Dominic Greene as a villain in QoS?

DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
edited November 20 in Bond Movies Posts: 14,971
What are our collective thoughts on Dominic Greene as a villain in QoS - was he great or was he underused/underdeveloped?

I think that he was interesting and had potential, but not enough was done with him, just like his henchman Elvis.
«1345678

Comments

  • I think they got it right with Greene. He was ok as a villain but he was one of many in the organisation of Quantum and he couldn't have been worth that much to the organisation if he ended up with bullets in him. Elvis was perhaps the most useless and pointless henchman in the history of Bond. I think Mr White was underused and think his character was the most intriguing and had so much more to offer, with so much more to find out about him and his role in the organisation.
  • Underused, underdeveloped, a victim of an incomplete script, and Forster's lack of vision. Some things were good but as a whole they did not get him as right as they could have.

    Unlike Elvis, a goof with a bad toupee whose only purpose was seemingly as a gofer because he does little else and certainly nothing that would even scare my children, there was potential there for Greene. Some things I liked were that he looked very normal, without the physical deformity, just another faceless businessman gleefully willing to overlook the suffering he has inflicted on people and the environment in order to profit and increase his power within his company, meaning of course in this case QUANTUM. Improvement could have been seen if they had filmed scenes with him presiding over the beating of Mathis and the death of Fields, again this was Forster's job as director and head scriptwriter to oversee and he obviously felt Greene was good enough "as is". If only for another 5-10 minutes, it could have alleviated so much of the criticisms about the story and characters, the filming itself, Forster and EON deserve the blame for that.
  • X3MSonicXX3MSonicX https://www.behance.net/gallery/86760163/Fa-Posteres-de-007-No-Time-To-Die
    Posts: 2,635
    I agree on the underusing. He could have even more scenes behind him, like the Fields' death as @SirHenry just said. However, Mathieu made a great acting, but he could have been used more.
    As about Elvis, he was really useless, he didn't even said a word if i remember well. He wasn't needed there, just seems that Greene could take care of himself alone. Elvis was there just to make Greene look like he was searched, like he was wanted.
  • Posts: 1,548
    Matthieu Amalric was just badly served by the script. His character just wasnt enough of a threat to be regarded as a classic villain. Dont get me started on Elvis. The real Elvis would have been more of a threat (from his grave at Graceland!)
  • I like Greene. He was supposed to represent the more silent threat posed by corporate industries. A nasty CEO who presents himself as a good man who wants to help the planet but he is in fact quite the opposite. Just because he was not as loud or flamboyant as Silva dosen't make him any less a threat. He's a quiet seedy man and Mathieu played it so well. I love how Greene is brash and confident in private but is shy and embarrassed in front of people, he's noticeably nervous when giving his speech at the party but he switches when he's alone with Camille. I think it has less to do with him presenting a facade and more to do with him being a weak man trying to expoilt others.
    Also Mathieu plays the villainness aspects very well the way he refers to Bond as a 'pest' who needs exterminating or when he talks about the ants under his skin. Plus he's such an intriguing screen presence, its those eyes.
  • X3MSonicXX3MSonicX https://www.behance.net/gallery/86760163/Fa-Posteres-de-007-No-Time-To-Die
    edited February 2013 Posts: 2,635
    Edit for Missunderstandings
  • DragonpolDragonpol Writer @ http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 14,971
    X3MSonicX wrote:
    LeChiffre wrote:
    Matthieu Amalric was just badly served by the script. His character just wasnt enough of a threat to be regarded as a classic villain. Dont get me started on Elvis. The real Elvis would have been more of a threat (from his grave at Graceland!)

    I suppose that Elvis is so much more dangerous shown in the Books.

    ...that he's not in. Joking, right?
  • Posts: 1,225
    Greene is good in part but the victim of a poor script.

    I still don't get the relationship with him and Camile. The first sign things are going wrong in QOS is his introduction.

    So he tried to have her killed. But it failed and that made him sad. Why? Because he wouldn't see her again. Then she forgives him. It's terrible. Then they talk about a geologist we haven't met, a general we haven't yet met. Her parents we haven't met. It's a load of impenetrable dialogue about people we don't care about.

    Compare this with the fantastic introduction of Silva.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    Posts: 28,416
    X3MSonicX wrote:
    LeChiffre wrote:
    Matthieu Amalric was just badly served by the script. His character just wasnt enough of a threat to be regarded as a classic villain. Dont get me started on Elvis. The real Elvis would have been more of a threat (from his grave at Graceland!)

    I suppose that Elvis is so much more dangerous shown in the Books.

    Elvis Presley is a timeless music legend, not a fictional character in a book. :-S
  • Dominic Greene came off as a weak villian, because of the way the way they wrote the character. Greene was very underused in Quantum of Solace.
  • LeChiffre wrote:
    Matthieu Amalric was just badly served by the script. His character just wasnt enough of a threat to be regarded as a classic villain. Dont get me started on Elvis. The real Elvis would have been more of a threat (from his grave at Graceland!)

    Loved the last part, the real Elvis would have set the phony up to slip on a peanut butter and banana sandwich and then karate chopped him to death :))

    The better villains in QOS, sadly but thankfully they were there, were the lesser ones. Medrano, White, Carlos, and Beam were all suitably just as slimy and disturbed, and all entertained me much more than Amalric and Taubman.

  • 002002
    Posts: 581


    Because he is a big stupid Jellyfish.....


    Just kidding....

    The Problem with Dominic Greene is

    * He is not meancing at all...he looks like an odd ball but not meanicing
    * his plans of "World Domination" are pathetic...just wants a couple of more $ on Bolivia's watersupply....which we all thought it was oil and then strangely enough its water? basically it turns the whole idea of Qantum into a laughing joke...like the CGI iceball in DAD
    * he is irritating and lets face it he looks so weedy that David Tennants Doctor looks muscular
  • X3MSonicXX3MSonicX https://www.behance.net/gallery/86760163/Fa-Posteres-de-007-No-Time-To-Die
    edited February 2013 Posts: 2,635
    Elvis Presley is a timeless music legend, not a fictional character in a book. :-S

    Sorry. I thought he was in the books. This is very embarassing...

    Well, then Elvis was really a pain in the arse. As He isn't even on the books, like i just known, so he shouldn't even be on QoS.
    However, I said and repeat, He really is useless. I agree with most of you.

    And again, Greene character was just bad used. Most of the things that @002 said are true, but that is Forster's fault. QoS is a good movie imo but it has its bad parts like the small using of characters like Greene, and even Fields.
    Elvis just lasted a few 5 minutes scenes and then he died at the explosion on Eco Hotel. And then? Didn't even he have a fight with Bond? What kind of henchman is that?
    As for Fields, for me, she was expendable, she wouldn't even exist in the film, she had only lasted what, 20 minutes? Gemma is a good actress but she wouldn't exist.
    They committed the same mistake back at Casino Royale. Solange didn't lasted longer than 30 minutes (From the game match to her last scene). But, her acting was more intense than Gemma's, for me at least.


    Sorry for getting off-topic here. Just wanted to improve my opinion.
  • I thought he was good :)

    I was very impressed by both Le Chiffre and Greene as I felt they struck a perfect balance between believable and... cinematically interesting? You know what I mean :)

    No crazy, over the top features but just intelligent villains that looked good on screen.

    No complaints here!
  • I thought that Greene was an interesting character, but not a threatening villain at all. It didn't help that Camille towered over him. When they were embracing it just looked silly even though he was trying to be menacing.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 264
    jackdagger wrote:
    I thought that Greene was an interesting character, but not a threatening villain at all. It didn't help that Camille towered over him. When they were embracing it just looked silly even though he was trying to be menacing.

    I thought he was menacing in a different way though... I mean also his character was portrayed from the very beginning as a bit spineless though wasn't he? Like the way he was made fun of at 15 or whatever. I dunno I just felt like with Greene they weren't really going for a fully "bad-ass" villain but more someone who is really rather weak but covers that up with sinister plots and exploiting others!

    But I think that's a good premise, as it's believable!

    Like during the fight scene at the end it's really clear that the character is actually fairly spineless or wimpy on some level... I dunno, made him feel more human and believable to me :)
  • hoppimike wrote:
    jackdagger wrote:
    I thought that Greene was an interesting character, but not a threatening villain at all. It didn't help that Camille towered over him. When they were embracing it just looked silly even though he was trying to be menacing.

    I thought he was menacing in a different way though... I mean also his character was portrayed from the very beginning as a bit spineless though wasn't he? Like the way he was made fun of at 15 or whatever. I dunno I just felt like with Greene they weren't really going for a fully "bad-ass" villain but more someone who is really rather weak but covers that up with sinister plots and exploiting others!

    But I think that's a good premise, as it's believable!

    Like during the fight scene at the end it's really clear that the character is actually fairly spineless or wimpy on some level... I dunno, made him feel more human and believable to me :)

    Oh, absolutely... and I do like when he goes after Bond with the axe.
    It's just that physically, next to his co-stars, he didn't come off as formidable. Maybe if Camille had been played by a more petite actress (no offense to Olga, I do love her), I would have found his threats more credible. Like when he tried to push her off of the balcony- Camille was so much bigger than him, especially in heels, and could have overpowered him so easily. :))
  • jackdagger wrote:
    Oh, absolutely... and I do like when he goes after Bond with the axe.
    It's just that physically, next to his co-stars, he didn't come off as formidable. Maybe if Camille had been played by a more petite actress (no offense to Olga, I do love her), I would have found his threats more credible. Like when he tried to push her off of the balcony- Camille was so much bigger than him, especially in heels, and could have overpowered him so easily. :))

    lol I suppose so. To be honest it didn't occur to me though - I remained pretty captivated by the movie!

    And isn't it weird how I am so pro-QoS (the film relatively few people like) and so anti-Skyfall (the film everybody loves)... I always seem to pull this crap haha :)

    But yeah erm.. I mean surely it was Greene's actions that were the formidable or menacing part, not his physical appearance?

    Granted he was after water not oil... I suppose that overall makes him feel less menacing in some way (basically wanting to run a utility company ahaha) but I found that as it happened RIGHT at the end of the film that it was all laid-out in plain site, and due to the complexity of the surrounding context, it only marginally dampened the appeal of the film for me. It felt like a kind of footnote or something :)

    I really don't think someone has to look menacing or be of menacing height or body mass to be menacing lol :)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    Posts: 28,416
    I actually like Greene. He really has some bite, some nice menace to him. When he has Camille in Haiti and shows her the weighed down body in the water and tells her the story of his piano lesson it is all very creepy. As is the scene where he is with her talking in Bolivia and threatens to kill her by pushing her off the balcony area, making it look like she "had a little too much to drink" and fell over. When he bumps her and the stone balcony itself cracks is a chilling moment, and then Bond shows up. And of course there is the moment at the end in the hotel where in a crazed fit he smashes into the glass to get the axe, waving it fiercely at Bond while yelling some piercingly shrill cry.

    Yeah, Greene can be extremely chilling with huge amounts of terror and menace.
  • Posts: 13,360
    I liked Greene and QOS, although they are both flawed. Yes he needed more time to truly develop as a villain, but he is still a creepy, nasty piece of work.

    And for those who find his scheme of controlling Bolivian water ridiculous, it is actually a very smart scheme and a very realistic one. Not entirely original, as it was used in Once Upon a Time in the West and in Chinatown (you could also add Jean de Florette and Manon des Sources). But drinkable water is an essential resource, which control is in fact far more important than petrol. If you own the main water supply of a country, you in fact control its agriculture, all farming on it, and the life of its citizens. Tribal wars have been caused in the past over water and it is possible that larger scale ones will be caused by it in the future. When the movie was released I discussed this with a friend of mine who is an army officer and he told me that this was already a concern in some parts of the globe.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Greene is a decent character and the casting was good. I think QoS is a decent film but it could still have been a whole lot better. 6/10.
  • There was nothing great about him, but then there was nothing terrible about him.

    He was just boring. He did nothing to stand out and he did nothing particuarly memorable, there was just nothing that intresting about him. It's fine if you want to make a modern villian without any gimmicks or deformities, but then you have to make him an intresting character (a more intresting evil plan might have helped).

    I thought Medrano was a more intresting villian and I didn't even really like the Camille revenge subplot.

    I liked the short fight he had with Bond at the end and I liked the way Bond ditched him in the desert with the petrol. That's about all I thought was memorable and worthy of a mention.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 264
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 - I concur!

    @Ludovico - I think you're right. I love the idea of a truly believable villain. I wouldn't say through-and-through realistic, as I like the idea of them having charisma that is atypical of a real-world villain (such as the style of Le Chiffre or Greene), but be overall believable! I think that is the perfect balance for an intelligent film of this nature.

    @thelivingroyale - You have to understand that YOU found him boring, but I thought Greene was a wicked character and I'm sure many others did too. Once again, this is subjective :)
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 6,970
    For me the title of this thread is completely wrong, as nothing went wrong with Greene. I like his character, and I love the way Amalric plays him. He may not be fysically menacing (which true Bond villain is? Even Red Grant wasn't the true villain, just a pawn of the true one) but the psychological games he plays, and his psychopathic ways are menacing enough. Yes, they could have given him some more time, as they should have with the whole movie, it was too short. And I do understand that quite some people had trouble following the plot. I liked it, found it quite intelligent, and so was Greene.
  • AliAli
    Posts: 319
    Greene looked like a bad game show host and was only menacing as the face of Quantum. Like most of the characters in the movie, he lacked exposition and screen time. We all know the movie was rushed but with Greene it really showed. I think Greene's character also suffered after QoS because Skyfall dropped the Quantum angle so rapidly. I sincerely hope it's picked up again in Bond 24. Maybe, with hindsight, we'll be able to see where Greene fitted and get a little more background?
  • Posts: 7,650
    While I consider QoB a poor excuse of a 007 movie I would say that Dominic Greene is one of the more realistic baddies in the Bond franchise, his evil enterprise is making money while supporting a revolution and putting his strawman in a seat of power. He is a very unsympathetic character that is less interested in the fate of mankind and more in his bank account. In that way he made sense as an excuse for not naming "The banker" by its current negative reputation.
    In that sense QoB does sell him short storywise and cinematic, the actor is great but he just did not get enough fat on his bones to work with. Of the DC era the one realistic baddie, the others are more Flemingesque, one from the pages of CR and the other is Scaramanga.

    And Elvis, I am not sure why they really bothered with him. He should have a meet with Sonny Crocketts' Elvis. As Fleming wrote: "he disagreed with something that ate him".
  • I really don't understand why QoS gets such a hard time. I agree it's a bit diluted compared to Casino Royale, but I really see very few truly negative qualities with it. I adored the film overall.

    But each to their own :)
  • Posts: 2,524
    hoppimike wrote:
    I really don't understand why QoS gets such a hard time. I agree it's a bit diluted compared to Casino Royale, but I really see very few truly negative qualities with it. I adored the film overall.

    But each to their own :)
    Meanwhile, there are quite a few other Bond films you should get round to watching when you get 5 minutes to spare -

    FRWL, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, FYEO, OP, AVTAK, TLD and LTK.

    Then your opinion on QoS can carry a bit more weight around here.....

  • Meanwhile, there are quite a few other Bond films you should get round to watching when you get 5 minutes to spare -

    FRWL, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, FYEO, OP, AVTAK, TLD and LTK.

    Then your opinion on QoS can carry a bit more weight around here.....

    Bit elitist...
  • Posts: 7,650
    hoppimike wrote:
    Meanwhile, there are quite a few other Bond films you should get round to watching when you get 5 minutes to spare -

    FRWL, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, FYEO, OP, AVTAK, TLD and LTK.

    Then your opinion on QoS can carry a bit more weight around here.....

    Bit elitist...

    I must admit that I do support JSW opinion in this, if you have only seen a few 007 movies you cannot really judge a movie like QoB in the series.

Sign In or Register to comment.