James Bond: Quantum of Solace --- reviewed by Craig "The Movie Geek" Silliphant
Sound Off!
Got something to say?
Sound off in Comments
Sound off in Comments
Share This Blog Post
Can't see the 'ShareThis' icon? Reload your page view by pressing Shift and clicking Refresh at the same time.
Dir: Marc Forster Stars: Daniel Craig, Judy Densch
Synopsis: Picking up where Casino Royale left off, Bond follows his need for revenge until he stumbles upon international intrigue.
It did a whopping 70 million smackeroos at the box office --- shows were already sold out when I showed up for the Friday night screening (always buy advance tickets for shows like this...). I'd have to say upon first blush that Quantum of Solace isn't quite as electric as Casino Royale, but since Royale was also oddly anti-climactic, Quantum feels like a tighter movie. It's also only 1 hour and 47 minutes --- the shortest Bond movie I can ever remember.
They've done a good job of hiring a proper director --- Marc Forster. In the days of Brosnan, they were still using lame Micheal Bay-style directors like Lee Tamahori. Forster directed such smart fare as Monster's Ball and Finding Neverland. I think they must have borrowed this model from the Bourne movies (among other aspects of the movies), who used brilliant indie directors like Paul Greengrass to re-invent the spy/action genre.
The reviews have been mixed --- some people complain there's not enough character development. People --- we're watching a Bond movie here. Since when does that ever involve character development? I would suffer to say that Bond has enjoyed more character development in the last two movies than he's ever had! Judi Densch is a force to be reckoned with, and she and Craig light up the screen in their all-too-brief scenes together.
Daniel Craig is the real strength behind this movie. He smolders with vengeance and carries a lot of the movie.
When all is said and done, you'll be happy to watch this movie on Christmas Day on TBS during one of their Bond marathons. It's a slightly above average entry into the cannon --- however, there's not much to distinguish it from other Bond or spy movies. Casino Royale made us see Bond in a new light, and Quantum of Solace continues that, even if they don't have more to offer than Royale did.
3 and a HALF Dorks out of 5 on the Geek-o-Meter.
Comments
funny how they made a huge
funny how they made a huge case out of America basically being an imperial force...
You didn't mention how
You didn't mention how stupid the title is!!!
Blame the title on Ian
Blame the title on Ian Fleming, not the filmmakers. They wanted to continue using original Fleming Bond titles and "Quantum of Solace" was the most appropriate. The story has to do with unrequited love, although it is completely unique from the movie aside from the name, and how all relationships need a Quantum of Solace to work. Don't exactly know what that means, but it's worth something. haha Now there's only four original Bond titles left: "Risico", "The Hildebrand Rarity", "007 in New York" and "Property of a Lady". I'm betting the name will be "Risico" or an entirely original one. I couldn't see them using the other three. Oh yeah, and regarding the movie of "Quantum of Solace", I liked it a lot. I'm particularly aggravated by people who believe Bond has become too serious and should go back to pure escapism. Although I love the old Bond movies, I have no desire to see the new ones return to the comical hijinx of Roger Moore. How come critics so often complain that films are mere "popcorn entertainment" or "mindless action", but when Bond attempts to be something more, they complain? I don't get it. Glad to see you enjoyed it.
I wanted to say I agree with
I wanted to say I agree with your last statement. Besides, what's wrong with "mindless action?" After a hard days work a little "mindless action" goes a long way. Can't a movie just be entertaining without being deep and meaningful?
It was awesome!!! Not as
It was awesome!!! Not as good as Casino Royale, but a good time!
Add New Comment