Quantum of Solace Review

Rating: 8.5 out of 10.0 (for reference, I’d give “Casino Royale” a 9.6)

The main thing I keep hearing about “Quantum of Solace” is that it’s not “Casino Royale.” I disagree, I think that’s exactly what this movie is: a continuation and resolution of that masterpiece’s emotional story arc. A direct sequel is a very new thing in the Bond universe, but it was the right move, because we the audience haven’t recovered from Vesper Lynd’s death any more than James has, and we want to grieve with him. Director Marc Forster and the writing team comprised of Paul Haggis, Robert Wade and Peal Purvis were right on the money when they decided to drop us in right where we left off. 

The story ostensibly revolves around an organization called Quantum, and its nefarious attempts to unseat political establishment in Bolivia for its own purposes; cue James Bond to try and stop them, while befriending a few femme fatales along the way. The deeper story here is the bruised anguish hiding within 007, caused by the apparent betrayal and then death of the woman he loved. Like any rational person in his situation, Bond can’t decide how to feel, sometimes angry or indifferent towards Vesper’s memory, sometimes desperate to avenge her. The audience’s enormous sympathy for his plight is the story’s heart, and Forster and company know that and use it deftly. When I imagine Craig’s Bond in my mind, his cold eyes hungering for blood and scars all over his face, I am reminded of something that M says to him: “I think you’re so blinded by inconsolable rage that you don’t care who you hurt.”

I can’t get over the Shakespearian eloquence of that line, nor Judi Dench’s predictably forceful delivery of it. I think it speaks to what this film is really about: mourning. James Bond is a man who utterly exposed his heart, and had it returned broken and horrified; he doesn’t even have the comfort of a single person to blame. So he rages out of control, pretending he just wants to get the job done while he tries to find some kind of comfort in the haze of gunfire. It’s all he has now. 

Along the way, we encounter a beautiful and mysterious woman named Camille who is also after vengeance, but she’s been at it much longer, and she’s beginning to realize that the road leads nowhere. As she and James appraise each other, Bond sees a warning sign, and she sees a reflection of her younger self. We sense that both want to tell the other to stop, to walk away, to make peace with the past, but they are slaves to injuries they sustained long ago, and they keep going. They have no sexual chemistry and the movie doesn’t try to force them to; after all, it would feel bizarre to have another “Bond girl” in the traditional sense of the term now. No, these two people are partners in self-destruction, and what they learn from each other has nothing to do with romance. 

Meanwhile, M very accidentally finds herself caring for James like a mother, something she did not do in “Casino Royale.” The reasons are simple: she understands his suffering, she is the only person who really could, and she trusts his certainty and conviction, particularly since her bosses want her to ally with the same monsters she’s been sending 007 to exterminate. In a world where the enemy is uncertain, a headstrong assassin is oddly comforting. 

Okay, okay, so this is all fine, but what about the action? It’s absolutely dynamite. The opening car chase is more of a destruction derby than anything else, and it’s executed with serious style. Ditto for a winning aerial dogfight and all the hand-to-hand combat, the latter of which avoids the “shaky cam” tactics that diminished Greengrass’ “Bourne” films. There are stunts and spectacle aplenty, more than enough to satisfy any action movie fan. I liked the dirty, rough feel these scenes had; cars get torn up, suits get blood and sand all over them, the victors limp away and have to bandage themselves up. It doesn’t go so far as to feel un-Bond, but it definitely makes the punches land with a harder thud.

“Quantum of Solace” has been getting bad reviews from some people, there’s no question, and even the good ones are kind of hesitant. I don’t understand this at all, especially when “The Bourne Ultimatum” had far less story, offered almost nothing new, and everyone loved it. In every aspect of the production and execution, “Quantum” dutifully maintains the tone and character that “Casino Royale” established, even faithfully resolving Vesper’s story arc, but for some reason this isn’t good enough, and that kind of irritates me. I think the filmmakers wisely elected to make an egoless film, one that honors its predecessor and tries to do right by the characters. But much like the second guy to land on the moon, they get no credit for it.

I don’t mean to sound harsh here, but stop sounding disappointed because this movie isn’t revolutionary like “Casino” was. It shouldn’t be. Daniel Craig’s debut set the tone, and now it was this movie’s job to follow the example, and it did so adroitly. Craig is a great Bond, there was plenty of action, there were interesting Bond girls, there was a villain who was inevitably overcome. You knew that’s what you were getting when you bought the ticket, that’s what you wanted, and I think it’s a little hypocritical to look down your nose at them for doing their job.

Now, that being said, I do think this movie was imperfect, just not in the ways I keep hearing. For one thing, Mathieu Amalric’s Dominic Greene was never given enough screen time. The actor did a great job, and his character fascinated and terrified me, but they wouldn’t let us get any quality time with him. There’s a great scene where Greene asks his bodyguards if the man in front of them is “one of us.” They reply that he is not, so Greene shields his face and snarls, “Then he shouldn’t be looking at me.” There is something both pathetic and ferocious about this, and I was instantly interested in it, but I left the theater feeling shortchanged by his screen time.

Also, the resolution of Mathis’ character from the first film is unsatisfying. (SPOILER ALERT) Killing him off felt arbitrary and unfair, something about it just thudded in my emotional experience. (SPOILERS OVER) And lastly, I did want James to emote a little more than he did. I could sense the wound he was feeling underneath his hard exterior, but there were several moments where I thought it made sense for that wound to bleed openly and it just didn’t. It didn’t take away too much, but I think it would have locked the story’s undercurrent down more to let him open himself up.