Essentially an extended epilogue to
Casino Royale, the new James Bond flick,
Quantum of Solace, is heavier on action than the 2006 franchise reboot but not quite as engaging when it comes to characters.
From minute one, the audience is taken through the high-octane life of the 00 Agent as he tries to track down the mysterious organization that his love from the previous film, Vesper, was working for when she betrayed him and killed herself. Bond swears he's doing his duty, but the trail of bodies he leaves in his wake seems to prove otherwise.
I've been a big fan of the Bond movies since I first saw the Connery-era
Diamonds Are Forever. I've always been especially appreciative of the Connery films because the character of Bond seems so much richer than the Bond we see in the days of Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, in a world of ridiculous (though, admittedly, quite fun) gadgets and zero character consequences. So when
Casino Royale came out, I was delighted to see a Bond film where Bond felt like a real man working in the real world with real consequences, to an even stronger degree than the early Connery films.
Quantum of Solace does feature these things, but I would say to a lesser degree than its predecessor. While Bond does have to grow and, in the end, get over the betrayal he felt from Vesper, I didn't see as much of that growth as I'd have liked. At points it seemed like false alarms, a friend (whom I won't reveal for the sake of anyone who hasn't seen it) dies in his arms and just when you think Bond is realizing what his actions are costing him, he turns around and leaves his friend's body in a dumpster, saying that he wouldn't care about it. Ultimately, we do have a satisfying emotional payoff, but the ending of this film simply wasn't as resounding as
Casino Royale. Whereas in the first of these two films, we see Bond go from a somewhat eager new 00 Agent to the cold-hearted assassin that Ian Fleming made famous, we see Bond go from cold-hearted assassin to an even colder-hearted assassin.
The action scenes were also quite good, though a few of the action sequences seemed a bit contrived for this more realistic take on Bond. But, to be fair, none of those were
too contrived, because I didn't even remember how contrived they were until I started this paragraph.
It was a hell of a ride and will still be an important chapter in the legacy of this new Bond (and, by the way, I like Daniel Craig in the role as much as I like Sean Connery). I'd say it didn't quite live up to the bar set by
Casino Royale, but ultimately you still get a great film.
As for the trailer for JJ Abrams's
Star Trek, a film I have already discussed at length on this blog... I don't know. I sincerely hope that the trailer is not indicative of the entire package. To me,
Star Trek is about the characters. Yes, a
Trek film needs its fair share of action, but the characters are supposed to come first. Look at
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn,
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country or
Star Trek: First Contact. All three of these have a good blend of character and action, with a little humor, and are widely considered to be some of the best of the films. I realize the trailer is only two minutes of a two hour movie, but I hope JJ Abrams knows what he's doing. I'm still optimistic, but I'm also wary. As long as the spirit of
Trek is preserved, and we get a good movie, I'll be happy.
One thing that worries me though: I live in a college town and there were a lot of my fellow college students in the theater. At the end of the trailer, I heard a fair amount of snickering. They had better get pretty creative with their marketing to entice my generation to go see this movie. There's still a bit of a social stigma assigned to people who are openly
Trek fans. They need to make sure this looks like a movie that
everyone is going to want to see, Trekkie or not.
- Nate
