Theatrical Review of Quantum of Solace

---

Tools:
Recommend this news to a friend »

---

The new James Bond adventure, "Quantum of Solace" suffers from one deadly, massive problem: it tries to compete with the Bourne films, jettisoning everything that made "Casino Royale" a success both character and story wise in favor of continuing a story most audiences most likely felt was already complete. The result? An entirely too short, ho-hum affair which is Bond in name only.

James Bond (Daniel Craig) is obsessed with uncovering the mystery behind the death of girlfriend Vesper at the end of "Casino Royale." His off-the-grid investigation leads 007 to Austria, Italy and Bolivia, where he eventually uncovers an even larger plot.

Okay, so maybe this isn´t the most OMG plot the character of Bond has ever been involved in. Controlling the world via the water supply in Bolivia sounds cartoonish at best, incomprehensibly asinine at worst. And that´s what the movie is about: water. I know, for the next flick in 2010, why not make the baddie intent on exterminating a breed of moose in Alaska? That´s how incredibly stupid "Solace" sounds and feels throughout.

It all goes back to Jason Bourne, in the guise of Matt Damon. When "The Bourne Identity" debuted in 2002, Pierce Brosnan was still the super spy in "Die Another Day," emphasis on the "spy" part…we´ll come back to that in a minute. Bourne is a different kind of creation, a man with the same inherent abilities and training, but without the backing of any government. In essence, he doesn´t have the toys to play with because he has no country. But this is James freaking Bond, for heaven sakes. He´s supposed to crack a joke and bed women and remind us his name is "Bond. James Bond." He is allowed to have a cool gadget or two and go up against one-dimensional adversaries. Bourne can´t do that because he lives in the real world, our world. The Bond universe exists somewhere else, a parallel world maybe, but not entirely in this dimension.

"Casino Royale" reintroduced the character in an entertaining and relevant way with perfect casting, a story that managed to be gripping until the last 20 minutes and all the hallmarks of the franchise (relevant theme song, main titles and pre-credits sequences, a couple tech doodads, humor). "Solace" turns out to be a Bond film in name only. Sure, Jack White and Alicia Keys contribute the theme song-"Another Way to Die," but it can´t compete with Chris Cornell´s "You Know My Name." Heck, it can´t compete with Shirley Bassey´s "Diamonds are Forever" or even "Thunderball" by Tom Jones. At least we can understand the words to those two songs. The credits remain uninspired, making one wistful for Maurice Binder and his work on everything from "Dr. No" to "License to Kill."

I mentioned Bond being a super spy before. The definition of a spy, at least in my mind, is someone who remains under the radar, gathering information and being covert. He doesn´t necessarily need to be a fighter first and thinker second. Yet he´s swinging, shooting, punching, diving, flying and jumping his way through the story just like…yup, Jason Bourne. The same thing, it can be argued, happed to Patrick Stewart´s Captain Picard in the "Star Trek: The Next Generation" films. He moved from a diplomatic researcher in the series to action hero on the big screen. That´s not who the character is, just as Bond isn´t an action figure. (Yes, he has the ability to defend himself and take out an opponent whenever needed, but it´s not his first method of gaining information or accomplishing his task. And no, being depressed over the death of his love-turned-traitor in "Royale" isn´t sufficient reason, either.)

It´s quite the opposite and a distinction "Casino Royale" made with every fiber of its being. Bond was more restrained last time out; here, he shoots first and asks questions later if he feels like it. Granted, this is why M (Judi Dench) isn´t sure she can trust him and that, in turn goes back to the fundamental problem with this story: the insistence on previous events factoring into the narrative.

By and large, Bond films are standalone productions with contained plots, few recurring characters or references to anything outside the current adventure. The formula works for both the hardcore fans, who know what´s come before, and the newbies, trying to jump into the franchise without doing 40+ years of homework. "Solace" can´t even bring itself to open with a recap of the previous film or of the Bond/Lynd romance. The audience is left to remember exactly what happened and where the pieces were when the agent told Mr. White his name was…oh, never mind. We all know who he is.

By continuing the story from that point, I´m sure the producers felt smart, even contemporary. After all, the Bourne films fit together as one massive story. Serialized television programs are all the rage. Audiences flock to "Harry Potter" with its expansive storyline. That´s all well and good; Bond shouldn´t be in the position of following pop culture trends. Ever. That´s exactly where the film finds itself, though: desperately trying to be something it so clearly is not, nor was ever designed to be.

I almost feel bad for director Mark Forster, the man behind "Monster´s Ball" and "Finding Neverland." He never seems quite comfortable behind the camera, unable to allow the action to grow organically without cutting away a half dozen times a la "Alien vs. Predator." Nothing the camera does ever grips the attention, giving the audience anything to latch onto. A shot of Bond falling through a glass roof is just about as visually interesting as the film manages to get. (I suppose some of this could also be the fault of editors Matt Chesse and Richard Pearson. Many people will never forgive me for saying this, but maybe Stuart Baird should have been brought back from "Royale.")

"Quantum of Solace" isn´t a James Bond movie; it´s a hybrid, something along the lines of James Bourned. Okay, so maybe "Bourned" isn´t the most graceful mashing together of Bond and Bourne. All the good will generated by Daniel Craig in "Royale" is flushed down the toilet, forcing the producers to go back to the drawing board again for the next chapter. It doesn´t need to be a full redesign because elements do work: Craig, for instance. Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter. Judi Dench´s M. And there remains an imagination in the series, allowing for more grandiose exploits in the future. On its own merits, Bond 22 is a lackluster 5 out of 10 with a heavy recommendation to rewatch "Casino Royale."

---

---