Oh, alright then
Everybody else has reviewed Quantum Of Solace, even though it's not out until next Friday, so I don't know why I'm being so bloody coy. It seems the film company decided it would aid the pre-release hype to let journalists do the work for them; a risky policy when the film is categorically not as good as Casino Royale, as many critics have already been forced to point out. Me? I like Daniel Craig in the part; he carries Solace through many of its less interesting passages, of which there are a few, mainly the ones with disappointing new Bond villain Dominc Greene (Mathieu Amalric). I really wish they hadn't started this one directly after the last film had finished, thus giving Bond a lovesick revenge subplot - surely with 007 you wipe the slate clean, give him a new baddy and a new bird and a new gadget, stick a pin in the Atlas, and let him get on with it? (This one's mainly set in Bolivia.)That said, Solace follows Royale's lead and dispenses altogether with helpful hardware: it's mainly Bond checking into hotels and checking out again, interspersed with fights and chases. The fights and chases are briliantly done, if edited too fast, as per all action films of today. There's a show-stopper in a church, all hanging around on ropes: expertly choreographed and very exciting. This is not an unexciting film. It's got the licks. But there's too much motivation! Even the main Bond girl, played by the pouty Olga Kurylenko, is out for revenge. They've loaded too much into the script, including post-oil topicality, but at the same time made it incomprehesible, with way too many fruity foreign accents that are frankly hard to follow.
Good to see Rory Kinnear, son of Roy, as a civil servant, but Jeffrey Wright (so good as Colin Powell in the George Bush film, W, of which more next week) is wasted as Leiter. I was looking forward to the six-fingered Gemma Arterton (star of BBC's terrific Tess Of The D'Urbervilles), but she has nothing to do beyond a clipped English accent. It's great that the Bond franchise has been humble enough to acknowledge the brilliance and success of the Bourne franchise, but they've paid a little too much attention, if you ask me. Bond even jumps through a window from a roof in exactly the same way Bourne did in Ultimatum. Cheeky! If it were up to me, and it's not, my reaction to a post-Bourne world would be a return to old Bond values: sex and travel and ink pens that spew out poison gas.
If you like Bond, you have to see Q Of S, clearly, and the feem toon is cracking, but be prepared for an awful lot of banging and clattering, and frowning, and no jokes. (And one really unecessary nod to Goldfinger. Don't remind us what the old Bond films were like!)
posted by Andrew Collins @ 6:05 PM
13 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
13 Comments:
Father forgive me, for I have sinned. I've never seen a James Bond film before.
I take it that this film shouldn't be the first one I see as it's a continuation of the previous one. If there's one film to win me over to the smug, sophisticated womanising bastard - which one will it be?
I realise from every conversation I've ever had with people about Bond that I am almost certainly in the wrong, and for this I can only apologise. I just don't get it!
see i'm weirdly of the lost/forgotten generation that grew up with Roger Moore. Live & Let Die was my first ever film (non-kiddy)
So I like the eyebrow and the quips. And the tpossibly best ever theme tune. But I guess if they got Daniel Craig they got a British Matt Damon: muscles, square jaw. Could it be that he is the Bond Gordon Brown. Great cos he was a contrast to the previous incumbent - and then equally quickly regretted? Where's Clive Owen/David Milliband when you need him?
For my money, Adam, having seen all of the Bond movies, most of them more than once, I'd say the very finest is You Only Live Twice, which worked for me as a kid, but works now as a period piece, when the Space Race was all the rage. Connery is the best Bond, but Roger Moore was great fun. If you feel that starting so far back in history is not for you, why not try the best Brosnan, Goldeneye, which reinvigorated the franchise just as Craig has now done. That's only 13 years old.
Oh, and if you think Bond is smug and womanising, you might be best off starting with Casino Royale, Craig's debut. He spends most of it soppily in love with one woman, and he's certainly not smug any more. Which is a shame, I think.
Adam, you could try Timothy Dalton's portrayal in 'The Living Daylights', from when we were friends with the Mujahideen, or his other one 'Licence to Kill' where he is embarked on a de-frocked revenge mission. I like TD's Bond, though not many do it seems.
Or as an alternative to watching the films, try the original books which portray a different character altogether. You Only Live Twice is also a good novel though quite different from the film, which is as Andrew says a superb slice of 60s space age nostalgia.
Thanks for the advice, I'll give Casino Royale a go. I don't really dislike him as much as it sounds, I've just never really taken up the chance to see one.
Adam, as long as you like action movies, there's no reason why you won't find Bond a refreshingly un-American take on the genre. There's something a bit colonial about Bond, but that's due to the time when the Fleming books were written (1953-1964), when although Britannia no longer ruled the waves, we still had a stake in the post-war carve-up. Fleming was in naval intelligence in the war, and this is the root of the character, I guess. He's a romanticised throwback, always has been. Still is.
Bond being besottedly in love was wrong and tedious, almost as bad as Goldeneye's PC Bond. I much prefer the idea of angry, vengeful Bond to the sappy in-love Bond.
Daniel Craig is far and away the best Bond; he's the best actor and fits the character most. George Lazenby fitted the character quite well but was sadly lacking in the ability to act.
Irrelevant aside: I wish people would stop referring to Judi Dench as a Bond girl, it makes me feel faintly ill.
I don't know about you, but I do miss the odd 'cheesy' one-liner with the 'new' Bond.
I remember sitting through Casino Royale - which was very enjoyable - thinking when is ths line going to come?
It did come, sort of - I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it yet, but otherwise it was a bit po-faced.
I can't understand why there's still an audience for this stuff. I've only seen a couple of Bonds all the way through (though I've seen bits of others) and find Bond thoroughly irritating, no matter who's playing him. Moore was the one I could bear for the two I saw.
If they're going to do the Brit abroad getting into scrapes stuff -they should at least do it properly and start a Flashman franchise. I'd pay cash-money to see Flashman done properly.
Swines
PS - No idea why I'm having to use Open ID to comment these days. Technology, eh?
Damn good call on a potential Flashman franchise watchwithmothers. A cracking series of books and plenty of room for adaptation. A sad day when George Macdonald Fraser died recently(ish). There was the seventies film version with Malcolm McDowell but that wasn't great if I recall.
Bond is a nob.
“Live and Let Die” was also the first film I ever saw in the cinema (re doughboy’s comment). I think my Dad took us because he wanted to see it - it scared the heck out of me. I saw the last Bond film on a plane and I was really lost during most of it – it seemed very choreographed, and I thought Jeffrey Wright was again (pre-again?) wasted. I will watch this one though if anything for the “feem toon” which is yet another masterpiece from Jack White and the Bond girl, who is like a masterpiece from god.
It's "unnecessary" as there's no such thing as ecessary. I know people will think me pedantic but I only do it because I know you like it. On the other hand I keep Herrin's past/passed confusion to myself (until now anyway) as I don't think he'd take kindly.
Post a Comment
<< Home