The fact that CnB can't find more than one negative review speaks volumes. When someone has dug themself deep into the trenches like they have, it's hard to accnolege that they might be slightly wrong.
Well to be fair, the press do generally hype up Bond a bit, even Brosnan benefited from this. DAD got good reviews from a number of sources who really should have known better, including Harry on aint it cool and Ebert, plus in the UK Ross on his Film programme and A Walker in the Standard.
GE got mostly great reviews, yet it has its detractors today.
It's how audiences respond , and imdb comment that may validate CNB - or not.
Yes, but there are a couple which say the film isn't the best film ever made and is a little lacking in some areas (The Guardian, SFX Magazine, James King on BBC Breakfast) but there hasn't been a single one which has said Craig is anything less than excellent. Even those which say the film isn't great still say that he is.
Brosnan got the same treatment, and I think he was very good in all of his Bonds.
Yes, but there are a couple which say the film isn't the best film ever made and is a little lacking in some areas (The Guardian, SFX Magazine, James King on BBC Breakfast) but there hasn't been a single one which has said Craig is anything less than excellent. Even those which say the film isn't great still say that he is.
Brosnan got the same treatment, and I think he was very good in all of his Bonds.
Like I said before, its game over now for CnB. They've finally all been exposed as nothing but internet clowns with no real purpose to a site that now look completely irrelevant - and wrong!
Craig has a website devoted to how wrong he is in the role, so I think he wins that battle hands down and nuts to what the critics say!
GE was recent enough to have a ratings score at Rotten Tomatoes (83% positive), I'm sure there are links there to reviews both positive and negative, should anyone care to delve deeper...
I was determined to stay away. I swore I'd say no more about that site. But, God help me, I just had to look and I was sucked in, like all those Nazis who just had to see what was in the Ark of the Covenant. Here's what I found:
"Eon productions make gays the bad guys.
"Once again hypocrisy is rife at EON. In a recent interview with Premiere magazine Mads Mikkelson, the actor playing the Bond villain Le Chiffre, confesses he played the character gay. Blatantly ignoring the alleged source material of Ian Fleming’s sublime book, the producers of the current Bond travesty are apparently only comfortable with the depictions of gays as the villains. This only goes further in proving the seemingly obvious deep seated prejudice at work in the production company.
"'There are some slight undertones that he might be interested in men. Some will see it, some won’t. - Mads Mikkelsen on 'Le Chiffre'"
Need we any further proof of this site's viciousness, its lies and distortions, and its utter hypocrisy? Let's have some fun and dissect this particular piece of sh--I mean, journalistic excellence:
1. Mikkelsen says that there are undertones that Le Chiffre is gay, not that he is gay. The quote DCNB uses should be proof of that.
2. Whether or not Le Chiffre is gay, it's Mikkelsen's choice to play the character that way, not a decision on the producers' part.
3. Even if the producers did decide Le Chiffre gay, why is that proof of prejudice? Was making Kananga the villain in Live and Let Die proof of racism?
4. The charge of homophobia coming from this crew is ludicrous, as when one of our members sent a well-reasoned e-mail to them they responded with some of the most nasty anti-gay comments I've ever read.
Sorry for clogging the forums with this rant. As a mod I should--and do--know better; but without forums on DCNB to respond to, where else can I put this? Ah, well, even if they did have forums I'd prob'ly get banned in five minutes anyway. . .
3. Even if the producers did decide Le Chiffre gay, why is that proof of prejudice? Was making Kananga the villain in Live and Let Die proof of racism?
I think that's the most important part. What's wrong with having a gay bad guy? They're not saying all gays are bad; just that this bad guy happens to be gay.
4. The charge of homophobia coming from this crew is ludicrous, as when one of our members sent a well-reasoned e-mail to them they responded with some of the most nasty anti-gay comments I've ever read.
Well exactly- I'm sure we all remember Ali Kerim Bay's homophobic nastiness which I daresay helped him to get banned from this site. It's all so pathetic.
Have they managed to find anymore reviews? Or rather, bits of reviews (leaving out the parts where they say how great Craig is).
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,654MI6 Agent
Interesting. Putting aside CNB's spin, who's to say Mikkelsen/EON was judicious in adding this character trait; that needs to first be seen, right? I don't know how similar/dissimilar it will be with how Braveheart used homosexuality as a character trait, but it's not entirely impossible that this character aspect was used to contribute to the villain typical make-up of being a "moral" degenerate.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
3. Even if the producers did decide Le Chiffre gay, why is that proof of prejudice? Was making Kananga the villain in Live and Let Die proof of racism?
I think that's the most important part. What's wrong with having a gay bad guy? They're not saying all gays are bad; just that this bad guy happens to be gay.
Maybe it's just me, but I could've sworn there was some definite "undertones" with Mr Wint and Mr Kidd in Diamonds Are Forever. Not that I'm saying all gay men "smell like a tart's hankerchief" or gleefully joke about murdering little old ladies or anything like that, but there was definitely a few hints here and there I reckon... 8-)
Maybe it's just me, but I could've sworn there was some definite "undertones" with Mr Wint and Mr Kidd in Diamonds Are Forever. Not that I'm saying all gay men "smell like a tart's hankerchief" or gleefully joke about murdering little old ladies or anything like that, but there was definitely a few hints here and there I reckon...
I think though that with DAF, the fact that they were gay added a little twist to Wint and Kidd, but it was't the reason why they were killers. Similarly with Le Chiffre; he may be gay, but the reason Bond is after him is because he's a terrorist (who may happen to be gay), not because he's a man whose (alledged) homosexuality leads him to becoming a terrorist. I doubt very much that EON would deliberately make a 'homophobic' film. Plus, doesn't Ivana Milicevic play Le Chiffre's bodyguard/girlfriend?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,654MI6 Agent
It's not a simple case of cause and effect, in that if you're gay, you are prone to commit heinous acts. However, being gay has been used in films to portray a symptom of deeper character flaws that manifest in criminal acts as well as sexuality. BTW, Wint and Kidd being gay originated from Fleming, who did use homosexuality as a flaw that needed to be overcome.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
True, however I doubt that EON (especially considering that Campbell has even banned smoking as it's a bad influence) would deliberately allow homosexuality to be used in a negative context. Even DAF (the film) is rarely described as homophobic. Whenever I read a Bond sociological study, it is LALD that is always criticised for its 'racist undertones' unlike DAF. Personally, I wouldn't be suprised if this is nothing but hot air.
I haven't read any reviews, but can anybody tell me if any reviewers accuse CR of being homophobic? Even implicitly?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I haven't read any reviews, but can anybody tell me if any reviewers accuse CR of being homophobic? Even implicitly?
Oh for god's sake, I don't think it even has to be said - no. There's no serious discussion in this line of topic, Hardy was just hit by the glaring hypocrisy that CnB are using accusations of homophobia when they themselves have been the biggest perpetrators to date - not to mention that it's a tragic website clutching at straws for fear of drowning in a sea of positivity.
Oh for god's sake, I don't think it even has to be said - no. There's no serious discussion in this line of topic, Hardy was just hit by the glaring hypocrisy that CnB are using their own weapon to hit other people with - not to mention that it's a tragic website clutching at straws for fear of drowning in a sea of positivity.
I was only asking. Plus, considering that the reviews never mentioned this, this is yet more evidence of cnb's lack of intellectual credibility.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,654MI6 Agent
‘There are some slight undertones that he might be interested in men. Some will see it, some won’t. - Mads Mikkelsen on ‘Le Chiffre’
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
‘There are some slight undertones that he might be interested in men. Some will see it, some won’t. - Mads Mikkelsen on ‘Le Chiffre’
Yes, superado, but that's not accusing the film of homophobia now, is it? 8-) We're not disputing what Mads Mikkelsen said, the sudden (completely ludicrous) debate sprung up around accusations of homophobia.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,654MI6 Agent
‘There are some slight undertones that he might be interested in men. Some will see it, some won’t. - Mads Mikkelsen on ‘Le Chiffre’
Yes, superado, but that's not accusing the film of homophobia now, is it? 8-)
No, but neither does it clear them of that intent. What was Mads/the producers' point to purposely include those "undertones"? Nothing is generally accidental in film; it could be merely an innocuous attempt to make things interesting, or like Le Chiffre's bleeding eye malady it could be a modern day attempt at Shakespeare emphasizing Richard III's hunchback.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
No, but neither does it clear them of that intent.
For crying out loud. Yeah, he really meant "All gays are bad and moral deviants" so I'll plant hidden homophobic messages in the film by having 'undertones'". This is really plumbing the depths now, only thing is I don't know what's left at the bottom since we've already sifted through all the crap. I suppose if you want to believe that, whatever rocks your boat.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,654MI6 Agent
No, but neither does it clear them of that intent.
For crying out loud. Yeah, he really meant "All gays are bad and moral deviants" so I'll plant hidden homophobic messages in the film by having 'undertones'". This is really plumbing the depths now, only thing is I don't know what's left at the bottom since we've already sifted through all the crap. I suppose if you want to believe that, whatever rocks your boat.
I did say, "putting aside CNB's spin," didn't I? What I mentioned are my own opinions with no influence from CNB apart from them bringing attention to Mikkelsen's comment. Since I removed CNB from the equation, I suppose that now makes me guilty of going off-topic?
Though you are being absurd with "All gays are bad and moral deviants" so I'll plant hidden homophobic messages in the film by having 'undertones'" ...did I make that conclusion? Read very carefully.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Though you are being absurd with "All gays are bad and moral deviants" so I'll plant hidden homophobic messages in the film by having 'undertones'" ...did I make that conclusion? Read very carefully.
I didn't say you made the conclusion, I'm saying you're leaving it open for the possibility, which in itself is absurd.
Read very carefully.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,654MI6 Agent
Though you are being absurd with "All gays are bad and moral deviants" so I'll plant hidden homophobic messages in the film by having 'undertones'" ...did I make that conclusion? Read very carefully.
I didn't say you made the conclusion, I'm saying you're leaving it open for the possibility, which in itself is absurd.
Read very carefully.
How can leaving that conclusion open be absurd? In short of reading Mikkelsen's mind, how can anyone rule out the possibility of that extreme intent as impossible or even unlikely? There are different, vastly different sensibilities that exist in the world, and what's deplorable to some could "make all the sense in the world," to others.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Because I think it is. Is that OK? Really, I think taking such a comment and leaving the door open to it having more sinister intentions is really going to the extreme. At that level, almost anything anyone says can be open to such extreme spin.
Funny you should mention that- on MI6 there's a member called Craig's_Agent (always writing boringly anti-Craig stuff) who was invited to the press screening by ITN so that he and other CnBers could be interviewed afterwards to see if they had changed their minds. Although he had the courage to bang on about how awful Craig is on the net he admitted he didn't want to be seen on telly doing it. The site's owner called him a coward and banned him from the forums today. Beautiful. http://www.mi6forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=29487&start=60
I'm not sure if I like that. He may be a coward, but to be banned? If what he had said previously wasn't enough to get him banned, then I don't think he should be banned now.
The same guy has tiresomely turned up yet again on CBn as 'rampman' now he's banned from Mi6 and after boring everyone he's probably been banned again, I don't care. But as a parting shot one of the mods has 'adjusted' his posts! It's not big or clever, but it is rather funny: http://debrief.commanderbond.net/index.php?showtopic=35603&st=0
3. Even if the producers did decide Le Chiffre gay, why is that proof of prejudice? Was making Kananga the villain in Live and Let Die proof of racism?
I think that's the most important part. What's wrong with having a gay bad guy? They're not saying all gays are bad; just that this bad guy happens to be gay.
Maybe it's just me, but I could've sworn there was some definite "undertones" with Mr Wint and Mr Kidd in Diamonds Are Forever. Not that I'm saying all gay men "smell like a tart's hankerchief" or gleefully joke about murdering little old ladies or anything like that, but there was definitely a few hints here and there I reckon... 8-)
Oh yeah- I don't disagree there; some of the DAF stuff was a bit dodgy (although far from being too bad- I think the bizarre stereotype hotelier in Rio in Moonraker is a lot worse); but for CR there's no sign that there's anything wrong in having a gay bad guy, and there's certainly nothing wrong with the concept- just each execution has to be judged on its own merits.
‘There are some slight undertones that he might be interested in men. Some will see it, some won’t. - Mads Mikkelsen on ‘Le Chiffre’
Yes, superado, but that's not accusing the film of homophobia now, is it? 8-)
No, but neither does it clear them of that intent. What was Mads/the producers' point to purposely include those "undertones"? Nothing is generally accidental in film; it could be merely an innocuous attempt to make things interesting, or like Le Chiffre's bleeding eye malady it could be a modern day attempt at Shakespeare emphasizing Richard III's hunchback.
What a silly thing to say. You're accusing them of this, then? It doesn't clear them of this intent so guilty until charged innocent. How ridiculous.
Mads has added this little bit of backstory as all actors do (Michael Caine the other day was saying how his Alfred in Batman was an SAS man- his idea entirely), chatted it through with Martin Campbell (who I really don't think would be for any kind of homophobia) with probably the idea of Le Chiffre's subduing of the way he felt probably lead him down a dark path etc.
What's the point of saying 'perhaps they did mean this?' when you've got nothing to even suggest they did?
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,654MI6 Agent
Yes, superado, but that's not accusing the film of homophobia now, is it? 8-)
No, but neither does it clear them of that intent. What was Mads/the producers' point to purposely include those "undertones"? Nothing is generally accidental in film; it could be merely an innocuous attempt to make things interesting, or like Le Chiffre's bleeding eye malady it could be a modern day attempt at Shakespeare emphasizing Richard III's hunchback.
What a silly thing to say. You're accusing them of this, then? It doesn't clear them of this intent so guilty until charged innocent. How ridiculous.
Mads has added this little bit of backstory as all actors do (Michael Caine the other day was saying how his Alfred in Batman was an SAS man- his idea entirely), chatted it through with Martin Campbell (who I really don't think would be for any kind of homophobia) with probably the idea of Le Chiffre's subduing of the way he felt probably lead him down a dark path etc.
What's the point of saying 'perhaps they did mean this?' when you've got nothing to even suggest they did?
Don't you know how to read? Did I make that conclusion? On your lecture on backstory, so what? What do you think Mikkelsen had in mind when he offered that bit of information about his character liking men?
EDIT: You already replied with what you think, what Mikkelsen was "perhaps" thinking. But what makes my hypothesis any less valid than yours?
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Comments
My reasons for visiting that site are slightly different from yours....
Why would I bother? Brosnan isn't Bond anymore so no point.
I'll get off your back now regarding CnB. You've made your point.
GE got mostly great reviews, yet it has its detractors today.
It's how audiences respond , and imdb comment that may validate CNB - or not.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Brosnan got the same treatment, and I think he was very good in all of his Bonds.
Like I said before, its game over now for CnB. They've finally all been exposed as nothing but internet clowns with no real purpose to a site that now look completely irrelevant - and wrong!
GE was recent enough to have a ratings score at Rotten Tomatoes (83% positive), I'm sure there are links there to reviews both positive and negative, should anyone care to delve deeper...
"Eon productions make gays the bad guys.
"Once again hypocrisy is rife at EON. In a recent interview with Premiere magazine Mads Mikkelson, the actor playing the Bond villain Le Chiffre, confesses he played the character gay. Blatantly ignoring the alleged source material of Ian Fleming’s sublime book, the producers of the current Bond travesty are apparently only comfortable with the depictions of gays as the villains. This only goes further in proving the seemingly obvious deep seated prejudice at work in the production company.
"'There are some slight undertones that he might be interested in men. Some will see it, some won’t. - Mads Mikkelsen on 'Le Chiffre'"
Need we any further proof of this site's viciousness, its lies and distortions, and its utter hypocrisy? Let's have some fun and dissect this particular piece of sh--I mean, journalistic excellence:
1. Mikkelsen says that there are undertones that Le Chiffre is gay, not that he is gay. The quote DCNB uses should be proof of that.
2. Whether or not Le Chiffre is gay, it's Mikkelsen's choice to play the character that way, not a decision on the producers' part.
3. Even if the producers did decide Le Chiffre gay, why is that proof of prejudice? Was making Kananga the villain in Live and Let Die proof of racism?
4. The charge of homophobia coming from this crew is ludicrous, as when one of our members sent a well-reasoned e-mail to them they responded with some of the most nasty anti-gay comments I've ever read.
Sorry for clogging the forums with this rant. As a mod I should--and do--know better; but without forums on DCNB to respond to, where else can I put this? Ah, well, even if they did have forums I'd prob'ly get banned in five minutes anyway. . .
I think that's the most important part. What's wrong with having a gay bad guy? They're not saying all gays are bad; just that this bad guy happens to be gay.
Well exactly- I'm sure we all remember Ali Kerim Bay's homophobic nastiness which I daresay helped him to get banned from this site. It's all so pathetic.
Have they managed to find anymore reviews? Or rather, bits of reviews (leaving out the parts where they say how great Craig is).
I haven't read any reviews, but can anybody tell me if any reviewers accuse CR of being homophobic? Even implicitly?
From CBN (not CNB!)
http://commanderbond.net/article/3718
‘There are some slight undertones that he might be interested in men. Some will see it, some won’t. - Mads Mikkelsen on ‘Le Chiffre’
No, but neither does it clear them of that intent. What was Mads/the producers' point to purposely include those "undertones"? Nothing is generally accidental in film; it could be merely an innocuous attempt to make things interesting, or like Le Chiffre's bleeding eye malady it could be a modern day attempt at Shakespeare emphasizing Richard III's hunchback.
I did say, "putting aside CNB's spin," didn't I? What I mentioned are my own opinions with no influence from CNB apart from them bringing attention to Mikkelsen's comment. Since I removed CNB from the equation, I suppose that now makes me guilty of going off-topic?
Though you are being absurd with "All gays are bad and moral deviants" so I'll plant hidden homophobic messages in the film by having 'undertones'" ...did I make that conclusion? Read very carefully.
Read very carefully.
How can leaving that conclusion open be absurd? In short of reading Mikkelsen's mind, how can anyone rule out the possibility of that extreme intent as impossible or even unlikely? There are different, vastly different sensibilities that exist in the world, and what's deplorable to some could "make all the sense in the world," to others.
The same guy has tiresomely turned up yet again on CBn as 'rampman' now he's banned from Mi6 and after boring everyone he's probably been banned again, I don't care. But as a parting shot one of the mods has 'adjusted' his posts! It's not big or clever, but it is rather funny:
http://debrief.commanderbond.net/index.php?showtopic=35603&st=0
Oh yeah- I don't disagree there; some of the DAF stuff was a bit dodgy (although far from being too bad- I think the bizarre stereotype hotelier in Rio in Moonraker is a lot worse); but for CR there's no sign that there's anything wrong in having a gay bad guy, and there's certainly nothing wrong with the concept- just each execution has to be judged on its own merits.
What a silly thing to say. You're accusing them of this, then? It doesn't clear them of this intent so guilty until charged innocent. How ridiculous.
Mads has added this little bit of backstory as all actors do (Michael Caine the other day was saying how his Alfred in Batman was an SAS man- his idea entirely), chatted it through with Martin Campbell (who I really don't think would be for any kind of homophobia) with probably the idea of Le Chiffre's subduing of the way he felt probably lead him down a dark path etc.
What's the point of saying 'perhaps they did mean this?' when you've got nothing to even suggest they did?
Don't you know how to read? Did I make that conclusion? On your lecture on backstory, so what? What do you think Mikkelsen had in mind when he offered that bit of information about his character liking men?
EDIT: You already replied with what you think, what Mikkelsen was "perhaps" thinking. But what makes my hypothesis any less valid than yours?