Was the Daniel Craig Bond era over before it started?
WWTW wasn’t the only source wondering that after the deeply disappointing “Quantum of Solace,” the follow-up to the franchise rejuvenator “Casino Royale.”
“Solace” delivered at the box office all the same, buoyed by the Bond name and, most likely, the enormous goodwill engendered by “Casino Royale.”
Watching “Solace” a second time softened some, but not all, of my early criticisms.
The film, out on DVD today (March 24), still can’t measure up its predecessor. And while Craig remains a fine choice for Bond – he’s a sturdy actor who brings grit and gristle to the part – he can’t flesh out 007 nearly enough to satisfy.
But the action sequences, particularly early in the film, are borderline terrific. And it’s hard to quibble whenever Giancarlo Giannini is on screen.
Yet the film’s villain (Mathieu Amalric) remains as flat as a swedish pancake on a second viewing, and the story rushes ahead from one exotic locale to the next with little to explain why.
“Casino Royale” all but insisted the Bond franchise deserved a spot in 21st century cinema. “Quantum of Solace” made audiences reconsider that statement.
(Photo: Daniel Craig in action as James Bond in “Quantum of Solace.”)
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
The scene that bothered me the most was when Bond and Felix Leiter took verbal swipes at each other regarding their respective countries’ “imperialist” pasts. Last time I checked, Bond was supposed to fight for Western civlization, not loathe it. Wasn’t that kind of the point?
But no, even Bond is embracing Bourne-style nihilism, now that Paul Haggis is writing his scripts.
The action scenes,IMHO, weren’t even borderline watchable, especially the car chase at the begining. The boat and airplane sequence had the same problems. There were about 1000 quick cuts, literally,for every 30 seconds in those sequences, it gave me a headache. It also made me think, boy these scenes look exciting it’d be nice if they’d show more long shots.
Ultimately the movie had no passion though and for me that’s what killed it. It wasn’t memorable one way or the other.
I saw it with a packed theater of young marines, there was no cheering,clapping or any reaction from them for the entire film. Generally in action movies you’ll get a big reaction from them, for this film…nothing.
Haggis upped the level of dialogue … but he also inserted his anti-western biases, alas.
Opus, I think I’m just getting used to the modern action sequence. Crazy quick cuts, etc. like you said. I really liked the footrace between Bond and the mole … and the car chase had some perks for me. But overall I prefer less frenetic action. Just don’t think we’ll see much of it anymore. Imagine how frenzied the upcoming Transformers sequel will be ..
I wouldn’t say Solace was ‘bad’, it just wasn’t great. Casino Royale upped the ante so far it was practically impossible to come close to it. Solace slipped back into the convoluted plotlines of the Dalton and Brosnan eras, but I feel still was better than any from those two Bonds, especially Dalton. I mean, Dalton made people forget about Lazenby, he was so bad.
If they can simplify a little in the plot, pull back the camera so you can actually see the action and regain a fraction of the feel of Casino Royale, they could have another winner.