Spectre: Reappraised, Reassessed

1235714

Comments

  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,696
    w2bond wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    I think I've said this before, but one area where I suspect SP will age very well is aesthetics. It's just a very, very good looking movie. Lots of lush locations, beautiful people, beautiful camera work, and so on. Of course, styles come and go and the music or costuming may seem cheesy to people 40 years from now, but it's a lovely piece of film to look at.

    This is key to why I've fallen in love with it. It truly looks great.

    The other thing for me is just how many individual scenes and moments I love.

    The PTS
    The wonderful Ralph Feinnes in a proper M office
    Bond's flat
    An honest-to-god Q lab scene with some great humor
    The creepy Sciarra funeral, ending with Bond's little wave
    Bond taking out the two assassins at the Sciarra home
    The Spectre meeting
    Bond using the ejector seat
    The Mr White scene
    The meeting with Dr Swann at the clinic
    Q's escape from the perfectly goony-looking goons
    L'Americain
    The train conversation about how to fire a gun
    The fight with Hinx
    M having dinner alone at his club
    The strange train station where they're picked up by the Rolls
    The perfect drive up to Blofeld's base, with the lawn and sprinklers and bodyguard in butler clothes
    The meteorite room
    The Dr No callbacks in their reception
    Blofeld's weirdness (no socks, "I can't hear you James")
    Bond carefully one-shotting Spectre stooges as they escape
    "Ernst Stavro Blofeld, one recently deceased head of Spectre"
    Bond busting out of the ties and shooting his captors while blindfolded
    "I've really put you through it, haven't I?"

    Just about every couple minutes there's something I love. I agree that it could have been more than the sum of its parts, and it unfortunately isn't, but the sum of its parts is a very high number as far as I'm concerned.

    I'm not bothered by the foster brother thing, but I can completely understand hating it, and I would have advised the filmmakers not to go that way. However, some complaints seem a little odd.

    "Tying together four films is stupid"--this is simply not a valid point. Two of the films are already connected (CR and QOS of course). And this one is a sequel to those. It's totally fair to complain about SF being shoehorned in, I get that, but that's the extent of the sensible complaint that can be made here.


    A very well thought-out list. Nice to see the arrival at Blofeld’s base mentioned, people hardly ever talk about it but it’s a perfect bit of film-making. And I love Blofeld’s butler.

    “Goony looking goons” is great, I must steal that :))

    I like the butler, but I REALLY like his nerdy assistant. I don't know what it is, but he's really loveable somehow.

    I think people discount the importance of little moments, or minor characters, or interesting sets in appraising Spectre. "I gotta brudda" from DAF, "Double sixes, fancy that" from OP, these little moments are highlights of their films. The design of the room where Dent gets the tarantula raises the quality of Dr No substantially. Locque in FYEO does very little, but is a treat to watch. And Spectre is full to the brim with great minor characters, beautiful set design, and fun, original moments (Q's escape from the goons is so overlooked).

    I feel a lot of people are letting their burned hatred of the Brofeld angle or the retconning make them miss loads of great stuff in this film.

    (As for me, I've come to enjoy Brofeld for what it is...)
    Bond's treatment by the staff at the crater base is excellent, overlooked because of Spectre's flaws. I'd stop short of calling it a reference but it's a great call back to previous eras. It's a shame because it's a reminder of what Spectre could have been.

    I'm obviously a massive fan of it as it's my favorite Bond film, but you're absolutely right: this film has all the ingredients to be an indisputable top five film for everyone, and they didn't pull it off. As great as I think it is, it doesn't reach its still-higher potential, and it could have.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,571
    One of my big problems with the film is stakes and tension. They're both lacking from most scenes.

    Take for instance the scene with Mr White, a great scene with great acting from both but you never get the feeling that either are in any immediate danger, there's no ticking clock aspect and because of this the exposition can feel dull and boring. You feel like Bond and White could sit there and chat forever.

    What would have made this particular scene better, is if Bond got there and Mr White tells Bond Spectre have sent someone to kill me and he's on his way. You can then carry on with the scene with mostly the same dialogue. This would then up the stakes and the tension to the dialogue because we the audience would know something is coming but we wouldn't know when it was going to happen.
    Then you could have had Bond having to protect a frail Mr White from Hinx, which then gives the audience a callback to Skyfall with Bond having to protect M. Let's say Hinx arrives, a shootout happens and Mr White is killed by Hinx but Bond gets away. Now Bond is fully aware of Mr Hinx's capabilities and now he feels a real responsibility to protect Mr White's daughter Madeline as he couldn't protect her father. Which would in turn add even more stakes to the already great train fight as Bond barely survived his last encounter with Hinx and it would add to the tension of the scene later, when Blofled shows Madeline the tape of her dad dying as it was Bond who couldn't protect him rather than he just shot himself.
    It would also add to the pacing of the film, as it would be more like a race against Hinx to get to Madeline and protect her
  • GatecrasherGatecrasher Classified
    edited October 2020 Posts: 265
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    One of my big problems with the film is stakes and tension. They're both lacking from most scenes.

    Take for instance the scene with Mr White, a great scene with great acting from both but you never get the feeling that either are in any immediate danger, there's no ticking clock aspect and because of this the exposition can feel dull and boring. You feel like Bond and White could sit there and chat forever.

    What would have made this particular scene better, is if Bond got there and Mr White tells Bond Spectre have sent someone to kill me and he's on his way. You can then carry on with the scene with mostly the same dialogue. This would then up the stakes and the tension to the dialogue because we the audience would know something is coming but we wouldn't know when it was going to happen.
    Then you could have had Bond having to protect a frail Mr White from Hinx, which then gives the audience a callback to Skyfall with Bond having to protect M. Let's say Hinx arrives, a shootout happens and Mr White is killed by Hinx but Bond gets away. Now Bond is fully aware of Mr Hinx's capabilities and now he feels a real responsibility to protect Mr White's daughter Madeline as he couldn't protect her father. Which would in turn add even more stakes to the already great train fight as Bond barely survived his last encounter with Hinx and it would add to the tension of the scene later, when Blofled shows Madeline the tape of her dad dying as it was Bond who couldn't protect him rather than he just shot himself.
    It would also add to the pacing of the film, as it would be more like a race against Hinx to get to Madeline and protect her

    I had similar thoughts on how this scene could’ve been improved as well. There needed to be an action sequence of some sort. Maybe Hinx, on orders from Blofeld and with a small squad of SPECTRE goons, could’ve led an assault on Mr. White’s chalet to kill both Mr. White and Bond: two for the price of one. Mr. White, however, dies in the process, leading to a chase through the wilderness where Bond has to evade Hinx and his men.

    I would’ve preferred something like this as opposed to the scene that we actually got i.e. Bond in the plane having to rescue Madeleine.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    I think I've said this before, but one area where I suspect SP will age very well is aesthetics. It's just a very, very good looking movie. Lots of lush locations, beautiful people, beautiful camera work, and so on. Of course, styles come and go and the music or costuming may seem cheesy to people 40 years from now, but it's a lovely piece of film to look at.

    This is key to why I've fallen in love with it. It truly looks great.

    The other thing for me is just how many individual scenes and moments I love.

    The PTS
    The wonderful Ralph Feinnes in a proper M office
    Bond's flat
    An honest-to-god Q lab scene with some great humor
    The creepy Sciarra funeral, ending with Bond's little wave
    Bond taking out the two assassins at the Sciarra home
    The Spectre meeting
    Bond using the ejector seat
    The Mr White scene
    The meeting with Dr Swann at the clinic
    Q's escape from the perfectly goony-looking goons
    L'Americain
    The train conversation about how to fire a gun
    The fight with Hinx
    M having dinner alone at his club
    The strange train station where they're picked up by the Rolls
    The perfect drive up to Blofeld's base, with the lawn and sprinklers and bodyguard in butler clothes
    The meteorite room
    The Dr No callbacks in their reception
    Blofeld's weirdness (no socks, "I can't hear you James")
    Bond carefully one-shotting Spectre stooges as they escape
    "Ernst Stavro Blofeld, one recently deceased head of Spectre"
    Bond busting out of the ties and shooting his captors while blindfolded
    "I've really put you through it, haven't I?"

    Just about every couple minutes there's something I love. I agree that it could have been more than the sum of its parts, and it unfortunately isn't, but the sum of its parts is a very high number as far as I'm concerned.

    I'm not bothered by the foster brother thing, but I can completely understand hating it, and I would have advised the filmmakers not to go that way. However, some complaints seem a little odd.

    "Tying together four films is stupid"--this is simply not a valid point. Two of the films are already connected (CR and QOS of course). And this one is a sequel to those. It's totally fair to complain about SF being shoehorned in, I get that, but that's the extent of the sensible complaint that can be made here.


    Well said, love all those scenes you mention. And i would add Bonds approach to Mr Whites cabin and also the final scene on the bridge with Blofeld is also excellent!
    In contrast, I utterly hate the last scene. Blofeld is just Joker-lite, and the film implies that it would matter significantly to Madeline if the insane criminal mastermind who tried to kill her was shot?

    I think you read that wrong. What matters to her isn't that Blofeld gets shot dead, it's that Bond may do the shooting. Blofeld at that moment is defenseless, wounded, and very much defeated. He's no longer a threat. Despite what Blofeld has done, I don't think Madeleine is the type of person that wants to exact revenge by murder. By not killing Blofeld, Bond is making a statement: "I've got better things to do". Madeleine is happy for Bond at this moment because he decided to stop being an agent of death and live a more fulfilling life.

    I also read this as a bookend to "Every now and then a trigger has to be pulled." "Or not pulled." from Skyfall. Only that it is (like most of SP) not really hitting it correctly, as not shooting Blofeld isn't some complicated, in-the-moment, facts-on-the-ground, tactical decision only Bond could make. In a way Bond is the only person who would possibly execute Blofeld in that situation.
  • Posts: 4,602
    Had a look at the Wiki site and the Variety reviewer said that the movie lacked "emotional urgency". Looking at many of the comments in this thread (and my own thoughts) I think that sums things up very well. The car chase, the Mr White scene etc etc. Strange as SF clearly had that.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited October 2020 Posts: 40,677
    Indeed. Most of the sequences feel incredibly detached with no sense of stakes or urgency. It's why I'm quite excited for the "end of the world" plot that NTTD seems to have, even if I'd prefer it without the emotional backstory and character ties.
  • Posts: 4,602
    It's interesting how simple things can make a difference but nothing sums up "emotional urgency" like running. It's something that we can all relate to and heroes run for a reason. Bond runs in SF and "you know who" runs in all the MI films but in Spectre, he stands around too much. Even the PTS sets a tone where Bond rejects a stunning woman (what!?) and literally saunters to the next location (as if he was off to buy a choc ice). He should have checked his watch on entering the hotel room, bonked the girl, checked his watch again , a dry line of dialogue ("I have to shoot off") and then at least trot to the next location in order not to miss the meeting.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    patb wrote: »
    Had a look at the Wiki site and the Variety reviewer said that the movie lacked "emotional urgency". Looking at many of the comments in this thread (and my own thoughts) I think that sums things up very well. The car chase, the Mr White scene etc etc. Strange as SF clearly had that.

    I think the whole film is so bloody smug and pleased with itself.

    Which is why the brilliant fight on the train seems so out of step with the rest of the film.
  • GatecrasherGatecrasher Classified
    Posts: 265
    patb wrote: »
    Had a look at the Wiki site and the Variety reviewer said that the movie lacked "emotional urgency". Looking at many of the comments in this thread (and my own thoughts) I think that sums things up very well. The car chase, the Mr White scene etc etc. Strange as SF clearly had that.

    I think the whole film is so bloody smug and pleased with itself.

    Which is why the brilliant fight on the train seems so out of step with the rest of the film.

    +1. As much as I enjoy the PTS, I gotta admit that the “one shot” take is a little pretentious, as is the SPECTRE meeting. In places where the film should have been hurrying along and getting to the point, it drags the momentum.
  • si4tssi4ts UK
    Posts: 20
    I have always stood up for Spectre when others have criticised it but more recently have come to see it's flaws.
    1. The PTS one shot bit is great including the initial pan past DC and then back to him as the camera follows Sciarra. May be it is just taking more to impress me these days but I was very underwhelmed by the helicopter fight scene both one first viewing and subsequently.
    2. I have no issue with Waltz and Craigs performance, they should have just removed the family connection, it wasn't needed and took something away from the menace of subsequent scenes.
    3. The brain drill was a pointless and over the top means of torture that purely served as a setting to provide background details. It would have been better if a more physical threat was presented such as in Casino Royale.
    4. The funeral scene and Lucia's villa scenes are excellent
    5. Q is brilliant in this and has great scenes with Craig but dragging him to the Hoffler Clinic was a pointless effort to expand the role.
    6. I really enjoy the MI6 HQ/funhouse scenes and any opportunity to showcase London is welcome but I feel the Morocco base was underutilised.
    7. I just didn't buy into the Madeleine love story, she hated him then he dispatched Dave Bautista and can't keep her hands off him...? I also think Madeline is very one dimensional, I am surprised she is back for NTTD to be honest.
    8. DC just doesn't do humour, it doesn't work for him.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,677
    That PTS is so underwhelming and dull. I recall being very excited about the possibility of a one take in the film, seeing it adored in several early reviews, only to be disappointed in it. It's not even a proper one take, just stitched and edited together oddly, so we can follow Bond and Estrella through a hotel. How exciting.

    I know Fukunaga is a big fan of them, and a fan of doing them right, so I do hope we get something similar from him during an action sequence or set piece in NTTD.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,066
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    I think I've said this before, but one area where I suspect SP will age very well is aesthetics. It's just a very, very good looking movie. Lots of lush locations, beautiful people, beautiful camera work, and so on. Of course, styles come and go and the music or costuming may seem cheesy to people 40 years from now, but it's a lovely piece of film to look at.

    This is key to why I've fallen in love with it. It truly looks great.

    The other thing for me is just how many individual scenes and moments I love.

    The PTS
    The wonderful Ralph Feinnes in a proper M office
    Bond's flat
    An honest-to-god Q lab scene with some great humor
    The creepy Sciarra funeral, ending with Bond's little wave
    Bond taking out the two assassins at the Sciarra home
    The Spectre meeting
    Bond using the ejector seat
    The Mr White scene
    The meeting with Dr Swann at the clinic
    Q's escape from the perfectly goony-looking goons
    L'Americain
    The train conversation about how to fire a gun
    The fight with Hinx
    M having dinner alone at his club
    The strange train station where they're picked up by the Rolls
    The perfect drive up to Blofeld's base, with the lawn and sprinklers and bodyguard in butler clothes
    The meteorite room
    The Dr No callbacks in their reception
    Blofeld's weirdness (no socks, "I can't hear you James")
    Bond carefully one-shotting Spectre stooges as they escape
    "Ernst Stavro Blofeld, one recently deceased head of Spectre"
    Bond busting out of the ties and shooting his captors while blindfolded
    "I've really put you through it, haven't I?"

    Just about every couple minutes there's something I love. I agree that it could have been more than the sum of its parts, and it unfortunately isn't, but the sum of its parts is a very high number as far as I'm concerned.

    I'm not bothered by the foster brother thing, but I can completely understand hating it, and I would have advised the filmmakers not to go that way. However, some complaints seem a little odd.

    "Tying together four films is stupid"--this is simply not a valid point. Two of the films are already connected (CR and QOS of course). And this one is a sequel to those. It's totally fair to complain about SF being shoehorned in, I get that, but that's the extent of the sensible complaint that can be made here.


    Well said, love all those scenes you mention. And i would add Bonds approach to Mr Whites cabin and also the final scene on the bridge with Blofeld is also excellent!
    In contrast, I utterly hate the last scene. Blofeld is just Joker-lite, and the film implies that it would matter significantly to Madeline if the insane criminal mastermind who tried to kill her was shot?

    I think you read that wrong. What matters to her isn't that Blofeld gets shot dead, it's that Bond may do the shooting. Blofeld at that moment is defenseless, wounded, and very much defeated. He's no longer a threat. Despite what Blofeld has done, I don't think Madeleine is the type of person that wants to exact revenge by murder. By not killing Blofeld, Bond is making a statement: "I've got better things to do". Madeleine is happy for Bond at this moment because he decided to stop being an agent of death and live a more fulfilling life.

    I also read this as a bookend to "Every now and then a trigger has to be pulled." "Or not pulled." from Skyfall. Only that it is (like most of SP) not really hitting it correctly, as not shooting Blofeld isn't some complicated, in-the-moment, facts-on-the-ground, tactical decision only Bond could make. In a way Bond is the only person who would possibly execute Blofeld in that situation.

    I also saw it as a callback to QOS where Bond has Yusuf arrested rather than killer. Hence his remark in SF.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,700
    Birdleson wrote: »
    No matter how I slice it, the film just bores the Hell out of me. I can overlook all sorts of drivel and wonkiness in a Bond film, but it can't put me to sleep.

    This is the best negative comment I think you've made against SP. Yes, there are some places where I think they just wanted it to be so pretty they forgot about real conflict... still, I'll take a bit of glacial ride over yelling at the characters onscreen watching them do things that I'd never do (so they certainly shouldn't).
    Yes, that's SF. ;)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,700
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I've only made it about 150 times since 2015.

    This time I was a bit more open to it, I guess.
  • I remember sitting in the theaters right after the Hinx/train fight. The instrumental is playing with aerial footage of the train and I honestly thought to myself, "wow, this may be the best movie ever". To this day that moment has been ingrained.

    Im so disappointed with that last hour or so it dropped from top-five right to the middle-to-low tier of films for me. Overall I think the movie has a major identity problem. Hints of marvel fun, hints of Moore, hints of MI-seriousness. A Bond film that works sticks to what it strives to be.

    Things just kind of happen in the last hour with no background detail or cause.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,700
    Birdleson wrote: »

    The NTTD trailers look magnificent, even though, again, there are some plot elements that have me rolling my eyes. Yet, I don't think that I will be nearly so disappointed again.
    IMO you will like this movie but you will not love it. Its tie to SP will irk you greatly. I anticipate loving it. We shall see....
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    Overall I think the movie has a major identity problem. Hints of marvel fun, hints of Moore, hints of MI-seriousness. A Bond film that works sticks to what it strives to be.

    Very good point @MattyHerrmann

    The identity problem is why the whole film seems 'off' somehow. It just doesn't work.
  • si4ts wrote: »
    I have always stood up for Spectre when others have criticised it but more recently have come to see it's flaws.
    1. The PTS one shot bit is great including the initial pan past DC and then back to him as the camera follows Sciarra. May be it is just taking more to impress me these days but I was very underwhelmed by the helicopter fight scene both one first viewing and subsequently.


    Good point, and I feel the same. It's a bit like the record-setting explosion: as a Bond fan, I knew on paper that these things were meant to be really extraordinary, but up on screen it lacked impact.
    Maybe it's the way it's filmed or something - I realize that a helicopter doing a barrel rolling loop is bloody impressive, but perhaps it could have been made more visceral or immersive somehow.
    Within the helicopter itself, the fight does just feel sort of cramped and I don't get the sense of danger or immediacy that should be just huge.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2020 Posts: 4,343
    Hints at Marvel fun? What?
    Hints at M:I seriousness? Whaaat?

    It’s the M:I franchise who’s trying to mix a lighter MS fun with some Craig era’s serious tone.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,066
    I do think it’s ironic that M:I gets held by some Bond fans as an example of what EON should do, and yet what M:I does is what the fans would complain about if done in Bond. In fact a lot of what they do has been done in Bond, like Ethan Hunt being a rogue agent in every film except one.
  • Posts: 631
    I do think it’s ironic that M:I gets held by some Bond fans as an example of what EON should do, and yet what M:I does is what the fans would complain about if done in Bond. In fact a lot of what they do has been done in Bond, like Ethan Hunt being a rogue agent in every film except one.

    I agree. They feel so inconsequential, like froth, yet I can never really put my finger on why.

    All the elements are there for the MI films to be properly tense thrillers. They have plot and subplots and characters and urgency and high stakes and stuff. But whenever I’ve watched one, it feels like I’ve just watched an advert or something similarly pointless. Odd really.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2020 Posts: 4,343
    I do think it’s ironic that M:I gets held by some Bond fans as an example of what EON should do, and yet what M:I does is what the fans would complain about if done in Bond. In fact a lot of what they do has been done in Bond, like Ethan Hunt being a rogue agent in every film except one.

    I agree. They feel so inconsequential, like froth, yet I can never really put my finger on why.

    All the elements are there for the MI films to be properly tense thrillers. They have plot and subplots and characters and urgency and high stakes and stuff. But whenever I’ve watched one, it feels like I’ve just watched an advert or something similarly pointless. Odd really.

    Can’t agree more. I basically watch them just to enjoy some cool and well crafted action and stunts. M:I is basically: let’s see how far Cruise will go this time around.
  • goldenswissroyalegoldenswissroyale Switzerland
    Posts: 4,409
    I hope I'm not banned for this ;)
    The train fight in SP is up there with the best fights of the series. It's not as iconic as the one from FRWL but I like the SP fight even more at the moment. Hinx is a serious threat there, a well-dressed killing machine. It's great that there is no music for the first part of the fight and when the music kicks in (and Bond is smashed through a door), I think, holy sh*t, how will he survive this? Awesome!

    Unfortunately, as stated by many others, the rest of the action scenes don't even come close.

    Some of you state that Craig doesn't succeed in the funny moments. I don't feel this way at all. I liked the humour in SP and enjoyed all the funny parts, especially the first scenes with Q.

    But why oh why is this movie boring several times??? The SPECTRE meeting: boring (why does Blofeld wait so long before he starts talking? Some say atmosphere, I say booring! The funeral scene and the score used there: boring.
    The meteor talk: boring (or at least far away from as cool as it wants to be). Nine Eyes: very boring. Bond searches a hidden door in Whites house? Very boring. Bond never searches anything, he always knows where to look after a few seconds. The hidden room in L'americain is a too long scene, hence boring. Tanner's facial expression: boring. SP is the only Bond movie where you feel the length of the movie, the only movie where you check the time on your watch and THIS is unforgivable.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    I hope I'm not banned for this ;)
    The train fight in SP is up there with the best fights of the series. It's not as iconic as the one from FRWL but I like the SP fight even more at the moment. Hinx is a serious threat there, a well-dressed killing machine. It's great that there is no music for the first part of the fight and when the music kicks in (and Bond is smashed through a door), I think, holy sh*t, how will he survive this? Awesome!

    Unfortunately, as stated by many others, the rest of the action scenes don't even come close.

    Some of you state that Craig doesn't succeed in the funny moments. I don't feel this way at all. I liked the humour in SP and enjoyed all the funny parts, especially the first scenes with Q.

    But why oh why is this movie boring several times??? The SPECTRE meeting: boring (why does Blofeld wait so long before he starts talking? Some say atmosphere, I say booring! The funeral scene and the score used there: boring.
    The meteor talk: boring (or at least far away from as cool as it wants to be). Nine Eyes: very boring. Bond searches a hidden door in Whites house? Very boring. Bond never searches anything, he always knows where to look after a few seconds. The hidden room in L'americain is a too long scene, hence boring. Tanner's facial expression: boring. SP is the only Bond movie where you feel the length of the movie, the only movie where you check the time on your watch and THIS is unforgivable.

    The brilliant fight scene deserved a better film.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited October 2020 Posts: 6,067
    I do think it’s ironic that M:I gets held by some Bond fans as an example of what EON should do, and yet what M:I does is what the fans would complain about if done in Bond. In fact a lot of what they do has been done in Bond, like Ethan Hunt being a rogue agent in every film except one.

    I agree. They feel so inconsequential, like froth, yet I can never really put my finger on why.

    All the elements are there for the MI films to be properly tense thrillers. They have plot and subplots and characters and urgency and high stakes and stuff. But whenever I’ve watched one, it feels like I’ve just watched an advert or something similarly pointless. Odd really.

    The M:I movies have a black hole at their center.
  • Posts: 6,965
    echo wrote: »
    I do think it’s ironic that M:I gets held by some Bond fans as an example of what EON should do, and yet what M:I does is what the fans would complain about if done in Bond. In fact a lot of what they do has been done in Bond, like Ethan Hunt being a rogue agent in every film except one.

    I agree. They feel so inconsequential, like froth, yet I can never really put my finger on why.

    All the elements are there for the MI films to be properly tense thrillers. They have plot and subplots and characters and urgency and high stakes and stuff. But whenever I’ve watched one, it feels like I’ve just watched an advert or something similarly pointless. Odd really.

    The M:I movies have a black hole at their center.

    Seen them all, and i find them instantly forgettable! FALLOUT is on television tonight, but having seen it once, cant be bothered to watch it again!
    They dont come anyway near Bond for quality!
  • goldenswissroyalegoldenswissroyale Switzerland
    Posts: 4,409
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    I do think it’s ironic that M:I gets held by some Bond fans as an example of what EON should do, and yet what M:I does is what the fans would complain about if done in Bond. In fact a lot of what they do has been done in Bond, like Ethan Hunt being a rogue agent in every film except one.

    I agree. They feel so inconsequential, like froth, yet I can never really put my finger on why.

    All the elements are there for the MI films to be properly tense thrillers. They have plot and subplots and characters and urgency and high stakes and stuff. But whenever I’ve watched one, it feels like I’ve just watched an advert or something similarly pointless. Odd really.

    The M:I movies have a black hole at their center.

    Seen them all, and i find them instantly forgettable! FALLOUT is on television tonight, but having seen it once, cant be bothered to watch it again!
    They dont come anyway near Bond for quality!

    Fallout is (unfortunately) a better movie experience than SP (imo).
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,062
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    I do think it’s ironic that M:I gets held by some Bond fans as an example of what EON should do, and yet what M:I does is what the fans would complain about if done in Bond. In fact a lot of what they do has been done in Bond, like Ethan Hunt being a rogue agent in every film except one.

    I agree. They feel so inconsequential, like froth, yet I can never really put my finger on why.

    All the elements are there for the MI films to be properly tense thrillers. They have plot and subplots and characters and urgency and high stakes and stuff. But whenever I’ve watched one, it feels like I’ve just watched an advert or something similarly pointless. Odd really.

    The M:I movies have a black hole at their center.

    Seen them all, and i find them instantly forgettable! FALLOUT is on television tonight, but having seen it once, cant be bothered to watch it again!
    They dont come anyway near Bond for quality!

    Fallout is (unfortunately) a better movie experience than SP (imo).

    By a mile.
  • Posts: 6,965
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    I do think it’s ironic that M:I gets held by some Bond fans as an example of what EON should do, and yet what M:I does is what the fans would complain about if done in Bond. In fact a lot of what they do has been done in Bond, like Ethan Hunt being a rogue agent in every film except one.

    I agree. They feel so inconsequential, like froth, yet I can never really put my finger on why.

    All the elements are there for the MI films to be properly tense thrillers. They have plot and subplots and characters and urgency and high stakes and stuff. But whenever I’ve watched one, it feels like I’ve just watched an advert or something similarly pointless. Odd really.

    The M:I movies have a black hole at their center.

    Seen them all, and i find them instantly forgettable! FALLOUT is on television tonight, but having seen it once, cant be bothered to watch it again!
    They dont come anyway near Bond for quality!

    Fallout is (unfortunately) a better movie experience than SP (imo).

    Not by me!
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited October 2020 Posts: 1,696
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I can't abide those MI films. I tried watching three or four and had to bale early each time. Silly, silly stuff.

    Which one is sillier than GF or OHMSS?
Sign In or Register to comment.