thomas4cinema

I don’t feel able to write a substantial comment on Quantum of Solace, as I ended up watching it in a Chinese version of which I understood enough to confirm that the expected happens, but not enough to explain why that was so. But after the screening I went back to the Casino Royale disc and made up my mind about the new film based on the previous one and on general observations with respect to film and cinema. I know this is unjustified and unfair, but who gives a damn and if Ebert can form judgement based on 8 minutes of film, then I can form one based on a Chinese dubbed one. Both those opinions are completely correct. His on that Indy thing “Tru Loved” he watched on a screener DVD: sucks. Mine after two hours in a cinema: boring and lost track. Watched too much Bourne and felt compelled to copy hole sequences (chase through small alleys in exotic setting? Kinetic fist-fighting in hotel room? I really thought they were kidding me and are about to provide some comic relief and spoof it, but no! They just copy!).
Little irony, miniscule remarkable moments, you can watch that film in any language you desire and what you are missing is near 10 per cent tops. There is no subtlety in the design, just the desire to stun with action. Well done, but why not leave that to Bruckheimer and Bay and all those guys who do not have any other talents but to blow things up or break them. Those guys cannot write or direct, so why waste those who can, excellent directors (Foster) and scriptwriters (Paul Haggis!), to copy those good-for-nothings? I suppose there is so much pressure on the Bond franchise that an accidental outbreak of excellence such as Casino Royale causes panic in the exec producers’ floor, because it cannot be explained, and neither can it be replicated. Bond appears to be back to his mediocrity that made the franchise irrelevant for so many years.