James Bond Never Dies

Battle of the Bonds

NEWSWEEK

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

In "Quantum of Solace," the pendulum swings even further away from the slick fantasy figure surrounded by bikini-clad hotties with smutty monikers. There isn't even the traditional through-the-gun-barrel graphic that introduces a silhouetted Bond in black and white and dripping-blood red. This is the first 007 movie that's a sequel: the action picks up right where "Casino Royale" left off. An enraged, revenge-minded Bond is determined to get the villains who murdered Vesper.

For anyone who missed "Casino Royale" ( and even for those who saw it), this poses a problem. We don't even get a flashback glimpse of his lost love—did director Marc Forster consider it too tacky?—to remind us why Bond is so heartbroken. It's like watching a story with the first reel missing. At 105 minutes, this is the shortest Bond ever, and probably the most action-packed, starting with a furious car chase up the Italian coast. But not one of the elaborate set pieces can match that wild chase through an African construction site that got "Casino Royale" rolling—because the editing chops up the action into tiny, frenetic, almost incomprehensible "Bourne"-like pieces. Bad move.

"Quantum of Solace" isn't frivolous or cheesy, but it isn't all that much fun either. Craig is still the right guy for the job, but for his boiling-on-the-inside performance to work, he needs more to play with. He's doing a dark character study in a movie that rarely stops to catch its breath. Couldn't he have been allowed a little of the superspy's rakish charm?

Forster, known for indie fare like "Monster's Ball" and "Finding Neverland," clearly wants to infuse the franchise with contemporary significance: the corporate villains want to monopolize Bolivia's natural resources, and the movie has a savvy, cynical view of the CIA's and British intelligence's willingness to get into bed with unsavory powers. But rather than make us feel that he's given Bond 21st-century relevance, Forster has made a movie that feels like a watered-down version of other, more au courant action movies. The good news is that if you're James Bond, you don't only live twice, or even 23 times. Twenty-four just might be the magic number.

« Prev Page

As a die-hard James Bond fan and Ian Flemmng afficionado, I agree with your assessment but was a tad irked by your "facts." On the preceeding page outlining babes, vehicles, villians, etc, there were a number of discrepancies I'd like to point out. First, under babes, while May Day may have been marketed as a Bond girl for A View To A Kill, it was actually Stacey Sutton (Tonya Roberts) who filled that roll. And I would also point out that it wasn't Electra King who took the B-girl role but Chrstmas Jones (Denise Richards). As for the villians noted, are these your researcher's favorites or are they just underpaid interns who didn't want to put much effort into their job? But then again, I guess it depends on your desired interpretation of villian versus henchmen. If we are using the villian title as James Bond's main antagonist, Odd Job from Goldfinger was clearly not it, but Auric Goldfinger. In Diamonds Are Forever, James did fight it up with Mr Wint and Mr. Kidd but it was actually Ernst Stavo Blofeld who he was truely after. I also content that Franciso Scaramanga was the main villian in The Man With The Golden Gun and Karl Stromberg in The Spy Who Loved Me. The ones that puzzled me the most are the "KGB spies" noted as the villians in For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights. It would have been nice if your researchers (Marc and Sarah) could have at least watched the movies before making this bogus claim as Aristotle Kristatos is the main villian in For Your Eyes Only and General Georgi Koskov in The Living Daylights (I guess you could also make the argument that Brad Whitaker was also a main villian in The Living Daylights but was ultimately tied to the General).

I admit that I may be taking this a little bit too seriously but if you are not versused in the ways of Bond, you have no business writing "objective" articles about the films or the future direction of the series. I will add however that Quantum of Solace is a great film and Daniel Craig is fianlly bringing the Bond character back to his former luster before it was defiled by Roger Moore's pathetic, pansy portrail that we will all unfortunately have to live with until our dying day.

I really enjoyed this last Bond installment. I think of it as a "real" Bond. Is not that I enjoyed the other movies, but I went to watch all Bond movies knowingly that I would find the never-ending-and-frankly-exhausted cold war scenarios and the unbelievable gadgetry that characterized all Bond movies, and I found this last one more entertaining and finally with new up-to-date and realistic villains, less fantastic gadgets and more action-packed.
Not very happy with the choice of Bond actor though, but I guess is okay with all the physical action he???s now performing??? Can???t imagine Brosnan or Dalton (or any of the Bonds for that matter), running, jumping and sweating like Craig, but he???s definitely not as handsome as any of the other ones.
I liked this one a lot and is a great entertaining movie!

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: KADJ @ 11/23/2008 3:40:20 AM

Do you know who Ian Flemming's role model for James Bond was? The man lived with Flemming for a time and is the father of a friend of mine.......that slant would make a very interesting story...........kadeasonjohnson@gmail.com
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: jamesbondforever @ 11/20/2008 4:54:28 PM

As a die-hard James Bond fan and Ian Flemmng afficionado, I agree with your assessment but was a tad irked by your "facts." On the preceeding page outlining babes, vehicles, villians, etc, there were a number of discrepancies I'd like to point out. First, under babes, while May Day may have been marketed as a Bond girl for A View To A Kill, it was actually Stacey Sutton (Tonya Roberts) who filled that roll. And I would also point out that it wasn't Electra King who took the B-girl role but Chrstmas Jones (Denise Richards). As for the villians noted, are these your researcher's favorites or are they just underpaid interns who didn't want to put much effort into their job? But then again, I guess it depends on your desired interpretation of villian versus henchmen. If we are using the villian title as James Bond's main antagonist, Odd Job from Goldfinger was clearly not it, but Auric Goldfinger. In Diamonds Are Forever, James did fight it up with Mr Wint and Mr. Kidd but it was actually Ernst Stavo Blofeld who he was truely after. I also content that Franciso Scaramanga was the main villian in The Man With The Golden Gun and Karl Stromberg in The Spy Who Loved Me. The ones that puzzled me the most are the "KGB spies" noted as the villians in For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights. It would have been nice if your researchers (Marc and Sarah) could have at least watched the movies before making this bogus claim as Aristotle Kristatos is the main villian in For Your Eyes Only and General Georgi Koskov in The Living Daylights (I guess you could also make the argument that Brad Whitaker was also a main villian in The Living Daylights but was ultimately tied to the General).

I admit that I may be taking this a little bit too seriously but if you are not versused in the ways of Bond, you have no business writing "objective" articles about the films or the future direction of the series. I will add however that Quantum of Solace is a great film and Daniel Craig is fianlly bringing the Bond character back to his former luster before it was defiled by Roger Moore's pathetic, pansy portrail that we will all unfortunately have to live with until our dying day.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: pasionaria @ 11/19/2008 1:16:23 PM

I really enjoyed this last Bond installment. I think of it as a "real" Bond. Is not that I enjoyed the other movies, but I went to watch all Bond movies knowingly that I would find the never-ending-and-frankly-exhausted cold war scenarios and the unbelievable gadgetry that characterized all Bond movies, and I found this last one more entertaining and finally with new up-to-date and realistic villains, less fantastic gadgets and more action-packed.
Not very happy with the choice of Bond actor though, but I guess is okay with all the physical action he???s now performing??? Can???t imagine Brosnan or Dalton (or any of the Bonds for that matter), running, jumping and sweating like Craig, but he???s definitely not as handsome as any of the other ones.
I liked this one a lot and is a great entertaining movie!