Where would you rank SPECTRE? (no spoilers)

1101113151634

Comments

  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree. Having viewed it yesterday, and pondered a little about it since, I think the primary word I will use to describe it is 'clinical'. It's a 'clinical film' to me. There is no warmth. No heart or soul. So it appears antiseptic and even aloof to me.

    That may have been intentional, given the Spectral nature of the title and theme (Dead, gouging eyes, cat and mouse etc.) and if so, that's fine. It obviously works for some and even many, and the production qualities are absolutely first class. Impeccable in fact, if not for the colours.

    All the production qualities are top-notch, indeed. If anything, the atmosphere of the film might be its strongest point, but then again, it's hard to say what is the film's strongest point, because it's kind of a pastiche. It's got several strengths, no doubt, but it's hard to say what is it's strongest point.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I don't see this supposed lack of charisma. I must've watched a different movie.

    Neither did I in the first three viewings. Or perhaps I did but was unable to conceptualize that feeling in written language.

    I've seen it 10 times now and I find it brimming with energy. I think Craig's performance might have a lot to do with the varied opinion. He's nonchalant, but I buy his nonchalance, it's engaging to me. He's flippant with 'M', completely carefree, disregards the professional implications his actions have on his colleagues and it all builds to the pressure-cooker circumstances surrounding Swann and himself. If anything I think it is the film that translates what Fleming describes as accidie better than any other. I know others think he's bored. That's not what translates to me and I'm pretty sure it's not what he had in mind.

    I see no boredom from DC. If you want an example of bored Bond, look no further than Seanery in YOLT.

    If indeed, SP lacks energy and inspiration, it is probably in the inscrutable alchemy that is filmmaking. So many factors, large and small, go into a film that it is often difficult to put a finger on why one film succeeds while another fails. That is why good film criticism is rare, and good film critics are worthy of respect. As regards SP specifically, there is a lack of gestalt, perhaps. All of the tasty ingredients are thrown into the pot, but the resultant soup isn't as savory as one would expect. Please pass the salt.

  • bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Just rewatched SP. I'd rank it about 17, just below GF and above TND

    Funny, that's exactly where I have it now, except it's QoS that's no. 18, not TND.

    I still think it's a decent film, and certainly a popular one given its box office attractions. It's just that the film is basically thinly-veiled chunks of other Bond films (with minor alterations at best) slotted together in a way that resulted in a mediocre entry where there's just nothing strong enough for it to break a top 10 on my list.

    However, I'm not as critical of Craig as some of the other users here. I thought he was good in the role.
    I agree. Having viewed it yesterday, and pondered a little about it since, I think the primary word I will use to describe it is 'clinical'. It's a 'clinical film' to me. There is no warmth. No heart or soul. So it appears antiseptic and even aloof to me.

    That may have been intentional, given the Spectral nature of the title and theme (Dead, gouging eyes, cat and mouse etc.) and if so, that's fine. It obviously works for some and even many, and the production qualities are absolutely first class. Impeccable in fact, if not for the colours.

    I think you've really hit on something here. SP has a certain coldness to it. Almost as if it's a museum piece under a fluorescent light rather than a flesh-and-blood entity that you can hug or punch according to your disposition. For anybody who's familiar with the music of Ferruccio Busoni, SP reminds me of his music. SF, on the other hand, feels like Anton Bruckner.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,984
    Ha ha, time for me to pull out an argument that was used so many times for SF; SP was a phenomenal Bond movie- just look at it's box office take!
    :P
  • The step brother angle. Eeesh. It just reeks of the stuff on the third Austin Powers film that made fun of Bond to begin with.

    It's just too much of a coincidence for me.

    Blofeld and Bond are not even step brothers!!! :(( :(( ;)
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited February 2016 Posts: 9,117
    The step brother angle. Eeesh. It just reeks of the stuff on the third Austin Powers film that made fun of Bond to begin with.

    It's just too much of a coincidence for me.

    Blofeld and Bond are not even step brothers!!! :(( :(( ;)

    Ok just for you - I hereby state that I accept that Bond and Blofeld were not step brothers, foster brothers or any other type of brothers. Bond and Blofeld once lived together after Bond's parents died when Bond was under the guardianship of Hannes Oberhauser but they were never ever legally step brothers in the conventional sense.

    Does that make you happy?

    You can call it what you like but it oesn't make it any less shit though does it?
  • FormulaMasaFormulaMasa Finland
    edited February 2016 Posts: 6
    I just watched it for the second time, this time on blu ray, and I must say I liked it even more than in the first time in cinema. It still does not top Skyfall or From Russia with Love on my list, but it is among the top 5, definitely.
  • I agree with Wizard above. Step, foster, adopted, whatever, it was too much of a coincidence and it sunk the story, for me.
  • I agree with Wizard above. Step, foster, adopted, whatever, it was too much of a coincidence and it sunk the story, for me.
    Why is a movie better or worse for that reason? I think Bond fans are a bit too conservative, the problem for a lot of them is that Blofeld and Bond had never had a backstory. I must admit that it doesn't make a better movie at all, but it doesn't ruin it neither. It is an odd coincidence, yes, but Bond films a d novels are plenty of them. Look at Silva's plan in SF, 006 as the bad guy in GE or Shatterhand is actually... ESB in YOLT novel.

  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited February 2016 Posts: 1,984
    Because the change is way too radical. Bond has never had such a personal connection to the villain, and the idea is that in the original films was that Bond didn't know who Blofeld was, which made his challenge all the more difficult. People can't imagine a brotherly Blofeld being like the ones in FRWL and TB and so on. Frankly, I can't, either. If Bond can easily recognize Blofeld even in the shadows, then there's no more of that "hidden visage" that contributed to how menacing Blofeld was in the original movies. But this is a new era, and perhaps we don't need that hidden visage at all. That being said, I still don't think there's a reason to connect Bond and Blofeld in this fashion.

    Bond isn't really meant to be such a personally explored character. I think that's what's putting some fans off.

  • Bond isn't really meant to be such a personally explored character. I think that's what's putting some fans off.
    I agree. In fact, it supports my theory: some Bond fans are a bit too conservative. A blond Bond? ^#(^ A black MoneyPenny? :(( A nerdish Q? [-X A Blofeld-Bond backstory? #-o
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    It's not the notion of having a backstory as it is the poor execution of that backstory. As a result, it's far worse than a "blond Bond", a "black Moneypenny" or a "nerdish Q".
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 2,977

    Bond isn't really meant to be such a personally explored character. I think that's what's putting some fans off.
    I agree. In fact, it supports my theory: some Bond fans are a bit too conservative. A blond Bond? ^#(^ A black MoneyPenny? :(( A nerdish Q? [-X A Blofeld-Bond backstory? #-o

    Don't mix all these arguments together. I don't think that anybody has a problem with a black Moneypenny or a nerdish Q as nobody had a problem with Judy Dench playing M. The main problem is that meanwhile the writers try to connect everything with Bond or the MI6. I don't know why this is necessary because it reduces their opportunities to write a really good story. Why does everything needs to be connected with Bond? There is no reason for this, it feels extremely forced and makes the plot predictable. The other problem is that because of that, the villain and his actual plan (sub plot) have very little screen time. It is all about the personal relationship between Bond (or M) and the villain Just look at the last 9 Bond films and you will mostly find a motivation for the villain or Bond to take revenge for something that happened in the past. This is not a bad thing but I really think we have had enough of that.
  • GBF wrote: »

    Bond isn't really meant to be such a personally explored character. I think that's what's putting some fans off.
    I agree. In fact, it supports my theory: some Bond fans are a bit too conservative. A blond Bond? ^#(^ A black MoneyPenny? :(( A nerdish Q? [-X A Blofeld-Bond backstory? #-o

    The main problem is that meanwhile the writers try to connect everything with Bond or the MI6. I don't know why this is necessary because it reduces their opportunities to write a really good story. Why does everything needs to be connected with Bond? There is no reason for this, it feels extremely forced and makes the plot predictable. The other problem is that because of that, the villain and his actual plan (sub plot) have very little screen time. It is all about the personal relationship between Bond (or M) and the villain Just look at the last 9 Bond films and you will mostly find a motivation for the villain or Bond to take revenge for something that happened in the past. This is not a bad thing but I really think we have had enough of that.
    I must agree here. Because of this, I think Bond 25 should be a standalone film, with some mild references to the previous 4 movies.
  • I agree. In fact, it supports my theory: some Bond fans are a bit too conservative. A blond Bond? ^#(^ A black MoneyPenny? :(( A nerdish Q? [-X A Blofeld-Bond backstory? #-o

    What on earth are you talking about?
    MI6 is not an organisation that was setup to sort out Bond's family issues. How much damage has he indirectly caused them? They would fire him on the spot lest he has upset anyone else in the past who has then gone on to be a supervillian.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    GBF wrote: »

    Bond isn't really meant to be such a personally explored character. I think that's what's putting some fans off.
    I agree. In fact, it supports my theory: some Bond fans are a bit too conservative. A blond Bond? ^#(^ A black MoneyPenny? :(( A nerdish Q? [-X A Blofeld-Bond backstory? #-o

    Don't mix all these arguments together. I don't think that anybody has a problem with a black Moneypenny or a nerdish Q as nobody had a problem with Judy Dench playing M. The main problem is that meanwhile the writers try to connect everything with Bond or the MI6. I don't know why this is necessary because it reduces their opportunities to write a really good story. Why does everything needs to be connected with Bond? There is no reason for this, it feels extremely forced and makes the plot predictable. The other problem is that because of that, the villain and his actual plan (sub plot) have very little screen time. It is all about the personal relationship between Bond (or M) and the villain Just look at the last 9 Bond films and you will mostly find a motivation for the villain or Bond to take revenge for something that happened in the past. This is not a bad thing but I really think we have had enough of that.

    Amen to that brother.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Spectre is my number 11 on my current list. I now find the theme song brilliant along with the pre-title sequence. Newmans score remains average....he needed to use Sam Smith's song a lot more. Still not convinced by the nine eyes plot or Blofeld.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,239
    24 for me now. It is disappointing, frustrating and deflating.

    At least QoS has a decent score, and is only disappointing, and SF is frustrating
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    w2bond wrote: »
    24 for me now. It is disappointing, frustrating and deflating.

    At least QoS has a decent score, and is only disappointing, and SF is frustrating

    You should probably check out until a new actor is confirmed.
  • RC7 wrote: »

    You should probably check out until a new actor is confirmed.

    But the majority who are disappointed with Craig's last 3 liked Casino Royale. It's not Craig that's the problem for most folk.
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2016 Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »

    You should probably check out until a new actor is confirmed.

    But the majority who are disappointed with Craig's last 3 liked Casino Royale. It's not Craig that's the problem for most folk.

    If you were disappointed with the follow-up, frustrated by the third and disappointed, frustrated and deflated by the fourth I wouldn't say the odds of number five being a 'hit' for you are particularly good without a changing of the guard and direction.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 2,977
    RC7 wrote: »

    You should probably check out until a new actor is confirmed.

    But the majority who are disappointed with Craig's last 3 liked Casino Royale. It's not Craig that's the problem for most folk.

    It is certainly not his fault. He is indeed a very good actor. I also liked Skyfall. I found that Javier Bardem was great and giving M a bigger part was also cool. I also think that it was a very sad and emotional film. There was also a personal relationship but it was much more deeply rooted and explained better. The reason for revenge was also at least plausible.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Snake on a plane of being
    Posts: 42,437
    GBF wrote: »
    nobody had a problem with Judy Dench playing M.

    I did. Worst M ever.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 35,383
    GBF wrote: »
    nobody had a problem with Judy Dench playing M.

    I did. Worst M ever.

    You sexist pig...
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Snake on a plane of being
    Posts: 42,437
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    nobody had a problem with Judy Dench playing M.

    I did. Worst M ever.

    You sexist pig...

    Interesting combination of words.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 35,383
    I try, I try, good @Thunderfinger.

    So I've been very slow going with this random Bondathon (that I hope to finish up in the next few days), and after that, I'll probably do another one, from DN to SP, in hopes of finally being able to properly place SP in my rankings list.
  • Nah, the guy who replaced Bernard Lee was the least of the Ms. for me.
  • I like Fiennes as M.

    And yeah, what @Birdleson said earlier. I'm so done talking about it. How can people not see the connection they were trying to make?

    Why is it bad? It waters down Blofeld as a character, it waters down his motivations, it makes him look like a pathetic child instead of a creepy and intimidating genius presence. At the end of the film I almost felt "poor little Blofeld" which is terrible.

    The dumbest thing in the entire franchise, bar none. Worse than the floating gondola and the CG tidal wave.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I like Fiennes as M.

    And yeah, what @Birdleson said earlier. I'm so done talking about it. How can people not see the connection they were trying to make?

    Why is it bad? It waters down Blofeld as a character, it waters down his motivations, it makes him look like a pathetic child instead of a creepy and intimidating genius presence. At the end of the film I almost felt "poor little Blofeld" which is terrible.

    The dumbest thing in the entire franchise, bar none. Worse than the floating gondola and the CG tidal wave.

    Bit over the top. The tidal wave is the one thing in the series I don't think you can justify. It's an abomination. The Oberhauser/Blofeld angle is just a different take on the source, the sort of thing you see all the time in comics (yes, I know Bond isn't a comic). I see it as an experiment that won't be repeated, but it isn't enough to make me loath the movie. I see it as a creative decision that was made for valid reasons in the mind of Mendes, something that cannot be said of Tamahori's decision making.

    I also don't see the watering down of Blofeld's motivations. As an entity and organisation they are exactly what I would expect. Blofeld's thirst for power is not motivated by anything other than his psychopathic tendencies. For Bond the events of the four films comprise his world, for Blofeld, they aren't. Bond represents the proverbial fly in the ointment whose destruction is serendipitously personal. The reason it is front and centre is because this is a series of Bond films, not Blofeld films.

    Totally understand why people wouldn't like this angle, it's very obvious to me why.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    edited February 2016 Posts: 16,116
    Why is it bad? It waters down Blofeld as a character, it waters down his motivations, it makes him look like a pathetic child instead of a creepy and intimidating genius presence. At the end of the film I almost felt "poor little Blofeld" which is terrible.

    Blofeld was already watered down in his original run. Too many recasts and his appearence in Diamonds Are Forever was the final nail in the coffin for old Blofeld. And of course this.
    28.jpg

    His origin may be different in this reboot but he's still a better character than his lame appearance in DAF.
Sign In or Register to comment.