If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. That’s an old proverb, I gather, though from where it comes I’m not sure; I first heard it uttered by a professor in college. It’s stuck with me ever since, and I’m employing here because it seems appropriate. I do not understand the critical dislike of Quantum of Solace, and the more passionate people get in striking it down, the more puzzled I become. Critically, it didn’t actually fare all that badly—certainly not at the box office, and its Rotten Tomatoes average is a respectable 64%—but from what one hears, it’s almost as if the filmmakers committed some mortal sin in releasing it. I liked Quantum of Solace when I saw it in cinemas, and just days ago, when I watched it back-to-back with Casino Royale on Blu-Ray before seeing Skyfall, I liked it even more. Too many people, I would contend, are carrying hammers. This is in no way a bad film.
The mainstream reviews paint a fuzzy picture of why Quantum copped a backlash. There are conflicting accounts, for instance, about the seemingly endless action set pieces that make up most of the movie. Critic James Berardinelli, along with Slate’s Dana Stevens, contended that director Marc Forster, better known for more thoughtful works like The Kite Runner, wasn’t cut out for action films, and that he relied too heavily on the shaky-cam technique popularized by the Bourne franchise; but conversely, the Chronicle’s Mick LaSalle praised Forster for not relying on shaky-cam. Roger Ebert took a holistic approach, asserting that Quantum of Solace was not a real Bond film to begin with—it had no cartoony, eccentric villain, and it didn’t have a real Bond girl (in as much as, in Ebert’s words, “Camille”—played by Olga Kurylenko—is not a bizarre enough a name for a Bond girl).
(Incidentally, the ‘not a Bond film’ tack is an interesting one for Ebert to take. He praised Skyfall, giving it his highest commendation, yet it, at least to my mind, continues down much the same track as Quantum of Solace, and is perhaps even less a Bond flick than Quantum. Skyfall is the darkest Bond yet—it is largely humorless, it contains no gadgets, and it doesn’t have a ‘real’ Bond girl either, for the character Sévérine is only onscreen for a few scenes. It’s no more a Bond film than Quantum, and if ‘Bond-ness’ can actually be quantified, it would probably be the least Bond-like film in the franchise.)
Most will be aware of what Quantum’s core problem is: it heavily references Casino Royale’s plot and characters, yet it makes no effort to remind the viewer what went on in that picture. Given that Quantum requires the viewer to have an intricate knowledge of its predecessor, anybody that doesn’t remember Casino Royale’s finer details or that never saw Casino Royale will have a miserable time. The criticism that Quantum of Solace is unwilling to help the viewer navigate its story is certainly valid, but it is not as if the film dies by this mistake. Consider its structure: it begins, quite literally, seconds after Casino Royale ends (see this YouTube clip which merges the end of Casino Royale and the beginning of Quantum together). It does not even open with the traditional gun barrel shot, because that would break the flow between the two movies. It’s a mistake to treat Quantum of Solace as its own film. It’s really just ‘Casino Royale: Part Two,’ and watched in tandem like that, the narrative problem disappears completely. That doesn’t mean it’s right to leave new viewers out in a lurch—a few title cards or a few extra lines of dialogue could have solved this problem easily—but we have home video and we have streaming video, and Casino Royale is at our fingertips at all times. We cannot pretend as if the decision to not recap it was a major folly.
Quantum of Solace missteps in one other way: it is oversaturated with action. It seems that Bond can’t make a move without some goon turning on him, and the film would certainly have been better served with three fewer action scenes and ten more minutes of exposition. Despite that, the action is as good as it’s ever been. I disagree with the charge that Forster directs action poorly. The claim that he abuses the shaky-cam technique is perhaps a little inaccurate; rather, he directs with flair, forgoing more traditional shots that, in some cases, would serve him better. Forster rarely shakes the camera about. Instead, he cuts between shots quickly, so one gets the sense that the camera is moving about awkwardly when he in fact is simply cobbling together an exaggerated montage. It’s an interesting approach, and though it’s hardly perfect, I certainly wouldn’t call it a failure. His technique is better suited to more open environments, but it doesn’t work as well in confined spaces. This is most evident in the opening car chase. The rest of the film is much more run-of-the-mill, but in this opening salvo, Forster produces a frenetic (if somewhat confusing) car duel with plenty of close-ups of Craig and below-the-wheel angles that, at least in this case, fail to convey what’s going on. Pay close attention, though, and you’ll see that he’s not actually moving the camera: he’s just intercutting very, very quickly.
Again, it’s important to emphasize that the rest of the action is comparatively slow paced, so this scene is something of an aberration—I’m including it because it handily demonstrates his unique approach. The myriad other action scenes are capably handled. And while the quick cutting may not be to everyone’s taste—it certainly isn’t to mine—we can say that Forster accomplishes what he was trying to achieve: he consistently provides tense, entertaining set pieces. Happily, it all comes together in the end, for the film’s concluding fight scene in the glass hotel is one of the better action sequences in the Bond franchise. With the place burning down, explosions all around, and glass shattering everywhere, Forster’s eye for unusual angles pays off. He films an exquisite-looking battle that has plenty of stunning moments. The cinematography and fight choreography in this scene is some of the best you’ll see in the action genre as a whole.
Quantum of Solace also succeeds in its characterization of Bond, who appears just as lifelike here as he was in Casino Royale. Bond is now a tragic figure, a man chasing what little humanity he has left in him. Vesper Lynd was that humanity, I suppose, and that is why he clung to her. When he lost her, he lost all hope of reclaiming himself. Quantum of Solace illustrates just how callous he has become. Though the action may come across as gratuitous, I suspect there’s something else there, some subtext to it all. In Quantum, Bond goes looking for a fight. The fighting ultimately comes to an end once the body count is high enough, and once the man has simmered down. But revenge is empty, and the trail of bodies behind him only reinforces just how meaningless the whole endeavor was. And we see just how vacant Bond has now become in Skyfall. This isn’t exactly heady stuff, but it’s a radical about-face for the franchise. The James Bond flicks previous dwelled behind an incredibly superficial, overly comical, at times vapid veneer. Now, these films are proudly designated for a mature audience. Whatever thoughtful subject matter there is here is well-handled. It’s interesting, and it makes Bond more relevant than he’s ever been. And, crucially, it’s Quantum of Solace that really establishes this new Bond. Skyfall follows the path it set. (Mild spoilers for Skyfall follow here.)
I thought Skyfall was terrific, though more could have been done with the Bond character than simply filling in the blanks in his origin story. (Skyfall encroaches into Batman Begins territory at times.) For instance, it’s hinted at that Bond is addicted to alcohol and painkillers, but that subplot is ditched almost as soon as it is raised. There’s plenty of avenues for exploration there (recall Season Three of 24, where Bauer is addicted to heroin), and one hopes they’ll return to this in the future, perhaps in the next film (we’ll find out in two or three years, I suspect). What direction they go in will largely be dictated by Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, part one and part two of the same story. Quantum of Solace upped the action ante adeptly, and Skyfall carried on in tone, though with a much more measured approach. Quantum of Solace is the weakest of the three films, but it is still a fine film, and as far as I’m concerned, in the context of the Bond franchise, Craig’s three films—including Quantum—easily slot into the top five, with two Connery pictures filling out the other two spots. Quantum of Solace is not a nail, and we shouldn’t be looking to hammer it in. Instead, consider that it should be merged with Casino Royale—and if you, like I, think Casino Royale is the best Bond film, then Quantum of Solace is right there with it.
I think you argued your point very well, but are very wrong. QUANTUM's main problem was that it was way too political, but had no great political statement to make. The villain's plan is to pretend to be a pioneer on the oil market in order to secretly control all the water in Bolivia at the expense of poor villagers. The CIA turns out to be helping him, which is particularly offensive to American viewers (in the earlier Bond films, MI6 and the CIA were the closest of allies, like they are in the real world). But even ignore the CIA subplot and the villain's evil scheme is the most pretentious of political commentaries: The US and UK are so concerned with protecting oil they are ignoring right and wrong and risking the most basic natural resource (water). Not only is this an absurd over-simplification (if outright lie) about current global events, it is in not expressed eloquently or originally, and it is in no way entertaining to watch. If you want to watch political commentary, you could just turn on Fox News or CNN. This is James Bond. Yes, if Sean Connery's Bond had really existed he would have started a nuclear war by shooting every KGB agent he could find, but it didn't matter, since watching him shoot KGB agents was really fun. What is not fun is watching him do black market politicing with corrupt UN officials and joyously offing random people who don't even have the decency of wearing bladed bowler caps or steel canines.
I will say that when I read Roger Ebert's review I was surprised by his criticism of the Bond girl. Camile (Olga Kuryenko) was probably the greatest partner Bond had since Michele Yeoh's appearance in Tomorrow Never Dies, and by sexualizing that relationship it would have greatly detracted from the movie. She was not the Bond girl, since she wasn't girlish, she was a conflicted assassin just like him. The Bond "girl" was Gemma Arterton's bland Strawberry Fields, who's name is most definitely Bond-ish. Of course, Quantum killed that character very swiftly with their not-so-subtle nod to Goldfinger (because oil is this age's gold, get it?!?!?!?).
@VioletEyedDragon: Wow, I fully agree.
Also, Quantum of Solace was not very entertaining.
Your long argument makes me want to re visit Quantum of Solace. I've only seen it the one time and I remember being very disappointed as I absolutely loved Casino Royale. Perhaps I'll watch it again my opinion might change.. or reinforce what I remembered from my first experience.
@VioletEyedDragon: That's a very interesting take. I will say that the basic plot was actually based on real events, so the water thing is sound, but yes, the overall CIA/MI6 geopolitics are a little silly. (Sadly, it's still one of the most coherent Bond films. The franchise has never been the place to go for good storytelling.) The political dimension falls flat for me too—but so flat that I don't even notice it.
In a way, I think it's just lazy writing. I don't think they intended for anyone to take that aspect of the story seriously. It's just there to create a reason for Bond to be in the middle of a cluster-eff, but they definitely should have done better.
Had more reviews taken your approach, I think the general criticism of the film would be more valid, but I can honestly say I've never heard anyone take your position before. None of the reviews I linked to brought the politics of the movie up, and none of the other ones I've read mentioned this. Instead, Ebert's content arguing that the movie failed because the villain didn't have a base on the moon and Bond didn't have sex with the Bolivian chick.
In this case, I think you've trumped them all.
I felt it was too up its own backside tbh.
It had a chance to build upon the great work established by Casino Royale and it almost seemed to me like it was trying too hard to not be similar to any other bond's story wise.
It didn't work well.
Casion Royal missed some big parts of what I think should make it into a bond film, but introduced enough new elements that those things could be forgotten or forgiven. Quantom did not have the same level of success.
Is it wrong too expect certain things from a Bond film in the ways you mention Ebert's review did? Maybe. But I think the majority of people will still expect those things, whether its fair to or not.
While the action scences were well done, everything else just came across as half baked. The story was flimsy, the organisation hinted in the trailers to be so large and secretive was thrown away like it was nothing and the villian was so incompetent he axed himself in his own foot.
It honestly had no real bond hooks. Anything intriguing that could be potentially developed at the beginning of the film just wasn't. One of the few positive highlights for me was Camile and I'm glad they didn't shack up, she was a better character for it.
Reading it back, my criticism seems vague, but in short, comparing Casion Royal and Quantom, its clear to me that more care was put into Casino. It was their big relaunching and they took some risks, but those risks paid off in setting this new Bond on the right path.
Quantom came along and it seemed like it thought the relaunch work was all but done. A half baked film was made and as a result, the chance they had to cement this new Bond was wasted. While servicable in its action, as part of the franchise it was a wasted opportunity. No real character development takes place, or certainly not in the manner in which it really could have.
I haven't yet seen Skyfall, so I can't comment on where they are taking the films now, but Quantom taste sour to me not because of what it did, but because of what it didn't do.
I think Quantum of Solace is a good Bond film, but it's not one of the best films in the series. You, however are right, Matthew. It literally is Casino Royale Part 2, and I thought it ended nicely, with a subplot that was mentioned in the first film tied off well.
Just writing this makes me want to see it again, tonight.
Thank you for this. This does contradict with the Skyfall review on this site, which pretends Skyfall is some kind of reboot.
I loved Quantum of Solace, not as much as Casino Royale, but still.
Casino Royale is greatly benefited as a result of this movie, and after you guys do a second viewing of CR and QOS in order, you should do it again to see how CR gets a more detailed backstory. This mostly shows up with the Vesper stuff, and it really makes the two movies so layered and rewatchable.
Quantum of Solace was beautiful, right from the beginning car chase, which was a bit confusing the first time i viewed it, but it's still such a cool scene. The rest of the movie follows along, like the parachuting outside of the airplane for example, that was great! I appreciated how the movie was a follow up, but totally original in it's own right.
QoS is a 5/5 movie for me.
One of my main issues with QoS (which I watched again recently too, but had the opposite reaction to you: I thought it was far worse than I remembered) was the direction itself, primarily the over-reliance on CGI. The Bond franchise has always been known for real stunts and practical effects, but QoS decided to largely throw them out of the window in order to have Bond fling down chains and run across impractically designed exploding glass buildings. I get it, you want to have the camera stay with the action and CGI lets you do that. But it also looks false, and feels it. And unfortunatly QoS felt like it took place on a sound stage in the middle of Oz. For all their attempts at being dark and bitter, it was too clean. The action didn't mesh with the 'serious' political story they were trying to present, and it all just seemed clumsy. It almost felt like the director had recently watched the Bourne movies and thought, "hey, let's do something like this for Bond, only make it more extreme!". It didn't work, it came across as flat and easy, and most of all it lacked tension. Seeing a real actor jump between moving objects is a thrill. It's dangerous, it's a risk. It comes across on screen as physical drama, which adds to the actual drama. Seeing a waxy, rubbery computer generated model of Daniel Craig do it doesn't. It feels scripted. Visually impressive, sure, but emotionally ineffective. Worst still, it dilutes the rest of the action down to the point where none of the action scenes feel specular in any real way. And when the action doesn't feel specular, and that's 80% of your film, what's there left to?
I struggle to really remember anything from Quantum of Solace, and that to me was its principal failing. It didn't have a particularly memorable or exciting story and its antagonist was severely weak, such that the film comes across as bland and generic. That's not to say it's a bad movie, just not a very good Bond movie. Shame really, as I think there are some good ideas in there.
In Quantum of Solace, the bad guy has his HQ on top of a bunch of barrels filled with combustibles in the middle of the desert.
That's all I have to say about Quantum of Solace.
@EnSabac: @matthew_floratis: thanks guys. I'd love to see this "It's Not That Bad" idea become a weekly column on screened, exploring a different movie each time. These types of reviews always get the best discussion.
@VioletEyedDragon: will definitely keep that in mind! I agree with you.
I think the main problem with this film is that it came after Casino Royale... That movie is awesome and if that wasn't enough it was followed by Skyfall that IMHO is almost as good as Casino Royale. So, it's not a bad movie per se just seems lackluster in comparison to such great additions to the Bond mythos. Now, if we talk about Die Another Day... Yuck! worst Bond movie ever! Worst Bond theme song Ever!
There's only one and only redeemable thing about this movie, and she's called Olga Kurylenko (although Gemma Arterton also comes to mind :P - yummy!)
@Praetor_fenix said:
I hate myself for sort of liking that song.
Thank you! I've never really got the hate for Quantum. I mean, there's definitely valid criticisms for the movie (it's visually sloppy, sometimes, and if you're not familiar with the events of Casino Royale you'll be very much out of the loop, the villain is boring, the political stuff is bizarre), but anybody who says it's the worst Bond film ever is either out of their god damn mind or hasn't seen any of the actually bad Bond movies (like, you know Die Another Day/Diamonds Are Forever/Man With The Golden Gun). Sure, opinions, I get it, but if it's the worst in the franchise you must swing pretty hard to the "classic/cheesy" side of the Bond spectrum. I dug it cause I really dug Casino Royale and saw it very much as finishing that story, and even though it's much weaker than it's predecessor it's a satisfying conclusion to the Vesper part of Bond's life.
I wonder if they'll bring Quantum back for future Bond movies. It's pretty much a stand-in for SPECTRE and considering where Skyfall ended, I think it'd be appropriate, but maybe they just really want everybody to forget about it for some reason.