Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Quantum of Solace: My review, your thoughts  (Read 2893 times)

Bromor Neckbeard

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Quantum of Solace: My review, your thoughts
« on: November 16, 2008, 04:42:36 pm »

Quantum of Solace introduces us to the most nefarious Bond villain to date:  Whichever Hollywood asshole decided that changing the camera angle every two seconds is in any way entertaining or even acceptable.  Quantum of Solace is without question the most extreme example of this unfortunate cultural phenomenon that I have ever had the displeasure of seeing.  This movie cuts around enough to give a blind man an epileptic seizure.  I am not exaggerating when I say that within the first half hour of Quantum of Solace, there is literally not one ten-second stretch of the movie that does not include an entirely unnecessary change of camera angle.  Nor is this limited to the action scenes.  Even during expositional scenes, the camera inexplicably cuts between angles, often in the middle of sentences.

This movie is also missing much of what we expect to see in a Bond film.  There's no Bond movie villain, no Bond movie villain henchman, and not much of a nefarious plan.  Where's the guy with the metal hat, or the guy with the metal teeth, or the guy with the metal hands? Where's the giant space laser or the nuclear blackmail plot, where's the secret volcano lair?  The villain this time out is a phony environmentalist who's built a dam in the middle of the desert, and his nefarious plan is, get this, he's gonna build more dams.  Despite the world-spanning power of SPECTRE, ahem, I mean QUANTUM (I guess that's what they're calling the ruthless terrorist organization determined to rule to world in this new century), a VW bus full of Greenpeace activists could have handled the villain quite as well as our favorite British Secret Service agent.

I'm also bewildered by the decision to omit both of Bond's signature lines from this movie.  At no point does "Bond, James Bond" introduce himself as such, and instead of ordering his martini in the usual fashion, he allows the bartender to explain to a friend what he's drinking in exhaustive detail, right down to the molecular composition.  To compensate for this, the movie includes a throwback to arguably the most famous Bond movie scene of all time, presumably so that the viewers won't forget that they're supposedly watching a James Bond film.

I want to point out that this is not necessarily a bad film.  It's just badly filmed.  There's at least 25% of a good Bond film here, it's just hidden by crappy camera work.  Quantum of Solace has its good points.  The acting is all that you could ask from a blockbuster action movie.  I particularly love Daniel Craig's take on Bond as a vengeance-obsessed sadistic psychopath who will pull a friend in front of him to take a bullet, then unceremoniously toss the body into a dumpster after said friend forgives him with his dying words.  I also don't expect to see character growth in a Bond movie, but this movie gives it to us.  Without spoiling much, let's just say that in the last outing the climax involved water, and this time it involves fire, and the outcome is different.  There's also plenty of stunts which straddle the line between "totally awesome" and "absolute horseshit", most notably a scene in which a parachute which opens five feet above the ground saves two people at once, but we viewers have to take the movie's word for it that these stunts actually happened, because the hyperactive editing means that we never get to see the stunts in their entirety.

I can only recommend Quantum of Solace if both:

A.  You are truly desperate to see a new Bond film, and
B.  You are utterly unoffended by choppy camera work.

Otherwise, let's hope that the next Bond film is edited by somebody who actually knows how to edit, as this potentially good Bond film is crippled by the worst editing of any film I've seen in this century.
Logged

Earthquake Damage

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum of Solace: My review, your thoughts
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2008, 12:28:46 pm »

... Whichever Hollywood asshole decided that changing the camera angle every two seconds is in any way entertaining or even acceptable...  This movie cuts around enough to give a blind man an epileptic seizure.  I am not exaggerating when I say that within the first half hour of Quantum of Solace, there is literally not one ten-second stretch of the movie that does not include an entirely unnecessary change of camera angle.  Nor is this limited to the action scenes.  Even during expositional scenes, the camera inexplicably cuts between angles, often in the middle of sentences.

You're not alone in hating all the ADHD camera work these days.  I wonder what 12 Angry Men would look like if there were a 2009 remake...

There's no Bond movie villain

As I understand it, the new Bond (as of Casino Royale) tries to stay close to the original source material.  The classic Bond villain may be a Hollywood invention.
Logged

Sergius

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum of Solace: My review, your thoughts
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2008, 01:58:53 pm »

I'm all in favor for breaking the "Hollywood Bond" conventions. The points about the camera work however is inexcusable... and that Evil Dam plan made me chuckle...

Things I want them to avoid: stupid gadgets (apparently) and cliched villains/henchmen formula. Thumbs up for that. "Bond, James Bond" is probably like "Elementary Dear Watson" that it wasn't originally in the books, but I haven't read the books so I can't comment on that.

Logged

lumin

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum of Solace: My review, your thoughts
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2008, 03:06:45 pm »

I can only recommend Quantum of Solace if both:

A.  You are truly desperate to see a new Bond film, and
B.  You are utterly unoffended by choppy camera work.

What if I saw the first one and want to see the conclusion of the story? 

Concerning the camera, is this one shot differently than Casino Royale?  I thought that one was the best Bond movie in years.

Oh, and ditto on getting rid of stupid Hollywood Bond villains.

Logged

Bromor Neckbeard

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Sorry, I'll shoot the camera next time
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2008, 04:23:19 pm »

Quote from: lumin
What if I saw the first one and want to see the conclusion of the story?

Well, it all comes down to if you can tolerate shoddy camera work.  If you ONLY care about the story, and the filming techniques used in the stunts are utterly irrelevant to you, you will almost certainly like this one.  Quantum DOES do a fine job wrapping up most of the loose ends from Casino Royale, and (without spoiling anything) we do get some satisfying character growth on the part of Bond.  There's also a scene where Bond tricks a slew of Quantum fat cats into revealing themselves during an opera that's sheer genius and classic Bond.

Quote from: lumin
Concerning the camera, is this one shot differently than Casino Royale?  I thought that one was the best Bond movie in years.

Well, yes.  Where Casino Royale (and I agree with you about the quality of that film, easily the best Bond in a decade) dabbled in ADHD camera, Quantum revels in it.  This movie makes Transformers look like it was shot in one single long take by comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuZQfZ-WxTk&feature=related

There's no shortage of camera cuts in that sequence, but the camera work doesn't get between the viewer and the action.  There's no point where you can't tell what's going on.  However, the opening chase scene in QoS, as well as a later knife fight between Bond and one of his targets in a hotel room, are both so confusingly shot that you just have to take the movie's word for it that the stunts really happened, because you don't get to see either Daniel Craig or a stuntman that looks like him actually perform said stunts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4jY8WxcFMo&feature=related

Look at the car chase scene between 1:43 and 1:48 in that theatrical trailer.  That's not quick cuts from the scene compressed to fit in the trailer, that's a representative sample of the whole chase scene, it all looks like that, with many scenes lasting less than a second between cuts.

Maybe this is just me, but while I thought Casino Royale's credit sequence was the best ever, QoS's was pretty terrible.  It could be because I don't really care for Jack White, but the credit sequence didn't do anything for me.  They also inexplicably moved the classic "barrel of the gun POV" shot to the end of the movie this time around.

I enjoyed this movie, but only because I knew what I was getting into from reading numerous reviews beforehand.  If, like me, you are a big Bond fan and you go into the movie expecting the camera to do everything it can to keep you from seeing the action, you'll have no trouble appreciating the movie.  After the distilled awesomeness that was Casino Royale, I just expected so much more.

Quote from: Earthquake Damage
As I understand it, the new Bond (as of Casino Royale) tries to stay close to the original source material.  The classic Bond villain may be a Hollywood invention.

Hollywood sometimes changed the Bond villains to make their plans more world-spanning, but the classic Bond villains such as Dr. No, Drax, Goldfinger, or Blofeld are all straight out of the books.  About the only ones that Hollywood made up are the villains from Pierce Brosnan's era.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 04:29:22 pm by Bromor Neckbeard »
Logged

Srenaeb

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Quantum of Solace: My review, your thoughts
« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2008, 03:22:52 pm »

i thought the opening sequence in Casino Royale was terrible, actually. =<
Well not terrible-terrible, just terribly boring and mundane -- it's not anything different from what some college first year can do on Macromedia Flash, and indeed I've seen some flash movie clips with more grandeur, style and grace. It was nicely choreographed, but it felt easy and cheap, like an inner-city middle school Christmas pageant.

As for Quantum itself, I agree with the consensus of it being too choppy. Apparently Bond did some cool move, but it was all a blur, so I'm left with what looks like a story board : frame 1 Bond engages baddie, frame 2 there's a cloud of smoke with fists and feet sticking out, frame 3 baddie is dead on the floor.

The story is pretty satisfying, though. Quantum feels like the sort of film that makes true fans slightly disappointed, but not full of rage either. B+.
Logged