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

19495969799

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It is simply a poorly written film. And it is dull. It is just as simple as that.
    How would you compare it to Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (if you've seen it)?

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I didn't see it.
    You are missing out. Well worth the watch and, at least imho, the best spy film of 2015.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Revelator wrote: »
    I had my problems with the film, but I find myself irritated by the American critics who knocked Spectre for being derivative but are now praising the new Star Wars for the exact same quality. Some of them should have "fanboy" tattooed on their foreheads.

    Forget Star Wars, critics had no issue at all with SF doing all the same things. And may I say that SP did its winks infinitely better than SF. That's why the critical response is so mind boggling to me. SF was everyone's darling, and didn't get any criticisms it should have gotten, but three years later and SP gets slammed for having similar elements. Rubbish.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I didn't see it.
    jake24 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It is simply a poorly written film. And it is dull. It is just as simple as that.
    That's your opinion.

    Well I wasn't going to give yours.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!! Good one!!!
  • Posts: 4,622
    Saw it again yesterday and thought it was still great. My only real gripes are the torture scene, that Bond doesn't display any signs of weakness after the drilling. This kind of goes against what we have come to expect with the Craig era, that he suffers physically after an ordeal. We don't see any of that after his torture.

    And the ending on the Thames still has a feeling of being tacked on, and suddenly becomes too implausible. The fact that Bond gets caught, then escapes, then walks into the trap. Why lay out a trap if Bond is caught? Or did Blofeld expect Bond to escape and then follow the trap? That just didn't make sense.

    This tacked on scene reminded me of 2 others which also felt tacked on - the ending to Speed, when Sandra Bullock is caught by Hopper after walking off. And Bond shooting Blofeld in the helicopter reminded me of the ending to Die Hard 3, which I always felt was tacked on.

    The torture scene doesn't work because there really is no way to make it work.
    Torture in reality is death, just a slower more painful death.
    Part of the ongoing fantasy of Bond is that he does not get killed or actually be helplessly tortured.
    He escapes before this stuff goes down.
    Fleming created one torture scenario in which Bond was truly doomed.
    Bond did not escape. He was fortuitously rescued
    That's it. Then he had weeks of convalescence and healing.
    Yet Tamahori, Mendes, and assorted continuation authors think it somehow makes sense to willy nilly subject Bond to torture because Fleming created ONE, operative word ONE, iconic torture scene, from which Bond was only lucky to get rescued
    Just say no to "Torture Bond" unless dramatizing Fleming's first novel.
  • Posts: 1,680
    Bond would have been kiled in TWINE by Elektra if it werent fro zukovsky
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 3,272
    timmer wrote: »
    Saw it again yesterday and thought it was still great. My only real gripes are the torture scene, that Bond doesn't display any signs of weakness after the drilling. This kind of goes against what we have come to expect with the Craig era, that he suffers physically after an ordeal. We don't see any of that after his torture.

    And the ending on the Thames still has a feeling of being tacked on, and suddenly becomes too implausible. The fact that Bond gets caught, then escapes, then walks into the trap. Why lay out a trap if Bond is caught? Or did Blofeld expect Bond to escape and then follow the trap? That just didn't make sense.

    This tacked on scene reminded me of 2 others which also felt tacked on - the ending to Speed, when Sandra Bullock is caught by Hopper after walking off. And Bond shooting Blofeld in the helicopter reminded me of the ending to Die Hard 3, which I always felt was tacked on.

    The torture scene doesn't work because there really is no way to make it work.
    Torture in reality is death, just a slower more painful death.
    Part of the ongoing fantasy of Bond is that he does not get killed or actually be helplessly tortured.
    He escapes before this stuff goes down.
    Fleming created one torture scenario in which Bond was truly doomed.
    Bond did not escape. He was fortuitously rescued
    That's it. Then he had weeks of convalescence and healing.
    Yet Tamahori, Mendes, and assorted continuation authors think it somehow makes sense to willy nilly subject Bond to torture because Fleming created ONE, operative word ONE, iconic torture scene, from which Bond was only lucky to get rescued
    Just say no to "Torture Bond" unless dramatizing Fleming's first novel.
    @timmer
    I've replied to your post before about torture scenes in Bond novels, which were littered with them.

    DAF with Bond nearly being kicked to death by football boots. This would have been far worse to show on screen than the ball whacking in CR. Bond's long, torture ordeal in Dr. No's nasty assault course would also be very nasty if it was shown in a true adaptation. Bond and Solitaire being tied to a boat and being dragged along a coral reef is a particularly nasty way to go. Bond getting his finger broken in LALD. Bond trying to commit suicide while tied down to a table after Oddjob does a few things to him, before the ordeal of being sliced in half very slowly. Even Bond being strapped to a chair while Drax furiously lets rip and beats Bond severely about the face sounded fairly horrific in MR.

    Fleming always had a sick, sinister side to his writing, and it showed in nearly all the novels, not just in CR.

    So you are wrong when you say a torture scene only happened once. It happened numerous times, in different forms.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    Someone posted a big detailed list of all the time Bond is tortured in the novels, anyone know where it is?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited December 2015 Posts: 28,694
    Murdock wrote: »
    Someone posted a big detailed list of all the time Bond is tortured in the novels, anyone know where it is?

    Pretty sure it was @TheWizardOfIce who made it, wherever it is.

    EDIT: Found it in the torture thread:
    timmer wrote: »
    I think this scene deserves it's own thread.

    Soo....what did we think?

    I've seen the film a few times and for me it's really the most unusual sequence in the film. It feels kinda tacked on and a little unwelcome. Firstly, let's start with the staging and camerawork. The actual cinematography and set-design are a little flat. It almost feels like the sequence was hurried together quickly as an afterthought. Also the strange dentist chair felt like it was deliberately trying to be a more high-tech reimagining of the low-fi torture scene in CR. Only this time complete with a dodgy CGI drill.

    The surprising thing is that every time I've seen the film people seem to genuinely be squirming in their seats during it. The woman next to me on Friday was covering her mouth and jumping every time the drill went in. Why doesn't this scene have the same impact on me? Is it because it's poorly staged? Or is the issue deeper-seated? Maybe it has something to do with the lack of drama in the plot? Or the film's failure to build Oberhauser up as a credible bad guy by that point?

    Also, it feels like a total wasted opportunity to lobotmise James Bond only 2 minutes later to have him completely recover and shoot up Oberhauser's entire lair. This guy just had a drill in his f@*@king brain!!!! He should be mess, it would have been so much more effective to have him make mistakes during that shoot-up (still being competent but maybe passing out and struggling to keep up - Craig's Bond is all about vulnerability after all), it would have allowed Madeline to pick up the pace and actually protect Bond, she should have blown up the compound! She knows how to use a gun and I'm sure her Dad would have taught her a thing or two. It would have increased our emotional attachment to her if she protected Bond.

    Additionally, there is probably the most ham-fisted piece of dialogue during the torture scene from Oberhauser when he says something like "the daughter of an assassin, the only one who could understand you" - talk about on the nose. Whatever happened to the subtlety and nuance of SF?

    Thoughts?
    I think this is a terrible scene. In terms of its gruesomeness its right up there with the torturing of Severine in SF, as described in a posting above.
    I find these two scenes to be the most unsettling in the series. Both scenes are in Sam Mendes films. I'm not sure what that means, if anything.

    The SP torture scene does feel tacked on, and it was, as those familiar with the leaked Dec shooting script know.
    It's a radical rewrite of a more civil tete-a-tete between Bond and Blofeld, with Swann present, before Bond launches the exploding watch and makes his escape. How this tedious torturescene is an improvement is beyond me.

    The torture scene robs us of a DN style Bond and Blofeld dinner scene with girl present.
    That's what I was hoping for, but Mendes made such a mess of the actual story, it's as if he couldn't decide how to stage the Blofeld reveal. Unfortunately someone on set, had a copy of Colonel Sun. Cue the rewrite.

    And cue the garish blinding light and Blofelds sockless fishbelly white legs and ill-ftting pants practically hiked up to his knees, as added torture bonus.

    Very unfortunate, as I thought the Ernst reveal was actually handled quite well. Nice touch with the cat. But it would have worked much better, over a tense dinner scenario, with death for dessert looming over the proceedings.

    My main objection though is broader in scope.
    Namely, that cinematically especially, Bond should not be subjected to such demeaning torture.
    If the filmmakers are going for gritty edgy realism, then they also fail, because in gritty realistic world those who are tortured also die. This type of torture is just a form of sadistic slow execution. So be done with it and kill Bond. Then you've got your realism.
    As the learned @perilagukhan suggests, are we watching Saw or Bond?

    But in edgy fantasy adventure, which is what Bond is, the needles don't penetrate, just as Goldfinger's encroaching laser never even singed Bond's pants, nor did Stampers torture implements ever graze Bond's actual skin, while in DAF Bond was pulled from certain death by Slumber and Tree, before the crematorium flames even singed his hair.

    By all means, position Bond under threat of any manner of heinous death, and knock him around some, but spare us actual helpless strapped to a chair, sadistic torture.

    Fleming wrote exactly one torture scene, followed by 13 books of nada. It's not exactly a recurring element in Fleming.
    And even Fleming didn't allow Bond the fantasy of escape from such plight.
    He allowed that Bond was dead, once the goings got started. Bond was fortuitously rescued. He did not escape the impossible.
    Yet one continuation author after another, not to mention later film directors, Tamahori and Mendes, seem determined to get their CR torture bonafides in. Yawn.
    Maybe they could take their cue from the 13 books in which Bond is not subjected to helpless torture.
    Colonel Sun I find to be a tedious continuation novel at best. Amis's torture sequence is sadistic and twisted in the extreme. Why Mendes felt a need to lift from this better forgotten scene, boggles. Mendes is a strange cat. Amis stranger.

    This is just my preference btw, but I believe it to be sound.
    Bond is escapist action hero. He doesn't get strapped to a chair and tortured. Rather he manages to escape before such indignities are visited.

    If it were 1952 and I could sit down with Sir Ian, I'd say to him, ditch the torture scene in CR.
    "I come from the future, where all the lameass imitators that follow you, are going to go hogwild on torturing Bond, as you did, all of one whole time.
    "Your acquaintance Amis will write one of the most tedious scenes in all of Bond continuation lit, in one of the dullest most plodding continuation novels ever served up.
    "Thank you Sir Timmer.Good advice. I will dispense with that scene entirely, and rework the entire scenario, and scold Mr Amis accordingly.
    "May I offer you some of my my fine Jamaican rum?
    "Thank you Sir Ian, don't mind if I do.

    Well I guess all that made sense in your head.

    You may not have liked it for whatever reason but that's no excuse to make spurious claims about Fleming only writing one torture scene (CR) to back up your failing hypothesis.

    Presumably someone must have drilled into your skull and made you forget the following:

    LALD - Bond has his little finger bent until it is snapped.

    MR - Wily Krebs sets about Bond with the persuader.

    DAF - Given a Brooklyn stomping (although I would class this more as just a kicking than actual torture).

    DN - The good doctor sets up an entire assault course of torture to specifically test Bond's pain threshold.

    (I'm not counting the circular saw in GF and the pressure room in YOLT which are more psychological)

    In all of the above Bond gets quite damaged which goes to show that cruel and sadistic torture is a creation and indeed staple of Fleming.

    And in all of the above Bond manages to escape on his own (or with the assistance of the girl) despite being in varying states of injury making a mockery of your statement: 'And even Fleming didn't allow Bond the fantasy of escape from such plight.'

    It you're going to use an author as a source when making a point it helps if you've ever read some of his work.

    As for the notion of deleting the CR torture scene entirely? That's not even worth commenting on.

    As for the SP scene itself, as a stand alone scene it's quite possibly the best single scene in a Bond film we've had since CR.

    However it is undermined by three things:

    1. We really would've benefitted from a dinner scene first where Blofeld goes into a bit more detail about his scheme.

    2. Similarly we really needed more scenes with Bond and Madeline so that the 'I love you' moment doesn't come across as forced.

    3. Bond needed to at least feel groggy. What would have been far better would have been Madeline actually helping Bond out of there and shooting some of the guards herself until Bond manages to pull himself together.

    Nonetheless my heart jumped for joy when I realised we were actually going to get the CS torture scene, and with a fair chunk of the dialogue intact.

    I love the clinical setting, the lighting, the cat and all the little details such as Ernst wearing no socks (surely the mark of a cad?). I think Lea plays it very well also and it's her reactions that sell it for me.

    God alone knows how they managed to get it past the censor for a 12A but I'm extremely glad they did and even if it was tagged on I'm much happier with this than an uninspiring game of cards.

    Now that they've opened up the continuation books for the plundering what scenes would we like to see adapted next? Although that's probably a thread in itself.

    In terms of tortute though certainly the ice water scene in Icebreaker would be fairly cinematic and keep us on the right side of the 12A cert.

    Personally I find the Brokenclaw one a bit too much as Bond is so badly mutilated he would be unlikely to be able to return to active duty.

  • edited December 2015 Posts: 3,272
    Murdock wrote: »
    Someone posted a big detailed list of all the time Bond is tortured in the novels, anyone know where it is?

    Pretty sure it was @TheWizardOfIce who made it, wherever it is.

    EDIT: Found it in the torture thread:
    timmer wrote: »
    I think this scene deserves it's own thread.

    Soo....what did we think?

    I've seen the film a few times and for me it's really the most unusual sequence in the film. It feels kinda tacked on and a little unwelcome. Firstly, let's start with the staging and camerawork. The actual cinematography and set-design are a little flat. It almost feels like the sequence was hurried together quickly as an afterthought. Also the strange dentist chair felt like it was deliberately trying to be a more high-tech reimagining of the low-fi torture scene in CR. Only this time complete with a dodgy CGI drill.

    The surprising thing is that every time I've seen the film people seem to genuinely be squirming in their seats during it. The woman next to me on Friday was covering her mouth and jumping every time the drill went in. Why doesn't this scene have the same impact on me? Is it because it's poorly staged? Or is the issue deeper-seated? Maybe it has something to do with the lack of drama in the plot? Or the film's failure to build Oberhauser up as a credible bad guy by that point?

    Also, it feels like a total wasted opportunity to lobotmise James Bond only 2 minutes later to have him completely recover and shoot up Oberhauser's entire lair. This guy just had a drill in his f@*@king brain!!!! He should be mess, it would have been so much more effective to have him make mistakes during that shoot-up (still being competent but maybe passing out and struggling to keep up - Craig's Bond is all about vulnerability after all), it would have allowed Madeline to pick up the pace and actually protect Bond, she should have blown up the compound! She knows how to use a gun and I'm sure her Dad would have taught her a thing or two. It would have increased our emotional attachment to her if she protected Bond.

    Additionally, there is probably the most ham-fisted piece of dialogue during the torture scene from Oberhauser when he says something like "the daughter of an assassin, the only one who could understand you" - talk about on the nose. Whatever happened to the subtlety and nuance of SF?

    Thoughts?
    I think this is a terrible scene. In terms of its gruesomeness its right up there with the torturing of Severine in SF, as described in a posting above.
    I find these two scenes to be the most unsettling in the series. Both scenes are in Sam Mendes films. I'm not sure what that means, if anything.

    The SP torture scene does feel tacked on, and it was, as those familiar with the leaked Dec shooting script know.
    It's a radical rewrite of a more civil tete-a-tete between Bond and Blofeld, with Swann present, before Bond launches the exploding watch and makes his escape. How this tedious torturescene is an improvement is beyond me.

    The torture scene robs us of a DN style Bond and Blofeld dinner scene with girl present.
    That's what I was hoping for, but Mendes made such a mess of the actual story, it's as if he couldn't decide how to stage the Blofeld reveal. Unfortunately someone on set, had a copy of Colonel Sun. Cue the rewrite.

    And cue the garish blinding light and Blofelds sockless fishbelly white legs and ill-ftting pants practically hiked up to his knees, as added torture bonus.

    Very unfortunate, as I thought the Ernst reveal was actually handled quite well. Nice touch with the cat. But it would have worked much better, over a tense dinner scenario, with death for dessert looming over the proceedings.

    My main objection though is broader in scope.
    Namely, that cinematically especially, Bond should not be subjected to such demeaning torture.
    If the filmmakers are going for gritty edgy realism, then they also fail, because in gritty realistic world those who are tortured also die. This type of torture is just a form of sadistic slow execution. So be done with it and kill Bond. Then you've got your realism.
    As the learned @perilagukhan suggests, are we watching Saw or Bond?

    But in edgy fantasy adventure, which is what Bond is, the needles don't penetrate, just as Goldfinger's encroaching laser never even singed Bond's pants, nor did Stampers torture implements ever graze Bond's actual skin, while in DAF Bond was pulled from certain death by Slumber and Tree, before the crematorium flames even singed his hair.

    By all means, position Bond under threat of any manner of heinous death, and knock him around some, but spare us actual helpless strapped to a chair, sadistic torture.

    Fleming wrote exactly one torture scene, followed by 13 books of nada. It's not exactly a recurring element in Fleming.
    And even Fleming didn't allow Bond the fantasy of escape from such plight.
    He allowed that Bond was dead, once the goings got started. Bond was fortuitously rescued. He did not escape the impossible.
    Yet one continuation author after another, not to mention later film directors, Tamahori and Mendes, seem determined to get their CR torture bonafides in. Yawn.
    Maybe they could take their cue from the 13 books in which Bond is not subjected to helpless torture.
    Colonel Sun I find to be a tedious continuation novel at best. Amis's torture sequence is sadistic and twisted in the extreme. Why Mendes felt a need to lift from this better forgotten scene, boggles. Mendes is a strange cat. Amis stranger.

    This is just my preference btw, but I believe it to be sound.
    Bond is escapist action hero. He doesn't get strapped to a chair and tortured. Rather he manages to escape before such indignities are visited.

    If it were 1952 and I could sit down with Sir Ian, I'd say to him, ditch the torture scene in CR.
    "I come from the future, where all the lameass imitators that follow you, are going to go hogwild on torturing Bond, as you did, all of one whole time.
    "Your acquaintance Amis will write one of the most tedious scenes in all of Bond continuation lit, in one of the dullest most plodding continuation novels ever served up.
    "Thank you Sir Timmer.Good advice. I will dispense with that scene entirely, and rework the entire scenario, and scold Mr Amis accordingly.
    "May I offer you some of my my fine Jamaican rum?
    "Thank you Sir Ian, don't mind if I do.

    Well I guess all that made sense in your head.

    You may not have liked it for whatever reason but that's no excuse to make spurious claims about Fleming only writing one torture scene (CR) to back up your failing hypothesis.

    Presumably someone must have drilled into your skull and made you forget the following:

    LALD - Bond has his little finger bent until it is snapped.

    MR - Wily Krebs sets about Bond with the persuader.

    DAF - Given a Brooklyn stomping (although I would class this more as just a kicking than actual torture).

    DN - The good doctor sets up an entire assault course of torture to specifically test Bond's pain threshold.

    (I'm not counting the circular saw in GF and the pressure room in YOLT which are more psychological)

    In all of the above Bond gets quite damaged which goes to show that cruel and sadistic torture is a creation and indeed staple of Fleming.

    And in all of the above Bond manages to escape on his own (or with the assistance of the girl) despite being in varying states of injury making a mockery of your statement: 'And even Fleming didn't allow Bond the fantasy of escape from such plight.'

    It you're going to use an author as a source when making a point it helps if you've ever read some of his work.

    As for the notion of deleting the CR torture scene entirely? That's not even worth commenting on.

    As for the SP scene itself, as a stand alone scene it's quite possibly the best single scene in a Bond film we've had since CR.

    However it is undermined by three things:

    1. We really would've benefitted from a dinner scene first where Blofeld goes into a bit more detail about his scheme.

    2. Similarly we really needed more scenes with Bond and Madeline so that the 'I love you' moment doesn't come across as forced.

    3. Bond needed to at least feel groggy. What would have been far better would have been Madeline actually helping Bond out of there and shooting some of the guards herself until Bond manages to pull himself together.

    Nonetheless my heart jumped for joy when I realised we were actually going to get the CS torture scene, and with a fair chunk of the dialogue intact.

    I love the clinical setting, the lighting, the cat and all the little details such as Ernst wearing no socks (surely the mark of a cad?). I think Lea plays it very well also and it's her reactions that sell it for me.

    God alone knows how they managed to get it past the censor for a 12A but I'm extremely glad they did and even if it was tagged on I'm much happier with this than an uninspiring game of cards.

    Now that they've opened up the continuation books for the plundering what scenes would we like to see adapted next? Although that's probably a thread in itself.

    In terms of tortute though certainly the ice water scene in Icebreaker would be fairly cinematic and keep us on the right side of the 12A cert.

    Personally I find the Brokenclaw one a bit too much as Bond is so badly mutilated he would be unlikely to be able to return to active duty.

    @TheWizardOfIce
    You missed Bond being dragged along a coral reef from the torture list...
  • Birdleson wrote: »
    It is simply a poorly written film. And it is dull. It is just as simple as that.

    You hate SP. We get it already. Now would you please be so kind as to stop inflicting your misery on the rest of us?

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Watching Rogue Nation made me appreciate SPECTRE even more. RN is just SO slick- I like my Bond movies with pacing problems & imperfections... makes them seem more organic. :)>-
  • Birdleson wrote: »
    It is simply a poorly written film. And it is dull. It is just as simple as that.

    You hate SP. We get it already. Now would you please be so kind as to stop inflicting your misery on the rest of us?

    Does he not have the right to share a negative opinion of Spectre as much as you have the right to share a positive one? The same debate sprung up after Skyfall, and it's just as pointless today.

    With respect to the broader question of why Skyfall was praised for its winks to classic Bond while Spectre wasn't, I have a few reasons. The first and most important one is that Skyfall told a compelling story. Silva was tortured because of M, Silva wants revenge against M. Bond was also hurt by M, but he wants to protect her. Watch them collide. Skyfall also developed its ideas about the obsolescence of MI6 and Bond's relationship to his job, whereas Spectre halfheartedly throws some lines about data collection and Bond's job before abandoning them. Spectre also retreads some of the exact same ground that Skyfall did, in the villain with a personal vendetta against Bond and government bureaucrats wanting to shut MI6 down, but again, they don't develop the ideas half as well and we're left with a mishmash of tropes thrown out there.

    Now, it's also true that reviews of Spectre weren't unanimously negative. It still has a positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and most reviews still praise some of the old school Bondian tropes, like Mr. Hinx and the chase in the Alps and so on. I haven't seen Star Wars, but I will in a few hours, so I will comment on any perceived differences after that.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    I just don't feel that SF did tell a compelling story, so when I saw SP I was overjoyed that the pseudo-seriousness was done and a simple & exciting (if admittedly thin) yarn was being told.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Spectre and Goldeneye get a mention in this Spanish article. Not a review, though.

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_globalmilitarism197.htm
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Spectre and Goldeneye get a mention in this Spanish article. Not a review, though.

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_globalmilitarism197.htm
    It's also a great article for the uninitiated on the subject, thanks.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It is simply a poorly written film. And it is dull. It is just as simple as that.

    You hate SP. We get it already. Now would you please be so kind as to stop inflicting your misery on the rest of us?

    I'm with you, @Perilagu_Khan. Of course none of us mind anyone sharing their views, obviously. What I personally take issue with is beating a dead horse. When SF came out we had a select group of members who went into threads both related and unrelated to SF to complain about it and bring negativity into what were meant to be discussions on its strengths. It was like members going into appreciation threads to tell everyone how much they despised the actor, film, or movie in question.

    With SP we now have the same old situation. Those that don't like SP, we get it, we know who you are. You needn't worry about being forgotten, we are quite aware of your presence and your all-important negativity. We know what all of you don't like about it from memory, which is easy because it's all that you post.

    The point here is this: those that like SP can go on and on all day about all the positive aspects of it and it does nothing to upset anyone. The same is true for discussing its faults, but only when it is done with limitations and respect. When we post comments about films, we often share both our favorite things and complaints about them one to three times as discussion goes along. We don't, however, go into every thread related and unrelated to the film to then bring all of that out again just to hate on it without adding anything to discussions, and often disrupting it. What I see now more than ever is members heading into threads they shouldn't be in posting things like "wow, this was way better film than SP," or "SP was a massive disappointment compared to this," when they are adding nothing of value to discussions but their own hate. It's pointless.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    But then again, Spectre was a million times better than the Brosnan films, so well said!
  • Revelator wrote: »
    I had my problems with the film, but I find myself irritated by the American critics who knocked Spectre for being derivative but are now praising the new Star Wars for the exact same quality. Some of them should have "fanboy" tattooed on their foreheads.

    I wouldn't even call myself a big Star Wars fan, and I really liked The Force Awakens infinitely more than Spectre. Sure, it rehashes old plot points, but a lot of aspects of the plot still feel fresh. Nothing in Spectre - aside from the opening sequence - felt fresh.

    I would've loved to see Spectre steal the plot from a prior Bond film (like The Force Awakens does from the original Star Wars) if it meant there was some semblance of coherence to the events of the film. Spectre was so poorly written in my eyes that I saw it once in theaters and won't see it again until DVD. I don't remember the last time I've left a theater as disappointed as I did after Spectre. Quite the opposite with Star Wars even though huge chunks of the plot were as derivative as it got for the franchise.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Shoudn t you be called starwarsboy instead, then?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    No internet post will kill my buzz. B-)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    No internet post will kill my buzz. B-)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Birdleson wrote: »
    bondboy007 wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    I had my problems with the film, but I find myself irritated by the American critics who knocked Spectre for being derivative but are now praising the new Star Wars for the exact same quality. Some of them should have "fanboy" tattooed on their foreheads.

    I wouldn't even call myself a big Star Wars fan, and I really liked The Force Awakens infinitely more than Spectre. Sure, it rehashes old plot points, but a lot of aspects of the plot still feel fresh. Nothing in Spectre - aside from the opening sequence - felt fresh.

    I would've loved to see Spectre steal the plot from a prior Bond film (like The Force Awakens does from the original Star Wars) if it meant there was some semblance of coherence to the events of the film. Spectre was so poorly written in my eyes that I saw it once in theaters and won't see it again until DVD. I don't remember the last time I've left a theater as disappointed as I did after Spectre. Quite the opposite with Star Wars even though huge chunks of the plot were as derivative as it got for the franchise.

    Don't be so negative. You're killing my buzz.

    At least you know the part you play in this little drama of yours.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 267
    Birdleson wrote: »

    Don't be so negative. You're killing my buzz.

    Lol, sorry. I just hate looking forward to something this long and being so monumentally let down. QoS was a very flawed film, but I still enjoyed it and saw in the theater 3 separate times.

    One thing I'd like to see in the next film is for the pace to slow a bit. One of the things I loved about CR is that so much of the action took place in the casino at Montenegro. I just felt like the film got to breathe a bit and not simply jump from location to location. I get that Bond films always show case far off, exotic locations, but SP seemed to jump to a new location simply for the hell of it at times. Like it was trying to check something else off the Bond checklist.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Why is SPECTRE currently #4 for me?
    I'm glad you asked. :))
    Because as much as I love Connery, I LOVE Dan's performance in SP. He's not angsty as in SF, and he's not needlessly buff as in CR. He nearly equals Dalton for me here, and that's high praise in MY book. Plus, using that bit from Colonel Sun was a welcome treat. Yes, a better score would have rocked me harder, but Newman did not detract, at least.
  • Posts: 3,336
    Shoudn t you be called starwarsboy instead, then?

    +1

  • Posts: 14,799
    Here's my take:



    SPECTRE Tantalizes with Beauty and Beastliness

    James Bond films are first and foremost exercises in a unique and increasingly archaic aesthetics. The visual and aural template for these films was established in the first half of the 1960s, a demi-decade in which refined formality and a belief in beauty still held sway in the Western world. This elitist aesthetic was conjoined with a peculiar sense of the bizarre to produce a sensual cocktail which intoxicated film audiences with the very first sip in 1962, and continues to do so in 2015 with the latest 007 adventure, SPECTRE.

    The very longevity of the Bond series and its throwback aesthetics is a slap in the face of postmodern vulgarians who have pronounced the death of beauty and consigned good taste to an anti-egalitarian Jehannum. It is also a standing assertion of the timelessness of beauty and its centrality to what we deem a human existence worth living.

    And it is along these aesthetic lines that SPECTRE makes its mark as yet another unqualified James Bond success. But of course, a film series in its 24th instantiation could not have survived by simply recapitulating the imagery and the sounds of its preceding films. Doing so would be filmic plagiarism and would terminally bore audiences. The trick is to hew to the traditional Bondian aesthetic while deviating just enough to produce novelty. It is a matter of varying a distinctive and appealing theme.

    This is what SPECTRE does so well. The film, directed by Sam Mendes, reprises the beauty and tastefulness we expect from Bond films. Daniel Craig in the lead role is as natty as ever in Tom Ford couture. Craig, at aged 47, has never looked fitter, tougher and more dashing. Nor has he portrayed James Bond more convincingly. His smirk, swagger and sarcasm bespeak a spy who is supremely confident, not only in his ultimate triumph, but also the righteousness of his cause.

    In addition to the handsome chap in immaculate suits and tuxedoes, SPECTRE naturally features women of astonishing beauty. The headliners are 51-year-old Monica Bellucci, the wife and then widow of an assassin dispatched by Bond in the film’s pre-title sequence, and Lea Seydoux, the daughter of yet another villainous gun-for-hire.

    Bellucci infuses her tragic character with a dignified beauty that is both convincing and captivating. Seydoux, while perhaps not the most classically beautiful Bond girl of all, nevertheless possesses a strikingly unforgettable appearance, and beguiles with a spirited girlishness that contrasts well with Bellucci’s more worldly and careworn demeanor.

    Then, too, there is the extravagantly cosmopolitan cinematography for which the Bond films are justly renowned. SPECTRE opens in Mexico City during the Day of the Dead, moves on to Rome, the Austrian Alps, and Morocco before finishing up in London. And cinematographer Hoyt van Hoytema has certainly lived up to his illustrious predecessors in Bond cinematography.

    The aerial shots in this film are particularly spectacular. Much of the Mexico City sequence, including a harrowing punch-up in a helicopter that careens over thousands of terrified revelers, high-perspective views of the villain’s meteorite crater lair in the Sahara, and nocturnal views of London all benefit from being filmed at altitude.

    But Hoytema’s work is even more telling in the frigid, remote bleakness it lends to the proceedings. This first becomes evident in the funeral scene set in Rome. The mourners, all in black, contrast starkly with the white stone of the church and mausoleum. Likewise with Bond’s black sunglasses against his pallid visage.

    This aesthetic theme carries over into the snowy Austrian Alps where Bond traverses a mountain lake by boat in search of information about the SPECTRE organization that is behind a series of terrorist attacks designed to frighten the victim nations into embracing a new panoptic surveillance network that, unbeknownst to those nations, is itself a SPECTRE project.

    After obtaining a crucial item of data from a terminally ill ci-devant SPECTRE agent, Bond travels to a glassy and icy clinic atop an Austrian mountain where he links up with Seydoux’s character, Madeleine Swann. The viewer fairly shivers not just at the beauty of it all, but also at the coldness that radiates from the movie screen.

    Although climatologically opposed to Austria, Morocco shares the European nation’s utter austerity in this film. The vast expanses of desert, punctuated only by lonely roads and rail lines, and rimmed by distant bluffs and mountains, create a sense of profound isolation as Bond and Swann close in on SPECTRE’s heart, its secrets, and its mastermind.

    Complimenting this aesthetic which disquiets via its bleakness, is a palpably ominous sense of dread that manifests itself immediately—the sentence “The dead are alive” displayed across a black screen opens the film—and only relents in the waning frames.

    The opening credits are dominated by a massive black octopus whose tentacles writhe around Bond and various other people and objects as Sam Smith’s dolorous threnody keens in the background. At one point the octopus’ head becomes a skull to produce an image straight out of nightmare-land.

    The element of horror, immediately and thoroughly established, remains an idee fixe. A meeting of SPECTRE agents in Rome, which serves as the introduction of both the main villain (played by Christoph Waltz), and the obligatory henchman (played by Dave Batista), is utterly chilling, and the horror is augmented by an act of shocking violence perpetrated by henchman Hinx on an unsuspecting SPECTRE agent.

    Batista’s Hinx, incidentally, is easily the most frightening henchman in all of Bond cinema. He is a hulking and malign Teddy bear with an exceedingly nasty disposition. Hinx’s elemental fearsomeness comes to the fore in a fight with Bond on a train in which Bond actually shows fear and the viewer too fears that Bond cannot cope with the behemoth. The danger Hinx presents to Bond is completely convincing, and that makes all the difference.

    And speaking of elements, fire, the infernal element, is a pronounced trope in SPECTRE. While being chased by Hinx in Rome, Bond’s tricked out Aston Martin disgorges gouts of flame at the pursuing car. During the train fight, Bond hurls a burning oil lamp, which explodes upon impact with Hinx, but ultimately does not deter him. And more disturbing, at various points in the film, cities in flame, victims of SPECTRE, can be seen on television monitors. The frequent use of fire—as opposed to mere explosions—adds hellishness to the film’s already disquieting aesthetic kit.

    In this vein, we would be remiss not to mention a torture scene in which SPECTRE’s leader subjects a seemingly helpless Bond to the ministrations of a dental drill. Warning: this sequence is not for the squeamish.

    What this all adds up to is a Bond film which possesses all of the aesthetic polish and beauty that is a series hallmark, while also descending into bizarre and grisly horror. (Ian Fleming meets Edgar Allen Poe.) The result is a Bond film whose imagery impresses itself upon the viewer’s mind, and is not easily forgotten. And at the end of the day, that is what matters the most in this genre.

    And I thought you didn't like the movie.
  • Birdleson wrote: »
    It is simply a poorly written film. And it is dull. It is just as simple as that.

    You hate SP. We get it already. Now would you please be so kind as to stop inflicting your misery on the rest of us?

    Does he not have the right to share a negative opinion of Spectre as much as you have the right to share a positive one? The same debate sprung up after Skyfall, and it's just as pointless today.

    With respect to the broader question of why Skyfall was praised for its winks to classic Bond while Spectre wasn't, I have a few reasons. The first and most important one is that Skyfall told a compelling story. Silva was tortured because of M, Silva wants revenge against M. Bond was also hurt by M, but he wants to protect her. Watch them collide. Skyfall also developed its ideas about the obsolescence of MI6 and Bond's relationship to his job, whereas Spectre halfheartedly throws some lines about data collection and Bond's job before abandoning them. Spectre also retreads some of the exact same ground that Skyfall did, in the villain with a personal vendetta against Bond and government bureaucrats wanting to shut MI6 down, but again, they don't develop the ideas half as well and we're left with a mishmash of tropes thrown out there.

    Now, it's also true that reviews of Spectre weren't unanimously negative. It still has a positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and most reviews still praise some of the old school Bondian tropes, like Mr. Hinx and the chase in the Alps and so on. I haven't seen Star Wars, but I will in a few hours, so I will comment on any perceived differences after that.

    Of course he has that right. But his opinion would be considerably less rebarbative if it wasn't one constant, unmodulated whinge. He has nothing to say except "Woe is me! I hate SPECTRE!" The banging-the-spoon-on-the-highchair act has gone far beyond tedious.

  • Birdleson wrote: »
    It is simply a poorly written film. And it is dull. It is just as simple as that.

    You hate SP. We get it already. Now would you please be so kind as to stop inflicting your misery on the rest of us?

    I'm with you, @Perilagu_Khan. Of course none of us mind anyone sharing their views, obviously. What I personally take issue with is beating a dead horse. When SF came out we had a select group of members who went into threads both related and unrelated to SF to complain about it and bring negativity into what were meant to be discussions on its strengths. It was like members going into appreciation threads to tell everyone how much they despised the actor, film, or movie in question.

    With SP we now have the same old situation. Those that don't like SP, we get it, we know who you are. You needn't worry about being forgotten, we are quite aware of your presence and your all-important negativity. We know what all of you don't like about it from memory, which is easy because it's all that you post.

    The point here is this: those that like SP can go on and on all day about all the positive aspects of it and it does nothing to upset anyone. The same is true for discussing its faults, but only when it is done with limitations and respect. When we post comments about films, we often share both our favorite things and complaints about them one to three times as discussion goes along. We don't, however, go into every thread related and unrelated to the film to then bring all of that out again just to hate on it without adding anything to discussions, and often disrupting it. What I see now more than ever is members heading into threads they shouldn't be in posting things like "wow, this was way better film than SP," or "SP was a massive disappointment compared to this," when they are adding nothing of value to discussions but their own hate. It's pointless.

    Precisely.

  • Ludovico wrote: »
    Here's my take:



    SPECTRE Tantalizes with Beauty and Beastliness

    James Bond films are first and foremost exercises in a unique and increasingly archaic aesthetics. The visual and aural template for these films was established in the first half of the 1960s, a demi-decade in which refined formality and a belief in beauty still held sway in the Western world. This elitist aesthetic was conjoined with a peculiar sense of the bizarre to produce a sensual cocktail which intoxicated film audiences with the very first sip in 1962, and continues to do so in 2015 with the latest 007 adventure, SPECTRE.

    The very longevity of the Bond series and its throwback aesthetics is a slap in the face of postmodern vulgarians who have pronounced the death of beauty and consigned good taste to an anti-egalitarian Jehannum. It is also a standing assertion of the timelessness of beauty and its centrality to what we deem a human existence worth living.

    And it is along these aesthetic lines that SPECTRE makes its mark as yet another unqualified James Bond success. But of course, a film series in its 24th instantiation could not have survived by simply recapitulating the imagery and the sounds of its preceding films. Doing so would be filmic plagiarism and would terminally bore audiences. The trick is to hew to the traditional Bondian aesthetic while deviating just enough to produce novelty. It is a matter of varying a distinctive and appealing theme.

    This is what SPECTRE does so well. The film, directed by Sam Mendes, reprises the beauty and tastefulness we expect from Bond films. Daniel Craig in the lead role is as natty as ever in Tom Ford couture. Craig, at aged 47, has never looked fitter, tougher and more dashing. Nor has he portrayed James Bond more convincingly. His smirk, swagger and sarcasm bespeak a spy who is supremely confident, not only in his ultimate triumph, but also the righteousness of his cause.

    In addition to the handsome chap in immaculate suits and tuxedoes, SPECTRE naturally features women of astonishing beauty. The headliners are 51-year-old Monica Bellucci, the wife and then widow of an assassin dispatched by Bond in the film’s pre-title sequence, and Lea Seydoux, the daughter of yet another villainous gun-for-hire.

    Bellucci infuses her tragic character with a dignified beauty that is both convincing and captivating. Seydoux, while perhaps not the most classically beautiful Bond girl of all, nevertheless possesses a strikingly unforgettable appearance, and beguiles with a spirited girlishness that contrasts well with Bellucci’s more worldly and careworn demeanor.

    Then, too, there is the extravagantly cosmopolitan cinematography for which the Bond films are justly renowned. SPECTRE opens in Mexico City during the Day of the Dead, moves on to Rome, the Austrian Alps, and Morocco before finishing up in London. And cinematographer Hoyt van Hoytema has certainly lived up to his illustrious predecessors in Bond cinematography.

    The aerial shots in this film are particularly spectacular. Much of the Mexico City sequence, including a harrowing punch-up in a helicopter that careens over thousands of terrified revelers, high-perspective views of the villain’s meteorite crater lair in the Sahara, and nocturnal views of London all benefit from being filmed at altitude.

    But Hoytema’s work is even more telling in the frigid, remote bleakness it lends to the proceedings. This first becomes evident in the funeral scene set in Rome. The mourners, all in black, contrast starkly with the white stone of the church and mausoleum. Likewise with Bond’s black sunglasses against his pallid visage.

    This aesthetic theme carries over into the snowy Austrian Alps where Bond traverses a mountain lake by boat in search of information about the SPECTRE organization that is behind a series of terrorist attacks designed to frighten the victim nations into embracing a new panoptic surveillance network that, unbeknownst to those nations, is itself a SPECTRE project.

    After obtaining a crucial item of data from a terminally ill ci-devant SPECTRE agent, Bond travels to a glassy and icy clinic atop an Austrian mountain where he links up with Seydoux’s character, Madeleine Swann. The viewer fairly shivers not just at the beauty of it all, but also at the coldness that radiates from the movie screen.

    Although climatologically opposed to Austria, Morocco shares the European nation’s utter austerity in this film. The vast expanses of desert, punctuated only by lonely roads and rail lines, and rimmed by distant bluffs and mountains, create a sense of profound isolation as Bond and Swann close in on SPECTRE’s heart, its secrets, and its mastermind.

    Complimenting this aesthetic which disquiets via its bleakness, is a palpably ominous sense of dread that manifests itself immediately—the sentence “The dead are alive” displayed across a black screen opens the film—and only relents in the waning frames.

    The opening credits are dominated by a massive black octopus whose tentacles writhe around Bond and various other people and objects as Sam Smith’s dolorous threnody keens in the background. At one point the octopus’ head becomes a skull to produce an image straight out of nightmare-land.

    The element of horror, immediately and thoroughly established, remains an idee fixe. A meeting of SPECTRE agents in Rome, which serves as the introduction of both the main villain (played by Christoph Waltz), and the obligatory henchman (played by Dave Batista), is utterly chilling, and the horror is augmented by an act of shocking violence perpetrated by henchman Hinx on an unsuspecting SPECTRE agent.

    Batista’s Hinx, incidentally, is easily the most frightening henchman in all of Bond cinema. He is a hulking and malign Teddy bear with an exceedingly nasty disposition. Hinx’s elemental fearsomeness comes to the fore in a fight with Bond on a train in which Bond actually shows fear and the viewer too fears that Bond cannot cope with the behemoth. The danger Hinx presents to Bond is completely convincing, and that makes all the difference.

    And speaking of elements, fire, the infernal element, is a pronounced trope in SPECTRE. While being chased by Hinx in Rome, Bond’s tricked out Aston Martin disgorges gouts of flame at the pursuing car. During the train fight, Bond hurls a burning oil lamp, which explodes upon impact with Hinx, but ultimately does not deter him. And more disturbing, at various points in the film, cities in flame, victims of SPECTRE, can be seen on television monitors. The frequent use of fire—as opposed to mere explosions—adds hellishness to the film’s already disquieting aesthetic kit.

    In this vein, we would be remiss not to mention a torture scene in which SPECTRE’s leader subjects a seemingly helpless Bond to the ministrations of a dental drill. Warning: this sequence is not for the squeamish.

    What this all adds up to is a Bond film which possesses all of the aesthetic polish and beauty that is a series hallmark, while also descending into bizarre and grisly horror. (Ian Fleming meets Edgar Allen Poe.) The result is a Bond film whose imagery impresses itself upon the viewer’s mind, and is not easily forgotten. And at the end of the day, that is what matters the most in this genre.

    And I thought you didn't like the movie.

    Not sure how you got that idea. After my first two viewings, I felt ambivalent about SP. I didn't dislike it; I didn't like it; I just wasn't quite sure what to make of it. But my third viewing--last Sunday--put me firmly in SP's camp. I still prefer SF, but SP will probably settle in at around No. 5-No.7 in my rankings. That's pretty dam' good.

Sign In or Register to comment.