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

16970727475100

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Why would a female be recruited as 00 agent

    Plenty of bad ass females out there who would tear most of us a new one.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 4,617
    Breath taking sexism - respect the honesty
    PS women tend to handle pain much better
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 562
    RC7 wrote: »
    Why would a female be recruited as 00 agent

    Plenty of bad ass females out there who would tear most of us a new one.

    I don't doubt it. Just that for every strong female, there is a stronger male. A higher ceiling for males if you will.

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Dear people, it's enough pain to endure the new Ghostbusters crew to be wholly female and now you wanna have spin-offs with Moneypenny, Goodnight and why not Jinx as well, bloody hell.
    Take your meds people :))
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Mi-RN already gave us the perfect female 00.

    They'll have to wait a while before doing it otherwise it will just be too similar, not that this has stopped them before mind you.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    Why would a female be recruited as 00 agent

    Plenty of bad ass females out there who would tear most of us a new one.

    I don't doubt it. Just that for every strong female, there is a stronger male. A higher ceiling for males if you will.

    You should work in recruitment.
  • Posts: 4,617
    You should work in recruitment. :))
  • gt007gt007 Station G
    Posts: 1,182
    TripAces wrote: »
    Here's my sense on the Bond-ESB relationship.

    I think the Sony leaks screwed up everything. It was likely EON's idea that the ESB reveal would be a HUGE twist, one nobody saw coming. Could you imagine the audience's reaction that it was Blofeld? But I think we all pretty much knew beforehand who it was. Then again, if this was EON's strategy, why title the film Spectre?

    I disagree. The leaks didn't have anything to do with that.

    I never read the leaks, but right from the film's announcement I was very confident Waltz was playing Blofeld. It seemed pretty obvious that a film named SPECTRE would feature Blofeld and Waltz seemed a great choice for the role. You don't really need a leaked script to figure it out.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    gt007 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Here's my sense on the Bond-ESB relationship.

    I think the Sony leaks screwed up everything. It was likely EON's idea that the ESB reveal would be a HUGE twist, one nobody saw coming. Could you imagine the audience's reaction that it was Blofeld? But I think we all pretty much knew beforehand who it was. Then again, if this was EON's strategy, why title the film Spectre?

    I disagree. The leaks didn't have anything to do with that.

    I never read the leaks, but right from the film's announcement I was very confident Waltz was playing Blofeld. It seemed pretty obvious that a film named SPECTRE would feature Blofeld and Waltz seemed a great choice for the role. You don't really need a leaked script to figure it out.

    I tend to agree. They made it pretty obvious, but just didn't state it explicitly. I think they wanted the 'Blofeld' discussion to take place, and the name 'Spectre' is more proof of this. I'd hazard the majority of audience members would either not know Blofeld, or not really care. We like to think he's on a par with the Joker, but he isn't. They needed the press surrounding 'is he, isn't he?' to remind many viewers of his existence and relevance to the canon. The idea of a mere Blofeld twist would only resonate perfectly with the fans, hence the brother angle functioning as the twist for the general audience.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mi-RN already gave us the perfect female 00.

    They'll have to wait a while before doing it otherwise it will just be too similar, not that this has stopped them before mind you.

    Yes and she is absolutely stunning.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    I think they kind of needed to name it Spectre for the public even to remember who Blofeld was. I mean, it has been 44 years!
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    echo wrote: »
    I think they kind of needed to name it Spectre for the public even to remember who Blofeld was. I mean, it has been 44 years!

    Exactly.

  • gt007gt007 Station G
    Posts: 1,182
    RC7 wrote: »
    gt007 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Here's my sense on the Bond-ESB relationship.

    I think the Sony leaks screwed up everything. It was likely EON's idea that the ESB reveal would be a HUGE twist, one nobody saw coming. Could you imagine the audience's reaction that it was Blofeld? But I think we all pretty much knew beforehand who it was. Then again, if this was EON's strategy, why title the film Spectre?

    I disagree. The leaks didn't have anything to do with that.

    I never read the leaks, but right from the film's announcement I was very confident Waltz was playing Blofeld. It seemed pretty obvious that a film named SPECTRE would feature Blofeld and Waltz seemed a great choice for the role. You don't really need a leaked script to figure it out.

    I tend to agree. They made it pretty obvious, but just didn't state it explicitly. I think they wanted the 'Blofeld' discussion to take place, and the name 'Spectre' is more proof of this. I'd hazard the majority of audience members would either not know Blofeld, or not really care. We like to think he's on a par with the Joker, but he isn't. They needed the press surrounding 'is he, isn't he?' to remind many viewers of his existence and relevance to the canon. The idea of a mere Blofeld twist would only resonate perfectly with the fans, hence the brother angle functioning as the twist for the general audience.
    echo wrote: »
    I think they kind of needed to name it Spectre for the public even to remember who Blofeld was. I mean, it has been 44 years!

    Precisely. It all seems pretty obvious to us Bond fans, but I was surprised when I told my friends "I bet Waltz is Blofeld" and they didn't know what on earth I was talking about. We tend to forget how ordinary cinema-goers see things.

    PS: For anyone interested, I had to say "You know, the bald one with the cat... The one Dr Evil parodies" to get a response like "ah, it does ring a bell"...
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 4,622
    Okay, my brief thoughts on SPECTRE after my 3rd viewing.

    This is Craig's best Bond film.

    It's the Bond film I have been waiting a long long time for, because in my opinion, we finally have all the elements that make Bond what we know and love it for. It feels like a Connery adventure, ripped from the 60's and brought into the modern day. Of course you can say it's got the great action we expect, the fast cars, the amazing locations - but the most important thing for me, is that in this film, James Bond is finally the ludicrous, over the top adventure it once was.

    Spectre is a film that manages bring the fun back into a franchise that has always been about winking at the audience, and showing them ridiculous things that you would never see in any other film series. James Bond is a man who always manages to save the day with 007 seconds left on the timer, and I think Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig have captured that feel beautifully, creating a film that celebrates everything Bond, while still telling a ridiculous story about the world we live in.

    Craig looks more comfortable in this film than he has in any of his previous efforts. He just OOZES Bond in this film in a way that he never has before. This is the first time we have seen Craig's Bond where he isn't "becoming the man we all know". Daniel Craig finally IS James Bond. The sneaky, suave secret agent once again. The man who steals cars from his own organisation, waves to bad guys he will later kill, and chases down a convoy of 3 jeeps with a light aircraft (Yup. Why not).

    We see the return of many significant elements that ensure this film feels more like classic Bond than any of the others. We finally see the return of the silent henchman, the villain's lair (complete with uniformed minions doing busy work on computers), hell there is even a train fight. I also love the smaller notes of Bond that Mendes and the writers have included, such as Bond and Madeline being treated as honoured guests at SPECTRE's compound, with lovely rooms and "Drinks at 4". This attention to detail shows a serious love for the original material, and a respect for it also.

    For me, this is exactly the film I have wanted to see since Craig took over the role. As much as I love Casino Royale and Skyfall (we don't talk about Question of Sport), this is the film where we finally see Craig's Bond go on a classic 007 adventure. It may have it's issues, I'm by no means saying it is flawless, but in my opinion it is 110% James Bond.

    ★★★★★
    Nice write-up. Yes this is a real good Bond film.
    And yes Craig has fully arrived as Bond. He plays the part so well in this movie.Relaxed, at ease and dangerous as ever.
    All the casting works real well I think. SP is great Bond adventure!
    Hope it makes 2 billion at box office.
    At some point I might nit-pick a few things, but more along lines of what could have made it even better.
    I am really quite satisfied with this entry and would like Eon to get cracking on next film asap.
    Suffering withdrawal. Haven't seen movie since Friday. Hope to squeeze in Tue and Wed viewings

    ===
    A general observation here, regarding the brother thing. I don't find the childhood connection to be very interesting and based on the film,neither does Bond, however I think it's important not to overstate it.
    They were not brothers. Not even foster brothers.
    Bond was raised by his actual parents until they died in the climbing accident, and then his aunt took over his upbringing age 12.
    She turned him over for a brief time to the great Hannes Oberhauser, who played father figure and mentor to the young Bond for a short time.
    Poor Hannes happened to have older son Franz, who turned out to be very bad seed.
    Can't blame Hannes for mentoring the young Bond considering what a blight on humanity his son turned out to be.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I saw it for the second time last night and it was a more enjoyable experience (albeit just slightly) because I knew what to expect. However, my feelings still remain the same. It's a middle of the pack Bond film. When it's good (PTS, parts of Rome, Mr. White, the train) it's really good. Unfortunately, there's quite a few things that drag it down for me.

    Perhaps it's akin to how some of you feel about SF. Even though it's a well made film, there are some crucial flaws/lapses in logic that just proved to be too much for you to take. I can easily look past the flaws of SF because I'm enjoying myself immensely but with SP I find myself far less forgiving. The childhood connection, the C subplot, awkward references to the past, trying too hard to tie all the films together and the ending in London all take their toll on me. The film just kind of collapses into itself.

    Also, I freely admit my bias. I was annoyed that we had to wait a year to accommodate Mendes. I was never big on the idea of bringing Blofeld or SPECTRE back in the first place. When the trailer hinted at Bond having a personal connection to the villain, my heart sank. So, while I tried to enter the theater with an open mind, in some respects the damage had already been done. Shame.

    Perhaps my perspective could change over time. I suppose it will depend on if DC does another one or not. Speaking of Craig, last night I got the feeling (for the first time in his tenure) that he was really trying to channel his inner Connery and sometimes Moore during this film. It felt a little inauthentic. I don't know. There is certainly something different about his performance in SP but it's been hard to put my finger on exactly what it is.
  • Posts: 2,491
    http://screencrush.com/spectre-bad-twists/


    Interesting article. And I agree 100%
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    He is certainly channeling both Connery and Moore in SPECTRE. Which is a good thing, suits him.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @pachazo, that's probably how it is for a majority of us who didn't care for SF because of all of its faults or flaws or plot holes: we can overlook them in SP because we loved it so much and we're biased. SF is definitely well made, but I have way too many complaints and irritations about it to ever really crave wanting to re-watch it.
  • @dragonsky Thanks. An interesting point that I had not though of and I also agree 100%.

  • edited November 2015 Posts: 203
    dragonsky wrote: »
    http://screencrush.com/spectre-bad-twists/


    Interesting article. And I agree 100%

    good article @dragonsky they should have left whites description of franz oberhouser's past in the leagions from the earlier draft intact. that way it would have made sense to the general public more.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @pachazo, that's probably how it is for a majority of us who didn't care for SF because of all of its faults or flaws or plot holes: we can overlook them in SP because we loved it so much and we're biased. SF is definitely well made, but I have way too many complaints and irritations about it to ever really crave wanting to re-watch it.

    This.

    SP and SF both have similar irritations regarding Bond canon and plot sink holes. SP however has flair, balls and real BOND appeal.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    AceHole wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @pachazo, that's probably how it is for a majority of us who didn't care for SF because of all of its faults or flaws or plot holes: we can overlook them in SP because we loved it so much and we're biased. SF is definitely well made, but I have way too many complaints and irritations about it to ever really crave wanting to re-watch it.

    This.

    SP and SF both have similar irritations regarding Bond canon and plot sink holes. SP however has flair, balls and real BOND appeal.

    This, too (though I've still seen SP only once and was too excited to notice much wrong with it). Where's that 'Like' button?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    pachazo wrote: »
    Speaking of Craig, last night I got the feeling (for the first time in his tenure) that he was really trying to channel his inner Connery and sometimes Moore during this film. It felt a little inauthentic. I don't know. There is certainly something different about his performance in SP but it's been hard to put my finger on exactly what it is.

    I fully agree @pachazo. It's not sitting well with me either. He doesn't do glib as well as the Moore/Connery, and so there is a Brosnan 'me too' element to it from my perspective as well. He is much better when he's doing what he does best, which is giving his authentic Bondian representation (like in the torture scenes and in the one-on-one with Madeleine).

    I found the seduction of Lucia a little forced (literally) and a bit disturbing first time around to be honest.....nothing like Moore's finesse with Corinne in MR. Hopefully I have a better impression on my highly anticipated 2nd viewing tomorrow.
  • Posts: 2,491
    bondjames wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    Speaking of Craig, last night I got the feeling (for the first time in his tenure) that he was really trying to channel his inner Connery and sometimes Moore during this film. It felt a little inauthentic. I don't know. There is certainly something different about his performance in SP but it's been hard to put my finger on exactly what it is.

    I fully agree @pachazo. It's not sitting well with me either. He doesn't do glib as well as the Moore/Connery, and so there is a Brosnan 'me too' element to it from my perspective as well. He is much better when he's doing what he does best, which is giving his authentic Bondian representation (like in the torture scenes and in the one-on-one with Madeleine).

    I found the seduction of Lucia a little forced (literally) and a bit disturbing first time around to be honest.....nothing like Moore's finesse with Corinne in MR. Hopefully I have a better impression on my highly anticipated 2nd viewing tomorrow.

    Hey! It's great to see people that fell like I do! With all the "This was Craig's best showing as Bond!!!" comments I thought I was losing my mind :D
  • @bondjames

    You mention Moore and Corinne. Do you mean the way he abandoned her to her fate?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    @bondjames

    You mention Moore and Corinne. Do you mean the way he abandoned her to her fate?

    No, @Scaramanga12, I'm referring to the way he seduced her in her bedroom in MR after getting the requisite information. That was smoother than silk. Same went for that Sophia Loren lookalike in TSWLM ("Well, I had lunch.....but I seemed to have missed dessert"]). I found the Lucia one a little bit heavy handed to be honest, but only in comparison to Moore's silky moves.

    I agree that Bond was far more considerate of his conquest after sex in SP than he was in MR.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    dragonsky wrote: »
    http://screencrush.com/spectre-bad-twists/


    Interesting article. And I agree 100%

    Some good points made there.

    "The scene where Oberhauser finally says the name Ernst Stavro Blofeld proceeds in almost exactly the same way. Bond just stares back at him because there’s no reason he would care if Oberhauser changed his name to Blofeld, because Daniel Craig’s Bond has never met Blofeld. Both the Spectre and Into Darkness twists only make sense on a metatextual level. Within the narrative, they’re totally worthless. And yet they are the focal points of all the energy within these movies; energy that builds to revelations that have no meaning to any of the characters, and are only of interest to a small percentage of the audience that knows enough about the property to guess what’s being hinted at hours (if not weeks or months) ago."
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    I just read all these posts and all I have to say is I only love this film more the more I think about it.
    *sigh*
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 61
    mnhettia wrote: »
    dragonsky wrote: »
    http://screencrush.com/spectre-bad-twists/


    Interesting article. And I agree 100%

    good article @dragonsky they should have left whites description of franz oberhouser's past in the leagions from the earlier draft intact. that way it would have made sense to the general public more.

    agreed with @mnhettia and i want that back too. To go further,
    the photo with Bond Hannes and Franz should be taken at the day of avalanche (i.e. which means Bond was there to face the trauma once again)
Sign In or Register to comment.