The Quantum of Bourne?

Those who didn't get a chance to see the latest Bond film in theatres will undoubtedly take a peek at The Quantum of Solace on DVD, but it's a got some major stylistic differences from Casino Royale (pretty much the first of a two-part revenge tale that has James Bond going after the culprit responsible for mucking up another attempt at love).

But even on TV, most might notice the editing in Quantum's first half is very oppressive, and mercilessly chews through simple dialogue scenes that need their own distinct tempo. An action scene is a living thing; it has its own pacing and cutting style that creates peaks and valleys, and is balanced by periodic rests before the next big chase.

Variable editing style is what's used in Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight, Paul Greengrass' United 93, and even Michael Bay's vapid The Rock, so why does The Quantum of Solace, the shortest Bond film ever at 107 minutes, feel like a retread of The Bourne Supremacy (Bourne II)?

Read on, and remember: I like creative editing.

I like the fast-paced stupidity and over-pitched melodrama of Armageddon, the satirical advert cutting in Slogan, the bizarro structure of Death Laid an Egg, and the espresso-driven montages of Tinto Brass. The reason Quantum is a mess stems from myopic producers and editor(s) who believe audiences won't absorb character and plot if it's not presented in millisecond edits. With that idiotic philosophy at play, Quantum may well be the most divisive film for Bond fans.



Copyright © mondomark