Now we have some Australian reviews. None of the extremes we're had from the UK or US critics! Spectre is not the worst Bond movie in 30 years, it's just the most average Bond movie, it seems.
Now we have some Australian reviews. None of the extremes we're had from the UK or US critics! Spectre is not the worst Bond movie in 30 years, it's just the most average Bond movie, it seems.
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
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
I have never been Craig’s Bond’s fan, and Skyfall was the first of his movies that did not wait for to get on DVD/Blu-ray.
Interesting, I was the same. I've not seen Skyfall since my 2nd viewing at the cinema. Only last week when I got the BluRay box set will I be watching it again...
Now we have some Australian reviews. None of the extremes we're had from the UK or US critics! Spectre is not the worst Bond movie in 30 years, it's just the most average Bond movie, it seems.
A dude over at MI6 posted that he thought people who really disliked SPECTRE "seem to have forgotten the first 20 films of this franchise." )
I saw SPECTRE this evening for the second time. I'm a hardcore Bond fan of both the movies and Fleming books. Craig is my favorite Bond. I think he and Timothy Dalton have done the best job bringing Fleming's literary creation to the screen. SPECTRE, at least to me, was a decent Bond film--but it wasn't great. The action sequences were phenomenal--and Craig again delivered the goods.
My chief complaint is that it was just too long. It didn't have the pacing to sustain 2 and a half hours. Many scenes could have been shortened dramatically to improve the narrative flow. Also, as someone else said on this board, it was as if the producers couldn't decide whether to make it humorous or maintain the dark tradition of the Craig era.
Sam Smith's "The Writing's On the Wall" is a bore to the ears and the tentacle porn opening credits were just odd. Javier Bardem as Silva really chewed up the scenery in SKYFALL when he was on screen. Watlz as Blofeld just seemed oddly flat. There was nothing sinister about him or the SPECTRE organization.
Also, I think they tried too hard to tie all the Craig movies together. It just seemed forced. I realize I'm overthinking it here . . . but if SPECTRE really was behind all of Craig's previous adventures, surely he would have encountered a villain somewhere wearing a Spectre ring prior to the events of this most recent movie.
All that said, I will be adding it to the Bond Blu Ray collection when it comes out!
Great observations, it's hard not to agree with most of what you stated. If I was a Craig fan, I would struggle to comprehend why his portrayal of Bond over the 4 movies is so varied. It's like he played at least 3 different characters, as the one from Spectre has little to do with the one from Casino Royale.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
If I was a Craig fan, I would struggle to comprehend why his portrayal of Bond over the 4 movies is so varied. It's like he played at least 3 different characters, as the one from Spectre has little to do with the one from Casino Royale.
Well, here's how I do it (not much of a struggle, truth be told)...
IMO, it's simply Bond growing as a character over several pictures, which is certainly what makes his run unique among all other portrayers of the character. By SP---after losing Vesper and enduring torture, etc., in CR...being bent on vengeance only to realize, in QoS, that it doesn't really bring peace...coming to terms with his near-death and possible irrelevance in SF, and then losing M (arguably a surrogate mother figure)---007 has reached a certain point in a character arc where he has earned a bit of fatalistic flippancy, which I think Craig nails squarely on the head.
This is why the film is going to be a success, despite some flaws and dodgy writing---and also despite the best efforts of Bond-hating critics (and Craig-as-Bond detractors, haha) :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
If I was a Craig fan, I would struggle to comprehend why his portrayal of Bond over the 4 movies is so varied. It's like he played at least 3 different characters, as the one from Spectre has little to do with the one from Casino Royale.
Well, here's how I do it (not much of a struggle, truth be told)...
IMO, it's simply Bond growing as a character over several pictures, which is certainly what makes his run unique among all other portrayers of the character. By SP---after losing Vesper and enduring torture, etc., in CR...being bent on vengeance only to realize, in QoS, that it doesn't really bring peace...coming to terms with his near-death and possible irrelevance in SF, and then losing M (arguably a surrogate mother figure)---007 has reached a certain point in a character arc where he has earned a bit of fatalistic flippancy, which I think Craig nails squarely on the head.
This is why the film is going to be a success, despite some dodgy writing---and also despite the best efforts of Bond-hating critics (and Craig-as-Bond detractors, haha) :007)
If I was a Craig fan, I would struggle to comprehend why his portrayal of Bond over the 4 movies is so varied. It's like he played at least 3 different characters, as the one from Spectre has little to do with the one from Casino Royale.
Well, here's how I do it (not much of a struggle, truth be told)...
IMO, it's simply Bond growing as a character over several pictures, which is certainly what makes his run unique among all other portrayers of the character. By SP---after losing Vesper and enduring torture, etc., in CR...being bent on vengeance only to realize, in QoS, that it doesn't really bring peace...coming to terms with his near-death and possible irrelevance in SF, and then losing M (arguably a surrogate mother figure)---007 has reached a certain point in a character arc where he has earned a bit of fatalistic flippancy, which I think Craig nails squarely on the head.
This is why the film is going to be a success, despite some flaws and dodgy writing---and also despite the best efforts of Bond-hating critics (and Craig-as-Bond detractors, haha) :007)
Now we have some Australian reviews. None of the extremes we're had from the UK or US critics! Spectre is not the worst Bond movie in 30 years, it's just the most average Bond movie, it seems.
If I was a Craig fan, I would struggle to comprehend why his portrayal of Bond over the 4 movies is so varied. It's like he played at least 3 different characters, as the one from Spectre has little to do with the one from Casino Royale.
Well, here's how I do it (not much of a struggle, truth be told)...
IMO, it's simply Bond growing as a character over several pictures, which is certainly what makes his run unique among all other portrayers of the character. By SP---after losing Vesper and enduring torture, etc., in CR...being bent on vengeance only to realize, in QoS, that it doesn't really bring peace...coming to terms with his near-death and possible irrelevance in SF, and then losing M (arguably a surrogate mother figure)---007 has reached a certain point in a character arc where he has earned a bit of fatalistic flippancy, which I think Craig nails squarely on the head.
This is why the film is going to be a success, despite some flaws and dodgy writing---and also despite the best efforts of Bond-hating critics (and Craig-as-Bond detractors, haha) :007)
So, if I read this correctly, you don’t mind how Bond is portrayed, as long as he is portrayed by Craig? )
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
If I was a Craig fan, I would struggle to comprehend why his portrayal of Bond over the 4 movies is so varied. It's like he played at least 3 different characters, as the one from Spectre has little to do with the one from Casino Royale.
Well, here's how I do it (not much of a struggle, truth be told)...
IMO, it's simply Bond growing as a character over several pictures, which is certainly what makes his run unique among all other portrayers of the character. By SP---after losing Vesper and enduring torture, etc., in CR...being bent on vengeance only to realize, in QoS, that it doesn't really bring peace...coming to terms with his near-death and possible irrelevance in SF, and then losing M (arguably a surrogate mother figure)---007 has reached a certain point in a character arc where he has earned a bit of fatalistic flippancy, which I think Craig nails squarely on the head.
This is why the film is going to be a success, despite some flaws and dodgy writing---and also despite the best efforts of Bond-hating critics (and Craig-as-Bond detractors, haha) :007)
So, if I read this correctly, you don’t mind how Bond is portrayed, as long as he is portrayed by Craig? )
I'm saying he is playing Bond superbly well, to the tune of billions of dollars in box office ticket sales
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
I don't enjoy them all, and I don't think that enjoying them all is a necessary condition of being a Bond fan. Some I love despite their flaws, some I don't like at all and will consciously avoid. It's the same with the Novels, quality is variable, when it's good it's superb.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Genuinely I do enjoy them all. and of course it's ok if others don't ( I'm not fighting with anyone )
but for me, Bond is my escape from reality, and has been since I was a little boy. On the floor, playing
with my cars, looking up at the telly to watch 007. )
So I can only speak for myself, in that I love them all, and regularly watch them all. Any I have a problem
with I will rewatch and read opinions here ( as I want to like these films, and do rate very highly the opinions
of some here, who know much more than me. Not just about the films and books, but about the movies
industry in general)
An example would be QOS ( which I hated) but reading opinions and observations here, with many hours
rewatching, I now like it alot.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Even the ones I don't like very much have "a bit of something" to offer.
But I very rarely pull out DAF, DAD or SF because, whilst they have "a bit of something" to offer, it is just not enough to keep me fully entertained and I find myself losing my focus with them.
I particularly do not like SF because it is just all over the place, and I found myself thinking "WHAT?" at some of the writing. It is a very generic and by the numbers actioner which did not even really feel like a Bond film to me.
My wife once told me that with the Bond films, I was like
a puppy seeing his owner coming home, as my tail starts wagging )
( although, that may have been a sex joke ? )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
If I was a Craig fan, I would struggle to comprehend why his portrayal of Bond over the 4 movies is so varied. It's like he played at least 3 different characters, as the one from Spectre has little to do with the one from Casino Royale.
Well, here's how I do it (not much of a struggle, truth be told)...
IMO, it's simply Bond growing as a character over several pictures, which is certainly what makes his run unique among all other portrayers of the character. By SP---after losing Vesper and enduring torture, etc., in CR...being bent on vengeance only to realize, in QoS, that it doesn't really bring peace...coming to terms with his near-death and possible irrelevance in SF, and then losing M (arguably a surrogate mother figure)---007 has reached a certain point in a character arc where he has earned a bit of fatalistic flippancy, which I think Craig nails squarely on the head.
To be fair, this is Craig's 4th Bond in 10 years, now see how Connery changed from Dr No to YOLT in just five years, he is almost a different character and his world is different. Even more so, arguably, by DAF in terms of his looks. Also, Moore went from LALD to MR by his fourth film; okay his Bond was never that grounded but even so, there's a lot of difference going from stunt speedboats to out of space heroics.
Compared to that, Craig's evolution is straightforward, even if in its bigger and better expansion it can't help but go against the original brief of a down to earth, realistic Bond in CR. I do think they kind of ditched that reboot thing early on in some ways, and you could argue it was compromised with the presence of the Aston Martin DB5 and Judi Dench as M. It was kind of like they bottled it a bit.
Those who embraced Craig early said they did so because it was realistic, it was close to the literary original, and it wasn't as camp as More. Well, they should hate Craig in Spectre then - cartoonish, far from the novels, and almost as much comedy as Moore...
No-one can beat the Brits at hyperbole! ) Must be their national sport.
Spectre got good reviews from the British press, it was the Americans who caused the problems
"Problem" is in the eye of the beholder. British reviews were just as extreme as the US ones, for no sufficient reason, just in different directions. Most Australian reviews are far more balanced. Spectre is not the triumph the Brits claimed, or the failure the Yanks declared.
Well, here's how I do it (not much of a struggle, truth be told)...
IMO, it's simply Bond growing as a character over several pictures, which is certainly what makes his run unique among all other portrayers of the character. By SP---after losing Vesper and enduring torture, etc., in CR...being bent on vengeance only to realize, in QoS, that it doesn't really bring peace...coming to terms with his near-death and possible irrelevance in SF, and then losing M (arguably a surrogate mother figure)---007 has reached a certain point in a character arc where he has earned a bit of fatalistic flippancy, which I think Craig nails squarely on the head.
This is why the film is going to be a success, despite some flaws and dodgy writing---and also despite the best efforts of Bond-hating critics (and Craig-as-Bond detractors, haha) :007)
So, if I read this correctly, you don’t mind how Bond is portrayed, as long as he is portrayed by Craig? )
I'm saying he is playing Bond superbly well, to the tune of billions of dollars in box office ticket sales
You are hardly saying anything about how he REALLY plays Bond. At my age, money doesn't impress me so much.
Comments
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/movies/leigh-paatsch/movie-spectre-the-most-average-james-bond-film-of-all-time/news-story/19add53c36841eb219b18f02782f2ea3
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Interesting, I was the same. I've not seen Skyfall since my 2nd viewing at the cinema. Only last week when I got the BluRay box set will I be watching it again...
"Better make that two."
No-one can beat the Brits at hyperbole!
I saw SPECTRE this evening for the second time. I'm a hardcore Bond fan of both the movies and Fleming books. Craig is my favorite Bond. I think he and Timothy Dalton have done the best job bringing Fleming's literary creation to the screen. SPECTRE, at least to me, was a decent Bond film--but it wasn't great. The action sequences were phenomenal--and Craig again delivered the goods.
My chief complaint is that it was just too long. It didn't have the pacing to sustain 2 and a half hours. Many scenes could have been shortened dramatically to improve the narrative flow. Also, as someone else said on this board, it was as if the producers couldn't decide whether to make it humorous or maintain the dark tradition of the Craig era.
Sam Smith's "The Writing's On the Wall" is a bore to the ears and the tentacle porn opening credits were just odd. Javier Bardem as Silva really chewed up the scenery in SKYFALL when he was on screen. Watlz as Blofeld just seemed oddly flat. There was nothing sinister about him or the SPECTRE organization.
Also, I think they tried too hard to tie all the Craig movies together. It just seemed forced. I realize I'm overthinking it here . . . but if SPECTRE really was behind all of Craig's previous adventures, surely he would have encountered a villain somewhere wearing a Spectre ring prior to the events of this most recent movie.
All that said, I will be adding it to the Bond Blu Ray collection when it comes out!
Well, here's how I do it (not much of a struggle, truth be told)...
IMO, it's simply Bond growing as a character over several pictures, which is certainly what makes his run unique among all other portrayers of the character. By SP---after losing Vesper and enduring torture, etc., in CR...being bent on vengeance only to realize, in QoS, that it doesn't really bring peace...coming to terms with his near-death and possible irrelevance in SF, and then losing M (arguably a surrogate mother figure)---007 has reached a certain point in a character arc where he has earned a bit of fatalistic flippancy, which I think Craig nails squarely on the head.
This is why the film is going to be a success, despite some flaws and dodgy writing---and also despite the best efforts of Bond-hating critics (and Craig-as-Bond detractors, haha) :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
{[]
"Better make that two."
I think this pretty much nails it.
Spectre got good reviews from the British press, it was the Americans who caused the problems
So, if I read this correctly, you don’t mind how Bond is portrayed, as long as he is portrayed by Craig?
I'm saying he is playing Bond superbly well, to the tune of billions of dollars in box office ticket sales
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
They are definitely "turkeys"
I will give you DAD. That film should never have been made.
I don't enjoy them all, and I don't think that enjoying them all is a necessary condition of being a Bond fan. Some I love despite their flaws, some I don't like at all and will consciously avoid. It's the same with the Novels, quality is variable, when it's good it's superb.
Isn't lack of strong feeling just 'meh' surely for good or ill after all the wait we want more than that?
but for me, Bond is my escape from reality, and has been since I was a little boy. On the floor, playing
with my cars, looking up at the telly to watch 007.
So I can only speak for myself, in that I love them all, and regularly watch them all. Any I have a problem
with I will rewatch and read opinions here ( as I want to like these films, and do rate very highly the opinions
of some here, who know much more than me. Not just about the films and books, but about the movies
industry in general)
An example would be QOS ( which I hated) but reading opinions and observations here, with many hours
rewatching, I now like it alot.
But I very rarely pull out DAF, DAD or SF because, whilst they have "a bit of something" to offer, it is just not enough to keep me fully entertained and I find myself losing my focus with them.
I particularly do not like SF because it is just all over the place, and I found myself thinking "WHAT?" at some of the writing. It is a very generic and by the numbers actioner which did not even really feel like a Bond film to me.
a puppy seeing his owner coming home, as my tail starts wagging
( although, that may have been a sex joke ? )
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
To be fair, this is Craig's 4th Bond in 10 years, now see how Connery changed from Dr No to YOLT in just five years, he is almost a different character and his world is different. Even more so, arguably, by DAF in terms of his looks. Also, Moore went from LALD to MR by his fourth film; okay his Bond was never that grounded but even so, there's a lot of difference going from stunt speedboats to out of space heroics.
Compared to that, Craig's evolution is straightforward, even if in its bigger and better expansion it can't help but go against the original brief of a down to earth, realistic Bond in CR. I do think they kind of ditched that reboot thing early on in some ways, and you could argue it was compromised with the presence of the Aston Martin DB5 and Judi Dench as M. It was kind of like they bottled it a bit.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
"Problem" is in the eye of the beholder. British reviews were just as extreme as the US ones, for no sufficient reason, just in different directions. Most Australian reviews are far more balanced. Spectre is not the triumph the Brits claimed, or the failure the Yanks declared.
You are hardly saying anything about how he REALLY plays Bond. At my age, money doesn't impress me so much.