Bloodless Coup

Genital Torture is PG-13 but Nipples Aren't

As always, violence is a-ok but sex is a no-no in an action film. It's James Fucking Bond. And everyone stays fully clothed while they are rolling around on the floor?

Oh, no, not everyone stays fully clothed. There is one completely naked man (viewed from the side, seated in such a way as to hide anything remotely manly) tied to a chair getting the shit beat out of his testicles. That's definitely PG-13!

Lest you think I disliked Casino Royale, let me say here that I did not. As in, did not dislike it. I actually liked it quite a bit, aside from a few complaints.

The casting of Daniel Craig is looking like genius. And Eva Green... yum... totally believable as a supersmart (and supersexy, of course) accountant working for the British government. Jeffrey Wright as Felix was an outstanding choice... I hope they can keep him on in subsequent films (and give him more to do). The plot is sufficiently complicated (color me so glad that it had nothing to do with Russians or drug dealers) and the main bad guy had more than a hat tip to classic villians a la Dr. Evil (wonky eye scar and all that) that it wasn't just about car chases and special effects. In fact, I think it could have used more car chases. There was one through the twisting mountain roads of Montenegro that looked like it was shaping up to be a doozy that ended all too soon (but for a good reason, I have to admit). So, yes, intrigue, European bad guys, Bahamas beaches all good. Classics from the series that are definitely worth keeping.

I also like the parkour scene at the beginning, though the stereotypical "third world" betting on animal fight scene (points for making it mongoose on cobra!) and the African bombmaker and embassy part are pretty played out. However, even with these drawbacks, they made quite a bit of the action sequence, with some real stomach churning leaps and bounds. In general this speaks to the best of Casino Royale, in that they take what could have been totally cliche (and here I am imagining how it would have been with Roger Moore) and twisting it enough to make it new and exciting.

Too long. You knew that was coming, right? Many reviews point to the extended poker scene in the middle as where the film should have been cut. I can see how some people might think parts of that sequence might not have been totally necessary, but I disagree. The multihour poker game advances the plot, and sets up some twists and double backs to come later. The segments that were most useless were the "love" scenes (not least for the tameness in the nudity department). The Roger Moore pan-away from kissing at the end credits as they float in the ocean in the moon lander floating in the Caribbean (or whatever) approach was definitely worth replacing (not least because now we have a Bond that does not induce a total skeeve-out when imagining him kissing someone). On the other hand, it seemed like a nearly endless parade of PG smarm. "If the only thing left of you was your smile and your little finger, you'd still be more of a man than anyone else." Gag. Not that I don't believe that Bond is super manly, no, not at all. Rather that you have a great, strong sexy female character in Vesper, and they end up chasing around in an extremely stupid montage. This woman is a match for Bond (as becomes very clear) but instead they have what essentially brings them both down to the level of schoolgirl crushes (and of course, this being the patriarchy and all, that means weak and bad). You could have Bond in the throes of a great passion, entralled by a powerful woman, and they'd be, you know, fucking, which is what highly intelligent, amoral, passionate and strong people might actually do.

All that being said, Casino Royale was a very good Bond movie. I hate to echo the hype and compare it to the Connery films, but it's got to be said that this film hearks back to the less apologetic "spying is dirty shitty business" era, not the Pierce Brosnan aka "Bond practices safe sex craptacular" movies. Let's face it, that Bond would gett his ass kicked by Jason Bourne, and this movie has taken steps to deal with the deficit that the series has been building up since Roger Moore. This clearly has a lot to do with the cultural and political context of the times as well.

Our Bonds change with our times. Connery's Cold War Bond, Roger Moore's cheeky cocaine disco excess (acts suave but really kind of a smirky doofus) the Timothy Dalton oh no the Cold War is over but we don't know what to do with ourselves Bond, Pierce Brosnan the the Cold War is over and here come globalization and Euro-sophistication Bond. Now we have Daniel Craig, the dose of reality, because the Cold War is over and fuck it's nasty out here and shouldn't our Bond be a little more like Steve McQueen ("the coolest goddamn motherfucker on the silver screen")?

Posted by binky at November 26, 2006 03:42 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Movies