Quantum of Solace - The Review

WARNING : Spoilers Ahead!

I should have seen it coming. Since when did Bond dispense of sleek Beretta's and Walther PPK's and pick up a machine gun?

After all, you cannot carry a machine gun in your pant pocket and not have a visible bulge. And such a bulge would be naturally unlikely, even for a ladies man such as Agent 007 who has a long history of overused tools.

I think, the people who made this movie wanted to give the feeling this was an Action Movie and not just a Bond Movie. Hence the silhouette with the machine gun.

This is also the feeling you will get when you sit through the opening moments of the film. We had heard of rumors, trivia and commentary on the famed car chase scene that had destroyed many a Aston Martin.

So how is the car chase scene then?

It's a blur.

Yes, that's the summary. I'm sure you are better endowed with a faster than 30 frames a second vision system so you can actually follow the deft moves that happen here. As for poor old me, I couldn't. I later found after asking my friends, that they too had the same problem.

So my question to the makers is this? Why make an opening sequence that no one can follow and one that only gives a general impression of slick action?

But I'll tell you the truth. Such was my faith in the renewed Bond franchise, with new Bond Daniel Craig as leading man, that I forgave this opening scene. I felt rushed when the scene ended, and perhaps that was what the director wanted to do.

But the next action sequence? What of that? Bond chasing down a man who has attempted to gun down 'M' and in effect released Mr. White?

Again, a blur!

And what of the mix in of the horse race going on in parallel? I just read that one of the first movies that director Marc Forster saw was the Francis Ford Copolla masterpiece - Apocalypse Now. There's a similar scene there. Of a man killing another, with an axe. And yet, that killing is interspersed with a scene where a bull is being butchered in a rather primitive way by tribals, with what else, an axe. The effect produced is incredible.

[If you haven't seen Apocalypse Now please drop everything else and see it NOW! Yea, it's that good!]

But I digress. So this amateurish rip off from the great master Copolla doesn't work. The rip off from Bourne Ultimatum of rapid editing and cuts doesn't work. Because of the age old problem that movie goers pose to directors. The age old problem called - 'I've seen this already. What's new in your movie?'.

So by the time you are fifteen minutes into the movie, you are feeling like you've on a merry-go-round for the time and you are all dizzy and confused. Again, if this is indeed an effect the director wanted to create, kudos to him. It worked!

And yet, such is the faith in the Bond formula, you hope there'll be something that will come and be nice to watch.

After this of course you realise that plot is boring. Did I say boring? Yes, I did. I will not bore you with what happens further on. But suffice to say, it is such a one dimensional, linear plot that I was surprised. I'd expect much more from Paul Haggis (Crash, Casino Royale, Letters From Iwo Jima). Bollywood pot boilers even at the level of Jimmy have better plots than this. And that's saying a lot for Jimmy.

So there's not much in the plot department. The villian, who has to be over-the-top since this is a Bond movie is anything but. No metal teeth, no tears of blood, no pliers for hands. Again boring.

And there are no gadgets either! By which time you feel if you're in the right theatre? Is this a Bond movie at all or a Hong Kong rip off of the Bourne series? How did they get Daniel Craig to act for them? And to their credit I will say, Hong Kong directors would have made a better movie than this. Watch Mission Impossible : 2 and you'll know what I mean. Give me John Woo anyday!

The two finest scenes in this movie are at the Opera where Bond is evesdropping on the members of the Quantum syndicate. And where Bond's friend dies in his arms and after a moment of mourning, Bond tosses him into a trash can and carries off loose change from his pocket. These two are good, and here the credentials of person who directs Drama comes good.

I will end with my parting shot on product placement. We see Sony Ericsson, Ford etc. being endorsed. In fact we also see, in probably the most direct manner, the endorsement of a hotel in Haiti, which I'm sure has more visitors after the film. Shame on you Marc Forster ;-)

But even product placement is bad. After seeing hundreds of Hydrogen Fuel Cells blow up to create a ghastly inferno, how many people in their right mind would prefer to drive a Ford Hydrogen powered car? ;-)

थोड़ा तोह दिमाग लगाओ भाई