Mockingjay Part 1: The Movie Where Nothing Happens

Francis Lawrence, 2014

This is the most exciting movie I have ever seen where almost nothing of major significance occurs.

The movie begins with Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) in District 13, trying to overcome the nightmares from her second Hunger Games. She is disconnected from the rest of the population, both physically (she is kept in the hospital ward) and emotionally. Everything in 13 is planned, purposeful, regimented. This is how they survived after the Capitol dropped nuclear bombs on them many years ago: they went below ground and rationed everything. They aren’t about to change their ways now.

Yet they need Katniss, they need her to be the Mockingjay, the face that unites the Districts in rebellion against the Capitol. If there is any hope that they will succeed, it is only with Katniss. President Coin (Julianne Moore) is reluctantly convinced of this fact by Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the head gamemaker of the last Hunger Games. He convinces Coin that Katniss is necessary to the rebellion, she just needs time and reason to trust 13.

It helps that Plutarch is able to convince Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) and Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks) to join him in preparing Katniss for her role as the Mockingjay. They begin to shoot pieces of self-proclaimed propaganda to broadcast throughout the Districts and the Capitol.

But Katniss’ heart isn’t in the business. All she cares about is Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), and he is somewhere in the heart of the Capitol, being tortured. Once she realizes that she has power, that she can make demands, she becomes focused and works to ensure that Peeta will return safely to her. She makes it clear to Coin that she will cooperate only as long as Peeta is the first priority and that everything will be done to protect him. Once she is assured that they will oblige her demands, she works to fulfill her side of the bargain: be the Mockingjay and stir up revolution.

This movie is a slow build to a very emotional climax; a lot of little pieces are set in place for the final movie, and it is all very necessary yet it feels as if nothing important happens all movie long. Katniss is kept out of any real action, sequestered away in District 13. This is a very different movie than the previous two.

Like The Hunger Games, this movie begins choppily. The transitions are abrupt and while every scene adds crucial information, there seems to be no method to the madness. Without Katniss as the focal point, driving the plot with her passion and determination, this movie falters. But as Katniss builds determination, as she begins to return to her previous self, as she is given direction and begins to take action, the movie begins to gain momentum. All said, it doesn’t take very much of the actual movie before things begin to smoothly build suspense. Once the gears shift, everything begins to build toward the finale (and what a finale it is).

This movie is a very different sort of film than the previous two, but it is well-crafted, and is an excellent addition to the franchise.

Catching Fire: A Look at Katniss and Gale

2013, Francis Lawrence

This movie begins a few months after The Hunger Games ended. Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) has tried to return to a normal life, but she is plagued by memories from the arena at every turn. To make matters worse, she and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) must leave on a “Victory Tour,” where they visit every district, culminating in a celebration at the Capitol.

President Snow (Donald Sutherland) visits Katniss privately at her home before they leave in order to threaten not only herself but her family and friends as well is she does not play her part and support the Capitol in crushing revolution. She must play the part of an innocent child rather than a rebel, a symbol, an instigator.

The problem is that Katniss is horrible at playing any role, and the Capitol took away her innocence long ago, before they sent her into the arena. She can only be herself, which gets her in trouble with not only President Snow but Gale (Liam Hemsworth) as well.

In an attempt to return to her previous life, Katniss has continued hunting with Gale. She needs to stability and comfort this action provides her, and Gale has always been there for her. Gale, however, finds himself jealous of Peeta, even though Katniss has done her best to avoid her fellow Victor because of the memories and traumas his presence brings back. Gale does not enjoy being Katniss’ safety net, he wants to be her one and only, and he is frustrated with their situation.

Peeta is also unhappy, because Katniss has been ignoring him, although he doesn’t blame her. He knows that she is doing what she needs to do in order to survive. But he has never been as good at her at compartmentalizing. Before their first games he couldn’t pretend that he didn’t care for her, while she was perfectly able to focus only on the task at hand — the fact that they would soon be expected to kill each other.

The fact of the matter is that Katniss is unable to return anyone’s love at this point in her life. She is nowhere near secure enough to indulge in this luxury. But she’s forced to pretend for the Capitol, and when the cameras aren’t around Gale keeps pressuring her. When she asks him to run away with her, he needs to know if she loves him. When she is incapable of responding the way her wants, he shuts down and she is left alone.

The thing about Gale is that he is the ideal Mockingjay. If he could’ve been the face of the revolution he would’ve revelled in the role. He is skilled and determined, and he is motivated by the politics. Where Katniss can only care about her immediate loved ones, Gale is able to see the bigger picture and empathize with the Districts as a whole. This causes problems down the road, but it is important to remember that he, like Katniss, is motivated by empathy.

Catching Fire: Effie Trinket Begins to Blossom

2013, Francis Lawrence

This movie continues to follow Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) as she and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) are sent on a victory tour throughout the districts that culminates in a large celebration in that Capitol. Katniss struggles to find a way to cope as President Snow (Donald Sutherland) threatens her family and friends if she cannot find a way to play her role peacefully. When it is time for the next Hunger Games, Katniss learns that Snow was not bluffing, and that the tributes for this year’s Games will be selected from the surviving Victors. Katniss will return to the Hunger Games.

This series is amazing at capturing emotion. As the audience is walked through the shock and despair that Katniss feels, there are occasional bursts of humor to lighten the mood. Similarly, the pacing is spot on throughout — the first half builds the suspense and so moves a little slowly, but then once the Tributes enter the arena things fly by in the struggle to survive moment to moment.

Leading the performances are Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson. Again, Lawrence’s Katniss can be seen as stiff and awkward, but once aware of Katniss’ emotional status it becomes clear that this is exactly what Lawrence is striving for. As for Hutcherson, his portrayal of Peeta is also key; as he watches Katniss from a distance, waiting to be needed, it is the things unsaid that define his character.

Among the new characters in this film are Finnick Odair (Sam Claflin) and Johanna Mason (Jena Malone), stellar additions, each wonderful at down-playing their emotions, pretending to smirk and shrug off all the seriousness of the situation until things become truly dire. Their characters are deeper than the movie shows, as characters ought to be, and these actors play them well.

But the character who stood out to me most in this film was Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks). In the previous film, Effie seemed to be just an airhead, a brainwashed citizen of the Capitol, whose job was to escort the tributes from district 12 and make sure they made it everywhere on time, and who cared a lot about appearances. (Mahogany, anyone?) There was little more that we were shown of Effie in the first movie. But here we see past her facade. She is horrified at what is happening in the districts, genuinely disturbed by the guards that greet them at their first stop in district 11, and she finds no joy in her tasks anymore, although she puts up a good front. When the time comes for her to escort Katniss and Peeta back into the Capitol for another Hunger Games, she can barely hold herself together, and she does what she can to help them, although it truly isn’t much. Her transition is a beautiful thing.

I highly recommend this movie, although you should definitely watch The Hunger Games first, and be ready to follow it up with the rest of the series. I guess that’s my biggest complaint; this movie is hard to watch on its own.

The Hunger Games: Katniss’ Fight to Control Her Life

In case it isn’t clear already, I want to acknowledge that I am a huge fan of this franchise, both the books and the movies. Even though it is targeted at a young audience, this story is phenomenal and I have found it very worthwhile to explore. It deals with major issues while showing real characters who struggle to survive against ridiculous odds. I love the humanity that is shown in this series, and the fight against the control of an all-powerful government. I love the commentary on our own society that is intrinsic to the popularity of these films: the Capitol enjoys watching children kill each other while comfortably seated in their homes. This is a game show; reality TV at it’s finest. These movies show us the power of hope, courage, and empathy.

The premise is simple: after a civil war, America has been separated into 12 districts, each controlled by the Capitol. Every year each district must send 2 tributes (a boy and a girl) between the ages of 12 and 18 to compete in the Hunger Games, where the tributes must fight each other until only one is left alive. These movies follow the story of Katniss Everdeen as she enters the arena.

The Hunger Games are an extremely calculated maneuver. They not only remind the districts that they are not in control of their lives or their children, but, as President Snow says, allow one survivor gives the citizens of Panem a glimmer of hope. There is a chance, however small, that a tribute will return to your district. There’s a chance that your family might not be destroyed. There’s a chance that things will turn out alright.

But of course, this is a grim hope, and there is little chance of survival once sent to the Games. In order to select the tributes, each district holds a lottery. At 12 every child’s name is put in once, then again at 13, and so on until 18, where the child will have 7 slips of paper with her name on them entered into the lottery. The system becomes even more gut-wrenching when you realize where it gets its name. If a potential tribute chooses, they can elect to have their name submitted more times in return for extra portions of food for their family. In this manner, Gale, at 16, has his name in 42 times. We are not told how many times Katniss’ name is entered, but it would not be far behind. Food is scarce in District 12, and deciding whether or not it’s worth the chance of being sent to the Games in order to keep your sister from starving is an easier choice than it should be.

As the cameras show the viewer life in District 12, the movie feels like a documentary, a feeling that never quite leaves throughout the film. This is aided by the soundtrack, which is extremely minimalistic. There are long stretches of silence in this film, which creates the perfect feeling of isolation. When there is music, it is acoustic, muted, mellow. There are no loud horns in this soundtrack — except for in the Capitol, and the anthem they play every night in the arena.

This is mirrored in the color palette as well. While in District 12, everything is muted; it seems as if everything is covered in a thick layer of dust. Even Effie’s vibrant pink outfit is dulled while in 12. But as soon as Katniss and Peeta board the train, it is as if they have entered Oz. Everything becomes brighter, from Katniss’ blue dress to Peeta’s very complexion. From the minute they set foot on the train for the Capitol they are bombarded with food, colors, people, lights. It is an entirely different world.

And yet, for all its seeming differences, it is clear that nothing has really changed for Peeta and Katniss. They were never truly free in District 12. Katniss, although frequently able to trespass outside the District’s borders in order to hunt, could never have left because she could not have brought her family with her. They were just as incapable of changing their fates before their names were drawn as after.

This is particularly clear to Katniss, who is immediately reserved and continually on her guard, especially around Peeta. She understands that he will soon become an enemy, someone who will attempt to kill her in order to survive, and she doesn’t want to make it any harder on herself than it has to be. She is determined to do her very best to return to her family. Her character is fascinating to me, as she is simultaneously so strong and also so fragile.

Part of her fragility comes from the fact that she is never in control of her life. Everyone is constantly speaking for her, giving her commands, dressing her up, and demanding her to behave in a certain manner. And Peeta is right with her in this. On the rooftop, the night before the Games begin, he tells her that, more than anything else, he wants to remain true to himself. He tells her, “I don’t want them to change me.” What matters more than anything else to Peeta is that he is able to resist becoming just another piece in their games. But Katniss, the breadwinner for her family, terrified that her mother will return to a paralyzing depression and leave her younger sister to starve to death, can’t afford to embrace this sort of idealistic thinking. She believes she has a chance to win, and she owes it to her family to try.

And when she does win, she is changed by the Games. But so is Peeta. Neither can return to their old lives in District 12. Nothing will ever be the same again.

The Hunger Games: An Introduction

2012, Gary Ross

This week I will be writing a series of posts on the Hunger Games franchise, culminating in a review of the final movie, Mockingjay Part Two, which opens this weekend. This post, an admittedly rather scattered collection of thoughts, serves as an introduction. It is the closest to a “normal” review I could bring myself to write. I have another post coming soon that digs into more of the plot and contains significant spoilers (and might not make much sense without knowing the plot in advance).

This movie wonderfully adapts Suzanne Collins’ novel, and starts the series off to a great start. In the future, America has been separated into 12 districts controlled by the Capitol. In order to reinforce their control over the districts, each year every district must send 2 tributes, a boy and a girl, to participate in the Hunger Games — a Battle Royale-esque scenario where the children must fight each other to the death. In the end, the last surviving tribute is crowned victor and may return home.

When 12 year old Primrose Everdeen’s (Willow Shields) name is called, her 16 year old sister Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) volunteers to take her place, and she finds herself whisked away to the Capitol, dressed up and placed on display, and then quickly thrust into the arena to kill or be killed. Complicating matters is the male tribute from Katniss’ district, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), who told the world he was in love with Katniss. Unsure whether he was merely playing games in order to buy favor from potential sponsors, Katniss finds herself unable to trust anyone.

While the book is written in first person exclusively from Katniss’ perspective, the movie only allows the audience inside her head through a handful of flashbacks. This made it hard for me to fully enjoy the movie at first, as the main draw for the books was the fact that Katniss is compelling and complicated. Seeing her thoughts was crucial to understanding her actions and feelings. Without that, she seems merely cold and reserved. However, I’m not really complaining since narrators are so often the death of a movie, it just means that a movie-only audience will have a harder time connecting to Katniss.

Even though we don’t have an inside look at her thoughts, it is still clear in this movie that she is the same character as in the books. Her coldness is calculated to protect her from the people she knows will soon be out to kill her. She doesn’t care to make friends in the Capitol because she knows she will soon be dead. She is unwilling to play along and be the friendly Tribute they want, because she is completely against their games. She is always unabashedly herself, which gets her into a lot of trouble down the road, and is a major part of her characters appeal.

When Katniss is hunting the morning before her sister is chosen as Tribute, I was initially put off by the way she was portrayed. Jennifer Lawrence seemed awkward as she interacted with Liam Hemsworth’s Gale. But then it became clear that Katniss is simply awkward. She isn’t good at interacting with anyone other than Prim. While she and Gale are close friends, there isn’t anything more than that in her mind. Her top priority is providing food for her sister and pairing up with Gale to hunt is the best solution to this problem. At her very core, Katniss is a problem solver, looking to take the steps necessary to protect herself and those she loves.

And this is why I love these movies; because Katniss so desperately wants to protect her loved ones and she is faced with new threats at every turn. All she wants is to be left alone with her family, but she is not allowed this luxury. And I feel so bad for her.

Spectre: A Phenomenal Waste of Time

2015, Sam Mendes

THE DEAD ARE ALIVE.

These words sprawl across the screen as the movie opens onto a Day of the Dead celebration. Innocuous enough. But it’s clearly meant to hold more meaning, as figures from the past come back to life in this movie, as Bond himself was resurrected in the previous film. Clearly a deeper meaning is intended.

The problem is that the phrase is all-too fitting. All the characters on the screen seem far from life-like, and not long into the movie the audience wishes the film itself was dead. I was hopeful that this film would continue what Skyfall had started and be a decently entertaining movie, but that was apparently too much to hope for.

Like Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, this movie suffers from an ill-thought out plot. Also like these previous films, Spectre continues the plotline that Skyfall abandoned, the plotline where Bond (Daniel Craig) meets a mysterious agency at every turn whose agents are everywhere and whose resources are unlimited. Yet, Spectre doesn’t simply go back to this plotline. The filmmakers attempt to replicate Skyfall’s success by tying into Bond’s backstory as well. Apparently this ought to make James Bond more accessible, this is, after all, what made Skyfall a success.

Except that wasn’t Skyfall’s strong point. Skyfall was so good because it had a clear villain, because Bond was open and vulnerable, because we cared about the characters. None of this comes through in Spectre. There are too many villains, the tie to Bond’s past was awkwardly done, and all of the characters are flatter than a sheet of paper. If the movie had a little self-awareness some of this would’ve been forgivable: poke a little fun at the ridiculousness of it all and things will become much better. Or, alternatively, Bond could have been more vulnerable. After all, we learned last movie that he is human, he’s getting older, he’s capable of feeling emotions. It’s okay for Bond to be weak at times; but none of this carried over into Spectre. As it stands, this movie is riddled with problems from start to finish.

With the death of Judi Dench’s M in Skyfall, Ralph Fiennes takes over the role of M. He plays a very minor part in this film, probably because Bond does not have a close relationship to the man. They are cordial, however, and this M has no problem trusting Bond even when he is pressured to call him in. He sits back and lets Bond do his thing without forcing a plotline where he threatens to have Bond terminated or arrested. When it comes time for the final showdown, this M is included in Bond’s plan in a way the other M never was. He not only somehow avoids taking phone calls in a robe, but he gets to join in the action at the end of the movie. Compare that to the way the female M was presented and let me know if you think it makes sense.

Eve Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), after helping Bond early in the film, is quietly ignored for the rest, present but relegated to the background. Even though Bond says that he trusts her more than anyone, after the initial favor he turns exclusively to Q (Ben Whishaw) for help. When M, Q, and Moneypenny meet up with Bond before the final showdown, only M and Q are part of the discussion, and during the action Moneypenny is nowhere to be found. She is elided from the movie when her presence becomes inconvenient for the writers.

As for the “Bond Girl” of the movie, Dr. Madeline Swan (Lea Seydoux) shows promise initially. She maintains composure when she is abducted, she sticks with her gut, and she manages to resist the seemingly irresistible charm of James Bond. This even continues after she gets drunk; which is a really good thing because if she had caved to his charm at this point she would have been having sex with James Bond in the same bed her father repeatedly raped her in, which is just wrong. I guess props are due to the filmmakers for avoiding that scenario… But her deep-seated daddy issues mean that it isn’t too long before she does accept his advances. Although the parallels between him and her father make a thoughtful viewer cringe: he is significantly older than her, he is a secret agent, and she tried to shoot a man for him. How is this a healthy relationship?

We’re supposed to accept that she wants to stay with Bond in order to find out more about her father, but in reality she’s just around for bait in the climax and so that Bond will have something to walk away with at the end. She is his prize for surviving these movies. Like her predecessors, she’s not really a character so much as a plot device.

None of the characters in this movie are, if we’re being honest. There isn’t a single three-dimensional character in this movie, much less a reason for the audience to care about them. It’s a shame, really. There’s so much talent and potential in this cast that if they were given a halfway decent script this could’ve been a tolerable movie. As it is, it’s nothing special. If I were you, I wouldn’t waste my time.

Skyfall: A Surprisingly Good Bond Film

2012, Sam Mendes

Note: contains spoilers.

Skyfall is by and far the best Bond movie I’ve seen.

From the very first scene I could tell that it was going to be different from the rest. When entering a room with a wounded agent, James Bond (Daniel Craig) is not only in contact with MI6 but he also shows concern for the agent. He wants to stay and make sure the man stabilizes, but M (Judi Dench) orders him to pursue the target. In previous movies, Bond would have silently assessed the situation and immediately left in pursuit without hesitation, only to be upbraided by M later about his cold-heart. But not here. Things, they are a-changing.

Apparently the target has a hard drive containing the identities of many (if not all) undercover MI6 agents, and, if lost, is a serious threat. As the chase scene goes badly, M orders a second agent (Naomie Harris) to take an obstructed shot on the target, risking Bond’s life on the slim chance that the threat will be eliminated. Bond is shot, and as his body falls into the water below, the man escapes with the hard drive and the opening credits roll. This has been the first ten minutes of the film, and my attention has been caught in a way that none of the previous films have managed.

I’m not saying that this movie is perfect. It’s just significantly better than its predecessors. Where Casino Royale showed Bond as a cold-hearted killer whose only motive was to get the job done, this movie shows Bond actually working through problems and connecting with people. Where Quantum of Solace focused on the death of Vesper, this movie focuses on Bond’s “resurrection” as it were, his journey back into civilization. He returns visibly older (although only three months have passed), shakier, weaker, slower. There is never any doubt in the audience’s mind that he will get the job done one way or another, but there is an understanding that this movie will be different. The robot-Bond has been broken and this new version is more vulnerable (and thus more likable).

In previous movies M has said that she trusts Bond completely but has been slow to show this trust. In Skyfall her trust is obvious immediately upon Bond’s return from the dead. He fails all of his examinations, but she quietly switches all the results so he will be allowed back in the field. She trusts that he is the best option to get the job done, and she is sorry that she interfered in the beginning. She never doubts his motives, just silently accepts that he will save the day — as she has loudly claimed he will in the past, immediately after working her hardest to undermine him.

She is also shown as a complicated character in this movie without any subtle hints from the filmmakers that this is because of her gender. She is not perfect and has made mistakes (she order the kill shot responsible for taking down Bond!), but she isn’t weak. She is a true person in this movie for the first time.

This movie also introduces Eve, the agent who took the shot that “killed” Bond. I was very impressed with her treatment, as well. She was removed from the field after the incident, which seems to have been as much her choice as standard procedure, but this wasn’t because she was incapacitated with grief or guilt, just because she preferred a desk job. In several encounters with Bond she is shown as a typical Bond-girl in the sense that she is witty and flirty, but when the time came for her to give into his “irresistible charm,” she resists. She seems satisfied with her life. She is not waiting for Bond to give her something to make her life complete (whether that be sex, forgiveness, or something else — she doesn’t need it).

The biggest problem I had with the movie was the portrayal of Severine (Berenice Marlohe). As we are told by Bond shortly after meeting her, she was a child sex slave and is now owned by Silva (Javier Bardem), Bond’s target. Bond promises to free her from this bad man, and after he evades her bodyguards, we are reminded that this is still a Bond film as they immediately have sex. If that were all it’d be okay (even though there’s no reason for it, they have no connection other than that they’re both attractive and close in proximity for a night, but whatever), but shortly afterwards it becomes clear that Severine is just a throwaway character, a completely typical Bond-girl: “use” and “dispose”. Silva shoots Severine and immediately looks to Bond for a reaction (indicating that he only killed her to get under Bond’s skin), but all Bond says is “waste of a good whiskey.” As far as the audience is shown, Bond never thinks of her again, proving that even the best Bond films are grossly misogynistic. Why is this necessary? He’s supposed to be a gentleman, attractive in every way, but I can’t fathom how this behavior is attractive to anyone or in any sense gentlemanly. I don’t want to live in a world where this is acceptable, even as a joke.

And yet, that was the only complaint of this type that I have for Skyfall, which is stunningly minor when it comes to Bond films. It’s horrible that this is considered “good” treatment of women, because that’s probably the most blatantly disgusting comment that I’ve ever seen in all of the Bond movies, but I am still impressed that the rest of the movie was so “good.”

Plot-wise, the film isn’t perfect, but it is perfectly adequate for an action film, and it’s stellar for Bond. What sets Skyfall miles apart from all competition is the cinematography — it is ridiculously beautiful. It is definitely the prettiest action film I have ever seen. If they could have let go of the signature Bond misogyny I could easily find myself loving this movie, but I can’t. I do like it; It’s not a complete waste of time like the others have been. It’s just that I’ve seen Mad Max: Fury Road, so I can’t forgive this sort of thing anymore. You can do better, Bond. I know you can.

Quantum of Solace: One Huge Question Mark

2008, Marc Forster

Note: This review contains spoilers.

In Quantum of Solace, James Bond (Daniel Craig) tracks down a mysterious agency (the Quantum), following lead after lead and coming back to Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) every time. As he climbs further into the mystery, Bond finds that Greene plans to seize control of Bolivia’s natural water sources in order to control the entire country. As Bond continues to make decisions without reporting back to his superiors, M (Judi Dench) wonders if he has been consumed by a need for revenge after Vesper’s (Eva Green) death; this is where the title comes from, apparently, the idea that Bond might be seeking solace in revenge (seems a little forced to me). This motif is reinforced by the presence of Camille (Olga Kurylenko), a Bolivian secret agent who is desperately trying to hunt down a Bolivian general to take revenge for killing her family years ago.

This movie, while more enjoyable that Casino Royale, was still a struggle for me to get through. It did not hold my attention through any exposition, although there were significantly more action sequences than in Casino Royale. I struggled to pay attention, though, and I was very confused. Bond’s motives were never clear. I don’t understand why he go into a boat chase to free Camille, I don’t know why he never included M in any of his decisions, and I don’t know whether he still likes Vesper or not. I think he’s supposed to, but I don’t see it.

M was shown in more problematic scenarios in this film. She is shown in one scene about to get into a “relaxing” bath with a face mask on, but she is called by her secretary with an update on Bond. Can you imagine this scene being filmed with a male M? I can’t. She is pretty understandably angry at Bond, but when she confronts him and he immediately kills the guards she has ordered to take him away, she tells him to continue about his business as normal. This is immediately after she tells him off for using his “charm” to get another agent killed. Are we supposed to think that M has succumbed to this charm? Is that the explanation for her complete change of mind? Because one minute she was dead set on having Bond arrested and held responsible for his actions and the next she lets him go, saying “He’s my agent and I trust him.” I didn’t see any “charm,” but I have no other explanation for her turn around.

To be honest, I don’t ever see any charm in Bond. I get that he is a mysterious figure; he hardly says anything unless he needs to. Maybe there’s some appeal in that, but I wouldn’t call it charm. Occasionally he does turn on his seductive powers, but there are times that he seduces women without being shown doing anything. Strawberry Fields (Gemma Arterton), for example. She meets them in the airport, dead set on doing her job and returning with them to London. She is professional and responsible. She looks perfectly capable of keeping her head. But without showing Bond doing hardly anything he somehow immediately convinces her to go to an upscale hotel where they immediately begin making out. Because, apparently, no one can resist the charm of James freaking Bond.

And finally we come to Camille, the Bolivian secret agent. I was irritated when she passed out on the boat after Bond “rescues” her; there didn’t seem to be any reason for it, except that he couldn’t know that she was actually a capable woman until later in the movie. So let’s just incapacitate her. Makes sense. And then once she finally gets her revenge, it is only because Bond coached her through it and she is again immediately incapacitated. I understand that this would be an emotional time; she’s just killed the man she’s dedicated her entire life to tracking down. It would be perfectly normal for anyone to experience powerful emotions after this event. However, would she really just collapse like that? Does this man really hold that much power over her? And would she really get a grip so quickly after Bond puts his arm around her for a minute? I don’t think so.

However, apparently Bond has this power over women that makes them putty in his hands. Because, according to Rene Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini), Vesper not only loved Bond unconditionally but she died for him and gave everything for him. This is an interesting statement coming from a man who was locked up before Vesper and Bond actually got together in Casino Royale and was not present during the “betrayal” or death scenes. Because, watching her death, it was definitely a choice — she made it impossible for Bond to rescue her by locking the elevator doors and swimming away from the entrance, but how this is choosing to die FOR Bond escapes me. Weren’t we supposed to believe that she was betraying him in order to save her other boyfriend who had been captured by the mysterious group? But even more importantly in my mind is why should we believe Mathis has any inside information to her character? It doesn’t make much sense to me.

Overall, I don’t really have any complaints as to the acting in this movie, but the plot is all over the place. Perhaps it would solidify with a second or third viewing, as the idea is that Bond is piecing everything together as he goes, but there are some leaps that I don’t think I can ever make. Like his “rescue” of Camille in the boat sequence only to drop her off as an unwanted piece of baggage in the very next scene without saying anything to her. Or the sudden appearance of M’s complete trust in Bond. This movie is all over the place trying to make things exciting and mysterious and all it succeeds in doing is making everything confusing. Again, I don’t really recommend this movie. Instead, I’d suggest Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill movies: at least those show strong women and a good revenge sequence.

Casino Royale: A Typical Bond Movie

2006, Martin Campbell

Let me start this review off with a confession: I hate Bond movies. I am not a fan of the cheesy one-liners, I dislike Bond’s arrogant attitude and I hate the misogynistic attitude that pervades every single movie. I’ve seen a smattering of different films starring several different Bonds and I dislike every single one. However, I’ve been told that Skyfall is actually a decent film, and I will be reviewing Spectre once it comes out; so I decided to give Daniel Craig’s Bond films a chance and I will be reviewing them over the course of this week.

Casino Royale sets up Daniel Craig’s run as Bond by going back to the beginning. We are shown Bond’s first two (sanctioned) kills ever: but other than a few throwaway lines, this fact is not crucial to the plot or rest of the film at all. In fact, from the start, James Bond is cold and calculating, using everything he sees as a means to an end. At the end of the film, M (Judi Dench) makes a comment that she hopes Bond has learned his lesson: that he cannot trust anyone. But this was not something that his character needed to learn!

I do approve that M is a woman in this iteration, as the character is normally portrayed as a man and there is no reason for this. Also, Judi Dench is the perfect choice for this role. However, the character is very minor.

Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) is close to being a tolerable leading lady, but she doesn’t actually DO anything. She is used by the men around her and has no agency whatsoever. The filmmakers try to make her seem competent in most areas (not during physical altercations), and if she were actually a well-rounded character this wouldn’t grate on me, but she has absolutely zero depth, and she never really does anything on her own. She only follows the lead of the men around her and it makes me angry.

The other women in this movie are relegated to the background. Solange Dimitrios (Caterina Murino), the woman Bond seduces early in the film is only seen as a means to an end by both Bond and the bad guys. There are two women who participate in the poker game, but they are never shown playing a hand; they have always folded when play is shown. There’s no need for this, other than that Bond movies always silence women.

The action sequences (all three of them???) were really good, though. If the movie had a more structured plot (who was the real bad guy again?), more action, and less poker I might be able to say this is a “good movie” with a serious misogyny problem (is that really a good movie, though?), but as it is I alternated between bored and disgusted throughout. If I were you, I wouldn’t waste my time on this movie, instead I’d just watch Mad Max: Fury Road instead. However, because I do not seem to be in charge of my fate this week, I will continue to charge through these movies. Coming up next: Quantum of Solace.