SPECTRE - Your reviews. NO SPOILERS.

1212224262734

Comments

  • Posts: 686
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Perdogg, please use spoiler tags in the future, especially in a non-spoiler thread.

    The paragraph has been edited.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 37,936
    @Perdogg, I edited it for you. ;)

    No worries, happens to the best of us. I let out a spoiler or two after I saw the film and had too many threads open; got mixed up and my excitement was clouding my ability to think.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 7,653
    Perdogg wrote: »
    I apologize. I thought what I had published was common knowledge.

    No it wasn't but I did enjoy your review.

    I myself are still recovering from the experience which left me flabbergasted at what I had just seen. While I thought QoB was poorly executed, SF basically one large plothole SP made me really think what the heck EON was up to with this unbalanced movie in which odd choices seem to be made with a story that never really took off. Some of the action scenes quite impressive but were off for some reason or another. I am really upset and in two minds about this movie. I guess we need another Campbell to get a decent movie.

    The gunbarrel and the PTS was really great and then we find out that bloody 007 has gone rogue a- bloody-gain. Can the fucker for a change get a mission and carry it through? That said some of SP was actually quite good.
  • Posts: 2,559
    suavejmf wrote: »
    I never rip apart any of Fleming's books.....anything else is fair game.

    Oh, no, excluding Fleming's masterpieces of course! :)
  • Posts: 369
    Who cares if he goes rogue or not? You've got 19 films where he is on a mission, what difference does it make?
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,726
    Stamper wrote: »
    Who cares if he goes rogue or not? You've got 19 films where he is on a mission, what difference does it make?

    I think what SaintMark was referring to is that EoN repeat themselves too much. Which you have to admit is a fair point: 007 'going rogue', MI6 under fire or at risk from the bureaucracy - these are all things they have done to death since the reboot.

    A straight mission (with as many complications or twists as they like, no prob) with an old style briefing in M's office followed by some snooping around by Bond on MI6-sanctioned time would actually feel FRESH now that it has been absent from the series for so long...
  • Artemis81Artemis81 In Christmas Land
    Posts: 543
    Well I saw the movie last night and my thoughts afterwards were that it was.... weird. I spent most of time looking at the screen with my mouth half open trying to understand what was happening and how I felt about it. It was like I know what's going, but I don't. I don't know, it just seem weird movie to me. :|
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Artemis81 wrote: »
    Well I saw the movie last night and my thoughts afterwards were that it was.... weird. I spent most of time looking at the screen with my mouth half open trying to understand what was happening and how I felt about it. It was like I know what's going, but I don't. I don't know, it just seem weird movie to me. :|

    I'm not surprised. It's surreal. Psychedelic. Unexpected....

    I think that must have been intentional. It's grabbing some people right away but putting off others.

    Polarizing, but interesting.
  • Artemis81Artemis81 In Christmas Land
    Posts: 543
    bondjames wrote: »
    Artemis81 wrote: »
    Well I saw the movie last night and my thoughts afterwards were that it was.... weird. I spent most of time looking at the screen with my mouth half open trying to understand what was happening and how I felt about it. It was like I know what's going, but I don't. I don't know, it just seem weird movie to me. :|

    I'm not surprised. It's surreal. Psychedelic. Unexpected....

    I think that must have been intentional. It's grabbing some people right away but putting off others.

    Polarizing, but interesting.
    Maybe that's what it is, but right now, I can't tell you whether I liked or not. Definitely requires a second viewing.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Artemis81 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Artemis81 wrote: »
    Well I saw the movie last night and my thoughts afterwards were that it was.... weird. I spent most of time looking at the screen with my mouth half open trying to understand what was happening and how I felt about it. It was like I know what's going, but I don't. I don't know, it just seem weird movie to me. :|

    I'm not surprised. It's surreal. Psychedelic. Unexpected....

    I think that must have been intentional. It's grabbing some people right away but putting off others.

    Polarizing, but interesting.
    Maybe that's what it is, but right now, I can't tell you whether I liked or not. Definitely requires a second viewing.
    I agree. You must see it at least twice I think. It was unsettling for me the first time as well. My 2nd is tomorrow.
  • Posts: 1,098
    bondjames wrote: »
    Artemis81 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Artemis81 wrote: »
    Well I saw the movie last night and my thoughts afterwards were that it was.... weird. I spent most of time looking at the screen with my mouth half open trying to understand what was happening and how I felt about it. It was like I know what's going, but I don't. I don't know, it just seem weird movie to me. :|

    I'm not surprised. It's surreal. Psychedelic. Unexpected....

    I think that must have been intentional. It's grabbing some people right away but putting off others.

    Polarizing, but interesting.
    Maybe that's what it is, but right now, I can't tell you whether I liked or not. Definitely requires a second viewing.
    I agree. You must see it at least twice I think. It was unsettling for me the first time as well. My 2nd is tomorrow.

    All becomes much clearer on 2nd viewing ............. well except for where Bond got that plane from! :)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,283
    mepal1 wrote: »
    All becomes much clearer on 2nd viewing ............. well except for where Bond got that plane from! :)
    There was an airstrip nearby! He's James bloody Bond! He DOES stuff like that!

    :))
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 1,098
    chrisisall wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    All becomes much clearer on 2nd viewing ............. well except for where Bond got that plane from! :)
    There was an airstrip nearby! He's James bloody Bond! He DOES stuff like that!

    :))

    I did see someone post a photo shopped image of a runway on top of that mountain! :))
  • Posts: 533
    I'll probably write a more detailed review later. But I'll put it in a nutshell. I had a few problems with the movie - namely Sam Mendes' sparse directing style, the car chase in Rome and the screen chemistry between Craig and Léa Seydoux.

    Otherwise, I felt this was a better written film than "SKYFALL". It was a relief to be spared the misogyny and major plot holes. I enjoyed the connections between the previous three films. I also enjoyed how the theme of death and past ghosts seemed to be introduced in both the movie's theme song and the opening sequence featuring the Day of the Dead celebration in Mexico City. And although both Craig and Seydoux weren't the greatest screen team, both gave excellent performances. So did Christoph Waltz, Ralph Fiennes, Jesper Christensen, Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw and Dave Bautista.

    I think "SPECTRE" was Craig's second best Bond movie, after "CASINO ROYALE".
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,283
    DRush76 wrote: »
    I think "SPECTRE" was Craig's second best Bond movie, after "CASINO ROYALE".
    IMHO no matter what order you put them in, SP cemented Craig's place as a world class Bond. It brought it all together, and even made QOS & SF look better. As a Bond fan I could neither ask for more, nor be more pleased.

    B-)
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 1,008
    As I said in the spoiler-enabled review, I'll just take the American slogan of my beloved Sega Mega Drive and say: "SP does what DADn't".

    This movie may be overly long, but man, it's so damn funny. It's classic Bond, no more, no less, with its virtues and its flaws. Not superior to CS or SF IMHO, but... Man, what a ride!
    That said, the fandom can now say what Bob Dylan said when he heard Eddie Cochran for the first time: "Behold! This movie was made for us! This is our movie!"

    Note: Yes, I misquoted Dylan deliberately for my own purposes. The evil that men do...
  • Posts: 533
    This movie may be overly long, but man, it's so damn funny.


    There are at least five or six Bond movies that are overly long.
  • DRush76 wrote: »
    This movie may be overly long, but man, it's so damn funny.


    There are at least five or six Bond movies that are overly long.

    Of course. I won't state otherwise (TB comes to mind).

  • Posts: 11,425
    TB - possibly the most overrated Bond movie before Skyfall
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,283
    Getafix wrote: »
    TB - possibly the most overrated Bond movie before Skyfall
    I would accept that as an axiom.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    TB - possibly the most overrated Bond movie before Skyfall

    For me the most overrated film of the series, period. I even prefer NSNA over TB (Anathema!!! But I just love that yay-super-80s smell NSNA has).

    BTW, Getafix, did you dislike Spectre, or it's like you stated, a decent film in your opinion (without being generous :D) ?

  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,425
    I have only seen it once. I'm hoping to see it again soon.

    On first assessment I'd say it's better than SF but not as good as CR or QOS.

    I'm afraid that I'm one of those people who really like Craig but feel his films have not quite lived up to my expectations.

    For me personally SF was a bit too Brosnan. And SP is a decent stab at a Moore Bond film but without the panache and wit.

    The problem is that when you get a 'serious' director like Mendes involved it all becomes a bit ponderous. The back story stuff has become a burden IMO and we're I danger of losing the essence of who Bond is.

    Having said that, I have very high expectations, and I still think Craig has been a very descent Bond.

    Would like to see Ken Branagh direct the next one. I think he has the perfect sensibility for a modern Bond.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    I have only seen it once. I'm hoping to see it again soon.

    On first assessment I'd say it's better than SF but not as good as CR or QOS.

    I'm afraid that I'm one of those people who really like Craig but feel his films have not quite lived up to my expectations.

    Having said that, I have very high expectations, and I still think Craig has been a very descent Bond.

    Thanks, dude.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 5,767
    Let´s start with the pros that come to my mind:
    Craig´s and Bond´s faith and self-esteem are inspiring. Never has Craig-Bond had such badass moments.
    The humor works surprisingly well in many places, even though there are also some really low moments.

    I would give the film a lot of pros and cons, but on the whole, I find it rather appalling, the reasons being the colours and lighting, the pace, and the music. To use @SaintMark´s words, I was really upset. It seems that with these latest two entries my favorite film series has shook me off for the time being, and that is quite a shock for me.

    I found the title song an exceptionally good song, but the performance I find a perversion.
    Newman´s score was again very good in the moodier parts, but even more annoying than in SF in the action scenes. I watched the film twice, and both times the music blared immensely, I´m not sure if it was the fault of the cinemas, or if the music is mixed in so loud. In any case, the Zimmer-like tendency of boosting out everything else with the score, that shone through in SF, is all over SP. Turning the bass less up in the mixing of the music would have sufficed already.
    One of the main reasons why I used to be attracted so much to Bond films was the splendid colours and lighting. I hate what I saw in SP. I on purpose watched it twice, thinking maybe it´s just something I have to open myself to. But the second time around I found it even less bearable.
    I have a faint clue why some people praise van Hoytema´s camera work over the moon, but it doesn´t fit my taste at all.
    I experienced many moments where I dropped out of the film, because it dragged so much.
    The Rome car chase might be a good example for the problems the whole film has: It has moments of stunning beauty, but overall it is put together so badly that the end result is anything but satisfying.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,726
    chrisisall wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    All becomes much clearer on 2nd viewing ............. well except for where Bond got that plane from! :)
    There was an airstrip nearby! He's James bloody Bond! He DOES stuff like that!

    :))

    Exactly. I'm aghast that some people are complaining about the real-world logistic issues of getting a light aircraft at such short notice... in a BOND film.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    AceHole wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    All becomes much clearer on 2nd viewing ............. well except for where Bond got that plane from! :)
    There was an airstrip nearby! He's James bloody Bond! He DOES stuff like that!

    :))

    Exactly. I'm aghast that some people are complaining about the real-world logistic issues of getting a light aircraft at such short notice... in a BOND film.

    We even saw the bloody plane before hand! They took the time to show a plane arriving, they show a plane on the landing strip (same plane?). If anything, it is too obvious how he got the plane /:)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Sandy wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    All becomes much clearer on 2nd viewing ............. well except for where Bond got that plane from! :)
    There was an airstrip nearby! He's James bloody Bond! He DOES stuff like that!

    :))

    Exactly. I'm aghast that some people are complaining about the real-world logistic issues of getting a light aircraft at such short notice... in a BOND film.

    We even saw the bloody plane before hand! They took the time to show a plane arriving, they show a plane on the landing strip (same plane?). If anything, it is too obvious how he got the plane /:)

    I've come to the conclusion some people are too busy eating/drinking and not looking at the screen. I can't think of how else you would miss the blatant airstrip.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 157
    Watched it for a 2nd time. I did enjoy it a bit more but will still say its a good film, not a great film.
    In particular, I've mentioned the car chase before. The concept was to drive a couple of exclusive cars, fast around the backdrop of beautiful night time Rome. That just doesn't cut it whatsoever. It didn't help that I watched FYEO the day before because this film desperately needs some choreography by Remy Julienne and Willy Bogner.

    I doubt I'll see it at the cinema again, will probably wait for blu ray now.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Getafix wrote: »
    TB - possibly the most overrated Bond movie before Skyfall

    TB and SF belong into the same category.

    Both hugely successful, both quite boring in places.
    Both brought tons of new people to the franchise.
    TB has considerably slipped in the rankings.
    SF will too, once enough time has past.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,726
    grunther wrote: »
    Watched it for a 2nd time. I did enjoy it a bit more but will still say its a good film, not a great film.
    In particular, I've mentioned the car chase before. The concept was to drive a couple of exclusive cars, fast around the backdrop of beautiful night time Rome. That just doesn't cut it whatsoever. It didn't help that I watched FYEO the day before because this film desperately needs some choreography by Remy Julienne and Willy Bogner.

    I doubt I'll see it at the cinema again, will probably wait for blu ray now.

    Finally - thank you, I thought I was alone in this.
Sign In or Register to comment.