853 replies to this topic

[RMc2]

Both could act very well. Pretty meaningless attack by Faulks.

 

I disagree, I think Naomie Harris gives the worst performance yet from an actress in the Craig era. She's awful when being flirtatious and funny; her entire performance reeks of 'trying too hard'.

 

I admit that perhaps I'd be kinder if she weren't playing Moneypenny and the role wasn't so important to the series and to me. In this regard, I blame EON and Mendes for casting her, knowing they need someone who shares real on-screen chemistry with Craig and utterly failing to pick the right person. Please bear in mind that I went into the film open-minded and optimistic.

 

As for the awful name reveal in the final scene, I don't blame her at all: that was really, really badly written.

 

Berenice Marlohe was excellent, and probably underused.

Edited by RMc, 30 September 2013 - 01:58 PM.

[Major Tallon]

Actually, I liked Naomie Harris quite a bit and more than Samantha Bond.

 

Initially, I thought Berenice Marlohe's portrayal of Severine was oddly, even jarringly, idiosyncratic, but after watching her again (and again and again), I've decided that it's a brilliant performance.  I understand why her role was a relatively small one, but I'd have liked to see her character given more screen time.

[Gothamite]

"Bond has no inner life" is the most moronically wrong thing I've ever seen a writer of a popular character say. I'm just dumbfounded by the stupidity of it. Bond's inner life is my favourite thing about the Fleming books! I've literally recommended the books to people on countless occasions BASED ON THE FACT that they delve into his psyche, his thoughts and his hobbies so much more than most of the films prior to the Daniel Craig era (which could still stand to include a great deal more).
 

Idiot. 

 

This is like someone getting paid to write Batman and then saying "The film kept trying to examine Batman as a detective. Batman is not a detective."

Edited by Gothamite, 01 October 2013 - 12:19 AM.

[sharpshooter]

When early reviews were coming out, I saw a few comments saying Harris was apparently one of the weak links. As such, I was a little apprehensive about how she'd be. I don't think I'm willing to rank her above Samantha Bond just yet, but upon seeing the movie, I was content with her performance. In terms of the script, the old Bond/Moneypenny banter was there. And Naomi does have a likeable warmth and ironic smile which suits the role.

 

And I agree, Gothamite. Bond may live an existential, in the moment life in many ways; no prospect of settling down, having kids, flippant, hard drinker and or smoker – and may be dead the next day. However he has likes, dislikes, fears and hopes like all human beings. For Faulks to say Bond has no inner life, I have to disagree. Among other things, fast cars and beautiful women get him racing.

[dtuba]

I liked Harris just fine, but I thought her dialogue sounded a bit forced. I thought all the "banter " was a bit much, and that whole bit about her name reveal was clumsy ("we've never been formally introduced." Really, Bond, not the least bit curious about the woman who shot you and shaved you?).

None of that was her fault, though; I blame the screenwriters.

[SecretAgentFan]

The line does not sound at all written - rather improvised on set.  Probably an idea by Mendes or Harris themselves.

 

Maybe it was rather late in the game that they decided to have Eve become Moneypenny?

[S K Y F A L L]

I liked Harris just fine, but I thought her dialogue sounded a bit forced. I thought all the "banter " was a bit much, and that whole bit about her name reveal was clumsy ("we've never been formally introduced." Really, Bond, not the least bit curious about the woman who shot you and shaved you?).

None of that was her fault, though; I blame the screenwriters.

I also thought that some of the dialog was forced, awkward and cliche. I think the whole shaving scene was done so that they could use the line, "we'll have a few more close saves" and I"m not really a fan of her first name either, it does not roll off the tongue as nicely as I would have imagined it to. I liked the mystery of Moneypenny I suppose.  

[Turn]

 

I liked Harris just fine, but I thought her dialogue sounded a bit forced. I thought all the "banter " was a bit much, and that whole bit about her name reveal was clumsy ("we've never been formally introduced." Really, Bond, not the least bit curious about the woman who shot you and shaved you?).

None of that was her fault, though; I blame the screenwriters.

I also thought that some of the dialog was forced, awkward and cliche. I think the whole shaving scene was done so that they could use the line, "we'll have a few more close saves" and I"m not really a fan of her first name either, it does not roll off the tongue as nicely as I would have imagined it to. I liked the mystery of Moneypenny I suppose.  

 

I've got to agree here. When Pussy made a close shave comment nearly 50 years ago it doesn't sound exactly fresh nor classic revived in 2012. I think the Bond-Moneypenny past was best summed up in the previous years as mysterious, with the imagined hints that Lois Maxwell would drop in interviews. Now each time you see these characters there's that baggage.

 

Personally, I could have done without either Moneypenny or Q returning to the series as CR and QoS worked fine without them. Q was at least

fresh and his scenes worked fine and has potential for interesting scenes rather than forced as they got to be in the Brosnan era.

 

M himself summed it up quite well, "Omit the customary byplay with Miss Moneypenny."

[plankattack]

 

 

 

Personally, I could have done without either Moneypenny or Q returning to the series as CR and QoS worked fine without them. Q was at least

fresh and his scenes worked fine and has potential for interesting scenes rather than forced as they got to be in the Brosnan era.

 

M himself summed it up quite well, "Omit the customary byplay with Miss Moneypenny."

 

 

I tend to agree, and the biggest challenge for the series is what happens next. I know for many, redoing what's been done over the years would be fine, but IMHO reverting back to pre-2006 type would pretty much undermine the re-establishing of the lead character that's taken place. 

 

If they can find the way for Q and Moneypenny to work "organically" within the story-line then that's fine, but having a "Q scene" and "Moneypenny moment" just because they're there steers the series back to the borderline-pantomine territory it can too often revert to. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I wonder whether it is good to eliminate elements of the formula.

 

Basically, the Bond movies work because of that formula.  If you take out these components, it stops being a Bond film, IMO.

 

Sure, Q and Moneypenny weren´t missed during CASINO ROYALE or QUANTUM OF SOLACE.  But I believe that these characters were conceived for a reason.  If it is just Bond and M, the relationship gets too intense.  In previous films, Q and Moneypenny got a bit stale because they grew older while Bond was re-cast younger.  So, instead of the gruff master of weaponry, Q turned into the confused grandpa.  And Moneypenny, instead of the office flirt that could be more, became the friendly old lady and (in the Brosnan era) the "M"-double.

 

I think it´s important for Q and Moneypenny (and "M", of course) to be part of the story - but I hope they won´t be integrated too deeply.  The deciding factor is: how do you re-boot these characters, give them different traits while remaining true to the original idea.

[plankattack]

 

I think it´s important for Q and Moneypenny (and "M", of course) to be part of the story - but I hope they won´t be integrated too deeply.  The deciding factor is: how do you re-boot these characters, give them different traits while remaining true to the original idea.

Agent - I agree. I'm not for eliminating the characters, but I am for looking for either new or natural ways for them to be part of the story. But just having them show up and do a variation of what's been done for 50 years would be a mistake IMHO.

 

Take Q - the interaction with Bond in SF was fresh. But if in Bond 24 he's giving him equipment while Bond fiddles with things and there are sight gags in the background, then I'm not sure how "fresh" it can be. Moneypenny is the same - while I don't want her character being elevated to M-levels of involvement, I don't her reduced to a couple of "puns" when Bond drops by the office. If that is what we're going to get, then I would rather have them gone altogether.

[Turn]

And I would agree with you both as well. I just plead we don't reach back into the depths of the cigar jokes and such of the previous Moneypenny era, but also that they don't do a 180 degree turn and make her the field agent just slumming it as M's exec. Don't put her back in the field.

 

Q could play a more integral role, I thought it was a bold move to show he wasn't infallible in Skyfall. If there's actual room for growth with these characters, better still, but just not at the expense of the main character and story.