SPECTRE - Your reviews. NO SPOILERS.

18911131435

Comments

  • Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm really looking forward to seeing SP, to confirm once and for all whether DC can pull off an OTT Bond film as assuredly and charismatically as the two masters of this kind of thing, namely SC & RM.

    I too have my doubts, because to date (up to and including SF) I have found him far more interesting and compelling when he has real depth to delve into, like he did in CR. In the SP trailers at least, he seems quite uncomfortable and unnatural delivering the one liners....not PB or TD level uncomfortable, but uncomfortable nonetheless.

    I found him strangely robotic and overshadowed in SF, particularly in comparison to Dench, Fiennes & Bardem, except for a few sarcastic flourishes here and there (e.g. first meeting with Q & psyche eval scenes).

    Rog & Sean could make even the dullest of scenes interesting to watch. Craig seems like he needs something more meaty to really come alive and become magnetic.

    AVB wrote: »
    In Spectre we have a film where character development and pacing make way for tighter edits in order to get all the set pieces in, and as a result the believability of these 'characters' is thwarted. The Dark Knight is a top example of how a fantasy action popcorn film has the balls to pace itself accordingly and give it's characters space to become real. I'm not looking for 'serious emotional stuff', I'm looking for an adaptation of Fleming's wonderful character studies transposed onto a fantasy story. Bourne did it, Nolan did it with TDK(bit a bodge job on it's sequel but almost). It's insane how Mendes couldn't without resorting to some hackneyed two parter about oedepal trysts and VERY petty childhood vengeance. He's supposed to be the director who makes Bond a real person on screen!

    Whereas Connery's era imbued those cheeky one liners with absolute aplomb, here is it done with the nuance of a jackhammer. I did enjoy the film but there is really little to talk about with regards to it or Skyfall, given how shallow they are. This is why I enjoy QoS; it's a straight up revenge flick and doesn't overcook Bond's trauma, but let's other characters reference it instead. His relationship with other characters was truthful aswell. Perhaps it was better since it was actually a Bond on mission film, and he didn't have all these interactions with his trusted allies, the secretary and quartermaster. Craig was magnificent in that film. I think he's never quite comfortable with Bond's sardonic wit in the other ones. The less he has to say the better because he shows it with his eyes and body.

    Well explained post @AVB. I agree that DC says a lot with his non-verbal communication (seeing Vesper in the shower in CR.....looking around the room while tied up waiting for Silva's entrance in SF, psyche eval in SF etc. etc.). I'm very curious to see how I feel about this entry...Will let you know on the 6th.

    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.
  • Posts: 1,161
    Just saw it a second time curiously I thought the middle was better and only the final 15 mins a let down. Dunno why though the whole thing is a kind of deflating experience. I could feel my enthusiasm waning.

    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.
  • Posts: 1,644
    It's amazing how so many fan reviews mention

    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!

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,455
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    It's amazing how so many fan reviews mention

    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.

  • Posts: 11,425
    Yes, the plot is perhaps derivative and not that gripping but it's clear and coherent. I think they were conscious of what a mess SF was in that respect.

    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.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,305
    I don't mind having the same director and actor back, but personally I think that they should get new writers for each film. That we have had the same pair of knuckleheads for 7 films now is beyond silly. And they have a very low batting average IMO. :-w
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 1,644
    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.

    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.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I don't mind having the same director and actor back, but personally I think that they should get new writers for each film. That we have had the same pair of knuckleheads for 7 films now is beyond silly. And they have a very low batting average IMO. :-w

    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.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,305
    Getafix wrote: »
    I don't mind having the same director and actor back, but personally I think that they should get new writers for each film. That we have had the same pair of knuckleheads for 7 films now is beyond silly. And they have a very low batting average IMO. :-w

    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.



  • StrangwaysStrangways London, England
    Posts: 21
    Getafix wrote: »
    P+w are hacks better suited to 90s TV
    That we have had the same pair of knuckleheads for 7 films now is beyond silly. And they have a very low batting average IMO. :-w

    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.
  • Posts: 4,415
    Its amazing the amount of difference in opinion there is from the same movie, QoS, SF and SP seem to be able to produce such different opinions.
    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.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    P&W admitted themselves they were done by QoS. I think they hit a script they did better with in SF but even at that additional writers came in to flesh out.

    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.

  • Posts: 159
    I haven't seen the film, the premier in Greece is on the 12th of November. I just have a question though because I'm a little worried and disappointed about the reviews.

    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?
  • Posts: 3,037
    Kostas_P wrote: »
    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?
    Four writers. The 3rd act being completely rewritten three times, etc. Actually it should be more of a mess, than it actually is.
  • StrangwaysStrangways London, England
    Posts: 21
    Kostas_P wrote: »
    I haven't seen the film, the premier in Greece is on the 12th of November. I just have a question though because I'm a little worried and disappointed about the reviews.

    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.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 159
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Kostas_P wrote: »
    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?
    Four writers. The 3rd act being completely rewritten three times, etc. Actually it should be more of a mess, than it actually is.

    That's what I fear, to watch a good film destroyed in the end by messy writing.


    Strangways wrote: »
    Kostas_P wrote: »
    I haven't seen the film, the premier in Greece is on the 12th of November. I just have a question though because I'm a little worried and disappointed about the reviews.

    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.

    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).

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited October 2015 Posts: 4,116
    Kostas_P wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Kostas_P wrote: »
    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?
    Four writers. The 3rd act being completely rewritten three times, etc. Actually it should be more of a mess, than it actually is.

    That's what I fear, to watch a good film destroyed in the end by messy writing.


    Strangways wrote: »
    Kostas_P wrote: »
    I haven't seen the film, the premier in Greece is on the 12th of November. I just have a question though because I'm a little worried and disappointed about the reviews.

    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.

    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.
  • I've not yet seen the film so maybe this isn't fair of me to say, but it *seems* that all (or at least most) of the criticisms hurled at SP could also be leveled at the first 20 Bond films.
  • Posts: 1,098
    I've not yet seen the film so maybe this isn't fair of me to say, but it *seems* that all (or at least most) of the criticisms hurled at SP could also be leveled at the first 20 Bond films.

    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?
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited October 2015 Posts: 4,116
    mepal1 wrote: »
    I've not yet seen the film so maybe this isn't fair of me to say, but it *seems* that all (or at least most) of the criticisms hurled at SP could also be leveled at the first 20 Bond films.

    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.
  • Posts: 484
    Getafix wrote: »
    [I still like him in the role, but SP has just confirmed some of my lingering doubts about Craig. I am going to set the cat among the pigeons here, but like Robert Hardy I'm just not sure Craig is all that good an actor. Give me Connery, Moore or Dalton any day - all of them had flaws but for me are far more compelling in the role. I know this flies in the face of the received wisdom but although Craig has undeniable presence in screen, I'm just not sure he has much charisma.

    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.
  • Posts: 91
    Disagree, everything works for the first 4 films and the 6th.
  • Posts: 3,326
    Just saw Spectre, i enjoyed it more then Skyfall on the first viewing.
    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
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    @Crazysoul95 glad to hear
  • Completely agree, @mepal1. I also find that opinions (my own and the fandom's) can change quite a bit over time. If you asked me to rank all the Bond films once a year for my whole life, I doubt any two years would have the same list.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Completely agree, @mepal1. I also find that opinions (my own and the fandom's) can change quite a bit over time. If you asked me to rank all the Bond films once a year for my whole life, I doubt any two years would have the same list.

    That's true ...and funny I was thinking that today. I guess I have a fondness for all of them.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I have my top five, after that I find it very hard to choose
    between them. :)
  • I have my top five, after that I find it very hard to choose
    between them. :)

    My thought's exactly.

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    The great thing about the Bond films, is there's one to suit every mood. :)
  • Actually, this is one film where Craig's Bond doesn't have that pivotal scene that brings his character forward imo. He is good, but I don't think he gets that one scene where he has a chance to shine. Not that I mind, as I don't care too much for the introspective Bond and anyway, I think the angsty M usurpes some of that turmoil, leaving Bond to be more flippant this time round.

    In some ways it is Connery in TB, he has done it now he's enjoying it.
Sign In or Register to comment.