›

An assessment of Judi Dench's M

13

Comments

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    The chase in the construction site is great but (IMO) it goes on a tad too long.

    You can't really compare LTK to CR. ALL of Kill was set in Miami whereas only part of CR was set there.

    Royale has a style and extravagance Kill wishes it had.

    I think you can probably guess what my response to this will be.

    Imo Kill had plenty of extravagance. I think the Miami setting worked fine and it suits the film.

    I think the CR chase sequence was great and not too long at all, my favourite part of the entire film.

    I'm not going to bash LTK but you can't really compare the two.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited May 2012 Posts: 12,837
    BAIN123 wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    The chase in the construction site is great but (IMO) it goes on a tad too long.

    You can't really compare LTK to CR. ALL of Kill was set in Miami whereas only part of CR was set there.

    Royale has a style and extravagance Kill wishes it had.

    I think you can probably guess what my response to this will be.

    Imo Kill had plenty of extravagance. I think the Miami setting worked fine and it suits the film.

    I think the CR chase sequence was great and not too long at all, my favourite part of the entire film.

    I'm not going to bash LTK but you can't really compare the two.

    No you can't really, end of the day they're very different films. I will admit though, even though LTK is my favourite film, CR had better locations.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189
    actonsteve wrote:
    Signed_By_RogerMoore wrote:
    Why does every film have to be about emotion, exploring revenge/bereavement themes? why can't we have Bond film that is made using the same formula as Connery and Moore? Why can't we have a Bernard Lee/Robert Browne-esque M? Why do we need a big actor to play M? It's all been done now, let Barbara Broccoli's stupid idea die now

    Yes, lets go backwards. Lets remove our brain cells, hearts, and faculties of discernment. Lets revert to 12 years old. Big explosians, dumb oneliners, cardboard characters - yes, lets go back to those days

    Its not 1977 anymore. Movies move on become more interesting and three dimensional. More grown up.

    The Bond series must too.

    Movies were more than capable of being "three dimensional" in the 70s. There's plenty of great examples. The thing is in that era, Bond wasn't.

    In 2012 we still have our fair share of crap (if anything its got worse).
  • myworldisenoughmyworldisenough
    Posts: 1,143
    As an actress, I rate her and she has done a great job imo. I do concede however that her M has had a little too much air time and now it's time for Bond to cut the apron strings and be allowed to have a movie all to himself, without M popping up all the time!
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    actonsteve wrote:
    I think Paul Haggis butt whipped Purvis and Wade until they delivered a great script.

    A Fleming masterpiece that was given justice by Haggis and co. The sharpest script since the eighties.

    IMO CR2006 completly destroyed the original novel... an insult to Fleming. Great film, but very bad Bond film and un-Fleming to the extreme.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189
    The tone of the CR film is still fairly similar to the book (straight faced, occasionally brutal but with a strong dose of elegance).

    Much closer than the MR film is to it's original novel (to me anyway).

    Anyway, it doesn't even matter.

    MOST PEOPLE DON'T READ FLEMING.
  • Signed_By_RogerMooreSigned_By_RogerMoore
    Posts: 643
    BAIN123 wrote:
    The tone of the CR film is still fairly similar to the book (straight faced, occasionally brutal but with a strong dose of elegance).

    Much closer than the MR film is to it's original novel (to me anyway).

    MR the novel is more like DAD the film than MR the film
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    It is actually. You're right.
  • Signed_By_RogerMooreSigned_By_RogerMoore
    Posts: 643
    The difference between Bernard Lee and Judi Dench's M is startling. Lee wasn't always straight forward as some make out. But he was respectful of Bond's talent and intuition. There was a relationship there without crowding the films.

    Unlike Dench
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Signed_By_RogerMoore wrote:
    The difference between Bernard Lee and Judi Dench's M is startling. Lee wasn't always straight forward as some make out. But he was respectful of Bond's talent and intuition. There was a relationship there without crowding the films.

    Unlike Dench

    Yep. Lee's performance was infinitely more subtle than Dench. Pure class.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,306
    Signed_By_RogerMoore wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    The tone of the CR film is still fairly similar to the book (straight faced, occasionally brutal but with a strong dose of elegance).

    Much closer than the MR film is to it's original novel (to me anyway).

    MR the novel is more like DAD the film than MR the film

    Also GE: "The target is London."
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,306
    wildboonjive wrote:
    I know this may not be the popular opinion, but when you have someone like Judi Dench, you quite simply have to use her. It would be a waste of a magnificent talent not to. I agree that sometimes it seems forced and somewhat of an obvious approach, but at the same time, limiting her four minutes of screen time would be more of a missed opportunity. I think it's interesting that Bond has to answer to this woman and put her in a sense on an untouchable throne, considering his relationship with women. It gives it an interesting dramatic dynamic. It's just important to have her scenes well-written, that's where the key is. CR was a great example. Though I do concur with Getafix that Helen Mirren would make an interesting choice.

    Emma Thompson would also be quite good.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    echo wrote:
    wildboonjive wrote:
    I know this may not be the popular opinion, but when you have someone like Judi Dench, you quite simply have to use her. It would be a waste of a magnificent talent not to. I agree that sometimes it seems forced and somewhat of an obvious approach, but at the same time, limiting her four minutes of screen time would be more of a missed opportunity. I think it's interesting that Bond has to answer to this woman and put her in a sense on an untouchable throne, considering his relationship with women. It gives it an interesting dramatic dynamic. It's just important to have her scenes well-written, that's where the key is. CR was a great example. Though I do concur with Getafix that Helen Mirren would make an interesting choice.

    Emma Thompson would also be quite good.

    Too mumsy IMO.
  • forgotmyusernameforgotmyusername
    edited May 2012 Posts: 2,782
    Dench like PB brings out mixed feelings for most Bond fans. But she had a tough act to follow with the late great Bernard Lee, who worked so well with the best Bond anyway.

    I always thought Lois Maxwell should have been moved up to M's position anyway.


    <img src="http://reneeashleybaker.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/lois-maxwell-01.jpg?w=450">;



    But overall I think she's distracted from the main man. Her star power demanded she have more screen time. I liked her when she was hardly there lol.

    Not a fan of this M but I am a fan of Dench as an actress. Anyone who can pop out a ping pong ball from their lady bits and hit targets 10 yards away has to have mucho respect.

  • ShatterhandShatterhand
    Posts: 25
    M should have 5 mins screen time,no more no less.He should be at the beginning of the film.Gives Bond his mission and thats it.Its like he takes aim at a target and Bond is the bullet shot at its enemy on the otherside of the world.Simple.No revenge stories,emotion metaphors,constant over analysining of Bonds psyche.Wade and Purviss should rather script Twilight movies
  • Signed_By_RogerMooreSigned_By_RogerMoore
    Posts: 643
    We are about to find out whether the assessment continues in Bond 24 or the Dench regime comes to an end in Skyfall.

    I have no idea (I have avoided all news/trailers/reviews etc anywhere about Skyfall) what the character of M will be like but I fear she will be popping up everywhere, trust issues and hogging screen time as per usual
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    I must've missed this thread. While I agree at first it was interesting to give M a bigger role. But it got out of control and has gotten really annoying. I preferred it when M just popped up at the beginning and end of every movie.

    Plus I never cared for the idea of making M a woman. It just made everything so PC.
  • hisqoshisqos
    edited October 2012 Posts: 80
    Yeah I guess we should stick to the old stereotypes of T & A, the world was such a much better place when women knew their place.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    I must've missed this thread. While I agree at first it was interesting to give M a bigger role. But it got out of control and has gotten really annoying. I preferred it when M just popped up at the beginning and end of every movie.

    Plus I never cared for the idea of making M a woman. It just made everything so PC.

    Weel when 007 with Pierce returned in the real world the head of MI6 was one Stella Rimmington. So EON did not go PC but went realistic. ;)

    And once you got somebody of Dame Dench her stature onboard you would be really stupid to let her go. As an actress she is brilliant and as she remains part of the EON family as Cubby set out to create the franchise. It says a lot about Barbara & Wilson that they kept up that family going.

  • Signed_By_RogerMooreSigned_By_RogerMoore
    Posts: 643
    hisqos wrote:
    Yeah I guess we should stick to the old stereotypes of T & A, the world was such a much better place when women knew their place.

    Erm, no. You miss the point completely, bringing politics into it. It's ridiculous to criticise the character cause of her gender. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the Dench agenda, the over-use, the boring trust issues, her popping up everywhere and making it about M. Its so boring and has been done to death too much.
  • marymossmarymoss
    Posts: 176
    I liked the fact that they used Dench a lot more than they used Bernard Lee. IMO, Dench had more screen presence than Lee. Though I admit there is probably a degree of nostalgic fondness towards him, his M didn't feel like a fully realized character. He was just Bond's boss. Dench's M had conflicts with both Brosnan and Craig's Bond. I never really saw any kind of relationship between Lee and the other Bonds.

    As for Fiennes, as much as I love him, he's not THAT big. I mean, there's Voltermoort and Schindler's List but I mainly think of him as a successful indie actor. I don't think we have to worry about him having too much star power for the role. Plus, when you think about it, he didn't have that much screen time in the Harry Potter movies. I don't think he'd mind being a minor character in the Bond films since it would give him money to pursue his own projects.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited October 2012 Posts: 1,243
    I think the classic M style worked best. By knowing less about M it added to the mystique. Judi Dench is a great actress, but I miss the less is more approach of how M was used for decades. And Bernard Lee was a hugely respected actor but cleverly underused which gave it more power.

    The recent Bond has been too close to M and occasionally too familiar with her. The old M was like Bond seeing the headmaster and getting out as soon as possible to get on with it.
  • YtterbiumYtterbium
    Posts: 269
    Since Casino Royale, I always feared that the "Mother-Son" relation that links Bond with M would go too far.
    For the last two films, I found M too much involved, always watching and assessing Bond's actions live : in the end, she lost the superiority she had so greatly achieved during the Brosnan era.
    Luckily, Skyfall goes further and give it the end it deserves. Dench concludes her service for MI6 with great dignity and a superb confrontation with the villain.

    I am also happily surprised by Ralph Finnes role (it was a thought I had since 2006 and didn't dare to expect it would come true one day)
  • DRESSED_TO_KILLDRESSED_TO_KILL Suspended
    Posts: 260
    Is it just me or does anybody els think James Lipton would make a great M ?

    He is very elegant , yet gritty at the same time. I would love to see him in a Bond film.
  • Signed_By_RogerMooreSigned_By_RogerMoore
    Posts: 643
    Upon review, I maintain my position that Judi Dench is the worst thing to happen to the Bond franchise. Good and solid in GE and TND, playing the traditional background role but from then on, the Judi Dench show really steps up a gear. TWINE was interesting and a nice change but everything after that is hideous. Trust issues was a central theme. Never got the fascination with having her almost in every scene. The Craig/Dench dynamic is utterly cringeful. Wouldn't surprise me if they make Craig have a Tracey/FYEO graveyard scene with Dench. Just think too much screen time was given and the character too involved in the movies
  • MansfieldMansfield Where the hell have you been?
    Posts: 1,263
    @-)
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Judi Dench is one of my favourite actresses. I just love her in anything. I love The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel and the sequel, which is the latest movie of her that I've seen.

    Having said that I have now to dish out on BB + MGW.
    Judi Dench was really perfect in GE and TND.

    Her big supporting role in TWINE should have been a one-time thing only. She was in fact a Bond-girl(woman) in TWINE.
    One of the reasons I rank TWINE so low (No 16).

    But what they have done with her and the M character in Skyfall is probably the worst thing ever in any Bond movie.
    She was portrait as an absolute imbecile, a total failure. How could they do this to M and especially to Judi Dench, an absolutely unworthy end of an era.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I love Dame Judi, and loved her as M. I might be in the minority, but that's
    how I feel. I even got a bit weepy at the end of SF.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    DrGorner wrote: »
    I love Dame Judi, and loved her as M. I might be in the minority, but that's
    how I feel. I even got a bit weepy at the end of SF.

    :)) weepy end

    I know lots of people had to cry...normally I get all emotional too with such scenes but in this case I found it absolutely cringeworthy!
    Craigs acting in that scene is awful and the whole thing is on Grey's Anatomy level really.
    Without that stupid, useless death of M and the soap opera ending Skyfall would be much better.
    Well, there's always Q which is similarly embarrassing in Skyfall but that's off topic.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I always thought that was Craig at his best :(
Sign In or Register to comment.