thethomasboy Reviews

The Neon Demon (2016)

An Unsettling Metaphor for LA and the Fashion Industry

[7/10 · 9 April 2020]

This film is not for everyone (nor should any film be), but it is widely misunderstood. It resides in the singular vein of auteur art house films such as Suspiria (1977) and Under the Skin (2013). The Neon Demon is rife with hidden symbolism, and the title itself is left open for interpretation... A seductive and alluring entity that ultimately devours and destroys. It could represent the fashion industry, self-obsession, our cultural infatuation with youth and beauty, the LA scene, or even fame in general.

The audience follows 16 year-old Jesse (Elle Fanning), who arrives in LA with aspirations of modeling and is befriended by make-up artist Ruby (Jena Malone). The film walks our naive protagonist through the typical baptism of the LA culture and lifestyle: meeting people with hidden motives, the predatory nature of powerful men, how we manipulate to use others, and facades of friendless which mask fear and jealousy. Even the opening club scene - with its flashing lights and quick editing that draws Jesse slowly forward - represents the hypnotic and seductive nature of the high-life in Tinseltown.

The theme of beauty heavily pervades this film, and writer/director Nicolas Winding Refn leaves every frame dripping with style. It is an unquestioningly gorgeous film, and even the final credit sequence's typography and visuals are beautiful works of art. It's hammered home that beauty isn't everything... it's the only thing. It's nature and value is routinely debated, focused on the perfect and natural. Jesse's peers/rivals include the surgically plasticized Gigi (Bella Heathcote), who represents the idea of 'manufactured' beauty, and beautiful but established Sarah (former Victoria Secret model Abbey Lee), who represents the unreasonable expiration date of high-fashion modeling.

If thematic concepts of narcissism, backstabbing, crushing loneliness, and the dog-eat-dog nature of highly-competitive yet shallow industries aren't horrific enough... there's plenty of Pagan imagery, implied witchcraft, and reference to Elizabeth Báthory (the most prolific female murderer in history). The first two acts play on psychological fears and societal mind-games, while the third act calcifies the film's horrific tone, with some genuinely disturbing scenes including necrophilia and cannibalism.

Ultimately - like its characters - the film helps determine who is able to stomach what is necessary to 'make it' and who can't. If you're dreaming of being an actor or model, consider this film a beautiful prism that examines the price of success.

Backdraft 2 (2019 Video)

A competent but hollow sequel.

[4/10 · 27 May 2019]

From Independence Day (1996) to Space Jam (1996) Hollywood seems determined to create sequels to 90s films that may or may not call for one. They think reminiscing and flaunting some name recognition will fool us into watching (or even enjoying) a film. Well, they were right.

OFI Arson Investigator Sean MacCaffrey (Joe Anderson) is good at his job, understands fire, resents his uncle, and wears his father's "BULL" jacket. So when a series of mysterious fire deaths plague Chicago, now-Department-Chief Brian MacCaffrey (William Baldwin) tasks his nephew with getting to the bottom of it.

The original Backdraft (1991) featured myriad (if melodramatic) themes of family, expectations, greed, heroism, and wove multiple plot threads into a single story under Howard's direction. But at its center, it was an earnest story about two brothers - who just happened to be firefighters - set against a backdrop of incomparable special effects. The sequel is... well... about investigating fires.

For fans of the original, the producers do successfully mine our nostalgia, thanks in no small part to Donald Sutherland returning as Ronald Bartel. His insane giddiness as the Hannibal Lector of arsonists serves to anchor this film in the Backdraft-verse. Unfortunately, the plot and scene similarities feel like retreads rather than fresh interpretations.

Despite being ably acted the minimal budget shows through, and ultimately it lacks the heart, charisma, and action that made its predecessor a success. Where the original was a love-letter to firemen, the sequel plays like a postcard to the weekly CBS procedural.

Fantastic Four (2015)

The Non Sequi-Four

[2/10 · 18 May 2019]

Let's be honest. No one is reading reviews of this movie to decide if it's worth watching (spoiler alert: it's NOT). We read these because we were conned into wasting our time, want to share our disdain, and possibly squeeze SOME entertainment from this train wreck. So let the bashing begin.

Choose a direction Josh Trank. Or Fox. Or someone. The film is a tasteless stew, made up of leftover cliches, and spoiled by too many cooks. Add 20 minutes dull, joyless, and amazingly-monotoned John Hughes film. Mix in a low-rent Fast and Furious, because Johnny (Michael B Jordan) is a rebellious engineer. Then a few mins of Project Almanac, add in Avengers (cause teammates gotta fight), and bring to a boil with a 10 minute head-popping snuff film (because evil guy is evil). Garnish with a half-hour, unintelligible, third act calamity and serve with a ham-handed denouement complete with humorless-jokes.

Was there ANYTHING of value in this dumpster fire? Well, far and away the best ingredient of this bland mess was about 7 minutes of a body-horror film, which did show true promise. It was an intriguing take on the superhero genre, but ultimately only served to highlight how uninspired the remainder of this "film" was. Still, that earned it an extra Star... bringing it to 2/10.

Now, every movie has problems. But Fantastic Four takes that idea to a new level, let's name just A FEW: No character has steady motivation. Supposed genius-level intellects that never make a good decision. There are better forums for a potentially world-ending device than a high-school science fair. Don't "check out" the glowing cracks of energy without equipment. Or tools. Or while drunk. And certainly don't touch it.

Don't initiate 'manual override' for rogue scientists in an unknown danger, on an unknown planet, contaminated with who knows what. Stop "routing emails through a relay" while on the run, Reed. WHO ARE YOU EMAILING?!! Why would a "red-alert" emergency in a top secret facility inexplicably open all the doors? (Because when something goes wrong here, it's probably just a fire drill.) The limitless, undefined, god-like powers that Dr. Doom has. Dialogue like: "He is stronger than any of them... Not stronger than all of them." Good one, Fox. And needlessly choking the hero, just so he can monologue like a good villain. It was a 100-minute trailer for a never-to-be-made sequel.

I could go on. But I feel we've all wasted enough time on this movie. Don't you?

Holes (2003)

Cool Hand Cave-Man: A Prison Fairy-Tale

[7/10 · 18 May 2019]

Holes cribs from all the right films, including The Goonies, Cool Hand Luke, The Princess Bride, and even The Apple Dumpling Gang. Director Andrew Davis spins several fantastical yarns into a solidly entertaining film; effortlessly interweaving themes of redemption, identity, friendship and self-reliance.

Holes is the story of Stanley Yelnats IV (Shia LeBeouf in his breakout role), the teenage son of poor inventor Stanley III (Henry Winkler). Stanley (the younger) is wrongly convicted of theft and sent to Camp Green Lake, a juvenile prison work camp that digs - you guessed it - Holes. He quickly discovers Camp Green Lake is anything but, and the audience will recognize familiar prison tropes (though on a kid-friendly scale).

But the full scope of the story reaches back generations, interweaving fantasy tales from multiple time periods of family curses, lost love, and Western outlaws. This is where the film shines, showing true heart while keeping a light-hearted tone.

As with any Disney film, sure it's a little far-fetched at times, and naturally there's some Deus Ex Machina to bring the movie to the requisite (and fully expected) perfectly happy conclusion. But is still a fun romp for all ages, and whether you are 8 or 48, the film is undeniably fun and surprisingly charming.

Peaches and onions.

Tomb Raider (2018)

Ignore the uninformed or confused Users - this is Lara's Casino Royale.

[6/10 · 4 June 2018]

I don't know what the other user Reviews were thinking/watching. Anyone complaining about a "Mary Sue" or bad CGI must be referring to the 2001 films, people whining about massive plot-holes weren't paying attention, viewers expecting twin guns must not be familiar with the new source material... And any reviews referring to her as "Laura" can be dismissed outright.

The best analogy would be the recent (and well-received), James Bond re-fresh. During the Brosnan era, the character became formulaic, relying on stylish but increasingly absurd situations and over-the-top set-pieces that became stale -- and with his perfect luck, limitless abilities, and clear invincibility Bond grew even more un-relatable and thus uninteresting (aka boring). Enter the Craig era with Casino Royale (2006), a Bond "refresh." By grounding the character in reality, stripping away his experience, and following on his first mission, the boundaries and stakes are reset -- add in the focus on his character growth, his relation to others, and displaying vulnerability, he becomes interesting and accessible (aka not boring). While not quite the bullseye Casino Royale was, Tomb Raider still hits close to this mark (and not every film can afford a Paul Haggis' script).

For those unfamiliar with the source material, Eidos has produced nearly 20 Tomb Raider games in as many years. When Square Enix acquired Eidos in 2009, the beloved character was in danger of Bond-like self parody. So in 2013 they released "Tomb Raider," a soft reboot which served as both prequel and origin for Lara Croft. The invulnerable, glossy, perfect-breasted Mary Sue was replaced by a flawed-but-fearless heroine, at the heart of a gritty, survivalist journey (think The Revenant (2015)).

Warner Bros. opted for substance over style for this Tomb Raider, drawing from the 2013 refresh and Alicia Verkander encapsulates the new Lara perfectly. Not just with looks or accent, but in capturing her fierce sense of independence, which also masks her fear and naiveté. She creates a raw tangibility to the character not seen before, as she overcomes insurmountable odds not with backflips, bungees, and butlers - but with her intellect, determination, and sheer will.

Norwegian director Roar Uthaug (The Wave (2015) and Escape (2012)), has experience and skill at the "man vs. nature" conflict, and builds a world that is both beautifully fantastic, harrowing, and realistic. No techno soundtracks. No goofy stunts. No wire-harness-assisted triple backflips. He manages a rapid pace with escalating stakes, while delivering some strong character moments to simultaneously build Lara up while breaking her down to her essence. It is as much a coming-of-age film as an adventure, which may explain its somewhat ruminant and sullen tone at times.

Ultimately this film pays a typical price for its gritty realism, missing a lot of the humor and light-hearted fun that turns simple Adventure films into classics. Or perhaps Uthaug clung too closely to the source material, forgetting to replace any fun 'lost' by not playing the game yourself. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) showed us the balance between exciting set-pieces, character, realism, and pure fun. And while Tomb Raider isn't a woeful trudge, my hope is they dial down the dour and turn up the fun for the next installment... Because its a strong start and our best shot at another great Adventure franchise, (at least until Uncharted).

Traffic Stop (2017)

An important topic, but poor case to use.

[4/10 · 17 February 2018]

The topics of systemic racism, police brutality and the Black Lives Matter movement are supremely important (especially in today's America), which is why I was so disappointed in this weak and slanted documentary about the "brutal arrest" of Austin school-teacher Breaion King. Police incidents boil down to the human beings involved, their backgrounds, perceptions and subsequent actions/reactions.

This would have been an excellent opportunity to explore those by profiling both King AND Officer Richter, to solid context for understanding the issue and finding a solution to it. Instead director Kate Davis choose to go to great lengths placing King in the warmest light possible for cheap shock value. The result is an emotionally manipulative profile featuring iPhone videos of her daughter's ballet recital, tearful stories of her struggles of being raised by and then being a single-parent, and the most out-of-context news coverage possible.

On top of this, (while unfortunate,) the arrest video clearly shows a suspect trying to get out of a ticket, being uncooperative, and playing up the scene for any cameras present. In response, the Officer is compelled to escalate in order to do his job, and did so in a calm, respectful tone of voice without his gun, tazer, baton or punches. A cop asking you to stay in your car, or put your feet inside (to close the door) is not unreasonable. But trying to frustrate a cop so much that he won't write you a ticket IS unreasonable. As a relatively mild misunderstanding, this was an opportunity for both sides to LEARN, to tamp down fear on both sides, and create a better bridge of understanding.

Instead of elevating the conversation, the director does harm to her own cause and sets us back on this important issue. First: It will be quickly dismissed by Blue Lives Matter supporters for what it is: a propaganda piece with an (unfortunate) but not brutal ordinary traffic stop with a difficult suspect. Second: it lends credence and legitimizes right-wing docs like "Obama's America" (2012) by saying all docs are political.

This is a disturbing trend in "Documentaries" these days: Heavy-handed, thinly-sourced, and purposefully unbalanced clearly intended to sway viewers based on a political agenda. Documentaries have the potential to become the new "investigative journalism," for the short attention span audiences of today, educating the electorate, and pulling people out of their bubbles. If you strongly believe your 'side' is right, showing the entire truth should bear that out. Save the fact-picking for historical dramas.

The Orville (2017–2022)

Star Trek's irreverent-but genuine-cousin

[7/10 · 15 November 2017]

Creator Seth Macfarlane (Family Guy) is a well-known Trekkie, but it was uncertain if this was a serious endeavor, a tongue-in-cheek Sci-Fi spoof/parody, or just a Star Trek fanboy playing Captain. It seems to be a little of all these and more. It genuinely feels like a cultural successor to Star Trek: TNG, from character archetypes down to musical cues before commercial breaks... Just created for a modern audience. Every iteration of Star Trek appealed to the audience of its time while dealing with social commentary and pushing back on cultural norms.

In 1966, Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek to posit a hopeful future of a united humanity, during an era plagued with cold-war hysteria. But what began as a heady utopia, sort of devolved into a Buck Rogers, afternoon serial, with punchy-action and sexy aliens to appease the network (see: Pike, cancellations).

20 years later, The Next Generation (TNG) re-imagined Roddenberry's original vision giving audiences a sense of purpose, this time to push back against the cultural nihilism the "lost Generation X" and something called "Grunge" music. This far more thoughtful Trek replaced action with negotiation, over-acting with Shakespearean training and yet... felt very sterile, and sometimes needlessly weighty.

Now, 20 years after TNG has left the small screen comes 'The Orville.' This time, rejecting the the constant push to make everything darker and "grittier." While building on familiar concepts and tropes, MacFarlane has managed to make Sci-Fi fun and tangible. He has created a universe that you and your buddies would feel relaxed in. It doesn't feel like a rip-off or parody, the show still has heart with the occasional social commentary and contemplation of TNG (see: Episode 3), just with the irreverence of… well… real life. It's not a sit-com with setups and punchlines, just Star Trek: TNG if it didn't take itself so seriously.

To put it another way: 'Star Trek' is the perpetually dirty and torn uniform, ready for adventure. TNG is the crisp, perfectly-pressed uniform, ready to negotiate an interstellar treaty. And 'The Orville' is a lived-in, comfy Starfleet logo (excuse me, "Union") T-Shirt, ready for beers with friends. And maybe some Star Trek Mad Libs.

Desire (III) (2013)

The name is Clark, Sidney Clark.

[8/10 · 6 November 2017]

I never thought I would find myself reviewing what is, in essence, a commercial. A 13 minute RSA (Ridley Scott Associates) produced, beautifully shot, undeniably fun, well scripted, surprisingly clever, star-studded commercial that is.

Detailing the plot would take about as much time as simply hopping over to YouTube and watching the free short film, but I must say that it is well worth the time. In the age of annoying banner ads, identical car commercials, and pop-ups... It's refreshing to see a company pour so much love and attention into creating a 'feeling' around a brand as only film can. It genuinely makes Jaguar's new F-Type feel like a cut above all other roadsters.

And while I'm sure this was the primary goal for Adam Smith from RSA, the casting and tone was so on point one can only wonder if Damien Lewis did this as a Bond audition reel. It's well known that Daniel Craig has been looking to retire from the character for some time, so much so that Tom Hiddleston moved to the top of the Bond-List for his turn in "The Night Manager."

Slow down, Tom... Not if Sidney Clark has anything to say about it. If you enjoy clever commercials, you should watch it. If you love well-made movies you definitely should. If you are a fan of Bond and wonder if Damien Lewis could fill Craig's shoes... what are you still doing here? You could've watched the whole thing by now.

Singularity (I) (2017)

Singularly Disappointing

[3/10 · 6 November 2017]

A slick but empty YA dystopian film with 'borrowed' themes from far superior Sci-Fi like Blade Runner, The Matrix and even Planet of the Apes. The opening production value and John Cusack's presence lend the film enough credibility to lure you in, then quickly flounders into poor melodrama with even worse writing.

It feels like a film that had a story and vision at one time, then found itself over-budget and went into turnaround. Over eager Writer/Director Robert Kouba clearly focused on the opening and conclusion, putting everything into the special effects and even a soundtrack by members of The Crystal Method. Suddenly with no money left, and little more than a student film reel in the can, Kouba roughly stitched together some nonsensical plot points with flat characters and even flatter acting to fill out the 93 minute runtime.

The ultimate tragedy is that it clearly sets up for a sequel, so it feels less like a complete film than a bloated trailer to some yet-to-come flick. I dare say that film isn't coming and I hope you already cashed that paycheck, John.

The Circle (I) (2017)

More "Antitrust" than "Social Network," despite promising cast.

[3/10 · 15 July 2017]

"The Circle" is based on a novel by Dave Eggers (who also co-wrote the screenplay). I've never read the book but there is a loose parallel here with Dante's Inferno; Virgil traveling down the slippery, spiralled slope of social media towards the entropic end of personal privacy. If that sentence seem heavy-handed, pretentious, and contradictory then prepare yourself for The Circle.

The Circle is a multi-national tech conglomerate consisting of Google, Facebook, Snap, Instagram and Twitter rolled into one; a not-underused concept. Even less creativity went into the one-dimensional characters from a soap opera checklist, featuring: 1. Mae (Emma Watson), a naive 20-something just starting her career; 2. her over-worked best friend Annie (Karen Gillan); 3. her obviously evil COO Stenton (Patton Oswalt); 4. her sexy, enigmatic crush Ty (John Boyega); 5. her salt of the earth parents (Bill Paxton and Glenne Headly) and of course 6. her artsy, childhood friend Mercer (Ellar Coltrane) drowning in unrequited love, whose sole purpose is to set up the most obvious twist ever.

The film flirts with high-minded allegory, yet wallows in hapless melodrama to pursue that lucrative YA audience. The result is a muddied, re-written mess, featuring stale dialogue, character arcs that go nowhere or flip randomly and frustratingly wooden portrayals. Certain scenes are SO contrived that it becomes wince inducing and the series of choices Mae makes are less naivety than they are blithe stupidity. The brightest points of the film are, not surprisingly, Tom Hanks' dangerously likable turn as CEO Bailey, (who seems to be an amalgam of Jobs and Gates).

"The Circle" is an After-School Special masquerading as high-brow entertainment. It's pretentious in the worst way, portending serious societal issues, then shirking away from addressing them in realistic, useful ways in order to manipulate the audience. It's muddled, unsure of itself, and gives adolescent answers to adult questions. With this cast and this concept it should have been so much MORE than it is. But ultimately it just argues itself in circles, and lends nothing to the discussion. Watch 'Eye in the Sky,' 'We Live in Public,' 'Ex Machina' or even 'Wall-E' for entertaining critiques on technology's role in society. Or stab your eyes out. Either way do not join The Circle.

Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping (2016)

Spinal Tap for the You-Tube Generation

[7/10 · 9 July 2017]

The Lonely Island (Andy Samberg, Jorma Taccone, Jorma Taccone) take their song-writing and music video talents to the next level with this brilliant send-up of pop music and the changing music industry in the internet age. It is not that Christopher Guest is too subtle or Weird Al is too old-fashioned; but with declining attention spans and deluge of digital entertainment options... they are.

Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping is able to capture and imbue the same deadpan satire with in- your-face subtlety. The best satires are a reflection of the current state of culture, music, technology, fandom, and yes vulgarities of society. So while some may dismiss "Popstar" as another 90 minute crude-as-craft Apatow vehicle, peppered with cameos to re-grab the attention of the AD/HD crowd, it is much more than that.

In 2005, The Lonely Island viral video "Lazy Sunday" was the tipping point for the now ubiquitous You-Tube, and is credited by some for its subsequent $1.5 billion valuation and acquisition by Google. The ensuing battles over copyright take-downs, creation of Hulu, and IP ownership was not lost on it's members. The immediacy and vulgarity of Samberg/Apatow's trademark humor are layered over the archetypical music parody plot, which is simple, superficial hilarity.

But for those looking closely are themes of privacy vs. social media, corporate overreach, obsession with celebrity news, the absurdity of today's "music"... all with back-handed whimsy. Managing to mock their own audience without them even realizing they are also being critiqued. While Samberg is the lead, the other members co-star and direct, with all three credited as the writers. The Lonely Island boys know how to goose the Millennial audience to remain relevant, while servicing their own influences (namely Christopher Guest and Weird Al Yankovic).

And therein lies the real fun of this film. You can choose which level you want to enjoy it on. Deadpan satire? Sure. Social commentary? Definitely. Mindless fun with crude humor, poking fun at pampered, self-important pop-stars (possibly from Canada)? Absolutely. Oh, and it also reminds you that friends are good. So there's that.

Doink-de-doink.

Smoking Guns (2016)

If Guy Ritchie's talent-less cousin made a student film...

[3/10 · 6 April 2017]

The poster. The synopsis. The high user rating. Even a few familiar faces. All signs pointed towards a clever, fun, dryly-comedic English indie crime film in the vein of Layer Cake, In Bruges and Snatch. Needless to say I was in and looking forward to watching this film. And once the credits rolled, I was compelled to write a review.

Compelled isn't the right word... Browbeaten is more accurate. I tried, I truly did, but by the end I was literally angry I had been tricked into finishing this film. The 93 min run-time felt closer to 150, and I was forced several times to pause and double check the 7.9 IMDb rating. Really?

Clearly, young "Writer/Director" Savvas D. Michael's household VCR had a broken eject button, and Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels was the sole VHS trapped inside.. There are worse films to shamelessly steal from... I mean pay "homage" to but you need raw Tarantino-esque talent to make it fresh or even moderately enjoyable. Imagine an accountant who saw a Van Gogh and said, "that's not so hard," proceeding to recreate Starry Night using an algorithm.

And that is what Smoking Guns ultimately is: The worn-out "Lock Stock" VHS trapped inside Michael's VCR. Drained of quality and thread bare. The film misses the mark on so many levels that if you have seen ANY other film in this genre, you find yourself reminiscing during this joyless, heavy-handed trudge. For someone who clearly idolized Ritchie, it's surprising how he managed to remove all the elements that made his films fun and original, and Michael just.. tries.. toooo... haaard.

Frenetic camera movement and frame-rate manipulation is replaced by static shots and the occasional pan. Attempts at nonlinear narratives feel forced with no payoff. The acting ranges from melodrama to wooden to community theater and no one is enjoying themselves; don't expect any Statham off-beat comedic wit. Instead of enhancing visuals and upping the drama, music is used in pedestrian ways. And most importantly, ANY attempt at humor or tension (essential and defining characteristics of the genre) is so contrived that you can practically see flashing arrows reading "Stressful situation here" or "This is funny."

You would be better served revisiting any of the genre films listed above, or if you need a horse racing fix, check out the short-lived but incredible HBO series "Luck." Better still just watch The Sting and pretend they have British accents. Because you're better off with the "idea" of what this movie could be, instead of what it really is.

Veep (2012–2019)

West Wing meets Curb Your Enthusiasm meets The Office

[9/10 · 11 August 2015]

HBO continues its assault on "paint by numbers" television with arguably one of the funniest and most entertaining half-hour comedies created to date. It is no wonder that the channel continues to dominate the Emmys every year with nominations and wins (of which, Veep has 26 and 4 respectively in a mere 38 episodes).

A premise developed originally for ABC about Washington-insiders, the show follows begrudging VP Selina Meyer (Julia-Louis Dreyfus) after her failed primary run. It plays off of her quick-witted, yet misfit staff and exposes the seedy, backstabbing nature of Washington politics. While the show is occasionally dark, it is never bleak and routinely comes to life with heartfelt moments and unforgettable one-liners.

The true brilliance of the show is the snappy writing, a foul-mouthed Sorkin homage, provided by an SWG-Award winning team (2013) headed Armando Iannucci. My only fear for this show is that as it continues to garner praise and awards, the cast's popularity will grow, and like most great shows (Arrested Development), production will become more difficult due to scheduling conflicts.

Until that day comes Veep still stands alone as the funniest show on television and must watch TV. And I'm not just "busting your f**king lady-balls."

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Misunderstood Entry to the Eon Canon

[7/10 · 23 April 2015]

It's surprising to me that this film is widely panned by Bond fans and critics as 'meandering' and 'aimless,' while Skyfall is heralded as 'quintessential.' Marc Forster's film is a dense, emotionally dark follow up to the straight-forward Casino Royale. Picking up exactly where the previous film left off, it takes on all the consequences and furthers the character's evolution, while slowly uncovering a shadowy conspiracy. The action sequences are stylish, from the opening car chase, to the poetic shootout at the opera; and the "Finding Neverland" director manages to mirror a character's shattered psyche like few films have.

Casino Royale was presented as a reboot to the franchise, and took us back to Bond's roots and first assignment. He only recently achieved 00 status, is raw and unseasoned, growing into his new license to kill. We see him struggling as this new level of operative, and each death affects him... since 20 films of emotional baggage are readily set aside (see: Tracy). After falling in love with Vesper, James has learned his final lesson of betrayal. Forced to divorce himself from emotions, he is now Bond, James Bond.

But he isn't. The film's 'meandering' feel reflects Bond's emotional journey, as he now is SO far removed that his superiors question his efficacy. James distances himself from others, and struggles aimlessly to find meaning to his work. He must deal with feelings of revenge while earning M's trust. He is listless. All that remains is 'the job.' Quantum of Solace (a play on a SPECTRE-like shadow organization name, as well as finding small comfort after great loss), is about Bond STILL evolving as a new 00 agent. Bond is unable to acknowledge his loss, because he doesn't know whether to blame Vesper or himself.

And the film takes us on that journey, replete with exotic locales and entertaining set-pieces. There are major political themes at play with the CIA's dealings with Greene, the West's questionable involvement with government upheaval and the convoluted nature of geo-politics. These issues mirror the inner turmoil of M as MI6 issues a capture or kill order on Bond. While trying to unravel the secret criminal network QUANTUM, following one clue at a time, he finds a kindred spirit in Camille (Olga Kurylenko) who mirrors his desire for vengeance against a Bolivian General. Bond can see the path she is destined toward and learns to deal with his issues to avoid it.

I think a lot of the displeasure with Quantum comes from the weird climax in a remote desert hotel, overuse of chase scenes (it's the only Bond film to have chases on car, foot, boat and plane), and the shallow character development including a vanilla villain. It feels like a conclusion to Casino Royale... not introducing new themes but expanding previous ones without deepening them. These shortcomings can likely be blamed on the writer's strike, which left the film feeling slightly hollow without the standard on-set re-writes.

All in all, its a two hour ride through the psyche of James-Bond-in-limbo with plenty of emotional and stylish moments. Admittedly it may not be for everyone, but if you can dial into the psychology, it may give you a slightly deeper understanding of Ian Fleming's iconic character. He is now Bond, James Bond, and ready for the far-simpler Skyfall. Sam Mendes says thank you, Marc Forster. We all do.