"Quantum of Solace" review
Friday, November 28, 2008
"I find you disturbingly efficient," says the new Bond girl to James about half-way through the film. The shocking truth here is that this is really a description of the film itself as much as it is the film's titular character. Bouncing from one action sequence to the next, pausing only long enough to have two very truncated, rushed "character" conversations, Quantum of Solace feels like someone edited out the actual movie in a rush to make an action picture. The good news is that the title sequence is the best a Bond film has had, well, ever, and the song (written by Jack White) totally rocks.
Now, I'm not a Bond fan, so I suppose it's easy to assume my review is going to be biased, which is why I'll say you can judge this film by "Bond standards" and still feel it comes up lacking. "Bond standards" are assumptions and givens a viewer takes with himself into a Bond movie: a) Bond is a super-hero, not a man; b) Bond's motivations are clearly laid out; c) Bond's motivations and desires never change. Frankly, I find it rather hard to accept any character that never changes or truly feels emotional responsibility as good writing, but I'm trying to think like a Bond-ite for a second. Anyway, even by those standards this movie feels robotic. This Bond has none of the grace of Connery, none of the charm of Brosnon, and none of the wit of any Bond. Doing away with one-liners and gadgets was a deliberate decsion in Casino Royal to return Bond to a more "normal" universe. Royal balanced these omitions out by giving Bond an actual character arc. This movie, though, has none of the above: no gadgets, no arc, no quips. In Quantum, he's Robocop, storming from one location to the next killing people, wreaking havoc, and all the while maintaining an emotionless, stoic countenance. He shows no fear, no anger, no sorrow. The one time he gets some from the fairer sex no attempt is even made to charm his way into the girl's pants. It's as if the film-makers couldn't be bothered to write that days' page and in its place the script said, "INT: HOTEL, Bond enters, looks around then tells her to 'do it.' Then they do it." Seriously, folks, he basically struts in and commands her to sleep with him, as if his mere presence is so authoritative he can dissolve any hesitation (or morality) a female might have. Bond has always had the mojo to seduce (a fact Austin Powers mocked to great success), but at least he put some effort into it in the old days. His efforts were clumsy, teenage versions of romance, but at least it was something.
I'd like to make a comparison here by bringing up that Bond's box-office competitor, Jason Bourne, was betrayed by his government and all those people he wanted to trust, yet he retained an emotional center. He was out to get certain people, sure, but not the whole damn world. How childish, then, does this make Bond? Bond cared for someone, she turned on him, so now he's out to punish the universe by seeing everyone as a mere object (the men he kills, the women he beds). He works for his own ends, essentially, under the guise of being a British agent who cares about British interests. He's a child throwing a temper tantrum. This Bond is a pure brute with no depth. The Hulk has Banner to balance him out and create conflict, Robocop had his human side, the T-101 has a re-programming, but Bond has neither. Imagine just the Hulk with no Banner, or Robocop with no hint of humanity. What's the point? It's rather hard to give Bond any leeway after the Bourne films showed that action movies can have a lead with a genuine character arc. You know what? If Bond is wish fullfilment I am rather unsettled about what our wishes just might be.
Now, I'm not a Bond fan, so I suppose it's easy to assume my review is going to be biased, which is why I'll say you can judge this film by "Bond standards" and still feel it comes up lacking. "Bond standards" are assumptions and givens a viewer takes with himself into a Bond movie: a) Bond is a super-hero, not a man; b) Bond's motivations are clearly laid out; c) Bond's motivations and desires never change. Frankly, I find it rather hard to accept any character that never changes or truly feels emotional responsibility as good writing, but I'm trying to think like a Bond-ite for a second. Anyway, even by those standards this movie feels robotic. This Bond has none of the grace of Connery, none of the charm of Brosnon, and none of the wit of any Bond. Doing away with one-liners and gadgets was a deliberate decsion in Casino Royal to return Bond to a more "normal" universe. Royal balanced these omitions out by giving Bond an actual character arc. This movie, though, has none of the above: no gadgets, no arc, no quips. In Quantum, he's Robocop, storming from one location to the next killing people, wreaking havoc, and all the while maintaining an emotionless, stoic countenance. He shows no fear, no anger, no sorrow. The one time he gets some from the fairer sex no attempt is even made to charm his way into the girl's pants. It's as if the film-makers couldn't be bothered to write that days' page and in its place the script said, "INT: HOTEL, Bond enters, looks around then tells her to 'do it.' Then they do it." Seriously, folks, he basically struts in and commands her to sleep with him, as if his mere presence is so authoritative he can dissolve any hesitation (or morality) a female might have. Bond has always had the mojo to seduce (a fact Austin Powers mocked to great success), but at least he put some effort into it in the old days. His efforts were clumsy, teenage versions of romance, but at least it was something.
I'd like to make a comparison here by bringing up that Bond's box-office competitor, Jason Bourne, was betrayed by his government and all those people he wanted to trust, yet he retained an emotional center. He was out to get certain people, sure, but not the whole damn world. How childish, then, does this make Bond? Bond cared for someone, she turned on him, so now he's out to punish the universe by seeing everyone as a mere object (the men he kills, the women he beds). He works for his own ends, essentially, under the guise of being a British agent who cares about British interests. He's a child throwing a temper tantrum. This Bond is a pure brute with no depth. The Hulk has Banner to balance him out and create conflict, Robocop had his human side, the T-101 has a re-programming, but Bond has neither. Imagine just the Hulk with no Banner, or Robocop with no hint of humanity. What's the point? It's rather hard to give Bond any leeway after the Bourne films showed that action movies can have a lead with a genuine character arc. You know what? If Bond is wish fullfilment I am rather unsettled about what our wishes just might be.
This entry was posted
on Friday, November 28, 2008 at 2:28 PM.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
