SPECTRE - Your reviews. NO SPOILERS.

13468934

Comments

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,484
    Apologies. Tag added.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 725
    andmcit wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Loved every second of SP.

    First thing I said after getting here onto the forum after watching it. Those seconds tick along nicely too. I'm seeing it again Friday. Too much work before them.

    It's very telling I had absolutely no interest in going back after my first SF. I've only ever managed about 5 full viewings on DVD. SF's far too dour, miserable / downbeat and hugely overrated as well as the characters being irtitatingly too damned negligent in their duties as far as I'm concerned.

    With SP I'm on a Bond high again.

    Of all the comments about SF I've read, I most agree with your comments @andmcit. There appears to be a pattern that those fans and critics who loved the very deep, dour etc. tone of SF tended to be a bit, or a lot, disappointed with the lighter, more traditional SP. And vice versa, so I'm hoping I'll fit the pattern and also love SP. My biggest fear about SP was always that we'd get SF2. I'm in the states, and have IMAX tickets for the 6th. I hope I haven't hurt my enjoyment of the film as I've read almost everything but the script.
  • Posts: 158
    Just seen it for the 2nd time. Love it even more. The best Craig Bond film for me!
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Searching for No Time to Die in the "Favourite Bond Film" section...
    Posts: 2,093
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Just came out of tge movie. It's a very good Bond film. It utilises the classic elements of the series in a good way. It is flawed and there are some things I didnt like, my major grip being
    Madeline telling Bond she loves him during the torture scenes
    . There are a few other things that left me a tad disappointed but on the whole there's much to enjoy.

    I'm no fan of Newman's scores for Bond but his work for SP in the context of the movie worked better than it did for SF for me.

    That being said, I really liked the PTS, I think Smith's song worked well and tge visuals reminded me of a cross between softcover porn and tentacle-rape anime.

    The whole cast were great and Craig was on top form. Confident, slick, self-assured and utterly badass. The action came in abundance and the fights brutal.

    Hinx for me has one of the best introductions not just for a villain but as a character in general. The guy's a monster.

    The build up of the theme leading to the opening gunbarrel really set the mood and tge PTS was phenomenal. One of the best in the series.

    I'd rate it 8.5/10.

    It's better...much better than SF for me but it doesn't top CR.

    CR
    SP
    SF
    QoS

    Dude! Come on! I was so into reading the posts that i cliked your spoiler tag without thinking about it. Can't you just keep it out of the thread entirely?
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 2,534
    The problem with the Brosnan films and it sounds like this could be the case with SPECTRE, is that they try to throw in too many of the Bond ingredients. I don't think there should be a single Bond film that has everything unless we have someone like Moore in the role where we get a comical, action comedy.

    Ever since they said that this had to be bigger and better than Skyfall, I was pretty sure they were talking about more action, cheesy humour and gadgets instead of characterisation. I won't be able to see the film until it's out here in China on the 13th of November but based on what I've read, it does sound like I'll be somewhat disappointed. I'm sure I'll love the sets, cinematography and enjoy the action but too much action just like throwing in every Bond ingredient is over kill. They need to learn that less is more.

    Why construct a loving relationship between the leading Bond girl and Bond when they don't even intend to develop it properly? I would be happy if the two were mere pals and exchanged some natural humour between each other.

    Are there one liners that follow Bond's dispatching of someone? If there are then this will further hinder my enjoyment. Campbell had the right idea. He knows how to make a CRAIG Bond film. When he said before CR was released that he had disposed of the "awful one line clankers", I applauded him and knew that this director was on the right track. I just don't think that this sort of humour suits Craig. If they want to do this, bring in someone who has the comedic talent of Moore and revolve the films around comedy. Be consistent and forget a dark, light, dark, light tone throughout the film. I just don't think this works. Anyway, I better shut up now and wait until I see the film... :) Based on what I've read though, it does sound like this film had the potential to be great but sadly fell short just by trying to give us too much of everything instead of actual characterisation/drama which is why Skyfall was so popular with the general audience and myself. Darker, gritter, dramatic Bond films suit Craig better. CR is still my favourite. It also just seems strange and just doesn't sit right that they have rounded up the previous darker films involving Quantum by giving us something in SPECTRE that is light in tone and comedic but still features or references the characters and organisation from the previous darker films. No consistency. After seeing SPECTRE, I won't be surprised in saying that Campbell does it better than Mendes. It's lucky that I'm much more of a fan of the books than the films. The former is where my true Bond passion lies.

    Now I'm going to be torn apart from saying all of this when I haven't actually seen the film. LOL.
  • Posts: 250
    It's important to remember though how long Craig's tenure has gone on for in terms of years - in 2006 CR was absolutely the right kind of film as it was a response to Bourne, so too was QoS, but in that four year hiatus a lot changed and all of a sudden in this second, Mendes phase the order of the day, the competition so to speak are the superhero films which are heavily operatic and in many cases, action comedies.

    SF was obviously heavily influenced by Nolan, this might be heavily influenced by the Marvel ascendancy - Bautista's in it after all. Whether or not this is a Good Thing depends on the person but that this film is so different to where we started with Craig is a testament to EON who have always known that their series has to evolve with the trends of cinema at large - it hasn't set the tone since the 1960s after all.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited October 2015 Posts: 4,116
    FourDot wrote: »
    It's important to remember though how long Craig's tenure has gone on for in terms of years - in 2006 CR was absolutely the right kind of film as it was a response to Bourne, so too was QoS, but in that four year hiatus a lot changed and all of a sudden in this second, Mendes phase the order of the day, the competition so to speak are the superhero films which are heavily operatic and in many cases, action comedies.

    SF was obviously heavily influenced by Nolan, this might be heavily influenced by the Marvel ascendancy - Bautista's in it after all. Whether or not this is a Good Thing depends on the person but that this film is so different to where we started with Craig is a testament to EON who have always known that their series has to evolve with the trends of cinema at large - it hasn't set the tone since the 1960s after all.

    I would maybe agree with that except it's Bond copying Bond not Bond copying Marvel.

    I get the point about the tone and being the right time but the films and filmmakers whether intentional or not have been gravitating back to traditional Bond. This time I think they are expecting a higher standard of direction and writing. They may not always hit it of course..or may hit it every other film but I thinks that's the target.

    Now back to what you said yes they are reactive to current trends and yes this seems the time to go back. The success of lighter more fanciful cinema like Marvel has indicated this is what we want right now.

    The producers maybe see that too or maybe they don't but they are giving us or trying to give us what the majority of long term traditional fans have wanted the Craig era to develop toward.

  • Posts: 725
    We are a nit picking crowd, and I'm as nit picky as the rest, but when I think about it, credit it due. EON has done an amazing job guiding this franchise through 24 successful films for 50+ yrs. No other franchise has come close. The films have become so huge it must be a stagering task to get one of these beasts successfully launched. Everyone talks about how EON follows trends, but Bond has also had it's bones picked by an endless number of films over the decades. MI5, Kingsman, and Spy are a few of the films from just this year that have borrowed liberally from Bond. The press doesn't mention that very much, just how much Bond borrows. Yeah, Bond borrowed from Bourne and Batman, but those franchises borrowed from Bond too.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    smitty wrote: »
    We are a nit picking crowd, and I'm as nit picky as the rest, but when I think about it, credit it due. EON has done an amazing job guiding this franchise through 24 successful films for 50+ yrs. No other franchise has come close. The films have become so huge it must be a stagering task to get one of these beasts successfully launched. Everyone talks about how EON follows trends, but Bond has also had it's bones picked by an endless number of films over the decades. MI5, Kingsman, and Spy are a few of the films from just this year that have borrowed liberally from Bond. The press doesn't mention that very much, just how much Bond borrows. Yeah, Bond borrowed from Bourne and Batman, but those franchises borrowed from Bond too.

    Good point ...and they do. TDKR borrowed heavily from TWINE and SF and a bit from LTK but we all know that so I'm kinda stating the obvious.

    ...but yes you are right.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited October 2015 Posts: 11,090
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Just came out of tge movie. It's a very good Bond film. It utilises the classic elements of the series in a good way. It is flawed and there are some things I didnt like, my major grip being
    Madeline telling Bond she loves him during the torture scenes
    . There are a few other things that left me a tad disappointed but on the whole there's much to enjoy.

    I'm no fan of Newman's scores for Bond but his work for SP in the context of the movie worked better than it did for SF for me.

    That being said, I really liked the PTS, I think Smith's song worked well and tge visuals reminded me of a cross between softcover porn and tentacle-rape anime.

    The whole cast were great and Craig was on top form. Confident, slick, self-assured and utterly badass. The action came in abundance and the fights brutal.

    Hinx for me has one of the best introductions not just for a villain but as a character in general. The guy's a monster.

    The build up of the theme leading to the opening gunbarrel really set the mood and tge PTS was phenomenal. One of the best in the series.

    I'd rate it 8.5/10.

    It's better...much better than SF for me but it doesn't top CR.

    CR
    SP
    SF
    QoS

    Dude! Come on! I was so into reading the posts that i cliked your spoiler tag without thinking about it. Can't you just keep it out of the thread entirely?

    Im not trying yo be a jerk about this but that's what the spoiler tag is for. You saw it and clicked on it anyway. Next time don't click on spoiler if you don't want to be spoiled.
  • Posts: 2,534
    A lot of people seem to be underwhelmed by the Rome car chase. What is it that people don't like about it? Seems strange considering the amount of money that was spent and the use of the DB10.

    What I don't like the sound of is that there are no cars on the road for this chase even if it is very early in the morning. Rome is a large city. There would always be some cars on the road. Silly and unrealistic.

    There hasn't been a single car chase in a Bond film that has topped the car chase sequences in 'Ronin'.
  • Posts: 2,534
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Saw the film today............thought it was pretty good...........though a very strange feel of tone to the film.........and there was some sloppy storytelling.
    Was surprised that a couple of the main action sequences were not that good actually, particularly the car chase in Rome. Great fight on the train though............and the film has some quite brutal scenes.
    Monica Belluci was virtually a non character in the film.
    Liked the main villain!

    Film looks like its gonna make a shed load of money now!

    In what way is the tone of the film, strange?
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 2,534
    "...the competition so to speak are the superhero films which are heavily operatic and in many cases, action comedies."

    If this is the case, then it's a pity. I'm not really a fan of the Marvel films. It does sound like Batman v Superman will be dark. Maybe I'm wrong though...

    I've never really been a fan of action comedies unless they very much revolve around comedy like The Police Academy films which are also in part, slapstick. The Moore films and later Connery outings got away with being action comedies as they did largely revolve around comedy which the Marvel films don't. I like consistency. There is comedy in the Marvel films but I'm not sure if I would go so far as to call them action comedies but there is too much humour in them. Moore and Connery were good at adapting their acting skills for the tone and giving a lightness of touch right the way through. One thing I don't like about the Brosnan films, Marvel films and what is sounds like in the case of Spectre too, is that throughout the course of one film they go from dark to light, dark to light... As I said, I am big on consistency otherwise for me personally, the film just doesn't work as well in terms of execution.
  • Posts: 250
    I would say for Marvel by having the constant smart-arse in Downey as their lynchpin and the fact that they even wound up doing a Shane Black film (!) which is more like Lethal Weapon 5 than anything, and also the overtly goofball Guardians they have that focus on being different from the dour DC films.

    Moore's films were right for the time until the 80s where I think FYEO was on the right track but the next two are at odds with what was needed... LTK is an attempt to enter that Lethal Weapon/Die Hard world but sans that kind of funny.

    Brosnan's films are truly perplexing - the first one apes Luc Besson who was all the rage at the time, but the other three display perhaps a complete misunderstanding of what was wanted from filmgoers at the time. DAD is at least an attempt but it's like the corny "dad" (no pun intended) version of an attempt at the ascendant blockbuster of its time, i.e. Matrix, Spider-Man et cetera.

    I can guarantee this - if EON sat on their hands and produced CR III instead of SF the film wouldn't have been nearly the success it was.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 2,534
    I don't think CR and SF are even that different. SF is a little darker and less formulaic but Mendes went wrong with the humour in parts. The humour in CR is more natural which is what I like when it comes to Craig. In SF, Mendes threw in more, less natural one liners and I don't think they really worked with Craig. He can't deliver them like Connery and Moore. Brosnan was hopeless at them. Atleast Craig is better than Brosnan and overall a much, much better Bond. Brosnan is my least favourite Bond. I really don't like him - such an unnatural, forced performance. Funnily enough, I thought he was at his best in his first outing, Goldeneye. Campbell directed this though. Not that his performance was anything to write home about in this movie either.
  • I liked it. story was muddled and underwhelming in places
  • Posts: 1,505
    andmcit wrote: »
    It's very telling I had absolutely no interest in going back after my first SF. I've only ever managed about 5 full viewings on DVD. SF's far too dour, miserable / downbeat and hugely overrated as well as the characters being irtitatingly too damned negligent in their duties as far as I'm concerned.

    I was relieved by the time the credits rolled on SF and had no inclination whatsoever to go and watch it again. Not that it was awful - it just didn't have enough entertainment value & left me totally underwhelmed.

    I'm hoping SP doesn't have this effect.
  • RC7RC7
    edited October 2015 Posts: 10,492
    AceHole wrote: »
    andmcit wrote: »
    It's very telling I had absolutely no interest in going back after my first SF. I've only ever managed about 5 full viewings on DVD. SF's far too dour, miserable / downbeat and hugely overrated as well as the characters being irtitatingly too damned negligent in their duties as far as I'm concerned.

    I was relieved by the time the credits rolled on SF and had no inclination whatsoever to go and watch it again. Not that it was awful - it just didn't have enough entertainment value & left me totally underwhelmed.

    I'm hoping SP doesn't have this effect.

    I've seen it twice and all I can think about is seeing it again. Which will be either tonight or tomorrow.
  • Posts: 3,326
    Glad that people are throwing their money on the screen many times =) (seeing it many times)
  • Posts: 4,427
    I don't think it will have legs, the additional bonus audience that SF found will not like SP. IMHO, the tone is very different
  • RC7RC7
    edited October 2015 Posts: 10,492
    Glad that people are throwing their money on the screen many times =) (seeing it many times)

    I didn't even make it to my midnight showing on Monday as I was so emotionally drained after the premiere, so that's £50 in the pocket of EON, on the house!
    patb wrote: »
    I don't think it will have legs, the additional bonus audience that SF found will not like SP. IMHO, the tone is very different

    It's infinitely more enjoyable imo. If there's one thing I can say from a personal perspective, they did quite a lot of things that conceptually I would have been wary of. I think they took a lot more risks than are immediately apparent and I take my hat off to them. They struck a beautiful balance with the ingredients. I am well impressed with Mendes' work on this film.
  • RC7RC7
    edited October 2015 Posts: 10,492
    -
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 4,427
    Its not about whether you or I enjoyed it, its about whether the additional punters that enjoyed the softer Judie Dench side of things. (my inlaws for example went to see SF twice), SP is a very different beast IMHO and will appeal to a narrower band of punters.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,492
    patb wrote: »
    Its not about whether you or I enjoyed it, its about whether the additional punters that enjoyed the softer Judie Dench side of things. (my inlaws for example went to see SF twice), SP is a very different beast IMHO and will appeal to a narrower band of punters.

    I don't disagree, just saying it's more enjoyable, in response to your comment on tone. Whether fair-weather fans enjoy it, I couldn't honestly give a f***. I loved it.
  • Posts: 1,505
    patb wrote: »
    Its not about whether you or I enjoyed it, its about whether the additional punters that enjoyed the softer Judie Dench side of things. (my inlaws for example went to see SF twice), SP is a very different beast IMHO and will appeal to a narrower band of punters.

    Completely concur with RC7 here - I don't give a toss whether the Sunday tea-time crowd will like it as much as SF.

    Richer still - I actually HOPE that it doesn’t have the blood-curdling mass appeal that SF did. It was more a patriotic homage to the Olympics for god sake.
    Bond is for people who like James Bond films (or at least for those who don’t require them to be PC’d the hell out of and turned ‘nice & cosy’). The rest can stick to Downtown Abbey. I'll take mine with a razor's edge and a nice dollop of good riddance to the Sunday movie-goers, thanks ever so much B-)


  • edited October 2015 Posts: 1
    I had a restless night on Tuesday morning so attempted my first piece of writing in sometime. My Spectre review was picked up by the local paper I used to work for. As I'm new to the forum, thoughts?

    http://m.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/13901055.___A_true_spectacle_____Stroud___s_biggest_James_Bond_fan_Carl_Hewlett_reviews_Spectre/
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 174
    Saw it last night. There is a lot to enjoy and Daniel Craig is wonderful, but it was so predictable. It was like all the advances in story telling we'd had since Casino and Skyfall had been jetisoned, and we're back to a standard Purvis & Wade romp, akin to the blandness of World Is Not Enough. We have a cartoon Bond again where no matter how high the stakes or how deadly the risks, we know he's now indestructable. The film feels like a series of well-staged set peices and familiar tropes, but very little else. I wasn't emotionally engaged with the film and the heart of Skyfall has given way to spectacle, but as an action movie, it delivered. We're also still very much in 'prequel' territory, in that it was clearly the origin story of a famous Bond villain, so these 4 Craig movies really are set before the other movies (if you care about contuniuty and canon). But the film does tie all the other Craig movies together, including Quantum Of Solace which is great. I think in terms of the 4 Craig movies, I'd place it in 3rd place. It's better than Quantum, but Skyfall and Casino are much better films.
  • Posts: 11,119
    007bondUK wrote: »
    I think it needs a second viewing because honestly after it was over it felt a bit flat. Never had that feeling after Skyfall so sure the bar is set high but SPECTRE is too long and has some really stupid moments which make no sense with the established characters.

    Apart from the technically excellent opening tracking shot this so called best ever opening title sequence was dull.

    Thomas Newman's score is not a score. It's like an arrangement of unused cues from Skyfall. There is a constant drone of orchestral bars that just hang about all movie.

    Craig is excellent as always and maybe he has one more movie in him but then that would be the right time to hand over the reigns.

    You are new to the forum obviously :-).
  • Posts: 250
    SonofSean wrote: »
    so these 4 Craig movies really are set before the other movies (if you care about contuniuty and canon).

    They're not, they're set in an entirely different "timeline" to the original 20.
  • Posts: 174
    FourDot wrote: »
    SonofSean wrote: »
    so these 4 Craig movies really are set before the other movies (if you care about contuniuty and canon).

    They're not, they're set in an entirely different "timeline" to the original 20.

    Of course, but, it's still in the 'origin / prequel' stages as we witness the birth of a well-established Bond villain, so I stick to my contention that it could be viewed as a film which takes place before, say, Dr. No. But then, continuity really isn't EON's strong point.
Sign In or Register to comment.