Since most of my reviews tend to be ultra-long on here, I'm gonna do myself and the reader a favor by doing a section for quick reviews. As busy as my life has been lately, this may be in effect for a while. The first film I am going to give a quick review is Quantum of Solace.
I got back a few hours ago from seeing this movie and, while everyone I went with seemed to really enjoy it, I couldn't say I felt the same (though I didn't really say anything then because I don't believe in raining on people's parades; someone did that to me after Sin City and I still want to kill them). Although Quantum of Solace is much better than most of the older Bond films, it is nowhere near as good as Casino Royale. It can be entertaining at times but, for the most part, it feels very standard and kind of average. Walking out of the screening, the word on my mind was "meh." After thinking about it some more, I feel like that word still sums it up for me.
Going into Quantum of Solace, I didn't really have any expectations. Although I loved Casino Royale and feel like it completely revitalized and redefined the Bond genre of films, I wasn't really pumped or anything to see this new addition. I mean, I wanted to see it but I definitely didn't have any huge expectations to be shattered. With that said, I was still disappointed.
From minute one, I immediately began to miss the direction of Martin Campbell from Casino Royale. Marc Forster's direction is kind of like that of Paul Greengrass- incredibly shaky and with a very short shot length. However, unlike Greengrass, it's not very effective. The beginning of the film features an overly shaky car cash that I honestly could not tell what was going on in. After a few seconds, my eyes hurt and I just kind of became bored. Most of the rest of the action sequences in the film were like this. Most of the shots in these sequences averaged from one second to half a second. No, really, I am serious. I was so bored / distracted by this filmmaking method that I began to count the shot length. I really really want this method of filming to stop. I believe that there can be a proper way of doing it (see Greengrass' direction in United 93 as opposed to The Bourne Supremacy where even he overused it to a ridiculous amount). Unfortunately, most people that use it are not talented and turn in action sequences that look like vomit. Anyways... moving on...
What else did I not like? Well, the story's pacing was pretty awkward. Even though the film was only an hour and forty minutes, it felt like it was much longer (Casino Royale, on the other hand, was two hours and forty minutes and felt short). I don't feel like a lot of it was particularly memorable. Along with its awkward pacing, the story tends to be overly-confusing at times (something that even my friends who liked the movie agreed on) and, therefore, is not as engaging as it should be. Other than Bond, most of the characters are forgettable (except for Mathis, who is kind of wasted anyways). Even the bad guy (who is pretty weird looking guy) was pretty forgettable. Jeffrey Wright, who is a really great actor, is wasted in a nothing role (though I did just enjoy his presence). Despite all the potential they had of exploring Bond's psyche after what he went through in Casino Royale, they tend to throw it away except for a few particularly effective scenes here and there. What a wasted opportunity. I really didn't like those location-themed titles. They seemed cheesy when compared to the rest of the film's realism. Lastly, Forster's direction and the editing feel very awkward in a few sequences (other than the big action sequences). There's one part where they try to parallel Bond shooting his way through some bad guys with a violent opera that is occurring at the same time. The idea is creative and inspired but the execution is a flawed, muddled mess. Much like all the other action sequences, it's hard to understand what is happening and it's overall unenjoyable.
Did I like anything in this movie? Yes. The main reason to see the movie is to see Daniel Craig continue his awesome portrayal as a very cold but wounded James Bond. Craig's portrayal is just as strong here as it was in Quantum of Solace but, unfortunately, it gets bogged down by a lackluster script and bad direction. Still, it was great to see a continued sense of realism injected into the Bond series. One sequence where this was particularly effective was when Bond attacked Mr. Slate in his apartment. I wasn't expecting this scene to be nearly as brutal as it was. Take that Roger Moore. I have to admit- I did enjoy the little Goldfinger homage they pulled with the oil. That was pretty clever and, at the same time, mean spirited. I liked it. Lastly, towards the end of the film, I felt somewhat of an emotional impact with some of the things that were happening (especially the scene with Bond and the guy at the very end). Too bad that it was at the end of the movie.
Overall, Quantum of Solace is pretty disappointing when you compare it to Casino Royale. All the solid direction, characterization and storytelling are gone. Sure, Craig and the gritty realism are still present but, without a great story or director, there's not much you can really do with this sequel. It's still better than most of the old Bond films but it's not that great either. If I had to label it, I'd say it's just a solid rental. Daniel Craig is still great but he needs a better script and a compotent director to make a better movie next time. And make those shots longer!
6/10
0 comments:
Post a Comment