It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Although afterall it's all a matter of perspective!
With some of my favourite films, I have read books, articles, reviews, I know so so much about the making of the movie etc etc BUT when I watch it for the umpteenth time, it's all forgotten. Because the film has taken me into that world. That's what good movies do
I watched both CR and QOS a few weeks back in the same night and this afternoon my Wife and I caught SF in preparation.
I still love CR it has flaws very few but what a great intro to the Craig era and he's just fantastic in it, still love the sinking house sequence and the sign off is one of the most tantalising cliffhangers ever.
QOS, now I didn't hate it when I first saw it, I was disappointed somewhat but like those that can't understand the love for SF I can't get why you'd think this was the best of the era.
The PTS is terrific and the brief interrogation, the film does stop at times to breathe but it could do with doing it more but Arnold's score is his best Bond one of his career and the best of his whole era so far. The Bregenz sequence is a series highlight and like all the Craig entries I find the climatic point of the film top drawer plus Craig resolving the Vesper issue is done with style. I don't like the boat sequence and the plane and sink hole part belongs in the Brosnan era but I am warming to it on each viewing but it still remains the weakest of Craig's for me to this point.
I'm as much of an admirer of Skyfall as I was when I first saw it, the PTS is thrilling and despite the plot holes I find all involved excelling. Yes Dench and Bardem are great but Craig is still the main focus and I don't understand this comment of being sidelined. Although so many see this film differently to me and others, I'll defend it quite passionately. The Tennyson inquiry sequence is always one that gets the hairs on the back of my neck. I'll forgive the GB not being at the beginning. The changing of the guard from Dench to Fiennes is very promising and the sign off almost as exciting as CR's, still remains my favourite Craig film and my all time no. 2 after OHMSS.
I like Dalton and until Craig he was my second favourite Bond but as his fans quite adamantly defend him I'm with DC. In fact Craig's treatment of this harder edged and emotional Bond who can also handle the wit magnifies the short comings of Dalton's performance. Dalton would have killed for these entries and he's admitted it but he's lacking cinematic appeal which Craig has in spades.
Although I've not seen SPECTRE yet I'm intrigued by these claims if you love SF you won't embrace SP. To be honest what I've heard of Craig getting his TB or maybe SWLM excites me greatly. I'd always maintained that Craig could do that kind of Bond and it seems from what some of you have said he's made that transformation effortlessly.
Just because I've embraced his previous films is no indication I'm ready for something more fun and not so heavy as his previous films, I like this kind of Bond and TB, OHMSS & SWLM are among my favourites. If DC can deliver in that kind of entry I'm as giddy a school boy to see what it's like.
I can't wait till tomorrow afternoon it can't come sooner.
Day #1 of 30 Days of SPECTRE...
For me SF feels like a more intelligent film. Less of a bond film and even with the plot holes some genuinely classy scenes.
Same with Cr
Spectre felt more like a strap yourselves in and turn off your brain. Which is fine, but after Craig's tenure has taken the path it has I found parts of it jarring with the character he's created
Going back for a third time this week. Fingers crossed I like it more as I really want to!
I've done a brief one in the review section but nothing detailed I have to say I loved it. I have been a big advocate of the Craig era and thoroughly enjoy those 3 previous films but SF was my favourite.
I just was ready for something lighter of touch an with dose of fun, SF did tease something like this but SP seemed not afraid to go big on it. It still has it's share of darkness but the absurdness and old school thrills was something I was ready for.
The Craig era couldn't for me carry on down the same path it had been going it needed to change gear. The end of SF teased this and I wondered if they'd go there and the sign off with SF was just for the 50th to give us a warm glow of nostalgia then we'd get gloomy and heavy again.
SF seemed to balance between what had been before in this era and some of the old school thrills, I wasn't sure if Craig or Mendes would go as far as they'd gone with SP, for me now Craig proves he's capable of all facets of Bond. He can do the dark and broody with depth and emotion but he can do the cheeky humorous 007 and in my view effortlessly. Of course this has to stay within his abilities but more than any other actor he's showed the range in his tenure that no one else has.
I've got my second viewing Saturday and can't wait, I will have to wait for the Blu ray as it's just to expensive going to the cinema to justify another trip after that. I'm taking my Dad and Mum for my Dad's Birthday, it's kind of a tradition since they both took me to see SWLM 1977 at the age of 5.
No it doesn't have the depth of the previous entries but unlike someone posted Craig can't just coast ( which I don't believe he's doing anyway) like Connery & Moore. I believe he's offering more than just old school Bond, I still see the detail in his performance but we couldn't go on forever with Craig's Bond being that Bond.
People have been impatient to see him as Bond instead of becoming in each film, well here for me he is. SF was moving in that direction and if SP had been more like that and I get from what I saw of the leaks that if Logan had not been reined in SP would have struck more the tone of SF and the whole Bond Oberhauser thing would have been more defined, the way they don't emphasise it too much is to it's strength.
People have called it Craig's TB, personally I was thinking it's more like his SWLM. I think it retains enough of Craig's traits for it to exist without seem entirely like a homage fest. I'm saying I recognise it's not as deep but I'm happy with that and it's the sequel that SF deserved and not what Logan might have delivered had P&W and Butterworth been called in to tweak and pep up.
No I get the jest from the people that read the leaks that it needed lots of help and went off on bizarre tangents but was not darker.
So if your thinking you were cheated out of a better script I don't think you were at all.
Absolutely. Especially so to see the absolute mass of detail in the Day of the Dead crowds. The two times I've seen it on Imax compared to a standard screen it's easier to spot Bond in the crowd before Sciarra passes him.
It depends on the cinema as the Odeon which does IMAX charges more for a standard viewing than other multiplexes such as Cineworld. I've seen SP in both and there's about a £6 difference.
I saw SP on opening night at an IMAX screening and there were entire families there and in the premier seats too - so it was an expensive night for some!
For me DC's performance in CR is Bond, it's Fleming's Bond.
My initial reactions to the film were underwhelming but have to say I really rather enjoyed it this time. I think as with most Bond films once I cant view objectively on the first watch. Most of the things I was unsure of seemed to be tied up or explained in things I had missed first time out.
I thought for a 2.5 hour film it fairly flew by. And the climax makes more sense once you know what's coming.
Sure there's things I would have preferred. Two scenes in particularly stand out as too expositional and the whole thing is entirely risk free in a way skyfall wasn't but overall I would say it's gone up in my rankings. Probably lower reaches of the top ten.
There is a slight sense of retread but also some good dialogue and scenes.
I'm interested to see where they take b25.
2hours and 30 minutes later I just had the feeling: what a waste of time ! Is this the best they can do ?
To resume: SPECTRE is just dull and disappointing, extremely thin plot (is there a decent plot anyway?), the whole Morocco part is just ridiculious, Léa Seydoux is tasteless as a Bond girl and Christopher Waltz is so baaaaad as vilain. Not bad as mean, but just so wrongly played. Problably one of the worst casting errors of the whole saga. You have the feeling they tried to put so many things in this movie (continuing the Skyfall-feeling, referring to all the Craig movies, introducing back an old ennemy, is Edward Snowden in this movie ?, ...) but as a whole it just failed big time.
Maybe expectations were to high; I was hoping for a masterpiece; it turned out to be an overcooked egg. Like DAD was the worst and the last for Brosnan; it's definitely time for Mendes to stop and probably for Daniel too. How can they continue this story arc after the mess they made in SPECTRE... ? It's time for a fresh start like they did with CR.
You're relative new here and this is your only post. So your purpose to finally comment is to bash SP?
These chaps are still around? I thought they would have shot themselves after CR humiliated their cause.
Are we surprised?
And tomorrow Austria ;-)