50 replies to this topic

[freemo]

Bought Casino Royle on DVD yesterday, and, subsequently, watched it. A few things stuck out a me, on in particular M's appearance in the film. Of the five films with Judi Dench as M, Casino Royale probably, well no probablys about it, certainly, makes the best use of her, but no, I gotta say, it's still not working for me.

Her first scene, the diatribe about "missing the cold war" is very promising, as if we're in for a new, clearer, interpretation of the character. But the scene in her apartment with Bond is, IMO, terrible, and we're quickly back to the bad old days of GoldenEye. The coversation between the two of them is an awkward and disjointed collection of one-liners, most of which seem to have been included purely because "they'll sound good in the trailer". The sort of things that sound as if they mean somehting profound and important, but one can't figure out what, if anything, that might be. The dialoug as as over-written as the meaning behind it is undercooked. And it's all so "on", as if the characters know that there's an audience watching and that these lines are "important".

And I just don't "get" this M-Bond relationship. It's inconsistant, vauge, and thus, irritating. Ms self-imposing micro-management of Bond is insufferable, so too her constant foul ups that are everyone elses fault but hers. "I knew it was too early to promote you?" Then why did you? "You've finally learn't your lesson" What the hell are you on about? I "got" Bernard's Lee M, his gruff, slightly short tempered demeanour, that stern, silent, intimidaiting stare he offered in response to Bonds antics, the sort of unspoken nature of his and Bonds relationship (as oppsoed to the Dench-Brosnan/Craig relationship, where everything is said aloud), where you get the sense that they both know the truth, but would never speak of it (I guess that's the sort of dynamic that can really only exist between two men, as opposed to a man and a woman). Now, Dench's M by no means has to be the same as that, but it has to be something, and so far I just can't tell what that something is or what it's supposed to be. Maybe I'm just a bit dim-witted, but I don't think that's it.

Judi Dench as M. It's a terrific idea in theory, and it should be terrific in practise, but 5 films, 4 directors, 2 Bonds, and let's be honest, probably 20 writers later, and it hasn't quite worked yet. The character never fails to feel "forced", not "natural" like the Connery-Bernard Lee days. This is no attack on Dame Judi, who I think is tremendous outside the Bond films, and inside them does pretty well with what she's given. But perhaps the problem lies with having such talent in the role of M, that they feel compelled to, well, use it, and make M an integral part of the film, which I'm not convinced isn't a mistake. Perhaps the problem is the increased gap in time between films, which makes a harder to consistantly portray characters. I don't know.

Any thoughts?

[Monkeyfoahead]

I think that Judi's performance was only forced in DAD. Other than that, I believe she has been a very good "M"

[nnaka261]

I think that Judi's performance was only forced in DAD. Other than that, I believe she has been a very good "M"

I agree. The World Is Not Enough seemed a little strange when she was captured. . . and how she played so easily into Elektra's hands. But I liked how she was smart enough to come up with a way out. Now, if only the writers had let her kill Elektra instead of giving Bond the last hurrah with Miss King. Let him have Renard; give M the gun for Elektra.

[tdalton]

I agree with you about the scene with Bond in her apartment. A lot of that felt like dialogue that was left over from DAD and TWINE. Like you said, just a collection of one-liners that sounded good in the trailer. Also, the scene where she briefs him on Le Chiffre and the card game, the conversation goes from M saying that Le Chiffre lost upwards of 100 million betting the wrong way on the stock market to saying that that would explain how Le Chiffre could set up a high stakes poker game at Casino Royale. If he lost that money, would he really be able to set up a high stakes poker game at the casino? Maybe he could have, but there needed to be more dialogue between those two sentences because, as they stand now, they feel completely out of place.

I have to say that the characterization of M was looking very good in her opening scene, but things did not materialize very much throughout the rest of the film. I think that it's this poor dialogue (which is, of course, not Dench's fault) in her scenes with Bond and the boring action of the beginning of the film that makes the first hour rather boring and uninteresting to watch, and it only picks up when the film moves into its Fleming inspired material, which clearly shows that Fleming's work here is infinitely superior to the work not contributed by him to this film.

[Monkeyfoahead]

I think that Judi's performance was only forced in DAD. Other than that, I believe she has been a very good "M"

I agree. The World Is Not Enough seemed a little strange when she was captured. . . and how she played so easily into Elektra's hands. But I liked how she was smart enough to come up with a way out. Now, if only the writers had let her kill Elektra instead of giving Bond the last hurrah with Miss King. Let him have Renard; give M the gun for Elektra.

Welcome to CBn! I also find it surprising that for as smart as she is, she was also gullible. As for the post directly above mine. I think the action in the first hour of the film was enjoyable.

[freemo]

Like you said, just a collection of one-liners that sounded good in the trailer.

Actually, there were a couple of things, not just between Bond and M, that looked better in the trailer than in their context in the film. I know it's a trailers job to make the film look as enticing as possible, but Bonds like, "Get the girl out", damn that looked exicting when I saw it in the trailer, like something really big was "going down". Seeing it in it's full context was a bit of a letdown.

I think that it's this poor dialogue (which is, of course, not Dench's fault) in her scenes with Bond and the boring action of the beginning of the film that makes the first hour rather boring and uninteresting to watch, and it only picks up when the film moves into its Fleming inspired material, which clearly shows that Fleming's work here is infinitely superior to the work not contributed by him to this film.

I agree about the first hour. It's "decent enough", but I don't think the films really starts to "get good" until the train ride to Montenegro. Do they really need to show how Le Chiffre get's into his spot of bother. Why not start off which him already in trouble, like in the book? I instead would have liked more build-up for the poker game. More emphasis on what the "stakes" are, more time to set the mood and atmosshere. Bond explaining the game to Vesper, his passion for high stakes gambling showing though. Brief but colourful backstories for each of the ten players would have been nice too, little things to flesh out the tournament a bit more. I guess there just "wasn't time" for all this. I wish they'd made time. All the best bits of the film are in the second half, and all the best bits move a little to quickly for me. The last 1 1/2 hours would have made a terrific 2 1/2 hour film (In my opinion, ofcourse. I do like big action sequences, but they're not what I watch Bond films for, though they're probably one of things other people watch Bond films for, which is fair enough).

[Bondian]

I know what you mean. I get the same annoyances with the conversation on the train, and latter parts of their dialogue. (how did Vespa get the time to see Bond's perfectly formed butt if he was sitting down?. Maybe she watched him get on the train?. Or she was talking hyperthetically?.) They come over as if they know what they're going to say before they say it. Almost over rehearsed.

I have to laugh at Craig's posture in the PTS.

[tdalton]

Like you said, just a collection of one-liners that sounded good in the trailer.

Actually, there were a couple of things, not just between Bond and M, that looked better in the trailer than in their context in the film. I know it's a trailers job to make the film look as enticing as possible, but Bonds like, "Get the girl out", damn that looked exicting when I saw it in the trailer, like something really big was "going down". Seeing it in it's full context was a bit of a letdown.

I thought that the "get the girl out" line, while somewhat of a let down from the trailer, was still a very strong moment because, had I not read the novel, I would have had no idea what was coming next.

And, agreed on the last 1 1/2 hour of the film being good enough for a 2 1/2 hour film. On the subject of M, I think that they should have kept that colder M from her first scene at the end of the novel, with Bond in his poor emotional state being dealt with rather coldly by an M that is only interested in the bottom line. The line "If you need more time" in the phone conversation with Bond completely took away from the impact of the infamous last line of Fleming's novel. Again, this is no reflection on Dench, as she can only play the character that the writers write for her (and I think that she has been a superb M in her 5 films), but for Bond 22, I think that the character needs to be written in a much more tough and cold way than she has been in the last 5 films. I would really like to see the character more how she was in the "I miss the Cold War" scene as it was completely unexpected for me to see Dench perform the character like that, and I more than welcomed that change.

[freemo]

I would really like to see the character more how she was in the "I miss the Cold War" scene as it was completely unexpected for me to see Dench perform the character like that, and I more than welcomed that change.

Yeah, I really liked that first scene, and would like to see that sort of tough, no nonsense attitude as standard for Dench's M in future films.

[Loomis]

Bought Casino Royle on DVD yesterday, and, subsequently, watched it. A few things stuck out a me, on in particular M's appearance in the film. Of the five films with Judi Dench as M, Casino Royale probably, well no probablys about it, certainly, makes the best use of her, but no, I gotta say, it's still not working for me.

Her first scene, the diatribe about "missing the cold war" is very promising, as if we're in for a new, clearer, interpretation of the character. But the scene in her apartment with Bond is, IMO, terrible, and we're quickly back to the bad old days of GoldenEye. The coversation between the two of them is an awkward and disjointed collection of one-liners, most of which seem to have been included purely because "they'll sound good in the trailer". The sort of things that sound as if they mean somehting profound and important, but one can't figure out what, if anything, that might be. The dialoug as as over-written as the meaning behind it is undercooked. And it's all so "on", as if the characters know that there's an audience watching and that these lines are "important".

And I just don't "get" this M-Bond relationship. It's inconsistant, vauge, and thus, irritating. Ms self-imposing micro-management of Bond is insufferable, so too her constant foul ups that are everyone elses fault but hers. "I knew it was too early to promote you?" Then why did you? "You've finally learn't your lesson" What the hell are you on about? I "got" Bernard's Lee M, his gruff, slightly short tempered demeanour, that stern, silent, intimidaiting stare he offered in response to Bonds antics, the sort of unspoken nature of his and Bonds relationship (as oppsoed to the Dench-Brosnan/Craig relationship, where everything is said aloud), where you get the sense that they both know the truth, but would never speak of it (I guess that's the sort of dynamic that can really only exist between two men, as opposed to a man and a woman). Now, Dench's M by no means has to be the same as that, but it has to be something, and so far I just can't tell what that something is or what it's supposed to be. Maybe I'm just a bit dim-witted, but I don't think that's it.

Judi Dench as M. It's a terrific idea in theory, and it should be terrific in practise, but 5 films, 4 directors, 2 Bonds, and let's be honest, probably 20 writers later, and it hasn't quite worked yet. The character never fails to feel "forced", not "natural" like the Connery-Bernard Lee days. This is no attack on Dame Judi, who I think is tremendous outside the Bond films, and inside them does pretty well with what she's given. But perhaps the problem lies with having such talent in the role of M, that they feel compelled to, well, use it, and make M an integral part of the film, which I'm not convinced isn't a mistake. Perhaps the problem is the increased gap in time between films, which makes a harder to consistantly portray characters. I don't know.

Any thoughts?

An excellent post, and I agree with every word. Dench's M is definitely one of the few elements in CR that keep dragging the film into Brosnan era territory, and not just because she was in the Brosnans and is thus a reminder of them. That said, I think Dench is far better in CR than she is in any other Bond flick. Perhaps this is simply because CR is The Best Bond Film In Decades™, and so Dench just seems better, but I do get the sense that, five appearances in, she's put some real effort into the performance. Maybe Craig helps her raise her game, although then again I think it's actually the other way round: while still giving her best turn to date as M, she nonetheless lowers his game (Craig seems more wooden in the M scenes than in most other parts of the movie). Or perhaps it's the writing of the M scenes that lowers both their games.

[Loomis]

Like you said, just a collection of one-liners that sounded good in the trailer.

Actually, there were a couple of things, not just between Bond and M, that looked better in the trailer than in their context in the film. I know it's a trailers job to make the film look as enticing as possible, but Bonds like, "Get the girl out", damn that looked exicting when I saw it in the trailer, like something really big was "going down". Seeing it in it's full context was a bit of a letdown.

I think that it's this poor dialogue (which is, of course, not Dench's fault) in her scenes with Bond and the boring action of the beginning of the film that makes the first hour rather boring and uninteresting to watch, and it only picks up when the film moves into its Fleming inspired material, which clearly shows that Fleming's work here is infinitely superior to the work not contributed by him to this film.

I agree about the first hour. It's "decent enough", but I don't think the films really starts to "get good" until the train ride to Montenegro. Do they really need to show how Le Chiffre get's into his spot of bother. Why not start off which him already in trouble, like in the book? I instead would have liked more build-up for the poker game. More emphasis on what the "stakes" are, more time to set the mood and atmosshere. Bond explaining the game to Vesper, his passion for high stakes gambling showing though. Brief but colourful backstories for each of the ten players would have been nice too, little things to flesh out the tournament a bit more. I guess there just "wasn't time" for all this. I wish they'd made time. All the best bits of the film are in the second half, and all the best bits move a little to quickly for me. The last 1 1/2 hours would have made a terrific 2 1/2 hour film (In my opinion, ofcourse. I do like big action sequences, but they're not what I watch Bond films for, though they're probably one of things other people watch Bond films for, which is fair enough).

Your posts in this thread really are "very good". And you're being "frank and open" about the flaws of CASINO ROYALE, a rarity in fandom till now. Not wishing to "come across" as "a hater", but I think we can now admit that the film is "a bit overrated".

It's still terrific, of course, and the best Bond in years, etc., etc., but neither is it quite the second coming of Flemnign.

[marktmurphy]

I think Dench is far better in CR than she is in any other Bond flick.

I'd agree- I rather like the flat scene as she is actually really angry- and is quite scary as a result! It's good to see her like that. I rather like what their relationship says about Bond- he's willing to go against all of the rules in his day to day life, but he has obvious respect for M and when she tells him to do something, he does it. He's a military man. This is a slight change from the BrosnanBond who resented the new M as he remembered the old one.

[tdalton]

Your posts in this thread really are "very good". And you're being "frank and open" about the flaws of CASINO ROYALE, a rarity in fandom till now. Not wishing to "come across" as "a hater", but I think we can now admit that the film is "a bit overrated".

It's still terrific, of course, and the best Bond in years, etc., etc., but neither is it quite the second coming of Flemnign.

I'm beginning to think that the film may be one of the most overrated in the franchise. Honestly, I feel as though it's every bit as uneven as DAD was in terms of its two halves, and the dialogue (while on the whole is better) is just as bad in some places as it has been in previous films. Just because it isn't vulgar dialogue like in DAD and TWINE doesn't mean, IMO, that some of it is any better in quality, and the main scenes in which we see this poor dialogue occur in the scenes with M and Bond.

I'm going to give it another viewing this weekend and hopefully I'll think more of the film after that, but my last viewing of the film left me rather underwhelmed.

[VisualStatic]

I wish M's opening scene would have set the tone for the character throughout the movie. It's, IMO, the best scene Judi has done as M.

The apartment scene was Ok, the dialogue could have used some work.

The Bahama scene seemed forced or rushed. Not sure if it's the scene or maybe it was edited that way.

The rest seem to slide down.

Now, don't get me wrong, I still think this is the best Bond film in a long time and probably the closest we've gotten to Fleming's Bond. Is it perfect, no, but I think it's probably as close as you can get, since taking a literary character and turning them into a movie character can be a very tough challenge.

My 2 cents.

[Harmsway]

Well, I haven't lost love for CASINO ROYALE. It's still a terrific adventure. Perfect as, say, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE? No, but it's certainly a step up from ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.

Honestly, I feel as though it's every bit as uneven as DAD was in terms of its two halves, and the dialogue (while on the whole is better) is just as bad in some places as it has been in previous films.

I don't get a disjointed feel between the two halves - the only difference between the two is the amount of action (and what magnificent action it is... that free running sequence is a contender for best in the franchise). If the first section has a flaw, it's largely that it doesn't take enough time to breathe, and I wish it had. I would have liked a bit more time in the Bahamas. Otherwise, I think the halves flow, and both are pretty well done.

But as far as bad dialogue goes, it never gets worse than any of the stuff we saw in GOLDENEYE (which wasn't that bad), and even then, CASINO ROYALE doesn't have some of the cringeworthy puns that that film had. Furthermore, we must be careful not to get too snobbish as Bond fans... none of the Bond films, not even the most vaulted entries, are really masterpieces, and they can fall apart if seen with too critical an eye.

Just because it isn't vulgar dialogue like in DAD and TWINE doesn't mean, IMO, that some of it is any better in quality, and the main scenes in which we see this poor dialogue occur in the scenes with M and Bond.

The only Bond/M scene that doesn't quite work, in my opinion, is the apartment scene. It is, as Freemo suggests, very overwritten (though I still love, "So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman?"). However, Dench is giving the role more than she ever gave it before in that scene, and it's largely her performance and Craig's that holds that scene together, despite its implausibility and the fairly overwritten dialogue.

Not wishing to "come across" as "a hater", but I think we can now admit that the film is "a bit overrated".

Now if we can get you to see that you far overrate ROCKY BALBOA.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Also, the scene where she briefs him on Le Chiffre and the card game, the conversation goes from M saying that Le Chiffre lost upwards of 100 million betting the wrong way on the stock market to saying that that would explain how Le Chiffre could set up a high stakes poker game at Casino Royale.

That line strikes me as a little off as well.

It might explain why he would set up such game, but I don't see that it explains how he could at all.

[tdalton]

Also, the scene where she briefs him on Le Chiffre and the card game, the conversation goes from M saying that Le Chiffre lost upwards of 100 million betting the wrong way on the stock market to saying that that would explain how Le Chiffre could set up a high stakes poker game at Casino Royale.

That line strikes me as a little off as well.

It might explain why he would set up such game, but I don't see that it explains how he could at all.

Agreed. The fact that he would try to set up a poker game to win back the money that he lost would be great motivation for setting up the tournament, but the fact that he lost over 100 million in no way demonstrates his ability to set up the tournament. If anything, losing that much money would have been a major obstacle in his way to setting up that tournament in the first place.

How such awkward dialogue such as this did not get corrected at any point during the production is really beyond me. That and the scene after Bond is brought back to life by Vesper in the Aston Martin. "You're not going back in there are you?" she asks him. "I wouldn't dream of it" he says, on his way back into the casino. If he wouldn't dream of going back to the game, then why is he saying this while walking towards the casino? That just seemed to me to be a place where they tried very hard to get a classic-sounding line into the film (I seem to recall that either Connery or Brosnan said this one in a film at some point), but it doesn't quite work here.

[Atomic Agent]

I never bought Dame Judi Dench in the role, and I never will (nothing against her). And after getting the DVD, I've found that you can cut out just about every scene with her in it, and the continuity of the film will not be affected. The briefing is necessary, but the rest doesn't seem to be. Thats the way I see it, anyway.

cheers

[OHMSS Spion]

How such awkward dialogue such as this did not get corrected at any point during the production is really beyond me. That and the scene after Bond is brought back to life by Vesper in the Aston Martin. "You're not going back in there are you?" she asks him. "I wouldn't dream of it" he says, on his way back into the casino. If he wouldn't dream of going back to the game, then why is he saying this while walking towards the casino? That just seemed to me to be a place where they tried very hard to get a classic-sounding line into the film (I seem to recall that either Connery or Brosnan said this one in a film at some point), but it doesn't quite work here.

I took this to be Bond being sarcastic in a way. And I mean, we all know that Bond's going to go back to the game. It would have been a lot worse if Bond had said "Of course I am, so I can stop Le Chiffre from winning," or something to that effect. Bond flippantly saying "I wouldn't dream of it," shows us once again how tough he is, that after getting poisoned and almost dying, he can still make a flippant remark afterwards. And yes, Brosnan said this particular line in TND, during the motorcycle chase, when Wai Lin says "Don't get any ideas," when she's sort of straddling him on the motorcycle.

[LadySylvia]

Agreed. The fact that he would try to set up a poker game to win back the money that he lost would be great motivation for setting up the tournament, but the fact that he lost over 100 million in no way demonstrates his ability to set up the tournament. If anything, losing that much money would have been a major obstacle in his way to setting up that tournament in the first place.

How much money do you think that Le Chiffre needed to set up the tournament? All of the players had contributed to the pot. I doubt that he would need over 100 million dollars - which he had lost - to set it up. And it wasn't all of his money that he had lost. He didn't end up flat broke. And most of the money he had lost belonged to his clients. And considering his influence in that particular town in Montenegro (the chief of police was on his payroll), I don't see how it could have been difficult for him.


As for Judi Dench being unconvincing as M, she has already established herself as an institution in the Bond franchise, for that particular role. Has this to do with the fact that some fans are demanding that M return to being a man? Or has this to do with the fact that Dench was the only holdover from the Brosnan era? As for me, I enjoyed the Dench-Craig interaction. It was very interesting . . . and slightly sexy, in an odd sort of way.

Edited by LadySylvia, 06 April 2007 - 11:09 PM.

[tdalton]

Agreed. The fact that he would try to set up a poker game to win back the money that he lost would be great motivation for setting up the tournament, but the fact that he lost over 100 million in no way demonstrates his ability to set up the tournament. If anything, losing that much money would have been a major obstacle in his way to setting up that tournament in the first place.

How much money do you think that Le Chiffre needed to set up the tournament? All of the players had contributed to the pot. I doubt that he would need over 100 million dollars - which he had lost - to set it up. And it wasn't all of his money that he had lost. He didn't end up flat broke. And most of the money he had lost belonged to his clients. And considering his influence in that particular town in Montenegro (the chief of police was on his payroll), I don't see how it could have been difficult for him.


As for Judi Dench being unconvincing as M, she has already established herself as an institution in the Bond franchise, for that particular role. Has this to do with the fact that some fans are demanding that M return to being a man? Or has this to do with the fact that Dench was the only holdover from the Brosnan era? As for me, I enjoyed the Dench-Craig interaction. It was very interesting . . . and slightly sexy, in an odd sort of way.

You're right about Le Chiffre setting up the tournament. I hadn't thought of it that way, but I think that you're right. The dialogue in the scene with M and Bond explaining that is still awkward, IMO.

I'll admit that I'm probably being a bit overly negative in regards to Casino Royale. I still think that it's a good film, and certainly the best film since LTK, and this thread has made me realize that most of my problems with the film stem from the writing of the scenes featuring M and Bond together. Granted, apart from those, I have some minor problems with some of the things that they've done to Fleming's work here (completely restructuring the ending, the action at the beginning), but those don't take away too much from the film, and certainly not to the extent that some of the extremely awkward dialogue between Bond and M do.

[LadySylvia]

Perhaps CASINO ROYALE is simply not a favorite of yours. It's not to everyone's taste.

[Harmsway]

I still think that it's a good film, and certainly the best film since LTK, and this thread has made me realize that most of my problems with the film stem from the writing of the scenes featuring M and Bond together.

I really don't think the M/Bond scenes are written that badly. I think there's a lot of overstatement in this thread. They're back-and-forth is not the best, but it's also not the worst, and I'd say a lot of it is quite good, to be honest. M's opening rant is good stuff, and her dialogue only gets clunky once she goes into the "Any thug can kill" section.

And, for my money, CASINO ROYALE is still a thousand times superior to LICENCE TO KILL. LICENCE TO KILL is still a decent film, but it doesn't have the cast, direction, or flair (or even the script) that this film does.

and certainly not to the extent that some of the extremely awkward dialogue between Bond and M do.

But is it really extremely awkward?

[jaguar007]

In regard to the earlier mentions of M in TWINE. One minor issue I had is that Elektra King calls her M. Since M went to school with Robert King and she is a family friend, would she refer to her by name and not M?

CR does rate in my top 5 Bond movies, but I do agree the pacing is off from the first half to the second half. I really liked the Bahama scenes, but the first half was rushed. I think I would have prefered an ending closer to the book, scrap the Venice scenes and slow down the Bahama/Miami scenes.

[Royal Dalton]

Well, I haven't lost love for CASINO ROYALE. It's still a terrific adventure. Perfect as, say, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE? No, but it's certainly a step up from ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.

Now, now. That's enough of that sort of talk, thank you.

[Harmsway]

Well, I haven't lost love for CASINO ROYALE. It's still a terrific adventure. Perfect as, say, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE? No, but it's certainly a step up from ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.

Now, now. That's enough of that sort of talk, thank you.

That's no slight against OHMSS... just indicating CASINO ROYALE's overall quality. OHMSS is still one of the best in the franchise.

[Blonde Bond]

I thought M has been one of the best things in these latest five bond movies. I didn't hugely feel, that the character felt forced. Not even in DAD. In DAD, Bond and Jinx felt forced, but not our dear old M.

Judi Dench delivers.

[tdalton]

and certainly not to the extent that some of the extremely awkward dialogue between Bond and M do.

But is it really extremely awkward?

Everything about the scene that takes place in M's apartment is completely awkward. I know that if I were her, the first thing that would've been said on my part when walking into the apartment would be to demand to know how Bond found out where I lived, yet M doesn't even comprehend the fact that Bond has broken into her house. Then, they proceed to have one of the most disjointed conversations that I've ever heard, and it makes one wonder if they were even listening to each other throughout the entire thing. All their lines in this one are simply lines that are meant to be good narration for a trailer that somehow made it into the film. I also find it difficult to believe that a novice agent who has just "stormed into an embassy" and then subsequently broke the chain of command and broke into his boss' house to steal information from her computer would be allowed to continue working for the British government. The fact that Bond is not arrested is actually rather unbelievable, as he appears to be somewhat of a rogue agent who is allowed to do whatever he pleases without consequence. For me, the entire scene in M's apartment is just beyond ludicrous.

[Harmsway]

Ludicrous and awkward dialogue is an entirely other thing. Aside from the lack of believability in M's actions, the dialogue flows fairly well. And no, I don't think all their lines are just "trailer dialogue."

[tdalton]

Ludicrous and awkward dialogue is an entirely other thing. Aside from the lack of believability in M's actions, the dialogue flows fairly well. And no, I don't think all their lines are just "trailer dialogue."

Everything after "And how did you find out where I lived" feels to me like trailer dialogue. Everything before that is OK dialogue, but all that follows is what I'm referring to, with the "I knew it was too early to promote you" (then why was he promoted?), and the whole bit about any thug being able to do what Bond does and needing to take his ego out of it all. That part to me, was awkward to me because I didn't really feels as though it flowed very well.