A worthy sequel, but not without it's faults...

Rating: 8/10 (1 July 2009)

I only saw this a few weeks ago when i bought the DVD on impulse. It's taken me a while mainly because I thought there was no way it could match the standard set by "Casino Royale". Royale was a brilliant thriller, elegant, intelligent and tense with a serious tone matched only by the first two Connery films and Tim Dalton's stint. This wasn't camp and, I'll say it, rubbish Bond of the Moore years (and *shudder* Die Another Day) this was Bond of the novels, cynical, brutal and perhaps a touch Sociopathic, while Eva Green was as intelligent as she was stunning, offering a nice change to the usual airhead that Bond shags and leaves.
Now I'll be honest, "Quantum" isn't as good as Royale (and, lets get this out the way, has the worst title of any film I can think of) but that isn't so important as it is a very different type of film, shifting the focus from character and psychological suspense to balls out action and paranoia. In some ways, it is a return to the excesses of old Bond, with big set pieces, millionaire villains (I swear at one point someone says "One Billion Dollars!!!") and incomprehensible global conspiracies, though anchoring the film is a more realistic tone of Bond's heartbreak and desire for revenge over the death of Vespa. Like Connery at the start of "Diamonds Are Forever" when he's tracking Blofeld for killing Tracy, Bond is royally brassed off and wants some answers dammit.
The main strengths of the film lie in its cinematography, a searing visual style that is both gritty and dirty while highlighting spectacular action (explosions, car crashes etc), while the direction and script are incredibly kinetic. This is a focused and fast moving Juggernaut of a film with Bond on the warpath as he unleashes hell on those who killed Vespa and, at the start of the film, attempt to assassinate M.
The problem is, its a little too focused. It is very successful in giving us a better sense of Bond as a character and his complex, at times amoral approach to life, but this comes at a heavy cost to the plot and the other characters; which is a real shame as there is a sense of a genuine attempt by the writers to deal with complex themes such as the moral ambiguity of diplomacy and the politicisation of the intelligence services in the 21t Century.
However, the way this is done, with Bond going rogue from MI6 to avoid diplomatic problems, is basically the same as the plot of the (underrated) Dalton film "License to Kill". Actually, its basically a carbon copy, right down to the revenge element and the South American baddies posing as philanthropists. The only difference is an attempt to introduce more politics, but the result is just baffling as the wide ranging plot is neither explored or explained adequately.
I mean, as far as I can tell, the story is this: A French billionaire philanthropist is orchestrating a military coup in Bolivia, while arranging to secretly gain control of Bolivia's water supply, for some reason. What this reason is is never really explained. Or indeed what the Quantum organisation is, what its aims are etc. It's all just a bit of a mess.
The characters are one dimensional. The villain, Dominic Green, is a stereotypical slimy Frenchman, the military dictator could have walked in out of a Tintin comic and poor Olga Kurylenko is given little to do except pout. Yes, she's absolutely gorgeous, but she's given so little personality and so little to do by the writers (except be angry and vengeful) that she is relegated just to the role of Bond's sidekick.
Agent Fields (Gemma Arterton), Bond's other conquest in the movie, is also a pretty ghastly cliché of a character, reminding me of Caroline in Goldeneye, and her death, which should be the emotional keystone of the whole piece as Bond realises that he can't get close to anyone without hurting them, is just glossed over, then forgotten about.
This is partially the fault of Marc Foster, the director, who understates the plot to the point where we just don't care. Why the studio didn't ask Martin Campbell, director of "Casino Royale" and the excellent "Goldeneye" again, is beyond me. After all, he also directed "Edge of Darkness" a TV environmental conspiracy thriller which would have made him perfect to deal with Quantum's Byzantine plot.
Now, don't get me wrong, the film looks great, is very entertaining, and has some great set pieces (the exploding hotel at the end is the standout). But it lacks both the brains and the plotting of it's predecessor and, while still better than the majority of Bond films, feels like a relapse into previous bad habits.