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
Well, yes, indeed, and that's my point as well, although you phrased it a whole lot better. ;-) The payoff isn't there, yet the way the character is set up, I always spend nearly two hours waiting for some kind of payoff. I rarely read novelizations, but I have in fact made an exception for TWINE simply because I wanted to find out if Benson could do Renard some favours. And he did, although I still wasn't entirely on board. Silva, while not my favourite villain at all, was pretty menacing. Renard didn't do the same thing for me.
You mention the Devil's Breath scene. I find that scene a bit too dramatic, to be honest, and an early example of P&W (or others) flirting with amateurishness. It's the moustache-twirling-villain scene, meant to set up a major threat for Bond. Here's another villain who might defeat Bond in a close confrontation. He might even give Bond a tougher time in a fight than Alec in GE because this one doesn't feel any pain. So where is the moment in the film that puts Bond in such a predicament, forcing him to find a clever solution? Why are we left with two blokes slapping each other around a bit like kids in the playground? Upon repeat viewing, the Devil's Breath scene plays like a bit of a joke because we know that, ultimately, Renard's brutality matters little.
Stealing the bomb is a pretty okay action scene, I'll concede that much. Then of course, Renard brings a small group of thugs, and Bond and Christmas still manage to escape. Also, Bond pretty much had Renard on his knees. Luck is what set Renard free, not his sinister talents or severe menace.
I think the character of Renard was well-conceived but poorly fleshed out. He's probably the second best villain of the Brosnan years, but only because the competition was fairly weak. And if we include right-hand-men, I'd still rank Zao higher because that dude had some cojones and a cool car, regardless of the film that features him. I remember being truly thrilled when I found out about the new villain back in 1999. Cool idea, and played by Robert Carlyle from Trainspotting! I was ready for a big blast! I left the theatre pretty disappointed. Things just didn't congeal. A lot of talent in the film, including Carlyle and Marceau, and somehow the magic wasn't there.
I agree that Paris Carver probably should've been played by Monica Bellucci.
I usually feel the supporting roles in the Bonds were well cast for the most part. I love Anthony Starke as Truman-Lodge for instance and Pedro Armendariz as Kerim Bey.
I like the idea of Gary Oldman as Renard. I wonder what he would've been like as Mallory, had we not gotten Fiennes. I think he might've made an interesting M.
Fair point.
You mean Lana Wood, I guess. If so, I agree with you.
Catherine Deneuve is my alternative.
3th chacter is not supporting role in my opinion and switch from villian in original idea to ally to let Halle Barry saying yes to a role in the movie.
I always feel the final Renard/Bond fight should have looked more like the Stamper/Bond one in TND. In fact there’s much more an indication of Stamper being an unfeeling force of nature with him flinging Bond around, taking hits such as a knife to his arm without stopping etc. There’s even a sense of Stamper unleashing himself on Bond due to Kauffman’s death, punching him continuously in the face etc (which again is what we’d expect from Renard after Elektra’s death). Bond even manages to exploit his lack of pain by using the knife sticking out of his arm to tear off his vest. In fact I think Renard’s lack of pain was originally intended for Stamper which makes so much sense.
That certainly makes more sense regarding Stamper. The Renard feeling no pain comes to absolutely nothing. His final fight with Bond is pretty lame.
Yeah, Michael Madsen should be good but he feels like he's in a different movie to everyone else somehow.
I might go for another unpopular one: I'm not sure Colin Salmon is very good. I just don't think he's a very natural actor, and the posh accent makes him sort of over-pronounce each word. Give me Kitchen's Tanner any day of the week.
It doesn't really help that Brosnan absolutely dwarfs him. Visually it looks quite strange.
I do enjoy his "evil queen of numbers" line in Goldeneye.
It meant that they ended up having two "Tanner" type characters in TWINE when Michael Kitchen was available again. That was a bit odd. Colin Salmon's featuring in EastEnders these days.
To be fair to P&W, I think it was Dana Stevens, the director's wife, who messed up the shooting script of TWINE with rewrites.
The only actor who rose above the material was Marceau, who manages to be believable and heartbreaking in an otherwise very silly film. She deserved a lot better.
Probably, although her daddy issues seemed to have Shakespearean ambitions but somehow never grabbed me the way they were probably meant to. Sophie did what she could with what she was given, of course. Nothing is her fault.
Regarding the writing, I agree that it's rarely one person's fault. A big film like this usually isn't birthed by one 'auteur'; it's the result of a process to which many people are committed. There are writers and shadow-writers, a director, a cinematographer, a cast... Then an editor has to somehow distil a film from the raw material he's given, and a composer has to add flavour to the whole thing. Where in this chain TWINE dropped the ball, I'm not sure, but I bet it's not in merely one place. Singling out P&W is probably unfair of me.
Actually, it's an improvement they've made upon the book that she's not that much troubled, while she had problems in the film and considered drowning, it's not that she's acting all of her scandals out, making her a much more classy and matured character, I think Diana played it brilliantly, she added a maturity and class in the role and her not being much troubled made the romance all the more believable (when it's hard to buy in the book because the story appeared that Bond only tried to fix her, not actually to fall in love, and she's very much a troubled one to believe her commitment to Bond, she's an unpredictable character).
And again, Bond Girls were leads as @ToTheRight said, Bond Girls, Villains and Bond himself are the main elements of what makes a Bond film, and hence, they're all leads.
You have a point, yep, they're leading ladies and one of the main ones, not supporting, probably the same for the villains, as they're also the main ones, a Bond film cannot be a Bond film without those, they're the main elements, I agree.
If considering supporting roles, then I guess Stephen Berkoff as General Orlov in Octopussy, he's quite comical to play such a role of a menacing and power hungry Russian General, he's not threatening or menacing enough, I think the character, on paper, was great, Berkoff failed to bring out the best in that character.
He was more of a buffoon than Joe Don Baker as Brad Whittaker, Octopussy may have been lighthearted at parts, but doesn't mean it needs to be all out comical and gentle for kids like how Berkoff played the role, that instead of me being intimidated by his presence, he brought nothing, and at times, funny, his accent was beyond ridiculous, it's pretty bad, pretty bad at all angles, he's not believable, that's why I consider Louis Jourdan as Kamal Khan the real villain there because he's much more convincing as the sophisticated and dangerous villain.
I have to agree. It makes me wonder what jobbing British actresses from that time could've made a stronger impression. Apparently, the newsreader Selina Scott met with Broccoli and Wilson about the part. While she certainly had the looks, it would've been rather ridiculous and gimmicky.
Great shout this. Cue the Manilow.
I like Caroline Bliss as Moneypenny. It might be a cartoonish take but she's much needed comic relief in the dark Dalton films.
Well, she basically has a cameo in Licence to Kill and does nothing, but my point stands. (It wouldve been fun to have her at the party at the end of the movie.)
Asking Bliss back will be easier then Samantha Bond. Whyle some mabey remember i try to think about some various Moneypenny Familytree with Samantha Bond & Naomi Harris MP, both Tanners, Charles and new actress.
Mind you I guess Brosnan is only 7 years younger than Dalton.
Most of the others that I think have been said. I just in general wish that Felix Leiter wasn't turned into Jack Wade, above all. Also, most of the time, the actors are fine, it's the writing that hurts them: Christoph Waltz, any Guy Hamilton and Tom Mankiewicz Bond Woman, and even (shocker) both Tanya Roberts and Denise Richards.
John Terry, Norman Burton, even Rick Van Nutter or Ced Linder. It's interesting thinking about what a different actor would bring to that role in those movies.
It's a bit of a thankless role to be fair, but Jack Lord, David Hedison, Jeffery Wright and Bernie Casey all did great with it. In my opinion of course.
Your favorite Felix's are my favorites too! I'd take Jack Lord for DN, GF and TB. David Hedison for DAF, LALD and LTK. Controversial opinion: Michael Madsen for GE and DAD. Keep Jeffery Wright as is for DC's movies. Plus, while I don't approve of NSNA, Bernie Casey deserved a role in Bond. For Felix and Wade's scenes in TLD and TND, simply have Q take his part instead.