SPECTRE - Your reviews. NO SPOILERS.

191012141534

Comments

  • Posts: 11,425
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    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.

    May be its not coincidence that I actually quite like QoS then. The fact P+W weren't much involved is reflected in what I personally consider a better than average Bond movie.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Getafix wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    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.

    May be its not coincidence that I actually quite like QoS then. The fact P+W weren't much involved is reflected in what I personally consider a better than average Bond movie.

    Reading my quote I left QS out but I like QS as well. Some very good in there that people just don't always see.


  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Well, I feel like these reviews has brought my expectations to an all time low. Damn.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    Well, I feel like these reviews has brought my expectations to an all time low. Damn.

    If you enjoy classic Bond and want a fun ride then you'll definitely be happy. The thing is, I think what maybe jarring for some is Craig not being characterised the way he's been for the majority of his tenure as Bond, being comparatively somewhat too serious compared to his predecessors. Craig is in full blown alpha Bond mode; think Connery in TB mixed with Moore in LALD but with the all important Craig magic. That's the Bond we have. The Bond many people have been waiting to see from Craig and we have it; effortlessly executed.

    The film isn't as "deep" or as emotionally exploring as SF and I dare say, lacks the subtle nuances of QoS BUT; it's a fine film, a cracking adventure and had SF never been made I'm pretty sure the whole world would have praised SP a million times over and hailed it as the best Bond ever, which I could understand moreso than the praise SF gets but still, I think CR is still the best movie of the Craig era...thus far.

    In short, of course, the movie is flawed and there are things I would have like to see done differently but as it is, it's a top tier Bond film, it's much better and more enjoyable than SF and I dare say, this is the Bond movie the series needed.

  • Posts: 159
    Well, I feel like these reviews has brought my expectations to an all time low. Damn.

    Same here. Also, I have the feeling that these trailers and TV spots gave me so much and there is little to expect.

    Oh man, reviews is a bad thing

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Maybe with lower expectations, you'll actually enjoy it more ? :D
  • Posts: 159
    Maybe with lower expectations, you'll actually enjoy it more ? :D

    Yep, I wish. I think I'll read some old reviews that bang JB films I love just to ignore them :P
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Even with mixed reviews, it's not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination.
    I give it a solid 8 out of 10. :)
  • Even with mixed reviews, it's not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination.
    I give it a solid 8 out of 10. :)

    I was dissapointed by the film because I maybe went with higher expectation, but it's really not that bad, yes I'd give it a solid 8/10 as well, you never feel like looking at your watch!.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I agree, some of the critics went a little overboard in their praise.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    ..and that's the expectation I'm going in with on the 6th.

    That's why I think I'm going to enjoy it so.

    The only thing I'm really peeved about right now is that I've read too many spoilers including something about the demise of a character that I didn't mean or want to read.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,492
    Well, I feel like these reviews has brought my expectations to an all time low. Damn.

    If you don't enjoy SP you have no soul.
  • Posts: 92
    I'm still waiting to hear if there's a suitably visually fab baddie lair, and the colour coding of the good guys and bad guys in final lair battle.
  • Posts: 154
    First impressions were that I found it a bit of a struggle. It’s a good film but something about it…. I dunno, it just falls flat too many times for me. Would like to say I love it but come away feeling CR and SF were better.
    Every action sequence fell flat, especially the car chase. I kept visualizing too many moments lifted from other recent Bond films that made it unoriginal. The high altitude of the helicopter being similar to QoS’s plane stunt. Then the pulling up of the helicopter made me think of Brosnan at the stick in GE. And action cues being lifted virtually verbatim from SF to make matters worse.
    Generally pretty fed up with the overuse of helicopters and plane stunts in a Bond film now.
    Would like to see different writers brought in now as well- the destruction of the lair doesn’t really allow Bond a chance to use his ingenuity.
    I liked all of the scenes with Waltz and there was a stretch after his introduction where I’d have liked to have seen him more. Seydoux’s scenes were quality as well apart from the initial scene, not her fault but again it just felt like the word play scene with the shrink from SF.
    Will need to see it again but come away feeling I don’t want another Mendes film or a Thomas Newman score.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,547
    Will be seeing the film two days early at an advanced screening.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    jake24 wrote: »
    Will be seeing the film two days early at an advanced screening.

    Good for you... hope you enjoy.
  • Posts: 418
    I totally agree with Crazysoul95. I also enjoyed SPECTRE more than Skyfall on first viewing. I thought the film moved along perfectly and I loved every single minute of it, especially the train fight. I cant believe that the film was 2.5 hours running time, it just flew by for me, I loved the stunning locations and I cant wait to go and watch it again tonight.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    jake24 wrote: »
    Will be seeing the film two days early at an advanced screening.

    Where can I go to this? We're both from the same place.
  • Thanks to everyone for their spoiler free reviews! I live in the U.S. so its nice to hear reactions from other fans like myself. The wait is becoming miserable! I like what I'm hearing so far though.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,547
    jake24 wrote: »
    Will be seeing the film two days early at an advanced screening.

    Where can I go to this? We're both from the same place.
    I sent you a PM.
  • Good review with a lot of details, but without major spoilers.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Good review with a lot of details, but without major spoilers.

    Yes, that was well written. Thanks for taking the time. I can't wait to see it on Friday.
  • Posts: 32
    It's a mess. The action's mostly great, everything around it is shambolic. Very Star Trek Into Darkness-y, overburdened with poorly considered references to previous movies. Links to Craig's preceding entries don't work at all, and the key continuity decision behind the villain is catastrophically misguided. The first half of the movie is generally good, especially the sensational pre-titles sequence (how wonderful to have the gunbarrel back where it belongs) but the whole thing collapses in on itself in the second half.

    Daniel Craig is occasionally good, often bored. Lea Seydoux does charismatic, sweet work in a nothing role. Christoph Waltz is badly miscast. Monica Bellucci is barely in it and Dave Bautista, while a great presence, is only there for the muscle. Naomie Harris' Moneypenny gets the least to do of all the MI6 staff, despite being the most action capable.

    There's some good stuff in there, with humour that mostly works (thanks to Ben Whishaw's dry delivery) and a willingness to have fun which Craig's movies have often lacked. Could do with being half an hour shorter - the narrative structure moves Bond from points A to B to C, etc, lacking any variation or surprise - having one location fewer, and finding a willingness to be its own thing rather than constantly referencing the past and trying to tie everything together, usually very badly. The score is forgettable and the film looks nice, but not especially distinctive. The ingredients for a great film are there, and with even token consideration, could have at least equalled Skyfall (which I love). Instead, it's marginally ahead of the joyless Quantum. The highs are very high, the lows very low. 6/10 for me.
  • Posts: 4,427
    you read my mind, thanks for the review, the Into Darkness reference is a good one IMHO
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    An interesting review @Xandaca.

    This comment below of yours is rather distressing to hear:
    Xandaca wrote: »
    Very Star Trek Into Darkness-y

    This comment below seems impossible. Surely he's perfect casting? Maybe not well utilized (don't give anything away as some of us haven't seen it):
    Xandaca wrote: »
    Christoph Waltz is badly miscast.

    Hopefully we can discuss after I've had the privilege in 6 days.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 32
    bondjames wrote: »
    An interesting review @Xandaca.

    This comment below of yours is rather distressing to hear:
    Xandaca wrote: »
    Very Star Trek Into Darkness-y

    This comment below seems impossible. Surely he's perfect casting. Maybe not well utilized (don't give anything away as some of us haven't seen it):
    Xandaca wrote: »
    Christoph Waltz is badly miscast.

    Hopefully we can discuss after I've had the privilege in 6 days.

    In the interest of balance, some people seem happy with Waltz' work. I personally thought he had no chemistry with Craig and gave a one-dimensional, Christoph-Waltz-eurovillain-101 performance. The Star Trek Into Darkness remark is related to good action, bad plot and lousy overuse of references.

    I do hope you enjoy the movie, though. There's definitely some good stuff in there, particularly in the first half.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @Xandaca, thanks for the clarification. Hopefully you'll see it again and may like it more (it would be a shame to continue disliking it since we likely won't have another one for another crummy 3 yrs).

    Anyway, I'll post my thoughts once I've seen it. Cheers
  • Posts: 2,081
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    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.

    You're not stating the obvious actually, I certainly didn't know. :) I've never bought the (to me ridiculous) claim that SF was borrowing from TDKR, but this isabsolutely the first time I've ever seen it claimed that TDKR borrowed from SF, and that is, frankly, an even more ridiculous claim than that it happened the other way around - for surely obvious reasons. ;)
    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.

    Not so sure about that. I suspect that kind of stuff doesn't require a specific language anywhere near as much as humor often does. Focus on action is one thing, and you may very well be right on that being appreciated in certain places - after all, it doesn't require language skills. The verbal humor though, is another thing entirely and suffers, in my opinion, more than anything when translated. A lot of the humor in Bond is word play, and it's just something that doesn't often translate well, and often gets lost entirely in translation. What some have called "the funniest line" from M in SP got no reaction at all in my theatre as far as I remember, and most stuff that I found funny in SP and many other Bond movies just isn't funny when translated - either not as funny or not even remotely funny. A lot of verbal humor is impossible to translate to other languages so that it still works as well. Just the nature of languages and their idioms and double meanings of words, etc.
    patb wrote: »
    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

    Yes, I agree with that.
    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.

    Yes, good points.
    Chiraz wrote: »
    Does anyone recommend rewatching CR,QOS and SF before going to see SP?

    If one hasn't seen them, or doesn't remember much about them, then yes. Otherwise, doesn't matter if one does or not. (I didn't.)

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,492
    Loving all the misery bastards on here.
Sign In or Register to comment.