Quantum of Solace

After a groan-inducing couple of months waiting for something worth watching to hit theaters, James Bond has finally returned to save the box office. While I'll say right off the bat that Quantum of Solace is not as good as Casino Royale, I will say that it is still a very enjoyable 007 film and certainly better than any of Pierce Brosnan's outings. Clocking in at a brisk 106 minutes, Quantum is the shortest Bond film since 1962's Dr. No. but it's also easily the most action-packed. In fact, I felt exhausted after only the first 40 minutes thanks to a high-velocity orgy of action sequences that seemingly had no end. That might be my only complaint about Quantum: it crams 10 lbs. of action into a 5 lb. film, and the plot seems to suffer a bit from the compression. Thankfully, the action is so incredible that it hardly matters once things get going.

Quantum picks up literally one hour after the end of Casino Royale as Bond, with Mr. White stuffed into his trunk, is being pursued by a couple of machine-gun wielding henchman. He manages to evade capture and drives to a hidden location in Italy. There, he and M interrogate Mr. White, who informs them that he works for an organization called Quantum that "has people everywhere". Bond, still grieving over the loss of Vesper, goes on a global manhunt for the people behind this organization and to get revenge for the loss of the only woman he's ever loved.

The opening scene, which, in 007 films, has always been known for outlandish action, is astounding. Seriously, my buddy and I were floored by the insane stunts and white-knuckle driving we were seeing. I've seen all 22 Bond films to date and this was easily one of the best pre-credit sequences ever conceived. What follows it is a non-stop action enema that leaves you feeling physically exhausted once Bond finally stops to get his plans together. As I said that's a minor complaint, but I couldn't help feeling that the film needed a little more room to breathe during the first third. However, that isn't so much a problem for me as much as the style in which they were shooting the action. I know the Bourne films have become extremely popular as of late, but they are a series that is supposed to try to emulate 007, while giving itself a unique style that makes the films their own. In Quantum of Solace, much of the film looks exactly like a Bourne film. The quick cuts, fast-paced editing and nauseous camera work made me feel like I wasn't watching a 007 flick. Even Casino Royale, which was a total reboot of the Bond series, didn't employ these techniques during shooting. I place the blame here on director Foster hiring Dan Bradley, a 2nd unit director on Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum, to do 2nd unit work here. It doesn't bother me a great deal, but it just isn't something I feel I should be seeing. Bond set the standard for action films, so to see this film blatantly cribbing style from the Bourne series just seems wrong.

Shooting style aside, this is a balls-to-the-wall ass-kicker of a movie. Director Marc Foster said he wanted a tighter, leaner Bond film after the lengthy Casino Royale - and that is exactly what we've gotten. I think some of the criticism of Quantum is because of the length and limited room for the plot to grow, but I appreciate what Foster has done here. Since Quantum is a direct sequel to Casino Royale, it's probably best if they are watched back-to-back. Whereas Casino Royale introduces the plot and villains that we can expect to populate the next few 007 films, Quantum eschews most of that information-driven narrative in favor of having Bond go on an international mission of revenge. I'd probably say this film is most closely related to the vastly underrated Bond flick, 1989's Licence to Kill, which has Timothy Dalton (who was a much better Bond than people give him credit for) going "rogue" and seeking revenge against the people who attacked Felix Leiter (his CIA contact, played in Quantum by Jeffrey Wright) and killed his wife. I've always been a huge revenge film junkie – it's one of my favorite subgenres of film – so to have a mega-budgeted action flick, that is ostensibly a slick revenge picture, is fine by me.

One thing everyone seems to agree upon is that Daniel Craig continues to prove he was a superb choice to play James Bond. Bond needed a reinvention after Pierce Brosnan started getting a little long in the tooth (and his films began to suck); these days we need a Bond who is more physical and rugged. Times don't call for Connery's smooth, witty sophisticate type, nor do we need the tongue-in-cheek humor of Roger Moore. Craig is, as M so succinctly put it in Casino Royale, "a blunt instrument". Not only is the guy the most physically intimidating Bond yet, but he also performs almost all of his own stunts. That in itself is incredibly impressive considering how death-defying many of them are. I think something like 4 or 5 stunt men were seriously injured making this film; Craig even sliced off the tip off his finger. He knows the importance of making Bond human again, and it shows through in his nuanced performance. It's one of the few Hollywood trends I actually enjoy – taking lofty superheroes (Bond, Batman, Iron Man) and applying their actions to real-world physics. We're in an age where people love to root for the power of a person – man against the odds - and that's being reflected back to us on-screen. Craig recently signed on through Bond 25, so I'm looking forward to seeing what more he plans to bring to the role.

Ok, I forgot that there was one more gripe I had with the film: the villain, Dominic Greene. I was able to look past the fact that he isn't even vaguely intimidating, physically or intellectually, because of his position within the vast and powerful Quantum network, but on his own he is only slightly more fearsome than Jonathan Pryce in The World is Not Enough. He doesn't display any type of physical deformity that most lead villains possess, and he also doesn't have some super-cool nefarious lair where he hatches global crime schemes. Nope, he's just an eco-terrorist hell-bent ..ling the water supply of Bolivia. It's not exactly the most deadly plot Bond producers have come up with, but given the climate of today's concerns with global emissions and natural resources it seems to be the most prevalent. Greene is just one figure among a myriad network of criminals waiting to be introduced to us within this new 007 series' unfolding plot - and that fact alone excites me enough to forgive his shortcomings.

I wasn't nuts about the Bond girls this time around. Olga Kurylenko isn't unattractive, but she also isn't phenomenally good looking. Plus, she doesn't even have a sweet-ass double-entendre for a name. Pussy Galore, she is not. Her character is kind of a mixed bag of emotions, so we're never really sure whether to be on her side or not. At least she isn't completely disposable, as her character is a pretty integral part of the story. Thankfully, we do get one field operative with an amusing moniker: Gemma Arterson as Strawberry Fields. Even though we never learn her first name in the film, it's nice to know the writers did try to have a little fun with things. They may not be as intellectually cunning as Eva Green in Casino Royale, but at least they're nowhere near as bad as the abysmal performance from Halle Berry in Die Another Day.

Oh wait… I almost forgot my final gripe. I swear it's the last one: the theme song. Originally, Amy Winehouse was set to record the theme but, due to the fact that she's snorting enough cocaine to give Tony Montana a run for his money, she had to drop out. Enter Jack White and Alicia Keys, who obviously have no idea how a James Bond film's theme is supposed to sound. Even Chris Cornell's opening number from Casino Royale sounded more epic than this tune. Maybe it could be that I just don't like either of them as artists, but even I feel like a temporarily-sober Winehouse would have belted out a better track. Meh. Maybe next time.

If you're any kind of an action film fan, or a 007 fan, you should just go see this movie. One strong note of consideration, however: watch Casino Royale right before you do. You'll be eternally thankful for the refresher course on the major plot points, because Quantum doesn't provide any information you shouldn't already know. It drops you right in on the action from the first frame, so it's best to be prepared. This isn't a Saw film, so we aren't constantly bombarded by flashbacks to remind us of what's going on. I'm glad the director chose to assume the audience is slightly more intelligent than most directors tend to these days. So, it's good – just not great. Keep your expectations in check and you're bound to enjoy it for exactly what it is: a lean, mean revenge flick.