The “quantum of solace” is described by Ian Fleming as the measurable degree of affection between two people. When it equals zero, love is dead. It is also the singular namesake of the second film in the re-vamped James Bond franchise, which picks up just seconds after the final scene of the 2006 standout “Casino Royale.” As the title suggests, “Quantum of Solace” gives us a world where love is dead, where an indistinguishable organization has a stranglehold on the greater powers that be and where Bond is a bare-knuckled assassin with a license to kill. This gritty, real-world approach, however, comes close to ruining the film with its mundane and disorienting Bourne-esque action photography, nearly full omission of both Bond’s farcical sex life and ultra-gadgetry, and a mostly impotent (but quasi-ecologically relevant) villain.
This mostly unremarkable Bond film is helmed by A-list director Marc Forster (“Finding Neverland,” “Stranger than Fiction”). His style, though almost genuine and interesting enough, does not get its points across tactfully. We get action too close and acting too far away. Story-wise, “Quantum” leaves something to be desired among a Bond bloodline that is known to take certain liberties with plot. Women—most of whom have had sex with Bond off-screen—are killed after having been in the film for minutes. Meanwhile, a meek Roman Polanksi look-a-like, who is involved in a dark plot against Bolivia, holds his own with professional killer Bond. “Quantum” is just cohesive enough to hold the viewer, but little more.
Daniel Craig, returning for a second try at Bond, gives a whole-hearted effort, delivering a version of Bond that is both unlike and superior to the character’s previous incarnations. Having only completed his first mission as a Double-0 agent, he is still thirsty for blood and continues to refine his techniques as a killer. He isn’t smooth yet and there is an almost boxer-like quality to his unprocessed violence. His sexuality is assumed and invisible rather than put-on and visually reinforced. While it is hard to believe Timothy Dalton got any action outside of his brief interlude as Bond, Craig seems to have at least done this before. The other actors are mostly okay, with Jeffrey Wright offering another solid performance as Felix Lighter, Bond’s CIA counterpart. It did almost seem, however, as if some of the more minor characters were acting in a different movie (David Harbour, who plays Lighter’s partner, came off like an out-of-work improv comedian thrown into a Bond film).
Interestingly, this Bond entry is gadget-free. Maybe the filmmakers decided that in our techno-centric culture, it just wasn’t worth the production dollars to make a rocket-shooting iPhone. Maybe they just got lazy or were trying to present a Bond world closer to our own—a Bond with an ordinary Aston-Martin like everyone else on the block. Whatever the reason, “Quantum’s” Bond is literally “left to his guns,” and he takes every opportunity to use them.
Coming in at a reported $250 million, “Quantum” is the most expensive Bond film ever made and could quite possibly lose a lot of that money. Less a horrible flop than a disappointing, missed opportunity, “Quantum of Solace” just didn’t quite do it for me. If a Bond film is supposed to be about wild sex, spectacular killings and international intrigue, this was about frustrating make-out sessions, 10th grade brawls and an international plot about as interesting as a game of Risk. That being said, it’s a Bond film, and they are always kinda cool, including this one…sort of.
Leave a Reply