Trying to Make Sense of These 'Quantum of Solace' Reviews
Top critics can't seem to figure out the new Bond
Photo: Sony Pictures
Reviews for Quantum Of Solace, the latest installment in the James Bond franchise, would lead most to believe that none of the critics saw the same film. On top of that some introduced rules to reviewing James Bond movies; this includes a scorching run-on sentence dedicated to the opening titles sequence. I couldn't click away fast enough. However, through it all I can't quite figure out what the consensus is. RottenTomatoes sums it up as such:
Brutal and breathless, Quantum Of Solace delivers tender emotions along with frenetic action. Not as good as franchise reboot Casino Royale, but still an impressive entry to the Bond canon.
Impressive entry into the Bond canon eh? Roger Ebert would disagree saying, "James Bond is not an action hero! Leave the action to your Jason Bournes. This is a swampy old world. The deeper we sink in, the more we need James Bond to stand above it."
Ahhh, but Roger, if you ask Mick LaSalle at the San Francisco Gate about the mood and feel of the film he says, "Perhaps this is the right Bond for our time: sullen, pessimistic and putting in extra hours, besides." And to Roger's concession that Quantum of Solace is hardly a Bond film, LaSalle adds, "This might be the least glamorous Bond movie ever made, but in its style, its visuals and its production, it feels like one of the series."
Ebert seemed upset there weren't any gadgets, no Q, no Miss Moneypenny and no desire from Bond to strip Olga Kurylenko down to her skivvies and get it on. He's not the only one that feels this way, but strangely enough weren't gadgets and unoriginality one of the major complaints as Pierce Brosnan exited the ranks of MI6 and Daniel Craig moved in?
A quote that struck me as odd with regard to Craig comes from Dana Stevens at Slate, who in her review says, "The novelty of Craig's decidedly unsuave take on the British superspy has worn off." Really? After only one movie we are now tired of Craig's take on Bond?
Strangely enough, only half of a sentence later, Stevens reveals something that would contradict what I thought all movie fans were tired of:
And now that the audience has adjusted to the notion of Bond as a tormented brute, we're starting to remember what drew us to this series in the first place: exotic locations, nifty surveillance technology, creative villains, and babes with ridiculous names. In short, we're drawn by fantasy, pleasure, and fun, none of which figures on the to-do list of the new James Bond nor of the movie's director, Marc Forster.
Wouldn't it figure, film critics turning on their own criticism. Back in 2002 "Top Critics" at RottenTomatoes awarded Die Another Day a 43% ranking with several of them saying things such as "There's a heavy stench of 'been there, done that'," "There's only so much ridiculousness the human mind can take" and "If you watch movies chiefly for stunts and special effects, this Bond is for you." Strangely enough, Roger Ebert gave Die Another Day a better review than Quantum of Solace. Go figure.
In my trek around the Net taking in reviews the worst one I came across was A.O. Scott's at the "New York Times". If there has ever been a review written that should have been headlined "I Like to Read What I Write" this is it. Scott is the critic I mentioned in the opener as dedicating almost an entire paragraph to the opening credit sequence:
The opening song, performed by Jack White and Alicia Keys (an intriguing duo on paper if nowhere else), is an abysmal cacophony of incompatible musical idioms, and the title sequence over which those idioms do squalling battle is similarly disharmonious: conceptually clever and visually grating.
After reading that what more do you know about the film necessary for you to make your decision whether or not to go? And this is the "NY Times" for crying out loud. Scott does however seem to keep up with the notion of the film's mood, using it as a negative, "I suppose, the deeper questions bubble up. Is revenge the only possible motive for large-scale movie heroism these days? Does every hero, whether Batman or Jason Bourne, need to be so sad?"
I guess the next time Scott falls in love with a woman and she subsequently drowns in front of his eyes we will have to ask him about his emotional status. After that we will send him out to figure out what a secret organization is up to in all corners of the world. Pip, Pip, Cheerio! My good man, how about a martini? Shaken… of course.
Ahh, don't get me into cocktails. Over at The New Yorker David Edelstein had his own emotional moment when Bond was unable to identify the name of the drink he was tossing back. "Sean Connery's 007 was every bit as masculine-hard but could still tell you on which side of the vineyard the grapes had been grown; he was an irreducible mixture of brutality, irony, and elegance."
I wonder, has everyone forgotten this is a new James Bond? On top of that, do they understand Bond only received his double-O status in Casino Royale, which is to say he hasn't even achieved the Bond status Connery was at when the franchise began in 1962 with Dr. No? Quite simply, this is not the same Bond these people are remembering.
Throughout the franchise's history Bond has always been a womanizer. Bag 'em, shag 'em and leave 'em. For some strange reason the fact he was always so cool about the situation it was never looked at as Bond having some sort of strange moral compass. If we really wanted to dig into what is going on here you could come to the conclusion Connery played Bond the way he did because of who he was and what happened to him before. This is to say he is a womanizer because after Vesper he never wanted to get close to another woman again. Even worse, the next time he truly fell in love, and even got married, his wife ended up dead! Come on, let's not blame him for having a cold streak.
Personally I loved the film. It plays very similar to an Empire Strikes Back in the middle of a trilogy. There is an obvious attempt to set up a SPECTRE-like global crime organization that could be unraveled in the 23rd Bond film or set in action for several films to come. Fortunately, none of the downer, middle-of-the-road reviews kept audiences away as the film opened to a franchise record $70+ million and could become the first film in franchise history to approach, and possible exceed, the $200 million mark domestically.
The film had a great set up for the next film, which I am sure will slowly begin to bring back Q branch and possibly a brand new Miss Moneypenny. The franchise isn't going anywhere people, let it take some time.
RSS Feed
| 12 comments so far 
news feeds