The Crappest Bond Villains of all time

Back in 2008, Total Shit magazine ran this filler written by some intern who wasn't credited let alone paid.

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/bond-month-the-crappest-bond-villians-of-all-time

I'm guessing this budding Shakespeare had a very short lunch break as the poor 12-year-old only managed seven entries before he gave up, the first four suggesting a keenly aspergic hatred for Tom Mankiewicz.

1. Wint & Kidd
2. Bambi & Thumper
3. Baron Samedi
4. Nick Nack
5. Gobinda
6. Elliot Carver
7. Gustav Graves

Now, I reckon Wint & Kidd are the funniest characters to appear in a Bond film and that this guy needs his head examined. Though I'd only defend Elliot Carver of the others on his list...

What d'you think of the list and who'd you pick?

Just looking at that list, I'm not even going to bother reading that article. Even folks who aren't that fond of DAF acknowledge that Wint & Kidd were the highlights.

My list of worst villains, in no particular order.

Stromberg
Koskov & Whitaker
Stamper
Elektra
Zao
Elvis
Greene

All generic, unimpressive, and boring.

As far as main villains? Really don't like Graves, Kristatos, Greene, and, to a lesser extent, Elektra.

Stamper and Elvis are two of the weakest henchmen in my book.

Also I'm a big defender of Elliot Carver. His motivations alone are so damn ridiculous that I love the character. Based on the general distaste for the Broz era on these boards I'm assuming I'm in the minority in my opinion.

Carver was a fun idea for a villain, but the character is isn't written well and Pryce goes way too over the top.

Erica Ambler wrote:

I'm guessing this budding Shakespeare had a very short lunch break as the poor 12-year-old only managed seven entries before he gave up, the first four suggesting a keenly aspergic hatred for Tom Mankiewicz.

No doubt that he'd list his favorite Bond film as QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

Most of the fairly recent Bond villains have been pretty lame, including: Greene, Elvis, Medrano, White, Le Chiffre, Gustav Graves, and Renard. Compared to the greater villains, these characters really don't amount to much. I think Mad Mikkelsen and Sophie Marceau were severely fucked over.

Elliot Carver's kung fu mockery puts him on my shit list.

Nick Nack was an abomination.

I liked Gobinda...his finale outside the plane was exciting to watch.

Gustav (generic)
Stromberg (gets the job done in SPY, but no layers)
Blofeld (DAF, for the drag stuff - too camp)
Zao (I like the idea of seeing a villain get his deformity, but why couldn't they pick out the diamonds. Rick Yune sucks)
Gobinda (camp)

What do you mean Ambler when you say "Though I'd only defend Elliot Carver of the others on his list…"

I think there's a difference between well-acted villains and ones that use an idiosyncrasy that will make them be better remembered. People might LIKE Odd Job better than Elektra, but can anyone say Harold Sakata did a better job acting than Marceau or Carlyle?

People that don't like Renard, Koskov, Elektra....may not like them because they don't have steel teeth or a razor brimmed hat, but I like them all. I like the understated villains as much as the over-the-top. They can't all be May Day's or Bambi & Humper.

Gobinda was "camp"? I just remember that the line "Go out and get him!" and the look on Kabir Bedi's face when he said "Out there?" got a huge laugh from the audience. It was such a popular moment that EON stole from themselves and tried to use it in their next film, as if no one would remember or care.

When I think of crappiest villains or henchman, I think of the droll Drax or Stromberg (basically flip sides of the same character). Julian Glover is a great actor, but his character Walter Donovan was probably more memorable than Kristatos.

I would say any of the minor villainsin LICENSE REVOKED (like Heller) were probably the crappiest. Stamper was less memorable because the acting was all over the map.

I loved Gustav Graves; excellent performance by Toby Stephens. Yes, it was a bit over the top, but so was the rest of the film.

Other lame villains include the black guy from Casino Royale....everybody from QUANTURD OF SOLACE....Hi Fat from GOLDEN GUN...

As far as acting, I thought Marceau was utterly dreadful. However, I think most of everyone in that cast was bad, including Brosnan. That might be down to the director's decisions, because so many scenes play off like really bad soap opera, and the writing doesn't help. Renard had a great gimmick that might have made him an iconic villain, but it's so underused that he doesn't leave much of an impression.

Koskov was played too lightly. I agree with what The White Tuxedo said of him: "There are a number of THIRD MAN references, and I wish Koskov had been more in the direction of Harry Lime than how Krabbe played it. Get an actor a bit more Bondian, and believable as a Russian General. A heroic one. One with more presense, who we'd actually remember exists when he's not on screen." I think that's pretty spot on. As Koskov is played, I don't believe Kara would be so head over heels for a guy like that.

Also, how can you not love the droll Drax? I think Lonsdale does a much better job of playing it straight than Curd Jürgens, who didn't appear to have fun with his lines as much as Lonsdale.

Makeshift Python wrote:

As Koskov is played, I don't believe Kara would be so head over heels for a guy like that.

That's something I never thought of. Good point.

I remember at the time thinking Brad Whitaker was seriously underused in the film. I couldn't believe it (I also couldn't believe the entire motorcycle sequence and flying carpet was removed from the movie; I sat in the theater July 31st, 1987, wondering where the great action sequences were from Tangier that I'd seen being filmed on Good Morning America). I still believe Brad Whitaker was a villain with much more potential. I loved his line "You had your eight; now I'll have my eighty"). Joe Don Baker was great up against Dalton; such a shame they only had one scene together.

I think there could have been a better way to handle him than having Bond catch him in the middle of playing with toys. I do like the set up with those mannequins of Whitaker as all the "great commanders", and that line:

"Butchers."
"Surgeons. They cut away society's dead flesh."

I think Whitaker should have appeared after Bond was drugged, give him more presence as the villain whereas Koskov would have been the standard corrupt general like Orlov. It would also play with Whitaker's disdain for being expelled by Westpoint, that he resorts to collaborating with Russians to get back at America for rejecting him. Either way, he's too relegated in the background.

I have to admit that I do quite like Elvis. He's a horrible, horrible villain, and that's the joke. Nobody respects him, even though they're all forced to tolerate him.

If only the joke was actually funny. I get what they went for, but it fell flat and really undermined Greene as a credible villain.

Yeah, it didn't really match Greene's amorphous, anonymous nature. But I do think that would have made him an interesting villain had it been done right. I think QOS was really aiming to have have every threat Bond faced on the same size and scale as the primary threat, almost as if every one he faced was a mountain that needed to be scaled while searching for answers. But they blew it with wall-to-wall action and no time to breathe.

x

I count Drax as one of my favorite villains and Stromberg would be in my bottom half definitely.

Drax is one of the series' best in my opinion.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I have to admit that I do quite like Elvis. He's a horrible, horrible villain, and that's the joke. Nobody respects him, even though they're all forced to tolerate him.

He had about 5 minutes of screen time. There is nothing in the script that helps to develop this character or implies that he's there for comic relief. He is just there, for no reason at all.

I'd guess that Purvis and Wade had written him in as a more involved henchman and the character was destroyed by the time Zetumer was done wiping his ass with the script.

Count me in for Drax, some nuanced acting and more elegant lines than we're used to in 1970s Bond. And if you can accept the essential absurdity of Moonraker and 007 in space, Moonraker's a better film than many here suggest. Can't say I care for Jaws, though. Once was once too often.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Count me in for Drax, some nuanced acting and more elegant lines than we're used to in 1970s Bond. And if you can accept the essential absurdity of Moonraker and 007 in space, Moonraker's a better film than many here suggest. Can't say I care for Jaws, though. Once was once too often.

I love Jaws and I understand MOONRAKER's tone is one of levity but I do agree that a few of his more outrageous comedic moments I could do without. Still glad to have the character in the film.

We share a love for Drax and a love for MOONRAKER it seems. It isn't anywhere near the bottom of the barrel. Beautiful film.

'Crappest' is too strong a term for this, but Sean Bean being clearly a good bit too young to be the offspring of Lienz Cossacks caught up the WW2 events mentioned in Goldeneye's story is an undoubted flaw.

That's true, Blunt, almost as stupid as Daniel Craig playing a rookie 007.

Control wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I have to admit that I do quite like Elvis. He's a horrible, horrible villain, and that's the joke. Nobody respects him, even though they're all forced to tolerate him.

He had about 5 minutes of screen time. There is nothing in the script that helps to develop this character or implies that he's there for comic relief. He is just there, for no reason at all.

I'd guess that Purvis and Wade had written him in as a more involved henchman and the character was destroyed by the time Zetumer was done wiping his ass with the script.

Nothing in QOS actually belongs to them, as their only work on it was a draft that Forster completely trashed before Haggis and Zetumer did a script on their own. It's kind of a wonder that they got any screenplay credit.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

'Crappest' is too strong a term for this, but Sean Bean being clearly a good bit too young to be the offspring of Lienz Cossacks caught up the WW2 events mentioned in Goldeneye's story is an undoubted flaw.

I always thought that angle was a bit random and underdeveloped in any case. They should've just stuck to an "evil cunt who wants money" motivation.

CJB wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

'Crappest' is too strong a term for this, but Sean Bean being clearly a good bit too young to be the offspring of Lienz Cossacks caught up the WW2 events mentioned in Goldeneye's story is an undoubted flaw.

I always thought that angle was a bit random and underdeveloped in any case. They should've just stuck to an "evil cunt who wants money" motivation.

It was quite dark and gritty, though, even if it didn't make a bit of sense.

Control wrote:

CJB wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

'Crappest' is too strong a term for this, but Sean Bean being clearly a good bit too young to be the offspring of Lienz Cossacks caught up the WW2 events mentioned in Goldeneye's story is an undoubted flaw.

I always thought that angle was a bit random and underdeveloped in any case. They should've just stuck to an "evil cunt who wants money" motivation.

It was quite dark and gritty, though, even if it didn't make a bit of sense.

In the end he still wanted money, and it's a Bond film, so I give it a pass. GOLDENEYE hardly is hardly the most senseless Bond film. Big fan of Bean's 006.