or: The Bond Who Wanted To Become Bourne But Fell Flat

Rating: 6/10 (22 November 2008)

Back in the old days, James Bond had, in general, always been an uneventful but safe character, as were the movies. They weren't all bad (some were though), just not new and exciting. Like chewing on that old faithful peppermint bubblegum for the umpteenth time. But with the effective reboot of the franchise via "Casino Royale", Bond suddenly got depth. And with it, the movie reached new heights; it wasn't just a great Bond-movie, it was one heck of a great movie in general. That set the standards high for "Quantum of Solace", the direct sequel to the aforementioned movie. And unfortunately, as with high standards so often, they crash.
The problem with "Quantum" is not that it's bad, because it's not. It's just a bit bland compared to what we were set to expect. It does have an exciting and fluent storyline with true Bond elements: action, cars, chicks and bad guys with megalomaniac intentions to rule the world (which fortunately are now more political and less campy in nature). It also has a great Bond in the form of Daniel Craig, who passes his second test with honors. Director Marc Forster, more known for "Monster's Ball" and "Finding Neverland" with scriptwriter Paul Haggis is perhaps more to blame here. As a director of drama, Forster has a good touch and skill for capturing those moments on screen, but as a director of dynamic fast-paced action, he doesn't really deliver. One can't help but wonder whether all the lightning-paced cuts of the close-up shots and confusing inter cuts of events in "Quantum", which give the viewer more headache and nausea than a good overview of the act, is Forster's insecurity as an action director. But as balance, it could be mentioned, that during the moments when the action subsides and the pace slows down, the movie also shines.
The dramatic arch of "Quantum of Solace" feels momentarily more like a straight line with occasional small bumps than a clear climb towards a the dramatic climax, and the pacing, at least in the beginning, has the elements of a video game; action scenes interlaced with story driven moments that lead to the next action-scene. The main villain was also a bit weak compared to the story. And the famous Bond-introduction sequence of "Quantum of Solace" was also horribly boring and deathless, compared again to "Casino Royale's" innovative and dynamic approach. And speaking of which, the theme, composed by Alicia Keys and Jack White, was more of a mediocre hip hop-hit than a catchy Bond theme.
Many have criticized Bond of becoming too much Jason Bourne; intelligent multi-layered story lines, less campy humor and raw realistic action. All this is slightly evident in "Quantum of Solace", and it's definitely not a bad thing, I like this modern Bond. But what makes "Quantum of Solace" less of a movie than "Casino Royale" is that it almost wants too much to be the modern Bourne-Bond, but with it, it reverts back to the cliché-Bond. If "Casino Royale" was the "Goldfinger" of the 21st century, "Quantum of Solace" was closer to "A View To A Kill".