Controversial opinions about Bond films

1200201203205206707

Comments

  • edited November 2016 Posts: 1,009
    Not mine, but my father's - another lifelong fan - controversial opinion: he loves James Brolin's screentest, as much as I tell him you guys hate it (I'm neutral on all this: I would have preferred to judge over a completed movie).
    Of course, we are non-native English speakers, and he judges by Brolin's physique: he would have seen OP dubbed, and, sometimes, dubbing corrects the flaws of the original actors (for instance, I didn't understand what was wrong with Hayden Christensen playing Darth Vader until I actually heard his original voice, with his stiffed and boring intonation and overall clumsiness).

    Speaking of which, my mother also loves Bond films... But only the ones by Connery: she can't stand to see another actor in the role, especially Roger Moore, who she loathes. She actually likes Brosnan and tolerates Craig, but she saids they're not Bond. It's kinda funny to see a 63 year-old woman acting like a rabid fangirl, so we tease her a lot ('cos we have her on the spot, welcome back).
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,357
    I wish EON could have pulled a John Altman with SP and had the action music done by a different Composer. ;)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Not mine, but my father's - another lifelong fan - controversial opinion: he loves James Brolin's screentest, as much as I tell him you guys hate it (I'm neutral on all this: I would have preferred to judge over a completed movie).
    Of course, we are non-native English speakers, and he judges by Brolin's physique: he would have seen OP dubbed, and, sometimes, dubbing corrects the flaws of the original actors (for instance, I didn't understand what was wrong with Hayden Christensen playing Darth Vader until I actually heard his original voice, with his stiffed and boring intonation and overall clumsiness).

    Speaking of which, my mother also loves Bond films... But only the ones by Connery: she can't stand to see another actor in the role, especially Roger Moore, who she loathes. She actually likes Brosnan and tolerates Craig, but she saids they're not Bond. It's kinda funny to see a 63 year-old woman acting like a rabid fangirl, so we tease her a lot ('cos we have her on the spot, welcome back).

    @bigladiesman, your mother and I would get on well. That sounds like me when I was 15!
  • Not mine, but my father's - another lifelong fan - controversial opinion: he loves James Brolin's screentest, as much as I tell him you guys hate it (I'm neutral on all this: I would have preferred to judge over a completed movie).
    Of course, we are non-native English speakers, and he judges by Brolin's physique: he would have seen OP dubbed, and, sometimes, dubbing corrects the flaws of the original actors (for instance, I didn't understand what was wrong with Hayden Christensen playing Darth Vader until I actually heard his original voice, with his stiffed and boring intonation and overall clumsiness).

    Speaking of which, my mother also loves Bond films... But only the ones by Connery: she can't stand to see another actor in the role, especially Roger Moore, who she loathes. She actually likes Brosnan and tolerates Craig, but she saids they're not Bond. It's kinda funny to see a 63 year-old woman acting like a rabid fangirl, so we tease her a lot ('cos we have her on the spot, welcome back).

    @bigladiesman, your mother and I would get on well. That sounds like me when I was 15!

    When one grows up with such a juggernaut like Connery as Bond, I guess the other Bonds pale a lot, to be gentle.

    I was supposed to fix something on my first post, but I'll better correct it here: I said that my parents are not-native English speakers when they simply don't speak a word of English at all! :P
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,437
    Natalya is a better Bond girl than Vesper.

    The Cradle finale is better than the sinking house finale.
  • Posts: 1,394
    Natalya is a better Bond girl than Vesper.

    The Cradle finale is better than the sinking house finale.

    Hardly controversial.Natalya is very popular amongst fans.

    How about this? Vesper is one of the worst Bond girls.Nothing against Eva Green who i love as an actress but Vesper is just annoying to me.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,437
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Natalya is a better Bond girl than Vesper.

    The Cradle finale is better than the sinking house finale.

    Hardly controversial.Natalya is very popular amongst fans.

    How about this? Vesper is one of the worst Bond girls.Nothing against Eva Green who i love as an actress but Vesper is just annoying to me.

    Yeah, she never does anything resourceful, just pecks Bond on the cheek at the poker game and cries in the shower.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Ow
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Natalya is a better Bond girl than Vesper.

    The Cradle finale is better than the sinking house finale.

    Hardly controversial.Natalya is very popular amongst fans.

    How about this? Vesper is one of the worst Bond girls.Nothing against Eva Green who i love as an actress but Vesper is just annoying to me.

    Yeah, she never does anything resourceful, just pecks Bond on the cheek at the poker game and cries in the shower.

    She bargains a deal that is the only reason Bond is alive at the end of the film, and was simultaneously one of the most cunning yet lovely double agents in the whole series...

    But Natalya can load a gun, and she can almost hack things on her own (if Bond is there to tell her the password, that is) so there's that. ;)
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 2016 Posts: 8,437
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Natalya is a better Bond girl than Vesper.

    The Cradle finale is better than the sinking house finale.

    Hardly controversial.Natalya is very popular amongst fans.

    How about this? Vesper is one of the worst Bond girls.Nothing against Eva Green who i love as an actress but Vesper is just annoying to me.

    Yeah, she never does anything resourceful, just pecks Bond on the cheek at the poker game and cries in the shower.

    She bargains a deal that is the only reason Bond is alive at the end of the film, and was simultaneously one of the most cunning yet lovely double agents in the whole series...

    But Natalya can load a gun, and she can almost hack things on her own (if Bond is there to tell her the password, that is) so there's that. ;)

    Natalya changes the access codes...

    Also, without her Bond would have fallen to his death on the cradle at the end.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,356
    Vesper saves Bond's life too.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,437
    echo wrote: »
    Vesper saves Bond's life too.

    Yes, she does restart him. I suppose she is a good character in concept, but the way it is executed is poor in the film. Especially when she chooses to commit suicide at the end. That was very strange.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    I never got why she commits suicide at the end. It's illogical, I suppose they had to get to the emotional scene so it was just written that way.

    Anyway, Vesper the character is annoying and dull as dishwater in Casino Royale.
    BUT
    Eva Green is the greatest living actress. She elevates EVERYTHING to highest heights.
    She could play M, Bond, Denbigh or Wade for Jack's sake and it would be convincing.
  • LordBrettSinclairLordBrettSinclair Greensleeves
    Posts: 167
    Roger Moore's version of Bond is more enjoyable and rewatchable than Mr Connery's
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,077
    echo wrote: »
    Vesper saves Bond's life too.

    Yes, she does restart him. I suppose she is a good character in concept, but the way it is executed is poor in the film. Especially when she chooses to commit suicide at the end. That was very strange.

    She also commits suicide in the novel.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 2016 Posts: 8,437
    echo wrote: »
    Vesper saves Bond's life too.

    Yes, she does restart him. I suppose she is a good character in concept, but the way it is executed is poor in the film. Especially when she chooses to commit suicide at the end. That was very strange.

    She also commits suicide in the novel.

    I know. It's the execution that's sloppy. She seems terrified for her life, calling out for James to save her, but then when he finally get to her, she changes completely and locks herself in. Eh?

    But the sequence as a whole is unnecessary. If OHMSS could end on a solemn note, why the need for a big action finale here? I wish they had the strength of their convictions in that regard.
  • Posts: 16,204
    echo wrote: »
    Vesper saves Bond's life too.

    Yes, she does restart him. I suppose she is a good character in concept, but the way it is executed is poor in the film. Especially when she chooses to commit suicide at the end. That was very strange.

    She also commits suicide in the novel.

    I know. It's the execution that's sloppy. She seems terrified for her life, calling out for James to save her, but then when he finally get to her, she changes completely and locks herself in. Eh?

    But the sequence as a whole is unnecessary. If OHMSS could end on a solemn note, why the need for a big action finale here? I wish they had the strength of their convictions in that regard.

    The Venice sinking building sequence, along with the airport action bit, rank as my least favorite parts of CR.
    I would have preferred Vesper to die as in the novel. Tracy certainly did (thank you, Richard Maibaum and Peter Hunt).
    However, apparently audiences, in this, the 21st Century, demand action, CGI and video-game cinematography over accuracy to source material. If an action sequence at the end had to be mandatory, I suppose I still would have preferred Vesper to die as in the novel, maybe followed by Bond in pursuit of Mr White. Something along those lines. The Venice sequence just goes on and on. A hold over from the Brosnan era perhaps?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 2016 Posts: 8,437
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Vesper saves Bond's life too.

    Yes, she does restart him. I suppose she is a good character in concept, but the way it is executed is poor in the film. Especially when she chooses to commit suicide at the end. That was very strange.

    She also commits suicide in the novel.

    I know. It's the execution that's sloppy. She seems terrified for her life, calling out for James to save her, but then when he finally get to her, she changes completely and locks herself in. Eh?

    But the sequence as a whole is unnecessary. If OHMSS could end on a solemn note, why the need for a big action finale here? I wish they had the strength of their convictions in that regard.

    The Venice sinking building sequence, along with the airport action bit, rank as my least favorite parts of CR.
    I would have preferred Vesper to die as in the novel. Tracy certainly did (thank you, Richard Maibaum and Peter Hunt).
    However, apparently audiences, in this, the 21st Century, demand action, CGI and video-game cinematography over accuracy to source material. If an action sequence at the end had to be mandatory, I suppose I still would have preferred Vesper to die as in the novel, maybe followed by Bond in pursuit of Mr White. Something along those lines. The Venice sequence just goes on and on. A hold over from the Brosnan era perhaps?

    I still view it as a pretty gutless move to couch this tragic moment from the novel inside of a balls-out action sequence. And what were they thinking introducing random eyepatch villain twenty minutes before the end of the movie? That should have been Mr White.
  • Posts: 16,204
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Vesper saves Bond's life too.

    Yes, she does restart him. I suppose she is a good character in concept, but the way it is executed is poor in the film. Especially when she chooses to commit suicide at the end. That was very strange.

    She also commits suicide in the novel.

    I know. It's the execution that's sloppy. She seems terrified for her life, calling out for James to save her, but then when he finally get to her, she changes completely and locks herself in. Eh?

    But the sequence as a whole is unnecessary. If OHMSS could end on a solemn note, why the need for a big action finale here? I wish they had the strength of their convictions in that regard.

    The Venice sinking building sequence, along with the airport action bit, rank as my least favorite parts of CR.
    I would have preferred Vesper to die as in the novel. Tracy certainly did (thank you, Richard Maibaum and Peter Hunt).
    However, apparently audiences, in this, the 21st Century, demand action, CGI and video-game cinematography over accuracy to source material. If an action sequence at the end had to be mandatory, I suppose I still would have preferred Vesper to die as in the novel, maybe followed by Bond in pursuit of Mr White. Something along those lines. The Venice sequence just goes on and on. A hold over from the Brosnan era perhaps?

    I still view it as a pretty gutless move to couch this tragic moment from the novel inside of a balls-out action sequence. And what were they thinking introducing random eyepatch villain twenty minutes before the end of the movie? That should have been Mr White.

    I think there was an eye patched character in the novel- however it's been awhile since I read it so I could be way off. Still, the novel's ending packs more of a punch and if it had been done properly, could have been memorable.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited November 2016 Posts: 8,437
    But given how we've already set up this villain called Mr White, it makes sense to make a like for like substitution.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited November 2016 Posts: 9,020
    Roger Moore's version of Bond is more enjoyable and rewatchable than Mr Connery's

    Well that's controversial enough!!

    I had to think about this and here is the result:

    The ones that stand clearly above the rest:
    Connery: DN, FRWL, GF
    Moore: TSWLM, FYEO, OP

    The guilty pleasures:
    Connery: DAF
    Moore: TMWTGG, MR, AVTAK

    Re-watchability:
    Connery: DN 5/5, FRWL 4/5, GF 5/5, TB 2/5, YOLT 3/5, DAF 5/5, NSNA 2/5
    Moore: LALD 3/5, TMWTGG 3/5, TSWLM 5/5, MR 5/5, FYEO 4/5, OP 4/5, AVTAK 4/5

    I must agree with Lord Sinclair. Moore seems to be overall more re-watchable. Surprising but then not really.
  • Posts: 16,204
    I tend to savor the first three Connery classics like a fine wine, so I don't watch them quite as often. The guilty pleasure Bonds tend to be popped in more often for me.
    One thing I'll say is, IMO, both the Connery and Moore Bonds together are far more re-watchable then anything done after the 6 year gap.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    echo wrote: »
    Vesper saves Bond's life too.

    Yes, she does restart him. I suppose she is a good character in concept, but the way it is executed is poor in the film. Especially when she chooses to commit suicide at the end. That was very strange.
    I never got why she commits suicide at the end. It's illogical, I suppose they had to get to the emotional scene so it was just written that way.

    Anyway, Vesper the character is annoying and dull as dishwater in Casino Royale.
    BUT
    Eva Green is the greatest living actress. She elevates EVERYTHING to highest heights.
    She could play M, Bond, Denbigh or Wade for Jack's sake and it would be convincing.

    Really? Quite obvious, to me. This is my favorite film of the series, of course, and I've made a habit to study all of it exhaustively. Vesper is also far and away my favorite Bond girl.

    It helps if you read the novel, but essentially Vesper is so haunted and guilt-stricken by what she has done to Bond that she can't live with herself and/or face him again after all that she did to undo his work in the casino and how she manipulated his trust and feelings for her. Worse yet, despite all her strategic moves and duplicity, somewhere along the way she truly loved Bond, and she went to what she knew was her death in Venice (along with the money) to ensure that Bond would never be harmed, her love was so strong.

    This is why Bond spends so much of QoS denying his love for her, because he thinks she coldly betrayed him and nothing more, but over time he learns to forgive her, and hears from Yusef the truth of the matter, that she loved him and put herself in the crosshairs to save Bond's life by doing the money exchange, driven only by her love and care for him.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,437
    I just favour perspicuity, so I like to see things in the light of day. The problem with the Vesper character is that so much is told to us, but not shown. We are told she is headstrong and independent but she never demonstrates this onscreen (besides debuffing Bond's advances and ordering seperate rooms). We're told shes this cunning and duplicitous femm fatal but we never actually get to see it. Also, doesn't anyone find it strange that they did the same story twice in a row, with a female ally who Bond sleeps with turns out to be working for the enemy?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I just favour perspicuity, so I like to see things in the light of day. The problem with the Vesper character is that so much is told to us, but not shown. We are told she is headstrong and independent but she never demonstrates this onscreen (besides debuffing Bond's advances and ordering seperate rooms). We're told shes this cunning and duplicitous femm fatal but we never actually get to see it. Also, doesn't anyone find it strange that they did the same story twice in a row, with a female ally who Bond sleeps with turns out to be working for the enemy?

    I think CR is full of moments that depict Vesper as a big draw of a character, including her intro on the train, how she orders Bond around in the hotel (giving him a tailor suit), how she clashes with him over the game, how she breaks down in the hotel bathroom (a sign she's battling demons), the love knot that she keeps avoiding talking about (again cluing us in to a bigger plot), how paranoid and nervous she acts in Venice, and then how she appears in her final moments, beside herself in grief and self-loathing. She's the whole package; sophisticated, elegant, independent, witty, sexy, sharp, mysterious and also quite tormented and complex on top of it.

    There's things about her character you have to sense and look for in the performance, but that's why it works. Just like you'd miss a lot of Sean Connery's best work if you weren't paying attention to his acting in Dr. No, for example. Eva presents a multi-dimensional performance that has a lot to discover and question, because Vesper is such a fascinating character. She's there to be questioned and analyzed, not just looked at like a piece of legs as is customary of Bond girls, unfortunately. I respect that, and the film needed to nail her character, as she and Tracy are the end all be all for Bond in the novels, the ones that stick with him. She's also the only Bond girl outside of Tracy to have a big presence in the films long after she's dead. The ghost of Vesper remains post-CR.

    Comparing her to the bland and badly written Miranda Frost is an error I would urge people not to make. ;)
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,437
    I just favour perspicuity, so I like to see things in the light of day. The problem with the Vesper character is that so much is told to us, but not shown. We are told she is headstrong and independent but she never demonstrates this onscreen (besides debuffing Bond's advances and ordering seperate rooms). We're told shes this cunning and duplicitous femm fatal but we never actually get to see it. Also, doesn't anyone find it strange that they did the same story twice in a row, with a female ally who Bond sleeps with turns out to be working for the enemy?

    I think CR is full of moments that depict Vesper as a big draw of a character, including her intro on the train, how she orders Bond around in the hotel (giving him a tailor suit), how she clashes with him over the game, how she breaks down in the hotel bathroom (a sign she's battling demons), the love knot that she keeps avoiding talking about (again cluing us in to a bigger plot), how paranoid and nervous she acts in Venice, and then how she appears in her final moments, beside herself in grief and self-loathing. She's the whole package; sophisticated, elegant, independent, witty, sexy, sharp, mysterious and also quite tormented and complex on top of it.

    There's things about her character you have to sense and look for in the performance, but that's why it works. Just like you'd miss a lot of Sean Connery's best work if you weren't paying attention to his acting in Dr. No, for example. Eva presents a multi-dimensional performance that has a lot to discover and question, because Vesper is such a fascinating character. She's there to be questioned and analyzed, not just looked at like a piece of legs as is customary of Bond girls, unfortunately. I respect that, and the film needed to nail her character, as she and Tracy are the end all be all for Bond in the novels, the ones that stick with him. She's also the only Bond girl outside of Tracy to have a big presence in the films long after she's dead. The ghost of Vesper remains post-CR.

    Comparing her to the bland and badly written Miranda Frost is an error I would urge people not to make. ;)

    Maybe you're right, but the mystery of Vesper remains just that, for me. During the underground torture sequence, Le Chiffre says

    "BUT YOU ARE SO WRONG!!! Because even after I've slaughtered you are your little girlfriend, your Government would still welcome me with open arms."

    Now, bearing in the mind the theme of trust in the movie, I've always took this as a clever way for the writers to cast doubt in Bonds mind. Can Bond even trust that his own Government has his back? After all, they need the secrets that Le Chiffre has. It's a clever way for Bond to suddenly be made aware of "the big picture". But by the time he wakes up in hospital in immediately resumes his love with Vesper. He forgets the lesson straight away, and falls in love anyway. Why does Bond never suspect Vesper at any point? She is a lot closer to him than Mathis ever was. I don't know, it just seems like a contrived part of the story. I don't remember having such issues with the book the last time I read it. Perhaps it just doesn't translate well to the big screen.

    BTW did you notice how the love knot resembles the knot at the end of the rope which Le Chiffre uses to bash Bond's testicles with.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @Mendes4Lyfe, I think it has to do with the fact that Vesper is acting to help Bond throughout. When she helps him get a chance at the money, he feels he can count on her, and in his mind, the "tell" is something Mathis told Le Chiffre to make Bond fail, and he instantly thinks Vesper is the victim because she's the one with the proper codes and password for Le Chiffre to get the money, hence her being kidnapped. Bond views her as the victim of Le Chiffre and Mathis, the one they're trying to beat to get at the money.

    You have a point that Bond in a perfect world, unhindered, would be more suspicious of why Vesper and he were still alive after the barge torture scenario, but maybe he believes that whoever killed Le Chiffre was tying up their own loose ends (as he doesn't know of White yet) and they have no idea of the money. Or maybe he thinks Mathis acted to spare them to get the money later. Love in part has blinded Bond as well, as he doesn't think a woman who seems to love him back would ever double-cross him. He's so willing to trust his instincts that he doubts everyone before he does Vesper (until it's too late), even Mathis. Vesper's betrayal then shows him just how little you can trust your instincts, and why the big lesson of Casino Royale for him is "don't trust anyone." That stays with Bond forever after.

    It's a very complex plot with many ties, but like in From Russia with Love (also complex), Bond is so distracted by other things that he doesn't see the shadow of SPECTRE looming over him for the entire film until Grant has him dead to rights, just like Bond never sees Vesper as the tool of his undoing. One thing I like about Casino Royale is that we don't have all the answers and take the ride with Bond only knowing what he does until the end in a lot of ways, while From Russia with Love makes a point to show us the plot planned for Bond before we even get to see him for the first time in the film, twenty minutes in.

    Both great films with complex plots, and two different approaches on the same idea.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,437
    @Mendes4Lyfe, I think it has to do with the fact that Vesper is acting to help Bond throughout. When she helps him get a chance at the money, he feels he can count on her, and in his mind, the "tell" is something Mathis told Le Chiffre to make Bond fail, and he instantly thinks Vesper is the victim because she's the one with the proper codes and password for Le Chiffre to get the money, hence her being kidnapped. Bond views her as the victim of Le Chiffre and Mathis, the one they're trying to beat to get at the money.

    You have a point that Bond in a perfect world, unhindered, would be more suspicious of why Vesper and he were still alive after the barge torture scenario, but maybe he believes that whoever killed Le Chiffre was tying up their own loose ends (as he doesn't know of White yet) and they have no idea of the money. Or maybe he thinks Mathis acted to spare them to get the money later. Love in part has blinded Bond as well, as he doesn't think a woman who seems to love him back would ever double-cross him. He's so willing to trust his instincts that he doubts everyone before he does Vesper (until it's too late), even Mathis. Vesper's betrayal then shows him just how little you can trust your instincts, and why the big lesson of Casino Royale for him is "don't trust anyone." That stays with Bond forever after.

    It's a very complex plot with many ties, but like in From Russia with Love (also complex), Bond is so distracted by other things that he doesn't see the shadow of SPECTRE looming over him for the entire film until Grant has him dead to rights, just like Bond never sees Vesper as the tool of his undoing. One thing I like about Casino Royale is that we don't have all the answers and take the ride with Bond only knowing what he does until the end in a lot of ways, while From Russia with Love makes a point to show us the plot planned for Bond before we even get to see him for the first time in the film, twenty minutes in.

    Both great films with complex plots, and two different approaches on the same idea.

    I never considered the idea that much of Vespers character is deliberately left down to Implication. That's actually really interesting, come to think of it. I always thought that the character was simply mishandled, that she got lost in the story. But what you seem to be suggesting is that, while we do find out the basic gist of her role, we have to work out much of it for ourselves. We never truly know how much Vesper loves Bond and how much she loves this other guy. It's never explained, so that we wonder and question. Afterall, if we were told, then that would stop us from wondering ourselves. We would simply know. That is very intriguing indeed! Suddenly what looks like incompetence on the part of the writers could actually be a masterstroke.

    Isn't there also an irony in the fact that Vesper is doing all of this to save the man she loves, when this man is playing her just as she is playing Bond?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @Mendes4Lyfe, I think Casino Royale and Vesper in particular is an example of what the Craig films endeavor to do, showing us characters but not giving us everything. We get a better look than usual at Bond's character, including seeing where he grew up, but we still don't know exactly what drives him, all the same for M as well.

    Vesper is the mystery of the piece, and her betrayal should be as shocking as it is to Bond, as I personally grow to love her, as do many audience members, I'm sure. A lot of things are indeed kept hidden to brew the mystery so that when the truth is revealed, we get a gut punch at the end of the film when we see that she has been the one undoing Bond's work, the last person he would ever suspect. We trust her because Bond trusts her, and we're all duped because of it.

    A lot of Vesper's character is so fascinating because it's so easy for us to think she's on his side every second. Because Quantum are ordering her to get the money, she is trying to help Bond get it any way she can, per her commands. So when she's saving Bond's life and making sure he's prepared for the table, to us, the audience, she looks like she's just a caring ally, but what's really going on is Vesper is realizing that she needs Bond alive to win the money, so she intervenes to ensure he makes it to the last hand and is able to win. When Bond is foiled by Le Chiffre's tell, Vesper refuses to give him more money, which may signal that she is going to try and get it from Le Chiffre instead, as he's the safer bet and Bond is "bleeding chips" as Felix would say.

    What makes Casino Royale fascinating is that you could endlessly watch it and pick up new things, because so many of the characters, from Bond, Vesper, Mathis, Felix and Le Chiffre all have their own motives, and you never know which to trust or if any of them are truly acting in Bond's interests. Like From Russia with Love, the film is full of interesting mystery and character complexity. You could watch every scene in Casino Royale trying your best to wonder what is going on in Vesper's mind as she betrays Bond just as you could do the same thing with Tatiana in From Russia with Love as she plays a similar game; it makes the films endlessly fascinating to study. Both women are pawns in a greater scheme they don't see, and are sympathetic characters for that reason. Tatiana's nationalistic pride was abused by Klebb to get the Lektor, just as Quantum and Yusef played with Vesper's heart to get the funds from the poker game.


    You ask about Yusef tricking Vesper when she thinks she's the one tricking Bond, and yes, it is quite a tragic thing, one of the most tragic reveals in Bond history. One of the reasons I respect Quantum of Solace so much is because it strives to address what Casino left behind. We see Bond grieve and try to show everyone around him that Vesper meant nothing to him, but we also see him steal a photo of her and Yusef, and we know that on the plane with Mathis he's purposely pretending not to remember the name of the drink he named after her because he just can't say her name out loud; basically, as the audience we know he's faking it and truly is bothered by the feelings Vesper aroused in him. There's a hate he feels for her at the start, because the memory of her betrayal is too fresh, and he has it in his mind that she was acting selfishly, and loved the other man, and not him.

    But as the film goes on and Mathis pleads as a dying request for Bond to forgive Vesper (his last words are "forgive her, forgive yourself"), and he sees how little vengeance does to help Camille with her inner battles, he knows what is important and what is demanded of him. He tracks Yusef in the knowledge that no matter how many men he kills, he can never bring Vesper back, and she'd hate to see him do that with his life by throwing it all away for a stupid revenge mission that could only end in him dead.

    The meeting between Bond and Yusef is masterful for many reasons. For one, it's revealed to us that Yusef isn't a tortured lover, he's an active Quantum member whose sole job is to strategically seduce women in high positions of governments so that they can then be used as pawns for greater schemes, and all along the women don't suspect the ploy. When Bond holds out the algerian knot and sees that Yusef has given the Canadian agent one of the same, you can see the contempt and anger in his eyes as his own stupidity hits him. It now becomes clear to him that Vesper was just as much a victim as him in this mess, and that she was acting as she was not out of evil intent, but desperation, and Yusef and Quantum used her heart and saw her vulnerability and preyed on it.

    It's a great character detail that the object Yusef gives all his lovers are algerian love knots, because, as he's Algerian himself, he probably peddles some sappy story to each of his women that the necklaces are important in his culture and only given to people that the giver cares for. In this way Yusef is using his own culture to trick and "butter up" these women, women he doesn't even love, including Vesper all so he can get secrets out of them. This is particularly loathsome in Bond's eyes, because while Yusef didn't care for Vesper at all, even when she was willing to do anything for him, all Bond wanted to do was love her and retire with her forever and finally be a decent man. Because of Yusef and Quanutm that's all undone, and it's amazing Bond doesn't kill him right there. The jealousy Bond felt at Vesper being a taken woman (like in the dinner scene before she's kidnapped) are made even more sour as he realizes the man she loved more than words could say felt nothing in return. All her beauty and passion and wonderful spirit was being wasted and used by a man who didn't appreciate her for how special she was, inside and out. Bond saw all Vesper's beauty, but in the end he couldn't save her from herself.

    As we see once the hotel meeting ends, Bond leaves Yusef breathing because he realizes he is of more use to MI6 alive (a sign that he's grown from his bullish rookie days), and he also knows Yusef's punishment needs to be hard time behind bars, and not the solace of a bullet, which would be too quick and merciful for him. I love that we don't actually hear what Yusef tells Bond, as well. The scene is more powerful because the intimate moment between them is never divulged to us. The moment between them is a private one, and as the audience we don't have any right to hear it. All we know as the film ends is that Bond was told by Yusef what the truth of Quantum's plot was, and that Bond thinks M was right about Vespe all along, to which he means he finally realized what she told him at the end of Casino Royale, ie. she went to her death bargaining to save Bond's life. Bond's anger blinded him to the truth of Vesper's sacrifice, and once she was revealed to him as the poor victim of a cruel scheme, he finally "got it" and was able to move on, leaving Vesper and her necklace in the snow for good, but always kept in the back of his mind as a lesson learned.

    People often ask what I think it so great about Quantum of Solace, and it's stuff like this. In one movie we see Bond go through all of the grieving process, battle his demons over a woman he is trying not to love or miss, all while he's facing a faux environmentalist with ties to the very organization that led the woman he loved to her death. As the story goes on Bond and Mathis forgive each other, and Mathis' death drives Bond to respect the man's last wish and forgive Vesper and himself for their mistakes, all ending with Bond discovering the truth from Yusef and giving his final respects to Vesper while continuing to grow into the professional he is, moving past this bump in his road.

    @Mendes4Lyfe, sorry for writing a book in reply to you, but I wanted to give you a full answer on this, and I like to share my thoughts on Casino and Quantum of Solace in the hopes that I can get people to see it with new eyes the next time they see it to make them appreciate it more. I think these are really special and admirable films because they really strive to make the characters fully formed and complex, as we all are as humans. You can study all the characters like you would those around you at home or work, their portraits are so clear and finely constructed.

    Thanks for sparking this response in me this night. :)
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,437
    @Mendes4Lyfe, I think Casino Royale and Vesper in particular is an example of what the Craig films endeavor to do, showing us characters but not giving us everything. We get a better look than usual at Bond's character, including seeing where he grew up, but we still don't know exactly what drives him, all the same for M as well.

    Vesper is the mystery of the piece, and her betrayal should be as shocking as it is to Bond, as I personally grow to love her, as do many audience members, I'm sure. A lot of things are indeed kept hidden to brew the mystery so that when the truth is revealed, we get a gut punch at the end of the film when we see that she has been the one undoing Bond's work, the last person he would ever suspect. We trust her because Bond trusts her, and we're all duped because of it.

    A lot of Vesper's character is so fascinating because it's so easy for us to think she's on his side every second. Because Quantum are ordering her to get the money, she is trying to help Bond get it any way she can, per her commands. So when she's saving Bond's life and making sure he's prepared for the table, to us, the audience, she looks like she's just a caring ally, but what's really going on is Vesper is realizing that she needs Bond alive to win the money, so she intervenes to ensure he makes it to the last hand and is able to win. When Bond is foiled by Le Chiffre's tell, Vesper refuses to give him more money, which may signal that she is going to try and get it from Le Chiffre instead, as he's the safer bet and Bond is "bleeding chips" as Felix would say.

    What makes Casino Royale fascinating is that you could endlessly watch it and pick up new things, because so many of the characters, from Bond, Vesper, Mathis, Felix and Le Chiffre all have their own motives, and you never know which to trust or if any of them are truly acting in Bond's interests. Like From Russia with Love, the film is full of interesting mystery and character complexity. You could watch every scene in Casino Royale trying your best to wonder what is going on in Vesper's mind as she betrays Bond just as you could do the same thing with Tatiana in From Russia with Love as she plays a similar game; it makes the films endlessly fascinating to study. Both women are pawns in a greater scheme they don't see, and are sympathetic characters for that reason. Tatiana's nationalistic pride was abused by Klebb to get the Lektor, just as Quantum and Yusef played with Vesper's heart to get the funds from the poker game.


    You ask about Yusef tricking Vesper when she thinks she's the one tricking Bond, and yes, it is quite a tragic thing, one of the most tragic reveals in Bond history. One of the reasons I respect Quantum of Solace so much is because it strives to address what Casino left behind. We see Bond grieve and try to show everyone around him that Vesper meant nothing to him, but we also see him steal a photo of her and Yusef, and we know that on the plane with Mathis he's purposely pretending not to remember the name of the drink he named after her because he just can't say her name out loud; basically, as the audience we know he's faking it and truly is bothered by the feelings Vesper aroused in him. There's a hate he feels for her at the start, because the memory of her betrayal is too fresh, and he has it in his mind that she was acting selfishly, and loved the other man, and not him.

    But as the film goes on and Mathis pleads as a dying request for Bond to forgive Vesper (his last words are "forgive her, forgive yourself"), and he sees how little vengeance does to help Camille with her inner battles, he knows what is important and what is demanded of him. He tracks Yusef in the knowledge that no matter how many men he kills, he can never bring Vesper back, and she'd hate to see him do that with his life by throwing it all away for a stupid revenge mission that could only end in him dead.

    The meeting between Bond and Yusef is masterful for many reasons. For one, it's revealed to us that Yusef isn't a tortured lover, he's an active Quantum member whose sole job is to strategically seduce women in high positions of governments so that they can then be used as pawns for greater schemes, and all along the women don't suspect the ploy. When Bond holds out the algerian knot and sees that Yusef has given the Canadian agent one of the same, you can see the contempt and anger in his eyes as his own stupidity hits him. It now becomes clear to him that Vesper was just as much a victim as him in this mess, and that she was acting as she was not out of evil intent, but desperation, and Yusef and Quantum used her heart and saw her vulnerability and preyed on it.

    It's a great character detail that the object Yusef gives all his lovers are algerian love knots, because, as he's Algerian himself, he probably peddles some sappy story to each of his women that the necklaces are important in his culture and only given to people that the giver cares for. In this way Yusef is using his own culture to trick and "butter up" these women, women he doesn't even love, including Vesper all so he can get secrets out of them. This is particularly loathsome in Bond's eyes, because while Yusef didn't care for Vesper at all, even when she was willing to do anything for him, all Bond wanted to do was love her and retire with her forever and finally be a decent man. Because of Yusef and Quanutm that's all undone, and it's amazing Bond doesn't kill him right there. The jealousy Bond felt at Vesper being a taken woman (like in the dinner scene before she's kidnapped) are made even more sour as he realizes the man she loved more than words could say felt nothing in return. All her beauty and passion and wonderful spirit was being wasted and used by a man who didn't appreciate her for how special she was, inside and out. Bond saw all Vesper's beauty, but in the end he couldn't save her from herself.

    As we see once the hotel meeting ends, Bond leaves Yusef breathing because he realizes he is of more use to MI6 alive (a sign that he's grown from his bullish rookie days), and he also knows Yusef's punishment needs to be hard time behind bars, and not the solace of a bullet, which would be too quick and merciful for him. I love that we don't actually hear what Yusef tells Bond, as well. The scene is more powerful because the intimate moment between them is never divulged to us. The moment between them is a private one, and as the audience we don't have any right to hear it. All we know as the film ends is that Bond was told by Yusef what the truth of Quantum's plot was, and that Bond thinks M was right about Vespe all along, to which he means he finally realized what she told him at the end of Casino Royale, ie. she went to her death bargaining to save Bond's life. Bond's anger blinded him to the truth of Vesper's sacrifice, and once she was revealed to him as the poor victim of a cruel scheme, he finally "got it" and was able to move on, leaving Vesper and her necklace in the snow for good, but always kept in the back of his mind as a lesson learned.

    People often ask what I think it so great about Quantum of Solace, and it's stuff like this. In one movie we see Bond go through all of the grieving process, battle his demons over a woman he is trying not to love or miss, all while he's facing a faux environmentalist with ties to the very organization that led the woman he loved to her death. As the story goes on Bond and Mathis forgive each other, and Mathis' death drives Bond to respect the man's last wish and forgive Vesper and himself for their mistakes, all ending with Bond discovering the truth from Yusef and giving his final respects to Vesper while continuing to grow into the professional he is, moving past this bump in his road.

    @Mendes4Lyfe, sorry for writing a book in reply to you, but I wanted to give you a full answer on this, and I like to share my thoughts on Casino and Quantum of Solace in the hopes that I can get people to see it with new eyes the next time they see it to make them appreciate it more. I think these are really special and admirable films because they really strive to make the characters fully formed and complex, as we all are as humans. You can study all the characters like you would those around you at home or work, their portraits are so clear and finely constructed.

    Thanks for sparking this response in me this night. :)

    Exceptionally fine post, @0BradyM0Bondfanatic.

    I'm not sure if perhaps I missed something, but isn't Le Chiffre working for Quantum too? That was always my impression, but if that's the case then why does he try to kill Bond with poison when he knows that Vesper needs him alive. Perhaps I'm missing something really obvious here, but if Vesper and Le Chiffre are working together, why does one have to keep him alive while the other wants him dead?
Sign In or Register to comment.