Early review of Quantum of Solace (Sony Pictures Studios 11/11/08)

Rating: 6/10 (13 November 2008)

I had a chance to see Quantum of Solace a bit early here in LA. Here are my thoughts: I have anxiety going into any franchise film. Will it leave me eagerly anticipating the next installment (The Dark Knight) or will it have me dreading what awful things the writers and director will do to sink the ship even lower (Crystal Skull). Quantum of Solace never quite ventures into the realm of mediocrity like Crystal Skull, but sadly does nothing to elevate the franchise beyond it's current position and ultimately comes off as disappointment following its well crafted predecessor.
Craig is Bond. There's no question about it. He exudes confidence with every step and every line uttered. In Casino Royale we see Bond as the flawed hero. Prone to mistakes, like any human, but still cold and calculating. This trend continues in the new film but we lose any sense of his humanity. He is a emotionless killing machine (a bit of running joke in the film). Without being able to relate to the character, the audience is left detached, merely watching action scene on top of action scene, without caring about what happens next.
Which brings me to my biggest gripe about the film. The action. I would say it was well choreographed if I knew what the hell was going on. A lot of people have likened it to the Bourne films, but I think it goes beyond that. I tried to count the number of seconds a scene would be on screen before the next cut, but the exercise was futile. Hyper editing at it's finest. Kudos to Marc Forster for tackling such an ambitious project like Bond, but the man either doesn't know how to direct action or his editors (Matt Chesse and Richard Pearson) are on speed. The fact that we are subjected to this kind of style is painful, compounded by the fact that film is one giant action set piece. Yes there are a few quiet moments (Bond's scenes with Mathis, particularly stand out) but not nearly enough to slow the pace. Gone is character development, relegated to a few fleeting moments with M.
As for the Bond women both Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton do an adequate job as Camille and Fields respectively. Both are easy on the eyes, and can handle themselves in the acting department. Fields is nothing more than a minor character in the grand scheme of things, while Camille is an essential piece to the emotional crescendo (or lack their of) of the film. The two share a desire for revenge and their respective journeys mimic each other from beginning to end. It's not necessarily a spoiler to say both find solace by the time the credits role.
Finally we come to the villain Dominic Greene, played by Mathieu Amalric. Much like my opinion about Marc Forster, I feel that Amalric was miscast. Sure he is a malevolent bastard, but in no way does he come off as intellectual or physical threat to Bond. His evil plan is well thought out, but like the film itself, it is a let down after you realize that's all there is to it.
After I left the theater all I could do was sigh. The excitement I had after watching Casino Royale was no where to be found. In it's place, slight indifference towards the Bond franchise and a sense of dread of what's to come next.
I am well aware that this review comes off as negative, but by all means go see the movie. If you are fan of the Bond series (like I am) you will find bits and pieces here and there that will make you smile and it will give hope that the franchise has only taken a minor detour, rather than gone completely off the rails.