Opinion
Editorial: “Quantum of Solace” doesn’t deserve a place in the 007 pantheon
Story by Trevon Millard | November 19, 2008
Montana Kaimin
James Bond hasn’t survived 23 films over half a century because he has a license to kill. Car chases, brutal hand-to-hand combat scenes and exotic settings aren’t what keep the world watching. Any high-octane “XXX”-type movie can dish out that gruel.
Bond survives by his high-class British charm, cheeky humor and slyness with the ladies. It’s all about the clever dialogue. The man has become a franchise—the second most lucrative behind Star Wars—but the franchise is, in the end, just a man. People are watching him, not the explosions, the cars or the women. Whoever the actor may be—if it’s Sean Connery, Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan—people go to see Bond. James Bond. Men compare themselves to him and women imagine themselves with him.
But Bond was MIA in the latest edition, “Quantum of Solace.”
Daniel Craig does well at going on a killing rampage, but little else of Bond ever showed through on screen, besides the name others would call him.
Roger Moore, the longest-serving James Bond actor who spent twelve years in the role in seven films, recently said Bond has lost his way.
“That wasn’t Bond,” he recently told British newspaper The Telegraph.
Bond isn’t defined as a fighter but a lover, he said.
“I am happy to have done it,” he said, “but I’m sad that it has turned so violent. That’s keeping up with the times. It’s what cinema-goers seem to want, and it’s proved by the box office figures.”
I grew up on James Bond movies and know they have to evolve with time and change in style and character presentation to meet contemporary interests. But making a Bond film without any gadgets, the charm or elegance of Bond, and without the interest of women is robbing the film of the only thing that makes it what it is: a Bond flick.
For heaven’s sake, Daniel Craig doesn’t even seem to like women! He risks his life for Camille repeatedly, but gives her just a peck goodbye at the end. Bond has lost any semblance of a personality, not to mention missing even a shred of charm and relies on brute strength instead of intellect.
Can you honestly tell me what set this movie apart from any other bang-bang spy movie and placed it in the James Bond pantheon?
Don’t get me wrong. I was definitely entertained. It was a great action movie, but just an action movie.
This film has done great so far, pulling in $67.5 million its debut weekend, but more Bond films like this one will only lead to its decline, falling into the action-packed heap.
Trevon Milliard, News Editor, trevon.milliard@umontana.edu
This story has been viewed 708 times.
Comments
Editorial???!!! SERIOUSLY!???!!!
Posted by fredstapleton on 11/19/2008 at 3:36 am
James Bond.
THEN - Super agent with a license to kill.
NOW - Super agent, with license to kill + motivation
THEN - Ladies man
NOW - Man crushed by death of the one woman he has loved.
THEN - One-dimensional character
NOW - Character who does more than just kill people and have random romps in the sack.
Yes, I agree that this Bond is very different, but at some point the franchise needed this Bond, a Bond that actually pays homage to the original 007 writings of Ian Fleming by showing some weakness. Showing that Bond was not always the super suave secret agent that he is.
So, I agree and disagree with this review, while this Bond is quite different, a far cry from the smooth Sean Connery of old, but sometimes a little change isn’t a bad thing, as long as it doesn’t completely change the face of the franchise.
Posted by conn_er on 11/19/2008 at 8:32 am
Craig has ushered in the new era of Bond that resembles the vision of his creator, Ian Fleming. I suggest you read some of his novels before claiming that the Bond character was “MIA” in Quantum of Solace. Remember, this film is a direct sequel to Casino Royale. I’m sure we all remember Vesper and the enormous effect she had on Bond. Her death wasn’t an easy thing to swallow, and in Quantum of Solace Bond is still trying to come to terms with her suicide.
For once Bond is being portrayed as a real person, with actual emotions. He’s in revenge mode after being (seemingly) betrayed by Vesper, and Marc Forster did a remarkable job of showing this on screen. He certainly had more formal style of shooting, but it worked well for the message that he was trying to send.
I knew in the beginning that Craig would fire up the traditionalists. He’s not your pretty-boy Brosnan Bond. There are always going to be some people that like to sit through “popcorn” Bond films with lots of gadgets, girls, and explosions that add hardly anything to the story. Those days are over. The Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson understand that audiences today crave a more down to earth Bond film, which requires them to throw out some of the worthless “Hollywood” conventions of the previous films.
“...not to mention missing even a shred of charm and relies on brute strength instead of intellect.”
Try watching the scene right before Bond meets Camille for the first time. It’s not like he knocked out the hotel worker in order to get the brief case… This is just one of your many generalizations that shows how little attention you actually paid to the movie.
Posted by kv007 on 11/19/2008 at 10:00 pm
