A Quantum of Solace...for you!

Ah, Metacritic...you make it too easy. Here's my infinitessimally small commentary on the criticism of the new Bond:

James Jung from Premiere vaporware magazine: "Quantum, thanks to a deft blend of exotic escapism and bare-bones modernism, is more than strong enough to be judged on its own. In fact, it's the perfect Bond film."

Jung, in a deft blend of two juxtaposing statements, asks us to believe that since he's judging QoS on its own, it's a perfect part of a series. Hurrah, Mr. Jung! I have a book recommendation for you.


Kim Newman, from the UK dorkfest Empire, states, "As with The Dark Knight, the only real caveat is that while it's exciting and imaginative, it's not exactly anyone's idea of fun. To keep in the game, perhaps the next movie could let the hero enjoy himself a bit more."

Yes, Kim...because that's what we really want to see. Batman and James Bond relaxing. Now that I think about it, that does sound like a pretty entertaining movie. I'm seeing Ferrell and Carell in this.


Marc Savlov from the Austin Chronicle: "It's a grim, dark, and relentlessly violent film throughout; James Bond as Terminator rather than Templar – but it delivers the goods in bloody high style: explosively, sexily, and with 007 shaken (not stirred) to his icy core."

Wow, Marc. So much to talk about. Critics making "shaken not stirred" references when discussing Bond films was passe when Kennedy was in the White House. The truly mystifying bit is "Terminator rather than Templar". What the hell is this supposed to mean? Is this what The DaVinci Code hath wrought? Do people think the Templars were nice?

Also, is "bloody high style" supposed to sound British? Or is it literal? Does even Marc's editor know? (I'm talking to you, Ms. Baumgarten. You're paying this man, and more than half a million people hit the job market in the last two months.)


Keith Phipps of "The Onion AV Club" chimes in with, "It's dark and exciting, but with little breathing room."

Well done, Mr. Phipps. Excellent review.


Claudia Puig of USA Today writes: "The stunts are as muscular and the film as handsome to look at as the hero who so ably pulls them off. But the story linking it all together is thin and weak."

Let's make it even clearer: Daniel Craig, Claudia wants you.


Peter Travers of Rolling Stone: "It delivers the popcorn goods, but it ignores the poison eating at Bond's insides. Killer mistake."

Peter, you old pro you, we're going to pretend that this string of metaphors has a purpose. You're not just filling space, or anything like that. Writing reviews gets old after a few decades. We know.


Speaking of old pros, check this out from Roger Ebert: "Don't ever let this happen again to James Bond. Quantum of Solace is his 22nd film and he will survive it, but for the 23rd it is necessary to go back to the drawing board and redesign from the ground up. Please understand: James Bond is not an action hero!"

If it was Mr. Ebert's purpose to give one pause, then he has succeeded. If there was any doubt prior to this review, that last sentence alone confirms what many of us have suspected for a few years: the man is raving. Please, someone make him retire before he says something so embarrassing, he won't have enough time left to live it down.