After the masterpiece that was “Casino Royale not even die-hard fans expected Quantum of Solace” (directed by Marc Forster “Kite Runner”) to compare. Yet they did not expect it to be a disappointment either. Although the action was impressive that was all the film had to offer. Even so the qualities that made “Casino Royale” such a masterpiece were lost in this sorry sequel.
The film’s saving grace – the action was beyond amazing (except for sadly the climax). “Quantum of Solace as a whole, is sure to rival any film this year in action scenes. The car chases, airplane fights, battle scenes and other incredible sequences almost made this film worth sitting through. But, not quite.
Another saving grace quality – Daniel Craig stood out, once again, as a great James Bond, offering some clever scenes and dialogue interspersed throughout. Also, some of his internal conflicts involving revenge and regret were interesting, but altogether underdeveloped. And, although Craig’s performance and character were intriguing, it was not close to the Bond he played in Casino Royale.”
As far as positive qualities go that is about it. The majority of the film was a sour disappointment. If action and a half-developed character are good enough reasons to go see it then go see it. But if the audience is looking for emotional depth realism adequate plot sequence realistic motives and other such characteristics they will not find it in this film.
To start the plot was outrageous. Through most of the film it seemed adequate enough to follow. But once they reveal what the “real” plot is one looks back and sees how it is completely incompatible with the beginning of “Quantum of Solace.” The film leads one to believe Bond is trying to stop a worldwide conspiracy but it’s nothing of the sort.
Secondly although the film tries to build the rogue-like action of Bond on his “revenge” obsession it still does not explain the motives behind most of his actions. “Quantum of Solace” portrays him as a hard-core revenge-driven rogue agent who kills anyone who gets in his way. Yet if his goal is revenge against the man who indirectly killed his lover how does killing everyone (even with his rage) solve the issue?
But even worse is the Bond girl. She plays such an unimportant role that her name – Camille (played by Olga Kurylenko “Max Payne”) – does not even really matter. She is there with absolutely no realistic motive for doing anything and adding nothing to the plot. She is more useless than an extra in “Independence Day.”
In addition there are many instances where realism is not just suspended but thrown out the window. For example there’s a long boat chase scene between Bond and the “bad guys” (however we don’t even know why they’re “bad” yet). Here for no reason whatsoever (except maybe for the director to put in a boat sequence) he goes and rescues the “Bond girl having no connections with her or with her information at this point. This is shown by the fact that after he saves her, he just leaves her without a word and moves on, helping neither himself, the realism or the forward progress of the plot.
The film, after the amazing Casino Royale is not only a lesser sequel, but a sad disappointment. And, everything else aside, even the climax, which is supposed to be well, the climax ran out of fuel, (as did every other aspect of the film).
Here, the hope that the James Bond franchise could rise out of its shallow action” movie genre is crushed. It is like the majority of the old Bond films nothing more than a mediocre popcorn flick.