Quantum of Solace
3 November 2008
Yes, I booked my tickets weeks earlier and got in the queue with Neil to watch Quantum of Solace on opening night (opening night to the general public, that is). I’ve been a James Bond fan since Deity knows when; I think it has something to do with myself and a bunch of kids being babysat by For Your Eyes Only while all the parentals were partying it up in the living room.
So, what was it like? Entertaining. This is the first 007 I’ve seen that is a proper sequel. While James is supposedly driven extra cold with grief, he doesn’t really seem that broken up about it, since he ends up shagging Strawberry Fields (not a spoiler, it’s alluded to quite directly in the trailer). But maybe his pain is demonstrated in that (*spoiler alert*) he only shags one Bond girl throughout the entire film.
More, and more spoilers, after the jump.
The story is James Bond, fresh from losing Vesper, embarks on finding answers and revenge. He encounters a hot Russian / Bolivian chick, Camille, who appears to be connected to the most normal-looking villain 007 has ever had the privilege of coming up against, Dominic Greene. Greene is, on the surface, and environmental philanthropist, but is really a greedy bloke who is planning a global monopoly in utilities provision. Cue loads of death and destruction.
I skimmed the headline reviews on Friday before seeing the film, and I think I remember seeing some negative ones. As a fan, I enjoyed it a lot. I don’t need my films to be deep and have loads of hidden meanings — I’m there to be entertained, and James Bond films have always been entertaining. Daniel Craig as Bond is taking the character in a much different direction compared to his predecessors, and I think it’s necessary, because he seems like such a different actor. If they had stuck with the suave, extremely handsome type, I don’t think Quantum of Solace would have been made at all!
My only criticism is the level of product placement, because it did totally colour my suspension of disbelief. After being told in an pre-film advertisement that the five-megapixel Sony Ericcson whatever model mobile phone was James Bond’s choice, I was highly sceptical that he would’ve been able to photograph close-ups of the Quantum members’ faces from a hundred metres away and send them to HQ to be identified. Where the hell is Q when we need him?
A couple of things I noticed that may be departures from the James Bond style, aside from the less-than-Casanova belt-notchings. The credits run in the beginning of the film, which I don’t remember ever seeing before, and the glaringly obvious one is the launch of this ongoing plot thread (the Quantum) that may be designed to take Bond well beyond what Ian Fleming wrote (and a good commercial decision that will keep fans interested in the previous installment when the next one is about to release).
One point that I noted with humour. 007 is heralded as the ultimate British spy, right? The character was used to illustrate the example of why Britain’s Savile Row tailors were still the best (in British Style Genius on the BBC). Daniel Craig’s suits were designed by Tom Ford. Haha!
Update: I’ve been Instalanched. Too bad for them, because I don’t ever pretend to be an expert or anything! Ha!
7 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Where's the review of the film?
Comment by Pat Patterson — 4 November 2008 @ 5:02 pm
Being an avid Bond fan, and as much as I loved Sean Connery as Bond, that character was not very true to Ian Fleming's brilliant novels. I believe that Fleming was not thrilled with Connery's iteration. Daniel Craig's Bond is much more in line with Fleming's idea of the secret agent.
In the fantastic Fleming novels, Bond was a cold and hardened killer. Hard drinking and hard smoking, with very little patience for much. Fleming described Bond often as the "cold, blunt tool of the state," and Daniel Craig was superb in Casino Royale, which was very true to the initial Bond novel.
Cannot wait to see QoS!
Brad B.
Chalfont, PA USA
Comment by Brad B. — 4 November 2008 @ 6:32 pm
Pat, those would be the bits where I talk about how I felt about the film and my criticisms?
Brad, you sure know more about the history of Bond than me! And I like this new, darker Bond.
Comment by Andrea — 4 November 2008 @ 6:46 pm
How many Bond films have you seen, because they all have had credits run in the beginning and I have seen them all. But thanks for a great review, sounds like a fun run which is what I look for in a Bond film.
Comment by Thomas — 5 November 2008 @ 5:30 am
I just don't remember them… maybe the opening animation of this film drew more attention to them than the other films!
Comment by Andrea — 5 November 2008 @ 11:40 am
Andrea – the only thing more enjoyable than a Bond film is reading Fleming's original Bond novels from the 1950s & 60s. Start with Casino Royale – you won't be disappointed.
They also offer a wonderful look back at the time period of cold war tension.
Comment by Brad B. — 6 November 2008 @ 2:12 am
Thanks, Brad, I will definitely check them out!
Comment by Andrea — 6 November 2008 @ 11:37 am