Fans of the new James Bond, take solace (I know, groan if you must). The second chapter in the reboot of the 007 franchise is every bit the intensely satisfying experience that Casino Royale was.
Critics, like one of our local rag’s ‘professional’ reviewers, are decrying the new (and improved) James Bond with the whining query “Could we have our old Bond back?”. The answer, for now, is a resounding ‘No!’ and I myself could not be more pleased. I’ll be the first to admit that I am a fan of the over the top spy parody. When done well they are every bit as entertaining as any other type of action/spy film. Had I not taken the time after the release of Casino Royale to actually read Ian Fleming’s work I might not have the opinion that I do today. But the die has been cast: I am now a fan of Ian Fleming and as such am a fan of his Bond, not the Bond that most movie producers threw up on screen over the past several decades. Of the earlier films, I think the Sean Connery films certainly came closest to the spirit and intentions of Fleming’s work, but the ones following Connery spiraled ever deeper into self parody and silliness. Thank the movie gods for a climate, touched off by the success of the Bourne films, that gave us a 007 that returns to the source material for at least some of its inspiration.
Unlike Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace is an Ian Fleming creation mostly in name only and perhaps there is where its one weakness lies. Casino Royale struck the perfect balance between storytelling and action and still today it gets my vote for the very best of the James Bond film series. Quantum of Solace has less emotional depth and more action which is something that seemed to put off critics but actually made sense for me. Quantum is a direct sequel to Casino Royale and as such feels, at least in some way, like the second film in a trilogy. It is a bridging piece that closes some of the story lines in the first film while introducing other elements that will be carried on, presumably, into the other two films that Craig has signed on to complete. I do not see that as a weakness, I see that as the way this film needed to be.
Casino Royale tells the story of how Bond fell in love and the price that was paid for doing so. It paves the way for the 007 whose relationships with women are of the one-night stand variety. Quantum continues that story by allowing us to see how pain and revenge creates a more cold, calculating and yet more self-assured and decisive Bond. Knowing what we all know of 007, whether through Fleming’s novels or the various films, you can see the seeds being planted in this film from which 007’s persona grows. Yes, the action is fast, furious and often relentless and at times the filming falls into the current fad of quick edits that can confuse the viewer as to what is actually happening, but I feel like the end result is a film with deeper emotional connections than many critics are willing to see. This is not a self-contained film. You have to bring to it the story of Casino Royale and with that some ideas and connections to Daniel Craig’s Bond.
Speaking of Craig, he was phenomenal once again. He so expertly captures the essence of Fleming’s Bond while bringing the character into the current era. I was impressed the first time and and I am doubly impressed now. I cannot wait to see what he brings to the next two films. Olga Kurylenko did an admirable job in her role as the main Bond femme fatale. She did not have the depth of story that Eva Green had with the role of Vesper in Casino Royale and yet Kurylenko’s role fit really well into the overall tenor of the film. She is a very beautiful actress but in keeping with the film’s mood her looks were not overdone or played up for the camera. This is a stark film in many ways and the costumes and set design and color grading of the film set and kept that tone throughout. Judi Dench, in her reprisal of M, couldn’t have been better. What a perfect choice she was for the role. I am so glad that she has taken on the mantle of this role as she gives it so much depth and feeling. I am a big fan anyway and my admiration continues to grow.
Casino Royale is a 4 out of 4 star film. Quantum of Solace is a film that I would rate at a 3.5. In comparing it to the Bond that Fleming wrote and as a continuation of Royale, it hit all the right notes and made for an entertaining theatre experience. Bring on the next one!!!
I heartily agree! three of us went to see it Friday after work, 2 of us had seen Casino Royale and one hadn’t. He enjoyed it as much as we did, now we’re badgering him to rent Casino Royale, telling him THEN he’ll really be impressed with Daniel Craig’s Bond.
I’m also looking forward to the next Bond film and seeing what other facets of his personality Craig reveals. + i adore Dame Judi, the woman’s an exquisite actress, she could make reading the phone book riveting i’m sure!
YAY you, Carl! You know, I’ve been thrown stones (well, not literally) when I defended this Bond because as you’ve said he’s the Bond that correctly depicts Ian Fleming’s idea of the super spy. When I read this post, I thought to myself, Carl knows what he’s talking about!
What I heard from others are childish claims how Bond should be, how great the previous Bonds are and this Bond is terrible(rubbish!), “I paid the price of the tickets and the movie sucked” and whatever else you can squeeze out of them. All I get when I said do you know the real Bond and tried explaining them Ian Fleming’s Bond (naturally from his books), I got stares and suddenly I’m the alien. On top of that, I got nasty comments about my love for books.
Hmm… well, thank you again for this great post. You’re my hero.
Oh I forgot to mention, even poor Olga Kurylenko got ‘attacked’ by those people “who paid for their tickets and got lemons.” I don’t know what to say anymore.
Carl, I too love the new Bond but found this film rather disappointing ( I’ve tried to explain here: http://brideofthescreengod.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/quantum-of-solace/ ) – but that isn’t going to stop from looking forward to the next one!
I loved this latest Bond film. Daniel Craig is the ” James Bond ” for me. Having read some of the Ian Fleming novels since Casino Royale he just fits the part perfectly better than even Sean Connery or Roger Moore IMHO. This film does a great job of wrapping up the emtional issues for Bond left over from the last film and does a great job of broadening the msyterious organization that Bond seems to be building up towards a major confrontation in the next film. The action of the film is intense. Madame Judi Dench is even better in this film. If you haven’t seen this yet then I can’t think of a better film to catch this holiday weekend ( except the new Kidman/Jackman film ). Nice review Carl and I agree with your ratings for both of Daniel Craig’s Bond films.
I have to see it still – sometime soon! your review gives me hope, since I love Casino Royale and think it is the best Bond film also. I’ll let you know how i like Q of S when I see it!
ps by soon, I mean in the next two weeks before we go to England!
hmmm… some glowing praise for this film. i certainly have to make more of an effort to see it then.
and the comments about craig being closer to fleming’s bond make me even more interested.
by the way, what does quantum of solace mean?
JP – I read a article with the producers recently where they stated that they didn’t know what the title mean’t. Fleming had used it for the title of a short story but never left any writings as to what it mean’t.
Did you see Casino Royale JP? If not I would highly suggest renting it to watch first before seeing QofS. I think it would make a big difference. There are storylines carried over from CS that wrap up in QofS that I don’t think would make much sense if you haven’t seen CR first. Just my 2 cents.
hey jeff… haha! thats a mystery. at least its not some bollocks that someone made up then. well, someoned DID make it up, but that someone is fleming, so its okay.
yep, i have seen “casino royale”. i guess i’m just a little lukewarm about bond because of the absolute lack of credit that was given to “the bourne identity”.
when the franchise was relaunched it was all “look how clever we are” and “look how we’ve reinvented ourselves” when they simply took what bourne did and ran with it. and yet there was almost no mention of bourne – at least on this side of the atlantic.
JP – I couldn’t agree with you more on the lack of credit given to the popularity of the Bourne movies. Your comments are dead on how I feel on that subject as well. The one thing I thing I will give them producers credit for especially inregards to Casino Royale is how much of the novel they brought to the screen where in all the previous Bond movies they just stole the titles and ignored all the Fleming source material. Although with QofS I’m not sure how they did because I’ve only read up to book 4 in the Bond series so far.
i’m glad i’m not the only one that feels that way 😀
what you say about how much of the novel features in “casino royale” is very interesting and definitely lifts it higher in my estimation of it! that gives the film a lot more integrity.
i hope they’re doing the same thing with “quantum of solace”!