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
Now it's been brought up I may dig out my Blu-ray and watch it again.
Bond-wise, having just listened to the audiobook of Dr. No, I think keeping the Walther PPK as 007's concealed weapon but giving him a more modern higher calibre pistol for more overt operations is how I'd go forward in future. I don't know enough about handguns to suggest a make and model, however.
I'd like an outlandish Fleming-style villain if they can make him feel plausible enough not to take the audience out of the film. Tricky, I know.
Hopefully Bond 26 has a villain worthy of the best Bond villains.
Nope it's "Man in Wheelchair."😆
You're right. Zombie McClory's lawyers might still sue me. ;-)
Agreed, the fact that you feel kind of sorry for Le Chiffre in that film makes the character work so well (it’s probably a plus they didn’t depict him as the obese, sadistic monster he is in the novel). He’s a sinister villain, but more quietly so, which is great.
Silva’s my favourite villain from the Craig era though. It’s a very different performance (where Mikkelson is more low key, Bardem tends to go big, which works for the individual characters) but I think it’s one of the only times we’ve truly seen a villain who’s Bond’s equal in every way - in intelligence, physicality, even their experiences. He’s even darkly humorous/charming in that very strange way. His motivations are sympathetic to a degree (I love how he slowly unravels/slips further into madness as the film goes on) but unlike Le Chiffre he’s truly become a monster. He’s like a version of Bond who became evil in a way I didn’t even fully get from Alec Travelyan.
I liked Green in QOS (very sadistic) but he doesn’t quite match up to those two (very bizarre decision to have him take on Bond with an axe - he’s not a physical match for Bond at all, and even in the film he’s beaten relatively easily. It’s just such an underwhelming fight). The other Craig villains have their moments I guess but I don’t think they rank as highly.
Yeah, I think it's partly it's because Sean Bean is a little stiffer with that RP accent, and partly because the script just doesn't want him to be as cool as Bond. Silva has a bit more flair and a bit more depth. I think he's the last villain the franchise has had that worked as intended, with Blofeld and Safin not quite hitting the mark. Green is a good character and it's a good performance, but you're right, he's not a good match for Bond. He's slimy and a bit wimpy, I think it would have been better to have him be one of Camille's kills, whilst Bond is threatened by a formidable henchman of the Oddjob/Jaws variety. QoS is a Bond film which I find has lots of good components but they don't come together like they should. A bit frustrating.
I think the difference between Travelyan/Silva are subtle, but distinctive. Travelyan isn’t really a mirror image of Bond despite their parallels. Travelyan’s an orphan like Bond, but his parents were betrayed by Britain. He even notes that’s a fundamental difference between him and Bond.
Silva on the other hand shares Bond’s experiences in SF. He was M’s best agent (one who isn’t seemingly originally English, just like Bond), got wounded under her orders, and went off grid after being presumed dead. The only difference are the choices they make once they disappeared (Silva even implies during their first encounter he’s a cyberterrorist to create his own missions/for the excitement, which isn’t dissimilar to Bond’s love of danger). It’s what I think makes the character slightly stronger.
The other big difference is GE implies a kind of jealousy/resentment towards Bond from Travelyan. You see it with him trying to ‘seduce’ Natalya as if to one up him, and all the ‘I was always better than you’ comments. Silva on the other hand almost seems to like Bond (a bit too much at one point!) but is willing to mentally torture him/kill him if he gets in his way. It’s like a twisted younger/older brother dynamic. Silva also constantly betters him until the end (especially in the William Tell scene. Great observation about that subversion by the way, had never occurred to me). Again, subtle difference, but it makes Silva slightly more menacing in my opinion.
As for Green, I think the fight would have worked better had he injured Bond in some way/put him at a disadvantage before he used the ax. A bit like Joker in TDK accidentally activating Batman’s sight map thing.
Then i woke up to realize its been 4 years since no time to die was done filming and we are no closer to bond 26 then we were then.. now look i love Barbara i love what her and michael have done with the franchise and i even forgive them for their last two films (which both had huge issues with them but regardless)
What is the hold up even if we take covid into consideration its been 3 years since no time to die was released can we at least get an announcement on who is writing the next film
You're right about Silva feeling a connection with Bond, almost brothers... I hadn't thought about it like that. Years ago I thought about potential villains for Bond and I considered one based on Rupert of Hentzau from The Prisoner of Zenda, someone with many of the qualities of a hero but twisted into a villain, and with an admiration for Bond like Rupert has for protagonist Rudolf Rassendyll. Only now I see they actually did that in many ways with Silva, and I simply didn't notice. He doesn't threaten Bond so much as flirts with him, it is almost a seduction, trying to break his faith in M and pull him into his mindset. He's a good villain, he really gets into 007's head and makes him doubt both himself and M rather than just physically attacking him, it's part of the reason the film works as well as it does. We need another bad guy who has that sort of weight to him. I think the burning building was supposed to do that, but it obviously was as much a hinderance to Green as it was to Bond so it doesn't really work. Some form of injury or impediment probably would have been better, though I don't know what would have been appropriate.
I do love how so much thought was put into such an unmemorable henchman.
Must say though, I do remember being quite horrified first time I watched it.
Yes, Silva just pips Le Chiffre for me too: he's bigger and scarier, one of the all-time best villains I think. LC is great too though.
I really like Amalric's nicely weird performance (I love that sort of skull-style stare he has at times, like when the guy lands on his bonnet), it's a shame it gets lost slightly in the film. I don't mind the fight: he's like a cornered wild animal- he doesn't have Bond's skills but he lashes out wildly which still makes him dangerous as he has a weapon.
I think if Mikkelsen hadn't been around he'd have made a very good Le Chiffre to be honest.
That's great, I didn't know that, thanks. That does make it make more sense: Elvis is symptomatic of the problems that film has- it feels like the director didn't quite work out what he wanted to do with him and didn't get the footage to make him work in the edit. The film is packed with good ideas and the story actually has some decent themes running through it, but the direction lets them down. I don't even think the writer's strike was the issue as the script is pretty decent.
Me too. Though I understand the importance to show his injuries I didn't like the way they showed it. I know some people here suggested more horror to future Bond films but I'm on the lighter side. Same with the torture scene in SPECTRE. Goldfinger did it way better with the laser in my opinion.
QOS for me works fine as presented. Elvis, editing and all.
I took one point from CR, with omissions like Q and Moneypenny, that Bond is established. The traditional film formula continues, but some elements would be built over time. Not all put in the table at once.
So Q and Moneypenny would return. And the global caper. Gadgets from Q Branch.
And the warrior henchman and other staples eventually.
With Elvis he's served up as comic relief in every scene he appears, that's how I take him. I don't see any indecision on the part of the filmmakers there.
@mtm
Isn't that an issue with QOS in general, though? Lots of things are mere flickers. I have come to like the film, but it still is a collection of flashes, seconds or less during which the non-blinking viewer may see something without being allowed any time to process that information. The Elvis gag is over before you know it, before one can even properly register it, unless you're seeing the film for the fifth time. I appreciate that QOS was put together under enormous stress, but I don't think that's an excuse for the frenetic editing that makes one miss too many things upon first or second viewing.
I think Greene is a slimy, very believable villain. He’s one of my favourites, and his attack with the axe shows he’s an unhinged, desperate little rat, trapped in a corner. The way he cackles, “Looks like you just lost another one!”, when he believes Camille has been killed, is great. Give the man credit: even when he’s losing badly, he still wants to get under his opponent’s skin!
But man, I walked out of the cinema after my first viewing, quite upset. I had seen some BTS clips on various shows, seeing Craig doing so much of the stunt work. I was so excited when I went to watch the film, thinking I was in for a treat.
Instead, I complained to anyone who’d listen: why would a director stick his camera up the lead actors arse when he’s committed to the stunts???? You can’t see what he’s doing, and you may as well have got a stuntman to do what Craig’s doing.
And that editing gave me quite a headache.
But with each viewing I reconciled the weaknesses as I thought, despite the writers strike, that this was still a damned good Bond thriller with some excellent character and dialogue. I came to appreciate the story first, then the film.
It now resides in my top ten, but it took a while to get there.
That’s why I was asking @DEKE_RIVERS , what was the problem with the script.
The biggest issue I have with Forster is:
In screenwriting some of us were taught to learn the rules of the craft inside and out; to be an absolute expert in everything to do with writing a film, and then, and only then, you can start breaking the rules (if it helps tell a better story).
With Forster it feels like he skipped all the rule, and learning the rules, of crafting tight action films, and he went straight to breaking the rules.
Yep, I can see that. He also picked the wrong time to do that with the Writer's Strike. And not being a Bond showed. With the exception of Casino Royale, go figure.
Uhm, who is pretending this? And what's your point? Like really, what is it you're trying to say?