I remember when James Bond movies were fun. I’d have a regular date with my sister to get our latest fix of campy humor and cool gadgets and gorgeous women with humorously suggestive names. Of late, we don’t get to continue that tradition — my sister and I now live more than a thousand miles apart. We do agree though that the Bond fun is gone.
Quantum of Solace stars Daniel Craig as Bond and his take is far removed from Bonds past. He’s all muscular and scarred and rough around the edges. He is non-verbal with squinting, intense eyes. And he is utterly devoid of charm. His Bond frankly reminds me uncomfortably of Vin Diesel.
What are the filmmakers thinking? The allure of Bond isn’t slam-bang action star. It is suave sophistication mixed with self-deprecating humor. Take a look at photos of Ian Fleming. That’s what I’m talking about. The Bourne movies – while not without their pleasures – have done irreparable damage to action cinema. Their fast cutting and nervous cameras created an aesthetic based solely on velocity, on always racing forward at all cost.
Unfortunately, this can lead in less skilled hands to a lot of stuff happening really quickly without leaving much of an impression, or making much sense. Quantum devolves into nothing more than a bunch of shots of this and that crashing into that and this, the chases and stunts actually committing the cardinal sin of being boring.
And what’s a Bond film without beautiful women? Certainly not a Bond film I’d wish to see. And Quantum does have its beautiful women, two to be exact. But, other than burn scars on one woman’s back, accentuated by low-cut garments, these women are as bland as models on the cover of a magazine. They’re pretty, but we don’t give them so much as a passing thought – and, oddly, neither does Bond. Apparently, they don’t excite him much either.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Phillip Winn
You suggest going "back," but I don't think you go "back" far enough! The Bond movies you love share very little with the Fleming novels form which they take their names and titular character. These two most recent films, on the other hand, are much more faithful to the "real" James Bond of the books and short stories.
I, for one, don't miss the absurdity at all. I enjoyed it every now and then, but it had really become too much, and I missed a few Bond films on purpose before Casino Royale came along.
Frankly, the Jason Bourne films owe much to Bond, much more than the other way around.
2 - El Bicho
While the action was poorly shot in QoS, it made sense to me. I'll take Craig's serious Bond over the lame one-liners (the name is Stock, James Stock) and the laughable, immature male fantasies of past Bonds.
3 - Brenda Wise
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, look at all the years we have been given of 'James Bond.'
Our choices are many,as well as our views of each film.
In reality, 'Bond' has had to keep up with the times. The 'now' times, prefer the modern day 'Bond,' either they are just getting into the 'Bond' adventure, and know nothing of the past ones, or they are the older generation who remember quite well.
The older generation tend to adore the past 'Bonds' because that was their era. When the younger generation go back to review the older 'Bond' films, what do they really get to see? They believe the older films to be 'cocky,' especially in comparison to the newest 'Bond' film.
Makes you curious as to what the next generation of 'Bond.......James Bond' is headed for. There are a lot of creative folks out there.
Come join us for more interesting views and articles!
Thank you for your review of QOS.