Christoph Waltz as Blofeld - Hit or miss?

1356720

Comments

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    How Silva was introduced in SF, was very similar to how Hugo Drax was
    Introduced in the Christopher Wood novel of Moonraker. On first meeting
    Bond, Drax is on the far side of a long room and speaks to Bond as he walks
    Towards him.
  • Posts: 2,491
    Silva hate in this thread :((

    I know it's kinda off topic but I think the Bond movies need stronger villains that know what they like. For example...and I know this is a terrible one cause most of you don't like him...I loved Zorin in AVTAK. He carried the movie and his motives were nicely explained and you felt like you knew the character. Same goes for Silva.
  • Gee it's getting lonely on here lol. I'm too tired now to try a decent rebuttal, but I will be back to lead an opposing force against this tyranny.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Gee it's getting lonely on here lol. I'm too tired now to try a decent rebuttal, but I will be back to lead an opposing force against this tyranny.

    Don't worry about it. It's like someone promising to come and shit in your garden tomorrow. We're all good.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    He was a hit in my book. He played the character as I hoped he would. The calm and chilling puppeteer with a dash of insanity. Wonderful performance.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Absolute hit.
  • I just got back from seeing Spectre. A definite hit for me. Waltz plays Blofeld with a Hannibal Lectre like playfulness. There always just something slightly off about him that brings forth a foreboding sense of danger. A calm insanity.
  • MansfieldMansfield Where the hell have you been?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,263
    I like what @doubleoego and @Murdock said.

    My impression is that Waltz was a hit with the portrayal of the character. Almost like Bond in the last 3 films, his character is not seemingly complete in the film. I do hope we see the next arch of his story. I had the expectation going into the film that he would be chilling in an all-pervasive way. What he gave us was a cold and distanced performance. I like the Dr. No comparison in that regard, especially since he sees so little screen time.

    As for when he was explaining his transformation from the child Bond knew, I kept thinking, "This is so illogical!" That was simultaneously followed by, "And he is so much more terrifying for it." He thinks of himself as a genius, but he is really a psychopath and the references he gives to how he had to kill his father because of his paternal bond with Bond was downright scary.
  • Posts: 187
    The entire transformation of this character I thought was handled incredible well. It had just the right amount of menace and amusement at what he'd managed to accomplish while tossing it all in Bond's face and getting glee from watching Bond piece it all together. The performance was perfect to me and I really, really hope he return for revenge in B25 to further flesh the character out.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    A definite miss. Why did he have to get an assistant to do all his talking in the boardroom, like he was infirm?

    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??

    Your inability to grasp the concept of character and story is becoming legendary. I may write a book on it.

    Please elucidate. I think Blofeld laconically issuing orders is more effective that what they did.

    Then when they get to his base he takes them to a room with a piece of meteor. A scene that went nowhere and meant nothing. Came across as pretentious.

    What was so great about him?
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2015 Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    A definite miss. Why did he have to get an assistant to do all his talking in the boardroom, like he was infirm?

    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??

    Your inability to grasp the concept of character and story is becoming legendary. I may write a book on it.

    Please elucidate. I think Blofeld laconically issuing orders is more effective that what they did.

    Then when they get to his base he takes them to a room with a piece of meteor. A scene that went nowhere and meant nothing. Came across as pretentious.

    What was so great about him?

    The Rome meeting sets up Blofeld perfectly. The idea that an underling would move a microphone a matter of inches shows the deference every member has for him. The way he lingers before speaking, they hang on his every word. The scene says so much about character, it's directed to perfection.

    The meteor is metaphor for Oberhauser/ESB entering Bond's world.

    For someone who claims they want Bond movies with a brain, might want to engage yours next viewing.
  • ok you liked it, I'm glad. Just didn't work for me.
  • DariusDarius UK
    Posts: 354
    RC7 wrote: »
    The meteor is metaphor for Oberhauser/ESB entering Bond's world.

    The desert is also a metaphor for Bond's dry emotionless world and the meteor is Blofeld impacting and attempting to destroy it, or at least leave a lot of damage.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    ok you liked it, I'm glad. Just didn't work for me.

    Yeah, good direction sucks.
  • Posts: 6,601
    I thought, he was the weak link, if there was any. Compared to Bardem he was close to non existent. He was just THERE. His constant smiling was just that. A smile, not menacing, nothing. Out of place. I never saw him harden, never saw the hatred in his eyes. Never mind how good or bad the material was, he did nothing with it as could be expected from an Oscar winner. Very disappointing.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    ok you liked it, I'm glad. Just didn't work for me.

    Yeah, good direction sucks.

    You don't need to be so hostile. We disagree. That's fine.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Darius wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    The meteor is metaphor for Oberhauser/ESB entering Bond's world.

    The desert is also a metaphor for Bond's dry emotionless world and the meteor is Blofeld impacting and attempting to destroy it, or at least leave a lot of damage.

    Indeed. According to some it means nothing, though. If you don't want to like something I guess you can just play ignorant.
  • Oh come on, the meteor is pretentious bull****.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    ok you liked it, I'm glad. Just didn't work for me.

    Yeah, good direction sucks.

    You don't need to be so hostile. We disagree. That's fine.

    Try not to be so flippant and dismissive then. It just makes you look more ridiculous when you haven't bothered to think before typing.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Please calm down guys...
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    jobo wrote: »
    Please calm down guys...

    I think we're both calm, or at least I am. Just don't get why you'd join a forum to be so dismissive.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 269
    Oberhauser was clearly not the Blofeld I expected (i always saw him as the menacing, silent man with only plotting in his head and no personal feelings).

    I'm not entirely convinced by the personal link between him and Bond as it has not a lot of time on the screen, and Bond does not seem too concerned by it (Waltz seems to take it much more personally than he does). Although I'm not sure if the personal link bring so much more to the character. Maybe if the film had let this relation go for a bit longer, this could have become thrilling.

    but I like the idea of a new version of Blofeld : Dawson, Pleasance, Savalas, Gray... They all had a different take on Blofeld and it was nice to have so many interpretation of this character played by terrific actors. So I'm glad to see a more sarcastic Blofeld.

    I only have 3 regrets :
    - the "My name is Ernst Stavro Blofeld" is a bit too obvious, and I would have like a more subtle line. For example "You know James, Franz Oberhauser died long ago. People call me Ernst now / I go by another name".
    - I'm not so sure about the Pleasance like scar. Since we had a new Blofeld, why not let Waltz have his own Blofeld, rather than copy the scar of one of his predecessor (but don't get me wrong, the make up is quite thrilling).
    - and lastly, I'm sad we did not have more scenes with a silent Blofeld. His best moments are when he is menacing in the first scene, and in the helicopter. I feel there is one scene missing between the "Cuckoo scene" and the "Meteor" one.

    And last question : do you think Waltz will come back for another one ? He obviously hate the promo and interviews that go with the film, he can now have any role he wants with any director. Do you think he will be interested to come back to play a scared Blofeld ?

    [Last scene : could someone please edit the title of this topic out of respect for Christoph's name ?]
  • Posts: 15,116
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I thought, he was the weak link, if there was any. Compared to Bardem he was close to non existent. He was just THERE. His constant smiling was just that. A smile, not menacing, nothing. Out of place. I never saw him harden, never saw the hatred in his eyes. Never mind how good or bad the material was, he did nothing with it as could be expected from an Oscar winner. Very disappointing.

    I think he was far more menacing than Bardem. His smile is simply nasty. He rarely raise his voice, always contained. And if you have not seen hatred in his eyes... Well, I think you need to re-read the description Fleming does of Blofeld and which I pasted in an earlier post.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    I really hope we aren't starting to throw around the word "pretentious" to describe SP after something like SF...
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Birdleson wrote: »
    No, sucky is more appropriate.

    I should stop bashing SPECTRE, others have obviously enjoyed it.

    Don't feel the need to stop because others enjoyed it. The vast majority of fans loved SF and I never stopped expressing my disinterest in the film any time the topic came up. You feel how you feel and it can't be changed.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    Posts: 538
    Birdleson wrote: »
    No, sucky is more appropriate.

    I should stop bashing SPECTRE, others have obviously enjoyed it.

    As someone who thoroughly enjoyed the film, I hope you keep writing what you think - even if critical. We all don't have to agree. (Mostly) adults here. We can take it.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    I think we're all guilty of it to some degree. It's hard not growing a bit defensive or coming across as rude when someone attacks something you love. It's understandable. I understand that people will hate this movie, much like I understand that people love SF. I accept it, and all I truly care about at the end of the day is how I feel about it, as narcissistic as that may sound.
Sign In or Register to comment.