Controversial opinions about Bond films

1620621623625626696

Comments

  • Revelator wrote: »
    Camp is when things get too silly and over-the-top to involve any emotional involvement beyond amusement. A Bond film by nature will have an assortment of implausible things--but implausibility doesn't necessarily mean camp. Gray's Blofeld is camp he doesn't have any menace, or chilling qualities as a villain, unlike Savalas, who more than conveys gangsterism. Waltz's Blofeld combines excessive mannerisms with all the Dr. Evil clichés of the previous Blofelds. When the Bond films engage in excessive self-parody that's also camp.

    Waltz more than conveys psychopathy and competence as a villain. I even detect a bit of Fleming's YOLT Blofeld--a bit nuts, and a bit eager to feign boredom at Bond's antics. He's certainly not nearly as foppish as Gray, or as obviously ridiculous as Pleasance. He feels camp in the way, say, Max Zorin is. Maybe a bit less than Zorin.
  • edited February 25 Posts: 2,310
    Waltz more than conveys psychopathy and competence as a villain.

    It's a movie cliché version of psychopathy and not convincing for a second. Bardem did a a better job but also had better material to work with--he didn't have heavily rely on his mannerisms or invoke endless tropes from past Blofelds. Everything about Waltz's Blofeld feels second-hand. As for competence, if I was a member of Spectre I'd demand the boss's resignation.
    I even detect a bit of Fleming's YOLT Blofeld--a bit nuts, and a bit eager to feign boredom at Bond's antics.

    That's a stretch. Many Bond villains are a bit nuts and wish to rid themselves of Bond and his antics.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 719
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    I'm trying to remember an onscreen iteration of Blofeld that wasn't campy, and I'm drawing a blank... :-?

    Telly Savalas is surely one at least. I don't think you could call his Blofeld campy, could you?!

    He wasn't campy, but there was something lacking.

    His earlobes.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 19,796
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    I'm trying to remember an onscreen iteration of Blofeld that wasn't campy, and I'm drawing a blank... :-?

    Telly Savalas is surely one at least. I don't think you could call his Blofeld campy, could you?!

    He wasn't campy, but there was something lacking.

    His earlobes.

    Excellent! :D
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,478
    Revelator wrote: »
    Waltz more than conveys psychopathy and competence as a villain.

    It's a movie cliché version of psychopathy and not convincing for a second. Bardem did a a better job but also had better material to work with--he didn't have heavily rely on his mannerisms or invoke endless tropes from past Blofelds. Everything about Waltz's Blofeld feels second-hand. As for competence, if I was a member of Spectre I'd demand the boss's resignation.
    I even detect a bit of Fleming's YOLT Blofeld--a bit nuts, and a bit eager to feign boredom at Bond's antics.

    That's a stretch. Many Bond villains are a bit nuts and wish to rid themselves of Bond and his antics.

    I'm just glad they didn't drag Bunt into SP.
  • Posts: 7,094
    echo wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    Waltz more than conveys psychopathy and competence as a villain.

    It's a movie cliché version of psychopathy and not convincing for a second. Bardem did a a better job but also had better material to work with--he didn't have heavily rely on his mannerisms or invoke endless tropes from past Blofelds. Everything about Waltz's Blofeld feels second-hand. As for competence, if I was a member of Spectre I'd demand the boss's resignation.
    I even detect a bit of Fleming's YOLT Blofeld--a bit nuts, and a bit eager to feign boredom at Bond's antics.

    That's a stretch. Many Bond villains are a bit nuts and wish to rid themselves of Bond and his antics.

    I'm just glad they didn't drag Bunt into SP.

    She has ears like an elephant!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,774
    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.
  • edited February 25 Posts: 1,017
    Revelator wrote: »
    Waltz more than conveys psychopathy and competence as a villain.

    It's a movie cliché version of psychopathy and not convincing for a second. Bardem did a a better job but also had better material to work with--he didn't have heavily rely on his mannerisms or invoke endless tropes from past Blofelds. Everything about Waltz's Blofeld feels second-hand. As for competence, if I was a member of Spectre I'd demand the boss's resignation.
    I even detect a bit of Fleming's YOLT Blofeld--a bit nuts, and a bit eager to feign boredom at Bond's antics.

    That's a stretch. Many Bond villains are a bit nuts and wish to rid themselves of Bond and his antics.

    Well, his organization seems to be doing fairly well up to the final reel!

    With regard to YOLT, I meant his odd, casual attitude while dealing with Bond in the torture scene. "I can't hear you, James." The way he was making an effort to look bored. I guess I just didn't pick up on mannerisms that reminded me of previous Blofelds. Do you mean body language, or manner of speaking?

    But yeah, it is a James Bond movie, so he's doing a movie psychopath thing of course, like Bardem or Walken. It's not a David Fincher joint!

    His earlobes.

    :))
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 6,954
    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.
    Revelator wrote: »
    Waltz more than conveys psychopathy and competence as a villain.

    It's a movie cliché version of psychopathy and not convincing for a second. Bardem did a a better job but also had better material to work with--he didn't have heavily rely on his mannerisms or invoke endless tropes from past Blofelds. Everything about Waltz's Blofeld feels second-hand. As for competence, if I was a member of Spectre I'd demand the boss's resignation.
    I even detect a bit of Fleming's YOLT Blofeld--a bit nuts, and a bit eager to feign boredom at Bond's antics.

    That's a stretch. Many Bond villains are a bit nuts and wish to rid themselves of Bond and his antics.

    He reminded me of YOLT Blofeld too. Problem is, that's too early. I'd be fine to have a Blofeld lose his mind like that, but not when he's just been introduced.



    Anyway, for now I blame lazy writing for the films shortcomings. It's really time for P&W to go.
  • Posts: 13,263
    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 "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,774
    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: 1,576
    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.
  • Mr. Robert Davi is good villain for James Bond. Also scary in his brutal ways. Exploding head and feeding man to sharks.
    He a very bad man. One of James Bond best.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,774
    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: 617
    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.
  • He's Manuel Noriega.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e il momento che verrà
    Posts: 5,604
    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.
  • Panama is even an isthmus!
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 617
    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: 3,847
    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: 13,263
    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.
  • 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.
  • What good writing this is somethingthatatehim. You have made very good posting . I agree with you and Sanchez is very good bad guy. Also agree that James Bond film that is unpredictable be very good. Quantum Of Solace’s is also like this I think.
  • Yeah I definitely consider QoS part of that same mold-breaking tradition.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,774
    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.
  • edited February 26 Posts: 1,017
    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 26 Posts: 4,478
    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: 3,847
    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!!
Sign In or Register to comment.