My Photo
Name:
Location: Argentina Neuquén Mission, Argentina

Monday, November 17, 2008

Quantum of Meh

Saw Quantum of Solace on Saturday night, and I don’t really have much to say about it.

That’s surprising, as I’m something of a James Bond geek. I can tell you how many official James Bond movies there have been – 22 – and can even tell you something about the unofficial ones – Sean Connery’s Never Say Never Again, which is really just a Thunderball remake, and the first Casino Royale, a really bad spoof starring David Niven and Woody Allen. I can tell you all the names of the actors and the movies off the top of my head without cheating and looking up online, although I’m sure I won’t get them in the right order.

  1. Sean Connery created the screen Bond character in Dr. No, Goldfinger, From Russia With Love, You Only Live Twice, Thunderball, and Diamonds Are Forever.
  2. Australian George Lazenby did his one and only appearance as Bond in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Bond becomes a married man and a widower in this one. Neat.
  3. Former Saint star Roger Moore is the most prolific Bond, having appeared in seven flicks: Live and Let Die, The Man with the Golden Gun, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, and A View To a Kill. He was 57 years old in the last movie, and it showed.
  4. The underrated Timothy Dalton only got two shots at 007 – The Living Daylights, which was great, and License to Kill, which blew.
  5. Pierce Brosnan revived the franchise a full five years after the awful License to Kill, and put in four uneven turns as the superspy: Goldeneye, which was OK, Tomorrow Never Dies, which I quite liked, The World Is Not Enough, which stank on ice, and Die Another Day, which was odd, but fun.
  6. And now we have Daniel Craig, who fits Ian Fleming’s tough guy description of James Bond better than the other guys, even though he has blonde hair and blue eyes. Casino Royale was a great reboot of the series, which leads us to Quantum of Solace, which just didn’t do anything for me.
Many people have wondered about the title of the new Bond, which is pulled from an Ian Fleming short story in which Bond appears, but only as a background character. They ran out of legitimate Ian Fleming titles after Living Daylights and have been making them up for the movies ever since.

All this seems irrelevant, which it is, but it highlights the fact that Bond movies have become something of a ritual. They open with a spectacular action sequence that has nothing to do with the story of the rest of the movie, which then segues into the title sequence, featuring an elaborate theme song written around the title. (Best Bond theme: Paul McCartney’s “Live and Let Die.” Worst: “The Living Daylights” by A-Ha. There’s a reason you’ve probably never heard it.) Then Bond shows up at M’s office, and after flirting with Miss Moneypenney the receptionist, Bond receives his new assignment. At some point, Q shows up to give him all the gadgets he’s going to need, and then we’re off and running. Sexy women with risqué names a la Pussy Galore show up, and Bond takes advantage thereof. He drinks a shaken, not stirred martini at some point, and he says “Bond. James Bond” a couple of times. The villain has plans for world domination, and usually a really cool lair that rises up out of the ocean or out of the arctic or down from the moon or some other nonsense. And then Bond wins, the villain dies, and there’s some good lovin’. The end.

At least, that was the way it was pre-Daniel Craig. Casino Royale ignored this formula and was actually zealously faithful to Ian Fleming’s original novel. (They changed the Baccarat game to Texas Hold ‘em, but that’s a quibble, really.) They pulled away from the campiness and made Bond the blunt instrument that Fleming always intended him to be.

It worked. Once.

Quantum of Solace picks up just a few minutes after Casino Royale left off, and it can’t really decide what it wants to be. It forgoes the formulaic ritual or pre-Craig conventions, but it pays homage to them every once in awhile. There’s a Bond woman named Fields who refuses to give her first name, yet her “strawberry” hair gives you a clue. She ends up meeting a fate very similar to a woman in Goldfinger, only it’s black gold that’s used this time. Bond drinks several shaken, not stirred martinis for the first time, and decides he likes them. I don’t think he ever says “Bond, James Bond,” though. There’s a supersecret, world-dominating organization that makes its debut, and there’s a sort of ecologically-friendly superlair in the middle of a desert. There are a few gadgets, but real-life technology has made it harder and harder for Bond to have anything cooler than what the average consumer can already get with an iPhone.

In short, Quantum of Solace straddles the line between the silliness of the old Bonds and the hard-edged reality of Casino Royale, and it tries to mask its own indecision with relentless, non-stop action, which is exciting at first but soon becomes exhausting. Many reviewers have noted that this movie is significantly shorter than Casino Royale, but it felt much, much longer. I didn’t care what happened much. I wasn’t quite sure what was happening for a good chunk of the time. And I was pretty sure that it didn’t matter.

The Star Trek trailer they showed right before the movie was pretty cool, though.

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I’m sorry to hear the new film isn’t that good. I really liked Craig in the last movie.

A little bit of trivia. The Vinyl soundtrack to the original Casino Royale is considered by quite a few Audiophiles to be one of the best recordings ever. It has been on several “Top 10 Album’s to die For” lists.
15 years ago, a pristine copy would fetch over $1.2K.

November 17, 2008 at 11:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I loved the Star Trek trailor!! Yeah, the Bond movie doesn't feel like Bond anymore. I miss Q and Moneypenny and gadgets and cool cars (nice electric car the girl drives- please.)The Astin Martin at the beginning was cool, but it was the only one. The Pierce Brosnan movies ended up getting very lewd, so it's nice that that is gone, but I needed a little more lovin' in this movie. Come on!
Oh, but I could look at Daniel Craig all. day. long.

November 17, 2008 at 12:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a big Bond fan too. Connery is still the best.

Anyway, I didn't much care for the new Casino Royale, so Quantum was the first Bond movie I didn't have an urge to see.

I know it's supposed to be dark and gritty, but frankly without Q, the gadgets, Moneypenny, and the chauvanistic one liners, it's just a generic action movie.

If they want to keep it real, there is real life spy gadgetry.

Byt the way Bond Geek, you forgot the truly original Casino Royale, a made for TV movie that aired before Dr. No. in the mid 50's.

http://www.jamesbondwiki.com/page/The+Original+Casino+Royale?t=anon

So get your head out of your a$$.

November 17, 2008 at 7:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I ditto everything. So miss the no-way-that-would-ever-happen-isms that are James Bond. Also, this new way of choppy editing a la Bourne movies just makes me dizzy and leaves me with a headache. Daniel Craig is pretty easy on the eyes, however.

Now just hoping the vampire can deliver next weekend.

November 17, 2008 at 9:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I strongly disliked Casino Royale. Technically, it was fine, but its superficial adherence to Fleming's novel covered up for its more fundamental betrayal. Le Chiffre in the novel was a communist in 1950s France. The communists then were the baddies, so the book dealt with a real problem, and you were truly repulsed by them at the end of the book.

In the movie, we're subjected to the usual non-sectarian terrorists, except for the opening shots, which feature Christian terrorists. I can't really blame the Bond franchise for this, as the rest of the movie industry is just as busy shoving their heads somewhere deep and dark to avoid dealing with real issues presented by Islam, not to mention the grievance groups who'd surely descend on them if they did.

Then we have the fact that Bond is just plain anachronistic. This has been acknowledged time and again in the movies themselves. She may be an overrated bore, but Densch's "M" is right when she called Brosnan's bond a "Dinosaur", and every forced PC casting change makes that all the more apparent.

Both the novels and the most successful movies worked because they were set in their time: the pre-1968 freak-out period of the Cold War. The last credible movie was Lazenby's. At that point, Bond was still current, even cutting edge. Connery's return in Diamonds are forever was just painful to watch. Bond and afro'd hippy chicks are not a good match. Pre-1968, secret agents, soldiers and astronauts were cool; post, it was about rock stars, actors and other assorted clowns.

When the owners of Bond's rights decide to re-re-re-reboot the franchise, they might consider setting the film back in the 50s and early 60s. Bond will be at home and the audience can enjoy him in his natural setting.

November 20, 2008 at 6:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good day, sun shines!
There have were times of hardship when I felt unhappy missing knowledge about opportunities of getting high yields on investments. I was a dump and downright pessimistic person.
I have never imagined that there weren't any need in large initial investment.
Now, I feel good, I begin take up real income.
It gets down to select a proper partner who uses your funds in a right way - that is incorporate it in real business, parts and divides the income with me.

You can get interested, if there are such firms? I'm obliged to tell the truth, YES, there are. Please be informed of one of them:
http://theinvestblog.com [url=http://theinvestblog.com]Online Investment Blog[/url]

January 29, 2010 at 5:27 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home