All true,Greene was their attempt at an anti-villain. So mundane and seemingly normal no one would think he was. Problem being, the audience knew he was - and the filmmakers seemed to realize about partway through that the script wasn't doing them any favours in adding to the intrigue - and he just sort of comes off as a bland, replaceable Bond heavy.
Shame. Amalric was phenomenal, with next to nothing to work from.
#2221
Posted 13 March 2012 - 12:04 AM
#2222
Posted 13 March 2012 - 01:35 AM
Anyone else getting a Dark Knight vibe (The Joker dressing up as a cop)?
This was my first thought, too!
Anyone else getting a Dark Knight vibe (The Joker dressing up as a cop)?
This was my first thought, too!
Me three. Perhaps I'll watch the Dark Knight tonight...
#2223
Posted 13 March 2012 - 07:58 AM
Greene was their attempt at an anti-villain. So mundane and seemingly normal no one would think he was. Problem being, the audience knew he was - and the filmmakers seemed to realize about partway through that the script wasn't doing them any favours in adding to the intrigue - and he just sort of comes off as a bland, replaceable Bond heavy.
Shame. Amalric was phenomenal, with next to nothing to work from.
All very true.
And he was given Elvis as his henchman, another ineffectual nobody, leaving Bond no one substantial to fight against. Another fundamental problem with QOS.
#2224
Posted 13 March 2012 - 08:24 AM
#2225
Posted 13 March 2012 - 10:38 AM
I think the real problem with Greene is that he was presented as having been the mastermind behind luring Vesper into the honeytrap, but there was never any evidence given that he was actually responsible. Bond learned where and how to contact Yusuf from him, but the audience was never given a reason to believe that Greene had that information in the first place. After all, Bond found Greene through Camille. He found Camille through Slate. He found Slate through Mitchell, and he found Mitchell through White. And while we know that White was a key part of Le Chiffre's operations, that's a pretty tenuous link at best. Greene's involvement was coincidental at best, but Bond went after him as if he knew something we didn't.
This sums up everything that is wrong with QOS. That's why when i watch it, i put this out of my head and enjoy it as a ruddy good action film.
Thankfully we know Skyfall will have a great plot, script and action set in places we have never really seen before in a Bond film- London Underground, Westminster, Whitehall, etc.
It was always annoying to see Bond briefed by M in London and then watch him sod off to the other side of the world. He's on home soil this time baby!
#2226
Posted 13 March 2012 - 10:46 AM
#2227
Posted 13 March 2012 - 10:50 AM
I'd never thought about it like that, but you're spot on. It's all pretty ludicrous now I think about it. The logical pursuit should surely have been of Mr White. Very convenient for Bond that he was able to both prevent a revolution in Bolivia and then get the exact information he needed from Greene.I think the real problem with Greene is that he was presented as having been the mastermind behind luring Vesper into the honeytrap, but there was never any evidence given that he was actually responsible. Bond learned where and how to contact Yusuf from him, but the audience was never given a reason to believe that Greene had that information in the first place. After all, Bond found Greene through Camille. He found Camille through Slate. He found Slate through Mitchell, and he found Mitchell through White. And while we know that White was a key part of Le Chiffre's operations, that's a pretty tenuous link at best. Greene's involvement was coincidental at best, but Bond went after him as if he knew something we didn't.
I'm with PPK though; I'm happy to just tune my brain out and enjoy watching QUANTUM OF SOLACE as a standard action film sprinkled with stunning locales. It's just a shame that it had such plot holes.
#2228
Posted 13 March 2012 - 10:51 AM
The damn thing is that it could have been fixed very easily. As M's bodyguard, Mitchell would have direct access to her files. It wouldn't be difficult for him to destroy evidence of a connection between White and Greene.
So was it Forster's fault that it wasn't fixed? His decision to do a last-minute re-write and not have that scene with Bond confronting White included in the final cut, was it down to him?
#2229
Posted 13 March 2012 - 11:05 AM
I think the filming was aiming for a whole "Bond will move heaven and earth to find out what happened to Vesper" vibe. Preventing the revolution and ending the drought were little more than obstacles that he had to clear in his search for answers. I think the film fell short of this objective on two fronts: first of all, the film was pitched as "Bond goes out looking for revenge". Babs and MGW got it right at the press conference announcing filming when they said "Bond goes out looking for answers and everyone around him thinks he is looking or revenge", but this was dumbed down by the media to "Bond goes out looking for revenge". If you watch the film and bear in mind that Bond never so much as considers revenge until he gets Greene alone, but everyone else is convinced that he is set on it, QUANTUM OF SOLACE makes way more sense and is a much stronger film.I'd never thought about it like that, but you're spot on. It's all pretty ludicrous now I think about it. The logical pursuit should surely have been of Mr White. Very convenient for Bond that he was able to both prevent a revolution in Bolivia and then get the exact information he needed from Greene.
Secondly, the film failed because the Vesper subplot quickly took a backseat to the coup plot. It was meant to be something that Bond had to deal with before he could find answers, and the film remembered to mention it here and there, but the coup plot overshadowed it all. We lost track of what was really at stake. If you approach the film as Bond simply clearing obstacles in his path to get to the answers he needs, QUANTUM OF SOLACE again makes way more sense and is a much stronger film. It just lost its train of thought for a little while, and picked it up again two stations down the line and missing a carriage here and there.
Yes, it was Foster's choice to cut that scene. He felt Bond's line "I never left" was the perfect way to end the film (and it was). But don't blame Foster for cutting the scene and costing us a connection to Greene. What I'm talking about is at the very start of the film - how does Bond know that Greene is responsible for the Quantum operation that ended with Vesper's suicide. He has no reason to suspect Greene's involvement. He captured White. White gave him Mitchell. Mitchell led him to Slate. Slate took him to Camille. It was Camille who led Bond to Greene. He's gone through five separate connections to get from White to Greene, and there is no evidence presented that Greene was responsible for what happened to Vesper. Anything that Greene says or does - like taunting Bond about being "damaged goods" and Camille's apparent death - can be easily explained as Greene being a Quantum member, Quantum being aware of Bond's activities, and so informing all its members of Bond's past failings. Even the information that M discovers about Greene (the CIA knowing exactly where to find him) is circumstantial. Likewise, there is no evidence that Greene ordered the hit on M.So was it Forster's fault that it wasn't fixed? His decision to do a last-minute re-write and not have that scene with Bond confronting White included in the final cut, was it down to him?
No, all it would have taken is a line in the Siena safehouse or in the MI6 building about how Mitchell accessed M's investigation into Yusuf Kabira and deleted certain files. The question would then become "What did Mitchell destroy?" and "Who did it implicate?". That would give Bond a reason to look beyond White, and the tagged bills MI6 identified in Haiti would be a much stronger lead for Bond to follow.
#2230
Posted 13 March 2012 - 11:26 AM
Love the shots of Bardem, and I agree he does have that look of evil about him - plotting, out to make a point with no care for who or what gets caught up in the cross-fire, and as you say, only from a few shots!
Can't wait to see what else we see of him soon...!
#2231
Posted 13 March 2012 - 11:30 AM
#2232
Posted 13 March 2012 - 11:50 AM
One doesn´t know, but one surely hopes so.Uh, are we expecting to see more of him soon?
#2233
Posted 13 March 2012 - 11:58 AM
And my reading so far is that Silva blew-up ordinary commuters in a crowded, inaccessible place just to cause havoc and a diversion from his real target.
What a callous, calculating bastard - fantastic!
#2234
Posted 13 March 2012 - 12:20 PM
What a callous, calculating bastard - fantastic!
Fab quote there Shrublands!
Silva could be just what we need in a Bond villain for Craig now. Le Chiffre touched on this, but was let down by the timid threats of Mr.White and Dominic Greene after. Fingers crossed!
#2235
Posted 13 March 2012 - 12:24 PM
#2236
Posted 13 March 2012 - 12:53 PM
Trevelyan - Had it in him to be ruthless but just was more calculating than anything
Carver - Hid behind a desk and technology and wasn't really that menacing or evil in the scale of 'wiping out a country', that's easy for any Bond villiain to do with satellites/missiles!
Renard - Again, he had a look of brutality to him but more through the film he just seemed angry and fragile and in love, not very evil - just a bit hurting inside. Aww.
Graves - Nothing to him except a smug grin and, once more, using satellites for mass destruction which any villain can do.
Le Chiffre - He showed some cold and calculating traits and was more cunning that evil with a nice 'manic' side touched upon.
Greene - Nothing to him, just a businessman out to make some money who couldn't fight or do anything that major Bond villains should.
Hopefully next I can put...
Silva - Very menacing, a cold and evil looking man who harms those who gets in his way, doesn't care about the casualties caught up in his destruction and just wants to snap the back-bone to any country he can.
Here's hoping anyway.
#2237
Posted 13 March 2012 - 01:03 PM
Silva - Very menacing, a cold and evil looking man who harms those who gets in his way, doesn't care about the casualties caught up in his destruction and just wants to snap the back-bone to any country he can.
I like the sound of this. I’d just add - disturbingly twisted but in a fascinating way.
#2238
Posted 13 March 2012 - 01:13 PM
Le Chiffre was very creepy, nicelly done by Mads. One of my favourite villains in the franchise.
But I hope Bardem surpasses them all. I´m hoping for a Largo.
#2239
Posted 13 March 2012 - 01:16 PM
Alec Trevalyan, Elliot Carver and Electra King were the only Brosnan era villains I found to be interesting.
Can't agree about Carver - waste of space. About as threatening and worrying as mobile phone salesman.
#2240
Posted 13 March 2012 - 01:20 PM
Alec Trevalyan, Elliot Carver and Electra King were the only Brosnan era villains I found to be interesting.
Can't agree about Carver - waste of space. About as threatening and worrying as mobile phone salesman.
Well, I can go with that. But Carver had something of a Megalomaniac Steve Jobs going on. And his henchmen weren´t that bad, the psycho blonde and the Dr. assassin.
#2241
Posted 13 March 2012 - 01:29 PM
Alec Trevalyan, Elliot Carver and Electra King were the only Brosnan era villains I found to be interesting.
Can't agree about Carver - waste of space. About as threatening and worrying as mobile phone salesman.
Well, I can go with that. But Carver had something of a Megalomaniac Steve Jobs going on. And his henchmen weren´t that bad, the psycho blonde and the Dr. assassin.
Dr Kaufman is by far and away the best villain in the film. The scene that he features in is witty and yet disturbing. If the rest of the film had been up to this standard then it would have been a classic. Brosnan is rather good in this bit too.
#2242
Posted 13 March 2012 - 01:31 PM
Yes, the "me too" line was perfect. If only Bozza´s films were always like that. In retrospect, I think TND is my favourite Brosnan Bond. Up until the last action piece, which is just commando bond with a machine gun.
Alec Trevalyan, Elliot Carver and Electra King were the only Brosnan era villains I found to be interesting.
Can't agree about Carver - waste of space. About as threatening and worrying as mobile phone salesman.
Well, I can go with that. But Carver had something of a Megalomaniac Steve Jobs going on. And his henchmen weren´t that bad, the psycho blonde and the Dr. assassin.
Dr Kaufman is by far and away the best villain in the film. The scene that he features in is witty and yet disturbing. If the rest of the film had been up to this standard then it would have been a classic. Brosnan is rather good in this bit too.
#2243
Posted 13 March 2012 - 01:47 PM
Yes, the "me too" line was perfect. If only Bozza´s films were always like that. In retrospect, I think TND is my favourite Brosnan Bond. Up until the last action piece, which is just commando bond with a machine gun.
I think it falls apart when they leave Germany – plus Calver is not strong enough to carry the villainy through the film.
#2244
Posted 13 March 2012 - 02:18 PM
In the long run, his loss was very much our gain.
#2245
Posted 13 March 2012 - 02:23 PM
#2246
Posted 13 March 2012 - 02:28 PM
#2247
Posted 13 March 2012 - 03:41 PM
#2248
Posted 13 March 2012 - 05:33 PM
http://www.zimbio.co...all/3Z16HsK4mNn
Edited by Luigi Ferrari, 13 March 2012 - 05:38 PM.
#2249
Posted 13 March 2012 - 05:40 PM
#2250
Posted 13 March 2012 - 05:44 PM
xxx
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Skyfall, photo, beard
Film Eras →
General Bond Film Discussion →
The 007th Minute: a review seriesStarted by Jim , 17 Nov 2013 Skyfall |
|
||
Film Eras →
Daniel Craig (2006 - ) →
Skyfall (2012) →
SPOILERS: Skyfall (2012) →
Shades of You Only Live Twice in Skyfall?Started by Colombo , 08 Jan 2012 Bond 23, Skyfall |
|