E-mail
Print
A martini done wrong
New Bond fails to meet expectations
By Darin Kwilinski
On his action movie directorial debut, Forster shamelessly mimics the “Bourne” series in his action sequences, and, with an already weak plot to begin with, races through the narrative so he can keep up the pace and get the audience to the next action scene.
Let me pose a question for you, the reader: What is a Michael Bay movie without explosions? The answer? Nothing. It just wouldn’t be a Bay movie without something blowing up. So what is a James Bond movie without gadgets and espionage? You guessed it: nothing.
Such is the case of “Quantum of Solace,” a half-hearted first action movie attempt for indie director Marc Forster ("Finding Neverland"), one that ultimately falls short of expectations due to uninspired action scenes and a fairly poor script.
Taking place shortly after “Casino Royale,” the movie follows Bond as he tracks down a super-secret organization attempting to control the water supply of Bolivia while also seeking revenge for the loss of Vesper, his love from the last movie. And that’s about it. While the plot seems straight forward enough, the narrative is the only thing that is slow to develop. So slow, in fact, you end up watching 30 minutes of action before anything notable happens.
Daniel Craig reprises his role as James Bond and does well once again. He seems comfortable with the character, but he is given little to work with compared to his last outing as Bond. “Casino Royale” was all about Bond’s introduction into the world of espionage, and “Quantum of Solace” fails to move the character forward in any way. Instead we are treated with an even more blunt version of Bond than the last time, which is a disappointment, to say the least.
No James Bond movie would be complete without a Bond girl, and while “Solace” gives the audience the eye candy, the substance just isn't there. Olga Kurylenko plays Camille, a woman who, like Bond, is out for revenge for the loss of her family. Like Craig, Kurylenko does what she can with her character, but somewhat limited screen time and a lack of development lead to only a passable performance.
A worthy mention is Judi Dench, who returns as M, is a veritable scene stealer. She gets most of the humorous lines and adds some much needed weight to the film.
As I mentioned before, you can’t have a Bond movie without gadgets and espionage, and this Bond flick is regrettably missing both. There is only one scene that resembles anything like spying, which also showcases the only gadget that the audience is never introduced to. Any other time Bond is making progress is through a car chase or fist fight.
Director Marc Forster was quoted as saying took on this Bond project because he read Orson Welle's only regret was never doing a mainstream movie. Frankly, that is a terrible reason to take on such a high profile, high expectation movie like “Quantum of Solace,” especially with “Casino Royale” essentially revitalizing the franchise. On his action movie directorial debut, Forster shamelessly mimics the “Bourne” series in his action sequences, and, with an already weak plot to begin with, races through the narrative so he can keep up the pace and get the audience to the next action scene.
The main problem with the movie is how fast it moves. It literally skims over every important detail at a pace that would make a roller coaster blush. Nothing is allowed to sink and dialogue is weak and ineffective, which robs the audience of the passionate, brash but lovable, work-in-progress Bond we fondly remember from “Casino Royale.”
To sum it all up, this Bond movie was not ordered "shaken, not stirred," but shallow, no substance. It’s passable as an action flick, but you can’t make just any action movie, put Bond’s name on it and expect it to work. The action has to be mixed with espionage, womanizing and gadgetry at a reasonable, digestible pace. It may seem unfair to keep comparing “Quantum of Solace” to “Casino Royale,” but this was made as a sequel, and as such, it falls short. It’s worth a rental, but not the price of admission.
> Comments