Newest Bond misses its mark
Courtesy of Movieweb.com
Famous for thwarting the plans of humanity’s most insidious villains for 45 years, it’s hard to believe that in Bond’s 22nd mission, the legacy of the most endearing spy meets its demise at the hands of three Hollywood screenwriters.
As the first direct sequel in the series, “Quantum of Solace” picks up literally hours after the end of “Casino Royale.” Bond (Daniel Craig, “The Golden Compass”) has captured Mr. White, (Jesper Christensen, “Casino Royale”) and is racing back to MI-6 headquarters. At this time, White is Bond’s only lead on the organization that blackmailed and ultimately brought Bond’s true love, Vesper, to her death.
Only moments after arriving, a mole inside MI-6 helps White escape and leads Bond to Haiti where he quickly meets Camille (Olga Kurylenko, “Max Payne”), a woman with her own intentions for the leader of the group Bond is searching for.
Together, they must now try and stop one of the top men in the organization, Dominic Greene, (Mathieu Amalric, “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”) from taking control of one of South America’s most valuable natural resources.
Let’s get something straight. I have never been a fan of the Daniel Craig Bond. I grew up loving the witty and sly Pierce Brosnan Bond, who always got himself involved in some of the most outlandish situations possible.
That being said, while I don’t care for the new gruff and reckless attitude Craig brings to the character, I still thought “Casino Royale” was an exciting action/spy movie. Therein lies the problem with “Quantum of Solace.” Not only is the once charming Bond turned into a careless madman bent on revenge, but the frenetically shot action sequences cause more headaches than they do thrills.
In a time where the Knight is dark and gritty action guys are Bourne, the worst possible thing Hollywood could do is turn the world’s classiest spy to the dark side.
Thanks to the help of screenwriters Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, that is exactly what has happened. With an unnecessary overly complex plot, the three, with help from newbie action director Marc Forster (“The Kite Runner”), create an experience that is confusing, aggravating and, most importantly, not fun.
Though 30 minutes shorter than its predecessor, “Solace” seems to drag on just as long. Usually, the Bond baddies or babes help pass the time by throwing James into unexpected situations, but again, this is not the case.
Amalric is possibly the least threatening villain in the history of 007. His ultimate moment of shame comes when fighting James one on one. Trying to kill Bond by violently swinging an axe at him, Greene releases sounds that resemble the mating calls of African Mangabey monkeys.
Honey Ryder, Pussy Galore and Christmas Jones are just a few of the unforgettable names that made being a Bond girl so special. Once again, Haggis and crew ruin the spirit by creating a character simply named Camille. While Kurylenko does have the looks, James never attempts to bed the fair maiden, a 007 first.
To make matters even worse, the latest Bond movie features no signature catch phrases, no gadgets and quite possibly the worst opening credits song ever recorded.
Something wrong, horribly wrong, has happened to arguably the most iconic cinematic character of all time.
‘Quantum of Solace’
Release Date: Nov. 14
Director: Marc Forster
Starring: Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric and Judi Dench
Genre: Action, Adventure, Thriller
Rating: PG-13 for sequences of violence and action.
Grade: D+
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, November 18th, 2008 at 2:55 am and is filed under Arts & Entertainment, Film Reviews, Vibe.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Print this post
Email this post© 2008 The Nevada Sagebrush
November 18th, 2008 at 2:30 am
Jay, are you familiar with the concept of spoilers? Because that’s what you did in your third paragraph… At least you didn’t identify the world’s (not just South America’s) most precious resource. “Overly complex plot”? Are you sure we saw the same movie? :) It’s a bunch of bad guys who team to monopolize a certain resource; a girl who seeks revenge; CIA *******s. Nothing more to it.
I thought the theme song was alright. I’ve definitely heard worse… Amalric was a new kind villain - the kind that uses words and threats instead of guns and bombs to achieve his goals. Besides, the true villain here was the Quantum.
How is the name Camilla worse than Vesper Lynd (the previous Bond girl)? Or Jinx from the one before that? And does the fact that the heroine doesn’t have a slutty name and doesn’t put out “ruin the spirit” of the movie so much that you feel like giving it a D? I’m not sure whether this says more about the scriptwriters or you…
November 18th, 2008 at 10:34 am
A plea to the editor for the Nevada Sagebrush. Don’t assign someone to engage in film criticism when that person has previously given The Love Guru an A-.
Also, QoS wasn’t that great, but it was certainly better than 3 of the 4 Brosnan shit fests.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:01 am
I have to tollay agree with you on this movie. It wasn’t that i did not like it but casino royal was better and they are taking a formula like bond this formula that has worked for 45 years and turing it into the bourn series which you can’t do given that daniel craig is contrated to do 4 more 007 films i hope with the next one they get the formula right the next time around.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
GREAT REVIEW OF A TRULY CRUMMY MOVIE! THANKS FOR YOUR HONESTY.