SPECTRE - Press reviews and personal reviews (BEWARE! Spoiler reviews allowed)

17980828485100

Comments

  • Posts: 485
    bondjames wrote: »
    I liked SP, but I much prefer GE. It just has spark....it's not trying too hard. It set out to be a 'Bond film' and it succeeded. SP did the 'Bond film' part great, but I didn't like the other things it was trying to do at the same time.....it all seemed jumbled to me.....

    Up to the end of Rome, SP surpasses GE. Then GE takes it, including a superb latter half (such a rarity for a Bond film these days.......sigh...)
    No comparison between SP and GE. SP is light years ahead of it. In fact most Bond films are light years ahead of GE.

    Indeed. GE is firmly in my bottom 5. It's like another company took hold of the Bond franchise and gave us what they think of as a Bond film and then made huge missteps with it. At least there is some genuine warmth and humour to SP and Waltz is a class act compared to Sean Bean who's delivery and dialogue is so excruciatingly awful you want to reach into the screen and punch him at the umpteenth ' for England...'

    I'd regard it as solely a Bond film for tiny tots and Brosnan obsessed housewives if not for the misplaced - and quite frankly murderous of Bond - machine gun action which belongs more to the Die Hard crap. Mind you it looks so cheap now you could actually easily imagine it as a Segal film.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @Cowley

    I'd regard it as solely a Bond film for tiny tots and Brosnan obsessed housewives if not for the misplaced - and quite frankly murderous of Bond - machine gun action which belongs more to the Die Hard crap. Mind you it looks so cheap now you could actually easily imagine it as a Segal film.

    Ha, ha, I like your writing style!
    Your sarcasm is even more biting than mine :))
  • gklein wrote: »

    Americans need to show more respect for the Bond franchise. Especially such reviewers like those of Hitfix. The very fact that so many other spy movies this year borrowed from Bond, should be the reason to realize that you can't ask the same from the actual Bond film.

    For franchises like "Kingsman" and "Mission: Impossible" it's obviously easier to say "This is how a Bond film should turn out (more comedy)" for "Kingsman" or "This is how a Bond film should turn out (better action)" for "Rogue Nation". The Bond franchise doesn't have that advantage. It always needs to battle its own past. Or it will be made ridiculous if it uses elements from other movies ("The Dark Knight"). And when Bond is applying the criticism from earlier spy movies this year, then people are still dissatisfied.

    It is frustrating really. Moreover, you can't ask every Bond film to be a re-imagination from its predecessors. It would hurt the Bond franchise, and it would make the series inconsistent. So WHY can't an American reviewer see that it was about time for Bond to 'settle down in familiair terrirtories again'??? And that familiair territory came to us over a course of four nuanced movies, slowly, but with great attention to detail. Actually, I would love to see Ethan Hunt fall in love in a more credible way....to give Ethan Hunt more complexity as a character. But sadly, no one is mentioning that.

    Moreover, the very writer of that HitFix article tends to completely forget this: https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/02/the-hunt-for-bond-mi-connections-to-007/ . Apparently there's no problem with that?!?

    To end on a positive note for Bond....Let's see where "Kingsman", "Batman", "Jason Bourne", "UNCLE" and "Mission: Impossible stand in 50 years from now.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    Cowley wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I liked SP, but I much prefer GE. It just has spark....it's not trying too hard. It set out to be a 'Bond film' and it succeeded. SP did the 'Bond film' part great, but I didn't like the other things it was trying to do at the same time.....it all seemed jumbled to me.....

    Up to the end of Rome, SP surpasses GE. Then GE takes it, including a superb latter half (such a rarity for a Bond film these days.......sigh...)
    No comparison between SP and GE. SP is light years ahead of it. In fact most Bond films are light years ahead of GE.

    Indeed. GE is firmly in my bottom 5. It's like another company took hold of the Bond franchise and gave us what they think of as a Bond film and then made huge missteps with it. At least there is some genuine warmth and humour to SP and Waltz is a class act compared to Sean Bean who's delivery and dialogue is so excruciatingly awful you want to reach into the screen and punch him at the umpteenth ' for England...'

    I'd regard it as solely a Bond film for tiny tots and Brosnan obsessed housewives if not for the misplaced - and quite frankly murderous of Bond - machine gun action which belongs more to the Die Hard crap. Mind you it looks so cheap now you could actually easily imagine it as a Segal film.

    My beef with GE is that it takes itself far too seriously for such a low-rent, rather cheesy Bondfilm. It looks a bit too cheap and tbh having the guy from Lawnmover Man and LiveWire as your leading man doesn't really help to boost the overall impression of quality...
  • gklein wrote: »

    Americans need to show more respect for the Bond franchise. Especially such reviewers like those of Hitfix. The very fact that so many other spy movies this year borrowed from Bond, should be the reason to realize that you can't ask the same from the actual Bond film.

    For franchises like "Kingsman" and "Mission: Impossible" it's obviously easier to say "This is how a Bond film should turn out (more comedy)" for "Kingsman" or "This is how a Bond film should turn out (better action)" for "Rogue Nation". The Bond franchise doesn't have that advantage. It always needs to battle its own past. Or it will be made ridiculous if it uses elements from other movies ("The Dark Knight"). And when Bond is applying the criticism from earlier spy movies this year, then people are still dissatisfied.

    It is frustrating really. Moreover, you can't ask every Bond film to be a re-imagination from its predecessors. It would hurt the Bond franchise, and it would make the series inconsistent. So WHY can't an American reviewer see that it was about time for Bond to 'settle down in familiair terrirtories again'??? And that familiair territory came to us over a course of four nuanced movies, slowly, but with great attention to detail. Actually, I would love to see Ethan Hunt fall in love in a more credible way....to give Ethan Hunt more complexity as a character. But sadly, no one is mentioning that.

    Moreover, the very writer of that HitFix article tends to completely forget this: https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/02/the-hunt-for-bond-mi-connections-to-007/ . Apparently there's no problem with that?!?

    To end on a positive note for Bond....Let's see where "Kingsman", "Batman", "Jason Bourne", "UNCLE" and "Mission: Impossible stand in 50 years from now.

    Again, I like to kill certain reviewers X(
  • Posts: 582
    tigers99 wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    I thought the sofa in the PTS was quite funny, because I thought 'why not?', it had to be somewhere. But it was a jolt because this was the first joke of it's kind in Craig's era, and yes it came from a past era.

    You took the words right out of my mouth!

    It was a real WTF moment for me, whereas my wife, who's not such a Bond aficionado, just chuckled and muttered "ha, typical!"

    Except that it isn't typical, far from it. This was as if being hit with the proverbial nostalgic sledge-hammer. "AM I IN THE RIGHT MOVIE..??"

    Dumbstruck is exactly how I felt when seeing DC land on that sofa after the building collapsed. The new era of 'Bond conditioning' that we, the audience, have been put through ever since CR means that we were basically pre-programmed to expect Dan to meet a gritty, bone-crunching landing - replete with torn trousers and facial cuts à la QoS.

    I don't have a problem with DC films going this way as long as they don't go overboard. For me this type of humour started in Skyfall when Bond jumps on the train - 'He must be in a hurry' - which felt like it could have been in an earlier Bond film - but I felt that he pulled off the health and safety part of the gag well.

    So, big question for you. How would you add humour in the film then? As I see it, certain elements may remind you of the cheeky Roger Moore era. But I didn't see Daniel Craig jumping on the back of a train. And I didn't hear 007 whining about 009's music when he was played by Roger Moore?

    You know, we COULD go the "Casino Royale"-way and "Licence To Kill"-way...by not having humour.....but really? I think after 3 'emotionally deep' Bond films, the time was there to add a bit more humour. And again, for me the humour worked. It's the highlight of the entire film.

    No humour in Casino Royale? Are you sure?

    'I've got an itch, just down there' - 'No, to the right, to the right' :)
  • tigers99 wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    I thought the sofa in the PTS was quite funny, because I thought 'why not?', it had to be somewhere. But it was a jolt because this was the first joke of it's kind in Craig's era, and yes it came from a past era.

    You took the words right out of my mouth!

    It was a real WTF moment for me, whereas my wife, who's not such a Bond aficionado, just chuckled and muttered "ha, typical!"

    Except that it isn't typical, far from it. This was as if being hit with the proverbial nostalgic sledge-hammer. "AM I IN THE RIGHT MOVIE..??"

    Dumbstruck is exactly how I felt when seeing DC land on that sofa after the building collapsed. The new era of 'Bond conditioning' that we, the audience, have been put through ever since CR means that we were basically pre-programmed to expect Dan to meet a gritty, bone-crunching landing - replete with torn trousers and facial cuts à la QoS.

    I don't have a problem with DC films going this way as long as they don't go overboard. For me this type of humour started in Skyfall when Bond jumps on the train - 'He must be in a hurry' - which felt like it could have been in an earlier Bond film - but I felt that he pulled off the health and safety part of the gag well.

    So, big question for you. How would you add humour in the film then? As I see it, certain elements may remind you of the cheeky Roger Moore era. But I didn't see Daniel Craig jumping on the back of a train. And I didn't hear 007 whining about 009's music when he was played by Roger Moore?

    You know, we COULD go the "Casino Royale"-way and "Licence To Kill"-way...by not having humour.....but really? I think after 3 'emotionally deep' Bond films, the time was there to add a bit more humour. And again, for me the humour worked. It's the highlight of the entire film.

    No humour in Casino Royale? Are you sure?

    'I've got an itch, just down there' - 'No, to the right, to the right' :)

    The "Casino Royale has no humour" impression has always seemed like a misconception to me. People seem to lash on to the ending and fairly serious plot details, but theres plenty of humorous moments in the movie. It's not as in your face as tarzan yells and *look directly at the camera, wait 5 seconds to spout a one-liner just as you kill someone* moments from the Moore and Brosnan eras, but it's there. From Bond "parking" the tourists car or his "That last hand almost killed me" line when he joins the poker table again to his remarks about the suit being tailored, the humor is THERE just in a more subtle way.
  • tigers99 wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    I thought the sofa in the PTS was quite funny, because I thought 'why not?', it had to be somewhere. But it was a jolt because this was the first joke of it's kind in Craig's era, and yes it came from a past era.

    You took the words right out of my mouth!

    It was a real WTF moment for me, whereas my wife, who's not such a Bond aficionado, just chuckled and muttered "ha, typical!"

    Except that it isn't typical, far from it. This was as if being hit with the proverbial nostalgic sledge-hammer. "AM I IN THE RIGHT MOVIE..??"

    Dumbstruck is exactly how I felt when seeing DC land on that sofa after the building collapsed. The new era of 'Bond conditioning' that we, the audience, have been put through ever since CR means that we were basically pre-programmed to expect Dan to meet a gritty, bone-crunching landing - replete with torn trousers and facial cuts à la QoS.

    I don't have a problem with DC films going this way as long as they don't go overboard. For me this type of humour started in Skyfall when Bond jumps on the train - 'He must be in a hurry' - which felt like it could have been in an earlier Bond film - but I felt that he pulled off the health and safety part of the gag well.

    So, big question for you. How would you add humour in the film then? As I see it, certain elements may remind you of the cheeky Roger Moore era. But I didn't see Daniel Craig jumping on the back of a train. And I didn't hear 007 whining about 009's music when he was played by Roger Moore?

    You know, we COULD go the "Casino Royale"-way and "Licence To Kill"-way...by not having humour.....but really? I think after 3 'emotionally deep' Bond films, the time was there to add a bit more humour. And again, for me the humour worked. It's the highlight of the entire film.

    No humour in Casino Royale? Are you sure?

    'I've got an itch, just down there' - 'No, to the right, to the right' :)

    Please see my comment into perspective. You know what elaborate arguments I have written down. Obviously CR has humour. And I loved it. But I especially responded to the criticism that SP's humour is flawed. And that's bullocks.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,727
    Lots of great humour in CR:

    - Bond 'parking' the obnoxious German tourist's Range Rover.. and later greeting him at the casino bar
    - The 'you noticed' quip vs. Vesper
    - Le Chiffre getting irritated at everyone ordering Bond's cocktail variation
    - "That last hand... nearly killed me"
    - "Ive got an itch... down there"

    There are other nice moments...

  • Cowley wrote: »


    Indeed. GE is firmly in my bottom 5. It's like another company took hold of the Bond franchise and gave us what they think of as a Bond film and then made huge missteps with it. At least there is some genuine warmth and humour to SP and Waltz is a class act compared to Sean Bean who's delivery and dialogue is so excruciatingly awful you want to reach into the screen and punch him at the umpteenth ' for England...'

    quote]

    Sean Bean was fantastic. Maybe you don't like the Sheffield accent?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I liked SP, but I much prefer GE. It just has spark....it's not trying too hard. It set out to be a 'Bond film' and it succeeded. SP did the 'Bond film' part great, but I didn't like the other things it was trying to do at the same time.....it all seemed jumbled to me.....

    Up to the end of Rome, SP surpasses GE. Then GE takes it, including a superb latter half (such a rarity for a Bond film these days.......sigh...)
    No comparison between SP and GE. SP is light years ahead of it. In fact most Bond films are light years ahead of GE.

    While I realize there are some here who find it camp (it is) and some who don't like Brosnan (he did pose quite a bit in those pretitles didn't he?), for me, it's far and away the most fun Bond movie in the past 20 years.

    As I said above, no pretensions......no attempts to be something it's not. To paraphrase 'R' from DAD, it may not be cleverer than it looks, but at least it doesn't try to look cleverer than it is. I can't say the same for SP.

    I'll be watching SP for a 3rd time before it gets booted out of the IMAX theatres by HG, and I'm sure I'll enjoy it, as I have the first two times. However, for a bit of classic, old fashioned Bond entertainment, I'll take GE, "Thank you very much" (sorry, a bit of Natalya slipping in there). Oh, and Sean Bean is damn incredible.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    No comparison between SP and GE. SP is light years ahead of it. In fact most Bond films are light years ahead of GE. Agreed.

    Sean Bean was fantastic, he should have played Bond.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    That's nothing. I could go on for 80 minutes.
    I could have done the same for Skyfall... but SPECTRE made me appreciate it more. I'm afraid I'm a 21st Century James Bond fan after all.
    Thank you Dan Craig & Sam Mendes!!!

    Skyfall was for the masses, a stupid daytime soap drama plot, and it worked bringing in the masses.

    Actually, SF was one of the more sophisticated films in the series. But there's a separate thread for that sort of debate.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    TripAces wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    That's nothing. I could go on for 80 minutes.
    I could have done the same for Skyfall... but SPECTRE made me appreciate it more. I'm afraid I'm a 21st Century James Bond fan after all.
    Thank you Dan Craig & Sam Mendes!!!

    Skyfall was for the masses, a stupid daytime soap drama plot, and it worked bringing in the masses.

    Actually, SF was one of the more sophisticated films in the series. But there's a separate thread for that sort of debate.

    I was just thinking that recently actually, after seeing SP. I concur.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    suavejmf wrote: »
    No comparison between SP and GE. SP is light years ahead of it. In fact most Bond films are light years ahead of GE. Agreed.

    Most people would disagree.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Cowley wrote: »
    I'll take SP over GE any day.

    Terrible cheat of a PTS, OTT cartoon characters in Onatopp and Boris, explosions and machine gun rampages masking any real action, excruciatingly awful dialogue which I suspect they misguidely thought was profound. Terrible Bond too. Brosnan is too self consciously prancing and posing as Bond in the PTS and then his spectacular fail at a foreign language in the Casino.

    It was quite devastating at the time to know this was the Bond we would be saddled for for the next decade or so.

    I appreciate it's very popular with a lot of people but it'd take more than the hiatus, Remington Steel - which flopped in the UK - and a computer game to make me appreciate this particular emperor's new clothes.

    This is off topic. In a good way.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 4,622
    3rd viewing done. Just kind of savouring the film now. Very satisfied mainly because of two things.
    1. Craig turns in his best performance as Bond IMO. Both relaxed and dangerous. Looks very comfortable in the role. This is a huge relief after three straight films of various and sundry character issues.
    2. Blofeld and Spectre are back. Love the way this element was defty worked into the re-boot timeline. So I think we are set up nicely going forward.
    So these two momentous developments leave this Bond fan quite satisfied.

    As for the film, I still find it kind of heavy. It lumbers along. One heavy dramatic scene after another. Sure its broken up by smart dialogue and lots action but the whole thing seems a little leaden as it lumbers (there's that word again) along.
    The music doesn't help IMO. Far too operatic and dramatic. Felt like Newman was pounding my head with a sledgehammer at times. Barry RIP or Arnold, very much alive, I think would have done a better treatment.

    Still, a paucity of Bond girls. Lowest Bond Girl numbers in the entire series. Its a slam dunk. Clearly not a Mendes priority, as there weren't a whole bunch in SF either, but at least he decorated the Macau casino.
    But in SP we get Seydoux, Bellucci and Sigman and that's it. I kept an eagle eye for the whole film. Nothing. There are two shapely female assistants in the Q lab, but we only get fleeting rear end views, one blonde, one brunette.
    The Hotel L'Americain receptionist we barely get a look at. In fact the camera work is clearly endeavoring to make sure we don't get a look at her. Her face is in shadow, as she lets Bond and Swann into the room, so nothing going on there.

    Still looking for Neve Gachev as clinic patron. If she's still in the movie, I'm not seeing her.

    So if we have a 3rd string Bond Girl elim game here, Sigman will at least qualify for SP, but beyond that SP is going to have sit out a small-part Bond Girl game or listing.
    There is nothing that qualifies. My list stops at three, and I have so much fun putting these lists together in past.
    Movie has 3 Bond girls and then drops off a cliff.
    This is a first for the 24 film series.
    Jeez Sam, couldn't you have populated a 2-and-a-half-hour film with a few bonus Bond Girls -just girls getting off an elevator or something or hanging about anywhere.
    I guess the fine tradition of small-part Bond girls is lost on the famous drama director.
    Even Blofeld's base was devoid. I know there were a few working the keyboards in the surveillance room, but we never got a look at them.
    At least we got two good looks at pussy ( the white cat of course)

    And as someone else mentioned, Blofeld's pale white sockless legs get way too much screen time, but no time for bonus Bond Girls. Something is very wrong here.
  • Posts: 5,745
    Where were these logic-obsessed critics when Skyfall was released? At least SPECTRE as a plot that doesn't rely SOLELY on convenience. Blofeld has a plan outside of Bond and M. this time that doesn't require his capture or the stupidity of Q. or deftness of Tanner at the briefing or A FLASHLIGHT IN A CHURCH.

    It seems to me that those who enjoyed (the handicapped) Skyfall do not enjoy SPECTRE, and those who didn't enjoy Skyfall so much (I didn't like it, myself) enjoy SPECTRE.

    The difference? Skyfall is trying too hard, SPECTRE is a return to form. People seem to have forgotten the first 20 films of this franchise.
  • Posts: 4,622
    I much prefer SP to SF, even if it does kind of slog along.
    SP story holds up just fine. Bond himself is in top form. Some of the action pieces are real good.
    Casting is top notch from Blofeld's cat to Seydoux, Waltz, Bellucci, Bautista...everyone really.
    I thought all of Q,M,MP did nice job.
    Planning a 4th viewing next week and then one a week till film leaves.
    Looking forward to having an Uncle SP 2015 blu-ray double bill, when both discs are out.
  • Posts: 5,767
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    Where were these logic-obsessed critics when Skyfall was released? At least SPECTRE as a plot that doesn't rely SOLELY on convenience. Blofeld has a plan outside of Bond and M. this time that doesn't require his capture or the stupidity of Q. or deftness of Tanner at the briefing or A FLASHLIGHT IN A CHURCH.

    It seems to me that those who enjoyed (the handicapped) Skyfall do not enjoy SPECTRE, and those who didn't enjoy Skyfall so much (I didn't like it, myself) enjoy SPECTRE.

    The difference? Skyfall is trying too hard, SPECTRE is a return to form. People seem to have forgotten the first 20 films of this franchise.
    CR and QoS, as much as they were off the usual Bond, were much more in form than SP. Bond being badass unfortunately doesn´t suffice if the film as a film is so uneven, with all those filtered colours, clouded skies, and congested storytelling. After two viewings I feel I couldn´t get myself to watch it again, even though perhaps I would find some so-far-hidden value. That damn colour filtering, droning action music, and dragging storytelling are just too much for me.

  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    edited November 2015 Posts: 2,252
    timmer wrote: »
    I much prefer SP to SF, even if it does kind of slog along.
    SP story holds up just fine. Bond himself is in top form. Some of the action pieces are real good.
    Casting is top notch from Blofeld's cat to Seydoux, Waltz, Bellucci, Bautista...everyone really.
    I thought all of Q,M,MP did nice job.
    Planning a 4th viewing next week and then one a week till film leaves.
    Looking forward to having an Uncle SP 2015 blu-ray double bill, when both discs are out.

    @timmer I'm very curious to see your updated rankings as you have a very interesting ranking (for those who don't know DN-DAF in the top 10, LALD-DAD in 11-20 place and Craig's movies in the bottom 3)

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    Where were these logic-obsessed critics when Skyfall was released? At least SPECTRE as a plot that doesn't rely SOLELY on convenience. Blofeld has a plan outside of Bond and M. this time that doesn't require his capture or the stupidity of Q. or deftness of Tanner at the briefing or A FLASHLIGHT IN A CHURCH.

    It seems to me that those who enjoyed (the handicapped) Skyfall do not enjoy SPECTRE, and those who didn't enjoy Skyfall so much (I didn't like it, myself) enjoy SPECTRE.

    The difference? Skyfall is trying too hard, SPECTRE is a return to form. People seem to have forgotten the first 20 films of this franchise.

    =D>

    ^:)^

    :-bd

  • edited November 2015 Posts: 154
    timmer wrote: »
    And as someone else mentioned, Blofeld's pale white sockless legs get way too much screen time, but no time for bonus Bond Girls. Something is very wrong here.

    There's also that quasi-gay scene between Bond & Silva in SF and the opening credits scene in SP focusing on Bond's body. Craig has also played a gay part before. I'm beginning to believe that Mendez (and maybe Craig) might be closet gay or at least bisexual.

    No one's sex life is my concern or my business. I couldn't care less. To each their own. It doesn't change what I think of either as a director and actor. However...

    If the Bond character is beginning to shift into something more appealing to bisexuals and homosexuals then, as a heterosexual myself, they're gonna lose this fan. Oh well, heterosexuals had 007 movies for 50 yrs. I guess its only fair others get to enjoy them now.

    Craig's take on Bond is already a radical departure from the traditional Bond character. Folks are now saying 007 could be played by a black actor. It wouldn't be the same character, but he's already not the same character he'd been in decades past. Why not a gay or bi Bond in the future? The franchise already seems to be stepping in that direction.

    P.S. There was also that scene with Craig in his tightness in the ocean in CR (but I think that was more Babs' doing than Campbell's).

    Still, it seems we're now in the era of the physically objectified male. Some will say that it's only fair, since women have been so physically objectified -- but men have always been objectified too (by women), just according to their wealth & power more than male physical beauty.

    Interesting times.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    People seem to have forgotten the first 20 films of this franchise.

    I mentioned this in my review as well. I think "Casino Royale" and "Skyfall" shook the franchise up so heavily, that suddenly a 'return to form' is perceived as Austin Powers-esque crap.

    Well, to me it seams that so many people these days rate the Connery Bond films so highly, not because they saw them recently, but because the general conception is 'those are damn good films'. Because if you see those, I'm afraid many people would get bored of the relatively slow-paced, simply spy thriller that "FRWL" is. And.....off course "comparison sickness" kicks in heavily with a 53-year old franchise.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 5,745
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    People seem to have forgotten the first 20 films of this franchise.

    I mentioned this in my review as well. I think "Casino Royale" and "Skyfall" shook the franchise up so heavily, that suddenly a 'return to form' is perceived as Austin Powers-esque crap.

    Well, to me it seams that so many people these days rate the Connery Bond films so highly, not because they saw them recently, but because the general conception is 'those are damn good films'. Because if you see those, I'm afraid many people would get bored of the relatively slow-paced, simply spy thriller that "FRWL" is. And.....off course "comparison sickness" kicks in heavily with a 53-year old franchise.

    Yes, especially on your note of comparison sickness.

    In some ways I think taking Bond so seriously got away from the filmmakers in Skyfall, and I was more than pleased - though Casino Royale is still my favorite Bond film - to see a return to the lighthearted fun we used to expect. It will be interesting to see how they respond with the next film, Craig or not, to the mixed reviews.
  • Posts: 5,767
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    People seem to have forgotten the first 20 films of this franchise.

    I mentioned this in my review as well. I think "Casino Royale" and "Skyfall" shook the franchise up so heavily, that suddenly a 'return to form' is perceived as Austin Powers-esque crap.

    Well, to me it seams that so many people these days rate the Connery Bond films so highly, not because they saw them recently, but because the general conception is 'those are damn good films'. Because if you see those, I'm afraid many people would get bored of the relatively slow-paced, simply spy thriller that "FRWL" is. And.....off course "comparison sickness" kicks in heavily with a 53-year old franchise.
    The reason I became a hardcore Bond fan is that literally all the Bond films up to and including LTK for me never once drop out of that certain energy level that in rock pop music might be referred to as groove. And that is regardless of their pace. SP in places has a much faster pace than, say, FRWL, but it lost me several times nevertheless. I attribute that mainly to Mendes´s storytelling and the colour and light design, which all might have a purpose, but doesn´t appeal to me at all.

  • JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    Where were these logic-obsessed critics when Skyfall was released? At least SPECTRE as a plot that doesn't rely SOLELY on convenience. Blofeld has a plan outside of Bond and M. this time that doesn't require his capture or the stupidity of Q. or deftness of Tanner at the briefing or A FLASHLIGHT IN A CHURCH.

    It seems to me that those who enjoyed (the handicapped) Skyfall do not enjoy SPECTRE, and those who didn't enjoy Skyfall so much (I didn't like it, myself) enjoy SPECTRE.

    The difference? Skyfall is trying too hard, SPECTRE is a return to form. People seem to have forgotten the first 20 films of this franchise.

    The other difference is that Skyfall actually bothers to build up its characters and their motivations, so that we can invest in the movie, while SPECTRE just throws plot point after plot point at us and hopes we get invested.

    Compare Silva's story to Blofeld's: Silva was sold out by M after years of being her favorite agent and was subjected to horrible torture at the Chinese and even survived a suicide attempt. We then see his plot for revenge play out step by step, and his motivations are both sensible and sympathetic. Blofeld, on the other hand, was mad his dad liked Bond better, and so he murdered him and decided to embark on a nine-year plot to make Bond miserable by manipulating events in some vague, undefined fashion, including the supposedly independent Silva.

    Or compare the way the movies develop their respective themes about the relevance of MI6. Again, in Skyfall we see the problems with the old ways: Bond gets shot by accident, MI6 is bombed by cyber-terrorists and when Bond returns, he's a physical wreck and barely functioning. Add this to the leak of the secret agents and their subsequent execution, the case for old-fashioned espionage's obsolescence is clear. And again, the movie bothers to pay off this suspicion, as M is hauled before the parliamentary committee and gets a chance to defend their practices in stirring fashion.

    In SPECTRE, we get an immediate retread of this ground, in direct defiance of the end of Skyfall, only this time, we get platitudes spouted by Denbigh and M instead of actual development, the mysterious Nine Eyes system that's never actually explained, and a brief reference to a terrorist attack in South Africa. We never get to find out anything about the South Africans' motivation or the terrorist attack, we're just told it happened. Denbigh, of course, ends up eeeeeeevvvviiiillll, because what else would he be, and we're left with a final countdown whose effects are ambiguous at best and totally incoherent at worst.

    Skyfall also doesn't feel the need to pour its entire dramatic weight into a twist that's both completely telegraphed and completely meaningless to the actual characters involved.

    So, while Skyfall's plot can be weak and it's certainly a confusing movie at times, it has an actual story that it commits to telling. That's why I'll always be more forgiving of its faults than the amorphous mass that calls itself SPECTRE.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,548
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    Where were these logic-obsessed critics when Skyfall was released? At least SPECTRE as a plot that doesn't rely SOLELY on convenience. Blofeld has a plan outside of Bond and M. this time that doesn't require his capture or the stupidity of Q. or deftness of Tanner at the briefing or A FLASHLIGHT IN A CHURCH.

    It seems to me that those who enjoyed (the handicapped) Skyfall do not enjoy SPECTRE, and those who didn't enjoy Skyfall so much (I didn't like it, myself) enjoy SPECTRE.

    The difference? Skyfall is trying too hard, SPECTRE is a return to form. People seem to have forgotten the first 20 films of this franchise.

    =D>

    ^:)^

    :-bd

    Wow. Really??? What films were you watching? Certainly not SF and SP.
  • Posts: 1,680
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    Where were these logic-obsessed critics when Skyfall was released? At least SPECTRE as a plot that doesn't rely SOLELY on convenience. Blofeld has a plan outside of Bond and M. this time that doesn't require his capture or the stupidity of Q. or deftness of Tanner at the briefing or A FLASHLIGHT IN A CHURCH.

    It seems to me that those who enjoyed (the handicapped) Skyfall do not enjoy SPECTRE, and those who didn't enjoy Skyfall so much (I didn't like it, myself) enjoy SPECTRE.

    The difference? Skyfall is trying too hard, SPECTRE is a return to form. People seem to have forgotten the first 20 films of this franchise.

    The other difference is that Skyfall actually bothers to build up its characters and their motivations, so that we can invest in the movie, while SPECTRE just throws plot point after plot point at us and hopes we get invested.

    Compare Silva's story to Blofeld's: Silva was sold out by M after years of being her favorite agent and was subjected to horrible torture at the Chinese and even survived a suicide attempt. We then see his plot for revenge play out step by step, and his motivations are both sensible and sympathetic. Blofeld, on the other hand, was mad his dad liked Bond better, and so he murdered him and decided to embark on a nine-year plot to make Bond miserable by manipulating events in some vague, undefined fashion, including the supposedly independent Silva.

    Or compare the way the movies develop their respective themes about the relevance of MI6. Again, in Skyfall we see the problems with the old ways: Bond gets shot by accident, MI6 is bombed by cyber-terrorists and when Bond returns, he's a physical wreck and barely functioning. Add this to the leak of the secret agents and their subsequent execution, the case for old-fashioned espionage's obsolescence is clear. And again, the movie bothers to pay off this suspicion, as M is hauled before the parliamentary committee and gets a chance to defend their practices in stirring fashion.

    In SPECTRE, we get an immediate retread of this ground, in direct defiance of the end of Skyfall, only this time, we get platitudes spouted by Denbigh and M instead of actual development, the mysterious Nine Eyes system that's never actually explained, and a brief reference to a terrorist attack in South Africa. We never get to find out anything about the South Africans' motivation or the terrorist attack, we're just told it happened. Denbigh, of course, ends up eeeeeeevvvviiiillll, because what else would he be, and we're left with a final countdown whose effects are ambiguous at best and totally incoherent at worst.

    Skyfall also doesn't feel the need to pour its entire dramatic weight into a twist that's both completely telegraphed and completely meaningless to the actual characters involved.

    So, while Skyfall's plot can be weak and it's certainly a confusing movie at times, it has an actual story that it commits to telling. That's why I'll always be more forgiving of its faults than the amorphous mass that calls itself SPECTRE.

    Oberhauser didnt embark on a nine year plan just to make Bond miserable. Oberhauser was running a multinational crime syndicate under various operations & people for mostly financial gain. It was arguably coincidence & Oberhauser states this that Bond kept getting in the way.

    Oberhauser never went out of his way to harm Bond until SP.

    On a side note I think Silva & Bond being foster brothers would have been better.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited November 2015 Posts: 16,328
    It also doesn't help that competing spy movies will boast big claims like "We're being back the fun Bond has been missing." Or "We're making Spy movies fun again." Making it sound like Bond movies are completely devoid of humor. It's like come on, none of these other spoofs/homage movies wouldn't exist without Bond. Show some respect.
Sign In or Register to comment.