Daniel Craig’s reign as cinema’s James Bond is only two movies old, and already he’s suffering from an identity crisis.
Is he a new James Bond, an update on the version we’ve come to know and love, or is he Jason Bourne 2.0?
“Quantum of Solace” doesn’t answer that question. Nor does it satisfy nearly as much as Craig’s terrific Bond debut – “Casino Royale.”
“QoS” begins like every other Bond movie before it – with a blistering action sequence meant to jump start our adrenaline. Done and done, even though the scene’s jittery camera work will leave audiences “Cloverfield” queasy.
The first true Bond sequel has 007 (Craig) mourning the loss of his galpal Vesper (Eva Green), who met her maker in the final minutes of “Royale.” But his grief is interrupted by news of a mole within the British spy agency. Soon, Bond is hopscotching across Europe to track down a new, super-secret group with tentacles across the globe.
He also keeps running into Dominic Greene, an enviro-activist blandly played by “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly’s” Mathieu Amalric. Greene has designs on some of the earth’s natural resources, but it’s a plot line that’s teased out to little emotional significance.
Of course there’s the requisite Bond Girl (Olga Kurylenko), a blank slate who plays a woman out for some revenge of her own. How ’bout hiring a real actress next time? Who wouldn’t want to see Rachel Weisz throwing her Oscar weight around a Bond set?
Bond shares zero chemistry with Kurylenko, although at one point the pair share a smooch as if filling out some contractual obligation.
“QoS” strikes an unhealthy balance between the Old and New Bond. Sure, the action sequences deliver the gravity-defying, punishment-delivering goods, but the story feels both bloated and complicated.
And just who is James Bond at this point? He can’t be bothered to flirt with the ladies, has no gadgets at his disposal and can’t be bothered to toss off crisp one-liners. He’s sullen, but disinterested, and so are we.
“Casino Royale” did everything right to reboot the franchise and prove the world still needed a new James Bond adventure every other year. “Quantum of Solace” casts significant doubt on that premise.
(Photo: Daniel Craig, playing James Bond for the second time, races through a tunnel in “Quantum of Solace.”)
ALSO CHECK OUT:
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Daniel Craig has definitely established himself as Bond, while on the other hand Tom Cruise with the eye patch is being laughed at.
He has, Vlad, although I think the Bond character is changing … and I’m not sure the new version is worth all the fuss that normally comes with a Bond film.
I don’t know how to feel yet considering I grew up watching all the Bond movies. I’ve probably seen each one 30+ times. Casino Royale renewed my faith that solid action and real character development was important. (So did The Bourne movies) There seems to be a general consensus that this new Bond film is lacking some staple Bond requirements. Will I still watch it? Of course. But my anticipation for a high caliber Bond flick has been tamed some. MaybeI want to go back in time when I was a 13yr old and fantasize about taking down the villains and getting the babe vicariously through a JB feature. Shoot. I guess I can still do that. Just don’t tell the fiance.
You’ll have to write back with your reaction to the film, AKJ. As a Bond lover I’m not sure you’ll take to a character that doesn’t resemble Bond so much anymore, and I’m pretty sure the iconic Bond theme never plays during movie (my memory could be tricking me here.)
cftoto
I just got back from seeing the film, the Bond theme and the gun barrel opening doesn’t play until the closing credits. The opening credits were probably the lamest of all the Bond films and when the main theme song turned out to be a rap number……..well I wanted to poke my ear drums out.
Emotionally, for me the movie was dead. The only reason you know that Bond is grieving is because M kept bringing it up. The main Bond babe seems to have been put in as an after thought. She’s completely irrelevent to the main plotline.
As for the action sequences, I suppose they were great if I could have actually been able to tell what was going on. Cloverfield isn’t the right comparison for the camera work in the action sequences. Cloverfield was supposed to be viewed from one person’s perspective, through the camera.
The action sequences in Quantum were filmed from 50 or 60 angles, all of them ultra closeups, all of them shakey. The cuts were so numerous and short that it took all the excitement out of the scenes. I swear the cuts were 3 frames from straight on, 4 frames from the side, 2 frames from the camera in Bonds lap….just one right after the other. No extended shots from any one camera and the only long or medium shots happen at the end or sprinkled throughout the middle. Normally when I see a Bond film there’s a big audience reaction during the action sequences and the payoff to a big stunt. This time the theater was relatively full, most of them young marines, and it was deathly quiet. No ‘oohs’, ‘ahs’ or ‘cheers’.
Just out of curiosity when it comes out on dvd I’m going to count how many cuts they have in the action sets, it has to be in the thousands.
I didn’t hate the film, it’s just a lot of blah.
Opus … well said. I meant to include what you said in your comments … that the only reason we know Bond is grieving is that they keep telling us that’s the case. Show, don’t tell – the key tenet of storytelling
they could have done a lot better job transitioning Daniel Craig into a more Bond-like person, maybe a tad less head-butting, etc… that way it would seem like they’re just making copies of copies of Bourne Identity rip-offs
The problem with the Craig Bond is that he isn’t the Bond we know.
The character can be re-introduced and made more gritty, but that doesn’t mean that almost everything associated with the character gets thrown out.
“The Dark Knight” didn’t get rid of capes, batmobiles, gadgets, etc. We can still understand that this is Batman–even if he is very different than other iterations. He ain’t Adam West.
But, if we didn’t know the name of the character in “Casino Royale” or “QoS,” would we have ever thought that it was Bond? It could have been almost any character.
Hardly anyone has ever read a Fleming novel. Most people think of Bond from the films. Getting back to Bond’s roots in Fleming’s novels will probably just confuse the fans.
And the film Bond is what fans aspire to in their fantasies. Guys imagine getting the girl, winning the bet at the casino, looking debonair in a tux, driving exotic cars, and so on.
The perfect iteration of this is Connery as Bond. The guy can crack wise about Robert Shaw picking the wrong wine when ordering fish in the dining car of the Orient Express in “From Russia with Love” and no one would ever say that Connery was a metrosexual. Maybe that’s because he can then take on Shaw in a very physical fight on the train. Connery was no dandy.
And Connery was also handsome. It wasn’t a pretty boy handsomeness, but a masculine, confident handsomeness.
Craig has masculine looks, but handsome–no, not really.
Craig has physicality, but no real charm.
Craig has a brutish quality, which Bond can have. It just can’t be the entire sum of the character.
I’ve thought about how many boys and men imagine themselves as Bond and, if so, who they would pick.
Even now, I’d say Connery. He had the swagger, the charm, the handsome non-pretty boy look, and the physicality.
Taking Bond closer to the “From Russia with Love” dynamic, even while throwing in revenge themes, is probably for the best. There weren’t too many gadgets in that movie and the plot/premise wasn’t as fantastical as other movies in the canon.
Anyway, that’s my rant.
I have to agree. When I left the movie I commented to my wife that I loved the action but it wasn’t James Bond, it was Jason Borne. Great movie, but I went to see the Bond character, someone who’s charm, wits, and high tech gadgetry get him through the day, along with a healthy dose of action. For instance the Bond of old would have never seduced a woman with the lame line “I can’t seem to find the stationary, would you come in the bedroom and help me,” I was laughing so hard just to keep myself from crying. In my final analysis Daniel Craig, who was masterful as a fledgling 007 in Casino Royale, was nothing more than an automaton with things exploding all around him.
In fairness, perhaps the writers and producers are simply showing us how Bond wasn’t really “Bond’ until he grew through this “cold” period. If that’s the case, I expect to see more charm, wit, and high technology in the next movie. However, if Craig shows up as Jason Borne again, I’m done with this franchise.