An assessment of Judi Dench's M

24

Comments

  • Posts: 3,333
    Interesting thoughts, Getafix. Though could it be that by signing up Fiennes as the new M that the role might return to being more low-key? After all, Fiennes won't want to tie himself up for long periods in the future, especially with all his conflicting thespian activities.
  • Posts: 11,425
    bondsum wrote:
    Interesting thoughts, Getafix. Though could it be that by signing up Fiennes as the new M that the role might return to being more low-key? After all, Fiennes won't want to tie himself up for long periods in the future, especially with all his conflicting thespian activities.

    I don't think even Dench was tied up for THAT long. No, I'm worried that by going for Fiennes it signals a continutation of the big role for M tradition. That said, I don't think it would work as well with Fiennes and hopefully M is more restricted to the office.
  • Posts: 1,492
    Getafix wrote:
    [
    CR had some great individual scenes but overall the script was flabby.

    Disagree. 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.

  • Posts: 1,492
    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.

  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,425
    actonsteve wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    [
    CR had some great individual scenes but overall the script was flabby.

    Disagree. 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.

    Perhaps. I guess what I meant was that overall there's too much fat on the film. I don't know if it's the script, story or direction, but several scenes could have been left out. The whole Miami airport sequence is totall unnecessary - an action scene just for the sake of it.

    You're right though that overall this was the best script since the 80s.
  • Posts: 7,653
    A lot of Misogyny comes around whenever there is a discussion about the portrayal of the character M.
    I find the fact that a woman is chosen for the role an excellent choice it frees up certain ally's that a male chef simply would not offer. It better illustrates the person that 007 must be and is.
    AFter the first M she is the other M worth remembering.

    Like in the UK series spooks the role of boss entails more than just sending somebody off to do a job. And it is smart to use a talented actress upposite DC who can do some real acting then. His conflict with M in the hotelroom in Peru/Chili was one of the better moments of that trainwreck QoB. And with a smaller world, thanks to all modern comforts it is easier to keep an eye on operatives. Which is similar a negative when confronted with 007's handiwork at the embassy.
  • Posts: 1,492
    Getafix wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    [
    CR had some great individual scenes but overall the script was flabby.

    Disagree. 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.

    Perhaps. I guess what I meant was that overall there's too much fat on the film. I don't know if it's the script, story or direction, but several scenes could have been left out. The whole Miami airport sequence is totall unnecessary - an action scene just for the sake of it.

    You're right though that overall this was the best script since the 80s.

    And how can it have been left out?

    It actually showed why Le Chiffre was forced to try his luck at the Casino Royale to try and win back the money before his creditors catch up and kill him. By actually showing the audience the plot to destroy the airbus fails - the audience understands it better.

    It links Nassau to Montenegro and moves the story along. The villains lose their gamble due to Bond and now have solid motivation to move the story to the casino royale.

  • Posts: 11,189
    I must admit the Miami Airport sequence is my favourite action scene in the film. Its brilliantly shot and you really feel Bond's desperation to stop the bomber. THAT smile at the end is the icing on the cake.
  • Posts: 299
    I agree with Getafix in that the Miami airport sequence does feel like a bit of fat. At the same time, I agree with the rest of you in that what happens there does in fact have a direct repurcusion to the rest of the plot, regarding the villain's motivation. But the sequence itself, although exciting, does feel overlong and dragged out. I think had it been trimmed down significantly and given us just enough of what we needed to know for the sake of the plot, it wouldn't have felt so much like an uncessary action sequence, and as such, the movie would have felt tighter and with a better sense of purpose.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I yawned my way through the whole sequence. Perhaps it moves the plot forward, but if that's the case, it's very contrived. Surely there was a neater and smarter way of forcing Le Chiffre to the table? The wham-bam PTS at least has a choreographed, balletic beauty to it. I personally don't think the Miami sequence looks very good by comparison - derivative and pointless, it feels like an 80s action extraveganza. And it's set in Miami, so you have those 80s TV show overtones that afflicted LTK.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189
    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.
  • actonsteve 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.

    Is it going backwards when it's clearly stagnating? The whole M/Bond thing has been done to death. Move it on
  • Posts: 1,492
    Getafix wrote:
    I yawned my way through the whole sequence. Perhaps it moves the plot forward, but if that's the case, it's very contrived. Surely there was a neater and smarter way of forcing Le Chiffre to the table?

    What isnt smart about international crooks gambling on a new airbus being destroyed and then running into trouble when it isnt? What would you have preferred? A newsflash? An email? It sets up the high stakes of the casino scenes.
    Getafix wrote:
    I The wham-bam PTS at least has a choreographed, balletic beauty to it. I personally don't think the Miami sequence looks very good by comparison - derivative and pointless, it feels like an 80s action extraveganza. And it's set in Miami, so you have those 80s TV show overtones that afflicted LTK.

    The whole chase looks stunning. There is a shot where the airport security cars are chasing them and they cross the path of an airliner taking off and are caught up in its exhaust and fly into the air.

    My mouth dropped open at this point.
  • Posts: 11,425
    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'm not comparing the movies, just saying that (as you note) the Miami setting did not work to LTK's advantage. I felt the quick dash to Miami in CR detracted from the otherwise luscious and oppulant look and feel of the feel. Plus it feels like a bolt-on action sequence rather than an integral part of the plot. Sometimes action helps move the story along. In this case it feels like treading water and slows the whole film down.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189
    actonsteve wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    I yawned my way through the whole sequence. Perhaps it moves the plot forward, but if that's the case, it's very contrived. Surely there was a neater and smarter way of forcing Le Chiffre to the table?

    What isnt smart about international crooks gambling on a new airbus being destroyed and then running into trouble when it isnt? What would you have preferred? A newsflash? An email? It sets up the high stakes of the casino scenes.
    Getafix wrote:
    I The wham-bam PTS at least has a choreographed, balletic beauty to it. I personally don't think the Miami sequence looks very good by comparison - derivative and pointless, it feels like an 80s action extraveganza. And it's set in Miami, so you have those 80s TV show overtones that afflicted LTK.

    The whole chase looks stunning. There is a shot where the airport security cars are chasing them and they cross the path of an airliner taking off and are caught up in its exhaust and fly into the air.

    My mouth dropped open at this point
    .

    That was pretty amazing. The only downers to that sequence were the Richard Branson/Virgin inclusions. Watching it with my dad I remember him saying he thought that was one of the worst things the series ever did (he's not as bigger fan as I).

    Personally I like the bit where Craig (or his stuntman?) is on the roof of the tanker and flips down into the driver's cabin just after he's smashed his way through the buses. I don't know why but that was pretty impressive.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,425
    actonsteve wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    I yawned my way through the whole sequence. Perhaps it moves the plot forward, but if that's the case, it's very contrived. Surely there was a neater and smarter way of forcing Le Chiffre to the table?

    What isnt smart about international crooks gambling on a new airbus being destroyed and then running into trouble when it isnt? What would you have preferred? A newsflash? An email? It sets up the high stakes of the casino scenes.
    Getafix wrote:
    I The wham-bam PTS at least has a choreographed, balletic beauty to it. I personally don't think the Miami sequence looks very good by comparison - derivative and pointless, it feels like an 80s action extraveganza. And it's set in Miami, so you have those 80s TV show overtones that afflicted LTK.

    The whole chase looks stunning. There is a shot where the airport security cars are chasing them and they cross the path of an airliner taking off and are caught up in its exhaust and fly into the air.

    My mouth dropped open at this point.

    We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I don't like the night time setting. I don't like the lighting. I don't like the overblown nature of the chase. I guess, if it was absolutely necessary, it would have been neater for Bond to intercept the terrorist in the back of house area of the airport. Or to have just come up with a different plot device - that is what these guys are paid to do. As it is, I still maintain it feels like a long, boring diversion from the main thrust of the film. And that would be my main criticism of CR - over long and often slightly dull. I think Forster took the same view, which is why he whipped QoS along at such a pace. It is a great mistake of the producers to mistakenly believe that there are fascinating hidden depths to the Bond character that require protracted on-screen exploration. He is frankly a rather dull person - not someone you'd want to share a drink with. Therefore his storylines have to be well-plotted, tense, pacy and free of padding.
  • Any good scenes in Casino Royale must be credited to Haggis. After DAD, we know Purvis and Wade aren't capable of writing such quality ;)
  • Posts: 299
    I met Wade at an event a few years back and asked him how much of CR was their work vs. Haggis'. It was amusing how defensive he got about. By his response you'd think the whole script was theirs and Haggis was just brought in to do one scene. He was clearly possesive. Like I said, it was amusing.
  • Posts: 1,492
    Any good scenes in Casino Royale must be credited to Haggis. After DAD, we know Purvis and Wade aren't capable of writing such quality ;)

    To be fair, I do think he put his boot up their arses and got better work out of them..

  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,425
    I met Wade at an event a few years back and asked him how much of CR was their work vs. Haggis'. It was amusing how defensive he got about. By his response you'd think the whole script was theirs and Haggis was just brought in to do one scene. He was clearly possesive. Like I said, it was amusing.

    I feel the story and plotting is largely theirs (although helped along by the original novel, presumably) and that Haggis wrote or beefed up some of the dialogue, which often sparkles.

    Like Acton Steve said, overall it's the best since the 80s, but that really isn't saying much.
  • Going back on topic, what is Dench's best work in the series?

    For me, it is Goldeneye. A familiar Bond/M relationship but with more spice and edge. The dialogue and tension is sparkling. It's a shame this wasn't really developped in TND or other Brosnan films. It is comparable to the great train in Casino Royale I think in re-inventing a Bond relationship.
  • Posts: 1,492
    Getafix wrote:

    We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I
    ,

    Oh definitely
    Getafix wrote:
    it would have been neater for Bond to intercept the terrorist in the back of house area of the airport. Or to have just come up with a different plot device - that is what these guys are paid to do. As it is, I still maintain it feels like a long, boring pause in the film.

    The thing is the audience needed an identification figure. It needed to see that 100 million dollars on screen. So when the gambling scam by Le Chiffre doesnt work - the money seems alot more real. The moneys symbol is the airbus.

    Of course it is a Bond film so he has to stop the plot. The whole action scene is a way of getting Bond from the Bahamas to Montenegro and moving the plot along. The audience knows the stakes are high for Le Chiffre because he owes his creditors 100 million dollars and it is the villains motivation to beat Bond at the poker. If he doesnt, he's toast. So the airbus is an important plot point.

    Personally, I think the entire part from his arrival in Miami until the detonator goes off has that Fleming sweep and moves the film alng nicely.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Going back on topic, what is Dench's best work in the series?

    For me, it is Goldeneye. A familiar Bond/M relationship but with more spice and edge. The dialogue and tension is sparkling. It's a shame this wasn't really developped in TND or other Brosnan films. It is comparable to the great train in Casino Royale I think in re-inventing a Bond relationship.

    It's less annoying than the others, I'll give you that. But I hated the dialogue. The 'mysogynist dinosaur' stuff was painful. Plus, Brozza turned out to be one of the most PC Bonds of the series, so the line just seems redundant, especially following on from serial monogamist Dalton.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189
    actonsteve wrote:
    Getafix wrote:

    We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I
    ,

    Oh definitely
    Getafix wrote:
    it would have been neater for Bond to intercept the terrorist in the back of house area of the airport. Or to have just come up with a different plot device - that is what these guys are paid to do. As it is, I still maintain it feels like a long, boring pause in the film.

    The thing is the audience needed an identification figure. It needed to see that 100 million dollars on screen. So when the gambling scam by Le Chiffre doesnt work - the money seems alot more real. The moneys symbol is the airbus.

    Of course it is a Bond film so he has to stop the plot. The whole action scene is a way of getting Bond from the Bahamas to Montenegro and moving the plot along. The audience knows the stakes are high for Le Chiffre because he owes his creditors 100 million dollars and it is the villains motivation to beat Bond at the poker. If he doesnt, he's toast. So the airbus is an important plot point.

    Personally, I think the entire part from his arrival in Miami until the detonator goes off has that Fleming sweep and moves the film alng nicely.

    Lets face it...its a "modern Bond film". These days people want fast moving action and spectacle complete with lots of explosions. Thankfully its a thoroughly enjoyable sequence which you can follow nicely.

    The 'mysogynist dinosaur' stuff was painful.

    I re-watched that scene today. Its a good scene well acted by BOTH parties. Frankly M's right - I was cheering her on.

    I liked the closing line she has when Bond is about to walk out and she calls to him and says "come back alive". It shows she cares.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Call me slow, but I'm not sure I followed the whole significance to the plot when I saw it in the cinema. Might explain why I found it dull...

    Should pay more attention!
  • Posts: 1,492
    Getafix wrote:
    [
    It's less annoying than the others, I'll give you that. But I hated the dialogue. The 'mysogynist dinosaur' stuff was painful. Plus, Brozza turned out to be one of the most PC Bonds of the series, so the line just seems redundant, especially following on from serial monogamist Dalton.

    Strangely enough I agree with you.

    Her best scenes were when Craig broke into her penthouse (where did she live? New York? I see her more Perivale or Surbiton then Manhattan) and she tears him a strip. She's also good when she visits him in Nassau and briefs him on the game.

    I also like the bitching to her assistant after some minister has bollocked her "christ, I miss the cold war.."

    Worst moment was her using a broom handle to get those keys. Now that is a character at its nadir.

  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    Call me slow, but I'm not sure I followed the whole significance to the plot when I saw it in the cinema. Might explain why I found it dull...

    Should pay more attention!

    You were probably too busy stabbing at your photos of Pierce Brosnan :)) :))

    @actonsteve "Surbiton"

    I was there today :D
  • actonsteve wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    [
    It's less annoying than the others, I'll give you that. But I hated the dialogue. The 'mysogynist dinosaur' stuff was painful. Plus, Brozza turned out to be one of the most PC Bonds of the series, so the line just seems redundant, especially following on from serial monogamist Dalton.

    Strangely enough I agree with you.

    Her best scenes were when Craig broke into her penthouse (where did she live? New York? I see her more Perivale or Surbiton then Manhattan) and she tears him a strip. She's also good when she visits him in Nassau and briefs him on the game.

    I also like the bitching to her assistant after some minister has bollocked her "christ, I miss the cold war.."

    Worst moment was her using a broom handle to get those keys. Now that is a character at its nadir.

    Brilliant
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Call me slow, but I'm not sure I followed the whole significance to the plot when I saw it in the cinema. Might explain why I found it dull...

    Should pay more attention!

    You were probably too busy stabbing at your photos of Pierce Brosnan :)) :))

    Damn it, I forgot to take them with me that time. They help me focus.
  • Posts: 12,837
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.