Quantum of Solace Review

OK here we go, Quantum of Solace. I was one of 4 people who did not like Casino Royale. Without going into too much depth, I felt that while it may have been a good action picture, it most certainly was not a good Bond movie. My opinion of Quantum of Solace is not that much different.

I understand that the Bond series has grown tired and felt forced over the years. I get that a change had to be made. But I think they went in the absolute wrong direction. And I have to agree with another reviewer's phrase: "James Bourned."

It is so blatantly obvious where the inspiration for this new James Bond is coming from. With its merciless attitude and hard hitting in your face cutting and action, these two new Bond films very much resemble the Bourne films. You may say, "Well, that ain't so bad. The Bourne movies were awesome!" And I will agree. The Bourne movies are in fact awesome. But we're not talking about that character. We are in fact talking about the greatest cinema legend EVER!!! JAMES "SHAKEN NOT STIRRED" BOND!!!

Where is the Bond I fell in love with? Sadly I feel he is long gone. With the public loving Casino Royale, and judging by the enormous Box office receipts for Quantum, It doesn't look like this new "Bourne to be Bond" formula is going anywhere. And it saddens me a great deal!

To go off on this movie, here are the things that stood out to me:

1. The villain is just atrocious. A little slimeball that not once you feel threatened by. Not even when for no fricking reason, he gets all retard-strong in the end to hold off 007 with a firefighting axe. And he makes the most awful squeal while flailing the axe about. And his brilliant and dastardly plot: extorting high water prices in Bolivia. Yep, Bolivia, and yes, water prices. Dear god, What happened to manipulating two super powers to destroying themselves in WWIII, by simply controlling a newspaper... That was a brilliant and a dastardly plot (and that was one of the weaker ones)

2. James Bond is hampered down by his feelings every single minute of the movie. Oh Vesper this, Vesper that. When in Casino Royale you barely got the sense they were even attracted to each other. And she betrayed him!! Yet here he is, still swooning over this chick. I do understand why it was written like this, they want to give Bond a humanizing factor, something that brings him down to that of a normal man gunning for revenge. And also to try and tie back to the first movie, but it is just mishandled all throughout the picture.

3. Daniel Craig is not James Bond. Daniel Craig is great at what he does in these movies, but again, what he does is so un-bond-like that he doesn't even resemble the Sean Connerys, or the Pierce Brosnans of yesterday. He is doing something completely different than any previous Bond has ever done before. Now here is where somebody who loves these movies will say, "That's what makes them so good. they're being different." And let me say this, I understand being different, but to completely forgo 40 years and 20 films of development of a now classic character, and not even remotely resemble the films that millions of people have loved for decades, is pathetic.

They didn't use the full on Bond theme (until the credits that is). They removed the shaken not stirred line, yet again (while still paying homage to it I will admit). And not a one-liner in sight. But again, people seem to like it this way. I do not.

The action was not shot with any thought for screen direction, pacing, or just plain ability to follow it. Some action scenes were shot in close-up so much that I could not tell what was going on. This is a trend I see more and more that I am beginning to loathe every time I see it again. The Bourne movies were slightly guilty of it, but they always seemed to let the audience follow along without inducing a terrible headache.

If somebody took Dorothy from the classic Wizard of Oz, A character that everybody knows so well, that everybody loves so much. To take Dorothy and try and turn her into Diana Ross (I'm talking the Wiz here people) is frankly dumb. But I get that people like that movie (I have no idea who). I also get that people love Daniel Craig as James Bond. But this new James Bond, just saddens the hell out of me. And I don't think there will be going back.

C

*here is an afterthought when you go see this movie: it cost $230 million to make. And not once while watching it, could I see that money on the screen. Where did it all go?

Sphere: Related Content