Controversial opinions about Bond films

1620621623625626707

Comments

  • Posts: 15,125
    I'm fine with camp: Gray and Waltz are my favorite Blofelds. But they're all pretty camp. Brainwashing babes and giving them poison makeup kits is fairly camp. As is unbuttoning your shirt a bit as you fall for Tracy's obvious romantic ruse. It's all lovely, but certainly camp-adjacent at the very least!

    As much as I love OHMSS, I always hated that bit.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Controversial opinion: I'm all for the return of unknown veteran actors to play villains.

    Would be interesting. Ever since the 80s it's like EON has felt the need to cast prolific character actors as the villain, especially if they won various awards. Though Robert Davi was a notable exception.

    I'd say both Mads Mikkelsen and Mathieu Amalric were, when cast, fairly unknown veteran actors.

    Probably outside their home countries they’re “unknown”, but they were already award winning actors by the time they did Bond, which is what EON is going for these days.

    Contrast that to Robert Davi in 1989.

    Are you saying Robert Davi wasn't as well known in the US or internationally at the time he did Licence to Kill or rather that he wasn't at that time award-winning? I'm not disputing what you're saying. I'm just genuinely curious as I don't really know for sure one way or the other. Would like to hear more from you on this, @MakeshiftPython.

    Pretty much both.

    Mikkelsen and Amalric weren't exactly household names but they weren't "unknown" given the accolades they earned before and since. Most Bond villains were played by highly acclaimed character actors, which is why Robert Davi kind of sticks out like a sore thumb.

    ...aas in? Personally I find Davi's performance extremely well done. A very convincing character.

    I'm not saying anything about his performance, just the fact that he was an esoteric choice for a Bond villian. But then again, LTK is a pretty esoteric film itself with a large American cast.
  • Posts: 1,917
    I think it's interesting to note Davi had supporting roles in two of the biggest hit films of the '80s, The Goonies and Die Hard, but the least successful, at least financially, Bond film of that decade as a lead.

    That said, I still find Sanchez to be the most underrated lead villain of the series and much more than the garden variety drug dealer he's sometimes perceived as. A lot of reviews of the time referred to the character that way.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    I always find it weird that Sanchez is referred to as a Scarface rip-off. Except, he couldn't be any more different.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    I always find it weird that Sanchez is referred to as a Scarface rip-off. Except, he couldn't be any more different.

    That I can really not understand. He certainly isn't Scarface.
    I remember thinking "So their doing Escobar, huh?" When I first saw it. But even that is a pretty lazy comparison.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    He's Manuel Noriega.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,136
    He's Manuel Noriega.

    Exactly. Isthmus is basically 1980's Panama.

    What I find particularly interesting is Sanchez's reputation to award loyalty. That's a very interesting take since most Bond baddies were just plain insane. This guy just wants to be rich and powerful. He's charismatic too, he even treats his goons quite nicely as long as they keep nodding along. Makes him very much a real-world villain.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    He's Manuel Noriega.

    Exactly. Isthmus is basically 1980's Panama.

    What I find particularly interesting is Sanchez's reputation to award loyalty. That's a very interesting take since most Bond baddies were just plain insane. This guy just wants to be rich and powerful. He's charismatic too, he even treats his goons quite nicely as long as they keep nodding along. Makes him very much a real-world villain.

    MGW confirmed this in interviews too. It’s on the DVD extras.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    Panama is even an isthmus!
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    I got the Panama connection. But from what I remember from the film, Sanchez doesn't come from the military, is not really concerned with the actual running of the country and the US connection isn't as it was with Noriega (although that may not really have been public knowledge in 88/89). That's why I saw him as more of a classic drug lord who stands above but to the side of the political landscape, whereas Noriega was more of a conduit who turned Panama into a safe haven for smuggling, money laundering and gun running. But if that is what the authors say they where going for, who am I to dispute it.
  • Posts: 7,437
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    He's Manuel Noriega.

    Exactly. Isthmus is basically 1980's Panama.

    What I find particularly interesting is Sanchez's reputation to award loyalty. That's a very interesting take since most Bond baddies were just plain insane. This guy just wants to be rich and powerful. He's charismatic too, he even treats his goons quite nicely as long as they keep nodding along. Makes him very much a real-world villain.

    Also it was great idea for the plot as Bond exploits that part of Sanchez, his devotion to loyalty, as a means to destroy his organisation from within!
  • Posts: 15,125
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Controversial opinion: I'm all for the return of unknown veteran actors to play villains.

    Would be interesting. Ever since the 80s it's like EON has felt the need to cast prolific character actors as the villain, especially if they won various awards. Though Robert Davi was a notable exception.

    I'd say both Mads Mikkelsen and Mathieu Amalric were, when cast, fairly unknown veteran actors.

    Probably outside their home countries they’re “unknown”, but they were already award winning actors by the time they did Bond, which is what EON is going for these days.

    Contrast that to Robert Davi in 1989.

    Are you saying Robert Davi wasn't as well known in the US or internationally at the time he did Licence to Kill or rather that he wasn't at that time award-winning? I'm not disputing what you're saying. I'm just genuinely curious as I don't really know for sure one way or the other. Would like to hear more from you on this, @MakeshiftPython.

    Pretty much both.

    Mikkelsen and Amalric weren't exactly household names but they weren't "unknown" given the accolades they earned before and since. Most Bond villains were played by highly acclaimed character actors, which is why Robert Davi kind of sticks out like a sore thumb.

    ...aas in? Personally I find Davi's performance extremely well done. A very convincing character.

    I'm not saying anything about his performance, just the fact that he was an esoteric choice for a Bond villian. But then again, LTK is a pretty esoteric film itself with a large American cast.

    One of the reasons why I think LTK did not do as well as hoped: it was probably too American for many, including (especially?) American audiences.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Controversial opinion: I'm all for the return of unknown veteran actors to play villains.

    Would be interesting. Ever since the 80s it's like EON has felt the need to cast prolific character actors as the villain, especially if they won various awards. Though Robert Davi was a notable exception.

    I'd say both Mads Mikkelsen and Mathieu Amalric were, when cast, fairly unknown veteran actors.

    Probably outside their home countries they’re “unknown”, but they were already award winning actors by the time they did Bond, which is what EON is going for these days.

    Contrast that to Robert Davi in 1989.

    Are you saying Robert Davi wasn't as well known in the US or internationally at the time he did Licence to Kill or rather that he wasn't at that time award-winning? I'm not disputing what you're saying. I'm just genuinely curious as I don't really know for sure one way or the other. Would like to hear more from you on this, @MakeshiftPython.

    Pretty much both.

    Mikkelsen and Amalric weren't exactly household names but they weren't "unknown" given the accolades they earned before and since. Most Bond villains were played by highly acclaimed character actors, which is why Robert Davi kind of sticks out like a sore thumb.

    ...aas in? Personally I find Davi's performance extremely well done. A very convincing character.

    I'm not saying anything about his performance, just the fact that he was an esoteric choice for a Bond villian. But then again, LTK is a pretty esoteric film itself with a large American cast.

    One of the reasons why I think LTK did not do as well as hoped: it was probably too American for many, including (especially?) American audiences.

    Well, in the non-US market it didn't fall off too much from TLD,and it outperformed AVTAK. It earned slightly more than Octopussy too, though in that case, inflation adjustments would out it a bit behind.

    It was really just the US with that one, I think the reason is boring one we always hear: 1989 was a killer summer blockbuster season.
  • Sanchez is a strong villain partly because he’s sort of a nexus between traditional Bond villain and “un-Bond”ian Cartel head. He still has many of the tropes you would expect from a traditional Bond baddie so he doesn’t feel totally out of place in the series, but at the same time the fact that he could be equally at home in some sleazy R -rated action film gives him an unpredictable and ruthless edge (which is backed up by the gruesome opening act). I like that LTK as a whole has this unique blend. It’s not something I want to be standard in the series but every once in a while it’s nice when we get Bond movies that aren’t afraid to break the mold. I’m still hoping we’ll get one that leans hard into horror/suspense thriller, like a deliciously unsettling combo meal of the Red Grant stuff from FRWL and the voodoo stuff in LALD. Our Bond on his back feet a bit and show some fear which would really up the stakes for the audience.
  • Yeah I definitely consider QoS part of that same mold-breaking tradition.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Controversial opinion: I'm all for the return of unknown veteran actors to play villains.

    Would be interesting. Ever since the 80s it's like EON has felt the need to cast prolific character actors as the villain, especially if they won various awards. Though Robert Davi was a notable exception.

    I'd say both Mads Mikkelsen and Mathieu Amalric were, when cast, fairly unknown veteran actors.

    Probably outside their home countries they’re “unknown”, but they were already award winning actors by the time they did Bond, which is what EON is going for these days.

    Contrast that to Robert Davi in 1989.

    Are you saying Robert Davi wasn't as well known in the US or internationally at the time he did Licence to Kill or rather that he wasn't at that time award-winning? I'm not disputing what you're saying. I'm just genuinely curious as I don't really know for sure one way or the other. Would like to hear more from you on this, @MakeshiftPython.

    Pretty much both.

    Mikkelsen and Amalric weren't exactly household names but they weren't "unknown" given the accolades they earned before and since. Most Bond villains were played by highly acclaimed character actors, which is why Robert Davi kind of sticks out like a sore thumb.

    ...aas in? Personally I find Davi's performance extremely well done. A very convincing character.

    I'm not saying anything about his performance, just the fact that he was an esoteric choice for a Bond villian. But then again, LTK is a pretty esoteric film itself with a large American cast.

    One of the reasons why I think LTK did not do as well as hoped: it was probably too American for many, including (especially?) American audiences.

    Well, in the non-US market it didn't fall off too much from TLD,and it outperformed AVTAK. It earned slightly more than Octopussy too, though in that case, inflation adjustments would out it a bit behind.

    It was really just the US with that one, I think the reason is boring one we always hear: 1989 was a killer summer blockbuster season.

    The simplest explanation is that the US didn’t like Dalton as Bond. Americans were primed for Pierce Brosnan and never gave Dalton a chance.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited February 2021 Posts: 1,711
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Controversial opinion: I'm all for the return of unknown veteran actors to play villains.

    Would be interesting. Ever since the 80s it's like EON has felt the need to cast prolific character actors as the villain, especially if they won various awards. Though Robert Davi was a notable exception.

    I'd say both Mads Mikkelsen and Mathieu Amalric were, when cast, fairly unknown veteran actors.

    Probably outside their home countries they’re “unknown”, but they were already award winning actors by the time they did Bond, which is what EON is going for these days.

    Contrast that to Robert Davi in 1989.

    Are you saying Robert Davi wasn't as well known in the US or internationally at the time he did Licence to Kill or rather that he wasn't at that time award-winning? I'm not disputing what you're saying. I'm just genuinely curious as I don't really know for sure one way or the other. Would like to hear more from you on this, @MakeshiftPython.

    Pretty much both.

    Mikkelsen and Amalric weren't exactly household names but they weren't "unknown" given the accolades they earned before and since. Most Bond villains were played by highly acclaimed character actors, which is why Robert Davi kind of sticks out like a sore thumb.

    ...aas in? Personally I find Davi's performance extremely well done. A very convincing character.

    I'm not saying anything about his performance, just the fact that he was an esoteric choice for a Bond villian. But then again, LTK is a pretty esoteric film itself with a large American cast.

    One of the reasons why I think LTK did not do as well as hoped: it was probably too American for many, including (especially?) American audiences.

    Well, in the non-US market it didn't fall off too much from TLD,and it outperformed AVTAK. It earned slightly more than Octopussy too, though in that case, inflation adjustments would out it a bit behind.

    It was really just the US with that one, I think the reason is boring one we always hear: 1989 was a killer summer blockbuster season.

    The simplest explanation is that the US didn’t like Dalton as Bond. Americans were primed for Pierce Brosnan and never gave Dalton a chance.

    Yeah, that's certainly possible too. But Roger's second film went over about as badly and that got turned around, so who knows. According to one of my Bond books, it had the best test audience reaction they'd ever had, so maybe it could have done better.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2021 Posts: 6,304
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Controversial opinion: I'm all for the return of unknown veteran actors to play villains.

    Would be interesting. Ever since the 80s it's like EON has felt the need to cast prolific character actors as the villain, especially if they won various awards. Though Robert Davi was a notable exception.

    I'd say both Mads Mikkelsen and Mathieu Amalric were, when cast, fairly unknown veteran actors.

    Probably outside their home countries they’re “unknown”, but they were already award winning actors by the time they did Bond, which is what EON is going for these days.

    Contrast that to Robert Davi in 1989.

    Are you saying Robert Davi wasn't as well known in the US or internationally at the time he did Licence to Kill or rather that he wasn't at that time award-winning? I'm not disputing what you're saying. I'm just genuinely curious as I don't really know for sure one way or the other. Would like to hear more from you on this, @MakeshiftPython.

    Pretty much both.

    Mikkelsen and Amalric weren't exactly household names but they weren't "unknown" given the accolades they earned before and since. Most Bond villains were played by highly acclaimed character actors, which is why Robert Davi kind of sticks out like a sore thumb.

    ...aas in? Personally I find Davi's performance extremely well done. A very convincing character.

    I'm not saying anything about his performance, just the fact that he was an esoteric choice for a Bond villian. But then again, LTK is a pretty esoteric film itself with a large American cast.

    One of the reasons why I think LTK did not do as well as hoped: it was probably too American for many, including (especially?) American audiences.

    Well, in the non-US market it didn't fall off too much from TLD,and it outperformed AVTAK. It earned slightly more than Octopussy too, though in that case, inflation adjustments would out it a bit behind.

    It was really just the US with that one, I think the reason is boring one we always hear: 1989 was a killer summer blockbuster season.

    The simplest explanation is that the US didn’t like Dalton as Bond. Americans were primed for Pierce Brosnan and never gave Dalton a chance.

    ^This is what happened. I was a teenager in the '80s, starting with OP, and the "public" wanted Brosnan because he was well known from Remington Steele.

    Personally I loved Dalton from the jump in TLD, but I doubt most people in the US agreed. The media played it like Brosnan lost a beauty pageant, when Dalton was the better actor and choice.

    https://www.pinterest.ph/pin/519602875731452340/

    Dark "drug war" movies and TV were in vogue in the US in the late '80s--Miami Vice and Lethal Weapon. So in that sense LTK was very much in keeping with its time.
  • Posts: 7,437
    Yes, maybe if more had been made of the fact that Cubby had been wanting Dalton for the role for a long while, he may have been accepted more on that side of the pond! But yes, Brossa was expected to get it, and had practically signed a contract, they felt he was robbed!
    Thank God for MTM productions stepping in, or we may not have got Dalton at all!!
  • Posts: 2,918
    It was really just the US with that one, I think the reason is boring one we always hear: 1989 was a killer summer blockbuster season.

    It's not a coincidence that after 1989 Bond films were released in autumn instead. LTK's marketing campaign was also universally derided as limp and poorly funded. Even the posters are the worst ever assembled for a Bond film. Lastly, American audiences just weren't enthusiastic about Dalton. I don't think LTK would have been a big hit if it had been released in late October with better marketing, but I don't think it would have flopped either. Sadly, even if the film made more money that wouldn't have prevented the legal complications that deprived us of a third Dalton film.
  • Posts: 7,437
    Regarding the posters for LTK, they were indeed terrible. But I did like the teaser poster which was pretty cool!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,186
    The LTK posters really feel of the times to me. They blend in nicely with other posters of films and TV of the times, but maybe that was also the problem.
  • Posts: 16,169
    As far as simplistic Bond posters go, I liked the teaser poster for LTK.

    full.licensetokill_adv_29084__66375.1595214317.jpg?c=2?imbypass=on

    My copy of this poster during my teen years proudly was displayed on my wall throughout high school. My version had the US spelling.
    Still, when compared to the earlier classic artwork of the Connery and Moore eras it's a lesser effort.
  • It’s a damn shame they had this amazing art by Bob Peak (who also did The Spy Who Loved Me’s fantastic poster) ready to go and didn’t use it.
    2lxi4bjhhsd41.jpg
  • Posts: 1,917
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    As far as simplistic Bond posters go, I liked the teaser poster for LTK.

    full.licensetokill_adv_29084__66375.1595214317.jpg?c=2?imbypass=on

    My copy of this poster during my teen years proudly was displayed on my wall throughout high school. My version had the US spelling.
    Still, when compared to the earlier classic artwork of the Connery and Moore eras it's a lesser effort.

    My bedroom had the TLD poster of Dalton with the Walther. Both were great teaser posters that got me thrilled for the films.
  • Posts: 16,169
    BT3366 wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    As far as simplistic Bond posters go, I liked the teaser poster for LTK.

    full.licensetokill_adv_29084__66375.1595214317.jpg?c=2?imbypass=on

    My copy of this poster during my teen years proudly was displayed on my wall throughout high school. My version had the US spelling.
    Still, when compared to the earlier classic artwork of the Connery and Moore eras it's a lesser effort.

    My bedroom had the TLD poster of Dalton with the Walther. Both were great teaser posters that got me thrilled for the films.

    I had that poster, too.
    It’s a damn shame they had this amazing art by Bob Peak (who also did The Spy Who Loved Me’s fantastic poster) ready to go and didn’t use it.
    2lxi4bjhhsd41.jpg

    THIS poster I love as well as the original title.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    ToTheRight wrote: »

    THIS poster I love as well as the original title.
    This I can't understand. As uninspired a title as "Licence to Kill" is, "Licence Revoked" is just awful. Such a direct and descriptive name would be a huge outlier. And, as apparently learned from focus groups, it does make Americans think of the Department of Motor Vehicles....

  • Posts: 15,125
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Controversial opinion: I'm all for the return of unknown veteran actors to play villains.

    Would be interesting. Ever since the 80s it's like EON has felt the need to cast prolific character actors as the villain, especially if they won various awards. Though Robert Davi was a notable exception.

    I'd say both Mads Mikkelsen and Mathieu Amalric were, when cast, fairly unknown veteran actors.

    Probably outside their home countries they’re “unknown”, but they were already award winning actors by the time they did Bond, which is what EON is going for these days.

    Contrast that to Robert Davi in 1989.

    Are you saying Robert Davi wasn't as well known in the US or internationally at the time he did Licence to Kill or rather that he wasn't at that time award-winning? I'm not disputing what you're saying. I'm just genuinely curious as I don't really know for sure one way or the other. Would like to hear more from you on this, @MakeshiftPython.

    Pretty much both.

    Mikkelsen and Amalric weren't exactly household names but they weren't "unknown" given the accolades they earned before and since. Most Bond villains were played by highly acclaimed character actors, which is why Robert Davi kind of sticks out like a sore thumb.

    ...aas in? Personally I find Davi's performance extremely well done. A very convincing character.

    I'm not saying anything about his performance, just the fact that he was an esoteric choice for a Bond villian. But then again, LTK is a pretty esoteric film itself with a large American cast.

    One of the reasons why I think LTK did not do as well as hoped: it was probably too American for many, including (especially?) American audiences.

    Well, in the non-US market it didn't fall off too much from TLD,and it outperformed AVTAK. It earned slightly more than Octopussy too, though in that case, inflation adjustments would out it a bit behind.

    It was really just the US with that one, I think the reason is boring one we always hear: 1989 was a killer summer blockbuster season.

    The simplest explanation is that the US didn’t like Dalton as Bond. Americans were primed for Pierce Brosnan and never gave Dalton a chance.

    That's the main reason, but I do suspect they wanted something more exotic than Florida.
  • Posts: 7,437
    It’s a damn shame they had this amazing art by Bob Peak (who also did The Spy Who Loved Me’s fantastic poster) ready to go and didn’t use it.
    2lxi4bjhhsd41.jpg

    An absolute shame it wasnt used.
    Stunning poster!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    It’s a damn shame they had this amazing art by Bob Peak (who also did The Spy Who Loved Me’s fantastic poster) ready to go and didn’t use it.
    2lxi4bjhhsd41.jpg

    An absolute shame it wasnt used.
    Stunning poster!

    Agreed. Love it.
Sign In or Register to comment.