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
Oh my, I forgot. The formula. But that is not a formula you are putting here, but a cake recipe. There is of course a Bond formula, but it's not paint by number and it is in SP just like in every Bond movie with Craig. Bond is still the protagonist. There is still a benign bizarre villain (yes even in QOS). There are still Bond girls. M is still M. Q is still Q. Moneypenny is still Moneypenny. That said, I would argue that the gadgets, Q and even Moneypenny are peripheral and in no way essential to the core of Bond. If they are to show up, they don't have to follow the same old routine. They can twist it a bit. In SP, Moneypenny still does secretarial work, there is still a romantic tension between her and Bond. Q is still giving Bond his equipment and when he goes to Austria, it is as a consequence for the action he took in his line of work. (And it's not like he's never been in the field before).
(And sorry for my previous posts, I had issues with my phone).
But Q hates to fly... ;)
It's funny, we had movie after movie of Daniel Craig's solo adventures and all people did was complain about there being no Moneypenny or Q, then we finally get them and suddenly it's "TEAM MI6". There's just no winning with this. I'm fine with the team being more involved in Spectre, do I want this to happen in EVERY one of them from now on? Not really, but for this one, it worked.
I wasn't really thinking about the volcano lair either, the whole "surveillance" room actually gave me a Moonraker vibe.
It felt like tick, tick, tick by Mendes to me.
I don't have a problem with the ideas, but there should have been more meat on the bone in that volcano setting. Something novel....unique....including the escape. What we were fed just didn't do it for me, although it was quite appealing visually. OHMSS is an example of how to use a 'lair setting' properly and build some real story/tension around it.
The first half is what saves the film for me. The entire film up to the end of Rome and then L'Americain are the highlights.
You are unfriended.
=))
I have to agree 100%, up to this point I feel Mendes has done quite well with using references and incorporating them into new sequences, but not making them obvious or "LOOK, LOOK, LOOK ITS JUST LIKE THAT THING FROM THAT ONE MOVIE WE DID LONG AGO, FEEL NOSTALGIC DAMN YOU" like DAD did constantly. It all changed once we got to Blofeld's lair, suddenly it felt VERY on the nose and obvious.
I've never said that. I would get your point if it wasn't for the fact it's following Skyfall in which M and Eve were on screen more than the villain.
Pierce Brosnan thinks 'Spectre' is ''too long'' and has a ''weak'' storyline.
The 62-year-old actor, who starred in four Bond films from 1995 to 2002, has blasted the new movie, arguing it should have been more ''condensed''.
Pierce said: ''I was looking forward to it enormously. I thought it was too long. The story was kind of weak - it could have been condensed. It kind of went on too long. It really did.''
The Irish actor praised Daniel Craig's performance in the Sam Mendes-directed movie, but thinks he was letdown by the plotline.
He told HitFix: '' is neither fish nor fowl. It's neither Bond nor Bourne. Am I in a Bond movie? Not in a Bond movie?
''But Daniel, in the fourth go-round, has ownership of it. He had a nice looseness to him. He's a mighty warrior, and I think he found a great sense of himself in this one with the one-liners and a nice playfulness there. Just get a tighter story, and he'll have another classic.''
Pierce also defended Daniel after he recently said he'd rather ''slash'' his wrists than return to the part of 007.
He said: ''By the time you finish making a Bond movie, you don't want to hear the name, see the name or have anything to do with it because you just want to go to ground. Give him another year off here, and he'll be ready to rock and roll for sure.''
Agreed. And we cannot also ask them to come back but do everything by the number again. They are characters, not glorified props.
About the Brosnan review, especially his complaint that it was too long, I think he has a short attention span.
Disagree. It's a clever take on the mythos.
I suppose memorable is perhaps the kindest way of describing Bardem's performance in SF.
I agree. It was almost as if ok "train fight" check ..ok enough of that, next "lair" check ..ok enough of that ...ok now what? Oh yes, Vauxhall climax ..check. ok now yes Bond driving off with Swann the whole point to my movie... let's focus on thattttt.... great cue credits!!!
I'm tempted to say it's my favourite Craig era Bond, which probably makes it my favourite Bond film since 1987.
Everything that bored or annoyed me the first time just washed right over.
I had newfound appreciation for Craig, Lea and Waltz. Even the MI6 mystery bus didn't annoy me.
I still have quibbles, but there is barely a perfect movie in the series.
Yes, I think this is the first Bond film in years that I could actually happily rewatch a number of times without a sense of diminishing returns.
There were a lot of nice details I picked up this time that I missed the first. I even appreciated the action more. The car chase is not exactly a classic, but I found it entertaining enough.
It's admitedly a tad tick-box and formulaic, but like TSWLM, it does it with considerable style. If you're going to tick boxes, this is undoubtedly the way to do it.
Wow. I really liked it. Well done Dan and Sam, you've thoroughly redeemed yourselves after the downer that was SF.
On second viewing I even think the script is not that bad. While there's not a memorable moment in the score, apart from the brief reference rmto TWOTW, it at least doesn't detract too much from what's on screen.
I still believe there is scope for better, more original and more exciting Bond movies, but I think this raises the bar on most recent entries. Considerably.
I respect CR but I've never been it's biggest fan. I enjoyed SP a lot more.
Give it another try. Get the best seats you can find and see what happens.
Gotta love the CR revisionism that goes on here at times. That film does has plenty of fine - mostly Fleming - moments but is equally full of padding, moronic excess in the earlier Brosnan-esque action sequences (also never understood why Mollaka shoots the construction worker that is absolutely nowhere near him nor capable of stopping him. Totally gratuitous) and certainly overstays its welcome come the Venice house sequence.
yes Broz's comments were perfectly reasonable. Thank you for your contributions Pierce, and I did like all your films, way more than the first 3 re-boot films.
Broz gave serious props to Craig's performance as Bond in SP. Lots of others are saying the same thing.
I think DC in SP, was best Bond since the Connery/Laz glory years. Beats all of Rog, Dalts, Broz and his own first three movies.
===4th viewing in the books and I do want to keep going back. Its like escaping into the world of Bond for 2 and a half hours, but the film is too heavy.
I have now isolated where it starts to weigh down. Its pretty much perfect until they get to Tangiers ( the QoS sounding music kicks in) and then it's heavy drama-tension to the end of the film. The mood really never changes from this point. Twice I've seen it now in packed theatres. Its not a crowd pleaser. Not saying the people don't like it but they stop making noise pretty much after Tangiers.
This is an interesting dilemma in that the Tangiers scene at L'Americaine is well done, but what's happening is that we get a series of well done but heavy scenes one after the other right until the end, which gives the movie a heavy vibe in its second half.
The theatre audience goes silent as we dutifully sit in reverent fealty to the brilliant drama being unfolded before us. At least that's how it feels to me
Basically I don't like the way Mendes has constructed the movie.
The second time I saw SP in Imax which was 3rd viewing, I wanted to stay and have them throw up the TSWLM on the big Imax and get some colour and a fresh vibe up there.
In fact when I start my blu-ray viewing, Spy is going on right after, just to shake things up, brighten up the music, colour palette. You name it.
I'm not making a major critique here, more an observation. I now know why the movie seems a little off. I think most of its parts are pretty good. The whole just leaves me a little drained.
==Anyway Craig is so friggin good in this film, that in itself is enough to keep coming back.
The landing on the couch in the pts is a great homage to Connery's landing in Tiger's office in YOLT. Mendes is channeling YOLT big time in this film. I do like the way Mendes references other Bonds. I think he does it well. Only hardcore are going to pick up a lot of the references, such as the couch.
Also Broz gets a nod too. Bond's little stare-down with Ernst in the helicopter, from the gaping hole in the Mi6 building echoes Broz looking out at Cigar Girl in her boat, from a similar vantage point,in the TWINE pts. And in both cases Bond finds a boat, gives chase and takes down the villain.
==I could swear this time, Blofelds pants were up to his knees. I think he's actually wearing shorts, there's so much fish-belly white leg showing.
==I have identified Bond Girls 4 and 5. No thanks to Mendes though. #4 is the rearview blonde in Q's lab at beginning. We get two looks at her. No face, but she does at least cut shapely figure. #5 is woman in train dining car in blue dress with bee-hive hairdoo (brunette hair piled high) But Blink and you miss her. Talk about scrounging but that's all there is beyond Swann Lucia and Estrella.
Never has there been such paucity of pulchritude in any Bond film anywhere. Maddening.
I even missed full experience of Seydoux's saunter down train-car aisle this time, while eyes frantically searched for any remote trace of a small-part Bond girl amongst the other diners,until settling on blue-beehive.
Even QoS had Karin Lanz as Gift Bag Girl, Oona Chaplin as Perla de las Dunas hostess, not to mention the famous Stana Katic as Corinne, the Bolivian Hotel Receptionist, Rachel Macdowall as the air plane hostess, White's wife/girlfriend at Tosca, plus Gemma and even Ocean Sky receptionist. Never thought I would have to tell a Bond director he could learn something from Forster of all people. Sigh. Un-effen-believable.
===With 4th viewing Sam Smith vocals are now really starting to grate and ruin the opening titles. I had managed to block out the screeching until now, by concentrating on the visuals and orchestration, but the hideous vocal track is now breaking through.
Never mind the needles in the neck routine, the opening titles is the true torture experience. A needle in the ear might provide relief.
SP torture scene rankings
1. Sam Smith vocals
2. Blofelds pale white never ending legs- (and they call White the Pale King)
3. needles being drilled into face.
:P
I woke up this morning loving SP. I think I'm bipolar.
Interesting that you mention this section. This is exactly when many members of the audience started texting on my last watch. They came up for air during the Hinx train fight but then went back to it again until the torture and the finale. I sort of got the feeling that they had just begun to lose interest somewhere in Tangiers and by the end, they just were ready to leave. It's a film of two halves, and the second half is really for us Bond groupies.....not the general public, imho. It certainly is 'heavy' and the importance & impact is lost on many people outside the fanbase.
Having said that I really enjoyed the film.
I think both CR and SP suffer from having slightly weaker third acts, but if I had to choose which was better i'd say CR overall as its not quite as cheesy. Craig likewise is a little more human and less the cool action hero.
The second half of SP has a dream like quality.
It doesn't feel like a Bond movie.
If feels more like an experience of Bond. From Tangiers on the tone settles into a heavy storytelling vibe. We dutifully watch. Theatre quiets. Sam Mendes is at work.