The Craig Reconstruction: Quantum of Solace (2008)


My continuing examination of the James Bond film series continues with an exhaustive look at Daniel Craig as 007 in 2008’s Quantum of Solace

Quantum of Solace 2008 Daniel Craig Olga Kurylenko

James Bond returns in his first sequel!

After the huge success of Casino Royale there was little doubt Daniel Craig would return as James Bond. What would be unexpected was his encore Bond film would be a direct sequel to his previous 007 film. This would be a first in the series history!

When we last saw him, Craig’s Bond had lost the woman he loved at the hands of a mysterious large evil organization. The only clue he had to them was the figure of Mr. White, who Bond had successfully tracked down before the film faded out.

Now it was time to unravel this mystery, earn his trust from M and attempt to find some kind of emotional solace from the death of Vesper.

Daniel Craig is back, along with Casino co-stars Judi Dench, Giancarlo Giannini, Jeffrey Wright and Jesper Christiansen and the new faces of Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric and Gemma Arterton – I take a look at possibly one of the most divisive Bond films among fans (everyone has a strong opinion about it) Quantum of Solace.

This look at Quantum was a long time coming. I had anticipated finishing it quite a long time ago. Initial work on it started so long ago I’m embarrassed to say when. But things come up and the sporadic work I would get to spend on it brought it to a standstill until I finally completely pushed it to the backburner.

Quantum Solace Daniel Craig Judy Dench James Bond movieI want to thank those Haphazard Bond fans who enjoy watching these 007 projects of mine, who have continued to ask about when this would be done and telling me they were still waiting for it. It’s a nice feeling that these provide some kind of entertainment to fellow 007 fans, whether they agree with my opinions or not.

There has been some growing frustration with these video projects. I would love to simply post all of them on my youtube channel and have them easily be found and watchable for anyone who wants to check them out.

Unfortunately, Youtube has nixed most of my recent videos (including my superhero series) and I was forced to post them elsewhere. It’s aggravating that they have to be watched outside Youtube, which used to be my main hub of activity for posting, but it’s not my doing.

Once again this series has gotten bigger and more complicated. Sort of like the Bond films themselves! What once started as a rough batch of badly narrated, shabbily recorded, short to the point reviews have evolved into badly narrated long-winded behemoths of projects. Did I just compare these projects to the actual Bond movies???

Like Quantum of Solace breaking new ground as the first Bond sequel, this look at it takes the progressive step of actually being longer than the film itself. This was by no means planned by the way.

So sit back and enjoy. Hopefully you fellow Bond fans will find it a diverting project until the next Bond film rolls around.

Quantum of Solace Review Part One from HaphazardStuff on Vimeo.

Quantum of Solace Review Part Two from HaphazardStuff on Vimeo.

Quantum of Solace Review Part Three from HaphazardStuff on Vimeo.

Quantum of Solace Part Four from HaphazardStuff on Vimeo.

4 thoughts on “The Craig Reconstruction: Quantum of Solace (2008)

  1. Well Done!

    I remember when I was in the theater watching this and the boat scene was playing and I distinctly remember thinking they're shaking the camera to add excitement. Which turned my thoughts to another spy series who shall remain nameless. It was that point the movie lost me.

    If I want to watch a movie about bad guys and water supplies, I'll watch "Chinatown."

    it looks like it comes down to two problems. One, they didn't have finished script. Two, they tried to bring the Bond formula back too early.

    Hap, great background and a lot of good catches. First class work. Thank you!

  2. Sent you an email for each of the videos, but in a nutshell, the film is a disappointment. The film jumps all over the place and tries to reach the end and this costs the film a great deal.

    As for characters? Wasted Dominic Greene could have easily been one of the greatest Bond villains, but instead his motivations all come down to two scenes, the Quantum conference scene at the opera, and then the signing of the contract at the hotel. As for the girl, I think Kurylenko is a fox, but her character is no where to be found, she just turns up.

    Plotholes; too many to count. But one that does puzzle me; did the head of MI6 in Bolivia really send in a PA to ensure Bond goes back to the UK? The last time Bond went rogue in License To Kill an experienced agent, along with the HK Narcotics Bureau, tried to ensure his capture and return, and they nearly succeeded. What a waste.

    But for me what really annoys me in this film, is the song. Were Alicia Keys and Jack White, "strangling a cat" when they were recording this? Most probably since the piano intro sounds as if a cats paws were pressing the keys. But what I really find infuriating is that the Bond producers had two great songs to choose from; Ava Almar's Forever, and Jo Harrop's Quantum of Solace, and for my money the latter is probably the best song never used in a 007 film. A brilliant and cynical song, that harkens back to John Barry's score for From Russia With Love.

    To think that because MGM got into a hot water, yet again, this disappointment could very well have been the last Bond film. Thankfully this never happened, but in defense of Quantum; I can only say one thing. It's not as bad as Die Another Day.

    Great videos, and great detailed research. I can't wait for your take on Skyfall.

  3. Your discussion of editing in general here is fantastically informative. These projects of yours are not only tremendously entertaining but they are film schools in themselves.

    For what it's worth, I've always had a theory about this movie based on my experiences watching it in the theater and at home. Eccentric shut-in that I am, I always end up watching the Bond films several times in the theater. I never took to any of the action sequences when I saw them on the big screen. I found I could follow them better on subsequent viewings, but never really could explain start to finish what occurred in any particular action sequence. Even more confusing that the boat chase to me is the dogfight sequence. I still don’t understand how a wheezing 40-year old prop plane can down fighter jets. When I saw it at home on DVD, though, I found that I enjoyed some of the action a lot more than I did in the theater. I’ve actually grown to like both the car chase that starts the film and the fight across the scaffolding in the museum. The editing is still unnecessarily distancing, but at least it’s a lot easier to follow and consequently much more exciting on a TV screen. (Still don’t understand the DC-3 thing, but …)

    My theory is that when they edited this film, they completed all of their work on smallish screens. I’m sure all editing is digital these days, so I can see them doing all of their work on desktop workstations and watching the bulk of the final product on either computer screens or big screen consoles. If no one ever stopped to project it full size for viewing in a theater, then I can at least understand why the editors would have been fooled into thinking the final product a success. When watching all these quick cuts on a small screen, it’s possible to take everything in and have a pretty good sense of what’s going on. I don’t think it’s the best choice for action scenes, but at least it’s tolerable and sometimes exciting on your TV screen. In the theater though, with all those cuts sprawling across a huge screen, it becomes nearly impossible to follow. Did all the editors watch the finished movie on somebody’s laptop or the office big-screen and say “That looks great” and only then blow it up for theaters to find out the scaling up destroyed the ability of eye to follow things?

  4. The worst movie I have ever seen, that cost so much to make.

    For any real bond book, or bond movie fan.. a nasty piece of modern rubbish.
    Boring, gross, and nasty, both visually and story.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *