SPECTRE - Your reviews. NO SPOILERS.

17810121335

Comments

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I think Ben Whishaw as Q, was Fantastic in Spectre. By doing a completely
    different character to the wonderful Desmond, he's giving us a very contemporary
    Q and I can't wait to see how his character evolves over the series. :)
  • Posts: 567
    Ben had some great one liners!
  • thomasetchethomasetche France
    Posts: 18
    DrGorner wrote: »
    I think Ben Whishaw as Q, was Fantastic in Spectre. By doing a completely
    different character to the wonderful Desmond, he's giving us a very contemporary
    Q and I can't wait to see how his character evolves over the series. :)

    Amen ! Actually, his caracter really annoyed me in SF. A real slappy face IMO.
    In SP, it's definitely an other person! I really enjoyed his lines and his behaviour With Bond.

  • Posts: 89
    Do we see a pattern here?

    GE/CR reboot, fresh
    TND/QOS fast paced, no time to characters action epic
    WINE/SF more serious take on Bond
    DAD/SP Moonraker bis

    I'm guessing the circle will start again with the next one and next actor. Weird.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    I wouldn't lumber SP in with DAD or MR at all.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Stamper wrote: »
    Do we see a pattern here?

    GE/CR reboot, fresh
    TND/QOS fast paced, no time to characters action epic
    WINE/SF more serious take on Bond
    DAD/SP Moonraker bis

    I'm guessing the circle will start again with the next one and next actor. Weird.

    Surely TWINE was an unintended comedic take.....?
  • Posts: 12
    It would be interesting to see what the reaction to SPECTRE would have been had it come out immediately after QoS.
    Not only are they tonally very different but I think SPECTRE would have gotten more praise. It seems a lot of the public's reviews are comparing it to Skyfall a lot.
  • Posts: 89
    I don't think so, Bond falls in love with a woman, gets involved. Comedy comes from the casting of X-mas Jones, but overall, it's dark, Bond kills the woman he loves at the end.
  • DariusDarius UK
    Posts: 354
    Can someone please tell me:
    is the gun barrel at the very start? Yes or no.
    Yes it is.

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,277
    Hey, remember me? I’m the guy who went to the press screening last week and wrote some disparaging things about Spectre here?

    Well, here’s the deal. I went to see it again last night, and now with a little distance and perspective, I have to say I really enjoyed it.

    It’s an interesting thing, watching a film you’re truly anticipating for the first time. You have such built-up expectations that you essentially have an preconceived idea in your head of what they film should be, opposed to what the film actually is. At initial blush, it seemed hollow and a little empty and I was left undernourished. However, going back in to see it, I was able to appreciate the film for what it is opposed to what I had wanted it to be.

    So what is the film: It’s a bloody entertaining ride of movie. The film is fun, fast and deftly handled by Mendes. It is so confidently directed by Mendes and the artistry on show is through the roof (I think you really come to appreciate photography and music on further viewings of a film). Even some of my minor issues seemed to get ironed out over the course of the film. Both Andrew Scott and Dave Bautisita who I found disappointing nonentities actually really worked this time out. Scott is a little one-note, despite this he still brings a slimy smugness to the role, while Baustista is really very memorable even if he is a little underutilised.

    On the whole, the film is a lot of fun and maybe a little richer than I initially appreciated. Aside from the obvious themes of modern espionage vs good old fashioned techniques, there is an interesting undercurrent running through the film about the ‘life of an assassin’ and the chance to be able to escape from that world. Through this we ar eintoruduced to the charming Lea Seydoux, who brings so much pathos and Gallic charm to the picture.

    I also really liked Ralph Fiennes in the film, his M is a slightly different characterisation then we’re seen in the past. He’s basically an overworked, exasperated bureaucrat who is having massive problems keeping his agents in line whilst watching his organisation fall apart. He’s a man losing his grip in a new world and Fiennes brings a tinge of pathos and considerable stoicism to the role. I felt oddly proud when he asks the policeman to step down and says “Mallory, 00-Section”; it was the most resolute he had been throughout the film and I really liked that aspect.

    However, this film belongs to Daniel Craig. Half the performance in any Bond film is posing, and damn, DC looks good. Beyond that, he’s slightly more cheeky and loose; there is a considerable degree of confidence in the way he approaches the film. He’s sexy, cool and classy. There’s a real understatement to proceedings, but he isn’t afraid to occasionally wink towards the camera, not in an overt way but in a slightly self-knowing manner which is rather new to his Bond (and maybe the reason many have made the occasional Roger Moore comment)

    The real champion behind proceedings here is Sam Mendes. SP really is a very different beast to SF, it’s a much larger and more sprawling film (albeit a tad messy) and Mendes juggles a number of different tones and in the most part is very successful. The film is constructed in a very different manner to SF and mostly relies on mystery and action to build a story opposed to develop a conventional narrative. Each location brings a new flavour to the piece and allows the film to evolve and change. In particular I loved the London finale, where you see the old Mi6 team take on C’s New World Order all whilst Bond is taking a psychological mind-fuck through the empty carcass of the once proud Mi6 building. There is a certain tinge of The Third Man to these segments with a certain touch of Le Carre, whilst keeping all the typical Bond bombast.

    I have to say that some of my quibbles do stand. The relationships aren’t as developed as I’d like and the narrative is a little weak, furthermore Spectre and Waltz aren’t given much to do (the dodgy torture scene also doesn’t work). However, it’s a great fun piece of popcorn cinema that will surely endure for the ages.

    Furthermore, it’s really got me excited for the follow-up. We have to get a Mendes and Craig reunion!

    4.5/5


    You know what's braver than being a double-O agent? Publicly admitting a mistake.

    That took guts.

    I will see the film one week from tonight. Can't wait. I also fear that my expectations are so great that the actual film won't be what I think I should be.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Darius wrote: »
    Can someone please tell me:
    is the gun barrel at the very start? Yes or no.
    Yes it is.

    It's all in the threads. Relax lol.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I liked both your reviews @Pierce2Daniel.

    In a sea of overwhelming positivity (could it be any other way on these boards as a new Bond comes out) I found both your reviews suitably balanced. Your opinion may have changed (which one is entitled to) but I definitely noted the objectivity of your observations in both reviews.

    I'm sure I'll like this film when I get to see it but I'm also sure I'll have negative impressions on certain elements, which is as it should be. No Bond film has been perfect, even the vaunted CR.
  • thomasetchethomasetche France
    Posts: 18
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I wouldn't lumber SP in with DAD or MR at all.

    Exactly ! Not a single look alike. Specially With DAD.

  • edited October 2015 Posts: 1,098
    oops just realised i had posted here before!

  • AVBAVB
    Posts: 97
    I've seen it, like I've said on the spoiler thread, it was entertaining enough but not the epic I'd hope given the scope of the premise, come on guys & girls at EON, this was SPECTRE, it does feel like a missed chance yet again.

    Taboo as this may be given this site, but maybe Bond really is done.

    It's not done but I wouldn't be surprised if the next one falters in terms of money and popularity, especially if Craig leaves.

    I thought the whole Craig era is one missed opportunity, Spectre is no different. Unfortunately Bond is what it is and not what I'd like it to be. It's just a camp, trashy comic book movie masquerading as something with depth and intelligence(or interesting). It's dumb nonsense but it always has been. I thought the Craig era would make a go of creating something with substance; but Mendes couldn't make Bond a tragic hero despite all the silly Bond childhood stuff.

    I long for a Bond on mission film where he's not constantly talking to his scooby doo clan. Let him go, let him meet interesting exotic characters! Q and MP are not, nor is M.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    AVB wrote: »
    I've seen it, like I've said on the spoiler thread, it was entertaining enough but not the epic I'd hope given the scope of the premise, come on guys & girls at EON, this was SPECTRE, it does feel like a missed chance yet again.

    Taboo as this may be given this site, but maybe Bond really is done.

    It's not done but I wouldn't be surprised if the next one falters in terms of money and popularity, especially if Craig leaves.

    I thought the whole Craig era is one missed opportunity, Spectre is no different. Unfortunately Bond is what it is and not what I'd like it to be. It's just a camp, trashy comic book movie masquerading as something with depth and intelligence(or interesting). It's dumb nonsense but it always has been. I thought the Craig era would make a go of creating something with substance; but Mendes couldn't make Bond a tragic hero despite all the silly Bond childhood stuff.

    I long for a Bond on mission film where he's not constantly talking to his scooby doo clan. Let him go, let him meet interesting exotic characters! Q and MP are not, nor is M.

    Surely CR at least rose considerably above "camp, trashy comic book movie masquerading as something with depth and intelligence(or interesting)"?

    I get your point on the scooby doo crowd though. This is not 24. We don't need Chloe (or is that Q......or Benji even) being a sidekick for our hero.
  • AVBAVB
    Posts: 97
    bondjames wrote: »
    AVB wrote: »
    I've seen it, like I've said on the spoiler thread, it was entertaining enough but not the epic I'd hope given the scope of the premise, come on guys & girls at EON, this was SPECTRE, it does feel like a missed chance yet again.

    Taboo as this may be given this site, but maybe Bond really is done.

    It's not done but I wouldn't be surprised if the next one falters in terms of money and popularity, especially if Craig leaves.

    I thought the whole Craig era is one missed opportunity, Spectre is no different. Unfortunately Bond is what it is and not what I'd like it to be. It's just a camp, trashy comic book movie masquerading as something with depth and intelligence(or interesting). It's dumb nonsense but it always has been. I thought the Craig era would make a go of creating something with substance; but Mendes couldn't make Bond a tragic hero despite all the silly Bond childhood stuff.

    I long for a Bond on mission film where he's not constantly talking to his scooby doo clan. Let him go, let him meet interesting exotic characters! Q and MP are not, nor is M.

    Surely CR at least rose considerably above "camp, trashy comic book movie masquerading as something with depth and intelligence(or interesting)"?

    I get your point on the scooby doo crowd though. This is not 24. We don't need Chloe (or is that Q......or Benji even) being a sidekick for our hero.

    Actually my issues are with the Mendes ones mainly! I enjoyed CR although I think it needed a more daring director, and had problems with Bond being a reckless, terminator-esque, petulant rookie at 38 y/o. It was written for a younger actor, no doubt. QoS had an under appreciated intelligence to it. But yes, CR was more than a comic book genre movie. SF and SP, however...mutton dressed as lamb!

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited October 2015 Posts: 4,116
    AVB wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    AVB wrote: »
    I've seen it, like I've said on the spoiler thread, it was entertaining enough but not the epic I'd hope given the scope of the premise, come on guys & girls at EON, this was SPECTRE, it does feel like a missed chance yet again.

    Taboo as this may be given this site, but maybe Bond really is done.

    It's not done but I wouldn't be surprised if the next one falters in terms of money and popularity, especially if Craig leaves.

    I thought the whole Craig era is one missed opportunity, Spectre is no different. Unfortunately Bond is what it is and not what I'd like it to be. It's just a camp, trashy comic book movie masquerading as something with depth and intelligence(or interesting). It's dumb nonsense but it always has been. I thought the Craig era would make a go of creating something with substance; but Mendes couldn't make Bond a tragic hero despite all the silly Bond childhood stuff.

    I long for a Bond on mission film where he's not constantly talking to his scooby doo clan. Let him go, let him meet interesting exotic characters! Q and MP are not, nor is M.

    Surely CR at least rose considerably above "camp, trashy comic book movie masquerading as something with depth and intelligence(or interesting)"?

    I get your point on the scooby doo crowd though. This is not 24. We don't need Chloe (or is that Q......or Benji even) being a sidekick for our hero.

    Actually my issues are with the Mendes ones mainly! I enjoyed CR although I think it needed a more daring director, and had problems with Bond being a reckless, terminator-esque, petulant rookie at 38 y/o. It was written for a younger actor, no doubt. QoS had an under appreciated intelligence to it. But yes, CR was more than a comic book genre movie. SF and SP, however...mutton dressed as lamb!

    Truly too harsh. What are you actually expecting? Even Fleming created Bond to be escapism for adults not fine literature.

    What franchise if any do you feel is doing it right or better?



  • AVBAVB
    edited October 2015 Posts: 97
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    AVB wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    AVB wrote: »
    I've seen it, like I've said on the spoiler thread, it was entertaining enough but not the epic I'd hope given the scope of the premise, come on guys & girls at EON, this was SPECTRE, it does feel like a missed chance yet again.

    Taboo as this may be given this site, but maybe Bond really is done.

    It's not done but I wouldn't be surprised if the next one falters in terms of money and popularity, especially if Craig leaves.

    I thought the whole Craig era is one missed opportunity, Spectre is no different. Unfortunately Bond is what it is and not what I'd like it to be. It's just a camp, trashy comic book movie masquerading as something with depth and intelligence(or interesting). It's dumb nonsense but it always has been. I thought the Craig era would make a go of creating something with substance; but Mendes couldn't make Bond a tragic hero despite all the silly Bond childhood stuff.

    I long for a Bond on mission film where he's not constantly talking to his scooby doo clan. Let him go, let him meet interesting exotic characters! Q and MP are not, nor is M.

    Surely CR at least rose considerably above "camp, trashy comic book movie masquerading as something with depth and intelligence(or interesting)"?

    I get your point on the scooby doo crowd though. This is not 24. We don't need Chloe (or is that Q......or Benji even) being a sidekick for our hero.

    Actually my issues are with the Mendes ones mainly! I enjoyed CR although I think it needed a more daring director, and had problems with Bond being a reckless, terminator-esque, petulant rookie at 38 y/o. It was written for a younger actor, no doubt. QoS had an under appreciated intelligence to it. But yes, CR was more than a comic book genre movie. SF and SP, however...mutton dressed as lamb!

    Truly too harsh. What are you actually expecting? Even Fleming created Bond to 've escapism for adults not fine literature.

    What franchise if any do you feel is doing it right or better?



    Bond IS fantasy, I have no qualms about it. The difference is that Fleming had something interesting to say about the world he was in and wrote fascinating and complex characters. He wrote real people in the real world but with the tinge of fantastical escapism, not this crash, bang, wollop. Modern Bond has no idea what it wants to be. An attempt was made with CR and QoS to go in a specific direction but they always chickened out, and now Skyfall and to a greater extent Spectre dismantled have fully dismantled that direction by attempting to be 'classic Bond', yet comes across as lacking in identity and soul. Why not create a new identity for our times? It was a great opportunity to be daring and creative, but instead we get formula pretending to be an emotionally engaging drama. Bleh.

    Oh, and I think M:I is a franchise which does it better. That series knows exactly what it is and goes all the way(even M:I 2 which was schlock).


  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited October 2015 Posts: 4,116
    AVB wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    AVB wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    AVB wrote: »
    I've seen it, like I've said on the spoiler thread, it was entertaining enough but not the epic I'd hope given the scope of the premise, come on guys & girls at EON, this was SPECTRE, it does feel like a missed chance yet again.

    Taboo as this may be given this site, but maybe Bond really is done.

    It's not done but I wouldn't be surprised if the next one falters in terms of money and popularity, especially if Craig leaves.

    I thought the whole Craig era is one missed opportunity, Spectre is no different. Unfortunately Bond is what it is and not what I'd like it to be. It's just a camp, trashy comic book movie masquerading as something with depth and intelligence(or interesting). It's dumb nonsense but it always has been. I thought the Craig era would make a go of creating something with substance; but Mendes couldn't make Bond a tragic hero despite all the silly Bond childhood stuff.

    I long for a Bond on mission film where he's not constantly talking to his scooby doo clan. Let him go, let him meet interesting exotic characters! Q and MP are not, nor is M.

    Surely CR at least rose considerably above "camp, trashy comic book movie masquerading as something with depth and intelligence(or interesting)"?

    I get your point on the scooby doo crowd though. This is not 24. We don't need Chloe (or is that Q......or Benji even) being a sidekick for our hero.

    Actually my issues are with the Mendes ones mainly! I enjoyed CR although I think it needed a more daring director, and had problems with Bond being a reckless, terminator-esque, petulant rookie at 38 y/o. It was written for a younger actor, no doubt. QoS had an under appreciated intelligence to it. But yes, CR was more than a comic book genre movie. SF and SP, however...mutton dressed as lamb!

    Truly too harsh. What are you actually expecting? Even Fleming created Bond to 've escapism for adults not fine literature.

    What franchise if any do you feel is doing it right or better?



    Bond IS fantasy, I have no qualms about it. The difference is that Fleming had something interesting to say about the world he was in and wrote fascinating and complex characters. He wrote real people in the real world but with the tinge of fantastical escapism, not this crash, bang, wollop. Modern Bond has no idea what it wants to be. An attempt was made with CR and QoS to go in a specific direction but they always chickened out, and now Skyfall and to a greater extent Spectre dismantled have fully dismantled that direction by attempting to be 'classic Bond', yet comes across as lacking in identity and soul. Why not create a new identity for our times? It was a great opportunity to be daring and creative, but instead we get formula pretending to be an emotionally engaging drama. Bleh.

    Oh, and I think M:I is a franchise which does it better. That series knows exactly what it is and goes all the way(even M:I 2 which was schlock).


    I agree MI has more consistent writing but Bond has been around a great deal longer. The producers have experimented now and then with the unintentional result that not everyone's vision of what Bond is or should be as the same.

    I don't think as far as character development that MI is ages ahead of Bond. That franchise isn't about character history or at least deep character history.

    After a history of fantasy this territory is still new to Bond ....this is beyond just crying at your new bride's murder.

    Yes Fleming did ground in a reality but the cinematic Bond has not.

    There isn't a literary MI to compare.

    But back to Bond I guess my retort which is what it is ..is that ok so it has faults ...some have enjoyed and others have been challenged as to how they see Bond..and still others just hate.

    I for one am more forgiving but yes I do want consistency... a higher bar etc. Your comments which are your opinion and thanks for sharing just hit me as harsher than Bond deserved.


  • robcoperobcope St. Petersburg, FL
    edited October 2015 Posts: 58
    One thing that has been lacking in the Craig era movies is a pretty steady amount of the Bond theme throughout the movie. TND seems to have the most Bond theme in the modern day movies. By my count, Skyfall had only 4-5 overtures of the Bond theme.

    Is SPECTRE any different?
  • Posts: 1,680
    I thought Skyfall had a lot of Bond theme

    Opening scene
    Bike Chase
    Train fight
    dragon boat casino
    Komodo Dragon fight
    Silvas island
    DB5 scene
    Silva destroying the DB5
    endng gunbarrel.
  • robcoperobcope St. Petersburg, FL
    Posts: 58
    I do think you're right, though I don't remember the Bond theme during the Komodo Dragon fight. I don't tend to count the gunbarrel as an instance. That's just kinda given.

    And perhaps the most egregious example of the lack of Bond theme would be QoS. There's, what, 2 overtures (and that may even be including the gunbarrel). Contrast that with TND which probably had 12-15 instances (including multiple times in one scene). I think that was almost wearing it out, but I'd like to hear more than what the Craig era has had on average.

    It's odd; there are just some movies that seem to have more of it than other movies. FRWL, YOLT, LALD, and LTK all stick out as movies that seemed to have it in many scene transitions and action scenes. LTK had some instances where it played through the entire action sequence (like roping Sanchez's plane and water skiing). Love it.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 11,175
    My preliminary review from my first (and so far only) viewing on Monday night. I've tried not to give any specifics away.


    Preposterous thrills with a darker streak.

    Right from the outset we know that this Bond instalment is intended to be bigger, better and different to its direct predecessors. An indulgent feast of a film that aims to deliver on both over-the-top action and intense drama in a way that is, oddly, both even sillier AND even darker than before.

    Die Another Day attempted a similar approach in 2002 and, like Spectre, featured many throwbacks to previous moments in the James Bond series. This time around, however, the results are substantially more successful thanks to the strong cast and watchful eye of director Sam Mendes. A further attempt is made to delve into Bond’s past and link previous events within the Craig-007 universe, a brave move intended to give more depth and continuity to the character.

    At the same time however, a lot of screen time is given to crowd-pleasing action. While the film may sometimes slip back into caricature territory a little too much (Bond dressed in a tux falling onto a sofa after just destroying a building comes to mind), at other moments Spectre is far more hard hitting and brutal than anything seen in Craig’s run yet. The Orwellian themes of surveillance within the government that are explored throughout the film come to a head with a genuinely uncomfortable torture sequence that goes a step or two further from what we saw in Casino Royale. Indeed, several cuts were apparently made to ensure the 12A certificate was passed – nonetheless, the violence still feels very close to the mark on occasions.

    It will probably take several viewings to determine whether Spectre holds up properly. Although it may not have the overall intensity of its predecessors, this is still a thoroughly entertaining action adventure.

    8/10
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 7,055
    Good review, @BAIN123. Reading many reviews it always puzzled me how a film which apparantly digs deep into Bond's childhood and Spectre could yet be too light for the elitist movie reviewers... Nice to see some one pointing out there are darker elements to this film as expected. For the pretentious film critics who want to legitimate their own expertice by labeling classic Bond as vulgar, second rate film making I can understand a lighter touch vouldn't be approved of. Personaly I have no problem with some counterbalance to the serius emotional stoff, especially after we have hadde so much of that in Craigs tenure som far. Like if "intelligent", "intellectual" people can't have the luxury of sitting back and simply be entertained ones in a while?
  • AVBAVB
    Posts: 97
    jobo wrote: »
    Good review, @BAIN123. Reading many reviews it always puzzled me how a film which apparantly digs deep into Bond's childhood and Spectre could yet be too light for the elitist movie reviewers... Nice to see some one pointing out there are darker elements to this film as expected. For the pretentious film critics who want to legitimate their own expertice by labeling classic Bond as vulgar, second rate film making I can understand a lighter touch vouldn't be approved of. Personaly I have no problem with some counterbalance to the serius emotional stoff, especially after we have hadde so much of that in Craigs tenure som far. Like if "intelligent", "intellectual" people can't have the luxury of sitting back and simply be entertained ones in a while?

    Because the digging into his childhood is a hack job way of trying to 'legitimate' Bond as a tragic hero. As we all know Bourne caused Broccoli and Wilson to attempt to take Bond more seriously, but they were unwilling to go all the way with it; they retained all the components which apparently make Bond what it is and yet tried to steer him into a realm of anguish and 'gritty realism'. It has made Bond schizophrenic and lacking an identity of it's own. I think they have failed to stop Bond being a parody of itself.

    In Spectre we have a film where character development and pacing make way for tighter edits in order to get all the set pieces in, and as a result the believability of these 'characters' is thwarted. The Dark Knight is a top example of how a fantasy action popcorn film has the balls to pace itself accordingly and give it's characters space to become real. I'm not looking for 'serious emotional stuff', I'm looking for an adaptation of Fleming's wonderful character studies transposed onto a fantasy story. Bourne did it, Nolan did it with TDK(bit a bodge job on it's sequel but almost). It's insane how Mendes couldn't without resorting to some hackneyed two parter about oedepal trysts and VERY petty childhood vengeance. He's supposed to be the director who makes Bond a real person on screen!

    Whereas Connery's era imbued those cheeky one liners with absolute aplomb, here is it done with the nuance of a jackhammer. I did enjoy the film but there is really little to talk about with regards to it or Skyfall, given how shallow they are. This is why I enjoy QoS; it's a straight up revenge flick and doesn't overcook Bond's trauma, but let's other characters reference it instead. His relationship with other characters was truthful aswell. Perhaps it was better since it was actually a Bond on mission film, and he didn't have all these interactions with his trusted allies, the secretary and quartermaster. Craig was magnificent in that film. I think he's never quite comfortable with Bond's sardonic wit in the other ones. The less he has to say the better because he shows it with his eyes and body.

    I'm sorry if you find these points pretentious but it seems that raising them infront of any Bond fanboy elicits the same response. Anyhoo, thanks for reading.


  • edited October 2015 Posts: 11,425
    AVB wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Good review, @BAIN123. Reading many reviews it always puzzled me how a film which apparantly digs deep into Bond's childhood and Spectre could yet be too light for the elitist movie reviewers... Nice to see some one pointing out there are darker elements to this film as expected. For the pretentious film critics who want to legitimate their own expertice by labeling classic Bond as vulgar, second rate film making I can understand a lighter touch vouldn't be approved of. Personaly I have no problem with some counterbalance to the serius emotional stoff, especially after we have hadde so much of that in Craigs tenure som far. Like if "intelligent", "intellectual" people can't have the luxury of sitting back and simply be entertained ones in a while?

    Because the digging into his childhood is a hack job way of trying to 'legitimate' Bond as a tragic hero. As we all know Bourne caused Broccoli and Wilson to attempt to take Bond more seriously, but they were unwilling to go all the way with it; they retained all the components which apparently make Bond what it is and yet tried to steer him into a realm of anguish and 'gritty realism'. It has made Bond schizophrenic and lacking an identity of it's own. I think they have failed to stop Bond being a parody of itself.

    In Spectre we have a film where character development and pacing make way for tighter edits in order to get all the set pieces in, and as a result the believability of these 'characters' is thwarted. The Dark Knight is a top example of how a fantasy action popcorn film has the balls to pace itself accordingly and give it's characters space to become real. I'm not looking for 'serious emotional stuff', I'm looking for an adaptation of Fleming's wonderful character studies transposed onto a fantasy story. Bourne did it, Nolan did it with TDK(bit a bodge job on it's sequel but almost). It's insane how Mendes couldn't without resorting to some hackneyed two parter about oedepal trysts and VERY petty childhood vengeance. He's supposed to be the director who makes Bond a real person on screen!

    Whereas Connery's era imbued those cheeky one liners with absolute aplomb, here is it done with the nuance of a jackhammer. I did enjoy the film but there is really little to talk about with regards to it or Skyfall, given how shallow they are. This is why I enjoy QoS; it's a straight up revenge flick and doesn't overcook Bond's trauma, but let's other characters reference it instead. His relationship with other characters was truthful aswell. Perhaps it was better since it was actually a Bond on mission film, and he didn't have all these interactions with his trusted allies, the secretary and quartermaster. Craig was magnificent in that film. I think he's never quite comfortable with Bond's sardonic wit in the other ones. The less he has to say the better because he shows it with his eyes and body.

    I'm sorry if you find these points pretentious but it seems that raising them infront of any Bond fanboy elicits the same response. Anyhoo, thanks for reading.


    I agree with a lot of what you say here.

    For me SF was the low point of the Craig era. This new film is not as good as QoS or CR IMO but is a vast improvement on its predecessor.

    Character development was a lot more convincing in CR and QOS I think and Craig was excellent in his first two films.

    I felt an element of autopilot with Spectre when it comes to Craig. I don't think its lack of effort. I think perhaps he feels he's 'got' Bond now and what comes across is a much less edgy and interesting character than the one he portrayed in the first two films. I still like him in the role, but SP has just confirmed some of my lingering doubts about Craig. I am going to set the cat among the pigeons here, but like Robert Hardy I'm just not sure Craig is all that good an actor. Give me Connery, Moore or Dalton any day - all of them had flaws but for me are far more compelling in the role. I know this flies in the face of the received wisdom but although Craig has undeniable presence in screen, I'm just not sure he has much charisma. Still, as I've said elsewhere, he's still head and shoulders above Brosnan in the part.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,305
    Getafix wrote: »
    AVB wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Good review, @BAIN123. Reading many reviews it always puzzled me how a film which apparantly digs deep into Bond's childhood and Spectre could yet be too light for the elitist movie reviewers... Nice to see some one pointing out there are darker elements to this film as expected. For the pretentious film critics who want to legitimate their own expertice by labeling classic Bond as vulgar, second rate film making I can understand a lighter touch vouldn't be approved of. Personaly I have no problem with some counterbalance to the serius emotional stoff, especially after we have hadde so much of that in Craigs tenure som far. Like if "intelligent", "intellectual" people can't have the luxury of sitting back and simply be entertained ones in a while?

    Because the digging into his childhood is a hack job way of trying to 'legitimate' Bond as a tragic hero. As we all know Bourne caused Broccoli and Wilson to attempt to take Bond more seriously, but they were unwilling to go all the way with it; they retained all the components which apparently make Bond what it is and yet tried to steer him into a realm of anguish and 'gritty realism'. It has made Bond schizophrenic and lacking an identity of it's own. I think they have failed to stop Bond being a parody of itself.

    In Spectre we have a film where character development and pacing make way for tighter edits in order to get all the set pieces in, and as a result the believability of these 'characters' is thwarted. The Dark Knight is a top example of how a fantasy action popcorn film has the balls to pace itself accordingly and give it's characters space to become real. I'm not looking for 'serious emotional stuff', I'm looking for an adaptation of Fleming's wonderful character studies transposed onto a fantasy story. Bourne did it, Nolan did it with TDK(bit a bodge job on it's sequel but almost). It's insane how Mendes couldn't without resorting to some hackneyed two parter about oedepal trysts and VERY petty childhood vengeance. He's supposed to be the director who makes Bond a real person on screen!

    Whereas Connery's era imbued those cheeky one liners with absolute aplomb, here is it done with the nuance of a jackhammer. I did enjoy the film but there is really little to talk about with regards to it or Skyfall, given how shallow they are. This is why I enjoy QoS; it's a straight up revenge flick and doesn't overcook Bond's trauma, but let's other characters reference it instead. His relationship with other characters was truthful aswell. Perhaps it was better since it was actually a Bond on mission film, and he didn't have all these interactions with his trusted allies, the secretary and quartermaster. Craig was magnificent in that film. I think he's never quite comfortable with Bond's sardonic wit in the other ones. The less he has to say the better because he shows it with his eyes and body.

    I'm sorry if you find these points pretentious but it seems that raising them infront of any Bond fanboy elicits the same response. Anyhoo, thanks for reading.


    I agree with a lot of what you say here.

    For me SF was the low point of the Craig era. This new film is not as good as QoS or CR IMO but is a vast improvement on its predecessor.

    Character development was a lot more convincing in CR and QOS I think and Craig was excellent in his first two films.

    I felt an element of autopilot with Spectre when it comes to Craig. I don't think its lack of effort. I think perhaps he feels he's 'got' Bond now and what comes across is a much less edgy and interesting character than the one he portrayed in the first two films. I still like him in the role, but SP has just confirmed some of my lingering doubts about Craig. I am going to set the cat among the pigeons here, but like Robert Hardy I'm just not sure Craig is all that good an actor. Give me Connery, Moore or Dalton any day - all of them had flaws but for me are far more compelling in the role. I know this flies in the face of the received wisdom but although Craig has undeniable presence in screen, I'm just not sure he has much charisma. Still, as I've said elsewhere, he's still head and shoulders above Brosnan in the part.

    Hmm... :-?

    I'm sorry but I simply can not agree with this.
  • So i waited a few days to really let it settle and gauge my true thoughts and feelings on SPECTRE. I saw it on Tuesday night, along with two other big 007 fans and all three of us had the same thoughts and feelings, the other two were a bit stronger than mine but still similar.

    So we start with the obvious. Did i enjoy the film? Honestly, not really. The whole film had an overriding sense of a script that had been messed with over and over by different people, wanting different things. Insert humour here, insert humour there etc, which really didn't work, seemed awkward and at some points cringe worthy.

    It also has a "Die Another Day" feel to it, thankfully not quite as bad but still it has the over the top, self referential air too it. Something, i personally, am not a fan of.

    This time out our characters are a lot more shallow. We aren't given a lot of time to develop who people are or even what their purpose in the movie is. Instead we are offered more action or more scoping shots of pretty locations. It's not like we didn't have time to have everything. The film is too long as it is. Plenty of time to explore the characters further.

    It's not all bad points, The film looked great. The D.O.P. needs to be given a pat on the back for his work. In particular the PTS, sensational imagery. The music score was solid, nothing to write home about and sadly inferior to that of Skyfall but still a solid score. Weirdly "The Writings on the Wall" works better in the film than it does as a stand alone record. Just something i noticed. Really dislike the song as a song, but as a companion piece to the opening titles, it kinda' worked.

    Without spoilers and going in depth that's about the best I can do.

    My Score. 5.5/10

    On a side note. The two people who accompanied me where even less favourable than myself. They both gave it a 3/10 and both said its in the bottom 3 or 4 Bond films. One of them is even calling for a post Die another Day reboot. So there you go.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I'm really looking forward to seeing SP, to confirm once and for all whether DC can pull off an OTT Bond film as assuredly and charismatically as the two masters of this kind of thing, namely SC & RM.

    I too have my doubts, because to date (up to and including SF) I have found him far more interesting and compelling when he has real depth to delve into, like he did in CR. In the SP trailers at least, he seems quite uncomfortable and unnatural delivering the one liners....not PB or TD level uncomfortable, but uncomfortable nonetheless.

    I found him strangely robotic and overshadowed in SF, particularly in comparison to Dench, Fiennes & Bardem, except for a few sarcastic flourishes here and there (e.g. first meeting with Q & psyche eval scenes).

    Rog & Sean could make even the dullest of scenes interesting to watch. Craig seems like he needs something more meaty to really come alive and become magnetic.

    AVB wrote: »
    In Spectre we have a film where character development and pacing make way for tighter edits in order to get all the set pieces in, and as a result the believability of these 'characters' is thwarted. The Dark Knight is a top example of how a fantasy action popcorn film has the balls to pace itself accordingly and give it's characters space to become real. I'm not looking for 'serious emotional stuff', I'm looking for an adaptation of Fleming's wonderful character studies transposed onto a fantasy story. Bourne did it, Nolan did it with TDK(bit a bodge job on it's sequel but almost). It's insane how Mendes couldn't without resorting to some hackneyed two parter about oedepal trysts and VERY petty childhood vengeance. He's supposed to be the director who makes Bond a real person on screen!

    Whereas Connery's era imbued those cheeky one liners with absolute aplomb, here is it done with the nuance of a jackhammer. I did enjoy the film but there is really little to talk about with regards to it or Skyfall, given how shallow they are. This is why I enjoy QoS; it's a straight up revenge flick and doesn't overcook Bond's trauma, but let's other characters reference it instead. His relationship with other characters was truthful aswell. Perhaps it was better since it was actually a Bond on mission film, and he didn't have all these interactions with his trusted allies, the secretary and quartermaster. Craig was magnificent in that film. I think he's never quite comfortable with Bond's sardonic wit in the other ones. The less he has to say the better because he shows it with his eyes and body.

    Well explained post @AVB. I agree that DC says a lot with his non-verbal communication (seeing Vesper in the shower in CR.....looking around the room while tied up waiting for Silva's entrance in SF, psyche eval in SF etc. etc.). I'm very curious to see how I feel about this entry...Will let you know on the 6th.
Sign In or Register to comment.