SPOILERS
I’m going to start this review talking about Agent Fields, as wonderfully played by Gemma Arterton, because I think she just may be the perfect modern Bond Girl and her part is in a way a microcosm of Quantum of Solace. And I’m sure other reviews have covered the majority of the rest of the film.
The comparison’s to Jill Masterson are obvious, her short but sweet time in Bond’s world ended in death naked in Bond’s bed coated in (black) gold. But let’s also compare her to Mary Goodnight, Vesper Lynd, and Lee Cullen.
Starting with Lee Cullen, because I know most of you will be asking, ‘Who?’. Lee Cullen was the part Vanessa Williams played in the movie Eraser with Arnold Schwarzenegger. I’ve said before in these forums that Lee is what the template for the modern Bond girl should be; strong, confident, alluring, very capable, smart. A woman who is more than able to take care of herself; that is until she enters Bond’s — or in Lee’s case, Arnold’s — world. Once in Bond’s/Arnold’s world that is when she needs saving. Not because of any incompetence on her part, but because no real world person can be prepared when suddenly tossed in to this world.
The Mary Goodnight comparison is pretty much straight forward. I’ve said from the when I first heard details of Fields that she reminded me of a non-ditzy Mary Goodnight, and that’s what she turned out to be. I personally have always loved Mary Goodnight; she’s a fun, spunky lesser agent who M assigns to Bond who because of her schoolgirl confidence gets herself in to prickly situation that she needs to Bond to save her from.
Of course, both of those examples were saved. In Fields’ case, not so much. In fact, not at all. Bond doesn’t even realise that this girl needs saving. Instead he is off on his single minded mission to bring down the evil organisation Quantum. This is where the Vesper comparison comes in. I think Fields’ death shapes the future of this raw version of James Bond nearly as much as the death of Vesper.
The tragedy of Fields does not hit home until M points out that she was essentially a paper pusher. Until then to us — and presumably to Bond — Fields is another British spy, who, when she took on Elvis, knew what she was doing. Instead, we find out she was a strong, confident woman who has no idea that this little trick of tripping the nerdy looking fellow — in probably a similar way to how she stopped an overbearing college boy from pestering one of her girlfriends back at university — would quickly lead to her death.
Bond is so remorseful that he is compelled to return to M, after his escape from her men, to point out her bravery knowing it would only highlight his massive failure where this girl was concerned.
As far as Quantum of Solace goes, Fields is just part of this continuing story of James Bond. Where Casino Royale was ‘How James Bond became James Bond™’, Quantum of Solace was the story of how this raw James Bond™ is shaped into the spy we see in, say, The Living Daylights.
The Fields story also encompasses the film in that, as the audience, we are playing catch up to the super high pace of the film. This is a good thing.
The pacing of this adventure redefine the term ‘breakneck’. I’m guessing (I won’t presume to know) that this accounts for some of the lesser-ranked reviews that cited ‘sloppy editing’ or some other similar phase. The editing was not sloppy, it was deliberate and daring you to keep up, and if you couldn’t it wasn’t afraid to toss you aside. It certainly wasn’t going to slow down and wait for you.
I know I’ll be sorry to bring up the word ‘Bourne’, but while Bourne comparisons are inevitable, I think this film took what Bourne did for action sequences and went the next step beyond. The ‘Shaky-Cam™’ is enhanced with sweeping camera moves.
It’s not just the action that picks up the pacing. The non-action scenes are quick and deliberate as well, they make the point and move on.
So how good was it?
In my review of Casino Royale I stated that I had always come out of the theatre thinking the latest Bond film was the greatest Bond film, but that Casino Royale was different. And that still holds true. I still think Casino Royale is better than all of the other Bond films — including Quantum of Solace. Quantum of Solace is a close second though, and to be honest I’d’ve put it just in the top five after the first viewing, the second viewing however brought it up to just below Casino Royale.
Quantum of Solace however does top Casino Royale on a lot of fronts. Most prominently is the art of Quantum of Solace. Quantum of Solace is absolutely stunningly beautiful. The scenery, the sets, the cinematography, the lighting, the atmosphere, the typography*, the music; all the most beautiful of the series. The relationship between Dench’s M and Bond also the best of the series. Classic stuff, where you can see that M is trying to reign in Bond while knowing his way will get the job done.
Really the only place that Quantum of Solace falls short of Casino Royale is in the emotionality. Even there Quantum of Solace easily tops all others in the series.
One critique I have heard about this film that I just can’t grasp is ‘It’s just not Bond.’ I really can’t think of one scene that didn’t seem Bond to me. Perhaps Bond’s final treatment of Mathis, but even there, while surprising, didn’t feel completely out of character for this Bond (though perhaps just moving him out of the road and leaning him against the fence would’ve been better.) The best ‘Bondian’ in the hotel escaping from M’s men, particularly when he walked out on the ledge to pass the men unseen. Pure ConneryBond there. The oil can at the film’s end is a better version of Sanchez’s demise in Licence to Kill. Bond ramming the General’s boat is straight from the best of BrosnanBond. And most welcome was Mathis’ ‘Villains and Heroes’ speech which had been the only sad omission of the film Casino Royale from the book.
In total I gave Quantum of Solace a very strong four out of five stars on the first viewing and and a solid five after a repeat viewing. I recommend highly repeat viewings.
* save the punctuation sins of the subtitles. That’s a foot mark (or an inch mark depending on your part of the world) not an apostrophe. And ellipses have three dots not four.
