It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Did he get to choose, though?
Sorry, I respectfully disagree. And I find it too easy the way you put it.
In QOS for instance what is entirely missing is focus on the villain's scheme. In a vague kind of way we hear Greene talking about that so called "Tierra Project". At least in SP the "Nine Eyes Project" (also a S.P.E.C.T.R.E./QUANTUM-plot) has been fully explained. There is one guy executing that plot, Max Denbigh, there is a lair where we see how the plot is being executed, and we know how Blofeld -almost- managed to sell his private "Big Brother"-project to several governments across the globe via executive moles (Denbigh).
In QOS however, there's nothing that elaborates on that Tierra Project. All these dams, creating thise massive huge underground water lakes/reservoirs, are just "there". No explanation on how these were build (QOS could look to AVTAK, where you can see the entire mine that needs to flood the entire San Fransisco bay area and Silicon Valley), there are no people/employees working on the preservation of that lake, it's just "there". Bam! At least 20 mins or more could have been used on this part of the story.
I've seen it twice now too. Overall I think the first hour is almost perfect bar a few moments, but I agree with a lot of your comments about the second half.
Your point about the video-game-boss-showdown is dead on and I found myself thinking the same thing.
If they can get away with a Blofeld twist like that....they can easily go for "James Bond is a codename" theory.....and you can easily have Black Bond,Fat Bond,Female Bond, Autistic Bond, Psychic Bond, Teenage Bond,Baby Bond etc....
Brace yourself... As long as Babs yields creative control then we will get more and more of this nonsense.
We simply "accept" that Drax built this entire space station without getting noticed by the CIA/MI6/NASA...god knows even Henry Kissinger didn't see it.
We simply "accept" that Blofeld hollows out a volcano without knowing how exactly. Back in those days the idea "Let's use a hollow volcano!" was a stroke of a genius, not of bad writing.
We simply "accept" Max Zorin as the CEO of Zorin Industries...and the man has never been checked by intelligende organisations / secret services? Not to mention that it IS a bit suspicious the man was already for a long time a KGB-agent. SHAME ON YOU MI6!
And I can name many many more examples. Yet ever since we got so "social media addicted" (yes, IMDB too) and suffering from "comparison sickness" thereoff, the newer Bond films, especially those with Daniel Craig, have to endure an exaggerated and unfair amount of scrutiny.
Sorry guys, these are Bond films. If "Kingsman" gets applauded for its ridiculous cheesy villain's scheme, then we have to get used again to some of the ridiculous plots and storylines from the new Bond films; plots and storylines that we are scrutinizing and dissecting so heavily that our first view of a Bond film means nothing anymore.
Sometimes I think....we've lost our 'talent' to feel entertained.
I wasn't referring to the plot or any of the fantastic elements - I was talking solely about the liberties EoN is taking with the 007 canon, how they are playing around with the established back-story.
You may as well have Disney suddenly making out that Han Solo was actually Luke's sperm donor.
Not to mention that we somehow have to "accept" that these international criminal organizations can employ thousands of foot soldiers. Where the hell do they find these people?
Can you imagine the nondisclosure agreement these "employees" would have to sign? :))
Tinder :D
Well, this American prefers Bond films that are completely set in Europe.
No. Peckham and Tower-Hamlets.
An exaggeration. As you might have known already from "SPECTRE"....Oberhauser/Blofeld were never genetically related to each other. Just for a very short period they were foster brothers. And with all due respect, aren't there people who actually like the fact that the "Octopussy"-story was more properly used in this Bond film, as opposed to a rather lame sideline uttered by Bond in the actual film "Octopussy"?
Ian Fleming DID write about Bond's family though, in "Octopussy", "You Only Live Twice". And personally I was always fascinated by Bond's childhood, his family, etc. It is something that will set the Craig-films for always apart from all previous Bond films. And I like that :-).
LOL, actually, "Kingsman" tried to do that. By expanding on the Angels-Of-Death plot from "OHMSS", the writers used....SMARTPHONES :)). Yeah baby. Well, no one criticised that film for that. Bond however.... :-).
=D>
Oh come on. It´s not the ridiculousness of the plots, it´s lackluster execution on behalf of the filmmakers. Big Trouble in Little China is a prime example of a ridiculous plot, yet it is one of the most entertaining movies of all times, because it´s a masterclass lesson in storytelling.
I can be entertained all right. I can watch a lot of Bond films over and over again, despite a lot of copied ideas and bad jokes. There were quite some films this year I went to see several times at the cinema, and will see more times on disc. But I don´t have to eat sh*t.
It´s not what is used, but how it is used.
Thank you for taking this on, I didn't have the energy to be honest...
Craigs tenure has become more about drawing big star names in the supporting roles. And when you do that you have to give them screen time, but when you give all them screen time it becomes restrictive of how you approach a Bond story.
Fiennes had to much time in this movie, Harris and Wishaw also had too much time in this movie because you can't ask them to come in and do bit parts. I would have loved to have seen more of Belluci and Waltz.
Brosnan's films he was off around the world, didn't need anyone and script is not dominated by "are we giving this big actor, or this big actress enough to say or do" just like Craig in CR. People say oh the Craig films, can't he just follow orders for once. But Craig actually feels more on a leash in Skyfall and Spectre than Brosnan in any of his films.
I think in Bond 25 they need to strip back a little on the "Team MI6" thing and make the film about Craig's Bond and a on a mission. Exotic locations, Caribbean, We need Felix back and we need it to be less Dark knight Rises and bit more Dr No there should be an almighty climax, one of the biggest "Something's" to end Craig's tenure.
Cannot agree, but I shall defend to the death your right to disagree with me :>
Wholeheartedly agree with you. Having said that, MI6 domestics have been overshadowing the films for a while now - TWINE is basically the blueprint for SF.
Sadly, now Fiennes, Wishaw and Harris are on board I think we need to resign ourselves to more of the same.
Still, even though the MI6 crowd all got a lot of time again in SP I actually found those scenes much less annoying than they were in SF. Wishaw in particular has grown into the role. I've gone from really disliking his Q to thinking he's got it pretty much just right.
I'd love a big globetrotting, sun-splashed Bond for Craig's final outing though. He really needs to visit Jamaica.
:-*
Initial viewing is what counts for me.
I remember I left the cinema in 2008 rather begutted. I had a face like this: :-S :| .
I really couldn't really tell after that first viewing what it was about, except that 007 was...eh...very very angry. And that was for me the core, and even the villain's plot at some time: Bond is angry. Only after many many rewatchings (and many many documented interviews) I understood what Marc Forster wanted with this film.
I remember I left the cinema in 2015 rather happy! I had a face like this: 8-} \m/
I wetted my pants when white pussy jumped on Bond's lap [-O< ! I wanna have white pussy! So happy white pussy is back :-D!
I'd keep those sentiments to yourself, if I were you :))
My thoughts 100% =D>
With this from Murdock
" Get Brad Bird to direct, The cast of SPECTRE to return, Michael Giacchino in the composer's chair and you have magic ready to bloom"
The opening pre-title sequence is absolutely amazing, from the tracking shot to the helicopter sequence it's an absolute wonder and by the time Writing's On The Wall had finished, I had found a new appreciation for it. The ensuing plot of Bond following trail of breadcrumbs felt like watching all the best parts of moonraker. Seeing Mr White again was a treat, I wasn't aware of how much he would play into the plot, but they use him quite a lot and it puts a nice little bow on the whole Casino Royale- Quantum storyline.
I can't go on without talking about the performances either, pretty much everyone hits their mark. I'll get into Blofeld a little bit later, but the cast of MI6 is fantastic as always, ESPECIALLY Ben Whishaw who has really managed to bring something unique and great to the role of Q. Léa Seydoux does a wonderful job as well, her an Craig have enough chemistry to make the whole "I love you" part work, but only just barely. It was always going to be a hard act to follow Vesper and while this doesn't beat that, I had no real objections with how the Bond-Swann relationship turned out. Andrew Scott was good enough to where I wanted to see more of him and same can be said of Bautista. He brings a quiet, charming presence to Mr Hinx and manages to stand out in a sea of henchmen with just a smile. It was a shame he left the movie as early as he did, his presence would have severely lifted the last 30 minutes.
I've avoided talking about the main man himself, Daniel Craig, so far, but now is the time. He's perfect. Daniel Craig IS Bond in this movie. The character arc he's gone through from Casino Royale to Skyfall feels like it finally paid off, every scene oozes with confidence and charm and all the little jokes worked PERFECTLY for me. It's the biggest positive I take away from Spectre and considering the perfeormance of a Bond actor has always been the driving force behind all these movies, it lifts Spectre up considerably.
I found myself really really enjoying all of the action and set pieces leading up to the Blofeld lair bit. They blow their biggest and best pieces early on, but I was never bored for even a moment and the plot is genuinely intriguing enough to have kept me fixated. Really, the movie was riding a on a major major high note for me right up until the last 30 minutes or so, where things start to fall apart.
So Blofeld, let's talk about him shall we? Christoph Waltz is a good actor, NAY a GREAT actor, his presence and performance in the Tarantino movies are simply mesmerizing, but for some reason he couldn't bring that same energy to Spectre. He's not bad by any means, he simply falls victim to higher expectations and odd pacing. The meeting room scene early on is wonderfully tense and the torture sequence is both exciting and excruciating, but for the most part the whole Blofeld storyline feels underutilized and the sequence taking place in his evil lair almost feels like an afterthought. Over in a blink of an eye.
Why go through the effort of setting up this relationship between him and Bond and then not really do anything with it? There really isn't an emotional confrontation between them and his motivations just aren't conveyed strongly enough. We are supposed to believe he's hated Bond his entire life, all because of daddy issues? And he's spent so much time making sure Bond suffers, when he's minutes away from becoming one of the worlds top leaders? It's hard to buy it all and it comes across as a lazy attempt at trying to add depth. The only thing it adds, is that Blofeld finally has a reason to keep Bond alive besides having to fill his broomcloset.
Blofeld feels more like a necessity in the movie than anything logical to the plot, they don't actually DO anything new with him, anything that would set him apart from the 60's version, it feels like they HAD to have him in the movie, he HAD to be the big boss, he HAD to have the lair, he HAD to have the jacket and he HAD to get a scar in the end. And all of that SHOULD be wonderful and make us Bond fans jump up and down with glee, but it just comes across as lazy and tired. There's nothing new or interesting about him. I enjoyed seeing the persian cat, but the scar serves NO purpose and doesn't even make sense when you think about what caused it. It should be a "FUCK YES" moment when he finally reveals his name, but instead it's just a "oh? yeah okay then" one. They spent all this time making sure nobody spoiled that Waltz was playing Blofeld and even created a fake name like Oberhauser, but it's obvious to ANYONE that he was Blofeld all along. So the whole "Oberhauser" part serves no purpose and the name reveal is as underwhelming as it could be.
All of this leads the last 30 minutes of the movie feeling a bit empty, the action sequences aren't as interesting as the ones that came before and without really any investment to Blofeld, you lose interest. I actually found myself being MORE interested about C and would have liked to see him have a bigger role. That's not to say the last 30 minutes are AWFUL or anything, it's great to see the MI6 crew running around, Bond having to rush against a ticking bomb to save Swann is fun and the old MI6 building location is really interesting. It's just a disappointing way to end and otherwise great GREAT Bond adventure.
So how do I wrap this up? Well, despite all I mentioned above, I enjoyed Spectre GREATLY and can't wait to rewatch it soon. The first 2 hours or so are probably my favorite out of all the Craig movies and I LOVE CR and Skyfall. The last act IS disappointing and Blofeld doesn't live up to his potential, but it's not enough to ruin the movie for me and I have a feeling I will end up watching Spectre a lot more than CR or Skyfall, simply due to how fun it is. A few rewrites here and there and it could have been an easy top 3.
I think there is an answer to your criticisms - Purvis and Wade. The sooner we see the back of them the better. Whenever plodding cliche makes an appearance in a Bond movie I recognise their signature straight away.
I agree with a lot of what you say here. Blofeld is a bit of a disappointment in the end, but still, overall it's a decent entry.