SPECTRE - Press reviews and personal reviews (BEWARE! Spoiler reviews allowed)

16364666869100

Comments

  • Posts: 1,860
    Reading these negative comments.................... Wow! "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." is not sounding so bad right about now.
  • Posts: 250
    To those concerned by the overuse of MI6 agents, it's a particular Mendes thing as his films are always about family units either strengthening or disintegrating.

    I get the increasing sense though that Skyfall is wasted on Bond fans, at least the ones here.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,134
    I've seen Spectre here last week and I must say I enjoyed it very much. I do appreciate more character driven stories like Casino Royale and Skyfall once in a while, hell Licence to Kill and OHMSS rank very high in my Bond rankings. Having said that, I think it was time that Daniel Craig got his more traditional turn as Bond. Spectre is exactly that and it's a gorgeous looking, funny, energetic and stylish ride.

    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.
  • Posts: 1,098
    Everyone, I'm kind of feeling down about some of the negative reviews for SPECTRE.

    I'm American, and I haven't had the chance to see SPECTRE at the cinemas yet.

    Is it true that this film is too long, dark, brooding, or boring, rehashed, etc.?

    Where should I make a comment like this? I didn't want to make a new discussion.. :(

    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! :)
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    patb wrote: »
    Is ESB the first Bond villain to be arrested?

    To be arrested and alive at the end, yes, he is.

    Silva Skyfall?
  • Posts: 1,068
    I'm feeling very disappointed.

    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.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited November 2015 Posts: 7,134
    @andmcit Don't worry, I loved Spectre and I think it's an improvement over Skyfall. While I liked Skyfall it was a bit too self-important and politically correct, something older 'serious' Bond films such as LTK were not.

    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.
  • @andmcit. Do you fear that their negativity will rub off on you? Just curious as to why you want the majority opinion to be your opinion.

  • gt007gt007 Station G
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,182
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I now try and look at it as this:

    - Bond starts to look into Greene's affairs and plot.
    - Bond stumbles upon many members of the organization in Bregenz.
    - In return, Fields and Mathis are killed.
    - Bond gets revenge by extracting information from Greene (which leads to his death) and finally catching Yusef and stopping him from manipulating any more women.
    - Cut to SF, where Bond is once again interfering in SPECTRE's affairs. As a result, Silva (with the assistance of SPECTRE) humiliates and kills M. This assistance is shown by the small army Silva manages to accumulate and it explains how he was able to escape and reach M so easily.
    - Now in SP, Bond only begins to interfere in their plans once again because, even though Dench's M is now deceased, she's still responsible for getting Bond back on SPECTRE's trail, and the rest of the movie unfolds as such.

    Typed that up pretty quick so I may have messed something up, but that's a snippet of the view I just came up with regarding SPECTRE's influence from QoS on. Helps me appreciate SF more, and I could use a lot more appreciation for that movie.

    Spot on. That's the way I see it as well.
    lalala2004 wrote: »
    I Held My Pee for This - A Review from a Forum Oldie

    [img]<img src="http://twinsdaily.com/uploads/monthly_08_2015/post-59-0-46264100-1440432629.gif"/>[/img]

    I guess it takes a new Bond film to bring me back here. I left years ago soon after the forum overhaul. Most of you probably have no idea who I am, but if you do, Hi!

    I went in to Skyfall with very few spoilers. I knew Waltz would likely be Blofeld, and I knew Monica Belluci was going to be a Bond girl. Obviously it was going to be about Spectre. That's all I knew. I like being spoiler free at this point in my life.

    The good: I felt like the film had a very strong start, right from the classic gun barrel. I had all kinds of nostalgic feelings. When I saw the opening scene was at a Dia de Los Muertos celebration, I was enthralled. Classic style Bond locale. The long, uncut shot was incredible and so well done. I was very impressed. I thought the humor in this film was on point. Loved the "mouse moment" and I'm sure none of you were thinking the "C word" was careless :)) . The locations were beautiful, as was the fashion. I love Christoph Waltz, but I'll mention that more in my disappointments.

    The "meh": The villain "plot" in this film is weak and unoriginal. Oh, they're harvesting information? What are they going to do with it? Do I care? No. Every other Bond film has had a more entertaining villain plot than this. I would rather have something ridiculous like trying to blow up the moon than something so bland. I think the fact that Blofeld is supposed to be responsible for every other villain plot in the previous Craig films is supposed to carry this film, but that doesn't work for me. I feel like James Bond has kept the politics to a minimum in the past, and this was way to heavy on that. Also, I didn't care for the opening song. Sounded like a generic romantic tune to me, and I don't care for Sam Smith.

    The disappointing: I was super excited that Christoph Waltz was going to be the villain, but I don't feel like he was given enough to work with, as well as not having enough screen time. I could have done with a lot less of Q and Moneypenny, and more Blofeld screen time. (Ralph Fiennes as M was fantastic, I was fine with that). I was also really thrilled when I heard Monica Belluci would be a Bond girl. People have been wanting it for year, and you actually have someone of a proper age for Bond. Barely in the film. Just a huge disappointment for me personally.

    The final word: All I heard about the film before seeing it was that Skyfall was better. It was. I will hold my pee during a movie if I think it's worth it. I did for Spectre, and it really wasn't. (I'm also 15 weeks pregnant, so holding my pee was probably a bad idea in general. I'm all crampy, now....)

    How very nice to see legendary KTBEU members like you, @lalala2004, coming back to express their views on SPECTRE. Congrats on the baby! :)
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    @andmcit. Do you fear that their negativity will rub off on you? Just curious as to why you want the majority opinion to be your opinion.

    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.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    I could have written this review myself. My exact thoughts.

    http://www.vox.com/2015/11/6/9678580/spectre-james-bond-review
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,585
    @Haserot: Your comments on SP are spot-on. I really have no idea why EON/Mendes played the whole family angle. Back in March, when the teaser trailer was released, I didn't have a problem with it, because it appeared that the film was going to be a dark, psychological thriller. I bought into it. What I didn't know was that Spectre was going to be revealed as the organization pulling all of the strings. Together, those plot elements are just too much.

    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.

    doubleoego wrote: »

    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.

    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.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Just read a review portraying disgust at the fact that Bond gets information from Lucia, has sex with her, and then leaves her to continue his mission, as if this is a brand new idea by the series and is the first time it's ever happened. Why do people complain about Bond movies being Bond movies? It makes no sense. I can understand complaining about her being underused in the movie, which she was, but to say how it all went down makes no sense deserves pointing the same finger at just about every other Bond movie.

    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.
  • Thanks @timmer and @gt007 ! I didn't expect that any people to remember me. It's been years!
    Everyone, I'm kind of feeling down about some of the negative reviews for SPECTRE.

    I'm American, and I haven't had the chance to see SPECTRE at the cinemas yet.

    Is it true that this film is too long, dark, brooding, or boring, rehashed, etc.?

    Where should I make a comment like this? I didn't want to make a new discussion.. :(

    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.
  • Posts: 486
    andmcit wrote: »
    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.

    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.

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    Cowley wrote: »
    andmcit wrote: »
    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.

    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.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    NicNac wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Just read a review portraying disgust at the fact that Bond gets information from Lucia, has sex with her, and then leaves her to continue his mission, as if this is a brand new idea by the series and is the first time it's ever happened. Why do people complain about Bond movies being Bond movies? It makes no sense. I can understand complaining about her being underused in the movie, which she was, but to say how it all went down makes no sense deserves pointing the same finger at just about every other Bond movie.

    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.


    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.
  • Posts: 486
    I could have written this review myself. My exact thoughts.

    http://www.vox.com/2015/11/6/9678580/spectre-james-bond-review

    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.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    @pachazo, I agree with a lot of what you've said in your review, so will give my thoughts below. I will be catching the film again next week.....I enjoyed it and have to take it for what it is.....which is to say not too seriously. It's not all that bad, but the frustrating thing is this could have easily been a top 5 film if they'd just worked a little more on the script and trying to balance everything better.
    pachazo wrote: »
    4) I like Ralph Fiennes as M but Judi's absence made me realize how much better she was. I'll be the first to admit that I've complained about her having too much screen time in the past but now a void has been created. I'll miss her. It was touching that she sent a message from the grave, so to speak.
    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.
    pachazo wrote: »
    5) I couldn't have cared less about the Max Denbigh/C subplot. Not saying it was bad but it's just not what i want from a Bond film. It was painfully obvious where it was heading and it felt like it was just there to give the others something to do. I've never been an advocate of this Avengers style teamwork thing so I naturally I wasn't very engaged by it.
    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.
    pachazo wrote: »
    6) I actually enjoyed Q and Moneypenny more this time around. They seemed to be more likable than they were in SF. Tanner was just there, unfortunately. The film wouldn't have missed a beat without him. I enjoyed the bit of seeing MP with another man but did it have to be during the car chase? Thankfully, she wasn't central to the plot. Q has really grown on me. I'll elaborate on that later.
    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.
    pachazo wrote: »
    This whole shift in tone was a shock. Perhaps that's why some are so upset.
    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.
    pachazo wrote: »
    10) I forgot to mention Mr. Hinx. Not impressed at all. He was just a combination of Oddjob and Jaws. Where do we draw the line of paying homage and blatantly ripping off the past? It seems the whole film is littered with these kinds of incidents. From the very start he reminded me of Blade Runner with pressing that guy's eyeballs in. The train fight was spectacular (I admit) but it was a greatest hits package of FRWL/LALD/TSWLM. When his hand quivered after the snow chase I knew he was an invincible Superman like Jaws. Watch, he'll return in Bond 25.
    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.
    pachazo wrote: »
    11) One shining light was definitely Madeleine Swann.
    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.
    pachazo wrote: »
    11) The snow chase was a little silly but still a million times more engaging than TWINE (ouch)
    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.
    pachazo wrote: »
    12) Let's get to the meat and potatoes of this review and that, of course, would have to be ESB. I was against the idea of bringing him back from the very beginning.
    Me too. I was against it at the beginning. Overall they really blew it here. No two ways about it.
    pachazo wrote: »
    13) As everyone else has already pointed out, the finale should have been in the desert. The torture scene was promising at first but nothing of any consequence happened to Bond and i felt a bit cheated. Madeleine told him she loved him but then left him not long after. I know she was traumatized and all but still... The watch was actually a nice surprise. We all knew that Blofled survived. Then, London. Nice obscure Hildebrand rarity reference. Other than that, complete dreck. Hey, don't forget about SF! It's the abandoned MI6 building that Blofled has set a ridiculous, over the top trap for Bond in. This is where the shoehorned references to the other films got irritating to me. All of their pictures just seemed a bit heavy-handed. Yeah, I get it. All the DC films are connected. Don't even get me started about how stupid it is that they linked Silva to Spectre. There was no subtlety; it was all rammed down our throats. There was a moment where I thought how clever it was that she was actually in the helicopter and he had outwitted Bond, but no. Bond saves the girl, jumps into a conveniently placed net and escapes in a conveniently placed boat. We all knew that he wouldn't kill Blofled. We already saw this ending in QoS. And now he's quitting to ride off in the DB5 with Madeleine.
    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.
    pachazo wrote: »
    14) I just wanted to end this by saying that DC's performance was superb. It's not him that I have a problem with. My ideal scenario would be for him to return with a new director. I have always dreamed of a bare-bones film featuring an old, worn out Craig.
    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.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    @Crowley

    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.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Some references in this thread to the Bond formula. Something some us us may want to consider. Which Bond movie is furthest away from the traditional formula? Which Bond was the biggest financial (and largely critical ) success? IMHO Bond and the supporting cast are big enough to stand away from the traditional formula and break into new areas. To have a bald guy with a cat who wants to rule the World? been there, done that, got the T shirt. There have to be other options. I know some fans are so in love with the formula that a movie that does not stick to the formula is not actually regarded as an authentic Bond movie. But mainstream success is the key.
  • DesmondBoothroydDesmondBoothroyd New England, USA
    Posts: 16
    I prefer to disregard the reviews entirely...to my mind, it's all about one's own perspective. A master chef could prepare the same dish for 10 different diners, and get 10 different reviews on it.
    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.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 3,276
    @patb
    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.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    "...it was me, James the author of all your pain " -John Logan

    :D
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    :)) Brilliant.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @patb
    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.

    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
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    @Zekidk, I'm a fan of Bond formula. After all, TB & TSWLM are in my top 5-6. SF is not. Having said that, FRWL & CR are also up there.

    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.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 3,276
    @patb
    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.
  • Posts: 1,098
    I think some members here need to see SP for a second time, to fully appreciate the film!
Sign In or Register to comment.