It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
With Savalas he´s the best Blofeld ever.
Not only is he clearly the best villain in the Craig-era but he is the best villain in the whole series, or at least one of the very best.
He has a decent amount of screen-time and luckily does appear quite early in the movie for the first time.
1. Silva (Javier Bardem) - Skyfall
2. Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz) - Spectre
3. Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) - Casino Royale
4. Dominc Green (Matthieu Amalric) - Quantum of Solace
Waktz as I said above, definitely a hit.
No menace, no comeback to Craig's quips. He can see into MI6 but doesn't know they make gadgets like exploding watches, which blows up his entire headquarters??
Waltz gets two great entrances too - the Rome boardroom and then Morocco.
I really hope we see him again.
For me that made him more like a Fleming villain to me - it was something quite odd about him. Fleming named some of the villains after people he disliked, so this felt quite Fleming to me to have him have this curious oddity of not talking there.
Why would he bother to do all the talking? He's Blofeld! He is a man of few words, he speaks when it is necessary and every word counts. Just like, I might add, his literary counterparts. He sure was menacing, did you see how scared were everyone in his presence? As for the watch, it's called hubris: Blofeld became overconfident. Had he decided to take it off, Bond would have died of torture sooner or later.
Would anyone like to see the female lead chair/narrator of the Rome meeting assume that of no2 Bunt!?
Your inability to grasp the concept of character and story is becoming legendary. I may write a book on it.
1) Blofeld
2) LeChiffre
3) Green
4) Silva
Let me start by stating, for the record, that I really love SF. But Silva came off as prototype psychopath and unfortunately not all that original or "Flemingesque". Green I like better as a character. I know very few people do but there's something pretty enigmatic about him that I really enjoy. LeChiffre was excellent. Not entirely the character from the book but a deep and full character altogether. Now Blofeld... There it is. I was sold on Waltz from the first second, and not merely because of the hype or because he was great - and I mean great - in other stuff, but because of his calm demeanour contrasted with his ruthless nature. At the same time, his philosophy on how to create a better world somewhat speaks to me. Not that I condone the things Spectre does, but there's a level of thinking behind it that even Silva couldn't achieve IMO. Hey, I might follow this guy if I had a disdain for human life.
Absolutely. These people were intimidated by him.
I second that.............there's an awful lot of potential material for the future with this character!
-Green was absolutely ok and probably the most realistic of all the villains in the Craig-era.
-Silva was too over the top for a movie like Skyfall and Bardem's acting was embarrassing except for the scene in the church where he shined.
-Oberhauser is bloody brilliant and perfect. I wouldn't change one word or one move. Waltz was born for this role.
Absolutely. I think we can all agree the whole scene was superb.
I completely agree. And I would add: you read the description of Blofeld in the novels. Even in TB, where Blofeld is depicted as a large brutish man, there is this bit of description that fits Waltz in the movie to a t:
Blofeld's own eyes were deep black pools surrounded -totally surrounded, as Mussoloni's were- by very clear whites. The doll-like effect of this unusual symmetry was enhanced by long silken black eyelashes that should have belonged to a woman. The gaze of these soft doll's eyes was totally relaxed and rarely held any expression stronger than the mild curiosity in the object of their focus. (...)Blofeld's gaze was a microscope, the window on the world on a superbly clear brain, with a focus that had been sharpened by thirty years of danger and of keeping just one step ahead of it (...)
One of the many reasons why it is a hit for me and why I find Waltz's portrayal opf Blofeld far superior to the previous ones.
Yes, yes and yes.
You could say that's not exactly difficult though but yes I was pleased with the casting and he does a fine job in the film.
I don't think he necessarily needed the scar though. I acknowledge Pleasance is the most iconic Blofeld but he's always been my least favourite and Waltz was sinister enough earlier on in the film without it.
You hit the nail right here. Most critics know little about Bond to begin with. It's all blurry to them.
Yeah. I mean, I don't mind if people criticise Gray as Blofeld because of his performance (though he is a good actor), but the argument that Pleasence and Savallas were better simply because they were bald, is just stupid.
I thought the scar was a nice nod to the character's cinematic history. Cheesy yes, but fun.
And shallow. And uneducated.
It struck me that I was sold about Waltz as Blofeld the moment he was rumored to be cast. And it is only then that I thought the rumor of the return of Blofeld might be true after all.
Now if like some people here thought Andrew Scott had been Blofeld, my reaction to the whole casting would have been very very different. But they went, as I expected, for a Jekyll & Hyde/Dracula twist.
It would have been Gustav Graves all over again.
I pretty much agree with this except I'm not as critical of Silva as you are. I thought Silva's entrance was also pretty excellent.