erik lundegaard

Two-Minute Review: Quantum of Solace (2008)

Went to see “Quantum of Solace” last night and there were so many quick-cuts in the first two minutes I felt like Grandpa Simpson: Whuzzat? Hoozat? Whassaguy? There were probably more quick-cuts in those two minutes than in all of “Dr. No.” An old complaint, but the movies keep moving away from a story-telling form to a mere sensory delivery mechanism. The point isn't to know who's in which car which is going where but to experience life as faster and more thrilling than it can ever be. “James Bond,” in a way, has never been more superfluous.

SPOILER ALERT. “Quantum” got mixed reviews (65% on Rotten Tomatoes), which isn't a surprise. The surprise is that so many critics liked it. “Casino Royale” was a good movie, a classic reboot, but this thing is just noise. Bond has become the terminator. Does he ever sleep? He wounds now but the wounds don't seem to hurt. And what exactly to make of the plot? This organization (Quantum?) winds up controlling most of the water in Bolivia in order to...double the price of water. Basically they're Standard Oil. They monopolize a product and then raise the price of the product.  A far cry from SPECTRE. Dominic Greene seems the leader of this organization but turns out to be just another flunky. And why should Bond leave him in the desert when he could take him back to MI6 and extract information out of him? What happened to delivering the bad guys to justice rather than torturing them in some random way?

Nice Goldfinger homage with Fields. Great Jeffrey Wright cameo. (For the first time, I wanted to see the Felix Leiter movie more than the James Bond movie.) And Daniel Craig on the motorbike looked more Steve McQueen than ever.

BTW: Did he ever sleep with the Bond girl? I forget. Isn't that awful? I should know but it didn't even register. Someone needs to slow these things down before they become movies for mosquitoes. 


Posted at 08:25 AM on Thu. Nov 27, 2008 in category Movie Reviews - 2000s  
Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

Mister B wrote:

Sounds to me (and I agree with you about the quick-cuts) that this film just made the Scalosians' All-Time Top 10 Movies.

(BTW, that reference is for Tim here -- more than anyone else -- to make up for your Hank Jones reference on his site)
Comment posted on Thu. Nov 27, 2008 at 01:27 PM

Tim wrote:

Not only were the quick-cuts too many and too frequent, but all the action/fight scenes seemed to be done with hand-held cameras, making for an even more chaotic view. Plus, it telegraphed at least one of the fights -- Bond breaks into that hotel room and starts poking around, and as soon as the camera angle shifts to inside the room it went hand-held, and I thought, "oh, a fight is coming."
Comment posted on Fri. Nov 28, 2008 at 06:07 PM

Reed wrote:

That's about all the time this movie deserves... Ugh - I'm so sick of modern movies, and this may be the clearest example. My OWR for this one (a pretty strong indictment considering it's a Bond movie): Graceless

Comment posted on Mon. Jul 16, 2012 at 05:01 AM

You may bypass the ID fields and security question below if you log in before commenting.


 
 





Receive notification of further comments via e-mail

« Debating our National Story   |   Home   |   Happy Thanksgiving! »
 RSS    Facebook

Twitter: @ErikLundegaard

ARCHIVES

All previous entries

LINKS
Movies
Jeffrey Wells
The Film Experience
Roger Ebert
Baseball
Rob Neyer
Joe Posnanski
Cardboard Gods
Politics
Andrew Sullivan
Alex Pareene
Hendrik Hertzberg
Friends
Cloud Five Comics
Copy Curmudgeon
Deb Ellis
Andrew Engelson
Jerry Grillo
Tim Harrison
Eric Hanson
Ben Stocking
Jim Walsh
dative-querulous