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
I get the increasing sense though that Skyfall is wasted on Bond fans, at least the ones here.
The locations are eye-popping, Mexico City and Tangier are exotic, London is mysterious, Rome is glamorous and the Altaussee lake scene is probably, cinematography wise, the most beautiful shot of the Craig era. Speaking of cinematography, Hoyte van Hoytema is the real star of the show in my mind. The look of a movie is important to me, it's necessary to be able to feel the right atmosphere and I believe Spectre accomplishes that through van Hoytema's camera.
No.......none of those things are correct...........just go and see the film for yourself, and don't let others, stop you enjoying the things you like! :)
Silva Skyfall?
Not in SP which I feel is DC's best Bond (and in my top favourite Bonds) which I've seen 4 times now. This equals in just over a week the total number of times I've struggled through a full viewing of SF in three years.
It seems to me after catch up reading for everything I've missed in the past 48 hours here that 2/3 of the new posts are truly bloody miserable self perpetuating downbeat and polarising / exactly how I find SF in fact. This then now reflects the poor US reviews and unreasonable RT ratings not the excited upbeat posts I found on this thread from the 26 October.
I can't be doing with it all and it's likely why the positive views are fewer and fewer as the groundswell of negativity is picking apace and others feel like I do. Just leave you all to it.
I've been personally missing the buzz of being on a Bond high since CR where I really bought into DC's Bond despite feeling the film was still a bit rubbish in its later Venice scenes. It seems I'm always out of sync with most here apart from CR. I was in a minority that liked QOS and really truly in the minority of one where I struggled with SF and needed to take time away from this site as I didn't want to be the one spoiling everyone's enjoyment of the film. Seems I'm going to leave you guys to the hatchet job as I'm in the minority liking SP?
Just for the record, yes I grew up with RM (with TSWLM my first cinema Bond) which got sillier the longer his tenure which is why I loved TD's films then grew a greater appreciation of SC's films the more accessible they became on DVD and OHMSS is my no1. I struggled too with PB's films after a bright start and now really thought the DC has hit it's stride now in SP. How wrong I am.
Spectre on the other hand gives us a traditional Bond film, i.e. a beautifully shot, atmospherical and entertaining 007 adventure. It ticks of all the right boxes without overdoing it, like DAD.
Spot on. That's the way I see it as well.
How very nice to see legendary KTBEU members like you, @lalala2004, coming back to express their views on SPECTRE. Congrats on the baby! :)
I don't think he wants the majority opinion to be tge same as his, it's just that this place has really become somewhat depressing with the negativity towards SP being projected so loudly and wide reaching in tge majority of the the active threads. It feels like there's very little opportunity to really discuss abd celebrate this movie without someone jumping in talking about the leaks or the writing or how Newman ruined the film. What's worse I've counted at least 9 people here who claimed something ruined the film for them because the film didnt explain or show it when in fact it did. Those people simply missed it or weren't paying attention to what they were watching.
SP isn't perfect but evidently neither are the attention spans of some of the people not just here but in general who have seen the movie. I'm all for praise and criticism and if you liked it great, if not then that's unfortunate but where a whole site (the biggest and best site for Bond movies) is largely overrun with negativity, it just becomes a difficult place to enjoy being.
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/6/9678580/spectre-james-bond-review
There was no reason whatsoever to bring those elements into the film. I have suggested that Mr. White could still have the role he has, even if Spectre is a whole new entity. And with White's presence, Bond could still be forced to deal with his past (if those themes are what Mendes wants) and that would work. But golly gee whitakers...what we have instead is a mess, storywise, I'm afraid.
Same with SF. ;)
But you're right. SP is a really good film and a lot of fun. I just have to pretend I didn't hear all that stuff about foster brothers and the idea of Spectre being the organization that has authored all of Bond's pain. Maybe ESB is just messing with Bond's head (in more ways than one). I am starting to think that this will be my interpretation.
If a Bond movie is a Bond movie there will be complaints that it's a 'greatest hits' package. If it tries to be different then the complaint is that it snubs the Bond traditions.
I've found that having low expectations for a film can actually help. You may be pleasantly surprised! Ultimately Spectre is middle of the road for a Bond film, not the worst thing ever. Not every movie can be the best when you have so many.
Meet your mate. I found SP to be an improvement on SF and the reviews and UK audience feedback was positive enough for us to feel Bond was in a good place. This was the more formulaic Bond some people craved for and they've had one handed to them in some considerable style.
All this seems to have been shot down once it got to the US and a discernable attempt from critics to paint the Bond series as being finished, most probably to help elevate American counterparts such as MI. If the reviews actually reviewed SP itself I wouldn't have such a problem but so many are so dismissive of Bond itself.
A real shame it's all gone so sour in the last few days.
I find it interesting that people would crave anything formulaic.
And this is such an infuriating problem. SP'S biggest crime is actually being a Bond movie. Like you said, it gets accused for being a greatest hits collection of all that came before it and yet the moment it abandons some of its own tropes, the film gets chastised for being alien and unrecognisable as a Bond movie. How people can be so fickle is aggravating. SP is clearly loved by so many people which is obviously a good thing but so many people hate it because it's not SF2 or not too different enough from what people expect a Bond movie to be. At this point, the only thing that really matters because SP succeeded in pleasing me is for it to make shit loads of money.
Maybe what Bond 25 needs to be is have Swann be killed off somehow and then have the whole movie be Bond sitting in a room with a restrained Blofeld exchanging back and forth riveting dialogue. Surely, that subverts expectations and is different enough from a traditional Bond film.
A rather hateful review and confused with itself too. It criticises how Mendes handles the familiar elements whilst at the same time saying it doesn't want them back anyway.
The gear change for the Craig films was welcome but I'll concede that a traditional Bond was needed at some point to silence those particular critics who didn't like Craig's take on it.
This film is no worse that what GE did for Brosnan but whereas Brosnan doing that supposedly rejuvenated the franchise SP is killing it off.
I don't expect Bond 25 to follow suit and wish people would just take SP for what it is rather than dwell on what it isn't.
I agree completely. Fiennes in this outing had nowhere near the same gravitas as Dench delivered in all her outings. I have been very critical of her in the past as well, but her absence was clearly felt in this film. It's quite apparent to me now that she grounded the films she was in. The 3 stooges (including M) couldn't hold a candle to her......it's unfortunate because all 3 are Mendes' creation whereas Dench is Campbell's. Next time, stick them behind the desk or computer screen where they belong imho.
Again, I'm in complete agreement. What a waste of space and time in a film that sorely needed more backstory and fleshing out of the lead's (Swann/Blofeld) characters.
I've always liked Whishaw's Q. I wasn't sold on Harris' MP in SF, but she was ok here. Not bad at all. I just would have preferred less of them all personally.
Yes, the tonal shift was a shock to me too. It took some getting used to. The only other time I've felt this (with the same actor) is during the Roger Moore era (between MR & FYEO, and then again between FYEO & OP). Most notably between MR & FYEO.
There was a sort of 'Kingsman' effect for me when watching it. One minute it's light, then it gets uncomfortable (torture), then it's back to light again. Something doesn't sit well on first viewing and gives it a psychedelic feeling.
They could have done so much more with this guy, and should have. I agree he was wasted, and not properly thought through here. Quite frankly, I could have done without the fight in the train. I would have preferred the same kind of visceral encounter elsewhere, to avoid comparisons with FRWL/TSWLM/LALD. They've got to stop directly robbing/plagiarizing their back catalogue, but rather, be a bit more inventive with the way they go about it.
Again, agree. She was a highlight for me as well. Endearing character with complex underpinnings. They should have given her some kind of sleeptalking nightmare or something at L'Americaine when sleeping, so Bond could have seen she was tormented/forging a depper connection with him. I hope to see her in B25.
I actually zoned out during this borefest....and felt exactly the same way.....this is as dull as that stinker TWINE I remember thinking. What a waste of all that money. They should have looked to FYEO to understand how to do a snow chase.
Me too. I was against it at the beginning. Overall they really blew it here. No two ways about it.
I completely agree with everything except Swann's behaviour. The 'I love you' is understandable imho. She may have felt it at that moment, realizing that Bond may go 'cuckoo' after the final needle and have no memory of her. She may have wanted to comfort him, as he may not be able to see/remember her afterwards. Her wanting to leave is also understandable, because she has spent a lifetime looking over her shoulder and trying to escape this life......and she didn't want to go back to it again.....watching Bond with the MI6 gang made her realize this was 'his world' and she couldn't live there any more.....an assassin's life again.
I also agree on all the photos in the MI6 building. That had all the subtlety of a sledgehammer and made me cringe. It didn't have any emotional resonance whatsoever. We had already heard that Blofeld was the author of Bond's pain, and we had already seen the flashbacks in the pretitles......we didn't need it hammered in again. How ridiculous and contrived.
Regarding the desert sequence, yes, it should definitely have been the finale. There should have been a nice dinner scene with Bond/Blofeld/Swann and some decent dialogue and psychological mind games, then the torture scene should have had some consequence.. Maybe Swann could have escaped and rescued Bond......then a more detailed escape......Bond accesses some base computer allowing him to contact MI6 who find a way to send a missile there or something along those lines (yes, I realize C is watching everything, but perhaps they could have called on the CIA/Felix). The film should have definitely ended here.
100% agree about DC. Excellent performance by him. However, I believe he was best in this film when he wasn't being flippant (it doesn't suit his portrayal) and when he was being more 'real' (L'Americaine, and Morocco scenes in particular). He is better when he's not glib, and needed more of a 'connection' scene with Swann (like the Vesper shower stare scene) to drive their relationship home.
I think they need to strip it down and go back to a CR/FRWL type dark plot driven thriller next time. That would be made for DC.
Here's the issue with film reviews: they are not all equal.
The two most important film reviews here in the U.S. come from two publications: Entertainment Weekly and Rolling Stone. EW gave SP a good review; RS gave it a great one.
After that, you have the major newspapers: LA Times, NY Times, Chicago Tribune, et al. Most of these have given SP lukewarm to good reviews.
The BAD reviews are mostly coming from small presses and web-based sites.
RT awards no 'weight" on the publications that are more significant. In other words, Travers' review for Rolling Stone packs 1000 times more wallop than a silly review from Vox.
I was a voracious reader early on, and had read a number of my father's Fleming novels by the time Dr. No hit the screen, and I saw the film in 1962, when it was first released. I watched it through the eyes of a seven year old, amazed by the adventures that unfolded. Keep in mind, it was a different world back then, and super heroes were still relegated to the pages of comic books, so this Bond was really something new, something dangerous, something very special, and related to the real world, not the one depicted in the frames of a comic book.
Fortunately, there's enough of that seven year old left to still be able to sit down and watch a new Bond film with that same sense of amazement and enjoyment, and not critique the technical veracity, the use of CGI vs. makeup or stuntmen and women, or many of the other points that have troubled some folks. I'm grateful for that sense of perspective, and how it enabled me to enjoy Spectre so much, especially with it's nods to the past in so many ways...the nostalgia worked quite well for me, in fact.
I'll never criticize someone with a different perspective, as that's their viewpoint to take, and they're certainly entitled to it...instead, I'll simply be grateful for the one that I have and enjoy it.
There are trendsetters, and then there are people/movies that follow the stream.
SF was by no means trendsetting (neither is SP, but it does not pretend to be something it's not). SF had two things that made it hugely popular: A titlesong nominated for an Oscar. And James Bond out of his element (vulnerable and weak and trying to redeem himself).
SP doesn't have a great title song. It doesn't appeal to the feelings of the audience in a way that SF did. But as a fan, personally, I can watch SP over and over again, unlike SF, which played out more as a drama, than an action movie, and because it follows the formula that made me a fan in the first place.
:D
The key words are "as a fan". How long would the franchise last it its efforts went into pleasing us lot and not reaching out to the wider audience who clearly dont care about a 50 year legacy and are happy with action thrillers from fresh teams (MI, Bourne etc), where will Bond be in 20 or 30 years? More bald guys, more cats , more references to previous Bond's. Bond the man can still be Bond and the rest of the team can still support him but he needs putting into fresher situations IMHO
I agree that SF was not necessarily trendsetting, but I think it did what it set out to do very well indeed. It was different for the canon, but interesting (in the characterizations) and that's what made it fresh for me, despite plot holes. I personally didn't care about Adele or the fact that Bond was out of his element. There was something very fresh about it (although I rate CR much much higher) and I can't quite put my finger on it. I think it may have been the way Deakins photographed it. Also, the characters all resonated. All of them.
SP, on the other hand, does not, on first viewing, appear to do what it sets out to do as well. The action is somewhat forgettable and copycat (the train sequence is mentioned by most as a highlight, and it's too reminiscent of the past) except for Mexico (which is correctly being hailed as masterpiece film making).
The jokes are ok, but have been done so much better elsewhere. I mean, "Mickey mouse asshole?" Who comes up with this sh!#.
The dialogue is painfully forgettable.
So, for a formula film (which is supposed to blow your socks off on the formulaic elements), it's not quite up there with the best of them for me, but it's not bottom of the barrel either. It's just average, and perhaps that's its biggest crime......for me.
But I do believe that the franchise can evolve without abandoning the formula that made it a success in the first place. Most people - fans as well as the general audience - expect that there will be glamour, various locations around the World, gadgets, women, action etc.... As MGW said: "As long as people go see the Bond-movies, we will keep making them", and nothing so far shows that SPECTRE is going to be a box office failure. Not even with a script that IMO is so-so (four writers?... that's like having four different chefs to prepare your meal).
@bondjames
I disagree, but respect your opinion. Personally I found lines like "I said bring it back in one piece, not bring back one piece" spot on! Sadly many of Bond's oneliners I really loved from when reading the script, were left out. Luckily they kept the one where he is served the enzyme shake.