The press do like to build you up, to then knock you down.
And you watch- even if the next movie is only just as good as SP the critics will LOVE it. It's how they roll.
Because it has decent names attached to it; respected actors and respected director. If it was directed by a hack and full of jobbing actors, the critics wouldn't care. Also, I would say their expectations of a Bond film are fairly low so they are more accepting.
I've seen the film 4 times now and feel that i've had enough viewings to properly digest it and give my own review of it. So here's my two cents on Spectre:
Basically, I liked it. In some respects, I like it quite a bit. However in no way do I love it and ultimately I feel it is a disappointment.
It was entertaining and beautiful to look at, however as has been stated by many, the script was weak and the characters underwritten, with the third act of the film suffering the most. However there were some things I really liked about it and they are as follows:
- Daniel Craig - He is just phenomenal in this. He is so comfortable and so assured in the role, this time adding a large dose of laconic humour and a casual, noncholant demeanour that further rounds out his interpretation of Bond. He is now right up there with Connery in my opinion and I would put him as the second best Bond on my list. I love Roger, but I think that after this performance Daniel nudges him out into third place. May he do a couple more!
- The pre-title sequence - Initially it underwhelmed me, but now i've seen it a few times I love it. It's fantastic stuff. The 30 second shot of Craig walking along the rooftops suited up, holding his weapon, going after his quarry like a super sauve and stylish Vito Corelone ala The Godfather Part II is one of my all-time favourite Bond moments. And the helicopter stuff is great. I mean, the chopper does f@#%^& barrel rolls!! Outrageous and awesome stuff.
- Lea Seydoux - Love this actress. Her character was handicapped by severe writing flaws at certain points during the film yet she carried her role off with aplomb. So much so that I think she is one of my favourite Bond girls in the series. And she's a stunner.
- The Spectre meeting - Great scene. Fantastically shot. Evoked a very sinister, Kubrick feel. Very much influenced by Eyes Wide Shut. Unfortunately let down a little by an admittedly pleasant but underwhelming car - chase sequence. However the atmosphere and dialogue in the meeting are great. A very good interpretation of what a present day multinational crime syndicate like Spectre would be like.
- Tangier, L’Americain, the train sequence, Blofeld’s lair, 3 quarters of the torture scene. - All of this stuff is great. I know a lot of people seem to claim that this is where the film dips, but for me this is where it really soars. This 40 odd min section has a somewhat otherworldly quality, like a Bond film in a dream, and I love the feeling that it evokes. The train setting is fantastic and the fight between Bond and Hinx is one of the best. Blofeld's lair is great, as is Waltz, who does exceptionally well considering what he has to work with in terms of character development. The torture scene is fine up until Blofeld's dodgy Bond connection. Madeline's 'I love you' is also a false note. Probably one of the worst in the series actually, but having said that i'm still fond of the scene. I know people highlight the ease of Bond's recovery and escape as perhaps being a little too easy, but I quite enjoy it. I know that it is somewhat a bit of a missed opportunity (similar to the car chase), as it could have been great to have seen Bond under duress, struggling to escape the henchmen, however I have no real problem with Bond just being able to flick the switch and pick off all of these henchmen. (I mean, he's James Bond)
Now that i've listed my positives, i'm not going to run through the negatives as i've already mentioned a couple, though suffice to say the film does have its flaws. The writing is the cause of all of these, which is obviously often the case with flawed films, however because everything else in Spectre is excellent, right from the direction, the performances and all of the technical aspects (perhaps leaving out the score) it only serves to highlight the under developed writing even more. This script sprinkles over plot, character development and character motivations. The genesis for an emotional, gripping and thrilling story that contained mysterious and enthralling characters was there, however the script needed more re-writes in order for this to be achieved and instead of the film that I think they thought they could make, (a truly great film that succeeds as both a good Bond film and an excellent drama/thriller), instead we have merely a good Bond film that has moments of greatness but overall is not a very good film in the wider sense.
I fell that Skyfall is better, and the reason why that film works so well is that it had a script that developed its characters and clearly defined their motivations. It had sprinkles of Classic Bond elements and whilst it wasn't a traditional Bond film, had enough of the series tropes to make it feel Bondian without sacrificing the story or the character development. Spectre I feel is the other way round, it goes very heavy on the Bond tropes and has many of the traditional Bond film moments, however it merely sprinkles over the story and the characters and ultimately suffers because of it. This may have been okay in decades past, as franchise movies were not often looked towards for quality film-making. However now I feel that with the advent of big franchise blockbusters that are equally concerned with plot and character as much as action and thrills, I do feel that producing a film that happens to be very expensive, contains a great cast and has superb film-makers in charge of it, yet has a run of the mill, mediocre script at its core is no longer really acceptable. And now the series is obviously set-up to continue the Blofeld story I have concerns about where the series will head in the future as they have put all of their story chips in the one basket and the film hasn't succeeded (in terms of quality, not box office) as well as it should have. Anyways, I know that was long winded, however I needed to get it off my chest So essentially, I like Spectre, but I want this to be a once off, and they have to make sure that next time they come up with a strong script. Otherwise all of the money, great actors and fine film-makers in the world won't be able to make the new Bond flick the film that it deserves to be.
Essentially I agree with you I think SF is a better film,but SP has
so many brilliant scenes ( in fact so good, I expect the parodies to
come thick and fast ) ) and unlike SF etc, it has a tremendous sense
of fun. -{
I left the cinema feeling good, so I'm happy.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Yes I felt pretty good as well, despite the disappointment. One thing I failed to mention is the gunbarrell!! Loved it! The music was great and I was happy with the design of the sequence. Loved seeing it back in its rightful place )
Very well thought out review. All your points are very well taken...not just because I agree with most but you really did a great job of dissecting the film. With regards to them "putting all their story chips in one basket"; IMO because of that it is imperitive that the writing for Bond 25 improve. I would have to believe that a continuation of the Blofeld saga could be made compelling with a good script.
I think we are all finally getting there! SP is a good entry in the franchise, we agree the majority of the flaws are in the writing, and other than the bond haters (quite why they are members here is beyond me??) most seem to agree that there are some great scenes in this movie. After all said and done it's entertainment and I for one was suitably entertained.
I felt there were too many story lines in SP (Bond reconsiders being an assassin, love story, What is Spectre? Who is Blofeld? What is Denbigh up to?) and thinking about it, I've decided:
A. I'm right;
B. The reason for all the story lines is that the film was simultaneously bidding adieu to Craig's Bond and wrapping up his story arc, and also introducing Blofeld and Spectre for the next film (s).
Sadly, I'm guessing we've seen the last of Craig's Bond.
I think that they may have put 2 films worth of storylines into one and that they should have split the film up into 2 and then the story lines in SP would have been more manageable :007)
James Bond: That’s a Smith & Wesson, and you’ve had your six.
B-)
I've seen it twice now and here are my initial thoughts -
I LOVED the movie, and I mean loved it. It had so many moments, as indicated before, that channeled the Connery and Moore films. I felt that this film was a 'dedication' to those classics.
The film had an overall vibe of 'luxury', just like the latter Moore films, something that I personally had wanted to see for some time now.
I cannot express the feeling of fun and the proverbial rollicking good time I had when Blofeld shows up, Chrisopher in my opinion did a fantastic job and I fully appreciated the 'less is more' take on him a la Thunderball. I almost yelled 'yeeah!!' when the damn cat shows up on the screen! I am sorry but I absolutely loved the entire scene, torture, exploding watch, cat and everything!
The Bond girls were to die for - Monica is still setting the standard for unbelievable attractiveness and Leia kept reminding me of a succulent crème brulee, both good things.
As for Daniel- unfortunately, he still isn't Bond in my honest opinion. I figured after watching Skyfall that if he could just amp the suaveness a little more, he might just convince me. Well Daniel amped it up plenty in Spectre but it just didn't help.
Now, he plays the part perfectly in Spectre, in fact, its his best performance as Bond yet. But unfortunately, he still looks funny in too many shots. The glossiness and the women don't help to hide the awkwardness of his HUGE ears and bulbous nose, non existent eyebrows and short stature.
After 4 films, I'm now fully convinced, Daniel is not James Bond. I've thoroughly enjoyed his movies, especially this one. He proved he could do smooth and confident to a T. But at best, he is only able to channel the greats, which is a testament to his acting skills. His looks, though, are not his fault.
Was this intentional with the reboot? Was it EON's intention to scale back on the looks of James Bond, and not make his appear so 'perfect' a hero? This is a good argument, but the argument falls apart with a movie like Spectre, where everything about the film is designed to celebrate Classic James Bond. Daniel Craig doesn't fit properly here, e in a circle type thing.
I love Daniel Craig, he's done a splendid job, his movies are fantastic, all of them. This is a testament to the efforts of the producing team to make the best possible Bond movies. My only complaint is that it just doesn't look like Bond in those films.
But again, fantastic film, absolutely superior to Skyfall, and that was going to be a hard thing to accomplish. -{
I think that they may have put 2 films worth of storylines into one and that they should have split the film up into 2 and then the story lines in SP would have been more manageable :007)
Definitely. I would have split the Nine Eyes and Blofeld's personal vendetta. If they'd just stuck with Blofeld, they would have been able to tie off all of Bond's feelings of revenge and loss (first for Vesper and then for M) and then start afresh with the lighter tone that they want to establish. CR, QOS and SF all have relatively simple throughlines; even if you took out the plot elements, you understand the emotional story. SP has a less clear direction; we know there's going to be a showdown with Blofeld because we know he or a Blofeld-like character is in the film but there's not a clear concise goal that Bond has. Nine Eyes would have been good for having a film where it is just Bond on a mission; he can be sidetracked but he's not rogue.
I think that they may have put 2 films worth of storylines into one and that they should have split the film up into 2 and then the story lines in SP would have been more manageable :007)
Definitely. I would have split the Nine Eyes and Blofeld's personal vendetta. If they'd just stuck with Blofeld, they would have been able to tie off all of Bond's feelings of revenge and loss (first for Vesper and then for M) and then start afresh with the lighter tone that they want to establish. CR, QOS and SF all have relatively simple throughlines; even if you took out the plot elements, you understand the emotional story. SP has a less clear direction; we know there's going to be a showdown with Blofeld because we know he or a Blofeld-like character is in the film but there's not a clear concise goal that Bond has. Nine Eyes would have been good for having a film where it is just Bond on a mission; he can be sidetracked but he's not rogue.
Yes that would have made it better
James Bond: That’s a Smith & Wesson, and you’ve had your six.
Spectre should've been Bond deciding not to be an assassin (main story line) + love story + what is Spectre?
At some point Bond could've found evidence that Spectre had infiltrated the British government but that story could've otherwise been saved for Bond 25.
I agree with most of these opinions. Also, I don't think a Bond movie - or for that matter a lot of the action films of the recent past - should run past two hours and the main reason they do is that there are too many characters, too many plots and too much screen time on some sequences. One example for me is the PTS in SF. They could have had Bond go directly from the hotel in the car with Moneypenny and chase Patrice on the stolen bike right to the bridge and have had Bond jump directly onto the train. As exciting as the shootout in the marketplace and roof bike chase was to watch they really were not really necessary and this would have helped trim the running time.
The screenwriters really need to concentrate on the basics of creating classic fiction writing where there is one hero, one heroine, one villain and one plot. If they want more characters and more plot, they should either cut up the story into two films or just take the characters to television.
I don't think a Bond movie - or for that matter a lot of the action films of the recent past - should run past two hours and the main reason they do is that there are too many characters, too many plots and too much screen time on some sequences. . . .The screenwriters really need to concentrate on the basics of creating classic fiction writing where there is one hero, one heroine, one villain and one plot. If they want more characters and more plot, they should either cut up the story into two films or just take the characters to television.
I agree with you in spirit, Commander, but I think you're wrong to target the screenwriters. They deliver what the director and the producers want. Usually the finished film reflects directing and editing more than writing: a great editor can trim out excess characters and superfluous scenes, tighten loose spots, and speed up the boring bits. Even when the screenwriter comes up with bad dialogue and flimsy characters, there's still the director on set who approves those lines and an actor who doesn't do something to make that weak character more interesting. Nope--scriptwriters aren't Shakespeares (and even Shakespeare was delivering what the Globe Players wanted); they're just doing a job, and they don't control the finished product.
Vox clamantis in deserto
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I don't think a Bond movie - or for that matter a lot of the action films of the recent past - should run past two hours and the main reason they do is that there are too many characters, too many plots and too much screen time on some sequences. . . .The screenwriters really need to concentrate on the basics of creating classic fiction writing where there is one hero, one heroine, one villain and one plot. If they want more characters and more plot, they should either cut up the story into two films or just take the characters to television.
I agree with you in spirit, Commander, but I think you're wrong to target the screenwriters. They deliver what the director and the producers want. Usually the finished film reflects directing and editing more than writing: a great editor can trim out excess characters and superfluous scenes, tighten loose spots, and speed up the boring bits. Even when the screenwriter comes up with bad dialogue and flimsy characters, there's still the director on set who approves those lines and an actor who doesn't do something to make that weak character more interesting. Nope--scriptwriters aren't Shakespeares (and even Shakespeare was delivering what the Globe Players wanted); they're just doing a job, and they don't control the finished product.
I'll concede that's true, but then the producers and director are at least complicit when flaws make it all the way through writing and development, principal photography and editing/post-production---at some point the powers that be say: "Yes. This is it."
The first decision in this pipeline is hiring the people who sit at the keyboard (who admittedly write what they do based upon the producer's musings). There is really no telling how many original concepts the writers conjure up on their own; quite often I'm sure someone tells them: "I want Bond to crash a plane into some SUVs on a snowy slope." And the writers put Bond in that situation.
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
Having worked on films, I agree that the director and producers are responsible for what ends up on the screen, although smart producers know enough to hire a director who shares their vision well enough to let them create the design of the piece of art with little interference. If it were a still life, the producers may make some suggestions during the initial layout..."I think we need an apple in that bowl as well - these paintings sell better with an apple in them" but the writers, director, DP and editor are all responsible for the finished framed piece. Yes, the director and editor and DP go over the many drafts of scripts during the creation phase and work with the writers in a collaborative effort to nail down the final design and the director is ultimately responsible for leading the team.
So are the overlong, bloated plots more due to the director's work? You can only edit so much of the material before it becomes unworkable. The editor can trim bits here and there, but if it still blooms out past 120 pages, is it the director who is having the writers cram in too much or is it the writers who are unable to compress the plot to a reasonable length, or is it both?
Mendes past films before Bond didn't suffer from the same amount of excessive length - they more or less stayed near the two hour mark, so he and many other directors seem to have a problem with keeping modern large budget films at or below that 120 page mark. Maybe it's my imagination, but whenever I've gone to see these very expensive projects, it seems as though I am sitting through two or three films rather than one. Are they succumbing to the same thinking that took over the restaurants - give them ever increasing size portions to justify the expense?
A Bond movie should always be long -- and longer than two hours. It's an event. It's not just one of the slam-bam actioners that crowd theaters and DVD racks. The problem isn't the length. The problem is the quality of storytelling. A great film keeps the audience enraptured for its length -- and then wanting more. For me, that's Lawrence of Arabia, The Guns of Navarone, Where Eagles Dare, How the West was Won, and a lot more, including Bond films. But too many films today are just padded. The thinness of the scripts is supplanted by some ponderous visuals or long action sequences that eat up screen time but don't contribute as much to the momentum of the film.
But too many films today are just padded. The thinness of the scripts is supplanted by some ponderous visuals or long action sequences that eat up screen time but don't contribute as much to the momentum of the film.
LTK was the end of an era... there was a time when we didn't need long machine-gun engagements, or slow moments of brooding angst or (the dreaded) CGI...
I'm gonna go all analytical here on Craig Bond writing & direction...
CR had a reasonably decent script based on Fleming gold, and a great director. The result was rather stunning.
QOS had a good (unfinished) story idea fleshed out on the fly by Craig & Forster as best they could. Forster himself is a fine director. The result was raw, imperfect, yet undeniably intense & riveting.
SF had noble intent, but recycled ideas from GE & TWINE as a vehicle to say goodbye to Judi as M. It was Mendes' first foray into action/espionage. The result was a satisfyingly emotional film despite its flaws.
SPECTRE was meticulously written by committee (& re-written after Sony leakage) as an homage to Bond of old, with attention to Craig's take on him. Director Mendes, by either mandate or self reflection, brought Bond back from the dead(ly serious) to make him the bada*s agent of absurd confrontation that we (mostly all) love. The result was a good & enormously entertaining balance between nonsense & gritty 'realism'.
I'm gonna go all analytical here on Craig Bond writing & direction...
CR had a reasonably decent script based on Fleming gold, and a great director. The result was rather stunning.
QOS had a good (unfinished) story idea fleshed out on the fly by Craig & Forster as best they could. Forster himself is a fine director. The result was raw, imperfect, yet undeniably intense & riveting.
SF had noble intent, but recycled ideas from GE & TWINE as a vehicle to say goodbye to Judi as M. It was Mendes' first foray into action/espionage. The result was a satisfyingly emotional film despite its flaws.
SPECTRE was meticulously written by committee (& re-written after Sony leakage) as an homage to Bond of old, with attention to Craig's take on him. Director Mendes, by either mandate or self reflection, brought Bond back from the dead(ly serious) to make him the bada*s agent of absurd confrontation that we (mostly all) love. The result was a good & enormously entertaining balance between nonsense & gritty 'realism'.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. )
Seems pretty sound to me {[]
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'm gonna go all analytical here on Craig Bond writing & direction...
CR had a reasonably decent script based on Fleming gold, and a great director. The result was rather stunning.
QOS had a good (unfinished) story idea fleshed out on the fly by Craig & Forster as best they could. Forster himself is a fine director. The result was raw, imperfect, yet undeniably intense & riveting.
SF had noble intent, but recycled ideas from GE & TWINE as a vehicle to say goodbye to Judi as M. It was Mendes' first foray into action/espionage. The result was a satisfyingly emotional film despite its flaws.
SPECTRE was meticulously written by committee (& re-written after Sony leakage) as an homage to Bond of old, with attention to Craig's take on him. Director Mendes, by either mandate or self reflection, brought Bond back from the dead(ly serious) to make him the bada*s agent of absurd confrontation that we (mostly all) love. The result was a good & enormously entertaining balance between nonsense & gritty 'realism'.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. )
Seems pretty sound to me {[]
Yep. Me to. But what next? That's the rub...
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
A Bond movie should always be long -- and longer than two hours. It's an event. It's not just one of the slam-bam actioners that crowd theaters and DVD racks. The problem isn't the length. The problem is the quality of storytelling. A great film keeps the audience enraptured for its length -- and then wanting more. For me, that's Lawrence of Arabia, The Guns of Navarone, Where Eagles Dare, How the West was Won, and a lot more, including Bond films. But too many films today are just padded. The thinness of the scripts is supplanted by some ponderous visuals or long action sequences that eat up screen time but don't contribute as much to the momentum of the film.
So was this film the right length for you? Should QOS have been a longer film? I think you've answered the bulk of my question in regards to the visual padding.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
QoS should have been at least ten minutes longer, IMO.
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
QoS should have been at least ten minutes longer, IMO.
No, good god no. It's only as high as it is because of how short it is. It's the shortest in the series, and yet it's one of the most boring films to sit through.
Comments
Because it has decent names attached to it; respected actors and respected director. If it was directed by a hack and full of jobbing actors, the critics wouldn't care. Also, I would say their expectations of a Bond film are fairly low so they are more accepting.
Another review if you guys are interested. Funny yet accurate to me.
Basically, I liked it. In some respects, I like it quite a bit. However in no way do I love it and ultimately I feel it is a disappointment.
It was entertaining and beautiful to look at, however as has been stated by many, the script was weak and the characters underwritten, with the third act of the film suffering the most. However there were some things I really liked about it and they are as follows:
- Daniel Craig - He is just phenomenal in this. He is so comfortable and so assured in the role, this time adding a large dose of laconic humour and a casual, noncholant demeanour that further rounds out his interpretation of Bond. He is now right up there with Connery in my opinion and I would put him as the second best Bond on my list. I love Roger, but I think that after this performance Daniel nudges him out into third place. May he do a couple more!
- The pre-title sequence - Initially it underwhelmed me, but now i've seen it a few times I love it. It's fantastic stuff. The 30 second shot of Craig walking along the rooftops suited up, holding his weapon, going after his quarry like a super sauve and stylish Vito Corelone ala The Godfather Part II is one of my all-time favourite Bond moments. And the helicopter stuff is great. I mean, the chopper does f@#%^& barrel rolls!! Outrageous and awesome stuff.
- Lea Seydoux - Love this actress. Her character was handicapped by severe writing flaws at certain points during the film yet she carried her role off with aplomb. So much so that I think she is one of my favourite Bond girls in the series. And she's a stunner.
- The Spectre meeting - Great scene. Fantastically shot. Evoked a very sinister, Kubrick feel. Very much influenced by Eyes Wide Shut. Unfortunately let down a little by an admittedly pleasant but underwhelming car - chase sequence. However the atmosphere and dialogue in the meeting are great. A very good interpretation of what a present day multinational crime syndicate like Spectre would be like.
- Tangier, L’Americain, the train sequence, Blofeld’s lair, 3 quarters of the torture scene. - All of this stuff is great. I know a lot of people seem to claim that this is where the film dips, but for me this is where it really soars. This 40 odd min section has a somewhat otherworldly quality, like a Bond film in a dream, and I love the feeling that it evokes. The train setting is fantastic and the fight between Bond and Hinx is one of the best. Blofeld's lair is great, as is Waltz, who does exceptionally well considering what he has to work with in terms of character development. The torture scene is fine up until Blofeld's dodgy Bond connection. Madeline's 'I love you' is also a false note. Probably one of the worst in the series actually, but having said that i'm still fond of the scene. I know people highlight the ease of Bond's recovery and escape as perhaps being a little too easy, but I quite enjoy it. I know that it is somewhat a bit of a missed opportunity (similar to the car chase), as it could have been great to have seen Bond under duress, struggling to escape the henchmen, however I have no real problem with Bond just being able to flick the switch and pick off all of these henchmen. (I mean, he's James Bond)
Now that i've listed my positives, i'm not going to run through the negatives as i've already mentioned a couple, though suffice to say the film does have its flaws. The writing is the cause of all of these, which is obviously often the case with flawed films, however because everything else in Spectre is excellent, right from the direction, the performances and all of the technical aspects (perhaps leaving out the score) it only serves to highlight the under developed writing even more. This script sprinkles over plot, character development and character motivations. The genesis for an emotional, gripping and thrilling story that contained mysterious and enthralling characters was there, however the script needed more re-writes in order for this to be achieved and instead of the film that I think they thought they could make, (a truly great film that succeeds as both a good Bond film and an excellent drama/thriller), instead we have merely a good Bond film that has moments of greatness but overall is not a very good film in the wider sense.
I fell that Skyfall is better, and the reason why that film works so well is that it had a script that developed its characters and clearly defined their motivations. It had sprinkles of Classic Bond elements and whilst it wasn't a traditional Bond film, had enough of the series tropes to make it feel Bondian without sacrificing the story or the character development. Spectre I feel is the other way round, it goes very heavy on the Bond tropes and has many of the traditional Bond film moments, however it merely sprinkles over the story and the characters and ultimately suffers because of it. This may have been okay in decades past, as franchise movies were not often looked towards for quality film-making. However now I feel that with the advent of big franchise blockbusters that are equally concerned with plot and character as much as action and thrills, I do feel that producing a film that happens to be very expensive, contains a great cast and has superb film-makers in charge of it, yet has a run of the mill, mediocre script at its core is no longer really acceptable. And now the series is obviously set-up to continue the Blofeld story I have concerns about where the series will head in the future as they have put all of their story chips in the one basket and the film hasn't succeeded (in terms of quality, not box office) as well as it should have. Anyways, I know that was long winded, however I needed to get it off my chest
so many brilliant scenes ( in fact so good, I expect the parodies to
come thick and fast )
of fun. -{
I left the cinema feeling good, so I'm happy.
A. I'm right;
B. The reason for all the story lines is that the film was simultaneously bidding adieu to Craig's Bond and wrapping up his story arc, and also introducing Blofeld and Spectre for the next film (s).
Sadly, I'm guessing we've seen the last of Craig's Bond.
http://www.james-bondco.yolasite.com/
I've seen it twice now and here are my initial thoughts -
I LOVED the movie, and I mean loved it. It had so many moments, as indicated before, that channeled the Connery and Moore films. I felt that this film was a 'dedication' to those classics.
The film had an overall vibe of 'luxury', just like the latter Moore films, something that I personally had wanted to see for some time now.
I cannot express the feeling of fun and the proverbial rollicking good time I had when Blofeld shows up, Chrisopher in my opinion did a fantastic job and I fully appreciated the 'less is more' take on him a la Thunderball. I almost yelled 'yeeah!!' when the damn cat shows up on the screen! I am sorry but I absolutely loved the entire scene, torture, exploding watch, cat and everything!
The Bond girls were to die for - Monica is still setting the standard for unbelievable attractiveness and Leia kept reminding me of a succulent crème brulee, both good things.
As for Daniel- unfortunately, he still isn't Bond in my honest opinion. I figured after watching Skyfall that if he could just amp the suaveness a little more, he might just convince me. Well Daniel amped it up plenty in Spectre but it just didn't help.
Now, he plays the part perfectly in Spectre, in fact, its his best performance as Bond yet. But unfortunately, he still looks funny in too many shots. The glossiness and the women don't help to hide the awkwardness of his HUGE ears and bulbous nose, non existent eyebrows and short stature.
After 4 films, I'm now fully convinced, Daniel is not James Bond. I've thoroughly enjoyed his movies, especially this one. He proved he could do smooth and confident to a T. But at best, he is only able to channel the greats, which is a testament to his acting skills. His looks, though, are not his fault.
Was this intentional with the reboot? Was it EON's intention to scale back on the looks of James Bond, and not make his appear so 'perfect' a hero? This is a good argument, but the argument falls apart with a movie like Spectre, where everything about the film is designed to celebrate Classic James Bond. Daniel Craig doesn't fit properly here, e in a circle type thing.
I love Daniel Craig, he's done a splendid job, his movies are fantastic, all of them. This is a testament to the efforts of the producing team to make the best possible Bond movies. My only complaint is that it just doesn't look like Bond in those films.
But again, fantastic film, absolutely superior to Skyfall, and that was going to be a hard thing to accomplish. -{
Definitely. I would have split the Nine Eyes and Blofeld's personal vendetta. If they'd just stuck with Blofeld, they would have been able to tie off all of Bond's feelings of revenge and loss (first for Vesper and then for M) and then start afresh with the lighter tone that they want to establish. CR, QOS and SF all have relatively simple throughlines; even if you took out the plot elements, you understand the emotional story. SP has a less clear direction; we know there's going to be a showdown with Blofeld because we know he or a Blofeld-like character is in the film but there's not a clear concise goal that Bond has. Nine Eyes would have been good for having a film where it is just Bond on a mission; he can be sidetracked but he's not rogue.
Halcon, {[] and 100% agreed.
Yes that would have made it better
http://www.james-bondco.yolasite.com/
At some point Bond could've found evidence that Spectre had infiltrated the British government but that story could've otherwise been saved for Bond 25.
The screenwriters really need to concentrate on the basics of creating classic fiction writing where there is one hero, one heroine, one villain and one plot. If they want more characters and more plot, they should either cut up the story into two films or just take the characters to television.
I agree with you in spirit, Commander, but I think you're wrong to target the screenwriters. They deliver what the director and the producers want. Usually the finished film reflects directing and editing more than writing: a great editor can trim out excess characters and superfluous scenes, tighten loose spots, and speed up the boring bits. Even when the screenwriter comes up with bad dialogue and flimsy characters, there's still the director on set who approves those lines and an actor who doesn't do something to make that weak character more interesting. Nope--scriptwriters aren't Shakespeares (and even Shakespeare was delivering what the Globe Players wanted); they're just doing a job, and they don't control the finished product.
I'll concede that's true, but then the producers and director are at least complicit when flaws make it all the way through writing and development, principal photography and editing/post-production---at some point the powers that be say: "Yes. This is it."
The first decision in this pipeline is hiring the people who sit at the keyboard (who admittedly write what they do based upon the producer's musings). There is really no telling how many original concepts the writers conjure up on their own; quite often I'm sure someone tells them: "I want Bond to crash a plane into some SUVs on a snowy slope." And the writers put Bond in that situation.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
So are the overlong, bloated plots more due to the director's work? You can only edit so much of the material before it becomes unworkable. The editor can trim bits here and there, but if it still blooms out past 120 pages, is it the director who is having the writers cram in too much or is it the writers who are unable to compress the plot to a reasonable length, or is it both?
Mendes past films before Bond didn't suffer from the same amount of excessive length - they more or less stayed near the two hour mark, so he and many other directors seem to have a problem with keeping modern large budget films at or below that 120 page mark. Maybe it's my imagination, but whenever I've gone to see these very expensive projects, it seems as though I am sitting through two or three films rather than one. Are they succumbing to the same thinking that took over the restaurants - give them ever increasing size portions to justify the expense?
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
CR had a reasonably decent script based on Fleming gold, and a great director. The result was rather stunning.
QOS had a good (unfinished) story idea fleshed out on the fly by Craig & Forster as best they could. Forster himself is a fine director. The result was raw, imperfect, yet undeniably intense & riveting.
SF had noble intent, but recycled ideas from GE & TWINE as a vehicle to say goodbye to Judi as M. It was Mendes' first foray into action/espionage. The result was a satisfyingly emotional film despite its flaws.
SPECTRE was meticulously written by committee (& re-written after Sony leakage) as an homage to Bond of old, with attention to Craig's take on him. Director Mendes, by either mandate or self reflection, brought Bond back from the dead(ly serious) to make him the bada*s agent of absurd confrontation that we (mostly all) love. The result was a good & enormously entertaining balance between nonsense & gritty 'realism'.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Seems pretty sound to me {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Yep. Me to. But what next? That's the rub...
So was this film the right length for you? Should QOS have been a longer film? I think you've answered the bulk of my question in regards to the visual padding.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I agree as it is my favourite film :007)
It should have been way longer!
http://www.james-bondco.yolasite.com/
No, good god no. It's only as high as it is because of how short it is. It's the shortest in the series, and yet it's one of the most boring films to sit through.