Quantum Of Solace

Click Poster to view Trailer

I saw Quantum Of Solace last night, and I have to say it was a mixed bag. Nowhere near as excellent as its predecessor Casino Royale, Quantum drops the ball big time with its insistence on re-introducing preposterous action sequences. Seriously though--Quantum's topical storyline and well-realized villain (played with creepy cool style by newcomer Mathieu Amalric) way too often take a back seat to ridiculously staged action sequences trying to please that demographic which demanded that sort of thing (I guess) in their Bond movies. Bad move. Whereas Casino Royale was executed with cool finesse and realism (for the most part), I found Quantum Of Solace to regress too quickly back to our old expectations of what a Bond movie should be, and in so doing, it completely derailed the direction in which this re-booted franchise was heading.

I can only hope now that the producers of the new Bond franchise scale back the preposterous-action idiocy for the 3rd entry. Yet all is not lost in Quantum Of Solace. It does have its merits. Either see it for matinee price, or save it for the dollar theater, or home viewing. Daniel Craig still maintains his role very nicely. Judy Dench as M is perfect. Their relationship is at the heart of this movie, and I consider Quantum Of Solace a "side stop" on the newly re-booted Bond franchise. It sets a certain foundation--a second layer after Casino Royale, if you will--for Bond's position in the MI6. Aside from establishing his position relative to M in the British Secret Intelligence Service, Quantum Of Solace does not offer much else in terms of originality for the series, with the notable exception of the villain Dominic Greene and his association with the criminal organisation Quantum. His ploy to secure control of Bolivia's water supply is pretty topical, and one of the elements that salvages the movie from complete mediocrity.

To be clear on my feelings about this movie--like I said at the beginning of this review, they are mixed--I would rate Quantum Of Solace at least 6.5 out of 10 stars, leaning generously towards 7 but feeling that it did not live up to the hype established clearly by Casino Royale (which I would give a 9 out of 10 without thinking about it).

So there you have it. Daniel Craig works overtime in Quantum Of Solace to desperately hang on to whatever credibility he garnered in Casino Royale, and he is very good at it. Given that Craig's Bond is a hard man who is learning the subtleties that perforce come with the job, I grant Quantum Of Solace a "pass" and have my fingers crossed tighter than ever that the producers of these new Bond flicks get their act together for the third outing. Keep the action realistic, please. There's plenty of time to re-introduce the classic characteristics we all came to adore in the old Bond movies: the nicer suits, the growing reputation, the ladykilling ethic, the gradual sophistication of what started out as a hired thug, etc. These are the real reasons to be excited about the new Bond movies. We get to watch how Bond acquired these characteristics, over time, as he gains more wealth and experience from working as the UK's most efficient secret agent killing machine. Here's to the third new Bond movie, and that it delivers the goods with a far more assured sense of balance than Quantum Of Solace did.

W.

W is a tour-de-force. It is incredibly nuanced (thanks to the outstanding performances by nearly everyone onboard: in particular Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell's voice of reason, Thandie Newton nailing a caricature of Condi Rice that really has to be seen to be believed, Scott Glen captures Rummy's posed presence perfectly, Richard Dreyfuss wields his seniority and acting experience to full effect as Cheney [imo deserving an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor], and Josh Brolin puts in such a well-textured Bush humanising rather than demonising our president, you can bet he will be nominated for the golden statuette as well), but all this nuance is not limited just to these actor's fine performances, equal measures of credit must be given to the writer and director, whose choices in what to leave out of the story are just as important as what they put in, and this is where I found the movie to achieve a near perfect balance in depicting just who this most "fortunate son" is, where he came from, and how he came to make a play for a presidency which arguably out-did his father's legacy while at the same time screwing it up even worse. It really is a remarkable piece of filmmaking which, I think, succeeds at a level I would have ordinarily thought impossible: it functions in a way which should polarise both Bush-haters and -supporters, because it refuses to pander to the biases of either camp. This, in my opinion, is the measure of a true and balanced work of cinematic art. I think Oliver Stone has come a long way towards a fair & balanced middle view with this film, showing his maturity as a human being and also his insight behind the real people that have really been running this country for the past eight years. It is not merely brave filmmaking, it is canny, smart, and crafty and dares to squeegee the mindset of the vastly divided American public for a clear view at "what really happened" during these dizzying, confusing times since 911. Go see W. not because you like Oliver Stone and certainly do not make the mistake of avoiding W. because its directed by him, but rather, go see W. because it is easily one of the most self-assured depictions of an American presidency ever committed to film.

I am going to step up to the plate here and state that W. is a great film. It's great not because of any misconstrued boldness in its execution or subtext, but rather, its a great film despite the lack of such judgmentalism (which I find bold in itself). I.e, it is a subtle film that poses nothing new to the American public in its details; yet what it does provide is in the laying-out of key events in the Bush presidency so that we are provided with an unprecedented opportunity to get a glimpse of the whole picture, and it does so with as much restraint towards personal bias as is humanly possible, I think. Here is a depiction of a living president still in office which dares to pay respect to the esteem that is traditionally owed to the presidency while at the same time revealing the all-too-human errors comitted during its increasingly disastrous term. I think that for this reason among others, W. will not only win its share of Oscars, but will also serve to give Oliver Stone back some of the respect he used to enjoy in the 90s. Only now he is older, wiser, and not anywhere as far out on the fringe left as he used to appear to be. Movie audiences the world over can only benefit from his having matured in this fashion, just as they can only benefit from taking a chance on seeing this excellent expose of a film. W. is entertaining, funny, insightful, charming, and disarming. It cuts through all the bullshit and gets to the heart of the story. I find that utterly remarkable. Some have criticized it for being "too close" to the source material, that it somehow lacks clarity of hindsight, etc. Although this may be true in some respects, I found that the movie's principal concerns are well within the writers sights. In fact, I'd argue the exact opposite from those critics by countering that, actually, the movie's entire point is rewarded by the freshness of its creator's perspectives. There is no better time than NOW for a moviemaker with the life experience of Oliver Stone to focus on this presidency - while its still fresh on our minds -- in order to expose the all-too human foibles clustered at its heart. This is a movie I am eager to see again, to marvel over Richard Dreyfuss's Dick Cheney, for the scenes of Bush's cabinet discussing matters in the War Room, for the sheer audacity of this veteran troupe of actors seizing their opportunities to really capture something real here. To coin the most obvious phrase that comes to mind, Oliver Stone knocked this one right out of the park.