Things That Are Annoying - A Film Review
Despite everything, I've never really reviewed a film before. I mean, in a normal review. And that's not going to change. This isn't a review of film, because that'd be boring and nobody's listening. Instead, I'm going to use a film to highlight what annoys me in films. Quite often, it's things that other people miss, but I suppose, studying film at university does that to you. You start thinking about the why behind each thing you see in a film, and sometimes, if there isn't one, it can begin to bug you.
The film in question is Quantum of Solace, a title I've put in itallics to make me feel more like a real reviewer and less like I'm trying to waste time. If you're curious, it didn't work. Anyway, if by some miracle you're reading this (and apparently haven't already had the film spoiled, despite the fact it's being advertised on everything from coca cola to random video cameras), I'm going to try and avoid spoilers about the plot, but there are sequences I'll mention and it might ruin it for you. So if so, well, I don't care. You were warned.
Let's start with the opening. We pan across to a road from out at sea, and see a car chase. It's shakey, hard to follow, and overall, looks like somebody saw a midnight showing of the Bourne Identity on a flight once with the sound off and thought 'hey, that's a good directing style, let's do that'. Ironic, since the second unit on the Bourne films, famed for such sequences, are also the second unit on Quantum of Solace, but there you go. Maybe they thought 'how can we make this different from our Bourne movies?' to which they replied 'What if we make it even harder to follow?'. I don't know, but that's not what this point is about. I've sadly come to accept shakey, 'realistic' camera movements as part of 21st Century films, no matter how much I hate it.
My actual point is in the first part I mentioned. We pan across to a road from out at sea. First shot. Now, this is a James Bond flick, so what are we missing? Oh, yeah, the typical walk-on-shoot-the-gunman bit. But that's okay. Casino Royale cut it out too, only to work it in to the title sequence in a way that was so clever it was the moment that made me swallow all my cynism and realise I was going to love that film. (And love it I did, it's now easily my favourite Bond).
Except, it doesn't happen. Okay, that's a little wierd. I mean, the opening shot is blatantly the type to follow on from the gun barrel sequence, it follows all the conventions, the pan to a road, of other Bond films. I suppose they're just trying to be edgy and un-Bondish. Even if it counters the point of the ending of Casino Royale, being that Bond has now become the James Bond we know. That's just film jargon anyway, so it can be ignored.
Only, at the very end of the film, we get a moving final shot (that would be perfect for a oh-it's-a-tad-pretentious-but-it-works credit scroll over) which suddenly cuts to... the gun barrel sequence. Why?
My best assumption is that it's the film makers deciding they need a 'yay James Bond!' moment to rival 'the name's Bond...James Bond...' from Casino Royale. Except here, it doesn't work at all. It comes out of nowhere, and seems like such a cheap attempt to imitate that it seems blatantly hollow. Plus, the point in Casino Royale was that Bond had now become Bond, in this film, he'd spent his whole time playing the Casino Royale-esque Bond and not changed at all, so it has no real message. At least nothing relating to Bond. Instead, it seems pretty obvious they took it from the intro at that last moment to give the ending a punch instead of a downbeat yet effective ending they could have. Basically, there's no why for doing it except someone somewhere thinking 'yeah, that'd be cool'. And I hate that.
Film makers always have to make decisions, and they're conscious. Films don't just happen. You have to think about every single shot, because they don't take themselves. You have to think about every single thing your actors do, because they're not robots, they do what they do for a reason. You have to think about every piece of set and costume because it doesn't just happen. Things don't just occur. There is always a why, and that why should always make logical sense. Despite being such a minor thing, here it didn't, and that's why it really bothered me.
Moving on from such a small criticism, let's focus on a bit of what this means. It's part of a tension in this film between being "Look, it's James Bond!" and "Look, it's not James Bond!". This crops up all over, the film spends plenty of time establishing itself as gritty, 'realistic' (...in a world....where nobody owns a tripod...) but then throws in blatant Bond cliches that just don't fit. For example, inbetween every scene, we get a stylistic caption telling us where we are. For example, 'London' is written on the road as a black taxi drives over it (ohhh, how British!). Very un-James Bondy though, so I suppose it suits the style of film they were going for.
Only then, we get things like the gun barrel sequence, a truly iconic death based on Goldfinger (the Daily Mail ruined it for me in a big photo on their magazine cover before I saw the film so anybody I can ruin it for too in revenge makes me feel better) and the biggie, a completely out of place character.
At one point, Bond meets 'Agent Fields' (Strawberry Fields, apparently, she's even got the ridiculous Bond name, which they do make a relatively creative gag out of when she refuses to tell him). Fields is apparently from 1961. She speaks with an accent you can only describe as as 'plummy', and I never, ever use the word 'plummy'. She seems to be from 'the BBC Television Centre' of the 60s (and again, in the 60's, you have to call it 'the BBC Television Centre'), and acts like a stereotypical 60's Bond girl. She even says 'Oh my gosh!' at one point....
Seriously. She couldn't be more out of place if she was wearing a nike tracksuit, a burberry cap and scarf and at a Star Trek convention.
And yes, I get it. Ohhh, it's a homage to old Bond movies! How clever!
Except, no. No it's not. It's out of place and wrong. Do you know what's clever? Casino Royale, and James Bond telling his new female friend her undercover name is 'Sydney Broadchester' to which she protests. That's a sly wink. Giving at least half an hour to an over the top stereotype character is not a clever reference. Especially in a film that otherwise is being as serious as Quantum of Solace.
It would be like if Arnold Schwarznegger as Mr Freeze appeared in The Dark Knight as a throwaway villain. Yes, it's referencing old Batman films and how camp they were! No, you don't fucking belong here, get out. It wouldn't work. Or hell, even from the 'popular' era of Batman, we could have an exploding shark! It still doesn't fit in, does it? Putting one in isn't a 'clever homage', it's an out of place wierdo.
Agent Fields is an exploding shark. She doesn't belong. It's not clever. It's just out of place. And it makes me just sit there and think 'make up your mind already' on what kind of film they want to make. Either do a typical Bond style adventure that homages the old ones (and we'd have Die Another Day, despite everything, I liked Quantum of Solace, I just didn't love it, but Die Another Day can go and have an ice castle fall on it after it got shot by an intergalactic laser gun because hey, that was the plot of the movie) or do a cutting edge modernisation in the vein of Casino Royale (and prefrably as good).
Why go through all the effort to cut the Bond trimmings (bye bye Q and Moneypenny) to only stick them in again at the points where they stand out the most?
And that's why Quantum of Solace irritates me. I'm not even that bigger Bond fan. I don't care if it has or doesn't have Bond elements in it. I just hate it being wishy washy and I hate illogical film making, where it feels like the director didn't sit down and think about it.
Despite all that, I liked the film enough to enjoy it. It just also made me angry. A film that makes me apathetic, now that's a bad film.
And the dog fight was awesome. They even used REAL planes. And that always deserves bonus points.
The film in question is Quantum of Solace, a title I've put in itallics to make me feel more like a real reviewer and less like I'm trying to waste time. If you're curious, it didn't work. Anyway, if by some miracle you're reading this (and apparently haven't already had the film spoiled, despite the fact it's being advertised on everything from coca cola to random video cameras), I'm going to try and avoid spoilers about the plot, but there are sequences I'll mention and it might ruin it for you. So if so, well, I don't care. You were warned.
Let's start with the opening. We pan across to a road from out at sea, and see a car chase. It's shakey, hard to follow, and overall, looks like somebody saw a midnight showing of the Bourne Identity on a flight once with the sound off and thought 'hey, that's a good directing style, let's do that'. Ironic, since the second unit on the Bourne films, famed for such sequences, are also the second unit on Quantum of Solace, but there you go. Maybe they thought 'how can we make this different from our Bourne movies?' to which they replied 'What if we make it even harder to follow?'. I don't know, but that's not what this point is about. I've sadly come to accept shakey, 'realistic' camera movements as part of 21st Century films, no matter how much I hate it.
My actual point is in the first part I mentioned. We pan across to a road from out at sea. First shot. Now, this is a James Bond flick, so what are we missing? Oh, yeah, the typical walk-on-shoot-the-gunman bit. But that's okay. Casino Royale cut it out too, only to work it in to the title sequence in a way that was so clever it was the moment that made me swallow all my cynism and realise I was going to love that film. (And love it I did, it's now easily my favourite Bond).
Except, it doesn't happen. Okay, that's a little wierd. I mean, the opening shot is blatantly the type to follow on from the gun barrel sequence, it follows all the conventions, the pan to a road, of other Bond films. I suppose they're just trying to be edgy and un-Bondish. Even if it counters the point of the ending of Casino Royale, being that Bond has now become the James Bond we know. That's just film jargon anyway, so it can be ignored.
Only, at the very end of the film, we get a moving final shot (that would be perfect for a oh-it's-a-tad-pretentious-but-it-works credit scroll over) which suddenly cuts to... the gun barrel sequence. Why?
My best assumption is that it's the film makers deciding they need a 'yay James Bond!' moment to rival 'the name's Bond...James Bond...' from Casino Royale. Except here, it doesn't work at all. It comes out of nowhere, and seems like such a cheap attempt to imitate that it seems blatantly hollow. Plus, the point in Casino Royale was that Bond had now become Bond, in this film, he'd spent his whole time playing the Casino Royale-esque Bond and not changed at all, so it has no real message. At least nothing relating to Bond. Instead, it seems pretty obvious they took it from the intro at that last moment to give the ending a punch instead of a downbeat yet effective ending they could have. Basically, there's no why for doing it except someone somewhere thinking 'yeah, that'd be cool'. And I hate that.
Film makers always have to make decisions, and they're conscious. Films don't just happen. You have to think about every single shot, because they don't take themselves. You have to think about every single thing your actors do, because they're not robots, they do what they do for a reason. You have to think about every piece of set and costume because it doesn't just happen. Things don't just occur. There is always a why, and that why should always make logical sense. Despite being such a minor thing, here it didn't, and that's why it really bothered me.
Moving on from such a small criticism, let's focus on a bit of what this means. It's part of a tension in this film between being "Look, it's James Bond!" and "Look, it's not James Bond!". This crops up all over, the film spends plenty of time establishing itself as gritty, 'realistic' (...in a world....where nobody owns a tripod...) but then throws in blatant Bond cliches that just don't fit. For example, inbetween every scene, we get a stylistic caption telling us where we are. For example, 'London' is written on the road as a black taxi drives over it (ohhh, how British!). Very un-James Bondy though, so I suppose it suits the style of film they were going for.
Only then, we get things like the gun barrel sequence, a truly iconic death based on Goldfinger (the Daily Mail ruined it for me in a big photo on their magazine cover before I saw the film so anybody I can ruin it for too in revenge makes me feel better) and the biggie, a completely out of place character.
At one point, Bond meets 'Agent Fields' (Strawberry Fields, apparently, she's even got the ridiculous Bond name, which they do make a relatively creative gag out of when she refuses to tell him). Fields is apparently from 1961. She speaks with an accent you can only describe as as 'plummy', and I never, ever use the word 'plummy'. She seems to be from 'the BBC Television Centre' of the 60s (and again, in the 60's, you have to call it 'the BBC Television Centre'), and acts like a stereotypical 60's Bond girl. She even says 'Oh my gosh!' at one point....
Seriously. She couldn't be more out of place if she was wearing a nike tracksuit, a burberry cap and scarf and at a Star Trek convention.
And yes, I get it. Ohhh, it's a homage to old Bond movies! How clever!
Except, no. No it's not. It's out of place and wrong. Do you know what's clever? Casino Royale, and James Bond telling his new female friend her undercover name is 'Sydney Broadchester' to which she protests. That's a sly wink. Giving at least half an hour to an over the top stereotype character is not a clever reference. Especially in a film that otherwise is being as serious as Quantum of Solace.
It would be like if Arnold Schwarznegger as Mr Freeze appeared in The Dark Knight as a throwaway villain. Yes, it's referencing old Batman films and how camp they were! No, you don't fucking belong here, get out. It wouldn't work. Or hell, even from the 'popular' era of Batman, we could have an exploding shark! It still doesn't fit in, does it? Putting one in isn't a 'clever homage', it's an out of place wierdo.
Agent Fields is an exploding shark. She doesn't belong. It's not clever. It's just out of place. And it makes me just sit there and think 'make up your mind already' on what kind of film they want to make. Either do a typical Bond style adventure that homages the old ones (and we'd have Die Another Day, despite everything, I liked Quantum of Solace, I just didn't love it, but Die Another Day can go and have an ice castle fall on it after it got shot by an intergalactic laser gun because hey, that was the plot of the movie) or do a cutting edge modernisation in the vein of Casino Royale (and prefrably as good).
Why go through all the effort to cut the Bond trimmings (bye bye Q and Moneypenny) to only stick them in again at the points where they stand out the most?
And that's why Quantum of Solace irritates me. I'm not even that bigger Bond fan. I don't care if it has or doesn't have Bond elements in it. I just hate it being wishy washy and I hate illogical film making, where it feels like the director didn't sit down and think about it.
Despite all that, I liked the film enough to enjoy it. It just also made me angry. A film that makes me apathetic, now that's a bad film.
And the dog fight was awesome. They even used REAL planes. And that always deserves bonus points.
posted by Li at 11:57 PM
3 Comments:
I have heard people complain about this film and not know why, and have heard people say they generally liked it but didn't like parts.
You, in turn, ripped it apart, seemed to loath it, and then end it on a high. And I quite like that :p
Welcome back to blogging by the way!!
You see, I complained about it and knew EXACTLY why!
And I thought it'd take you a lot longer to realise I was back :p.
I agreed with a lot of your points, which was quite a scary thing for me. Also follow my blog bitch!
Post a Comment
<< Home