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

18283858788100

Comments

  • Posts: 2,081
    w2bond 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.

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

    Did he get to choose, though?

  • boldfinger wrote: »
    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 don´t find a point.

    Sorry, I respectfully disagree. And I find it too easy the way you put it.

    In QOS for instance what is entirely missing is focus on the villain's scheme. In a vague kind of way we hear Greene talking about that so called "Tierra Project". At least in SP the "Nine Eyes Project" (also a S.P.E.C.T.R.E./QUANTUM-plot) has been fully explained. There is one guy executing that plot, Max Denbigh, there is a lair where we see how the plot is being executed, and we know how Blofeld -almost- managed to sell his private "Big Brother"-project to several governments across the globe via executive moles (Denbigh).

    In QOS however, there's nothing that elaborates on that Tierra Project. All these dams, creating thise massive huge underground water lakes/reservoirs, are just "there". No explanation on how these were build (QOS could look to AVTAK, where you can see the entire mine that needs to flood the entire San Fransisco bay area and Silicon Valley), there are no people/employees working on the preservation of that lake, it's just "there". Bam! At least 20 mins or more could have been used on this part of the story.
  • Posts: 11,189
    SJK91 wrote: »
    I've seen it twice now, and I am a disappointed man.

    The pre-titles sequence (despite the pretentious and unwarranted "the dead are alive" title card) is a fun sequence. That opening shot, as many have said, is a great technical achievement and a fine start to the film. The following action scene does not disappoint. I never minded Writing's on the Wall, but Klienman's titles takes it to another level. I love how footage from previous films were incorporated into the title sequence, harking back to OHMSS. Klienman is a master of his craft, no doubt.

    I did enjoy Waltz's Blofeld despite some of the material and unforgivable limited screen time. He makes even the most banal of lines ("But I do," and "Goodbye James Bond") menacing and memorable. Hearing him saying something along the lines of, "My name is Ernst Starvo Blofeld" is pretty damned cool, I will admit. I'm a real fan of that concept and I hope he will return in a better film.

    Despite not liking it initially, I've warmed up to the Blofeld backstory, but I still feel it comes across incomplete. Bond seems affected for the briefest of moments when he realizes Blofeld murdered his caring step-father, but it stops there. This is kind of a big revelation, but Bond hardly seems to care. With better set up, it could have been kind of a "I am your father moment" but instead comes across hollow.

    I'm mixed on the whole "everything is connected" concept. I suppose it kind of patches up some plot holes in Skyfall where Silva seemed to have people in the most convenient of places, but the film doesn't delve into how exactly Blofeld was behind everything. He just says he was and that is kind of that. Eh, maybe they'll explain it in a later movie?

    However, the list of disappointments are extensive. Madeline and Bond's relationship is forced and unbelievable - moreover Craig and Seydoux don't seem to have much chemistry. Seydoux's performance is uneven. Her initial scene with Craig in the clinic is decent as is her scene in L' Americain, but certain moments she seems miles away. She says, "I'm scared James" with the subtext of the T-1000.

    With the exception of the pre-titles scene, the action is sterile, flat and interchangeable. The car chase is overlong and oddly intercut with that phone call, the plane chase carries a terrible cue from Newman and seems to just go on, the fight on the train admittedly starts well, but ends with Hinx's Daffy Duck inspired dispatching (it also has a poorly ADR'd line of "S***," which is set up all wrong and is therefore not funny), and Bond's shootout at the Spectre base is something right out of Commando.

    Speaking of Hinx, what a missed opportunity with him. I really dug his intro scene and Bautista certainly had the screen presence to pull this role off, but the fact that he isn't Blofeld's right hand man is puzzling as is his surprising noninvolvement. In From Russia with Love, Grant's eventual death is incredibly satisfying because he had been meddling and screwing with Bond the whole film. So finally when Bond kills him there is kind of a, "YES" moment. (Same goes for Oddjob and Necros.) Hinx captures Swann, yes, but that is really all he does. I wish he and Bond would have had a stronger connection/rivalry - perhaps then Hinx's comeuppance would have been more satisfying.

    Most of the liners and gags fell flat for me. The potential best line of the film is filtered ('C' stands for careless). The Mickey Mouse line falls flat twice, the airbag thing with the Fiat is dumb (it is also unacceptable for the Aston to be pushing the Fiat, have the speedometer show 70mph, and cut to the cars going no faster than 25mph. Jesus, speed up the footage at the very least), the line about the smoothie is a long winded piece of nothing, etc etc. The couch gag was alright, but I felt that Bond kind of lounges on it for too long and wears out the joke.

    I thought the lobotomy sequence would put some pep in the film. But Blofeld drills holes into Bond's head saying things like, "This will affect your balance, this will affect your sight, this will affect your ability to recognize faces..." and then....none of that happens. Bond simply gets up and starts shooting up the place as if he was totally unaffected. What tension...what drama.

    What ultimately sunk the film for me is the finale in London. It is incredibly sloppy, contrived and tedious: Madeline's constant changing attitudes and being captured yet again, M and the gang driving around London in their Mystery Machine ( @Birdleson, great analogy), and a video-game-boss-battle like moment where Bond shoots Blofeld's helicopter over and over and over again with his pistol. What tension...what drama.

    I don't understand why EON continues to have a finale that intercuts between two scenes when it has failed in nearly every Bond film that came before it. In Spectre's case it is Bond looking for Madeline intercut with M fighting C. This type of ending failed in Die Another Day (Bond v Graves/Jinx v Frost) and it failed in Quantum of Solace (Bond v Greene/Camille v Medrano) and works no better here. Poor Andrew Scott; the C character is generic, totally unmemorable and his revelation as a Spectre agent is a surprise to no one whatsoever. Talk about wasting an actor in a role, sheesh.

    I do appreciate them not offing Blofeld as to bring him back for later films, but Bond's choice to spare him to appeal to Madeline and prove her wrong about him being a cold, ruthless killer (blah blah blah) is cheesy. Moreover, the shot where Bond and Madeline walk off hand in hand is as bad as anything I've ever seen in a Bond film.

    Daniel Craig himself is off. I don't mind him playing the role a touch lighter (there were hints of this in Skyfall), but his performance is weaker in Spectre. This is not the James Bond that I was completely captivated by in Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace (and I don't even like that film) and Skyfall. There is a difference between playing the role lighter and not being as invested, and I saw the latter.

    The movie is a mess, and I'm honestly heartbroken. I went into the second viewing totally convinced that I was going to enjoy it... and for the first ten minutes, I thought I was going to. But if I had to sum up the film in a nutshell, it starts off well, becomes mostly serviceable until we get to London where it precedes to fly right off the road into the Thames.

    I also heard that Monica Bellucci was in the film.

    I've seen it twice now too. Overall I think the first hour is almost perfect bar a few moments, but I agree with a lot of your comments about the second half.

    Your point about the video-game-boss-showdown is dead on and I found myself thinking the same thing.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Bellucci is there ...her cameo is right before Wilson's :P
  • Posts: 2,491
    I just realized another reason why I hated the Blofeld twist...

    If they can get away with a Blofeld twist like that....they can easily go for "James Bond is a codename" theory.....and you can easily have Black Bond,Fat Bond,Female Bond, Autistic Bond, Psychic Bond, Teenage Bond,Baby Bond etc....
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,727
    dragonsky wrote: »
    I just realized another reason why I hated the Blofeld twist...

    If they can get away with a Blofeld twist like that....they can easily go for "James Bond is a codename" theory.....and you can easily have Black Bond,Fat Bond,Female Bond, Autistic Bond, Psychic Bond, Teenage Bond,Baby Bond etc....

    Brace yourself... As long as Babs yields creative control then we will get more and more of this nonsense.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    People need to rewatch some of the older Bond films. There used to be times when.....we weren't so critical towards a Bond film. Times when we actually accepted the ridiculousness of the plots.

    We simply "accept" that Drax built this entire space station without getting noticed by the CIA/MI6/NASA...god knows even Henry Kissinger didn't see it.

    We simply "accept" that Blofeld hollows out a volcano without knowing how exactly. Back in those days the idea "Let's use a hollow volcano!" was a stroke of a genius, not of bad writing.

    We simply "accept" Max Zorin as the CEO of Zorin Industries...and the man has never been checked by intelligende organisations / secret services? Not to mention that it IS a bit suspicious the man was already for a long time a KGB-agent. SHAME ON YOU MI6!

    And I can name many many more examples. Yet ever since we got so "social media addicted" (yes, IMDB too) and suffering from "comparison sickness" thereoff, the newer Bond films, especially those with Daniel Craig, have to endure an exaggerated and unfair amount of scrutiny.

    Sorry guys, these are Bond films. If "Kingsman" gets applauded for its ridiculous cheesy villain's scheme, then we have to get used again to some of the ridiculous plots and storylines from the new Bond films; plots and storylines that we are scrutinizing and dissecting so heavily that our first view of a Bond film means nothing anymore.

    Sometimes I think....we've lost our 'talent' to feel entertained.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    People need to rewatch some of the older Bond films. There used to be times when.....we weren't so critical towards a Bond film. Times when we actually accepted the ridiculousness of the plots.

    I wasn't referring to the plot or any of the fantastic elements - I was talking solely about the liberties EoN is taking with the 007 canon, how they are playing around with the established back-story.

    You may as well have Disney suddenly making out that Han Solo was actually Luke's sperm donor.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    People need to rewatch some of the older Bond films. There used to be times when.....we weren't so critical towards a Bond film. Times when we actually accepted the ridiculousness of the plots.

    We simply "accept" that Drax built this entire space station without getting noticed by the CIA/MI6/NASA...god knows even Henry Kissinger didn't see it.

    We simply "accept" that Blofeld hollows out a volcano without knowing how exactly. Back in those days the idea "Let's use a hollow volcano!" was a stroke of a genius, not of bad writing.

    We simply "accept" Max Zorin as the CEO of Zorin Industries...and the man has never been checked by intelligende organisations / secret services? Not to mention that it IS a bit suspicious the man was already for a long time a KGB-agent. SHAME ON YOU MI6!

    And I can name many many more examples. Yet ever since we got so "social media addicted" (yes, IMDB too) and suffering from "comparison sickness" thereoff, the newer Bond films, especially those with Daniel Craig, have to endure an exaggerated and unfair amount of scrutiny.

    Sorry guys, these are Bond films. If "Kingsman" gets applauded for its ridiculous cheesy villain's scheme, then we have to get used again to some of the ridiculous plots and storylines from the new Bond films; plots and storylines that we are scrutinizing and dissecting so heavily that our first view of a Bond film means nothing anymore.

    Sometimes I think....we've lost our 'talent' to feel entertained.

    Not to mention that we somehow have to "accept" that these international criminal organizations can employ thousands of foot soldiers. Where the hell do they find these people?

    Can you imagine the nondisclosure agreement these "employees" would have to sign? :))
  • Posts: 2,491
    TripAces wrote: »
    People need to rewatch some of the older Bond films. There used to be times when.....we weren't so critical towards a Bond film. Times when we actually accepted the ridiculousness of the plots.

    We simply "accept" that Drax built this entire space station without getting noticed by the CIA/MI6/NASA...god knows even Henry Kissinger didn't see it.

    We simply "accept" that Blofeld hollows out a volcano without knowing how exactly. Back in those days the idea "Let's use a hollow volcano!" was a stroke of a genius, not of bad writing.

    We simply "accept" Max Zorin as the CEO of Zorin Industries...and the man has never been checked by intelligende organisations / secret services? Not to mention that it IS a bit suspicious the man was already for a long time a KGB-agent. SHAME ON YOU MI6!

    And I can name many many more examples. Yet ever since we got so "social media addicted" (yes, IMDB too) and suffering from "comparison sickness" thereoff, the newer Bond films, especially those with Daniel Craig, have to endure an exaggerated and unfair amount of scrutiny.

    Sorry guys, these are Bond films. If "Kingsman" gets applauded for its ridiculous cheesy villain's scheme, then we have to get used again to some of the ridiculous plots and storylines from the new Bond films; plots and storylines that we are scrutinizing and dissecting so heavily that our first view of a Bond film means nothing anymore.

    Sometimes I think....we've lost our 'talent' to feel entertained.

    Not to mention that we somehow have to "accept" that these international criminal organizations can employ thousands of foot soldiers. Where the hell do they find these people?

    Tinder :D
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    Carlysimon wrote: »
    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).

    Well, this American prefers Bond films that are completely set in Europe.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    dragonsky wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    People need to rewatch some of the older Bond films. There used to be times when.....we weren't so critical towards a Bond film. Times when we actually accepted the ridiculousness of the plots.

    We simply "accept" that Drax built this entire space station without getting noticed by the CIA/MI6/NASA...god knows even Henry Kissinger didn't see it.

    We simply "accept" that Blofeld hollows out a volcano without knowing how exactly. Back in those days the idea "Let's use a hollow volcano!" was a stroke of a genius, not of bad writing.

    We simply "accept" Max Zorin as the CEO of Zorin Industries...and the man has never been checked by intelligende organisations / secret services? Not to mention that it IS a bit suspicious the man was already for a long time a KGB-agent. SHAME ON YOU MI6!

    And I can name many many more examples. Yet ever since we got so "social media addicted" (yes, IMDB too) and suffering from "comparison sickness" thereoff, the newer Bond films, especially those with Daniel Craig, have to endure an exaggerated and unfair amount of scrutiny.

    Sorry guys, these are Bond films. If "Kingsman" gets applauded for its ridiculous cheesy villain's scheme, then we have to get used again to some of the ridiculous plots and storylines from the new Bond films; plots and storylines that we are scrutinizing and dissecting so heavily that our first view of a Bond film means nothing anymore.

    Sometimes I think....we've lost our 'talent' to feel entertained.

    Not to mention that we somehow have to "accept" that these international criminal organizations can employ thousands of foot soldiers. Where the hell do they find these people?

    Tinder :D

    No. Peckham and Tower-Hamlets.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    AceHole wrote: »
    You may as well have Disney suddenly making out that Han Solo was actually Luke's sperm donor.

    An exaggeration. As you might have known already from "SPECTRE"....Oberhauser/Blofeld were never genetically related to each other. Just for a very short period they were foster brothers. And with all due respect, aren't there people who actually like the fact that the "Octopussy"-story was more properly used in this Bond film, as opposed to a rather lame sideline uttered by Bond in the actual film "Octopussy"?

    Ian Fleming DID write about Bond's family though, in "Octopussy", "You Only Live Twice". And personally I was always fascinated by Bond's childhood, his family, etc. It is something that will set the Craig-films for always apart from all previous Bond films. And I like that :-).
  • dragonsky wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    People need to rewatch some of the older Bond films. There used to be times when.....we weren't so critical towards a Bond film. Times when we actually accepted the ridiculousness of the plots.

    We simply "accept" that Drax built this entire space station without getting noticed by the CIA/MI6/NASA...god knows even Henry Kissinger didn't see it.

    We simply "accept" that Blofeld hollows out a volcano without knowing how exactly. Back in those days the idea "Let's use a hollow volcano!" was a stroke of a genius, not of bad writing.

    We simply "accept" Max Zorin as the CEO of Zorin Industries...and the man has never been checked by intelligende organisations / secret services? Not to mention that it IS a bit suspicious the man was already for a long time a KGB-agent. SHAME ON YOU MI6!

    And I can name many many more examples. Yet ever since we got so "social media addicted" (yes, IMDB too) and suffering from "comparison sickness" thereoff, the newer Bond films, especially those with Daniel Craig, have to endure an exaggerated and unfair amount of scrutiny.

    Sorry guys, these are Bond films. If "Kingsman" gets applauded for its ridiculous cheesy villain's scheme, then we have to get used again to some of the ridiculous plots and storylines from the new Bond films; plots and storylines that we are scrutinizing and dissecting so heavily that our first view of a Bond film means nothing anymore.

    Sometimes I think....we've lost our 'talent' to feel entertained.

    Not to mention that we somehow have to "accept" that these international criminal organizations can employ thousands of foot soldiers. Where the hell do they find these people?

    Tinder :D

    LOL, actually, "Kingsman" tried to do that. By expanding on the Angels-Of-Death plot from "OHMSS", the writers used....SMARTPHONES :)). Yeah baby. Well, no one criticised that film for that. Bond however.... :-).
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,567
    People need to rewatch some of the older Bond films. There used to be times when.....we weren't so critical towards a Bond film. Times when we actually accepted the ridiculousness of the plots.

    We simply "accept" that Drax built this entire space station without getting noticed by the CIA/MI6/NASA...god knows even Henry Kissinger didn't see it.

    We simply "accept" that Blofeld hollows out a volcano without knowing how exactly. Back in those days the idea "Let's use a hollow volcano!" was a stroke of a genius, not of bad writing.

    We simply "accept" Max Zorin as the CEO of Zorin Industries...and the man has never been checked by intelligende organisations / secret services? Not to mention that it IS a bit suspicious the man was already for a long time a KGB-agent. SHAME ON YOU MI6!

    And I can name many many more examples. Yet ever since we got so "social media addicted" (yes, IMDB too) and suffering from "comparison sickness" thereoff, the newer Bond films, especially those with Daniel Craig, have to endure an exaggerated and unfair amount of scrutiny.

    Sorry guys, these are Bond films. If "Kingsman" gets applauded for its ridiculous cheesy villain's scheme, then we have to get used again to some of the ridiculous plots and storylines from the new Bond films; plots and storylines that we are scrutinizing and dissecting so heavily that our first view of a Bond film means nothing anymore.

    Sometimes I think....we've lost our 'talent' to feel entertained.

    =D>
  • Posts: 5,767
    boldfinger wrote: »
    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 don´t find a point.

    Sorry, I respectfully disagree. And I find it too easy the way you put it.

    In QOS for instance what is entirely missing is focus on the villain's scheme. In a vague kind of way we hear Greene talking about that so called "Tierra Project". At least in SP the "Nine Eyes Project" (also a S.P.E.C.T.R.E./QUANTUM-plot) has been fully explained. There is one guy executing that plot, Max Denbigh, there is a lair where we see how the plot is being executed, and we know how Blofeld -almost- managed to sell his private "Big Brother"-project to several governments across the globe via executive moles (Denbigh).

    In QOS however, there's nothing that elaborates on that Tierra Project. All these dams, creating thise massive huge underground water lakes/reservoirs, are just "there". No explanation on how these were build (QOS could look to AVTAK, where you can see the entire mine that needs to flood the entire San Fransisco bay area and Silicon Valley), there are no people/employees working on the preservation of that lake, it's just "there". Bam! At least 20 mins or more could have been used on this part of the story.
    Well, I guess the dams were simply built, why would I want to watch builders build them? We didn´t see Blofeld´s hackers put together all that information network, it´s also "just there". All that showing in SP didn´t show more than Quantum executives talking about accumulating water supplies while meeting at the opera. In fact, Spectre´s "lair" is used to a deflating effect, while the Quantum meeting leads the viewer behind the scenes of a very dangerous organization. There wasn´t anything more intimidating about Spectre than what we already saw with Quantum. In fact, Quantum was much more like a spectre, you can cut off one head, but the organization won´t even care much, while this new incarnation of Spectre looked like it was relying solely on a guy preoccupied with family feuds, how much more instable can you get?



    People need to rewatch some of the older Bond films. There used to be times when.....we weren't so critical towards a Bond film. Times when we actually accepted the ridiculousness of the plots.

    ...

    And I can name many many more examples. Yet ever since we got so "social media addicted" (yes, IMDB too) and suffering from "comparison sickness" thereoff, the newer Bond films, especially those with Daniel Craig, have to endure an exaggerated and unfair amount of scrutiny.

    ...

    Sometimes I think....we've lost our 'talent' to feel entertained.
    Oh come on. It´s not the ridiculousness of the plots, it´s lackluster execution on behalf of the filmmakers. Big Trouble in Little China is a prime example of a ridiculous plot, yet it is one of the most entertaining movies of all times, because it´s a masterclass lesson in storytelling.
    I can be entertained all right. I can watch a lot of Bond films over and over again, despite a lot of copied ideas and bad jokes. There were quite some films this year I went to see several times at the cinema, and will see more times on disc. But I don´t have to eat sh*t.



    AceHole wrote: »
    You may as well have Disney suddenly making out that Han Solo was actually Luke's sperm donor.

    An exaggeration. As you might have known already from "SPECTRE"....Oberhauser/Blofeld were never genetically related to each other. Just for a very short period they were foster brothers. And with all due respect, aren't there people who actually like the fact that the "Octopussy"-story was more properly used in this Bond film, as opposed to a rather lame sideline uttered by Bond in the actual film "Octopussy"?

    Ian Fleming DID write about Bond's family though, in "Octopussy", "You Only Live Twice". And personally I was always fascinated by Bond's childhood, his family, etc. It is something that will set the Craig-films for always apart from all previous Bond films. And I like that :-).
    It´s not what is used, but how it is used.

  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    boldfinger wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    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 don´t find a point.

    Sorry, I respectfully disagree. And I find it too easy the way you put it.

    In QOS for instance what is entirely missing is focus on the villain's scheme. In a vague kind of way we hear Greene talking about that so called "Tierra Project". At least in SP the "Nine Eyes Project" (also a S.P.E.C.T.R.E./QUANTUM-plot) has been fully explained. There is one guy executing that plot, Max Denbigh, there is a lair where we see how the plot is being executed, and we know how Blofeld -almost- managed to sell his private "Big Brother"-project to several governments across the globe via executive moles (Denbigh).

    In QOS however, there's nothing that elaborates on that Tierra Project. All these dams, creating thise massive huge underground water lakes/reservoirs, are just "there". No explanation on how these were build (QOS could look to AVTAK, where you can see the entire mine that needs to flood the entire San Fransisco bay area and Silicon Valley), there are no people/employees working on the preservation of that lake, it's just "there". Bam! At least 20 mins or more could have been used on this part of the story.
    Well, I guess the dams were simply built, why would I want to watch builders build them? We didn´t see Blofeld´s hackers put together all that information network, it´s also "just there". All that showing in SP didn´t show more than Quantum executives talking about accumulating water supplies while meeting at the opera. In fact, Spectre´s "lair" is used to a deflating effect, while the Quantum meeting leads the viewer behind the scenes of a very dangerous organization. There wasn´t anything more intimidating about Spectre than what we already saw with Quantum. In fact, Quantum was much more like a spectre, you can cut off one head, but the organization won´t even care much, while this new incarnation of Spectre looked like it was relying solely on a guy preoccupied with family feuds, how much more instable can you get?



    People need to rewatch some of the older Bond films. There used to be times when.....we weren't so critical towards a Bond film. Times when we actually accepted the ridiculousness of the plots.

    ...

    And I can name many many more examples. Yet ever since we got so "social media addicted" (yes, IMDB too) and suffering from "comparison sickness" thereoff, the newer Bond films, especially those with Daniel Craig, have to endure an exaggerated and unfair amount of scrutiny.

    ...

    Sometimes I think....we've lost our 'talent' to feel entertained.
    Oh come on. It´s not the ridiculousness of the plots, it´s lackluster execution on behalf of the filmmakers. Big Trouble in Little China is a prime example of a ridiculous plot, yet it is one of the most entertaining movies of all times, because it´s a masterclass lesson in storytelling.
    I can be entertained all right. I can watch a lot of Bond films over and over again, despite a lot of copied ideas and bad jokes.
    There were quite some films this year I went to see several times at the cinema, and will see more times on disc. But I don´t have to eat sh*t.

    Thank you for taking this on, I didn't have the energy to be honest...
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited November 2015 Posts: 2,138
    I was never a Brosnan fan, but I thought I would go back over the films in comparison to Craig who is my second favourite. I was disappointed with Spectre but here is the cold hard fact.

    Craigs tenure has become more about drawing big star names in the supporting roles. And when you do that you have to give them screen time, but when you give all them screen time it becomes restrictive of how you approach a Bond story.

    Fiennes had to much time in this movie, Harris and Wishaw also had too much time in this movie because you can't ask them to come in and do bit parts. I would have loved to have seen more of Belluci and Waltz.

    Brosnan's films he was off around the world, didn't need anyone and script is not dominated by "are we giving this big actor, or this big actress enough to say or do" just like Craig in CR. People say oh the Craig films, can't he just follow orders for once. But Craig actually feels more on a leash in Skyfall and Spectre than Brosnan in any of his films.

    I think in Bond 25 they need to strip back a little on the "Team MI6" thing and make the film about Craig's Bond and a on a mission. Exotic locations, Caribbean, We need Felix back and we need it to be less Dark knight Rises and bit more Dr No there should be an almighty climax, one of the biggest "Something's" to end Craig's tenure.








  • There's always a time to agree to disagree :-). And this time around I stand by my previous comments. Thank you @AceHole and @Boldfinger, but I wholeheartedly disagree.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    There's always a time to agree to disagree :-). And this time around I stand by my previous comments. Thank you @AceHole and @Boldfinger, but I wholeheartedly disagree.

    Cannot agree, but I shall defend to the death your right to disagree with me :>
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,425
    I was never a Brosnan fan, but I thought I would go back over the films in comparison to Craig who is my second favourite. I was disappointed with Spectre but here is the cold hard fact.

    Craigs tenure has become more about drawing big star names in the supporting roles. And when you do that you have to give them screen time, but when you give all them screen time it becomes restrictive of how you approach a Bond story.

    Fiennes had to much time in this movie, Harris and Wishaw also had too much time in this movie because you can't ask them to come in and do bit parts. I would have loved to have seen more of Belluci and Waltz.

    Brosnan's films he was off around the world, didn't need anyone and script is not dominated by "are we giving this big actor, or this big actress enough to say or do" just like Craig in CR. People say oh the Craig films, can't he just follow orders for once. But Craig actually feels more on a leash in Skyfall and Spectre than Brosnan in any of his films.

    I think in Bond 25 they need to strip back a little on the "Team MI6" thing and make the film about Craig's Bond and a on a mission. Exotic locations, Caribbean, We need Felix back and we need it to be less Dark knight Rises and bit more Dr No there should be an almighty climax, one of the biggest "Something's" to end Craig's tenure.


    Wholeheartedly agree with you. Having said that, MI6 domestics have been overshadowing the films for a while now - TWINE is basically the blueprint for SF.

    Sadly, now Fiennes, Wishaw and Harris are on board I think we need to resign ourselves to more of the same.

    Still, even though the MI6 crowd all got a lot of time again in SP I actually found those scenes much less annoying than they were in SF. Wishaw in particular has grown into the role. I've gone from really disliking his Q to thinking he's got it pretty much just right.

    I'd love a big globetrotting, sun-splashed Bond for Craig's final outing though. He really needs to visit Jamaica.







  • Firstly i was very pleased with Spectre & for me it has the Quality feel of Skyfall , everyone has their own opinions on the movie , I was glad that i didn't get that sinking feeling that i had when Quantum came out ....can't wait to own it on Blu ray
  • AceHole wrote: »
    There's always a time to agree to disagree :-). And this time around I stand by my previous comments. Thank you @AceHole and @Boldfinger, but I wholeheartedly disagree.

    Cannot agree, but I shall defend to the death your right to disagree with me :>

    :-*
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    iandtt007 wrote: »
    Firstly i was very pleased with Spectre & for me it has the Quality feel of Skyfall , everyone has their own opinions on the movie , I was glad that i didn't get that sinking feeling that i had when Quantum came out ....can't wait to own it on Blu ray

    Initial viewing is what counts for me.

    I remember I left the cinema in 2008 rather begutted. I had a face like this: :-S :| .

    I really couldn't really tell after that first viewing what it was about, except that 007 was...eh...very very angry. And that was for me the core, and even the villain's plot at some time: Bond is angry. Only after many many rewatchings (and many many documented interviews) I understood what Marc Forster wanted with this film.

    I remember I left the cinema in 2015 rather happy! I had a face like this: 8-} \m/

    I wetted my pants when white pussy jumped on Bond's lap [-O< ! I wanna have white pussy! So happy white pussy is back :-D!
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    iandtt007 wrote: »
    Firstly i was very pleased with Spectre & for me it has the Quality feel of Skyfall , everyone has their own opinions on the movie , I was glad that i didn't get that sinking feeling that i had when Quantum came out ....can't wait to own it on Blu ray

    Initial viewing is what counts for me.

    I remember I left the cinema in 2008 rather begutted. I had a face like this: :-S :| .

    I really couldn't really tell after that first viewing what it was about, except that 007 was...eh...very very angry. And that was for me the core, and even the villain's plot at some time: Bond is angry. Only after many many rewatchings (and many many documented interviews) I understood what Marc Forster wanted with this film.

    I remember I left the cinema in 2015 rather happy! I had a face like this: 8-} \m/

    I wetted my pants when white pussy jumped on Bond's lap [-O< ! I wanna have white pussy! So happy white pussy is back :-D!

    I'd keep those sentiments to yourself, if I were you :))
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited November 2015 Posts: 2,138
    Getafix wrote: »
    I was never a Brosnan fan, but I thought I would go back over the films in comparison to Craig who is my second favourite. I was disappointed with Spectre but here is the cold hard fact.

    Craigs tenure has become more about drawing big star names in the supporting roles. And when you do that you have to give them screen time, but when you give all them screen time it becomes restrictive of how you approach a Bond story.

    Fiennes had to much time in this movie, Harris and Wishaw also had too much time in this movie because you can't ask them to come in and do bit parts. I would have loved to have seen more of Belluci and Waltz.

    Brosnan's films he was off around the world, didn't need anyone and script is not dominated by "are we giving this big actor, or this big actress enough to say or do" just like Craig in CR. People say oh the Craig films, can't he just follow orders for once. But Craig actually feels more on a leash in Skyfall and Spectre than Brosnan in any of his films.

    I think in Bond 25 they need to strip back a little on the "Team MI6" thing and make the film about Craig's Bond and a on a mission. Exotic locations, Caribbean, We need Felix back and we need it to be less Dark knight Rises and bit more Dr No there should be an almighty climax, one of the biggest "Something's" to end Craig's tenure.


    Wholeheartedly agree with you. Having said that, MI6 domestics have been overshadowing the films for a while now - TWINE is basically the blueprint for SF.

    Sadly, now Fiennes, Wishaw and Harris are on board I think we need to resign ourselves to more of the same.

    Still, even though the MI6 crowd all got a lot of time again in SP I actually found those scenes much less annoying than they were in SF. Wishaw in particular has grown into the role. I've gone from really disliking his Q to thinking he's got it pretty much just right.

    I'd love a big globetrotting, sun-splashed Bond for Craig's final outing though. He really needs to visit Jamaica.







    My thoughts 100% =D>
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,891
    Combine this
    I think in Bond 25 they need to strip back a little on the "Team MI6" thing and make the film about Craig's Bond and a on a mission. Exotic locations, Caribbean, We need Felix back and we need it to be less Dark knight Rises and bit more Dr No there should be an almighty climax, one of the biggest "Something's" to end Craig's tenure.

    With this from Murdock

    " Get Brad Bird to direct, The cast of SPECTRE to return, Michael Giacchino in the composer's chair and you have magic ready to bloom"

  • Posts: 14,800
    Because Ben and Naomi are big stars now? As in Halle Berry big? Or Denise Richards big? And were they so prominently used in SP?
  • Is it too late to join the party? Just got back from my first viewing of SPECTRE in IMAX, I'll try to gather some thoughts.



    The opening pre-title sequence is absolutely amazing, from the tracking shot to the helicopter sequence it's an absolute wonder and by the time Writing's On The Wall had finished, I had found a new appreciation for it. The ensuing plot of Bond following trail of breadcrumbs felt like watching all the best parts of moonraker. Seeing Mr White again was a treat, I wasn't aware of how much he would play into the plot, but they use him quite a lot and it puts a nice little bow on the whole Casino Royale- Quantum storyline.

    I can't go on without talking about the performances either, pretty much everyone hits their mark. I'll get into Blofeld a little bit later, but the cast of MI6 is fantastic as always, ESPECIALLY Ben Whishaw who has really managed to bring something unique and great to the role of Q. Léa Seydoux does a wonderful job as well, her an Craig have enough chemistry to make the whole "I love you" part work, but only just barely. It was always going to be a hard act to follow Vesper and while this doesn't beat that, I had no real objections with how the Bond-Swann relationship turned out. Andrew Scott was good enough to where I wanted to see more of him and same can be said of Bautista. He brings a quiet, charming presence to Mr Hinx and manages to stand out in a sea of henchmen with just a smile. It was a shame he left the movie as early as he did, his presence would have severely lifted the last 30 minutes.

    I've avoided talking about the main man himself, Daniel Craig, so far, but now is the time. He's perfect. Daniel Craig IS Bond in this movie. The character arc he's gone through from Casino Royale to Skyfall feels like it finally paid off, every scene oozes with confidence and charm and all the little jokes worked PERFECTLY for me. It's the biggest positive I take away from Spectre and considering the perfeormance of a Bond actor has always been the driving force behind all these movies, it lifts Spectre up considerably.

    I found myself really really enjoying all of the action and set pieces leading up to the Blofeld lair bit. They blow their biggest and best pieces early on, but I was never bored for even a moment and the plot is genuinely intriguing enough to have kept me fixated. Really, the movie was riding a on a major major high note for me right up until the last 30 minutes or so, where things start to fall apart.

    So Blofeld, let's talk about him shall we? Christoph Waltz is a good actor, NAY a GREAT actor, his presence and performance in the Tarantino movies are simply mesmerizing, but for some reason he couldn't bring that same energy to Spectre. He's not bad by any means, he simply falls victim to higher expectations and odd pacing. The meeting room scene early on is wonderfully tense and the torture sequence is both exciting and excruciating, but for the most part the whole Blofeld storyline feels underutilized and the sequence taking place in his evil lair almost feels like an afterthought. Over in a blink of an eye.

    Why go through the effort of setting up this relationship between him and Bond and then not really do anything with it? There really isn't an emotional confrontation between them and his motivations just aren't conveyed strongly enough. We are supposed to believe he's hated Bond his entire life, all because of daddy issues? And he's spent so much time making sure Bond suffers, when he's minutes away from becoming one of the worlds top leaders? It's hard to buy it all and it comes across as a lazy attempt at trying to add depth. The only thing it adds, is that Blofeld finally has a reason to keep Bond alive besides having to fill his broomcloset.

    Blofeld feels more like a necessity in the movie than anything logical to the plot, they don't actually DO anything new with him, anything that would set him apart from the 60's version, it feels like they HAD to have him in the movie, he HAD to be the big boss, he HAD to have the lair, he HAD to have the jacket and he HAD to get a scar in the end. And all of that SHOULD be wonderful and make us Bond fans jump up and down with glee, but it just comes across as lazy and tired. There's nothing new or interesting about him. I enjoyed seeing the persian cat, but the scar serves NO purpose and doesn't even make sense when you think about what caused it. It should be a "FUCK YES" moment when he finally reveals his name, but instead it's just a "oh? yeah okay then" one. They spent all this time making sure nobody spoiled that Waltz was playing Blofeld and even created a fake name like Oberhauser, but it's obvious to ANYONE that he was Blofeld all along. So the whole "Oberhauser" part serves no purpose and the name reveal is as underwhelming as it could be.

    All of this leads the last 30 minutes of the movie feeling a bit empty, the action sequences aren't as interesting as the ones that came before and without really any investment to Blofeld, you lose interest. I actually found myself being MORE interested about C and would have liked to see him have a bigger role. That's not to say the last 30 minutes are AWFUL or anything, it's great to see the MI6 crew running around, Bond having to rush against a ticking bomb to save Swann is fun and the old MI6 building location is really interesting. It's just a disappointing way to end and otherwise great GREAT Bond adventure.

    So how do I wrap this up? Well, despite all I mentioned above, I enjoyed Spectre GREATLY and can't wait to rewatch it soon. The first 2 hours or so are probably my favorite out of all the Craig movies and I LOVE CR and Skyfall. The last act IS disappointing and Blofeld doesn't live up to his potential, but it's not enough to ruin the movie for me and I have a feeling I will end up watching Spectre a lot more than CR or Skyfall, simply due to how fun it is. A few rewrites here and there and it could have been an easy top 3.

  • Posts: 11,425
    Is it too late to join the party? Just got back from my first viewing of SPECTRE in IMAX, I'll try to gather some thoughts.



    The opening pre-title sequence is absolutely amazing, from the tracking shot to the helicopter sequence it's an absolute wonder and by the time Writing's On The Wall had finished, I had found a new appreciation for it. The ensuing plot of Bond following trail of breadcrumbs felt like watching all the best parts of moonraker. Seeing Mr White again was a treat, I wasn't aware of how much he would play into the plot, but they use him quite a lot and it puts a nice little bow on the whole Casino Royale- Quantum storyline.

    I can't go on without talking about the performances either, pretty much everyone hits their mark. I'll get into Blofeld a little bit later, but the cast of MI6 is fantastic as always, ESPECIALLY Ben Whishaw who has really managed to bring something unique and great to the role of Q. Léa Seydoux does a wonderful job as well, her an Craig have enough chemistry to make the whole "I love you" part work, but only just barely. It was always going to be a hard act to follow Vesper and while this doesn't beat that, I had no real objections with how the Bond-Swann relationship turned out. Andrew Scott was good enough to where I wanted to see more of him and same can be said of Bautista. He brings a quiet, charming presence to Mr Hinx and manages to stand out in a sea of henchmen with just a smile. It was a shame he left the movie as early as he did, his presence would have severely lifted the last 30 minutes.

    I've avoided talking about the main man himself, Daniel Craig, so far, but now is the time. He's perfect. Daniel Craig IS Bond in this movie. The character arc he's gone through from Casino Royale to Skyfall feels like it finally paid off, every scene oozes with confidence and charm and all the little jokes worked PERFECTLY for me. It's the biggest positive I take away from Spectre and considering the perfeormance of a Bond actor has always been the driving force behind all these movies, it lifts Spectre up considerably.

    I found myself really really enjoying all of the action and set pieces leading up to the Blofeld lair bit. They blow their biggest and best pieces early on, but I was never bored for even a moment and the plot is genuinely intriguing enough to have kept me fixated. Really, the movie was riding a on a major major high note for me right up until the last 30 minutes or so, where things start to fall apart.

    So Blofeld, let's talk about him shall we? Christoph Waltz is a good actor, NAY a GREAT actor, his presence and performance in the Tarantino movies are simply mesmerizing, but for some reason he couldn't bring that same energy to Spectre. He's not bad by any means, he simply falls victim to higher expectations and odd pacing. The meeting room scene early on is wonderfully tense and the torture sequence is both exciting and excruciating, but for the most part the whole Blofeld storyline feels underutilized and the sequence taking place in his evil lair almost feels like an afterthought. Over in a blink of an eye.

    Why go through the effort of setting up this relationship between him and Bond and then not really do anything with it? There really isn't an emotional confrontation between them and his motivations just aren't conveyed strongly enough. We are supposed to believe he's hated Bond his entire life, all because of daddy issues? And he's spent so much time making sure Bond suffers, when he's minutes away from becoming one of the worlds top leaders? It's hard to buy it all and it comes across as a lazy attempt at trying to add depth. The only thing it adds, is that Blofeld finally has a reason to keep Bond alive besides having to fill his broomcloset.

    Blofeld feels more like a necessity in the movie than anything logical to the plot, they don't actually DO anything new with him, anything that would set him apart from the 60's version, it feels like they HAD to have him in the movie, he HAD to be the big boss, he HAD to have the lair, he HAD to have the jacket and he HAD to get a scar in the end. And all of that SHOULD be wonderful and make us Bond fans jump up and down with glee, but it just comes across as lazy and tired. There's nothing new or interesting about him. I enjoyed seeing the persian cat, but the scar serves NO purpose and doesn't even make sense when you think about what caused it. It should be a "FUCK YES" moment when he finally reveals his name, but instead it's just a "oh? yeah okay then" one. They spent all this time making sure nobody spoiled that Waltz was playing Blofeld and even created a fake name like Oberhauser, but it's obvious to ANYONE that he was Blofeld all along. So the whole "Oberhauser" part serves no purpose and the name reveal is as underwhelming as it could be.

    All of this leads the last 30 minutes of the movie feeling a bit empty, the action sequences aren't as interesting as the ones that came before and without really any investment to Blofeld, you lose interest. I actually found myself being MORE interested about C and would have liked to see him have a bigger role. That's not to say the last 30 minutes are AWFUL or anything, it's great to see the MI6 crew running around, Bond having to rush against a ticking bomb to save Swann is fun and the old MI6 building location is really interesting. It's just a disappointing way to end and otherwise great GREAT Bond adventure.

    So how do I wrap this up? Well, despite all I mentioned above, I enjoyed Spectre GREATLY and can't wait to rewatch it soon. The first 2 hours or so are probably my favorite out of all the Craig movies and I LOVE CR and Skyfall. The last act IS disappointing and Blofeld doesn't live up to his potential, but it's not enough to ruin the movie for me and I have a feeling I will end up watching Spectre a lot more than CR or Skyfall, simply due to how fun it is. A few rewrites here and there and it could have been an easy top 3.

    I think there is an answer to your criticisms - Purvis and Wade. The sooner we see the back of them the better. Whenever plodding cliche makes an appearance in a Bond movie I recognise their signature straight away.

    I agree with a lot of what you say here. Blofeld is a bit of a disappointment in the end, but still, overall it's a decent entry.
Sign In or Register to comment.