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

194959799100

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Doesnt make sense though why Blofeld would try to kill White decades earlier & then trust him through the events of CR-SP.
    It's a twisted story I'm sure...
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Its implied Blofeld came to Whites house to kill him & Madeline shot or attempted to shoot him.

    Really? So how long have Blofeld and White been at odds to the point Blofeld went to his house to try and kill him? The way Swann told the story she sounded as though she was a child when the incident happened and compared to White's current situation within the film his fallout with Blofeld seemed to have been recent; recent as in less than a year prior to tge events of SP.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Doesnt make sense though why Blofeld would try to kill White decades earlier & then trust him through the events of CR-SP.

    Exactly! The writing is a frikkin mess.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I certainly felt it odd, and should have asked the question on these threads before.

    The way Madeline mentioned the story in the train, it appeared that it may have been someone from SPECTRE who came to the house. Later, the way in which Blofeld recounts the story suggested to me that he could have been that man who made the visit, at that earlier time. I realize it didn't quite jive, like a few things in this film, and forgot to ask. Perhaps it was a concept that they started with in the script and failed to properly follow through on during the numerous rewrites?
  • Posts: 183
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Doesnt make sense though why Blofeld would try to kill White decades earlier & then trust him through the events of CR-SP.

    Exactly! The writing is a frikkin mess.

    I appreciate that it could be taken like this, but in many viewings I never deduced the "man" that came to kill White was Blofeld. I simply interpreted it as the man who came to kill White was simply another assassin, as part of the murky world he occupied, and that when Blofeld went to visit him it was just business!?
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,043
    The more it gets discussed the more I beginning to dislike it, I'll have to wait till the Blu ray because I'm certainly not paying to see it again.

    SPECTRE is turning into the biggest missed opportunity of the Craig era, to think what could have been done, introducing the organisation and ESB. Also they could have tied the films together so much more convincingly and cohesively.

    I'm starting to understand the likes @Birdleson frustration after initially defending it on my first viewing.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Trigger wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Doesnt make sense though why Blofeld would try to kill White decades earlier & then trust him through the events of CR-SP.

    Exactly! The writing is a frikkin mess.

    I appreciate that it could be taken like this, but in many viewings I never deduced the "man" that came to kill White was Blofeld. I simply interpreted it as the man who came to kill White was simply another assassin, as part of the murky world he occupied, and that when Blofeld went to visit him it was just business!?

    That's what I thought too but with some thinking that it was Blofeld that showed up to the house in Swann's version of events, it serves the notion that the writing for this film severely lacks focus in parts.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Trigger wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Doesnt make sense though why Blofeld would try to kill White decades earlier & then trust him through the events of CR-SP.

    Exactly! The writing is a frikkin mess.

    I appreciate that it could be taken like this, but in many viewings I never deduced the "man" that came to kill White was Blofeld. I simply interpreted it as the man who came to kill White was simply another assassin, as part of the murky world he occupied, and that when Blofeld went to visit him it was just business!?

    That's what I thought too but with some thinking that it was Blofeld that showed up to the house in Swann's version of events, it serves the notion that the writing for this film severely lacks focus in parts.
    At the very least, the two events are too similar, and are introduced too closely in the film so as to possibly cause the viewer to draw a connection. I think it's possible there may have been something bigger planned here for Blofeld/Madeline, and during the script rewrites they just left it dangling...because it made sense for the gun scene.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Trigger wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Doesnt make sense though why Blofeld would try to kill White decades earlier & then trust him through the events of CR-SP.

    Exactly! The writing is a frikkin mess.

    I appreciate that it could be taken like this, but in many viewings I never deduced the "man" that came to kill White was Blofeld. I simply interpreted it as the man who came to kill White was simply another assassin, as part of the murky world he occupied, and that when Blofeld went to visit him it was just business!?

    That's what I thought too but with some thinking that it was Blofeld that showed up to the house in Swann's version of events, it serves the notion that the writing for this film severely lacks focus in parts.
    At the very least, the two events are too similar, and are introduced too closely in the film so as to possibly cause the viewer to draw a connection. I think it's possible there may have been something bigger planned here for Blofeld/Madeline, and during the script rewrites they just left it dangling...because it made sense for the gun scene.

    I agree. To me it makes no sense that the man would be Blofeld, given the timeframe in question, but the inclusion of the Blofeld dialogue in the meteor chamber just serves to cloud the issue. It's not necessary. That being said, it's not enough of an issue for me to get my knickers in a twist.
  • only if there are evidence that Blofeld ate the bullet from the young Madeline will make the Blofeld-is-the-visitor theory plausible.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    dire399 wrote: »
    only if there are evidence that Blofeld ate the bullet from the young Madeline will make the Blofeld-is-the-visitor theory plausible.
    She didn't say she shot the visitor. Just that she knew where the gun was. She could have just threatened him. It's deliberately vague.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 4,622
    Trigger wrote: »

    .... but in many viewings I never deduced the "man" that came to kill White was Blofeld. I simply interpreted it as the man who came to kill White was simply another assassin, as part of the murky world he occupied, and that when Blofeld went to visit him it was just business!?

    This above . That's what I've thought from first viewing.
    She hates guns because she had to kill some guy who came to kill her dad, when she was a child.
    Blofelds's meteor room mention of visiting was just him telling her he had visited her in the past.
    What the point of this mention was I don't know, but I don't think its connected to her story of the beretta under the sink.

    ==As for Bond handing her the loaded gun, this really does seem to be terrible writing.
    I am trying to allow that maybe the scene makes sense and I don't see it, but it does seem he handed her a loaded gun to experiment with. ie whilst teaching a newbie about handguns, he hands her a loaded gun.
    Nobody does that, least of all a trained agent. How could this scenario have escaped the eye of the editors? It makes no sense at all.
    Again maybe I am missing something, because it just seems impossible that it could be written like this without anyone noticing.
  • leas_moleleas_mole love is the promise of suffering
    Posts: 574
    timmer wrote: »
    Trigger wrote: »

    Blofelds's meteor room mention of visiting was just him telling her he had visited her in the past.
    What the point of this mention was I don't know, but I don't think its connected to her story of the beretta under the sink.
    It was a nod to the Inglorious Basterds opening scene. Lea confirmed this in an interview. I don't think the killing the intruder and ESB visiting Mr. White when Madeleine was very young are connected.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 4,622
    leas_mole wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »

    Blofelds's meteor room mention of visiting was just him telling her he had visited her in the past.
    What the point of this mention was I don't know, but I don't think its connected to her story of the beretta under the sink.
    It was a nod to the Inglorious Basterds opening scene. Lea confirmed this in an interview. I don't think the killing the intruder and ESB visiting Mr. White when Madeleine was very young are connected.

    Ahhh. That is it!! You are right. Of course. It all fits. The line really doesn't serve much purpose otherwise, but it does fit with the Tarantino film. Clever.
    But why does she say she doesn't remember the visit. Does that have any significance, her answer?

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited December 2015 Posts: 5,939
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Trigger wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    Doesnt make sense though why Blofeld would try to kill White decades earlier & then trust him through the events of CR-SP.

    Exactly! The writing is a frikkin mess.

    I appreciate that it could be taken like this, but in many viewings I never deduced the "man" that came to kill White was Blofeld. I simply interpreted it as the man who came to kill White was simply another assassin, as part of the murky world he occupied, and that when Blofeld went to visit him it was just business!?

    That's what I thought too but with some thinking that it was Blofeld that showed up to the house in Swann's version of events, it serves the notion that the writing for this film severely lacks focus in parts.

    I thought the same thing as both of you. Or is Blofeld the author of all of Swann's pain, too?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I found this still from a deleted scene of SP with a figure holding a silenced pistol in front of a window enveloped by an orange sun:

    http://i.imgur.com/Iuy4abI.jpg?1

    I'm pretty sure it may in fact be an unused flashback sequence showing the killer in White's house that Madeleine fires at, which likely would've played as she confessed the event to Bond while they were on the train. The gunman doesn't look very much like a young Oberhauser, going on height alone, but I'll let all of you be the judge.

    This question, of whether Madeleine shot Blofeld or another man entirely in interesting, and one I still have of SP. The way Dr. Swann talks it's like she murdered the man, but I can't be certain. Maybe Mendes' commentary for the film will shed some light on all this? One hopes.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited December 2015 Posts: 10,588
    I believe it's just an alternate shot of one of the assassins who aim at Lucia during the villa scenes. But I like your idea.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    jake24 wrote: »
    I believe it's just an alternate shot of one of the assassins who aim at Lucia during the villa scenes. But I like your idea.

    Man, that does seem right on now that you say it. Thanks anyway.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Shardlake wrote: »
    The more it gets discussed the more I beginning to dislike it, I'll have to wait till the Blu ray because I'm certainly not paying to see it again.
    I *WISH* I could pay to see it again & again & again but I work too much. 8-|
    Man, I feel so sorry for anyone who's a Bond fan who cannot experience the sheer joy I get from this movie... it's so relaxed and full of adventure & romance... and an atypical Happy ending for Craig's Bond... the more it gets discussed and I hear about plot holes, inconsistencies and improbabilities the more I rely on my OWN reception of the film because it's not about picking apart a film unabashedly attempting to entertain without pretension, it's about MY squee factor. :))
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 4,622
    There are no plot holes in the movie.
    Everything hangs together fine.
    I would though like to know how we are to rationalize Bond handing a loaded gun to Swann to experiment with, when he is clearly of the opinion that she is not a gun person
    This I think is a big gaffe, that should have been caught in post.

    Non Mysteries.

    I think it's obvious that Swann killed the guy who came to kill her dad. I think that is made clear.

    And as @leamole says, Seydoux herself explains that the Waltz line in the meteor room was a deliberate nod to Basterds.
    This is something Mendes does well, little homages and nods to other films.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    timmer wrote: »
    There are no plot holes in the movie.
    Everything hangs together fine.
    How DARE you not be persuaded by the arguments of those that do not like something? Oh, I get it- you're one of those independents... hey, your coat is kind of a brownish colour...



    ;)
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 4,622
    From my experience 99% of so-called plot holes in Bond films can be explained.
    Helps if you've watched each film about 100x, but I have, as have many others here.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    timmer wrote: »
    From my experience 99% of so-called plot holes in Bond films can be explained.
    Helps if you've watched each film about 100x, but I have, as have many others here.
    Did you miss my Firefly ref there?
    No matter, it all boils down to what you can & can't accept in an established character that you follow.
    Kids today might not remember the "I understand its power now" controversy from Temple Of Doom, but it's the same thing over & over.
    ;)
  • Posts: 4,622
    Ahhh. I haven't watched FF in so long.
    I just remember Monica Baccarin was hottest thing ever and Fillion was a real smooth operator.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    timmer wrote: »
    There are no plot holes in the movie.
    Everything hangs together fine.
    I would though like to know how we are to rationalize Bond handing a loaded gun to Swann to experiment with, when he is clearly of the opinion that she is not a gun person
    This I think is a big gaffe, that should have been caught in post.

    Non Mysteries.

    I think it's obvious that Swann killed the guy who came to kill her dad. I think that is made clear.

    And as @leamole says, Seydoux herself explains that the Waltz line in the meteor room was a deliberate nod to Basterds.
    This is something Mendes does well, little homages and nods to other films.

    I personally find that more than a little frustrating. It's a bad move to make in any movie, but especially a Bond film.

    When watching a Bond adventure you're playing by the logic of the world that film presents and you use any information you can gleam from the characters to get an understanding of them and the plot as it factors into that world. When a director then winks playfully to another film using a character's backstory, as we got with Dr. Swann and Basterds here, the world of Bond clashes with a reference to a world outside of his and found in another film entirely, which perplexes.

    What results is a confusing situation where, just to leave behind a pseudo-clever wink to another film, Mendes creates confusion amongst audiences as we try to determine if that part of Madeleine's backstory (her shooting a man in her house) has any other relevance to the film and Blofeld or to our understanding of her as a character, or worse, if it's nothing but another throw away allusion.

    I don't know why Mendes is so damn referential as a director, but sometimes he really takes it too far, especially in an instance like this when what is presented as an interesting part of a character's backstory is revealed as just a shoehorned reference that only exists because of a film outside the world of Bond.
  • Posts: 4,622
    @Obrady You're right the basterds reference is
    not really obvious.
    I didn't catch it until @leamole pointed it out.
    But yes for sure the line just kind of hangs there, with a "is that supposed to mean something that I didn't quite catch" kind of feel.
    But now that I know what it means I do think it's kind of clever.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    timmer wrote: »
    Ahhh. I haven't watched FF in so long.
    I just remember Monica Baccarin was hottest thing ever and Fillion was a real smooth operator.
    Get it.
    http://www.amazon.com/Firefly-Complete-Blu-ray-Nathan-Fillion/dp/B001EN71CW/ref=tmm_blu_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1449814867&sr=1-1
  • leas_moleleas_mole love is the promise of suffering
    Posts: 574
    The interview is here - seems like not many people picked on the Inglorious Basterds reference. Waltz protests too much but I do not trust the guy anymore :))
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 11,425
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    The more it gets discussed the more I beginning to dislike it, I'll have to wait till the Blu ray because I'm certainly not paying to see it again.
    I *WISH* I could pay to see it again & again & again but I work too much. 8-|
    Man, I feel so sorry for anyone who's a Bond fan who cannot experience the sheer joy I get from this movie... it's so relaxed and full of adventure & romance... and an atypical Happy ending for Craig's Bond... the more it gets discussed and I hear about plot holes, inconsistencies and improbabilities the more I rely on my OWN reception of the film because it's not about picking apart a film unabashedly attempting to entertain without pretension, it's about MY squee factor. :))

    I totally get where those guys are coming from though. Sometimes you see a film and it just doesn't work for you. I had that experience with SF. Saw it a few times and I just didn't enjoy it - that's when all the flaws come to the surface because instead of just sitting back and being immersed, you're totally detached.

    I read the criticisms of SP and most of them make sense. Like the fact that after Mexico most of the scenes and locations are devoid of people. Nine Eyes is about to go live and it's just C in that huge building etc. It's fair comment. Just like the plot and story are not as good as they might have been and the shootout at the crater is a bit lame etc.

    It's just that for me the overall impact/effect was sufficient for me to overlook the flaws.

    From a personal perspective I felt the plot issues with SP are much less in your face than with SF though. They're pot holes as opposed to the gigantic craters in the SF story.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I enjoyed Spectre but i'm beginning to think it will be seen as a fairly standard entry once a few years have gone by - at least amongst casual fans and Mr Jo Public. Of the people I've spoken to most have expressed disappointment or a "meh" feeling towards it. Several have also described Blofeld's backstory as daft or silly.

    Only one person I know amongst my friends genuinely loved it.
Sign In or Register to comment.