Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Wednesday, 7th January 2009

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the n/a site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Quantum of Solace: James Bond - review



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 11 November 2008
Quantum of Solace: James Bond (Cert 12A),
Apollo Cinema, Morecambe
JAMES Bond is back on our screens again with the 22nd film in the ever-popular collection.

007, played for the second time by Daniel Craig (he formerly played Bond in the remake of Casino Royale) raked in £15.5 million at the UK box office on its opening weekend.

However, was this just media hype boosting ticket sales? I think so.
Judging from the content of the film, it was simply mediocre and frankly, disappointing.

It wouldn't go down in film archives as a fantastic Bond film that's for sure.

The film picks up where Casino Royale left off, with 007, having being betrayed by Vesper, fighting the urge to make his latest mission personal.

Bond finds out that the organisation which blackmailed Vesper to steal Bond's casino winnings is far more complex and dangerous than anyone had imagined.

The criminal organisation, known only as 'Quantum', is run by ruthless businessman Dominic Greene.

Greene is conspiring to take control of one of the world's most important natural resources, water.

As Bond gets closer to finding the man responsible for the betrayal of Vesper, he must keep one step ahead of the CIA, the terrorists and even 'M' herself, to unravel the sinister plan and stop Quantum from getting its way. The film's opening action sequence was exciting and fast-moving, but director Mark Forster's camera work was very hard to follow.

No sooner had your eyes focussed on one car being smashed up, the camera pulled away to another angle and it was incredibly difficult to concentrate. The whole section almost flashed before your eyes.

It wasn't really explained who was chasing who either.

Throughout the whole film, there were more action scenes interspersed with quieter, more sedate sections, but none of the action scenes were as manic as the first.

Daniel Craig appeared to be more brutal, with less conscience, maybe truer to Ian Fleming's character in the 007 books.

He didn't really crack a smile throughout the whole film and maybe this is how a secret agent should be – ruthless, unapproachable, and totally hellbent on killing everyone in his way.

Bond girl Olga Kurylenko, who played Camille, was a bit of eye candy for the blokes, but her performance was certainly nowhere near as memorable as that of Ursula Andress and Britt Ekland.

Baddie Dominic Greene, played by Mathieu Amalric, was not very convincing as a Bond villain. He was a bit weedy and seemed to simper his way through his lines.

The standard of acting was overall pretty good, especially Daniel Craig who has got better since his last 007 suit was returned from the dry cleaners.
However, if you were collecting all the Bond films on DVD, Quantum of Solace wouldn't be top of the list to add to your collection – it simply doesn't compare to the original films with Sean Connery and Roger Moore.

Taken as a whole, Quantum of Solace was OK. I was left a little bit shaken, but not stirred.

The full article contains 515 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 11 November 2008 3:03 PM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Morecambe
 
 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.