The Taming Of The Shatterhand…
I have to disagree
I think even a dramatic thriller, maybe especially a highly dramatic story, can benefit from moments of humor or seemingly out of place slapstick.
But I agree on this: the older couple in the tube and their comment was, IMO, not a well directed nor written moment. It did nothing to disrupt my enjoyment of the whole tense sequence. But for a director like Mendes, so well respected for his capabilities, it was a surprisingly bad scene which he should have taken out without losing anything. Lewis Gilbert, however, could do that kind of scene much better. And Sir Roger and also Sean Connery could deliver the comic relief better than DC also, IMO.
It all comes down to this: well done humor is welcome everywhere. Less successfully employed jokes elicit less enjoyment.
Yes, but this is not the first time this rumor has come up (it’s about a month old), and he didn’t really tease it, he was asked about it and gave the usual reply (“we’ll see” “it would be great”). This was more just how the headline was written by the latest rag to pick up an already circulating rumor. This also fits with the previous casting rumor of Said Taghmaoui, i.e. they were looking to cast a Middle Eastern actor, and with Malek’s Golden Globe win last night – and certain Oscar nomination & probable win – there will be increased eagerness to secure him for the role.
The big question that came up when it broke was if it would be possible given the conflict with his “Mr. Robot” schedule. While the actor playing Bond himself is needed from the beginning of a shoot to the end, for how long do the actors playing the villains usually shoot?
According to the following article, “Mr. Robot” is expected to shoot until July. With Bond shoots being an average of 6 months, that would place the end of principal photography around September. If his scenes would take 2 months or less to shoot, then it’s feasible.
Whether there is something to it or not, we’ll soon find out either way.
Bond landing in the street via parachute in SPECTRE and saying “good evening”. I love that stuff.
That scene was excellent, though I always he could’ve mustered up a better line than “Good evening.”
I’m a big fan of Raimi, thanks to Mr Robot. But if it’s rushed and half-ar**d, then I’d prefer he didn’t do it.
The main reason being that he’ll still be around to do 26 properly, with requisit time for prep and working on chemisrtry with the cast, rather than parachuted in to do his lines.
Nah, I think good evening does the trick. Normalising an outlandish moment with a throwaway quip.
Rami Malek is 13 years younger than Craig, and still looks like a kid despite his age (38). Am I the only one struggling with visualizing him as a menacing villain? Granted, he is a talented actor that can pull off any role, I’m just curious how they would use him.
He’ll probably still have time to reappear in Bond 25…
My wife said the same thing. Only thing she could come up with was if he played some sort of tech wiz.
Bautista in Dune! Can’t say I blame either of them. He was superb in Blade Runner 2049, so I can see why Denis wants him back.
I’m guessing he’ll make a fantastic Harkonen.
I have been speculating that whoever the villain is will have something to do with Madeline Swann’s occupation, perhaps a psychologist that specializes in diseases of the mind and it’s benefit in torture.
I disagree, I think Malek´s expressive eyes can easily convey any sort of villainous intent, having malicious fun with torturing Bond.
He certainly is not a henchman-type. But he can be the kind of villain who enjoys thinking out strategies in the most sadistic kind of way.
He can play Q’s “opposite number”
But he says there’s always two kinds; there’s the soldier villain — who fights the hero with his hands; and then there’s the real threat — the brilliant and evil archenemy — who fights the hero with his mind.
Elijah Price - Unbreakable
Goldfinger. Stromberg. Drax. None of them were physically intimidating but they still made great villains. Malek doesn’t need to fight Bond hand to hand, he just needs a brilliant plan and an army of henchmen to do his dirty work.
This. Let the villain plan and have his henchmen do the dirty work.
Isn’t this what some posters dislike about Kristatos, Kamal, Koskov, Carver, Greene and Oberfeld? Wimps who rely on others to be intimidating for them? (Except Greene - what was he thinking hiring Elvis?!)
As Vanya points out, Goldfinger, Stromberg and Drax get a free pass, as do Dr. No, Scaramanga, Elektra, Le Chiffre and every iteration of Blofeld except Telly Savalas.
I suppose it depends on the requirements of the script and the age of the actors playing Bond and the villain du jour (with the exception of Peter Franks, who was a challenge for Connery in DAF? Apart from May Day, who was Moore’s match in AVTAK?). Hence the shooting of the lumbering Stromberg and Drax, instead of a final, physical confrontation.
Craig is not yet in need of scaled-back adversaries, and he intends to bow out before he is. As another poster pointed out elsewhere, Connery only dispatched one villain - Dr. No - himself. Craig’s Bond has also only been responsible for the death of one villain - Silva - so far, and I doubt that the plan is for him to finish off Oberfeld any time soon.
Beating the villains to death has never been Bond’s way, hence the delegation of the executions of Klebb, Largo, Kristatos, Le Chiffre and Greene to others. The physical match ends up swallowing a gas capsule, catching fire or falling off of or out of something.
This is the key for me: what makes Bond films unique is the fact that at (what I consider) their best, they integrate the serious with the farcical. Too much seriousness, and the Bond film is just another spy drama with the expected plot elements of redemption/rogue behavior/soul-searching/over-determined psychology. Too much farce and we enter Austin Powers territory.
The successful Bond movie knows it is a Bond movie, while unself-consciously offering up skillful fantasy that still acknowledges the real world and its governing social relations at the time of its creation. The Bond film must be both out-of-time and of-its-moment. It must appear a prestige production that wears its distinguished pedigree lightly.