Personally, for me, he was one of the worst aspects of this howler. But is it literally fair to criticize him per se?
I'd imagine most people would have been thrilled at his casting, i.e. the guy from No Country as a Bond villain surely couldn't go wrong.
But then following The Dark Knight's release they decide to copy that formula and his character becomes an embarrassingly cringeworthy attempt at a knock off Joker, topped off with that awful hair. And the opportunity is lost.
But having said that, should we really dismiss the performance as awful? After all it's not as if Bond doesn't have a history of slightly comedic villains. e.g. I found the Dr. Kaufman character hilarious in TND.
So is it perhaps Daniel Craig's (indirect) fault? Perhaps such a baffoonish performance just shouldn't have existed within the "realistic" world of the beefy Sid James alike's rebooted "Bond" series...
Er, Skyfall is renowned as one of the worst Bond films within the actual Bond fandom...
Yeah sure, perhaps the casual action fan applauded it's Dark Knight-ishness, but more considered viewers were appalled by it's numerous actual "FALSE PREMISES" (e.g. Underground bomb, Jokier Bardem, Home Alone, etc).
Ignore that troll, he has 0 knowledge and taste and is an asshole to boot.
This movie is crap.
Your points are interesting and correct. Bardem is awful because of the context he is in. His character is impossible to pull off, other than as a cringeworthy copycat of other better villains.
And that makes the whole movie even worse than the subpar action crapfest it is.
Bardem is awful because of the context he is in. His character is impossible to pull off, other than as a cringeworthy copycat of other better villains.
Exactly. The guy was on a hiding to nothing.
Sure the character would have worked in a more outlandish entry, say a Diamonds Are Forever, but playing off against Craig just made them both look absurd.
Actually funnily enough, in that context, I was just thinking he'd have worked against Brosnan. Substitute the disappointingly subdued performance by Robert Carlyle in TWINE with Bardem's would improve that film. As would the hard edged Carlyle character have improved Skyfall.
reply share
I agree that he was bad. I tell people that I thought Skyfall was great until he showed up. CR/QoS and the first part of Skyfall had a specific tone and then he showed up and it went all silly.
Saying on the OHMSS board that it wouldn't have worked with Sean Connery, and that we were lucky to have Lazenby means you think Lazenby's performance was good, yes? Your taste in what good acting is is funny to me is all.
There was nothing wrong with Bardem's performance in this and I don't see how it was knock off of Heath Ledger's performance just because Skyfall copied the villain getting captured and escaping scenario from Dark Knight.
Ledger and Brandon Lee's performance in The Crow? Yep, definetly similarities. Ledger and Bardem in this? No, not seeing it apart from one brief moment where he did that psychotic laugh after putting his teeth back in.
Saying on the OHMSS board that it wouldn't have worked with Sean Connery, and that we were lucky to have Lazenby means you think Lazenby's performance was good, yes?
No, that's not the same thing at all...
I'm not going to even go over to that board and recheck what I wrote but I'm pretty certain that (as you said to be fair) I was talking, quite specifically, in reference / comparison to Connery.
My opinion was / is that that film would not have worked with Connery as I wouldn't consider him / take him seriously doing a more romantic role, especially as Bond when we've already seen him face and arse slapping his way through many, many women by that stage. So yeah, I'm glad and happy we got Lazenby instead for that film.
Do note however, that says nothing at all re Lazenby's, or Connery's for that matter, performances per se...
If you like Bardem performance here, that's absolutely fine and cool. Whatever. But my opinion on his performance would not change based upon referencing it on someone else's! reply share
"we've already seen him face and arse slapping his way through many, many women by that stage"
Come on. Connery gave Margaret Nolan a little slap on the arse in Goldfinger, and he only slapped two women's faces - once in From Russia With Love and the second time was in Diamonds Are Forever which we won't count because of course had he done OHMSS that would've been before it.
The counterbalance to that of course are two things. First, he seemed to have real affection for Honey in Dr. No and Domino in Thunderball when he told her about her brother. He even put his sunglasses on in a moment that looked as if he was trying to hide his emotions. Second, don't forget Lazenby's Bond actually slaps Tracy only about 15 or 20 minutes before their romantic montage.
I'm not trying to convince you but don't you think there's a good argument that OHMSS would've been even more powerful with Connery's Bond falling in love considering his attitude towards women previously?
LOL, I wasn't referencing Connery's "face and arse slapping" behaviour in order to get a literal count back.
I was saying that to frame in mind the character's perception - Are you discounting the scenes of him forcing himself upon woman, e.g. the now famed "rape" of Pussy Galore and forcing that Health Clinic woman to sleep with him or he'll get her sacked? Both well before OHMSS.
And I'm not saying this to digress the conversation further, just to point out that Connery's Bond was already well established as a rough, womaniser and therefore it works to OHMSS having Lazenby in the role instead...
No I didn't forget about him forcing himself on women in GF and TB. Daniel Craig's Bond just got in Severance's shower in this without her consent and he'd been in love with Vesper in CR and would fall in love again with Madeline in Spectre. It's Bond. He's full of contradictions. So to me Connery's Bond could as well.