I’m a bit late to this party, but as a big Bond fan I had to throw one up anyways. The film is fun and shows that Casino Royale wasn’t a fluke, although it wasn’t as good as that film.
Strong points: Craig’s Bond and Dench’s M really made this movie, their scenes together sparked and the relationship between the characters drove the best elements of the city. Seeing Matthias and Felix back was also great and underlined the parts of the plot that worked best. I love Sienna and am happy to see it in films. I once spent a lovely evening lost in that city and imagine the rooftops would be even trickier to navigate. Notably, the films continue to do rather well from a feminist perspective, making the one villain a serial rapist was unnecessary, but the ultimate resolution worked well. The story and politics of the film were a bit surprising: the US role is plausible enough and I’ve always had a soft spot for the obliquely mentioned Evo Morales. I’m with Yglesias in liking the dynamic though noting agree that there were some silly bits. I disagree with him about the name, they use Quantum right. Revenge basically provides relief, but in the smallest unit that can be measured.
Weak spots: My main complaint is with the hyperactive camera work. I have no objection to setting up parallels between the action and something else going on nearby. The problem is that the camera moved to quickly, by the time I’d reoriented myself the scene changed again. The action all looked great, just give me longer cuts please! The parkour scene in Casino Royale was so great in part because I could understand the difference in style. The choreography was all good, it doesn’t need the cameraman shouting at me to reinforce it. Finally, the main villain didn’t really grab me, he had enough dynamism to be a chief lieutenant perhaps, but that’s about it. Happily, the film also built up a longer term villain who in Austria proved to be the smartest of his group.
But is it really Bond? I say yes. My thoughts on Craig’s characterization after the spoiler warning cut.
First, my take agrees with Christopher Orr’s review:
Creator Ian Fleming once described Bond in Reader's Digest as "an anonymous, blunt instrument wielded by a government department," and Craig's portrayal in Quantum is just that, minus the government control... When, at one point, M chides him, "Bond, if you could avoid killing every possible lead, it would be deeply appreciated," she is not speaking metaphorically.
Under other circumstances, I wouldn't applaud the surfeit of brutality--which still doesn't approach what you can find elsewhere at the multiplex most nights--but, as in Casino Royale, it is a useful corrective to the flabby excesses of the franchise, which so often portrayed 007 as ass-chaser first and assassin second. Moreover, Craig is so very good as the hitman with a heart of lead that it's hard to begrudge him his lethal mandate. His blue eyes are colder than even Fleming could've imagined, and his spare but fearsome frame seems, unlike most Hollywood physiques, built more for performance than for show.
In many ways, these elements were always there, as they are in most action movies. The film acknowledge this without taking itself too seriously. Bond’s propensity to kill became increasingly hilarious without engaging in Punisher style sadism (haven’t seen those movies, don’t intend to). In some ways Bond does this better than Jason Bourne who in the second film causes probably at least a dozen traffic deaths to apologize to someone in person; next time pick up a phone you bleeding heart jag-off. He also takes M’s chiding to heart and spares Greene. I am sick of “heroes” that offer to make trades for information and immediately go back on their word. Bond shafted Greene, to be sure, but he did so within the terms of the agreement and gave him a fighting chance. That, or people no longer making deals with the protagonist, is all I ask.
Also, in terms of motivating, the death of Matthias was really moving. That sort of death is fairly common in Bond films, but as far as I remember rarely done to a male character/someone Bond hasn’t slept with. I think the having a male play that scene and not say Fields was one of the more feminist moments of the film. Fields’ bit it as well of course, but she did earn the praise Bond gave her to M. Notably the lieutenant was in a neck brace at the end of the film, one that probably contributed to him biting it really easily.
The one aspect I’m not really happy with was the presence of British government torture. As far as I know, the present government hasn’t been implicated in that, although they have been accused of enabling the US. The film basically treated it as something that basically everyone did, to such a degree that it would have taken place in the presence of the head of MI-6, not much plausible deniability there. I’m not so naive as to think that sort of thing never happened in post-colonial intelligence agencies, but as far as I know it wasn’t policy for most countries in the extent it has been of late for us.
Promotional Shot from 007.com
Comments