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
There are so many things in it resembling GE (on purpose?) that I'm feeling the adrenaline flowing through my body just thinking of it.
Just to name one example:
Exactly, just as I mentioned in my post above (jammed between your and Creasy's post :)) ).
I hadn't really felt a resemblance to the tank chase whilst watching it. However the other day I did read Michael France's original first daft script for GE and the chase involving a plane in snowy conditions with the original GE Bond girl Marina really reminded me of the Austrian action scenes in SPpectre.
I just watched it and enjoyed it. It's great fun and in some places is very reminiscent of some of the classic Bond films of yore - and that's a good thing. However,.......and wait for it.......THIS IS NO SKYFALL (I never thought I'd say that).
Most (not all) of the criticisms that are being leveled at it are entirely justified. As I suspected, this is a polarizing Bond film. There's no two ways about it. It is very compelling in some ways (more so for us Bond fans), but is void of heart and soul for some strange reason. Like it's going through the motions, ticking the boxes.
The visuals are incredibly enticing in places, and it is a beautiful film to behold.
The action scenes do indeed lack tension and seem 'inserted' as has been stated by some. Definitely a case of more is less in many ways in some areas, and that's a damn shame.
There is way too much time spent with the MI6 gang imho. Unfortunately (because I never thought I'd say this, given my vocal dislike for her M) this film seems to deeply miss Judi Dench. There was a heft/gravitas in her performance which none of the three replacements (Fiennes, Harris, or Whishaw) came close to. Whishaw is far and away the best.
Thomas Newman does a fine job imho, but his action scoring is really dialed up too much (volume wise) in some scenes and that becomes distracting, particularly in the finale.
It's true that Christoph Waltz is wasted, although he really does the best with what he's given and is incredibly charismatic as always.
The same goes for Lea Seydoux, who does a great job with her thinly written part. She should be commended for her efforts. She's endearing but does not have the magnetism of Eva Green.
The star of this film is Daniel Craig in more ways than one. He inhabits the James Bond persona completely here. This is 'total Bond', not 'rookie Bond', not 'grieving Bond' and not 'angry Bond'.............it's 'total Bond'. Excellent performance by him, but......but....he is not as comfortable with the one liners as Connery/Moore and it shows in places. He's still at his best when he gets to do real acting, and not when he's being flippant. Bottom line: He's far too good an actor for the script.
And therein lies the problem with this film. The script is a turgid mess and all over the place. It's a real pity, given how long it took to get this thing together and given how many people they had working on it. As I said earlier today, tonal consistency is critical to a Bond film having long term apprecation. SPECTRE is tonally jarring in some ways. It is humorous, glib, serious, intense, exciting/fast paced, and boring all at once. That's why it's difficult to get a read on it during the first viewing. It demands a 2nd viewing and it demands not be take seriously (imho), and that is something that takes some getting used to.....given what DC has given us before.
Objectively for me it's not up to the level of this summer's MI-RN. Subjectively, it's better.......why?......because it's James Bond, that's why.
Ultimately, & at this point, it's a middle of the road Bond film for me. I enjoyed it, and I'll be back on Tuesday (after a small break) to take in my 2nd showing. I have no real complaints, but it could have been so much more.........so much more. Blame the script.
By the way,
Very nice review and I agree but the detriments didn't impact me as much. I too enjoyed it more than MI although I concede MI is probably objectively better.
The ending of the two are eerily close considering they were filmed almost during the same time.
Interestingly, I had the same feeling walking out of the theatre today as I did when I first saw QoS (DC great.....the rest ok but could have been so much better). That's another film that grows with multiple viewings, when all the nuances of the acting can be picked up.
Surprisingly, Sam Smith's debacle didn't sound bad at all today, and I actually enjoyed all the alleged 'octopus porn' of the title sequence.
Everything people highlight as being great is in fact great (pretitles, train sequence) and what they say is poor is poor imho. It didn't bother me though. This is no TWINE (thank god!). It's a fun Bond film.
My opinion of the song also changed (for the better) when seeing the song in conjunction with Bond-related visuals. Definitely not something that will ever be on my playlist, but appropriate for the movie.
This is an example of why I don't want to hear about 3 or 4 year gaps for each movie. Rubbish. Every movie needs a script and narrative at its foundation and if it's fractured the movie will suffer. Logan, Mendes and the producers messed up here for what is a critical process in preproduction. Had the proper care and management of the script been worked out properly SP likely wouldn't be as polarising as it is and would be a much better movie.
Going forward and with Bond 25 especially, EON need to focus, invest and manage the scripting process better than they ever have before. Hire new writers and really get the money's worth. It's clear EoN have no problem casting talent for in front and behind the camera for tge most part so in that regard it'll sort itself out but the writing must and needs to be addressed and upgraded.
SP is a wonderful film as it is and I for one love it, ranking it within my top 6 Bond movies BUT it could have been so much more and been on the same wavelength as CR but the writing and a few creative liberties stop this from being the case.
Seydoux as the wounded Swann is an interesting character. She is the one I really want to pay more attention to next time. I liked her portrayal and wish she had more air time.
I found Waltz quite chilling (I don't know why critics are comparing him negatively to Hans Landa......he is much more terrifying here with little of the humour that Hans had).
I really think they should have cut out some of the Whitehall/MI6 subplot and focused more on the above two. What a borefest, and we've seen that so many times already over the years in other films.
I agree with you @doubleoego. The primary issues with SP are script related, which unfortunately is critical. The rest of it is first class. The team did a great job with what they were given.
She does a terrific job of selling
The romance between the two characters may have felt a little rushed but thanks to Craig and Seydoux it was by no means unconvincing.
Thank God, I ended up loving it. It's not perfect but I put it second behind CR for Craig's films, easily, no contest.
There are many things I could quibble about but the only thing I would say is significant for me is there needs to be a sequence, we're talking only 5 - 10 mins or so, with Bond and Swann, give them something more to do, preferably in Austria with Hinx stalking them, adding even more tension, suspense... Hinx needs one more scene/sequence and Bond/Swann need a little more to build relationship. Then I'm cool with the rest. Yeah the ending, but almost all JB endings are anti-climactic, IMO. CR the great exception. They should slave over writing a great ending and then work backwards. It definitely helps a movie when you can't wait for the ending and you walk out completely thrilled.
People are totally over critizing this movie and like many have said, it's part over rating of Skyfall, the damning script leaks, MI Rogue Nation stealing a lot of thunder (this I can't agree enough but that movie too doesn't deserve a RT score of 93 to SP's 63). and of course, criticism is hard to avoid when there's such build up and hopes of perfection in everyone's anticipation and imagination.
I totally disagree that this is a Roger Moore Bond movie or worse Brosnan. Yeah Craig does a wave and maybe a look and there's some humorous lighter moments but it hardly qualifies at those low levels.
The film has a slight 60s vibe, attempting to capture that era's level of Bond awesomeness with a few more moments acknowledging or emulating of others. but I also didn't find it to be a highlights film. Again, some added middle with Bond and Swann would help give further definition to the movie.
Looking forward to seeing it again.
Spoiler tags
I'm glad you like and enjoyed SP because you had some serious concerns based on the reviews that played up tge adverse aspects so it's great to read you largely enjoyed it.
RE: the script you're right. It's the one component so flawed it renders everything else so masterfully done to be polarising. This film is definitely a success and delivers on the overall Bond experience and I hope the troubled scripting process really pushes the producers to make the much needed changes to break this curse that's plagued the series for so long.
Seydoux is spectacular, I can't put it more modestly.
From the first scene to her last, the acting is top-notch, her gestures, her face-expression, her voice, simply great.
I truly cannot understand if someone is saying she doesn't make an impression or is a weak Bond girl.
My score: 8.5/10
I will do a proper review after a second screening on Sunday, but initial reaction is I had loads of fun watching it, it is a proper big Bond film like the post-FRWL Connery ones plus The Spy Who Loved Me, but it's no Casino Royale or Skyfall in terms of overall quality and impact on me. Nevertheless, a roaring greatest hits Bond adventure. I can't say yet where I'll rank Spectre among the 24... certainly in the top half, but not sure about top 10 yet.
Highlights: Daniel Craig, the Mexico City opener, final shot of Monica Bellucci
Biggest disappointments: Hack effort by Thomas Newman, 3rd act plotting
SP starts out well-enough, but the helicopter sequence has an element of total recklessness about it as it takes place above thousands of festival goers. Same can be said of the final copter sequence. Bond shows a complete disregard for the lives of innocents.
Writings on the Wall has some nice instrumental moments, but the falsetto doesn't fit the Bond film persona. Recent films have suffered from the absence of the old school
blaring of horns. Tired of these drippy, introspective songs.
We've seen enough previews that there really aren't any surprises in the film.
From a writing standpoint, I'm tired of the storyline whereby Double Os are a thing of the past. Computers reign, and all that mumbo jumbo we've had more than enough of. The trumped up relationship to Bond's past just doesn't work. It feels silly, contrived, and completely unnecessary. Talk about daddy issues.
Thomas Newman phones in the score. Recycles SF and makes a concerted effort not t sound like a Bond film.
Final scene between Q and Bond is a "not again" moment.
The look of the film is great, and fresh in many respects. Lots in the film is a conscious effort to remind us of previous films. Pardon the pun, but it does feel like Craig's
Swan(n) song.
Despite a few disappointments, this is a good film that I like as well if not better than SF. But that's after one viewing. Subsequent viewings will tell for sure.
For me CR remains the Craig masterwork.
"Visually stunning with some great performances but I just felt a little empty. It lacked an emotional core IMHO."
Everyone wants different things from a Bond movie (or indeed movie) but if you want a well crafted script with character development, this is not the movie for you. Others clearly have different requirements and I can see that it is strong in other areas.But the script is the foundation of the building, the thread that holds a necklace together, the words through a stick of rock and any other metaphor you want to use. Mendes and DC were facing an up hill battle from the beginning.
I can appreciate DC/Mendes' frustration now. They've been essentially running a salvage operation since filming began. They've done a great job with what they had to work with imho.
I think this one is definitely going to be a grower though, at least for me. I came out of it a little disappointed (like with QoS), but there's enough there to keep me interested and to get more out of future viewings. I'm sure I'll be more positive about it in six months now - even now I'm earnestly looking forward to my next viewing early next week actually.
The one element that is a total downer imho is the entire last act in London. Completely superfluous and could have been eliminated entirely with some tweaks here and there, thereby leaving more time to focus on better characterizations for the leads. Pity.
The film gives off a kind of unnerving feeling (it's kind of surreal / dreamlike even) and I'm curious to see if that will stay with me on repeated watches.
PS the unnerving feeling is there (for some) and could easily explain some poor reviews. Its almost as if the whole thing is a nightmare, not in the real world.
Bloody fucking fantastic! !!!!!!!
I'm counting down until I see it again