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

17475777980100

Comments

  • Posts: 12,462
    Came away from my second viewing pretty similarly to the first. Unfortunately this one wasn't in IMAX, so the experience wasn't quite as great. At the same time, it was nice to be more comfortable with the film knowing what to expect.

    I really am glad they incorporated more humor into it this time. It was one of the many factors that helped it feel like the most "classic" Bond film in a long time. I still can't rank it higher than #9 (where it will stay for now); my Top 8 are pretty hard to cut into. It is a nice, classic Bond adventure though.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 1,310
    dragonsky wrote: »
    I honestly would be alright with this happening, considering the London finale is by far and away the worst part of the film.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 4,622
    2nd viewing today, planning a 3rd before week's end. Still very satisfied with this film, although initial fan-boy elation is starting to wear off now.
    Preparing a more sobre second-thought review. But make no mistake, I am good with this film. This was a big step forward for the Craig era, but there are areas where I think SP could have been better.
    DC though was bang-on as Bond. For me this was his coming out film. He certainly had moments of Bond greatness in his previous 3 films, but those stories saddled him with character baggage (rookie Bond, interminable trust issues, old dog etc) but here in SP, DC is allowed to engage full Bond-on-mission posture, and he turns in a Connery worthy (and Connery is the standard) relaxed, self assured performance. He's both Bond smooth and Bond dangerous, but danger-Bond has never been a Craig issue anyway.
    I also think Craig effortlessly delivers the quips . He shows a deft light touch. Like Connery, the one-liners don't get silly, as both uber-Bonds balance levity with an ever present sense of danger.
    The other thing I really like about this film is the story.
    I think Eon has deftly brought back both Ernst and Spectre, all the while neatly bringing the previous three films under the Spectre umbrella. Its been Bond versus Spectre all along. That is awesome.
    Bond should always be battling Spectre IMO.
    And with Spectre exposed as so damn big this time around, the organization looms as an ongoing pervasive threat.
    No more replacement super villains such as Elliot Carver, Gustav Graves or Max Zorin types. In future such crime bosses would be working under Spectre auspices, much like Doctor No. This approach makes far more sense.
    Going forward, it's 007 battling Spectre in it various guises and fronts, with Blofeld always behind the scenes, at least I hope.
    If SP is as big as what we have been shown, all powerful supervillain knockoffs such as Carver, Graves, Zorin etc would have to be reconciled with SP.
    SP runs all the big stuff.
    At least this is where I hope we are going. Its what Eon did the first time around, with Spectre and/or Blofeld looming large in all the early films, but for GF.
    Eon I believe intended to continue with Ernst and Spectre, if McClory hadn't been such an obstacle.

    I very much like SP, but I'm finding it maybe a little sombre in general tone. It has a bit of a heavy feel. It lumbers along. I blame Mendes and Newman for this. Barry would have better used music to make exciting transitions from scene to scene.
    Music I think was too operatic in parts. Sometimes it worked fine but not often enough.
    And please find some way to incorporate the actual Bond theme in the film. And I mean full blow, not the little hints we got. The JB Theme would have worked great during the snow chase for example.
    There were even QoS type musical interludes it seemed, most notable when Bond and Swann arrive in Tangiers. The QoS vibe worked for that very different Bond film, but I could have done without it in this one.
    The torture scene with Blofeld was sterile. The set design was sparse cold and clinical.
    I felt like I was being tortured too, which is not what I paid for. Compare with Connery on GF's laser table slab. Now that was a set!
    I do like the exposition that was achieved in this scene with the cat making its first experiences though.
    The no socks was offputting Dress this guy better. First thing I notice is that he is wearing no socks, because his pants are too short. They got the authentic Blofeld Nehru suit down nicely, but someone needed to finish dressing him. The no-socks was an unwanted distraction.

    Still love the Mexico and Rome stuff. All of it! The snow stuff was real good, but again I thought the set design for the clinic was too sparse. Piz Gloria this place was not.

    And where were the girls?! Swann, Lucia and Estrella and thats it?!
    We only go three deep with the 3 leads and then zilch nada.
    Nothing even remotely approaching a 4th. Not a fetching hotel receptionist, stewardess, Q lab assistant or Gift Bag girl (QoS) to be found anywhere. Not passerby tennis girls (CR) or girls decorating casinos or other exotic locales. Nothing, just 3 and out. I'm not counting MP.
    Other Bond films, you can make a list of at least 7-8 or 10 plus beautiful creatures decorating the film landscape in various capacities. Even the Dalton films had girls everywhere.
    No effort was made to populate the film with shapely figures but for the 3 main girls
    Actually one of the diners in the train looked Bond-girl worthy but the camera didn't linger. There was no attempt to exploit her look. She was pure background
    I am not counting the Mexico extras as they were like parts of a homogenous greater whole of costumed extras of all shapes and sizes.
    There was no focus here on pulchritude. In that respect, Sigman was the sole focus which was fine.
    I think its time to say goodbye to Mendes. He's made a couple of very interesting and noteworthy Bond films ( thank you for your contribution) but like others here I do fear what he might come up with next, in terms of character drama.
    The whole Blofeld fixation with Bond as childhood rival for his daddy's affection was interesting......... but no not really. ;) Hopefully Ernst can move beyond too by next film.
    Time to let go of Bonds past and move forward with a glorious new era of SP.
    Give Craig a big Moonraker film. No danger of too OTT, because a great Bond like Craig can ground the whole thing, much the way Connery did with YOLT, while Rog-Bond couldn't ground MR.
    Craig's Bond is so convincing he could keep a Derek Flint adventure grounded, whilst also maintaing a light touch when needed.
    Craig has reached the rarefied Bond air, that Connery occupied I think. He's perfected the complete Bond persona IMO.
    So thank you Sam, goodby Newman and Logan too, and lets get down to some good, exciting colourful Bond adventure.

    ==side note. I noticed an acknowledgement to the Kingsley Amis estate in the closing credits. Not sure what that was about, other than maybe the torture scene being lifted from his Colonel Sun. Wasn't the very twisted Sun inserting needles in Bond's ear in that book?

    ......bolded some lines to break-up the ramble. ~O)
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @timmer

    This is by far the best review I've read so far including the professional ones from magazines and newspapers!!
    =D>

    Every word spot-on
  • Posts: 3,327
    @timmer

    Nice review. Yes the torture scene was taken from Colonel Sun, I think even some of the dialogue is straight out of the novel. I can't believe no one has brought it up until now.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    @timmer

    Nice review. Yes the torture scene was taken from Colonel Sun, I think even some of the dialogue is straight out of the novel. I can't believe no one has brought it up until now.

    It has, I've seen numerous references to the torture scene being from Colonel Sun.
  • I have a question for those who saw the film in OV: does Bond say he's Mickey Mouse or he says he's Topolino? Pretty sure that in the Italian dub is Topolino, but...
  • Posts: 3,327
    has it? Ok, must have missed it...
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    I have a question for those who saw the film in OV: does Bond say he's Mickey Mouse or he says he's Topolino? Pretty sure that in the Italian dub is Topolino, but...

    Sono Topolino

    That's what Craig is saying, he's speaking Italian :)
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited November 2015 Posts: 2,138
    We haven't seen the best of Waltz as Blofeld because he was underused, I suspect in Bond 25 we will see a full blown maniac.
  • We haven't seen the best of Waltz as Blofeld because he was underused, I suspect in Bond 25 we will see a full blown maniac.

    The thing is....Blofeld never really was a full-blown maniac. He's not a 'Silva 2.0'. I liked Waltz portrayal of Blofeld. And I think we need to get rid of the notion that more screentime is better for the role of a villain. It never worked this way in Bond films. Actually, the best Bond villains IMO have relatively little screentime and have been introduced fairly late (Think about the early Blofeld's from FRWL, TB, or Dr Julius No, or Silva).
  • Posts: 4,603
    any review that includes the words "the genius of Skyfall" gets a thumbs up from me, thanks for the link
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Finally got to see it today, it officially opens tomorrow but today is an advance screening and....I'm sorry to say I am one of those underwhelmed.

    The whole premise of it is great...terrorists having moles within the government to undermine them...I can see it being a real danger these days. I can generally buy how the plot links together, the puzzle pieces that lead Bond to the organisation. The massive weak link is how Blofeld is the mastermind of all previous movies, a tenuous link, put in only to give the Craig era some sort of continuity in some throwaway lines. And I really don't buy Blofeld's hating Bond this much to cause all that destruction.

    Waltz's performance is excellent as usual, but it would've been much better if he was Blofeld all along without the contrived personal stuff. His name change reveal was just too casual and it seems like they got the rights back to Spectre half-way through filming and decided that last minute (I know they got it beforehand).

    The rest of the supporting cast are excellent, the dialogue got many laughs from the audience particularly in the first half. A few were very underused, such as Monica Belluci (did she get the protection Bond promised?) and Mr Hinx (what's his motive? It felt like Blofeld wanted to dish out his revenge personally). The train fight was brutal and a highlight, and Hinx's end is something out of Looney Tunes (which is great).

    Going in I heard whispers of the car chase being anticlimatic, and I can see why. The gags were pretty funny but the car is another severely underused cast member. DB5 re-appearance totally unnecessary - the DB10 should be the star of the show. I don't get what Mendes wants here. He destroys Bond (the personal missions, blowing up MI6 and his car) - it's like Mendes is destroying what Bond represents.. At least Silva's plan and Skyfall had an underlying message.

    I felt the other action sequences were ok, but nothing jaw dropping. I noticed the starting camera follows Bond for a very long time which was neat. The gunbarrel at the beginning is welcome, but I don't understand why it doesn't open on the skull - that would've been perfect.

    Just like many literary fans want Fleming's work showing through the movie, I'm very loyal to Barry's work. Newman's score sounds like what you'd expect from an American crime show. He leaves no mark on the musical legacy. I am going as far as to say it is my least favourite, yes, below Goldeneye and Licence to Kill's scores.

    Overall I feel the characters have been hijacked from EON, and the films are going their own way (since Casino Royale). This for the most part has been a very brave direction and is certainly paying off, and I applaud the team for this. However, all I want is for a back to basics Bond film, which we got hints of in Spectre, and those parts I loved. So unfortunately I will be one of the negative nancy's here. This will be in the lower half of my rankings.

  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    I have a question for those who saw the film in OV: does Bond say he's Mickey Mouse or he says he's Topolino? Pretty sure that in the Italian dub is Topolino, but...

    Sono Topolino

    That's what Craig is saying, he's speaking Italian :)

    It's one of the funniest references in this film, and it's in there three times ;-). Just read this part of my review from page 77:
    More credible humour?
    “SPECTRE” is a good 4th part of this full-blooded Bond-quadrilogy. It’s Craig’s “Thunderball” or “The Spy Who Loved Me”, slightly more stripped down from unnecessary emotions and character’s complexities, and more upbeat with credible humour (an emotion too…) and larger action sequences as part of the plot. Craig himself though is never copying Sir Moore or Sir Connery. Yes, Bond’s dry wit is back and Daniel Craig utters a few witty one-liners, but they all sound a bit more “street”. Most of the humour works so well, because it’s part of the circumstances/events. When for instance Bond falls on a sofa during the pre-credits sequence, he’s not uttering an appallingly written Brosnan-one-liner. No, instead the audiences can observe a 007 who probably himself thinks “Hell, why couldn’t this be a clean kill”. Same thing occurs with some of the Mickey Mouse-references. Only Daniel Craig can belittle himself with such gusto by saying he’s the one and only Disney character (Did you caught the Topolino/Mickey Mouse references? I did count three). "SPECTRE" definitely is the funniest film of the quadrilogy.
    My rating: ■ ■ ■ ■ □

  • edited November 2015 Posts: 4,603
    Agree with all your points, it does seem to be a very divisive movie within this group. Its as if there are two Spectre movies. You either love it for it's strengths and dont recognise the the weaknesses or review it as above.
    Having read all of the reviews, a new concern for me as that they are changing the nature of Bond forever as certain ellements of Bond cant be now changed. Its one thing to produce a movie that some people have issues with but the scripts and back stories will always be there. As well as create a great movie, scriptwriters surely have a duty of care re the long terms direction of Bond and this is a concern IMHO.
    SF was interesting, we saw his old house and learnt a little about his parents. It should have stopped there. I think they have gone too far, what other villains are related or lived in the next village down the road or went to his school? what other secrets will we learn.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    You love it for it's strengths and recognise the the weaknesses

    Amended to reflect another group of viewers.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    dragonsky wrote: »

    That is so 'Total Recall' it's not funny. I actually like his idea here, about what actually happens when the drill hits the nerve.

    Finally, that surreal escape from Blofeld HQ & the entire London confused/convoluted shenanigans makes sense.......a little.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Oh and another thing...this is the reason I don't like watching trailers. They really messed up the "Welcome James. It's been a long time, and finally...here we are" line in the film.
  • Posts: 24
    My initial reaction to Spectre was that I enjoyed it.

    The problems came subsequently. As I reflected back on it and its weaknesses, it started to unravel.

    I'd been warned in advance that it was 'unmemorable', which I couldn't understand as I started watching - enjoying the fantastic, stand-out pre-title sequence.

    However, I now see what was meant. The other action sequences, while looking like a lot money on the screen, aren't really innovative in such a way as to capture the imagination and stick in the mind.

    The chase sequence through Rome? That's all it is. One car following another car at speed through empty streets. And haven't we seen the smaller car getting shoved ahead being used in another movie?

    Similarly, the chase down the mountain? Bond opting to pursue in a plane is interesting, but ultimately he just uses his vehicle to ram the target vehicle to a halt.

    The fight on the train? It's equal parts Red Grant in From Russia With Love and a conclusion which reminded me of Tee Hee in Live and Let Die.

    The shoot-out at the crater headquarters was similarly unimaginative and pedestrian, while the MI6 chase to find the girl was again nothing we haven't seen done before in countless other movies.

    I'll see what I make of it on a subsequent viewing, but more and more, it just feels like an unimaginative, reductive, highly derivative and generically forgettable entry into the Bond canon.

    Desk
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 164
    Just saw Spectre for the first time last night. I'm going to keep it simple: it's visually beautiful, performance wise perfect and story wise mediocre. Daniel Craig was at his best, Christoph Waltz's greatness was only limited by the screen time allocated to his character, Dave Bautista delivered and I really hope his character didn't die, Lea Seydoux almost made me fall in love, I even liked Sam Mendes' direction. The opening action scenes were spectacular, the helicopter scene was superb. I could feel the tension in the audience. People were literally scared for Bond's life. The same goes for the train scene. That's the best fight I've ever seen in a movie.

    But then the last act was underwhelming. I hope that's only because Spectre is a two-parter. I left the cinema thinking that I want more, that it was too short, that despite the numerous action scenes, it didn't reach a climax. It needs to be continued and it needs to have more Christoph Waltz in it and a more credible story. I'm not even going to get into detail about what's wrong with it, I'm sure you all did by now.

    It's a shame really to waste this cast and this type of budget on something that's not going to be memorable. I'm not totally disappointed with it though. l was impressed by the fact that it actually made me feel something and gave me the desire to talk about it and wonder about what's next. It felt like it was an art piece more than a movie. I rank it as #2 in DC's era after CR.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 9,843
    Ok so it's time to talk about Spectre I haven't read to many other reviews so I don't know if others are saying the same things as me or not...


    I can basically sum up my problems with the film in 6 bullet points

    1. WAY too much humor I don't mind a bit of Humor but the whole Old man car sequence in Spectre was incredibly stupid. I also felt a lot of the one liners fell flat
    2. Thomas Newman's Score: there wer WAY too many moments that sounded like they wer from Skyfall and/or Quantum of Solace and it just felt very samey mind you some of the score is good.
    3. Sam Smith's song. It's a demo that some how never got worked on
    4. Mr. White's Death Again such a cool and interesting Character and they turn him into basically Draco. Ok fine but still the whole Sucide thing just kind of annoyed me. Even people who hated Quantum of Solace still point out how great Mr. White was as a character.
    5. Spectre and Blofeld remerging and being responsible for Quantum and Le Chiffe and silva etc... this is more of a I wish they would of done things differently.. I love the idea that Craig's films are interconnected. I honestly do however after Quantum of Solace those who loved Quantum, had all kinds of cool ideas about leadership etc. to make it all be Spectre and Blofeld kind of lame. Plus (maybe people complained about this as well) Spectre is doing some harsher things then Quantum but really it's still ruling the world ecnomically which was Quantum's goal. Gone are the days of nuclear weapon heists etc and yet everyone seems to embrace Spectre with open arms in spite of the differences between the new Spectre and Quantum are extremely slim
    6. Fiennes's M not giving the mission. I still feel this is part of Dench's tenure as M even though she is dead because SHE gave 007 the mission. I love Dame Judi Dench I do but COME ON when is Fiennes M's tenure going to start.


    Overall though there was some great postives

    1. the Finale I liked honestly especially with M killing Max. I also like that even though Fiennes's M didn't put him on the Mission he was smart enough to realize 007 is still doing his job
    2. the acting for the most part was spot on Waltz'z Oberhauser/blofeld had a few minor over the top moments but he was a refreshing change of pace from Bardem's Over the top Silva.
    3. it is cool that Quantum was metioned by name three times and that Mr. White came back and that Dominic Greene was even reference (as well as Vesper) I honestly was afraid Quantum of Solace would of been ignored but it wasn't which is very cool
    4. both sex scenes were really hot and the hottest they have been in years in my opinion (at least since Royale)
    5. For the most part the action was brilliant
    6. I love the locations and they were all user very well no location felt shoehorned in.
    7. The Gunbarrel and Klienman's titles were SPOT ON had a song by Muse or Rush had accompanied the visuals it would of been fantastic.
    8. The Ending does leave me with the same sense of wonderment and excitmend Casino Royale-Skyfall left me)
    9. I loved the nod to the Hildebrand Rarity (considering it's my favorite of the unused titles)\
    10. though Mr white does die his scene was still stand out in fact I would argue Mr. White really was amazing in all 3 of his films and gave stand out performances in all 3 which makes his sucide EVEN MORE annoying but oh well


    And that sums it up. Over all the film was good. Not fantastic not bad just good 14 I think it ranks for me which is really not bad. I plan on rewatching all 24 over the span of a few months next year to really see where I place Spctre in the context of the franchise in Craig's era it comes in third behind Casino and Quantum.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    bondjames wrote: »
    eddychaput wrote: »
    I speak French and found your discovery quite interesting. Kind of gives the French version of SP a different slant, does it not?
    Yes. So far I've only see the subtitled version, and it uses "tu" in the subtitles...

    To make it even more clearer for non French viewers : Bond says "vous" to M, Q, Moneypenny.. and "tu" to Blofeld. It really is made clear these two share something IMO.

    I have a basic knowledge of French and am aware of such distinction and meaning from my classes.

    I would have expected the 'tu' actually, based on the English version which I have watched. They are supposed to be very close (after all Oberhauser basically raised Bond after his parent's death) according to Blofeld's explanation during the torture sequence......there is obviously a very close history between them and Blofeld even says something about brothers knowing how to push each other's buttons during the MI6 finale when he sets off the timer.

    So I'm assuming that 'tu' is the appropriate one to use.

    Do you disagree?

    How is the German version? Does he use Du or Sie?
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    Desk wrote: »
    My initial reaction to Spectre was that I enjoyed it.

    The problems came subsequently. As I reflected back on it and its weaknesses, it started to unravel.

    I'd been warned in advance that it was 'unmemorable', which I couldn't understand as I started watching - enjoying the fantastic, stand-out pre-title sequence.

    However, I now see what was meant. The other action sequences, while looking like a lot money on the screen, aren't really innovative in such a way as to capture the imagination and stick in the mind.

    The chase sequence through Rome? That's all it is. One car following another car at speed through empty streets. And haven't we seen the smaller car getting shoved ahead being used in another movie?

    Similarly, the chase down the mountain? Bond opting to pursue in a plane is interesting, but ultimately he just uses his vehicle to ram the target vehicle to a halt.

    The fight on the train? It's equal parts Red Grant in From Russia With Love and a conclusion which reminded me of Tee Hee in Live and Let Die.

    The shoot-out at the crater headquarters was similarly unimaginative and pedestrian, while the MI6 chase to find the girl was again nothing we haven't seen done before in countless other movies.

    I'll see what I make of it on a subsequent viewing, but more and more, it just feels like an unimaginative, reductive, highly derivative and generically forgettable entry into the Bond canon.

    Desk

    I think if you make up a review that's solely a comparison chart of action sequences, yes obviously the movie will come across like a big disappointment to you. And that's not entirely fair. You can have so many original, completely new and unique action sequences in a Bond film, but even then they could not work.

    And frankly, like I said in my review down below, people don't ask themselves anymore how a Bond film should turn out if they have so much criticism. And then they discover it's not so damn easy. Because a 53-year old franchise is prone to so much comparisons.

    The reason "SPECTRE" perhaps worked for you after your 1st watch, is probably because you liked the humour in it. The story itself is very much like SF as well. It uses certain past historical events and elaborates about them in the present.

    The reason "SPECTRE" worked for me, actually was the story. Bond is much more on a simple mission in this film. But then discovers how many tentacles are attached to this OHMSS-esque (rogue) mission. It felt a bit more 'detective-y', which I liked.

    Furthermore, it saddens me to hear that the S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-board meeting and the dentist torture sequence didn't excite you. I think those were highlights of the film. So "CUCKOOO!!" open your eyes :-P
    REVIEW “SPECTRE”: MICKEY MOUSE IS BACK WITH A BANG

    Earlier this year reviewers were positive about Matthew Vaughn’s new comic book adaptation vs. spy spoof “Kingsman: The Secret Service”. Some critics applauded the more comedic approach of the film. It was a return to Roger Moore-esque suaveness and cheesy, though violent, comedy. It was an element that was greatly missed in the recent Bond films with Daniel Craig. Then “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation” premiered and it got hailed as the best spy-action film of the year. Critics uttered sentences like "Tom Cruise remains the action star without equal”, thus no critics mentioned Cruise’s age of 53, that he was doing his 5th “M:I”-film already (he signed up for a 6th), and what will happen to the franchise when he leaves. Review by Gustav_Graves (Gert)


    It’s a pretty damn old thing
    With Bond it’s an entirely different thing. It’s a 53-year old franchise which formula got shaken and stirred during a whopping portfolio of 24 films, of which “SPECTRE” is the 24th. But like Bond’s past haunting him more than ever in this new adventure, the actual franchise is equally haunted by all its previous films and many other newer franchises who borrow from it. No matter how successful and gracefully old the franchise is, it’s therefore prone to much more criticism and comparisons. Compared to relatively new franchises like “Mission: Impossible”, “The Dark Knight” and “The Fast And The Furious”, the “James Bond”-franchise’s reference point around which criticism –both positive and negative-- is build, is its own past. It’s logical if you are 53 years old, though at times not entirely fair. For a “Mission: Impossible”-film it’s usually a compliment to be compared with a Bond film, but ‘godfather[/]’ Bond doesn’t have that privilege. Critics will never say “This actually is a better Marvel-film!”. It always needs to battle itself, in good and bad times.

    Actor Ben Whishaw commented during the Royal World Premiere in London: “You know what you're going to get, but you know it's also going to be slightly different every time”. And that’s again the case with “SPECTRE”. Sadly, because of the age of the franchise many people have forgotten that adage, and don’t ask themselves anymore what to expect from a new Bond film. Obviously, you have to be prepared for a familiar and slightly formulaic film, of which all ingredients are being blended differently. That was the case with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall”. So when people call “SPECTRE” an uninspired, sapid copy of its own past, they either hail –though not really watch-- the oldest Bond films, or they tend to forget the implications of the franchise’s age of 53 (in comparison, “Mission: Impossible” is now 20 years old).

    The build-up to “SPECTRE”
    In any case, after the most violent shape-up of the Bond-franchise with the previous three Bond films, “Casino Royale”, “Quantum Of Solace” and “Skyfall”, Sam Mendes wisely settles the franchise down a bit with “SPECTRE”. During the final scenes of “Skyfall” we got prepared for that. Bond visits the new, more scaled down MI6-offices at Whitehall. He enters Miss Moneypenny’s small office, looks down on her desk and smiles with Connery-esque wit: “I’m looking forward to our time together Miss Moneypenny?!”. He then encounters Gareth Mallory, the new ‘M’, in an office that resembles Bernard Lee’s wooden panelled, dusty post-WW II-designed mission room.
    csl50cX.jpg

    So is “SPECTRE” a blatant copy of its past? Again, it depends how you look at it. I’d go with a “No”. After “SPECTRE” Her Majesty’s Loyal Terrier has now been completely re-introduced to us. With slow nuance and credibility, with joyous and at times original re-imagined elements from the franchise’s past and with a better sense of continuity. All of which happened over a course of 4 films (which started in 2006, two years before Marvel decided to revel with their universe). Continuity though, has never been a very important element to the Bond franchise. Due to the big financial risks accompanied with the production of a film that wasn’t even a franchise yet, due to the production complexity of bringing Bond to the big screen with a few of Fleming’s earlier novels (“Moonraker”, “Live And Let Die”) and due to several of Fleming’s novels not being fully owned by EON Productions (the very first novel “Casino Royale” & aspects/characters from “Thunderball”), continuity and chronology were soon thrown away for the sake of giving us a Bond film in the first place. So back in 1962 (“Doctor No”) Sean Connery was already the fully rounded agent 007.

    Not with Daniel Craig. We saw Bond earning his 00-licence in (“Casino Royale”), falling in love with a complex girl (“Casino Royale”), battling his own emotions of revenge and anger (“Quantum Of Solace”), and then facing the importance of espionage by witnessing the fall and re-birth of MI6 (“Skyfall”). You almost wánt James Bond to face a little bit less death and destruction, no? (“Skyfall”, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” and “Casino Royale” are unique phenomena that are heavy on emotions, but wouldn’t it become a bit uninspiring and joyless to kill off a beloved character at the very end of every Bond film?).

    The organisation is back
    With “SPECTRE” all elements of the Bond-cocktail are in place now. Well, not quite. One important element from Ian Fleming’s novels had to be properly re-introduced: Bond’s antagonist S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge & Extortion). While James Bond 007 has got his emotions in check now, makes us laugh a bit more, and is now more focused on his mission –rogue or not rogue-, people might have noticed the absence of a larger threat, a so called anti-MI6. So the return of Fleming’s mysterious crime syndicate S.P.E.C.T.R.E. is uttermost welcome. And in this particular film S.P.E.C.T.R.E and its tentacles are an emotional tour-de-force. It is most definitely the haunting ghost of both agent 007 and MI6. But it’s more than that.

    Because for all the good work of Protector Bond, we still live in an era of real-life hostility, intense geopolitical problems and villainous dictators. Not to mention the facilitators of big conflicts, like the crisis in Eastern-Ukraine or the escalating immigrant-crisis in Europe. Ian Fleming knew how to translate such events in a slightly larger-than-life context. And so does Sam Mendes. Hence the return of a slightly more realistic Bilderberg-inspired S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group) that perfectly channels this reality (off course within a larger-than-life context). And since I am reviewing a film here and not a real-life conflict, “SPECTRE” is particularly an exciting spectacle for those who like to see more death and destruction from Bond’s biggest antagonist. The S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-meeting in Rome is therefore one of the highlights of the film, one that includes a particularly horrifying death, coldly witnessed by Oberhauser. And no, it isn’t a cheesy electrocution, or a moment of shark feeding.

    Talking about Oberhauser…..Christoph Waltz portrays a solid Bond villain. Obviously he isn’t Silva, but that poor guy was living in total rage, whereas Oberhauser seems to have his emotions better in check within his psychotic mindset. Oberhauser isn’t running around like Silva and isn’t gunning down people with core beliefs of that of an Islamic State terrorist. He is less motivated by his past and more motivated by his own psyche. Which makes him credible especially during a torture scene. It gives you the best introduction to an arch nemesis that was absent for such a long time. And this arch nemesis will give you dentist fever, trust me.

    More credible humour?
    “SPECTRE” is a good 4th part of this full-blooded Bond-quadrilogy. It’s Craig’s “Thunderball” or “The Spy Who Loved Me”, slightly more stripped down from unnecessary emotions and character’s complexities, and more upbeat with credible humour (an emotion too…) and larger action sequences as part of the plot. Craig himself though is never copying Sir Moore or Sir Connery. Yes, Bond’s dry wit is back and Daniel Craig utters a few witty one-liners, but they all sound a bit more “street”. Most of the humour works so well, because it’s part of the circumstances/events. When for instance Bond falls on a sofa during the pre-credits sequence, he’s not uttering an appallingly written Brosnan-one-liner. No, instead the audiences can observe a 007 who probably himself thinks “Hell, why couldn’t this be a clean kill”. Same thing occurs with some of the Mickey Mouse-references. Only Daniel Craig can belittle himself with such gusto by saying he’s the one and only Disney character (Did you caught the Topolino/Mickey Mouse references? I did count three). "SPECTRE" definitely is the funniest film of the quadrilogy.

    Action-heavy, in a good way
    Thanks in particular to editor Lee Smith (“The Dark Knight”), a good writing team and a more frivolous and improvising acting style from Daniel Craig, the action sequences top a few of the previous, more recent Bond stunts, and even those from competing 007-inspired spy-franchises. They don’t feel unrelated to the plot. A tense fight sequence between 007 and Monsieur Hinx, without music but with wonderful sound-editing from Oscar-winner Per Halberg (("Skyfall"), feels almost as gripping as the torture scene in "Casino Royale". And the rather long car chase among the banks of the river Tiber in Rome never feels long, due to some smart editing of some light-hearted phone conversation between Bond and Moneypenny. Still, for a 25th Bond film there are so many types of stunts available from the stuntman’s big hat that haven’t been used before in a Bond film. Free-running was something new in “Casino Royale”, and something as original as that “SPECTRE” won’t offer you.

    Some but’s
    “SPECTRE” therefore isn’t a perfect film. Some other examples are the London-based sequences. They felt a bit too contrived at times. And that’s partially because Sam Mendes tried a bit too hard to focus on a 2nd storyline in which the entire MI6-staff played a role. One should not try forcefully to give great actors more screen time. I therefore think it’s inevitable that in the future ‘M’, ‘Q’, Moneypenny and Tanner shine a bit more from behind a desk.

    Moreover, the finale in London was exciting, though not entirely fulfilling. After the blow-up of Oberhauser’s lair, the CNS-program could have been destroyed entirely. By doing so, the personal story between Oberhauser and Bond could have felt a bit more ‘compact’, thus more effective. A dinner table sequence would have been good here, though I did think the ‘fun house’ sequence inside the old MI6-building (A very Fleming-esque sequence nonetheless) worked well enough. But London? We know you exist by now ok?

    Verdict
    Despite this and some other ‘minor caveats’, “SPECTRE” still holds as a ‘TOP 10 Best Bond Entry’ in the EON-led franchise. The film isn’t an ‘état fenomenale’ like its predecessors (“Casino Royale”, “Goldfinger”, “Skyfall”, “The Spy Who Loved Me” and “From Russia With Love”). But who knows, perhaps that can happen in the foreseeable future (“On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”?). Former “Goldfinger” director Guy Hamilton once quoted this: "We're going to take you to wonderful places, we're going to show you beautiful girls, we're gonna have some suspense, we're gonna have some laughs....but...let's enjoyy!" And that’s what I did immensely with possibly the best spy-themed action thriller of 2015.

    My rating: ■ ■ ■ ■ □
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Is it wrong that I enjoyed the comedy and the Technicolor look of the Heineken advert more than SPECTRE.
  • Posts: 4,603
    Who wrote the script for the advert? We need new talent
  • Is it wrong that I enjoyed the comedy and the Technicolor look of the Heineken advert more than SPECTRE.

    No, it isn't wrong. Though I highly doubt it. An advert is like 4 mins, a Bond film usually more than 140 mins. Moreover, that action sequence from the Heineken commercial basically is as 'humorous' as the action sequences from SP......and it wasn't even 'original', as it is more or less stolen from the "Octopussy" PTS.

  • edited November 2015 Posts: 24
    The reason "SPECTRE" perhaps worked for you after your 1st watch, is probably because you liked the humour in it. The story itself is very much like SF as well. It uses certain past historical events and elaborates about them in the present.

    The reason "SPECTRE" worked for me, actually was the story. Bond is much more on a simple mission in this film. But then discovers how many tentacles are attached to this OHMSS-esque (rogue) mission. It felt a bit more 'detective-y', which I liked.

    Furthermore, it saddens me to hear that the S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-board meeting and the dentist torture sequence didn't excite you. I think those were highlights of the film. So "CUCKOOO!!" open your eyes :-P
    Trust me, I most definitely didn't enjoy it because of the humour, which I found as leaden, obvious and witless as everything that's come before from Purvis and Wade.

    The reason I found it reasonably enjoyable at first is because it wasn't a massive disappointment like Skyfall in that it had a plot that made sense and a hero who behaved in a reasonably heroic manner and whose actions were seen to actually have some bearing on the outcome.

    There's also that novelty and excitement of it being a new Bond film, plus the initial faith and goodwill engendered by the spectacular PTS.

    Ironically, though, it's a film which ultimately does feel as whispy, intangible and ethereal as a spectre.

    The board scenes? I wasn't bored, but it didn't exactly have me gripped or on the edge of my seat.

    The torture scene? If it felt like there was any real jeopardy, and not just a weak, easy repetition of something we've seen Bond endure and escape from before, then I'd have maybe cared a little.

    As it is, I do like the theory developing that the villain's drill actually DID destroy Bond's mind, and that everything that follows, from his easy escape, blowing up the facility with a single bullet, taking on a small army, and walking into the sunset with the girl, is simply the fantasy of a now gibbering 007 who has been left dying in Blofeld's torture chair.

    Nice way to end the Craig era, huh? ;-P

    Desk
  • Desk wrote: »
    The reason "SPECTRE" perhaps worked for you after your 1st watch, is probably because you liked the humour in it. The story itself is very much like SF as well. It uses certain past historical events and elaborates about them in the present.

    The reason "SPECTRE" worked for me, actually was the story. Bond is much more on a simple mission in this film. But then discovers how many tentacles are attached to this OHMSS-esque (rogue) mission. It felt a bit more 'detective-y', which I liked.

    Furthermore, it saddens me to hear that the S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-board meeting and the dentist torture sequence didn't excite you. I think those were highlights of the film. So "CUCKOOO!!" open your eyes :-P
    Trust me, I most definitely didn't enjoy it because of the humour, which I found as leaden, obvious and witless as everything that's come before from Purvis and Wade.

    The reason I found it reasonably enjoyable at first is because it wasn't a massive disappointment like Skyfall in that it had a plot that made sense and a hero who behaved in a reasonably heroic manner and whose actions were seen to actually have some bearing on the outcome.

    There's also that novelty and excitement of it being a new Bond film, plus the initial faith and goodwill engendered by the spectacular PTS.

    Ironically, though, it's a film which ultimately does feel as whispy, intangible and ethereal as a spectre.

    The board scenes? I wasn't bored, but it didn't exactly have me gripped or on the edge of my seat.

    The torture scene? If it felt like there was any real jeopardy, and not just a weak, easy repetition of something we've seen Bond endure and escape from before, then I'd have maybe cared a little.

    As it is, I do like the theory developing that the villain's drill actually DID destroy Bond's mind, and that everything that follows, from his easy escape, blowing up the facility with a single bullet, taking on a small army, and walking into the sunset with the girl, is simply the fantasy of a now gibbering 007 who has been left dying in Blofeld's torture chair.

    Nice way to end the Craig era, huh? ;-P

    Desk

    Well, obviously you are new to the forum. Welcome. We'll initiate you this this brotherhood properly....soon, very soon :-). With dentist drills perhaps. >:)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    This is crazy. When I saw SF and stated that I thought it was disappointing I got hellfire for it. Now I say I absolutely love SP without reservation and all these peeps are blasting away at it left & right.... :-O
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,583
    dire399 wrote: »
    dragonsky wrote: »

    Cool piece. That's where Vanilla Sky meets The Sixth Sense.

    The theory doesn't hold up, as other "all in their head" films don't: because that final act involves characters' actions and stories that Bond is not aware of while sitting in that chair. If it is all Bond's POV at that point, then he needs to be in every scene of that final act. He isn't. Instead, we see the death of C, we understand more about Nine Eyes, we see the MI6 crew getting hit by a truck...etc. Sure, some of that can be in Bond's head, but why? And how?

    We'll know whether or not EON were to ever go in this direction because Andrew Scott would be back as C. he never actually died.
Sign In or Register to comment.