The Quantum of Solace

[Alexander]

Allow me to preface this post with two points: First, this is a direct response to Roger Ebert's review of the new Bond flick, "The Quantum of Solace" which opened today in the U.S. and which I have just returned from seeing. If you have not read Ebert's review, you may do so here. Second, I am writing this review as a long time Bond fan. My parents started taking me to see Bond movies (always at the drive-in in the early years. They expected me to go to sleep in the back seat) beginning with "The Spy Who Loved Me" (I do remember being taken to "Live and Let Die", but that must have been a rerelease since I would have been three when that movie first came out). I have since seen every single Bond film in the theater, save one: For some reason I do not remember, I did not see "Die Another Day" (the last Brosnan) until its release on DVD. I also have seen all of the Connery films from an early age (they showed them on channel 29 in Buffalo, NY on Saturday afternoons. My dad watched them with me since Connery was, to him, the "real" Bond. To me, he was the Bond on TV). So I am no fly by night Bond viewer who came to the series during the Brosnan years. I know whereof I speak when I speak of Bond.

This review may contain spoilers, so if you haven't seen the movie and you don't want anything spoiled, do not read on.

Ebert's review, which I assume you have read by now, was extremely negative. He begged the producers to "never do this to Bond again" and urged them to completely reconstruct the character. His review was not meant as a criticism of Daniel Craig, however, who Ebert praises as a "great Bond, perhaps the best Bond." His complaint is about the way the character is handled and how the film is structured. He states, incredibly, that Bond is "not an action hero." (He's right in a way. Bond is not an action hero. Bond is the action hero.)

Where to begin? Ebert complains that Bond is not the suave martini-sipper of old, that the "Bond Girl" Camille is not given a racy name like "Pussy Galore," that Bond's attitude is less dispassionate than previous incarnations. This Bond is not witty. He is brutal. He doesn't sleep with all of his female co-stars. In fact, he barely shows any interest in Camille. In short, the film departs completely from at least twenty out of twenty-one previous Bond films.

I do not disagree with Ebert's assessment of the character. This is a different Bond. The question is whether this is a bad thing. Ebert believes that it is. This is where we differ.

Part of the problem lies in Ebert's admitted blind-spot when it comes to comic books and comic book related movies. Ebert is the first to admit that he doesn't know from comic books. He's never read them. Bond isn't a comic book character, of course, but Bond has been subjected in the last two films to something very familiar to comic book fans, but clearly alien to Ebert: A reboot. Obviously, Ebert doesn't know what a "reboot" is. If he did, I can't imagine that he would have written the review he did.

What Ebert clearly does not understand is that there are now two completely different "epochs" in the Bond continuity: The twenty films made between 1962 and 2002 and the two films made since 2006. There are, therefore, two different Bonds: The Bond played by Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan and the Bond played by Daniel Craig. I have just completed watching the first films by each Bond as a build up to the release of "QOS," so I have the various interpretations of the character very fresh in my mind as a write this, so let us be completely clear on this: However each actor may have differed in his reading of James Bond, there can be no doubt that Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan were all playing the same character existing in a continuity that existed (however tenously, at times) between the twenty films they made. There were consistant characters (M, Q, Miss Moneypenny, Felix Leiter, Blofeld) even if the characters (like Bond himself) were played by different actors. If something happened to Felix, for example (as happened in "License to Kill"), that took him out of action, then Felix could not appear in the subsequent films (he did not appear in any of the Brosnan films, being replaced by a new CIA agent (Jack Wade, who appeared in "GoldenEye" and "Tomorrow Never Dies," played both times by Joe Don Baker).

With "Casino Royale," however, both Bond and his universe were completely rebooted. Now Bond is a novice agent who has just earned his "00" status. Felix Leiter is back in the CIA (played by Jeffery Wright in both "CR" and "QOS," making him the second actor to play Felix more than once and the first actor to play him in consecutive films), a more ambiguous ally of 007's than Felix was in the first continuity. Judi Dench is no longer the "new" M (as introduced in "GoldenEye"). She is Bond's first superior officer (there may have been male 'M's in the past, but none of them supervised this James Bond). There is no evidence of a Q (or even a Q Division) or a Miss Moneypenny (a fact that Ebert laments in his review). This James Bond never encountered Dr. No, Auric Goldfinger, Odd Jobs, Pussy Galore, or any of the villians of the original continuity. Hell, this James Bond only JUST started drinking his martinis "shaken, not stirred."

All of this is simply to say that we CANNOT compare "QOS" to any previous Bond film (save "CR") or Craig's Bond to any previous incarnation. It isn't the same character or the same MI6.

So what do we know about THIS 007 and THIS world? Well, THIS world isn't populated with world-beating villians who hide out in active volcanos or women with ridiculous names. The bad guys in this world are after money, not world conquest. There are, in fact, no "Bond Girls," just female allies and enemies. THIS Bond has yet to develop into the character introduced at the beginning of "Dr. No." Maybe he never will. He doesn't regard violence as an inconvience but rather has a way of life. This Bond's overriding characteristic is not his charm or his unflappable cool but rather his complete and utter recklessness. You get the impression that this Bond doesn't survive because he's somehow superior to his enemies, but rather because he is actually willing to die in order to get the job done. You see it several times in "QOS": Bond essentially plays chicken with his opponents, and they lose because they aren't willing to just put the petal to the floor and let nature take its course. They always flinch, and because they flinch, they die.

"QOS" picks up immediately after the end of "CR" (something very few of the previous Bond films ever did: The only thing even remotely resembling continuing storylines I can think of are the Blofeld triology ("You Only Live Twice", "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and "Diamonds Are Forever") and the two Moore films that had a recurring villian (Jaws, who appeared in "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "Moonraker")), which means that the two films are actually one continuing story. Bond is after the Organization (revealed in this film as Quantum) that was responsible for Vesper's betrayal and death in the previous film. It is implied that Quantum will play a role in subsequent Bond films and a lot of this film is spent trying to learn about them and what they are after. Dominic Greene (this film's villian) is (like Le Chiffre in the last film) not an Ultimate Villian but just another functionary. We don't know who runs Quantum (but we know that its members are highly placed: at least one is an advisor to Britain's PM). Again, this is something that Ebert disliked. Where are the comic opera villians with their jumpsuited henchmen and sharks with frickin' lasers on their frickin' heads? No one ever captures Bond. No one ever details his fiendish plot for world domination (or at least blackmail) and then leaves Bond in the hands of flunkies who will be quickly dispatched. It's completely unlike twenty out of twenty-two films in the series.

Don't get me wrong: I LOVE the Bond series. I love the gadgets and the silly bad guys and the babes. But I also love the fact that the producers have taken Bond in a completely new direction. I love both the old Bond and the new. But I must emphasize the fact that there ARE two Bonds. You can have both, of course. You can enjoy the New Bond in the two recent films and then go home and enjoy Bond Classic on DVD. But don't think that the producers have somehow betrayed Bond because they haven't. James Bond is dead. Long live James Bond.

Edited November 15, 2008 by Alexander

[Jazzmoose]

Part of the problem lies in Ebert's admitted blind-spot when it comes to comic books and comic book related movies.

Um...

[kinuta]

Great analysis Alexander.

I said more or less the same to the wife after we saw it the other night. With QOS the new hard man Bond has been deliberately and completely stripped of the laid back, double entendre, flirting with Moneypenny , shaken but not stirred trappings. To have successfully rebooted the series, it's just about the only course it could logically have taken. The master stroke was casting Daniel Craig, who so fully and convincingly takes over the role it makes any comparison with the previous incarnations of Bond irrelevant.

You make a good point in the chronology, namely this is the pre Dr.No, younger Bond. The new energy really shows in QOS which almost raises the bar from Bourne in the dizzying action scenes. My only criticism might be that they are so fast and so rapidly edited that they are a bit hard to take in. Certainly merits reviewing a few times.

DC is without doubt the greatest Bond, for me at least. Connery was the best of the previous suave Bonds.

I'm looking forward to where they take it with the next one.

I wasn't aware of Roger Ebert's aversion to comic books. He did, however, go overboard on Dark City which was almost like a film adaption of an SF graphic novel.

[jazzbo]

I haven't seen the film yet (due to see it today), so I skipped the bulk of your review Alex, but riddle me this: have you read the books? I guess what I liked most about Casino Royale, this film's predecessor, was that we were finally given a Bond closer to how he comes off the pages (for me, in my imagination) from the Fleming stories/novels. I hope that is deepend/continued here in QOS.

I read most all of the Fleming novels before I saw a single of the film (odd situation, I was living in Africa at the time) and I never felt the same about any of the previous movies in the slightest as I did about the books.

[Dan Gould]

Unless "New Bond" is driving vintage cars, I don't quite see how he can be "pre-Dr No" James Bond. If you have a character, played consistently (more or less) over time, you can't create a new "James Bond" and set it in the present. Or at least you shouldn't.

But thanks Alex for

THIS world isn't populated with world-beating villians who hide out in ... women with ridiculous names.

[AllenLowe]

haven't seen the new Bond, but I never take Ebert seriously; he is a world-class middlebrow and intellectual mediocrity.

The last bond movie (Casino Royale) was simply the best ever made, I think, and Craig is the first guy who surprasses Connery. I prefer the new Bond because it has almost a LeCarre feel to the whole texture.

worried about the new one because I have heard some other bad things, however -

[ejp626]

Unless "New Bond" is driving vintage cars, I don't quite see how he can be "pre-Dr No" James Bond. If you have a character, played consistently (more or less) over time, you can't create a new "James Bond" and set it in the present. Or at least you shouldn't.

Well, it is pretty clear from the plot of CR that this was an early Bond, sort of learning the ropes, and it was a prequel to the other movies.

I think Ebert has been fair enough to some movies ripped from the comics (Batman, Ironman, Hellboy I think) but on the whole he doesn't have a lot of use for the comic book medium. It's a personal thing, but I have 0 interest in a rebooted Bond and I refuse to watch any of them. That's not the Bond I grew up with and enjoy, and I would rather not see any more rather than see a gritty Bond.

[AllenLowe]

you're missing a lot - Casino Royale was great on all fronts - characer, action, plot. A rare thing - highly entertaining AND smart -

Edited November 15, 2008 by AllenLowe

[Tom Storer]

Thanks for your review, Alexander. I have little knowledge of the comic book universe and have not heard the term "reboot" applied to them but I can guess what it means: basically starting over with different premises, rendering the history of a continuing character/story irrelevant to the new version (but retaining enough for it to be recognizable). Is that right?

I think the reason for "rebooting" is to be able to get out of situations that have been done to death for years and years and open up new possibilities for character and story development. It's a commercial necessity. The reason it can work is that older fans drop off anyway and newer fans aren't as committed to the older version.

[Alexander]

Thanks for your review, Alexander. I have little knowledge of the comic book universe and have not heard the term "reboot" applied to them but I can guess what it means: basically starting over with different premises, rendering the history of a continuing character/story irrelevant to the new version (but retaining enough for it to be recognizable). Is that right?

I think the reason for "rebooting" is to be able to get out of situations that have been done to death for years and years and open up new possibilities for character and story development. It's a commercial necessity. The reason it can work is that older fans drop off anyway and newer fans aren't as committed to the older version.

You are absolutely correct, and that's why I must emphasize for those who still seem unclear on the concept: "Casino Royale" was NOT a prequel to "Dr. No." This is not a pre-62 Bond. The past, all those films from '62 to '02, never happened and (more imporantly) never will. That's what a "reboot" is. It's not going back and showing the beginning of a saga; it's starting the saga over from scratch, with no preconceptions. For those not familiar with the concept in comics, it has happened several times in both the Marvel and DC universes. In the mid-1980s it was decided (in the "Crisis on Infinite Earths" mini-series) to end the DC universe that had existed since Superman's debut in 1938 and to start over fresh. The Superman introduced post-Crisis is significantly different from the pre-Crisis Superman: There is no red kryptonite, no other surviors of Krypton (Supergirl, the bottled city of Kandor, General Zod). Clark Kent has just moved to Metropolis and just met Lex Luthor for the first time (he is now a business man, not a world-beating villian). Many Superman fans disliked the changes, but as with the new Bond films, you don't have to like it, but you have to ACCEPT it.

[ejp626]

Many Superman fans disliked the changes, but as with the new Bond films, you don't have to like it, but you have to ACCEPT it.

Not true. No one has to ACCEPT anything. I have no intention of watching or paying any attention to the reboot. The new Bond series is dead to me.

[Jazzmoose]

I agree with ejp626, in spite of his funny name. I don't have to accept it at all. And don't. But then, I never accepted Roger Moore as Bond, so it's not like they're losing anything with me...

[Alexander]

Many Superman fans disliked the changes, but as with the new Bond films, you don't have to like it, but you have to ACCEPT it.

Not true. No one has to ACCEPT anything. I have no intention of watching or paying any attention to the reboot. The new Bond series is dead to me.

Eh. I'm not sure I agree. You don't have to accept it for yourself and you don't have to go see the films, but on some level you MUST acknowledge that these films are there and that this IS the new reality for 007. Similarly, when I was a kid, I had grown up on my father's Marvel comics (he kept a big bag up in the attic). I loved those comics, especially the X-Men. Around the mid-to-late '70s/early '80s, I became aware of the "new" X-Men (which had started with "Giant Sized X-Men #1"). To me, these "new" X-Men were imposters. The X-Men I knew and loved was Cyclops, Marvel Girl, the Angel, The Beast, and Ice Man. The X-Men featuring Wolverine, Colossus, Nightcrawler, Storm, Banshee, and others were just a bunch of pretenders. I ignored them for years. It wasn't until I was in high school that I started reading the "new" X-Men (which by then wasn't "new" at all). What I learned from that experience is that to deny the reality of a given situation (while it is my right) was ultimately futile. It gets me nothing but frustration. I learned that I can have the best of both worlds: Cherish the old and appreciate the new.

My wife feels the same way you do. She hated "Casino Royale." She hated Craig (her favorite Bond will always be Brosnan). She has no interest in "Quantum" and doesn't have any intention of seeing it. And that's fine. But to say that the Bond films stopped with "Die Another Day" is foolish at best, because they didn't. I'm sure there are partisans who love the Tim Burton "Batman" films or even the Ang Lee "Hulk" film and refuse to accept those recent "reboots" as well. But unlike Lucas's "Special Editions" of the first three "Star Wars" films, these reboots are not an attempt to rewrite history. The older films are there and they will always be there. Who knows? Someday, a filmmaker might come along and make a Bond film that ignores the reboot and picks up where "Die Another Day" left off. I may not like it, but I will watch and accept it for what it is. What's the point of having these long running characters if they can't be reinterpreted for a new audience? Must we always accept tradition for its own sake?

[mikelz777]

I, for one, LOVE the reboot and think it is exactly what the Bond series needed. Daniel Craig is arguably the best Bond ever and makes the likes of Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan look like butlers. All of the weird gadgetry, the women with the bizarre names the world domination-geared villains and the obligatory little quips had me rolling my eyes and are what turned me off to the series. The franchise became a cheap parody of itself as the years went by and the reboot is a much needed change for the good.

Edited November 15, 2008 by mikelz777

[Jazzmoose]

Eh. I'm not sure I agree. You don't have to accept it for yourself and you don't have to go see the films, but on some level you MUST acknowledge that these films are there and that this IS the new reality for 007.

No, there is another path: I just don't care. I would agree back when Roger Moore replaced Connery that I had to accept the fact that Connery was gone and Moore was the new Bond. But as I quit watching Bond movies after Live and Let Die, "the new Bond" just doesn't have any involvement with my reality at all. It's just another action movie to skip for me. Mind you, I'm not criticizing the new movie at all; I have no information about it and won't see it. It might be great; it just has no relevance for me. If I get some desire to watch a Bond flick, I'll grab a Connery.

[Alexander]

I agree with ejp626, in spite of his funny name. I don't have to accept it at all. And don't. But then, I never accepted Roger Moore as Bond, so it's not like they're losing anything with me...

Moore is probably my least favorite Bond, despite the fact that he was the Bond I grew up on. I came to develop a deep appreciation for Connery and rank Brosnan just behind him. Rewatching "The Living Daylights" the other day, I also came to appreciate what a raw deal Dalton (who is probably the most distinguished actor to take on the role (until Craig, anyway)) got. It seems to me that Dalton was the victim of two things: First, by 1987 I think the viewing public had largely forgotten Lazenby, so for most viewers there had only ever been two Bonds: Connery and Moore. People had not yet accepted the idea that Bond was a character that many actors would play over the years. There was Connery who had originated the role, and Moore who had taken it up in 1973. That was it. Dalton was - for a lot of people - a transitional Bond. They rejected him, only to embrace Brosnan almost ten years later (by which point Lazenby's reputation had been largely rehabilitated and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" regarded as one of the all time best Bond films). By the time Craig came along, there had been five previous Bonds, and it was easier for people to accept him. So Dalton basically had the bad luck to follow Moore when for a whole generation, Moore WAS Bond.

Second, "The Living Daylights" was the first Bond film to be made in the age of AIDS (1983's "View to a Kill" was made at a time when people still regarded AIDS as a "gay disease") and the disasterous decision had been made to make Bond a "one woman man" for that film. It wasn't so much that audiences couldn't accept a monogomous Bond for a film (Bond had been shown in the past to fall in love, as he did with Diana Rigg's character in "On Her Majesty's...") so much as they couldn't accept the IDEA of a Bond who didn't screw co-stars and femme fatales. In short, I don't think viewers would have made a fuss if the filmmakers hadn't made an issue of it in the press at the time (they also make an issue of it on the DVD "making of" documentary). In fact, I don't think audiences would have even noticed that Bond was only sleeping with one woman (after all, circumstances can conspire to make sure that Bond isn't having any dalliances with other women) if the filmmakers hadn't pointed it out. Overall, "The Living Daylights" isn't a bad film at all, despite it's low reputation, and I think that Dalton is due for a reassessment.

[Alexander]

Eh. I'm not sure I agree. You don't have to accept it for yourself and you don't have to go see the films, but on some level you MUST acknowledge that these films are there and that this IS the new reality for 007.

No, there is another path: I just don't care.

I'm sorry, what? Not care about James Bond? Those words don't compute for me. Sorry.

[Man with the Golden Arm]

Talking of the "new" Bond in generational terms I'd say this: went w/ my daughter last night who's first "real" movie was Casino Royale (that whole nutty chair scene sort went above her, thank goodness) and she's been counting the days very literally since we left the theater a couple of years ago. She was completely in her element from the first downshift, digging the White & Keys song and how it worked with the design elements of the shifting sands, getting into the mystery of double and triple agents and very much edge of her seat till near the end when she expressed to me that it had gotten a bit mundane even before the final implosion of the plot - she was spot on. She felt the villain to be nowhere near as creepy and nasty (obviously not taking in the political implications buried within) as in CR and the girls to be a bit less than she anticipated - she only felt for the "slick" one but really got herself into the previous Bond girl and how she shaped Bond for this one.

It was still early when we got home and netflix had delivered her request for Goldfinger so we watched that to end the night. The whole "classic" thing doesn't fly with a thirteen year old so while Connery was cool, (she now wants one of them goofy shorty terri cloth robes!) Odd Job the best and while she got some of the triplets of entendre the movie was so slow and campy that it had no appeal for her despite my feelings.

The new Daniel Craig Bond is great and I'll take it any day over any of the comicky action movies. And my daughter is beginning her countdown again.

[Dan Gould]

Why is there a presumption that this "reboot" is permanent? Daniel Craig is already making noises about whether he'll do another Bond. Who's to say that the next Bond isn't a return, and the Craig years the aberration? Or that after one more movie, there won't be a return to the old Bond?

You ought to know that nothing is permanent, Alex.

And Mark is right, no one is obligated to accept anything.

[jazzbo]

That's right, no one is obliged to accept anything. You're sounding like Chauncey Clemhouse again! One doesn't have to pay attention to Bond movies. If one is into the series one has to realize yes, they turned the page.

Okay, I watched this movie. I liked it quite a bit. It was too "Bourne" for me, it was slipping into THAT mold rather than creating a new mould for the seires if you ask me. I liked Olga more than Eva, the whole Vesper thing in Casino wasn't that compelling for me. . . and subsequently his bit of obession about it was not as convincing to me. That's just me.

By the way, there IS a ridiculously named woman in this one, Ms. Strawberry Fields, right?

Anyway, yes this new reboot IS personally more to MY liking than any previous incarnation (I'm pretty "eh"/blah about all the other movies) and is promising. I hope Craig goes on and on in teh role.

[Adam]

There's no "The" in the title of the film. It's just "Quantum of Solace."

[Chuck Nessa]

There's no "The" in the title of the film. It's just "Quantum of Solace."

Then it must be better than I thought.

[Alexander]

That's right, no one is obliged to accept anything. You're sounding like Chauncey Clemhouse again! One doesn't have to pay attention to Bond movies. If one is into the series one has to realize yes, they turned the page.

Okay, I watched this movie. I liked it quite a bit. It was too "Bourne" for me, it was slipping into THAT mold rather than creating a new mould for the seires if you ask me. I liked Olga more than Eva, the whole Vesper thing in Casino wasn't that compelling for me. . . and subsequently his bit of obession about it was not as convincing to me. That's just me.

By the way, there IS a ridiculously named woman in this one, Ms. Strawberry Fields, right?

Anyway, yes this new reboot IS personally more to MY liking than any previous incarnation (I'm pretty "eh"/blah about all the other movies) and is promising. I hope Craig goes on and on in teh role.

If Ms. Fields is named "Strawberry" (which I thought of during the movie, myself), it never happens on camera. But yes, she is a readhead so the name "Strawberry" immediately suggests itself, but the film is subtle enough to let the audience supply its OWN joke...

Edited November 16, 2008 by Alexander

[Alexander]

Why is there a presumption that this "reboot" is permanent? Daniel Craig is already making noises about whether he'll do another Bond. Who's to say that the next Bond isn't a return, and the Craig years the aberration? Or that after one more movie, there won't be a return to the old Bond?

You ought to know that nothing is permanent, Alex.

And Mark is right, no one is obligated to accept anything.

I do know that nothing is permanent. That's why I noted above that a future film might well take up where "Die Another Day" left off.

[BruceH]

I like the Craig "reboot" and just saw Quantum of Solace. Have to say that, despite some moments here and there, the new film seemed to be marking time. This script seemed to lose the thread of the plot at times; during the last section I sometimes wondered what in the hell the "big picture" was and why we should care. It seemed like Bond was just jumping from one setpiece to the next without any time set aside for context. I know, some would say that that only describes almost any Bond flick, but I didn't get that feeling from Casino Royale; while not a flawless film, watching it was much more satisfying because I felt much more invested in the plot and characters. And what was wrong with the action scenes in QoS? They had a frantic energy to them, but I didn't have a good sense of what was happening or being carried along. In the last Bourne movie, by contrast, though many yelled "Shaky camera!" and "Too much cutting!" nevertheless I always had a sense of exactly WHAT was happening in each action sequence, and where it was going. In QoS, however, I had the distinct impression of someone desperately hurling a huge pile of kitchen implements (including the sink) at my head in an attempt to impress me.

Mind you, I wouldn't say it was a BAD Bond film, but, yeah, just marking time until the next installment of Bond 2.0 (Craig.) I just hope the next one has a better script and a much better director. Someone who knows how to handle action sequences at least.