Quantum of Solace whets my appetite for 24: Redemption

Rating: 5/10 (20 November 2008)

Actors should stick to acting, until and unless they land the actual director's chair by choice and design. Even then, most actors, turned director, would rather not have to act, in order to focus on the directing.
Much has been written about Daniel Craig hand picking Marc Forster to direct Bond 22. Did Sean Connery similarly pick any of the directors of "his" Bond films? Quite the contrary, the directors of the original Bond films were well chosen by the founders of the franchise and those directors guided the rough hewn Connery into the role of 007 and on to bona fide stardom. One supposes that Craig needs his James Bond to be more James Bourne (or Jason Bond) in order to create a more comforting distance between himself and the unsurpassed Bond embodied by Connery. This is mistake number one in the making of Quantum of Solace and Craig should take no comfort in it. Does it also explain why Craig can't manage to utter the trademark, "Bond, James Bond," in QoS? Unless Craig co-produces or directs, he should leave the selection of director to others who understand Craig's own strengths and weaknesses in the role, better than he does himself. Even Forster's initial instincts about directing this film were correct; he has no "feel" for directing a "Bond" film. Hence, he failed, utterly, to deliver a Bond film.
Mistake two is resorting to over used script doctor (turd polisher) Paul Haggis to conjure up a more Bourne than Bond script. Haggis isn't Shakespeare. When Haggis lifts ideas from prior art, he rarely bothers to raise the bar these days. The opera setting confrontation is borrowed from Godfather III, where it was done with far more dramatic impact. The one Bond-ian embellishment in the QoS opera scene, which is of little consequence to the scene or plot, is the point-to-point audio conferencing gadget. Shades of Die Hard 1 & 2 in that, too. And speaking of copying while pretending not to copy, there's a gratuitous crib from Goldfinger elsewhere in QoS (with oil standing in for gold paint). What in blazes is M doing out in the field? M is supposed to be a Mandarin. Why bother over-building the "set" that is her office if she isn't even going to operate therein? The whole dialectic between M and Bond is supposed to be one of remote control/out-of-control.
Don't even think about sitting in the front half of the theater. We have the Bourne-ish "shaky cam" and staccato editing (chopping out way too many detail frames of more cinematically "realistic" action) that tend to discount all of the physical injuries Craig (and others) sustained on the way to bringing those action sequences to the screen. Roberto Schaefer seems clueless about how to capture realistic and coherent action. Perhaps that's part of how Craig got his injuries (while getting coverage shots). Or maybe it was the violence of all of the excessive editing. (Note to Matt Damon: Remind the Bourne stunt team that Bourne 4 is supposed to only be a movie.)
Mistake three is a total failure of dramatic/action pacing. Shortest running time Bond ever. Whoopee. This film is a sprint to the finish, which means more screenings per day for exhibitors, and no time for movie goers to absorb much of what (little) is going on. An healthy diet is supposed to include some "fat," otherwise a body will never absorb all of the necessary and vital nutrients. The same is true of story telling.
Allegedly 200,000 rounds of blank ammunition were discharged in the making of QoS. Is that supposed to impress anyone? When was the last time that a bullet killed (a non-double) Bond? What will EON promote next? Marksmanship scores of cast members? (Note to EON: blanks intentionally never hit the target.)
They also say that Craig hand picked the tailor for all of his Bond-wear in QoS. One has to wonder if he got to keep the wardrobe. Once again, though, Connery always looked 100% Bond, even when wearing off-the-rack suits in Never Say Never Again (which is a Bond film not counted by The Studio among The Official 22). At least one of Craig's highly tailored suit jackets looks a bit like a woman's waistcoat... or was that just a continuity error?
These mistakes happen when studios commit to making films on a forced timetable, before there is even a draft script in hand, let alone a worthy director well chosen. $225M dollars in the making and so little to show for it (unless that tab also includes all of the medical expenses, Craig's and two stuntmen.)
QoS is supposed to be a direct continuation sequel from Casino Royale. I have no problem with that concept. In fact, this really should be a double feature screening, with Casino Royale immediately preceding QoS (which I managed, courtesy of DVD). Then we might more readily follow what little (and heavily obfuscated) plot there is in QoS. But then we would also be reminded about how much better a Bond film Casino Royale is than QoS. QoS not only fails to surpass Casino Royale, it doesn't even come close to running a dead heat. QoS isn't a complete waste of time and money, but it has jarringly lost its way in the wake of Casino Royale.
I really liked Craig's Bond in Casino Royale and I think the franchise can succeed with him and respectfully re-invent and invigorate this now once again dusty franchise without "copying" prior Bonds.
But not by abandoning Bond for Bourne.
My bet is that 24: Redemption does a much better job with action, character and drama than QoS, when 24 should not even be a contender. That's how disappointing QoS is.