adnankhan wrote: ... but what does trouble me (a little) is people trying to over-intellectualise Bond, and especially the new film.
Sorry, but I need some clarification as to how exactly anyone has over-intellectualized Bond when praising the new film. It seems pretty clear to me that the new film follows the same basic framework as any other Bond film, but then it decides to be a little different in terms of character motivations and decides to have a little fun with the basic Bond mythology.
As far as I know from the various reviews I've read, no critic/reviewer has over-intellectualized the film, apart from saying this is a departure from previous Bond films. I have yet to see someone start bringing up "big, important" topics/issues in relation to this Bond film, but they have touched upon the fundamental aspects of what makes the Bond franchise so appealing and resilient - the obsession with masculinity and its supposed imperviousness. From my perspective that's not over-intellectualizing anything so much as it is stating the obvious considering that's the backbone of the franchise. It seems pretty clear that
Casino Royale is attempting something a bit different than the rest of the franchise and that's worthy of being pointed out in reviews/analysis/critiques.
I'm also not understanding why it's wrong to over-intellectualize any genre of film. Are we supposed to believe that certain types of films are not meant to be analyzed as to how they function? Isn't this what people have said in the past about chick-flicks and horror movies? Yet there is a wealth of criticism regarding both genres (well, actually, there probably needs to be more writing and analysis regarding chick-flicks). I don't know about everyone else, but I grow really tired of people who greet analysis of film with the objection that such practices shouldn't be done since "it's just a movie."
adnankhan wrote: ... I just don't get the hyper-idealisation of masculinity.
I'm not sure what there is to "get" about this notion. A great deal of filmmaking is based upon the ability to exaggerate and idealize a certain aspect of human nature. Why exactly is masculinity not as worthy of this treatment as countless other aspects of human nature? An expression of masculinity has an inherent appeal to a great deal of people, just as an expression of femininity has am appeal to others. The Bond franchise is based around action-movies which regularly provide a hyper-idealization of masculinity because it's commercially viable.
I'm also a bit confused by your criticism against
Casino Royale for being another hyper-idealization of masculinity within the Bond franchise when it's clearly the first Bond film in a while to undermine James Bond's once unshakable masculinity. There are a variety of minor instances where Bond just isn't as invincible as he once was, but the main one is contained within the strand of the story that you has dismissed as tacked-on. The love-story with Vesper Lynd is probably the best display of the film's interest in weakening Bond's steadfast masculinity by showing him to be somewhat vulnerable to femininity. It's also Bond's female boss that informs him he is being unreasonably short-sighted in his characterization of Vesper's actions after he attempts to reclaim his masculine facade.
Anyway, people far more intelligent than I have more to say about Bond
here (even if it's been mentioned before).