107 replies to this topic

[Krest]

Never was big on Kristatos. He seems very bland and not menacing at all.

Seconded!!

[glidrose]

 

Savalas miscast as Blofeld

Gray miscast as Blofeld

 

Lonsdale makes a dull Drax

Glover makes a dull villain, tho' in fairness, he had to keep his villainy to himself until the reveal moment

 

Bardem overrated as Silva

Quite agree on that except for Telly Savalas. After all, Blofeld has greek origins

 

 

 

But he doesn't have an American accent or Savalas's insufferably smug manner.

 

But hey, Billy Connolly has Scottish origins, so let's cast him as Bond.

[sharpshooter]

Never was big on Kristatos. He seems very bland and not menacing at all.

I like Julian Glover, great voice. But in the context of FYEO, he was handled just a bit too low key for my liking. Le Chiffre and Greene were much better.

[Turn]

Mine is still Stromberg. No great lines and just no real presence except for a gravelly threatening voice. The guy barely even stands in the film, mostly sitting and pushing buttons, which Kurt Juergens actually said about his character. A villain's presence should be there and Stromberg was far overwhelmed by Jaws.I was surprised in another thread to find he has some support out there.

 

Plankattack beat me to the observation about the Pleasance Blofeld, who is a lot like Stromberg (yet another YOLT-TSWLM similiarity!) Except for the facial appearance, this may as well be the Blofeld from the back from FRWL and TB. He at least appeared to be a voice of doom, he had authority and you felt it without having to see him. All the YOLT Blofeld does is bark orders, kill people with peddles or sneer. A couple points for cold-bloodedly blowing Osato away, but not enough. Author John Brosnan talked about the long-awaited confrontation between Bond and Blofeld being a disappointment, no references to past schemes or a physical attack or something like that. Missed opportunity, possibly due to Roald Dahl being a first-time Bond screenwriter. Wonder what Maibaum could have done with such a scene or the character overall.

 

Add to that Dr. Evil being a comedy take on the character and it diminishes that much more.

[Guy Haines]

You're quite right about Stromberg, Turn. I remember years, decades ago now, watching an interview with Curt Jurgens on the set of TSWLM, in which the interviewer (it was Chris Kelly on an ITV programme called, I think, "Clapperboard") asked the actor what he did in the film.

 

"My main job in this movie", said Herr Jurgens, "is to press all the buttons!". And then he explained how one button controlled the sliding works of art in his dining room, another the lift drop to the shark pool and so on. He seemed to be quite enjoying it!

[plankattack]

Then again, I give Jurgens credit - his Stromberg does come across as a very intelligent, thoughtful man, who has hatched a villainous scheme based on what he perceives as the future of the human race.

 

Pleasance-Blofeld doesn't come across as much of anything - take away the cat, and there's no relationship with the poised and controlled presence in FRWL and TB. 

[Grard Bond]

I think Greene in QoS is just terrible and no competion for our favorite spy at all.

[glidrose]

 

Never was big on Kristatos. He seems very bland and not menacing at all.

Seconded!!

 

 

He also made a bland villain in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. People always forget he was also in that film.

[Colossus]

Probably Kristatos/whoever the Octopussy guy was lol. More like background extras really.

[Janus Assassin]

Kamal Khan was a lazy villain. Just made Gobinda and the indian army do all of his work, while he just stood back and played with Faberge eggs.

[glidrose]

I liked Jourdan and Khan. They made a charming villain.

[S K Y F A L L]

Gustav Graves. Toby Stephens might have done a good performance because I didn't like him or the character all that much. He's "A biological experiment. A freak."

[Iceskater101]

Gustav Graves was bad but I also have to agree that Stromberg isn't all that great either.. he just isn't really believable. 

 

The Spy Who Loved Me is still my favorite Moore bond movie but it's not because of the villain. There were so many other elements that made the Spy Who Loved Me awesome!

[Guy Haines]

Graves was an attempt at a 21st century Hugo Drax - not the Blofeld-like one of the film MR, but the character of the books. Hugo von der Drache causes his own downfall when he ends up in the very Allied field hospital he has planted a bomb in, gets blown to bits and has reconstructive surgery - and emerges as Hugo Drax, displaced English soldier with no memory. So, Colonel Moon apparently dies after his encounter with Bond in North Korea, disappears, has gene therapy and re-emerges as Gustav Graves. The problem I had with Graves was that  there was never any sense that he was a "biological freak" - he's gone from Korean to Argentinian who's more English than the English, just like that. With the Drax of the books we had the obvious traces of plastic surgery. With Graves the only hints of something wrong were the chronic insomnia (Why insomnia, I wonder? All that round the clock learning how to sound like a British public schoolboy?) and the occasional lapses into fluent Korean.

 

Give he was the product of "dangerous, experimental gene therapy" it might have been interesting if we saw some signs of it coming undone physically. Not necessarily his appearance changing again or deteriorating, but signs that the treatment isn't working as planned and is causing him some serious health problems. As it is Graves and Moon might as well have been separate characters - which was Moon's intention, of course, to fool the world for a while. But it never seemed to me that Graves and Moon were one and the same.

[Hansen]

 

 

Savalas miscast as Blofeld

Gray miscast as Blofeld

 

Lonsdale makes a dull Drax

Glover makes a dull villain, tho' in fairness, he had to keep his villainy to himself until the reveal moment

 

Bardem overrated as Silva

Quite agree on that except for Telly Savalas. After all, Blofeld has greek origins

 

 

 

But he doesn't have an American accent or Savalas's insufferably smug manner.

 

But hey, Billy Connolly has Scottish origins, so let's cast him as Bond.

 

Privilege of dubbed versions

[Odd Jobbies]

Whittaker:   By far the most redundant villain. I might try editing him out of the movie and see if that missing 2 minutes makes any difference whatsoever. I guessing it probably won't.

Koskov was a poor villain, but the thing is Koskov wasn't really a villain, was more of a chancer - a loveable rogue than a villain. I thought the character and  Jeroen Krabbe's portrayal was pretty good.

Whittaker was the films problem, IMO TLD fails to personify it's threat - cardinal sin for a Bond movie.

 

Renard:    When i heard Begbie was getting a chance to 'bottle' Bond i anticipated greatness.... What a let down!  They go to so much trouble illustrating why he's such a threat with the nice 3D GFX, then totally fail to make any use of it whatsoever. Apart from holding a hot rock and some S&M, he might as well been a nightclub bouncer at a pensioners afternoon tea party - again, totally redundant.

 

Carver:   I don't blame Price - he was a last minute replacement in a role written for the great Anthony Hopkins (who was trapped in Oz doing re-shoots for the dire MI:2). I think Price made a decent fist of it. I liked his dismissive arrogance, particularly making a joke of Michelle Yeoh's fighting. But he needed something written specially for him, so Price was doomed from the off. However, the concept of this villain was one of the strongest - being real-world (based on Robert Maxwell), with Bondian outlandish toys at his disposal, such as the British press - wonderful.

 

Gustav Graves:   Dear oh dear. Great(ish) idea and Will Yun Lee did a good job being perfectly menacing. Then, after a decent first act the movie decides to completely take the p*ss out of itself.

 

Poor writing;   More cliches than a titanic full of Dan Brown novels. And they made the villain Iron Man in the end...really?

Poor directing;   "Sorry Pierce, can we do that again, but with more cheese - remember this is a parody we're making"

Over acting;   Toby Stephens, your taxi has arrived.

Too bored to act;   Rosemund Pike, you're hurst is here.

Didn't someone say she could act;   Berry, it's a long way down from Monsters Ball

 

Oh, and poor editing;   If it's boring just speed it up... If it's laughable just slow it down....

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 01 April 2014 - 01:47 PM.

[jmarks4life]

Elliot Carver was a wuss, so he gets my vote. Karl Stromberg is a close second.

Edited by jmarks4life, 20 April 2014 - 01:35 PM.

[Guy Haines]

A couple of comments as this thread progresses. Firstly, Brad Whitaker. If he had been given enough screen time, the character could have developed into an interesting adversary. A para-military type with king-size egomania seems Bond-villain-like to me. The trouble was, as one of us has pointed out already, he was one of three different villains. Having a weasel of a defector as the main villain wasn't enough in TLD - there had to be a standard brand henchman and a wealthy egomaniac involved as well.

 

My other observation is about 006. I thought having an ex-double-0 as a villain was a good idea. However,I think Alec Trevelyan turned into the wrong kind of adversary. He went from embittered ex-agent to megalomaniac with underwater HQ and Earth-shattering plot. It didn't seem to quite fit, to me at least. Maybe the "former double 0 as villain" should have been left until SF. I realise Silva was ex-MI6, but he was an underling of M during her days running the Hong Kong station. It might have been interesting if Bond and M had confronted instead a betrayed double-0 - no back story about his parents, just a man sold out by his own side, who is an equal to Bond and wants to bite the hand that once fed him. The rather disturbing "mother/son" element could still have existed, only more so -after all, don't orphans make the best double-0 agents?

[Turn]

I quite agree on the Trevelyan observation. Great hype surrounding him at the time and he could have been more, but ends up yet another one who wants to rule the world with his secret lair and space hardware. Maybe he read the Blofeld and Drax files at Whitehall.

 

There are several other things that don't click with the character for me like: suddenly Bond has this close 00 friend, never hinted at in any previous films where most 00s end up casualties whose trails Bond picks up; supposedly the story was created with Dalton in mind when he was still in the role, so it seems strange a new Bond has this back history; and it's always tough to accept Trevelyan's background. How could they not know this about him? Nobody did the full check on this guy? Well, that's one the Dench M can't take the heat for at least. Of course, there were several requirements being this was the first film after the 6-year gap to ensure box office success, but splashing it all over the preview who he was made it somewhat anti-climactic in that sense.

 

Maybe that's why I find Silva much more interesting and satisfying. He's out to strike at the heart of what hurts people, collateral damage and all.  

[DamnCoffee]

Elliot Carver was a wuss, so he gets my vote. Max Zorin & Karl Stromberg are a close second.

 

 

Interesting choice for Max Zorin. I think he's great personally. In fact, I think Christopher Walken is one of the saving graces of A View To A Kill to me. Grace Jones isn't bad either. 

 

I really don't mind Trevelyan, I think he's a great villain. At the top of my head, I'd probably have to go to Robert Carlyle. A brilliant enough actor, but my god i found Renard to be a complete snore fest. Runner ups include Charles Gray as Blofeld, Julian Glover as Aris Kristatos, Jonathan Pryce as Elliot Carver and Toby Stephens as Gustav Graves. 

Edited by DamnCoffee, 19 April 2014 - 01:55 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

It all depends, of course, on what one expects a Bond villain to be like.

 

IMO, there is no bad villain in the Bond films.  Shock.  

 

I do like the more physically menacing villains like Mr. Big who can engage in combat with Bond - but I also like the psychologically unsettling villains like Stromberg just as well.  They all serve different purposes.

 

My least liked villain, though, would be Sean Bean´s Trevelyan.  If you compare that character with Silva (both former agents turned evil), Trevelyan comes across as too much of a pretty boy jealous of Bond´s status, flashing a smile to compensate, but not much else.  Good thing they added Oromov and Xenia.

[Guy Haines]

Why didn't anyone check up on Trevelyan's background? Perhaps the powers that be thought that, as his parents were anti-Communist Cossacks, he would willingly work against the USSR. It obviously never occurred to anyone he would blame the British government for their demise. Plus, it has to be said, we have form over here when it comes to not thoroughly checking the references of agents - the names Blunt, Burgess, Maclean and Philby spring to mind. So, Trevelyan as 006 isn't that far fetched.

 

On the subject of "ally turned enemy", suppose Afghan resistance fighter Kamran Shah had  turned up in a second Bond film? Given events post 1987 - and especially post 2001 - whose side would he have been on? Might that have made for a more convincing conflict between Bond and a former ally? (More convincing, admittedly with Timothy Dalton as Bond, but I think it would have worked with Pierce Brosnan.) Just a thought.

[tdalton]

I quite agree on the Trevelyan observation. Great hype surrounding him at the time and he could have been more, but ends up yet another one who wants to rule the world with his secret lair and space hardware. Maybe he read the Blofeld and Drax files at Whitehall.

 

There are several other things that don't click with the character for me like: suddenly Bond has this close 00 friend, never hinted at in any previous films where most 00s end up casualties whose trails Bond picks up; supposedly the story was created with Dalton in mind when he was still in the role, so it seems strange a new Bond has this back history; and it's always tough to accept Trevelyan's background. How could they not know this about him? Nobody did the full check on this guy? Well, that's one the Dench M can't take the heat for at least. Of course, there were several requirements being this was the first film after the 6-year gap to ensure box office success, but splashing it all over the preview who he was made it somewhat anti-climactic in that sense.

 

Maybe that's why I find Silva much more interesting and satisfying. He's out to strike at the heart of what hurts people, collateral damage and all.  

 

Agreed on Trevelyan.  I rank him probably higher than he should be as a villain, mainly because Sean Bean was absolutely brilliant in the role.  Aside from that, however, you're right, in that the whole Double-oh agent gone bad scenario was severely undercut, both by a lack of screen time (caused by trying to make him into some mythical crime lord) as well as a retreat into the tired old Bond villain cliches down the home stretch. 

 

The sad thing about both of the times that they've tried to go this ex-agent route with the main villain, they've severely undercut it by having the villain absent for a good long while at the beginning of the film.  I'd really like to see a Bond film featuring a bent Double-oh agent squaring off with Bond, but with it being something that goes on for the duration of the film, not having Bond have to investigate for literally half the film only to find out that the villain is who we knew him to be from the get go.  Basically, I'd like to see them take the idea behind the Silva character, make him present throughout the bulk of the movie, and strip away the whole techno-terrorist vibe they went for and have him be literally Bond's counterpart, just working on the other side. 

[The Krynoid man]

I want to say Dr. Kananga/Mr. big because it's absolutely ludicrous that nobody realises it's the same bloke. Bond's like "you mean the man who looks like Yaphet Kotto in Dodgy make up is actually Yaphet Kotto in dodgy make up, who would have thought?" His evil plan isn't very memorable either.

Yaphet Kotto was the dogs b******s in Alien though.

[glidrose]

Alec Trevelyan definitely a weak villain. Bean's performance too affected.

Silva is overrated. Stuart Smalley on steroids. His character is inconsistent to say the least.

On the subject of "ally turned enemy", suppose Afghan resistance fighter Kamran Shah had  turned up in a second Bond film? Given events post 1987 - and especially post 2001 - whose side would he have been on?

He'd still be on Bond's side. Many Afghan freedom fighters went into hiding after the Taliban seized power.

[Guy Haines]

One more comment on the "ex-double-0-as-villain" idea. The film "In The Line Of Fire" pits Clint Eastwood's presidential bodyguard against John Malkovich's assassin who taunts the authorities to try and catch him before he slays the current US President - and taunts Eastwood's character in particular about his failure to prevent the death of JFK. Malkovich's character turns out to be an ex-CIA agent gone, not so much "rogue" as insane.

 

I think a similar storyline pitting Bond against a former double-0 thought long dead could have worked in GE or SF. A series of "incidents" happen, each bearing the trade mark of this villain, with Bond having to race against the clock to stop this character carrying out his ultimate crime - goaded all the way by this character, knowing that he knows MI6 inside out. The audience would be aware from the outset that Bond was taking on a former colleague, although the "so we meet again, James" bit would have to wait until well into the second half of the film, leading to a final confrontation.

 

You might say that's not different from either GE or SF, but it would get rid of the world shattering "bonkers plot" element from GE, and the "guessing game" in SF. (That was one weakness in SF. Only Bill Tanner latched on to it early on - that the cyber-terrorist may have been someone M worked with in Hong Kong, whereas M, from the outset, ought to have shrewdly guessed that only her former favourite agent Tiago Rodriguez could have the skills to hack into MI6 and cause havoc. Then again, M was keeping a lot back from everyone, especially Bond.  Maybe she knew, but didn't want to believe it.)

[jmarks4life]

Elliot Carver was a wuss, so he gets my vote. Max Zorin & Karl Stromberg are a close second.

 
Interesting choice for Max Zorin. I think he's great personally. In fact, I think Christopher Walken is one of the saving graces of A View To A Kill to me. Grace Jones isn't bad either. 
 
I really don't mind Trevelyan, I think he's a great villain. At the top of my head, I'd probably have to go to Robert Carlyle. A brilliant enough actor, but my god i found Renard to be a complete snore fest. Runner ups include Charles Gray as Blofeld, Julian Glover as Aris Kristatos, Jonathan Pryce as Elliot Carver and Toby Stephens as Gustav Graves.

Agreed, on all points. The Graves, Carver, and Gray as Blofeld are not good villains at all. Renard, omg, dull lol! I liked the Alec villian, and the whole ex 00 theory behind it. I thought Robert Davi as Franz Sanchez was great as well.

[The Krynoid man]

I see Silva is getting quite a few mentions. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks he's overrated.
Camp does not equal scary or intimidating.

[Sir Roger Moore]

For me the weakest villain(s) would have to be the Koskov/Whittaker duo from The Living Daylights. Great film but Dalton's Bond badly needed a formidable villain to go up against to get the ball rolling for his tenure as 007 and he didn't get one until his second and last film, License To Kill.

 

I truly do not understand the hate that Curt Jurgens' portrayal of Karl Stromberg in TSWLM has been getting from some on here almost to the point where I think some of you have been watching a different film! The guy just oozes both class and menace and has some great and truly memorable lines.

 

"For me this is all the world. There is beauty, there is ugliness and there is death."

 

"Observe, Mr Bond, the instruments of armageddon."

 

"The world as we know it today is corrupt and decadent, inevitably it will destroy itself, I am merely accelerating the process."

 

"Farewell, Mr Bond. That has, I must admit, a welcome ring of permanency about it."

[Guy Haines]

I think some of the "hate" derives from the impression that Stromberg was a lazy villain who just pressed buttons to get things done. Curt Jurgens himself said (jokingly) that his main role in TSWLM was to press buttons.

 

I think "Sir Roger Moore" has quoted some good lines above. The novelisation of the screenplay by Christopher Wood - not a bad continuation Bond novel in itself - takes Stromberg's character further, and it's a pity this wasn't developed in the film. "Sigmund Stromberg" - his name in the book - seems to loathe his fellow humans, and has the money, power and resources to get rid of them all. Other than an idle thought about what the progeny of Anya and Jaws might be, he appears to have no real plans for a new civilisation involving people. There's a line he's given in the book which sums him up "You do not understand, Commander Bond. I want to destroy the world."

 

A lunatic - "the richest lunatic in history" as Bond calls him in Wood's novel - who loathes his own species. That's how he came over to me in the novel.