So why do people hate this film so much? Ok, so it’s on the long side, but so’s the Godfather. It may not conform to the ‘traditional’ mould that other Bond films have, but then neither did Batman Begins. It does seem at times to be treated by its owners as a ‘Christmas tree’ on which to hang its other shiny new products in front of a global public eye. BUT... First of all this isn't a bond movie; this is the second half of the greatest bond movie ever made. What misleads people is the lack of ingenuity and freshness that has been in the franchise for too long. It was almost totally swept away with the release of Casino Royale in 2006. ‘Almost’ being the operative word, because what is clear in retrospect is that the runtime of two films was required to reboot a franchise in as much trouble as Bond.
Casino Royale needed to be the 'traditional' Bond film with the mission, the girls, the cars, the villain and, of course, the sheer opulence and glamour of the whole caper. The truth is that the visual feast that was the bloody violence and pace of 'Royale put Bond back on top where he had belonged but had been absent from for almost forty years. As soon as Roger 'the eyebrow/safari suit’ (delete as appropriate) Moore got hold of the title role, it was the end of any hope that this franchise would truly be an adult and true conversion from the written word to celluloid.
The film Casino Royale was based on the original outing for a character loved and revered by many. The book can be seen as the truest account of the character and has now formed the foundation for a fresh foray into a new mythology starting with a conclusion to the most interesting and realistic story Bond has ever taken part in on screen.
Vesper Lynd has proven the deepest most complicated character Bond has ever come up against or loved. Her death in the book was what allowed Bond to summon within him the resolve to personally see the end of SPECTRE and their devious plots around the globe. What this film does is the same writ large in glorious high definition. The enemy is now Quantum; a ruthless, faceless, business organisation that is keenly involved, not just in global terrorism, (that is simply their source of income) but in a huge plot to force the world over the brink, into chaos and to profit from it as much as possible.
At this stage in the unfurling of the plot it is unclear what their ultimate goal is, but one can easily surmise that it is bigger and more complex than any other in Bond history. If this storyline is to be followed to its inevitable conclusion there should be enough material (even for Purvis and Wade) to make the next ten to twenty years of Bond mythology safe whilst giving an ultimate motivation to enemy characters.
I would argue that as soon as SPECTRE where deemed as irrelevant to moviegoer’s lives, there was a period where the only innovation (some good, some terrible) was present in coming up with new enemies for Bond to fight. Casino/Quantum is the Bond film for the new world order that is just over the horizon where the corporation (as opposed to the nation state) is king.
As with Vesper, the other characters within this film are some of the most complex seen in any action film franchise. Their dialogue is crisp, with real emotion and back-stories written and developed by actor and writer alike. These two films represent a turning point for action franchises; after all, there are only so many times adolescent men will go to see Bond get the girl and fall out of a window all within the same thirty seconds. Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson understand the property that they inherited and they understood its limitations at the end of the Pierce Brosnan canon in 2002’s Die Another Day. Bond was still a sexist, a misogynist and no longer very funny. Bond like many movie properties needed opening up to a new audience, one that would appreciate a multi-faceted character and a world where fantasy doesn’t simply mean a woman with as few clothes on as possible.
There is no getting away from the structural facts that the film is a bit long, but can anyone identify lengths of the film that they would leave on the ‘floor? Please can someone suggest a sequence that can and should be lost? Marc Forster had a difficult job and was not the obvious choice to direct Quantum of Solace, but what he turned in was taught, edgy and emotional.
The issue of product placement on behalf of Sony Corporation is the biggest issue that can never be explained away. The brand of Bond now has (mainly due to Columbia Pictures) one of the strongest images on Earth and yes, Bond has always been a place and person in and on which all the best, most expensive products can and should be put to prove his pedigree to his superiors and to ensure that he will never be beaten. Indeed, ‘Cubby’ used the sexiness and status of Bond in the eyes of his audience to sell space in his movies in order for him to make more of them. Bond IS capitalism, pure, hedonistic, and undiluted, and this new project is merely the postmodern version of a DB5 and a packet of Lark cigarettes. Yes one can argue that it is over done, but Quantum of Solace could also be argued to be the final death throw of capitalism in its most raw form. Once again Bond is the first one in and the last one out of the most profitable gig in town.