It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Totally agree with you about Craig in SF - not surprising I suppose, as the core of Plot is really about Dench's character and Bond just happens to be there. And yes, there was something robotic about Craig in SF - as you say there is always a risk of that with Craig if he doesn't have anything sufficiently interesting to do.
For me personally this film has Craig giving an improved version of his SF performance, but not the fully rounded Bond I once thought he had the potential to deliver.
It also leads me to think that the traditional style of Bond film has had its day. We have c.18 films like this one.
By attempting to give Bond more character, we are ironically in danger of losing the character.
I just fail to see how they can justify the budget in terms of what we got. A lot of the film seems to be set on sound stages. In fact, knowing that they spunked $24 million on cars for THAT car chase is frankly obscene. Better to spend a larger chunk up front on a decent script before running round trying to fix things.
They should set a much smaller budget and try to work out how to creatively spend it.
Still around 3.5/5. Maybe even 3/5.
1) Plot is a bit messy
2) Madeleine Swann's relationship with Bond is forced or underdeveloped.
Those comments do pop up in lots of reviews. On the subject of the plot, I think EON prefer to overplot than underplot. What I mean is, they'd rather overcook the plot and make it full of stuff than undersell the plot and gives the audience less. I know some fans were disappointed QOS was under two hours and some fans have suggested SPECTRE might be a bit too long so it's hard/impossible to please all fans.
But in some respects it's better to have lots of stuff in a film because you know the producers/writers are giving you a lot for your money (ticket admission). And with seven months of filming (!) you kinda expect the plot to be sprawling!
I don't find the plot messy at all. It may be a bit lightweight for some people, but it's coherent and clear. It's a pretty simple story in the end and I think they balance the exposition well.
In terms of Swann, yes, they could have eked out the relationship more, but they certainly didn't need to. Everyone is using Tracy as a yardstick, but this is a totally different situation and in completely different circumstances. It's an intense relationship built in the heat of moment with the spectre of death lingering at every turn. The fact it moves at pace suits the film. Perhaps those who've had intense relationships will identify with the process. I've heard people criticise the Vesper arc for similar reasons, yet that too is paced perfectly for me.
The blend of ingredients and story strands in this film, while not all perfect, are infinitely better balanced than the naysayers seem to be implying.
Totally agree though that EON have a lot of work to do to get their scripts up to scratch. Logan, Purvis and Wade - all of them are not good enough. P+w are hacks better suited to 90s TV and Logan can do decent dialogue but can't come up with a decent original plot to save his life.
I think the box office for SPECTRE will disprove that notion! It's had the biggest opening ever at the UK box office. I think the worldwide audience for Bond is as strong as ever and the vast majority just want more JB films - be they traditional or more gritty! People just love the films PERIOD! ;) Fans posting on boards like this tend to be more critical but I doubt 95 percent of the fanbase for Bond is as critical as us.
SP has allowed Mendes to redeem himself to a certain extent. I am happy for Craig to come back for one more if he wants. On balance though I'd prefer if Mendes did not return. Having said that, if SP was his first Bond movie id probably be happy for him to do another.
I feel a similar way. I want Mendes/Craig back to make it a trilogy. I like that the Bond films have distinct approaches based on the director, like the Glen era in the eighties, the early Young films, the modern Campbell films. I much prefer it this way than a conveyor belt of directors for each new film like what happened with Brosnan.
That being said, If scrapping Craig/Mendes (It's my opinion that if you remove one, the other will follow) for B25 will speed up production, like letting go of a heavy weight, then I'm all for it. There is no reason in my mind why we shouldn't get a new film every 2 years.
It always baffles me how much criticism Purvis and Wade get in the (admittedly weird) world of Bond fandom. The wrote Skyfall and Casino Royale, two films that most critics would rank among the very best.
Sometime I wonder, if we had had online forums, would the same result have come from the early SC films. They had a consistency of tone and character that is lacking with the DC era (they seem to go from humour to darkness very quickly), so the main differences were the scripts but they all came from a very similar perspective. Once we got to OHMSS, Hunt let the cat out of the bag with treating Bond as a human and exploring that side of things and, since then, we have been up and down and all over the place.
I definitely do not want P&W back. Same with Mendes ..I feel he has run his course and I really want a fresh take.
I do want Craig back.... but I'm ok if the right actor jumps in.
I think Craig needs a solid Bond thriller with the best elements of CR, SF, and SP to end his tenure.
I understand that the main problem of the film is the script.
So, the plot is silly or under-developed? Can someone please tell me without spoiling?
No spoilers below, as requested - although my advice to you, my friend, would be to stay away from the forums for the next two weeks :)
I would disagree with this assessment. I think SP has the strongest script since CR and is one of the few Bond films of the last 20 years without any major plot holes. It's quite a simple story, well told. The main problem is that the characters are a little under-developed.
YMMV but I would rank it in the same category as TB, TSWLM and GE. A classic Bond film with all the right ingredients, a few mis-steps and a few outstanding elements. Craig, Wishaw and the cinematography, in particular, are fantastic. It is also one of the funniest Bond films and the humour is very well done.
That's what I fear, to watch a good film destroyed in the end by messy writing.
I wish I could stay away from this forum or the reviews but I'm afraid I'm weak! And I'm influenced by bad reviews, not good ones! My main concern is that the film is a little rushed from what I read. I don't want to learn everything about Bond's past, if that's the big deal in the film, just want to know if everything is well executed (from acting to the development of the story).
I'm in same boat but I'm going to have to judge on my own.
I honestly don't even think the negatives mentioned are truly that negative enough to hurt the film or the enjoyment.
Kinda like saying ok the ending of Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull was just a rehash of Last Crusade.. ok it was but I enjoyed anyway.
Sorry only example I could think of.
Exactly..........everyone forgets with time, what the critics reviews, and public responses were for previous Bond films!.........and the franchise has endured more than its fair share of criticism for some of the films.
No film of any type will make everyone happy!
Unless, a film gets an overwhelming negative response, then just ignore the comments, and go see the film for yourselves......because if you like it...........that's what really counts isn't it?
Well said both of you.
...beside "mixed" reviews may make them rethink next time.
Well I'm a huge Dalton fan, as you obliviously are too, but we have to accept a lot of people felt like Dalton had no charisma too. They would be wrong of course, but nevertheless that is an opinion some have expressed.
For me personally I can't accept that the suggestion that Craig isn't that good an actor. Again, Dalton is my favourite Bond but he wasn't ever visually comfortable doing the humour and standard Bond tropes that Craig does with such confidence in SP.
I was a bit concerned about not hearing to much about the car chase and the train fight. But i really liked both of them especially the train fight
That's true ...and funny I was thinking that today. I guess I have a fondness for all of them.
between them. :)
My thought's exactly.
In some ways it is Connery in TB, he has done it now he's enjoying it.