Advertisement

That’s the secret to the series’ success. Not world-destroying lasers, not hideouts situated in volcanoes nor even a bevy of beauties named with double entendres. The Bond franchise has endured simply because James Bond is a suave and charming character who gets to travel to exotic locations, sweep women off their feet, play with cool toys and save the world.

That, for all its bone-crushing action, deafening explosions and death-defying stunts, is what is missing in Bond’s 22nd adventure, “Quantum of Solace.” After the franchise was reset in 2006’s brilliant “Casino Royale,” director Marc Forster (“The Kite Runner”) decides to further strip away any of the familiar elements of the franchise and turn James Bond into Jason Bourne.

The film is the first direct sequel in the series, picking up mere minutes after the finale of “Casino Royale.” In a spectacularly staged chase sequence, Bond (Daniel Craig) flees from pursuers while transporting Mr. White, the man he visited at the end of the last film. White has information about who was responsible for the death of Bond’s lover, Vesper, in the first film.

Out for revenge, Bond sets out to find out who was behind the death of Vesper and is led to Dominic Greene (Mathieu Almaric), this film’s version of a super-villain. Whereas, in previous films, Blofield worked out of a volcano and Jaws had metal teeth, Greene works in a warehouse. And he’s French. And instead of SMERSH or SPECTRE vying for world-domination, Greene works for QUANTUM, an international network of terrorists who want ... oil. Assisted by a Bolivian Secret Service agent (Olga Kurylenko) and constantly chided by M. (Judi Dench), Bond attempts to avenge Vesper’s death and, ostensibly, lower prices at the pump.

The success of “Casino Royale” was due to the franchise taking away all the worn-out cliches of the franchise and rebuilding the traditions in a realistic, brutal way. That film lacked any global terrorism scheme, outlandish gadgets and ridiculous hideouts. But the traditions of the franchise - how Bond got his license to kill, developed his attitude toward women and even learned to like his martinis - were introduced, giving the filmmakers the chance to build upon them and revive the franchise by reintroducing Bond’s wit and attitude in a real-world environment.

Instead of building on the developments of the last film, however, Forster and screenwriter Paul Haggis seem intent on further dismantling the franchise until all traces of the old Bond are gone for good. He never once introduces himself as “Bond, James Bond,” there’s no playful banter with Moneypenny (with good reason, since she is gone), there’s no Q branch to help him out and when he beds a woman it is simply obligatory to the screenplay (she has been introduced for all of five minutes at that point). Even the opening shot of the film, the iris with Bond shooting into it, is removed and placed at the end of the film.

It seems that I’m nitpicking the film for the very same things that I praised “Casino Royale” for, but I’m not. There is a difference between cliche and tradition. The Pierce Brosnan films were growing old because they were turning into cartoons and self-parodies of the franchise; when Bond crashes an invisible car into an ice castle, the series has lost much credibility. But “Casino Royale” still respected the tradition of Bond - the martinis, the luxurious hotels, his preference for the finer things - while reintroducing the elements and making them fresh. Getting rid of invisible cars and ice castles is fine. But when you take away the iris shot or “shaken, not stirred,” it’s like starting “Star Wars” without “A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away ...”

I would consider it to be nitpicking if the film was otherwise engaging, but it’s really a mediocre action movie. Craig is still a fantastic Bond, and has a nice sense of humor and really throws himself into the action. The problem is that the plot is so reliant on what occurred in “Casino Royale,” that it forgets to supply him any motivation for this particular adventure. He seems to jaunt across the world only to wind up, just at the right time, in a brutal fight, but the plot is so inconsequential that there’s no room for investment. That would be fine in a stand-alone Bond film, but this movie expects us to still be engaged in what occurred to Vesper without giving us any other reason to care.

Dench is given more to do than in past films and, indeed, seems to have more dialogue than Craig. Her wonderful, icy work as M. was always a highlight of even the most mediocre Brosnan films, and I enjoy the rapport she has with Craig, finding a role somewhere between angry boss and concerned mother. Almaric, so wonderful in last year’s “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly,” is clearly relishing his chance to be a villain, but it’s disappointing that they saddle him with such a banal, uninteresting character.

Forster is a competent, workmanlike director who has been responsible for “Monster’s Ball,” “Finding Neverland,” “Stranger than Fiction” and “The Kite Runner.” I find it odd that in his first action movie, he stages some wonderfully brutal fight sequences but drops the ball at injecting any drama, urgency or emotion into the plot.

And yes, the stunts are fun. The opening car chase is thrilling, an escape from a plane is spectacular and the final confrontation is wonderfully explosive. But the close-quarter fighting and shaky-cam work is so derivative of the “Bourne” series, that it’s possible to think Forster is channeling Robert Ludlum instead of Ian Fleming. The problem is that the Bourne series relied on momentum and intensity and never slowed down, whereas “Quantum” slows down for plodding exposition but forgets to inject any of the franchise’s wit or style into it.

The film is not badly made and I’m sure audiences looking for a thrill ride will be satisfied to an extent. But as a Bond film, especially one coming after what was arguably the series’ best entry, it’s a major disappointment. The credits for the Bond films always end with the reassuring “James Bond will return.” That was promised at the end of “Casino Royale,” but the character we love is nowhere to be seen in “Quantum of Solace.” Let’s hope the promise carries more weight next time around. Grade: C-

Chris Williams is a Source Staff Writer and a member of the Detroit Film Critics’ Society. He can be reached at Chris.Williams@advisorsource.com