James Bourne--err James Bond: "Quantum of Solace" (movie review)

Plot? "We don't need no stinkin' !plot"!!

The (lousy) title itself tells you all you need to know about the latest James Bond movie, "Quantum of Solace". We are not in James Bond territory. We are in Jason Bourne territory. To me, this movie shows that my review of the first Daniel Craig James Bond movie was absolutely correct. Gone are the fancy gadgets and the fun fantasy action plots (unbelievable as they were). Instead, we have nothing left but the John Le Carre cynicism channeled through the action superthrillers of Robert Ludlum, combined with a Hollywood light show of special effects (even if this movie was not made in Hollywood).

If lyou discerned a real plot to this movie--even a fantasy action plot--you are hallucinating. There is no plot. You could take almost any action parody movie ("What's Up, Tiger Lily"?), and come up with a better plot. This one is something about that Ludlum style international organization of evil (comparison's to SPECTRE, or Get Smart's "Chaos", are not apt). This is the shadowy, Jason Bourne world of conspiracy theories and constant betrayal. John Le Carre, of course, did the attitude of cynicism better (without too much of the conspiracy theories), while Ludlum did the stuperthriller better. "The Bourne Identity" was a decent thriller, and probably an okay movie (never saw it all of the way through). I could not make it through "The Bourne Supremacy", and consider it a bad movie (although I don't rate it because I got through so little of it).

The plot here is supposedly about this "shadow government" trying to control the world's water. How? Beats me. There is something about buying up useless desert property and underground pipes (to pipe the water to the desert propert--surely not!!!!!). The actual "story" is about the attempt by this shadow organization to control the water of Bolivia. Nope. I could not make this up. I actually typed "Bolivia"--as if anyone much cares who controls Bolivia, or the water in it, unless Che Guevara or other international terrorists were to try to take over Bolivia for terrorism purposes (better plot; almost certainly a better movie). The villain is another "suit"--a mere underling in the overall organization of evil who is head of a fake "green" organization fronting for the bigger organization of evil.

Grafted onto all of this conspiracy stuff is a double revenge plot about Bond out for revenge for the death of his love (last picture), and the "Bond girl" out for revenge for the death of her evil father in Haiti. Nope. I did not make up this last sentence either. How are we supposed to care about a girl in Bolivia out for revenge for a monster, and Bond out for some sort of revenge on a specific person for the act of an international organization of evil. The whole thing never made any sense--could not make any sense. In one of the stupider endings around, until you realize the ending of Mission Impossible III and the first Daniel Craig Bond movie, the minor "main" villain of the movie ends up with motor oil in his stomach in the middle of a desert. Then Bond simply knows how to easily pick up the bad guy upon whom he wants revenge (unclear in the movie exactly who this guy even is that Bond captures in the end).

It is all worse than hokum, which can be enjoyable. It is just dumb, fake emotions upon which to hang a series of special effects sequences (special effects not being a major part of the first Craig Bond movie, but the entire reason for the existence of this one). Yes, there are a lot of explosions and lights on screen, and you can see a lot of money on screen. There is just no story, and you cannot even follow the special effects sequences (I blame the MTV school of music video "image over substance" for this.). Yes, in some sense the special effects are "impressive"--just not as part of an actual movie. If you can't afford to go to Disney World or Disneyland, and want to see a fireworks display/light show, I guess this is the movie for you.

Now I don't see that well. So these MTV quick cuts always mess me up. However, two of my brothers--who see perfectly--saw this movie. They agreed with my impression. You can't tell who is shooting at whom in the special effects sequences in this film. You can't follow them, in other words. So all you can really do is look at the impressive images on the screen.

Then there is Hirchcock's First Rule. That rule is that suspense does not come from explosions on screen, but from the audience knowing there is a ticking bomb about to blow up the characters, while the characters do not know it. As with FDR's "we have nothing to fear but fear itself", Hitchcock's statement is much quoted by people who apparently do not know what it means. Hollywood (entire movie industry) has long ago forgotten the lesson). There are lots of explosions in this movie. Too bad there is no suspense and no story. No fun either.

Movie rating: 31 out of 100 (identical to first Craig Bond movie).

I continue to regard Crain as a sullen, dour, cynical Bond. Playing Bond as Jason Bourne strikes me as a bad mistake. But is this Craig's fault? Probably not. It is obviously a deliberate choice by the makers of the last two Bond films. Craig is impressive physically, and could probably play Bond much like Sean Connery, if given the chance. The new direction in Bond films is a disaster, and makes the Bond films just like the other "action" films the movie industry is now making. This is just like turning "Mission Impossible" into the same kind of movie--ignoring the cerebral elements of the original (better) TV series.

As I said, even my brothers (younger, and more tolerant of the modern Hollywood style than I am) could not stomach this movie. It is a bad movie.

P.S. This is directly related to my eyes, but I think it is a legitimate qestion to ask about modern movies. I raised it with regard to "The Incredible Hulk" and "Iron Man". What is it with so many subtitles in modern action movies supposedly made in English? At times, it seems that almost half of the latest Bond movie is not in English, but in a foreign language with subtitles. I can't pick up the subtitles quickly enough to read them, and pay attention to the movie at all. While that is perhaps mainly because of my special circumstances, I don't see the point of so many subtitles in movies. Books don't have subtitles. German characters, in a book written in English, have their words rendered in English. This kind of ersatz "realism" of having people talk in foreign languages is stupid, in my view. Yes, dubbing of foreign movies, made in a foreign language, often is more distracting than subtitles, and usually more destructive to the movie. But to deliberately manufacture subtitles, when you are making the movie in English, strikes me as a stupid affectation. Do movie makers really think to impress foreign audiences this way? Maybe. I take it back about books, by the way. There was one book with subtitles (sort of ). It was "The Broker", by John Grisham, where Grisham decided to show he could write in Italian as well as English. Almost every sentence was translated into Italian. It was a terrible book (rating 17). Are we heading for movies supposedly made in English which contain more foreign dialogue than English dialogue? Seems so. That is just one of the many trends that is destroying modern moviews, and making them a chore to watch instead of a pleasure. This one probably annoys me more than others, because of my eyes. But I can't believe that subtitles are not a distraction to everyone. Or is it that we are all supposed to know all of these languages? Obama told us so (even though I don't believe he does).

P.S. 2: Bolivia? Why Bolivia? Water in Bolivia? Give me a break. One of the problems (many) with this movie is that oil would make more sense. There is no plot to this movie.