My theatre was filled with respectful fans. Not MEGA fans like me (I was the only one who clapped at the end), but definitely peeps there for Bond! Chuckles came at the right places...
I once helped a cinema worker ( a petite teenage girl) in, asking three yobs to leave
the theatre. ( as they weren't listening to her) luckily I'm a big, fat, ugly bar steward
so they did leave, and I got a round of applause from the rest of the cinema. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
After an excruciating month of waiting and doing my best to avoid spoilers (not entirely successful) I finally saw SPECTRE tonight on its opening in South Africa.
I had read a number of reviews before seeing the film so I had a good idea of what to expect. I didn't expect one of the best Bond films ever, but I figured that if it nudged its way into my top 10 I would be very happy. I think in that respect I got exactly what I hoped for.
I thought that the performances were very good - especially Daniel Craig as Bond. I enjoyed Christoph Waltz as Blofeld - I'm not sure yet if he will go down as my favourite Ernst Stavro (Telly remains my number 1.) I'm really glad that Waltz got the role, I think he's a great choice. I remain unconvinced about the scar - not sure if that was necessary. I liked the idea of a fresh start to the Blofeld character without paying too much attention to the previous movie versions, although I did enjoy the brief appearance of 'pussy.'
In terms of the film's structure and the script, I though it was good but not remarkable. In a similar way to something like The Living Daylights. It had less depth in terms of character than SkyFall or Casino Royale, but didn't frustrate me in terms of its plot contrivances like SkyFall did. We seemed to hop from location to location a bit too quickly to really get the feel of the settings (something which the early Bonds did masterfully.) I expected more from each location in terms of local flavour.
An amusing little side note: Any time South Africa was mentioned got a massive laugh in the screening, especially when the SA delegates vote no, and the "Cape Town in Chaos' headline on the news (I was watching in the Cape Town IMAX by the way.) Everyone really seemed to enjoy that, which I suppose you wouldn't get in screenings in any other country.
Some other points:
- I enjoyed the score more in context of the film than I have listening to it on album, although I still think that Newman isn't as good as David Arnold.
- I thought the pre-title sequence was top notch, although some of the green screen effects looked a bit dodgy.
- Great title sequence, I loved the faces from previous films appearing. Reminded me of OHMSS
- I loved how the torture sequence recalled that from Colonel Sun. Excrutiating to watch, as it was to read.
- I thought the humour was very good, well judged and executed.
- One of my favourite nerdy moments was the name of the safe-house: "Hildebrand Antiques and Rarities." Brilliant!
Overall, I'm tempted to say I like it more than SkyFall, but I think SkyFall is definitely the better film. I think the four-film Daniel Craig era so far has been outstanding in its consistent quality (even though I'm not a big fan of QoS.) I think SPECTRE is a great addition to the canon, and is the Bond film I've been waiting for in the Craig era. It does feel a bit lacking in depth compared to CR and SF but not to an extent which I feel is problematic. I do think it was too long - I don't think 150 minutes running time was justified. It kept my interest throughout but in general I don't like it when action/adventure films go much over 2 hours.
So this is a very quick first response to the film. My opinion will no doubt evolve over the coming weeks and subsequent viewings but for now I think it ranks around 8 or 9 on my list, between TSWLM and TLD.
Nice review Golrush007 -{ I agree that I too think Skyfall was the better film, but
Spectre is, just such fun {[] , also I had completely forgotten about the scar, and
didn't think it was needed, then again it did look good. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I actually prefer SPECTRE by a long shot for some reason - I think a lot of it is down to SPECTRE having a leading lady throughout (Judy Dench doesn't count!)
On repeat viewings one thing came to my mind and you nailed it on the head
I expected more from each location in terms of local flavour.
Huge budget but you kind of feel that they didn't do justice to Morocco especially.
Really can't wait for it to appear on iTunes / blu ray etc so I can watch on my big screen in HD
constantly speaking out loud, opening his lighter, and despite people telling him to shut up, he continued...
In my country he would have been shot. )
Wish that was allowed in my country :P - This was just the worst... I'm so glad I had already seen the movie, because I probably would have been furious had this happened at my first viewing. He was really drunk. After the gunbarrel he repeated the words that come on screen out loud in Dutch (The Dead Are Alive) I thought, fine the movie is just beginning whatever... But seriously he was having full conversations on a normal volume, and he was sitting in my row. Constantly making stupid remarks on the movie. (Like after the credits when M tells Bond MI5 is going to merge with the service he literally goes: "IT's MI6!!" (Oud loud) (Seriously I would have shot him in your country at that point ) ) And during the Mr. White scene he goes all: "He's going to kill himself!" - SEE?!?!!! I TOLD YOU!" He was a man in his fourties, with a girlfriend that just rolled with it and started giggling. Even when people point out they want to watch the movie and they should be quiet. Just five minutes later he continued! Thank god he left for home during the second half which allowed me to finally watch the movie properly again! Still though, I was suprised how little laughs there were during this second half. Even M saying: "I no know what C stands for" barely got a giggle.... During the pre premiere in Imax the whole room was in histarics! )
Defenitely dislike later showings like these, I prefer the first expierence in a crowd full of fans over this any day! Still though, SPECTRE was still a darn good movie despite what happened in the theatre's just now. I think I'll just wait for the blu ray now )
Fanboys? On a fan site? I do hope the authorities have been notified.
You probably missed my review, where I detailed my issues with the film (mostly 3rd act stuff)---and yet had the temerity to enjoy it anyway. It's good of you to drop in, though. What a pleasure.
<sigh> I was hoping someone with your intellect could differentiate between 'fan' and 'fanboy.'
C'est la vie..
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Fanboys? On a fan site? I do hope the authorities have been notified.
You probably missed my review, where I detailed my issues with the film (mostly 3rd act stuff)---and yet had the temerity to enjoy it anyway. It's good of you to drop in, though. What a pleasure.
<sigh> I was hoping someone with your intellect could differentiate between 'fan' and 'fanboy.'
C'est la vie..
Indeed? I was hoping that someone with your ability to read would pick up on certain social cues. Your tendency to be condescending and abrasive does you no favours here. When an opinion of yours on this thread was called simplistic (not a personal attack), you responded by demeaning their education.
We are a congenial community who may disagree, but do not insult. You would be well advised to tone it down, sir, or find another place for your droppings.
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
Indeed? I was hoping that someone with your ability to read would pick up on certain social cues. Your tendency to be condescending and abrasive does you no favours here. When an opinion of yours on this thread was called simplistic (not a personal attack), you responded by demeaning their education.
We are a congenial community who may disagree, but do not insult. You would be well advised to tone it down, sir, or find another place for your droppings.
Perhaps it's the New Yorker in me. I lack patience. What makes a good Bond film is subjective. I again echo my distaste for Spectre and contend that it was boring, lacked imagination, or a solid plot line. I maintain that those who are drawn to it have an affinity for yester-century's Bond and an aversion to progress in the wake of more modern franchises (Borne, MI, etc.).
In other news, I just watched The Man From U.N.C.L.E. Guy Ritchie seems to be well versed in the art of updating the Moore-era Bond films with a modern twist without sacrificing style.
Also of note, if you want mostly camp, 'Kingsman' might appeal to some of the geezers out there.
Indeed? I was hoping that someone with your ability to read would pick up on certain social cues. Your tendency to be condescending and abrasive does you no favours here. When an opinion of yours on this thread was called simplistic (not a personal attack), you responded by demeaning their education.
We are a congenial community who may disagree, but do not insult. You would be well advised to tone it down, sir, or find another place for your droppings.
Perhaps it's the New Yorker in me. I lack patience. What makes a good Bond film is subjective. I again echo my distaste for Spectre and contend that it was boring, lacked imagination, or a solid plot line. I maintain that those who are drawn to it have an affinity for yester-century's Bond and an aversion to progress in the wake of more modern franchises (Borne, MI, etc.).
In other news, I just watched The Man From U.N.C.L.E. Guy Ritchie seems to be well versed in the art of updating the Moore-era Bond films with a modern twist without sacrificing style.
Also of note, if you want mostly camp, 'Kingsman' might appeal to some of the geezers out there.
Wow, Loeff is a gentleman and one of the most even-keeled people on this board. If he's suggesting toning things down, it might be wise to take the advice.
That said, while I agree the writing in Spectre was weak, the rest worked quite well. Yes, this is subjective and quite possibly geezer-like, but, please, let it not turn into the dreck that is those other franchises.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Perhaps it's the New Yorker in me. I lack patience. What makes a good Bond film is subjective. I again echo my distaste for Spectre and contend that it was boring, lacked imagination, or a solid plot line. I maintain that those who are drawn to it have an affinity for yester-century's Bond and an aversion to progress in the wake of more modern franchises (Borne, MI, etc.)
Perhaps it's the Midwestern 'flyover country' yokel in me, but many of us don't take to being talked down to, as many of us are perfectly able to converse in complex sentences and use three-syllable words, and consider notions such as existentialism and the occasional apparent randomness of natural selection.
Indeed, all tastes in Bond are subjective, and I'll counter that you are over-simplifying to maintain that those who enjoy SP despite its flaws are 'stuck in yesterday.' I'm a Fleming aficionado who has championed Craig and his darker, more serious Bond since his announcement as Bond in '05, and I concede that SP's third act is undeniably problematic---however, there is a lot of classic Bond there to enjoy, and I believe that the humour brought back into play this time was not 'over the top' (at least, not to the degree that I object to: i.e., double-taking pigeons, Tarzan yells, slide-whistles, fire-engine ladder gags stolen from the Keystone Cops). The key to Bond's longevity is to stay relevant, and Craig has done that. Box office receipts are proof of it. However, I do not turn my nose up at a bit of fun, as I think Craig's Bond has earned himself a smile or two. This does not mean that I want to cling to my Roger Moore Bonds! If you had any sense of me at all, you would see the fallacy of that.
I'm 53; perhaps a geezer to some, and that's fair. But I have seen the best and worst of Bond in all his forms, dozens of times each, and I know what I like and what I don't. I'm also a screenwriter and novelist, so I know good quality writing and dodgy writing...and in SP, clearly the fellows at the keyboard were not holding up their end. What makes Bond good (or less so) to his fans, in my opinion, is such an extremely complex formula that fans (or fanboys, or what the hell ever---we welcome both here 8-) ) will vehemently disagree from film to film, from actor to actor, and even films within a particular actor's tenure as to what is good, great, what is tripe and what is s**t. But hopefully, in the end, we can grin when we hear the theme.
That said, Bond must and will continue to distinguish himself from his children (and yes, MI and Bourne are his children) with panache and that elusive balance of escapism, action, wit and sex that has kept him alive in cinemas since '62.
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
+1, Bond will be around and thriving, long after the many "Intellectuals"
Have told his fans, how and what to think about them. ) I'm not a member
of the inteligencia, which frees me up from analysing them too much.
Now I have to figure out am I a fan or a fanboy ? ...... am I beautiful or just
Cute, ....... I can't believe it's not butter ! )
Seriously as Gassy Man says, when a Gentleman like Loeffelholz, askes you
to change your tone, I'd take his advice. -{ as he is the most level headed, even tempered
Guy.
Also you'll never get the perfect Bond Film, until I get the gig.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Everybody keeps saying Bond taste is subjective- its not really. The Moore films were only two steps up from the Carry-on films. Do you honestly want James bond to be like Austin Powers/Get Smart?
Its 2015, James Bond is a spy and I want to see a spy film. I don't want silly jokes throughout, nor do I want to see two people humping after nearly dying, making it cringeworthy or entire escape sequences based on gadgets. Anybody can escape when their watch kills people. It stinks of lazy writing "How can he escape this situation? Ah we'll just give him an exploding watch he can throw".
Go view any of the Bourne or MI4/MI5 films and then tell me Spectre was equally good. It simply wasn't. You don't get a baddie sending a Limousine out to the middle of the desert for James Bond to get in, to arrive, be un-armed and be drilled in the head!
There's a reason why Spectre is currently 7.1 on IMDB and Casino Royale is 8.0, because CR is what modern cinema audiences expect: a solid storyline and no silly rubbish.
I think the problem with this film from the offset was having a global organisation like Spectre. Sorry, but Governments do not allow private companies to get anywhere near this about of influence, in terms of security. You saw what contractor Edward Snowden did, and that was just a one-person "company". The whole film was just unrealistic.
I actually enjoyed QoS more- Quantum was believable as many Latin American Governments are corrupt and would do that kind of thing. However, the "nine eyes" aren't going to hand over intelligence to Spectre!
EDIT: Forgot to say, I really didn't like the actress they chose for the bond girl. She is just so wooden, its unreal. I really had no care for whether she was killed or not. This shouldn't be the case- I should care, just like I hoped Vesper survived, but didn't. In that scene from CR where bond tenders his resignation, its actually sad and believable. You can sense bond has realised there's more to life than Queen and country, he experienced love.
Here's my current Craig film rankings, for perspective:
1) Casino Royale
2) First third of Skyfall
3) First third of Spectre
4) QoS
5) Remainder of Spectre
6) Remainder of Skyfall
MI 5, had plenty of jokes, with trying to open the correct door to get
in to an aircraft. After being " Dead" our hero gets up, in time to have
a car chase. ) and they use gadgets too ...... I wonder where they got
those ideas from ?
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
MI 5, had plenty of jokes, with trying to open the correct door to get
in to an aircraft. After being " Dead" our hero gets up, in time to have
a car chase. ) and they use gadgets too ...... I wonder where they got
those ideas from ?
Yes but it suited MI4 because Benje is just hilarious and its part of his character. Bond is a trained assassin. Also, how many sex scenes are there in the MI series? I can't think of any off top of my head. The gadgets they use in MI are a little more practical. Instead of exploding pens and watches, they have gloves which can stick to glass etc. This type of gadget still requires skill (climbing up a building, which Cruise actually did).
To follow-on from Benje, I just don't find Q/Ben Whislaw very funny. He looks too young for his position- he looks like an intern and his jokes just feel awkward. In contrast, I loved both Desmond Llewelyn and John Cleese and their differing humour.
I was going to edit my above post, but I'll just write it here. To contradict myself, I do enjoy the Brosnan films, so I wonder if my qualms are either subconciously with Craig or something else?
No problem, we all like different things. I too prefer CR to Spectre but
They're both fun ( for me at least) I also enjoy the MI films and The
Jason Bourne movies. There's plenty of room for all these secret agent
Chaps, sometimes less serious than others.
As for climbing, Bond didn't need gadgets. He climbed using only his
Shoe laces. Fair play to Tom Cruise, I watched a making of documentary
on MI5, and the guy has B*lls of steel. His stunt work is amazing. -{ and I
Find the new Q very funny, I guess we simply have different tastes.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
In other news, I just watched The Man From U.N.C.L.E. Guy Ritchie seems to be well versed in the art of updating the Moore-era Bond films with a modern twist without sacrificing style.
I take it you haven't seen the original The Man From U.N.C.L.E. television series? That show made spying lighthearted a decade before Moore did. Guy Ritchie was attempting to take the spirit of the original television series, not the Moore Bond films, which are more serious.
No problem, we all like different things. I too prefer CR to Spectre but
They're both fun ( for me at least) I also enjoy the MI films and The
Jason Bourne movies. There's plenty of room for all these secret agent
Chaps, sometimes less serious than others.
As for climbing, Bond didn't need gadgets. He climbed using only his
Shoe laces. Fair play to Tom Cruise, I watched a making of documentary
on MI5, and the guy has B*lls of steel. His stunt work is amazing. -{ and I
Find the new Q very funny, I guess we simply have different tastes.
CR and QoS I don't have a problem with, but the other two:
The first third of Skyfall was amazing, the Shanghai scene was the most exciting scene I have ever seen in a Bond film. I was sat in the cinema thinking "this is so exciting, where is it going to go?". But then it went downhill:
1) The biggest problem was the plot hole that Silva went to all that trouble to purposely get caught (not checking Bond for the homing beacon) so that he could escape and kill M, when all he had to do was turn up at the public hearing without getting caught.
2) After the above, the film then effectively ends with a Home Alone-esque conclusion, running around a gloomy, doomy Scottish estate. A shoot-em-up around an ugly, depressing, wet location is not a Bond film.
3) I found the first third of Spectre interesting, even up to the train scene (although it was a bit cat-and-mouse/24-esque where Bond just keeps going somewhere and a baddie turns up). However once the limousine arrived to collect them in the desert- I just couldn't believe how they ruined the film. Since when do spies (the emphasis is on secrecy) roll-up to the baddies place in the baddie's limousine, to proceed to be tortured?
Have you ever watched Homeland? There is a character called Quinn, he is a CIA SAD (Special Activities Division) assassin. I think its S03E01:
He goes to Columbia where he has to assassinate somebody. He climbs over the wall, with a silenced pistol, killing guards and it actually feels like a clandestine operation. Now compare this with a limousine arriving in the desert for Bond to hop in to? Its just pure silliness.
No problem, we all like different things. I too prefer CR to Spectre but
They're both fun ( for me at least) I also enjoy the MI films and The
Jason Bourne movies. There's plenty of room for all these secret agent
Chaps, sometimes less serious than others.
As for climbing, Bond didn't need gadgets. He climbed using only his
Shoe laces. Fair play to Tom Cruise, I watched a making of documentary
on MI5, and the guy has B*lls of steel. His stunt work is amazing. -{ and I
Find the new Q very funny, I guess we simply have different tastes.
CR and QoS I don't have a problem with, but the other two:
The first third of Skyfall was amazing, the Shangai scene was the most exciting scene I have ever seen in a Bond film. I was sat in the cinema thinking "this is so exciting, where is it going to go?". But then it went downhill:
1) The biggest problem was the plot hole that Silva went to all that trouble to purposely get caught (not checking Bond for the homing beacon) so that he could escape and kill M, when all he had to do was turn up at the public hearing without getting caught.
2) After the above, the film then effectively ends with a Home Alone-esque conclusion, running around a gloomy, doomy Scottish estate. A shoot-em-up around an ugly, depressing, wet location is not a Bond film.
3) I found the first third of Spectre interesting, even up to the train scene (although it was a bit cat-and-mouse/24-esque where Bond just keeps going somewhere and a baddie turns up). However once the limousine arrived to collect them in the desert- I just couldn't believe how they ruined the film. Since when do spies (the emphasis is on secrecy) roll-up to the baddies place in the baddie's limousine, to proceed to be tortured?
Have you ever watched Homeland? There is a character called Quinn, he is a CIA SAD (Special Activities Division) assassin. I think its S03E01:
He goes to Columbia where he has to assassinate somebody. He climbs over the wall, with a silenced pistol, killing guards and it actually feels like a clandestine operation. Now compare this with a limousine arriving in the desert for Bond to hop in to? Its just pure silliness.
1. Silva wanted quality time with M before he killed her, which he wouldn't have gotten if he'd simply shown up and (attempted to) kill her. It was more about humilating her and getting a personal sense of vengence rather than just killing her.
2. Actually the ending was a clever reversal of all those Bond films that involved an attack on the villain's lair at the end. This time it was an attack on Bond's lair.
3. The train scene in Spectre occurs more than half-way through the movie. I figured the limo actually came to pick up Hinx.
Do you really think that assassinations in real life are carried out against fortified locations by a single guy with a pistol?
It's either A. A drone attack; or B. A 20 man unit of special operatives (as with bin Laden).
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Everybody keeps saying Bond taste is subjective- its not really. The Moore films were only two steps up from the Carry-on films. Do you honestly want James bond to be like Austin Powers/Get Smart?
Its 2015, James Bond is a spy and I want to see a spy film. I don't want silly jokes throughout, nor do I want to see two people humping after nearly dying, making it cringeworthy or entire escape sequences based on gadgets. Anybody can escape when their watch kills people. It stinks of lazy writing "How can he escape this situation? Ah we'll just give him an exploding watch he can throw".
Go view any of the Bourne or MI4/MI5 films and then tell me Spectre was equally good. It simply wasn't. You don't get a baddie sending a Limousine out to the middle of the desert for James Bond to get in, to arrive, be un-armed and be drilled in the head!
Well, it can be argued that the Moore Era tipped the scale too far in one direction; sure. He's not my preference, but he has a huge contingent of Bond fans in his corner, thanks to subjective taste
'Deadpan spoofing' has been a part of Cinematic Bond since the first film in 1962 (per Richard Maibaum, charter Bond screenwriter). Fleming deliberately put his protagonist in outlandish plots and situations.
If you prefer your escapist espionage adventure to be played more straight, Bond's offspring (M:I, Bourne) are there for you. I enjoy them both---they're a blast, but IMO nobody does it with the same style as Bond :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
Intelligence techniques do change, I'm sure the lone agent has his place, but
as GalaBrand points out these days, it's more likely to be a drone, locking on
to a mobile phone signal, then Bang. One less scumbag !
I guess, I look at the films slightly differently to some, as I understand the script
has to hold together but as far As I'm concerned. It's simply a vehicle to string some
Car chases, fight sequences, stunts and a few jokes together for an entertaining fun
event.
Even the best films have plot holes, sometimes they're almost unavoidable. As I love
and enjoy the Bonds, I either over look them, or don't investigate too much. it's like
Having a lovely puppy, who sometimes piddles on the carpet. Sure you're annoyed, but
It doesn't stop You loving him.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
The first third of Skyfall was amazing, the Shangai scene was the most exciting scene I have ever seen in a Bond film. I was sat in the cinema thinking "this is so exciting, where is it going to go?". But then it went downhill:
1) The biggest problem was the plot hole that Silva went to all that trouble to purposely get caught (not checking Bond for the homing beacon) so that he could escape and kill M, when all he had to do was turn up at the public hearing without getting caught.
2) After the above, the film then effectively ends with a Home Alone-esque conclusion, running around a gloomy, doomy Scottish estate. A shoot-em-up around an ugly, depressing, wet location is not a Bond film.
1. So would Silva getting himself caught in a public hearing made for a great cinematic experience vs. the Shanghai, boat and deserted island sequences leading to Silva's capture?
2. Would you have preferred Silva kidnap M (and not kill her which was his intention) and take her to some island? Then 007 goes to her rescue like in TMWTGG and finds M in a bikini as it can not conceal any weapons .... Would you have just have Silva kill M in the hearing (what would be the need to even have him self captured. And may be just end the movie in an hour - a documentary length)
I am getting a bit tired of members registered less than a month ago and slashing an entire decade of Bond movies - such as the Moore age.
We had these discussions and still have - in short: In the 70s and 80s no-one gave a rats arse for realism and gritty tone - this all changed with First Blood and that was a direction Cubby did not want to go. The approach that Bond should be gritty and serious only is unrealistic - even today.
These are 1 billion $ blockbusters and are there to entertain various interests of audiences.
You don't like Moore as Bond - fine.
But you have no right to look down on those who enjoy his movies for what they are - some of them are perhaps more seriously interested in Bond than you will ever be!
Rant Over!
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Comments
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
A*seholes !
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
the theatre. ( as they weren't listening to her) luckily I'm a big, fat, ugly bar steward
so they did leave, and I got a round of applause from the rest of the cinema.
I had read a number of reviews before seeing the film so I had a good idea of what to expect. I didn't expect one of the best Bond films ever, but I figured that if it nudged its way into my top 10 I would be very happy. I think in that respect I got exactly what I hoped for.
I thought that the performances were very good - especially Daniel Craig as Bond. I enjoyed Christoph Waltz as Blofeld - I'm not sure yet if he will go down as my favourite Ernst Stavro (Telly remains my number 1.) I'm really glad that Waltz got the role, I think he's a great choice. I remain unconvinced about the scar - not sure if that was necessary. I liked the idea of a fresh start to the Blofeld character without paying too much attention to the previous movie versions, although I did enjoy the brief appearance of 'pussy.'
In terms of the film's structure and the script, I though it was good but not remarkable. In a similar way to something like The Living Daylights. It had less depth in terms of character than SkyFall or Casino Royale, but didn't frustrate me in terms of its plot contrivances like SkyFall did. We seemed to hop from location to location a bit too quickly to really get the feel of the settings (something which the early Bonds did masterfully.) I expected more from each location in terms of local flavour.
An amusing little side note: Any time South Africa was mentioned got a massive laugh in the screening, especially when the SA delegates vote no, and the "Cape Town in Chaos' headline on the news (I was watching in the Cape Town IMAX by the way.) Everyone really seemed to enjoy that, which I suppose you wouldn't get in screenings in any other country.
Some other points:
- I enjoyed the score more in context of the film than I have listening to it on album, although I still think that Newman isn't as good as David Arnold.
- I thought the pre-title sequence was top notch, although some of the green screen effects looked a bit dodgy.
- Great title sequence, I loved the faces from previous films appearing. Reminded me of OHMSS
- I loved how the torture sequence recalled that from Colonel Sun. Excrutiating to watch, as it was to read.
- I thought the humour was very good, well judged and executed.
- One of my favourite nerdy moments was the name of the safe-house: "Hildebrand Antiques and Rarities." Brilliant!
Overall, I'm tempted to say I like it more than SkyFall, but I think SkyFall is definitely the better film. I think the four-film Daniel Craig era so far has been outstanding in its consistent quality (even though I'm not a big fan of QoS.) I think SPECTRE is a great addition to the canon, and is the Bond film I've been waiting for in the Craig era. It does feel a bit lacking in depth compared to CR and SF but not to an extent which I feel is problematic. I do think it was too long - I don't think 150 minutes running time was justified. It kept my interest throughout but in general I don't like it when action/adventure films go much over 2 hours.
So this is a very quick first response to the film. My opinion will no doubt evolve over the coming weeks and subsequent viewings but for now I think it ranks around 8 or 9 on my list, between TSWLM and TLD.
Spectre is, just such fun {[] , also I had completely forgotten about the scar, and
didn't think it was needed, then again it did look good.
On repeat viewings one thing came to my mind and you nailed it on the head
Huge budget but you kind of feel that they didn't do justice to Morocco especially.
Really can't wait for it to appear on iTunes / blu ray etc so I can watch on my big screen in HD
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Yeah!
Wish that was allowed in my country :P - This was just the worst... I'm so glad I had already seen the movie, because I probably would have been furious had this happened at my first viewing. He was really drunk. After the gunbarrel he repeated the words that come on screen out loud in Dutch (The Dead Are Alive) I thought, fine the movie is just beginning whatever... But seriously he was having full conversations on a normal volume, and he was sitting in my row. Constantly making stupid remarks on the movie. (Like after the credits when M tells Bond MI5 is going to merge with the service he literally goes: "IT's MI6!!" (Oud loud) (Seriously I would have shot him in your country at that point
Defenitely dislike later showings like these, I prefer the first expierence in a crowd full of fans over this any day! Still though, SPECTRE was still a darn good movie despite what happened in the theatre's just now. I think I'll just wait for the blu ray now
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
<sigh> I was hoping someone with your intellect could differentiate between 'fan' and 'fanboy.'
C'est la vie..
Indeed? I was hoping that someone with your ability to read would pick up on certain social cues. Your tendency to be condescending and abrasive does you no favours here. When an opinion of yours on this thread was called simplistic (not a personal attack), you responded by demeaning their education.
We are a congenial community who may disagree, but do not insult. You would be well advised to tone it down, sir, or find another place for your droppings.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Perhaps it's the New Yorker in me. I lack patience. What makes a good Bond film is subjective. I again echo my distaste for Spectre and contend that it was boring, lacked imagination, or a solid plot line. I maintain that those who are drawn to it have an affinity for yester-century's Bond and an aversion to progress in the wake of more modern franchises (Borne, MI, etc.).
In other news, I just watched The Man From U.N.C.L.E. Guy Ritchie seems to be well versed in the art of updating the Moore-era Bond films with a modern twist without sacrificing style.
Also of note, if you want mostly camp, 'Kingsman' might appeal to some of the geezers out there.
That said, while I agree the writing in Spectre was weak, the rest worked quite well. Yes, this is subjective and quite possibly geezer-like, but, please, let it not turn into the dreck that is those other franchises.
Perhaps it's the Midwestern 'flyover country' yokel in me, but many of us don't take to being talked down to, as many of us are perfectly able to converse in complex sentences and use three-syllable words, and consider notions such as existentialism and the occasional apparent randomness of natural selection.
Indeed, all tastes in Bond are subjective, and I'll counter that you are over-simplifying to maintain that those who enjoy SP despite its flaws are 'stuck in yesterday.' I'm a Fleming aficionado who has championed Craig and his darker, more serious Bond since his announcement as Bond in '05, and I concede that SP's third act is undeniably problematic---however, there is a lot of classic Bond there to enjoy, and I believe that the humour brought back into play this time was not 'over the top' (at least, not to the degree that I object to: i.e., double-taking pigeons, Tarzan yells, slide-whistles, fire-engine ladder gags stolen from the Keystone Cops). The key to Bond's longevity is to stay relevant, and Craig has done that. Box office receipts are proof of it. However, I do not turn my nose up at a bit of fun, as I think Craig's Bond has earned himself a smile or two. This does not mean that I want to cling to my Roger Moore Bonds! If you had any sense of me at all, you would see the fallacy of that.
I'm 53; perhaps a geezer to some, and that's fair. But I have seen the best and worst of Bond in all his forms, dozens of times each, and I know what I like and what I don't. I'm also a screenwriter and novelist, so I know good quality writing and dodgy writing...and in SP, clearly the fellows at the keyboard were not holding up their end. What makes Bond good (or less so) to his fans, in my opinion, is such an extremely complex formula that fans (or fanboys, or what the hell ever---we welcome both here 8-) ) will vehemently disagree from film to film, from actor to actor, and even films within a particular actor's tenure as to what is good, great, what is tripe and what is s**t. But hopefully, in the end, we can grin when we hear the theme.
That said, Bond must and will continue to distinguish himself from his children (and yes, MI and Bourne are his children) with panache and that elusive balance of escapism, action, wit and sex that has kept him alive in cinemas since '62.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Have told his fans, how and what to think about them.
of the inteligencia, which frees me up from analysing them too much.
Now I have to figure out am I a fan or a fanboy ? ...... am I beautiful or just
Cute, ....... I can't believe it's not butter !
Seriously as Gassy Man says, when a Gentleman like Loeffelholz, askes you
to change your tone, I'd take his advice. -{ as he is the most level headed, even tempered
Guy.
Also you'll never get the perfect Bond Film, until I get the gig.
Its 2015, James Bond is a spy and I want to see a spy film. I don't want silly jokes throughout, nor do I want to see two people humping after nearly dying, making it cringeworthy or entire escape sequences based on gadgets. Anybody can escape when their watch kills people. It stinks of lazy writing "How can he escape this situation? Ah we'll just give him an exploding watch he can throw".
Go view any of the Bourne or MI4/MI5 films and then tell me Spectre was equally good. It simply wasn't. You don't get a baddie sending a Limousine out to the middle of the desert for James Bond to get in, to arrive, be un-armed and be drilled in the head!
There's a reason why Spectre is currently 7.1 on IMDB and Casino Royale is 8.0, because CR is what modern cinema audiences expect: a solid storyline and no silly rubbish.
I think the problem with this film from the offset was having a global organisation like Spectre. Sorry, but Governments do not allow private companies to get anywhere near this about of influence, in terms of security. You saw what contractor Edward Snowden did, and that was just a one-person "company". The whole film was just unrealistic.
I actually enjoyed QoS more- Quantum was believable as many Latin American Governments are corrupt and would do that kind of thing. However, the "nine eyes" aren't going to hand over intelligence to Spectre!
EDIT: Forgot to say, I really didn't like the actress they chose for the bond girl. She is just so wooden, its unreal. I really had no care for whether she was killed or not. This shouldn't be the case- I should care, just like I hoped Vesper survived, but didn't. In that scene from CR where bond tenders his resignation, its actually sad and believable. You can sense bond has realised there's more to life than Queen and country, he experienced love.
Here's my current Craig film rankings, for perspective:
1) Casino Royale
2) First third of Skyfall
3) First third of Spectre
4) QoS
5) Remainder of Spectre
6) Remainder of Skyfall
in to an aircraft. After being " Dead" our hero gets up, in time to have
a car chase.
those ideas from ?
To follow-on from Benje, I just don't find Q/Ben Whislaw very funny. He looks too young for his position- he looks like an intern and his jokes just feel awkward. In contrast, I loved both Desmond Llewelyn and John Cleese and their differing humour.
I was going to edit my above post, but I'll just write it here. To contradict myself, I do enjoy the Brosnan films, so I wonder if my qualms are either subconciously with Craig or something else?
They're both fun ( for me at least) I also enjoy the MI films and The
Jason Bourne movies. There's plenty of room for all these secret agent
Chaps, sometimes less serious than others.
As for climbing, Bond didn't need gadgets. He climbed using only his
Shoe laces.
on MI5, and the guy has B*lls of steel. His stunt work is amazing. -{ and I
Find the new Q very funny, I guess we simply have different tastes.
I take it you haven't seen the original The Man From U.N.C.L.E. television series? That show made spying lighthearted a decade before Moore did. Guy Ritchie was attempting to take the spirit of the original television series, not the Moore Bond films, which are more serious.
The first third of Skyfall was amazing, the Shanghai scene was the most exciting scene I have ever seen in a Bond film. I was sat in the cinema thinking "this is so exciting, where is it going to go?". But then it went downhill:
1) The biggest problem was the plot hole that Silva went to all that trouble to purposely get caught (not checking Bond for the homing beacon) so that he could escape and kill M, when all he had to do was turn up at the public hearing without getting caught.
2) After the above, the film then effectively ends with a Home Alone-esque conclusion, running around a gloomy, doomy Scottish estate. A shoot-em-up around an ugly, depressing, wet location is not a Bond film.
3) I found the first third of Spectre interesting, even up to the train scene (although it was a bit cat-and-mouse/24-esque where Bond just keeps going somewhere and a baddie turns up). However once the limousine arrived to collect them in the desert- I just couldn't believe how they ruined the film. Since when do spies (the emphasis is on secrecy) roll-up to the baddies place in the baddie's limousine, to proceed to be tortured?
Have you ever watched Homeland? There is a character called Quinn, he is a CIA SAD (Special Activities Division) assassin. I think its S03E01:
He goes to Columbia where he has to assassinate somebody. He climbs over the wall, with a silenced pistol, killing guards and it actually feels like a clandestine operation. Now compare this with a limousine arriving in the desert for Bond to hop in to? Its just pure silliness.
#1.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
1. Silva wanted quality time with M before he killed her, which he wouldn't have gotten if he'd simply shown up and (attempted to) kill her. It was more about humilating her and getting a personal sense of vengence rather than just killing her.
2. Actually the ending was a clever reversal of all those Bond films that involved an attack on the villain's lair at the end. This time it was an attack on Bond's lair.
3. The train scene in Spectre occurs more than half-way through the movie. I figured the limo actually came to pick up Hinx.
Do you really think that assassinations in real life are carried out against fortified locations by a single guy with a pistol?
It's either A. A drone attack; or B. A 20 man unit of special operatives (as with bin Laden).
Well, it can be argued that the Moore Era tipped the scale too far in one direction; sure. He's not my preference, but he has a huge contingent of Bond fans in his corner, thanks to subjective taste
'Deadpan spoofing' has been a part of Cinematic Bond since the first film in 1962 (per Richard Maibaum, charter Bond screenwriter). Fleming deliberately put his protagonist in outlandish plots and situations.
If you prefer your escapist espionage adventure to be played more straight, Bond's offspring (M:I, Bourne) are there for you. I enjoy them both---they're a blast, but IMO nobody does it with the same style as Bond :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
as GalaBrand points out these days, it's more likely to be a drone, locking on
to a mobile phone signal, then Bang. One less scumbag !
I guess, I look at the films slightly differently to some, as I understand the script
has to hold together but as far As I'm concerned. It's simply a vehicle to string some
Car chases, fight sequences, stunts and a few jokes together for an entertaining fun
event.
Even the best films have plot holes, sometimes they're almost unavoidable. As I love
and enjoy the Bonds, I either over look them, or don't investigate too much.
Having a lovely puppy, who sometimes piddles on the carpet. Sure you're annoyed, but
It doesn't stop You loving him.
1. So would Silva getting himself caught in a public hearing made for a great cinematic experience vs. the Shanghai, boat and deserted island sequences leading to Silva's capture?
2. Would you have preferred Silva kidnap M (and not kill her which was his intention) and take her to some island? Then 007 goes to her rescue like in TMWTGG and finds M in a bikini as it can not conceal any weapons .... Would you have just have Silva kill M in the hearing (what would be the need to even have him self captured. And may be just end the movie in an hour - a documentary length)
We had these discussions and still have - in short: In the 70s and 80s no-one gave a rats arse for realism and gritty tone - this all changed with First Blood and that was a direction Cubby did not want to go. The approach that Bond should be gritty and serious only is unrealistic - even today.
These are 1 billion $ blockbusters and are there to entertain various interests of audiences.
You don't like Moore as Bond - fine.
But you have no right to look down on those who enjoy his movies for what they are - some of them are perhaps more seriously interested in Bond than you will ever be!
Rant Over!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
8-) Casual Audiences anyone? 8-)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!