SPECTRE - Your reviews. NO SPOILERS.

145791034

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    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 haven't seen it yet @patb, being across the pond, but I suspect you're right.

    Having said that, there may in fact be a much larger contingent of such 'narrower band of punters' in China and other 'foreign language' countries, who may appreciate the lighter touch/focus on action of SP vs. the melodramatic characterizations in SF, which perhaps required English as a first language to fully enjoy.

    Conceivably this is what EON is gunning for. It's a money business after all. If SP fails to take off in these 'foreign markets' or underperforms relative to SF, then perhaps we will go back to more depth in B25.

    How this film is received will shape the future.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I love all the timeline theories, people twisting themselves up in knots
    trying to make sense, of a series of films that were never set out to
    Follow any timeline. :)) as if when making Dr No they had Spectre on
    the cards. ;)
    Although as a hobby, I guess it's better than train spotting. :D
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,492
    DrGorner wrote: »
    I love all the timeline theories, people twisting themselves up in knots
    trying to make sense, of a series of films that were never set out to
    Follow any timeline. :)) as if when making Dr No they had Spectre on
    the cards. ;)

    Ha ha. Yes, it's mug's game.
  • Posts: 4,427
    patb wrote: »
    Its not about whether you are 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.
    bondjames wrote: »
    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 haven't seen it yet @patb, being across the pond, but I suspect you're right.

    Having said that, there may in fact be a much larger contingent of such 'narrower band of punters' in China and other 'foreign language' countries, who may appreciate the lighter touch/focus on action of SP vs. the melodramatic characterizations in SF, which perhaps required English as a first language to fully enjoy.

    Conceivably this is what EON is gunning for. It's a money business after all. If SP fails to take off in these 'foreign markets' or underperforms relative to SF, then perhaps we will go back to more depth in B25.

    How this film is received will shape the future.

    Very fair point but IMHO, its a dangerous route to go down if you concentrate on the action part as you start to directly compete with other action series that have little character and focus on pure action. Bond and the team have an advantage over all other series as there is always potential for character based stuff based on how well we know the characters, the dynamic between the characters and the acting skills they have in order to express this dynamic. I would hate Bond to be relegated to some Fast and Furious level that's just eye candy
  • Posts: 174
    DrGorner wrote: »
    I love all the timeline theories, people twisting themselves up in knots
    trying to make sense, of a series of films that were never set out to
    Follow any timeline. :)) as if when making Dr No they had Spectre on
    the cards. ;)
    Although as a hobby, I guess it's better than train spotting. :D

    I know, 50 + years of continuity. It's impossible to make sense of it. Best not to even try.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    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 completely but respectfully disagree. SP from fan and critic reviews should appeal to an audience that the series popular to begin with plus fun enough to attract repeat and new viewers.



  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,492
    A lot of theoretical anxiety on these boards at the minute.
  • Posts: 4,427
    Only time will tell.
  • thomasetchethomasetche France
    Posts: 18
    bondjames wrote: »
    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 haven't seen it yet @patb, being across the pond, but I suspect you're right.

    Having said that, there may in fact be a much larger contingent of such 'narrower band of punters' in China and other 'foreign language' countries, who may appreciate the lighter touch/focus on action of SP vs. the melodramatic characterizations in SF, which perhaps required English as a first language to fully enjoy.

    Conceivably this is what EON is gunning for. It's a money business after all. If SP fails to take off in these 'foreign markets' or underperforms relative to SF, then perhaps we will go back to more depth in B25.

    How this film is received will shape the future.


    Hum actually i'm not quite sure about it. Look at DAD a very OTT Bond, on the edge of the parody, a AustinPowerslike. It's been a really good hit in theaters in 2002. One of the most successful movie in the whole franchise.
    And yet, we got Casino Royale after that, which is definitely not the same tone, i'm quite sure you'll agree with that ;) .
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    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 haven't seen it yet @patb, being across the pond, but I suspect you're right.

    Having said that, there may in fact be a much larger contingent of such 'narrower band of punters' in China and other 'foreign language' countries, who may appreciate the lighter touch/focus on action of SP vs. the melodramatic characterizations in SF, which perhaps required English as a first language to fully enjoy.

    Conceivably this is what EON is gunning for. It's a money business after all. If SP fails to take off in these 'foreign markets' or underperforms relative to SF, then perhaps we will go back to more depth in B25.

    How this film is received will shape the future.


    Hum actually i'm not quite sure about it. Look at DAD a very OTT Bond, on the edge of the parody, a AustinPowerslike. It's been a really good hit in theaters in 2002. One of the most successful movie in the whole franchise.
    And yet, we got Casino Royale after that, which is definitely not the same tone, i'm quite sure you'll agree with that ;) .

    I think it only works one way actually.

    If you make an OTT/ box office friendly Bond film without much 'meat on the bone' if you will, like DAD, then you have to make money.......what other purpose is the film there for? If DAD hadn't made money, then Bond would have actually been in more serious trouble if you think about it.

    With a film like CR, FYEO or even LTK (with its brutal....for the period....violence) one is not necessarily making the film for box office, but rather to reestablish some critical heft for the franchise.

    So my point is a film like SP (reportedly, because I haven't seen it yet) with its astronomical budget and somewhat lighter tone/tropes has to hit box office gold.....ironically a film like SF (with its much smaller budget and reportedly more serious tone/themes/characterizations) could actually have done with a little less box office in a way and still been seen as a success.
  • Posts: 2,534
    How successful Spectre will be remains to be seen but presuming it is, and I'm sure it will be, this is Bond afterall, I really don't think it would have been any less successful if it had have been darker like in the vein of CR and SF.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Bounine wrote: »
    How successful Spectre will be remains to be seen but presuming it is, and I'm sure it will be, this is Bond afterall, I really don't think it would have been any less successful if it had have been darker like in the vein of CR and SF.

    Agreed, but only because of SF's success. Anything following SF was going to make bucketloads of money when you think about it, so in a way, the successor to SF was the film where one should take as many risks as possible because it's almost a guaranteed money maker (at least in the first week or so before word of mouth kicks in).
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 2,534
    Do you think it's more risky making it comedic than darker? I suppose after the dark Skyfall, one could see SPECTRE as being risky having all the comedy but when you compare it to other blockbusters, maybe not really.

    How much comedy does this film actually have? More than Mission Impossible 5? What other Bond film would you compare this film too, in terms of the amount of humour?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Bounine wrote: »
    Do you think it's more risky making it comedic than darker?

    Personally, I think 'critically' it is more risky making it more comedic but 'box office wise' less risky.

    Making it darker may have actually resulted in better overall 'critical' response (although SP is getting good reviews) but of course it may have had a negative effect on the box office........but my point is the best time to do such a thing is when following a box office monster like SF.
  • thomasetchethomasetche France
    Posts: 18
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    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 haven't seen it yet @patb, being across the pond, but I suspect you're right.

    Having said that, there may in fact be a much larger contingent of such 'narrower band of punters' in China and other 'foreign language' countries, who may appreciate the lighter touch/focus on action of SP vs. the melodramatic characterizations in SF, which perhaps required English as a first language to fully enjoy.

    Conceivably this is what EON is gunning for. It's a money business after all. If SP fails to take off in these 'foreign markets' or underperforms relative to SF, then perhaps we will go back to more depth in B25.

    How this film is received will shape the future.


    Hum actually i'm not quite sure about it. Look at DAD a very OTT Bond, on the edge of the parody, a AustinPowerslike. It's been a really good hit in theaters in 2002. One of the most successful movie in the whole franchise.
    And yet, we got Casino Royale after that, which is definitely not the same tone, i'm quite sure you'll agree with that ;) .

    I think it only works one way actually.

    If you make an OTT/ box office friendly Bond film without much 'meat on the bone' if you will, like DAD, then you have to make money.......what other purpose is the film there for? If DAD hadn't made money, then Bond would have actually been in more serious trouble if you think about it.

    With a film like CR, FYEO or even LTK (with its brutal....for the period....violence) one is not necessarily making the film for box office, but rather to reestablish some critical heft for the franchise.

    So my point is a film like SP (reportedly, because I haven't seen it yet) with its astronomical budget and somewhat lighter tone/tropes has to hit box office gold.....ironically a film like SF (with its much smaller budget and reportedly more serious tone/themes/characterizations) could actually have done with a little less box office in a way and still been seen as a success.

    I see your point ! And i don't mind to get some "serious" and "harder" Bond films time to time like FYEO,LTK or even CR. I like them.
    But IMO, Spectre is absolutly not a OTT Bond Movie. Actually, for me, it's a REAL Bond Movie. It's been a while we didn't get a real Bond movie. It's a very good balance between all ingredients of a Bond Movie but not too much...and with the Craig touch.
    IMHO this is the first Craig's Bond film. And i think he is brillant into it. This is the first time i see Craig really playing Bond. And honestly, it can be taken silly,but i nearly got some tears while the PTS or even after that, because this a feeling i hadn't got for a reeeeeaaallly looooong time. With Spectre, i got back the character i love some much.
  • Posts: 1,066
    Does anyone recommend rewatching CR,QOS and SF before going to see SP?
  • thomasetchethomasetche France
    Posts: 18
    Chiraz wrote: »
    Does anyone recommend rewatching CR,QOS and SF before going to see SP?

    Well i think it's a good think to do if you don't have them in mind. Because there are a lot of references about them in SP :)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    But IMO, Spectre is absolutly not a OTT Bond Movie. Actually, for me, it's a REAL Bond Movie. It's been a while we didn't get a real Bond movie. It's a very good balance between all ingredients of a Bond Movie but not too much...and with the Craig touch.
    IMHO this is the first Craig's Bond film. And i think he is brillant into it. This is the first time i see Craig really playing Bond. And honestly, it can be taken silly,but i nearly got some tears while the PTS or even after that, because this a feeling i hadn't got for a reeeeeaaallly looooong time. With Spectre, i got back the character i love some much.

    This is good news.

    Not having seen it yet I can't comment. I've just been reading all the fan and other spoiler free reviews and getting the impression it is a bit undeveloped on the character side and a little OTT.

    I'll take something like TSWLM (one of my all time favs) in a second personally.

    The trick imho though is to keep the film tonally consistent. If it feels like it's all over the place (too serious in parts and too jovial elsewhere) then it may not date well.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 2,534
    I had adjusted my post and then lost half of it. These forums do strange things sometimes. I had also added that comedic isn't risky when comparing it to other Hollywood blockbusters. I get your point though.

    Just how much humour does this film actually have? More than Mission Impossible 5? What Bond film would people say Spectre is the equivalent to in terms of humour? Oh man, I lament the fact that they've done away with the lovely darker tone of the Craig era...just when it was all going so well too. I was more than willing to accept Moore like films again with the right actor in the role, post the Craig era. Atleast I can go into this film now without high hopes which is what I did with Skyfall (and was pleasantly surprised) after the dismal, action heavy QOS. Speaking of QOS, does Spectre have more or less action than QOS? I know that the running time must be taken into account so maybe I should ask if SP has the same, less or more action to non action ratio as QOS which is a lot shorter in length than SP.
  • RC7RC7
    edited October 2015 Posts: 10,492
    Bounine wrote: »
    Do you think it's more risky making it comedic than darker? I suppose after the dark Skyfall, one could see SPECTRE as being risky having all the comedy but when you compare it to other blockbusters, maybe not really.

    How much comedy does this film actually have? More than Mission Impossible 5? What other Bond film would you compare this film too, in terms of the amount of humour?

    SP is hilarious, in all the right ways. The humour is pitched perfectly imo, bar one single instance. They've realised that DC doesn't gags, in the vein of SF, and have concentrated on situational comedy and lines which suit Craig's cynical and deadpan delivery. There are several risks in this film, all of which pay off imo. Oh, and there's another character in the film who provides some serious laughs.
    But IMO, Spectre is absolutly not a OTT Bond Movie. Actually, for me, it's a REAL Bond Movie. It's been a while we didn't get a real Bond movie. It's a very good balance between all ingredients of a Bond Movie but not too much...and with the Craig touch.

    This.
    Bounine wrote: »
    I lament the fact that they've done away with the lovely darker tone of the Craig era...just when it was all going so well too.

    I seriously think you should get some air. I've seen loads of your posts theorising why this film might not work for you. Watch it and if you feel the same, so be it. But I don't understand why you would work yourself up about it. Look to the positives rather than the negatives, there are a s*** load of them.
  • thomasetchethomasetche France
    Posts: 18
    bondjames wrote: »
    But IMO, Spectre is absolutly not a OTT Bond Movie. Actually, for me, it's a REAL Bond Movie. It's been a while we didn't get a real Bond movie. It's a very good balance between all ingredients of a Bond Movie but not too much...and with the Craig touch.
    IMHO this is the first Craig's Bond film. And i think he is brillant into it. This is the first time i see Craig really playing Bond. And honestly, it can be taken silly,but i nearly got some tears while the PTS or even after that, because this a feeling i hadn't got for a reeeeeaaallly looooong time. With Spectre, i got back the character i love some much.

    This is good news.

    Not having seen it yet I can't comment. I've just been reading all the fan and other spoiler free reviews and getting the impression it is a bit undeveloped on the character side and a little OTT.

    I'll take something like TSWLM (one of my all time favs) in a second personally.

    The trick imho though is to keep the film tonally consistent. If it feels like it's all over the place (too serious in parts and too jovial elsewhere) then it may not date well.

    TSWLM is also my favorite ! actually the 2nd one, right after OHMSS.
    For me, TSWLM is the perfect classic Bond movie. Great balance, great Moore, great plot, but not too many gags.

    I don't get why people are so mad against the Car Scene in SP. This is definitly Bond for me. 007 cannot be just a depressive guy thinking about what he got a do next in his life.
    The playlist joke is amazing and very actual, modern.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    The car scene is good. But the one in QoS is more thrilling.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    RC7 wrote: »
    DrGorner wrote: »
    I love all the timeline theories, people twisting themselves up in knots
    trying to make sense, of a series of films that were never set out to
    Follow any timeline. :)) as if when making Dr No they had Spectre on
    the cards. ;)

    Ha ha. Yes, it's mug's game.

    The timeframe went out of the window in OHMSS in 1969 as soon as Blofeld didn't recognise Bond.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,492
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The car scene is good. But the one in QoS is more thrilling.

    Totally different context, though, don't you think? In the same way I wouldn't really compare the 2CV chase with QoS.
  • thomasetchethomasetche France
    Posts: 18
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The car scene is good. But the one in QoS is more thrilling.

    Well i love the car scene in QoS as well, but i am not a really good fan of the editing. Very too fast. It takes me a couple of times to really appreciate it and really see what's going on.
    I think it's a very different point of view. The car chase in QoS is very serious and it's an rough action scene.
    In SP , the car scene is also an action scene but with some fun some light into it. Definetly Bond as well.
  • thomasetchethomasetche France
    Posts: 18
    RC7 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The car scene is good. But the one in QoS is more thrilling.


    Totally different context, though, don't you think? In the same way I wouldn't really compare the 2CV chase with QoS.


    Hahaha ! Quite true.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited October 2015 Posts: 5,131
    RC7 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The car scene is good. But the one in QoS is more thrilling.

    Totally different context, though, don't you think? In the same way I wouldn't really compare the 2CV chase with QoS.

    True. Yes. But my comment centres around how I would have liked it to have been done, rather than the delivery. Bond should be tence and sharp getting away from Hinks, but he is relaxed and 'Moore' era.
  • thomasetchethomasetche France
    Posts: 18
    suavejmf wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The car scene is good. But the one in QoS is more thrilling.

    Totally different context, though, don't you think? In the same way I wouldn't really compare the 2CV chase with QoS.

    True. Yes. But my comment centres around how I would have liked it to have been done, rather than the delivery. Bond should be tence and sharp getting away from Hinks, but he is relaxed and 'Moore' era.

    Well i think SP is a really good balance once again. You got that car scene which mixes action and humour. And you got some pure action scenes like Snow Plane or Westminster Bridge :) .
  • RC7RC7
    edited October 2015 Posts: 10,492
    suavejmf wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The car scene is good. But the one in QoS is more thrilling.

    Totally different context, though, don't you think? In the same way I wouldn't really compare the 2CV chase with QoS.

    True. Yes. But my comment centres around how I would have liked it to have been done, rather than the delivery. Bond should be tence and sharp getting away from Hinks, but he is relaxed and 'Moore' era.

    I initially thought it would be as you suggest, but I found it to be a nice surprise the way it actually played out. Everything about this movie, including the chase, builds this idea of Bond being cool as a cucumber, having not seen that from Craig I loved it. He's so unperturbed, cocksure and carefree throughout, it's great to see and works well with the other aspects of his character.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The car scene is good. But the one in QoS is more thrilling.

    Totally different context, though, don't you think? In the same way I wouldn't really compare the 2CV chase with QoS.

    True. Yes. But my comment centres around how I would have liked it to have been done, rather than the delivery. Bond should be tence and sharp getting away from Hinks, but he is relaxed and 'Moore' era.

    Well i think SP is a really good balance once again. You got that car scene which mixes action and humour. And you got some pure action scenes like Snow Plane or Westminster Bridge :) .

    Yes, the balance is excellent imo.
  • Posts: 2,534
    RC7 wrote: »
    Bounine wrote: »
    Do you think it's more risky making it comedic than darker? I suppose after the dark Skyfall, one could see SPECTRE as being risky having all the comedy but when you compare it to other blockbusters, maybe not really.

    How much comedy does this film actually have? More than Mission Impossible 5? What other Bond film would you compare this film too, in terms of the amount of humour?

    SP is hilarious, in all the right ways. The humour is pitched perfectly imo, bar one single instance. They've realised that DC doesn't gags, in the vein of SF, and have concentrated on situational comedy and lines which suit Craig's cynical and deadpan delivery. There are several risks in this film, all of which pay off imo. Oh, and there's another character in the film who provides some serious laughs.
    But IMO, Spectre is absolutly not a OTT Bond Movie. Actually, for me, it's a REAL Bond Movie. It's been a while we didn't get a real Bond movie. It's a very good balance between all ingredients of a Bond Movie but not too much...and with the Craig touch.

    This.
    Bounine wrote: »
    I lament the fact that they've done away with the lovely darker tone of the Craig era...just when it was all going so well too.

    I seriously think you should get some air. I've seen loads of your posts theorising why this film might not work for you. Watch it and if you feel the same, so be it. But I don't understand why you would work yourself up about it. Look to the positives rather than the negatives, there are a s*** load of them.

    I'm like this with everything but I'm not one to be taken seriously. I have a cynical, black sense of humour and enjoy speculating. Also, if the positive far outweigh the negative then I tend to analyse the negative and ways that the film could have been better. There certainly looks like there are many wonderful things in this film. The Flemingsque sets and cinematography look splendid. Love the idea of the long tracking shot in the opening sequence too. But yes, I should wait until I see the film before saying too much.
Sign In or Register to comment.