"Quantum of Solace" = Ehh....

Ever since "Casino Royale" reignited the Bond franchise with a much needed reboot of the Bond story, I looked forward to the next chapter. As a life long Bond fan, I found Daniel Craig's portrayal of the famed literary character a refreshing change to the status quo, and I loved the origin aspects that the producers brought to the table. Advanced word on the next film in the Bond series, "Quantum of Solace" suggested that this film would be the first true sequel in the franchise's history. The story would begin a mere hour after the final scenes from "Casino Royale", with the interrogation of the villainous Mr. White. The producers continued with the same screenwriting team responsible for the last film, Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, and Robert Wade. It seemed as if this iteration of Bond would last more than one film, and I was excited for the possibilities. What sort of tortured moments for Bond would we see in the wake of his beloved Vesper's death? What kind of storyline would the writer's craft? What would acclaimed director Marc Forster ("Finding Neverland") bring to the table in his first true action film?

Unfortunately, "Quantum of Solace" is merely a collection of great moments that "might have been". The audience is, indeed thrust into the action immediately after the studio trademarks flash on the screen, and we are with Bond as he is racing in his Aston Martin DBS through a winding Italian roadway. During this first chase scene, I started to get a little concerned. It seemed that Marc Forster had decided to lift a page from the directing playbook of fellow director Paul Greengrass ("United 93", "The Bourne Supremacy". and "The Bourne Ultimatum") in that Forster used jump cuts and quick edits to convey action and intensity, with the overall result being disorientation for the movie watcher. Instead of being treated to an exciting chase, I was treated to flashes of what looked to be an exciting chase that was marred by this MTV style of movie making. I have already ranted about Greengrass' failure to utilize Moscow in the car chase scene in "Bourne", where Greengrass treated us instead to shots of Matt Damon shifting gears in his car. Here, it looked to be more of the same. I was disappointed in Forster's style as soon as the chase popped onto the screen.

The opening credit sequence itself was underwhelming. There was no opening gun barrel (it would appear in the end). Moreover, though it appeared to play with the motif of the Bolivian desert, the reintroduction of the silhouetted nudes juxtaposed with a too flashy constellation motif made me feel as if I were in a combination strip club/planetarium in the desert. This was a shame, as I rather enjoyed the theme song performed by Alicia Keys and Jack White. This seemed a step back from the opening credit sequence in the first film.

From there, the audience is treated to (SPOILER WARNING):

1) Bond's chase of a double agent through the streets and rooftops in an Italian town. I think I liked it better when I saw it in "The Bourne Ultimatum" when it was Jason Bourne and Tangiers.

2) Bond's close quarters battle with an assassin prior to his first meeting with his female "partner" for the rest of the film and the main villain."

3) A boat chase sequence every bit as disorienting as the car chase from the earlier part of the film.

4) A HORRIBLE montage sequence of a running gunbattle at an opera, with the shots of Bond's battle matched up with a soundtrack of the opera being performed. YUCK! Forster is no Coppola.

5) Two truly forgettable Bond girls who could not act their way out of a paper bag. Eva Green's Vesper really set the bar high for Bond women. The casting here was a swing and a miss.

6) The setting of the final battle. A hotel. In the middle of a desert. Run by fuel cells. What the heck????? Why make a return to the "giant explosion of the bad guy's base" cliche of earlier Bond films?

7) The lame plot of the villain itself. The villain, Dominic Greene, is attempting to extort money from governments of the different South American governments for their water supplies. The sole instance we see of the impact of his actions is a shot of a few villagers not able to get water from a spigot. Oooooo-scary! Very disappointing villainy.


To be sure, there were some aspects of the film that I enjoyed. Whenever Dame Judi Dench's M was on the screen, the scenes cracked with sharp writing and sharper acting. The homage to "Goldfinger" was affecting and powerful at the same time. I also loved the dialogue concerning how governments deal with people who would normally be considered villains during the Cold War. I particularly loved the line "If we could not deal with villains, we would have no one left to deal with." The moral ambivalence on the part of all parties save for Bond and M rang true, and I loved the emphasis on this ambiguity. One of my favorite moments of the film occurred at the opera (before the abhorrent gunbattle). Bond is attempting to discover the identities of the members of Quantum, and he sets up his post looking at the audience with a pilfered Quantum earpiece, listening in on the conference that is going on within the audience itself. After listening in, he announces his presence, and as the members of Quantum rise from their spots in the audience to make their escape, Bond photographs many of them and sends the data back to the MI6. This was a smarter Bond, not one who was a bull in a china shop. He has LEARNED from the last film the importance of surveillance and the importance of working as part of a larger team.

My other favorite sequence was the final one in the film-Bond's confrontation with Vesper's Algerian boyfriend. Personally, I thought that it should have been near the beginning of the film. The sequence also saddened me because it appeared to have been shot by Martin Campbell as a coda to "Casino Royale." Why could the rest of the film not have done the same? Instead, the audience was left with mishmash of plotlines that do not mesh well together at all.

I was disappointed in this film. Although I would not go so far as to call this "The Bond Supremacy", as so many reviewers have done, I can see where they are coming from. Filmmakers need to get away from this method of action filmmaking. The film also needed more character development sequences. Everytime there was the opportunity (with a favorite being Bond's inability to sleep on an overnight plane flight to South America), the filmmakers dropped the ball in the next scene. Here's hoping that the writers and director for the next Bond film will take a look at what worked in "Casino Royale" and bring the character back to greatness.

Craig is still Bond in my book. He just needs the stories to let him prove it.