Artsculture

'Quantum of Solace'

Get out of there Bond! This thing is gonna blow!

By Steve Burgess, 14 Nov 2008, TheTyee.ca

Quantum of Solace, Daniel Craig

Craig as 007: back to the '70s.

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Question: What is a Quantum of Solace?

Answer: One hell of a songwriting challenge.

Jack White had the unenviable task of penning the new Bond theme, facing perhaps the greatest lyrical conundrum since 1983's Octopussy. White opted for an entirely different title -- Another Way to Die -- while throwing the word "quantum" in somewhere.

Why not? Even Daniel Craig recently admitted that the title of the latest James Bond adventure, taken from an Ian Fleming short story, is essentially meaningless. The real title of the 22nd Bond flick is Casino Royale II. The new story aims to pick up from the last episode, with Bond seeking revenge for the death of his lady-love. And with good reason. Craig's 2006 debut as Agent 007 succeeded in rebooting the entire franchise, giving new life to a tired series with a grittier hero, more tactile action scenes, and some actual plot in place of consecutive speedboat chases.

Alas, this time around it's back to the boats. When folks start ripping around Haitian waters with outboards a-revving, it's a clear indication that Quantum of Solace will follow Casino Royale's step forward with two steps back. Heavy on the stunts, light on the screenplay -- welcome to Quantum of Same-Old.

Tree huggers, the new villains

Things start pretty well, though. A rip-roaring shoot 'em up car chase shows once again the influence of the Bourne series on the new Bond flicks. The film scores points with me by opening in Siena, Italy in the midst of my favourite spectacle, the Palio race. But Siena and the Palio serve no purpose whatsoever other than background colour, and that's indicative of what is to come. There's an intriguing plot kick-off -- the revelation of a super-secret organization that even M (Judi Dench) is unaware of. And eventually you'll be unaware of it too, since that angle amounts to pretty much nada. Hope you like boats.

Quantum of Solace does offer us the innovation of environmentalists as villains, albeit only because they're actually venal hypocrites. It offers up a morbid and misogynistic tribute to Goldfinger with a sexy corpse a la Oilfinger. But by the time things wrap up, the filmmakers are relying on that oldest of 007 cliches, the escape-from-a-gradually-exploding-complex. Some customers will still care.

Bond movies had never been my cuppa, but after Casino Royale I was actually anticipating the new one. I won't be doing that again anytime soon. It's a mystery why the managers of this valuable brand, who clearly wanted to capitalize on their fresh start, decided to change the director (from Martin Campbell to Marc Forster) and shuffle the writing team. Last time around, Paul Haggis received only the third screenwriting credit behind Neal Purvis and Robert Wade; this time around Haggis is listed first. Considering Haggis's prominence in creating Million Dollar Baby and Crash, I am going to go ahead and blame him for this flick. Casino Royale reminded you of the potential for fun and intrigue that this series has always held. Quantum of Solace just reminds you of the 1970s.

Quantum of Solace does have Craig. Even with less-than-first-rate material, he is still a superior Bond -- feral, frightening, always watchable. He's the ace-in-the-hole for the series now. Having squandered the considerable goodwill generated by Casino Royale, they'll need one. While they're at it, why not do the songwriters a favour? Bond #23 should be called: "Hey Baby, Let's Spoon."

Related Tyee stories:

[Tyee]

Steve Burgess reviews films and other aspects of culture every other Friday here on The Tyee.

12 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • James Burns

    3 years ago

    Whaa?

    Wow Steve, I'm surprised you missed the entire plot line. Everyone was a villain, particularly the western governments. Was that not apparent? Was that lost for you in the explosions and Bond cliches?

    What was new in this flick? Well for a Bond film the notion that we, meaning the western industrialized world, are the authors of the evils visited upon the rest of the world. That revelation, for a Bond flick, was for me what was the most interesting about this particular episode.

    We've seen the enemy, and they are us.

  • Steve Burgess

    3 years ago

    James

    I'll grant you the plot made feints in that direction, but all scattered and thoroughly unconvincing. What did any of those tossed-off attempts at gravity have to do with the progress of the movie? There was a blink-and-you-miss-it moment near the end when, after a Jeep ride with 007, our chief villain says: "I answered all your questions about Quantum." Tidy--it saves the screenwriters from having to explain anything to the paying customers. Probably because there was nothing to explain. If there was any real convincing through line, then you're right, I missed it.

  • nightbloom

    3 years ago

    I wonder if all the

    I wonder if all the production problems (and casualies) resulted in an unfinished product. The action scenes were a delight to watch. Craig was a feast for the eyes. But I agree this fell short of Casino Royal (and recycled a few of its ideas for the action sequences). Indicentally, this was also the most fully-dressed Bond film I think I've ever seen in a long time. The only nudity (not counting a shirtless Bond) was a cadaver belly-flopped on a bed...and covered in a stygian coating of crude oil to boot. I'm all for replacing bond boobiness with more substance (which the last film certainly did)...but don't forget the substance part please.

    Btw, was there a point behind the didactic exchange with the bartender, or were they just following-up on the joke in the last movie with another back-handed homage to the martini fussiness of the Old Bond...? Bond fanboys wanna know.

    I thought the inevitable product marketing was once again subtle and unobstrusive in this film as it was in the last (this was an irritating aspect of the Brosnan films that bordered on intrusive for the viewer).

    All said, I'd have to say that I got my money's worth of entertainment, even if it didn't live up to Casino Royale.

  • James Burns

    3 years ago

    It's like seeing a homeless man in the Vancouver Club

    Steve, I would never suggest this Bond movie is in any shape or form progressive. That notion is laughably absurd. I just find it interesting that the home of reactionary colonialist myth is allowing a few peeks behind the glam and bling. There are no real "good guys" in this film, at least not on a national scale. What distinguishes Bond is simply that he cares about those closest to him, certainly not that he's any kind of a moral being.

    I don't want to go into detail because my comment will end up being littered with spoilers, but the notion that the western powers are only interested in working with whoever will best serve their immediate greed is reinforced constantly throughout. The Americans in particular feature as bad guys.

    Nightbloom, the bartender martini scene was pure (and for me glaring) product placement. But yeah, there was a bit of a joke, because Bond didn't care what he was drinking at the time.

    Some friends of mine are far too throughly caught up in the Bond fanboy thing. It bugs me, as it's tied up with extreme materialism and status seeking. But they're young, and I do understand the appeal of pretty things. The male version of Sex in the City, I guess.

    As for the sex, yes there was a notable lack of it, and what was there was playful; at least in the way Bond initiated it, if not so much for the oily consequences.

  • Bobby Peru

    3 years ago

    Evil Environmentalists

    Oh Mr. Burgess, I'm surprised the hard left leaning and pious editors of Tyee didn't edit or ding you for calling environmentalists 'venal hypocrites'. Because you are so dead on right to nail them. That term is especially true of people like David Suzuki.

    The Bond franchise's owners decided to take a gamble and move in a different direction. That's good because it's those instincts that gave us the fresh and original Casino Royale. But, the big mistake was in the execution- like hiring the second unit directing team which was the same one used in the Bourne series. Hence, Bond feels alot like Bourne in the action sequences. And when you add up all the action sequences- and there are many in a short space of time, it looks too much like Bourne.

  • Steve Burgess

    3 years ago

    Just to clarify...

    The following sentence,

    "Quantum of Solace does offer us the innovation of environmentalists as villains, albeit only because they're actually venal hypocrites."

    ...was not intended to damn environmentalists in general. Just the ones in the film, Bobby.

  • James Burns

    3 years ago

    And to clarify a little further...

    The villain wasn't an environmentalist, clean energy was just his cover. He was a scum sucking corporatist pig intent on exploiting the poor. Your kinda guy bobby.

  • nightbloom

    3 years ago

    Yeah, he was a pretend

    Yeah, he was a pretend environmentalist... kinda like latté-toting, SUV-driving Vancouverites from Kitsilano... (just kidding).

    For anyone who's interested, Geek Tyrant has just posted a bootlegged trailer for the new Star Trek film. Looks pretty edgy and re-invented...

    http://www.geektyrant.com/2008/11/star-trek-bootleg-preview/

  • Steve Burgess

    3 years ago

    Interesting

    But how will Abrams work in the "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" angle?

  • James Burns

    3 years ago

    Apparently I'm not the only one who noticed...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/17/new-bond-film-is-attack-o_n_144317.html

    As article at the link above warns, it contains spoilers.

  • dave49

    3 years ago

    USA Conservative's take on QOS

    Well, here is a fascinating recount (and justification) of American interference in other countries, spinning out of the review of the new James Bond movie! [http://townhall.com/Columnists/MonaCharen/2008/11/18/quantum_of_nonsense]

    Actually, I saw the film yesterday and enjoyed it more than I expected, given the middling to negative reviews and a poor review from a friend.

  • Machiatto

    3 years ago

    Truth of the matter is that

    Truth of the matter is that James Bond died in Pierce Brosnans' last out take.

    Even the title, Die Another Day, post-haste, now has a faux 'jump the shark' aura about it.

    Seriously, did you ever see a worse film let alone the worst of the 007 films?

    Halle Berry's schmucky un-clever one line comeuppances......CG/SFX of JB surfing down a wall of ice as if it were done on a Macbook...and an invisible car? These were all laugh out loud material in my opinion.

    But just imagine the pluck of the franchise owners in concocting a plan to appeal to a new generation of Bond afficiando's and leaping into this new territory without thoroughly lashing the old.

    No more sight gags, cheap stunts, and easy on the tongue in cheek....this new Bond is close to the breast action and not a lot of talking.

    Havent seen the latest out take but inevitably I will, but if theres anything remotely similar to the new Bond in QOS delivering solid lines like :"Why don't you try putting that into a sentence?"

    if it lends some depth

    I'll definitely be going with reservations for one. :)

    PS Seen the YouTube video for the title theme by Alicia Keys...the best one probably since Sheena Easton and Rita Coolidge. Although its hardly romantic Id go as far as to say: Oscar contendor.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.