45 replies to this topic

[iBond]

Greene reminded me a lot of Largo in NSNA.

[ROGERJAMESMOORE]

Greene ? One of the worst villains ever at the bottom of the list with Elliot Carver and Electra King.

[TCK]

Greene reminds me Sanchez and Largo (Never say never again), which means two of the best villains of the saga, but, to me, he is the Achilles' heel of Quantum of Solace. It's a great film, but it's not perfect, because of Greene, for I think he's underused. The character is well-built. He looks like a child who doesn't know how to fight. It's the first time we see an infantile villain, and to me it represents Bond's building and construction after Vesper's death, because he must rebuild, like a child. The scene when Bond holds him above fire is one of the moments Bond begins being back, for he doesn't kill him, he prefers bring him back to work on him later. It's a great scene, Bond controls the death wishes he had during the movie (Slate, Mitchell...) and becomes himself.

But... the running time of the movie doesn't let enough time to go into detail some things. For instance, after his reception, Greene vanishes during around 20 minutes, and it's a pity. A 15-minute addition would have permitted improve the character. I konw it's because Quantum of Solace is the sequel of Casino Royale, and so there is no introduction, but it's still very short, isn't it ?

So I think he's a great villain about his symbolism (the childish side) but he's not enough shown and he doesn't have a great screen presence. 15-minute more would have permitted to go into detail and make him one of the best villains of the saga. Without it, I still prefer villains like Sanchez, Blofeld (Savalas) or Zorin, even if I rather enjoy him.

He is a sort of Elliot Carver. No charisma, he is not really dangerous in a close-combat bacause too crazy to be truly effective.

Does he have charisma ? No, that's right, but it's because he's a coward businessman. His only moment of humanity is when he blubbers after being thrown by Bond out of the boot.

[Mr_Wint]

(...) who doesn't know how to fight.

He almost killed Bond so of course he could fight. I don't think anyone would say this if it hadn't been for Forster saying it when promoting the movie. That is the problem with Greene: Yarborough's blog gave more about the character than the actual film did. Amalric is a good actor, but in this case the end result is rather forgettable.

[TCK]

He almost killed Bond thanks to his fury, not thanks to his hand-to-hand learning.

By the way, sorry, but what's Yarborough's blog ? I don't know it.

[iBond]

The screaming got to me a little bit, but I mean he wasn't that bad. It could have been a lot worse. I respect him as a villain, but he is in no way memorable imo.

[TCK]

I respect him as a villain, but he is in no way memorable imo.

I tend to agree with you. Dr No's hands, Largo's eye patch, Blofeld's cat, Stromberg's Atlantis, Zorin's and Renard's craziness... Greene doesn't have those memorable features, he's less entertaining but more efficient and symbolic by his childish-side.

[Lachesis]

imo he was lacking in every important respect.

[byline]

I thought Greene was a good character, but in an oddly unpredictable way. He showed his true menace near the end, in his fight with Bond, because it seems he was completely untrained to fight, yet his wild temper (and self-preservation instincts) took over. I liked that aspect of his character, as it seemed to mirror Le Chiffre's and presented villains with whom he had to take extreme care.

[Shrublands]

Neither he nor Elvis posed any credible threat to Bond whatsoever. Also, he wasn’t shown doing anything particularly villainous in a way that might cause an emotional reaction in the audience. (Though this has been a problem with most the post 95 films)

He was little more than an anodyne, corrupt businessman attempting a dodgy deal to provide utilities to a third world country. Even if he’d been successful, the whole thing could have been reversed just as easily if Bond wasn’t even involved.

Nothing of gravitas seemed at stake in Greene’s plot and he is there eating apples and playing with a hole punch – naturally, why not? Hardly anything that will be remembered in a few years… Actually, five minutes after the film finishes for most people.

[iBond]

Yeah, I mean he could have been memorable, but it just didn't work that way. I also really disliked that whole Tosca scene with him. I mean, okay for one thing, why would you be talking during an opera? I mean, wouldn't you expect people to hear you? Mind you, I know he wasn't in the audience, but it just seemed odd for him to talk to the Quantum members during that scene. I mean, why not just text or something? lol

[Dustin]

Neither he nor Elvis posed any credible threat to Bond whatsoever. Also, he wasn’t shown doing anything particularly villainous in a way that might cause an emotional reaction in the audience. (Though this has been a problem with most the post 95 films)

He was little more than an anodyne, corrupt businessman attempting a dodgy deal to provide utilities to a third world country. Even if he’d been successful, the whole thing could have been reversed just as easily if Bond wasn’t even involved.

Nothing of gravitas seemed at stake in Greene’s plot and he is there eating apples and playing with a hole punch – naturally, why not? Hardly anything that will be remembered in a few years… Actually, five minutes after the film finishes for most people.

He's surely not the mega-villain of Goldfinger-size, more a subaltern like Largo. But Greene is seen doing some despicable things indeed, and certainly revolting enough. He's throwing his girlfriend to Medrano, knowing full well what Medrano is to her and what he's most likely to do to her. At the Hydrogen Hotel he's practically repeating the drill with the maid. Medrano here is the monster-character, threatening to rape the heroine (whose parents he already killed). Greene poses as a ponce, keeping the monster's appetite for women in check by supplying him with victims and getting his share after the coup in return. I would think that surely does provoke some emotional reaction with the audience. Granted, not in that blissfully thrilling and almost cosy way Blofeld and company did instill over the years. But ask any woman in the audience how they feel about Greene's activities and we'd probably get some impressive answers. As villains in Fleming's oeuvre go he falls in the Horror/Sluggsy category. But that doesn't make him worthless as a rogue.

[Miles Miservy]

I found him fairly forgettable but I suppose I am used to Bond villains with eyepatches, scars and metal teeth LOL.

Quite possibly the shortest of Bond's villains.

[Shrublands]

Neither he nor Elvis posed any credible threat to Bond whatsoever. Also, he wasn’t shown doing anything particularly villainous in a way that might cause an emotional reaction in the audience. (Though this has been a problem with most the post 95 films)

He was little more than an anodyne, corrupt businessman attempting a dodgy deal to provide utilities to a third world country. Even if he’d been successful, the whole thing could have been reversed just as easily if Bond wasn’t even involved.

Nothing of gravitas seemed at stake in Greene’s plot and he is there eating apples and playing with a hole punch – naturally, why not? Hardly anything that will be remembered in a few years… Actually, five minutes after the film finishes for most people.

He's surely not the mega-villain of Goldfinger-size, more a subaltern like Largo. But Greene is seen doing some despicable things indeed, and certainly revolting enough. He's throwing his girlfriend to Medrano, knowing full well what Medrano is to her and what he's most likely to do to her. At the Hydrogen Hotel he's practically repeating the drill with the maid. Medrano here is the monster-character, threatening to rape the heroine (whose parents he already killed). Greene poses as a ponce, keeping the monster's appetite for women in check by supplying him with victims and getting his share after the coup in return. I would think that surely does provoke some emotional reaction with the audience. Granted, not in that blissfully thrilling and almost cosy way Blofeld and company did instill over the years. But ask any woman in the audience how they feel about Greene's activities and we'd probably get some impressive answers. As villains in Fleming's oeuvre go he falls in the Horror/Sluggsy category. But that doesn't make him worthless as a rogue.

No, Largo is very proactive in comparison and we get to see it all. We see him personally kill the Major Duval double after the Vulcan hijack, we see him not even flinch as one of his fellow high-ranking SPECTRE members is electrically fried in front of him, we see him order a man fed to sharks. We see him personally about to torture Domino and the way he relishes the prospect. All of your Greene examples are basically him standing back and letting someone else do the villainy for their pleasure out of his presence. And neither of them actually come to pass anyway. More examples of how he is so ineffective.

Largo is fascinating yet hateful – great for villainy.
Greene is dull and disgusting – terrible for villainy.

[Dustin]

Neither he nor Elvis posed any credible threat to Bond whatsoever. Also, he wasn’t shown doing anything particularly villainous in a way that might cause an emotional reaction in the audience. (Though this has been a problem with most the post 95 films)

He was little more than an anodyne, corrupt businessman attempting a dodgy deal to provide utilities to a third world country. Even if he’d been successful, the whole thing could have been reversed just as easily if Bond wasn’t even involved.

Nothing of gravitas seemed at stake in Greene’s plot and he is there eating apples and playing with a hole punch – naturally, why not? Hardly anything that will be remembered in a few years… Actually, five minutes after the film finishes for most people.

He's surely not the mega-villain of Goldfinger-size, more a subaltern like Largo. But Greene is seen doing some despicable things indeed, and certainly revolting enough. He's throwing his girlfriend to Medrano, knowing full well what Medrano is to her and what he's most likely to do to her. At the Hydrogen Hotel he's practically repeating the drill with the maid. Medrano here is the monster-character, threatening to rape the heroine (whose parents he already killed). Greene poses as a ponce, keeping the monster's appetite for women in check by supplying him with victims and getting his share after the coup in return. I would think that surely does provoke some emotional reaction with the audience. Granted, not in that blissfully thrilling and almost cosy way Blofeld and company did instill over the years. But ask any woman in the audience how they feel about Greene's activities and we'd probably get some impressive answers. As villains in Fleming's oeuvre go he falls in the Horror/Sluggsy category. But that doesn't make him worthless as a rogue.

No, Largo is very proactive in comparison and we get to see it all. We see him personally kill the Major Duval double after the Vulcan hijack, we see him not even flinch as one of his fellow high-ranking SPECTRE members is electrically fried in front of him, we see him order a man fed to sharks. We see him personally about to torture Domino and the way he relishes the prospect. All of your Greene examples are basically him standing back and letting someone else do the villainy for their pleasure out of his presence. And neither of them actually come to pass anyway. More examples of how he is so ineffective.

Largo is fascinating yet hateful – great for villainy.
Greene is dull and disgusting – terrible for villainy.

Yes, Greene stands back and lets others have their way but I'd argue that doesn't make him less evil, it just offers a different section of the spectrum. Greene unflinchingly sends his goon* to certain death and he's behind the killing of Fields in a most unpleasant manner.

The problem is of course that we don't see it - crucial for a film and I would like to know if there is more material of Greene that would have fleshed out his character had it escaped its fate on the cutting room floor.



*That one is the real dud in my book. I'm not terribly fit, but I never have the feeling that kid would pose a threat even to me. Even with a gun (he looks as if he holds the thing for the first time) he's no more menacing than an insurence salesman.

[Shrublands]

Yes, Greene stands back and lets others have their way but I'd argue that doesn't make him less evil, it just offers a different section of the spectrum. Greene unflinchingly sends his goon* to certain death and he's behind the killing of Fields in a most unpleasant manner.

The problem is of course that we don't see it - crucial for a film and I would like to know if there is more material of Greene that would have fleshed out his character had it escaped its fate on the cutting room floor.

I think this is the key issue here. All that you say is true and makes Greene a repellent individual - should one be unfortunate enough to run across him in real life. But this is a film (and a Bond film at that) he’s got to compete with all the explosions and eye-candy that so distracts. We are not sitting in the cinema contemplating the more subtle side to evil whilst people are falling from planes without parachutes.

We need to see the main bad guy do interesting yet horrible things and subsequently feel a vicarious fear, hatred etc… together with the sort of train wreck fascination of watching a character in action that we hope we will never have the misfortune to meet without the safety net of the cinema screen.

Greene is not that. I just don’t want to meet him at all.

Mathieu Amalric was a good choice of actor, and Greene has potential, but what is on offer in the finished film shows weak, if not terrible, judgment. As he stands, Greene might make an interesting secondary villain, but as the principal antagonist – no.