November 14, 2008, - 12:00 am

“Quantum of Solace” Will Leave You Barely Shaken, Only Slightly Stirred

By Debbie Schlussel
The best thing about “Quantum of Solace“–the latest James Bond flick–is that the aptly-named villain-in-chief, Dominic Greene, is an environmentalist wacko, a “green” fanatic.
And, like most of them, he’s a Gulfstream eco-hypocrite, who actually rapes the land and victimizes indigenous peoples, while raising money in the name of helping them. The movie debuts today, and I was shocked that Hollywood dared go there, especially since the script is co-written by uber-leftist Paul “Crash” Harris.
Still, the villain was boring. He doesn’t compare to Blofeld (full name: Ernst Stavro Blofeld)–my favorite repeat Bond villain (best played by the late Telly Savalas)–or even Jaws. Not even close.

quantumofsolace.jpg

And aside from portraying the green movement as utter hypocrisy, the movie was dull, only so-so. Note to the Broccoli family (which owns the rights to Ian Fleming’s James Bond movie franchise): Stick to more glamorous locales than Bolivia (the setting for a significant chunk of this movie), which was very Bolivi-oring.
As was the case with “Casino Royale” (read my review), I continue to struggle to like Daniel Craig as the new James Bond (sadly, the first James Bond actor to have posed nude–not classy, just gross; Sean Connery came very close to doing the same) . I want to like him as Bond. He is masculine, hot, charismatic, and sexy . . . in a haggard, Vladimir-Putin-lookalike kinda way (I also try to forget his horrid role in the equally horrid pan-terrorist “Munich“). And they love to show this well-toned Bond with his shirt off, great for red-blooded women like me.
But the humorless script didn’t help him much. James Bond is supposed to be fun and casual–a hail fellow well met who is a good sport and doesn’t take himself too seriously, even when he’s getting the bad guys. But this movie was the exact opposite. It was smothered under the weight of seriousness, revenge themes, and bitterness. Don’t get me wrong–I love revenge, a motive and response which is under-rated and over-panned. But I just didn’t feel it here. It was empty and stupid.
One turn-on: Fortunately, Craig’s Bond wasn’t girlie-manish and metrosexual in “Quantum,” my chief objection to him in “Casino Royale.”
I wasn’t overly thrilled with Craig’s debut in “Casino Royale”, but I liked this one far less. I now have a better appreciation for “Royale”, which really was far more Bondian in tradition, tempo, and demeanor. “Royale” had a discernible, plausible plot and heart-pounding action. This one had lots more action, but it was mostly dull and unexciting action, which left me cold. That’s unless you count the scene of Bond repeatedly walking through massive flames of fire, unhurt. That’s a “Come on?!” moment that’s hard to believe. And while, yes, most Bond movies have stunts that are just not believable, the flamewalker stuff was just blatant in-your-face BS.
There was some great shooting and cool gun scenes. Love those guns–suave men with guns are hottt. But other than that, yaaawn.
danielcraig2.jpgvladimirputin3.jpg

Daniel Craig: Bond . . . James Bond, or Putin . . . Vlad Putin

And this one was missing even more of what Bond is all about and what makes male moviegoers want to be him and female movie fans want to “date” (euphemism) him: “shaken/not stirred” drinks, sexy women, and cool gadgets. Does our depressed economy translate into a shortage of all of those? Apparently so. While Ian Fleming’s written-page Bond was actually not a womanizer, that’s not the bachelor (except in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”) Bond we’ve come to know on-screen. But in “Quantum”, Bond has only two women (who are strikingly flatter than General Motors’ profits and the main course at IHOP). The cool gadgets? Well, there aren’t any. Didn’t you hear? Sharper Image went out of bid’ness. And the drinks? Well, “shaken, not stirred” is gone from the Bondian dialogue. I don’t remember even hearing the “Bond, James Bond” line.
Especially in this sad economic state of affairs, we more than ever need more of this stuff in our escape at the movies. And they gave us less. It’s like we flew coach on Northwest to Greater Bondia, and they not only took away the peanuts because of someone’s allergies and the snacks to cut costs, but they ripped the cushions out of the seats, too. Plus, they lost our bags (but not the bags underneath Craig’s eyes).
Oh, and remember “M,” the elder Bond boss? It was bad enough when un-Bond-like women’s lib transformed Bond’s boss from male to female (Judi Dench). Now, it’s worse. The senior citizen was supposed to be a cameo, but now she’s a co-star. Too much of her, far too less of Bond women, gadgets, cars, and drinks. What is this–“AARP Magazine” on film? Apparently, Helen Thomas is doing the casting for Bond girls now and the guys writing Dench’s growing share of dialogue think she’s one.
Then, there’s the murky, absurd “plot”. It’s a mess and hard to discern. The movie takes place immediately after “Casino Royale”, but you needn’t have seen that to understand this. Bond and M discover moles in the British Secret Service that work for this unnamed criminal organization. Apparently this same organization is responsible for killing Bond’s true love (agent Vesper Lynd who is killed at the end of “Casino Royale”), and he wants revenge. Meanwhile, he meets a Bolivian woman who has her own similar motivations in trying to stop the eco-villain and his criminal organization from installing their own dictator in Bolivia, a corrupt general. Asleep yet?
And the plot isn’t just weak. As with all weak plots these days, it’s anti-American, the fail-safe Hollywood plot device. Two geeky, evil CIA agents are working with the eco-terrorist villain to help the corrupt general take over Bolivia, and only Bond–of course!–can stop them. Not that I love the pan-Arabist Valerie Plamesque CIA, but hey, the MI-5 and -6 guys ain’t no saintly champions of Western values either. Kim Philby, anyone?
The one cool thing in the movie was ripped off from “Goldfinger”. A Bond girl is found dead in Bond’s hotel room covered in black oil. Remember the Bond girl found in a hotel room covered in gold paint? Been there, seen that.
Yes, there are some funny lines in the movie, but very few and far in between, unlike most Bond films. And, frankly, the best line in the movie was a serious and true-to-life one uttered by the eco-terrorist:

While America is tied up in the Middle East, Latin America is falling like dominoes to the Communists.

So true, and it’s something I’ve been shouting from the rooftop of this site for a number of years, as President Bush did nothing to stop Daniel Ortega and other Communists from retaking power in our Southern Hemisphere neighbors.
Exit question: Will Hollywood ever have the guts to make James Bond fight Muslim terrorists the way he fought Cold War Communists? James Bond bedding scantily-clad Muslim women under the noses of Bin Laden acolytes, then rubbing their faces in it and his bullets, is exactly the excitement we need. And so does he.
Bottom line: The movie was entertaining and not objectionable. But it just wasn’t what we expect from James Bond. Not only wasn’t it a great Bond movie. It wasn’t even an average one. It was just okay, and–as much as I hate to say it–in terms of a Bond movie, it was sort of mediocre. I love James Bond and James Bond movies. But I don’t love “Quantum of Solace.” It was just “eh”. That’s why I can only give it . . .
ONE-AND-A-HALF REAGANS
reagancowboy.jpghalfreagan.jpg
***
Read more about how this movie clashes with Ian Fleming’s consistent vision of James Bond, in Allen Barra’s interesting, “Will the Real James Bond Please Stand Up?“–entertaining must reading for Bond fans.
***
From a past entry on “Casino Royale” and Daniel Craig as the new fair-haired Bond, here are some of my Bond favorites:

Fave DebbieSchlussel.com James Bond flick: “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service,” starring George Lazenby, the one and only time he played Bond. Also liked, “From Russia With Love,” “Goldfinger,” and “Dr. No.”
Fave DebbieSchlussel.com James Bond: George Lazenby and Sean Connery.
Fave DebbieSchlussel.com James Bond villain: Blofeld (full name: Ernst Stavro Blofeld), as played by Telly Savalas (Blofeld was also played by Donald Pleasence and Max Von Sydow).

seanconnerybond.jpg

georgelazenby.jpgblofeldtellysavalas2.jpg

Sean Connery, George Lazenby as James Bond & Telly Savalas as Blofeld






17 Responses

Craig still reminds me of a chimp in a tuxedo. Sean Connery is the one and only James Bond. He’s a rogue and a bastard in real life. That’s James Bond.

FreethinkerNY on November 14, 2008 at 1:13 am

Connery is definitely Bond. Lazenby could have been a contenda. Moore wasn’t bad, he just had the bad luck of doing movies in the cheesy 70’s and 80’s.

Blayne on November 14, 2008 at 8:00 am

My favorite Bond films (not necessarily in order)
1. Majesty
2. From Russia with Love
3. Dr. No
4. Casino
I think Craig is a great Bond; he’s not too pretty. Just imagine Hugh Grant as Bond.
I’m not a big gadget guy in that they can get too silly. I enjoy more the subtlety of the spying game, like in “From Russia with Love.”
I agree however that Hollywood can’t make a movie about our real enemies: Islamist and Communist. Casino and Solace prove that.

Rick on November 14, 2008 at 9:54 am

Wow. Disagree with the fabulous Debbie. I didn’t think that would ever happen. Daniel Craig is the Bond I’ve waited for since the franchise started. The comic book portrayal for the 70s and 80s, the shiny high techno Bond of the 90s, the whipsaw thin Brosnan, or the stiff backed bulk of Moore was not only not believable, but just silly. I used to like Connery, but in retrospect he was a stuffed shirt.
But Barbara Broccoli nailed Bond. This is the Real Bond. Daniel Craig is Bond. The only Bond film we own is Casino Royale with Craig. I loved it. Can’t wait for the DVD of Quantum.
Daniel Craig as Bond makes the Bond franchise what it should have been all along.

Johnny Yuma on November 14, 2008 at 11:27 am

My all-time favorite movie spy was seen for the first time during the post-credits clip in ‘Iron Man’….. more appearances to follow….

NickFury on November 14, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Debbie, I can’t believe you and I actually agree on something again. With Sean Connery’s Bond (my favorite), despite Bond having to kill, see people around him die, and being subject at any time to a gruesome death, you had the sense that he rather enjoyed his job and didn’t take things to seriously. Probably because he knew that in his profession he could be dead at any moment, so he lived his life with panache and gusto. The Bond movies of Connery, despite their flaws, had a sense of humor and a sense of fun. After seeing those Bond films, part of you thinks, “Wow, it must be really cool to be a secret agent”, although you knew what you just viewed was pure fantasy. But it was fun! With Craig, we have a spy with a “tortured soul”, which I think has already been done masterfully with the Jason Bourne series….but it shouldn’t be Bond. When I go to a Bond film, I want to see a sophisticated but lethal hero, over-the-top villains, gorgeous locales, beautiful but dangerous women, wild but plausible “take over the world” plots, and plenty of action. Leave the “tortured soul” thing to the Bourne series.
Johnny Yuma calls Connery’s Bond a “stuffed shirt”…Exactly!!! That what made the Bond series so interesting! You had this sophisticated, intelligent, and well-dressed British gentleman who was actually a highly-trained and very deadly operative with a license to kill. He wasn’t walking around trying to look and act like a tough guy or trying to be Rambo….the fascinating contrast was that beneath all of the elegance was a lethal assassin. Don’t get me wrong….I think Daniel Craig is a decent Bond and I can understand the filmmakers wanting to give Bond a harder edge for today’s times, but I think they may have gone a little overboard. All “hardcore” and no fun makes a less interesting Bond….

JibberJabber on November 14, 2008 at 12:32 pm

The newest Bond and his female sidekick are both butt fugly.

Hermster on November 14, 2008 at 1:13 pm

I thought Die Another Day was so bad I refuse to see any more James Bond movies in the theater. Pierce Brosnan was the worst Bond ever. I imagine Daniel Craig will be just as bad, and Debbie’s review makes me not want to see this one.
My favorite Bond movies:
1. Goldfinger
2. Octopussy
3. The Spy Who Loved Me
4. The Man with the Golden Gun
Bond is supposed to be fun and cool, and these PC new Bonds are so wimpy and overly serious. I can definitely see them voting for people like Obama.
Sean Connery was the best, Roger Moore excellent, and Timothy Dalton good. But liberal Pierce Brosnan was horrible.

Gabe on November 14, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Bond lost me when the villians were Koreans living with a base in the North Pole.
Connery is the best Bond and Moore was good, however he was Simon Templar (way too similar of a character) in the Saint.
The scripts and PCing of the Character is a bit much, in a post 9/11 world that’ what we can expect. At least the characters that were bad in previous Bonds were a bit believable.
Greeks? Koreans? EVIL White Moguls? How about Bond go after ALQAEDA and or Arab Terrorist. The Cold War presented a good back drop to previous Bonds. A post 9/11 world is just as good as one.
Daniel Craig was ok in the last one. This one looks like I a movie I would rather get cloraformed than watch. I didn’t care for his rants aganist Guns and his world views. Shut up and act, stupid. Nobody cares about your tirades.
Broccoli family, get some stones and make a good Bond movie, the public demands it.

Lebanesebetweentheknees on November 14, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Bond lost me when the villians were Koreans living with a base in the North Pole.
Connery is the best Bond and Moore was good, however he was Simon Templar (way too similar of a character) in the Saint.
The scripts and PCing of the Character is a bit much, in a post 9/11 world that’ what we can expect. At least the characters that were bad in previous Bonds were a bit believable.
Greeks? Koreans? EVIL White Moguls? How about Bond go after ALQAEDA and or Arab Terrorist. The Cold War presented a good back drop to previous Bonds. A post 9/11 world is just as good as one.
Daniel Craig was ok in the last one. This one looks like I a movie I would rather get cloraformed than watch. I didn’t care for his rants aganist Guns and his world views. Shut up and act, stupid. Nobody cares about your tirades.
Broccoli family, get some stones and make a good Bond movie, the public demands it.

Lebanesebetweentheknees on November 14, 2008 at 1:51 pm

I must disagree with my “red blooded” hot gal, The Deb.
I loved Daniel Craig in Casino Royale. He is gritty and much tougher than the previous Bonds. The only part I didn’t care for in Casino Royale is the love story part in the last part of the film dragged too long.
I’m definitely looking forward to seeing this this weekend.
The only danger is I hope they don’t go too far in the new direction of the Bond series. I’m grateful it’s not as silly as it had gotten after Connery, but I do want the films to retain their unique flavor.

Jeff_W on November 14, 2008 at 2:26 pm

If Bond has his first gay sex scene in the next movie, you’ll probably be wishing for old metro-sexual version.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/253049

metal321 on November 15, 2008 at 5:10 am

I just saw this and I agree with debbie. It was boring and convoluted, although I enjoy watching Craig shirtless;). I do think Connery made a good bond, he just seemed so right for the role

mindy1 on November 15, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Your right Debbie about the lack of interesting gadgets in the movie, but didn’t you think all the Sony product placements were a just a bit much?

metal321 on November 16, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Screw it. I’m going fishing.
If this is how Bond is today, then the franchise died with the N. Korean nutjob in Die Another Day.

bhparkman on November 17, 2008 at 11:04 am

The movie ‘Casino Royale’ actually sticks to the book more than a few other Bond flicks have. I actually like Craig second to Connery. Brosnan runninf third, but I will always enjoy “Live & Let Die” because it was a good movie.
Have yet to see the new one.

P. Aaron on November 17, 2008 at 9:50 pm

In my opinion, the best James Bond movies are: Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, The Spy Who Loved Me, Living Daylights And Tomorrow Never Dies.

There rest are just don’t have that level of excitement. The Bond franchise has a certain formula – there’s a villain bent on world domination, Bond comes along to save the day with cool gadgets, he kills the bad guy and at the end he gets a beautiful woman as his reward for all in a day’s work.

The best movies make you want to find out how he overcomes the obstacles in front of him because the audience knows Bond is never going to be in jeopardy.

Most hero action films are seldom realistic but most people don’t care because part of the fun of watching the hero battle evil is that he is larger than life and good in the end will win. When the last scene closes, you feel pretty good having spent two hours of your time watching it.

And Bond is part of that mythology – a very enduring and successful one – and Sean Connery will always be for the fans, the quintessential Bond.

NormanF on December 10, 2011 at 7:52 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field