Quantum of Solace review from http://deusexmachinafilm.blogspot.com

Rating: 5/10 (8 November 2008)

It's quite easy to see where Quantum of Solace has gone wrong by comparing it directly to Casino Royale, because everything the previous film did right seems oddly lacking this time around. There's not even any real need to go into the product placement, there's much worse to rant about this time. Let us start with that name, Quantum of Solace, hardly sounds like a Bond film does it? Where the name Casino Royale gives off a suave and sophisticated vibe , Quantum of Solace comes off rather piffy and dull. And does it make any sense in context with the movie? Well in a word, no. There's one tenuous link thrown in at the end with a throwaway remark about the bad guy's organisation being called Quantum, but that's as far as it goes. By the same token then why not call the next film 'Pickle of Madness', so long as the baddies go by the name of Pickle then it will make just as much sense. They couldn't even work the name into the theme tune, speaking of which, isn't up to much cop either.
There's no doubting that Casino Royale's plot was riveting, lifted almost word-for-word from the original Ian Fleming novel it was both thrilling and involving. And by pitching an almost perfect action to character ratio every scene seemed to serve a purpose in the development of the story. So with such a strong base to build upon and written by the usually reliable Paul Haggis, why does the whole affair seem so vacuous. It's easy to fall into the trap of finding the plot confusing wondering whether you just don't get it, but before long it becomes abundantly clear that in fact there is no plot to get. The one vaguely comprehensible strand is Bond's search for revenge and the truth concerning his fallen love Vesper, this strong spine alone should have been sufficient to build a great story around but it never materialises. It is entirely possible that 007 has fallen foul of being rushed through to beat the writers strike, which if is the case is a crying shame.
With the plot not up to scratch there's a reliance on the action sequences to deliver more bang for your buck, and they do arrive thick and fast. There's a car chase (a rare aspect in which Casino Royale failed to deliver), a speedboat chase, a plane chase, a foot chase and more fights than you can shake a stick at. It's here where Forster emphatically fails to make his mark, and despite having Bourne alumni Dan Bradley in charge of the second unit, the inspiration taken from that franchise wanders too closely to poorly executed plagiarism. The gritty realism is retained but the camera moves too fast this time to see what's really happening, the first person experience is gone. There's little need to care about the men Bond were fighting, last time everyone mattered and it meant you felt every blow. The weak narrative thread makes the sequences seem pointless story-wise little more than time- fillers, their purpose for Bond often remaining unexplained.
Now admittedly Le Chiffre wasn't the best villain in Bond history but he did serve a purpose, a genuinely despicable guy who represented the evil 007 was facing even at the lowest rungs of the criminal organisation. This time Dominic Greene (Mathieu Almaric) is the face of evil, a bigger player than anyone in Casino Royale. Unfortunately the worst thing he seems to do is raise the price of a utility bill, hardly the most villainous act you'd suspect him to be capable of. Almaric is a good actor but faced with a poorly constructed character and few memorable lines he's facing an uphill battle. Also on the weak side are the Bond girls, Agent Fields (Gemma Arterton) and Camille (Olga Kurylenko) may be good looking but there parts are minor, insignificant and uninteresting. The real Bond girl turns out to be Judi Dench's M in a beefed up roll, her relationship with Bond is definitely significant and possibly the only meaningful one in the movie. Dench, as it turns out, is fantastic. Her performance is almost show-stealing, M's scenes are always the ones that bring the best out in Bond.
Craig's Bond was praised on his debut as Bond - on the most part anyway - the phrase 'best Bond since Connery' was thrown around wildly (but in my opinion accurately). His arrival marked a reboot of Bond, an origin story that should see the character develop into the character we have grown to know and love. The question always was, could he sustain it? Without any shadow of a doubt he does, without him this would have been one of the weakest Bond films to date but his performance is superb and makes the piece watchable. The script doesn't help him and hands him hardly half as many one-liners as Brosnan had, but his embodiment of Connery's Bond with an earlier inexperience and edge of malice is a joy to behold. The aforementioned scenes with Judi Dench sizzle with a chemistry unrivaled by many of the best Bond girls, the lust replaced with admiration and respect. Daniel Craig is the key now to this franchise, as long as he is present no Bond film will completely flop. He is a powerful presence and a reason to keep faith that the next installment could live up to, or even improve upon, the standard he greeted us with.