Quantum of Solace

Picking up shortly after the end of Casino Royale, we find James Bond (Daniel Craig) being chased by some bad guys. He eventually eludes them and brings a man in for questioning about a mysterious group called Quantum. A seemingly omnipresent international cabal with its hands in everything. Bond is a man on a mission to uncover this secret group which was partly responsible for the death of Vesper (Eva Green) from the last film. Bond is quickly in the thick of it all and has M (Judi Dench) thinking he is driven by revenge rather than duty. Quickly we are introduced to our villain Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) and another player Camille (Olga Kurylenko).

Don't worry if that didn't make much sense as the plot is the least of the problems of this film. I've read a number of "readings" of James Bond recently. Some advocating a return to the more campy cool, non brooding fight conglomerate enemies of the Spectra variety. Others approving of the new direction of a brooding Bond who fights more relevant 20th century problems. I'm not sure I care who is right and I enjoyed reasonably well Casino Royale but the creative juices behind this film don't seem to know which way to go either. Yes, Bond is brooding but he's fighting a multinational cabal of baddies known as Quantum whose goals aim more towards making lots of money rather than world domination.

The cutesiness of not having signature lines uttered continues in this film right down to an agonizing bit of dialog where a bartender describes all the contents of the martini that Bond is drinking but never says martini. Why? Who thought that was clever? Of course I felt a bit of queasiness in my stomach when I saw Paul Haggis' name flash on the screen with a writing credit. He's not exactly known for his subtlety from what I have seen and the script is no exception. But no one comes to a Bond movie for writing right? Probably a fair point but I'm not asking for it to win a screenwriting award, just not to be heavy handed and not bore me to the point of wishing I had just stayed home and stared at the wall for 2 hours.

Then there is Marc Forster and his seemingly lack of knowing what to do in an action sequence. The only thing that was boring me more than most of the narrative was most of the action sequences. Their rushed, lack tension and generally stirred no emotion beyond "meh" in me. They were also largely filled with what was either really poorly done green screening or even more poorly done actually stunts. Forster should probably stick to the films that don't require action sequences.

Daniel Craig is good with what he has (read: not much) and certainly has an intensity that is nice. Mathieu Amalric (who starred in one of my favorite movies of last year, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) does what he can with the regrettably one dimensional role he's been given as representative Bond villain. Then there is the beauty Olga Kurylenko who in every film I have seen her in has been treated by the men as some sort of mediocre woman judging by the complete lack of passion they have for her.

To be sure I was a supporter, avidly, of the new Bond (if you're curious here is my review short and sweet.) But upon reflection and given the direction this film took, I really miss the old Bond. We've got Jason Bourne for no non-sense no emotion spy action. Do we really want Bond as the British Bourne? If they keep going this way that is all he will be. And since the Bourne movies do Bourne better than the Bond movies, why would I continue to watch Daniel Craig? I'm not saying per se we should go back to the cold war era Bond but put a little bit more fun back in the film. Oh and give the directing reins to someone who at least knows his or her way around an action sequence.

P.S. if you're going to have a beautiful woman like Olga Kurylenko in your movie at least have Bond sleep with her. What's the world coming to?