Quantum of Solace (2008)

After beating the odds quite grandly with a successful reboot of the James Bond saga with 2006’s Casino Royale, Daniel Craig is back as the world’s favorite spy. While this tale of revenge and deception travels at the speed of a bullet, it confuses more that it astounds. Certainly not the worst follow-up act in the Bond collection, but Quantum of Solace falls well short of the bar set by its predecessor.

Picking up only hours after Casino Royale left off, Bond fends off pursuers while bringing Mr. White in for interrogation. The questioning goes awry but tips off MI6 to the existence of a vast, international criminal organization called Quantum. Bond’s investigation of a Quantum mole within MI6 overlaps in his quest for vengeance for Vesper Lynd’s death. The trail leads him to a billionaire environmentalist and green resources magnate assisting with a coup in Bolivia. The clock is ticking while Bond frantically tries to connect the dots.

Daniel Craig continues to be in league with Sean Connery as one of the best James Bonds in the series multi-decade span. Bond is still very much rough around the edges. Refinement is something left for future installments to produce. That’s just fine with me, frankly. All the gadgets and cheesy lines got old after a while. It’s nice to see a Bond who is believable as a cold, calculating government assassin. The supporting cast is not as strong this time around but that may also stem from the fact that the characters involved aren’t as unique or interesting as they could have been. Power hungry billionaires and rogue generals feel a bit recycled (though the writers have quite a thankless and difficult task in keeping Bond fresh after 21 previous films).

I love the introduction of the Quantum organization. It sets up countless future missions for Bond to embark on and helps ratchet up the suspense. Who can you trust anymore when MI6 is infiltrated by a shadow organization with nearly unlimited resources? Other strengths of the film are some artful editing and cinematography. The entire Tosca sequence is marvelous, especially the chase and shootout sequence sans sound effects. The operatic overlay was a brilliant decision. The opening sequence begins beautifully, though it does descend into a barrage of quick cuts that make the progression hard to follow.

This overabundance of editing follows through much of the film. I can understand wanting Quantum to move a little quicker than Royale but the filmmakers went a little overboard in making this the shortest film in the entire Bond series. Some story elements get rushed beyond comprehension and believability, making the film hard to follow at times (especially when they use a horrid, unreadable yellow font for translation subtitles). With Bond more out for revenge than displaying his cocky swagger, Quantum occasionally feels more like a conventional action flick than a Bond film but it comes back around in the end.

Ultimately, your preference for this film will be determined by whether or not you liked Casino Royale. If you enjoyed it, as most people seemed to, this will probably come as a minor disappointment but still an enjoyable Bond film. If Royale wasn’t your taste for Bond, then you probably disliked this entry even more. As someone who holds Casino Royale as one of the best Bond flicks in the series, I find Quantum of Solace to be an underwhelming follow-up but still a modestly satisfying tale of deceit, redemption, and revenge.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Lady in the Water (2006)

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

I absolutely love M. Night Shyamalan’s work as a director and a writer. His films have all been intriguing and well made, so I was dismayed when I heard so much negative press about this film. The critical consensus was that Lady in the Water was a dud and an ‘exercise in arrogance and self-indulgence’ on Shyamalan’s part. I went into this film with mixed feelings, hoping that one of the more brilliant filmmakers of our time hadn’t truly blown it.

Fortunately, he hasn’t. I can see why people may not have been impressed with Lady in the Water, as it is a departure from Shyamalan’s twist ending thrill fests. Yet I see no reason for the critics and moviegoers to slam the director in the way they did. It seems to me that most critics responded with viciousness to Shyamalan’s depiction of a film critic character as a cold, unfeeling jerk who thinks he knows everything. It was tongue-in-cheek and I got a good laugh out of it, because it is in fact largely true. Film critics, for the most part, do not live in this plane of reality. Something about film school and “proper training” ups the ego on some of these folks, and it is apparent that many of them couldn’t take a joke.

As for the movie, it isn’t as good as any of Shyamalan’s previous major releases (though I have yet to watch Unbreakable). That much is true. But it’s not bad, and I shudder to declare it Shyamalan’s worst film. I look at it as his weakest film, because I still enjoyed it. It’s based off of a bedtime story Shyamalan wrote for his children, but this version is more detailed and more frightening than the bedtime version.

As it is based off a bedtime story, intended for children, Shyamalan takes a unique approach by moving the players and events of the story in the same manner of innocence, naïveté and simplicity that story book characters always possess. This means that the viewer has to figure out that they should be approaching Lady in the Water with a sort of childlike view, hearkening back to the fairy tales and Disney movies that filled our younger days. It’s challenging, because people are used to these kinds of stories being animated kid stuff. The live action adult actors and PG-13 setting makes you want to assume it’s supposed to be a standard-issue thriller. However, if you are able to put yourself into the proper and intended mindset, you will get this film.

So I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to see how many people are incapable of thinking like a kid again, now that the current generation of computer animated “kids” films incorporates adult humor so the parents don’t have to think like a kid again to enjoy it. It’s really kind of sad. The story is about a water nymph who is on a mission to meet someone, but whom exactly she does not know. Once meeting this person their life will change and they accomplish great things, leading to future restoration of the long-severed ties between human and water nymphs. The nymph in question happens upon a troubled apartment superintendent. He and eventually many of the folk living in the apartment complex end up being players in the puzzle to allow the nymph to accomplish her task and return home.

Shyamalan took heat from critics because he plays the important character the nymph is supposed to meet. I thought he was fine in the part, because while the character is important in the grand scheme of things beyond the end of the film, he doesn’t really do much during the course of the film. Shyamalan wouldn’t have been a fit for any of the other supporting cast and it makes sense for him to play a struggling writer trying to make sense of his place in the world. Critics just need to lighten up.

The visuals are decent, though there is some not-so-good-looking CGI involved. The biggest problem is that the action is all confined to one set piece- the apartment complex. We’re trapped there, and never get the sense that there is a world outside of this one, but that is also part of the storybook nature of it all. When all is said and done, my appreciation for Shyamalan is still strong. With Lady in the Water he dares to be different. While many critics and moviegoers couldn’t appreciate his craft, I could.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Syriana (2005)

This is a unique ensemble film that shows just how dangerous and interconnected the world of terrorism, politics and oil can be. Several well known actors appear throughout that film and there are a good number of impressive performances by people I had not seen before.

On the whole, it’s a challenging watch. You have to take mental notes in order to follow the story from start to finish. If you aren’t alert enough, you’ll become confused when the individual stories begin to overlap and converge.

Gripping and tense, Syriana may come off as too political for some, but that’s not the point of the film. It’s just using a fictional story to highlight the complex relationships that come along with dependence on oil.

It does begin to feel a little long-winded by the final reel, but if you stick with it, you’ll be left with plenty to ponder about.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Casino Royale (2006)

When Daniel Craig was announced as the next James Bond, there was a tremendous outcry over his blond hair and blue eyes. People mockingly called him James Blond and refused to even give him a chance at the part. Some said he was too thuggish looking for 007, while others complained that he wasn’t a very well established actor, having a mixed bag of a resume.

There were even naysayers in the theater Craig-bashing all the way to the start of the film, which seriously annoyed me to no end. Even through the first 20 minutes of the film these jerks behind me were goofing and complaining about a slightly over-the-top chase sequence on a high rise crane. Sure, it was a little goofy and maybe hard to believe, but this is James Bond we’re talking about after all.

The naysayers would eventually find themselves rolling on the floor in a combination of shock, pain and disbelief after Casino Royale provided a swift kick to the crotch and a punch in the neck to anyone doubting Craig could embody James Bond. I kid you not- this is one of the best Bond films ever made.

It is an origin story and depicts Bond’s arrival at “00” status. As Dame Judi Dench puts it, Bond is a ‘blunt instrument,’ completely devoid of refinement. Here is no suave, flawless super spy. We see Bond make mistakes and begin to grow into his own as a spy. Best of all, this Bond looks like a cold, calculating killer. Only Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton managed to exude this aura of menace successfully before Craig.

I liked the modern setting as well. Some said that the creators should have had Casino Royale take place in the early 60s, when the Bond films first came out. I’m glad they didn’t, because it would have made the film too gimmicky and likely would have killed it. Setting it in modern times also enabled the filmmakers to eliminate many of the gadgets Bond has become known for using.

In a way, not using gadgets actually returns Bond to his roots, as Dr. No included very few if any of the fanciful devices. Whatever gadgetry 007 does use takes the form of existing micro technology. All the best spy tools available already come standard on most cell phones and laptops anyway.

I’ve always been a detractor of the cheesy wit and one-liners that come from Bond’s overwhelming machismo, but I didn’t mind these lines as much this time. Instead of seeming egotistical when making puns and cheesy lines, Craig’s unrefined Bond uses these lines to be a smart alec and provoke people.

The story is also very good and possibly one of the most realistic scenarios in the Bond lexicon. Instead of deadly satellites or plots to conquer the world, Bond goes up against a financier for terrorists. Millions of dollars are at stake and to keep it from the terrorists, Bond has to try his luck in a high stakes poker tournament in Europe. Surprisingly, the poker match becomes as intense as any fight scene in the Bond series.

The realism factor plays into the success of this marvelous film. Enemies are believable, the action is realistic, and there is a torture scene that left me gripping my girlfriend’s hand in terror. Daniel Craig IS James Bond. He is a James Bond that could actually be real and I am glad that audiences and critics alike acknowledge and respect that. Finally, after so many years, here is a Bond we can believe in.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5