It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
You're right about the foster-brother nonsense. But likewise do I blame the lazy character development of Silva in SF. A former agent. Little irritated. Decides to strike back because he was abandoned. I think it's a bit on the cheap side.
But Silva didn't just strike back. He was doing it for Spectre and the Nine Eyes Program...!
Yeah... ;-) Not very clever either.
The fact that Blofeld hired Silva ("All to the highest bidder") because of his connection with M in order to destabilize both MI6 and Bond doesn't make Silva's feelings, past and motivations less true. This is just an example of how diabolic this portrayal of Blofeld is.
I'm interested to hear why the complaints and problems don't matter to you.
Yeah it was definitely hot garbage. It'll take a lot of effort to get bumped from my last place ranking position.
To not have problem with all it's crimes and say SF was worse is beyond me!
SF has it's problems but they are nothing compared to crimes that SP's storyline and so called revelations or depth charges as that prat Mendes called them.
It felt like a different film maker turned up for each one.
The first time he was excited and had something to prove and while all areas didn't hit the target the film as a whole more than worked.
Yes some plot holes and some of the humour didn't quite ring true but from the get go I was rooting for Bond and although the big moment that it led to was impactful it should never been attempted again and this should have been the limit that it was taken to.
Next time round old Sammy wasn't even enthused, he'd wanted to jump ship due to certain beats of the script getting nixed and then having to go back to the 2 guys he had said he didn't need to patch it up.
After the PTS it lacks any suspense and has some of the worse set pieces of the series it is quite frankly the biggest waste of money the series have ever spent, the reason I say this as it's budget was ridiculous and it produced an emotionless, boring unexciting squib of a film.
SF in comparison was a triumph and one that will likely continue to be put up there with the best, whereas SPECTRE is likely to be either forgotten or reviled. I don't think there is any chance of this being rediscovered as some undervalued classic of the series.
It is what it is and is unlikely to change it's stature in years to come.
I personally agree that there are elements of both films' plots that are wonky and silly. For me the difference is that I feel SF sells what it's peddling far better. It just seems more integrated, as though the director had a firm grip on his vision and drove all elements (including the cast performances) holistically towards executing upon that. Therefore any plot contrivances are of less concern to me with that film.
SP just appears to have no life in it imho. Fitting maybe, given the title, and that could very well have been the director's intention. However, I just find it a bit soulless (both performance wise and aesthetically) in comparison to the earlier film, which has a certain vibrance to it, with performances that are consistent with the emotion and passion inherent in the story. SP on the other hand comes across as conflicted, with some actors seemingly trying to give it life & energy (Seydoux in particular) and others (most notably Craig) acting in a manner which I personally find inconsistent with the narrative, which has personal consequence to Bond.
So in summary, I think SP always had an uphill battle, but it perhaps could have gotten much closer to being generally 'praised' (even if not universally) with better performances from some cast members and a tweaking of the dialogue. Some of the potentially consequential lines, rather than landing squarely, miss their target entirely and therefore have a less than desired impact.
There are no absolutes (including universal praise), and there will always be very vocal (and supported) dislike of the latest Bond film. That's not to dismiss those opinions, just to recognize the fact. I heard it for Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall before Spectre. Folks have their reasons.
On the other hand box office and other measures show audiences more than generally liked Spectre and it registers as a big film success. I liked it, too.
That's true.... But I want bond 25 to be critical as much as financial success.
Even if we don't agree on their effectiveness, I can count several funny or lighthearted moments in the film. Off the top of my head, I find all of these enjoyable, and some of them are just terrific:
- The couch gag.
- "I think I'll call you C now... C."
- "24 hours... 48 hours."
- "Can't you see I'm grieving?" "No."
- "Sono Topolino." "Scusa."
- "Ciao, Mickey Mouse."
- Sinatra in the car chase. "No!"
- The driver in the car chase.
- The street sweeper at the end of the car chase.
- "Well, it's not the sort of thing that looks good on a form."
- The enzyme shake bit.
- Q escaping from the goons in the tram.
- Bond's reaction when Madeleine pushes him away after the plane chase.
- Interrogating the rat.
- Hinx's only words.
- "What do we do now?"
- "You can't wait here, or...?"
I remember all these moments very well because they made such a positive impression on me when I first watched the film. Spectre is obviously still a film with some dark stuff, but I find it integrates it very, very well into the fun Bond film template. It's "old Bond featuring new tricks", while the previous film was "new Bond featuring old tricks." For me, the main reason that the funny parts in Spectre work is Craig himself, whose delivery is much better than in Skyfall, where it was way too understated. Spectre sells us the humor but somehow it doesn't really undermine the serious stuff.
All of those little moments did more to take me out of the film and make me dislike it more rather than enjoy it. In fact, I'd go so far as to say if these moments weren't in the film I may actually like it more. I too am of the view that Craig in particular just couldn't sell these moments properly. In the hands of another actor, they could very well have worked for me.
It's amazing how we can see the exact same thing so differently in this instance.
I've always maintained this was a very polarizing film, and in many ways a damaging one for the fanbase, particularly with the long wait that has taken place subsequently. It's allowed the impressions and positions to fester and become more ingrained on either side.
Of many moments in this film, this was one of the worst for me. Cringeworthy.
I only liked a few-
24 hours... 48 hours
The enzyme shake
Q escaping goons was quite good imo
@vzok
It's a tough thing to rationalise I suppose, so let me phrase it like this. Every time I watch SP, the same thought runs through my mind: "better than SF". I watch the film from start to finish, rarely noticing things that irritate let alone infuriate me to the point where I'm taken out of the movie. I'm instead having a blast with several great scenes, well shot, well acted and with good music. Granted, the script isn't waterproof; few Bond scripts are. Yes, I would have done the Blofeld thing differently, but it's not killing the fun for me.
So all I can say is that after reading the comments many people make about SP, I keep looking for that terrible, boring and illogical Bond film, and I haven't found it yet. :)
Eh, some of us have a good time with it, others do not. It's the way of things.
QOS is still my favourite 21st Century Bond... ;)
Thanks for the response. Glad you're still enjoying it.
Nothing wrong with not letting the hatred and disappointment get to you with a certain film, though. While I despise SP, I've loved QoS since my first viewing opening night and never has any of the negatives or complaints viewers have had detracted me or made me love it any less than I always have.
For example, the couch gag in SP serves no purpose but to add humour, the PTS scene would work fine without it *(plus it could be argued it undermines the tension level)
compare with the "not exactly Christmas" line if SF. This is a dry line that is completely in keeping with the tone of the scene and the overall movie plus it re-enforces Bond's feeling of negativity at that time. It's completely seamless and in keeping. In fact, there are very few "bolt on" funny bits in SF and they are they ones that struggle.
Now, think about all of the bolt on funny bits in SP and imagine them within or similar jokes within SF. It would have been utterly dreadful IMHO
Funny, but as I was reading your post and got to "couch gag" I was expecting you to use it as an example of humour organic to the movie. But you didn't. Oh well, we all see things from our own perspective...
I had zero problems doing it. In fact, it was one of those perfect little moments that are why I love Bond movies- absurd but plausible stuff...
Not at all. It's actually a time-honored storytelling device, used to relieve tension and get the audience feeling several emotions at once. It's why so many horror movies go from horror to levity -- and then suddenly, BOOM! -- the film makers have amped up the horror! You may or may not respond to this particular use of the technique, but it's still an entirely valid technique.
I agree.