven't opened it. My guess: since she did write back, it'll probably be a polite "kiss-off" as opposed to a scathing rejection. I don't know when I'll open it, though...maybe tonight.
Quantum of Solace is entertaining at least... a fantastic job with the styling and picture quality, but the movie as a whole could stand to lose six or seven fewer chase scenes
Posted by: movie fan | 11/15/2008 at 10:22 AM