Judi Dench Confirmed For ‘James Bond 23′

Published 3 years ago by , Updated February 15th, 2014 at 4:29 pm,

Judi Dench confirmed for James Bond 23 Judi Dench Confirmed For James Bond 23

Yes, the bit of casting that 007 enthusiasts have been quivering in their boots to hear is official – Dame Judi Dench has confirmed that she will return as the iconic secret agent’s no-nonsense boss at MI6 (the monosyllabic M) in the currently untitled 23rd James Bond flick.

Miss Dench’s assured return for Mr. Bond’s next onscreen venture may not be all that surprising, but it’s more than welcome. There’s a reason the Oscar-winner has portrayed 007′s efficient superior since 1995′s Goldeneye – back when Pierce Brosnan was beginning his run as the suave fellow with a license to kill.

MI6 (the website) broke the news concerning Dench, who remained tight-lipped when it came to the plot of the new James Bond pic. Oscar-nominee Peter Morgan (The Queen) was brought onboard to work with franchise vets Neal Purvis and Robert Wade on the script way back in 2009 and described it as having “a shocking story,” but the recent official press release from MGM revealed that screenwriter John Logan (Gladiator, The Aviator) had replaced Morgan on the project.

Fellow Oscar-winner Sam Mendes (American Beauty) will direct Dench and star Daniel Craig in the new James Bond movie, following in the foosteps of Marc Forster (Quantum of Solace) and Green Lantern director Martin Campbell (Casino Royale). Mendes falls somewhere between those two fellows on the filmmaking scale, since he is considered foremost an arthouse auteur but has some experience handling larger-scale, action-heavy material like Road to Perdition and Jarhead as well. So long as the director doesn’t repeat Forster’s mistake of relying on headache-inducing amounts of shaky cam cinematography, the set pieces and fight scenes in Mendes’ Bond flick should be an improvement on those in Quantum.

Craig and Mendes

While there have been unsubstantiated rumors floating here and there about Rachel Weisz playing the villain in the new James Bond flick, there’s not yet been any official word about who Craig might end up squaring off against in the film. Shooting is scheduled to begin in the latter half of 2011, with a theatrical release date set for November 12th, 2012 – so it might be a few months before anyone else is confirmed for the cast.

We’ll keep you updated on the development of the 23rd James Bond movie as more information is released.

Source: MI6

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: james bond

34 Comments

Post a Comment

  1. Hmmmm… a ‘Shocking Story’?

    Could ‘M’ be short for (M)om, as in ‘James Bond’s’ Mom? Gotta admit, it would spin a whole new dynamic…

    Gotta Fly! Have a good one! ~ Stark

  2. Timothy Dalton for M!

  3. Yes. Judi Dench is the best M in the Bond series in my opinion. She was made for this role, practically.

    As for a villain, for those that have played the game or read the story on Wikipedia, the 007 game Bloodstone mentioned a secret villain “bigger than all of us”. If that game has any continuity to the films (doubtful but one could hope) that villain could be non other than Ernest Blofeld himself. And if doesn’t fit with the film continuity, he would be a perfect villain to include in the new Bond films.

  4. I’m looking forward to the next Bond film more then I am Avatar 2,,,

    • Me too.

    • same here =)

    • And you should. Why anyone would be excited about Avatar is beyond me, except for the fact that the series could only get better. There was hardly anything original in the first except SFX, but then again the Sword of Shannara series actually got better after the uninspired LotR clone of a start.

  5. James Bond ain’t good anymore. Although maybe I’m just saying it because of the last one (which didn’t have even a single scene that I remembered after getting out of the theatre). Hopefully this one will be good..

  6. Its sad news.. I love the new bond movies. The best for many years but please keep Judi Dench long long away from the bond movies. She is teriable. I hate here as M. Teriable news. Lucky Craig is onbord 3 best bond after Connery how is BOND and Roger how was ok after Connery.

    • I think most people would disagree with your assessment of Judi Dench’s impact on the franchise and well as your abominable spelling and grammar in crafting said assessment.

  7. I think M should be killed off in this film, as part of a larger plot, and a new M (Michael Gambon) is brought in. But at the end we find the old M (Judi Dench) is in fact alive and her survival was covered up to ensure her retirement.

  8. Mathias, your grammar and spelling alone prove your opinion holds no merit. Read the novels. Craig is the BEST Bond, and Dench is a phenomenal actress. I agree with the author of the article about the action scenes; shaky camera HAS to go. I’m just happy to see the bankruptcy didn’t cause them to lose Craig.

    • Read the novels? A curious statement, as I have read them all. I don’t remember Bond being a mindless thug at all. Maybe I missed that one…
      The only 2 actors who have come close to portraying the Bond of the books are Timothy Dalton and Sean Connery.

  9. I love how guys like to invoke Forster’s shaky-cam stylings of the previous film. Very original dig. Fact is, it was the most beautifully shot film of the franchise, shaky-cam or not.

    • Mav,

      I could barely tell what was going on in the opening sequences of the film – both the car chase and the scene with the scaffolding. I can deal with some level of shaky cam and quick cuts, but that was ridiculous – especially when compared to the wonderful on-foot chase scene from the previous film.

      Vic

    • It might have been beautiful to look at, but you sure as hell couldn’t tell what the was going on half the time. I’ve never seen such a disservice to good stunt work in my life. It’s like nobody ever looked at the finished product before it was released. Listen to be learned: trying to duplicate a style just because everybody is doing it is not always a good idea.

  10. DSB, man your negative comments about QOS are getting real old. You didn’t like that film, great whatever.

    I need to read the books to really know Bond, GAFB!!!

    The plot was based on REVENGE,,, there’s no happy, Bond going on there. He was pissed off.

    Ghesh

    • Yeah, maybe we can have another Bond movie based on him being grumpy because he didn’t sleep well or have any coffee one morning. 8)

      I want Bond to be Bond.

      Vic

    • “DSB, man your negative comments about QOS are getting real old. You didn’t like that film, great whatever.”

      Uh, because at no point have you gone about a film you don’t like, or rammed a point so far into the ground that’s its sticking out of Australia? You don’t like 3D or Blu Ray.

      Great. Whatever.

      But no, the reason I don’t like QOS, is because since I was about 4-5 years old, James Bond was my hero, then a few years later I read the books, and every time a new film came out (regardless of my age) I would get incredibly excited about it.
      QOS was the only time a Bond film has made me doubt my childhood hero. How would that make you feel?

  11. Well if you want Bond to go back to the way he was (a swave playboy that packed a little gun), check out the older films. Ghesshshehs!

    CR and QOS, represent a NEW rebooted Bond. He’s no longer the Austin Powers of the spy world. The character is being remade and thank god, its about time.

    • 790,

      So how is it that you can be utterly and completely FOR a ground up reboot of the James Bond character but also utterly and completely OPPOSED to the Star Trek reboot?

      Vic

  12. M should have a pecker

  13. Would a strap on work for you Garth? Sheeshshshsshssh,,,

    :)

  14. I felt that QoS was one of the more entertaining Bond movies; was it one of the best? No, but it told a short and visually sweet story that sets up ‘Bond being Bond’ in the third movie.

    I don’t know if it has already been confirmed, but Moneypenny and Q will most likely appear. However, what really interests me would be the emergence of Blofeld and his relationship with Quantum.

    If they do indeed cast him for either a cameo or a small part, I can imagine no better fit than Marton Csokas. Physically he fits the part, but his greatest contribution would be through his voice. It is of a quality not heard since Eric Pohlmann in Thunderball, full of arrogance and malice. As anyone who has seen Kingdom of Heaven (the Director’s Cut preferably) can attest, he is an actor of the highest quality and yet not a big enough name to overshadow the film itself.

    Well, I have said my piece, I apologize for the geeky casting dreams and will point out once more Quantum achieved what is was supposed to. It tied up Casino’s loose ends and moved Bond back into fold of MI-6, giving this next chapter the potential to be Craig’s first true Bond film.

  15. Lets face it, every bond film has had the problem of giving “more” to the public. After watching the last bond film people ask for it thus the next movie has to be “More” of whatever it is. hence the change from the simple Dr. No to whatever is currently on in the burner. I was lucky enough to be born when several bond films were already made (ahem…Ahem) so I can get to do a 007 marathon… I don’t know if its just me but every bond film after another has to top itself in terms of performance, effects, gadgets etc. Sadly I think its a damned if you do and damned if you don’t franchise. If the franchise tries to do the same things as its predecessors, then its dubbed unoriginal, if it reboots the character then its not staying true to the quintessential Bond.

    @Vic, how about an article that would define “James Bond”? Who he is and what is expected of him? his abilities and limitations. Of course this could all just be based off of Ian Flemmings Books but to add reader comments to a discussion like that would be interesting.

    Don’t know if there already is one though since I haven’t been back reading lately :)

  16. @Vic, I’ve always had a huge problem with the Star Trek reboot being about Kirk and Spock.
    There’s more to that universe then the original crew, going backwards was the wrong direction.

    I was done with Kirk and Spock, the characters were iconic, now they’ve been reduced to action hero roles that will see played by other actors.

    The franchise/parmount should have had the tribbles to go forward, not cling to the past like greed driven creative cowards.

    • 790,

      Ah… I see. Well, I don’t have an issue with that – IMHO Kirk and Spock are the soul of Trek.

      Guess I don’t see why that’s an issue though, and with Bond you don’t have a problem with the same character(s) rebooted and played by different actors? By your statement above it seems like you’d prefer if Bond was replace by some other agent – 006 or what have you.

      Vic

      • Vic,

        Maybe it’s that “Star Trek” means more to 790 than Bond. I’ve been in the same sort of arguments about “The Green Hornet”. A few of us were really disappointed that they made a horrible joke out of the character. The bulk of the responses to that were along the lines of “Who cares? It’s just the ‘Green Hornet’.” Those were probably all the same people who had strokes when they saw what was done to their precious Batman in “Batman & Robin”.

        Bond has been played by six (or eight, if you want to get technical) different guys now. New Bonds come with the territory, and some tweaking with each shift has come to be expected. Six new guys since 1962. William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy (and the rest), on the other hand, had been the only faces and voices of their characters since 1966. Through a TV series, a cartoon, a billion novel covers, who knows how many conventions, and a slew of movies – the same seven people represented the same characters. I myself was extremely reluctant to go see the new movie because I had no interest in seeing another face on my Dr. McCoy. It was hugely satisfying to see that they pulled it off so well. But I think everybody is protective of certain things. (I had to be physically restrained when they came out with “The New Monkees”….)

  17. Well I grew up with Kirk & Co, and they were great but they had their time. Picard, Sisko and Janeway also commanded ships they had there time as well. I would have preferred (this is really gonna blow your mind!) a new Captian and a new crew. With some guts and a new writer/s, they could have created a new Cap/ship/crew that could have been introduced I don’t know, saving the Enterprise?

    Instead I’ve got Syler from Heroes playing spock. He can’t even make the vulcan hand geusture without glue. I could go on,,,

    Pass the freeggen torch Paramount!!!!! I’m not watching that garbage. Soundtracks lame. I’m done with Abrams vision.
    ^
    On Bond, I can’t believe people loved CR and hated QOS? That’s like saying CR was great until the ending when James cleaned up all the badguys, avenged Vesper only to find that she betrayed him after all, and gained the trust and loyaty of M. His backstory is complete, now we can really get some stuff rolling. Naw that sucked. What??? Its not lke the books?? Wth??? Nah I hated QOS the chase scene was edited to fast,,, Have you ever been in a chase, stuff happens real fast. And that was the energy the director was looking for as QOS was part 2.

    Aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh,,,!!!!!

    • We will have to agree to disagree, I guess. To me TOS is Star Trek much more so than all the shows that came after, and I don’t have a problem with them bringing back Kirk and Spock. Personally, I look forward to Chris Pine now fully Captain Kirk.

      Vic

  18. ~dann,,dant,,, daa’nt~ daa’nt~ daa’nt~ daa’nt~ daa’nt~ daant dan dan da,,,!

    To you sir,,,

    :)

  19. I saw a older photo of Judi today, and she was pretty hot in her day. :)

    Time is a cruel bastard.

  20. I said it before, i personaly dont like craig as bond, hero’s need humor and charm, its what made 70s and 80s hero movies heroic, you could tell the bad guys from the good and they had senses of ethics. even clint eastwoods flick, the ultimate tough guy had a sense of humor. craig looks like a bar piano player rather than bond. its really all in two things, they need to audition bond on the ability to say the words “bond, james bond” with suave defness, something dalton, lazunbury and craig fail utterly.

    number 2 and the big one is they need the original bond music. every franchise and sequel franchise that i love from my youth is failing and is a pale immatation of its former self in my opinion, because they drop musical scores. from star trek (starting to fail after 4 although liking first contact midly) to terminator (after dropping fidels great score in 1 and 2) to batman and especialy superman dropping williams terrific music, music is 89% of a franchise. nightmare on elm street sucked after removing its score (1 and 3 being good), hellraiser, etc. etc.
    a terrific sequel needs to feel like an extra 2 hours of the original, movie sequels generaly suck when they drop music and change things, you might as well just start a differnt flick. for my i prefer connery first except never say never, moore second except for a view to a kill and brosnan in goldeneye (wich had watered down bond music).

    please bring back the bond music. if they want an update bring back Q, the hot chicks, the funny chick names, the coy one liners,make hero’s rootable instead of depressing anti hero crybabys who are so skinny we all know we could wip, make bond like jackie chan with the over the top stunts and action we all grew up on. stop making this
    reboot fanboy made for obnoxious depressing 18-25 year olds garbage please.

    please please please, for the love of god. doesnt any director get what makes sequels great or is it just me LOL. Its not rocket science, the work is already done for you.

    -a fan.

  21. and the cool gadgets, i havent seen a bond film with a cool gadgets. formula films have a formula, when you derail and change music you change the formula for the movie making something different, you can put a young jack nicholson up and it wont save the franchise. teach the man some kung fu and give him some morals and ethics instead of sleeping with married women and making 3 movies about wanting revenge over bond getting involved with someone married for ch* sake. old skool hero’s are rolling in thier graves lol. end of rant lol.

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

Be Social, Follow Us!!