› ›

SPECTRE - Your reviews. NO SPOILERS.

1…1718202223…34

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2015 Posts: 10,512
    @bondjames - For me there isn't a tonal disconnect like there is in SF. SF attempts to be emotionally smart, but can be logically stupid and I find that jarring at points. In SP I find there is more of a balance between the two. It has moments of darkness and at times is bizarre, but it's fleet footed and moves quicker than SF. I don't find myself asking as many questions, I can just roll with it.
  • mr_rivas1986mr_rivas1986
    Posts: 39
    RC7 wrote: »
    @bondjames - For me there isn't a tonal disconnect like there is in SF. SF attempts to be emotionally smart, but can be logically stupid and I find that jarring at points. In SP I find there is more of a balance between the two. It has moments of darkness and at times is bizarre, but it's fleet footed and moves quicker than SF. I don't find myself asking as many questions, I can just roll with it.

    For me this is one of its weaknesses because you don't get to think as much, you just roll with it. Sort of another word for a mindless experience. I just wanted something that could involve me more instead.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    @bondjames - For me there isn't a tonal disconnect like there is in SF. SF attempts to be emotionally smart, but can be logically stupid and I find that jarring at points. In SP I find there is more of a balance between the two. It has moments of darkness and at times is bizarre, but it's fleet footed and moves quicker than SF. I don't find myself asking as many questions, I can just roll with it.

    Thanks @RC7. I think this is the key point here. Whether one can accept the premise/plot holes that most Bond films have these days. As you say, the tonal balance must sit well with a viewer, and that is very personal. I have always believed that tonal consistency is critical for a Bond film to have sustainable appreciation. When we analyze the older ones, normally those with a consistent tone are more highly praised.
  • MrArlingtonBeachMrArlingtonBeach
    Posts: 110
    A great mix of old and new Bond, Spectre lived up to my expectations. It's great escapism and is an absolute blast. Can't wait to see it again.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Why the hell were people bashing the Rome car chase? It was bloody awesome.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    Why the hell were people bashing the Rome car chase? It was bloody awesome.

    Absolutely!!
    They must have seen a different movie [-(
  • Scaramanga12Scaramanga12
    Posts: 562




    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I like Swiss cheese..

    I admit the potholes in SF were a bit jarring.

    But Bond films usually have at least some potholes. For example I never understood the fake bullets in TLD. Was Kara that stupid? And how can you fake a defection with blanks and not get caught? And why fake he really was defecting. Why shoot him? All he had to do was run across the street apparently.

    Ok off topic but I had to get that off my chest.

    You need to rewatch it because TLD is classic Bond. It makes perfect sense.

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    The defection had to look real, as if the Russians would rather have him dead than
    Get over to the west. Hence the fake bullets etc, all dressing to make it look real.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,731
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    @bondjames - For me there isn't a tonal disconnect like there is in SF. SF attempts to be emotionally smart, but can be logically stupid and I find that jarring at points. In SP I find there is more of a balance between the two. It has moments of darkness and at times is bizarre, but it's fleet footed and moves quicker than SF. I don't find myself asking as many questions, I can just roll with it.

    Thanks @RC7. I think this is the key point here. Whether one can accept the premise/plot holes that most Bond films have these days. As you say, the tonal balance must sit well with a viewer, and that is very personal. I have always believed that tonal consistency is critical for a Bond film to have sustainable appreciation. When we analyze the older ones, normally those with a consistent tone are more highly praised.

    Yes...

    SF is like a polished, slightly condescending wall-street yuppy who drives a brand new expensive silver Jag' and wears a £20k charcoal suit, speaks too loud at the bar whilst trying ever so hard to come across as clued-up and smart. He drinks overpriced champagne (because that’s what he thinks people look up to) and throws a 100$ tip at the bar maid without looking at her…

    SP is the guy who pulls up to the same bar in a 2nd hand, slightly scratched dark-green '77 Vantage, sporting rolled up shirt sleeves and jeans who speaks assertively & clearly but without putting anyone down. He orders a pint of locally brewed ale because that is what he enjoys drinking, tips the bar maid 20% of his bill, smiles, and thanks her.


    They both tell an outrageous anecdote which makes no sense. Nobody likes the 1st guy because he is a raging pillock and oversells his story. The second guy is forgiven if his story doesn’t add up - because he’s not trying to be something that he is not.
  • DrShatterhandDrShatterhand Garden of Death, near Belfast
    Posts: 805
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    Why the hell were people bashing the Rome car chase? It was bloody awesome.

    Wasn't much of a 'chase' though was it? More like just two cars driving quite fast around an empty city at night, intercut with (too many) inset shots of the driver talking. Like someone else said, more like a segment out of Top Gear!

  • MyNameIsMyBondRnMyNameIsMyBondRn WhereYouLeastExpectMeToBe
    Posts: 221
    AceHole wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    @bondjames - For me there isn't a tonal disconnect like there is in SF. SF attempts to be emotionally smart, but can be logically stupid and I find that jarring at points. In SP I find there is more of a balance between the two. It has moments of darkness and at times is bizarre, but it's fleet footed and moves quicker than SF. I don't find myself asking as many questions, I can just roll with it.

    Thanks @RC7. I think this is the key point here. Whether one can accept the premise/plot holes that most Bond films have these days. As you say, the tonal balance must sit well with a viewer, and that is very personal. I have always believed that tonal consistency is critical for a Bond film to have sustainable appreciation. When we analyze the older ones, normally those with a consistent tone are more highly praised.

    Yes...

    SF is like a polished, slightly condescending wall-street yuppy who drives a brand new expensive silver Jag' and wears a £20k charcoal suit, speaks too loud at the bar whilst trying ever so hard to come across as clued-up and smart. He drinks overpriced champagne (because that’s what he thinks people look up to) and throws a 100$ tip at the bar maid without looking at her…

    SP is the guy who pulls up to the same bar in a 2nd hand, slightly scratched dark-green '77 Vantage, sporting rolled up shirt sleeves and jeans who speaks assertively & clearly but without putting anyone down. He orders a pint of locally brewed ale because that is what he enjoys drinking, tips the bar maid 20% of his bill, smiles, and thanks her.


    They both tell an outrageous anecdote which makes no sense. Nobody likes the 1st guy because he is a raging pillock and oversells his story. The second guy is forgiven if his story doesn’t add up - because he’s not trying to be something that he is not.
    -I really liked those -77 Vantage's- from before they changed the "bulb" on the hood..!- but the -79 vantage was really something..!
    Yes, I suppose You are right. beer is nice, but wine(champagne) could be nice too..!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I'm a beer, meat and potatoes fella myself. None of this arugula chomping new age navel gazing nonsense for me.

    I guess I'll have a short life expectancy too, like Bond.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,043
    Sue me I still love SF but SP might have become my no. 1 Craig film, seeing it tomorrow again so I'll make up my mind then, if this comes over as good or better in my 2nd viewing it will by my new no. 2 after OHMSS.

    Anyone who think Craig will just be just the last person to play Bond and nothing else when the next guy is into his entries just wants this to be the case because they can't face the fact he's the most significant actor since Connery. The bar has been set, heaven help the next fella.
  • TuuliaTuulia
    edited November 2015 Posts: 2,081
    bondjames wrote: »
    This what I find fascinating from going through the reviews. Some of the very same people who have criticized SF for massive plot holes are singing the praises of SP, even though, from what I have read, it also has convenient contrivances & shoddy retcons. I have always said that SF was so good in other areas that its acknowledged plot holes were irrelevant.

    Goes to show that how we absorb a film is very personal and somewhat illogical. That's the beauty of art I guess.

    Today I finally get to see what all the fuss is about.

    Yes, it is fascinating. Yes they are, yes it has. And yes, it's all very personal to each viewer, and I agree that's the beauty of it - all art: movies, books, music, and so on.

    Hey, don't trash arugula, it's quite good. ;)

  • TriggerTrigger
    Posts: 183
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    See I actually liked the climax ..Very simple. Bond is much more of a marksman in this film.

    And don't shoot me. I liked the score.

    I liked the score too! Thought it all went very well with what was on screen. I saw it for the 4th time on Wednesday and had to run for a train afterwards-as I ran down the high street in the dark the score from
    the action scenes was racing through my head and I swear if anyone had got in my way I would have taken them out!!
  • TigerTiger
    Posts: 8
    I saw the film last night (11/5/2015) and totally loved it. The photography was excellent, as was action scenes and story content.
    I have been a fan since 1963, and feel this film is Craig's best despite the mixed reviews.
    LOVED IT!
    Long time fans will note some interesting "throw backs" which I will not reveal...go see for yourself.
    SEE IT!
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited November 2015 Posts: 10,592
    dominicgreene wrote: »
    Why the hell were people bashing the Rome car chase? It was bloody awesome.
    Fully agreed. All the action sequences were bloody awesome in fact.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited November 2015 Posts: 41,011
    I thought the comedy was totally spot on and well done in this. I laughed very, very hard in quite a few scenes.

    I can't stop thinking about the movie. Was tired after I saw it and as soon as I got up this morning, I keep replaying all the fantastic scenes and lines and whatnot in my head. Totally superb, I think it may make my Top 5, actually.

    By the way, who else was totally SHOCKED when we finally found out Waltz is Blofeld and not Scott? ;)
  • shamanimalshamanimal
    Posts: 623
    Saw it for the first time this afternoon and loved it. I didn't feel it was any 'lighter' than Skyfall, for me, it seemed a more adult movie. Some of the posts on here had me expecting TSWLM part 2. Not at all, it's still firmly in 'Craig's World', if you know what I mean.
    I'm not sure the film benefitted by...
    Waltz 'coming out' as Blofeld. It seemed superfluous to the plot. Are they going to start re-using other old villains? Instead of going "wow" I was going "oh, right. How does that work then?"

    That said, I thought it was fantastic. For me, it had more tension than Skyfall, and I may decide to like Spectre better, I dunno yet. The Rotten Tomatoes rating is just a laugh. It's miles better than QOS, and I'm thinking it's got more genuine Bond kicks than CR.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited November 2015 Posts: 41,011
    @shamanimal,
    They're "reusing" Blofeld in the same way they re-introduced Q and MP, which is just as arguable in that they've always existed in Bond's universe. CR put a whole new spin on the series so we're getting a lot of secondary introductions that we've previously had in the films and novels.
  • shamanimalshamanimal
    Posts: 623
    Watch your spoilers bud!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited November 2015 Posts: 41,011
    Thank you for the heads up!

    I'm an idiot. Had so many threads opened there, I mixed up which thread I was in. I realllllly hope I didn't spoil anything for anyone.
  • tqbtqb
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,022
    edit delete
  • shamanimalshamanimal
    Posts: 623
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Thank you for the heads up!

    I'm an idiot. Had so many threads opened there, I mixed up which thread I was in. I realllllly hope I didn't spoil anything for anyone.

    Hey, don't worry, it was only up for a millisecond.

    I'll just say how much I've appreciated this spoiler-free thread. You can get caught up in the fun without having the film spoiled. And I know for a fact I wouldn't have enjoyed it as much if I'd known the plot details.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    I knew a good bit of what all was happening and going down, but I feel like I wasn't as spoiled for it as I was with SF, so that also helped in my enjoyment.
  • shamanimalshamanimal
    Posts: 623
    Good for you.
    I can't imagine any fan of the Bond franchise coming away from this film disappointed. Honestly. It's like, if this isn't good enough, what else do you want?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    In quite a few scenes, I could see where some of us would love what we're seeing and others wouldn't necessarily care for it, especially those going in expecting 'Skyfall 2.' It retained lots of drama and suspense while keeping things very OTT and exciting, which is what I loved. I just CAN'T stop thinking about it, I was that impressed.
  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    Posts: 538
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    In quite a few scenes, I could see where some of us would love what we're seeing and others wouldn't necessarily care for it, especially those going in expecting 'Skyfall 2.' It retained lots of drama and suspense while keeping things very OTT and exciting, which is what I loved. I just CAN'T stop thinking about it, I was that impressed.

    Same here. Gave the franchise room to breathe with some of the OTT stuff and humor. Good to see Craig in one regular Bond film on his way out. It's the most excited I've been in a long, long time. I can't even bring myself to watch illegal feeds of the movie. Going to throw more money at it this weekend.
  • JohnHammond73JohnHammond73 Lancashire, UK
    Posts: 4,151
    Just back from a second viewing. Enjoyed it even more this time. Cracking Bond....
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited November 2015 Posts: 10,592
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I thought the comedy was totally spot on and well done in this. I laughed very, very hard in quite a few scenes.
    Totally random, but I also liked the nod to GE (I suppose) where Bond's helicopter plummets to the ground and he's yanking on the controls so he doesn't crash.
    I enjoyed that as well. In fact the film had quite a few homages to GE, perhaps done for the 20th anniversary?
Sign In or Register to comment.