Anyone else think that Renard is the series' best villain?

ironpony

I kind of think so, and feel he has the most interesting backstory of all the villains. Carlyle doesn't play him in the same mustache twirly way as Goldfinger though, but maybe that's a good thing cause he doesn't have much to be happy about?

What do you think?

Dirty Punker

)
Oh wait, you're serious?

Well, as I noted in my review of TWINE, he has the most interesting "disability" out of any other Bond villain but it's a shame he was dull as hell. Not memorable in the slightest.

Someone said he would've been the perfect 90s/00s Blofeld and I think he was written as such, but don't quote me on that.

hehadlotsofguts

I found Renard to be really underwhelming, as a villain. He is built up as someone who can't feel pain, because of a bullet travelling through his brain and killing off his senses. He is taken down by a plutonium rod in the stomach. We're also meant to believe he is the main baddie of the film, but he is a pawn. I find it hard to believe that M is scared of him.

Dirty Punker

hehadlotsofguts wrote:

I found Renard to be really underwhelming, as a villain. He is built up as someone who can't feel pain, because of a bullet travelling through his brain and killing off his senses. He is taken down by a plutonium rod in the stomach. We're also meant to believe he is the main baddie of the film, but he is a pawn. I find it hard to believe that M is scared of him.

He's no scarier than the terrorists at the arms bazaar in Tomorrow Never Dies.

Thunderpussy

A skinhead Glaswegian, ...... yep that's pretty scary !

The Red Kind

Arguably another case of the producers picking someone from a previously incredibly intense and genuinely sinister and menacing performance and hoping/expecting the same result as a Bond Villain. For whatever reason they just didn't hit the same mark in their Bond Villain roles, but I don't think it was ever the actor's fault this didn't materialise.

Sean Bean fantastic in Patriot Games. Mediocre in Bond
Robert Carlyle fantastic in Cracker. Mediocre in Bond
Javier Bardem fantastic in No Country for Old Men. Good in Bond
Christoph Waltz fantastic in Inglorius Basterds. Mediocre in Bond

Gassy Man

Not even close. He's a great example of a good idea they did nothing with. A guy who can't feel pain and is slowly dying as a result -- what a great set up. But he's required to do nothing in the movie any standard henchman couldn't do.

ironpony

Gassy Man wrote:

Not even close. He's a great example of a good idea they did nothing with. A guy who can't feel pain and is slowly dying as a result -- what a great set up. But he's required to do nothing in the movie any standard henchman couldn't do.

Oh okay, but I think the whole not being able to feel pain thing is played out just fine. Not being able to feel pain does not equal immortal, so being killed by a rod piercing through his stomach, would still do the trick, even if he couldn't feel it.

I suppose they could have taken this further, but the main part about him not having feeling, is that he couldn't make love to Electra, which made him feel inadequate, which I thought added depth to his character. So I thought that they took this concept of not being able to feel, and went another way with it still.

Plus him not giving a big theatrical performance is perhaps a good thing, cause he is not a big mustache twirler like a lot of the other Bond villains, no? And him being a pawn in Electra's plan also added depth I thought, cause it gives him a flaw, rather than being perfect. I thought it made him more human, but is having a human villain who makes mistakes, so bad for Bond? Why does a Bond villain have to be big and incapable of being fooled by another character, other than Bond?

Also, the reason why M was scared of him is cause he is part of a group of terrorists that took M hostage with a gun and locked her in a cage, possibly going to kill her later. Wouldn't anyone be scared of an armed group that kidnaps you and locks you in a cage?

Barbel

In Bond terms, Renard is not the villain- Elektra is. Renard is the henchman, or "dragon". We are initially led to believe that he is the villain, to cover for the identity of the real one, hence the build-up of his character. To pay that off in the closing stages of the story would detract from the big reveal that she is the main villain of the film- which is why his effect in the latter part of the movie is less.

ironpony

But just because Renard is working for Electra, why does that make him a henchman? I mean Kamal Kahn is working for general Orlov, and Kahn is still considered to be a main villain in the movie, and not a henchman. So why does Kahn get villain status but not Renard, even though they are both working for another villain?

Plus, Bond had a bigger, more climatic fight with Renard compared to Electra, so I thought that would also earn Renard some villain points. I consider him to be a "co-villain" like Kahn in that sense. To me, characters like Davidov and Bullion, who work for Electra, count as henchmen.

I guess I'm just really surprised as a lot of times Bond fans talk about the villains being larger than life and and playing it to the hilt (maybe this is a good thing), where as Renard is more down to earth, more downplayed, and more three dimensional (maybe a bad thing?)

Barbel

Kamal is the villain of OP. He and Bond have the traditional duel over a game (in this case backgammon- Bond wins, of course) and vie for the attentions of a woman (Bond wins, of course). Orlov's death does not stop the story- the story is over when Kamal dies.

TWINE is structured slightly differently from most Bond movies to hide the fact that Elektra is the villain. IMHO, it does that well. Elektra dies first, owing to the way the story is structured. Her death isn't "bigger" than Renard's, but it has more of an emotional effect on Bond.

caractacus potts

even if you want to refer to formulaic plot structure, defining chief villain by who dies last doesn't work.
what about Wint and Kidd, Teehee, NickNack, and Jaws?
those are the classical formula films, and in each one of those the henchman outlives the chief villain.

Barbel is right, tWiNE is a deliberate attempt to escape the formulaic plot, unlike all the other Brosnan films.
As with FYEO we are meant to be confused as to who the big baddie really is. And there are two stages to the reveal in tWiNE. which is a neat trick. Probably the only Bond film where I was actually surprised by a plot development!

and Robert Carlyle was far scarier as Begbie in TrainSpotting.

ironpony

Oh okay, good point on those henchman dying last.

I still feel that Renard is the villain same as Kahn in the sense, that he and Electra are equal partners it seems, similar to how Kahn and Orlov are partners, if that makes sense.

As for comparing Carlyle's performance in Trainspotting, I haven't seen Trainspotting yet, so I can only go by this movie as far as his acting goes. I thought he played it down to earth. Why is it that other down to Earth Bond villains such as Kristatos and Le Chiffre are given credit for being down to earth, but when it comes to Renard, fans think of him as being underdone?

hehadlotsofguts

I did like that he was loyal to Elecktra. And that he was willing to die for her plan to succeed. Similar to Oddjob in Goldfinger.

Number24

Renard was a wasted opportunity. If the writing had been better and Robert Carlyle had acted as scary as he did in Trainspotting, Renard could have been a very good villan.

walther p99

I think the whole impervious to pain trope was utilized better with Stamper in TND.

zaphod99

A waste of both a good actor and a good idea. Shame as it could have been so much better.

ironpony

walther p99 wrote:

I think the whole impervious to pain trope was utilized better with Stamper in TND.

That's true, but I think Renard's most interesting quality (falling for his kidnap victim, and then being manipulated by him into working for her), is being overlooked here, in favor for this no pain quality. What about his interesting background story there?

Barbel

This particular piece of backstory is not fully developed Renard-wise for a reason. We are told it by Elektra from her POV since development of her character is more important to the story the writers wanted to tell. The relationship between Bond and Elektra is the emotional centrepiece of the film and the main thrust of its story. All of the other characters including Renard are in support of that story.

Gassy Man

ironpony wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

Not even close. He's a great example of a good idea they did nothing with. A guy who can't feel pain and is slowly dying as a result -- what a great set up. But he's required to do nothing in the movie any standard henchman couldn't do.

Oh okay, but I think the whole not being able to feel pain thing is played out just fine. Not being able to feel pain does not equal immortal, so being killed by a rod piercing through his stomach, would still do the trick, even if he couldn't feel it.

I suppose they could have taken this further, but the main part about him not having feeling, is that he couldn't make love to Electra, which made him feel inadequate, which I thought added depth to his character. So I thought that they took this concept of not being able to feel, and went another way with it still.

Plus him not giving a big theatrical performance is perhaps a good thing, cause he is not a big mustache twirler like a lot of the other Bond villains, no? And him being a pawn in Electra's plan also added depth I thought, cause it gives him a flaw, rather than being perfect. I thought it made him more human, but is having a human villain who makes mistakes, so bad for Bond? Why does a Bond villain have to be big and incapable of being fooled by another character, other than Bond?

Also, the reason why M was scared of him is cause he is part of a group of terrorists that took M hostage with a gun and locked her in a cage, possibly going to kill her later. Wouldn't anyone be scared of an armed group that kidnaps you and locks you in a cage?

You've done more here than they did on the screen to show any of it. Simply bringing up the ideas is not enough in cinema, though, at least not for me. I prefer they work it out onscreen, and by this, I mean not simply intimate these ideas but actually develop them. To put that in perspective, Red Grant gets about as much screen time in From Russia with Love, and he's a far more developed villain because we see that villainy onscreen. His backstory may not be as complex (though I'd argue it is), but he provides genuine menace and action. Renard, on the other hand, is like a prop in the background, even when in the foreground.

Napoleon Plural

I go with Barbel's account, the talking up of Renard is a feint so we don't suspect Electrka is the villain.

That said, it hurts TWINE that so much of it has TV actors and Carlyle is another one, sure he can do movies but... same with Robbie Coltrane, Dench, Cleese heck even Brosnan himself. Not really movie stars, so the whole thing seems even more muted watching on TV.

superado

Although I enjoyed Robert Carlyle's other roles (particularly Begbie!), I felt he was miscast in TWINE. Notice I didn't say he was miscast as Renard, because it seemed that character was awkwardly written, though plot-wise I concede he was a good feint as NP said. I think it was how in the narrative Renard was first hinted as a formidable bogeyman to contend with, “the terrorist, Renard” which just begs for much expectation, but who eventually falls flat an unimpressive nuisance.

Also, I don’t know if it’s just me speaking from an American perspective, but it’s easier to accept Europeans playing villains from another European culture or even as Russians (Lotte Lenya as Rosa Klebb or Steven Berkoff as General Orlov) or Brits playing it British (Charles Gray’s “Continental” Blofeld). But because Renard was more of the ambiguous Eastern European variety, he lacked impact IMO. Donald Pleasence’s Blofeld had the same effect on me, although in context the deadpan approach served its purpose in giving us a face to match with the voice from earlier movies of a villain who was essentially an armchair autocrat, unlike the flamboyant Goldfinger and Largo. As for Renard’s origins, when Carlyle was signed maybe they could have written him as a domestic terrorist? It would fit in nicely with the attacks on the King pipeline and the kidnapping of Elektra to wreak havoc on British interests; but maybe it’s too political and close to home for the producers’ tastes or too much like Patriot Games?

Maybe it was also Carlyle’s stature, which worked against him when he played what I thought was a sedate Renard. In contrast, look at how he played Begbie in Trainspotting as someone I’d be fearful to be acquainted with in any way (I feared for his wife and son in the sequel). In contrast with another actor who at first seems unimposing…and I know many didn’t like the Dominic Greene character in QoS, but I think Mathieu Amalric succeeded in being despicable with his malicious and repulsive nature. Again, in context, this worked for the kind of villain he was supposed to be, a top-ranking executive in a criminal syndicate, which is pretty benign compared to being a terrorist. My point is, Renard could have been written and portrayed to be much more interesting and engaging, perhaps as a highly-intelligent, sociopathic and impulsively ruthless MF that anyone would be scared to know.

DanielC

Oddjob might not be a main antagonist, but his probably my favorite villian of all time.

I think Silva (Skyfall) is the best of modern time.

walther p99

DanielC wrote:

I think Silva (Skyfall) is the best of modern time.

Agreed

welshguy34

No. Renard was a wasted opportunity sadly and is nowhere near being a great villain.

HLD

Barbel wrote:

This particular piece of backstory is not fully developed Renard-wise for a reason. We are told it by Elektra from her POV since development of her character is more important to the story the writers wanted to tell. The relationship between Bond and Elektra is the emotional centrepiece of the film and the main thrust of its story. All of the other characters including Renard are in support of that story.

I liked Renard as a Villain so it would have been cool to see more with his injury etc, but I would agree with this. The other storyline is more important to the whole plot.