Quantum of Solace (Theaters)
Movies, Three Stars — By CRS on December 16, 2008 at 4:53 am | 17 VisitorsAfter hearing about this movie for a month, I was finally able to go and check it out for myself. Despite the mixed reviews I had heard, I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of depth in this movie not only because it was an action movie but also because it was a Bond movie. There are people who love this movie and people who hate this movie. First of all, this movie does not adhere to the typical Bond movie formula. First off, unlike previous Bonds, this film is actually a direct sequel to ‘Casino Royale’ and it references characters and events from that movie. In order to fully appreciate this film, it is probably best to watch the last movie one more time, although not entirely necessary.
Daniel Craig’s James Bond is definitely a more modern version. This Bond immediately gives the impression that he is trained and equipped to handle any situation. Where previous Bond actors overly relied on gadgets or even plain old luck to get them out of tight situations, this Bond relies strictly on his abilities. Simply put, I wouldn’t think twice about bumping into Pierce Brosnan in the street. Daniel Craig on the other hand, not so much. Seeing him disarm and subdue an elevator full of armed guards in seconds seems entirely believable based on what he has been shown to be capable of. The frenetic action scenes and their pacing are reminiscent of the ‘Bourne’ films, however Craig brings an air of sophistication to every punch he throws or bullet he shoots.
Perhaps the biggest difference in these newer Craig films is the exploration of James Bond as a character. He is no longer limited to just a charming guy with an accent and talent for spitting appropriate one liners as needed. This Bond, while clearly a trained killer, is subject to emotions and feelings. Not to say that the movie overly focuses on Bond’s feelings, but it delves just enough to give the viewer some idea behind the motivations of what makes Bond do what he does. This is the first time I can remember James Bond being protrayed as a character as opposed to the usual caricature of a secret agent stereotype. Anyone going into this movie expecting the usual James Bond template cookie cutter film will be sorely dissappointed. However, those who go in with an open mind looking for a fresh take on the iconic character will not be dissappointed. If anything, the movie is worth seeing for the incredible action scenes alone, the level of character development is merely icing on the cake. I highly recommend this movie to fans of both James Bond and action films alike.
Tags: 007, Daniel Craig, Marc Forster, Olga Kurylenko, Three-Stars
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble it
RSS FeedAuthor: CRS (106 Articles)
My interests are jiu jitsu, MMA, video games, sports, and movies. Keep Chamorru Lands in Chamorru Hands! Save Sasayan Valley!!
12 Comments
Good review and I agree with your observation on the differences between new and old Bond. Personally, I have not seen the film yet, will probably catch it when it is out on DVD.
AsceticMonks last blog post..Baby Mama Review
I haven’t seen this yet, I think the reviews turned me off a little.
My take on this new style bond film is a bit like how the comic book movies have gone, eg Batman is getting darker and darker. Bond is much the same and before I read your review I assumed that it will be more Jason Bourne like, seems like I am correct.
Is this good or bad? I don’t know as they are targeting a different audience nowdays. The old ones had teen (and younger) boys loving these movies – I remember watching Roger Moore in one at school (yes I am that old) but nowdays I wouldn’t really want my son watching this until he is a bit older.
Pauls last blog post..Pokemon Neon Online RPG
“Craig brings an air of sophistication to every punch he throws or bullet he shoots.” See, that makes me want to rent it for sure. I’m also interested because you mentioned that he has a personality and is not cookie cutter. Sweet!
Ayprels last blog post..Townhouse to Apartment
I actually enjoy the older Bond films also, but they are definitely different films for a different generation. I think each Bond actor brings something unique to the character, for better or worse. The thing I like most about Craig is that he brings a physical presence to the role that makes his Bond feel like a genuine “bad ass” while maintaining the suave demeanor that the character is known for. I’m sure his take isn’t for everyone and admittedly he’s not my favorite, but I feel he does a great job breathing new life into a role that had grown a bit stale over the years.
CRSs last blog post..MMA ROUND UP.. BC AND FLORIAN WIN.
No one will ever replace Sean Connery. My all time favorite 007!
I love how Daniel Craig plays Bond. He brings an intensity to the character never seen since Connery.
And for Quantum of Solace, I loved it. It’s not as good as Casino Royale (because it set the bar really high), but it’s definitely better than the Brosnan-era Bond films. But I’m afraid that it’s moving too far away from the Bond formula. I’d like to see some (plausible) silliness in the next Bond film, and at least one gadget (that somehow adheres to the laws of physics). I really missed those.
Ades last blog post..The Tale Of The Guy Who Tried to Outsmart Everyone in the Elevator
I haven’t seen this, and I doubt I will before it comes out on TMN on demand (we get that for free with our cable package). But I do like how DC plays Bond… rough and rugged!
fragilehearts last blog post..Monday Madness: Christmas break
I’ve never really been a Bond fan except for the days when Roger Moore was in the mix – and that was only because he had the coolest gadgets. But when Casino Royale came out and flipped it up with a more realistic, gritty portrayal of the Bond character I’ve been hooked ever since. Quantum of Solace didn’t disappoint either. Its purpose was to help answer the questions left by ‘Casino’ and to stay true to form to the newly established Bond. So far, so good.
Kels last blog post..Guam’s Future Workforce
What bugs me the most is “fans” of the Bond series forget or maybe don’t even care to know that this is his FIRST assignment. Well not really first because it is a sequel but this is his first as a 00 Agent. I mean, we all know Bond to be the heavy drinking, womanizing, egotistical horn dog we love but did anyone care to wonder how he got to that point? The two part movies were perfect for a REBOOT of the series and it just irks me when people whine about where’s the gadgets and blah blah blah…well where the hell is Q? The man responsible for all that? The only Q I saw was in the title. Where’s MoneyPenny? All these “fans” don’t even look at stuff like that when being critical…sorry Trench that’s just Bond ranting…
Overall it was a good movie, Casino Royale was better but it’s an awesome jumpstart for the franchise. The third Craig film should see the Bond we love and maybe the intro of Q and MoneyPenny…
I noticed the absence of Q and Money Penny but I assumed they were left out to avoid some of the campiness of the earlier Bond films. While there is nothing wrong with the earlier films, I get the sense that they are trying to avoid that direction with the newer films and maintain as much “realism” as possible. At this point with only two films, it is hard to say whether they will eventually make an appearance, but I didn’t feel that the new films suffered at all by not including them. I just thought it came with the territory in regards to the new take on the character. Again, different Bond, different generation.
These movies are great no matter who plays the lead. Each actor brings a different interpretation of the character to the screen. None have disappointed.
Brian Ts last blog post..Are Online Campaigns in Our Future?