For England?: 30 Years of "GoldenEye"

 

It's crazy we're as far removed from GoldenEye, released this fall back in 1995, as that film was from 1965's Thunderball. Even when I was younger in the 90s, those 60s Sean Connery films already felt like relics from a bygone age. I don't think GoldenEye would feel as much like a time piece to Gen Z or Gen Alpha the way the Connery films did when I was growing up; it still probably acts as a perfect gateway in to the Bond franchise. It was mine and admittedly I didn't exactly love the older Bond films when I initially saw them- probably because they weren't GoldenEye and it took me a while to get used to older films.

I also can't help but remember that I'm about the same age as my mother when Goldeneye was released. I'm about to turn 37 in February and she was 37 when she took me to see my first Bond in theatres, The World is Not Enough and that is a little weird. Your parents seem so much older when you're younger and when you hit their age when you were a kid, you realize young they were. My mother was a single mother and I can't imagine raising a kid on my own. 

GoldenEye was the first Bond released in over 6 years, the last one coming out when I was a baby in 1989, that film being Timothy Dalton's second and last Bond film, Licence to Kill. It wasn't a huge it at the box office, coming out the same summer as Tim Burton's original Batman, Lethal Weapon 2, Ghostbusters II, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. It would end up being the last Bond film released in the summer. Behind the scenes legal issues would delay a third Dalton film until 1994, but by that time Dalton had decided to quit. Pierce Brosnan, who was supposed to take over from Roger Moore in The Living Daylights but was replaced when his contract for the TV show Remington Steele was renewed and Bond producer Albert R. Broccoli didn't want Brosnan doing both, was chosen as Dalton's replacement. 

GoldenEye was originally written for Dalton and it's one of the sizable what ifs of the Bond franchise, along with what if George Lazenby continued on in the role. Okay, maybe not as sizable as that, but still pretty sizable. As much as I like Dalton and I think he would've killed certain moments, I don't know if Goldeneye is as big of a deal if Dalton comes back. He wasn't the most popular Bond in his time, even though he gained a following. I think Brosnan got a lot oof people excited when he finally got to take over the role, and he became the Bond for mu generation.  

Brosnan was the first actor to come of age with the franchise, citing seeing Goldfinger as having a huge influence on him. His portrayal of Bond is often seen as an amalgamation of the previous Bonds, and just as often he's negatively seen as not being different enough from the other Bonds. But I'd argue what Brosnan is doing is harder than it looks. He has to be both down to business as a spy but still pull of the humour, as well be convincing in the more tender scenes with Natalya Simonova (Izabella Scorupco). Personally, I feel Brosnan pulls it really well, though I think he gets even more comfortable in the part as he goes along. Was he a safe choice for Bond? Sure, especially when he's placed in between Dalton and Craig, two bolder choices. But I think Brosnan is probably the coziest Bond next to Roger Moore. 

We fans take it for granted but from 1962 until 1989 there was only a two year to at the most a three year gap between Bond films. People were never given the chance to miss the franchise. That, and there was so much competition from other franchises, like Indiana Jones and action films like Die Hard, Batman and Lethal Weapon. Before Star Wars, Bond was kind of the pinnacle of cinematic escapism and excitement, and even Bond can feel passe compared to other franchises, and I feel Bond 26 has the potential to make Bond exciting again, the way GoldenEye did. The six year gap from 1989 to 1995 gave the franchise the opportunity to feel fresh again, with new writers, a new director (Martin Campbell took over from John Glen who had directed the last five films in the series), and again, a new actor who would appeal to both old and new fans. 

Aesthetically, there's a big jump from Licence to Kill to GoldenEye. If the 1980s Bond films are often criticized for being TV movieish, from the very first shot GoldenEye feels more wildly cinematic. It also has a stronger sense of mood and place. Campbell and cinematographer Phil Meheux create a more shadowy and atmospheric film, a film that's haunted the ghosts of the Cold War.  It feels like a more lived-in world of spies and espionage, vibing like an actual spy film in a way the Bond films usually don't. The film's aesthetics are complimented by Eric Serra's industrial score, with also has its moments that can't help but create a certain amount of nostalgia in me. I know Serra's score is somewhat controversial and not well liked by some. Maybe because I grew up with this movie and the score is ingrained in me that I've never had a problem with it. I get it's not the typical score that was defined by John Barry as the Bond sound but it's a sizable part of what gives the film its singular identity in the franchise (David Arnold would score the next five films) and for me it sounds as much "Bond" as the Barry stuff. And Tina Turner's theme song does feel indebted to the classic Bond songs of Shirley Bassey and remains one of the more underrated songs in the franchise

GoldenEye was the first Bond film made after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, and this is strongly reflected in the film's story and vibes. As I said earlier, The ghosts of the Cold War haunt this film, with one sequence taking place in a graveyard where Bond meets a literal ghost from his past, Alec Trevelyan, former 006, who fakes his death at the beginning of the film and is the villain behind the stealing of the titular GoldenEye satellite, planning to send England back to the "stone age" in revenge for England's betrayal of the Leinz Cossacks after WWII, which led Trevelyan's father to the murder of his mother and then suicide. Trevelyan was the first time the series attempted a sympathetic villain, and making him a former ally of Bond (another first) just makes him doubly interesting. I don't love a lot of the main Bond villains but Trevelyan is my favourite, I think largely due to Sean Bean's performance. It's those line readings, right. They're so good. Bean supposedly did audition for Bond and casting a would-be Bond as Bond's dark twisted mirror is kind of perfect. And if the previous film, Licence to Kill saw Bond going rogue avenging his friend, GoldenEye sees Bond on a mission where he has to eliminate a friend. 

The big meta-narrative of GoldenEye is how the world has changed and Bond is a relic of the past. Bond's boss, M, is now a woman (Judi Dench in her debut in the role), who calls him out for being a "sexist, misogynist dinosaur." Bond is a difficult character to grapple with because he originated in the 50s, and unlike superheroes like Superman and Batman are easy to adapt modern times, Bond often does feels stuck in the past. His womanizing and sexism feel like it's hard to separate from the character without making him completely different. However you do have to call it out. Natalya also calls out Bond on his emotional detachment in perhaps the film's most pivotal scene, though because it's a Bond she still winds up in bed with him after. That's always going to be a problem when franchises do the self-critique thing.  There's always limit to how much you can do it because you ultimately still embrace what makes the franchise the franchise, and also you still have to making the movies.

Natalya may be my favourite Bond woman. I like that she feels like a real person who's been swept up in to a Bond adventure. It's often pointed out she's as much a main character as Bond and we spend quite a bit of time with her before she meets Bond and she's given her motivation and backstory. We sympathize with her due to her witnessing the murder of her colleagues during the stealing of the GoldenEye. While her romance with Bond could feel forced Brosnan and Scorupco make the affection between Bond and Natalya surprisingly real. Natalya never comes across as just automatically falling for Bond because he's Bond. There's certain efficiency in how the script brings Bond and Natalya believability together emotionally by sending them through a pretty tense series of events. It ends up being one of the series' most likable relationships. I remember being disappointed that she wasn't back in Tomorrow Never Dies, but this was before I understood the formula Bond series. Sadly, Bond's relationships don't last.

GoldenEye may have the best ensemble cast of all the Bond films. We remember this film not just because of Bond but of the supporting characters. Tchecky Karyo is only in this film for a few minutes as Defense Minister Dmitri Mishkin but he has such a strong presence you forget how little he actually is in this film. Robbie Coltrane may be Hagrid to many but I always think of him as Valentin Zukovsky, the ext-KGB agent whose knee "aches every day, twice as bad when it's cold." Gottfreid John and Alan Cumming as General Ouromov and Boris Grishenko, respectively, are perfectly slimy in their roles, I would say pretty much all the villains in this film are perfectly deserving of their comeuppances. 

All of the Brosnan films provided personal stakes for Bond and despite the finale's large scale backdrop, the story all comes down to a pretty brutal fight between Bond and Trevelyan.  Trevelyan's demise is probably the best of any Bond villain: Bond drops him from the satellite, responding to Trevelyan's "For England, James?" which he's said to Bond throughout the film,  with "No. For me." Trevelyan always thought Bond cared more about the mission than his friend, which is ironic considering the previous film, but at the end Bond makes it clear he did care about the friendship enough to feel betrayed. Bond wants Trevelyan to know this isn't just about the mission, it's personal. 

Campell had a magic touch when he directed GoldenEye and later, Casino Royale, the first Daniel Craig film. He's able to find the balance of seriousness and fun that I think the Craig films struggled with post Casino Royale. GoldenEye has dramatic weight to it but it's still giving the audience a good time with enough Bondian humour and a sense of escapism. Xenia Onatopp (Famke Janssen) is a campy villain but she surprisingly never unbalances the more serious elements. Denis Villenueve is directing the next film in the franchise and his films are pretty heavy. I would hope he would find he balance between seriousness and humour that the franchise is at its best when it nails the juggling act.

The film owes something to Dalton but Skyfall also owes a lot to it. That film is also commenting the relevance of Bond in the modern world, as well as having a villain who's a mirror to Bond. Skyfall also takes from Brosnan's third, The World is Not Enough, where the villain wants revenge against M. Brosnan is the more archetypal Bond between Dalton and Craig, who are spiritually connected, but the Dalton and Brosnan eras set the stage for Craig.

GoldenEye is the most important Bond film of my life, and I hope it's that important for the younger generation getting in to the franchise. It's kind of a perfect gateway in to this world, so here's to 30 years and to another 30 more. Thanks Martin Campbell and Pierce Brosnan for making me a life long Bond fan.

Daniel Craig James Bond Retrospective: "Skyfall" and "Spectre"

 

Spoilers for both films below

After the mixed critical reaction to Quantum of Solace the James Bond producers returned 4 years later with the franchise's most acclaimed entry to date- Skyfall. Arriving in time for the series' 50th anniversary it was an appropriately meta-textual film, commenting on the character's place in the 21st century and questioning whether he has a place. Director Sam Mendes- the first Oscar winning director to helm a Bond film- cited Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight as an influence, another film which questions the hero's place in society.  In an interview Mendes said that with The Dark Knight Nolan was able to make a "huge movie that is thrilling and entertaining and has a lot to say about the world we live in."  Like The Dark Knight, Skyfall asks how we fight a new kind of villain that doesn't play by the old rules. And both films end without a clear-cut victory for the hero or villain. 

Skyfall has grown on me while I've been working on this piece and also listening to Mendes' commentary. It couldn't recapture the experience of seeing Casino Royale but I would argue Skyfall is the best crafted Bond film. Roger Deakins' cinematography really is incredible and Mendes stages both the action and dialogue scenes tremendously. While the film has its story flaws- I think we needed more set-up early in the film for going to Skyfall, Bond's family home, Severine (Berenice Merlohe) feels wasted and is cruelly treated by the film, and Javier Bardem's Raoul Silva goes through a lot just to kill Judi Dench M. But the film is elevated by its craftsmanship, performances and some really good character moments. 

If Craig's first two films were about his Bond becoming the more polished version of the character we know, Skyfall is about what it means to be James Bond, to have committed yourself to being a tool for Her Majesty's government. Eva Green's Vesper Lynd was a chance at a happy and normal life until her betrayal. Quantum ended with Bond leaving that part of himself behind, having received closure for Vesper's betrayal and death. M told him she needed him back, to which he replied he never left. 

This is where Skyfall picks up. several years later, with Bond loyal to M and the service. But the film is largely concerned with Bond having to question that loyalty. In the pre-title sequence he's presumably killed while fighting a mercenary on a top of a train. This is due to M telling MI6 agent Eve Moneypenny (Naomie Harris)  to shoot the mercenary even though Bond could be hit, which he is.  After years of service she still risked Bond to complete the mission,  not trusting Bond to do it himself.

Bond stays "dead" for several months but he returns when MI6 is attacked. Bond was willing to retire in Casino Royale but now he doesn't have anything else but the service. The problem- as the film states quite frequently- is Bond is old and worn out. So is M, who's  being pressured to retire by Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) due to her losing the list of undercover NATO agents in the pre-title sequence.

The man who has the list is the aforementioned Silva, a former MI6 agent who was given up by M to the Chinese government when he was discovered to be hacking them. This feels like the film is drawing from Goldeneye, where Bond faced off against a former MI6 agent turned bad, with the former agent a dark mirror version of Bond. And like Elektra King in The World is Not Enough Silva has a grudge against M

When Bond and Silva first meet Silva informs Bond he failed the fit for active duty tests but M sent Bond on the mission anyway. Both Bond and Silva are betrayed by M but one will remain loyal while the other seeks revenge. Silva's introductory speech is an analogy for him and Bond: on his grandmother's island, to stop rats from eating the coconuts they were captured and unable to escape began to eat each other  When there were 2 survivors left they were let go but now they only ate rat. "You've changed their nature," he says. M has trapped them together and now they will be forced to metaphorically eat each other.  

 Bond and Silva are also contrasted by Silva being a technological villain whereas Bond is an old-school fists-and-guns hero. The first two films stripped Bond of his gadgets and in this film the new Q (Ben Whishaw) could be Bond's nephew, another reminder that Bond's getting antiquated. The theme of old vs. new comes to a head when Bond takes M to Skyfall,  making the battlefield  a place without technology.  M does end up dying from her wounds, though after Bond kills Silva. The question is did Bond fail?  Bond's old school tactics ended up not preventing his death, so is he irrelevant? The film doesn't give us the easy answer. Instead it ends with Mallory becoming the new M and Bond telling him he's ready to get back to duty. Bond's loyalty isn't just to one woman but to a whole country, even one that thinks it may not need him. And his relevancy is will be further questioned in the next film.   

After Skyfall's financial and critical success it made sense for Mendes to be brought back to direct, the first director to do back-to-back Bond movies since John Glen in the 1980s. Spectre continues Skyfall's thematic arc regarding Bond's relevancy in the modern world. Max Denbigh (Andrew Scott), head of the  merger between MI5 and MI6, wants to disband the "00" section and create the Nine Eyes Committee, an intelligence gathering alliance. He believes there's no use for field agents like Bond. It's later revealed that Denbigh is working with the terrorist organization Spectre and Nine Eyes will be used by Spectre to collect intelligence throughout the world. Spectre is headed by Bond's presumed dead foster brother Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz,) now calling himself Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Spectre was behind Quantum in the first two films and Blofeld- jealous of his father's love for Bond- has been taking his revenge on Bond since Casino Royale. 

Making Blofeld Bond's foster brother- and having a vendetta against Bond- was a misstep. I have no problem with Blofeld operating in the shadows during Casino Royale and Quantum, since they established the whole shadowy organization thing. (I used to assume they would bring Blofeld back) And Blofeld works better when he is a mysterious figure  in the shadows who we don't see, as in the early Sean Connery films. I find it's much less interesting for Blofeld to have done everything just to torture Bond. It's more compelling and sinister if Blofeld had no personal vendetta against Bond, for him to have just been caught up in Blofeld's impersonal machinations, with Blofeld never giving one thought to Bond and Vesper falling for each other.  And retconning Silva in to having been part of Spectre feels odd because his motivation was so personal.

The best way the film ties the previous Craig films together is the inclusion of Mr. White from the first two films, dying of radiation poisoning inflicted on him from Blofeld because his crisis of conscious made him turn against Blofeld. The scene between White and Bond shows how much these two men have changed since they first met. It's surprising to see White so frail and disheveled. And it's clear these two men no longer have any reason to be enemies. White is much more human here and before he kills himself with Bond's gun he asks him to protect his daughter, Dr. Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux), from Spectre. 

I do like Seydoux's performance and she and Craig have some good moments together but their relationship isn't developed enough to make the love story aspect of this film completely work, especially compared to the one in Casino Royale. Like Vesper, Madeleine comes in to the film later but her introduction lacks the impact of Vesper's, which changed that whole film's dynamic. The pacing of the film is another issue; it feels really drawn out . Though the over-extended running time makes this feel very much like like a Bond film. except I think it needed a lighter touch. It's not a humourless film but it lacks a certain pop.  

Despite my criticisms I do like quite a bit of the film until until we get to Blofeld's compound. It's pre-title sequence is the best since Casino Royale, starting with a tracking shot that follows Bond through the Day of the Dead festival in to a hotel then out on its ledge. Then there's the fight inside a helicopter, with it turning upside down. Though visually, the Spectre meeting is the film's most visually striking sequence, compliments of Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography. 

And Craig gives his most Bondian performance As with Skyfall he's grown so comfortable in the role that he just kind of is Bond.  Watching the films close together it's been cool to see his Bond evolve from the rough around the edges assassin to the more polished secret agent we know and love. We get see what it took for him to get to this place and Vesper is never far from my thoughts when I see Craig's Bond.

I do like the idea of Bond having re-confront Vesper's legacy after supposedly putting it behind him. I believe Madeleine is supposed to be Bond's second chance at happiness after Vesper but I don't think film goes deep enough  in to his thematic territory. The film doesn't commit enough to what it's doing, making it both the most ambitious of the Craig films but also the least interesting conceptually.  And like Skyfall it doesn't really answer the Bond relevancy question. Though I like how Bond sparing Blofeld at the end calls back to what M told Denbigh about a licence to kill also being a licence not to kill. The human factor is lost when killing at a distance via a drone. The decision to kill or not is much more difficult up close. 

I'm glad I re-watched the Craig films leading up to No Time To Die. I've enjoyed seeing Craig's performance evolve and think he's been a stellar Bond. Each performance has been different and I'm interested in how he plays it in his last film. This may be the Bond I care the most about on an emotional level and I've heard No Time To Die is a pretty emotional send-off. It'll be really poignant seeing the guy who's played Bond since I was in high school leave the role and I'll always appreciate what he gave me with Casino Royale. So, until then, what are your thoughts on Craig's tenure as Bond? What's your ranking? Comment and let me know. 

Daniel Craig Bond Retrospective: "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace"

Spoilers for the films below

With the Daniel Craig era of the James Bond franchise coming to a close with No Time to Die I wanted to look back his at tenure, starting with my favourite, Casino Royale. This movie was a big deal for 17 year old Andrew. And it's incredible to think Craig has been playing Bond since I was still in high school. It was 2005 when he was first announced to be playing Bond and now it's 2021. Crazy. I fell in love with the tragic love story between Bond and Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), the reinvention of the gun barrel, set at the end of the series' first black and white sequence, was so cool. And Craig's performance made him my favourite Bond. While I often say Timothy Dalton is my favourite Bond, re-watching Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace back-to-back I think Craig may be my favourite, though it's always hard to choose. And while I can't say I love this film in exactly the same way I used to, I still feel some of that old love. It's a very nostalgic movie for me.

While Pierce Brosnan's final Bond film Die Another Day was a box office hit it was seen as too fantastical with its invisible car, ice palace and other such things. The decision was made to not only recast but to completely reboot the franchise, taking this opportunity to film Bond creator's Ian Fleming first Bond novel, Casino Royale. When Albert R. Broccoli was first making the Bond films, producer Charles K. Feldman had the film rights to the book which he made in to the 1967 spoof version. Broccoli tried to buy the rights from Feldman but to no avail. When Sony bought Columbia 1999 they got the rights and when they able to distribute the Bond movies, Broccoli's EON Productions was finally able to do the story proper. And the film is actually one of the most faithful Bond adaptations, retaining the basic plot of Fleming's novel though adding a lot more action. 

When Craig was chosen there was plenty of controversy but  the reviews for the film and Craig were maybe the best the franchise ever received until Skyfall. And director Martin Campbell, who introduced Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye, had for the second time rejuvenated the franchise. Casino Royale was coming at a time where I believe audiences were open to more serious takes on characters like Batman and Bond. I feel people now want something a little lighter, that they're tired of the darker tome. But the film, I'd argue, has the right balance between seriousness and humor. There's a real sense of fun in the reinvention of this icon.

Casino Royale is very much a character study of Bond. It's also an origin story that's not an origin at the same time. Instead of starting with Bond getting recruited by MI6 from the navy or showing his schoolboy days the pre-title sequences jumps right in to Bond carrying out the two kills which will earn him his "00" status. Another film would've taken more time getting to Bond's first two kills but Casino Royale retains an element of mystery regarding Bond's past. The next time we see him he's chasing down a bombmaker in the film's first and stand-out set-piece. While he's a more rough-around-the-edges character, a "blunt instrument" as Judi Dench's M calls him, he's pretty much Bond right from the start- quipping, womanizing, gambling. The only  exception is him not giving a damn whether his martini is shaken or stirred. 

Coming back to the pre-title sequence, it efficiently sets up this version of  Bond as we see him talking calmly to MI6 Section Chief (and traitor) Dryden while cutting to Bond earlier brutally killing Dryden's contact, Fisher, in a bathroom. The black and white cinematography switches between a stark and gritty look in the bathroom to a smoother one in the present. This contrasts the hands on killing of Fisher with one silent bullet assassination of Dryden. Though to be fair, Fisher does come back to life and Bond shoots him as well. 

It takes almost an hour for Vesper to shows up, which makes her introduction more impactful. We've spent nearly an hour with Bond, seeing how he operates, free of emotional attachment. And then he meets the woman he doesn't know is going to change his life. He's never met a woman like Vesper and it changes the dynamic of what the film has been so far. Bond has been a loner, now he's working with someone who's going to challenge him and his ego. The dialogue between Bond and Vesper is the best we've ever had between Bond and his leading lady. It's snappy but also shows them probing each other, challenging each other's beliefs 

Their mission involves making sure terrorist financier Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) doesn't win the high stakes poker game at Casino Royale. Bond foiled Le Chiffre's plan to bankrupt the airline industry, which lost Le Chiffre the money of his clients. If Le Chiffre loses MI6 can offer him protection in return for information. The gambling isn't the most exciting part of this movie but the script by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis adds enough business around the game to up the tension and give us some nice character moments, including Bond being poisoned and Vesper having to re-start his heart. The scene where Vesper is sitting in the shower after Bond has killed several of Le Chiffre's who has come looking for their money. is one the franchise's most genuinely tender scenes as well. 

Just as how the film is simultaneously an origin story and not, Le Chiffre is a traditional Bond villain but also not. He has the physical disfigurement that's a trademark of several Bond villains, the sinister presence, and for the first hour Bond is a trail which leads to him. But Bond stops Le Chiffre's plan before the film has hit the hour mark. Le Chiffre becomes desperate man attempting to pay back his clients, rather than the villain with a world domination plot. The film's true villains are in the shadows, who we'll learn in the next film are the terrorist organization Quantum, who have kidnapped Vesper's boyfriend to get her to help them. And this makes Bond part of their plot as well, since it's him winning the game which gets them their money.  

Bond and Le Chiffre and just both expendable pawns. When Le Chiffre is torturing Bond, he tells him that even if he kills Bond MI6 will still help him. And Le Chiffre is killed because Quantum can't trust him. And this is before the final act. This further exemplifies how Le Chiffre is not the big bad of the film. And the larger threat looms over the happiness Bond and Vesper find with each other. Like On Her Majesty's Secret Service we see Bond given an opportunity for a different kind of life before it's tragically snatched away. But it's inevitable, if not for Bond than for the audience, who know Bond can't quit. There wouldn't be a franchise if he did. But there is odd sense of triumph to the film's final scene, with Bond standing over Quantum member Mr. White (Jesper Christensen), saying the iconic "Bond. James Bond" It's letting us know Bond's not going to be brought down by tragedy.

 

But Bond still has to deal with Vesper's betrayal and his need for vengeance in the next film, Quantum of Solace, a film that was one of the victims of the 2007-2008 writer's strike and displays it's lack of a polished story pretty clearly. I guess it wasn't originally supposed to be a direct sequel but became that later on. Stylistically the film does feel different from Casino Royale- largely I think because Campbell didn't return and Marc Forster ended up directing-and it's plot involving a coup in Bolivia and control over its water supply feels like it could've been in a standalone movie. 

Quantum is best viewed it back-to-back with its predecessor,  since it takes place right after Casino Royale ends, a first for the franchise.  Watching it for this retrospective, I didn't like it quite as much as I had before. It's a little thin and underdeveloped, and doesn't get to have to a true built from the ground up story. And it feels rushed compared to the more thought out prequel. The film has its moments: I like the bits of humour, stylistic flourishes and Craig's performance but it can't help but feel like a disappointment as a sequel to what was a breath of fresh for the franchise.

It was a bold choice to shove us right back in to the story of Casino Royale but I wonder if the story should've been placed some time after, allowing more space to build up its story rather than forgoing a traditional first act. Casino Royale took  time with its story but Quantum of Solace, at only 106 minutes with credits- including the pre-title sequence- is the shortest Bond film and as I said, it's kind of rushed. Bond usually has a more leisurely quality as we follow Bond from one exotic location to the next. But the shorter running time does befit what's an essentially a revenge story. If Craig is the 21st Century's Timothy Dalton then this is his Licence to Kill, a harder edged Bond film where Bond is caught between his emotions and his duty. 

I said the previous film was an origin story that wasn't and I'd argue Quantum is a revenge story that's not quite a revenge story. The film's main villain Dominic Greene (Mathau Almaric) is never established as having been involved with Vesper's kidnapped boyfriend who was being used to blackmail her. The whole point is Bond doesn't know where to direct his anger. As M tells him, he's so full of "inconsolable rage" he doesn't care who he hurts. It turns out Vesper's boyfriend was himself was a Quantum member and his kidnapping was staged to get her to help them. Bond confronts the boyfriend at the end, deciding to spare him and allow MI6 to arrest him. So, it's kind of an anti-revenge story in a way. And see Bond learn restrain, becoming more like the Bond we know other films. 

The revenge/character stuff is set against the backdrop of geopolitical plot concerning Quantum helping General Medrano's (Joaquin Cosio) coup against the government in exchange for control over Bolivia's water supply, with the C.I.A turning a blind eye. The film is obviously going for a plot reflecting real world geo-politics but there's not enough connective issue between Bond's inner turmoil and the main villain plot. There needed a clear turning point where begins to care about the bigger picture. One thing I do appreciate about the film's plot is how it incorporates Bond's C.I.A ally Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright), giving Felix a little moral dilemma.  Wright as Felix is great casting and wish he was in these films more. 

What's always remarked about the film is its frantic editing. The editing is very messy in this film but I can see how they were maybe going for something impressionistic. The opera shootout id actually quite good, with the editing cutting between the action on stage with the gunfight. It's one of the most "arty" things ever put in a Bond movie. And I admire the build up to the opening car chase. We're shown glimpses Bond's eyes, guns, and the car in shadows. The music builds and then we're suddenly thrust in to the chase Forster is a more "art house" kind of director than journeyman Campbell so it makes sense while we have more of these stylistic displays.

The film is at its best in its quieter character moments than in its action. The scenes between Rene Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini), who Bond thought had betrayed him in the previous film, have a real warmth to them. Mathis' death features both Bond being comforting and cruel in quick succession. He holds Mathis while he's dying but then throws in the garbage. Bond's relationship with Bolivian Secret Service agent Camille Montes (Olga Kurylenko) also has a surprising poignancy to it. Their relationship never becomes sexual. Instead, the film focuses on how they're both broken people looking for closure. Camille wants to kill Medrano for him killing her family. Bond doesn't attempt to lecture her about revenge. He even apologizes for screwing up her shot at Medrano earlier in the film. These are nice character details which make Craig's Bond maybe the most nuanced incarnation of the character. 

Casino Royale began with Bond killing two men and Quantum ends with him sparing one. It's a nice bookend for the duology. M tells Bond she needs him back, to which Bond replies he never left. Bond then drops Vesper's necklace in the snow. This ending actually segues nicely in to Skyfall, where Bond has committed himself to M16 for years, a cog in a machine. And he begins to question his relationship with M and what it means. But that's for next time. See you then.