We went to the movies last night to watch Quantum Solace I must admit I was a little nervous being a big James Bond fan because the critics had panned it. I must say however that they must have been watching a different movie.
From the moment the action starts I found myself whincing and pulling my face as Daniel Craig chased the bad guy jumping through doorways and smashing through glass, this stuntman action really makes you feel a part of the action like no other Bond movies have. I found myself whincing thinking, `God that must hurt,` and ducking in my seat, hats off to the makers of the movie who really made me feel a part of it.
One of my favourite lines was when Judy Dench as `M` is walking through the corridors of MI6 being briefed and she is approached by someone trying to give her some inconsequencial information and someone turns to him and says, `Don`t she`s not in the mood.` Yes, Judy Dench is brilliant as `M` and she has the character much more in the thick of the action than the stuffy old `M` we used to see. She is typical of most female leaders keeping herself appraised of all the action as it happens and always being in control although with Bond it wouldn`t surprise me if she just gives him a knock over the head like any matriarcal figure would do to a wayward teenager.
Love InterestThe critics don`t seem to understand that Daniel Craig is playing the early Bond without polish and this film is connected to Casino Royale, it is without surprise then that he doesn`t fall madly in love with the leading character because as women we would feel that would be a betrayal of the feelings he had for Vespa in Casino Royale. If he had how are we supposed to trust when he is in love or not and we would certainly lose respect for him if he was so fickle. We do forgive him, his little tryst with the MI6 office worker, after all he is a man and he has needs. I do enjoy the referrance to Goldfinger with the manner in which she died.
Bad guyThe crtics mentioned that the bad guy was weak and just some `small town criminal just stealing the water supplies of the needy`. Why should this come as any surprise, we had just a bank robber in Goldfinger who happened to just want to knock off Fort Knox and a diamond thief in Diamonds are Forever but they seemed to miss that he is part of a much bigger network of bad guys which gives Bond more problems to deal with in the future. This aspect of the film seemed to be as much about laying down a future foundation as about the one bad guy that Bond is concentrating on in this film.The only thing I would like to mentioned is that when Bond is entering a suspects apartment I wouldn`t expect him to ever turn his back on the room whilst he closes the door, he may have put himself at unnecessary risk. The action was so fast in that room that whereas the Bond played by Sean Connery we would have known that he heard the knife click and casually been ready for it, in this film I`m not so sure that Daniel Craig`s Bond was ready. Again this can just be a referrance to Bond`s lack of polish or it is a reflection on the fast action filming style of the movie.
I do enjoy the consistencies in wardrobe, the blood stain on the white shirt which got drier and drier and darker and darker. There was also the marks on Bond`s chest, when we saw it, which showed the scratches and bruises of those close up fights.
TechnologyThe critics mentioned the lack of gadgets, did they not notice the computer technology at MI6 or the phone technology? I almost despaired when I saw the Austin Martin get wrecked in what was one of the most exciting car chases I`ve seen for a while. I found myself involuntarily swinging from side to side in my seat trying to avoid a collision.Character of BondIn this movie we see Daniel Craig really bringing some depth to the character of Bond, those cool blue eyes which fail to hide the heartbrake of the death of Vespa and we begin to see the reason for some heavy drinking. The sorrow he portrays as he holds his friend in the middle of the street is marvelous. He wears his tux well and manages to pull of the wearing of a cardigan to the degree that I think I need to buy my husband one.CIAIn this movie we see the real side of the CIA, all too often their idea of a secret service is to meddle in the governments of other countries all in the name of oil. I can`t honestly remember if this loose end was tried up in the film but maybe something will come to light in further movies. The department head of the CIA was a slimey individual, easy to hate and actually not well actedPoint to questionI`m just not sure that the large building housing the bad guys at the end was a good way to go. The relevance to the plot was not explained well and it seemed that someone thought,`Oh we forgot about having bad guy place to blow up at the end so we will just stick this together.` It seemed to me that somehow the connection of this building to the story had ended up on the cutting room floor and they hoped that noone would notice that it seemed to bear no relevance to what was going on. I had no idea who owned it or the relevance of what appeared to be gas tanks in the wall. There was a tiny referrance in a conversation between two bad guys but it was easily missed.Annoying habitWouldn`t you just love to educate properly an American audience then we wouldn`t have to but up with a title shot everytime we move cities which say London, England or Rome, Italy. It really gets on my nerves.Anyhow thats my take on the movie, its worth watching and I certainly look forward to adding it to my DVD collection when it is released.
I`m smiling to myself this morning and reflecting. I am often asked at interview, "How would you manage conflict and can you come up with any instances where you have successfully dealt with conflict?"
