SPECTRE, most fun Bond adventure in decades?

16781012

Comments

  • edited July 2017 Posts: 386
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't mind Bond being conflicted, but this whole thing is becoming indulgent. And caricature doesn't necessarily mean simple. When done well in Bond it is played and writ large. Very satisfying.

    Oh yes, I agree with that as well, but as you say, it has become indulgent. Movies like OHMSS are special because they are one-offs. When attempts at adding emotional depth get drawn out over several films, it grows tired and starts feeling like a soap-opera. At this point it's just beating a dead horse.

    indeed.

    if you look at the Bond canon, there's been oscillation between silly fun and emotionally resonant films the whole way through. it's the bond pendulum.

    I think Mendes / Craig recognized the need to swing back to the light for Spectre but if there was ever a double act wholly unsuited to executing that shift, it's these guys.

    so what we actually got was a strangely inert piece so tautly suspended between varying tonal destinations it ended up going nowhere.

    combine that emptiness with the worst third act of all the Bonds (even worse than DAF) and I'm amazed the film survived in semi-reasonable shape.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't mind Bond being conflicted, but this whole thing is becoming indulgent. And caricature doesn't necessarily mean simple. When done well in Bond it is played and writ large. Very satisfying.

    Oh yes, I agree with that as well, but as you say, it has become indulgent. Movies like OHMSS are special because they are one-offs. When attempts at adding emotional depth get drawn out over several films, it grows tired and starts feeling like a soap-opera. At this point it's just beating a dead horse.

    indeed.

    if you look at the Bond canon, there's been oscillation between silly fun and emotionally resonant films the whole way through. it's the bond pendulum.

    I think Mendes / Craig recognized the need to swing back to the light for Spectre but if there was ever a double act wholly unsuited to executing that shift, it's these guys.

    so what we actually got was a strangely inert piece so tautly suspended between varying tonal destinations it ended up going nowhere.

    combine that emptiness with the worst third act of all the Bonds (even worse than DAF) and I'm amazed the film survived in semi-reasonable shape.

    You hit the nail on the head right there.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    Hardly. CR and honestly SF had my blood pumping more.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    SP to me is actually the most boring and lifeless Bond film in the series and that's saying something.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    doubleoego wrote: »
    SP to me is actually the most boring and lifeless Bond film in the series and that's saying something.
    Its hard to argue against that.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    doubleoego wrote: »
    SP to me is actually the most boring and lifeless Bond film in the series and that's saying something.
    Its hard to argue against that.

    Exhibit A - TMWTGG.

    Apart from the oft documented script flaws SP does have a lot of class.

    TMWTGG is terribly leaden and uninspired and with possibly an even duller final act (is Bond's miracle shooting in SP any more inane than the climax of the film hanging on what Goodnight bumps into with her arse?).

    Apart from Christopher Lee, the spiral jump (sans slide whistle) and probably the score I don't think there's really anything in TMWTGG that is better than SP.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    edited July 2017 Posts: 1,187
    doubleoego wrote: »
    SP to me is actually the most boring and lifeless Bond film in the series and that's saying something.
    Its hard to argue against that.

    Exhibit A - TMWTGG.

    Apart from the oft documented script flaws SP does have a lot of class.

    TMWTGG is terribly leaden and uninspired and with possibly an even duller final act (is Bond's miracle shooting in SP any more inane than the climax of the film hanging on what Goodnight bumps into with her arse?).

    Apart from Christopher Lee, the spiral jump (sans slide whistle) and probably the score I don't think there's really anything in TMWTGG that is better than SP.
    At least TMWGG took us on a trip to Thailand and Hong Kong. In SP I felt I was on a rope guided trip in Europe.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    Having just watched SP, I turned it off after the the train fight. The enjoyment I get after that point is nominal for the last 50 minutes of the movie. I can enjoy the more surface level attractions of the film up until that point.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,551
    doubleoego wrote: »
    SP to me is actually the most boring and lifeless Bond film in the series and that's saying something.
    Its hard to argue against that.

    Exhibit A - TMWTGG.

    Apart from the oft documented script flaws SP does have a lot of class.

    TMWTGG is terribly leaden and uninspired and with possibly an even duller final act (is Bond's miracle shooting in SP any more inane than the climax of the film hanging on what Goodnight bumps into with her arse?).

    Apart from Christopher Lee, the spiral jump (sans slide whistle) and probably the score I don't think there's really anything in TMWTGG that is better than SP.
    At least TMWGG took us on a trip to Thailand and Hong Kong. In SP I felt I was on a rope guided trip in Europe.

    @QuantumOrganization
    I take it you reject the likes of FRWL, OHMSS and FYEO too then.
    Also, DAD took us to Korea and Cuba. Must rank pretty high on your list then...
    Having just watched SP, I turned it off after the the train fight. The enjoyment I get after that point is nominal for the last 50 minutes of the movie. I can enjoy the more surface level attractions of the film up until that point.

    @Mendes4Lyfe
    You turn the film off after the train fight? Why bother watching then? I've never understood this notion of watching a film half arsed.

    This is just silly. I can accept that some here find SP one of the lesser Craig Bonds, possibly one of the lesser Bonds in total. But if the last part of SP is intolerable, I can only imagine some need psychiatric assistance after watching the average film released theatrically today.

    I'm getting a little tired of these exaggerated responses to SP. Sure, it's no CR and it's not a flawless Bond film. Few Bond films are. But to pretend like this is the worst thing we've seen since the dawn of cinema, so bad we can't even stand watching the final act, takes away any credibility from the opinion. Film snobbery isn't the right thing to bring to a Bond film discussion.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    SPECTRE is dire, without doubt the biggest disappointment of the series and also one of the biggest opportunities missed, it could have been so good a real triumph.

    They should of stuck to Craig being his Bond, deadly and efficient rather than trying to turn him into a Moore/Brosnan hybrid.

    No one is going to sell me that car chase was impressive or that the plane pursuit was thrilling, save the PTS and the White meet up and the film is just plain dull.


  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,034
    I like SPECTRE. No problem watching it through, and there's a lot to enjoy.

    To me it's part of the second Golden Age for Bond and the train is still on the tracks.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Kicking: Impossible
    Posts: 6,733
    Indeed. We are Bond fans, so it is reasonable and expected for us to be more critical about each film than the average viewer. However, let's also keep in mind that, after all, we are Bond fans. Whatever flaws and missed opportunities I may perceive in any given film, I still derive a significant amount of enjoyment from it, simply because it is a Bond film, with all that entails, by definition: the Bond character, the women, the globetrotting, the intrigue, the action, the larger-than-life qualities...
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited July 2017 Posts: 4,043
    It's nice to think that some can derive something from it plainly because it is Bond but to me if I think something is bad it's bad Bond or not Bond.

    I regard that as being easily pleased and yes when you have been a fan of something for over 40 years you do tend to be more critical of it.

    It's not getting a pass just because it's Bond and it ticks a few boxes, just accepting it by association.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,331
    I'm fortunate enough that I can enjoy all the Bond films. Even the ones that are lower in my ranking. Sure I might not like certain things about some but for as long as I've been a fan, the good elements almost always overshadow and make me forget about the bad elements.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    SP to me is actually the most boring and lifeless Bond film in the series and that's saying something.
    Its hard to argue against that.

    Exhibit A - TMWTGG.

    Apart from the oft documented script flaws SP does have a lot of class.

    TMWTGG is terribly leaden and uninspired and with possibly an even duller final act (is Bond's miracle shooting in SP any more inane than the climax of the film hanging on what Goodnight bumps into with her arse?).

    Apart from Christopher Lee, the spiral jump (sans slide whistle) and probably the score I don't think there's really anything in TMWTGG that is better than SP.
    At least TMWGG took us on a trip to Thailand and Hong Kong. In SP I felt I was on a rope guided trip in Europe.

    @QuantumOrganization
    I take it you reject the likes of FRWL, OHMSS and FYEO too then.
    Also, DAD took us to Korea and Cuba. Must rank pretty high on your list then...
    Having just watched SP, I turned it off after the the train fight. The enjoyment I get after that point is nominal for the last 50 minutes of the movie. I can enjoy the more surface level attractions of the film up until that point.

    @Mendes4Lyfe
    You turn the film off after the train fight? Why bother watching then? I've never understood this notion of watching a film half arsed.

    This is just silly. I can accept that some here find SP one of the lesser Craig Bonds, possibly one of the lesser Bonds in total. But if the last part of SP is intolerable, I can only imagine some need psychiatric assistance after watching the average film released theatrically today.

    I'm getting a little tired of these exaggerated responses to SP. Sure, it's no CR and it's not a flawless Bond film. Few Bond films are. But to pretend like this is the worst thing we've seen since the dawn of cinema, so bad we can't even stand watching the final act, takes away any credibility from the opinion. Film snobbery isn't the right thing to bring to a Bond film discussion.

    The entertainment value is just so thin for me after that point. I don't hate it, but the film just trails off and never really recovers (although I'm partial to the ending scene, I admit). I'm not saying it to be shocking, or like I turn it off in disgust - I merely don't see much point in watching further.

    I do something similar with SF also, FYI. Once the Casino scene ends, I usually skip straight to the finale in Scotland.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    The only thing that really impresses me about this film is the arsty thematic elements that Mendes brings in. From the yellow filter (which finally is pulled in the last scene to suggest new beginnings) to the 'dead are alive' subtexts etc. & overall surreal spectral moodiness of it all. The film arguably works on that level. I'd go so far as to say he saved the film by inserting and accenting those elements.

    However, as pure surface level Bond entertainment it's down at the absolute bottom with TWINE for me. A dull disaster.

    I realize that many went on about Mendes's themes and what not during the many SF discussions that permeated this forum prior to SP's release. The thing is I never really noticed any of that when viewing that film, or if I did it wasn't important because there was so much more for me to enjoy & hold onto in SF. The earlier film has a certain liveliness & vibrancy to it (visually and character wise) which pulls me in every time. SP is almost the opposite, and I am beginning to think that this was intentional on Mendes's part, in which case the man is a genius to have created a yin and yang experience with the two films.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    I actually like the action mostly, and the scenes that are played as light entertainment work well for me. When I saw it at the cinema, I distinctly remember having that realisation that Bond films could be fun too. It was refreshing. The problem is, classic Bond suits a tighter format, and a more paired down narrative. OHMSS remains the only example for me, where the importance of the story justified taking more time. With SP it was always said the MO was to make something more "mischievous" and "playful", and yet the film we get presents itself as another profound drama. The scenes with Denbigh are like a lead weight, that instantly prohibit the spirit of classic Bond from taking flight. Once the "fun" is over, and the story actually needs resolving, the film looses my interest quickly. There's simply nothing stimulating or gripping about it, especially given how elongated the finale turns out.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    edited July 2017 Posts: 1,187
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    SP to me is actually the most boring and lifeless Bond film in the series and that's saying something.
    Its hard to argue against that.

    Exhibit A - TMWTGG.

    Apart from the oft documented script flaws SP does have a lot of class.

    TMWTGG is terribly leaden and uninspired and with possibly an even duller final act (is Bond's miracle shooting in SP any more inane than the climax of the film hanging on what Goodnight bumps into with her arse?).

    Apart from Christopher Lee, the spiral jump (sans slide whistle) and probably the score I don't think there's really anything in TMWTGG that is better than SP.
    At least TMWGG took us on a trip to Thailand and Hong Kong. In SP I felt I was on a rope guided trip in Europe.

    @QuantumOrganization
    I take it you reject the likes of FRWL, OHMSS and FYEO too then.
    Also, DAD took us to Korea and Cuba. Must rank pretty high on your list then...
    Having just watched SP, I turned it off after the the train fight. The enjoyment I get after that point is nominal for the last 50 minutes of the movie. I can enjoy the more surface level attractions of the film up until that point.

    @Mendes4Lyfe
    You turn the film off after the train fight? Why bother watching then? I've never understood this notion of watching a fi

    This is just silly. I can accept that some here find SP one of the lesser Craig Bonds, possibly one of the lesser Bonds in total. But if the last part of SP is intolerable, I can only imagine some need psychiatric assistance after watching the average film released theatrically today.

    I'm getting a little tired of these exaggerated responses to SP. Sure, it's no CR and it's not a flawless Bond film. Few Bond films are. But to pretend like this is the worst thing we've seen since the dawn of cinema, so bad we can't even stand watching the final act, takes away any credibility from the opinion. Film snobbery isn't the right thing to bring to a Bond film discussion.
    quote] You misunderstood. I have nothing against European locations. What I said was that SP had us hopping along to too many countries, therefore suppressing the amount of time we could spend there in the film. IMO, this made the film have a "surface" feel. Nobody said it was the worst movie in history. And yes, the third act makes me not want to watch another bond movie in a long time. What you see as "exaggerated responses" are actually just people's opinions.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    There is just no tension in the final act. However, I can't say that I was invested at that point anyway. As I said earlier, as soon as the Spectre meeting started they lost me, and I never came back.
  • edited July 2017 Posts: 386
    Let's be clear here, the third act of Spectre is the trainwreck we all suspect occurred involving Purvis/Wade/Logan.

    The portrait gallery in the abandoned MI6 building was possibly the laziest, most cringeworthy sequence I've seen in any Bond movie. I actually retreated into my seat when I first saw it.

    It's like none of the writers got their way, for whatever reason, and this shambles was the scorched earth result.

    All these years waiting for Blofeld to become available as a character and they blew it. Spectacularly.

    We may never know what actually happened behind the scenes but it's a reasonable bet that it was more a factor in DC's post-film fatigue than any physical injury.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited July 2017 Posts: 8,505
    bondjames wrote: »
    The only thing that really impresses me about this film is the arsty thematic elements that Mendes brings in. From the yellow filter (which finally is pulled in the last scene to suggest new beginnings) to the 'dead are alive' subtexts etc. & overall surreal spectral moodiness of it all. The film arguably works on that level. I'd go so far as to say he saved the film by inserting and accenting those elements.

    However, as pure surface level Bond entertainment it's down at the absolute bottom with TWINE for me. A dull disaster.

    I realize that many went on about Mendes's themes and what not during the many SF discussions that permeated this forum prior to SP's release. The thing is I never really noticed any of that when viewing that film, or if I did it wasn't important because there was so much more for me to enjoy & hold onto in SF. The earlier film has a certain liveliness & vibrancy to it (visually and character wise) which pulls me in every time. SP is almost the opposite, and I am beginning to think that this was intentional on Mendes's part, in which case the man is a genius to have created a yin and yang experience with the two films.

    @bondjames, if Mendes did, consciously, create a yin and yang, I think it was out of necessity (a deadline looming and a script that was wholly tossed out). They say Necessity is the Mother of Invention...

    I should edit @bondjames that SM should be rewarded points that he wrapped bullshit up into a nice-looking bow (and yes, DC should be given points too-- for elevating the material)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @peter, what you say could very well be the case. I'm afraid I don't give DC credit because I honestly can't stand his performance in this film for reasons I've outlined elsewhere, save for the L'American sequence. I've only seen one other Bond film before which made me want a change of actors, and that was TWINE. Brosnan redeemed himself with his confident performance in DAD (despite the film) and I imagine that DC can as well, so I'm willing to give him a chance.

    As I've also mentioned before, I've viewed this film more than any other Bond film to try and find something to like in it. I've realized that it's like watching a car crash. There's something horrific and yet wierdly enticing about the whole thing. I think you called it a 'beautiful disaster' or something along those lines and I agree. I credit that to Mendes, because if not for his thematic accents, I would definitely rank this film at the very bottom of the pile (yes, below TWINE). I think he saves it with the moody surreal visuals and the themes.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited July 2017 Posts: 8,505
    I agree @bondjames, although I still did enjoy DC, but, as a whole... this was one, supreme, cock-up...

    When I heard the name of "24" was to be SPECTRE (yes, I watched the press conference live), the images of an updated THUNDERBALL went through my imagination...

    Then when I saw the first trailer, I thought OHMSS-- for obvious reasons... But yes, it ended up being a beautiful disaster... and nothing close to a classic... although images and scenes were certainly classic... But as a whole... an awful mess.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,034
    Of course folks will have their likes and dislikes, they're entitled.

    But I want to suggest at the time of its release SPECTRE lacked one thing well-loved films like THUNDERBALL and ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and GOLDENEYE and CASINO ROYALE (not to mention DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, MOONRAKER, DIE ANOTHER DAY, and SKYFALL) all have.

    Familiarity.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,505
    @RichardTheBruce, with all due respect, how were audiences familiar with OHMSS? In '69 Bond was Connery... so who was this imposter showing tenderness, and... marrying???

    Or TLD?... I love my Bond to throw a curve ball (at the time, 13 years old, almost 14, I adored TLD), and was knocked senseless with CR; I admire (and now respect) QoS...

    SP was beautiful.
    Well cast.
    Some of the most sexy scenes I've witnessed in the franchise (lookin' at DC-007 and Sciarra widow)
    ... but... as a whole... it fails... it doesn't connect... M is weaker... "C" is just such an obvious "c" and takes away from that B-Plot (interesting, but executed terribly); Madeliene is wonderful on paper, and looks great, but, in action, unbelievable and never sells... Things like Hinx's "hook", with the nails, are never brought up again... all round half finished and half-assed...

    ... and yes, I still think this piece of beautiful shit has, and will have, value down the road..
  • @peter, I think that was a cute way of saying that, as with all Bond films upon release, Spectre was at least new and previously unseen. Took me a second to figure that out too.

    The ironic thing is that with all the retreading of familiar locations and images and lack of inventive action sequences, Spectre was perhaps the most familiar Bond film upon arrival.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,034
    Regarding ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE (and the rest): not familiar on release. Familiar now.

    Bond films 1-20 aren't judged the same way new releases are and didn't have the overwhelming media and social media venues available to essentially agonize over pre-production, production, and release.

    It's a brave new world. I see passionate complaints about clichés in Bond films. As if.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2017 Posts: 23,883
    The ironic thing is that with all the retreading of familiar locations and images and lack of inventive action sequences, Spectre was perhaps the most familiar Bond film upon arrival.
    Precisely. It didn't help that I completed a very enjoyable Bondathon just prior to watching SP for the first time as well. I will make sure not to do that next time.
  • Posts: 12,270
    I think the most "fun" Bond adventure in recent memory was SF - at least for me. I enjoy all of Craig's films, but when SF dropped, it was a heck of an event - and the film has tons of fun scenes and moments (all of Silva's scenes, the PTS, title credits, the Shanghai scenes, subtle and not-so-subtle references, etc.). SF is just awesome; I don't like sounding pessimistic, but I seriously doubt we'll get a Bond film that good again anytime soon. I still enjoy SP and think of it as a middling entry (which is still good for Bond standards), but SF is definitely superior to me. CR and SF will go down as Craig's classics.
  • Posts: 12,270
    Birdleson wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I think the most "fun" Bond adventure in recent memory was SF

    Definitely. I put that in the same box as TSWLM and GE; the children of GF (still my favorite).

    All 4 of those are in my Top 6; just throw in CR and OHMSS to finish off my favorites. Whether or not Craig returns, I don't think CR or SF will be topped anytime in the next few years. They're having issues just getting a film out at all right now.
Sign In or Register to comment.