SPECTRE - Press reviews and personal reviews (BEWARE! Spoiler reviews allowed)

16869717374100

Comments

  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    Posts: 538
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Ive seen it 4 times. I'm done. Worst viewing was the second, but it has slowly improved well. Its a solid, good Bond film. The problem is Craig isn't *just* a solid Bond. he deserved a better film.

    Good to hear. I've seen it twice, but the second viewing almost put me to sleep. I'm going again on Wednesday.
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2015 Posts: 10,512
    Some of you guys need to get earlier nights or eat more greens. How you nearly fall asleep in a film I don't know.
  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    Posts: 538
    RC7 wrote: »
    Some of you guys need to get earlier nights or eat more greens. How you nearly fall asleep in a film I don't know.

    Loved it the first night. Loved it! Had a hard time picking between SP and CR. Beating a dead horse but a lot had to do with the audience and the people I sat next to. So…unenthused. Plus, I couldn't sit there getting excited when people hadn't seen the movie yet.



  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    lalala2004 wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    lalala2004 wrote: »
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    They should just end Bond. For a while at least. Five years or so gap. Let things cool down and then wham - new creative team, new Bond, perhaps with no backstory stuff. A nice soft reboot. Forget about Blofeld with daddy issues, forget Vesper, forget Silva. A clean slate in 2020.

    The gap between DAD and CR felt like eternity to me, and that was only 4 years. Ignoring everything that came before after all this build up would be a huge disappointment.

    I felt like an eternity for me too. For some reason the gap between Qos and SF felt shorter an it was a 4 year gap as well.

    An effect of getting older, perhaps? Not knowing who the new Bond would be and how things would turn out for so long was part of the challenge as well. Plus I spent a lot of time on KTBEU, so I was obsessed about it, whereas between QoS and SF I stayed away. It doesn't seem to me like a long length of time between films has a huge effect on the quality of the film itself.

    By the same token however I feel a 2 year gap is not quite long enough to really yearn for the next one... 3 years is the sweet spot, personally.
    QoS just arrived too early for me, and the Brosnan era just felt like a couple of quick episodes being churned out.

    I suppose plenty of people had the same feeling in the 80's...
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Tanner's screen time was so minimal it was any wonder why he was in the film. Hopefully, they can scale back the MI6 team a bit more in the next film and really focus on Bond and the immediate components of his mission.

    Nothing against Kinnear (who is by all accounts a fine actor) but nobody, aside from the hardcore fan base, cares about Tanner. Servicing M, Q, and Moneypenny is more than enough MI6 time for a film.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,727
    echo wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Tanner's screen time was so minimal it was any wonder why he was in the film. Hopefully, they can scale back the MI6 team a bit more in the next film and really focus on Bond and the immediate components of his mission.

    Nothing against Kinnear (who is by all accounts a fine actor) but nobody, aside from the hardcore fan base, cares about Tanner. Servicing M, Q, and Moneypenny is more than enough MI6 time for a film.

    Call me a brazen old traditionalist - but other than Blades (if they ever get around to it) I'd prefer if M was a good boy and stayed put in central London, without getting mixed up in the finale, thank you very much. Same goes for blee**** Moneypenny.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    I'm with you. Is there truth to the report that Fiennes refused to play M as evil? If so, that shows his restraint and good taste. Maybe they should let him direct one.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    echo wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Tanner's screen time was so minimal it was any wonder why he was in the film. Hopefully, they can scale back the MI6 team a bit more in the next film and really focus on Bond and the immediate components of his mission.

    Nothing against Kinnear (who is by all accounts a fine actor) but nobody, aside from the hardcore fan base, cares about Tanner. Servicing M, Q, and Moneypenny is more than enough MI6 time for a film.

    I don't mind him but he's been made in to a bit of a lap dog. He's the chief of staff, yet for much of Craig's tenure you would think he was Dame Judi's PA. Michael Kitchen made his voice heard played it as his own man. But that's down to script mostly but Kinnear does look like a spineless tory not great casting IMO.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    Kinnear has to be the most useless character in the series since Bibi Dahl...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    AceHole wrote: »
    Kinnear has to be the most useless character in the series since Bibi Dahl...
    Or Elvis...

  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    AceHole wrote: »
    lalala2004 wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    lalala2004 wrote: »
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    They should just end Bond. For a while at least. Five years or so gap. Let things cool down and then wham - new creative team, new Bond, perhaps with no backstory stuff. A nice soft reboot. Forget about Blofeld with daddy issues, forget Vesper, forget Silva. A clean slate in 2020.

    The gap between DAD and CR felt like eternity to me, and that was only 4 years. Ignoring everything that came before after all this build up would be a huge disappointment.

    I felt like an eternity for me too. For some reason the gap between Qos and SF felt shorter an it was a 4 year gap as well.

    An effect of getting older, perhaps? Not knowing who the new Bond would be and how things would turn out for so long was part of the challenge as well. Plus I spent a lot of time on KTBEU, so I was obsessed about it, whereas between QoS and SF I stayed away. It doesn't seem to me like a long length of time between films has a huge effect on the quality of the film itself.

    By the same token however I feel a 2 year gap is not quite long enough to really yearn for the next one... 3 years is the sweet spot, personally.
    QoS just arrived too early for me, and the Brosnan era just felt like a couple of quick episodes being churned out.

    I suppose plenty of people had the same feeling in the 80's...

    I'd imagine that the longer gap would mean the could polish the script and make a perfect product…but that don't seem to happen. Two year gap should be enough.
    p.s. I ain't getting any younger!
  • AceHole wrote: »
    I suppose plenty of people had the same feeling in the 80's...
    Nope, at that time we didn't have the Net, I even sent once a VHS copy of stuff recorded on French TV to another fan abroad to swap info.. can you imagine that ? I think you can't, actually, it's just so weird to imagine the sharing of information was so slow and yet we enjoyed everything.

    So a Bond movie every 2 years was really cool.

  • If you guys have a problem with Tanner being in the film (last time I checked he was 'there' before Moneypenny and Q, and deserves to be in the film if he's working directly for M), then why were you complaining when he could have been killed off in the film as a traitor?
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    AceHole wrote: »
    I suppose plenty of people had the same feeling in the 80's...
    Nope, at that time we didn't have the Net, I even sent once a VHS copy of stuff recorded on French TV to another fan abroad to swap info.. can you imagine that ? I think you can't, actually, it's just so weird to imagine the sharing of information was so slow and yet we enjoyed everything.

    So a Bond movie every 2 years was really cool.

    Well, thanks for the insight, but I do remember the 80's and a time before the information superhighway :)
    I just wasn't old enough to choose my movie-trips and only really became a Bond fan in the late 80's...
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Two years lasted way longer in the 80s.
  • Posts: 1,181
    I think Kinnear meshed better with Dench. That is what was missing for his role in SP. He escorts Bond to Q's new place then he's gone like a fart into the wind. I think him having a small part doesn't really hurt anything, but it doesn't add anything either.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited November 2015 Posts: 5,921
    If you guys have a problem with Tanner being in the film (last time I checked he was 'there' before Moneypenny and Q, and deserves to be in the film if he's working directly for M), then why were you complaining when he could have been killed off in the film as a traitor?

    Because we don't need more subsidiary MI6 plots. And because it would have been a betrayal of the character--not so much as "evil M" but he's still Bond's best friend in the service.

    I'd argue we also didn't need to see Moneypenny in bed with her boyfriend. I prefer when MI6 members' personal lives are mentioned but not shown: M referring to her late husband during the SF hearing, Moneypenny talking about going to the theater "with a gentleman," and yes, Q talking about his cats. I guess I'm old school that way.
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2015 Posts: 10,512
    echo wrote: »
    I'd argue we also didn't need to see Moneypenny in bed with her boyfriend.

    Why?

    Edit: I quoted you before your edit, which kind of answers my question. I was just curious as I thought it added a great dynamic. I was not particularly keen on the idea of MP as a field agent in SF, but so be it. What I do like is her role in SP and that scene works for me primarily because it fleshes out the relationship. I found a more genuine frisson between them in SP. She's much more confident and actually has the upper hand which is a neat twist on the Maxwell/Connery relationship where you always feel he's in control. The fact she doesn't stay for a drink at the flat and is then called why she has a guy in her bed is a great little insight into their relationship. I really loved Harris in SP.
  • I wouldn't bite @echo. It's a long road.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    RC7 wrote: »
    Some of you guys need to get earlier nights or eat more greens. How you nearly fall asleep in a film I don't know.

    Well, I drank too much beforehand. I needed to pee really bad by the time Bond and Madeleine arrived in Tangier.

    @-)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    TripAces wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Some of you guys need to get earlier nights or eat more greens. How you nearly fall asleep in a film I don't know.

    Well, I drank too much beforehand. I needed to pee really bad by the time Bond and Madeleine arrived in Tangier.

    @-)

    Always a tricky one.
    I wouldn't bite @echo. It's a long road.

    Haven't you got news to fabricate?
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    Here's my sense on the Bond-ESB relationship.

    I think the Sony leaks screwed up everything. It was likely EON's idea that the ESB reveal would be a HUGE twist, one nobody saw coming. Could you imagine the audience's reaction that it was Blofeld? But I think we all pretty much knew beforehand who it was. Then again, if this was EON's strategy, why title the film Spectre?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    RC7 wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    I'd argue we also didn't need to see Moneypenny in bed with her boyfriend.

    Why?

    Edit: I quoted you before your edit, which kind of answers my question. I was just curious as I thought it added a great dynamic. I was not particularly keen on the idea of MP as a field agent in SF, but so be it. What I do like is her role in SP and that scene works for me primarily because it fleshes out the relationship. I found a more genuine frisson between them in SP. She's much more confident and actually has the upper hand which is a neat twist on the Maxwell/Connery relationship where you always feel he's in control. The fact she doesn't stay for a drink at the flat and is then called why she has a guy in her bed is a great little insight into their relationship. I really loved Harris in SP.

    Indeed. The look on his face says it all. Would have been a neat twist if it was 009 who was with her.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    I'd argue we also didn't need to see Moneypenny in bed with her boyfriend.

    Why?

    Edit: I quoted you before your edit, which kind of answers my question. I was just curious as I thought it added a great dynamic. I was not particularly keen on the idea of MP as a field agent in SF, but so be it. What I do like is her role in SP and that scene works for me primarily because it fleshes out the relationship. I found a more genuine frisson between them in SP. She's much more confident and actually has the upper hand which is a neat twist on the Maxwell/Connery relationship where you always feel he's in control. The fact she doesn't stay for a drink at the flat and is then called why she has a guy in her bed is a great little insight into their relationship. I really loved Harris in SP.

    Indeed. The look on his face says it all. Would have been a neat twist if it was 009 who was with her.

    Ha ha, that would've been brilliant.
  • Posts: 4,599
    Could MP disappear for a couple of movies (on secondment) and then return as a double 0 agent? Would be interesting?
  • patb wrote: »
    Could MP disappear for a couple of movies (on secondment) and then return as a double 0 agent? Would be interesting?

    Moneypenny is a secretary.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    Could MP disappear for a couple of movies (on secondment) and then return as a double 0 agent? Would be interesting?

    I don't think she's convincing as a field agent, but perfect in SP so I'd have to say no. A female 00, though, that's an idea I've always wanted to see.

  • Posts: 4,599
    Yes, thats a limitation of the casting, she is a little light weight. Another actress could have pulled it off.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    patb wrote: »
    Could MP disappear for a couple of movies (on secondment) and then return as a double 0 agent? Would be interesting?

    She and Mary Goodnight in a spin-off tv series perhaps. Otherwise, God no.
  • You're deviating too far from Bond. The only purpose of female agents would be a honeytrap. Why would a female be recruited as 00 agent when a stronger fitter man with better hand eye co-ordination could be recruited?
Sign In or Register to comment.