By far my favourite Bond

Rating: Null/10 (31 July 2011)

This is more in response to some of the negative critiques I've read here since I cannot quite follow their arguments, where in fact arguments they were. Naturally we all perceive what we perceive and form opinions from that, at times, however one can be left a little astonished, me in this case wondering whether some folks have watched the movie in slow motion, at least where it concerns the action scenes. My own eyes watched utterly well crafted, brilliantly paced action, and I mean each one of the sequences, but, hell, a step-up from the mind- blowing parcour-scene in the previous Bond might still be a little lame for some. The most incomprehensible re-curring lament in those reviews regarded a 'poor story-line'. What can one say? Take the majority of earlier Bond- movies, including the worshipped Connery-era and most of the Moore- vehicles, pick one and sum up the story, then do the same with the story of 'Quantum of Solace.' That should do the trick. Perhaps the story was a little too complex for some? It is a little more complex than 'Moonraker', yet still easy enough to follow and, I dare say, much more engaging, as a story. This already having been so with 'Casino Royale', 'Quantum of Solace' is an organic extension of the former that establishes its own life and power quickly with the first scenes already. Each more defined action-sequence has its part in this story, which remains grimmer than any Bond previous to the 2 redefinitions, and on the whole we have drama gripping over into the action. Filmmaking- wise there is no match in any of the predecessors. When things threaten to become repetitious as Bond has to battle his way out at the opera through an out-numbering force once again, Forster turns off the sound and leaves Puccini's 'Te Deum' from 'Tosca', as the only soundtrack, with just the right effect and from the right second on, turning the scene and whole sequence into one of my favourite. Craig's Bond himself has been criticised by some as a far departure from the 'traditional' Bond, being 'reduced to a thug.' Many people have luckily noticed that his Bond is more 'traditional' than any of those before him if measured by Fleming's work, but much more important is that this Bond is intentionally still a Bond 'in the making', thus a far more interesting character, as he's more liable to mistake and failure than those in the past. 'Thug' still doesn't describe him, as he's clearly more vulnerable. But yes, a departure it is, whether the purists like it or not. Yes, for now it is over with the funny gadgetry, for the sake of a more believable secret servant. Yes, it is over with the superiority, in favour of the possibility that Bond may indeed fail. Yes, it is over with Bond's approaching dangerous situations with a mocking smile, as neither he nor we can be certain anymore that the next stunt will close with an amusing one-liner. If you miss all this, there are 20 old Bond-movies to watch again, I prefer a good movie to one that focuses on upholding expectations and traditions; all those feats can't be build out much more and aren't really compatible with this new, real Bond, both the character and his world. The humour surfaces seldom in the constantly dangerous universe, but when it does it has a wit by its own instead merely a Bond who must seem witty. As for Bond it goes here for the villain, who seemed to some obviously not villainous enough. It's another tradition, of course. The Bond- villain and the Bond-henchmen. Not only are they completely and utterly evil by necessity (although there had been exceptions), but they must distinguish themselves visually as well, by a physical difference preferably, and be it just an eye-patch. Mathieu Amalric's villain is utterly evil and distinguishes himself by nothing from any other villain we might meet in this world without recognizing them as such, particularly those with money and plans of grandeur. And his acting, again intentionally, does nothing further to distinguish his character from the villains we do recognize, at least not up to the point where, bereft of his henchmen and the fruits of his plan, this petite man's sheer fury alone overpowers the much better trained Bond for a moment. So at least for this instance (the movie) it's also a good bye to the standard villain who so far could only be replaced with another variation of the standard that only on the surface looked so different from the previous. This time in favour of a villain as we can expect them, if yet not recognize them on the street: one of a number within a greater organization behind, deceiving in being unspectacular, driving an agenda like a resolution, all very much like, yes, like politicians. And still, for the audience with only a quantum more sensuality, forgive the pun, Amalric manages to pack more silent menace into a single glance on a plane when a CIA-gimp laughs a trifle too silly than any Auric Goldfinger will manage with an array of nervous gestures. In the end a movie works or not as a whole, and now and then the experience will differ. I do dare to think, however, that some of the critics for whom the basis of their bad experience is what they miss of the old Bond might gain from a second viewing. For me almost everything attacked was precisely what made this Bond the most accomplished so far, particularly when viewed in tie with 'Casino Royale.' It is extremely well shot and bears the visible mark of a director's work, not only that of a producers' executive director. It is a new Bond indeed, and it's a Bond as a part of the major film- productions' awakenings, which is also signified by having truly gifted directors signing on. Beside Bond also Mendes returns.