Bond and Camille in search of Quantum of Solace's plot.
Why does everything have to be so gritty and epic these days? Some would be surprised to hear me say this, but there's nothing wrong with having fun with a film. The Bourne Saga wasn't so brilliant that every action film has to try and emulate it anyway.This is especially the case for the Bond series, one of the largest franchises in movie history.
The series' appeal can be broken into three sections:
1. Real stunts.
No pixels were harmed in the making of this film.
2. A larger than life hero fighting larger than life villains.
The reason the Korean War ended in a stalemate? They fought with guns instead of hats.
3. Humour that transcended cheesiness.
Yeah...not what I meant.
Then MGM and EON Entertainment decided to reboot the series to make it, well, what every other action film wanted to be. Gone were the gadgets, the tropes and the fun characters. In was a blonde Bond (why did people make such a big deal out of this?) to take the series 'back to its roots' with a remake of the first ever Bond film adapted from the first ever Bond novel - Casino Royale. The interesting thing is that it worked. The action, the vistas, the pacing, it was marvellous. Daniel Craig proved he was worthy of playing this iconic character, even if he couldn't deliver a one-liner without sounding embarrassed.
Two years later out came Quantum of Solace, the first literal sequel in the franchise's history. And what did we get?
1. CGI injected, ADD addled action scenes.
Look at that. Look at it. Do you want to spend your money to go to the cinemas in order to see this? Do you even care about what's happening here?
The action in this film is simply meaningless. The movie sets it up for about twenty seconds, often with an amateur effect like cutting out the sound or going into slow motion, and then Bond runs in and kills his opponents so quickly and effectively - all without taking a single punch - you'll wonder if director Marc Forster only shot these sequences because he felt obliged. The worst fight is certainly a scene where Bond confronts villain Dominic Greene, only to run away in a chase scene intercut with shots of a Puccini opera. I actually laughed aloud.
2. The characters are bland and uninspired.
This is the main henchman in the film. His name is Elvis. His gimmick is that in the third act he has a neck brace.
The only character who gets any consideration from the script is Bond. His motive is vengeance for the death of Vesper in Casino Royale. Revenge is the cliche motivation of every action hero these days, but at least he has motivation. Most characters, including Bond girl Camille and CIA agent Felix just waste space on the screen, and it's up to other characters to drop a line or two close to the end of the film in order to give them any value. The characters who do have motivation, however, don't get the screen time to make us care. The biggest disappointment is certainly the incredible French actor Mathieu Amalric's Dominic Greene though. He gives us nothing, and his wicked scheme - to take control of 60% of Bolivia's water - is worse than the Die Another Day theme song.
3. The film is played straight and without purpose.
Her name is Strawberry Fields. We don't find that out until THE CLOSING CREDITS!
Daniel Craig still sucks at one-liners. That isn't the real issue though. The issue is that Quantum of Solace is a direct sequel to Casino Royale, but beyond minute references the only real link is the last two minutes of the film. Before that we don't get much but sweeping shots of a CGI Bolivian desert. So not only is this film played straight, but everything else that is so enjoyable about Bond films - a dangerous enemy, grand locations, and a simply awesome ending - are forgotten too.
The film makes slight reference to earlier Bond film License to Kill by featuring a subplot where M is trying to apprehend Bond after fearing that he's going rogue. The reason she thinks this is the case is that she has been told Bond is responsible for killing basically everyone who winds up dead in the film. This is not true, and even though M keeps saying that she trusts Bond completely he never corrects her! If he did the film could have been cut in half. Then you could have removed the other half too, because in trying to set up the idea of a massive evil organisation behind the scenes of these new 007 films it neither contributes nor resolves anything. In fact, I would go as far as to say all it does is waste film.
Unless MGM wants to go bankrupt again the new Bond film that was recently announced better reboot the reboot. Sure, they could close the storyline they set up at the close of Casino Royale, but after this film I don't think anybody would care. Give us Jaws, Xenia Onatopp or Nik Nak any day.
No comments:
Post a Comment