Quantum of Solace

Okay, so I finally got around to the sequel. This film had such rotten press, I confess I sort of didn't want it to ruin Casino Royale for me. Thing is, I really don't understand the problem.

I think they tightened up the running time quite wisely, but there was still enough story for a Bond film. The look carried through really well - some nice grittiness, but overall a sumptuous film to watch, even in the dirtier locales. They sustained the romance of the filthy bits from CR, and as a piece, I didn't feel this was jarringly unlike the first.

The central complaint I recall hearing (apart from the title, the *proportion* of complaints about which I really cannot get behind - it's dorky, but how can that really ruin the experience?) was exemplified by Ebert's discussion of Bond's having descended into becoming a mere action hero.

...

I have a question, regarding that.

When *WASN'T* James Bond an action hero? I'd always thought all the action heroes were Bond wannabes in the first place, so his co-opting what really isn't a separate genre in the first place seems eminently appropriate, to my mind.

Yes, this film piles on the setpieces. So did CR, and that "reboot" of the franchise gained RAVE reviews.

Yes, the action strains all credulity.

Is someone going to attempt to make some sort of argument that Connery (or, for heaven's sake, Moore) ever starred in vehicles of particular verissimilitude??

Good grief.

I'd agree that the dialogue here gets fairly short shrift. And, with the extent of subtitles (all of which are absolutely unreadable, except by using the pause button on your DVD player) and unintelligible line readings (this was also a major problem in CR, in case EVERY reviewer was unaware of that - which apparently they are), it's all but eliminated. Add to this dizzyingly high-speed editing quite unconcerned with audience comprehension of continuity or a scene's basic geography (hello, CR!), and the film's a bludgeon to the senses.

But it's not ONLY a bludgeon, and it is actually pretty clearly *considered* - even if the execution isn't really set up for an audience's consideration.

With life on DVD (and - full disclosure - 100% of my own personal experience of Craig's bond being on DVD), this only means the repeat viewings will be rewarded.

I *loved* CR, but find myself going "wow, missed that the firs (X-number of) times" every time I see it. I have the same experience with Abrams' Star Trek.

Fast-cut, blender editing does make for a full-on assault to the senses sort of moviegoing experience, BUT it also sets one up for rewards on DVD, so I actually kind of am happy to go with it. Entertainment of any kind which is 100% accessible with a single viewing, I'm not much interested in. And, given personal video markets, I'm willing to bet that frankly more people feel this way than (a) will admit it, or (b) even quite realize why they like going back for more.

Now, I'm a longtime re-watcher, re-reader, etc. This is a personal quirk. And I don't like stopping a movie to figure out WHAT the heck the Bolivian girl said on that plane about her prostituting herself. That stuff is irritating and careless.

But a bad movie?

I really don't see why people reacted so against QS.

Except that they reacted so FOR CR.

Casino Royale blew a lot of people away, and they apperently held that initial-asonishment factor to the measure of its sequel.

But a first experience can't be repeated, kids. You can't lose that virginity twice, you can't "re-experience Bond again for the first time" twice, not legitimately, within two years and maintaining the same production universe.

The only other valid complaint I can recall was that it dipped too much into the first Craig-fronted Bond film.

So let me get this straight. One, it's too different, and he's too Action Hero.

Two, we went back too much to the first well, and didn't move forward.



Well, try to win next time, Daniel.

I plan to ignore the whiners, and sign up for your next go. I suspsect the complaints will all be similar. And that Bond will go on.

He always seems to. And I like it.