Latest Bond film: Shaken, stirred and upset
The latest James Bond film is out today. From the opening scene, ‘Quantum of Solace’ never skimps on action. But who is that guy in the tuxedo? James Bond or a poor man’s McGuyver?
Bond can stray from what audiences love, as Daniel Craig did in ‘Casino Royale,’ but please don’t have an affair with normalcy.
With no steamy Bond-girl session, no gadgets, no drink declaration and no formal introduction, I might as well watch reruns of Jack Bauer.
‘Casino Royale’ offered the promise of a new, exciting franchise; it was one of the best Bond films ever. Maybe ‘Quantum of Solace’ is an ill-advised fling for Craig. But is it asking too much for a plot that makes sense, a threat that induces more than a yawn or a villain who wouldn’t last 30 seconds in a cage fight with Barbara Walters? It’s a long way from Blofeld, SPECTRE and the goal of world domination.
Should you plunk down the money for this film? Of course, it’s still Bond — barely.
Welcome to the media circus. I'm Charles Williams, online entertainment editor and operator of this ride. 
I guess you and I did not see the same movie, or I paid more attention. While I agree that this movie was not as good as Casino Royale, it was a good Bond movie.
Much like in real life, the bad guy was not some hulking muscle man but a business man who could do more damage with a pen and a cell phone than a bad guy such as Jaws.
This is not a campy Bond but rather a much more realistic Bond. He does not need watches with built in lasers, he just needs a good suit, a nice car and working gun. If you want a campy Bond, watch Moonraker, if you want what Ian Fleming wrote, watch Daniel Craig.
Since when are Bond films about real life? I miss the gadgets but can live without them as long as the plot quality and characters are as good as ‘Casino Royale.’But with each film, Craig is drifting from what made Bond Bond in the movies. Yes, sometimes it was very campy.
I wish I could respond in more detail, but I don’t want to give away plot points. Good action, but what was at stake seemed a little ho-hum to me.
If you don’t like spoilers, don’t read this.
Okay, here’s my take. The movie makes sense in that it shows the evolution of James Bond and how he became the agent he did. The first film and most of the second shows a Bond that is rough and full of emotions with his urge for revenge. By the end of the movie, he has shown that he can leave his feelings behind (symbolized by the necklace on the ground) and can be trusted by “Mum” (Judy Densch)..and he acknowledges that she was right regarding his feelings for revenge. She also acknowledges that she was wrong to not trust him.
Thrown in to the movie are subtle references of what is to come: his choice for martini, made by the bartender on the plane; his penchant for bedding women (with an ironic nod to Goldfinger with the oil-drenched death of Fields); and choice of car (wasn’t that an Aston Martin he was driving in the beginning?). Also, I found the beginning of the movie interesting with the background montage during the opening credits…finally naked women are back. In addition, there was the signature walk across the screen at the end with the white scope following him (and he turns and shoots, “blood” dripping down the screen)..usually found at the beginning of Bond movies.
I expect we’ll see his character develop in the next film with, perhaps, a few gadgets and more building of his suave and sophisticated style.
While this was not your typical Bond movie, it was a logical next step in the series.
You make some good points regarding evolution. It will be interesting to see if that turns out to be the strategy of the filmmakers.
But as a film, I have to agree with Joe Williams that the editing was part of the problem. The Washington Post didn’t like it much either.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/movies/quantum-of-solace,1146530.html
The film made $70 million last weekend so that bodes well for the franchise. I hope the next installment continues to morph the character. Thanks for the comment.