SPECTRE - Your reviews. NO SPOILERS.

12829303133

Comments

  • Posts: 5,767
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Meh... can't agree that Vienna was well used. It doubled as Bratislava quite well, but the scenes actually set in Vienna were limited to cliched tourist ideas of what the Austrian capitol is about...
    What reason is there not to use cliched tourist ideas in a franchise that established itself providing 2h holiday trips? What reason is there to say it´s Vienna and not show some tourist highlights?

    I can get on board with the Prater scenes - that is indeed a staple of Vienna and many Viennese go there for a good time. But the waltzing couples in front of Schönbrunn?? That was just plain daft.
    Why? Is that not what Viennesians do :-O ?
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited December 2015 Posts: 1,727
    boldfinger wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Meh... can't agree that Vienna was well used. It doubled as Bratislava quite well, but the scenes actually set in Vienna were limited to cliched tourist ideas of what the Austrian capitol is about...
    What reason is there not to use cliched tourist ideas in a franchise that established itself providing 2h holiday trips? What reason is there to say it´s Vienna and not show some tourist highlights?

    I can get on board with the Prater scenes - that is indeed a staple of Vienna and many Viennese go there for a good time. But the waltzing couples in front of Schönbrunn?? That was just plain daft.
    Why? Is that not what Viennesians do :-O ?

    Sorry to disappoint, but nobody in Vienna waltzes in full Habsburger regal outifts on a regular basis, no :D

    I felt TLD would have been better served by having the main square Am Graben, or the town hall as a backdrop for Bond's stay in Vienna...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Meh... can't agree that Vienna was well used. It doubled as Bratislava quite well, but the scenes actually set in Vienna were limited to cliched tourist ideas of what the Austrian capitol is about...
    What reason is there not to use cliched tourist ideas in a franchise that established itself providing 2h holiday trips? What reason is there to say it´s Vienna and not show some tourist highlights?

    I can get on board with the Prater scenes - that is indeed a staple of Vienna and many Viennese go there for a good time. But the waltzing couples in front of Schönbrunn?? That was just plain daft.
    Why? Is that not what Viennesians do :-O ?

    Sorry to disappoint, but nobody in Vienna waltzes in full Habsburger regal outifts on a regular basis, no :D

    I felt TLD would have been better served by having the main square Am Graben, or the town hall as a backdrop for Bond's stay in Vienna...
    I have to admit that Vienna could have been done better. That is something I felt Glen wasn't quite so good at (apart from in FYEO) compared with his predecessors. He tended to give lip service to locations, in contrast to Gilbert for instance, who really made one feel it (Japan in YOLT or Egypt in TSWLM). Even Hamilton made very good use of Louisiana in LALD, Vegas in DAF, & Hong Kong in TMWTGG. One felt as if one was on location with Bond due to the way he filmed sequences in each location. Young too was a master at this.

    I still think Glen was far more adept at it than Mendes (who appears not to have a clue really) but I still prefer the others. I always keep in mind though that Glen's tenure occured during severe budget cutbacks and so I wonder if that had something to do with the somewhat generic postcard approach he took on occasion with location shoots. I'm sure he would have delivered something amazing on a $250m (net) budget.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited December 2015 Posts: 1,727
    bondjames wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    Meh... can't agree that Vienna was well used. It doubled as Bratislava quite well, but the scenes actually set in Vienna were limited to cliched tourist ideas of what the Austrian capitol is about...
    What reason is there not to use cliched tourist ideas in a franchise that established itself providing 2h holiday trips? What reason is there to say it´s Vienna and not show some tourist highlights?

    I can get on board with the Prater scenes - that is indeed a staple of Vienna and many Viennese go there for a good time. But the waltzing couples in front of Schönbrunn?? That was just plain daft.
    Why? Is that not what Viennesians do :-O ?

    Sorry to disappoint, but nobody in Vienna waltzes in full Habsburger regal outifts on a regular basis, no :D

    I felt TLD would have been better served by having the main square Am Graben, or the town hall as a backdrop for Bond's stay in Vienna...
    I have to admit that Vienna could have been done better. That is something I felt Glen wasn't quite so good at (apart from in FYEO) compared with his predecessors. He tended to give lip service to locations, in contrast to Gilbert for instance, who really made one feel it (Japan in YOLT or Egypt in TSWLM). Even Hamilton made very good use of Louisiana in LALD, Vegas in DAF, & Hong Kong in TMWTGG. One felt as if one was on location with Bond due to the way he filmed sequences in each location. Young too was a master at this.

    I still think Glen was far more adept at it than Mendes (who appears not to have a clue really) but I still prefer the others. I always keep in mind though that Glen's tenure occured during severe budget cutbacks and so I wonder if that had something to do with the somewhat generic postcard approach he took on occasion with location shoots. I'm sure he would have delivered something amazing on a $250m (net) budget.

    This I can agree with. Apart from Mexico City I did not feel at all transported to any of the locations in Mendes' two films...

    FYI - I was not knocking TLD (I'm one of it's biggest endorsers quite honestly), and I love the fact that Vienna is used so much in it - though ironically the 'true' Vienna comes out far more in the opening Koskov-defection and the later tram-scenes that were supposedly set in Bratislava..!

    The defection scene concerthall is actually the Volksoper ont he Währingerstrasse - a building I have know all my life as it is just down the road from where my grandparents used to live :)
  • edited January 2016 Posts: 1,661
    Finally seen SPECTRE!

    Bit late, I know but here's my brief-ish review.

    I am a big anti-Craig Bond fan, never liked him in the role, but putting my prejudice to one side I enjoyed SPECTRE.

    Loved the pre-credit scene. One of the best action scenes I've ever seen. Brilliantly done, great camerawork, locations etc. Spectacular. I don't know if it's the best pre-credit scene yet but it's high up the list!

    I don't mind the theme song. It's okay.

    I have the leaked screenplay, read it before the film came out so I knew the plot. The only major difference I remember was the lack of the torture scene and I think Blofeld's backstory explanation was done over dinner? Something like that. Can't remember 100 percent, only read the screenplay once.

    The film seems less wordy than the leaked screenplay. Just a vague impression I got.

    I didn't mind Blofeld and Bond's backstory. It's not mentioned in great detail. They could have overdone the backstory but Bond remains fairly cold and aloof. I think they got the balance right.

    Sam Mendes has a nice visual style and I thought he got the pacing just right.

    The action scenes were good. Perhaps the final battle with Blofeld could have had a few more enemy copters or men on the ground shooting at Bond but the ending was good.

    Craig gave an assured performance. I didn't feel he phoned in his performance. I didn't get the impression he was bored with the role.

    The other case members are good. Stand-out performance was Christoph Waltz.

    I didn't think his role was too small. Felt just right to me.He wasn't needed in the second act. A bit of mystery is good, helps to keep the audience guessing about who the character is.

    Stuff like Hinx appearing on the train and Bond blowing up the base with one shot - well, it's a Bond film, it's meant to be a bit silly and contrived.

    I prefer a male M to a female M. I didn't miss Dench's M but she was good in the part but I think Bond works best with a male M.

    I thought the crater base looked amazing. One of the best sets I've seen in ages. I dunno if some of it was CGI enhanced but it felt very Ken Adams in look.

    Overall 8.5 out of 10. My fave Craig Bond film (and I still don't like him much in the role!) I think it's the closest Craig Bond film to the original era Bond films. Has a nice mixture of old era Bond and the new post 9/11 Bond films.

    I'd rank Craig's Bond films as:

    1) SPECTRE
    2) CASINO ROYALE
    3) QUANTUM OF SOLACE
    4) SKYFALL
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Glad you liked it! :)>-
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    Yay for more Spectre love! :-bd
  • edited January 2016 Posts: 1,661
    I liked the Bond meets White scene. I liked the idea of Bond's word being his gun and White mocking him "why should I believe the word of an assassin?"

    I don't remember the meteorite scene in the leaked screenplay? The bit of rock on display. That scene took me by surprise.

    Given the backstory I didn't feel they made Bond too touchy feely or emotional. Reading the screenplay it felt like the Bond/Blofeld link would be a bit too melodramatic but Craig played Bond fairly cold and uninterested in Blofeld's past which seemed true to Bond's character. He didn't care why Blofeld was troubled. He was just another terrorist to stop.

    Perhaps one thing I would have done differently.. think I might have had Hinx tracking Bond onto the train - similar to Red Grant following Bond onto the train in FRWL. I guess it's the nature of modern storytelling to keep things moving but I suppose Hinx just appearing on the train - cool though it was - did feel a bit abrupt!

    Hard to know where they will go in the next Bond film. More SPECTRE plots or a new villain? I can imagine Blofeld escaping from a prison cell, something like that. I guess that would be a natural progression of the SPECTRE storyline but the ending of SPECTRE did seem the ideal closure of Craig's four Bond films. The saga feels like it's ended.





  • Posts: 533
    "SPECTRE" (2015) Review

    Following the release of the 2012 movie, "SKYFALL", my interest in the James Bond movie franchise had somewhat dropped. This was due to my negative reaction to the movie. In other words, I disliked it. When I learned that Sam Mendes, who had directed "SKYFALL", would return to direct the franchise's 24th movie, I did not receive the news very well and paid as little attention to the production of this new movie as possible. But . . . my family has never been able to resist the release of a new James Bond movie. So, we did not hesitate to rush to the theaters when "SPECTRE" hit the movie screens.

    Written by John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Jez Butterworth; "SPECTRE" involved James Bond's investigation of the global organization that had ties to the financial terrorist group Quantum, which Bond was pitted against in "CASINO ROYALE" and "QUANTUM OF SOLACE". Before the movie began, Bond had received a posthumous message from the previous "M" (Judi Dench) to The movie began with Bond shadowing a mysterious figure in Mexico City, during the city's Day of the Dead celebration. He is there to kill an assassin named Marco Sciarra, who is plotting a terrorist attack with two other men. Although Bond manages to kill Sciarra and his two colleagues, he is suspended by the new "M" (Gareth Mallory) for conducting an unauthorized mission. Bond disobeys the latter's order and continues his mission set by his former boss, by attending Sciarra's funeral in Rome. There, he not only meets Sciarra's widow, but also stumbles across a new organization called Spectre with ties to his former nemesis, Quantum; but also one Ernst Stravo Blofeld. While "M" finds himself engaged in a struggle against "C", the head of the privately financed Joint Intelligence Service, which consists of the recently merged MI5 and MI6, who wants Britain join a global surveillance and intelligence co-operation initiative between nine countries called "Nine Eyes". However, Bond discovers during his unauthorized investigation of Spectre that the latter might be the instigator of the "Nine Eyes" organization.

    I read somewhere that "SPECTRE" was not as well received by filmgoers and some critics as "SKYFALL". Especially in the United States. I had a few problems with "SPECTRE". One, director Sam Mendes continued to shoot actor Daniel Craig as if the latter was a male model. I found this annoying in "SKYFALL" and continued to find it annoying in this film. The character Eve Moneypenny was criminally underused in the movie's final action sequence set in London . . . especially since she was a former field agent. I was not that impressed by the Morocco locations chosen by the movie's producers. I have seen desert locations in previous Bond movies that looked more attractive . . . including "THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS", which was also filmed in that country. I had earlier pointed out Spectre's ties to Quantum, the organization that Bond had battled against in both "CASINO ROYALE" and "QUANTUM OF SOLACE". However, the movie's plot also suggested that the Raoul Silva character from "SKYFALL" also had connections to Spectre. Frankly, I found this somewhat of a stretch, considering that the 2012 movie never hinted any such connection to either Spectre or Quantum. In my review of "SKYFALL", I had pointed out that I found its theme song unmemorable for me. I have to say the same about "Writing's On the Wall", this movie's theme song, which was written and performed by Sam Smith. I would not be able to remember a tune from either movie . . . even if I tried. I have nothing against Léa Seydoux as an actress. But she and star Daniel Craig had very little screen chemistry. Worse, I found their romance rather contrived. There was no real hint of attraction between the two, until the last third of the film, when the pair arrived in Morocco.

    Despite these flaws, I still managed to enjoy "SPECTRE" very much. First of all, this movie had a strong narrative with very little plot holes. I also enjoyed how the screenwriters tied the Quantum organization with Spectre. Quantum always seemed to focus more upon financing for warlords like Steven Obanno or military-political figures like General Medrano who needed cash to regain power in a country like Bolivia. It seemed very probable that it would serve as a branch for a terrorist organization like Spectre. In fact, the theme of this entire movie seemed to be about death and ghosts from the past - especially ghosts from Bond's past interactions with Quantum/Spectre since "CASINO ROYALE" (in other words, Craig's tenure). The movie's pre-credit sequence opened with Bond in Mexico City, during the latter's Day of the Dead celebration. The movie's opening credits featured images from past villains, along with the late Vesper Lynd and former "M". I may not have found it memorable, but I am glad to say that the movie's theme song resonated strongly with the plot. Speaking of which, the screenplay also hinted a past connection between Bond and Spectre's leader, Blofeld; which adheres rather well to Bond's orphan past. But what I really enjoyed about "SPECTRE" was that Bond's search for Marco Sciarra and discovery of the Spectre organization was due to a posthumous message from the former "M". Apparently, the lady had decided to use Bond to finish what they had started back in "CASINO ROYALE". How effective of her.

    Another aspect of "SPECTRE" that impressed me was the movie's style . . . especially its cinematography. I may have found the Morocco locations lacking in color, but I must admit that Hoyte Van Hoytema's photography did most of them justice. Well, there were two sequences in which the Morocco locations impressed me. One of them featured the arrival of Bond and leading lady Dr. Madeleine Swann's arrival in the city of Tangier. I was also impressed by Van Hoytema's sleek photography of Rome, which was mainly filmed at night. But the one sequence that truly blew my mind was the pre-titled one in Mexico City. Despite being shot with a slight Sepia, the Mexico City sequence was filled with color and real atmosphere. I must admit that Lee Smith's editing, Thomas Newman's exciting score and the mind-boggling action greatly added to Van Hoytem's work. Frankly, I thought it was one of the best shot sequences in the entire Bond franchise.

    "SPECTRE" proved to be Daniel Craig's fourth turn in the role of James Bond. And as usual, he knocked it out of the ballpark. A relative of mine once hinted the suggestion that Craig might be the best actor of all those who have portrayed Bond for EON Productions. I will have to give her comment some thought. But I must admit that he has been consistently spot on in his portrayal of Bond. But in this movie, his penchant (or should I say Craig's penchant) for dark humor seemed particularly sharp. I stand by my opinion that the chemistry between Craig and his leading lady, Léa Seydoux, did not strike me as particularly warm. But Seydoux was not the first actress in the franchise who lacked any real chemistry with the Bond actor in question. Her penchant for sullen expressions and pouting did not mesh well with Craig's screen presence. However, I cannot deny that the actress gave a first-rate performance as the guarded Dr. Swann, who turned out to be the daughter of one of Bond's former enemies - Mr. White from "CASINO ROYALE" and "QUANTUM OF SOLACE". It was nice that the screenwriters explored her character's own personal demons regarding her father - especially in one scene in which she viewed a video clip of his death.

    Of the four (or possibly five) actors who have portrayed Ernst Stravos Blofeld, Christoph Waltz's interpretation struck me as the most subtle. He did an excellent job of conveying his character's malice, intelligence and penchant for sadism; while projecting a mask of mild amusement. Ralph Fiennes had a most unusual task as the new "M" and I thought he handled it quite well. His character had already been introduced in "SKYFALL" as Gareth Mallory, head of the Intelligence and Security Committee. But in "SPECTRE", he had to portray "M" as someone who is new at his job, which has become under threat by "C" of the Joint Intelligence Service and Bond's penchant for disobeying orders.

    Naomie Harris returned as Eve Moneypenny and I found her performance just as entertaining and first-rate as ever. More importantly, her chemistry with Daniel Craig was as strong as it was in the 2012 movie. Another returnee from "SKYFALL" was Ben Whishaw, who continued his entertaining and sardonic performance as MI-6's Quartermaster, "Q". Whishaw also had a chance to act out a mild adventure in the Austrian Alps in which "Q" is pursued by SPECTRE agents. Jesper Christensen returned for his third appearance in the movie franchise as Quantum agent, Mr. White. As much as I found his appearances in "CASINO ROYALE" and "QUANTUM OF SOLACE" rather interesting, I was very impressed by his more complex portrayal as the dying former operative, who was willing to cooperate with Bond for the safety of his daughter. It was a treat to see Dave Bautista again, who portrayed SPECTRE assassin, Mr. Hinx. I found his performance effectively menacing and really added a great deal to the movie's fight scenes. But a part of me felt slightly disappointed that he had only a few lines in the movie, especially since I found his performance in 2014's "GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY" so impressive. The movie also featured solid performances from the likes of Rory Kinnear, Monica Bellucci, Alessandro Cremona and Andrew Scott, who struck me as particularly creepy as the head of the Joint Intelligence Service, "C".

    What else can I say about "SPECTRE"? The movie restored my faith in the Bond movie franchise. Despite some flaws, I enjoyed it so much that I would probably rank it among my top ten Bond movies, thanks to director Sam Mendes, the movie's screenwriters and a cast led by the always talented Daniel Craig.
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 2,598
    These guys get some of their facts wrong but I agree with the gist of what they're saying:



    As entertaining as SPECTRE is, the script is just so weak. It's disappointing that after having a couple of dark, relatively character driven movies with more substance and depth in the Craig era, that resonated positively with most of the main stream audience, they go back to this one dimensional stuff. It worked alright back in the day, but audiences want more now. I really can't understand what was going through their minds. They seem to enjoy shooting themselves in the foot.

    I concur with this guy: (don't like having to agree but I do)



  • Posts: 1,092
    I'm watching it right now for the 3rd time overall, 1st on BD, and it's a damn good movie. One of the most entertaining in the whole series, if not the most. It's one of those films that despite its flaws (a bit overlong, some writing issues), it's just so much fun I can overlook those easily. Like, it's almost over and I wanna pop it back in and watch it again already. I don't think there are too many movies like that. Guardians of the Galaxy made me feel that way but this is even more so.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Bounine wrote: »
    These guys get some of their facts wrong but I agree with the gist of what they're saying:

    @Bounine, thanks for posting these. This one above hits the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned from about 4:30 to 8:15 (the lead bloke's perceptions). I can't believe how in agreement I am with him on that point. Even 9:00 onwards to 10:25 is exactly on the money as well. The 'M' dialogue was useless and Fiennes was wasted here.

    I find it telling that these younger and rather 'hip' individuals were able to see this. So is their conclusion, which is to reboot.
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 2,598
    @bondjames No worries. I'm not sure if a reboot is necessary but I wouldn't necessarily be against one. There's no real continuity in the Bond series. My main two gripes with this film are that I just hate the whole personal connection regarding Bond and the villain. That's what bothered me the most. I just can't believe they went for this. Secondly, the way Bond easily blew up the whole of the villain's lair and escaped with no trouble at all.

    I don't agree with the guy who said that Craig is a robot in the films. I think he's a great Bond but I've never bought into this whole character arc. Suddenly, Bond has become a joker while he is in the middle of the action. It just doesn't seem realistic to me. Or maybe I'm thinking about it too much... :)

    What they said about Bond potentially cutting off the heads of 500 Mexicans with the helicopter is the same example as how he used the bulldozer in SF to rip off the back of the train carriage which I remember mentioning at the time. Obviously he could have killed passengers/innocent people doing this too but just obviously not as many.

    What bothers me too but to a lesser extent than the two things I mentioned, is that it's weird how the restaurant carriage in Spectre had a few people sitting at tables and then all of a sudden, within the space of 60 seconds when the henchman comes, it's empty. You do see one or two people in the other carriage standing there but this isn't the same carriage. It's lazy film making. It would have been more interesting to have stuntmen in the background acting as passengers, trying to get out of the way. It's corny too how as soon as the fight ends, Bond and Camille get it on.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Bounine wrote: »
    I don't agree with the guy who said that Craig is a robot in the films. I think he's a great Bond but I've never bought into this whole character arc. Suddenly, Bond has become a joker while he is in the middle of the action. It just doesn't seem realistic to me. Or maybe I'm thinking about it too much... :)
    Birdleson wrote: »
    These guys are great, very analytical and entertaining. I don't think that I've ever seen them before. I agree with a lot, most probably, of what was being said, particularly in terms of Craig's performance.
    I agree with both of you. Yes, the chap who said Craig has been a 'robot' Bond is out of order, and obviously hasn't bought onto the Craig portrayal. However, I think the main fella who said that the sudden switch from this new, deeper, more modern Bond which has been so successful to date to the old style just didn't work in SP (at least for me, and quite a bit of the general public it seems). I agree with his colourful assessment that they 'f'd it up'. Craig should have stayed with the persona that he created and delivered so wonderfully in the first three films. For me, emotional credibility and the authenticity of his portrayal was lost with this film.

    Interestingly, the main bloke also said that he believes Mendes deserves credit for salvaging a poor script with his direction. It is on this score that I disagree with him. I think that with a little touch and flourish here and there (primarily on the character side) SP could have been so much better, and I mean immeasurably so, for me at least.

    As an example, there are many scenes in the film that come out of nowhere, and which just seem inserted. Actors don't show reactions or expressions on their faces (or if they did, it wasn't filmed) in scenes where just a quick flash to a facial acknowledgement could have improved the scene and drawn us into the narrative more. That is a directorial issue for me.

    All in all, these guys are on the ball with their assessment though. I'm quite impressed that they are Bond fans. Goes to show how large the Bond constituency is, and how important it is to get it right.
  • I enjoyed this picture, had a good time with it, and yet there is a noticeable drop in logic and tone. It really kicks in during the Tangiers stuff and afterward, but begins somewhat in what in the Rome car chase. Not a fan of the 009 music playlist gag, and some of the other stuff afterward. Before that, the first half of the picture is absolutely magnificent, but the hotel americain stuff just lacks logic, and the story becomes a fun Bond film rooted in older films, stuff that feels less intense and more rooted in the gag, if you will.

    I thought I had seen enough easy escapes from heretofore impregnable secret bases before, but this one's also joins the club. There's stuff in the third act that resembles an ensemble cop story like the lethal weapon series, but as a Bond fan I still enjoyed it enough, despite what I think is a tale of two stories and tones.
  • I think Mendes ran out of steam for this one. I think he definitely cared (albeit less) and tried his best, but there's a lack of ingenuity that I don't demand from a Bond film, but I do expect from Mendes given what he did with SF
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Yes, I watched SF a few days ago, and was impressed with what he pulled off there. It's a very different style of Bond film, but is still extremely engaging to me, and suspenseful.

    In my view, from a purely suspense thriller atmosphere standpoint (not plot), it's up there with FRWL.
  • Given SKyfall, I was expecting a great deal from this film, and was somewhat surprised at the reviews before I saw it opening weekend, and honestly during the first half of the picture I was wondering as to the sanity of the reviewers, but then the 009 playlist showed up, and I found that strange, and that was a trickle that became a flood in the second act of the picture. Did I hat the film? No, and it's done very well financially, but some of the gags and conveniences that showed up that others may refer to as 'classic bond' are the stuff that the general population points out as contrivance.

    C'mon, you have Bond strapped to a chair and you don't immediately kill him?
    I know, yes, it's the stuff between two gents, two aristocrats, but that's the stuff that the Austin Powers films made fun of.

    Didn't ruin the film but sure brought it down a few pegs.

    The opening, the spectre meeting in rome, the stuff with Mr. White, really impressive, the rest was palatable Bond stuffs, in my opinion.
  • Posts: 4,599
    Thanks for posting the double toasted review, interesting that the same points come up in review after review. At what point does weight of opinion turn into fact? ie its a really poor script.
    Part of me is just trying to ignore/forget SP and I keep returning to SF
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 2,598
    "No, and it's done very well financially, but some of the gags and conveniences that showed up that others may refer to as 'classic bond' are the stuff that the general population points out as contrivance."

    @TellyBlofeld I agree. The modern audience appreciate something that is different in Bond films now and that has more substance. Even though I am a hardcore Bond fan, I still consider myself part of the modern audience because I'm sick of having shallow Bond movies which are just a case of dotting the i's and crossing the t's. The older Bond films still have better plots than Spectre which make up for their lack of character movement.

    It's Bond. All of the films will do well financially regardless of how much they're lacking in quality, unless of course it gets to the point where we get one film like Spectre after the other. Eon however, aren't that stupid and are able to redeem themselves by throwing a good Bond film into the fold before, unfortunately, just returning to a crappy one again. Both a fortunate and unfortunate pattern.

    "C'mon, you have Bond strapped to a chair and you don't immediately kill him?
    I know, yes, it's the stuff between two gents, two aristocrats, but that's the stuff that the Austin Powers films made fun of."


    Well, I don't really agree with this statement. This is what the books have always been about. A psychotic villain who is highly interested and entertained by torturing someone else as they are interested in how long someone can hold out and what the results will be. They are that insane that they are not interested in just shooting Bond in the head. He must suffer first and they are also interested in learning from the situation.

    What was a bit stupid though was how in OHMSS, the film, Blofeld just threw Bond into that area that the cable car came into. This area was certainly more escapable than where Drax put Bond in the film, at the base of the Moonraker shuttle, for example. We must discount the fact that Bond had a special watch that Drax wasn't aware of. ;)

    Another scene that just wouldn't work today is how in Goldfinger, the film, Bond ducks down below the window in his cell, sparking up the Korean guard's curiosity thereby leading him into the cell so Bond can knock him unconscious and escape. This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in a Bond movie.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    No Spoilers?
    Then it's just a great Bond movie. ^:)^
  • I adore OHMSS, but the idea that Bond/Bloefeld do not recognize each other just does not wash with me.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I adore OHMSS, but the idea that Bond/Bloefeld do not recognize each other just does not wash with me.

    That s because they were now both played by different actors. Makes sense to me.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    I just go by the theory that the Blofeld Bond met in YOLT wasn't the real Blofeld. Makes sense to me. :P
  • We'll have to agree to disagree. I felt that the characters were the same, played in the continuity of the series.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    We'll have to agree to disagree. I felt that the characters were the same, played in the continuity of the series.

    My theory is a bit more complex too as I also change the order of Bond movies. When I watch them, I watch them in the order of YOLT to DAF to OHMSS. I won't go into my full theory but it's out there somewhere. For me when something doesn't fit right, I'll do some thinking to come up with my own way of explaining things.
  • Don't get me wrong, though. OHMSS is my favorite Bond right now. If I'm going to fault the Bond films I like less, I should also see the faults in the 007 films I love.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Murdock wrote: »
    I watch them in the order of YOLT to DAF to OHMSS.
    That works for me!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Birdleson wrote: »
    That's the beauty ( one of the beauties) of the '60 Bond films. Continuity was meaningless, only used when it served the story. Each film could exist independently. That was of primary concern, rather than pissing about film to film continuity. I thought that, with SKYFALL, maybe we had returned to that philosophy, but obviously, and sadly, I've been proven wrong.
    Okay, here's a long tirade.
    I was not the biggest fan of Casino Royale because I didn't buy a 40 year old Bond just becoming a Double-O...then the (IMO) botched Vesper death. But I've come to appreciate it for the high octane blast that it is.
    I initially disliked Quantum Of Solace for the dizzying film-making, and the fact that it was a direct (in terms of hours) sequel to CR. I have come to love it as a stand alone (in my mind).
    I initially quite disliked Skyfall for its rush to send Bond into his latter dislike of his profession and severe burn out, not to mention the 'hey we can use this flick to get rid of Dench & squeeze a tear out of audiences in the process' tripe. But, it WAS a stand alone, and for that I was grateful.
    That brings me to SPECTRE. Merely finding out early on that Jesper Christensen was in it made me feel all warm & fuzzy inside. I realized where they were taking it, and I approved. Yes, give me a stupid but FUN Bond again. If they couldn't maintain the QOS level of awesome, then at LEAST I can smile a bit. And that's what happened. They gave me a dopey, exciting retcon that made more sense of the previous (and as dopey) SF, and all is well now.
    In the end, Craig's tenure was a unique and interesting experiment. A worthy decade. But not God's gift. Just another fine chapter in cinematic Bond history.
    End tirade.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I love this film. It's beautiful to me. The score gets better with each subsequent view.
Sign In or Register to comment.