Daniel Craig Promises 'Skyfall' Won't Be An Emo Bond Flick

trevanian wrote:

Not to defend QoS' villain beyond my liking his fey banshee shriek, but when you put it up against cures for insomnia like Jurgen's Stromberg, it isn't like the bar has always been set all that high.

At least Stromberg had a neat-o lair, some decent henchmen, and some great booby traps. What has Greene got? Nuthin' interesting.

trevanian wrote:

But I don't think there have ever been two bond films in a row that had villains this lamely cast and written, that I grant you.

I do think Mikkelsen acquits himself well in the role of Le Chiffre. He's charismatic, and does a lot with very little. His Le Chiffre is not a "best ever" Bond foe (then again, neither is the fella in Fleming's novel), but a nevertheless reasonably compelling one. He stands out a great deal more than yer Whitakers and Kristatoses.

Amalric's Greene doesn't quite cut it. In part, because he doesn't have as interesting an appearance as Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre, but more importantly, because his character doesn't do much that's truly threatening throughout the course of the story. There's never a moment where Greene has Bond at his mercy; Bond shows him up pretty consistently. That Greene's heavies are kind of a joke also doesn't help; if Elvis is the best Greene can muster, he's clearly not all that. A really nasty, dangerous sidekick would have done wonders.

Odd you should mention Kristatos. I think that is one of the best bits of casting they ever did. In fact, FYEO has, for once in that era, some subtlety, when he and Bond clash lightly over choices of wine. My friends didn't even catch it, but I was all over that, "a trifle too scented" remark from Bond. Kristatos and Loque seemed about as real as you ever needed to be in a Bond film.

I don't think MIkkelsen is a bad actor at all, but I've had decades of imagining Le Chiffre written and played as a megamemorable character, not just a baddie. To be as fair as possible though, absolutely nobody in CR registers with me, except maybe the blonde receptionist, who was in a FOYLE'S WAR.

trevanian wrote:

I don't think MIkkelsen is a bad actor at all, but I've had decades of imagining Le Chiffre written and played as a megamemorable character, not just a baddie.

Well, as I said, I don't think Fleming's Le Chiffre is all that impressive (he's one of my least favorite Fleming foes), so we come at this from different places. I think Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre is actually more memorable than Fleming's chap. I like the homoerotic undertones of Mikkelsen's spin on the character (shades of Fleming's Scaramanga there).

I like Mikkelsen. He's probably my favorite thing about the film. He's a genius at his particular skill, and he's a guy in trouble, desperately trying to win back his money. And I actually like that Bond is the guy who put him in trouble. He's by very far my favorite Bond villain since Sanchez.

I find Trevelyan and Carver utterly dull. Elektra and Retard are nice ideas, but misfires. Graves is an assclown. Greene is a little ninny.

Harmsway wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Not to defend QoS' villain beyond my liking his fey banshee shriek, but when you put it up against cures for insomnia like Jurgen's Stromberg, it isn't like the bar has always been set all that high.

At least Stromberg had a neat-o lair, some decent henchmen, and some great booby traps. What has Greene got? Nuthin' interesting.

trevanian wrote:

But I don't think there have ever been two bond films in a row that had villains this lamely cast and written, that I grant you.

I do think Mikkelsen acquits himself well in the role of Le Chiffre. He's charismatic, and does a lot with very little. His Le Chiffre is not a "best ever" Bond foe (then again, neither is the fella in Fleming's novel), but a nevertheless reasonably compelling one. He stands out a great deal more than yer Whitakers and Kristatoses.

Amalric's Greene doesn't quite cut it. In part, because he doesn't have as interesting an appearance as Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre, but more importantly, because his character doesn't do much that's truly threatening throughout the course of the story. There's never a moment where Greene has Bond at his mercy; Bond shows him up pretty consistently. That Greene's heavies are kind of a joke also doesn't help; if Elvis is the best Greene can muster, he's clearly not all that. A really nasty, dangerous sidekick would have done wonders.

I still think it would have been a great idea to portray Elvis as some kind of awkward, bumbling idiot like they did in the film, and then at the end of the film when Bond goes to get Greene, he faces off with Elvis and it turns out that he is some sort of blood-thirsty maniac who absolutely kicks the shit out of Bond. Catches him off guard, and Bond has to kill him using his wit.

As far as Greene goes....I think he's by far the worst villain in the franchise. And this is coming from someone who really likes QOS.

Worst villain is Graves, Gray's Blofeld or Stromberg for me.

I actually like Gray's Blofeld a lot. Easily beats Donald Pleasence for me.

FieldsMan wrote:

Worst villain is Graves, Gray's Blofeld or Stromberg for me.

Worst one for me is Elliot Carver. Even worse was his mockery of karate moves and yelling in front of Wai Lin. Next time, if you really want a media mogul, hire Rupert Murdoch who'd do a much better and more convincing job playing himself :face:

I like Carver. Brilliantly played by Pryce and believable (as possible in the Bond-o-verse) as a modern madman. And Gray's Blofeld, while convincingly played, I don't like his interpretation of the character. Telly's is the best though.

Graves was an interesting concept, but the execution was flawed. I liked the idea that Moon reinvented himself, and then modelled his new personality on Bond as the ultimate fuck-you. But the "DNA transplant" was downright stupid, and by the end of the film, he went from publicity whore to a megalomaniacal buffoon.

An it was never explained how he managed to build a diamond-encrusted satellite with no diamonds.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Worst one for me is Elliot Carver. Even worse was his mockery of karate moves and yelling in front of Wai Lin. Next time, if you really want a media mogul, hire Rupert Murdoch who'd do a much better and more convincing job playing himself :face:

Pryce wasn't given much to work with, and I think he knew it. So he hammed it up a little bit, as if he was the only one in on the joke, and in doing so, he at least managed to give Carver a bit of personality. I think Carver was still a glorified henchman, though. The film makes way more sense if you approach it with the idea that General Chang (who is only seen once and mentioned twice in the entire film) is the real villain, and that Carver is an accomplice to the plan who can move in circles that Chang cannot be seen to.

I thought Mads was perfectly cast as Le Chiffre. He was very believable.Quite a chilling stylish performance, I thought. In fact the casting for CR was quite good across the board, but for the lead. Giannini as Mathis was well done. Wright did a nice job as Felix. Murino was spectacular as Solange. Green was passable as Vesper. I would have preferred a little more vavoom for a lead Bond-girl, but Green did pull off the tragic nature of the character, and it was important that that task get done properly, so I'm OK with skinny-girl Green, all things considered.

But the big problem is Craig. The role screamed for a young 20 something origins-Bond who could grow into the role. The role bellowed for Henry Cavill, not craggy old Craig, but Babs wasn't listening because she fell in love with Craig's bare butt in Layer Cake.

The rest is history. We endure.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I like Mikkelsen. He's probably my favorite thing about the film. He's a genius at his particular skill, and he's a guy in trouble, desperately trying to win back his money. And I actually like that Bond is the guy who put him in trouble. He's by very far my favorite Bond villain since Sanchez.

Agreed.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I find Trevelyan and Carver utterly dull. Elektra and Retard are nice ideas, but misfires. Graves is an assclown. Greene is a little ninny.

I like Trevelyan, but only because he's played by Sean Bean. There's nothing interesting about the character, per se.

But yep, the track record with villains hasn't been too strong lately. Let's hope Silva is a step up.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I like Mikkelsen. He's probably my favorite thing about the film. He's a genius at his particular skill, and he's a guy in trouble, desperately trying to win back his money.

I think the reason why he works is because Martin Campbell was willing to dedicate quite a bit of time to Craig and Mikkelsen staring one another down during the poker game. That's not something you see a lot of in films that are typically classified as action films or thrillers. At its heart, the casino chapter of the film is really about two men who are arrogant enough to believe that they know what the other will do next. Craig and Mikkelsen both worked this out and played it as such.

harmsway wrote:

Let's hope Silva is a step up.

My concern about Silva is that he doesn't have a particularly villainous name, and I think a name really says a lot about a villain simply because the most memorable villains are villains with names you can remember. Their villainy is so pervasive that it has even found its way into their names. People will remember the Blofelds and Largos and Scaramangas before they remember the Carvers and Greenes and Graves-es.

The name "Raoul Silva" itself is reasonably exotic, but it sounds like it could be a common name in Portugal or Spain. If it were down to me, he would have something unusual, like "Guillermo Viñales" ("gee-yair-moe vin-yah-lez"), because it is written one way and pronounced another.

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

trevanian wrote:

I don't think the political angle in and of itself is objectionable, I just think the execution is lame. It is just like TOTAL RECALL when they turn off the air, and a whole lot of people we barely know or care about will die. Yeah, and then what? It isn't the politics that fail, it is the 'make audience care about victims' that fails.

Well said, Trevanian. I can't speak for others around here, but I found QOS' politics objectionable not because they were left-wing per se (I love Lawrence of Arabia, American Psycho and There Will be Blood, all of which I would classify as left-wing movies) but because it had half-baked left-wing politics sprinkled with the usual asscrack nonsense conspiracy theory stuff Hollywood Liberals love to stuff into movies. I'd of had no objection to a left-wing Bond movie per se. Heck, the fact that Bond usually fights rich industrialists is fairly left-wing already.

The left-wing angle, of and in itself is objectionable IMO. There is no way to present it without being lame. Lame is lame. Fighting rich industrialists is not a left-wing angle. Bond is, more to the point, simply fighting cirminals. If lefties think Stromberg and Drax et al are somehow an endictment of capitalism, well, then they are just brain-dead, as David Mamet might put it.

I see nothing left-wing in Lawrence of Arabia (although I haven't seen the film for a while, but it didn't offend me, and make me barf when I did see it. Authentic left-wing "message" films always require barf bags). There is nothing offensively left-wing in American Pyscho or There Will Be Blood either. Bale was simply a soulless vessel unable to determine between right and wrong. The movie was also a send-up of 80's materialism but not an indictment of the free market or capitalism. And the oil guys in in There Will Be Blood were just bastards. The movie did not serve as a meaningful indictment of commercial oil operations, at least not from a lame left-wing perspective. Sure these guys could behave more responsbly but such is life. The conservative world view doesn't have any utopian pretensions, unlike the liberal world-view.

QoS on the other hand was rife with pity leftist platitudes and anti-Americanisms. It did require vomit bags. But what can you reasonably expect from the likes of Forster and Haggis. They are both card carrying, certified, brain-dead, Hollywood liberals. Maybe someday they will experience an epiphany as Mamet did and write a great book and make better movies. In the meantime they keep the barf-bag-industry stock healthy. They are good for something at least.

I think your comment about "message" films is key here. I regard the three films I mentioned as being left-wing, but not as message films, since they all have a great measure of ambiguity about them. You can interpret Lawrence of Arabia as a "searing indictment of imperialism" or you can simply shake your head in despair at the Arabs' incompetent attempts at self-government. American Psycho and There will be Blood could both be anti-capitalist, but then again they might not be. There is ambiguity about them. The same goes with the industrialist baddies in Bond. Are there so many rich baddies in Bond because rich people are bad, or simply because bad rich people are more likely to be worth a 00's time than poor bad people? Either interpretation is valid.

By contrast, QOS is a message movie. It takes recent historical events (like Aristide's ouster in Haiti) and forces you to view them in a certain way. Aristide was a thoroughly corrupt and incompetent President of Haiti (not that most leaders there are very good), but QOS makes him into someone just trying to help his poor people, and who was subsequently ousted by evil corporations and Quantum. No ambiguity is allowed. Same with Evo Morales in Bolivia. The man hardly seems like a model of constitutional governance, but since the CIA, Medrano and Quantum all want to be rid of him, he must be great. Right? Right?!?

The message part of QOS' politics was what really bothered me. It retroactively destroyed whatever affection I still had for CR, because now I can't hear M's comment about LeChiffre, the stock market and 9/11 without thinking that there's some "message" here too (i.e. "Osama bin Laden really had nothing to do with 9/11. It was all a Quantum plot to make money off the stock market in cahoots with WalMart, the CIA, Chef Boyardee, et al.").

Very well said, wpuss, but I don't think I'd allow QOS to taint your view of CR. IMO, CR was almost entirely apolitical.

Another point--my prob with QOS' politics was the simple act of politicization, not the inculcation of Leftism in the plot. Yes, as you--and tiffy--have mentioned, there are several Leftist talking points. But there is also balance. The Minister of Defense and Beam get in good points about realpolitik, and the environmentalist movement is made to look like a consistory of buffoons with Greene as a surrogate Al Gore duping them for everything they're worth. But still, Bond films should never be this political. They never were before, and I hope they never are again.

tiffanywint wrote:

I thought Mads was perfectly cast as Le Chiffre. He was very believable.Quite a chilling stylish performance, I thought. In fact the casting for CR was quite good across the board, but for the lead. Giannini as Mathis was well done. Wright did a nice job as Felix. Murino was spectacular as Solange. Green was passable as Vesper. I would have preferred a little more vavoom for a lead Bond-girl, but Green did pull off the tragic nature of the character, and it was important that that task get done properly, so I'm OK with skinny-girl Green, all things considered.

Exactly. I thought the casting was one of the stronger points of one of the very strongest Bond films.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

I thought Mads was perfectly cast as Le Chiffre. He was very believable.Quite a chilling stylish performance, I thought. In fact the casting for CR was quite good across the board, but for the lead. Giannini as Mathis was well done. Wright did a nice job as Felix. Murino was spectacular as Solange. Green was passable as Vesper. I would have preferred a little more vavoom for a lead Bond-girl, but Green did pull off the tragic nature of the character, and it was important that that task get done properly, so I'm OK with skinny-girl Green, all things considered.

Exactly. I thought the casting was one of the stronger points of one of the very strongest Bond films.

But I can't consider it a strong Bond film, as Craig's presence ruins it. The movie screamed for a younger actor, and preferably one not quite so short and squat. And Haggis' mere presence makes it anything but apolitical. Granted Campbell's direction woud not give Haggfish the carte blanche he might achieve with kindred spirit Forster, but Haggfish wouldn't be Haggfish, if he didn't make effort to insinuate his snake-oil into the mix.

Regarding QoS and the depiction of Greene Planet, I see that as just another leftist trope from Forster and I am basing this on his own comments. He freely admits his frustration with corporations hi-jacking the great green-vision and corrupting it to drive their dastardly profits or worse.

Greene Planet in Forster's subversive vision is a further indictment of corporate America, not Al Gore.

Even his depiction of real politik, I believe serves as indictment of U.S. foreign policy. Forster condemns the U.S. for such deals with the devil.

Forster it seems has been traumatized by his daddy issues, detailed in Solo's link, found elsewhere. His daddy, the big bad businessman, didn't show him enough love, and the Bond franchise has to pay the price.

Did Babs have daddy issues with Cubby too? Obama didn't even know his dad.

Fathers of the world, please, please, do pay attention to your children. I beg you. They might grow up to be movie producers, directors or even Presidents. Meanwhile the rest of us suffer, as the jaded progeny lash out at the unfairness of it all. :(

Forster is anti-Bond, Haggis is anti-Bond. Craig is anti-Bond. Babs is insane. Can the once proud franchise recover? :shock:

Sorry, tiffy, but I think some of your reading of QOS is simply convoluted. Occam's razor tells me so.

tiffanywint wrote:

But I can't consider it a strong Bond film, as Craig's presence ruins it. The movie screamed for a younger actor,

Agreed. Which is also my main criticism of the film: Craig is simply too old to be considered a rookie agent. There's nothing young or fresh feeling about his mistakes. The movie goes through the motions because the script tells it to do so. A better origin story would be BATMAN BEGINS or SUPERMAN. I kind of thought that was supposed to be the whole point of ditching Brosnan; they got rid of Brosnan to go younger, but they didn't go that much younger.

They could have had Henry Cavill, and instead they got Daniel Craig, who is looking more and more like he should be playing the part of a Bond's opposite number in the KGB everyday.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

But I can't consider it a strong Bond film, as Craig's presence ruins it. The movie screamed for a younger actor,

Agreed. Which is also my main criticism of the film: Craig is simply too old to be considered a rookie agent. There's nothing young or fresh feeling about his mistakes. The movie goes through the motions because the script tells it to do so. A better origin story would be BATMAN BEGINS or SUPERMAN. I kind of thought that was supposed to be the whole point of ditching Brosnan; they got rid of Brosnan to go younger, but they didn't go that much younger.

They could have had Henry Cavill, and instead they got Daniel Craig, who is looking more and more like he should be playing the part of a Bond's opposite number in the KGB everyday.

Yeah, it makes me think that EON was just trying to jump on the reboot bandwagon that started with Batman Begins in 2005. In the end we don't really get a proper reboot (other than a different actor we're told is a new agent but who looks experienced and rugged), nor do we get a proper Bond film, since the filmmakers stripped many elements from the film we'd come to expect from Bond movies.

Granted, the series badly needed a change in tone after DAD, but that hardly required dumping Brosnan (who frankly looks no older than weathered looking Craig at this point). They kept Roger Moore on for FYEO and decided to drastically change the tone from MR, and the result was IMHO the best film in the franchise. They could easily have done the same thing with CR and Brosnan. And if they were bent on a full-throated reboot, they should have been bolder in their casting choice (well, bolder in terms of age - I don't count casting someone who Cubby and Harry would have cast as the main henchman to be so much bold as idiotic). And what kind of reboot is it when the same exact person plays M?!? :evil:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Sorry, tiffy, but I think some of your reading of QOS is simply convoluted. Occam's razor tells me so.

But alas I fear, oh great and powerful Khan, that QoS is a subversive manifesto from top to bottom, beginning to end. It is utterly irrideemable.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

They could have had Henry Cavill, and instead they got Daniel Craig, who is looking more and more like he should be playing the part of a Bond's opposite number in the KGB everyday.

But Babs saw Craig's bare bum in Layer Cake and the die was cast. It's really no more complicated than that. Plus he probably told her he'd be happy to dress Bond up in a frock for femmynism. The deal was sealed.

tiffanywint wrote:

, but Babs wasn't listening because she fell in love with Craig's bare butt in Layer Cake.

The rest is history. We endure.

I thought it dates back to her seeing TOMB RAIDER.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I find Trevelyan and Carver utterly dull.

Carver is so bad it isn't funny, but you can say the same for most of that movie, too.

Trevelyan I find very interesting, since his stuff has all the bite, and Bond doesn't really have a reply for his most insightful pingings. Like Bean as well.

trevanian wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I find Trevelyan and Carver utterly dull.

Carver is so bad it isn't funny, but you can say the same for most of that movie, too.

Trevelyan I find very interesting, since his stuff has all the bite, and Bond doesn't really have a reply for his most insightful pingings. Like Bean as well.

I'm a big fan of Bean, so it's odd that I don't like Trevelyan. And I'm a fan of Pryce as well.*

TND is my least favorite Bond flick BTW.

*Well, hell, I like Marcaeu and Carlyle. And Amalric.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I'm a big fan of Bean, so it's odd that I don't like Trevelyan.

Maybe that's because the character was originally written for a considerably older actor. I think the original script called for him to be "Augustus Trevalyan", a former M who turned during the Cold War. It's glaringly obvious because Bean is clearly meant to be about the same as the Brozzer, but he is able to recount events from the second World War and the 1950s. Indeed, they're his primary motivation, but Bean's Trevalyan appears to be no older than 40.

Bean is too young for the part, that's true.

But he is charismatic, and he gives the part a lot of bite. He, and the rest of the supporting cast for GOLDENEYE, is a big part of why that movie works.