Bond Never Left...

Rating: 8/10 (27 November 2008)

The James Bond franchise, like the man himself, is a curious animal. The decision to reinvent or redefine (or even perhaps define him as his creator originally intended) has divided fans but will no doubt contribute to the franchise's longevity. The success of 2006's Casino Royale has seen the filmmakers take brave but tentative steps forward, perhaps to see how much the public is really interested in the "real" Bond. Time will tell, but for now, what of Quantum of Solace?
It has everything money can buy, Fist-fights and gunfights, car chases and boat chases, and explosions big and small. The filmmakers have included several high-voltage action set-pieces, probably out of obligation to the old and new Bond viewing public. Gotta have 'em. There are expectations to be met, and Sony probably didn't invest $200m without certain promises being fulfilled.
Quantum of Solace isn't really about action though. It isn't about Quantum organisation either. It isn't about Dominic Greene. Nor is it about oil or water, Bolivia or Britain. The plot, whatever it is, is irrelevant really. It's about Bond, the man, the conundrum, unquestionably the greatest and richest source of "story" in the well.
It's about Bond and his relationships. To varying degrees, those with Camille, Agent Fields, Felix Leiter, Vesper, Mathis and especially M. As Bernard Lee's M used to be Bond's disapproving Father figure, so Dench's portrayal is that of a fearful mother, who doesn't condone her child's actions or methods, but loves him all the same despite the worry and despair he often causes. Her M is played with real feeling. She says she needs Bond, and my word she means it. Bond doesn't return the compliment, but he should because while M would manage without Bond, he most certainly would not without her.
And the brief scene with Bond and Leiter is a subtle gem.
And what of comparisons to Casino Royale? This is as redundant and comparing Dr No with Moonraker, but what the hell. QOS' predecessor is now regarded with an almost peculiar reverence. Could it be that we were all so greatly relieved that it wasn't the turkey that many predicted, that we've all awarded it an additional star or two out of gratitude? Whatever, Casino Royale was a fine film and a huge success. Rewatching it now though, it sits alongside Quantum rather awkwardly (or vice-versa). Craig is far more comfortable now as Bond and the filmmakers have taken the definitive step in their new direction which is clear rather than the old-Bond-new-Bond hybrid that was Casino Royale.
And Marc Forster's interpretation of Bond? This will most likely depend on personal preference. The action sequences are frenetic and chaotic. Extremely quick cuts to the point that rarely, could I tell who was doing what to whom, how or why until one, usually Bond, dusted him/herself off and walked away from the carnage. Martin Campbell knew how to let his action breathe and Casino Royale was better for it. Forster's busy approach didn't work for me, but that's my problem and as I say, that's not what this Bond was about. Every Bond, thank god, is different. And besides, if every misstep spelled disaster for the series, Bond would never have survived A View to a Kill or Timothy Dalton. What the director has delivered in spades, is character, flavour and feeling.
So Quantum of Solace achieves the rarity: an interesting character-driven, evocative action-blockbuster. I like Bond's direction. It means that Bond really is back to stay. In fact, he never left.