Brute Force

email this story
read comments (30)
post a comment

In a review posted 45 minutes ago, Variety's Derek Elley has given a stiff slap-down to Quantum of Solace, the soon-to-open James Bond flick directed by Marc Forster (Monster's Ball, Stay), who made his bones as a touchy-feely type. "The shortest and certainly the most action-dense Bond ever, Quantum of Solace plays like an extended footnote to Casino Royale rather than a fully realized stand-alone movie," he says.

"Producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, possibly knowing they couldn't immediately top the previous pic's sheer stylishness, have radically reshuffled the series' traditional elements, but also allowed incoming helmer Marc Forster to almost throw the baby out with the bathwater. Played with a cold, mechanical efficiency that recalls the Bourne movies, with almost no downtime or emotional hooks, Quantum will find some solace in beefy initial returns but looks unlikely to find a royale spot in Bond history or fans' hearts.

"Though pic is the first in the series in which the action follows directly from the previous film, the differences in tone, look and tempo are instantly apparent. As the camera zooms across northern Italy's Lake Garda to pick out Bond (Daniel Craig) being chased in his Aston Martin by armed villains, it's clear that the elegance of the franchise that Royale director Martin Campbell resuscitated is already a thing of the past. Even David Arnold's music seems to punch the clock rather than elevating the visuals.

"Thanks to his sheer physical prowess, Craig -- less muscular this time around, and more panther-like -- still manages to make the character look as if he's in control, even when he's being hunted by various villains and at least two major spook agencies, and even though seems to have suffered a personality bypass. However, the plot is unengaging: basically a grim series of near-escapes as Bond hunts (but is mostly hunted) between Latin America and Europe."

Moral Choice<< previous | next >>Torino Testimony

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 24, 2008 at 1:22 PM

comment #1

actionman says ...

Sounds like my kind of action flick.

I enjoyed Casino Royale but was extremely bored with all of the card playing...way too much of that shit which really brought the narrative to a halt. There is nothing exciting about watching people play cards. The only time I have liked card-playing scenes was in Rounders. Royale had great, classically shot action scenes though, and Craig is a terrific Bond.

Quantum sounds like a pedal-to-the-metal actioner and that's what I want to see. I am glad it sounds Bourne-esque as I love that action movie aesthetic. As long as the plot makes sense and Olga is as hot as she was in Hitman (granted, she won't be geting topless like she did in that dreck) I will be content

Posted by actionman at October 24, 2008 1:48 PM

comment #2

Pertwillaby says ...

Why do you only post a negative review to Quantum of Solace, Jeff? It looks like you desperately want this film to fail...

Posted by Pertwillaby at October 24, 2008 2:07 PM

comment #3

Jake says ...

Actually, most of the reviews have range from "negative" to "highly disappointed". Even those from UK critics who were highly supportive of both Casino Royale and Daniel Craig.

I can't say I'm surprised. Most people had little problem criticizing Wilson and Broccoli for the films they had made prior to Casino Royale. It would be more shocking if they were suddenly incapable of making a bad film.

There were rumors that the original plans (for Bond 22) were scuttled in the wake of The Bourne Ultimatum's success. Wilson and Broccoli reportedly studied that film very closely in the hopes of ripping it off. After seeing the trailers and early reviews, it appears those reports were accurate.

Posted by Jake at October 24, 2008 2:17 PM

comment #4

Craptastic says ...

Woah, woah, woah, Pertwillaby... Hang on a second there, bud. Don't you know that Jeff Wells is always right?

Maybe you should go back to the main page and find the article Jeff Wells posted about how someone else said Jeff Wells is always right.

Read that... THEN come back and post, sucka.

Posted by Craptastic at October 24, 2008 2:21 PM

comment #5

Pertwillaby says ...

"Actually, most of the reviews have range from "negative" to "highly disappointed"."

That's not true. Not at all. Just look at the rottentomatoes right now. QOS stands at 85% fresh.

"There were rumors that the original plans (for Bond 22) were scuttled in the wake of The Bourne Ultimatum's success. Wilson and Broccoli reportedly studied that film very closely in the hopes of ripping it off."

That's ridiculous. Casino Royale was a much bigger financial success than the Bourne Ultimatum.

Posted by Pertwillaby at October 24, 2008 2:26 PM

comment #6

btwnproductions says ...

The reviewer doesn't seem too thrilled with the Bournes, either. In any event, it's a negative review better than most the Brosnans received.

Posted by btwnproductions at October 24, 2008 2:41 PM

comment #7

Jake says ...

"That's not true. Not at all. Just look at the rottentomatoes right now. QOS stands at 85% fresh."

I was just commenting on the reviews I have personally read- none of which are included in the 13 listed at RT. Regardless, I don't have any personal interest in seeing this film do well or fail. I just don't think it's surprising that the Bond producers might've made a bad film.

"That's ridiculous. Casino Royale was a much bigger financial success than the Bourne Ultimatum."

I agree. It is ridiculous, which is why I don't understand Wilson and Broccoli's reasoning. There's simply no denying the obvious Bourne influence on display in Quantum of Solace.

Those early rumors also suggested that Judi Dench would have an expanded role- a decision that was prompted by Joan Allen's role in the Bourne series.

Posted by Jake at October 24, 2008 2:49 PM

comment #8

bmcintire says ...

CASINO ROYALE was the Broccoli/Wilson reaction to the BOURNE films. You're two years out of the gate too late on that observation.

Posted by bmcintire at October 24, 2008 3:08 PM

comment #9

corey3rd says ...

I'm not caring about the reviews on this since I have free tickets thanks to the coupons on the Dr. No and From Russia with Love Blu-rays.

Posted by corey3rd at October 24, 2008 3:23 PM

comment #10

crsryan says ...

I remember being so disappointed that they settled on that hack Forster, especially after I'd heard rumors that they were talking with the late, great Minghella among other exciting prospects.

And the title is still Sony-should-have-said-no bad.

Posted by crsryan at October 24, 2008 3:28 PM

comment #11

actionman says ...

tony scott should do the next one

makes sense

Posted by actionman at October 24, 2008 3:51 PM

comment #12

dixiedugan says ...

We'll still go. On that shallow superficial level I sink to on various occasions Craig is the end all for me. The action does for the husband.

Doesn't it run that every other or every two or three Bond films are great then the next one or two suck?

Posted by dixiedugan at October 24, 2008 4:03 PM

comment #13

scooterzz says ...

SPOILER ----- MAYBE A SPOILER ----- SPOILER

the film is streamlined and no-nonsense ....along with 'casino real', it establishes a reinvention of the character that no longer allows for comparisons between the current bond and the bonds previous to 'casino royale'......
and, while there is one huge homage to bond past, the omission of the most iconic and oft-repeated bond line ever seems like this crew's way of finalizing that this isn't your father's (grandfather's) bond......
this reinvention seems very much a case of, 'bond is dead, long live bond'........
that said, the fact that they chose to take the title from a 1960 fleming short story probably shoots my theory all to shit but i'm stickin' with it.......

Posted by scooterzz at October 24, 2008 4:09 PM

comment #14

scooterzz says ...

'royale'...oops

Posted by scooterzz at October 24, 2008 4:11 PM

comment #15

Jake says ...

"CASINO ROYALE was the Broccoli/Wilson reaction to the BOURNE films. You're two years out of the gate too late on that observation."

Well, that goes largely without saying. I didn't mean to suggest this was the first time they had been influenced by the rival series. But in the case of Casino Royale, they were able to borrow without losing the essence of their own franchise.

Many of the latest reviews reiterate what the above review is suggesting: That they may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. The Bond films have been acknowledging popular trends for decades, but they've never really followed a rival's lead to this extent.

Posted by Jake at October 24, 2008 5:08 PM

comment #16

Agent of NERD says ...

"Quantum will find some solace in beefy initial returns but looks unlikely to find a royale spot in Bond history or fans' hearts." Really? And this one sentence doesn't negate the entire review?

Posted by Agent of NERD at October 24, 2008 6:14 PM

comment #17

EDouglas says ...

My review is definitely positive but I was told by Sony that reviews were embargoed until October 30, the day before it opens in England, so once again, Variety does whatever the fuck they want....and I'm sure David Poland will follow suit.

Posted by EDouglas at October 24, 2008 6:49 PM

comment #18

John Cocktosten says ...

Haggis was rushed to finish this thing before the strike.(Perhaps he kept writing during the strike...how would anyone ever know?) So maybe that has something to do with its short running time.

I don't remember exactly, but wasn't he not too thrilled about writing a sequel to CR?

Posted by John Cocktosten at October 24, 2008 7:09 PM

comment #19

MDOC says ...

Remember when Craig first got the Bond gig and a lot of people freaked out? The guy ended up being great. It's Bond, either you like this sort of thing or you don't. As long as they keep Jaws on the shelf for this reboot. I'm in.

Posted by MDOC at October 24, 2008 7:34 PM

comment #20

Doug says ...

I'm still freaked about Craig being Bond. I can't wait for him to finish his four movies and get replaced.
I love the Bourne movies, but Bond is not supposed to be Bourne. Bond is supposed to play on a grand scale with huge stakes, larger than life stunts, gorgeous locales with a handsome leading man who is suave and has some wit. I wanted to be the Bond of Connery and Moore and Brosnan. I don't want to be Jason Bourne or the Craig Bond. They're no damn fun.

Posted by Doug at October 24, 2008 8:33 PM

comment #21

Radewart says ...

I agree with Doug. While the last couple of Brosnan movies were way over the top, Bond doesn't need to be Bourne. The franchise been around for forty years, you don't need to freak out and copy a current fad movie like the Bourne films, which has become as repetative as the Bond movies ever were.

Posted by Radewart at October 24, 2008 10:27 PM

comment #22

shermy says ...

Some of those 'positive' reviews at rottentomatoes read more like backhanded compliments. For example, the one from Total Film:

Mystifying title, accident-prone production, awkward end-product... This is 007 in mid-story crisis; a festival of blaring action set-pieces propping up a scrappy script and undercooked characters. From blond Bond to bland Bond.

Meanwhile, Empire gives it 4 stars, yet says it's "no one's idea of fun"? It's a sentiment that is echoed by the Daily Mail, which reveals: "About an hour in, I began to feel something I haven't for quite a few years in a Bond film- bored."

This, for a James Bond film?

Perhaps the most troubling review I've seen is the one from 007 Magazine. The site is about as supportive of the film as they come, yet refers to it as "barren and sterile". The full review is yet to arrive, but is titled: "Quantum of Soulless".

http://www.007magazine.co.uk/bond22/bond_22_news.htm

So basically, the film is comprised of big action sequences, poor character development, a weak villain, and a hero that is seemingly invulnerable as he guns down baddies with a machine gun.

Aren't those the exact same elements that were so highly criticized when Pierce Brosnan was Bond? I thought the whole reason they hired Daniel Craig was to move away from this type of approach? Frankly, I'm a little surprised they returned to that formula so quickly.

Posted by shermy at October 24, 2008 11:30 PM

comment #23

ZayTonday says ...

This marks the second time Martin Campbell helped revive the Bond franchise for the Brocollis only not to be asked back for a followup that the Broccolis took way too much control of.

Posted by ZayTonday at October 25, 2008 2:26 AM

comment #24

ZayTonday says ...

John Cocktosten: Apparently they fucked up Haggis's ending because Marc Forster had a different idea.

Posted by ZayTonday at October 25, 2008 2:29 AM

comment #25

Hal says ...

I think Casino Royale ultimately owed more to 24/Jack Bauer than Jason Bourne.

Posted by Hal at October 25, 2008 10:58 AM

comment #26

Pertwillaby says ...

ZayTonday, you are wrong, Martin Campbell was asked back for Quantum of Solace. Anyway I don't think there's any problem with the Bond franchise until it generates far more comments on hollywood-elsewhere.com than anything else. ;)

Posted by Pertwillaby at October 25, 2008 2:44 PM

comment #27

shermy says ...

Yes, Campbell was asked back, but declined...which doesn't say much for the Bond producers.

The Sunday Times' review is now up, and is actually much worse than Variety's.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/film_reviews/article5001623.ece

Posted by shermy at October 25, 2008 6:06 PM

comment #28

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability solutions

Posted by janee at May 18, 2011 6:25 AM

comment #29