Nice to see support for TB, which is too frequently slagged off. It is very often my "go to" film and if I was into the whole list business it would be very near the top.
I'm a huge Thunderball fan too. TB is probably my favorite Bond film and definately my favorite Connery performance. Hell, TB is one of my favorite films of all time.... -{
I'm a huge Thunderball fan too. TB is probably my favorite Bond film and definately my favorite Connery performance. Hell, TB is one of my favorite films of all time.... -{
Do you really enjoy Quantum of Solace and Skyfall though? Because I have little interest in watching those two again.
I wonder how many people watched the trailers or got really excited by the idea of what they would do with Blofeld. Maybe me being let down by the previous two movies and knowing that there was no way they would top Thunderball, made me relax and enjoy what they did bring. I didn't watch any of the trailers or read any news leading up to the release either after seeing the announcement conference. With Blofeld there were only two real ways of handling him. A behind the scenes character or an OHMSS type character. When they cast Hinx, you had to know that he (or she - when I was guessing from the Spectre Press Conference) would be a behind the scenes character.
Also, I started a topic a long time ago about how all the recent Bond stories were personal.
Spectre really is the ultimate personal Bond story. Even though the producers obviously had no intention of doing that from the beginning. But I thought that twist made it different than the more previously used motivations for Blofeld.
Yes, I have to say that I enjoy both Quantum of Solace and Skyfall much more than Spectre. Bond feels like a more interesting and complex character in both and both of those films actually try to do something different and introduce new elements we haven't really seen before in Bond films.
I felt that Spectre didn't really bring anything new to the table. Apart from the PTS and the train fight the action scenes were pretty underwhelming despite the huge budget. Spectre has a great cast and loads of potential but it just doesn't deliver on that potential for me. My main problem with the script is that it lacks focus and leaves a lot of the plot points underdeveloped, especially the relationship between Madeleine and Bond.
I understand they wanted to bring Blofeld back with a new twist but the personal angle was completely unnecessary. A more basic idea of Bond stumbling upon a global omnipotent conspiracy led by the greatest and most calculating criminal mastermind would have been a much more menacing scenario than a jealous lunatic with daddy issues. The whole bridge scene with Blofeld provoking Bond to execute him is cringeworthy and not like Fleming's Blofeld at all.
I agree with this, SP too me was essentially a by-the-numbers Bond film just checking off the list of what makes a Bond film. Now this was obviously the aim which Mendes, DC and the team made apparent, make a "classic" Bond movie. But too me it ended up being exactly that and nothing more, just a by the numbers Bond film that offers nothing new or interesting. I remember leaving the theater after SF with a "wow" feeling whereas I left SP with a "meh" feeling. It's Bond, but its run of the mill Bond.
I agree with this, SP too me was essentially a by-the-numbers Bond film just checking off the list of what makes a Bond film. Now this was obviously the aim which Mendes, DC and the team made apparent, make a "classic" Bond movie. But too me it ended up being exactly that and nothing more, just a by the numbers Bond film that offers nothing new or interesting. I remember leaving the theater after SF with a "wow" feeling whereas I left SP with a "meh" feeling. It's Bond, but its run of the mill Bond.
I agree with much of what you are saying. I didn't have the "meh" feeling however. I actually believe that Mendes, EON, etc aim with SPECTRE was to make a classic Bond, I think what they ended up with was more of a Bond's greatest hits compilation, albeit a well crafted, entertaining one. Given what the film was meant to be I think a significant mistep was Mendes again choosing Thomas Newman to score the film. If your plan is to do a "classic" Bond then you need a "classic" Bond score and Newman is just not the composer for that. For classic Bond, David Arnold directed to do his "Barryest" could have put a nice classic finishing touch to the film. Even the title song (which I like) that was villified by many on this site worked much better the one time that Newman worked the melody into the score, something Arnold would have been more apt to do. Just another opinion/take on things.
I agree with this, SP too me was essentially a by-the-numbers Bond film just checking off the list of what makes a Bond film. Now this was obviously the aim which Mendes, DC and the team made apparent, make a "classic" Bond movie. But too me it ended up being exactly that and nothing more, just a by the numbers Bond film that offers nothing new or interesting. I remember leaving the theater after SF with a "wow" feeling whereas I left SP with a "meh" feeling. It's Bond, but its run of the mill Bond.
I agree with much of what you are saying. I didn't have the "meh" feeling however. I actually believe that Mendes, EON, etc aim with SPECTRE was to make a classic Bond, I think what they ended up with was more of a Bond's greatest hits compilation, albeit a well crafted, entertaining one. Given what the film was meant to be I think a significant mistep was Mendes again choosing Thomas Newman to score the film. If your plan is to do a "classic" Bond then you need a "classic" Bond score and Newman is just not the composer for that. For classic Bond, David Arnold directed to do his "Barryest" could have put a nice classic finishing touch to the film. Even the title song (which I like) that was villified by many on this site worked much better the one time that Newman worked the melody into the score, something Arnold would have been more apt to do. Just another opinion/take on things.
Yes to the musical comment above, but I have one thing to say: give me a great James, or a wild cinematic Bond. SPECTRE managed to give me both. For THAT it is unique I think, despite the box ticking. And that's also why it's in my top ten.
I agree with this, SP too me was essentially a by-the-numbers Bond film just checking off the list of what makes a Bond film. Now this was obviously the aim which Mendes, DC and the team made apparent, make a "classic" Bond movie. But too me it ended up being exactly that and nothing more, just a by the numbers Bond film that offers nothing new or interesting. I remember leaving the theater after SF with a "wow" feeling whereas I left SP with a "meh" feeling. It's Bond, but its run of the mill Bond.
I agree with much of what you are saying. I didn't have the "meh" feeling however. I actually believe that Mendes, EON, etc aim with SPECTRE was to make a classic Bond, I think what they ended up with was more of a Bond's greatest hits compilation, albeit a well crafted, entertaining one. Given what the film was meant to be I think a significant mistep was Mendes again choosing Thomas Newman to score the film. If your plan is to do a "classic" Bond then you need a "classic" Bond score and Newman is just not the composer for that. For classic Bond, David Arnold directed to do his "Barryest" could have put a nice classic finishing touch to the film. Even the title song (which I like) that was villified by many on this site worked much better the one time that Newman worked the melody into the score, something Arnold would have been more apt to do. Just another opinion/take on things.
Yes to the musical comment above, but I have one thing to say: give me a great James, or a wild cinematic Bond. SPECTRE managed to give me both. Fot THAT it is unique I think, despite the box ticking. And that's also why it's in my top ten.
The lackluster score certainly didn't help the film and even hindered some scenes, and I love Newman's score for SF. I just feel Bond's journey in SP was uneventful, the envelope really wasn't pushed in any way, they played it safe. in SF Bond failed the opening mission, was presumed dead for months, was injured the majority of the film, had his car and childhood home blown up and lost M.
I agree with much of what you are saying. I didn't have the "meh" feeling however. I actually believe that Mendes, EON, etc aim with SPECTRE was to make a classic Bond, I think what they ended up with was more of a Bond's greatest hits compilation, albeit a well crafted, entertaining one. Given what the film was meant to be I think a significant mistep was Mendes again choosing Thomas Newman to score the film. If your plan is to do a "classic" Bond then you need a "classic" Bond score and Newman is just not the composer for that. For classic Bond, David Arnold directed to do his "Barryest" could have put a nice classic finishing touch to the film. Even the title song (which I like) that was villified by many on this site worked much better the one time that Newman worked the melody into the score, something Arnold would have been more apt to do. Just another opinion/take on things.
Yes to the musical comment above, but I have one thing to say: give me a great James, or a wild cinematic Bond. SPECTRE managed to give me both. Fot THAT it is unique I think, despite the box ticking. And that's also why it's in my top ten.
The lackluster score certainly didn't help the film and even hindered some scenes, and I love Newman's score for SF. I just feel Bond's journey in SP was uneventful, the envelope really wasn't pushed in any way, they played it safe. in SF Bond failed the opening mission, was presumed dead for months, was injured the majority of the film, had his car and childhood home blown up and lost M.
Bond can't lose every time. He loses in CR and in SP. He doesn't win much in QOS either. I was getting tired of Bond losing so much and being good at his job in SP was something different and made me care more about the character again.
Bond can't lose every time. He loses in CR and in SF. He doesn't win much in QOS either. I was getting tired of Bond losing so much and being good at his job in SP was something different and made me care more about the character again.
Yes to the musical comment above, but I have one thing to say: give me a great James, or a wild cinematic Bond. SPECTRE managed to give me both. Fot THAT it is unique I think, despite the box ticking. And that's also why it's in my top ten.
The lackluster score certainly didn't help the film and even hindered some scenes, and I love Newman's score for SF. I just feel Bond's journey in SP was uneventful, the envelope really wasn't pushed in any way, they played it safe. in SF Bond failed the opening mission, was presumed dead for months, was injured the majority of the film, had his car and childhood home blown up and lost M.
Bond can't lose every time. He loses in CR and in SP. He doesn't win much in QOS either. I was getting tired of Bond losing so much and being good at his job in SP was something different and made me care more about the character again.
Exactly. For all of SPECTRE's faults, Bond succeeding isn't one of them.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
Interesting how our opinion of SP is changing. There was almost universal euphoria when the movie came out, but now there seems to be only a handful of enthusiasts left to defend it.
I enjoyed it on first viewing at the cinema, I've watched it since on blu ray at home and I think it drags a touch more than I remember at the cinema.
This film has some great moments. I thought the opening scenes in Mexico were very well done. It introduces Craig as being assured in what hes doing now. The introduction to SPECTRE in the meeting room was one of the most tense Bond scenes ever and worked really well. The showdown with Mr White was good too. Some of the camerawork and cinematography in these scenes was excellent with some beautiful establishing shots throughout. But in among it all were action scenes that seemed to lack something, the car chase, the plane pursuit and the rushed escape and destruction of the lair in particular spring to mind. Although I did like the train fight.
Spectre had a lot of elements I liked, but I think it possibly falls down on the functional nature of the plot. M leads to Mexico, Mexico leads to Rome, Rome to Mr White, Mr White to his daughter and L'American, L'American to the desert lair, the lair back to C. The story is basically just a follow the breadcrumbs adventure, which can work. Afterall a simple story worked with Skyfall, but with Spectre it was missing something I can't put my finger on. I don't think its down to any of the performances. Maybe its the fact they were trying so hard to fit so much in and tie it all together? There were a lot of coincidences and conveniences along the way. (No different to any other film you may say). The ring DNA analysis linking back to previous adversaries doesn't work for me. Blofeld as adopted foster brother I just about buy in to and I quite liked Waltzs strangely quirky performance. But was the brother angle really necessary? The team up at the end is something I wasn't massively keen on at first, but it serves the story.
I have no problem with them slowly integrating old elements of Bond in there with the characters and even some subtle humour too either. I think most of these elements worked for me in SP.
Theres been lots of comments about them hinting throughout this film that it could be DC's last. I don't see an issue with that. Because if it does prove to be his last one then his run as Bond can be watched as one standalone quadrilogy, with everything being tied together (for better or worse).
Overall despite its flaws I still enjoyed it more than QOS. But not as good as SF or CR.
Bond can't lose every time. He loses in CR and in SP. He doesn't win much in QOS either. I was getting tired of Bond losing so much and being good at his job in SP was something different and made me care more about the character again.
He certainly shouldn't lose every time but some of the stuff in Spectre started to approach the old "superhero Bond" territory again. In Blofeld's lair he gets his head drilled multiple times but just seconds later still manages to make escaping from this highly guarded facility look like a walk in the park. He guns down multiple enemies from a long distance like it's some kind of a video game. It just felt very anticlimactic and removed all sense of peril from the entire torture sequence.
Bond can't lose every time. He loses in CR and in SP. He doesn't win much in QOS either. I was getting tired of Bond losing so much and being good at his job in SP was something different and made me care more about the character again.
He certainly shouldn't lose every time but some of the stuff in Spectre started to approach the old "superhero Bond" territory again. In Blofeld's lair he gets his head drilled multiple times but just seconds later still manages to make escaping from this highly guarded facility look like a walk in the park. He guns down multiple enemies from a long distance like it's some kind of a video game. It just felt very anticlimactic and removed all sense of peril from the entire torture sequence.
My feelings exactly, it felt more like a Brosnan film then one of Craigs. This is also the only Craig Bond film where he doesn't carry any facial marks after a fight scene which is something i loved from the previous Craig films.
Interesting how our opinion of SP is changing. There was almost universal euphoria when the movie came out, but now there seems to be only a handful of enthusiasts left to defend it.
Outside of this forum i haven't met anyone whose opinion of SP was anything beyond "eh, it was alright". It was released, made a lot of money as Bond movies do, but didn't leave much impact on the public consciousness it seems.
Interesting how our opinion of SP is changing. There was almost universal euphoria when the movie came out, but now there seems to be only a handful of enthusiasts left to defend it.
Outside of this forum i haven't met anyone whose opinion of SP was anything beyond "eh, it was alright". It was released, made a lot of money as Bond movies do, but didn't leave much impact on the public consciousness it seems.
This is true. Almost everyone I talked to after SPECTRE was largely ambivalent towards the film. I've still only seen the film once, and I've been meaning to watch it again to see if I remain underwhelmed, as I was the first time.
Bond can't lose every time. He loses in CR and in SP. He doesn't win much in QOS either. I was getting tired of Bond losing so much and being good at his job in SP was something different and made me care more about the character again.
He certainly shouldn't lose every time but some of the stuff in Spectre started to approach the old "superhero Bond" territory again. In Blofeld's lair he gets his head drilled multiple times but just seconds later still manages to make escaping from this highly guarded facility look like a walk in the park. He guns down multiple enemies from a long distance like it's some kind of a video game. It just felt very anticlimactic and removed all sense of peril from the entire torture sequence.
My feelings exactly, it felt more like a Brosnan film then one of Craigs. This is also the only Craig Bond film where he doesn't carry any facial marks after a fight scene which is something i loved from the previous Craig films.
The Brosnan Bond films worked - save for DAD - in my opinion because of the lessened 'personal' pretensions that are plaguing the Craig films (except SF). A lot of what SP offers works, but falls flat because they made Blofeld personally connected to Bond and they tried to have Bond fall in love again. Had Madeleine been a standard Bond girl (i.e. not a Vesper/Tracy) and had they omitted the bro-Blo angle, SP would have been markedly better because they wouldn't have tried to force personal relationships which don't blend into the story.
And on that, was a SPECTRE origins story really necessary? I think I would have preferred to reintroduce SPECTRE through their agents instead of going directly to Blofeld, a la Dr No, Klebb and Largo before finally meeting Blofeld in YOLT.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
I have to agree, everyone I've watched it with thought it was ok but not spectacular.
Well I still love it. And my Son said "Finally! A really good Bond movie".
I don't get the 'Bond by the numbers' criticism ?:)
It's James Bond, not some other character. Now, I certainly enjoy when Bond is thrown into unfamiliar territory. But it's great to see him in familiar territory too!
It's true that his escape from Blofeld's lair could have been a little more dramatic, but that act as it stands now is fantastic enough.
I'm with you Chriss, I find this movie incredibly entertaining as a James Bond film. The fact that everyone involved in producing this film intentionally sought to make it a 'familiar', classic one makes it all the better.
3. Quantum of Solace / Skyfall - Tied I think. I'm not sure. I watched Quantum of Solace a bunch of times for my review here. And I still love the opening and think it's one of the best. With Skyfall, I really only like a few scenes with Berenice. I couldn't put up with that movie a second time in full. As I mentioned in my review, I think Skyfall is the serious version of Die Another Day. Honestly, right now I don't want to watch Quantum of Solace or Skyfall in full ever again just like with Die Another Day. Which says a lot about how I feel about those movies.
Do you really enjoy Quantum of Solace and Skyfall though? Because I have little interest in watching those two again.
I wonder how many people watched the trailers or got really excited by the idea of what they would do with Blofeld. Maybe me being let down by the previous two movies and knowing that there was no way they would top Thunderball, made me relax and enjoy what they did bring. I didn't watch any of the trailers or read any news leading up to the release either after seeing the announcement conference. With Blofeld there were only two real ways of handling him. A behind the scenes character or an OHMSS type character. When they cast Hinx, you had to know that he (or she - when I was guessing from the Spectre Press Conference) would be a behind the scenes character.
Also, I started a topic a long time ago about how all the recent Bond stories were personal.
Spectre really is the ultimate personal Bond story. Even though the producers obviously had no intention of doing that from the beginning. But I thought that twist made it different than the more previously used motivations for Blofeld.
Yes, I have to say that I enjoy both Quantum of Solace and Skyfall much more than Spectre. Bond feels like a more interesting and complex character in both and both of those films actually try to do something different and introduce new elements we haven't really seen before in Bond films.
I felt that Spectre didn't really bring anything new to the table. Apart from the PTS and the train fight the action scenes were pretty underwhelming despite the huge budget. Spectre has a great cast and loads of potential but it just doesn't deliver on that potential for me. My main problem with the script is that it lacks focus and leaves a lot of the plot points underdeveloped, especially the relationship between Madeleine and Bond.
I understand they wanted to bring Blofeld back with a new twist but the personal angle was completely unnecessary. A more basic idea of Bond stumbling upon a global omnipotent conspiracy led by the greatest and most calculating criminal mastermind would have been a much more menacing scenario than a jealous lunatic with daddy issues. The whole bridge scene with Blofeld provoking Bond to execute him is cringeworthy and not like Fleming's Blofeld at all.
That's what I was getting at. People who like Quantum of Solace and Skyfall will most likely not like Spectre.
And is bringing something new and different better? I've seen a lot of people post about character and story arcs. But did a lack of complexity and those other things make Connery's movies bad? I don't think so. And maybe Spectre didn't bring any thing new or different from the old Bond formula, but what it did do is bring back that formula which hasn't been seen in a good way since Licence to Kill or The Living Daylights. That's why I like Spectre so much. I'll probably review Spectre one day when I get time.
My theory on Spectre is that the development of the movie went something like this:
About the time that SF came out or shortly after, Logan showed Broccoli/Wilson/MGM/Sony an out line that had some interesting ideas. That Bond realizes that he doesn't want to be a hit man anymore and he falls in love and quits the service and Craig's Bond's character arc is complete. This also got Mendes committed.
Then nothing happened for almost a year as Mendes worked on his Willy Wonka project and Logan worked on his TV series.
Fast forward to the Spring of 2014 and Mendes and Logan finally get cracking on the script which they finalize by June. It's heavy on character development, light on action, lots of dialogue, gritty, realistic, emotional, etc.
The producers aren't happy and call in Purvis and Wade who crank out some action sequences (which they're good at) and add their own layer of hack writing (apparently Blofeld as Bond's foster brother was their idea) and make it more like a "classic Bond."
What they ended up with was a mish-mash that was nothing in particular.
6.9 on Imdb now. I did tell the fanboys the days of walking in to the baddies lair should be avoided. Insulting modern audiences is not recommended
I loved that. Classic Bond, all the way. That is the least of the third act's problems.
I would have preferred that he be captured. He gets captured in DN and GF and that worked fine. He walks into the villain's lair (or rather floats) in DAF and it's really lame.
Madeleine and Bond are not very trusting people and neither trusts (or should trust) the other. The walls have to broken down and for that to happen, each has to prove themselves to the other. This process would take several scenes.
If Madeleine gets captured and Bond tries to rescue her and gets captured, she'd realize he loves her.
In SP, the love story is forced because it doesn't flow naturally, unlike CR and OHMSS.
The producers aren't happy and call in Purvis and Wade who crank out some action sequences (which they're good at) and add their own layer of hack writing (apparently Blofeld as Bond's foster brother was their idea)
Source?
I thought it was part of the original treatments and drafts before Purvis and Wade got on board, as seen in the Sony leaks.
Madeleine and Bond are not very trusting people and neither trusts (or should trust) the other. The walls have to broken down and for that to happen, each has to prove themselves to the other. This process would take several scenes.
If Madeleine gets captured and Bond tries to rescue her and gets captured, she'd realize he loves her.
In SP, the love story is forced because it doesn't flow naturally, unlike CR and OHMSS.
I agree that Madeleine and Bond shouldn't be trusting each other. I guess them having sex on the train meant he broke down her walls and make us believe they care about each other. 8-)
Eh, the 'love story' in CR is just as schizophrenic as the SP one. I bought the relationship with the Ocean Club receptionist more than I did with Bond and Vesper.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
SPECTRE rocked. Full stop. Thin story, yeah, but Dan MADE it work. The asymmetric love story worked for me too, because of Lea. I could analyze it to death, but I care NOT to, because on every level that matters to ME, it scored. :x
SPECTRE rocked. Full stop. Thin story, yeah, but Dan MADE it work. The asymmetric love story worked for me too, because of Lea. I could analyze it to death, but I care NOT to, because on every level that matters to ME, it scored. :x
Not much point in discussing it then is there.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
On another site, several posters who said they had seen different versions of the script said Purvis and Wade introduced the Blofeld/Bond foster relationship.
I don't know how much of that is true, hence the term "apparently."
Comments
I agree with much of what you are saying. I didn't have the "meh" feeling however. I actually believe that Mendes, EON, etc aim with SPECTRE was to make a classic Bond, I think what they ended up with was more of a Bond's greatest hits compilation, albeit a well crafted, entertaining one. Given what the film was meant to be I think a significant mistep was Mendes again choosing Thomas Newman to score the film. If your plan is to do a "classic" Bond then you need a "classic" Bond score and Newman is just not the composer for that. For classic Bond, David Arnold directed to do his "Barryest" could have put a nice classic finishing touch to the film. Even the title song (which I like) that was villified by many on this site worked much better the one time that Newman worked the melody into the score, something Arnold would have been more apt to do. Just another opinion/take on things.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Bond can't lose every time. He loses in CR and in SP. He doesn't win much in QOS either. I was getting tired of Bond losing so much and being good at his job in SP was something different and made me care more about the character again.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Exactly. For all of SPECTRE's faults, Bond succeeding isn't one of them.
This film has some great moments. I thought the opening scenes in Mexico were very well done. It introduces Craig as being assured in what hes doing now. The introduction to SPECTRE in the meeting room was one of the most tense Bond scenes ever and worked really well. The showdown with Mr White was good too. Some of the camerawork and cinematography in these scenes was excellent with some beautiful establishing shots throughout. But in among it all were action scenes that seemed to lack something, the car chase, the plane pursuit and the rushed escape and destruction of the lair in particular spring to mind. Although I did like the train fight.
Spectre had a lot of elements I liked, but I think it possibly falls down on the functional nature of the plot. M leads to Mexico, Mexico leads to Rome, Rome to Mr White, Mr White to his daughter and L'American, L'American to the desert lair, the lair back to C. The story is basically just a follow the breadcrumbs adventure, which can work. Afterall a simple story worked with Skyfall, but with Spectre it was missing something I can't put my finger on. I don't think its down to any of the performances. Maybe its the fact they were trying so hard to fit so much in and tie it all together? There were a lot of coincidences and conveniences along the way. (No different to any other film you may say). The ring DNA analysis linking back to previous adversaries doesn't work for me. Blofeld as adopted foster brother I just about buy in to and I quite liked Waltzs strangely quirky performance. But was the brother angle really necessary? The team up at the end is something I wasn't massively keen on at first, but it serves the story.
I have no problem with them slowly integrating old elements of Bond in there with the characters and even some subtle humour too either. I think most of these elements worked for me in SP.
Theres been lots of comments about them hinting throughout this film that it could be DC's last. I don't see an issue with that. Because if it does prove to be his last one then his run as Bond can be watched as one standalone quadrilogy, with everything being tied together (for better or worse).
Overall despite its flaws I still enjoyed it more than QOS. But not as good as SF or CR.
He certainly shouldn't lose every time but some of the stuff in Spectre started to approach the old "superhero Bond" territory again. In Blofeld's lair he gets his head drilled multiple times but just seconds later still manages to make escaping from this highly guarded facility look like a walk in the park. He guns down multiple enemies from a long distance like it's some kind of a video game. It just felt very anticlimactic and removed all sense of peril from the entire torture sequence.
This is true. Almost everyone I talked to after SPECTRE was largely ambivalent towards the film. I've still only seen the film once, and I've been meaning to watch it again to see if I remain underwhelmed, as I was the first time.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
The Brosnan Bond films worked - save for DAD - in my opinion because of the lessened 'personal' pretensions that are plaguing the Craig films (except SF). A lot of what SP offers works, but falls flat because they made Blofeld personally connected to Bond and they tried to have Bond fall in love again. Had Madeleine been a standard Bond girl (i.e. not a Vesper/Tracy) and had they omitted the bro-Blo angle, SP would have been markedly better because they wouldn't have tried to force personal relationships which don't blend into the story.
And on that, was a SPECTRE origins story really necessary? I think I would have preferred to reintroduce SPECTRE through their agents instead of going directly to Blofeld, a la Dr No, Klebb and Largo before finally meeting Blofeld in YOLT.
Thunderball - agree, superb film, in my top 5 i believe...
OHMSS - I fail to see the 'greatness' in this one, but now I have an excuse to go see it again tonight!
I don't get the 'Bond by the numbers' criticism ?:)
It's James Bond, not some other character. Now, I certainly enjoy when Bond is thrown into unfamiliar territory. But it's great to see him in familiar territory too!
It's true that his escape from Blofeld's lair could have been a little more dramatic, but that act as it stands now is fantastic enough.
I'm with you Chriss, I find this movie incredibly entertaining as a James Bond film. The fact that everyone involved in producing this film intentionally sought to make it a 'familiar', classic one makes it all the better.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
1. Spectre
2. Casino Royale
3. Quantum of Solace / Skyfall - Tied I think. I'm not sure. I watched Quantum of Solace a bunch of times for my review here. And I still love the opening and think it's one of the best. With Skyfall, I really only like a few scenes with Berenice. I couldn't put up with that movie a second time in full. As I mentioned in my review, I think Skyfall is the serious version of Die Another Day. Honestly, right now I don't want to watch Quantum of Solace or Skyfall in full ever again just like with Die Another Day. Which says a lot about how I feel about those movies.
That's what I was getting at. People who like Quantum of Solace and Skyfall will most likely not like Spectre.
And is bringing something new and different better? I've seen a lot of people post about character and story arcs. But did a lack of complexity and those other things make Connery's movies bad? I don't think so. And maybe Spectre didn't bring any thing new or different from the old Bond formula, but what it did do is bring back that formula which hasn't been seen in a good way since Licence to Kill or The Living Daylights. That's why I like Spectre so much. I'll probably review Spectre one day when I get time.
So, what does that mean? ?:)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
About the time that SF came out or shortly after, Logan showed Broccoli/Wilson/MGM/Sony an out line that had some interesting ideas. That Bond realizes that he doesn't want to be a hit man anymore and he falls in love and quits the service and Craig's Bond's character arc is complete. This also got Mendes committed.
Then nothing happened for almost a year as Mendes worked on his Willy Wonka project and Logan worked on his TV series.
Fast forward to the Spring of 2014 and Mendes and Logan finally get cracking on the script which they finalize by June. It's heavy on character development, light on action, lots of dialogue, gritty, realistic, emotional, etc.
The producers aren't happy and call in Purvis and Wade who crank out some action sequences (which they're good at) and add their own layer of hack writing (apparently Blofeld as Bond's foster brother was their idea) and make it more like a "classic Bond."
What they ended up with was a mish-mash that was nothing in particular.
Call it a wasted opportunity.
I would have preferred that he be captured. He gets captured in DN and GF and that worked fine. He walks into the villain's lair (or rather floats) in DAF and it's really lame.
Madeleine and Bond are not very trusting people and neither trusts (or should trust) the other. The walls have to broken down and for that to happen, each has to prove themselves to the other. This process would take several scenes.
If Madeleine gets captured and Bond tries to rescue her and gets captured, she'd realize he loves her.
In SP, the love story is forced because it doesn't flow naturally, unlike CR and OHMSS.
Source?
I thought it was part of the original treatments and drafts before Purvis and Wade got on board, as seen in the Sony leaks.
I agree that Madeleine and Bond shouldn't be trusting each other. I guess them having sex on the train meant he broke down her walls and make us believe they care about each other. 8-)
Eh, the 'love story' in CR is just as schizophrenic as the SP one. I bought the relationship with the Ocean Club receptionist more than I did with Bond and Vesper.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Not much point in discussing it then is there.
I don't know how much of that is true, hence the term "apparently."