Yeah, unpopular opinion, but I had no problem with Safin. I thought his explanation was fine. SPECTRE killed his family, so he wanted revenge, and then to burn the world to the ground. It was fine.
I’m not saying Bond has any other options, I’m just saying that compared to being handcuffed to an A-Bomb, fed to alligators, keel-hauled over a coral reef, cut in half with a laser, etc – all of which were fascinating and creative death traps – being left with no alternative but to stand still and let missiles hit him is a particularly inactive method for Safin to do him in. He’s not only not present to “pull the trigger” as it were, in fact he is already dead when it happens. This is why he’s forgettable even though he achieves what no other villain ever could. “I leave you no choice but to kill yourself” was a damp squib of an ending for Dominic Green and it is for Bond as well.
I think what contributes to the “Bond has a choice” camp is the fact that he’s shot multiple times by Safin but “chooses” to keep walking around and doing stuff – even climbing a ladder! – and that’s after he’s “chosen” not to be done in by multiple grenade explosions in the stairwell and two films after he’s “chosen” not to die from a fall that would kill any flesh and blood human being. Craig is the T800 of Bonds, so it very much feels like the only way anything can kill him is with his full agreement. Even Wile E Coyote surrendered to gravity once he finally realized he’d walked beyond the edge of the cliff ten steps back; with Craig Bond the laws of physics are strictly optional.
British cruse missles remember. British cruse missles. The most famous fictitious British spy in history was killed by British cruse missles. Well done, everyone.
This would have been wild, but a major improvement from how the film ended up. M as the baddie and Bond lives would have been preferable to what we got.
I would see your point if it was incompetence that fired the missles, but it wasn’t. They were fired to complete the mission Bond had been sent there for. The mission always comes before the soldier.
Arguably a thread of its own (sure we have one somewhere).
it all depends on how one wants to classify worst. I’d say that within their chosen career path they’re all pretty crap except for Silva and Safin, who actually “succeed.”
But back through the fourth wall, I guess “worst” means either poorly written or poorly interpreted. I would say that Safin is underwritten but Malek does with it what he can. I think he’s chilling enough, which I’d say is success. And to be fair NTTD is a film where the “villain” is not a character of note, just a plot device. Put it this way, if one is being truly honest with oneself - not liking NTTD probably has more to do with a couple of far more pivotal plot points, tone, script decisions, what-have-you, than “the guy playing the villain was crap.”
What do we want from our villains? I’d offer that Pleasance’s Blofeld is overrated, as well as Jurgens’ Stromberg (Lonsdale as Drax doing the same thing has a ton of better lines and more screentime with Bond which is always a plus for the villain). Glover as what’s-his-name in FYEO I’d offer is a good performance in a role (and film) that tends to get forgotten.
For me, worst villain is Krabbe in TLD. Never threatening for a minute - if anything, seems quite a nice bloke to hang out with. Neither character or actor are threatening (Krabbe as villain is far more convincing in The Fugtive), and Joe Don Baker’s Whittaker is not much more than a cameo.
Unlike NTTD, I might actually make the case that the lack of an honest-to-goodness villain is the biggest weakness in TLD.
Yes, well we don’t really want the villain to succeed, so that’s never been a criteria for me. I’d rate how “good” a villain is by how well they’re written and performed, and how long a shadow they throw across the film they’re in. Goldfinger is a fun guy to watch, Red Grant is scary as hell, Scaramanga pretty much saves TMWTGG single-handed, etc but none of them end up on the winning end.
I would agree with you that Malek does what he can with what little he’s given. His weird and peculiar delivery may or may not be to everyone’s taste but at least he’s trying to add something. But I also agree that the “villain” role in NTTD is largely incidental, “just a plot device” as you say, and merely being the guy on the other side of the gun doesn’t make him any more of an A-Lister than any other character who shot at Bond over 60 years. Yes, he actually managed to hit the target, but still.
Is Pleasance overrated? I can’t say that I remember a lot of praise for him. He’s certainly memorable with that crazy scar and slouchy posture, but only in a way that inspires parody. I guess to the extent that he helped inform the popular notion that a “Bond villain” has to be over-the-top eccentric and weird-looking yes, he has an outsized role in history, but that’s more an achievement of the wardrobe and makeup teams. In fact, I got the impression most folks considered it a letdown when the mysterious man behind the cat finally turned out to be…that guy?!? Stromberg I agree benefits from being in such a great movie when it seems like he was simply cast at random from the “Nazi-type villain” listings in Spotlight, but I like him anyway. Drax seems to split folks pretty evenly; either his near-somnambulent delivery is menacing as hell or just flat-out boring.
I agree Koskov almost shouldn’t even be called a “villain” if the object is to create a “boo-hiss” character you love to hate. He’s way too charming and ultimately not the brightest bulb, so it’s hard to consider him a real threat to Bond. And Whittaker is pretty much a moron. I’d say he’s comedy relief except Baker’s no good at that, here or as Jack Wade. So yeah, TLD is a contender in the “Worst Villain” competition if only by forfeit.
I’d give it to “Unnamed Wheelchair Guy” from FYEO because he has a delicatessen made of stainless steel. Oh wait, you said “worst” not “wurst.”
I should clarify. On the large number of clickbait “blogs” that I continually fall for, the Pleasance Blofeld seems to get lazily high rankings as a “Bond villain.” Or it’s part of the whole Austin Powers gag for the great unwashed - a Bond villain is a guy in a safari suit with accompanying deformities.
Never missing a chance to give SP a kick, it’s part of my frustration that the film fell back on all the Blofeld tropes that originated with Pleasance (I know the cat had appeared before…).
In all honesty Pleasance has always been a far more threatening actor in a myriad of other things (his President in Escape From NY seemed far more menacing than his Blofeld…)
I think that one could easily make the argument that they were there because of incompetence. If M hadn’t basically committed a massive crime against humanity and developed the nano-virus in the first place, none of those people would have been on the island and there would have not been a missile strike to be ordered.
Alright, so maybe not incompetence, but Bond is ultimately done in by an evil act committed by his own government and, more specifically, his own boss.
Indeed. Bond was begging to have the missiles fired. He did have “plenty of time” to get out, until he didn’t. Physically he couldn’t leave, and mentally he didn’t want to. The way Craig depicts Bond’s grim acceptance is pretty amazing I think. Moments ago he was running to a new life, and now he’s limping to his death. During Safin’s speech he weighs up the situation and comes to the only conclusion as ugly as it is, without complaining. If that’s not a strong man I don’t know what is.
Like every mission M is sending out Bond on the virus project was meant to preserve peace. Instead it failed with horrible consequences, and only Bond could solve the situation by sacrificing himself.
I think, however, that M should have resigned at the end. Instead, he seems to shrug off his responsibility, and the rest of the team is eager to keep quiet.
I agree. The real villains are the people who took the virus and used it for their agenda. I think it’s more interesting how the film presents things rather than M being an outright villain. This way there’s the underlying themes of good intentions, strained relationships and feelings of guilt rather than pure evil. After their angry briefing at MI6 I also wouldn’t call Bond and M as being on bad terms either. They both acknowledged the situation was what it was and worked together to resolve it.
