I can't resist ;% Bought my IMAX tickets for Thursday, 5 November...and I'm getting the bends I know bits and pieces---I skim over the reviews, avoiding many specifics and looking for signs of either appreciation or derision ) I have a general impression of the ending: that it sets up Craig's possible departure from the role, and apparently leaves Blofeld alive and presumably able to wreak future havoc.
It will be a shame, IMO, if this is Craigger's last...but c'est la vie, c'est la guerre :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
In short: I thought SPECTRE was a great Bond movie that I enjoyed watching from start to finish!
First of all, I thought it was magical to finally see a Bond movie start with a gunbarrel again. It's not of life importance to me, but it was bitter sweet! The PTS was arguably the best in the entire franchise! Magnificant camera work! The titels by Daniel Kleinman were brilliant too! And even Sam Smith's song (which I was not a fan of) fell nicely together with it and made it all the more powerful!
...
I have a lot more to say about the movie, but I did make a video review from it today. For those intrested, you can watch it here:
(Also includes some clips from my night itself with a homage to Casino Royale's Dinner jacket scene! :P )
Such a sweet little mention, but a pity that you lost your poster. I don't really think Bond and Swann fell in love. Before the reboot he always slept with woman. He also looked quite in love with Kara and she was gone in GoldenEye. But if there in love, she has to die. Waltz as Blofeld wasn't really a suprise after you saw the cat. They could better first reveal his name and then show the cat, it wasn't really I suprise anymore. However, I freaking LOVED his scar and it's great Bond/Swann were the cause of it.
As the title sequence, I do really like Sam Smith his score, but WOW, the work of Kleimann was fantastic. He did a hell of a job. A great job. But sometimes the film was a bit too campy. The music for 009 was a bit childish and not placed on the right moment. It would've been better if it happend in the Q-lab, not in the middle of a car chase when we already had the old man in the Fiat.
Still overall a great movie, and I loved what they did with the MI6 regulars. Not in the field too much. They were there when they had to. It was great fun.
Don't confuse me with the other DutchBondFan, but be sure to follow his YouTube account. You can read my articles on James Bond Nederland: www.jamesbond.nl/author/gosse/
In short: I thought SPECTRE was a great Bond movie that I enjoyed watching from start to finish!
First of all, I thought it was magical to finally see a Bond movie start with a gunbarrel again. It's not of life importance to me, but it was bitter sweet! The PTS was arguably the best in the entire franchise! Magnificant camera work! The titels by Daniel Kleinman were brilliant too! And even Sam Smith's song (which I was not a fan of) fell nicely together with it and made it all the more powerful!
...
I have a lot more to say about the movie, but I did make a video review from it today. For those intrested, you can watch it here:
(Also includes some clips from my night itself with a homage to Casino Royale's Dinner jacket scene! :P )
Such a sweet little mention, but a pity that you lost your poster. I don't really think Bond and Swann fell in love. Before the reboot he always slept with woman. He also looked quite in love with Kara and she was gone in GoldenEye. But if there in love, she has to die. Waltz as Blofeld wasn't really a suprise after you saw the cat. They could better first reveal his name and then show the cat, it wasn't really I suprise anymore. However, I freaking LOVED his scar and it's great Bond/Swann were the cause of it.
As the title sequence, I do really like Sam Smith his score, but WOW, the work of Kleimann was fantastic. He did a hell of a job. A great job. But sometimes the film was a bit too campy. The music for 009 was a bit childish and not placed on the right moment. It would've been better if it happend in the Q-lab, not in the middle of a car chase when we already had the old man in the Fiat.
Still overall a great movie, and I loved what they did with the MI6 regulars. Not in the field too much. They were there when they had to. It was great fun.
Thanks Gosse!
It was good to meet you in real life! - Next time we'll have some longer chats! And thanks for watching that video.
Yeah, indeed a shame about the poster! Atleast you were standing right next to me when I got it, so you know the story is true! )
Totally agree on most points that you make here! Didn't really think the cat spoiled the reveal of Blofeld though, we all kind of knew it months and months ago anyway! :P - It was still cool that they used the actual name!
I defenitely have the feeling Bond and Swann started some sort of relationship though. The whole walking away hand in hand thing really made it seem like he was in love again. I also have the slight feeling they'll kill her off in the next movie. (Again, maybe just me...)
I got the feeling that Bond and Swann are in a relationship as well, Its implied that he possibly left the service for her and between her saying "i love you" and them holding hands I would say that Bond could be in love again.
I can tell you, had I posted a review of NSNA before it came out, wow, that would have been a great movie...
Maybe I will...
I'll respect the formalities and wait until I actually see SPECTRE before reviewing it Actually, my pre-viewing review of NSNA would have been accurate---it's better than OP {:)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
SPECTRE for me was much better on the second viewing - I picked up on a few things I'd missed the first time around.
It is a decent film but not flawless. Whilst I liked Waltz's turn I thought the whole plan was a bit weak, M seems to have gone from a tough ex-SAS intelligence chief to a scolded schoolboy and Denbigh looked about 12 - even if he did go to school with the Home Secretary he looks far too young to wield that amount of power and influence over the world's spies.
There are a lot of positives though that have already been mentioned and I hope Craig has at least one more in him - my own feeling is that if he has quit Wilson and Broccoli would have toned down their comments at the premier; all this "he's our guy" stuff is hardly preparing us, or Craig's replacement, for a new Bond.
Watched it last night. First impressions: as others have said, the PTS is fantastic. The scale and ambition of it is truly stunning; the visual humour with the sofa was nice. Sam Smith's song worked nicely (as I first thought when I originally heard it) with Daniel Kleinmann's titles. The first three-quarters of the film was very good - moved at a good pace (whereas I thought SkyFall dragged a bit). Then when we get to Tangiers it slows down a bit for me and the ending is unconvincing; why is Bond in love with Madeleine Swann all of a sudden? Why is he 'giving it all up' for her? I understood why he fell for Vesper in Casino Royale, but the motivation was not clear here. Also, I felt the ending shouldn't have been in London - it was a bit clichéd.
However, Christophe Waltz plays ESB very well - understated and full of menace - but a bit underused (which suggests to me that he will be back) and Bautista was excellent as Mr Hinx.
I am glad that this was Mendes' last film - I think he got two good storylines to work with, and although he worked with them competently, there were missed opportunities to make both of his films better - for instance, the introduction of ESB could have done more dramatically; Mr Hinx should have reappeared at the end for a final fight with Bond in London, and rather than Bond walking off with Swann on the bridge, the final shot should have been Bond in the car with her.
All in all - a good film, better than Skyfall, but nowhere in the same league as Casino Royale.
why is Bond in love with Madeleine Swann all of a sudden? Why is he 'giving it all up' for her? I understood why he fell for Vesper in Casino Royale, but the motivation was not clear here.
I like to think that Bond has finally released the chains of Vesper, and Madeleine is a bit of a rebound... he's desperately wanting to prove to himself that he can 'fall in love' - or getting a life, as Moneypenny pointed out he didn't have one. "It's called having a life".
She is clever, attractive, and perhaps he feels somewhat responsible for her - which is always intoxicating in a relationship - the need to 'fix' or protect.
All in all - a good film, better than Skyfall, but nowhere in the same league as Casino Royale.
I agree... but I'm really looking forward to a second viewing... and I didn't feel like that after Skyfall. I hope it is even better the next time round. -{
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
why is Bond in love with Madeleine Swann all of a sudden? Why is he 'giving it all up' for her? I understood why he fell for Vesper in Casino Royale, but the motivation was not clear here.
I like to think that Bond has finally released the chains of Vesper, and Madeleine is a bit of a rebound... he's desperately wanting to prove to himself that he can 'fall in love' - or getting a life, as Moneypenny pointed out he didn't have one. "It's called having a life".
She is clever, attractive, and perhaps he feels somewhat responsible for her - which is always intoxicating in a relationship - the need to 'fix' or protect.
All in all - a good film, better than Skyfall, but nowhere in the same league as Casino Royale.
I agree... but I'm really looking forward to a second viewing... and I didn't feel like that after Skyfall. I hope it is even better the next time round. -{
Hi Lexi. I agree with you. I do want to see it again. I think I watched it with a sense of tension hoping that it would not fall short and probably did not immerse myself in it as much as I will once I watch it again. It is a good, good film.
You are probably right about his motivations for Madeleine. I suppose because she is an assassin's daughter so he can 'be with her' as she understands his life I suppose. But still not entirely convinced.
o
You are probably right about his motivations for Madeleine. I suppose because she is an assassin's daughter so he can 'be with her' as she understands his life I suppose. But still not entirely convinced.
o
I'll guess we'll never always be able to figure out what Craig's Bond motives are... he's a bit messed up himself. )
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
Just came back from my third viewing and this is one of those films that gets better with repeat viewings. The few things that bothered me when I saw it last Monday weren't an issue. Sure, the film is still flawed and we can all comment on what we'd all do differently for anything in this life but SP just has too many fantastic things going for it that elevates it when revisited.
The car chase, the torture scene, the climax in London all sat with me much more favourably than before. Honestly, I haven't felt this satisfied with a Bond movie since CR and I'm truly delighted with how the film has turned out and Daniel Craig is just magnificent as Bond. Truly magnificent. For the most part he brings that Connery effortlessness to his performance and without question the man and his movie is Bond with a capital B .
why is Bond in love with Madeleine Swann all of a sudden? Why is he 'giving it all up' for her? I understood why he fell for Vesper in Casino Royale, but the motivation was not clear here.
I like to think that Bond has finally released the chains of Vesper, and Madeleine is a bit of a rebound... he's desperately wanting to prove to himself that he can 'fall in love' - or getting a life, as Moneypenny pointed out he didn't have one. "It's called having a life".
She is clever, attractive, and perhaps he feels somewhat responsible for her - which is always intoxicating in a relationship - the need to 'fix' or protect.
All in all - a good film, better than Skyfall, but nowhere in the same league as Casino Royale.
I agree... but I'm really looking forward to a second viewing... and I didn't feel like that after Skyfall. I hope it is even better the next time round. -{
I really loved it and am looking forward to seeing it for a second time. My only concerns are that diminishing returns set in when I rewatched Skyfall so I hope this doesn't happen again. If it does my suspicion is that it won't be plot howlers (of which there are many as always with Bond) but the lack of credibility in the relationship. It all seems a bit too fast and lacks the chemistry needed to fuel such passion. Time will tell...
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Watched it last night. First impressions: as others have said, the PTS is fantastic. The scale and ambition of it is truly stunning; the visual humour with the sofa was nice. Sam Smith's song worked nicely (as I first thought when I originally heard it) with Daniel Kleinmann's titles. The first three-quarters of the film was very good - moved at a good pace (whereas I thought SkyFall dragged a bit). Then when we get to Tangiers it slows down a bit for me and the ending is unconvincing; why is Bond in love with Madeleine Swann all of a sudden? Why is he 'giving it all up' for her? I understood why he fell for Vesper in Casino Royale, but the motivation was not clear here. Also, I felt the ending shouldn't have been in London - it was a bit clichéd.
However, Christophe Waltz plays ESB very well - understated and full of menace - but a bit underused (which suggests to me that he will be back) and Bautista was excellent as Mr Hinx.
I am glad that this was Mendes' last film - I think he got two good storylines to work with, and although he worked with them competently, there were missed opportunities to make both of his films better - for instance, the introduction of ESB could have done more dramatically; Mr Hinx should have reappeared at the end for a final fight with Bond in London, and rather than Bond walking off with Swann on the bridge, the final shot should have been Bond in the car with her.
All in all - a good film, better than Skyfall, but nowhere in the same league as Casino Royale.
I think I probably liked it more than you seem to, but broadly agree with you. My ranking of the Craig films would put CR at the top ( the torture scene is pure Bond and will take some beating - pun intended ) followed by Spectre, Skyfall and QOS)
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,917Chief of Staff
Just came back from my third viewing and this is one of those films that gets better with repeat viewings. The few things that bothered me when I saw it last Monday weren't an issue. Sure, the film is still flawed and we can all comment on what we'd all do differently for anything in this life but SP just has too many fantastic things going for it that elevates it when revisited.
The car chase, the torture scene, the climax in London all sat with me much more favourably than before. Honestly, I haven't felt this satisfied with a Bond movie since CR and I'm truly delighted with how the film has turned out and Daniel Craig is just magnificent as Bond. Truly magnificent. For the most part he brings that Connery effortlessness to his performance and without question the man and his movie is Bond with a capital B .
Nice post, I'm going to see it again for the 3rd time again next week on my day off, never done this before.
The problem wit the Blofeld character here is that it's mostly his origin story, explaining his motivations, who he is etc. If he returns, he'd be able to get straight into the role as Blofeld and he can get straight to executing his evil plan, rather than trying to get revenge on his adopted brother.
That was what was supposed to be Casino Royale for Bond, yet all of Craig's Bond films have focused on his origin story and not on him being Bond.
This is precisely my problem with the recent films, for all their admirable qualities I am bored to death with ' back-story Bond'. I liked SP more than I expected as I found elements of Skyfall trite and mawkish and feared more of the same this time. It feels to me that finally after four films we can move on from personal drama and get back to missions please.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
You are probably right about his motivations for Madeleine. I suppose because she is an assassin's daughter so he can 'be with her' as she understands his life I suppose. But still not entirely convinced.
o
I'll guess we'll never always be able to figure out what Craig's Bond motives are... he's a bit messed up himself. )
Their relationship is a weak point for me, also it would have been nice if Bond went off with the More age appropriate woman as opposed to a girl half his age. It just seemed a tad creepy to me not justified by any real sense of chemistry that could for me at least render it plausible. For a film with a run Time of 148 minutes it seemed rushed.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
The problem wit the Blofeld character here is that it's mostly his origin story, explaining his motivations, who he is etc. If he returns, he'd be able to get straight into the role as Blofeld and he can get straight to executing his evil plan, rather than trying to get revenge on his adopted brother.
That was what was supposed to be Casino Royale for Bond, yet all of Craig's Bond films have focused on his origin story and not on him being Bond.
This is precisely my problem with the recent films, for all their admirable qualities I am bored to death with ' back-story Bond'. I liked SP more than I expected as I found elements of Skyfall trite and mawkish and feared more of the same this time. It feels to me that finally after four films we can move on from personal drama and get back to missions please.
So how do you keep an actor of Craigs stature interested in the part if you don't show backstory?
The old days have gone forever. Either enjoy the new ones or settle back and enjoy Die another Day and the like.
It drives me mad that Bond cant move on. That people are stuck in the past...
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
Having only seen it once so far I am definitly going to need to give it a second viewing to make head and tail of a few things and certain aspects. It does seem like a film that unfortunatly has some plot holes larger than Skyfall.
That being said I found myself thoroughly entertained from start to finish. At the end of the day this is what a Bond film is about and is suppose to do.
Was a shame Mr Hinx couldn't of appeared one last time at the end to do battle with Bond in the old MI6 hq.
Oberhauser/Blofeld was truly menacing and sadistic (brother stuff could have been scrapped and was pointless) and Scott played a real nasty slimeball that met a fitting death. The romance between Bond and Swann was a little forced and didn't buy it as much as Vesper.
All in all though a good film with terrific stunts and action scenes. Criticisms aside it did what it was suppose to do- entertain!
Well done again to the Bond team.
That was what was supposed to be Casino Royale for Bond, yet all of Craig's Bond films have focused on his origin story and not on him being Bond.
This is precisely my problem with the recent films, for all their admirable qualities I am bored to death with ' back-story Bond'. I liked SP more than I expected as I found elements of Skyfall trite and mawkish and feared more of the same this time. It feels to me that finally after four films we can move on from personal drama and get back to missions please.
So how do you keep an actor of Craigs stature interested in the part if you don't show backstory?
The old days have gone forever. Either enjoy the new ones or settle back and enjoy Die another Day and the like.
It drives me mad that Bond cant move on. That people are stuck in the past...
So every Bond movie made from now onwards need to show backstory? And how is wanting a films ithout backstory being 'stuck in the past'? When you have a movie franchise, you can't make every movie a back story. The point of a backstory is so the audience knows why the main character does what he/she does. So, why, on the fourth Bond film of the new era, are we still learning about Bond's childhood? They aren't doing this because just having Bond do missions was outdated or wouldn't work today. We're not saying Bond can't move on, we're just saying it would be nice if this backstory thing was over and we was back to Bond just doing what he does best.
This is precisely my problem with the recent films, for all their admirable qualities I am bored to death with ' back-story Bond'. I liked SP more than I expected as I found elements of Skyfall trite and mawkish and feared more of the same this time. It feels to me that finally after four films we can move on from personal drama and get back to missions please.
So how do you keep an actor of Craigs stature interested in the part if you don't show backstory?
The old days have gone forever. Either enjoy the new ones or settle back and enjoy Die another Day and the like.
It drives me mad that Bond cant move on. That people are stuck in the past...
So every Bond movie made from now onwards need to show backstory? And how is wanting a films ithout backstory being 'stuck in the past'? When you have a movie franchise, you can't make every movie a back story. The point of a backstory is so the audience knows why the main character does what he/she does. So, why, on the fourth Bond film of the new era, are we still learning about Bond's childhood? They aren't doing this because just having Bond do missions was outdated or wouldn't work today. We're not saying Bond can't move on, we're just saying it would be nice if this backstory thing was over and we was back to Bond just doing what he does best.
my guess is that broadshoulder thoroughly dislikes especially the Brosnan movies that he wants furure films to be somewhat of the opposite
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
It drives me mad that Bond cant move on. That people are stuck in the past...
This is exactly what has bothered me about the recent films, that the character Bond is stuck in his past and can't move on. The Bond films need to move on from what the last four have been. They just keep repeating the same ideas. You're the one who is stuck in the past.
Comments
I can't resist ;% Bought my IMAX tickets for Thursday, 5 November...and I'm getting the bends
It will be a shame, IMO, if this is Craigger's last...but c'est la vie, c'est la guerre :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Such a sweet little mention, but a pity that you lost your poster. I don't really think Bond and Swann fell in love. Before the reboot he always slept with woman. He also looked quite in love with Kara and she was gone in GoldenEye. But if there in love, she has to die. Waltz as Blofeld wasn't really a suprise after you saw the cat. They could better first reveal his name and then show the cat, it wasn't really I suprise anymore. However, I freaking LOVED his scar and it's great Bond/Swann were the cause of it.
As the title sequence, I do really like Sam Smith his score, but WOW, the work of Kleimann was fantastic. He did a hell of a job. A great job. But sometimes the film was a bit too campy. The music for 009 was a bit childish and not placed on the right moment. It would've been better if it happend in the Q-lab, not in the middle of a car chase when we already had the old man in the Fiat.
Still overall a great movie, and I loved what they did with the MI6 regulars. Not in the field too much. They were there when they had to. It was great fun.
Thanks Gosse!
It was good to meet you in real life! - Next time we'll have some longer chats! And thanks for watching that video.
Yeah, indeed a shame about the poster! Atleast you were standing right next to me when I got it, so you know the story is true!
Totally agree on most points that you make here! Didn't really think the cat spoiled the reveal of Blofeld though, we all kind of knew it months and months ago anyway! :P - It was still cool that they used the actual name!
I defenitely have the feeling Bond and Swann started some sort of relationship though. The whole walking away hand in hand thing really made it seem like he was in love again. I also have the slight feeling they'll kill her off in the next movie. (Again, maybe just me...)
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
Maybe I will...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Apart from the absolutely garbage score NSNA was a very well made film.
I'll respect the formalities and wait until I actually see SPECTRE before reviewing it
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
It is a decent film but not flawless. Whilst I liked Waltz's turn I thought the whole plan was a bit weak, M seems to have gone from a tough ex-SAS intelligence chief to a scolded schoolboy and Denbigh looked about 12 - even if he did go to school with the Home Secretary he looks far too young to wield that amount of power and influence over the world's spies.
There are a lot of positives though that have already been mentioned and I hope Craig has at least one more in him - my own feeling is that if he has quit Wilson and Broccoli would have toned down their comments at the premier; all this "he's our guy" stuff is hardly preparing us, or Craig's replacement, for a new Bond.
However, Christophe Waltz plays ESB very well - understated and full of menace - but a bit underused (which suggests to me that he will be back) and Bautista was excellent as Mr Hinx.
I am glad that this was Mendes' last film - I think he got two good storylines to work with, and although he worked with them competently, there were missed opportunities to make both of his films better - for instance, the introduction of ESB could have done more dramatically; Mr Hinx should have reappeared at the end for a final fight with Bond in London, and rather than Bond walking off with Swann on the bridge, the final shot should have been Bond in the car with her.
All in all - a good film, better than Skyfall, but nowhere in the same league as Casino Royale.
I like to think that Bond has finally released the chains of Vesper, and Madeleine is a bit of a rebound... he's desperately wanting to prove to himself that he can 'fall in love' - or getting a life, as Moneypenny pointed out he didn't have one. "It's called having a life".
She is clever, attractive, and perhaps he feels somewhat responsible for her - which is always intoxicating in a relationship - the need to 'fix' or protect.
Just my thoughts....
I agree... but I'm really looking forward to a second viewing... and I didn't feel like that after Skyfall. I hope it is even better the next time round. -{
You are probably right about his motivations for Madeleine. I suppose because she is an assassin's daughter so he can 'be with her' as she understands his life I suppose. But still not entirely convinced.
o
I'll guess we'll never always be able to figure out what Craig's Bond motives are... he's a bit messed up himself.
The car chase, the torture scene, the climax in London all sat with me much more favourably than before. Honestly, I haven't felt this satisfied with a Bond movie since CR and I'm truly delighted with how the film has turned out and Daniel Craig is just magnificent as Bond. Truly magnificent. For the most part he brings that Connery effortlessness to his performance and without question the man and his movie is Bond with a capital B .
I went for the 7am showing last Tuesday. I didn't regret it a I had the entire room to myself
"Greatness From Small Beginnings."
I really loved it and am looking forward to seeing it for a second time. My only concerns are that diminishing returns set in when I rewatched Skyfall so I hope this doesn't happen again. If it does my suspicion is that it won't be plot howlers (of which there are many as always with Bond) but the lack of credibility in the relationship. It all seems a bit too fast and lacks the chemistry needed to fuel such passion. Time will tell...
I think I probably liked it more than you seem to, but broadly agree with you. My ranking of the Craig films would put CR at the top ( the torture scene is pure Bond and will take some beating - pun intended ) followed by Spectre, Skyfall and QOS)
Yea...one of my local multiplexes was running the film 24 hrs
Nice post, I'm going to see it again for the 3rd time again next week on my day off, never done this before.
"Greatness From Small Beginnings."
This is precisely my problem with the recent films, for all their admirable qualities I am bored to death with ' back-story Bond'. I liked SP more than I expected as I found elements of Skyfall trite and mawkish and feared more of the same this time. It feels to me that finally after four films we can move on from personal drama and get back to missions please.
Their relationship is a weak point for me, also it would have been nice if Bond went off with the More age appropriate woman as opposed to a girl half his age. It just seemed a tad creepy to me not justified by any real sense of chemistry that could for me at least render it plausible. For a film with a run Time of 148 minutes it seemed rushed.
So how do you keep an actor of Craigs stature interested in the part if you don't show backstory?
The old days have gone forever. Either enjoy the new ones or settle back and enjoy Die another Day and the like.
It drives me mad that Bond cant move on. That people are stuck in the past...
That being said I found myself thoroughly entertained from start to finish. At the end of the day this is what a Bond film is about and is suppose to do.
Was a shame Mr Hinx couldn't of appeared one last time at the end to do battle with Bond in the old MI6 hq.
Oberhauser/Blofeld was truly menacing and sadistic (brother stuff could have been scrapped and was pointless) and Scott played a real nasty slimeball that met a fitting death. The romance between Bond and Swann was a little forced and didn't buy it as much as Vesper.
All in all though a good film with terrific stunts and action scenes. Criticisms aside it did what it was suppose to do- entertain!
Well done again to the Bond team.
So every Bond movie made from now onwards need to show backstory? And how is wanting a films ithout backstory being 'stuck in the past'? When you have a movie franchise, you can't make every movie a back story. The point of a backstory is so the audience knows why the main character does what he/she does. So, why, on the fourth Bond film of the new era, are we still learning about Bond's childhood? They aren't doing this because just having Bond do missions was outdated or wouldn't work today. We're not saying Bond can't move on, we're just saying it would be nice if this backstory thing was over and we was back to Bond just doing what he does best.
my guess is that broadshoulder thoroughly dislikes especially the Brosnan movies that he wants furure films to be somewhat of the opposite
This is exactly what has bothered me about the recent films, that the character Bond is stuck in his past and can't move on. The Bond films need to move on from what the last four have been. They just keep repeating the same ideas. You're the one who is stuck in the past.