- Review: Twilight
- The Mighty Dump
- Review: Quantum Of Solace
- American Film Market
- Plot vs. Story
- Review: Let The Right One In
- Who Is The Best American Actor?
- Cinemoose Returns!
- Clint Eastwood Directing Techniques - Finding and Trusting Good Material
- Review: Quantum Of Solace 4
yemek tarifleri, Jenny R., tony, Suave Hippopotamus - The Marketing of Diablo Cody 3
me myself and I, Artemis, don't care about the pics - The Five Most Overrated Directors In Film 8
Michael W, Eugene, juggs mackenzie, Ashmeriel [...] - Review: Twilight 2
mystee, Nick Turner - Plot vs. Story 1
RT - Review: There Will Be Blood 10
grapplermodel, Dan, TWBB is *so* mature, Fan [...]
Review: Quantum Of Solace
November 17th, 2008
Let’s just call a spade a spade and say that the new James Bond movie Quantum Of Solace sucks. It’s confusing, dizzying, generic and, worst of all, boring. The movie is as dull as the title is confusing. The title is taken from an Ian Fleming short story but the movie has nothing to do with that short story. Or Fleming’s character of Bond for that matter.
In his second outing as Bond, Daniel Craig does little to change the Moose’s low opinion of his Bond. Once again, he plays Bond as a construction worker thug with an English accent. You would be forgiven if you thought this Bond was the guy you hired to pave your driveway. While there was some depth to Craig’s performance in Casino Royale
Some people have noted that James Bond has become a British Jason Bourne. There is some truth to that. Like Bourne, Bond has and is no fun. He’s a stuntman posing as an action hero. Take a moment to think about James Bond. What pops into your head? Tireless playboy who beds anyone without a Y chromosome, vodka martini shaken not stirred, classic introduction (Bond…James Bond). Without the mannerisms and stylish flourishes that Bond is known for, the character becomes little more than your generic action hero that could be played by any muscle bound meathead with an English accent.
But what about the story? Well, it’s both simple and incomprehensible. At its core, it’s basically Bond looking for revenge against the people that killed Vesper. But in the hands of Monster’s Ball
The villains are a super-evil organization named Quantum that has people everywhere. Why do I say that they’re super-evil? Because instead of world domination, they want to become a utility company. That’s right, the whole motivation of the bad guys in this movie is to become the sole water supplier of Bolivia. Very exciting stuff. The bad guys are headed by a goggle-eyed, effeminate, tofu eating Frenchmen Dominic Greene in a tuxedo who Bond somehow has trouble defeating in a fight despite the fact that he can take out rogue MI6 superagents and an army of evil militants with no problem.
As for the Bond girl, only an incompetent idiot would take a beautiful Ukrainian model (Olga Kurylenko) and cast her as an unsexy Bolivian out for revenge armed with a pout and a bad haircut. Oh, hello Marc Forster. Are you the one that decided to place the boring finale in a luxurious hotel that looks like a Motel 8 in the middle of the desert? That makes about as much sense as the rest of the movie.
Buy the Moose a cup of coffee.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Man, I completely disagree with you. I just saw this movie and thought it was top-to-bottom fantastic. Like the evil Constant Gardener. It is the punk James Bond.
I thought everything it tried to do worked very well. The big question I had going into it, was “is this james bond” hearing all the bourne comments. I admit in the beginning so of the TV commercial cutting threw me off, but I relaxed into it once the production style started to take effect. Daniel Craig is fantastic, and most importantly Dangerous which is what Bond should be. Not Roger Moore. His time was the 70s. The criticism about the women, gadgets etc.. is all beside the point right? Isn’t it about story. Which I thought was good. Action moments driven by character, the pretty ballsy story-telling — starting in the middle, not as much sentimentality. Aren’t these things to be admired?
I think Casino Royale was a much more inviting introductory movie (funny to say that), but I thought QoS was a perfectly taut movie that rose to Casino Royale’s level at least and will be very rewatchable. You can’t argue with 1:40. The example I like to give is you shouldn’t hear the live jam version of a song first. You need to know the album version first before you can appreciate the nuances of live jam. Maybe QoS is like that.
For example, think about all the things they were trying to do in the late 90s with those failed Pierce Brosnan movies. Make Bond more internationalist, check. QoS did better. Bring in a female action lead, check. QoS it actually felt natural. Show vulnerability, check. The little moment of Bond going in for the kiss/ the redemption at the end was poetic. Jeffrey Wright worked very well also.
I really like how so many character points were captured in very little moments. The small conversations between Felix and Bond, M and Bond etc I thought showcased incredibly chemistry between powerful actors.
Plus the little tweaking that the series has always done, like toying around with ‘environmentalism is evil’ was hilarious.
I admit I have not seen any bournes yet.
Anyways, totally disagree with you as always.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
quantum of solace sucks donkey balls
December 8th, 2008 at 3:02 am
Great website, I really like what you have done. Keep up the great work.
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I really like how so many character points were captured in very little moments. The small conversations between Felix and Bond, M and Bond etc I thought showcased incredibly chemistry between powerful actors.
Plus the little tweaking that the series has always done, like toying around with ‘environmentalism is evil’ was hilarious.
I admit I have not seen any bournes yet.