The pre-credits car chase threatens to deride the whole enterprise. Minutes after the end of “Casino Royale,” Bond (Daniel Craig), with an abducted Mr. White in the trunk, is pursued on his way to a hidden interrogation chamber. Metronomically, the film cuts every two seconds, no matter what this does to any understanding of just what the hell is going on. The same goes for the later foot chase, boat chase, other foot chase (with crosscuts of an opera!), and plane chase.
The galling—and possibly redeeming—thing about the action is that it’s thrilling, logical, and well-covered. The DNA can be seen, with concentration. The producers should have canned the editors, Matt Chesse and Richard Pearson, early in the process.
Critics have been deriding "Quantum of Solace" for its lack of plot. On the contrary, it has just as much plot as "Casino Royale" or any other Bond film. What it's actually missing is a clear sense of style. The hatcheting of the action scenes extends to the interstitials. Bond travels to a lot of places in the “Quantum of Solace;” the director is obsessed with creatively announcing each location change.** These scenery changes amount to—not much. The actors read their expository lines and move along to the next place.
One concept of the film is that Bond is constantly on the run—towards the villain Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) and away from M (Judi Dench). With this in mind, the breathlessness has its place. Lost to this shuffling are the vicarious pleasures to be had in the Bond universe, like Bond gambling, drinking, seducing, etc. His trip to Port-au-Prince, Haiti in "Quantum" is about as exciting as a layover in that country.
“Quantum of Solace” is still a decent film. The preceding is mostly a reaction to the failed opportunities in the film, especially after the heights reached in “Casino Royale.” Greene’s evil plot, while characteristically over-the-top, is complex, logical, and frightening. Its repercussions are felt by an entire country. The whole film has a brutal language more aligned with Ian Fleming’s worldview. Bond triumphs, but he’s not enjoying it anymore.
*The last two sentences of this paragraph courtesy the style of “Variety.”
**This technique of using fonts that match the locale is expertly used in the game “Final Fantasy IX.”
3 comments:
What do you think of Craig as Bond? One review I read said he's the best to inhabit the role since Sean Connery, and that helps overcome many of the movie's weaknesses?
I like Craig, but then I've liked all the actors who have played Bond. Each brought something unique to the role and made it his own (yes, even Timothy Dalton, who seems to be the whipping boy of Bond fanatics). If I had to pick a favorite, I'd go with Roger Moore, for no other reason than that's who was playing the role when I was old enough to start following 007's cinematic career (in Live and Let Die).
Hey, is that Emilio Estevez standing next to that glowing car up there? Steve, have you offered a cash prize to anyone who can ID that flick? :)
According to my co-workers, Daniel Craig is certainly the hunkiest Bond. According to me, well, I'm not telling.
Craig is just fine as Bond, but who is Bond anymore? The weight of the history of the series is stifling.
As far as embodying the violent, haunted character as written by Fleming, he is hands down the best Bond. It's not just Craig that redeems the film though. The serious, *realistic* tenor of everything else helps.
harl3570: If there's a cash prize, Molly already won it. But there isn't.
Post a Comment