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
SP may have all the pieces, but the way they are put together leaves me feeling detached.
Brosnan´s films perhaps didn´t have all the pieces, and for sure Craig´s first two films didn´t, but what they did with what they had is much more compelling.
I´m speaking of the films as such. As Bond I much prefer any other actor over Brosnan.
That is your opinion. Which luckily isn't shared by many. By the way, I was talking about the entire Craig reign as compared to the four Brosnan's.
I feel sorry for you that you could not appreciate SP :-).
SPECTRE is a return to form and the most tonally balanced Bond movie ever -- a great 007 flick -- with Craig giving his most assured and truly Bondian performance.
This review will contain major spoilers.
The whole secret to a successful Bond movie has always been about the challenge of getting the balance right -- the balance between a serious, gritty and intriguing espionage thriller with some interpersonal drama on the one hand... and a fun, exciting and slightly camp, fantasy action adventure movie with some expected over-the-top, panache-laden Bondian action set-pieces and inventive gadgets on the other hand.
Making the challenge more difficult, of course, is the fact that this line of balance is always moving. The right balance in 1975 is not the same as the right balance in 1995 which is not the same as the right balance in 2015.
The risk, on the dramatic espionage thriller side, is that the movie will become emotionally weighted, overly personal/serious and depressing or even boring and pretentious. The risk on the fun action adventure side is that the movie will devolve into a silly “comedy” and become overly camp or even cliched self-parody.
The first four Connery Bonds struck the right balance for their day, as did only a couple of the campier Moore Bonds for their day. One of the Dalton Bonds and a couple of the Brosnan Bonds also struck the right balance. The other Brosnan, Moore and Connery Bonds were too silly, even for their day. One Dalton Bond was overly serious as was the one Lazenby Bond (which is not to say they didn’t have their dumb, silly moments). The Craig Bonds, until now, haven’t been fun enough.
Again, with SPECTRE, Mendez strikes the perfect balance.
While SPECTRE is a great Bond, it isn’t a perfect movie in all aspects, of course. Let’s get that out of the way before going into why I think this is a great Bond movie. The two big problems...
The worst aspect of this movie, for me, is the “artsy” cinematography. Most of the movie is given a dirty, yellow hue that greatly and negatively affected my enjoyment of the movie. Bond is supposed to be sharp, slick and glossy big budget escapist entertainment -- not feely Paris art-house pretensions. Some critics have said that the movie somehow feels hollow. I’m convinced that it’s this obscuring artsy-ness that creates the hollow feeling.
The musical score, for me, is weak -- just like it was in Skyfall -- with a similar lack of full utilization of the Bond theme. I think this adds to the perceived hollowness too. I’ll be happy to see Newman go and, hopefully, see the return of Arnold bringing some panache to the happenings.
Smaller problems (the positive stuff is coming)...
The gadgets in SPECTRE aren’t nearly as cool and inventive as the ones we’ve recently been seeing in the Mission Impossible series. However, at least they weren’t silly and did prove very functional.
There is no truly great action set-piece in the finale that tops what has gone before. The helicopter crash simply feels like a lesser version of the earlier plane crash.
The storytelling gets a bit sloppy and the plot devices get a bit silly in the third act (as is the case in most Bond movies). The plot holes also get significantly larger toward the end of the movie. However, while there are minor plot faults throughout, these are nothing like the plot craters in Skyfall that continually took me out of that movie.
The title song is simply pathetic. I agree with some other folks that the song works better in the movie than it does as a stand-alone tune -- but that’s not saying much. After the excellent Skyfall song, I don’t know how the producers could have accepted this dribble. This is no way ruins the movie though.
The credits animation, while very well done as usual, is basically soft-core porn. When Bond movies started-out, the credit animations were slightly erotic. By the time of the Brosnan Bonds, these credit animations had devolved into full-on soft-core pornography. Then the Craig Bond movies stepped-up the class, giving us the best credit animations in the series, in my opinion -- at least until SPECTRE -- which is a big step backward in this respect, giving us the most pornographic credit animation in the series. Unless you’re comfortable watching porn with others, you might want to step-out into the lobby during the credits. It’s not like you’ll miss a great theme song.
Moving on toward the positive (before finally covering the greatness of the movie)....
I mostly (not entirely) disagree with most other criticism of SPECTRE. Let’s address those critics’ complaints... (I have my ideas about why American media critics seemed generally unfavorable toward this really good Bond movie, but I’ll save that until the end of this review.)
Some critics have said that SPECTRE’s efforts to tie-in the other Craig Bond movies is forced. I agree with this particular complaint. However, the real problem is all the loose ends from the previous movies that should not have been left hanging in the first place. At least here these looses ends, such as Mr. White, are finally handled. (Though that missing hard-drive from Skyfall, and the ramifications of its being missing, are never touched.) It’d have been better if the producers had just continued with the Quantum angle through Skyfall, and saved the SPECTRE name for a series reboot with a new Bond actor and director. This is really a minor complaint though and not the big deal to me it was to others.
Some critics have said that SPECTRE is formulaic. I would say that SPECTRE is a return to fine form -- while doing an excellent job of presenting that form in a more modern and gritty context and also putting some original spins on the classic tropes. It’s the first Craig Bond movie that truly feels like a modern Bond movie all the way through -- again, with Craig giving his most assured and Bondian performance.
Some critics have said that they’re tired of Bond going rogue. While I feel the same, it at least makes good story sense here. I don’t have a problem with Bond going rogue in SPECTRE. I have a problem with it in the previous movies, where it made little story sense.
Some critics have said that SPECTRE has pacing problems. This is absolutely ridiculous to me. SPECTRE breathes better than nearly any other Bond movie in the series -- with a dramatic scene followed by an action scene for every location in the movie. And, for the most part, those action scenes are well integrated into the story -- at least relative to most other Bond movies.
Some critics have said that the action in SPECTRE is weak. I found only the action in the finale to be weak, but this has been the case with all recent Bond movies. At least it was dramatic. Licence to Kill was the last Bond movie with a strong action finale. While the car chase in SPECTRE didn’t feel all that dangerous, it was definitely fun. The rest of the action was great and did feel dangerous -- especially the train fight. And, unlike Skyfall, at least SPECTRE actually has more than one real action set-piece!
Some critics have said that Bautista, Waltz and Bellucci were underused. Regarding Bautista, I’ve no idea what they’re talking about. He was in the movie plenty. Regarding Waltz, he was in the movie enough -- about the same as Bardem in Skyfall. It has to be understood that Waltz’s character is meant to be a shadowy leader behind the scenes pulling strings. It doesn’t make story sense to overuse him. (By the way, Waltz is the best Blofeld ever.) Regarding Bellucci, I agree with the complaint. She should have had at least one more major scene later in the movie.
Some critics have said that the relationship between Swann and Bond seemed forced. I simply disagree. For me, the relationship developed naturally out of the story and their shared trauma. I also did not find them to lack chemistry, as some have said.
Some critics have said that movie's run time was too long and that the London scene was anti-climatic, that the movie needed to end with the desert scene. Here too, I simply disagree. I like a long Bond movie as long as I'm being entertained. SPECTRE entertained me. Also, had the story ended in the desert, it would have been a cliche ending. Bringing things back to London was necessary to deal with "nine eyes" and wrap-up the rest of the story, bringing all characters full circle.
Okay, so what makes this movie great?
The movie is filled with dramatic scenes punctuated by great action. SPECTRE felt like both a true espionage/detective thriller and a great action/adventure story. The story was intriguing and the movie engaging. There were too many good dramatic scenes for me to recount them all. The acting and directing were superb all the way around.
The pre-credit sequence is fantastic. I was disappointed to see it end with a fight outside a helicopter since we’ve already seen Bond hanging outside planes and helicopters so many times, but this was a particularly harrowing fight that was very well done. Also, the tracking shot was great and the collapsing building scene added some very unique, fun action. Throw in the whole Day of Dead and the spectre of death angle and it all makes for one of the best, most fun pre-credit action set-pieces of the entire series. And yet, the action was bettered by the plane scene in Austria. It’s not often that the producers give us both a great action set-piece in the pre-credit scene and top it later in the movie. This is how it should always be done. Still, the very best action set-piece should be in the finale of the movie. SPECTRE didn’t deliver on that score.
The SPECTRE meeting in Rome and the introduction of Hinx were both extremely well done while the car chase in Rome was great fun. Hinx made for an excellent henchman.
Bond’s first meeting with Swann and the scene with Blofeld’s playing of the video, showing Swann the moments before her father’s suicide, are powerful and well done.
Story ideas and plot devices introduced early-on are fully developed by the end of the movie. While this is something one would expect from an even average movie, most Bond movies fail at this. SPECTRE succeeds here amazingly well.
SPECTRE, by its end, gave us both closure to the story and, simultaneously, left things open to continue-on. The producers didn’t paint Bond into a corner. Also, Bond didn’t kill Blofeld even though he could have killed him. This shows us a more evolved Bond while, at the same time, giving us a more realistic ending. Do villains always have to die?
The “shaken-not-stirred” bit was fun. I want and expect this line to be in every Bond movie -- but I don’t want it placed passively. The set-up should always be unique and fun -- as it was here.
I also expect the “Bond, James Bond” line to be in every 007 movie -- but, again, I don’t want it passively. Here too, I want a great set-up and unique delivery every time. In SPECTRE, Craig gives his best and most unique delivery along with the best setup of this line since Casino Royale.
I liked the involvement of M, Q and Moneypenny in the story and the entire C angle (though, after the happenings of the last Bond movie/mission, it makes no sense that they'd want to help 007 or that Bond even still has a job and is not in prison). I liked the whole “nine eyes” angle as well, and the tying of it to Blofeld. AND, this, finally, gets us to the reason I believe this great Bond movie was panned by some American corporate media critics...
This Bond movie is unabashedly anti-surveillance and anti-NWO while, at the same time, calling attention to false flag terror operations. Even the way the old MI6 building is destroyed, in a controlled demolition, hints at false flag terror operations. This movie was definitely pro-Snowden. If you watch carefully, you’ll see other hints in the movie.
For me, this angle makes SPECTRE all the better. I don’t know yet exactly where I rank SPECTRE. I know that I consider it to be the best of the Craig Bonds and in the top five of all Bonds. This was the most fun Bond movie (without being silly) in a long time. A stronger finale and more use of Belucci would have probably made it number one for me. 4 out of 5 stars.
From the opening shot to the start of the end credits I thought it was a fantastic Bond film. Craig gave a very confident performance throughout and I thought the rest of the cast were excellent. (wish Monica had been in the film longer)
All technical aspects were first class (except maybe the dodgy back projection during the helicopter fight) – the cinematography, production design and I thought Newman’s score really worked and suited the on screen action well. Daniel Kleinman’s title sequence a great addition to the franchise.
Mendes’s direction was great throughout (the opening sequence shot a classic) – the dramatic and the action sequences were all well handled (I don’t undertand some of the negativity that has been thrown around about the action sequences). I really liked the Rome car “chase”. Was a lot of fun. Liked how it was intercut with Bond and Moneypenny. Bond out in the field being pursued by Hinx while Moneypenny searches in her fridge.
Helicopter stunt, Alpine chase, train fight, desert sequence, action in London – all well done action sequences and all in my opinion classic Bond.
I wish that the sequence at the villain’s lair was longer and maybe the London finale somehow written into taking place at the desert location. The London sequence seemed tagged on. Although on the second viewing I thought it played a bit better.
I enjoyed Waltz performance and thought in his few scenes he was very good. Would like to see him return in a future film. (along with Léa Seydoux) His introduction in Rome was brilliantly realised.
I don’t have a problem with the scriptwriters tying all the DC Bond films together – but I think there was no need to have Bond and Blofeld so closely connected. I think having Blofeld just connected to all the events from CR, QOS and SF would have been enough – without having him linked to Bonds childhood.
Will drop more thoughts into the various threads but for me it was another great Bond film from the team at EON. I rate it highly and was thoroughly entertained throughout.
Would love to see Mendes and Craig return for Bond 25 (although Mendes is probably less likely at this point).
\m/
QOS is no longer the crap entry of the series.
SF is no longer the Godsend.
SP will no doubt go up & down in peeps opinions.
But for ME, SPECTRE is an instant classic, and a permanent top 5-er.
But @chrisisall, what if three lost Dalton Bond films are uncovered that he and Cubby shot in secret on a limited but decent budget during the period of 89 to 95? It'd be natural then to assume that they'd replace every non-Dalton Bond film in your top 5. :D
I've seen it 6x and yep from the torture scene on its a pretty dull Bond film.
The torture scene is tedious
The escape is at least escape from the torture tedium, but yes it does feel slapped together.
Run out the door, shoot some people, another quick shot to blow up the compound, grab chopper and out.
From that point on it's bleak city. I can see walking out at that point.
I stay just become I am stubborn that way
I am addicted to Bond, even dull Bond.
Personally I think the original Logan story was such a cock-up, that the whole venture degenerated into a salvage operation up against a deadline.
Might have been a better finished product if they'd had a coherent more finished story from the beginning.
All you have to do is look at the leaked Dec draft, to see how radically altered the story became from the arrival at the compound to the end.
It's the same basic outline but all the scenes are reworked.
thank you!
There are things that SP does better than MR, such as Craig's performance as Bond, plus the absence of goofy humour (Jaws Dolly)
Moonraker could have used a dash of SP to tighten it up. Then it would have been a near perfect escapist Bond adventure, but SP could learn a lot from MR too.
As for ranking SP, I have it ranked at top of my re-boot/altnernative Bond films at #1.
1. SP
2.NSNA
3. CR
4. SF
5. QoS
I am not prepared to merge the rankings yet as I really do prefer the original run of 20 films, which kind of puts the "alt-Bond" films in a little pack at the the bottom, but rather than bottom them, I'd rather apple/orange them, ie separate them from the original run.
I actually have no meaningful quibbles with any of the first 19 films.
DAD though is another story, but even then my serious issues are really only two, but both concerns are quite substantial.
First, the whole notion that our favourite fantasy adventure agent gets locked up for 14 months doesn't wash. No thank you, that dose of contrived realism ruins the Bond mystique for me. Bond escapes such situations before they lock him down like that.
Just my preference. Not what I want to pay to see.
And secondly, the post-Ice Palace continued relentless action, is too much. Leaves me overwhelmed, feeling kind of beat-up, but otherwise I can roll with the rest of DAD, even Jinx etc.
So as far as a merge, I can actually crossover with SP and safely put it at #20 for now. I can't in good conscious rank it ahead of anything else at this point, because I really do enjoy those 19 other films with very little reservation.
It does help that none of them are directed by Sam Mendes or scored by Newman or derived from a story originally conceived by one John Logan.
That gives all of them an advantage.
I do though rank Craig's SP performance as Bond quite favourably - #8, tucked in real close behind the Connery/Laz 7-pak, and miles ahead of anything from the other successors to Connery, but still there is just enough off about SP - the later stages bleakness really is an issue-that Craig can't lift the film alone, much like Connery couldn't lift NSNA either.
So for now I am happy to advance SP Into my main rankings ahead of DAD.
This isn't a knock on SP. Rather, its akin to ranking Hall of Fame Baseball Players. They are all damn good players,but if one must rank them, something has to occupy the lower levels.
Bascially I hold all Bond film on a pedestal. The character is that engaging.
SF and QoS are the two that I don't quite enjoy, but still they are both watchable and do contain ample servings of exciting Bond fare.
I do for the most part enjoy SP NSNA and CR ( the origins thing throws me off though) and I am also actually happy to watch SF and QoS when they come up in my rotation, but on a macro level I find both of these Mendes and Forster entries to be broadly flawed as Bond films.
SP at least is a step in the right direction.
Finally in this re-boot era Bond is back without personal issues, so that is a huge move forward and sets up well going forward especially if the likes of Mendes, Forster and Haggis might finally be done with the franchise.
It may sound like I am damning SP with faint praise, but not really. I do think its a great leap forward for the franchise re-boot era. It is most satisfying in that respect.
Its just that there is also a pretty solid 40 year period of work that pre-dates the re-boot.
Especially here on fan forums. I think that's important to mention.
Those who watched the films only once, and are not typical Bond fans, probably proclaim "Skyfall" as the best Bond film in decades...even in the distant future.
In the end the critics reviews (newspapers, movie websites, entertainment shows) give a Bond film a certain 'quality tag'. And in very rare exceptional cases, after some decades, that 'quality tag' changes. And I think that's only the case with "OHMSS".
So again, what you say on here could be true. But outside these forums, in the 'normal' world, Craig's films will still be tagged like this:
4.5 stars: "Casino Royale" --> Near-masterpiece
3.0 stars: "Quantum Of Solace" --> Average film
4.5 stars: "Skyfall" --> Near-masterpiece
3.5 stars: "SPECTRE" --> OK, nothing special
The movie starts promising with a spectacular assassination gone wrong and the antics over Mexico city was the last time in the movie you felt there were innocent bystanders that could get hurt. And still it looked very CGI in the chopper when I remembered that crazy actor who hung onto a plane for real just giving the audience something real. So it took some of my fun away.
I did like the explanation and M's return as a reason for 007's trip to Mexico. That actually made sense.
Next up we get Monica Bellucci given a cameo, what a waste of such a beautiful and talented actress.
Okay, enter SPECTRE HQ no surprises there anybody not expecting Blofeld is a nutty fellow. The Hinx does something scary but cannot be shown due to age restrictions. it makes him look kinda nicely sadistic. Oh the promise for the movie.
Yeah finally we get to the 24 million carchase, I guess the money went to pay of all those pesky Romans to stay indoors instead of a real chase, a bit of carchase that was done better in F&tF3 with all the slipping and sliding. A bit of productplacement in carphones and FIAT cars [which actually was the best thing about the chase, the fat Italian in the little car being pushed by a supercar]. A desolate Rome with two cars racing in empty streets. BORING
The Alps we see 007's meeting White, which is pretty decent actually.
Bond meeting a sexy doctor in the same Alps and of course she does not like him. Which is to be expected. And of course the good doctor gets kidnapped by the baddies & Hinx. We get the airplane chasing the cars. The chase was about as exciting as Austin Powers turning his golf-cart in a hallway (only that was somehow funny).
Yeah cue lovely Morrocco and Bond and whatshername from MI4 cosy up. And nothing gets really accomplished. Then we get the mouse [ a foreshadow of the next studio producing the 007 movies?] and we find the secret hideaway from daddy White.
The train into the desert, no local coleur whatsoever, these trains tend to be a bit overcrowded but heck we already know that Mendes does not do people. An empty train and Hinx kicks 007's arse, were are all the people??? As a fight it is boring no excitement at all.
Enter the next SPECTRE lair and the torture mentally, yes James I klled all your women. {Can you kill me please you boring villain]. The torture scene we cannot beat the nutbusting from CR so lets go gross. Needles in the brain. Fuck you Blofeld I have got a watch that does go boom and at the same time releases my metal bonds. After having his brain getting a serious torture 007 shoots everybody and everything and flees with the woman in a chopper. [GO TO THE CHOPPA] And enter a Guiness book of records worthy explosion. What the heck did he do to make it go boom asked my daughter, he is 007 of course stuff goes boom. But why dad, with 007 boom happens.
We go back to London, 007 caught again, girl gets taken away, Bond breaks a few hardplastic handcuffs [because he is James bloody Terminator 007] the old MI6 HQ Blofeld vs 007, blabla, cherchez la femme etc. Then comes the one truly Bondian moment when he jumps with his ladyfriend. Did not see that coming.
M and the Scooby gang enter the new 9 EYES building which true to Mendes vision does not contain any personel even if the whole network is going online in 30 minutes.
Bond chases in a boat chases Blofeld in a choppa, and of course shoots him down, the chopper with Blofeld now looking like a right thug. 007 does not shoot him because once again he is in lurv. Takes away the classic Aston Martin and lives long and prosper [ sh.. that is another franchise].
This is the second time in this franchise I wondered why the heck I bothered with a 007 movie. If they get Mendes again I will watch the next one on illigal download. As for Craig he is so wasted in these poorly written and executed last two movies. They look so great, No they did not the colours got on my nerves. {like Forster tried a Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon colour scheme with 007 combined with Bourne like action].
What I always enjoyed was the interaction 007 had with the world around him in all of his movies and some were more ridiculous than others but other people anchored it all in the real world. In this movie all major set-pieces were devout of human life to the utmost ridiculous extent.
People calling this the best spy movie of the year must be extremely biased and wearing blinds, as the major spy movies this year all had more soul, fun and action to offer than SP did. While I consider Craig a great actor his 007 is closer to a Vulcan crossed with a Terminator. I enjoyed the annoyance all other Bond actors showed when something went wrong, and then plodded on trying to save lives or the world. Craig has none of that he seems to have a one way track and keeps coming, while being less than human. I prefer Daltons 007 over Craig easily by now. It must be the humanity that exists in all actors while Craigs 007 seems to be looking for just that and he never gets really close, his romances all had a bit of icky and unfinished feeling to them.
Spectre in my view made QoS actually look good. What the heck has gone wrong since the succes of CR?
I have to say man, that was an absolutely hilarious post! I don't agree with a lot of it but boy did it make me laugh! :))
Good catch @stmark Disney, or maybe a DAF homage.
New Bond trivia question. Name the two films in which Bond talks to a live rat.
Re scarcity of people populating many of the scenes, upon my 7th viewing today, I did take full notice of a barman in background during the train fight scene. He briefly appears when the mayhem reaches the bar car.
I had noticed him before, but this time I was waiting for him, whilst trying to catch glimpse of any other human life on the ghost train.
There is also the bar waiter and the guy that took the tux to be pressed, but other human life on the train, for the most part, does do its best to stay out of shot.
I am presuming,I think it was 4 other diners, managed to scatter, off camera, once the fight started.
Quick question. Did Bond actually hand Swann a loaded gun to play with before he knew she could handle it? If so, that's kind of odd isn't it? He actually did ask her to squeeze the trigger I believe. :-?
Here here. I LOVE most Disney animated classics, but I'm sick and tired of the company buying everything. Disney would absolutely ruin Bond; there's a reason why these entities should stay separate.
One could argue that Bond was sure all along that she knew her way around guns. Other than that, I have no idea.
I find Bond´s line, "We´ll skip hand-to-hand combat" more problematic, because it stipulates that he gives up on bedding her, which makes their close encounter immediately after the Hinx fight all the more sudden and ill-paced.
I have to agree. Of course I like the film a lot more than you, but that was one of the worst scenes.
That scene... *shrugs*. Cliche to the max, then we hear some very bad dialogue on Madeleine's story, that sounds like very forced background exposition (and a bit too similar to Camile's story) quite frankily I can't even make out what she said, even paying close attention.