Controversial opinions about Bond films

1645646648650651707

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    I’ve definitely noticed a sizable resentment from fandom over SF being such a critical darling, a predilection to be even harsher toward it than other films because it was so popular. The sentiment that Mendes being an Oscar winner makes him less suitable but Campbell being just a “journeyman” makes him more suitable as he’s the closest to a classic Bond director of the Cubby years.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,382
    I’ve definitely noticed a sizable resentment from fandom over SF being such a critical darling, a predilection to be even harsher toward it than other films because it was so popular. The sentiment that Mendes being an Oscar winner makes him less suitable but Campbell being just a “journeyman” makes him more suitable as he’s the closest to a classic Bond director of the Cubby years.

    Which is odd because to me the whole point of the Bond films is that they're pretty much hokum made by people who are way overqualified for the job: Sir Sean Connery, Ken Adam, John Barry etc.
  • Posts: 1,394
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Like I always say, Spectre was a good first draft. Just needed a few more.

    To be honest, they really could've done with Phoebe, maybe then we wouldn't be hoping for No Time to Die to be Madeleine's saving grace.

    Good god no.If Phoebe Waller Bridge had a hand in the Spectre script,Madeline would have never stopped banging on about womens rights and shouted REBELLION! every 5 seconds!
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,296
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Like I always say, Spectre was a good first draft. Just needed a few more.

    To be honest, they really could've done with Phoebe, maybe then we wouldn't be hoping for No Time to Die to be Madeleine's saving grace.

    Good god no.If Phoebe Waller Bridge had a hand in the Spectre script,Madeline would have never stopped banging on about womens rights and shouted REBELLION! every 5 seconds!

    Have you actually seen anything by PWB?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,382
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Like I always say, Spectre was a good first draft. Just needed a few more.

    To be honest, they really could've done with Phoebe, maybe then we wouldn't be hoping for No Time to Die to be Madeleine's saving grace.

    Good god no.If Phoebe Waller Bridge had a hand in the Spectre script,Madeline would have never stopped banging on about womens rights and shouted REBELLION! every 5 seconds!

    You do know she didn't write Solo?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,296
    Not to mention that Fleabag is about a promiscuous (gasp) woman.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Like I always say, Spectre was a good first draft. Just needed a few more.

    To be honest, they really could've done with Phoebe, maybe then we wouldn't be hoping for No Time to Die to be Madeleine's saving grace.

    Good god no.If Phoebe Waller Bridge had a hand in the Spectre script,Madeline would have never stopped banging on about womens rights and shouted REBELLION! every 5 seconds!

    This is absolutely A1 satire.
  • edited May 2021 Posts: 1,469
    echo wrote: »
    SP needed an edit, badly. It easily could have lost 15 minutes, particularly in the Rome sequences...
    You're probably right about an edit, in various places. But I for one love the Rome sequences, partly because of what I feel is the exotic, ancient, and soft feel of the city, which I hope to visit soon for the first time, and because of the visuals/color schemes in those scenes. And I believe it's the first time we see Bond in Rome, though he was previously nearby in Venice, Sardinia, and Cortina d'Ampezzo. And in the bowels of Rome, we infiltrate SPECTRE'S secret and shadowy board meeting complete with shadowy characters, which I feel is one of the centerpieces of the film.
    peter wrote: »
    I feel that Spectre genuinely lacked real obstacles and stakes. There was no tension. Without these elements, the film's outcome is one where I feel it's very good looking, but boring as hell.
    I'm a SP fan, but I think one way tension could've been ratcheted up is if Blofeld looked worse or more formidable and if Waltz had not played him so low-key. I mean, even Drax and Stromberg seemed a little more malevolent to me in character, and Drax in looks, than Waltz Blofeld, despite Blofeld drilling into Bond.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    See, that's the thing. SF is a very good Bond film; to me it just never was that shining diamond the film seems to be to others...I found elements in SP that I rate higher than in SF...
    I agree. SF looks great and is well-put together, but a lot of it doesn't hook me emotionally, whereas I enjoy watching SP more.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,382
    Yes, the drill torture scene might have been helped if Waltz had been directed to go a bit more standardly evil; in the finished one he seems almost disinterested. Would it be fair to say he’s perhaps playing it in a similar way to Silva in the rat scene (sans camp)?
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    I swear I don't try to be a contrarian with regard to all things Spectre, but I absolutely love Blofeld's feigned indifference. The vibe of the the drill torture scene is so bizarre and creepy, and unique for a Bond film. The sterile, clinical environment, blurred shots of lizards, Blofeld not wearing socks. It's a great atmosphere. The apparent boredom of Blofeld heightens the tension for me. If he had the usual passion and anger, it would be foreshadowing his certain defeat. The nonchalant approach leaves more of a question mark, especially watching the first time and knowing it may very well be Craig's last film.

    Waltz also has a number of line deliveries I adore, and they're largely informed by this indifferent approach. When Bond asks what C is getting out of the deal, and Blofeld answers, "Nothing. He's like me, he's a visionary," and sounds confused as to why Bond would be asking, it's more interesting to me than a speech about his evil deeds (though he does one of those too).

    Another amusing line for me is when Mr No-Socks simply answers Bond with, "I can't hear you, James". And my absolute favorite, which I've mentioned before: "I've really put you through it, haven't I?" followed by a sympathetic laugh.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,382
    That’s cool. I certainly know what you mean about the socks! I’ve noticed that before as a really nice little choice that shows how comfortable he is in that horrible place.
    I kind of never know where I stand on Waltz’s Blofeld: I don’t think he’s bad at all and I think I might even have him down as one of the better ones (I think perhaps Savalas is the strongest for my money), but maybe the slight disappointment comes from him having done a couple of villain roles previously and being more effective/chilling in those. I wonder if this had been the first time we’d seen him in a movie we’d be more inclined to like his portrayal?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited May 2021 Posts: 8,216
    It's definitely a case where he was an obvious choice for a villain role and played it in an obvious way (that's not a criticism, it's just how he plays those roles and it usually works) and people latch on to that as an obvious route of critique.

    I think the writing lets him down in that regard, too. His blend of standout personality ticks, long stares and gleeful smiles almost seem a tad petulant and childish here when they often were chilling elsewhere. You could argue that Waltz, as a performer, should have adjusted the performance accordingly; but I don't think he (and more problematically, Mendes) actually had a firm grasp on who this Blofeld actually was. There was just a vague picture of him in mind.

    Which is a shame, as he could easily have been the best.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,296
    It's definitely a case where he was an obvious choice for a villain role and played it in an obvious way (that's not a criticism, it's just how he plays those roles and it usually works) and people latch on to that as an obvious route of critique.

    I think the writing lets him down in that regard, too. His blend of standout personality ticks, long stares and gleeful smiles almost seem a tad petulant and childish here when they often were chilling elsewhere. You could argue that Waltz, as a performer, should have adjusted the performance accordingly; but I don't think he (and more problematically, Mendes) actually had a firm grasp on who this Blofeld actually was. There was just a vague picture of him in mind.

    Which is a shame, as he could easily have been the best.

    Exactly. They had the best actor of all of the Blofelds, and they blew it.
  • Posts: 1,917
    The Waltz Blofeld is an interesting case, isn't it? You have the most iconic Bond villain who really hadn't been portrayed to his potential in the film series. So they get him back, which was intriguing.

    You've then got Waltz, the actor who set the standard for villains for the 2000s. Should've been a natural fit when he was cast. I was not thrilled at the announcement as he seemed a bit obvious, but hey, it's Blofeld. Let's see what they can do. But mtm said we had seen him in those before and CraigMooreOHMSS mentioned maybe it was the writing. I thought the most effective scenes were when he was in the shadows, taunting Bond in the Rome meeting.

    It's funny because it isn't the first time in the series' history this was the case: Lee was effective as Scaramanga although established for his evil characters. Same with Walken and Bean, but they delivered and weren't disappointing. And in SF, you had Bardem, who also portrayed one of the most memorable villains in recent years and he goes in a totally different but memorable direction. These are what combine to make the Waltz Blofeld less effective for me.

    I like much of SP up until the arrival at Blofeld's lair and then it goes way down from there. I'm one who feels that the final thirds of most Bond films are more unsatisfying than the journey getting there, but SP has one of least satisfying finales of the entire series.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,587
    BT3366 wrote: »
    The Waltz Blofeld is an interesting case, isn't it? You have the most iconic Bond villain who really hadn't been portrayed to his potential in the film series. So they get him back, which was intriguing.

    You've then got Waltz, the actor who set the standard for villains for the 2000s. Should've been a natural fit when he was cast. I was not thrilled at the announcement as he seemed a bit obvious, but hey, it's Blofeld. Let's see what they can do. But mtm said we had seen him in those before and CraigMooreOHMSS mentioned maybe it was the writing. I thought the most effective scenes were when he was in the shadows, taunting Bond in the Rome meeting.

    It's funny because it isn't the first time in the series' history this was the case: Lee was effective as Scaramanga although established for his evil characters. Same with Walken and Bean, but they delivered and weren't disappointing. And in SF, you had Bardem, who also portrayed one of the most memorable villains in recent years and he goes in a totally different but memorable direction. These are what combine to make the Waltz Blofeld less effective for me.

    I like much of SP up until the arrival at Blofeld's lair and then it goes way down from there. I'm one who feels that the final thirds of most Bond films are more unsatisfying than the journey getting there, but SP has one of least satisfying finales of the entire series.

    The London finale is hands down the weakest ending in the series by far. Another reason why I'm looking forward so much for NTTD because I think we're gonna be in for the complete opposite
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,179
    BT3366 wrote: »
    The Waltz Blofeld is an interesting case, isn't it? You have the most iconic Bond villain who really hadn't been portrayed to his potential in the film series. So they get him back, which was intriguing.

    You've then got Waltz, the actor who set the standard for villains for the 2000s. Should've been a natural fit when he was cast. I was not thrilled at the announcement as he seemed a bit obvious, but hey, it's Blofeld. Let's see what they can do. But mtm said we had seen him in those before and CraigMooreOHMSS mentioned maybe it was the writing. I thought the most effective scenes were when he was in the shadows, taunting Bond in the Rome meeting.

    It's funny because it isn't the first time in the series' history this was the case: Lee was effective as Scaramanga although established for his evil characters. Same with Walken and Bean, but they delivered and weren't disappointing. And in SF, you had Bardem, who also portrayed one of the most memorable villains in recent years and he goes in a totally different but memorable direction. These are what combine to make the Waltz Blofeld less effective for me.

    I like much of SP up until the arrival at Blofeld's lair and then it goes way down from there. I'm one who feels that the final thirds of most Bond films are more unsatisfying than the journey getting there, but SP has one of least satisfying finales of the entire series.

    The London finale is hands down the weakest ending in the series by far. Another reason why I'm looking forward so much for NTTD because I think we're gonna be in for the complete opposite

    Forgive me for disagreeing with that. The endings of DAF, TMWTGG, TWINE, DAD, ... are so much weaker.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 2021 Posts: 5,970
    Spectre is a list of good ideas that weren't meant to be one story.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    The Waltz Blofeld is an interesting case, isn't it? You have the most iconic Bond villain who really hadn't been portrayed to his potential in the film series. So they get him back, which was intriguing.

    You've then got Waltz, the actor who set the standard for villains for the 2000s. Should've been a natural fit when he was cast. I was not thrilled at the announcement as he seemed a bit obvious, but hey, it's Blofeld. Let's see what they can do. But mtm said we had seen him in those before and CraigMooreOHMSS mentioned maybe it was the writing. I thought the most effective scenes were when he was in the shadows, taunting Bond in the Rome meeting.

    It's funny because it isn't the first time in the series' history this was the case: Lee was effective as Scaramanga although established for his evil characters. Same with Walken and Bean, but they delivered and weren't disappointing. And in SF, you had Bardem, who also portrayed one of the most memorable villains in recent years and he goes in a totally different but memorable direction. These are what combine to make the Waltz Blofeld less effective for me.

    I like much of SP up until the arrival at Blofeld's lair and then it goes way down from there. I'm one who feels that the final thirds of most Bond films are more unsatisfying than the journey getting there, but SP has one of least satisfying finales of the entire series.

    The London finale is hands down the weakest ending in the series by far. Another reason why I'm looking forward so much for NTTD because I think we're gonna be in for the complete opposite

    Forgive me for disagreeing with that. The endings of DAF, TMWTGG, TWINE, DAD, ... are so much weaker.

    How did TND miss this otherwise accurate list?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    BT3366 wrote: »
    I thought the most effective scenes were when he was in the shadows

    Interesting that he is in the shadows when we first him, just like in the original run. Hardly a coincidence, as he ends in a similar way as in the original run as well-falling from the sky from or inside a helicopter, and both times due to Bond.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,270
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Spectre is a list of good ideas that weren't meant to be one story.

    I feel the same way about some of the incongruous elements in Octopussy though it's one of my favourite Bond films. It has that feeling of two Bond film stories combined into one film. The classic adventure film feel of the India-set parts of the plot combined with the Cold War thriller Russian and Berlin parts of the plot. The plot doesn't gel as well together as it ought to despite the fact that I still love the film very much. The plot of Octopussy is certainly not one of its strengths.
  • Posts: 2,163
    I believe Waltz is on record as not having a good time working on Spectre with Mendes, and preferred Fukunaga’s approach with NTTD. If the two of them (Waltz and Mendes) weren’t on the same page, that makes brining a character to life, who was poorly defined on the page, much more difficult.
  • Posts: 2,163
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    The Waltz Blofeld is an interesting case, isn't it? You have the most iconic Bond villain who really hadn't been portrayed to his potential in the film series. So they get him back, which was intriguing.

    You've then got Waltz, the actor who set the standard for villains for the 2000s. Should've been a natural fit when he was cast. I was not thrilled at the announcement as he seemed a bit obvious, but hey, it's Blofeld. Let's see what they can do. But mtm said we had seen him in those before and CraigMooreOHMSS mentioned maybe it was the writing. I thought the most effective scenes were when he was in the shadows, taunting Bond in the Rome meeting.

    It's funny because it isn't the first time in the series' history this was the case: Lee was effective as Scaramanga although established for his evil characters. Same with Walken and Bean, but they delivered and weren't disappointing. And in SF, you had Bardem, who also portrayed one of the most memorable villains in recent years and he goes in a totally different but memorable direction. These are what combine to make the Waltz Blofeld less effective for me.

    I like much of SP up until the arrival at Blofeld's lair and then it goes way down from there. I'm one who feels that the final thirds of most Bond films are more unsatisfying than the journey getting there, but SP has one of least satisfying finales of the entire series.

    The London finale is hands down the weakest ending in the series by far. Another reason why I'm looking forward so much for NTTD because I think we're gonna be in for the complete opposite

    Forgive me for disagreeing with that. The endings of DAF, TMWTGG, TWINE, DAD, ... are so much weaker.

    How did TND miss this otherwise accurate list?

    At least with those films we knew what the stakes were should Bond fail - lasering Washington DC, his death, a nuclear explosion in Istanbul etc... with Spectre, what are the stakes? There are none.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 2021 Posts: 5,970
    It's a shame as well because it kind of ruins things for the character going forward because now even with No Time to Die as good as Waltz and Fukunaga's relationship could've been and as good as the script could be, the character was kind of set up to be a certain way meaning you can't stray too far from that - which like I said kinda ruins things cause what we got initially wasn't exactly exciting haha :D
  • Posts: 2,402
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Like I always say, Spectre was a good first draft. Just needed a few more.

    To be honest, they really could've done with Phoebe, maybe then we wouldn't be hoping for No Time to Die to be Madeleine's saving grace.

    Good god no.If Phoebe Waller Bridge had a hand in the Spectre script,Madeline would have never stopped banging on about womens rights and shouted REBELLION! every 5 seconds!

    You've never watched something written by her, clearly.
  • Posts: 2,163
    Denbigh wrote: »
    It's a shame as well because it kind of ruins things for the character going forward because now even with No Time to Die as good as Waltz and Fukunaga's relationship could've been and as good as the script could be, the character was kind of set up to be a certain way meaning you can't stray too far from that - which like I said kinda ruins things cause what we got initially wasn't exactly exciting haha :D

    I bet a delicatessen in stainless steel that absolutely nothing from Spectre regarding Bond and Blofeld’s relationship is mentioned in NTTD. Will be a clean slate approach.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 2021 Posts: 5,970
    Mallory wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    It's a shame as well because it kind of ruins things for the character going forward because now even with No Time to Die as good as Waltz and Fukunaga's relationship could've been and as good as the script could be, the character was kind of set up to be a certain way meaning you can't stray too far from that - which like I said kinda ruins things cause what we got initially wasn't exactly exciting haha :D

    I bet a delicatessen in stainless steel that absolutely nothing from Spectre regarding Bond and Blofeld’s relationship is mentioned in NTTD. Will be a clean slate approach.
    I mean I'm really not sure. I do think their relationship is at a point where they don't need to go over the details, which is the most annoying part lets be honest, so their interactions can just be focused on the dynamic and the story, but then also it's been a while, and while everyone knows who Blofeld is, they might not remember those annoying details, so the filmmakers may want to just throw a lil' summin summin in just be like look this is who this guy is. Quick clarification, then move on. It depends on whether Fukunaga or Barbara or whoever thought it was necessary.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,296
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    The Waltz Blofeld is an interesting case, isn't it? You have the most iconic Bond villain who really hadn't been portrayed to his potential in the film series. So they get him back, which was intriguing.

    You've then got Waltz, the actor who set the standard for villains for the 2000s. Should've been a natural fit when he was cast. I was not thrilled at the announcement as he seemed a bit obvious, but hey, it's Blofeld. Let's see what they can do. But mtm said we had seen him in those before and CraigMooreOHMSS mentioned maybe it was the writing. I thought the most effective scenes were when he was in the shadows, taunting Bond in the Rome meeting.

    It's funny because it isn't the first time in the series' history this was the case: Lee was effective as Scaramanga although established for his evil characters. Same with Walken and Bean, but they delivered and weren't disappointing. And in SF, you had Bardem, who also portrayed one of the most memorable villains in recent years and he goes in a totally different but memorable direction. These are what combine to make the Waltz Blofeld less effective for me.

    I like much of SP up until the arrival at Blofeld's lair and then it goes way down from there. I'm one who feels that the final thirds of most Bond films are more unsatisfying than the journey getting there, but SP has one of least satisfying finales of the entire series.

    The London finale is hands down the weakest ending in the series by far. Another reason why I'm looking forward so much for NTTD because I think we're gonna be in for the complete opposite

    Forgive me for disagreeing with that. The endings of DAF, TMWTGG, TWINE, DAD, ... are so much weaker.

    DAF has the cruise ship.
    TMWTGG has fun house redux.
    DAD has the sword fight.

    I agree with you on TWINE, though.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    The Waltz Blofeld is an interesting case, isn't it? You have the most iconic Bond villain who really hadn't been portrayed to his potential in the film series. So they get him back, which was intriguing.

    You've then got Waltz, the actor who set the standard for villains for the 2000s. Should've been a natural fit when he was cast. I was not thrilled at the announcement as he seemed a bit obvious, but hey, it's Blofeld. Let's see what they can do. But mtm said we had seen him in those before and CraigMooreOHMSS mentioned maybe it was the writing. I thought the most effective scenes were when he was in the shadows, taunting Bond in the Rome meeting.

    It's funny because it isn't the first time in the series' history this was the case: Lee was effective as Scaramanga although established for his evil characters. Same with Walken and Bean, but they delivered and weren't disappointing. And in SF, you had Bardem, who also portrayed one of the most memorable villains in recent years and he goes in a totally different but memorable direction. These are what combine to make the Waltz Blofeld less effective for me.

    I like much of SP up until the arrival at Blofeld's lair and then it goes way down from there. I'm one who feels that the final thirds of most Bond films are more unsatisfying than the journey getting there, but SP has one of least satisfying finales of the entire series.

    The London finale is hands down the weakest ending in the series by far. Another reason why I'm looking forward so much for NTTD because I think we're gonna be in for the complete opposite

    Forgive me for disagreeing with that. The endings of DAF, TMWTGG, TWINE, DAD, ... are so much weaker.

    How did TND miss this otherwise accurate list?

    I quite like the TND finale in the sense that it achieves exactly what it intends to, which is an overblown 90s finale. It doesn't necessarily make it good, of course, but it's what was intended. I think the others fail in execution rather than intent.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited May 2021 Posts: 1,711
    Mallory wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    The Waltz Blofeld is an interesting case, isn't it? You have the most iconic Bond villain who really hadn't been portrayed to his potential in the film series. So they get him back, which was intriguing.

    You've then got Waltz, the actor who set the standard for villains for the 2000s. Should've been a natural fit when he was cast. I was not thrilled at the announcement as he seemed a bit obvious, but hey, it's Blofeld. Let's see what they can do. But mtm said we had seen him in those before and CraigMooreOHMSS mentioned maybe it was the writing. I thought the most effective scenes were when he was in the shadows, taunting Bond in the Rome meeting.

    It's funny because it isn't the first time in the series' history this was the case: Lee was effective as Scaramanga although established for his evil characters. Same with Walken and Bean, but they delivered and weren't disappointing. And in SF, you had Bardem, who also portrayed one of the most memorable villains in recent years and he goes in a totally different but memorable direction. These are what combine to make the Waltz Blofeld less effective for me.

    I like much of SP up until the arrival at Blofeld's lair and then it goes way down from there. I'm one who feels that the final thirds of most Bond films are more unsatisfying than the journey getting there, but SP has one of least satisfying finales of the entire series.

    The London finale is hands down the weakest ending in the series by far. Another reason why I'm looking forward so much for NTTD because I think we're gonna be in for the complete opposite

    Forgive me for disagreeing with that. The endings of DAF, TMWTGG, TWINE, DAD, ... are so much weaker.

    How did TND miss this otherwise accurate list?

    At least with those films we knew what the stakes were should Bond fail - lasering Washington DC, his death, a nuclear explosion in Istanbul etc... with Spectre, what are the stakes? There are none.

    If I recall correctly, the stakes are Spectre getting access to the data of nine intelligence services and Bond's girlfriend blowing up.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2021 Posts: 16,382
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    The Waltz Blofeld is an interesting case, isn't it? You have the most iconic Bond villain who really hadn't been portrayed to his potential in the film series. So they get him back, which was intriguing.

    You've then got Waltz, the actor who set the standard for villains for the 2000s. Should've been a natural fit when he was cast. I was not thrilled at the announcement as he seemed a bit obvious, but hey, it's Blofeld. Let's see what they can do. But mtm said we had seen him in those before and CraigMooreOHMSS mentioned maybe it was the writing. I thought the most effective scenes were when he was in the shadows, taunting Bond in the Rome meeting.

    It's funny because it isn't the first time in the series' history this was the case: Lee was effective as Scaramanga although established for his evil characters. Same with Walken and Bean, but they delivered and weren't disappointing. And in SF, you had Bardem, who also portrayed one of the most memorable villains in recent years and he goes in a totally different but memorable direction. These are what combine to make the Waltz Blofeld less effective for me.

    I like much of SP up until the arrival at Blofeld's lair and then it goes way down from there. I'm one who feels that the final thirds of most Bond films are more unsatisfying than the journey getting there, but SP has one of least satisfying finales of the entire series.

    The London finale is hands down the weakest ending in the series by far. Another reason why I'm looking forward so much for NTTD because I think we're gonna be in for the complete opposite

    Forgive me for disagreeing with that. The endings of DAF, TMWTGG, TWINE, DAD, ... are so much weaker.

    Yes, DAF is one I'm afraid I often turn off once it gets to the oil rig if I'm watching it on telly. There's little of interest, some stuff which is just awful (the tape swapping business), and it's not even nice to look at (Ms St John excepted of course).
    TWINE is a bit dull I agree, I will give it points for the claustrophobia of being in a sinking sub at least. It is kind of horrible when it starts to flood. You can feel David Arnold getting a bit desperate when he has to feed the Bond theme in with Pierce struggling with an air hose: it's not really as cool as he's trying to make it sound. Also it's not really fair because we don't know that machine and have no idea it can do that.
    TMWTGG I sort of hold less against it because it's when the film finally starts to make good on its central concept- a duel between Bond and the greatest assassin in the world. But then it kind of chucks it away. Such a frustrating film. I think if they'd written another script which made better use of the assassin theme we'd all be talking about the script draft that ends in Scaramanga's funhouse with waxworks of Capone and cowboys with mild disbelief like we do when we hear they considered making Dr No a monkey. Why isn't it a film about an assassination?!
Sign In or Register to comment.