thebobmaster said:
TheMadDoctorsCat said:
I actually agree here. This is one of the many reasons why I find most of the Bond movies irritating. In the books, Bond was the flawed, scarred one, while his enemies were often physically perfect - even physically improved. (Largo from "Thunderbird" is a great example - in the book, there's no stupid eye-patch; instead he's a handsome charmer whose only "deformity" is over-large hands. All the better to strangle you with, my dear.) In most the Hollywood movies, of course, they had to turn this around and make Bond some kind of vision of perfection. In doing so they completely de-humanized him and, frankly, made most of the films rather boring, since you don't care what happens to him - and there's never any chance of his failing anyway so there's no tension at all. The exceptions to my mind are "From Russia with Love", "Goldfinger" and the two Dalton movies - Goldfinger is probably the only movie to change the plot of a book for the better.
Going a bit off subject here, but first of all, it's Thunderball. Secondly, have you seen the new Casino Royale? That would be right up your alley.
You're right, it is "Thunderball", apologies.
I have see "Casino Royale" and hated it (I thought "Batman Begins" was great, and I can't understand how anybody can compare the two; the one is so good and the other is so - bleh.) I got so bored that I started counting the Sony product placement shots. By the fifth or sixth one (there was a scene where Daniel Craig is driving along in what appears to be a scene from a cliche'd car advertisement, when he takes one hand off the wheel, brings up a Sony satnav system, the camera gives us an eyeful, Craig looks pleased and puts the satnav back - that entire scene doesn't advance plot or character one bit, it's only there to showcase the car and Sony, but then the same is true of the entire movie) my brain was about to melt into mush. I can only think of one memorable scene in that movie (the parkour right at the beginning), which is rare for me (hell, "Batman and Robin" managed a few "so bad they're good" moments, which is more than this one did). It was just mediocre. I just kept waiting for something interesting to develop, and nothing ever did.
But to get back on topic, compare the villains in "Casino Royale" with the ones in - say - "The Living Daylights" (one of my favourite Bond movies). In CR, you have the main villain, Le Chiffre, whose sole characteristics seem to be that he has a scarred face and plays poker very well. Well, first of all, 8/10 people won't understand what's going on in the poker scene, and the other two wouldn't believe that any half-decent poker player (let alone the best in the world that the four depicted are supposed to be) would ever play an absurd hand like the final one anyway; but even besides that, isn't the villain a bit lame? He's supposed to be a traitorous turncoat who's betrayed his mafia masters to fund his appetites, but we never really see examples of them.
The other non-surprise villain in Casino Royale is a bureaucrat who Bond executes at the very end of the film. (In the book, Bond never sees the SPECTRE employee who performs the same task that this bureaucrat does in the film - he's a nightmarish ghost, a voice in the dark, and all the more effective for it.) Is there ever any doubt throughout the film that Bond will do this? There is never any question of him failing. Tension is a non-starter.
Compare this, as I said, with "The Living Daylights". You've got three particularly memorable villains, all with their own different motivations and ways of working. Firstly, there's the KGB agent, who's right up there with Robert Shaw's "Red Grant" from "From Russia with Love" in terms of superb Bond thugs. From the first time we see him, he's a consummate professional who carries out his mission successfully - in other words, this is a guy who succeeds. That he's got what it takes to beat Bond is made clear in a freakishly awesome and savage kitchen fight with the Russian traitor's bodyguard. The guard puts up a good enough fight to make the agent's beating him all the more impressive, but we see exactly what the KGB agent is made of when he beats him by holding his face down on a burning hot stove. That's extremely nasty, and again makes it clear that this guy will do anything to succeed.
Then you've got the Russian traitor-cum-a--hole. He proves that he's an a--hole by treating his girlfriend badly (setting her up to be shot, in fact.) He's only really a pawn, and a vain one, but he has enough character to be both memorable and likeable, and enough brains to nearly pull off a fairly daring coup at the behest of the real villain.
And what a villain that is - an American ex-mercenary with a trumped-up army "rank" and an obsession with war toys. As with the KGB agent, he has an array of gadgetry that makes Bond himself look ill-equipped. (They were clearly going for satire on the "Bond gadgets" with these two, and I think it worked.) First of all, he's completely self-confident. Second of all, he delivers a few great one-liners. Third of all, it's so rare to see an American villain, and when you do they tend to be cliches. This one is like a more intelligent version of Mark Thatcher with an American accent, which isn't something I see every day on film. Fourthly, like the KGB guy, he gives the impression - up until a couple of seconds before his death - of having Bond completely outclassed in terms of resources and brains. There's such a real sense that he might actually beat Bond, it's as though you're no longer watching a Bond movie.
I could make similar comparisons with "Goldfinger", "From Russia with Love" or "Licence to Kill", but the point is made, I think. I would add to that point and say: the best (in fact, probably the only good) Bond movies are the ones with the best villains, or more generally the best characters. But isn't that the case with most movies anyway?
(Got a bit outside of the "games" issue here, I agree. Sorry if it's off-topic!)
