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
Agreed. In particular, his sudden anger toward Bond in the fencing match makes sense after you realize he is Moon.
Orlov received 4 votes, we had a write in votes for Lamore, Koskov, Boris GE, and Graves.
In these awards we don't award ties, one must triumph! So dear academy members we shall re-start the votes, but you must choose between Carver in TND or Obruchev in NTTD. Which one is the hammiest performance in a Bond film? You are allowed to vote again and change your vote if you wish.
(Goes against my previous logic in voting for Orlov, but I genuinely disliked almost every scene Obruchev featured in NTTD.)
Same with Pryce, he is expected to portray a playbook cliché media billionaire, possibly not so far away from Rupert Murdoch and Robert Maxwell, with a satirical twist. Neither of the two deserves a "Klebbie", which seems to be the equivalent of the Golden Raspberry, but both deserve a "Bondie" for their performance. So I abstain from this tiebreaker round. Neither deserves a negative "award" for that.
Whether the director called for this mad-scientist schtick or not, it just rings hollow to me. And I love big baddies like Goldfinger and Mr. Big/Kananga …
I probably repeat myself here considerably, but I think - apart from his portrayal, his mannerisms and his handling of computer keyboards - Carver (including his scheme) is the most realistic villain of the entire franchise. He basically does nothing else than what William Randolph Hearst did in connection with the Spanish-American War...only updated to the late 20th century ("You'll furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war.").
It's considerably closer to the real world than someone, say, tries to release specially prepared young women to spread lethal diseases worldwide or so, or blow up your pants Kansas or whatever state it was ...oh, wait, no one would know about that for weeks.
Just my opinion, and I'm not known for having the highest IQ, so nothing to take all that seriously.
Edit: it was an earlier post on this thread that I mentioned liking the plan, hating the villain.
I'll vote Carver.
Yeah, totally. It was a good real world plot, made Bondian by a megalomaniacal performance by Pryce. For a Bond fan, it feels like just what the Doctor Kaufman ordered... IMO.
He's probably one of my favourite Villain / Actor combos in the entire franchise.
As convincing as I find Pryce's Carver, as unconvincing I find Dencik's portrayal. Perhaps it's the (not too convincing) accent, or the not-so-convincing interaction with his 'collegues', but it just doesn't work at all for me. He's condescending without coming over as overtly intelligent. Perhaps the character is just out of place here. I don't find him funny in the slightest, and even him beeing annoying doesn't work (as it did with Boris). If he is a 'schoolboy-baddy', there should be some venom in there, but even his lines about his soup, all set to do just that, come over empty and flat.
His role may have been intended as comic relief, for me it doesn't work. Thankfully, Ana's compensates in spades. Now THAT's acting. her timing is incredable, her character as unrealistic as it is believable.
Obruchev sticks out like a sore thumb in NTTD. I would have loved if he had taken a turn once he had been found out following the Cuba sequence, as if his idiocy was an act (along the lines of the final scene of Primal Fear, where Norton's character's facade drops). Something like that would have really helped the moment where Nomi kicks him to his death, because by that point he would really have transformed into a hateful bastard worthy of such a violent end.
Like what I've said in my earlier post, I think Dencik was miscast, I think if the character was played with a younger actor (let's say someone in his 30's), I think it would be a lot more convincing, think of Boris, Alan Cummings really nailed the character, because it fits in with the actor himself, his physical features, his facial expressions, and fits in with his age.
But with Dencik, one may expect, based on his physical features that he would play a somewhat serious and old fashioned scientist, someone whose conservative, but it's all the opposite as it turned out, it didn't fit him, he comes off as a bully naughty daddy that one may expect to see in a gag show or sitcom, instead of a silly naive sarcastic jerk of a scientist whom what the character was supposed to be.
Personally, I'm torn about Elliot Carver. Like you I find him unthreathening, I also find him too cliché as an evil tycoon. Yet l can't help but find him darn entertaining. That kung fu parody he does to Way Lin never ceases to get me. It's like a big middle finger to the whole "female that is Bond's equal" trope.
And the threatening control he has when, earlier, he's got Bond strapped to the table.
I saw no attempt from Pryce to vary his performance. It was hoaky and, as you say, cliche, @Ludovico ... And I can watch anything Pryce is in, so I'm always very disappointed when I even think of Carver!
Carver is far more at home in TND than Obruchev is in NTTD. Surely that has to be a factor?
Is one being a mere supporting character as opposed to the other being the main villain your thinking behind the vote?
I definitely agree with you regarding Carver v Obruchev in their respective films, but even so, I may be in the minority that doesn't find Obruchev to be extremely out of place in NTTD.
I envy you in that case. He's a fairly large drawback to my experience of it. He is thankfully less involved as the film goes on, which is why I agree with @peter that he is less annoying. But that's a matter of his screentime rather than my tolerance. :p