I just read this review:
Quantum of Solace: A Sign of The Times?
Ian Fleming’s James Bond novels were amongst the first adult books that I read as a child and first of them all was For Your Eyes Only, a collection of short stories that includes one called Quantum of Solace. In this James Bond is just the audience for a middle-aged diplomat’s confidential description of the earlier life of one of the women at a diplomatic reception; how she had flagrantly betrayed and humiliated her husband and how he had eventually avenged himself by leaving her destitute. The story might be seen as a description of some of Fleming’s feelings about his own marriage, which was more marked for bickering than much fidelity. The expression ‘quantum of solace’ is used by the narrator of the story to try to reduce the assessment of happiness in human relationships to a near mathematical equation, so he says that, where the solace derived by each partner from the other is reduced to nil, the relationship is irredeemably over. This is not a James Bond action story.
The latest James Bond film is called Quantum of Solace, presumably because, although they have run out of Fleming books, it is, at least, an original Fleming title but the film is an action film.  “There’s gold in them there hills”. Unremarkable for much dialogue (let alone, any good dialogue), all of which, in any event, is mumbled by all the cast (including some spectacularly insipid ‘Bond Girls’), the film is a sequence of graphically violent, bloody episodes in which James Bond is battered to the extent to which he should actually end up very nastily scarred for life. I add nothing to the bile that has often been written about Daniel Craig as Bond; in fact, I should just say that I quite enjoyed the recent Casino Royale. But for those of us over 40, Sean Connery is the James Bond of the silver and always will be. No one lives forever (let alone twice) and most screen Bonds, after Connery, were approximations to the standard set by him. I have to say that I am sure that Daniel Craig, as an actor (it’s his job), feels very fortunate to be cast as James Bond and, within his limitations, he gives it his best shot but he overdoes the snarling cruelty, in a body that has been driven to pneumatic extremes of muscle, rivalling Popeye, and he lacks the feline stealth and the quiet panache of the Bond of the books. The earlier films, which had a story with a beginning, a middle and an end, were also true to the books. This film is true to nothing. There is no discernible plot; there isn’t even a discernible main villain; although smoking was a part of Bond’s very being, no one smokes anymore but we are treated to him drunk and slurring, in the company of the curiously rehabilitated traitor Mathis, on a Vesper Martini (which contains Kina Lillet a drink replaced by Lillet Blanc in 1986).
Is this lacklustre, meaningless, thuggish brutality what people really want in the name of entertainment?
If it is, what does that say about our times?

I still haven't seen it.

I liked "Casino" very much.  I think it's one of the best Bond movies ever, and the dark tone is rather better than that found in some of the earlier goofy movies.  I think Craig hit a perfect 10 in "Casino".

Personally, I was disappointed by "Quantum", and I agree that it lacks depth, but I think it contributes in building the Bond persona.  The fact that Ford has a multi-movie deal and has since sold its Aston-Martin's division doesn't bode well for Bond's lifestyle, I'm afraid.

The truth is that Bond is scarred for life.  The earlier movies might generally end reasonably well, but very often transitory love (or lust) interests die in the process, not least of those Bond's wife herself.

I am not a fan of Daniel Craig - wooden and one-dimensional. He was poor in The Road To Perdition and other movies that I have seen. Bond should be suave, charismatic, witty and charming but Craig has neither of these qualities.

There are very few actors who have them. Michael Caine is an obvious one if he could have dropped the Cockney accent. Fleming originally wanted Richard Todd. Christopher Plummer, very under-rated, would have made a great traditional Bond. Patrick Stewart would have been ideal.

The current options are very limited - Clive Owen, Dougray Scott or even Richard E Grant.

Clive Owen was shortlisted when Brosnan hung up his hat, but they chose Craig instead. I think he's fine. For what it is worth, female fans absolutely love Craig - he will bring in female viewers which the older movies did not have.

Last edited by Big Tony (2010-04-02 13:12:11)

When reading the books I never got the sense Bond was "upper class" or the blue blood. So I think you guys, in particular Reggie, are projecting. But hey! It's fiction so it doesn't have to make sense.

Last edited by Horace (2010-04-09 06:00:49)