Film

At Least Daniel Craig Is Still Hot

Quantum of Solace Is Kind of a Mess

In 2006, James Bond was reborn for the first time in the person of Daniel Craig, a slightly dingy hunk whose eyes are the color of blue Otter Pops. Craig—who, I will throw my cards down now, is to my mind the best Bond by far (and no trouble to look at, let's be honest)—was new to the role, but he was also playing a new role. After Pierce Brosnan exhausted every winking reference to the facile character's shopworn charm in four movies from 1995 to 2002, the franchise needed a reboot. It futurized by reaching into the past: 2006's Casino Royale told the story of how Bond became Bond, opening with the two kills that earned him his 007 status. It moved on to one of the best on-foot chases in action-movie history, a geniusly choreographed performance of physically witty parkour between a real parkour star and Craig (content to portray himself by contrast as a doltish fighter who smashes through walls rather than scaling them).

Revolutionarily, the movie then became a love story. Bond fell in love. There was a marvelous scene involving scrotum torture and before long, Bond was e-mailing his resignation to MI6. Bond was getting a life! He was also getting, about 100 years after Freud, a psychology. And none of the cartoonish fun of Bond was lost—the villain wept blood! Bond rocketed into the sky on a construction crane!—even when his soul was first glimpsed (it began not with a kiss but with a hug), and even when this newborn soul was predictably trampled at the end.

Bond immediately set out for vengeance, and the new movie, Quantum of Solace, picks up right where Casino Royale left off. Quantum's plot was hatched and scripted by a team of producers and writers who began their work while Casino Royale was still shooting, and frankly, it is a mess by comparison. (Its title comes from a short story in Ian Fleming's For Your Eyes Only, but the plot is made up from whole cloth.) The psychology is more heavy-handed and simple. (Reportedly, Paul Haggis's idea to complicate it by giving Bond's early girlfriend a child was rejected.) The fun is less fun. (The villain is just a pretend environmentalist.) Also—and don't accuse me of action-mental-midgetry because I understood every move Jason Bourne made—the plot's turns are occasionally confusing, and worse, you don't care why. The end, especially, just hangs there, limp. It's a wishy-washy film, like the word "quantum" is wishy-washy. It can mean "large, significant" or "very small increments": This is not a word; it is an antiword.

Quantum of Solace, the 22nd Bond film, then, has only two built-in audiences: those who follow Daniel Craig, and those who follow James Bond. Those audiences will have to go to this film, and for them there are a few perks. The fact that Bond conducts high-speed chases using a stick shift rather than an automatic transmission appears to great effect at the start. The fact that the contemporary Bond prefers murder to torture provides something to think about. The ravishing staging of Puccini's Tosca as a production-within-a-production—and the use of the opera audience as a United Nations–style gathering place for the global underworld—offers a delicious opening to continue the age-old argument about the supremacy of opera among all art forms.

For everyone else, rent Casino Royale. recommended

Share via

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Email
 

Comments (17) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
why is the film start later than in europe?
Posted by LAb on November 12, 2008 at 4:06 PM · Report
2
That this movie would be unsatisfying isn't surprising if you revisit the ending of Casino Royale: Bond's girlfriend just, somehow, forgot that she was living with a superhuman killing machine? She fell under the thumb of crude-and-clumsy-by-comparison generic bad guys and, um...just didn't think Bond could handle them? And then, like, he killed them all in about five minutes (but she died, too). Gee, I just couldn't be more confused about the "logic" in that script! Seriously, this movie was born from dumbness.
Posted by JF on November 13, 2008 at 10:36 AM · Report
3
Casino Royale had three great acts and then a fourth, senseless, terrible act that should be cut off like a bubole.
Posted by John Scott Tynes on November 13, 2008 at 11:45 AM · Report
4
On the positive side, great theme tune!
Posted by wench on November 13, 2008 at 11:59 AM · Report
5
"TIMOTHY DALTON SHOULD WIN AN OSCAR AND BEAT SEAN CONNERY OVER THE HEAD WITH IT!!!!!"
Posted by Billy Nilly on November 13, 2008 at 4:47 PM · Report
6
Ugh. I'm entirely way too into Bond. Haven't seen this movie yet, was hoping it wouldn't be horrible but of course I'll go see it...

I was kind of hoping to see the Ian Fleming Bond take off in this latest chain of movies. The one that met a woman that could match him and then she died. That found another that he married, and then she was killed (by Blofeld! I miss Blofeld!). He is FUCKED up, an alcoholic and very dark. The original "franchise" never got the rights to Casino Royale, so they never had a proper early version. (Dear original Casino Royale, thank you for 'The Look of Love' even if you were a parody)
Posted by cakertons on November 13, 2008 at 9:31 PM · Report
7
does he get nekkid in it?
Posted by Frater Gymnos on November 14, 2008 at 5:17 PM · Report
8
Just saw the movie, and it's good! You can dissect it if you want, but I don't see the point. The action is awesome, Craig and Kurylenko as sexy as shit, Dench is dry(in a good way). They've updated a bunch of cheesy old farts into two really entertaining bad-ass action films.
Posted by bluster on November 15, 2008 at 12:53 AM · Report
9
Saw it last nite ... found it a very HIGH octane movie! Lots of adrenaline rushes but not enough downtime. Storyline not that clear too many little substories. Make it simple nextime guys. Storyline was too weak for me.
Posted by Marilyn on November 15, 2008 at 7:00 AM · Report
10
Merriam-Webster isn't going to cut it. Ask a physicist what "quantum" means.
Posted by Greg on November 19, 2008 at 7:45 AM · Report
11
I am both a Daniel Craig fan and a Bond geek and I loved it. I have only two complaints...

1. the camera during the action scenes are way way too shaky.

2. the theme song sucks major ass. Seriously, who told Alicia Keys she could sing?

PS. LOVED the nod to Goldfinger. Beautiful!
Posted by monkey on November 19, 2008 at 9:49 AM · Report
12
I'm still trying to clear some plot lines:
1) can a CIA operative really get promoted for botching his own agency's operation?
2) do villains really place that much trust in the written contracts as they install a new military dictatorship in South America?
Posted by q on November 19, 2008 at 9:59 PM · Report
13
Can somebody explain how Bond got the boat off of his with an anchor?? I've seen the movie twice and I still can't figure out what the hell was going on in that scene?
Posted by Shawn on November 24, 2008 at 4:55 PM · Report
14
Greg, are you a physicist? What does it mean?
Posted by Papayas on November 25, 2008 at 12:07 AM · Report
15
I disagree with you about, "Casino".
The producers seem to have forgotten what Bond fans look for in a Bond movie. The best gadget? A defibrulator! The car chase? 17 seconds! The showdown with the villian? A CARD GAME!!! I've seen this movie four times, just looking for something I can hang my hat on.
Sorry, I'll wait for the next Bourne flick.
Posted by scudder dee on November 26, 2008 at 8:40 AM · Report
16
I saw "Milk" on Friday, (Brilliant),
"Quantum" on Saturday. I loved it, it shows the good old US of A to be corrupt and inept, as it really is.
Posted by Marge on November 30, 2008 at 4:20 PM · Report
17
Vote for Daniel Craig on www.TBWE.com!
Daniel is on TheBestActorEver.com and TheBestBondEver.com pages.
Sign up today and spread the word to get him #1!!
Every 1,000th voter wins a prize just for voting!

Best Regards Ever,

Ray Maniaci
President
The Best Website Ever
“Building a Better World One Vote at a Time”
Posted by Ray Maniaci on June 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM · Report

Add a comment