Christoph Waltz as Blofeld - Hit or miss?

17810121320

Comments

  • Posts: 9,554
    jobo wrote:
    When Christoph Waltz was officially announced to be Spectre's main villain, the decision was met with a lot of enthusiasm from fans and critics alike. Now, one year later, the assessment of his performance has been mixed to say the least. Many critics claim he is a tame disappointment, others have been far more positive.

    So what do you think? And did the controversial back story work for you?

    Personally I thought he was teriffic, with a great understated menace. A more OTT perfomance could easily have been overkill, and for me he found the perfect balance.


    Note: Since going into detail about the character would be impossible without revealing important plot points, I suggest all people who have yet to see the film, stops reading the discussion for now. You have been warned...

    I agree I loved Waltz he was dark chilling and creepy and very good. Much better then Bardem in my opinion who really felt out of place in the Craig era the more I think about it. Not saying he is bad just saying he could of been way better especially when compared to the likes of Le Chiffe and Dominic Green Silva comes off like a villain from the Brosnan era. For Me Craig's films have tried to be close to fleming with some movie elements in there. Casino Royale Quantum of Solace and Spectre all basically hit that mark (with some doing it better then others) with Skyfall shrugs.



    Something I do Want to point out was anyone else reminded of Le Gérant. I mean ion both instances it's a character who shared a father figure and yet if I remember NDOD correctly didn't Le Gérant hate Draco for being nicer to his Son in law then his own son?

    Again Not a complaint as I love the Benson novels (an opinion I find is a kin to saying I hate 007 around here for some reason) so EON borrowing from them is not a horrible thing. In Fact Spectre 2.0 feels a lot like The Union.. Again I am sure I am reading to much into things but I would love to do a comparison from book to film to see the bits of Fleming and Post Fleming (colonel Sun is apparently word for word in Spectre in the torture scene) novels.


    Overall I feel Waltz matches with the villains of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace and is acted quite nicely (though the nickname for 007 is a little odd) and again Craig is the First Bond to take on 2 (3 if you count the Oberhauser name) Fleming Villains. first time really since Moore?
  • Oberhauser crawling on the ground. LOL! =))

    Yes. A real laff riot, that one.

    /:)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Oberhauser crawling on the ground. LOL! =))

    Yes. A real laff riot, that one.

    /:)

    And how about the end credits? :)) :)) :)) :-j
  • Thunderball007Thunderball007 United States
    Posts: 306
    Oberhauser crawling on the ground. LOL! =))

    Yes. A real laff riot, that one.

    /:)

    And how about the end credits? :)) :)) :)) :-j

    LOL! Of course!

    :))
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Unlike most reviewers, I loved him as a villain, I think he is among the best. What I don't like is the shoehorned backstory
  • OmegaXOmegaX Singapore
    Posts: 39
    I feel that Waltz is a perfect hit. Came across as slightly unnerving with his cold attitude and his calm composure, and when he finally gotten the scar he just became absolutely terrifying. One slight critisim would be that Waltz performaces are almost identical, with the same kind of composure and tone, but hey this is about how great a villain he is in this movie right?
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    A definite miss. Why did he have to get an assistant to do all his talking in the boardroom, like he was infirm?

    No menace, no comeback to Craig's quips. He can see into MI6 but doesn't know they make gadgets like exploding watches, which blows up his entire headquarters??

    Your inability to grasp the concept of character and story is becoming legendary. I may write a book on it.

    Please elucidate. I think Blofeld laconically issuing orders is more effective that what they did.

    Then when they get to his base he takes them to a room with a piece of meteor. A scene that went nowhere and meant nothing. Came across as pretentious.

    What was so great about him?

    The Rome meeting sets up Blofeld perfectly. The idea that an underling would move a microphone a matter of inches shows the deference every member has for him. The way he lingers before speaking, they hang on his every word. The scene says so much about character, it's directed to perfection.

    The meteor is metaphor for Oberhauser/ESB entering Bond's world.

    For someone who claims they want Bond movies with a brain, might want to engage yours next viewing.


    About this...when i first saw the scene i was a bit confused too and slightly annoyed. Then my intepretation was that it emphasises his authority. I mean, the fact that he has someone willing to help him do things, even down to something as simple as moving a microphone, means that he has great authority and is much feared.

    I saw the metorite scene as a metaphor for SPECTRE itself, about how it is powerful and would make a big impact on this world. Again, i believe that this scene could be better executed.
  • Pure hit! Period! Waltz as Blofeld was another pure hit in the villain department. The villains from the Brosnan-era should be jealous.
  • OmegaX wrote: »
    I feel that Waltz is a perfect hit. Came across as slightly unnerving with his cold attitude and his calm composure, and when he finally gotten the scar he just became absolutely terrifying. One slight critisim would be that Waltz performaces are almost identical, with the same kind of composure and tone, but hey this is about how great a villain he is in this movie right?
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    A definite miss. Why did he have to get an assistant to do all his talking in the boardroom, like he was infirm?

    No menace, no comeback to Craig's quips. He can see into MI6 but doesn't know they make gadgets like exploding watches, which blows up his entire headquarters??

    Your inability to grasp the concept of character and story is becoming legendary. I may write a book on it.

    Please elucidate. I think Blofeld laconically issuing orders is more effective that what they did.

    Then when they get to his base he takes them to a room with a piece of meteor. A scene that went nowhere and meant nothing. Came across as pretentious.

    What was so great about him?

    The Rome meeting sets up Blofeld perfectly. The idea that an underling would move a microphone a matter of inches shows the deference every member has for him. The way he lingers before speaking, they hang on his every word. The scene says so much about character, it's directed to perfection.

    The meteor is metaphor for Oberhauser/ESB entering Bond's world.

    For someone who claims they want Bond movies with a brain, might want to engage yours next viewing.


    About this...when i first saw the scene i was a bit confused too and slightly annoyed. Then my intepretation was that it emphasises his authority. I mean, the fact that he has someone willing to help him do things, even down to something as simple as moving a microphone, means that he has great authority and is much feared.

    I saw the metorite scene as a metaphor for SPECTRE itself, about how it is powerful and would make a big impact on this world. Again, i believe that this scene could be better executed.

    The meteor metaphor lacked any real finesse or subtly, like the rest of the film.

    SP is a little ham-fisted in this regard and lacks the nuance of SF. The parallels between Bond and Silva as warring siblings was much better embedded in SF, in SP everything is spelled out too clearly. There is even a moment in the torture scene where Blofeld refers to Madeline as the “daughter of an assassin, the only one who could understand you”. I mean, really?! Talk about signposting things for the audience. Mendes was smart enough not to do this in SF, so I’m curious why he let it slip here. I suppose laziness would be easiest answer. Maybe he was just there for the paycheck?

    In terms of Waltz: he’s an intriguing actor as he has essentially been doing the same shtick since ‘Inglourious Basterds’. I actually thought he calmed down a lot of his eccentricities for the role and was surprisingly reserved. Almost to the point he was sleepwalking through the performance. He does indulge himself in some of his usual traits by the end.

    I do like how Mendes embraces the ‘Blofeld’ iconography slowly:

    - The burnt photo obscuring the young Oberhauser’s face.
    - The Rome meeting where Blofeld is only shot in the shadows (Waltz is his most effective here).
    - His introductionary scene wearing the Nehru jacket
    - The white cat
    - The name reveal
    - Leading to the infamous scar

    The only problem I have with the Blofeld reveal was it meant nothing in the context of the story. Wouldn’t it have been more effective if the reveal was the other way around? Bond finds out that Blofeld, the mysterious head of SPECTRE, is actually his step-brother Franz Oberhauser. That way it actually means something and we could have avoided all the unnecessary “is he, isn’t he” bullshit over the nature of Waltz’s role.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 39,441
    Pure hit! Period! Waltz as Blofeld was another pure hit in the villain department. The villains from the Brosnan-era should be jealous.

    Why does Waltz playing Blofeld in Craig's fourth outing have anything to do with the Brosnan era villains?...
  • Creasy47 wrote: »
    Pure hit! Period! Waltz as Blofeld was another pure hit in the villain department. The villains from the Brosnan-era should be jealous.

    Why does Waltz playing Blofeld in Craig's fourth outing have anything to do with the Brosnan era villains?...

    Nothing. Completely nothing. But I found it only valid to strengthen my point with a few previous Bond villains. My point: We could have head worse villains. And frankly, I think Waltz was perfect.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 39,441
    But you can perfectly outline how much you enjoyed Blofeld and believed he was a pure hit by comparing him to other hits instead of targeting Brosnan and knocking him down yet another peg like everyone seems to go out of their way to do. Am I really the only one who loves Trevelyan and Elektra as Bond villains? Oh well.
  • Creasy47 wrote: »
    But you can perfectly outline how much you enjoyed Blofeld and believed he was a pure hit by comparing him to other hits instead of targeting Brosnan and knocking him down yet another peg like everyone seems to go out of their way to do. Am I really the only one who loves Trevelyan and Elektra as Bond villains? Oh well.

    It wasn't my intention to ridicule the Brosnan films. But, for me personally, I found Gustav Graves, Renard, Elliot Carver and even Alec Trevelyan rather weak, superficial villains. Actually, the real Brosnan villain who stood out for me, was Elektra King. Deliciously and convincingly played by Sophie Marceau. In many ways she has the same kind of personal reasoning that Blofeld in SP has.

    Regarding Alec Trevelyan vs Raoul Silva: Silva is obviously way more memorable. Mind my words in 30 years time from now.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I like all the Brosnan villains to varying degrees. I can even have fun with Toby Stephens' scenery chewing.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 39,441
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    But you can perfectly outline how much you enjoyed Blofeld and believed he was a pure hit by comparing him to other hits instead of targeting Brosnan and knocking him down yet another peg like everyone seems to go out of their way to do. Am I really the only one who loves Trevelyan and Elektra as Bond villains? Oh well.

    It wasn't my intention to ridicule the Brosnan films. But, for me personally, I found Gustav Graves, Renard, Elliot Carver and even Alec Trevelyan rather weak, superficial villains. Actually, the real Brosnan villain who stood out for me, was Elektra King. Deliciously and convincingly played by Sophie Marceau. In many ways she has the same kind of personal reasoning that Blofeld in SP has.

    Regarding Alec Trevelyan vs Raoul Silva: Silva is obviously way more memorable. Mind my words in 30 years time from now.

    Agree to disagree then, as I found Silva to be forgettable and a straight copy of TDK's Joker, nothing more.
  • Creasy47 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    But you can perfectly outline how much you enjoyed Blofeld and believed he was a pure hit by comparing him to other hits instead of targeting Brosnan and knocking him down yet another peg like everyone seems to go out of their way to do. Am I really the only one who loves Trevelyan and Elektra as Bond villains? Oh well.

    It wasn't my intention to ridicule the Brosnan films. But, for me personally, I found Gustav Graves, Renard, Elliot Carver and even Alec Trevelyan rather weak, superficial villains. Actually, the real Brosnan villain who stood out for me, was Elektra King. Deliciously and convincingly played by Sophie Marceau. In many ways she has the same kind of personal reasoning that Blofeld in SP has.

    Regarding Alec Trevelyan vs Raoul Silva: Silva is obviously way more memorable. Mind my words in 30 years time from now.

    Agree to disagree then, as I found Silva to be forgettable and a straight copy of TDK's Joker, nothing more.

    I found Silva's entrance in SF besting every, really EVERY villain entrance in a Bond film. The very aspect 'villain entrance' doesn't even apply to Heath Ledger's 'The Joker'. In many ways Silva's entrance reminded me of some other great, though rare 'villain entrances'. For instance Dr. No in "DN", Blofeld in "SP" and in "DAF". But IMO Silva's entrance tops every Bond film...easily.
  • OmegaXOmegaX Singapore
    Posts: 39
    OmegaX wrote: »
    I feel that Waltz is a perfect hit. Came across as slightly unnerving with his cold attitude and his calm composure, and when he finally gotten the scar he just became absolutely terrifying. One slight critisim would be that Waltz performaces are almost identical, with the same kind of composure and tone, but hey this is about how great a villain he is in this movie right?
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    A definite miss. Why did he have to get an assistant to do all his talking in the boardroom, like he was infirm?

    No menace, no comeback to Craig's quips. He can see into MI6 but doesn't know they make gadgets like exploding watches, which blows up his entire headquarters??

    Your inability to grasp the concept of character and story is becoming legendary. I may write a book on it.

    Please elucidate. I think Blofeld laconically issuing orders is more effective that what they did.

    Then when they get to his base he takes them to a room with a piece of meteor. A scene that went nowhere and meant nothing. Came across as pretentious.

    What was so great about him?

    The Rome meeting sets up Blofeld perfectly. The idea that an underling would move a microphone a matter of inches shows the deference every member has for him. The way he lingers before speaking, they hang on his every word. The scene says so much about character, it's directed to perfection.

    The meteor is metaphor for Oberhauser/ESB entering Bond's world.

    For someone who claims they want Bond movies with a brain, might want to engage yours next viewing.


    About this...when i first saw the scene i was a bit confused too and slightly annoyed. Then my intepretation was that it emphasises his authority. I mean, the fact that he has someone willing to help him do things, even down to something as simple as moving a microphone, means that he has great authority and is much feared.

    I saw the metorite scene as a metaphor for SPECTRE itself, about how it is powerful and would make a big impact on this world. Again, i believe that this scene could be better executed.

    The meteor metaphor lacked any real finesse or subtly, like the rest of the film.

    SP is a little ham-fisted in this regard and lacks the nuance of SF. The parallels between Bond and Silva as warring siblings was much better embedded in SF, in SP everything is spelled out too clearly. There is even a moment in the torture scene where Blofeld refers to Madeline as the “daughter of an assassin, the only one who could understand you”. I mean, really?! Talk about signposting things for the audience. Mendes was smart enough not to do this in SF, so I’m curious why he let it slip here. I suppose laziness would be easiest answer. Maybe he was just there for the paycheck?

    In terms of Waltz: he’s an intriguing actor as he has essentially been doing the same shtick since ‘Inglourious Basterds’. I actually thought he calmed down a lot of his eccentricities for the role and was surprisingly reserved. Almost to the point he was sleepwalking through the performance. He does indulge himself in some of his usual traits by the end.

    I do like how Mendes embraces the ‘Blofeld’ iconography slowly:

    - The burnt photo obscuring the young Oberhauser’s face.
    - The Rome meeting where Blofeld is only shot in the shadows (Waltz is his most effective here).
    - His introductionary scene wearing the Nehru jacket
    - The white cat
    - The name reveal
    - Leading to the infamous scar

    The only problem I have with the Blofeld reveal was it meant nothing in the context of the story. Wouldn’t it have been more effective if the reveal was the other way around? Bond finds out that Blofeld, the mysterious head of SPECTRE, is actually his step-brother Franz Oberhauser. That way it actually means something and we could have avoided all the unnecessary “is he, isn’t he” bullshit over the nature of Waltz’s role.

    I couldn't agree more. The metaphor scene was unimpressive as a whole and many people emerged from the cinema questioning the purpose of putting that scene in. If the writers wanted another metaphor to mirror that of the "rats" in SF, they failed quite badly, as it got rebutted by Bond, was never mentioned again after the meteor scene, and it wasnt even clear what the metaphor was trying to represent.

    There wasnt as much depth in SP as SF, and yes I agree that it might have been laziness on the crew's part.

    Thats a very nice analysis of Blofeld's reveal that you have written! :) IMO it was one of the best bits of the movie, my only complaint would be that the filmmakers treated the cat as a reference to previous Bond movies, instead of it being an icon of ESB in this franchise. It featuring more prominently would be very welcome. And yea doing it backwards would be much more effective to the general movie audience. This could be due to the filmmakers neglecting the non-Bond-fan community, as the name ESB does not hold any significance to them, and the white cat too, as well as the iconic scar...revealing ESB as Bond's brother (which everyone would know about its significance) would be much better, as u said.

    In hindsight, I overthought Blofeld's reveal, thinking that the filmmakers would not be so dumb as to treat ESB's reveal as a shocking twist only to have his iconic jacket appear in trailers on the actor that would actually play ESB. Hence I expected C (who is played by an actor with a talent for playing crazy villains), to be ESB. That, above all, would be the reason I am disappointed with SP. Nonetheless, Waltz is still a great Blofeld.
  • Posts: 313
    I took the metaphor of the meteorite as Blofeld in regards to his life. He created an organization, the whole unstoppable force, but as Bond pointed out it did stop. But it's all a matter of perspective between the two of them (I think that's supposed to be their dynamic?) and I can't help but parallel the helicopter falling at the end in the final scene. Notice again how Bond managed to save himself from crashing in the PTS.
  • Birdleson wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    But you can perfectly outline how much you enjoyed Blofeld and believed he was a pure hit by comparing him to other hits instead of targeting Brosnan and knocking him down yet another peg like everyone seems to go out of their way to do. Am I really the only one who loves Trevelyan and Elektra as Bond villains? Oh well.

    I also think that those two are fine Bond villains.

    Attempting to find any deeper parallels between the meteorite scene and the rest of the film is a foolish endeavour.

    It’s obviously meant to be a play on the relationship that Blofeld has had on Bond’s life; watching from afar before finally making an entrance. That’s kinda it. It ties into the whole “everything is connected” nonsense.

    Thanks @OmegaX I think it would have been so much more effective if the reveal was handled the other way around. In this sense:

    - Instead of hearing the name ‘The Pale King’ in Mexico, Bond would overhear the name Blofeld.
    - He could ask Moneypenny who reveals that the ‘legend of Blofeld’ is a some kind of grand myth in espionage circles. The sort of ghost stories that spies hear whilst training that dates back to the Cold War. (This would be a nice way of tying in Blofeld’s cultural and historical significance back into the new rebooted era – he would still be the omniscient epitome of evil).
    - Bond goes to the meeting and sees Blofeld and hears the shadowy figure addressed as such, before Ernst reveals himself to Bond, 007 would recognise him as Franz Oberhauser.
    - Cue Blofeld’s introduction as it’s revealed that he was actually Franz Oberhauser all along.

    It would only amount to a few minor script changes and it would have improved the film tenfold and strengthened the marketing programme as well.

    This way Mendes still gets to keep his dodgy ‘half-brother’ nonsense and Blofeld also gets a proper airing.

    For me one of the biggest faults of the film was the handling of Blofeld. Essentially, Mendes really fudged his execution of the character.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Attempting to find any deeper parallels between the meteorite scene and the rest of the film is a foolish endeavour.

    Has anyone tried to find deeper parallels? It's a bit of theatre. Something that's always fun to see in a Bond film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Waltz did not really impress me on first viewing. However with subsequent viewings, I have come to respect the way that he holds back and doesn't do his famous (Jack Nicholsan style) scenery chewing. Only once .... near the end when he shows the timer and gleefully suggests that he put Bond throught it do we see a little Landa creeping in. So all in all, I don't have a problem with his performance. He did the best he could with what he was given.

    Personally, I would have preferred a more physically intimidating Blofeld. A taller and more substantial man. However, it is what it is.

    PS: I liked all the Brosnan era vilains except that loser Renard, and perhaps Elektra too. Trevalyn, Carver & Graves were each OTT brilliant in their own way, as were all of DC's villains as well. Having said that, I personally slightly prefer the first three (Le Chiffre, Greene & Silva) to Blofeld-Waltz....whether that is on account of script problems I have with SP, or Waltz himself I'm not sure. I will only know in time.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,640
    The Brosnan era features the only villain in the entire series that I was sad to see die: Ouromov. The guy is basically a sh*t-load of awesomeness on legs.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    The Brosnan era features the only villain in the entire series that I was sad to see die: Ouromov. The guy is basically a sh*t-load of awesomeness on legs.
    Agreed. I love Ouromov. He deserved a better end than being shot in the face so dismissively by Bond. The late Gottfried John was just brilliant and reminds so much of the similarly OTT Stephen Berkoff-Orlov in OP. Ouromov deserved an ending as great as Orlov imho.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    Attempting to find any deeper parallels between the meteorite scene and the rest of the film is a foolish endeavour.

    Has anyone tried to find deeper parallels? It's a bit of theatre. Something that's always fun to see in a Bond film.

    Exactly ;-). That's the 'fun of Bond' if you ask me.

    Dr. No:
    DR.NO: "One million dollars, Mr Bond! You were wondering what it cost.
    Forgive my not shaking hands. It's awkward with these. A misfortune. You were admiring my aquarium. A unique feat of engineering, if I may say so. I designed it myself. The glass is convex, ten inches thick, which accounts for the magnifying effect.
    "
    BOND: "Minnows pretending they're whales. Just like you on this island, Dr No."
    DR.NO: "It depends, Mr Bond, on which side of the glass you are."

    From Russia With Love:
    BLOFELD: "Siamese fighting fish. Fascinating creatures. Brave, but on the whole stupid. Yes, they're stupid. Except for the occasional one...such as we have here. He lets the other two fight...while he waits. Waits until the survivor is so exhausted that he cannot defend himself! And then, like SPECTRE, he strikess!"

    The Man With The Golden Gun:
    SCARAMANGA: "At a million dollars a contract, l can afford to, Mr Bond. You work for peanuts. A ''well done'' from the Queen and a pittance of a pension. Apart from that, we are the same. To us, Mr Bond. We are the best."
    BOND: "There's a useful four-letter word, and you're full of it. When l kill it's under specific orders of my government. And those l kill are themselves killers."
    SCARAMANGA: "Come, come, Mr Bond. You disappoint me. You get as much fulfilment out of killing as l do. Admit it."
    BOND: "l admit killing you would be a pleasure."
    SCARAMANGA: "You should have done that before. But then the English don't think it's sporting to kill in cold blood."
    BOND: "Don't count on that (TRIES TO PULL HIS WALTHER PPK)."
    SCARAMANGA: (POINTS HIS GOLDEN GUN AT 007) "l could have shot you when you landed, but that would have been too easy! You see, Mr Bond, like every great artist, l want to create an indisputable masterpiece once in my lifetime. The death of 007, mano a mano, face to face, will be mine!"

    There's nothing too deep about above introductions uttered by the leading villains. But they tremendously worked. The parabels, the sinister comparisons, it's oozing 'Bond'. And now read these transcripts:

    Skyfall:
    SILVA: "Hello, James. Welcome. Do you like the island? My grandmother had an island. Nothing to boast of. You could walk around it in an hour. But still, it was, it was a paradise for us. One summer, we went for a visit and discovered the place had been infested with rats! They'd come on a fishing boat and gorged themselves on coconut. So how do you get rats off an island? Hmm? My grandmother showed me. We buried an oil drum and hinged the lid. Then wired coconut to the lid as bait. And the rats would come for the coconut and..(MAKES CLINKING NOISE)....they would fall into the drum. And after a month, you have trapped all the rats. But what do you do then? Throw the drum into the ocean? Burn it? No. You just LEAVE it! And they begin to get hungry. And one by one...(MAKES GNAWING NOISE).....they start eating each other. Until there are only two left. The two survivors. And then what? Do you kill them? No?!?! You take them and release them into the trees. But now they don't eat coconut anymore. Now they only eat RATT! You have changed their nature. The two survivors. This is what she made us."

    SPECTRE:
    BLOFELD: "You know what happens when a cuckoo hatches inside another bird's nest?"
    MADELEINE: "Yes. It forces the other eggs out."
    BLOFELD: "Yes. Well, this cuckoo made me realize my father's life had to end. In a way he's responsible for the path I took...So...thank YOU (TO BOND), cuckoo!"
    BLOFELD: "A man lives inside his head; that's where the seed of his soul is. James and I were both present recently when a man was deprived of his eyes and the most astonishing thing happened, didn't you notice? He wasn't there anymore. He had gone even though he was still alive, so this brief moment between life and death, there was nobody inside his skull. Most odd."


    This is quintessential Bond, James Bond. And I actually think Mendes really knows how to return to this sinister and sometimes quite psychotic villain introductions. These parabels, comparisons, etc....can really lift up the reasoning behind the villain. And IMO that worked tremendously in SF, though it also worked in SP.
  • Posts: 12,481
    Thought Waltz came across as fearless so i hope he does return!
  • Posts: 92
    What is the general opinion of Carver.
    I really disliked that character and the acting.
  • Posts: 313
    A little over the top, that Carver. Though I think his role was interesting as a media mogul manipulator. But that's about it.
  • Posts: 2,585
    I think Blofeld is a 'hit'. He was great in the meeting at the beginning and in London at the end. However, at his base in the dessert, I thought that he was average. His performance seemed to be more lighthearted which I didn't quite like as much.
  • Posts: 1,680
    Blofelds best:

    Looking over his shoulder at Sciarras funeral.
    The reunion line
    His facial expression before he tells James it was all him.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,527
    I just think they bungled the Oberhauser storyline. If Bond had heard the name and went searching for him because of their past connection and because he was curious because he thought he was dead, that would make more sense than the way it plays out. And I also feel that the Mr. White scene should have led Bond to Oberhauser, not the other way around.
  • Posts: 92
    Gettler wrote: »
    A little over the top, that Carver. Though I think his role was interesting as a media mogul manipulator. But that's about it.

    That ridiculous tapping on his keyboard thing somehow really annoyed me every time.
    I just think he was awful in that. Totally rubbish parody-like Bond baddie.

Sign In or Register to comment.