Spectre: Reappraised, Reassessed

13468914

Comments

  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited October 2020 Posts: 1,697
    Sorry for the double post! Screwed up with the edit function or something....
    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 think a lot of fans prefer two types of Bond films: the silly 1960s ones, and the newer ones that feel as serious as they wrongly thought the 1960s ones were when they saw them as children.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,916
    Apart from the M:I film that Hoffman starred in, the others all just blend together.

    I may not think Spectre as top tier Bond, but at least I remember the film (warts and all); all I can recall from the last M:I film is the jump from a plane, fight in the toilet and a helicopter chase. Ask me what the story was about and I will stare blankly ahead.

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    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 for me.
  • Posts: 4,602
    I'm sure there is a decent movie in there somewhere trying to get out. Fans must have had a go at re-writing it. Any links?
  • Posts: 1,895
    I'm not sure why this thread took a bash MI films turn. It seems unnecessary in trying to find some of the good in recent Bond films where they are rather weak. MI has proven a good series and only gotten better with each new entry and acts as a perfect complement to Bond. Many of us have found those more entertaining experiences than some of the recent Bonds, which I will gladly admit.
    peter wrote: »
    Apart from the M:I film that Hoffman starred in, the others all just blend together.

    I may not think Spectre as top tier Bond, but at least I remember the film (warts and all); all I can recall from the last M:I film is the jump from a plane, fight in the toilet and a helicopter chase. Ask me what the story was about and I will stare blankly ahead.

    I am sure many general film fans would say the same of SP and most of the Craig films as well. Could any remember 9 Eyes or just what QoS was about? I think the MI stunts leave most of those in recent Bond films in the dust. SF in particular suffers from lack of memorable action.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,096
    Yeah, I've lost count of the amount of times people have asked me "which one is that, now?", "which one was he in?", or "is that the one where he beds the girl, drives the car and saves the world?" when I talk about Bond. It's not a reflection of the quality of the individual films really, it's a reflection of the people's level of engagement with them and whether they're bothered (and it's fine if you're not bothered, by the by).
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,697
    Yeah, I've lost count of the amount of times people have asked me "which one is that, now?", "which one was he in?", or "is that the one where he beds the girl, drives the car and saves the world?" when I talk about Bond. It's not a reflection of the quality of the individual films really, it's a reflection of the people's level of engagement with them and whether they're bothered (and it's fine if you're not bothered, by the by).

    There's a definite irony to Bond fans describing another series as silly films that kind of run together!
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    Yeah, I've lost count of the amount of times people have asked me "which one is that, now?", "which one was he in?", or "is that the one where he beds the girl, drives the car and saves the world?" when I talk about Bond. It's not a reflection of the quality of the individual films really, it's a reflection of the people's level of engagement with them and whether they're bothered (and it's fine if you're not bothered, by the by).

    There's a definite irony to Bond fans describing another series as silly films that kind of run together!

    Much as i enjoy the MI films they don't provide much nourishment in terms of their content. The characters are thin and the dialogue is mostly exposition. Great action and stunts but the memory of them fades very quickly because they don't provide much else.

    Is Fallout a better film than SP though ?
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,873
    To be fair, Fallout is the only MI film that I've thoroughly enjoyed, whereas Spectre was such a real disappointment, so I'd have to give Fallout the edge even though I do and will always believe James Bond is the superior franchise :)
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,096
    Yeah, I've lost count of the amount of times people have asked me "which one is that, now?", "which one was he in?", or "is that the one where he beds the girl, drives the car and saves the world?" when I talk about Bond. It's not a reflection of the quality of the individual films really, it's a reflection of the people's level of engagement with them and whether they're bothered (and it's fine if you're not bothered, by the by).

    There's a definite irony to Bond fans describing another series as silly films that kind of run together!

    Much as i enjoy the MI films they don't provide much nourishment in terms of their content. The characters are thin and the dialogue is mostly exposition. Great action and stunts but the memory of them fades very quickly because they don't provide much else.

    Is Fallout a better film than SP though ?

    In terms of hitting the goals it sets for itself as a piece of entertainment, absolutely. Fallout had me walking out of the cinema quite exhilarated, while I was perplexed at SP by the end.

    I don't think the plots of the M:I films are any more vanilla than Bond, they're just more action-oriented. I've never considered Bond to be an action franchise, really - despite the presence of action in them.
  • The M:I films are slick action vehicles, smart with the humor and packing a whallop in the stunts department. That’s all I expect from them and all I feel they need to deliver. The ones that have pressed the this-time-it’s-personal, Julie-centric angle (looking at you, III and Fallout) have been my least favorites. What can be said pretty unequivocally in favor of M:I, however, is that for the past three films (of both series) M:I has blown Bond outta the water with respect to developing inventive action sequences and putting real-life stunts on the screen: jumping from airplanes, racing motorcycles, diving into a turbine, battling helicopter to helicopter, climbing the Burj Khalifa. This kinda stuff was Bond territory once upon a time, and while I like (and prefer) Quantum of Solace and Skyfall for all kinds of reasons, neither can compete with what M:I has been doing in the way of action recently.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,916


    After (almost) 25 Bond films, I’m sure there is a mixing up of stories that the general audience will suffer from.
    But after seeing one M:I, film, I will be hard pressed to tell you anything about this film 24 hours later.
    For whatever reason, in my perspective, the Bond films, generally, are of a more unique quality and therefore, to me, far more memorable than any of the M:I films— Except for No. 3. Once again, in my view only, this was an elevated story with more depths and stakes. It’s memorable and I can re-watch it, and find immense enjoyment in it, almost as much as any Bond film.
  • Posts: 124
    Count me as another one who enjoyed M:I: FALLOUT more than SPECTRE.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited October 2020 Posts: 554
    I vastly prefer every M:I film other than 2 to SP. The last three in particular are just fantastic, and a rare example of a movie series that gets much better after several entries.

    (Watching Fallout on RTÈ as I type this. A wonderful way to spend a locked down Saturday night!)
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,070
    I’m not as harsh as some here seem to be toward the MI franchise, but I wasn’t really all that enamored with FALLOUT either.

    Here’s how I’d rank them:

    Mission: Impossible (1996)
    Ghost Protocol (2011)
    Mission: Impossible II (2000)
    Rogue Nation (2015)
    Fallout (2018)
    Marriage: Impossible (2006)
  • Wow, you and I think very much alike on M:I, @MakeshiftPython.

    Here’s my ranking:

    Ghost Protocol (2011)
    Mission: Impossible (1996)
    Rogue Nation (2015)
    Mission: Impossible 2 (2000)
    Fallout (2018)
    Mission: Impossible III (2006)
  • Posts: 6,976
    Yeah, I've lost count of the amount of times people have asked me "which one is that, now?", "which one was he in?", or "is that the one where he beds the girl, drives the car and saves the world?" when I talk about Bond. It's not a reflection of the quality of the individual films really, it's a reflection of the people's level of engagement with them and whether they're bothered (and it's fine if you're not bothered, by the by).

    There's a definite irony to Bond fans describing another series as silly films that kind of run together!

    Much as i enjoy the MI films they don't provide much nourishment in terms of their content. The characters are thin and the dialogue is mostly exposition. Great action and stunts but the memory of them fades very quickly because they don't provide much else.

    Is Fallout a better film than SP though ?

    No, is my answer to that, my friend!
    Bottom line, is that Ethan Hunt is just not that interesting a character compared to Bond!
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,096
    I think I'd have to go with:

    Rogue Nation
    Fallout
    M:I-3
    Mission Impossible
    Ghost Protocol
    M:I-2

    But again, while there are certain qualities that overlap, I find them very different beasts. That is why I enjoy them both very much. M:I has grown into something built around action and exhilaration, while Bond is something with a bit more finesse and character. That doesn't excuse the very limp attempts at action in Spectre, of course. But there's room for both and thankfully both satisfy different senses for me. Win win.
  • Posts: 1,895
    Someone asked the ultimate question: Is Fallout better than Spectre? I found both on the disappointing side based on what had gone before and the expectations they set.

    SP was built up to be something on the level of OHMSS, the return of the series' most iconic villain and a bit more flavor of previous Bond adventures and for the most part doesn't deliver. We get a world record explosion, Brofeld and a limp conclusion. Some good stuff scattered here and there but it really limps along.

    Fallout disappointed me in the wake of the two previous MI entries, which were some of the most fun I've had in a cinema. They try adding more layers and personal stakes and I didn't find any of them that involving. Add in touches that were kind of rehashed such as with the Ilsa character's conflicts, Hunt's ex-wife and the race to stop the ticking bomb finale, and even some deja vu in the stunts.

    I actually waited a year until a Black Friday sale to even buy Fallout on Blu-ray. SP I bought on opening weekend. But I'd still favor Fallout over SP in terms of rewatchability.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited October 2020 Posts: 8,070
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Yeah, I've lost count of the amount of times people have asked me "which one is that, now?", "which one was he in?", or "is that the one where he beds the girl, drives the car and saves the world?" when I talk about Bond. It's not a reflection of the quality of the individual films really, it's a reflection of the people's level of engagement with them and whether they're bothered (and it's fine if you're not bothered, by the by).

    There's a definite irony to Bond fans describing another series as silly films that kind of run together!

    Much as i enjoy the MI films they don't provide much nourishment in terms of their content. The characters are thin and the dialogue is mostly exposition. Great action and stunts but the memory of them fades very quickly because they don't provide much else.

    Is Fallout a better film than SP though ?

    No, is my answer to that, my friend!
    Bottom line, is that Ethan Hunt is just not that interesting a character compared to Bond!

    Nobody goes to these movies because of Ethan Hunt, it's really just the set pieces and Tom Cruise's star power that drive it. In fact, one of the ideas with GHOST PROTOCOL was that it might have been Cruise's last film, with Jeremy Renner taking over the franchise, as Cruise's star power had taken a dip with M:I-3 being the lowest box office of the franchise. But since the films got popular again, no need for Renner (that guy can't catch a break can he?).

    One thing I don't like about the recent films is Christopher McQuarrie becoming a regular director. I miss each film having a new director to give a different perspective, as it made the films not feel the same. Bringing back McQuarrie takes away from that.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Ethan Hunt is not even a character.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    matt_u wrote: »
    Ethan Hunt is not even a character.
    He's pretty much the same as Bond was in the Connery, Moore and Brosnan eras, and I don't see reason to take issue with that.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,702
    I really like Cruise's Hunt. And that's the difference. Hunt is a comic book good guy. Bond is a more troubled & complex character IMO. A good guy with bad edges. And that's just always more interesting.
    FWIW.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,070
    matt_u wrote: »
    Ethan Hunt is not even a character.
    He's pretty much the same as Bond was in the Connery, Moore and Brosnan eras, and I don't see reason to take issue with that.

    I don’t see that, but Hunt not being as well defined a character as Bond isn’t a negative. M:I has different priorities from Bond films.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,702
    matt_u wrote: »
    Ethan Hunt is not even a character.
    He's pretty much the same as Bond was in the Connery, Moore and Brosnan eras, and I don't see reason to take issue with that.

    I don’t see that, but Hunt not being as well defined a character as Bond isn’t a negative. M:I has different priorities from Bond films.

    Agreed; Bond was never the pure good guy Hunt was. Closest Bond ever got to Hunt was maybe FYEO....
  • Wow this thread is really popping off. Sorry I've been away quite awhile. Planning to revisit the film this weekend.
  • I've always liked the MI films to varying degrees but none of the sequels has topped the first one, for me. It had a terrific visual style courtesy of DePalma a pretty intriguing mystery story and the most character development out of all of them.

    The McQuarrie-directed sequels have all been fun to varying degrees but I do think they lack something in the character/story departments. The "plots" are now just a series of goofy twists and they still haven't given Ethan or his crew/wife enough development to justify the constant attempts to make us care about them.

    But I still enjoy what they have to offer despite their flaws and I do think that compared to the vast majority of other cinema, especially blockbusters, they remain a superior product. Which I suppose is how I feel about SP really.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,083
    I've always liked the MI films to varying degrees but none of the sequels has topped the first one, for me. It had a terrific visual style courtesy of DePalma a pretty intriguing mystery story and the most character development out of all of them.

    The McQuarrie-directed sequels have all been fun to varying degrees but I do think they lack something in the character/story departments. The "plots" are now just a series of goofy twists and they still haven't given Ethan or his crew/wife enough development to justify the constant attempts to make us care about them.

    But I still enjoy what they have to offer despite their flaws and I do think that compared to the vast majority of other cinema, especially blockbusters, they remain a superior product. Which I suppose is how I feel about SP really.

    That's because Cruise wants to play himself and not a character. That would be too revealing.
  • Bentley007Bentley007 Manitoba, Canada
    Posts: 569
    One of the underrated elements to Spectre is its exploration of another countries culture in the PTS. Rewatching the early films I realize this is one of my favourite elements. Exploring a film location and giving a sense of what its like to be there. Havent had that in Bond since Roger as the Bronson and Craig eras to date have moved between many locations. I hope No Time To Die allows us the audience to experience something similar to the Spectre PTS.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Bentley007 wrote: »
    One of the underrated elements to Spectre is its exploration of another countries culture in the PTS. Rewatching the early films I realize this is one of my favourite elements. Exploring a film location and giving a sense of what its like to be there. Havent had that in Bond since Roger as the Bronson and Craig eras to date have moved between many locations. I hope No Time To Die allows us the audience to experience something similar to the Spectre PTS.

    "exploration of another countries culture" might be a bit much, but I still like the PTS a lot for the reasons you mentioned. Or rather the other way around: I have been to Mexico City before and looking out for places I've been (and realizing how they fudged the geography for that scene) was something I haven't had for a lot of other films and quite enjoyed.
    And that PTS is just great in general (I think they overdo the helicopter stuff, but other than that..).
Sign In or Register to comment.