SPECTRE - Your reviews. NO SPOILERS.

1222325272834

Comments

  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,725
    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.

    But TB plods whilst giving us a Bondfilm. SF plods whilst being a melodramatic mish-mash of ideas which happens to feature James Bond in one or two scenes...
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    AceHole wrote: »
    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.

    But TB plods whilst giving us a Bondfilm. SF plods whilst being a melodramatic mish-mash of ideas which happens to feature James Bond in one or two scenes...

    Absolutely true.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Yes. Although I'm not a big fan of TB it is superior to SF in almost every level. Better Bond, better Bond girls, better screenplay, looks better etc. etc. Not a fan of the TB song though - I might even put Adele's effort above it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    TB has considerably slipped in the rankings.
    SF will too, once enough time has past.

    I disagree on this last point. In fact, I think it has only been strengthened by this last outing.

    It is unique enough (like LTK, QoS, OHMSS and some others) to be looked back on very fondly with time (almost cult like), although some hate it (like those others). Even its detractors on this site say it's different, and that's never a bad thing.

    Like Tosca, it's not for everyone, and that's to its credit.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,725
    bondjames wrote: »
    TB has considerably slipped in the rankings.
    SF will too, once enough time has past.

    I disagree on this last point. In fact, I think it has only been strengthened by this last outing.

    It is unique enough (like LTK, QoS, OHMSS and some others) to be looked back on very fondly with time (almost cult like), although some hate it (like those others). Even its detractors on this site say it's different, and that's never a bad thing.

    Like Tosca, it's not for everyone, and that's to its credit.

    I do think SF will come to be looked upon with more negativity the more time passes... for me it has all of SP's weaknesses, yet none of it's strengths.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    AceHole wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    TB has considerably slipped in the rankings.
    SF will too, once enough time has past.

    I disagree on this last point. In fact, I think it has only been strengthened by this last outing.

    It is unique enough (like LTK, QoS, OHMSS and some others) to be looked back on very fondly with time (almost cult like), although some hate it (like those others). Even its detractors on this site say it's different, and that's never a bad thing.

    Like Tosca, it's not for everyone, and that's to its credit.

    I do think SF will come to be looked upon with more negativity the more time passes... for me it has all of SP's weaknesses, yet none of it's strengths.

    Let's see. I disagree.

    SP has definitely put SF in a new positive light for me, and I was so-so about it before.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,725
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    TB has considerably slipped in the rankings.
    SF will too, once enough time has past.

    I disagree on this last point. In fact, I think it has only been strengthened by this last outing.

    It is unique enough (like LTK, QoS, OHMSS and some others) to be looked back on very fondly with time (almost cult like), although some hate it (like those others). Even its detractors on this site say it's different, and that's never a bad thing.

    Like Tosca, it's not for everyone, and that's to its credit.

    I do think SF will come to be looked upon with more negativity the more time passes... for me it has all of SP's weaknesses, yet none of it's strengths.

    Let's see. I disagree.

    SP has definitely put SF in a new positive light for me, and I was so-so about it before.

    Let's see... I disagree again but I will defend to the death your right to disagree with me :D
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    The SF will be seen this way guff is just those that don't like the film trying to justify their dislike of it. I believe SF will be held in higher regard than SPECTRE when the dust settles. For me it's far more compelling and that Scotland climax aces both the ones in SP. SP has the worst closing set piece of the Craig era, CR, QOS & SF blow it away.

    I enjoyed SP but after a 2nd viewing certain things just don't sit with me, the brother angle was too far and last 2 set pieces needed more thought. Keep the dialogue exchanges and the torture but something different to Bond just blowing up the base with few shots, same goes for Bond downing ESB's helicopter so easily.

    I didn't want to believe the script was such a mess and EON & Mendes are responsible for letting Logan get so far and having to get P&W try to paper the cracks.

    P&W get allot of flack here but I think SP could have been considerably worse if Logan had been not stopped, the whole ESB Brother angle is obviously his and Mendes obviously loved this it was thankfully toned down who knows what we might have got.

    I believe SM & DC wanted to see if they could make a full on Bond with all the trappings and they have but unfortunately it doesn't sit well with them wanting this back story, I bought it just about in SF but SP, it needs to stop.


    1.SF
    2.CR
    3. SP
    4.QOS
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Re. the idea of 'we just need a good writer'. Unfortunately it's nowhere near that simple.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,466
    Getafix wrote: »
    Would like to see Ken Branagh direct the next one. I think he has the perfect sensibility for a modern Bond.

    There's a good call.
  • Posts: 154
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    TB - possibly the most overrated Bond movie before Skyfall
    I would accept that as an axiom.

    Skyfall is with out doubt the most overratated Bond movie. I don't think the same is true of Thunderball. Just because a movie makes a lot of money doesn't mean it's overrated. Overrated has more to do with critical reception. For some reason, critics gave the boring Skyfall a pass on all its glaring plot-holes (possibly the worst since Moonraker).

    Rearding Thunderball though, if you look at the Rotten Tomatoes website for example, Thunderball is ranked fourth among Connery's Bond movies. I think that's probably about where most people would rank it. So, it's not overrated. It simply made a lot money because it arrived on the heals of the (at least somewhat) overrated Goldfinger.

    Thunderball was a far more entertaining and original movie thank Skyfall.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,725
    gklein wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    TB - possibly the most overrated Bond movie before Skyfall
    I would accept that as an axiom.

    Skyfall is with out doubt the most overratated Bond movie. I don't think the same is true of Thunderball. Just because a movie makes a lot of money doesn't mean it's overrated. Overrated has more to do with critical reception. For some reason, critics gave the boring Skyfall a pass on all its glaring plot-holes (possibly the worst since Moonraker).

    Rearding Thunderball though, if you look at the Rotten Tomatoes website for example, Thunderball is ranked fourth among Connery's Bond movies. I think that's probably about where most people would rank it. So, it's not overrated. It simply made a lot money because it arrived on the heals of the (at least somewhat) overrated Goldfinger.

    Thunderball was a far more entertaining and original movie thank Skyfall.

    I know this will add nothing to further the debate - but TB is, if anything, underrated by many. It often gets flack from the popular media for it's slow underwater sequences and somehow a lot of fans get the impression SC is going through the motions, whereas I find his performance pitch-perfect: relaxed and uber-confident, but nuanced.
    After FRWL it's my 2nd favorite Connery film, even before GF.

    SP is probably being overrated by the main British media (The Times, Guardian, etc.), but I put that down the the cosy fog of patriotism that inevitably settles around the release of a new 007 caper.
  • Posts: 154

    I know this will add nothing to further the debate - but TB is, if anything, underrated by many. It often gets flack from the popular media for it's slow underwater sequences and somehow a lot of fans get the impression SC is going through the motions, whereas I find his performance pitch-perfect: relaxed and uber-confident, but nuanced.
    After FRWL it's my 2nd favorite Connery film, even before GF.

    SP is probably being overrated by the main British media (The Times, Guardian, etc.), but I put that down the the cosy fog of patriotism that inevitably settles around the release of a new 007 caper.

    I agree w/everything you said. I even share your ranking for the Connery Bonds.

  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,725
    gklein wrote: »

    I know this will add nothing to further the debate - but TB is, if anything, underrated by many. It often gets flack from the popular media for it's slow underwater sequences and somehow a lot of fans get the impression SC is going through the motions, whereas I find his performance pitch-perfect: relaxed and uber-confident, but nuanced.
    After FRWL it's my 2nd favorite Connery film, even before GF.

    SP is probably being overrated by the main British media (The Times, Guardian, etc.), but I put that down the the cosy fog of patriotism that inevitably settles around the release of a new 007 caper.

    I agree w/everything you said. I even share your ranking for the Connery Bonds.

    Are you sure...? :D

    FRWL
    TB
    GF
    DN
    YOLT


    .......
    .......
    .......
    DAF
  • Posts: 154

    Are you sure...? :D

    FRWL
    TB
    GF
    DN
    YOLT


    .......
    .......
    .......
    DAF

    Well, okay, swap places on DN & GF, then YES!

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,148
    I saw it, and while not perfect, thoroughly enjoyed it. It ties together all of the Craig era films and makes it possible for him to return or the option for a new beginning, with a new actor, possibly in a new incarnation and timeline.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited November 2015 Posts: 15,534
    I am finally going to see SP tonight, as the film is out in France at last. Terribly excited - the showing is at 9:40pm! :-c
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,566
    I am finally going to see SP tonight, as the film is out in France at last. Terribly excited - the showing is at 9:40pm! :-c
    Don't expect much. I've been hearing that a lot of fans think it sucks.


    ;)
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    bondjames wrote: »
    TB has considerably slipped in the rankings.
    SF will too, once enough time has past.

    I disagree on this last point. In fact, I think it has only been strengthened by this last outing.

    It is unique enough (like LTK, QoS, OHMSS and some others) to be looked back on very fondly with time (almost cult like), although some hate it (like those others). Even its detractors on this site say it's different, and that's never a bad thing.

    Like Tosca, it's not for everyone, and that's to its credit.

    Good points and I actually have to agree, I think I was wrong.
  • Finally, here is my review for "SPECTRE". Although it's more of a thesis :-P. Anyway, enjoy. I am curious what you think of it:
    REVIEW “SPECTRE”: MICKEY MOUSE IS BACK WITH A BANG

    Earlier this year reviewers were positive about Matthew Vaughn’s new comic book adaptation vs. spy spoof “Kingsman: The Secret Service”. Some critics applauded the more comedic approach of the film. It was a return to Roger Moore-esque suaveness and cheesy, though violent, comedy. It was an element that was greatly missed in the recent Bond films with Daniel Craig. Then “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation” premiered and it got hailed as the best spy-action film of the year. Critics uttered sentences like "Tom Cruise remains the action star without equal”, thus no critics mentioned Cruise’s age of 53, that he was doing his 5th “M:I”-film already (he signed up for a 6th), and what will happen to the franchise when he leaves. Review by Gustav_Graves (Gert)


    It’s a pretty damn old thing
    With Bond it’s an entirely different thing. It’s a 53-year old franchise which formula got shaken and stirred during a whopping portfolio of 24 films, of which “SPECTRE” is the 24th. But like Bond’s past haunting him more than ever in this new adventure, the actual franchise is equally haunted by all its previous films and many other newer franchises who borrow from it. No matter how successful and gracefully old the franchise is, it’s therefore prone to much more criticism and comparisons. Compared to relatively new franchises like “Mission: Impossible”, “The Dark Knight” and “The Fast And The Furious”, the “James Bond”-franchise’s reference point around which criticism –both positive and negative-- is build, is its own past. It’s logical if you are 53 years old, though at times not entirely fair. For a “Mission: Impossible”-film it’s usually a compliment to be compared with a Bond film, but ‘godfather[/]’ Bond doesn’t have that privilege. Critics will never say “This actually is a better Marvel-film!”. It always needs to battle itself, in good and bad times.

    Actor Ben Whishaw commented during the Royal World Premiere in London: “You know what you're going to get, but you know it's also going to be slightly different every time”. And that’s again the case with “SPECTRE”. Sadly, because of the age of the franchise many people have forgotten that adage, and don’t ask themselves anymore what to expect from a new Bond film. Obviously, you have to be prepared for a familiar and slightly formulaic film, of which all ingredients are being blended differently. That was the case with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall”. So when people call “SPECTRE” an uninspired, sapid copy of its own past, they either hail –though not really watch-- the oldest Bond films, or they tend to forget the implications of the franchise’s age of 53 (in comparison, “Mission: Impossible” is now 20 years old).

    The build-up to “SPECTRE”
    In any case, after the most violent shape-up of the Bond-franchise with the previous three Bond films, “Casino Royale”, “Quantum Of Solace” and “Skyfall”, Sam Mendes wisely settles the franchise down a bit with “SPECTRE”. During the final scenes of “Skyfall” we got prepared for that. Bond visits the new, more scaled down MI6-offices at Whitehall. He enters Miss Moneypenny’s small office, looks down on her desk and smiles with Connery-esque wit: “I’m looking forward to our time together Miss Moneypenny?!”. He then encounters Gareth Mallory, the new ‘M’, in an office that resembles Bernard Lee’s wooden panelled, dusty post-WW II-designed mission room.
    csl50cX.jpg

    So is “SPECTRE” a blatant copy of its past? Again, it depends how you look at it. I’d go with a “No”. After “SPECTRE” Her Majesty’s Loyal Terrier has now been completely re-introduced to us. With slow nuance and credibility, with joyous and at times original re-imagined elements from the franchise’s past and with a better sense of continuity. All of which happened over a course of 4 films (which started in 2006, two years before Marvel decided to revel with their universe). Continuity though, has never been a very important element to the Bond franchise. Due to the big financial risks accompanied with the production of a film that wasn’t even a franchise yet, due to the production complexity of bringing Bond to the big screen with a few of Fleming’s earlier novels (“Moonraker”, “Live And Let Die”) and due to several of Fleming’s novels not being fully owned by EON Productions (the very first novel “Casino Royale” & aspects/characters from “Thunderball”), continuity and chronology were soon thrown away for the sake of giving us a Bond film in the first place. So back in 1962 (“Doctor No”) Sean Connery was already the fully rounded agent 007.

    Not with Daniel Craig. We saw Bond earning his 00-licence in (“Casino Royale”), falling in love with a complex girl (“Casino Royale”), battling his own emotions of revenge and anger (“Quantum Of Solace”), and then facing the importance of espionage by witnessing the fall and re-birth of MI6 (“Skyfall”). You almost wánt James Bond to face a little bit less death and destruction, no? (“Skyfall”, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” and “Casino Royale” are unique phenomena that are heavy on emotions, but wouldn’t it become a bit uninspiring and joyless to kill off a beloved character at the very end of every Bond film?).

    The organisation is back
    With “SPECTRE” all elements of the Bond-cocktail are in place now. Well, not quite. One important element from Ian Fleming’s novels had to be properly re-introduced: Bond’s antagonist S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge & Extortion). While James Bond 007 has got his emotions in check now, makes us laugh a bit more, and is now more focused on his mission –rogue or not rogue-, people might have noticed the absence of a larger threat, a so called anti-MI6. So the return of Fleming’s mysterious crime syndicate S.P.E.C.T.R.E. is uttermost welcome. And in this particular film S.P.E.C.T.R.E and its tentacles are an emotional tour-de-force. It is most definitely the haunting ghost of both agent 007 and MI6. But it’s more than that.

    Because for all the good work of Protector Bond, we still live in an era of real-life hostility, intense geopolitical problems and villainous dictators. Not to mention the facilitators of big conflicts, like the crisis in Eastern-Ukraine or the escalating immigrant-crisis in Europe. Ian Fleming knew how to translate such events in a slightly larger-than-life context. And so does Sam Mendes. Hence the return of a slightly more realistic Bilderberg-inspired S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group) that perfectly channels this reality (off course within a larger-than-life context). And since I am reviewing a film here and not a real-life conflict, “SPECTRE” is particularly an exciting spectacle for those who like to see more death and destruction from Bond’s biggest antagonist. The S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-meeting in Rome is therefore one of the highlights of the film, one that includes a particularly horrifying death, coldly witnessed by Oberhauser. And no, it isn’t a cheesy electrocution, or a moment of shark feeding.
    World_Gov_Chart_left.gif

    Talking about Oberhauser…..Christoph Waltz portrays a solid Bond villain. Obviously he isn’t Silva, but that poor guy was living in total rage, whereas Oberhauser seems to have his emotions better in check within his psychotic mindset. Oberhauser isn’t running around like Silva and isn’t gunning down people with core beliefs of that of an Islamic State terrorist. He is less motivated by his past and more motivated by his own psyche. Which makes him credible especially during a torture scene. It gives you the best introduction to an arch nemesis that was absent for such a long time. And this arch nemesis will give you dentist fever, trust me.

    More credible humour?
    “SPECTRE” is a good 4th part of this full-blooded Bond-quadrilogy. It’s Craig’s “Thunderball” or “The Spy Who Loved Me”, slightly more stripped down from unnecessary emotions and character’s complexities, and more upbeat with credible humour (an emotion too…) and larger action sequences as part of the plot. Craig himself though is never copying Sir Moore or Sir Connery. Yes, Bond’s dry wit is back and Daniel Craig utters a few witty one-liners, but they all sound a bit more “street”. Most of the humour works so well, because it’s part of the circumstances/events. When for instance Bond falls on a sofa during the pre-credits sequence, he’s not uttering an appallingly written Brosnan-one-liner. No, instead the audiences can observe a 007 who probably himself thinks “Hell, why couldn’t this be a clean kill”. Same thing occurs with some of the Mickey Mouse-references. Only Daniel Craig can belittle himself with such gusto by saying he’s the one and only Disney character (Did you caught the Topolino/Mickey Mouse references? I did count three). "SPECTRE" definitely is the funniest film of the quadrilogy.

    Action-heavy, in a good way
    Thanks in particular to editor Lee Smith (“The Dark Knight”), a good writing team and a more frivolous and improvising acting style from Daniel Craig, the action sequences top a few of the previous, more recent Bond stunts, and even those from competing 007-inspired spy-franchises. They don’t feel unrelated to the plot. A tense fight sequence between 007 and Monsieur Hinx, without music but with wonderful sound-editing from Oscar-winner Per Halberg (("Skyfall"), feels almost as gripping as the torture scene in "Casino Royale". And the rather long car chase among the banks of the river Tiber in Rome never feels long, due to some smart editing of some light-hearted phone conversation between Bond and Moneypenny. Still, for a 25th Bond film there are so many types of stunts available from the stuntman’s big hat that haven’t been used before in a Bond film. Free-running was something new in “Casino Royale”, and something as original as that “SPECTRE” won’t offer you.

    Some but’s
    “SPECTRE” therefore isn’t a perfect film. Some other examples are the London-based sequences. They felt a bit too contrived at times. And that’s partially because Sam Mendes tried a bit too hard to focus on a 2nd storyline in which the entire MI6-staff played a role. One should not try forcefully to give great actors more screen time. I therefore think it’s inevitable that in the future ‘M’, ‘Q’, Moneypenny and Tanner shine a bit more from behind a desk.

    Moreover, the finale in London was exciting, though not entirely fulfilling. After the blow-up of Oberhauser’s lair, the CNS-program could have been destroyed entirely. By doing so, the personal story between Oberhauser and Bond could have felt a bit more ‘compact’, thus more effective. A dinner table sequence would have been good here, though I did think the ‘fun house’ sequence inside the old MI6-building (A very Fleming-esque sequence nonetheless) worked well enough. But London? We know you exist by now ok?

    Verdict
    Despite this and some other ‘minor caveats’, “SPECTRE” still holds as a ‘TOP 10 Best Bond Entry’ in the EON-led franchise. The film isn’t an ‘état fenomenale’ like its predecessors (“Casino Royale”, “Goldfinger”, “Skyfall”, “The Spy Who Loved Me” and “From Russia With Love”). But who knows, perhaps that can happen in the foreseeable future (“On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”?). Former “Goldfinger” director Guy Hamilton once quoted this: "We're going to take you to wonderful places, we're going to show you beautiful girls, we're gonna have some suspense, we're gonna have some laughs....but...let's enjoyy!" And that’s what I did immensely with possibly the best spy-themed action thriller of 2015.

    My rating: ■ ■ ■ ■ □
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I am finally going to see SP tonight, as the film is out in France at last. Terribly excited - the showing is at 9:40pm! :-c
    Don't expect much. I've been hearing that a lot of fans think it sucks.


    ;)

    He's being sarcastic. No it doesn't suck ..it's fun. But it is a film that you have to judge on your own.

    And oddly enough you may have different opinions each time you see it.
  • Posts: 10,670
    I'll be seeing it for the second time at 7 tonight. I might see it one more time in theaters after this, depending on how I feel. I don't really expect it to move up or down from my ranking right now.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I am finally going to see SP tonight, as the film is out in France at last. Terribly excited - the showing is at 9:40pm! :-c
    Don't expect much. I've been hearing that a lot of fans think it sucks.


    ;)

    He's being sarcastic. No it doesn't suck ..it's fun. But it is a film that you have to judge on your own.

    And oddly enough you may have different opinions each time you see it.

    You are totally spot-on @mcdonbb

    my opinions in my four viewings changed drastically from viewing to viewing

    First viewing:
    left me breathless and overwhelmed

    Second viewing:
    left me totally happy-go-lucky and cheerful

    Third viewing:
    left me in awe of the artistic and audiovisual perfection

    Fourth viewing:
    left me wanting for more, for watching it a fifth time immediately, for the movie never to end, for the time to stand still, so Craig can do another 5 movies like Spectre.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    I have another 3 visits to reach my minimum quota of 7. I'm going to spread the next 3 viewings between now and the end of next week.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 35,166
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I have another 3 visits to reach my minimum quota of 7. I'm going to spread the next 3 viewings between now and the end of next week.

    I have four more viewings to reach my minimum of five, not sure I'll get the chance to see it that many more times, unfortunately. :(
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    Create the chance and make the time. It's your duty. :D ;)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 35,166
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Create the chance and make the time. It's your duty. :D ;)

    That it is, I'll do my best! Almost had the chance to see it tonight, but that didn't pan out, unfortunately. I'm dying to see it again. Definitely seeing it once this weekend.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,534
    Well, that was over quickly - I arrived 30 minutes early and the showing was already sold out! I didn't count but there were a good 150 people waiting alongside me to get tickets, all will have to return another day to see James Bond at the cinema!
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Well, that was over quickly - I arrived 30 minutes early and the showing was already sold out! I didn't count but there were a good 150 people waiting alongside me to get tickets, all will have to return another day to see James Bond at the cinema!

    Eh, after three years what's another day?
  • Posts: 1,098
    Well, that was over quickly - I arrived 30 minutes early and the showing was already sold out! I didn't count but there were a good 150 people waiting alongside me to get tickets, all will have to return another day to see James Bond at the cinema!

    Where do you live?...........in the UK we can just book tickets, and select the seat you want, online...........and just go to the cinema knowing we don't have to queue.
Sign In or Register to comment.