So, initially, I posted this as a (lengthy) comment to JGrand’s excellent post about the Bond series.
However, to (I hope) facilitate a discussion, I am reposting them as a quick hit (because I want to talk about this movie…a lot).
As a follow up (and I know JGrand will be happy/having an I Told You So! 
moment about this—
the new Bond was….really good. (That felt horrible…even typing it).
Some things I liked:
1. It toned down the sexism.
a. The nude wavy (?) silhouettes were (almost) all gone.
b. The sex scenes weren’t (as) prevalent
2. It made fun of its earlier self (Don’t worry, I won’t have a spoiler).
3. Javier Bardem.
4. Javier Bardem.
5. It was stylistically much better than any of the recent adaptations (plot, direction, etc.). As I said with you, it’s like a weird take on The Dark Knight (which, I am sure, many of us can appreciate).
Some things I didn’t like:
1. It was still sexist. (toning it down doesn’t mean eliminating)
a. those weird wavy silhouettes were still there…and still unnecessary.
b. the main new “Bond girl” is, unsurprisingly, as underdeveloped, helpless, and irrelevant as usual. I say irrelevant not because I think her story line is irrelevant or unnecessary, but their treatment casts it in an irrelevant light.
c. M! Come on! She could have done better than that….I know this is vague, but to prevent spoilers, I just have to say: she should be more skilled than they make her out to be.
2. The character’s names…oh, the character’s names. I guess the names featured in this film avoid outright genitalia references but still….
3. The treatment of that female operative. “I think maybe a desk is best.” Take your desk is best and cram it with walnuts! (I don’t fully know what that means, but it’s powerful!) Side note: That should probably go under #1, but I am too lazy to format it differently.
4. I had bad a bad seat…which probably isn’t all their fault….
Thoughts?
I haven’t seen Quantum of Solace, but Skyfall was definitely one of the more sexist recent Bond movies I have ever seen. The entire movie was overwhelmingly underpinned by the message that women can’t do anything right and only men can be the heroes. Loved Judi Bench and Javier Bardem was excellent, but the majority of this film just made me angry. If it wasn’t for the fact j had paid good money for the ticket I would have walked out.
While I agree that the movie was definitely sexist, I do think that it was a *slight* departure from the previous Bond movies (for the reasons above). Like I said, I really (really) hated that Judi Dench’s character was not able to defend herself after years of service with MI6. I also really disliked the portrayal of the new “bond girl,” whose experience with sexual violence was thrown in as an afterthought.
Having said that, I never would have predicted (in a million years) that a bond movie would have a non-hypermasculine and non-heterosexual villain. I have heard arguments that Bardem’s character over-sexualizes and stereotypes members of the LGBTQIQ community.
I have several comments on this point that I think also illuminate why I find some aspects of the Bond series quite productive.
1. I don’t think his sexuality is explicitly mentioned (I could be wrong here). If anything, I think his actions seem to suggest that he is pansexual.
2. I like that his sexuality isn’t confined to a label. I think it shows that Bardem’s sexuality is a part of his identity, but not necessarily the only part or a part that has to be pinned down. In this regard, his character exhibits much depth, which I think avoids these claims of stereotypes and over-sexualization.
3. Again, this type of villain is a blatant departure from typical Bond roles (hyper-masculine, heterosexual, etc.).
4. True, his character has one scene with suggestive homosexual content. But, this content is contextual and a pertinent part of the scene (sorry for the vagueness-I don’t want to reveal spoilers).
5. Also, I think the idea that a homosexual character cannot be sexual at all to avoid stereotypes is counterproductive and equally exclusionary to members of the community who are outwardly sexual.
6. Overall, I think the character (including Bardem’s excellent portrayal) demonstrate progress in eliminating some oppressive stereotypes not only in the Bond films, but for movies generally. People flock to the Bond series. Having a member of the LGBTQIQ community prominently featured in a massively popular film where exclusion was/can be rampant sets a good example for Hollywood and viewers. *Some people might critique that he is the villain and not the hero of the film. But, I’m not sure that matters and, if it does, I am still in favor of progress over doing nothing. Pop culture is an imperative domain for garnering increased support in equality. So, I not only appreciate Bardem’s brilliant performance but I applaud it for breaking a film stereotype that has been pervasive in Bond movies for decades.