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

18687899192100

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I didn t even notice he had no socks. But then again, I am not a woman or gay.
  • Posts: 1,098
    I didn t even notice he had no socks. But then again, I am not a woman or gay.

    As they say in the UK........."you should of gone to Specsavers" :)
  • Posts: 1,314
    I didn t even notice he had no socks. But then again, I am not a woman or gay.

    What an unfathomable idiotic thing to say.

    Interesting people are liking this more and more it mirrors my own view on repeated viewings. It's not the dizzy heights of CR or SF kind, but it's a fun if unchallenging ride.
  • Posts: 2,081
    I didn t even notice he had no socks. But then again, I am not a woman or gay.

    Excuse me, Thunderfinger... I didn't notice, either. :)

    I've only seen the movie once, though, so maybe next time... It was clearly an important detail to many people.

  • Posts: 5,767
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I didn t even notice he had no socks. But then again, I am not a woman or gay.

    What an unfathomable idiotic thing to say.
    Shouldn´t it be "unfathomably"?

    Are Bond fans not anymore allowed to be sexist?

  • edited November 2015 Posts: 4,622
    I didn t even notice he had no socks. But then again, I am not a woman or gay.
    Being a gay woman I can't help but notice ~O)

    ==Does Mendes wear socks? Waltz wear socks? In real life? Hope this is explained on the dvd extras.
    Planning a 5th viewing next week. I swear those pants will be rolled up above his knees by then. Terrifying to look at.
    pachazo wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    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.
    Funny. I honestly liked the no socks thing though. Not as a fashion statement of course. It just seems to fit his "crazy" vibe. I think it actually added tension to the scene. If someone was mad enough to consider themselves stylish (while dressed like that) then I'd be terrified of what they'd do to me!
    The no-socks does help fit his crazy vibe, but it's also terribly distracting, offputting even, as it just looks so bad. No socks with loafers IMO does not work, and generally never with long pants.
    Blofeld is a twisted depraved man no doubt, but that doesn't require looking like a person that can't dress themselves. Then again who else wears those jackets that he wears?
    Hopefully the new director can find him some proper socks for next movie.

  • Artemis81Artemis81 In Christmas Land
    Posts: 543
    Ok, I watched Spectre for the 2nd time yesterday. Now I posted my thoughts on my first viewing back in the "your reviews - no spoilers" thread where my feelings were that it was weird and that I felt like I knew what was going on, but I really didn't. Watching the 2nd time, things were a bit more clear and I felt I understood the dialogue better. With that being said, I just thought it was ok. It has to do more with the plot being not very interesting, the action was not as exciting (although I did like the train fight), and the ending was sort of blah... I had a similar feeling after seeing MAN FROM UNCLE this past summer. I also didn't like that they connected Blofeld with Bond (or gave him a different name for that matter). Why can't he just be some random guy that is causing chaos and he's upset with Bond because he's been foiling his plans and eliminating all of his agents? They could have done that and I would have accepted better. Otherwise, I really liked DC in this film (better haircut too) and he was cool. Although I found some of the humor to be out of place with his Bond (the couch, the fiat push in Rome), but at the same time I liked the Mickey Mouse line and "No...stay". The girls were fine, I liked they were putting him with women more closer to his age. Although I never really bought his romance with Dr. Swan. Speaking of which, reminded me of the one in Mission Impossible 2, and the Morocco and London scenes to MI: Rogue Nation. Maybe because they had similar locations. I liked both Waltz and Bautista, they just need to be used better. I liked Hinx, but I wanted to know more about him and I felt like he should have been there in the end. Waltz, I liked his Blofeld and I laughed at some of his goofyness although I didn't find him as menacing as I would have liked. What else? I loved that the gun barrel sequence was at beginning (I was clapping). Didn't really like "Writing on the Wall" (this was the first time I heard it) and the title sequence was creepy. The score was fine, although I did like the 007 theme touches here and there (when Bond took the skeleton mask off was my favorite). Again, I just thought the film was ok, and I'll probably give it another shot once it's out on bluray.
  • Posts: 38
    After reading some of the reviews after mine on the 8th, I wanted to respond. I understand how locations and actions scenes need to be reused, but with Bond some are iconic and it is natural to think back. I am not like that with locations. I would hope Bond goes back to the Bahamas again and would not think twice about linking it. My reference was the train fight and the ejector seat. These are iconic to me like the DB5. Having both in a Spectre reboot is giving a nod to your heritage. Craig and Mendes did the scenes very well and added to a Spectre reboot. Some criticisms are ok and I can see it that way, but as I said, this one is in my top 10 and may well move up with time.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 1,314
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I didn t even notice he had no socks. But then again, I am not a woman or gay.

    What an unfathomable idiotic thing to say.
    Shouldn´t it be "unfathomably"?

    Are Bond fans not anymore allowed to be sexist?

    Ha ha yes blame my predictive text. The irony.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 15,114
    pachazo wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    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.
    Funny. I honestly liked the no socks thing though. Not as a fashion statement of course. It just seems to fit his "crazy" vibe. I think it actually added tension to the scene. If someone was mad enough to consider themselves stylish (while dressed like that) then I'd be terrified of what they'd do to me!

    He's in Morocco, why would he wear socks anyway? And it's not like one of his henchmen will tell Blofeld that he has poor style.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    timmer wrote: »
    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.

    After watching SPECTRE I had the same feeling. I wanted to watch TSWLM, and that's exactly what I did.
    Getafix wrote: »
    I don't like the way so much of the film is shot at night - that's a shame.

    Agreed. Especially the finale. Very few Bond films have the climax filmed at night, but it seems Mendes prefers it that way. That's one of the reasons I didn't like the Skyfall finale that much. It was too gloomy and dark, but I guess it was reasonable due to the death of M. In SPECTRE however, it didn't work for me at all.

    I generally prefer more upbeat endings in Bond films, and Bond quitting his job and driving off with Madeleine didn't give me that vibe. It was handled much better in CR, in the scenes with Mr. White in Italy after Vesper's death.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Agreed. Especially the finale. Very few Bond films have the climax filmed at night, but it seems Mendes prefers it that way. That's one of the reasons I didn't like the Skyfall finale that much. It was too gloomy and dark, but I guess it was reasonable due to the death of M. In SPECTRE however, it didn't work for me at all.
    They may have been forced to do this because London is so busy during the day and it would have been a nightmare to either shut the city down or film that helicopter sequence during the day. Having said that, they could have just axed that whole London bit anyway, as many, including myself, have advocated. I think MI-RN filmed its finale in London at night for the same reasons (less people around in a very busy city).
    I generally prefer more upbeat endings in Bond films, and Bond quitting his job and driving off with Madeleine didn't give me that vibe.
    There is something very 60's about that ending. I can't quite put my finger on it (no, it's not the Aston). I think it has to do with Bond starting the car, shifting the gears, looking at Madeliene and then driving off. I got an Avengers (Steed/Peel) vibe. All that was missing was the hat and brolly.
    After watching SPECTRE I had the same feeling. I wanted to watch TSWLM, and that's exactly what I did.
    TSWLM is an incredibly stunning film to look at, especially on blu. Colours just pop and the soundtrack is superb in some places.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited November 2015 Posts: 17,789
    Very few Bond films have the climax filmed at night, but it seems Mendes prefers it that way. That's one of the reasons I didn't like the Skyfall finale that much. It was too gloomy and dark, but I guess it was reasonable due to the death of M. In SPECTRE however, it didn't work for me at all.
    Man, just about everything being pointed out here as a minus is a plus for ME!!
    :P
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    bondjames wrote: »
    Having said that, they could have just axed that whole London bit anyway, as many, including myself, have advocated.

    Yes. Bond is ready for the Caribbean, and a summer adventure with brighter colours again.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789

    Yes. Bond is ready for the Caribbean, and a summer adventure with brighter colours again.
    Who can argue with that?!
  • Posts: 486
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Yes. Bond is ready for the Caribbean, and a summer adventure with brighter colours again.

    Get him to bloody Australia!
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    chrisisall wrote: »

    Yes. Bond is ready for the Caribbean, and a summer adventure with brighter colours again.
    Who can argue with that?!

    B-)
  • Posts: 11,425
    chrisisall wrote: »

    Yes. Bond is ready for the Caribbean, and a summer adventure with brighter colours again.
    Who can argue with that?!

    Jamaica, please!

    It's Bond's spiritual home.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He's in Morocco, why would he wear socks anyway? And it's not like one of his henchmen will tell Blofeld that he has poor style.
    Now that's something I'd like to see in the next film!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    pachazo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He's in Morocco, why would he wear socks anyway? And it's not like one of his henchmen will tell Blofeld that he has poor style.
    Now that's something I'd like to see in the next film!
    I know it's not related, but I had a flashback to this classic scene:
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited November 2015 Posts: 6,288
    Saw it for the second time today, and enjoyed it a lot more. Maybe it's because my expectations were lower, especially for the soundtrack. I gave myself over to the locations and the journey, and I enjoyed the Lucia and Madeleine storylines more.

    My impressions that didn't change from first to second viewing: Christensen and Whishaw were both spectacular.

    I think it's an unusual Bond film in that it is very well paced! Many Bond films drag toward the end. Not this one.

    Did anyone else see the thank-you to Maria Grazia Cucinotta in the credits?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Was it REALLY 2 & 1/2 hours long? It seemed like 90 minutes to me...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Birdleson wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Was it REALLY 2 & 1/2 hours long? It seemed like 90 minutes to me...
    Parts seemed to go on for a few weeks to me.

    Time bends... it squashes a man's ego...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Birdleson wrote: »
    My favorite lines in the film. Well, there are many.
    Let's not derail this thread with our favourite Serling lines from that film...
    Suffice it to say that I had so much fun in SPECTRE that I felt like I was watching YOLT with TB sensibilities. Not a bad thing.
    :D
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,583
    Getafix wrote: »
    The loafers and no socks was genius.

    yes

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    TripAces wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    The loafers and no socks was genius.

    yes
    It was appropriately strange.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,288
    chrisisall wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    The loafers and no socks was genius.
    yes
    It was appropriately strange.

    His pants are pretty short, too.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    echo wrote: »

    His pants are pretty short, too.
    We called them "floods" way back when...
    :))
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 4,622
    chrisisall wrote: »
    echo wrote: »

    His pants are pretty short, too.
    We called them "floods" way back when...
    :))

    Right, and they still look dorky. Appropriately strange if we are being kind. :(

    ===

    Sam Mendes said something very strange in the Times Talks interview posted on this websites home page.

    Mendes says " In this movie, Bond has to have an emotional journey. We set that expectation up in Skyfall"

    Hunh? Actually no such expectation was created in Skyfall.
    What was actually set up in Skyfall was that it appeared Bond had returned to normal. That he was ready to be an efficient operative again, minus emotional baggage, supported by a shiny new Mi6 team.

    This utterance from Mendes rings hollow. What it seems he is actually doing is serving up what he thinks is needed justification for contriving the whole Bond and Blofeld have a disturbing childhood history.

    As I said earlier, I think Mendes might be the only person in the world, that thinks the Bond-Blofeld family history story is remotely interesting.

    But apparently Mendes can't make a movie, including a Bond movie, without his leads, including James Bond, indulging emotional journeys.
    He is effectively saying he had no choice but to give Bond an emotional connection with Blofed. It was all set up in Skyfall, don't you see, except that it wasn't.

    But even Mendes it seems had to address reality when it came to actually making the film. There is no actual emotional journey for Bond in this film. The emotional journey or obsession is all on the part of Ernst.
    It boggles that Mendes' whole "emotional journey" angle comes down to Ernst having a fixation with Bond.

    Bond is truly unaffected by Blofeld in any emotional way. This is part of what makes Craig's portrayal so engaging, I think. Craig's Bond is finally behaving like the Bond we know and love. He's on mission and focused, NOT bothered with emotional baggage.

    Bond recognizes in Rome that Head of Spectre is strangely enough, the Franz Oberhauser he knew as a child, but he seems quite disaffected.
    Rather the revelation is treated by Bond more as operational intelligence, in aid of Bond's quest to take down the person known as Chief of Spectre.

    Bond says to Blofeld later,"I came here to kill you." He could have added, not because you are Franz Oberhauser but because you are the boss of this bad organization called Spectre.

    The emotional journey is all with Blofeld.

    Blofeld is obsessed with Bond, but even then it appears his obsession with Bond was spurred entirely by Bond's interference in his criminal affairs.
    Blofeld was building Spectre independent of any lingering hostility towards Bond. If Bond hadn't got in the way of his work, would the pathological obsession with Bond have manifested at all?
    I guess what we are being asked to believe is that Bond's interference in Spectre affairs caused Blofeld to double down on his Bond hatred. Bad memories of lost daddy love were rekindled.

    So Blofeld obessess. The series retcon suggests that Blofeld was somehow instrumental in killing those that Bond loved in previous films.
    Blofeld only mentions Vesper and M by name. So I guess we are to surmise that he helped put wheels in motion to kill Vesper, once he realized that she and Bond had come together, and that he also encouraged Silva in his efforts to take down M.

    It's not clear whether Blofeld encouraged the death of Fields or Severine.
    We don't know and I don't think we care, as those films gave both Greene and Silva their own motivations for taking these girls out.

    In SP, we see Blofeld torturing Bond out of envy and twisted spite, and later going after Bond at Mi6 with pictures on the wall of dead persons from Bond's past, and forcing the Swann rescue dilemma on him.

    Blofeld is 100% obsessed with Bond, but Bond it seems remains entirely unmoved by Blofeld. Bond even mocks him, which is great. It's exactly what we expect from Bond. It's Entirely consistent with his persona, which is not to dwell on the why of these villains but rather on the how of taking them down.

    This is part of what makes Craig's performance so powerful. Even in the face of an arch villain from his childhood, he is focused on the practical mission reasons for taking him down.

    This is where I think Mendes really tripped all over himself.
    His stated intent is for Bond to engage an emotional journey but he fails to engage Bond in that respect.
    It's as if the story wouldn't cooperateand and instead explores Blofeld's twisted emotional journey.
    But the big problem with the whole "brother" history as being Blofeld's obsession and not Bond's, is that it falls into the Who Cares category.
    It's as if Mendes shoehorned this angle in orginally to deliver on non-existent "expectations" of Bond engaging an emotional journey, but ultimately couldn't actually deliver.
    I think this is one of the reasons that SP feels so uneven, even forced, in its attempts to elicit an emotional response, because the big emotional journey relates to Blofeld not Bond.
    This is a problem because the audience identifies with Bond. We don't get emotionally engaged with Blofeld.
    If you are going to make this kind of character drama, then Skyfall was reeally the better effort, because that movie was about Bond's journey. Like or lump the story, Skyfall was about Bond's journey.

    SP rather, is about a fully formed mature Bond bearing witness to the psychosis of an arch villain who has an obsession with him.

    This is why the brother angle, I don't think is terribly grevious to the canon going forward. Simply because Bond doesn't care. Bond is properly focused. All the brother angle adds is some background to the madness of Ernst, but the movie suggests that Blofled was deranged anyway, so his obsession with Bond, is really only a sidebar to his greater derangement.

    Yet so much time and energy is focused on this brother relationship, that really doesn't mean much at all.

    I do think its time for Mendes to move on.
    It seems he managed to make a good watchable film, despite himself.

    Looking ahead to B25, I would dispense with the brother angle all together. Let Ernst get back to trying to rule the world via Spectre with Bond as permanent thorn in his side that he can't quite exterminate and vice versa.

    Even doing a riff on Fleming's OHMSS/YOLT saga, can just come down to Blofeld escapes and strikes back at Bond and Swann, followed by Bond counterstriking with full 007 sanction and force. Blofeld ultimately survives and lives to die another day, way off in the future after many more fresh adventures.

    Swann need not be killed. She is not Tracy.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,288
    timmer wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    echo wrote: »

    His pants are pretty short, too.
    We called them "floods" way back when...
    :))

    Right, and they still look dorky. Appropriately strange if we are being kind. :(

    ===

    Sam Mendes said something very strange in the Times Talks interview posted on this websites home page.

    Mendes says " In this movie, Bond has to have an emotional journey. We set that expectation up in Skyfall"

    Hunh? Actually no such expectation was created in Skyfall.
    What was actually set up in Skyfall was that it appeared Bond had returned to normal. That he was ready to be an efficient operative again, minus emotional baggage, supported by a shiny new Mi6 team.

    This utterance from Mendes rings hollow. What it seems he is actually doing is serving up what he thinks is needed justification for contriving the whole Bond and Blofeld have a disturbing childhood history.

    As I said earlier, I think Mendes might be the only person in the world, that thinks the Bond-Blofeld family history story is remotely interesting.

    But apparently Mendes can't make a movie, including a Bond movie, without his leads, including James Bond, indulging emotional journeys.
    He is effectively saying he had no choice but to give Bond an emotional connection with Blofed. It was all set up in Skyfall, don't you see, except that it wasn't.

    But even Mendes it seems had to address reality when it came to actually making the film. There is no actual emotional journey for Bond in this film. The emotional journey or obsession is all on the part of Ernst.
    It boggles that Mendes' whole "emotional journey" angle comes down to Ernst having a fixation with Bond.

    Bond is truly unaffected by Blofeld in any emotional way. This is part of what makes Craig's portrayal so engaging, I think. Craig's Bond is finally behaving like the Bond we know and love. He's on mission and focused, NOT bothered with emotional baggage.

    Bond recognizes in Rome that Head of Spectre is strangely enough, the Franz Oberhauser he knew as a child, but he seems quite disaffected.
    Rather the revelation is treated by Bond more as operational intelligence, in aid of Bond's quest to take down the person known as Chief of Spectre.

    Bond says to Blofeld later,"I came here to kill you." He could have added, not because you are Franz Oberhauser but because you are the boss of this bad organization called Spectre.

    The emotional journey is all with Blofeld.

    Blofeld is obsessed with Bond, but even then it appears his obsession with Bond was spurred entirely by Bond's interference in his criminal affairs.
    Blofeld was building Spectre independent of any lingering hostility towards Bond. If Bond hadn't got in the way of his work, would the pathological obsession with Bond have manifested at all?
    I guess what we are being asked to believe is that Bond's interference in Spectre affairs caused Blofeld to double down on his Bond hatred. Bad memories of lost daddy love were rekindled.

    So Blofeld obessess. The series retcon suggests that Blofeld was somehow instrumental in killing those that Bond loved in previous films.
    Blofeld only mentions Vesper and M by name. So I guess we are to surmise that he helped put wheels in motion to kill Vesper, once he realized that she and Bond had come together, and that he also encouraged Silva in his efforts to take down M.

    It's not clear whether Blofeld encouraged the death of Fields or Severine.
    We don't know and I don't think we care, as those films gave both Greene and Silva their own motivations for taking these girls out.

    In SP, we see Blofeld torturing Bond out of envy and twisted spite, and later going after Bond at Mi6 with pictures on the wall of dead persons from Bond's past, and forcing the Swann rescue dilemma on him.

    Blofeld is 100% obsessed with Bond, but Bond it seems remains entirely unmoved by Blofeld. Bond even mocks him, which is great. It's exactly what we expect from Bond. It's Entirely consistent with his persona, which is not to dwell on the why of these villains but rather on the how of taking them down.

    This is part of what makes Craig's performance so powerful. Even in the face of an arch villain from his childhood, he is focused on the practical mission reasons for taking him down.

    This is where I think Mendes really tripped all over himself.
    His stated intent is for Bond to engage an emotional journey but he fails to engage Bond in that respect.
    It's as if the story wouldn't cooperateand and instead explores Blofeld's twisted emotional journey.
    But the big problem with the whole "brother" history as being Blofeld's obsession and not Bond's, is that it falls into the Who Cares category.
    It's as if Mendes shoehorned this angle in orginally to deliver on non-existent "expectations" of Bond engaging an emotional journey, but ultimately couldn't actually deliver.
    I think this is one of the reasons that SP feels so uneven, even forced, in its attempts to elicit an emotional response, because the big emotional journey relates to Blofeld not Bond.
    This is a problem because the audience identifies with Bond. We don't get emotionally engaged with Blofeld.
    If you are going to make this kind of character drama, then Skyfall was reeally the better effort, because that movie was about Bond's journey. Like or lump the story, Skyfall was about Bond's journey.

    SP rather, is about a fully formed mature Bond bearing witness to the psychosis of an arch villain who has an obsession with him.

    This is why the brother angle, I don't think is terribly grevious to the canon going forward. Simply because Bond doesn't care. Bond is properly focused. All the brother angle adds is some background to the madness of Ernst, but the movie suggests that Blofled was deranged anyway, so his obsession with Bond, is really only a sidebar to his greater derangement.

    Yet so much time and energy is focused on this brother relationship, that really doesn't mean much at all.

    I do think its time for Mendes to move on.
    It seems he managed to make a good watchable film, despite himself.

    Looking ahead to B25, I would dispense with the brother angle all together. Let Ernst get back to trying to rule the world via Spectre with Bond as permanent thorn in his side that he can't quite exterminate and vice versa.

    Even doing a riff on Fleming's OHMSS/YOLT saga, can just come down to Blofeld escapes and strikes back at Bond and Swann, followed by Bond counterstriking with full 007 sanction and force. Blofeld ultimately survives and lives to die another day, way off in the future after many more fresh adventures.

    Swann need not be killed. She is not Tracy.

    Really good post about whose emotional journey it is, and why it seems a bit, or maybe way, off. I'm not advocating another revenge story, but the story would have engaged Bond more if he were upset about/avenging Pa Oberhauser's death a bit--the "cuckoo" as the devoted "son."

    I know they didn't have the rights to SPECTRE back then and I'm sure Eon was being careful, but I would have bought Blofeld as the architect of Bond's pain (and not a retcon) more if there were some filmic indication that some specific figure was working in the shadows in CR, QoS, and SF. The closest they came to this was with White in the first two films. Perhaps White should have become Blofeld.
Sign In or Register to comment.