Goodbye to Judi Dench? (Contains Skyfall Spoilers)

Getafix

For me the fact is that Bond the man behind the character just isn't that interesting. This is a fundamental flaw in SF. The idea that if you tell us about his backstory or peel away the layers that necessarily what you find beneath is compelling. I think beneath the Connery smoothness you probably have a rather sad and lonely man. I feel that's what you see in SF. I can only think that it's intentional in SF but I guess I find that man quite boring. He has no friends, no visible emotions, no coherent beliefs or world view. He is depicted as no doubt Fleming intended - a rather world weary spy. I'd say that in SF, even more than CR, the 'armour' is gone. I can see how this would appeal to some fans. I just think it's been done better elsewhere - Tinker Taylor, Bourne etc (all more compelling and more interesting stories). Frankly, CR and QoS probably did it better as well.

I just don't buy Bond's 'journey' in SF. He's almost killed because of his boss but he comes trotting back any way and ends up loving mum again at the end. But why? Where and when does he confront his demons/doubts/fears? It's so full of potential but so uninterestingly done and the dialogue from after Silva's island through to the end of the film is totally forgetable. Nothing convinces or seduces about it. I just found it completely flat.

Any way, obviously a lot of people like SF and rate it so who am I to say. It's just for me it didn't work as escapism or a serious character-driven study. It falls between two stools and it's inability to do either thing very well just highlights its weaknesses.

JimThompson45

Perhaps he returned, Getafix, because there was more to the character than you were willing to accept.

Getafix

JimThompson45 wrote:

Perhaps he returned, Getafix, because there was more to the character than you were willing to accept.

I guess. The film just didn't engage me enough to care that much. I think DC's depiction does that to me a bit. I admire his performance but I have never warmed to his Bond. I watch him but I don't really associate with or feel for him. He does what he does and if that's entertaining so be it, but I don't really care where he comes from.

That is what the old-school stars were so good at. They could be total b******* on screen, but you still wanted to be them. I feel a bit sorry for DC's Bond. He doesn't seem to get to enjoy himself very much.

JimThompson45

Getafix wrote:

I feel a bit sorry for DC's Bond. He doesn't seem to get to enjoy himself very much.

Which means he truly did portray the character Fleming wrote about.

Goldeneye95

I'm going to miss Judi Dench as M. Not only is Judi Dench a great actress, but she always gave a great performance as M. Ralph Fiennes is a great actor, so I believe he will give a great performance as the new M. Ralph Fiennes reminds me of a young Bernard Lee.

Baltimore_007

I too will miss Dench as M. She may be 78 years old now I remember reading, but was still capable. Don't think I'll really take to mallory as Bond's new superior, but it's early days yet and we'll see how it works out

But, as with Bernard Lee, she was in the part for 17 years, and they both had a very good run, and will still be talked about many years from now when we've all moved on. It's a good thing too that Craig didn't really 'enjoy himself' so to speak, because we don't need a Moore-type Bond anymore where humor is in abundance, just a serious figure that, like Dalton, goes out with a serious attitude, and does a job

Tarzan yells, 'croc disguises and double taking pigeons are thankfully a thing of the past

FromCanadaWithLove

DarthDimi wrote:

The idea of M going into battle is preposterous!

Hahaha

Agent7F

She was great as M. She reprise the role 7 times. In the movie it was very sad.