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

18182848687100

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    bondjames wrote: »
    I wonder if I'll look at him and the film differently now, given I know the associations with SPECTRE.
    It makes it all better for ME, I'll tell ya!
    bondjames wrote: »
    PS: QoS is a phenomenally beautiful film on blu ray. All the colours just pop...
    Oh my, yes!
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    CR is the only Craig Bond directed by a director with extensive experience in the action/thriller genre.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    CR is the only Craig Bond directed by a director with extensive experience in the action/thriller genre.
    And it shows.......boy does it show.

  • bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    CR is the only Craig Bond directed by a director with extensive experience in the action/thriller genre.
    And it shows.......boy does it show.

    I'm sorry? I think "The Mask Of Zorro" and "The Green Lantern" were pretty mediocre family action movies. Yes, Campbell did wonderful stuff to the Bond franchise, but outside of that he disappointed me.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    CR is the only Craig Bond directed by a director with extensive experience in the action/thriller genre.
    And it shows.......boy does it show.

    I'm sorry? I think "The Mask Of Zorro" and "The Green Lantern" were pretty mediocre family action movies. Yes, Campbell did wonderful stuff to the Bond franchise, but outside of that he disappointed me.

    Legend Of Zorro was magnificent, Mr. Graves. Don't make me come over there... :))
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    CR is the only Craig Bond directed by a director with extensive experience in the action/thriller genre.
    And it shows.......boy does it show.

    I'm sorry? I think "The Mask Of Zorro" and "The Green Lantern" were pretty mediocre family action movies. Yes, Campbell did wonderful stuff to the Bond franchise, but outside of that he disappointed me.

    Legend Of Zorro was magnificent, Mr. Graves. Don't make me come over there... :))

    "Legend Of Zorro" yes. Well, I found it cheesy kids fun. Nothing else.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    "Legend Of Zorro" yes. Well, I found it cheesy kids fun. Nothing else.
    *virtual smackdown sent*
  • Posts: 1,098
    I didn't realise until just now that Martin Campbell, was the oldest director of a Bond film when he made CR...........he was 62 years old then.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    mepal1 wrote: »
    I didn't realise until just now that Martin Campbell, was the oldest director of a Bond film when he made CR...........he was 62 years old then.
    He was a young 62...

  • Posts: 5,745
    chrisisall wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    I didn't realise until just now that Martin Campbell, was the oldest director of a Bond film when he made CR...........he was 62 years old then.
    He was a young 62...

    Holy cow thinking back I thought maybe 50.
  • Been busy though watched it shortly after release, prefered it to SF though I am like a few others disappointed as a whole, ill add it did have its moments. It's not a bad film, probably floats between 10 and 20 placing for me at this point. I think much of the disappointment is with the reintroduction of Spectre, I expected more. Craig's performance is erratic, bounces from some of his poorest Bond moments to some top moments.
  • Posts: 1,680
    QOS was doomed from the start, it followed CR.
  • Posts: 4,622
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    CR is the only Craig Bond directed by a director with extensive experience in the action/thriller genre.
    And it shows.......boy does it show.
    Yes it sure does. CR is the only one of the 4 reboot films that moves along like a Bond film if that makes any sense. Campbell of course also directed the reasonably excellent GE.
    Forster and Mendes are different kinds of storytellers.
    CR I think is the best made film of the bunch, however my favourite of the 4 is SP, mainly because Craig finally gets to play Bond sans issues, and he does deliver, which is such a relief.
    SP is the only reboot film where I can enjoy Craig's performance all the way through.
    And of course bringing back Blofeld, Spectre and cat, plus Nehru jacket and scar is manna from heaven.
    So I can forgive Mendes for the Ernst bg story, as he came through big time in these other two areas.
    But I do think it be time that Sam moved on.
    There are no more Bond childhood stories to tell, at least there better not be. grrrr.

  • Posts: 14,799
    timmer wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    CR is the only Craig Bond directed by a director with extensive experience in the action/thriller genre.
    And it shows.......boy does it show.
    Yes it sure does. CR is the only one of the 4 reboot films that moves along like a Bond film if that makes any sense. Campbell of course also directed the reasonably excellent GE.
    Forster and Mendes are different kinds of storytellers.
    CR I think is the best made film of the bunch, however my favourite of the 4 is SP, mainly because Craig finally gets to play Bond sans issues, and he does deliver, which is such a relief.
    SP is the only reboot film where I can enjoy Craig's performance all the way through.
    And of course bringing back Blofeld, Spectre and cat, plus Nehru jacket and scar is manna from heaven.
    So I can forgive Mendes for the Ernst bg story, as he came through big time in these other two areas.
    But I do think it be time that Sam moved on.
    There are no more Bond childhood stories to tell, at least there better not be. grrrr.

    But now Bond and Blofeld have a future together, so to speak. The beginning of a beautiful enmity.
  • For all the bad reviews spectre's getting, I really do think people are forgetting that is a bond film. Yes Sam Mendes is an actors director and he adds a lot of back story to the films, but both of his films both do feel like bond films in my opinion. Most people where wanting the bond of old to return and that's the very thing they are using to slate Spectre. I thought the story was excellent, yes it has holes but the overall experience was enjoyable. I especially enjoyed the finale in London when it all came together, it felt like closure. I also enjoyed the soundtrack, yes their where elements of skyfalls soundtrack in it but i also think their's enough originality for it to stand on its own. Each to their own I guess :) It's not as good as goldfinger or OHMSS or even Casino Royale imo but i would still place it well within my top 10!
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,548
    timmyv123 wrote: »
    For all the bad reviews spectre's getting, I really do think people are forgetting that is a bond film. Yes Sam Mendes is an actors director and he adds a lot of back story to the films, but both of his films both do feel like bond films in my opinion. Most people where wanting the bond of old to return and that's the very thing they are using to slate Spectre. I thought the story was excellent, yes it has holes but the overall experience was enjoyable. I especially enjoyed the finale in London when it all came together, it felt like closure. I also enjoyed the soundtrack, yes their where elements of skyfalls soundtrack in it but i also think their's enough originality for it to stand on its own. Each to their own I guess :) It's not as good as goldfinger or OHMSS or even Casino Royale imo but i would still place it well within my top 10!

    I loved SP until the final 30 minutes or so. It wasn't a lack of closure, it was a lack of building tension between Bond and Blofeld.

    I can't think of any Bond film in which the climactic scenes were so lacking in urgency and excitement. His back wasn't against a wall. There was no final battle or fight. Bond didn't need cunning to "escape" or win. He simply shot his gun (TWICE) and in both cases, he wasn't even under any kind of duress.

    At the lair, there is no major gun battle. He shoots a gas line (so poorly placed) and blows the whole place up. One thing for sure: Blofeld and Spectre don't exactly know how to build lairs.

    In London, Bond merely fires at a helicopter and brings it down. Whoopee. (And I won't go into the lunacy of letting Madeleine walk off, into the night, knowing she is still at risk. Those calling Bond an idiot for taking M to Skyfall need to explain this one.)

    I mentioned this earlier: I find it ironic (and effective) that Blofeld is in a helicopter when captured...pairs nicely with his demise in FYEO. But that terrific helicopter fight in the PTS would have been better served in London, with Bond having yet ANOTHER encounter with Hinx. The whirling and the barrel roll would have worked great against a lit London skyline. *Sigh*

    Don't get me wrong: SP is a beautiful film, up to that point. I can tell that whatever script changes that were made to the last act were done quickly and without much thought. The film falls apart. It's a shame.




  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    TripAces wrote: »
    I loved SP until the final 30 minutes or so. It wasn't a lack of closure, it was a lack of building tension between Bond and Blofeld.
    Agreed.
    TripAces wrote: »
    I can't think of any Bond film in which the climactic scenes were so lacking in urgency and excitement.
    I think TWINE gives it a run for its money in many cases, but yes, this was a problem here imho
    TripAces wrote: »
    There was no final battle or fight. Bond didn't need cunning to "escape" or win. He simply shot his gun (TWICE) and in both cases, he wasn't even under any kind of duress.

    At the lair, there is no major gun battle. He shoots a gas line (so poorly placed) and blows the whole place up. One thing for sure: Blofeld and Spectre don't exactly know how to build lairs.

    In London, Bond merely fires at a helicopter and brings it down. Whoopee. (And I won't go into the lunacy of letting Madeleine walk off, into the night, knowing she is still at risk. Those calling Bond an idiot for taking M to Skyfall need to explain this one
    Agreed again
    TripAces wrote: »
    Don't get me wrong: SP is a beautiful film, up to that point. I can tell that whatever script changes that were made to the last act were done quickly and without much thought. The film falls apart. It's a shame.
    Very true. Number one thing they must get right next time. Don't start production until the script is right.

    I have a feeling Mendes and Logan may have gone off on a tangent at the end trying to make an SF 2 with deep connective tissue (apparently they were supposed to actually be brothers or something like that) and that just got too much......so it all had to be reined in.

    Unfortunately what they were left with just ended up being disjointed.....with no emotional resonance where there should be and flat tacked on last minute action scenes at the end just to wrap it up.
  • So i have just returned from my 3rd viewing of SP and I now feel ready to write a review. I am also new to the community.

    I was dissapointed on 1st view, much more appreciative of its look and feel on the 2nd view and now on 3rd view I think this will be a Bond I will comfortably watch over and over again. But it took me 3 sittings to get to that opinion.

    Why? Well, I think i was nervous for it on first view and was sort of wanting another CR /SF gritty kind of Bourne meets DC Bond experience. But with more class, not just a modern spy / double cross chase caper a la QOS. In short a kind of CR v2. And SP isnt that. It so isnt that. Which is why I think US critics tended to dismiss it. (Plus it feels very UK/ european, nothing much in this as reference points for the US viewer, bar Mexico). On second view the scale and sheer beauty of the spectacle becomes apparent. It is wonderfully photographed on film - softer sepias for Rome and Tangier, bleachier for ghostly effect with ESB torture and richer, deeper for darker tones in thr boardoom meeting. Kubrick would be proud. Eyes wide Shut/ 2001 space odyssey. The costuming and design are impeccable - the guest rooms in ESB base are like Monocle adverts bouncing off the screen for fresh mid century modern design. The stunts are delicious and Mendes lights and photographs the leading ladies to perfection. So whats not to like? The clunky plot, the off beat final third i hear you say. Well, find me a tight realistic plot even in our favourite Bond films from any era. TSWLM? Goldfinger? OHMSS? CR? Really? Go with the fantasy and enjoy the escapism, that was Flemings spirit in writing out these novellas. What spy actually drives an Aston Martin. Harry Palmer, 007 is not. To this end, on 3rd viewing SP really took off for me. It flew past and felt sassy, sexy, too cool for school and ridiculous all at the same time. Made me want to be in a white tuxedo having a vodka martini dirty in some wonderful 1940s train dining car going thru the desert opposite the best red lips this side of my wifes...that is so Bond. And that is worth the cinema ticket alone. To escape like that. I could go on but to cap it I would say that Sam Smiths WOTW really works for me in this context. The avoidance of a big finale which hints at but steers clear of too many orchestrals - modern and timeless at the same time, versus - dare I say it - Adeles more predictable, heartily deliverd Bond theme power ballad. How you feel about WOTW is perhaps a good metaphor for how you feel about SP. When you really think about them they both artfully deliver you Bond, they both give you just enough homage, but avoid the pastiche.
    So yes SP does have a different gearing in its 3rd act, which is perhaps its main weakness. My guess is because this is a tee up for B25. Our OHMSS variation where somehing tragic happens at the wedding after ESB escapes. Cleverly I think our Producers have left it open. If the BO likes the lighter escapist tone that could continue; if its clear thst the audience prefers grittie, we can go back to that. Eiither which way, I think we would do well to look at SP post B25 in 5 years time and I suspect - like its stickiness at the BO as word of mouth goes round - it will emerge as a strong contribution to the canon. I would conclude that the ensemble cast for SP is probably the highest calibre for any 007 and DC absolutely nails it IMHO. SP up there in the top 3 with CR being one of the others. A $900m/ $1bn series for the last 2 entries, with no sense of duplication.. That all sounds marvelous..
  • Tuck91 wrote: »
    QOS was doomed from the start, it followed CR.

    Not if Campbell stayed for QOS. I really think if he looks back on it now, he must think.....'I should have done QOS'. I'm pretty certain QOS would have been more coherent then, not falling into Forster's trap of making the film more arty, more 'arthouse'-y.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    QOS was doomed from the start, it followed CR.

    Not if Campbell stayed for QOS. I really think if he looks back on it now, he must think.....'I should have done QOS'. I'm pretty certain QOS would have been more coherent then, not falling into Forster's trap of making the film more arty, more 'arthouse'-y.
    Actually, that was a reason that Mendes gave for coming back for SP. To finish off his story with his characters that he created (MP.Q. M). He may have also been trying to avoid the QoS effect. Having said that, I enjoy QoS a lot. Pacing is absolutely superb......there is nothing wasted in that film.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Carlysimon wrote: »
    So yes SP does have a different gearing in its 3rd act, which is perhaps its main weakness.
    I loved it. I LIKE the difference in gear shift. But then, I never HAD to have a film perform to my expectations as long as it made me want it watch it over & over again... :))
    And WELCOME, btw! :)>-
  • bondjames wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    QOS was doomed from the start, it followed CR.

    Not if Campbell stayed for QOS. I really think if he looks back on it now, he must think.....'I should have done QOS'. I'm pretty certain QOS would have been more coherent then, not falling into Forster's trap of making the film more arty, more 'arthouse'-y.

    Actually, that was a reason that Mendes gave for coming back for SP. To finish off his story with his characters that he created (MP.Q. M). He may have also been trying to avoid the QoS effect. Having said that, I enjoy QoS a lot. Pacing is absolutely superb......there is nothing wasted in that film.

    Yes, and for the very same reason Mendes came back, Campbell should have come back as well.

    Regarding QOS. The pacing of the film is not superb. It's actually u-turning completely on more or less slower pacings of, let's say, SF and SP. Too much really, so that it actually becomes a flawed films as well. Whereas SP is perhaps for some people a bit too long (for me not a bit....it had two more action setpieces in the 3rd half as compared to SF), QOS is definately too short.

    The films has been edited way too roughly if you ask me. I prefer Lee Smith's work 20 times more than Matt Chesse's 'stuff'. His editing is actually so blunt, that he leaves out entire segments that would have made the film more comprehensible.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    QOS was doomed from the start, it followed CR.

    Not if Campbell stayed for QOS. I really think if he looks back on it now, he must think.....'I should have done QOS'. I'm pretty certain QOS would have been more coherent then, not falling into Forster's trap of making the film more arty, more 'arthouse'-y.
    Actually, that was a reason that Mendes gave for coming back for SP. To finish off his story with his characters that he created (MP.Q. M). He may have also been trying to avoid the QoS effect. Having said that, I enjoy QoS a lot. Pacing is absolutely superb......there is nothing wasted in that film.

    I agreed there too.. QoS is not near as bad as some make it out to be.

    Reading comments I think my major gripes about SP is that nothing is developed. Not the character development nor the action ..not even the plot although I actually like the plot.

    But unlike most I still like the ending except for maybe the helicopter.

    Again Bond is a tremendously better shot than in SF :P.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Regarding QOS. The pacing of the film is not superb. It's actually u-turning completely on more or less slower pacings of, let's say, SF and SP. Too much really, so that it actually becomes a flawed films as well. Whereas SP is perhaps for some people a bit too long (for me not a bit....it had two more action setpieces in the 3rd half as compared to SF), QOS is definately too short.
    I used to think that way, at least upon initial viewings.

    However, the more I watch it, the more I enjoy the rapid pace of everything. This film never bores me because it's not long enough to bore me. It just zooms by in a flash, and very intensely.....it's proably the most intense Bond fix.

    To be honest, I appreciate it more every time I watch it.
  • Birdleson wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    However, the more I watch it, the more I enjoy the rapid pace of everything. This film never bores me because it's not long enough to bore me. It just zooms by in a flash, and very intensely.....it's proably the most intense Bond fix.

    To be honest, I appreciate it more every time I watch it.

    I agree. So many Bond films would have benefited from being cut down to 105 minutes. Some of them would have been classics rather than standard fare.

    QOS would have been much better if more scenes were filmed, and if the editing was less fragmented, and if the film was around 125 mins instead of 107 mins.

    By the way, what stays in my mind is my initial viewing. That after 7 years the films starts to become....better.....only happens here on the forum. A fanboy-forum. Which I am happily part of :-).
  • Posts: 5,745
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    QOS was doomed from the start, it followed CR.

    Not if Campbell stayed for QOS. I really think if he looks back on it now, he must think.....'I should have done QOS'. I'm pretty certain QOS would have been more coherent then, not falling into Forster's trap of making the film more arty, more 'arthouse'-y.

    No I think looking back and seeing the inevitable writing strike, he is glad he avoided that mess. QoS was completely the fault of Forster. In fact Forster's approach was instigated because they had so little of the story due to the writing strike.
  • Posts: 1,098
    This thing about the writing strike is a bit of an excuse for the film makers, coz in reality, the script should of been written long before the strike came about.
    The strike only came just a few months before film was to start production.
    In fact QOS was originally to of been released 18 months after CR, and they had a different director on board for the film at that time!
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 5,745
    mepal1 wrote: »
    This thing about the writing strike is a bit of an excuse for the film makers, coz in reality, the script should of been written long before the strike came about.
    The strike only came just a few months before film was to start production.
    In fact QOS was originally to of been released 18 months after CR, and they had a different director on board for the film at that time!

    That's just not how modern Bond films are made.

    The writing comes down to the production date, always. There is always script/screenplay edits during filming, which had to be done either covertly for QoS or by Craig and Forster - who are not writers.

    You can't say the sole reason for QoS's failure is Campbell not returning or a better director coming on board. It's ironic than many on here point Forster's flaw as not being an action director, when the film is mainly an outline of connected action scenes. The lack of a story is what led to the shorter story, and therefore faster paced and light story for Forster to follow, and hence the "bullet-like" film and the Bourne-ish editing and approach to the action scenes.

    It comes down to the writing, and the writing wasn't there for QoS because of the writer's strike. Even Campbell would have struggled and/or delayed production and/or quit.

    They honestly should have just moved on from the instant-revenge plot and delayed the film a year. Just scarp and do a good story, you can still bring up some element of Bond losing Vesper but I think the film and franchise would have benefited from them taking things at face value.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 5,767
    bondjames wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    QOS was doomed from the start, it followed CR.

    Not if Campbell stayed for QOS. I really think if he looks back on it now, he must think.....'I should have done QOS'. I'm pretty certain QOS would have been more coherent then, not falling into Forster's trap of making the film more arty, more 'arthouse'-y.

    Actually, that was a reason that Mendes gave for coming back for SP. To finish off his story with his characters that he created (MP.Q. M). He may have also been trying to avoid the QoS effect. Having said that, I enjoy QoS a lot. Pacing is absolutely superb......there is nothing wasted in that film.

    Yes, and for the very same reason Mendes came back, Campbell should have come back as well.

    Regarding QOS. The pacing of the film is not superb. It's actually u-turning completely on more or less slower pacings of, let's say, SF and SP. Too much really, so that it actually becomes a flawed films as well. Whereas SP is perhaps for some people a bit too long (for me not a bit....it had two more action setpieces in the 3rd half as compared to SF), QOS is definately too short.

    The films has been edited way too roughly if you ask me. I prefer Lee Smith's work 20 times more than Matt Chesse's 'stuff'. His editing is actually so blunt, that he leaves out entire segments that would have made the film more comprehensible.
    Mendes´s two films have lots of shots that are less comprehensible than anything in QoS, even though they last much longer. QoS is to the point, SF and SP by comparison are out of focus.




    That after 7 years the films starts to become....better.....only happens here on the forum. A fanboy-forum.
    That is a completely unrealistic statement. I watch many films many times, that doesn´t make me a fanboy. I came to appreciate many of the old Bond films after getting the DVD box set, which was way before I started being such a huge Bond fan. In fact, I became such a huge fan because I found out that all those old Bond films are most of all high quality films.




    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    The lack of a story is what led to the shorter story, and therefore faster paced and light story for Forster to follow, and hence the "bullet-like" film and the Bourne-ish editing and approach to the action scenes.
    Lack of story??? Then why are SF and SP so long??

  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    edited November 2015 Posts: 2,252
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    QOS was doomed from the start, it followed CR.

    Not if Campbell stayed for QOS. I really think if he looks back on it now, he must think.....'I should have done QOS'. I'm pretty certain QOS would have been more coherent then, not falling into Forster's trap of making the film more arty, more 'arthouse'-y.

    I bet he really regretted doing The Green Lantern over QoS!

    It would be my dream come true if he came back, but given the long exhausting work involved, it's unlikely, he will be 74-75 come Bond 25 (not that 75 year olds can't be active ;) ). The current trajectory also suggests they want a more drama loaded film rather than a by the numbers movie that Campbell would likely do (ie just shoot the script...which he does very well).
Sign In or Register to comment.