I think this comment is a bit arrogant. What makes a good film is subjective, and depends on what the viewer likes and dislikes. Being a fan of serious or campy Bond doesn't mean you have better taste. Please be more respectful of the diversity that is Bond fandom.
+1 !!!
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
Okay, I saw SP last night and here are my thoughts.
I was wary of seeing the film given the number of poor reviews.
But the reviewers are mostly full of crap.
One guy even said the PTS was boring! He should have his reviewers license revoked for life.
My only complaint about the PTS is that the helicopter part went on a bit too long (more about this below).
The end of the PTS demonstrated why Craig is such a good actor. The little self-satisfied smile as he's flying away told the audience what he is thinking--I am such a badass. The audience laughed a lot at that smile because it was the same thing everybody was thinking.
One critic said "where's he get the airplane from?" If she had been paying any attention she would've seen that the plane flew right over the clinic when Bond was arriving so there must be an airstrip near by. Similarly, another critic complained that there was no way for Madeline and Bond to have evening wear on the train. But they spent at least 24 hours in Tangiers, so that's ample time to get the clothes (maybe using 009's credit card that he found in the glove compartment of the DB10).
I thought the pacing was fine, the set pieces were great (but too long), and Q, M, and Moneypenny were perfect. In fact, the acting all round was excellent. There was hardly a wrong note in the whole film. The film looked great and I thought the score and the editing were fine.
My two complaints involve Bond's relationship with Blofeld and Swann.
I think both needed to be fleshed out a little more. With Blofeld we needed concrete reasons why Blofeld hated Bond that were more than just "dad liked you more than me." A real example of little Franz being betrayed/humiliated by dad which got transferred to Bond. In SF we were given a reason why Silva (or anybody for that matter) would be very angry at M. We didn't get that in Spectre. If the writers weren't prepared to do the work necessary to make Blofeld a real character, they should've skipped the whole personal angle.
Similarly, Swann's character isn't really fleshed out. One of the things that made Vesper Lynd a great character was that she had her own agenda and it was unclear. But Swann is a mystery. We don't know why she tags along with Bond and puts her life in danger (Bond basically tells her not to go with him). Is it because she wants to get revenge for Daddy? Did Blofeld do something to her as a child (there's some reference to him coming to her house when she was young that may or may not have something to do with the gun under the sink episode, it's not clear)?
The Bond/Swann relationship also needed to be re-worked. She goes from hating him to loving him too quickly (yeah, yeah, I get the Daddy issues stuff). Seydoux and Craig are talented actors. A couple more minutes of dialogue on the train and at the train station in the desert would've done wonders.
You might say, the additional dialogue with Swann and Blofeld would make the movie too long. No! They could've easily have cut 5-7 minutes total from the action scenes for the additional dialogue. The action scenes all seemed about 20% too long (except for the PTS which was about 5% too long). This is a complaint I have with most action movies today.
Denbigh was a bit of a disappointing character. It shouldn't have been telegraphed that he was a bad guy. It should have come as a surprise.
Finally, with all the talented writers involved, a lot of the dialogue seemed a little dull.
In short, it's a very good movie that could've been great. I give it a 7.5 out of 10 and it curently sits at No. 7 on my list.
as for how he got the black plane: when he walks up to the Klinik you see the plane's nose in the left corner of the screen, so it's not unlogical at all
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
as for how he got the black plane: when he walks up to the Klinik you see the plane's nose in the left corner of the screen, so it's not unlogical at all
Yeah, some critics seemed to be looking for any reason to criticise SP.
According to perrdogg: "Again, leave to the writers to screw the film up. This movie lacks originality. It robs the remaining the literary connection to Fleming. Bond is no longer Bond, he is part of the Mission Impossible Force. Q is essentially Benjie. The movie does not seem to have relevance any more to series. This is not fault of the Craig era, but this started somewhere in the Brosnan era."
"Q" being out in the field with Bond goes back to LTK. Yes, most contemporary Bond films lack originality, but not because they are taking things from MI, they are actually taking things from older Bond films of which MI6 (TV Series and films) stone cold steal from (along with a bit from the Dirty Dozen). The MI TV show and films only exist because of Bond...period. The MI films with all its gone rogue stuff, Bond did before (see LTK). Hell, the first team leader on the original MI TV Series actually was dressed and had a haircut like Connery. But I guess CR copied MI which had a blond 2nd leader with a blond Bond ) -{
Some critics would of rather had a scene with a mechanic beside a plane
setting his tools out and as he looks down. The plane moves off, as the
mechanic does a double take ! Some people need everything explained
to them.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
1) Those of us who want a decent film, realistic and a strong script (Casino Royale)
2) Those who only require explosions etc to maintain their attention span and don't care about a decent story.
I am hoping Bond films cater for 1), otherwise James Bond is simply a slightly, more-serious Austin Powers.
I think that is a bit unfair to say. There are really only two films that cater for 1 (FRWL and CR), so that makes me wonder what films YOU like. And anyway, if we're going to split up Bind fans, I'll do it here:
1) Fans who like films that are realistic, but may have a few elements that break reality (FRWL, FYEO, LTK, CR, QoS, SF)
2) Fans that like films that aren't very realistic and more of an adventure film (DN, GF, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, MR, OP, AVTAK, TLD, GE, TND, TWINE, DAD, SP)
3) Fand that don't have a specific type, and just like whatever films they like (me).
Going to step up and give my opinion for what it's worth...
SPECTRE was OK. It's not the best Bond movie I have seen and it's not the worst.
Now my two favourites are CR and QoS, which makes me a big DC fan. The thing that I believe is the influencing factor in any poor opinion of SF and SP I have is that I believe Mendes was a poor choice for a director. I believe he is too weak as a director for me to even do a good action movie, let alone a good Bond movie. Plus he's too much of a fanboy, hence stupid stuff like a tricked out DB5 in SF, instead of sticking with the realism of CR and QoS.
Hence if DC does another Bond movie, and I hope he does, I would be interested to see what another movie with him in under another director will be like. Hopefully a return to the success of CR (I won't say QoS as well as I know there are very polar opinions on that movie!).
1) Did we really need Waltz's Blofeld to have that scar in order to make us think of Pleasence's Blofeld? Personally, I could've done without it.
2) Mr. Hinx is an okay henchman, but let's not kid ourselves, he's not even close to being in the same league as Jaws, Oddjob, or Red Grant. He's okay, but for some reason I'm not too big on him.
3) We could've done without seeing Craig's Bond restore the martini tradition. That was possibly better suited for his succesor. That way, when the 7th Bond came along and restored it, we could've said to ourselves "Okay, it's a new era now".
But other than that, I enjoyed the film.
"Hostile takeovers. Shall we?"
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
2) Mr. Hinx is an okay henchman, but let's not kid ourselves, he's not even close to being in the same league as Jaws, Oddjob, or Red Grant. He's okay, but for some reason I'm not too big on him.
He's intended to provoke memories of such henchmen, and I'd say successfully.
3) We could've done without seeing Craig's Bond restore the martini tradition. That was possibly better suited for his succesor. That way, when the 7th Bond came along and restored it, we could've said to ourselves "Okay, it's a new era now".
That's when he broke with the martini tradition. By being the first Bond not to care about whether the martini was shaken or stirred, Craig established that his Bond was very different from his predecessors.
We don't see him explicitly ordering a martini "shaken, not stirred" until SP. That's when he restored the martini tradition.
"Hostile takeovers. Shall we?"
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
2) Mr. Hinx is an okay henchman, but let's not kid ourselves, he's not even close to being in the same league as Jaws, Oddjob, or Red Grant. He's okay, but for some reason I'm not too big on him.
He's intended to provoke memories of such henchmen, and I'd say successfully.
3) We could've done without seeing Craig's Bond restore the martini tradition. That was possibly better suited for his succesor. That way, when the 7th Bond came along and restored it, we could've said to ourselves "Okay, it's a new era now".
People need to accept the time restraints writing a Bond screenplay. One page is roughly equal to one minute of screentime. 120 mins is 120 pages. You want more Bond and Swann falling in love you need to cut more stuff out of the film, you want more of Blofeld's motivation, more screentime for Waltz, you need to cut out more stuff. The film is already the longest in the franchise's history - people wanting more character development means a 3 hour Bond film or a radically rewritten first and second act.
It is impossible to cater for everyone. There isn't a enough screentime for more Blofeld, more Swann and Bond, more C etc. The producers and director have to compromise and keep the pacing tight. I fear people that just say "they should have done this or that" don't understand the basic one page is one minute of screentime rule. Once you hit over two hours - 120 pages - you need to be well into the second half of the third act.
Basically, everyone has to see a Bond film as loads of ideas (good or bad!) condensed down into a manageable size. Compromises are inevitable because EON do not want to make three hour Bond films. Leaps in plot logic, lack of character development is inevitable. It's the nature of screenwriting, particularly when you're writing a sprawling story.
That's all fine - but maybe they should bring Tarantino to direct a Bond movie after all. There will be no loose ends and everything will make sense - while at the same time being heaps of fun.
I think this comment is a bit arrogant. What makes a good film is subjective, and depends on what the viewer likes and dislikes. Being a fan of serious or campy Bond doesn't mean you have better taste. Please be more respectful of the diversity that is Bond fandom.
+1 !!!
It's a false dichotomy to assume that it has to be one or the other. The best Bonds -- Goldfinger, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and so forth -- have combined elements. What makes it tough, especially for filmmakers of the past 30 years, is being able to combine the elements convincingly. Look at how deftly Goldfinger switches from having fun during the car chase to being solemn upon the demise of Tilly Masterson to being fun again during Bond's escape to being tense when he is captured and awakens threatened by the laser. It flows together seamlessly, so that in the course of a relatively few minutes, the audience is taken through many emotions, and all of them authentic. This is an art lost on the modern filmmaker, who tries instead to sustain the exact same emotion for half an hour.
What Spectre manages to get better -- but still not expertly -- are these shifts. It's what makes the PTS works so well. It goes from seeming rather serious and creepy to being funny and cool to being tense and threatening to ending on an upbeat note with Bond's triumph -- people are responding well to it precisely because it evokes filmmaking of old. Where Spectre starts to break down is when the scenes try too hard to sustain one particular emotion for too long -- and the writing and direction aren't strong enough to convey it. The romance between Bond and Swann, for instance, is weak. Falling in love is a flurry of emotions: lust, worry, excitement, anticipation, satisfaction. But little of this occurs onscreen and therefore vicariously for the audience. It feels flat. We understand they fall in love but we don't feel it.
I felt similarly about the Bond and Vesper relationship in Casino Royale, but still more effort was used there than here. Mendes also thinks that showing us singular vehicles traveling through a big landscape is somehow emotive -- Bond in his little boat; the train traveling through a desert; the car coming to pick them up. This is a modern conceit. We're supposed to respond to the image in some way. But there's no real context. It may be "cool" to look at, but I didn't feel any tension because not enough was built up in the previous scene to make me feel it. This is where it fets flat.
The bottom line is that a film is supposed to be a wide range of emotions and experiences -- a buffet. Modern films instead try to serve it up as mostly a four-course meal in three acts. As such, I go away still hungry much of the time and then have to watch an older, classic film to cleanse the palate. But whether a film is dark and gritty or light and fun, it should still balance out its elements. Most contemporary films, including the Bonds, do don't this very well, if at all. Instead, they try to sustain the same elements almost exclusively from start to finish.
That's when he broke with the martini tradition. By being the first Bond not to care about whether the martini was shaken or stirred, Craig established that his Bond was very different from his predecessors.
We don't see him explicitly ordering a martini "shaken, not stirred" until SP. That's when he restored the martini tradition.
Well, yes and no. The context of the "Do I . . ." line is he's pissed off. It's not so much that he's breaking with tradition as he is so angry and obsessed with getting LeChiffre that even something as important to him as this has no meaning. It's similar to his not correcting Dikko Henderson in You Only Live Twice for getting the idea wrong, where the context seems to be he's just being polite and not giving up his usual preference.
I saw Spectre with my brother today and we both enjoyed it. Some parts worked better than others but on the whole the movie was a solid addition to series. As to some observations:
- The pre-credits sequence was very good, an improvement over Skyfall's in my opinion as it was more well paced and the juxtaposition of the action and large crowd scenes gave it an expansive feel.
- The credits were typically competent and the title song, which I hated upon first hearing it, worked far better when married to the visuals.
- The overall plot was somewhat reminiscent of Captain America: The Winter Soldier to me: government agency (MI5&MI6/SHIELD) is unknowingly infiltrated and manipulated by shadowy organization (HYDRA/SPECTRE) while one operative (Captain America/Bond) works to expose and stop it.
- The whole "Bond must go rogue" thing was a bit of a retread and it would have been nice if M, Q & Moneypenney were in on the mission from the start rather than gradually coming around as the film went on.
- Monica Bellucci's scenes were all too brief but still very entertaining; she still looks amazing at 50.
- The scenes in Rome were very nice; beautiful photography and the board meeting was suitably creepy and unsettling (got a bit of a Eyes Wide Shut vibe at times). The car chase lacked a bit of urgency to it but it had a nice mix of action and humor.
- Mr. White's appearance was a bit of a surprise and his character was given some new layers which I thought was a nice touch.
- Bond's arrival to the clinic in Austria really harkened to the scenes of Piz Gloria from OHMSS and the car/plane chase was a pretty innovative departure from your typical Bond chase.
- The Tangier/train section was a bit flat and kind of derailed the pace of the film. I understand the need to take a breath and expand the plot but it could have probably been better edited. The fight was quite brutal though it seemed to come out of nowhere and the final resolution a bit of a letdown and I was actually expecting Hinx to make another appearance.
- As was the case with Bond's first meeting with Silva in Skyfall, I'm not clear on why Bond felt the need to just waltz into Blofeld's lair alone and so unprepared; it seemed particularly reckless and put him and Swann into unnecessary danger.
- Blofeld's motivation was really flimsy; he basically murdered his own father and became a criminal mastermind because he was jealous of Bond as a child. The writers should have worked on that and their attempt to basically make Bond and Blofeld figurative brothers didn't really work for me.
- The final act from Bond's escape to his capture of Blofeld seemed somewhat tacked on and lacked drama. The thought of Bond being able to down a helicopter with a single shot from his gun at such a distance seemed pretty preposterous.
- The attempt to tie all of Craig's Bond movies together and retcon certain characters and events to make them part of a larger tapestry likewise seemed a bit of a stretch.
- As was the case with all of Craig's films, I really didn't care much for the villain's grand scheme. We again have a baddie who just wants to manipulate from the shadows rather than make a grand statement and too much action happens in front of a computer screen and behind a keyboard. I guess it better fits the times but I do miss the days when the bad guy just wanted to take over the world or score a really major payday.
- For all of M's talk about how the 00's are needed, it is a bit disappointing to have so much of the film resolved with a few strokes of the keyboard (it is Q who hacks the Nine Eyes system and shuts it down; I remember the good old days when Bond would have just blown up the whole building).
- I enjoyed all the little nods to the prior films like Blofeld's disfigured eye. Some people seemed to have problems with references like that; I saw them as homages to films and characters which now obviously inhabit an alternate universe. Nothing wrong with that at all.
- The actors were all very competent and no one seemed out of place. Mallory, Moneypenney and Q all had some nice bits; Monica Bellucci and Lea Seydoux were very good if underused at times; Christoph Waltz was a worthy heir to the name of Blofeld and Craig delivered his usual workmanlike performance. He will never be great with the quip and his interactions with his leading ladies often have a certain awkwardness to them but he has improved greatly from the humorless thug who starred in Casino Royale.
- People and critics (yes, the two can be mutually exclusive) have complained that Spectre lacks originality and is just a series of riffs on prior films; it is hardly the first movie to do that and I could come up with plenty of examples of other films (as recent as Skyfall) doing the exact same thing; it's part and parcel with the Bond franchise.
- People have also complained how Spectre is a throwback to the more outlandish Bond entries and has far too much humor. I didn't see it that way at all. Tonally, it struck me as very similar to Skyfall and there was hardly anything outlandish about it. Take, for example, Blofeld's lair in the middle of a crater. It is clearly a homage to the volcano set from YOLT but lacks the sense of flair and grandeur of the prior film. Instead of an underground complex with launching pad, monorail and working rocket we just get a few non-descript buildings and rooms populated with laptops and LCD screens. If anything, the movie could have used a bit more pizzazz.
Still, at the end of the day, I was entertained and never felt the need to check my watch for the entire running time so the movie must have done something right for me. It gets a thumbs up and I'll be adding it to my BluRay collection when it is released.
Being a Bond fan is one of the best things ever, I'm sure everyone here agrees there.
"Hostile takeovers. Shall we?"
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
1) Those of us who want a decent film, realistic and a strong script (Casino Royale)
2) Those who only require explosions etc to maintain their attention span and don't care about a decent story.
I am hoping Bond films cater for 1), otherwise James Bond is simply a slightly, more-serious Austin Powers.
I think this comment is a bit arrogant. What makes a good film is subjective, and depends on what the viewer likes and dislikes. Being a fan of serious or campy Bond doesn't mean you have better taste. Please be more respectful of the diversity that is Bond fandom.
Its not disrespectful to say fans-who-like-films-with-explosions need explosions to maintain their attention span. After all, our film preferences are what keep our attention.
I really wonder what Sir Roger Moore thought of Spectre. He usually has a few comments to make whenever a new Bond movie releases. Haven't really read any of his thoughts on this one.
Do none of you think the bad guy sending a chauffeur-driven limousine to pick Bond up (to his destiny with torture) from the middle of nowhere as idiotic? You don't just hop in a car to your enemy's place and then hand-over your gun.
This type of rubbish may have worked in the 60s, but it doesn't work today.
I really wonder what Sir Roger Moore thought of Spectre. He usually has a few comments to make whenever a new Bond movie releases. Haven't really read any of his thoughts on this one.
Me too! I bet he loved it. Except for the Hinx-Roy Batty thing.
Comments
I was wary of seeing the film given the number of poor reviews.
But the reviewers are mostly full of crap.
One guy even said the PTS was boring! He should have his reviewers license revoked for life.
My only complaint about the PTS is that the helicopter part went on a bit too long (more about this below).
The end of the PTS demonstrated why Craig is such a good actor. The little self-satisfied smile as he's flying away told the audience what he is thinking--I am such a badass. The audience laughed a lot at that smile because it was the same thing everybody was thinking.
One critic said "where's he get the airplane from?" If she had been paying any attention she would've seen that the plane flew right over the clinic when Bond was arriving so there must be an airstrip near by. Similarly, another critic complained that there was no way for Madeline and Bond to have evening wear on the train. But they spent at least 24 hours in Tangiers, so that's ample time to get the clothes (maybe using 009's credit card that he found in the glove compartment of the DB10).
I thought the pacing was fine, the set pieces were great (but too long), and Q, M, and Moneypenny were perfect. In fact, the acting all round was excellent. There was hardly a wrong note in the whole film. The film looked great and I thought the score and the editing were fine.
My two complaints involve Bond's relationship with Blofeld and Swann.
I think both needed to be fleshed out a little more. With Blofeld we needed concrete reasons why Blofeld hated Bond that were more than just "dad liked you more than me." A real example of little Franz being betrayed/humiliated by dad which got transferred to Bond. In SF we were given a reason why Silva (or anybody for that matter) would be very angry at M. We didn't get that in Spectre. If the writers weren't prepared to do the work necessary to make Blofeld a real character, they should've skipped the whole personal angle.
Similarly, Swann's character isn't really fleshed out. One of the things that made Vesper Lynd a great character was that she had her own agenda and it was unclear. But Swann is a mystery. We don't know why she tags along with Bond and puts her life in danger (Bond basically tells her not to go with him). Is it because she wants to get revenge for Daddy? Did Blofeld do something to her as a child (there's some reference to him coming to her house when she was young that may or may not have something to do with the gun under the sink episode, it's not clear)?
The Bond/Swann relationship also needed to be re-worked. She goes from hating him to loving him too quickly (yeah, yeah, I get the Daddy issues stuff). Seydoux and Craig are talented actors. A couple more minutes of dialogue on the train and at the train station in the desert would've done wonders.
You might say, the additional dialogue with Swann and Blofeld would make the movie too long. No! They could've easily have cut 5-7 minutes total from the action scenes for the additional dialogue. The action scenes all seemed about 20% too long (except for the PTS which was about 5% too long). This is a complaint I have with most action movies today.
Denbigh was a bit of a disappointing character. It shouldn't have been telegraphed that he was a bad guy. It should have come as a surprise.
Finally, with all the talented writers involved, a lot of the dialogue seemed a little dull.
In short, it's a very good movie that could've been great. I give it a 7.5 out of 10 and it curently sits at No. 7 on my list.
Yeah, some critics seemed to be looking for any reason to criticise SP.
"Q" being out in the field with Bond goes back to LTK. Yes, most contemporary Bond films lack originality, but not because they are taking things from MI, they are actually taking things from older Bond films of which MI6 (TV Series and films) stone cold steal from (along with a bit from the Dirty Dozen). The MI TV show and films only exist because of Bond...period. The MI films with all its gone rogue stuff, Bond did before (see LTK). Hell, the first team leader on the original MI TV Series actually was dressed and had a haircut like Connery. But I guess CR copied MI which had a blond 2nd leader with a blond Bond
setting his tools out and as he looks down. The plane moves off, as the
mechanic does a double take !
to them.
I think that is a bit unfair to say. There are really only two films that cater for 1 (FRWL and CR), so that makes me wonder what films YOU like. And anyway, if we're going to split up Bind fans, I'll do it here:
1) Fans who like films that are realistic, but may have a few elements that break reality (FRWL, FYEO, LTK, CR, QoS, SF)
2) Fans that like films that aren't very realistic and more of an adventure film (DN, GF, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, MR, OP, AVTAK, TLD, GE, TND, TWINE, DAD, SP)
3) Fand that don't have a specific type, and just like whatever films they like (me).
SPECTRE was OK. It's not the best Bond movie I have seen and it's not the worst.
Now my two favourites are CR and QoS, which makes me a big DC fan. The thing that I believe is the influencing factor in any poor opinion of SF and SP I have is that I believe Mendes was a poor choice for a director. I believe he is too weak as a director for me to even do a good action movie, let alone a good Bond movie. Plus he's too much of a fanboy, hence stupid stuff like a tricked out DB5 in SF, instead of sticking with the realism of CR and QoS.
Hence if DC does another Bond movie, and I hope he does, I would be interested to see what another movie with him in under another director will be like. Hopefully a return to the success of CR (I won't say QoS as well as I know there are very polar opinions on that movie!).
1) Did we really need Waltz's Blofeld to have that scar in order to make us think of Pleasence's Blofeld? Personally, I could've done without it.
2) Mr. Hinx is an okay henchman, but let's not kid ourselves, he's not even close to being in the same league as Jaws, Oddjob, or Red Grant. He's okay, but for some reason I'm not too big on him.
3) We could've done without seeing Craig's Bond restore the martini tradition. That was possibly better suited for his succesor. That way, when the 7th Bond came along and restored it, we could've said to ourselves "Okay, it's a new era now".
But other than that, I enjoyed the film.
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
Doesnt he order one in Casino Royale?
"shaken or stirred"
"Do I look like I give a damn"
We don't need it, but it's a nice touch.
He's intended to provoke memories of such henchmen, and I'd say successfully.
Works for me.
So did I!
That's when he broke with the martini tradition. By being the first Bond not to care about whether the martini was shaken or stirred, Craig established that his Bond was very different from his predecessors.
We don't see him explicitly ordering a martini "shaken, not stirred" until SP. That's when he restored the martini tradition.
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
My only, ONLY small issue is the Bond/Blofeld link. And know what? I'm already over it.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
They do exist you know. They are very prevalent on these boards
That's all fine - but maybe they should bring Tarantino to direct a Bond movie after all. There will be no loose ends and everything will make sense - while at the same time being heaps of fun.
What Spectre manages to get better -- but still not expertly -- are these shifts. It's what makes the PTS works so well. It goes from seeming rather serious and creepy to being funny and cool to being tense and threatening to ending on an upbeat note with Bond's triumph -- people are responding well to it precisely because it evokes filmmaking of old. Where Spectre starts to break down is when the scenes try too hard to sustain one particular emotion for too long -- and the writing and direction aren't strong enough to convey it. The romance between Bond and Swann, for instance, is weak. Falling in love is a flurry of emotions: lust, worry, excitement, anticipation, satisfaction. But little of this occurs onscreen and therefore vicariously for the audience. It feels flat. We understand they fall in love but we don't feel it.
I felt similarly about the Bond and Vesper relationship in Casino Royale, but still more effort was used there than here. Mendes also thinks that showing us singular vehicles traveling through a big landscape is somehow emotive -- Bond in his little boat; the train traveling through a desert; the car coming to pick them up. This is a modern conceit. We're supposed to respond to the image in some way. But there's no real context. It may be "cool" to look at, but I didn't feel any tension because not enough was built up in the previous scene to make me feel it. This is where it fets flat.
The bottom line is that a film is supposed to be a wide range of emotions and experiences -- a buffet. Modern films instead try to serve it up as mostly a four-course meal in three acts. As such, I go away still hungry much of the time and then have to watch an older, classic film to cleanse the palate. But whether a film is dark and gritty or light and fun, it should still balance out its elements. Most contemporary films, including the Bonds, do don't this very well, if at all. Instead, they try to sustain the same elements almost exclusively from start to finish.
- The pre-credits sequence was very good, an improvement over Skyfall's in my opinion as it was more well paced and the juxtaposition of the action and large crowd scenes gave it an expansive feel.
- The credits were typically competent and the title song, which I hated upon first hearing it, worked far better when married to the visuals.
- The overall plot was somewhat reminiscent of Captain America: The Winter Soldier to me: government agency (MI5&MI6/SHIELD) is unknowingly infiltrated and manipulated by shadowy organization (HYDRA/SPECTRE) while one operative (Captain America/Bond) works to expose and stop it.
- The whole "Bond must go rogue" thing was a bit of a retread and it would have been nice if M, Q & Moneypenney were in on the mission from the start rather than gradually coming around as the film went on.
- Monica Bellucci's scenes were all too brief but still very entertaining; she still looks amazing at 50.
- The scenes in Rome were very nice; beautiful photography and the board meeting was suitably creepy and unsettling (got a bit of a Eyes Wide Shut vibe at times). The car chase lacked a bit of urgency to it but it had a nice mix of action and humor.
- Mr. White's appearance was a bit of a surprise and his character was given some new layers which I thought was a nice touch.
- Bond's arrival to the clinic in Austria really harkened to the scenes of Piz Gloria from OHMSS and the car/plane chase was a pretty innovative departure from your typical Bond chase.
- The Tangier/train section was a bit flat and kind of derailed the pace of the film. I understand the need to take a breath and expand the plot but it could have probably been better edited. The fight was quite brutal though it seemed to come out of nowhere and the final resolution a bit of a letdown and I was actually expecting Hinx to make another appearance.
- As was the case with Bond's first meeting with Silva in Skyfall, I'm not clear on why Bond felt the need to just waltz into Blofeld's lair alone and so unprepared; it seemed particularly reckless and put him and Swann into unnecessary danger.
- Blofeld's motivation was really flimsy; he basically murdered his own father and became a criminal mastermind because he was jealous of Bond as a child. The writers should have worked on that and their attempt to basically make Bond and Blofeld figurative brothers didn't really work for me.
- The final act from Bond's escape to his capture of Blofeld seemed somewhat tacked on and lacked drama. The thought of Bond being able to down a helicopter with a single shot from his gun at such a distance seemed pretty preposterous.
- The attempt to tie all of Craig's Bond movies together and retcon certain characters and events to make them part of a larger tapestry likewise seemed a bit of a stretch.
- As was the case with all of Craig's films, I really didn't care much for the villain's grand scheme. We again have a baddie who just wants to manipulate from the shadows rather than make a grand statement and too much action happens in front of a computer screen and behind a keyboard. I guess it better fits the times but I do miss the days when the bad guy just wanted to take over the world or score a really major payday.
- For all of M's talk about how the 00's are needed, it is a bit disappointing to have so much of the film resolved with a few strokes of the keyboard (it is Q who hacks the Nine Eyes system and shuts it down; I remember the good old days when Bond would have just blown up the whole building).
- I enjoyed all the little nods to the prior films like Blofeld's disfigured eye. Some people seemed to have problems with references like that; I saw them as homages to films and characters which now obviously inhabit an alternate universe. Nothing wrong with that at all.
- The actors were all very competent and no one seemed out of place. Mallory, Moneypenney and Q all had some nice bits; Monica Bellucci and Lea Seydoux were very good if underused at times; Christoph Waltz was a worthy heir to the name of Blofeld and Craig delivered his usual workmanlike performance. He will never be great with the quip and his interactions with his leading ladies often have a certain awkwardness to them but he has improved greatly from the humorless thug who starred in Casino Royale.
- People and critics (yes, the two can be mutually exclusive) have complained that Spectre lacks originality and is just a series of riffs on prior films; it is hardly the first movie to do that and I could come up with plenty of examples of other films (as recent as Skyfall) doing the exact same thing; it's part and parcel with the Bond franchise.
- People have also complained how Spectre is a throwback to the more outlandish Bond entries and has far too much humor. I didn't see it that way at all. Tonally, it struck me as very similar to Skyfall and there was hardly anything outlandish about it. Take, for example, Blofeld's lair in the middle of a crater. It is clearly a homage to the volcano set from YOLT but lacks the sense of flair and grandeur of the prior film. Instead of an underground complex with launching pad, monorail and working rocket we just get a few non-descript buildings and rooms populated with laptops and LCD screens. If anything, the movie could have used a bit more pizzazz.
Still, at the end of the day, I was entertained and never felt the need to check my watch for the entire running time so the movie must have done something right for me. It gets a thumbs up and I'll be adding it to my BluRay collection when it is released.
-wait for it-
Nothing.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
This type of rubbish may have worked in the 60s, but it doesn't work today.
(This is my main gripe with the film)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS