Less touchy feely, more bangy bangy

Rating: 8/10 (6 November 2008)

If you bump into a stranger who says, "I've never seen a Bond film, but I hear such good things about the Daniel Craig reboot that I've decided to make Quantum Of Solace my first Bond movie," then talk them out of it, as a matter of urgency. This is not because QoS is a bad film, it's because it has the wrong title.
Don't get me wrong, I like the title Quantum Of Solace. It's a Fleming original, it's miles better than the Die Today, Never Tomorrow titles of the Brosnan era, Quantum is a decent name for the shadowy organisation which now fills SPECTRE's shoes, and the three words very aptly refer to the small comfort which Bond derives from the events of this film.
But it's still the wrong title. The film should have been called Casino Royale Part 2.
It's widely known that QoS picks up within a few moments of Bond shooting Mr White at the end of Casino Royale, and I think that's absolutely fine. But this is the first Bond which doesn't stand alone. My hypothetical stranger is going to be saying "Hang on - who's Vesper? Perhaps they'll explain later on who she is." And later on, that same stranger will be saying, "Who is this Mathis bloke? Why is he angry at Bond for having him tortured? Perhaps they'll explain later on." But there is never an explanation. For that part of the audience which has seen Casino Royale - and let's be fair, that's going to be a sizeable percentage - this poses no problem. But for those who come to this movie cold, there will be a lot of questions which will remain unanswered.
There is more action here than there was in Casino Royale, and I had a problem with a lot of it. Moviewatchers don't always realise that action sequences need a strong sense of geography. If A is running to intercept B at an angle of 50 degrees then, if A finally arrives at a different angle, or from the other side, the audience is disoriented (without always understanding why). The lessons of the Bourne franchise have clearly been taken on board (there is one sequence which is a virtual rerun of the Tangier chase in the third Bourne film), but the excessive closeup work and hyperkinetic, frenetic editing and choreography mean that it is often difficult to keep track of who is doing what to whom and where. Contrast the wonderfully laid out free running sequence from Casino Royale.
The story steers away from the small scale intimacy of Casino Royale back towards worldwide power games: thankfully, we are still a million miles away from kidnapping space capsules, satellite dishes disguised as lakes, invisible cars etc.
The bit players are all fine. Olga Kurylenko, in particular, looks good and acquits herself well.
Craig puts in another sterling performance as Bond. Having let his guard down in Casino Royale, Bond is now closely protecting the open wound left by Vesper's betrayal. QoS shows how he deals with this and, perhaps, how he begins to heal. Again, Craig brings more depth to Bond than any actor before him.
By far the best thing in this film is Judi Dench's M. Given more to do than in any previous film, M shows how she got to the position she holds. Politically acute, on top of her job even when things are going badly wrong, and always giving deep thought to exactly where Bond stands, Miss Dench's M delivers, both as head of MI6 and as a human being.
The ending - the entire closing sequence - is simply great, with an element of class I never thought I would see in a Bond film.
This is a worthy successor to Casino Royale - not quite as good, but still very good - and I enjoyed it greatly.
Edit following second viewing:
QoS rewards rewatching - it doesn't drag anywhere. I have no reason to change what I said above, but I'll add a few comments.
One concerns the location captions (Siena, London, Port au Prince Haiti etc.). These are introduced with individual fonts which are designed to be appropriate to the specific location, and are often seemingly integrated into the establishing location shot (ie. "London" appears to be a nameplate set into a road). I can understand the artistic/design concept behind this, and it's definitely a different way of approaching it, but I found it really distracting. Personally, I like a constant simple font occupying the same place on the screen, so that you realise what you're seeing each time.
Bond makes quips, but they're not funny and they're not meant to be. I liked them a lot.
I was irritated by the pageant in Siena. Its only purpose was to introduce a further obstacle in the chase sequence, and the constant intercutting between the chase in the sewers and the pageant above only served to further obscure a sequence which was already difficult to follow.
The interplay between Bond and Mathis is excellent.
I couldn't believe that the CIA section chief could rise to section chief and still be such a complete ar$e.
I was also puzzled about the hotel in the climactic sequence. Who on earth would build an enormous, state-of-the-art, hotel in the middle of the Bolivian desert? A hotel, incidentally, which plays host to meetings of dictators, corrupt police chiefs, purveyors of international chicanery, and their respective entourages - but which has no other clientèle whatsoever? And is serviced by a staff comprising precisely one chambermaid? And how come a structure which appears to be constructed entirely out of concrete burns like cardboard doused in gasoline?
But, hey, it's a Bond film - blowing stuff up is part of the genre! Stop being so picky!