After the embarrassment that was “Die Another Day”, the James Bond franchise was in serious need of retooling. The producers did exactly that, and I thought it was a success on every level. I really liked Casino Royale. The sequel, Quantum of Solace, is a huge letdown. It was nihilistic, relentless, and at times unintelligible. I was actually left feeling nostalgic for the old cheesy Bond films. If Roger Moore flew across the screen in jet pack, pursued by generic goons with spear guns, and dropped a pun about stuffing Christmas Jones, I would have stood up and applauded.
Attention, Modern Action Directors: Incomprehensible, quick-cut action scenes are the worst thing to happen to the action genre since Michael Bay. Hey, maybe he’s responsible for them. Probably not, but I’m going to blame him anyway. I really fucking hate Michael Bay.
Quantum of Solace has two impossible-to-follow sequences: the opening car chase and an on-foot pursuit. At no time did I have any grasp of what I was watching. If you revisit action movie benchmarks such as Die Hard, The Road Warrior, or Raiders of the Lost Ark, you’ll notice that all the action sequences are easy to follow and there’s little chance epileptics will be left convulsing in their seats. At no point is the audience left stupefied by perplexing scenarios.
In the spectacular climax of the Road Warrior, for instance, it’s easy to ascertain exactly what is happening and who is involved. You get a sense of proximity, you know how many vehicles there are, and you understand what is happening to whom. If I attempted to answer who, what, where? in Quantum of Solace’s opening sequence, the only response I could offer is a vapid stare.
Mark Forster was recruited to direct this movie. He’s purportedly an art house movie darling behind films such as “Finding Neverland” and “Monster’s Ball”. Perhaps he’s out of his element here, because I thought some of “Quantum of Solace” was ham-fisted hack work. The foot chase sequence was already totally unintelligible due to the quick cuts, and to make matters worse he intercut the scene with shots from a horse race. Oh I get it! It’s a chase! He employs a similar tactic in the opera house where a death within the opera itself parallels onscreen carnage. Clap, clap. Bravo! Maybe he thinks lowbrow movie goers need this juxtaposition to follow along. We don’t, but better direction would be nice.
There are also some really confusing plot points involving Bond’s friend/nemesis Mathis. Who was he working for ultimately? Why was he killed? (I know. That was a spoiler. Don’t worry the movie was spoiled long before I gave away plot details. It’s been out for three weeks anyway. Get your asses in gear, people). I don’t consider myself particularly obtuse, but a little clarity would have been appreciated.
I think Daniel Craig was a really good choice for James Bond. He’s looks appropriately menacing, athletic, and calculating-much closer to the character Ian Fleming created. Where’s the charm though? It’s not Daniel Craig’s fault; the script wasn’t good. Bond needs to be more than a stone-faced, relentless sociopath. No, he doesn’t need to be spouting ridiculous double entendres at every opportunity, but a little personality would really round out the character. Without it he just becomes Jason Bourne.
I can only recommend this movie to fans, who frankly have already seen it. For those who need a ranking system: I’ll give it a 2 out of 5. James Bond needed a retooling. I just hope they don’t take it too far and leave nothing left of the character that so many people know and love.
Paul Sykes will return in……His review of Slumdog Millionaire.
No comments:
Post a Comment