Dez Reviews Quantum of Solace

Longtime GNABB readers know that Dez is a Bond aficionado. For Dez’s overview of the entire Bond film series, click HERE and HERE. I am not uncritical of each individual film. To the contrary, I freely admit that there are a number of Bond films that are laughably bad. But they are all a part of the family. It is always an exciting time in a Bond fan’s life when a new actor takes up the mantle. Daniel Craig’s debut in 2006’s Casino Royale was one of the most exciting and refreshing entries in Bond history. Casino Royale ranks up there in the top three or so of all 22 official Bond films (I do not count the rogue Never Say Never Again or the slapstick spoof Casino Royale from the late 1960’s). When I heard that the follow-up, Quantum of Solace, was to pick up where Casino Royale left off (a real sequel vs. a self contained adventure, as all of the previous films had been), I was quite intrigued.

Quantum of Solace ranks somewhere in the middle in the Bond hierarchy. It is buoyed by an electric and intense performance from Daniel Craig, who thank God has signed on for at least two more Bond films. But the actor’s portrayal can be separated from the film itself. (For instance, Pierce Brosnan was generally excellent in his films, but three of the four were pretty bad and stale Bond films, with only Goldeneye being a stand-out from his era. None of that was Brosnan’s fault.)

The plot of QOS is fairly thin. Villain Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) follows in the tradition of the more realistic of Bond villains. (After the down to earth Le Chiffre and Greene, I am ready for a true megalomaniac like Goldfinger or Blofeld in the next one, though). Greene is a sadistic industrialist with the rather humble scheme (for Bond standards) of hording and controlling the water supply of Bolivia. But the real interest for Bond is that Greene seems to be the next link in the chain of the mysterious evil organization known as ‘Quantum,’ which we now know was behind the events in Casino Royale (it appears the producers are setting up this Quantum as the new Spectre from films and Fleming books of old. Could there be an evil mastermind a la Blofeld coming in the next film?)

Judi Dench's 'M' continues to develop into an outstanding supporting character, while the woefully underused Jeffrey Wright as Bond friend/CIA operative Felix Leiter needs to be given more time in future films. Wright's Leiter rivals Jack Lord's depiction of Leiter in Dr. No (in quality and presence, they are obviously very different approaches to the character). Giancarlo Giannini's Rene Mathis makes a welcome return as a Bond ally/father figure. They do not have this type of character very often in Bond films, but it always enhances the depth of Bond's character when he has a mentor like Mathis. (It reminds me of the wonderful Kerim Bey character from the best Bond film ever, From Russia With Love.) The Bond girls are sufficiently hot and interesting this time around. Agent Fields (Gemma Arterton) is his obligatory sexual conquest, while Olga Kurylenko plays the intriguing beauty Camille Montes bent on revenge. Interesting that Bond fails to bed her. His loss, she is very hot. If I were Craig, I would have insisted on a script rewrite rectifying that situation.


ABOVE: Bond gets to sleep with the one on the right, but fails to bed the one on the left

This entry in the Bond series is high on impressive action sequences, but a bit low on the intrigue and style that are the hallmarks of the best of the Bond films. While it is nice to see Bond somewhat haunted by the past (he is driven to avenge the death of Vesper Lynd from Casino Royale more than duty to any current mission), you can see him becoming colder and more bitter as the film progresses. Perhaps this is the direction they want to take the character (definitely preferable to the clown that was Roger Moore or even the irritating detachment that was the later Brosnan Bond), but they risk losing some key elements of the classic Bond character. Remember that while being the ultimate physical threat, Bond is also obsessed with creature comforts and pleasures. Bond style has always been as important as Bond action. That is what Connery balanced so well in the character, and what no actor since has quite been able to balance as well. Craig’s Bond shows some tantalizing hints that he is discovering a taste for the expensive pleasures in life (these two most recent films, to be fair, are supposed to be a “reboot” of the character in his early days, so they are portraying him as a bit rough around the edges on purpose). I just hope that they don’t forget that Bond needs to grow into a sophisticated obsessive in the pursuits of pleasures and excess. That is a key to the character, and what separates Bond from the Bournes of the world.


ABOVE: There is no shortage of action in the new Bond. Bond has evidently gotten top notch training in jumping from building to building, as well as vehicular chases (he engages in two car chases, a motorcycle chase, boat chase and airplane chase in Quantum of Solace)

I can appreciate the producers’ need to keep up with the Bournes and Transporters in the action department (and they have, admirably), but they should not forget that they have some advantages with this Bond character that the new and improved Daniel Craig-era Bond has yet to fully exploit. But I am somewhat nit-picking here. The fact is that this is an extremely exciting era for Bond fans. Daniel Craig is the best shot of adrenaline for Bond since the days of Connery. I would categorize Quantum of Solace as a letdown from the peaks of Casino Royale, but I am already looking forward to Bond 23 and have the utmost confidence that this current Bond team can fix the glitches that surfaced in Quantum of Solace.

Bond fans should keep watch for a wonderful little homage to Goldfinger in QOS.

*** out of *****