Rating of
3/4
A Promising Transition to a Potentially Great 24th
Franz Patrick - wrote on 11/21/08
If a person was to read only the first sentence of this review, I would say watch “Casino Royale” right before jumping into “Quantum of Solace” because it is a direct continuation (reminiscent of “Halloween II”–about one hour gap) and there’s plethora of references (such as familiar faces and familiar scenes) to its predecessor. That said, I think this is a good installment in the James Bond franchise but not a great one. Critics complain about how this is not the same Bond they’ve come to know in the past. That argument/complaint has expired since the success of the exemplary “Casino Royale” and I’m not going to get into it. I’ve come to fully accept and love the new Bond (Daniel Craig) even though he reminds me a bit of Jason Bourne (Matt Damon).
One of the reasons why I did not like this film as much as I should have was its running time: it’s only about an hour and forty minutes. I felt like the director, Marc Forster, felt pressured to deliver one action scene after another so he somewhat neglected the story. (Most readers should know that the main components I look for in any film genre is a story and an interesting character study.) Although I find the action scenes nothing short of astonishing and jaw-dropping (not to mention flinch-inducing), during its more silent moments, I wanted to know more about Quantum. It is only briefly mentioned in the end and, as much as I hate to admit, I felt a bit cheated.
Judi Dench is back as M and I found her to be more attainable this time around. Instead of just being Craig’s boss, I thought she was like a mother figure to him. As usual, Bond and M’s conversations are astute and electric. Mathieu Amalric as the villainous Dominic Greene, unfortunately, did not work for me. He’s too much of a coward to be horrifying, a total opposite of Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) of “Casino Royale.” Even though both of the villains mentioned previously are merely pawns of the Quantum organization, a villain is supposed to be interesting in the least, the main character’s foil to be sufficient. As for the new Bond girl Camille, played by Olga Kurylenko, I found her to be irritating. The film tries a little too hard to make her a character that deserves the audiences’ sympathy. She’s got nothing on Vesper (Eva Green), if you ask me. As for Craig, I just love watching him because he oozes charisma in every frame (and I have a thing for secret agents). I’m mesmerized by his icy blue eyes (that rope scene when Craig shoots the guy while being suspended in the air made my heart skip a beat). My stand-out scenes include: the rooftop chase, the Quantum agents’ aggregation (that gave me the chills because it implies that terrorists can meet anywhere in public!), the plane attack, and the last scene in the apartment. Those scenes are so exciting, I tried not to blink.
Overall, this is not the best Bond film but it is definitely worth seeing because it serves as a transition to the next installment. In the untitled “Bond 24″ film, I really want to know more about the Quantum organization. They remind me of the SD-6 organization on “Alias” because they have insidious ways of infiltrating the good guys’ agency. In essence, this film is about trust between each crucial character. And I trust the sequel’s promise to be both adrenaline-fueled and, best of all, revelatory.
