A barrage of action and thrills sacrifices plot and development

Rating: 6/10 (15 November 2008)

In a year of disappointments, Quantum of Solace is no different.
Picking up moments after the finale of Casino Royale, Quantum follows James Bond (Daniel Craig) as he tries to discover more about a mysterious organization (codenamed, obviously, QUANTUM), and the shady dealings of "philanthropist" Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric).
I am not sure if I was expecting a bit too much after the greatness (minus the finale) of Casino Royale, but this film feels miles apart from it. Despite having Paul Haggis back in the writer's chair, Craig acting as Bond again, and critical acclaim sensation Marc Forster behind the camera, the film just lacks the spark that made Royale so interesting.
For one, the film has little to no plot taking place. While Royale was heavy on story and plot, Quantum allows this to totally take a back seat to the action. It takes about a half hour before the players (minus Craig) start moving towards a mere suggestion of what the film regards, and even then, it takes the rest of the movie to put it all together. Not because it is such a complex plot, but because we are only given momentary exchanges of dialogue before something else happens. And with little focus on plot comes even less on development. You know Bond's motives if you have seen Royale. But if you skipped that one, you will be totally lost attempting to decipher what he is doing. The main Bond girl, Camille (Olga Kurylenko), takes the entirety of the movie to reveal her motives. Supporting characters like Amalric's Greene get the mere moments between action scenes to get his bits in, but at the expense of developing even less than Mads Mikkelson's unabashedly underdeveloped Le Chiffre.
The action scenes, while choreographed amazingly well, seem to take away from the film. Opening with a high speed car chase, the film never takes a moment to breathe before another action scene takes place. The first forty minutes amount to more than half the time focusing on action, and very little given to any dialogue or story. Sure, the action junkie will be reveling in their glory, but everyone else might feel like the film is being a bit tedious and underhanded with what they want to do for the remaining time. It feels like the majority of time was spent here, and everyone just forgot to add in the gaps to fill the moments between action scenes. I realize that an obvious complaint of Casino Royale was how slow moving and not-so-action-orientated it was, but that does not mean it is acceptable to do away with everything else just to run at a totally break-neck pace and filling in more action as it goes along.
The editing is a bit problematic as well. In a scene taking place after the brazenly bizarre credits, the shots are cut so quick that it is nearly impossible to see who is doing what. This was a problem with some scenes in Batman Begins, but at least those characters did not start to blend into each other as the scenes went on. It continues to be quickly edited as the film progresses, but by then it is too late to fix anything. I realize the filmmakers had wanted to make a quick, painless sequel (the first official one in the never-ending Bond saga), but it feels like more of a last minute Director's Cut addition to Casino Royale than anything else.
Craig, in his second round as Bond, suffers because the film paints him into a corner of being an unapologetic revenge seeking bad ass, and nothing else. Even during the minor slow moments where Bond is clearly searching for clarity, he still gets no time to make himself appear as anything different. The gritty and heavily masculine touch of the character is amped heavily here, and makes it very hard for Craig to really prove his performance chops. He does not fumble at all like I imagined he would, but he is not overly impressive either. He never even gets a chance to say the trademark "Bond, James Bond" line at any point because of how fast-paced the film is. He does what he can, but the proclamations of his being the best Bond ever appear to have been heavily exaggerated.
Kurylenko and Amalric both turn in convincing performances as the Bond girl and Bond villain respectively, but neither get the opportunity to really chew on any scenery. Kurylenko spends most of the film sobbing, or looking helpless or angry, while Amalric adds next to nothing as a villain. For the majority of the film, having a cardboard cutout replace him probably would not have made much of a difference on the overall impact of the film. Jeffrey Wright returns, and gets even less to do than before, and Judi Dench is again given the chance to play M, and to great effect here. As Bond slowly becomes more involved trying to discover the facts of the company, Dench gets more involved with what is going on. It makes for some interesting banter between her and Craig, and provides a much needed social and contemporary context to a character sadly missing any real traits.
The film is not a bad film in the least. The action sequences (or at least, most of them) are quite thrilling, and translate well on screen. The story, when something is actually being said, is quite unique and interesting to these times. Craig's acting even does some form of good at some points. An homage to Goldfinger was also particularly well done.
I just think I went in expecting far too much from Quantum of Solace. Granted you can take partial plot holes, very little story or plot, a whole plethora of action, and Craig looking like Craig, you may truly enjoy it. But for everyone else, you may be out of luck.
6/10.