At The Movies Quantum Of Solace

[CaptainLewis]

Director: Marc Forster
Screenwriters: Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade
Starring: Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, Judi Dench, Gemma Arterton
Running Time: 106 mins
Certificate: 12A

Daniel Craig comes crashing back to the big screen, quite literally, in his second outing as James Bond. It's all burning rubber and hot, blue-eyed intensity from the outset as he pursues those responsible for betraying his beloved Vesper at the end of Casino Royale. Only one hour has elapsed since that defining moment, so you’ll forgive 007 for struggling to move on, but director Marc Forster also falls victim and delivers a film which plays like a drawn-out finale. On the upside, this does mean plenty of gob-smacking stunts and Craig switched to permanent ignition.

All that business of saving the world, previously central to the franchise, is almost incidental in Quantum Of Solace. An evil plot hatched by Dominic Greene, posing as an eco-minded entrepreneur (Mathieu Amalric doing a beady-eyed turn, for want of another deformity) seems deliberately hazy, except that he's quietly raping South America of its natural resources. Bond is more concerned by the revelation that Greene is a major player in the secret organisation who wronged Vesper. But making the mission personal narrows the scope of the film. Greene just isn't as important as the demons in 007's head; a bold change to the formula that doesn't always pay off.

With M (a wonderfully deadpan Judi Dench) breathing down his neck, Bond gets his revenge-seeking rocks off by living vicariously through the sultry Camille (Olga Kurylenko). She leads Bond to Greene in the course of her own mission to assassinate the sleazy South American generale (Joaquín Cosio) who left his mark on her as a child. In a middle sequence loaded with symbolism they march through the desert, thirsting only for blood. It comes as no surprise that Forster, best known for esoteric fare like Monster's Ball and Finding Neverland, should centre on this inner turmoil. But even using Camille as a proxy, he can’t get too deep under Bond's skin. And the titular quest for 'solace' is an even bigger tease than Camille herself.

Thankfully, Forster doesn’t hang around too long angling for pathos. Bond has always been a man of action, first and foremost, and there is a generous helping of that from the engine-revving opening car chase along a winding Alpine track to an aerial pursuit over the Bolivian desert, to a good old-fashioned punch-up (albeit upside-down, dangling from ropes). Forster has wisely taken a few notes from the Bourne franchise, dropping the camera into striking distance as the actors tumble over scaffolding and leap across the rooftops of Siena. Curiously, the final set piece is the least spectacular, although it does suit Craig's more down-to-earth Bond.

There is never any lack of tension because Craig, quite naturally, gives the impression of a man who is as much fallible as unflappable. There is also the stink of decaying humanity about him, grown stronger since Casino Royale because as M observes, he is "blinded by inconsolable rage". Largely for that reason, the part is a gift to Craig, who plays it like a heat-seeking missile; dynamic, destructive and always true to the course. It helps too that he has a magnetism which is tough to resist even at his most ruthless. Compared to the rest of the Bond series, Quantum Of Solace is something of an aberration (especially given the unorthodox ending) so it's just as well that Craig stays on target. He is, without doubt, the best Bond thus far. ***

website: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/a133 ... olace.html

[Bond's ghost]

Craig is great as Bond as long as you don't mind he's not Bond. Must be a serious nuanced actor because only they have the mad skills to display glum and morosely grim.
For GODS SAKE this is bond we are talking about! It should be a thrilling romp not a five paragraph excuse for a very sorry performance.

My mistake was thinking Daniel Craig was going to be good for James Bond. He would be different that's for sure but different isn't bad.
Casino was not a good starting point for me, not a bad movie, not a great movie I thought for sure the Bond 22 would get it right bring the story full circle and start off running in the right James Bond direction. What kept Casino form being a great Bond was it was too dependent on other movies and too mocking at it own history completly missing the flavor of the Sean Connery movies, a fine Turkish blend instead going for the taste of bland off brand cigarettes. I thought becasue Daniel Craig was seen a wimp that they over did the action in Casino to prove he is tough. I thought Bond 22 would be down to earth and properly trimmed with all the side items I expect from a Bond movie and from Bond.

Different isn't bad

I said that and I eat those words. It has gone from a good movie, bad Bond movie with Casino Royale. To a bad movie, how the hell did they forget to bring Bond to a Bond movie with Quantum of Solace.

Quantum of Solace should be a career ending disaster. It won't be. It ought to hemorrhage money so badly nobody will ever attempt a stunt like this again. It wont, it will make money. Where does that leave us? With five paragraph trying to wrap it so tightly no one will smell the rotting sturgeon.

[Kristatos]

Quantum of Solace should be a career ending disaster. It won't be. It ought to hemorrhage money so badly nobody will ever attempt a stunt like this again. It wont, it will make money. Where does that leave us? With five paragraph trying to wrap it so tightly no one will smell the rotting sturgeon.

Actually, with a reported $200 million budget and only one major market left to open (Japan), there's a very real possibility that QOS could become the first Bond film ever to lose money. Even if it does go into profit, it won't be by much.

[X3C]

Actually, with a reported $200 million budget and only one major market left to open (Japan), there's a very real possibility that QOS could become the first Bond film ever to lose money. Even if it does go into profit, it won't be by much.

Maybe the producers over estimated the potential profit this time, thinking that it's predecessor earned a lot more than it's alotted budget, they made an assumption that the same thing will happen for the next one. Looks like it won't even surpass it's predecessor or the inflated gross of Die Another Day.

[Eye Of The Tiger]

Actually, with a reported $200 million budget and only one major market left to open (Japan), there's a very real possibility that QOS could become the first Bond film ever to lose money. Even if it does go into profit, it won't be by much.

Maybe the producers over estimated the potential profit this time, thinking that it's predecessor earned a lot more than it's alotted budget, they made an assumption that the same thing will happen for the next one. Looks like it won't even surpass it's predecessor or the inflated gross of Die Another Day.

Another thing they overestimated was their belief that just anyone can play Bond and that the fans will still eat it up. EON (and the Daniel Craig fanboys) underestimated how important Pierce Brosnan was to saving the Bond franchise. Now, if they were to dump Craig and bring in someone like Hugh Jackman or Christian Bale, and then return to the James Bond character that we've always known and loved, then they could pull their fat out of the fire again. But if they make Bond-23 with Daniel Craig and they keep the same boring style that they've used in Craig's first two films, then there may not be a Bond-24, or at least not for a very long time.

[Mazer Rackham]

Actually, with a reported $200 million budget and only one major market left to open (Japan), there's a very real possibility that QOS could become the first Bond film ever to lose money. Even if it does go into profit, it won't be by much.

Maybe the producers over estimated the potential profit this time, thinking that it's predecessor earned a lot more than it's alotted budget, they made an assumption that the same thing will happen for the next one. Looks like it won't even surpass it's predecessor or the inflated gross of Die Another Day.

Another thing they overestimated was their belief that just anyone can play Bond and that the fans will still eat it up. EON (and the Daniel Craig fanboys) underestimated how important Pierce Brosnan was to saving the Bond franchise. Now, if they were to dump Craig and bring in someone like Hugh Jackman or Christian Bale, and then return to the James Bond character that we've always known and loved, then they could pull their fat out of the fire again. But if they make Bond-23 with Daniel Craig and they keep the same boring style that they've used in Craig's first two films, then there may not be a Bond-24, or at least not for a very long time.

Nice points Tiger. I'll call it a night on that.

[katied]

then there may not be a Bond-24, or at least not for a very long time.

[Dominic Greene] And that would make me very sad [/Dominic Greene]. Sorry.Couldn't resist

[The Sweeney]

Another thing they overestimated was their belief that just anyone can play Bond and that the fans will still eat it up. EON (and the Daniel Craig fanboys) underestimated how important Pierce Brosnan was to saving the Bond franchise. Now, if they were to dump Craig and bring in someone like Hugh Jackman or Christian Bale, and then return to the James Bond character that we've always known and loved, then they could pull their fat out of the fire again. But if they make Bond-23 with Daniel Craig and they keep the same boring style that they've used in Craig's first two films, then there may not be a Bond-24, or at least not for a very long time.

But you are talking as though QoS has flopped - it hasn't. CR was a huge BO success, and if QoS doesn't beat it at the BO, so what? The exact same pattern has followed all Bond's at the BO since Moore, where the 2nd outing for a Bond actor hasn't made as much as the first. TMWTGG and TND both didn't do as well as LALD and GE, but this didn't stop them being Bond for a third outing.

And like it or not, Babs loves Daniel Craig, so you are stuck with him for the next 2 films at least.....

[English Agent]

Right we all know by now that QOS was no Citizen Kane, but the faults with the film lay not with the lead actor, but with the poor script and how the film was made.

It would not of made a jot of difference if Bond had been played by Lawrence Olivier or Mr Bean(hel...lo), the result would of been the same.

EA

[katied]

Right we all know by now that QOS was no Citizen Kane, but the faults with the film lay not with the lead actor, but with the poor script and how the film was made.

It would not of made a jot of difference if Bond had been played by Lawrence Olivier or Mr Bean(hel...lo), the result would of been the same.

EA

QOS is most definitely NOT up there with Citizen Kane.But it's preferrable to a LOT of what's in the movie theaters right now.

[carl stromberg]

Right we all know by now that QOS was no Citizen Kane, but the faults with the film lay not with the lead actor, but with the poor script and how the film was made.

It would not of made a jot of difference if Bond had been played by Lawrence Olivier or Mr Bean(hel...lo), the result would of been the same.

EA

I think we can link Daniel to the scene of the crime. Casino Royale was not written for any specific actor (or maybe it was - a YOUNG one!). Quantum on the other hand was written with Craig in mind and to suit his Bond. So the flaws in the QOS Bond character could be down to him.

[Kristatos]

Maybe the producers over estimated the potential profit this time, thinking that it's predecessor earned a lot more than it's alotted budget, they made an assumption that the same thing will happen for the next one. Looks like it won't even surpass it's predecessor or the inflated gross of Die Another Day.

I suspect that was a reason for the short running time. With one, or maybe even two extra showings per screen per day, QOS should have had a huge box office advantage over CR.

[Kristatos]

But you are talking as though QoS has flopped - it hasn't. CR was a huge BO success, and if QoS doesn't beat it at the BO, so what?

It had a bigger budget and needs to make $600 million worldwide in order to show a profit, that's so what. It still had a long way to go last time I checked. With Sony's deal with MGM expiring after this film, it could be harder to find investors for Bond 23. I hope that won't be the case, as I'd hate for QOS to be the film that kills the Bond franchise.

[Mazer Rackham]

But you are talking as though QoS has flopped - it hasn't. CR was a huge BO success, and if QoS doesn't beat it at the BO, so what? The exact same pattern has followed all Bond's at the BO since Moore, where the 2nd outing for a Bond actor hasn't made as much as the first. TMWTGG and TND both didn't do as well as LALD and GE, but this didn't stop them being Bond for a third outing.

Talk about a hypocrite Where's your juggernaut now?
It may not be a complete flop but is is a disappointment (BO wise) for many reasons previously stated. A 360m film (at least with advertising) struggling to make back it dough is a problem. The beak down isn't straight forward, investor and owners still need their take from a rather small pool (so far).

And like it or not, Babs loves Daniel Craig, so you are stuck with him for the next 2 films at least.....

Maybe not mate. Craig my not like making a rather tasteless eyegouging bad series of movies. With the Critics squirming in their seats uncomfortably watching him. If he gets a better opportunity he'll take it, but he's not exactly setting Hollywood on fire with all of the bags of flaming dog s**t he has left on Hollywood's doorstep.

[The Sweeney]

Talk about a hypocrite Where's your juggernaut now?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again now. I couldn't give a toss about BO takings. I never have, and never will. I don't mind predicting the numbers game like everyone else here, and I still think this will exceed CR's takings, but I honestly couldn't care less. Sony and EON are the pockets the money is lining, not mine. If it were mine, maybe I would start to take the BO figures seriously. As long as the BO takings don't spell a disaster and end the franchise, then I ain't bothered.

I'd much rather have had QoS as a film I really enjoyed, and not do diddly squat at the BO, rather than a film I am disappointed in to do great at the BO (which is how I see QoS now).

[bjmdds]

As I predicted to you Sweeney, that QOS would disappoint you, yet at first, you embraced it. Why the DRAMATIC shift?

[Kristatos]

As I predicted to you Sweeney, that QOS would disappoint you, yet at first, you embraced it. Why the DRAMATIC shift?

Errr, he watched it?

[Mazer Rackham]

Talk about a hypocrite Where's your juggernaut now?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again now. I couldn't give a toss about BO takings. I never have, and never will. I don't mind predicting the numbers game like everyone else here, and I still think this will exceed CR's takings, but I honestly couldn't care less. Sony and EON are the pockets the money is lining, not mine. If it were mine, maybe I would start to take the BO figures seriously. As long as the BO takings don't spell a disaster and end the franchise, then I ain't bothered.

I'd much rather have had QoS as a film I really enjoyed, and not do diddly squat at the BO, rather than a film I am disappointed in to do great at the BO (which is how I see QoS now).

Well you were a lot of tough talk a few months ago when I started frequenting here.
But I understand where you're coming from. There is a plethora of good movies that will never make a dime and I too rather a Bond be one of those than the alternative.

[wrenchhands]

Does it make a difference we are in the worst financial shape we have been in a long time?

[Milton Krest]

Quantum of Solace should be a career ending disaster. It won't be. It ought to hemorrhage money so badly nobody will ever attempt a stunt like this again. It wont, it will make money. Where does that leave us? With five paragraph trying to wrap it so tightly no one will smell the rotting sturgeon.

Actually, with a reported $200 million budget and only one major market left to open (Japan), there's a very real possibility that QOS could become the first Bond film ever to lose money. Even if it does go into profit, it won't be by much.

Quite right too, pretenious garbage! maybe eon should not have meddled with an icon! Qos is very bad film making, if it had come from Uwe Boll the guy would be trashed. The last two films i saw from this guy are a damm site better made, directed and most of all fun, than this POS