Most critics don't like the new Bond film Quantum of Solace. It is too brainy for them. They don't understand the title. They can't follow the story line. Time to read up on it, then.

Having read several critics about the new James Bond film Quantum of Solace, I noticed two major problems. Most of the critics don’t understand the film or its story. The same don’t understand its title, either. If they had bothered to find out about the title, where it comes from and what it means, they could have understood the film, maybe.

Maybe Barbara Broccoli went a bit high in her expectations what the public will be able to understand, because the story line is highly complicated. It is slightly better than the current financial crisis because you can understand the story, if you take your brains with you into the film, that is, and then use it. It’s definitely not the brainless boom boom Bond story line of Roger Moore’s time anymore. But then, could Broccoli have got Marc Foster on the set if the story had been one of the usual plot repetitions we have seen since Moore started playing Bond? I definitely don’t think so.

Obviously, most critics don’t take their brains with them when watching a film, or at least they don’t want to use them on mere films and what to write about them. If you go to see the film, better read up on it a lot, or you will get bewildered by the story’s many levels. Marc Foster creates the picture of Bond in relation to the film’s title, Quantum of Solace. It is therefore immensely helpful to read up on that before you start watching the film. It is definitely no Bond to just consume like your pop corns, it’s a story you have to follow closely or get hopelessly lost.

Bond as we know him from the films was no creation of Ian Fleming’s. Quite the opposite: Fleming was violently anti Sean Connery. But it’s what Sean Connery did to and with the role that still defines what Bond is meant to be. After Connery, I continued watching Bond films. I watched all of them once and was terribly bored. Forget Lazenby. Moore was a caricature. Dalton and Brosnan could have been left lying in the cutting room for all I cared. Then I saw Craig’s Bond and Casino Royale. I had a feeling of back to the roots, not only because of the story, but because there was Bond again, not some actor playing Bond.

Maybe can’t cope with the fact that Quantum of Solace is a sequel to Casino Royale, as no Bond film ever was a sequel to any other. In fact, if you would watch the films since Moore’s tenure one after another, they don’t even make sense in relation to each other. In this case, being a sequel it helps if you know what went on in Casino Royale. And if you haven’t seen that, do so now, it’s a good film anyhow.

What it comes down to: A lot of people will walk into the film expecting a brainless spectacle as it was presented since Roger Moore, and they will leave the cinema disappointed, because it’s not just a loose string of fantastic gadget being presented, graciously sponsored by product placement. If they’re disappointed, it’s to be hoped they try again, it’s worth their while.