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

18586889091100

Comments

  • Posts: 14,800
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Because Ben and Naomi are big stars now? As in Halle Berry big? Or Denise Richards big? And were they so prominently used in SP?

    Ludovico I could have gone to a bookmaker and put money on anyone on this forum coming back with arguing black was white it would be you.

    Berry and Richards were your typical cast Bond girls, they have always been prominent in the movies. My point is that the whole case now is made up of people and when scripting they are trying to share screen time to keep them all happy. In this Waltz and Seydoux give them loads of screen time absolutely but not have Mallory, Q and MP out in the field and anything more than a few minutes in the film. Because of this it has developed in to a TEAM MI6 thing. That's not really Bond, Bond is a lone wolf.

    You ditch the need to keep a high profile supporting cast, you limit their time on screen it gives you more creative space to focus on Bond, the mission, the villain the over all plot. Rather than "we better make him go back to London again, so that we give Fiennes, Wishaw and Harris some more screen time.

    Old formula

    PTS
    Bond doing something at his leisure before being summoned to HQ
    MP - A few minutes flirting
    M - 5 to 10 minutes tops "here is your mission report to Q branch in the morning/now"
    Q - 5 minutes - "Here is what I have for you 007"
    Bond arriving in some far off location, investigating
    Bond Meets the main Bond girl of the movie, likely using her to get to someone else
    Car chase
    A twist
    Second Exotic Location
    A second girl
    A showdown and gun fight
    Bond 1 on 1 with the villain
    MP - final flirt a few minutes
    M - Congratulation - a few minutes

    I don't mind it cutting back to London showing M in meeting with ministers or official is it is pertinent to the story. Those aspects have been around from Connery films. Just not central to the action or helping Bond do his job in the field.

    We have gone from the UK supporting cast being in the film for 20 minutes to them featuring in most of the films. It started with Dame Judi - "Oh we have Dame Judi, we better use her more than we did any previous M and it has just grown arms and legs it didn't matter where he went she would show up, right through Brosnan and now Craig, I thought when they did away with her in Skyfall all of it would stop, but it was worse in Spectre.

    Bond 25 give me William Boyd - Solo, just so I can see Bond solo again without it before we start renaming the films "The M Team".

    Oh my, I forgot. The formula. But that is not a formula you are putting here, but a cake recipe. There is of course a Bond formula, but it's not paint by number and it is in SP just like in every Bond movie with Craig. Bond is still the protagonist. There is still a benign bizarre villain (yes even in QOS). There are still Bond girls. M is still M. Q is still Q. Moneypenny is still Moneypenny. That said, I would argue that the gadgets, Q and even Moneypenny are peripheral and in no way essential to the core of Bond. If they are to show up, they don't have to follow the same old routine. They can twist it a bit. In SP, Moneypenny still does secretarial work, there is still a romantic tension between her and Bond. Q is still giving Bond his equipment and when he goes to Austria, it is as a consequence for the action he took in his line of work. (And it's not like he's never been in the field before).

    (And sorry for my previous posts, I had issues with my phone).
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Because Ben and Naomi are big stars now? As in Halle Berry big? Or Denise Richards big? And were they so prominently used in SP?

    Ludovico I could have gone to a bookmaker and put money on anyone on this forum coming back with arguing black was white it would be you.

    Berry and Richards were your typical cast Bond girls, they have always been prominent in the movies. My point is that the whole case now is made up of people and when scripting they are trying to share screen time to keep them all happy. In this Waltz and Seydoux give them loads of screen time absolutely but not have Mallory, Q and MP out in the field and anything more than a few minutes in the film. Because of this it has developed in to a TEAM MI6 thing. That's not really Bond, Bond is a lone wolf.

    You ditch the need to keep a high profile supporting cast, you limit their time on screen it gives you more creative space to focus on Bond, the mission, the villain the over all plot. Rather than "we better make him go back to London again, so that we give Fiennes, Wishaw and Harris some more screen time.

    Old formula

    PTS
    Bond doing something at his leisure before being summoned to HQ
    MP - A few minutes flirting
    M - 5 to 10 minutes tops "here is your mission report to Q branch in the morning/now"
    Q - 5 minutes - "Here is what I have for you 007"
    Bond arriving in some far off location, investigating
    Bond Meets the main Bond girl of the movie, likely using her to get to someone else
    Car chase
    A twist
    Second Exotic Location
    A second girl
    A showdown and gun fight
    Bond 1 on 1 with the villain
    MP - final flirt a few minutes
    M - Congratulation - a few minutes

    I don't mind it cutting back to London showing M in meeting with ministers or official is it is pertinent to the story. Those aspects have been around from Connery films. Just not central to the action or helping Bond do his job in the field.

    We have gone from the UK supporting cast being in the film for 20 minutes to them featuring in most of the films. It started with Dame Judi - "Oh we have Dame Judi, we better use her more than we did any previous M and it has just grown arms and legs it didn't matter where he went she would show up, right through Brosnan and now Craig, I thought when they did away with her in Skyfall all of it would stop, but it was worse in Spectre.

    Bond 25 give me William Boyd - Solo, just so I can see Bond solo again without it before we start renaming the films "The M Team".

    Oh my, I forgot. The formula. But that is not a formula you are putting here, but a cake recipe. There is of course a Bond formula, but it's not paint by number and it is in SP just like in every Bond movie with Craig. Bond is still the protagonist. There is still a benign bizarre villain (yes even in QOS). There are still Bond girls. M is still M. Q is still Q. Moneypenny is still Moneypenny. That said, I would argue that the gadgets, Q and even Moneypenny are peripheral and in no way essential to the core of Bond. If they are to show up, they don't have to follow the same old routine. They can twist it a bit. In SP, Moneypenny still does secretarial work, there is still a romantic tension between her and Bond. Q is still giving Bond his equipment and when he goes to Austria, it is as a consequence for the action he took in his line of work. (And it's not like he's never been in the field before).

    (And sorry for my previous posts, I had issues with my phone).

    But Q hates to fly... ;)
  • Ludovico wrote: »
    Because Ben and Naomi are big stars now? As in Halle Berry big? Or Denise Richards big? And were they so prominently used in SP?

    Ludovico I could have gone to a bookmaker and put money on anyone on this forum coming back with arguing black was white it would be you.

    Berry and Richards were your typical cast Bond girls, they have always been prominent in the movies. My point is that the whole case now is made up of people and when scripting they are trying to share screen time to keep them all happy. In this Waltz and Seydoux give them loads of screen time absolutely but not have Mallory, Q and MP out in the field and anything more than a few minutes in the film. Because of this it has developed in to a TEAM MI6 thing. That's not really Bond, Bond is a lone wolf.

    You ditch the need to keep a high profile supporting cast, you limit their time on screen it gives you more creative space to focus on Bond, the mission, the villain the over all plot. Rather than "we better make him go back to London again, so that we give Fiennes, Wishaw and Harris some more screen time.

    Old formula

    PTS
    Bond doing something at his leisure before being summoned to HQ
    MP - A few minutes flirting
    M - 5 to 10 minutes tops "here is your mission report to Q branch in the morning/now"
    Q - 5 minutes - "Here is what I have for you 007"
    Bond arriving in some far off location, investigating
    Bond Meets the main Bond girl of the movie, likely using her to get to someone else
    Car chase
    A twist
    Second Exotic Location
    A second girl
    A showdown and gun fight
    Bond 1 on 1 with the villain
    MP - final flirt a few minutes
    M - Congratulation - a few minutes

    I don't mind it cutting back to London showing M in meeting with ministers or official is it is pertinent to the story. Those aspects have been around from Connery films. Just not central to the action or helping Bond do his job in the field.

    We have gone from the UK supporting cast being in the film for 20 minutes to them featuring in most of the films. It started with Dame Judi - "Oh we have Dame Judi, we better use her more than we did any previous M and it has just grown arms and legs it didn't matter where he went she would show up, right through Brosnan and now Craig, I thought when they did away with her in Skyfall all of it would stop, but it was worse in Spectre.

    Bond 25 give me William Boyd - Solo, just so I can see Bond solo again without it before we start renaming the films "The M Team".

    It's funny, we had movie after movie of Daniel Craig's solo adventures and all people did was complain about there being no Moneypenny or Q, then we finally get them and suddenly it's "TEAM MI6". There's just no winning with this. I'm fine with the team being more involved in Spectre, do I want this to happen in EVERY one of them from now on? Not really, but for this one, it worked.
    chrisisall wrote: »
    This is really strange... I want to know it I'm the only one.
    During the film, in the scenes in the compound in the meteor crater, I never ONCE though about YOLT's volcano lair. In fact, NO OTHER Bond film came to mind at all during my viewing. I was just so in the moment with the movie.

    I wasn't really thinking about the volcano lair either, the whole "surveillance" room actually gave me a Moonraker vibe.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    There were too many throwbacks in the 2nd half of SP for my comfort, starting with the train fight, followed by the volcano lair, followed by the meteor, followed by teh control room, followed by the torture followed by the explosion.

    It felt like tick, tick, tick by Mendes to me.

    I don't have a problem with the ideas, but there should have been more meat on the bone in that volcano setting. Something novel....unique....including the escape. What we were fed just didn't do it for me, although it was quite appealing visually. OHMSS is an example of how to use a 'lair setting' properly and build some real story/tension around it.

    The first half is what saves the film for me. The entire film up to the end of Rome and then L'Americain are the highlights.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    bondjames wrote: »
    there should have been more meat on the bone in that volcano setting. Something novel....unique....including the escape. What we were fed just didn't do it for me.

    You are unfriended.


    =))
  • bondjames wrote: »
    There were too many throwbacks in the 2nd half of SP for my comfort, starting with the train fight, followed by the volcano lair, followed by the meteor, followed by teh control room, followed by the torture followed by the explosion.

    It felt like tick, tick, tick by Mendes to me.

    I don't have a problem with the ideas, but there should have been more meat on the bone in that volcano setting. Something novel....unique....including the escape. What we were fed just didn't do it for me, although it was quite appealing visually. OHMSS is an example of how to use a 'lair setting' properly and build some real story/tension around it.

    The first half is what saves the film for me. The entire film up to the end of Rome and then L'Americain are the highlights.

    I have to agree 100%, up to this point I feel Mendes has done quite well with using references and incorporating them into new sequences, but not making them obvious or "LOOK, LOOK, LOOK ITS JUST LIKE THAT THING FROM THAT ONE MOVIE WE DID LONG AGO, FEEL NOSTALGIC DAMN YOU" like DAD did constantly. It all changed once we got to Blofeld's lair, suddenly it felt VERY on the nose and obvious.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Because Ben and Naomi are big stars now? As in Halle Berry big? Or Denise Richards big? And were they so prominently used in SP?

    Ludovico I could have gone to a bookmaker and put money on anyone on this forum coming back with arguing black was white it would be you.

    Berry and Richards were your typical cast Bond girls, they have always been prominent in the movies. My point is that the whole case now is made up of people and when scripting they are trying to share screen time to keep them all happy. In this Waltz and Seydoux give them loads of screen time absolutely but not have Mallory, Q and MP out in the field and anything more than a few minutes in the film. Because of this it has developed in to a TEAM MI6 thing. That's not really Bond, Bond is a lone wolf.

    You ditch the need to keep a high profile supporting cast, you limit their time on screen it gives you more creative space to focus on Bond, the mission, the villain the over all plot. Rather than "we better make him go back to London again, so that we give Fiennes, Wishaw and Harris some more screen time.

    Old formula

    PTS
    Bond doing something at his leisure before being summoned to HQ
    MP - A few minutes flirting
    M - 5 to 10 minutes tops "here is your mission report to Q branch in the morning/now"
    Q - 5 minutes - "Here is what I have for you 007"
    Bond arriving in some far off location, investigating
    Bond Meets the main Bond girl of the movie, likely using her to get to someone else
    Car chase
    A twist
    Second Exotic Location
    A second girl
    A showdown and gun fight
    Bond 1 on 1 with the villain
    MP - final flirt a few minutes
    M - Congratulation - a few minutes

    I don't mind it cutting back to London showing M in meeting with ministers or official is it is pertinent to the story. Those aspects have been around from Connery films. Just not central to the action or helping Bond do his job in the field.

    We have gone from the UK supporting cast being in the film for 20 minutes to them featuring in most of the films. It started with Dame Judi - "Oh we have Dame Judi, we better use her more than we did any previous M and it has just grown arms and legs it didn't matter where he went she would show up, right through Brosnan and now Craig, I thought when they did away with her in Skyfall all of it would stop, but it was worse in Spectre.

    Bond 25 give me William Boyd - Solo, just so I can see Bond solo again without it before we start renaming the films "The M Team".

    It's funny, we had movie after movie of Daniel Craig's solo adventures and all people did was complain about there being no Moneypenny or Q, then we finally get them and suddenly it's "TEAM MI6". There's just no winning with this. I'm fine with the team being more involved in Spectre, do I want this to happen in EVERY one of them from now on? Not really, but for this one, it worked.
    chrisisall wrote: »
    This is really strange... I want to know it I'm the only one.
    During the film, in the scenes in the compound in the meteor crater, I never ONCE though about YOLT's volcano lair. In fact, NO OTHER Bond film came to mind at all during my viewing. I was just so in the moment with the movie.

    I wasn't really thinking about the volcano lair either, the whole "surveillance" room actually gave me a Moonraker vibe.

    I've never said that. I would get your point if it wasn't for the fact it's following Skyfall in which M and Eve were on screen more than the villain.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Brosnans review


    Pierce Brosnan thinks 'Spectre' is ''too long'' and has a ''weak'' storyline.

    The 62-year-old actor, who starred in four Bond films from 1995 to 2002, has blasted the new movie, arguing it should have been more ''condensed''.

    Pierce said: ''I was looking forward to it enormously. I thought it was too long. The story was kind of weak - it could have been condensed. It kind of went on too long. It really did.''

    The Irish actor praised Daniel Craig's performance in the Sam Mendes-directed movie, but thinks he was letdown by the plotline.

    He told HitFix: '' is neither fish nor fowl. It's neither Bond nor Bourne. Am I in a Bond movie? Not in a Bond movie?

    ''But Daniel, in the fourth go-round, has ownership of it. He had a nice looseness to him. He's a mighty warrior, and I think he found a great sense of himself in this one with the one-liners and a nice playfulness there. Just get a tighter story, and he'll have another classic.''

    Pierce also defended Daniel after he recently said he'd rather ''slash'' his wrists than return to the part of 007.

    He said: ''By the time you finish making a Bond movie, you don't want to hear the name, see the name or have anything to do with it because you just want to go to ground. Give him another year off here, and he'll be ready to rock and roll for sure.''

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    it's following Skyfall in which M and Eve were on screen more than the villain.
    I can't believe that! How sad is that. Kudos to Bardem for making his villain memorable despite this.
  • Posts: 14,800
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Because Ben and Naomi are big stars now? As in Halle Berry big? Or Denise Richards big? And were they so prominently used in SP?

    Ludovico I could have gone to a bookmaker and put money on anyone on this forum coming back with arguing black was white it would be you.

    Berry and Richards were your typical cast Bond girls, they have always been prominent in the movies. My point is that the whole case now is made up of people and when scripting they are trying to share screen time to keep them all happy. In this Waltz and Seydoux give them loads of screen time absolutely but not have Mallory, Q and MP out in the field and anything more than a few minutes in the film. Because of this it has developed in to a TEAM MI6 thing. That's not really Bond, Bond is a lone wolf.

    You ditch the need to keep a high profile supporting cast, you limit their time on screen it gives you more creative space to focus on Bond, the mission, the villain the over all plot. Rather than "we better make him go back to London again, so that we give Fiennes, Wishaw and Harris some more screen time.

    Old formula

    PTS
    Bond doing something at his leisure before being summoned to HQ
    MP - A few minutes flirting
    M - 5 to 10 minutes tops "here is your mission report to Q branch in the morning/now"
    Q - 5 minutes - "Here is what I have for you 007"
    Bond arriving in some far off location, investigating
    Bond Meets the main Bond girl of the movie, likely using her to get to someone else
    Car chase
    A twist
    Second Exotic Location
    A second girl
    A showdown and gun fight
    Bond 1 on 1 with the villain
    MP - final flirt a few minutes
    M - Congratulation - a few minutes

    I don't mind it cutting back to London showing M in meeting with ministers or official is it is pertinent to the story. Those aspects have been around from Connery films. Just not central to the action or helping Bond do his job in the field.

    We have gone from the UK supporting cast being in the film for 20 minutes to them featuring in most of the films. It started with Dame Judi - "Oh we have Dame Judi, we better use her more than we did any previous M and it has just grown arms and legs it didn't matter where he went she would show up, right through Brosnan and now Craig, I thought when they did away with her in Skyfall all of it would stop, but it was worse in Spectre.

    Bond 25 give me William Boyd - Solo, just so I can see Bond solo again without it before we start renaming the films "The M Team".

    It's funny, we had movie after movie of Daniel Craig's solo adventures and all people did was complain about there being no Moneypenny or Q, then we finally get them and suddenly it's "TEAM MI6". There's just no winning with this. I'm fine with the team being more involved in Spectre, do I want this to happen in EVERY one of them from now on? Not really, but for this one, it worked.

    Agreed. And we cannot also ask them to come back but do everything by the number again. They are characters, not glorified props.

    About the Brosnan review, especially his complaint that it was too long, I think he has a short attention span.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    There were too many throwbacks in the 2nd half of SP for my comfort, starting with the train fight, followed by the volcano lair, followed by the meteor, followed by teh control room, followed by the torture followed by the explosion.

    It felt like tick, tick, tick by Mendes to me.

    I don't have a problem with the ideas, but there should have been more meat on the bone in that volcano setting. Something novel....unique....including the escape. What we were fed just didn't do it for me, although it was quite appealing visually. OHMSS is an example of how to use a 'lair setting' properly and build some real story/tension around it.

    The first half is what saves the film for me. The entire film up to the end of Rome and then L'Americain are the highlights.

    Disagree. It's a clever take on the mythos.
  • Posts: 485
    bondjames wrote: »
    it's following Skyfall in which M and Eve were on screen more than the villain.
    I can't believe that! How sad is that. Kudos to Bardem for making his villain memorable despite this.

    I suppose memorable is perhaps the kindest way of describing Bardem's performance in SF.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    There were too many throwbacks in the 2nd half of SP for my comfort, starting with the train fight, followed by the volcano lair, followed by the meteor, followed by teh control room, followed by the torture followed by the explosion.

    It felt like tick, tick, tick by Mendes to me.

    I don't have a problem with the ideas, but there should have been more meat on the bone in that volcano setting. Something novel....unique....including the escape. What we were fed just didn't do it for me, although it was quite appealing visually. OHMSS is an example of how to use a 'lair setting' properly and build some real story/tension around it.

    The first half is what saves the film for me. The entire film up to the end of Rome and then L'Americain are the highlights.

    I agree. It was almost as if ok "train fight" check ..ok enough of that, next "lair" check ..ok enough of that ...ok now what? Oh yes, Vauxhall climax ..check. ok now yes Bond driving off with Swann the whole point to my movie... let's focus on thattttt.... great cue credits!!!
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Just seen Spectre for a second time and have to say I found it much improved on this viewing. I don't know whether it's because I was sober this time or just that it's a grower, but I really enjoyed it.

    I'm tempted to say it's my favourite Craig era Bond, which probably makes it my favourite Bond film since 1987.

    Everything that bored or annoyed me the first time just washed right over.

    I had newfound appreciation for Craig, Lea and Waltz. Even the MI6 mystery bus didn't annoy me.
    I still have quibbles, but there is barely a perfect movie in the series.

    Yes, I think this is the first Bond film in years that I could actually happily rewatch a number of times without a sense of diminishing returns.

    There were a lot of nice details I picked up this time that I missed the first. I even appreciated the action more. The car chase is not exactly a classic, but I found it entertaining enough.

    It's admitedly a tad tick-box and formulaic, but like TSWLM, it does it with considerable style. If you're going to tick boxes, this is undoubtedly the way to do it.

    Wow. I really liked it. Well done Dan and Sam, you've thoroughly redeemed yourselves after the downer that was SF.

    On second viewing I even think the script is not that bad. While there's not a memorable moment in the score, apart from the brief reference rmto TWOTW, it at least doesn't detract too much from what's on screen.

    I still believe there is scope for better, more original and more exciting Bond movies, but I think this raises the bar on most recent entries. Considerably.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'm tempted to say it's my favourite Craig era Bond....
    Now I know you're joking. Better than CR?
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,586
    Getafix wrote: »
    Just seen Spectre for a second time and have to say I found it much improved on this viewing. I don't know whether it's because I was sober this time or just that it's a grower, but I really enjoyed it.

    I'm tempted to say it's my favourite Craig era Bond, which probably makes it my favourite Bond film since 1987.

    Everything that bored or annoyed me the first time just washed right over.

    I had newfound appreciation for Craig, Lea and Waltz. Even the MI6 mystery bus didn't annoy me.
    I still have quibbles, but there is barely a perfect movie in the series.

    Yes, I think this is the first Bond film in years that I could actually happily rewatch a number of times without a sense of diminishing returns.

    There were a lot of nice details I picked up this time that I missed the first. I even appreciated the action more. The car chase is not exactly a classic, but I found it entertaining enough.

    It's admitedly a tad tick-box and formulaic, but like TSWLM, it does it with considerable style. If you're going to tick boxes, this is undoubtedly the way to do it.

    Wow. I really liked it. Well done Dan and Sam, you've thoroughly redeemed yourselves after the downer that was SF.

    On second viewing I even think the script is not that bad. While there's not a memorable moment in the score, apart from the brief reference rmto TWOTW, it at least doesn't detract too much from what's on screen.

    I still believe there is scope for better, more original and more exciting Bond movies, but I think this raises the bar on most recent entries. Considerably.
    Welcome to the dark side.
  • Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'm tempted to say it's my favourite Craig era Bond....
    Now I know you're joking. Better than CR?

    I respect CR but I've never been it's biggest fan. I enjoyed SP a lot more.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'm tempted to say it's my favourite Craig era Bond....
    Now I know you're joking. Better than CR?

    I respect CR but I've never been it's biggest fan. I enjoyed SP a lot more.
    Well I must watch it again then, and see what I've been missing!
  • Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'm tempted to say it's my favourite Craig era Bond....
    Now I know you're joking. Better than CR?

    I respect CR but I've never been it's biggest fan. I enjoyed SP a lot more.
    Well I must watch it again then, and see what I've been missing!

    Give it another try. Get the best seats you can find and see what happens.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Can't WAIT for the Blu Ray of SPECTRE!!!
  • Posts: 485
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'm tempted to say it's my favourite Craig era Bond....
    Now I know you're joking. Better than CR?

    Gotta love the CR revisionism that goes on here at times. That film does has plenty of fine - mostly Fleming - moments but is equally full of padding, moronic excess in the earlier Brosnan-esque action sequences (also never understood why Mollaka shoots the construction worker that is absolutely nowhere near him nor capable of stopping him. Totally gratuitous) and certainly overstays its welcome come the Venice house sequence.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 4,622
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I like Brosnan and although I'm not his biggest fan give the guy some credit. I think he gave an honest and fair opinion of what he thought of SP and Craig. Say what you want about his Bond movies but he himself knows his Bond movies were creatively suffocated and I think he's smart enough to know they could have been better. Still, just because his movies weren't FRWL or CR it doesn't mean he can't give an honest assessment on how he feels about the Bond movies after his tenure. It's important to know that he didn't trash the film but only expressed a couple of issues he had with it like everyone of us here and had nothing but praise and support for Craig.

    yes Broz's comments were perfectly reasonable. Thank you for your contributions Pierce, and I did like all your films, way more than the first 3 re-boot films.
    Broz gave serious props to Craig's performance as Bond in SP. Lots of others are saying the same thing.
    I think DC in SP, was best Bond since the Connery/Laz glory years. Beats all of Rog, Dalts, Broz and his own first three movies.


    ===4th viewing in the books and I do want to keep going back. Its like escaping into the world of Bond for 2 and a half hours, but the film is too heavy.
    I have now isolated where it starts to weigh down. Its pretty much perfect until they get to Tangiers ( the QoS sounding music kicks in) and then it's heavy drama-tension to the end of the film. The mood really never changes from this point. Twice I've seen it now in packed theatres. Its not a crowd pleaser. Not saying the people don't like it but they stop making noise pretty much after Tangiers.
    This is an interesting dilemma in that the Tangiers scene at L'Americaine is well done, but what's happening is that we get a series of well done but heavy scenes one after the other right until the end, which gives the movie a heavy vibe in its second half.
    The theatre audience goes silent as we dutifully sit in reverent fealty to the brilliant drama being unfolded before us. At least that's how it feels to me
    Basically I don't like the way Mendes has constructed the movie.
    The second time I saw SP in Imax which was 3rd viewing, I wanted to stay and have them throw up the TSWLM on the big Imax and get some colour and a fresh vibe up there.
    In fact when I start my blu-ray viewing, Spy is going on right after, just to shake things up, brighten up the music, colour palette. You name it.
    I'm not making a major critique here, more an observation. I now know why the movie seems a little off. I think most of its parts are pretty good. The whole just leaves me a little drained.

    ==Anyway Craig is so friggin good in this film, that in itself is enough to keep coming back.
    The landing on the couch in the pts is a great homage to Connery's landing in Tiger's office in YOLT. Mendes is channeling YOLT big time in this film. I do like the way Mendes references other Bonds. I think he does it well. Only hardcore are going to pick up a lot of the references, such as the couch.
    Also Broz gets a nod too. Bond's little stare-down with Ernst in the helicopter, from the gaping hole in the Mi6 building echoes Broz looking out at Cigar Girl in her boat, from a similar vantage point,in the TWINE pts. And in both cases Bond finds a boat, gives chase and takes down the villain.

    ==I could swear this time, Blofelds pants were up to his knees. I think he's actually wearing shorts, there's so much fish-belly white leg showing.

    ==I have identified Bond Girls 4 and 5. No thanks to Mendes though. #4 is the rearview blonde in Q's lab at beginning. We get two looks at her. No face, but she does at least cut shapely figure. #5 is woman in train dining car in blue dress with bee-hive hairdoo (brunette hair piled high) But Blink and you miss her. Talk about scrounging but that's all there is beyond Swann Lucia and Estrella.
    Never has there been such paucity of pulchritude in any Bond film anywhere. Maddening.
    I even missed full experience of Seydoux's saunter down train-car aisle this time, while eyes frantically searched for any remote trace of a small-part Bond girl amongst the other diners,until settling on blue-beehive.
    Even QoS had Karin Lanz as Gift Bag Girl, Oona Chaplin as Perla de las Dunas hostess, not to mention the famous Stana Katic as Corinne, the Bolivian Hotel Receptionist, Rachel Macdowall as the air plane hostess, White's wife/girlfriend at Tosca, plus Gemma and even Ocean Sky receptionist. Never thought I would have to tell a Bond director he could learn something from Forster of all people. Sigh. Un-effen-believable.

    ===With 4th viewing Sam Smith vocals are now really starting to grate and ruin the opening titles. I had managed to block out the screeching until now, by concentrating on the visuals and orchestration, but the hideous vocal track is now breaking through.
    Never mind the needles in the neck routine, the opening titles is the true torture experience. A needle in the ear might provide relief.

    SP torture scene rankings
    1. Sam Smith vocals
    2. Blofelds pale white never ending legs- (and they call White the Pale King)
    3. needles being drilled into face.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,116
    Was the socks thing a Sony budget cut?

    :P

    I woke up this morning loving SP. I think I'm bipolar.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Cowley wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'm tempted to say it's my favourite Craig era Bond....
    Now I know you're joking. Better than CR?

    Gotta love the CR revisionism that goes on here at times. That film does has plenty of fine - mostly Fleming - moments but is equally full of padding, moronic excess in the earlier Brosnan-esque action sequences (also never understood why Mollaka shoots the construction worker that is absolutely nowhere near him nor capable of stopping him. Totally gratuitous) and certainly overstays its welcome come the Venice house sequence.
    It's not revisionism for me. It truly (along with GE) remains one of the greatest cinematic moments of my life. I came out of both Campbell films feeling completely on cloud nine. Perfection, or as close to it, as can be had.....for me.
    timmer wrote: »
    but the film is too heavy.
    I have now isolated where it starts to weigh down. Its pretty much perfect until they get to Tangiers ( the QoS sounding music kicks in) and then it's heavy drama-tension to the end of the film. The mood really never changes from this point. Twice I've seen it now in packed theatres. Its not a crowd pleaser. Not saying the people don't like it but they stop making noise pretty much after Tangiers.
    This is an interesting dilemma in that the Tangiers scene at L'Americaine is well done, but what's happening is that we get a series of well done but heavy scenes one after the other right until the end, which gives the movie a heavy vibe in its second half.
    The theatre audience goes silent as we dutifully sit in reverent fealty to the brilliant drama being unfolded before us. At least that's how it feels to me
    Basically I don't like the way Mendes has constructed the movie.
    Interesting that you mention this section. This is exactly when many members of the audience started texting on my last watch. They came up for air during the Hinx train fight but then went back to it again until the torture and the finale. I sort of got the feeling that they had just begun to lose interest somewhere in Tangiers and by the end, they just were ready to leave. It's a film of two halves, and the second half is really for us Bond groupies.....not the general public, imho. It certainly is 'heavy' and the importance & impact is lost on many people outside the fanbase.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Two finales was too much and neither is done as well as it could have been.

    Having said that I really enjoyed the film.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'm tempted to say it's my favourite Craig era Bond....
    Now I know you're joking. Better than CR?

    I respect CR but I've never been it's biggest fan. I enjoyed SP a lot more.

    I think both CR and SP suffer from having slightly weaker third acts, but if I had to choose which was better i'd say CR overall as its not quite as cheesy. Craig likewise is a little more human and less the cool action hero.
  • Posts: 4,622
    CR switches things up more . There is more variance in tone in the 2nd half

    The second half of SP has a dream like quality.
    It doesn't feel like a Bond movie.
    If feels more like an experience of Bond. From Tangiers on the tone settles into a heavy storytelling vibe. We dutifully watch. Theatre quiets. Sam Mendes is at work.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I don't like the way so much of the film is shot at night - that's a shame.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    timmer wrote: »
    SP torture scene rankings
    1. Sam Smith vocals
    2. Blofelds pale white never ending legs- (and they call White the Pale King)
    3. needles being drilled into face.
    Funny. I honestly liked the no socks thing though. Not as a fashion statement of course. It just seems to fit his "crazy" vibe. I think it actually added tension to the scene. If someone was mad enough to consider themselves stylish (while dressed like that) then I'd be terrified of what they'd do to me!
  • Posts: 11,425
    The loafers and no socks was genius.
Sign In or Register to comment.