Quantum of Solace is the second chapter of the re-launched and revitalized James Bond franchise begun in 2006 with Casino Royale. The previous film was easily the best action movie in several years, though an argument could be made for fellow spy-actioner The Bourne Ultimatum. In any case, spy movies are as good as they've been in years, certainly much better than they have been since the 1960s. Quantum of Solace, whatever its faults, is no exception to this trend.
Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace succeed because they are recognizable as James Bond films without relying on the conventions which had been weighing down the series since the mid-seventies. Forty years' baggage killed whatever chances former Bond Pierce Brosnan had of making the seemingly immortal franchise accessible to audiences of the new millennium. Fans can cry all they want about the lack of catchphrases like "Bond, James Bond" and "shaken, not stirred" - they can even complain about the color of star Daniel Craig's hair - but they can't argue that the new Bond doesn't appeal to modern audiences.
Quantum of Solace picks up where Casino Royale left off, with Bond avenging the death of his lover Vesper Lynd (Eva Greene). The trail of Eva's killers lead him and the British Secret Service to a secret global organization known as Quantum, a SPECTRE for the new century (SPECTRE, of course, is the anagrammatic group of villains from the first few Bond films). Quantum's members are at least mostly scheming capitalists, a plot point that has become something of a convention for spy films since the fall of the USSR left the genre lost and confused.
It's hard to cop to not understanding the plot of a James Bond film, especially as the writers are kind enough to provide us with plenty of expositional dialogue, but I admit it: for large stretches of the film, I was lost. Every time the various connections and conspiracies of the film were being explained, the scene was interrupted with a chase or gunfight. At a certain point I gave up: the villain is the villain because we're told he is, and Bond must defeat him because he is Bond.
What I gathered was this: Quantum member Dominic Greene (Methieu Amalric) is planning to help overthrow Bolivia's government to gain control of their oil reserves. Greene and the Bolivian military planning the coup have the support of the Americans and therefore the British, but Bond is going (somewhat) rogue to stop him anyway. This is all related in some vague way to Vesper's death.
Quantum of Solace walks an interesting line, between a very conservative construct of masculinity and Western supremacy and the condemnation of American/British foreign policy in very liberal terms. "I wonder what South America would look like," Bond wonders aloud to CIA agent Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright), "if the United States hadn't been so afraid of 'Coco-Communism.' I've always been impressed with the way you guys carved things up down here." Felix quickly replies, "Coming from a Brit, I'll take that as a compliment."
While personally I agree with the sentiment - U.S. foreign policy has only impeded social progress in South America - it seems almost out of place in a Bond film. It is refreshing, perhaps, given the decidedly imperialistic tone of Ian Fleming's Bond books and previous entries in the film franchise, but at the same time you wonder if it isn't all show. Is the Bond franchise just trying to compensate for its notorious Western chauvinism?
No matter, though, as I've said, we're here to see Bond defeat the villain, blow some stuff up along the way, and look and sound good doing so. The "new" Bond franchise is toning down the quips a bit, but the Bondian arrogant wit is still in evidence, and thank goodness for that. The franchise overhaul has not made Bond unrecognizable, preserving the best bits of what has made the character appealing since 1962 to keep this spy series above the others.
Speaking of "the others," however, while Casino Royale gave the Bourne series a run for its money by being a better Bond film than Supremacy was a Bourne film, Quantum to some extent tries to out-Bourne Bourne. The first few fight and foot-chase scenes are filmed in that handheld style that both distinguished the Bourne series and irked large portions of its audience.
I'm not against the use of handheld cameras in fight scenes, but Bond does not need to co-opt Bourne's style to be good. The camera work and editing in a Bond film, in my mind, should appear as slick and effortless as Bond himself. I blame director Marc Forster, who brings a few new and interesting visual ideas to the franchise, but who is not an action director (his previous credits include Monster's Ball and Finding Neverland).
Nevertheless, Quantum of Solace mostly succeeds, and will certainly keep you enthralled. Oh, and there are two new Bond Girls too. Almost forgot to mention that.
Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace succeed because they are recognizable as James Bond films without relying on the conventions which had been weighing down the series since the mid-seventies. Forty years' baggage killed whatever chances former Bond Pierce Brosnan had of making the seemingly immortal franchise accessible to audiences of the new millennium. Fans can cry all they want about the lack of catchphrases like "Bond, James Bond" and "shaken, not stirred" - they can even complain about the color of star Daniel Craig's hair - but they can't argue that the new Bond doesn't appeal to modern audiences.
Quantum of Solace picks up where Casino Royale left off, with Bond avenging the death of his lover Vesper Lynd (Eva Greene). The trail of Eva's killers lead him and the British Secret Service to a secret global organization known as Quantum, a SPECTRE for the new century (SPECTRE, of course, is the anagrammatic group of villains from the first few Bond films). Quantum's members are at least mostly scheming capitalists, a plot point that has become something of a convention for spy films since the fall of the USSR left the genre lost and confused.
It's hard to cop to not understanding the plot of a James Bond film, especially as the writers are kind enough to provide us with plenty of expositional dialogue, but I admit it: for large stretches of the film, I was lost. Every time the various connections and conspiracies of the film were being explained, the scene was interrupted with a chase or gunfight. At a certain point I gave up: the villain is the villain because we're told he is, and Bond must defeat him because he is Bond.
What I gathered was this: Quantum member Dominic Greene (Methieu Amalric) is planning to help overthrow Bolivia's government to gain control of their oil reserves. Greene and the Bolivian military planning the coup have the support of the Americans and therefore the British, but Bond is going (somewhat) rogue to stop him anyway. This is all related in some vague way to Vesper's death.
Quantum of Solace walks an interesting line, between a very conservative construct of masculinity and Western supremacy and the condemnation of American/British foreign policy in very liberal terms. "I wonder what South America would look like," Bond wonders aloud to CIA agent Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright), "if the United States hadn't been so afraid of 'Coco-Communism.' I've always been impressed with the way you guys carved things up down here." Felix quickly replies, "Coming from a Brit, I'll take that as a compliment."
While personally I agree with the sentiment - U.S. foreign policy has only impeded social progress in South America - it seems almost out of place in a Bond film. It is refreshing, perhaps, given the decidedly imperialistic tone of Ian Fleming's Bond books and previous entries in the film franchise, but at the same time you wonder if it isn't all show. Is the Bond franchise just trying to compensate for its notorious Western chauvinism?
No matter, though, as I've said, we're here to see Bond defeat the villain, blow some stuff up along the way, and look and sound good doing so. The "new" Bond franchise is toning down the quips a bit, but the Bondian arrogant wit is still in evidence, and thank goodness for that. The franchise overhaul has not made Bond unrecognizable, preserving the best bits of what has made the character appealing since 1962 to keep this spy series above the others.
Speaking of "the others," however, while Casino Royale gave the Bourne series a run for its money by being a better Bond film than Supremacy was a Bourne film, Quantum to some extent tries to out-Bourne Bourne. The first few fight and foot-chase scenes are filmed in that handheld style that both distinguished the Bourne series and irked large portions of its audience.
I'm not against the use of handheld cameras in fight scenes, but Bond does not need to co-opt Bourne's style to be good. The camera work and editing in a Bond film, in my mind, should appear as slick and effortless as Bond himself. I blame director Marc Forster, who brings a few new and interesting visual ideas to the franchise, but who is not an action director (his previous credits include Monster's Ball and Finding Neverland).
Nevertheless, Quantum of Solace mostly succeeds, and will certainly keep you enthralled. Oh, and there are two new Bond Girls too. Almost forgot to mention that.
Verdict:
It's no Casino Royale, but Quantum of Solace delivers what we want from our spy-action thrillers. If the series seems to have moved backwards from the promise of the truly gripping (emotionally and visually) Royale, just remember the horror of Die Another Day and you'll be pleased with this fast-paced continuation of the adventures of the (new) James Bond.
Email this article
Print this article
Translate: FR | ES | DE
...
Comments

