Release Date: 23rd March 2009 (24th in U.S.) Available from Amazon U.K priced at $17.98 and Amazon U.S. (priced $25.99) What better place to start than with the theme tune? Chris CornellsYou Know My Name may have been much maligned, but at least it was in the grand tradition of using someone with a giant voice who could pull off the grandeur required of a Bond theme. Jack Whites squawk is inadequate at the best of times, and even Alicia Keyes usually pristine vocal work is sullied by some awful lyrics- Im all for rock, but the necessary grubbiness of the genre is not befitting of a big-band style theme tune. But you can say one thing for it- at least they kept Meg Whites Animal-style drumming hidden away. For the second time in a week I find myself reviewing a movie that seems to channel the spirit of Michael Bay, preferring flashy action sequences to actual substance, and as much as Bond is often about the increasingly inventive ways Bond can get out of sticky situations or defeat a wrong-un, this time I cant help but feel theyve gone too far. Where is the intrigue? Where is the class? The biggest thrill ride of the year? Best Bond ever? Huge claims by the British publicity campaign to accompany the DVD and Blu-Ray release of the latest Bond vehicle. Faced with the unenviable task of not only following up the refreshing Casino Royale but also bettering it, director Marc Foster made the decision to move away from the tradition of each Bond being watchable as a self-contained complete unit. A good decision? Not in the humble opinion of this particular former Bond fan. I suppose the idea of pitchingQuantum of Solaceas a sequel, and its particular concern with how Bond copes with the death of Vesper, in some way redresses the emotional vacuum created at the end of On Her Majesty's Secret Service when Bond is holding the body of his new bride in his bloodied arms. I can see how cutting away at the only vulnerable moment we are ever afforded of Bond may have seemed a cruel and unspeakable torture for those viewers who wished for one moment to be able to feel empathy for Bond. But the problem is that Bonds emotional torture (apparently summed up in Daniel Craigs ridiculous, supposedly uber-macho pout) is only understandable to those who have seen Casino Royale, and to every one else Her Majestys greatest asset becomes no more than a cold killing machine, devoid of his usual charm and grace. Strangely, considering Marc Fosters past films, the sections dealing with anything purportedly human are the weakest part of the film, so that when the dust settles on yet another chase, whats left is flat and inadequately developed, and there is no opportunity for Bonds usual charisma. Instead we have the chiselled pout, and a minimalist attitude to conversation that betrays Bonds usual fondness for puns and pithy zingers. But it isnt just that- although I thought Casino Royale was a welcome addition to what had become a bloated and self-congratulatory film franchise, part of me still yearned for a return to a less visceral Bond, fascinated by Qs trinkets, and willing to fight, but never ever having a hair out of place. My major gripe with Casino Royale, which remains to this day, is that it broke too many golden Bond rules- abandoning the suave debonair demeanour in favour of presenting Bond as a blue-eyed Bourne, animalistic and passionate and thoroughly ruthless. And the film moved too far away from the ideal of Bond- something that Quantum of Solace continues to the unforgivable point of cladding the usually immaculately elegant spy in a bloody cardigan. Secondly I always felt slightly uncomfortable with the love element: I am a big fan of the chauvinist side of Bond; the casual ease with which he discarded the women he had just Thunderballed, and to see Bond making doe eyes spoils the effect. Being party to Bonds special secret service should mean a particularly sticky end (no pun intended)- like Gemma Artertons oily birthday suit (an obvious homage to Shirley Eatons demise in Goldfinger)- and not an all-encompassing love. To retain the hangover into Quantum, and more importantly to make Bonds love-inspired vengeance the major focus of the film, rather than an attempt to save the world is another step too far. At least Bonds slushiness is a distant memory, and mentionable only as the predominant symptom of his cold merciless one man killing regime. Part of me thinks that Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace represent the yin and yang of a gendered duet, Casino's love story aimed at the female fans who had turned their backs on the franchise around the time of Timothy Daltons underrated turn, and Quantum's relentless bloody thrills aimed squarely at the fellas. Incidentally, where was Marc Foster hiding his appetite for these high octane thrills? As far as I remember Finding Neverland featured precisely zero thrills, or indeed spills, and Im sure Id remember Will Ferrell chasing Emma Thompson through New York ignoring all collateral damage in Stranger Than Fiction. Is this what we can expect from now on of this usually more measured and subtle director? As much as I disliked Quantum of Solace I have to admit the prospect of World War Zis becoming more and more appealing under his stewardship. Were quality merely judged upon technique and production skills then Quantum of Solace would perhaps garner greater reward- the film is beyond glossy, and watches like a love-note to modern film-making tropes. Heavy use of fast-cut editing (another Bourne staple) makes the chases look good as obviously expensive set-pieces, but there can be too much of a good thing and the frequency with which they appear becomes a little jarring and even perverse. What is it with rooftop chases? First Bourne, then Casino Royale, now this and next Fast and Furious, the set-piece is a favourite of the modern action film-maker, and again its all getting a little tedious. And I might add, the flashiness prevails in the absence of sufficient substance. If Quantum of Solace had a chemical formula it would go something like this (Chase + Minimalist Dialogue)x50/ Inadequately Developed Plot= Sub-Par Bond Movie. Pointless thing to say? Well no; I actually got bored of how formulaic the film became, counting the minutes between chases to see if there actually was a pattern emerging. All I gleaned was that the scriptwriters had spent most of their time imagining more and more inventive ways to stretch the old idea of the chase scene to the extent that each new type seems like little more than showing off. Finally, Ill say this: you have to be careful when youre dealing with as iconic a character as James Bond, and necessity dictates an adherence to the basic outline of the character. In Quantum of Solace we are presented with an altogether new Bond, different even from Casino Royale and far more personally invested in his quest than traditionally. Are we to believe, just as Casino's Bond was very much the unfinished article, and we were set to find out what made Bond Bond, that Quantum is another step in the process? Perhaps this short film is just a pre-cursor to the Bond I know and love, and the humour, the quips and- God-bless them- the gadgets might return in the next Craig film now he has this nastiness out of his system. I can only hope so.