Do we want a return to the dark ages?

Rating: 6/10 (14 June 2009)

I have only just watched the Quantum of Solace. I read much of the pre-release reviews and was suitably put off.
Much of the review comments were fair - the messy and lacklustre plot, the absence of a credible villain and Daniel Craig and Judi Dench quite rightly, rescuing the film from turkey status.
What is a alarming and concerning is the mainly stateside perspective that the film needs to have its fair share of stupid, inane one liners and crass character names. What next? - a Russian agent called Olga Getyapantsov? Onatop was bad enough!! And what new implausible gadgets do we want to see? A BMW that doubles up as a tank?
The franchise should be applauded for going down a grittier more realistic track. Most Bond fans will gratefully acknowledge the early performances by Sean Connery, especially From Russia with Love with the cat 'n mouse encounter with Robert Shaw on the train. Riveting stuff. The only real technology on offer was a trick lock in a briefcase.
Roger Moore then dumbed down the Bond legend so much that it became farcical. Pierce Brosnan did well to revive Bond's fortunes but there was still that tendency for shocking puns and gimmicks which reduced the films credibility and impact. For this reason, Casino Royale was a much awaited triumph.
So what was disappointing about QOS?
1. Editing - The fast, frenetic action scenes (ala Jason Bourne) have no depth of scale. They are incredibly difficult to watch. There are great stunts in QOS but their impact is lost in the jumpy nature of the camera work. Whilst this style of filming may be 'in' is it really Bond? I think not. A great example - the car crash in Casino Royale where the Aston catapults off the road. Spectacular and beautifully filmed. Was there anything as good in QOS? For all the hard work you are never left with that feeling of awe and splendour.
2. Revenge Plot - Great idea with Bond as the tormented soul but the main protagonist is not actually our French Save the Planet CEO but Mr White and this vendetta was never resolved (although it might be in the next film). Much more could have been made of the CIA and even MI6 hunting Bond down as a rogue agent. A trick very much missed.
3. Villainous Organisation - Who are they - they're everywhere but we have no idea who they are. And what are they after? Cornering the world's oil market? Nope - just depriving some Bolivians of their water supply. Hardly Spectre or Smirsh is it?
4. Direction & Script - Marc Foster's direction doesn't cut it. The storytelling aspect of the film is badly handled, the script is weak and resorts to certain set pieces which merely attempt to paper over the cracks.
5. Soundtrack - Dreadful!
6. Bolivain Dictator Sub-Plot - pretty pointless in the scheme of things.
7. Film Length The shortest Bond film of all. Like the producers ran out of ideas.
In Conclusion: Not the worst by any means. But not nearly the best. Craig is a great Bond, and critics acknowledge this. What I hope for is that the creators keep their nerve and continue with this more realistic approach. If the franchise rolls back into more double-entendres, suggestive character names and Bond bedding any bird that crosses his path, then the whole premise of a top secret agent with a licence to kill will be lost.
The days of Pussy Galore are long gone. The days of James Bond acting only with his eyebrows are long gone. The days of a secret agent approaching pensionable age sexually encountering young model type lasses are long gone.
Making a James Bond film as a realistic, tense, action packed, edge of your seat thriller is now the order of the day. Casino Royale reinvented Bond, QOS has unfortunately tarnished its image once more. Let us hope that it is merely a blip and there are much better things to come.