Hope you enjoy the review anyway!))To begin, I don't think I need to bother explaining who James Bond is or why millions of fans love him so much. The smooth-talking, tough as nails, womanizing British secret agent, originally created by Ian Fleming who wrote several novels around the character's exploits before they were translated to film, has become a cultural icon with over twenty movies based on him having been released since 1962; the earliest of which all of defined the spy genre and influenced many later films such as the "Mission: Impossible" series, and has been portrayed by six different actors since his cinematic inception, which each actor putting their own unique spin on the character.
Everyone has their own favorite version of James Bond, and my personal favorite to this day is still the one that started it all: Sean Connery (my least favorite is Pierce Brosnan, but let's not go there). He really set the standards for what Bond should be like: smooth, witty, constantly mixing business with pleasure, and always able to find a way to beat the bad guys, get the girl, and come out on top.
But over time, the series succumbed to a great level of silliness and camp, so much do until, following the invisible cars and mind-controlling North Korean villains of Brosnan's final few Bond films, Agent 007 took a four year cinematic hiatus until 2004 where director Martin Campbell (who had previously directed the first Brosnan bond film "GoldenEye" in 1995 and would later go on to direct the disappointing 2011 blockbuster "Green Lantern") returned to helm the modern day Bond reboot "Casino Royale": starring relative newcomer Daniel Craig as the iconic character, and grounding the series in realism: no Q providing Bond with gadgets for his missions, and no super-villains plotting to take over the world for Bond to stop.
Following its release, "Casino Royale" was a complete critical and commercial success, with interest in the James Bond franchise being revitalized by the general audience. So much so, that a sequel, headed by director Marc Foster (who had previously helmed Johnny Depp's 2004 hit film "Finding Neverland") and soon entitled "Quantum of Solace" was immediately rushed into production, where we would find Daniel Craig back as Bond, this time facing off against QUANTUM, a mass worldwide organization of criminals that revealed itself at the end of "Casino Royale" that are no doubt based off of the SPECTRE organization of the 1960s Bond films.
However, upon its 2008 release, "Quantum of Solace" was immediately panned by critics and fans alike. But today, we're going to try and find out if all of their complaints are truly justified, and if Daniel Craig's second run out as Agent 007 really was as bad as most filmgoers believe.
First, let us look at the characters of "Quantum of Solace" first: starting with Bond himself, then moving onto his one or more romantic interests throughout the movie (also known as "Bond girls"), and then finally the film's primary antagonist (obviously dubbed the "Bond villain" by fans).
In “Casino Royale”, Daniel Craig reintroduced the general audience to James Bond, but as a very different Bond than we were used to. This Bond was arrogant, cold-blooded, and murderous, rarely cracking jokes or showing any mercy to his opponents, a far cry from the personalities of Connery’s Bond or especially Roger Moore’s Bond. But once Bond crosses paths with Vesper Lynd, he falls in love with her and undergoes a major personality change. He quits MI6 and him and Vesper plan on living the rest of their lives together in the City of Lovers. That is, until the rug is pulled out from under him as it is revealed that Vesper is working with a shady organization (QUANTUM) represented by Mr. White (played once again by Jesper Christensen who reprises his role in this film), and Bond is unable to save her from her untimely demise, in doing so learning a painful truth: in his profession, no one can be trusted.
So with all of that said, in “Quantum of Solace”, Bond is in an even worse place than he was at the beginning of “Casino Royale”. He’s back to his unfeeling, murderous self, but to so much more of a degree than in any Bond that we’ve ever seen before, kind of like what Bond should have been like after “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”. Many fans complain that Bond’s extreme bitterness and utter desire for revenge against Vesper’s killers makes the movie not feel like a Bond flick, but I think that this is a mix of the exact mood that the film was trying to create and the general feel of a Daniel Craig movie. This ‘aint Roger Moore anymore people, and thank God for that! Plus, by the end of the movie Bond’s character arc that spanned two movies is completed when Bond comes face to face with Vesper’s former secret lover and a hardened QUANTUM agent who used her to get to Bond…and does not kill him. As Renee Mathis (a particularly fun Bond ally played by Giancarlo Giannini, who also reprises his role from “Casino Royale”) requests of Bond in his dying words, Bond needed to forgive Vesper and more importantly, he needed to forgive himself. And, when he matures enough to do so, evidenced by leaving the man he loathes more than anything alive, we have the movie conclude with the classic Bond gunbarrel sequence, to show that this younger Bond that is more of an inexperienced novice is maturing into the Bond that we have seen in earlier films. And hopefully now in “Skyfall”, the 23rd Bond film that will come out later this year, we’ll get to see Craig portray a Bond that’s a little wiser, a little more hardened, a little less murderous, and is really like the Agent 007 we grew to love back in 1962 with “Dr. No”.
Moving onto the Bond girls, there’s really not too much to talk about. The main Bond girl, Bolivian nationalist Camille Montes, played by Olga Kurylenko, is a pretty boring character. She’s not really all that attractive, has very little personality, and her revenge storyline is exceedingly lazy. Like Noomi Rapace’s character in “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows”, Camille only seems to be there at all to get the plot moving, and Bond actually DOES in fact forget about her halfway through the movie. However, the other Bond girl, MI6 Agent Strawberry Fields, on the other hand is much more engaging. Actress Gemma Arterton chose to base Fields off of the Bond girls of the classic 1960s Bond movies such as “Dr. No’s” Honey Ryder and “Goldfinger’s” Pussy Galore, who are still my favorite Bond girls of the entire series. Fields’ scenes with Bond are a lot of quick-witted fun, and remind you of the good old days of James Bond, yet sadly her character is exceedingly wasted and is killed off in a quick, albeit creative way that is also a fun reference to “Goldfinger” that die-hard Bond fans will enjoy. Two disappointing Bond girls this time around, neither of which were able to hold up to Eva Green’s amazing performance as Vesper Lynd in “Casino Royale”. But then again, I never expected them to in the first place, and the Bond girls aren’t really the focus here anyways.
And for this Bond outing, we have philanthropist and leading member of QUANTUM, Dominic Greene, played by Mathieu Amalric, as our Bond villain. But Greene is a very different adversary for 007 than we've ever seen before. Most of the best Bond villains have always had little quirks about them to define themselves as the movie's "bad guy", such as facial scars, or metal teeth, obsessions with certain objects or colors, or even, in the case of Le Chiffre, the terrifyingly awesome villain of "Casino Royale", an inhaler and defective tear duct resulting in severe constant eye-bleeding. But Greene has none of these, in fact at first glance, he seems like a pretty alright guy. He's an environmental philanthropist, goes to operas, and throws charity parties. But looks are clearly deceiving, as Greene is really a murderous, psychotic mastermind, and a nice challenge for Bond. His "evil plan" is a little wonky, but he's an interesting kind of Bond villain in his subtlety, and, while he's no Dr. No, Red Grant, Goldfinger, or Le Chiffre, he's an interesting albeit only adequate villain.
But what this all boils down to is: is "Quantum of Solace" better than "Casino Royale"? Well, no, but wouldn't expecting that be completely unrealistic? "Casino Royale" is the veritable crown jewel of the Bond franchise, putting a new spin on and old character to reintroduce him and make him relatable to a modern audience while still having him satisfy longtime fans of the series. Expecting "Quantum of Solace" to top that, during a Writer's Strike no less, would be completely unreasonable.
But that being said, "Quantum of Solace" can still hold its own as an above average Bond movie, definitely nowhere near the series' worst. Other highlights I haven't even touched on are the always-exotic location shootings from Italy to Bolivia and from Russia to Cuba, the score by David Arnold is more good old-fashioned fast paced spy music that was introduced in "Casino Royale", Judi Dench's turns in another great performance as M, leaving you only wishing to see Moneypenny and Q back in a Bond movie and soon, and a particular metaphorical sequence at the Tosca Opera House is exceedingly well shot and directed, and is one of my favorite moments of the entire series.
So in conclusion, "Quantum of Solace" is flawed, yes, but certainly not the bane of the series that fans make it out to be. Expectations were too high after "Casino Royale's" massive success, so of course there would be complaining. But "Quantum of Solace" really does have a lot going for it, certainly enough to keep a die-hard Bond fan like me, and a huge fan of Daniel Craig's Bond, happy enough, and whetting my thirst for more Bond, which will be quenched later this year with the release of the 23rd Bond film: "Skyfall". But until then, haters can hate, but "Quantum of Solace" only further solidifies in my mind that even an average Daniel Craig Bond movie can still be an exceedingly fun, although flawed, flick.
"Quantum of Solace": 3.75 / 5
P.S. (The truly horrible opening credits song "Another Way to Die" by Jack White and Alicia Keys docked 0.25 / 5 off the score. It really is that bad...)
