Quantum of Solace

Ah, so another midnight showing in Squirrel Hill, this time on a night when it dips below 20 and I'm lacking gloves. Smart move, Groggy.

Tonight's viewing was Quantum of Solace (an incredibly stupid title culled from an unrelated Fleming short story that has nothing to do with the film question), the latest James Bond offering. While it was an improvement over the disappointing Casino Royale, it still maintains many of the same basic flaws - namely that it doesn't seem like the real thing.

I can't claim to be the world's biggest Bond afficionado. I've seen barely half the films, if that, and there are only a few I'd rate as truly great films. Nonetheless, I think I know what a Bond film is through what experience I have. Fast cars, dialogue that is both lame and cool at the same time, menacing comic book villains, sexy fantasy women, fun if implausible action sequences, and maybe if we're lucky, a hint of darkness that complements the silliness of the story. And so far, Daniel Craig's tenure has been a huge let-down in that regard; both of his efforts have been too solemn and self-important to really work in the fun world of Bond.

This installment, in a rare bit of continuity, picks up shortly after the end of Casino Royale. Still mourning the death of Vesper Lynde (Eva Green), Bond (Daniel Craig) continues to try and unravel the now-deceased Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen)'s criminal network, discovering it to be far larger. One of the more interesting business contacts is Dominick Green (Matthieu Almaric), the CEO of an environmentally-based corporation who is secretly operating as a player in an international crime cartel. Needless to say, Bond quickly finds something sinister is afoot, and tracks Green first to Haiti, where he meets up with sultry Bolivian Camille (Olga Kurylenko - definitely a Bolivian name, that), and then to Bolivia, where Green is assisting a power-hungry General (Joaquim Cosio) in a coup d'etat in exchange for access to and control of the country's water supply. But M (Judi Dench) thinks that Bond is being driven by misplaced feelings of vengeance, and Bond finds himself fighting his own boss as well as Green and Co.

The movie has a number of sins which must be addressed. My esteemable colleague/younger brother wrote succinctly in a Facebook review that:

The action was amazing, destroyed by the rapid cut technique that directors and editors like to use. Also ruined by the "shaking the camera for realism" crap. If I see action, I wanna see it. I don't wanna see fragments, nor do I wanna see blurry things.

As much as I like to pose as an eloquent individual, there's no way I could put it better myself. The action scenes, plagued by the evil scourge of shaky cam and the editors being force fed untold gallons of pure black coffee, are so frenetic and vertigo-inducing as to be virtually unwatchable. It is possible to hold a shot longer than the length of a frame, fellas. When you're selling your film as primarily an action film, it might be helpful if we can, you know, see what's going. This isn't by any means a problem unique to this film, but it's rather egregious since the film throws a seemingly-endless parade of action set pieces at us, each virtually indistinguishable from one another, and each shabbily edited, with lots of unnecessary CGI stunt work thrown in for the sake of anoyance. I think film studios need to bar chimpanzees from the editing room from now on.

Nor does the movie really have the feel of a Bond movie. The cinematography and direction are adequate, but never really impressive. Bond makes his share of quips but nothing really quotable - even the grown inducing. The villains are easily disposed of and not really menacing, and their plot seems rather mundane compared to Donald Pleasance and Gert Frobe's schemes of world domination (but we'll get to that in a moment). There's also no sense of fun; the action scenes don't seem Bond action scenes, the Bond theme is hardly used at all, the atmosphere is far too dark and serious, and overall it seems like we're watching The Bourne Tedium rather than a 007 film. I don't ask a lot from my Bond film, except that it keep the cheesiness under control to a point where it's fun rather than annoying. These last two films have gone the other way - perhaps not a bad idea after the insipid goofiness of Die Another Day - but it would seem too far.

The cast and characters are perhaps the biggest let-down. A Bond film needs a sexy girl (ridiculous name optional but not required), a menacing, vicious bad guy (and some colorful henchmen would help too), and maybe even a cool ally like Pedro Armendarez or Robbie Coltrane. And what do we have here?

For the second straight film, we are given a milquetoast, boring bad guy. Dominic Greene's scheme is an intriguing one - cornering the world's water supply - but the movie doesn't do a lot to make it seem truly menacing. Mads Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre was the dullest Bond villain in memory, and Matthieu Almaric isn't much better. Almaric is competent, but his character and performance seem much more suited for a sniveling henchman than an all-powerful villain. Perhaps it's more realistic than Blofeld and Largo and Oddjob, but who goes to Bond films for realism? He isn't the least bit menacing, nor really interesting for that matter. His henchmen; what henchmen? A bunch of nameless, faceless thugs providing bullet fodder for the action scenes. Say what you will about the cartoonish excesses of Brosnan's films; his antagonists, from Sean Bean, Famke Janssen and Gottfried John in GoldenEye to Sophie Marceau and Robert Carlyle in The World is Not Enough, were at least interesting, distinctive and generally formidable opponents, not milquetoast whiners who do little of import and are indistinguishable from one another.

The rest of the cast doesn't fare much better. Olga Kurylenko is adequate but she has next to nothing to do; Genna Arterton's brief role as an ill-fated consular agent is much more appealing. Casino Royale had Eva Green's excellent Vesper Lynde, this movie has a rather bland substitute. Jeffrey Wright is yet again wasted as Felix Leiter; at least in the Connery and Moore Bonds Leiter had stuff to do. Giancarlo Giannini is similarly underused as the morally dubious contact Matthis, for the second straight time; just when his character is starting to generate interest, he's bumped off. (No sense of dramatic economy, do screenwriters Paul Haggis (yes, the Crash guy), Neal Purvis and Ben Wade have.) The complete lack of a Q character is notable; call me crazy but I liked John Cleese's all-too-brief turn in the part, and he at least was better than no Q at all.

All this is a pity, for I continue to love Daniel Craig as 007. He only needed the excellent title sequence of Casino Royale to sell me as the new Bond. His Bond is decidedly different from most of his predecessors; although extremely rugged and handsome, he also has an intelligence, warmth and humanity that most Bonds lack. In theory, this is an interesting direction to take the character who is usually nothing more than a collection of smartass quips and overwhelming sexual charm, and Craig puts his all into the role. I really wish I liked Craig's films as Bond more, as he's not going to be around forever, but that's neither my fault, nor his.

Although many of the film's critics hate this part of the film, I think the best part of this movie - even more than its predecessor - is the development of the relationship between Bond and M. In the good old days, and even into the Brosnan era, M was a stern authority figure with a grudging respect for and occasional annoyance towards Bond, and he/she rarely figured into the actual story. But in the last few installments, she's developed. Dame Judi Dench has become a fixutre in the series; from her first confrontation with Pierce Brosnan in GoldenEye (way back in 1995) she has seemed absolutely right in the part. She was a refreshing novelty at first (a woman as M!) but she's earned her spurs in the meantime. Dench brings M a wonderful characterization, mixing dry wit with stiff dignity, and all of her scenes with Craig click, convincing as both the exasperated superior and the stern, protective Mother figure. The film's most powerful moment is when M confronts Bond about his reckless actions - showing the fatal consequence for one of Bond's conquests. It's a starkly powerful scene that really stands out amidst the banality around it, and if more of the film had been like that sequence, we could have had one of the best Bond movies on our hands.

The movie also has some welcome depth - not much, but what there is, is welcome. Bond has rarely been overtly political, but most of the better Bond movies were driven by or at least set in the context of the Cold War. Amusingly, everyone in the film assumes the "world's most important resource" is oil, and much of the film's action centers around that fact - an intriguing subplot that's presented without being forced in our face. Timothy Pigot-Smith gets a brief scene in the Geoffrey Keen role as the flustered Defence Minister, where he explains the cold political reality of what's going onto M. The CIA agents on the scene are easily bought off by Green's men; men of integrity like Leiter have to grin and bear it. Not since The Living Daylights has a Bond film been so politically active, and here, at least, it's a good thing.

Still, on the whole, Quantum of Solace remains a rather disappointing film. It's better than Casino Royale, which isn't saying much. But I'm still not convinced that it's a Bond film. A Bond film has a certain style, flair and attitude; these last two movies seem interchangable with any action thriller you'd care to name (the Bourne series most egregiously). Hopefully the producers will have a few more chances to get right; for Craig, if not the audience, as he definitely deserves it.

Rating: 6/10 - Use your own discretion