I will try to get through this without any destructive spoilers but if indeed you are averse to plot details of any sort, better off closing the window now. No hate mail please, you have been warned.
Image- www.filmofilia.com
After the hype and anticipation, I wasn’t disappointed with Bond 22: 007 Quantum of Solace. But, as one reviewer said (on the imdb page) it came across more as a Jason Bourne movie than a James Bond movie, lacking the usual and much loved Bond cheese and flashy gadgetry. Sure, enough there were several unconvincing death defying moments, Daniel Craig’s immensely appealing broodiness coupled with those blue, blue eyes, the amazing-ness that is the Aston Martin (too much of a cameo appearance if you ask me), the wonderful Judy Dench and of course the beautiful Olga Kurylenko. However, considering that I’m not a die-hard Bond fan (and no I haven’t seen most of the older ones) the lack of cheese with this somewhat more believable (well… for Bond) story line and the lack of far too over the top gadgetry did it for me. Thus, the film may not appeal to the average hardcore 007 buff because it really could be any other spy thriller. The only complain was not enough Aston Martin and the missing “Bond… James Bond” line which needless to say completes every Bond film.
Quantum of Solace kicks off after Casino Royale, when a bereaved Bond is seeking vengeance for the death of Vesper Lynd who betrayed him. His grief coupled with rage leads to irrational killings and a bout of violence which descends to the heart of of a secret organization (which blackmailed Vesper) which is rapidly taking over the world’s most important natural resource. Good straight forward plot with no criminally insane villains which border on Austin Powers rather than the fabulous secret world of MI6. Through car chases, crashes and some unbelievably sophisticated stunt/special effects sequences the viewer is drawn to the crux of Bond’s personal conflict intertwined with a graver global ecological problem. So yes, even Bond is going green these days. Huge Kudos points for the fantastic, choppy, rapid editing which heightened the tension and kept the plot moving at a steady pace with no dull moments. Cinematography, not the most brilliant I’ve seen but a couple of sweeping landscape shots and some great juxtapositions deserve much credit. The cast performed brilliantly even though I’m not sure if I was impressed by Jemma Aterton’s weak performance and certainly not the “Ooh Soo Sorry”, in her one catalytic contribution to the plot.
Overall, I’d give it a healthy 7/10 for keeping my interest going at that time of night. Is it my favourite movie of the year?- Not at all (The Dark Knight still RULES). But would I place it in my top 10 so far for 2008?- absolutely. Do I think it’ll kick Mamma Mia’s (Daniel Craig (Bond) vs. Pierce Brosnan (Bond)- hmmm) and High School Musicrap 3’s lame, extra-cheese butts in the box office?- DEFINITELY!
So if it’s screening in a theatre near you this weekend- you know what to do 
Verdict- the Alicia keys + Jack White Collaboration on “Another Way To Die”: TOTALLY works as Bond theme. I LOVED the opening credits with a retro 70’s pin-up silhouette + eco twist and the theme now to me beats Chris Cornell’s “You Know My Name”.
Going to see it this weekend. I was kinda disappointed to know that the “Bond — James Bond” bit was cut even though I’m not a Bond fan but let’s see what they’ve done with the movie!
Songshards- Yeah I’m not a huge Bond fan either but that line is just too iconic! Post a review when you have- enjoy!
I went with high expectations, but ended up walking out of the theater with mixed feelings. I don’t want to spoil this, so I’ll just give a brief view of my feelings about the movie.
1. There was practically no humor in it at all. I tend to like the witty Bond humor that comes out, and it just wasn’t there. Something was missing without it.
2. My wife commented that Bond didn’t use any unique or interesting weapons/devices. In Casino Royale, we at least had the cool anti-poison defibrilator thingie in the car. It’s as if the director (who also did Bourne movies) got lost in the “tough guy” aspect of it, gave Bond a .380 and a lot of Bourne-style fight scenes, and figured it was enough. The movie comes across as James Bourne flick. Odd that my wife would notice such a thing, but I didn’t.
3. This movie is dark. I can’t think of a single soul being lighthearted in it. It’s continually serious all of the time.
4. In an attempt to make the evil organization seem so secretive, they didn’t give the viewer enough to go on. This left my wife and I feeling a bit underwhelmed by “the villain” aspect of the picture.
5. Bond didn’t have enough sex. The girl he slept with wasn’t even the one we expected he would sleep with in the previews. No witty foreplay. No tension. What a downer! Again… too serious!
6. The typical Hollywood anti-war digs were in there… using Euro dollars instead of US dollars, “…because the US dollar isn’t worth much due to wars” or however they put it. Also, the comment on the US being wrapped-up in the Middle-East while ignoring South America came off as some sort of dig.
7. The new James Bond dude looks like he’s aged a lot from the last movie. Facially, anyway, he’s got quite a few more wrinkles. He was often dirty and ragged in this flick, which made it seem worse. I bet blu-ray will REALLY highlight this. Sure, he’s in great shape, but his face is looking so old it was almost hard to see him frolicking with someone much younger, if you catch my drift. I wonder if this will affect how long he continues to be a Bond guy?
8. The camera shakes way the hell too much!!! It’s one thing to use the camera to make the scene look more action-packed, but when it turns the scene into a blur for several seconds over and over again… it’s too much!
9. The opening graphics were boring. Casino Royale’s were a work of art.
So overall, I guess I was not particularly impressed.
Totally agree with all the points highlighted by Baccusboy. I too went with high expectations but came out disappointed. The typical Bond movie theme has drifted away and this is just an action packed thriller. When compared with recent other action thrillers this movie stands far far behind them. Special effects and action scenes were some what OK but they move so fast without giving spectators a chance to grasp exactly what’s happening.
BaccusBoy-
1. Agreed. Although the cheap wine remark was mildly amusing. But Bond’s humour was lacking although it was probably keeping with this emotional distress.
2. Agreed. A Sony Cybershot phone is not my idea of cool technology.
3. Serious was a part of the appeal to me, but as my disclaimer I’m not a hardcore Bond fan and I liked the movie divorced from the franchise.
4. I’m probably over analysing as I do- but I think the film maker intended on dwelling on Bond’s personal crisis more than crazy villains. If anything the skirmish between “good” and “bad” was within Bond himself with his conflicting motives of revenge and duty.
5. Bond was still hung up on Vesper Lynd- am I the only one who’s considering this as a film more about personal conflict than boy’s toys and gold painted bombshells? They are breaking away from the tradition and reinventing the franchise which I thought was quite obvious. We all know Bond films are a bit on the chauvinistic side anyway!
6. Not an issue- there is no film independent of ideology or anti-ideology.
7. PERSONAL TURMOIL!
8. I think the film maker’s intention was to position the viewer in the centre of the action but it didn’t work out as well he had hoped. But, the choppy editing probably was an over-compensation for the lack of a plot. There were NO surprises in that film.
9. You know what they say about the eye of the beholder.
Old Sailor- As I’ve said I think they are re-inventing the franchise. We live in a hyper-reality where our senses are being constantly assaulted by rapid shifts in the environment and this is simply a reflection of the time. But it’s compensating for a good plot and anything slower the movie would have bombed- it helped keep the interest going. It is certainly no Dark Knight. 2008 has been rather cinematically abysmal anyway.