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
I imagine this is tantamount to getting a hooker. Could go one of two ways. Just don't kill her and leave her in a shallow grave.
Bang on yourself Sir!
I mean can you imagine the shitstorm that would've occurred had the likes of this forum and Twitter been around during the days of the Kung Fu schoolgirls and double take pigeon?
SP has the misfortune that it was released in an era where all someone needs to have their moronic opinion foisted on the world is a phone and wifi.
And these days everything is sbsolute. It's either genius or utter dogshit - there's no inbetween.
I still haven't gotten a copy; not on purpose, mind you. Life's been crazy recently with exams and papers and within two weeks I'll be heading off to Ireland for a Study Abroad opportunity at my campus, so time is rather thinly spread. Hopefully between now and then I'll be able to get in one watch of SP. Fingers crossed.
A very good observation. A rivalry by proxy has been established between the fans of SF on the one hand, and SP on the other. Rare, it seems, is the Bond fan who ranks both in his Top 10.
I have not noticed this phenomena vis-a-vis CR and QoS for the simple reason that CR is so obviously superior to QoS that hardly anyone is bold enough to claim the opposite. It would tantamount to claiming DAD is better than GE.
Agreed. I don't recall seeing anybody--other than Birdleson--claim DAD is superior to SP. But I wish they would because it would be high comedy.
I think these are fair points, but these criticisms didn't occur to me until I saw SP for the fourth time (and the first time at home). I thus have to wonder if my tepid response owed to the film's inherent lack of charisma, or to burnout. My next viewing--probably more than a year hence--will answer that question.
Neither did I in the first three viewings. Or perhaps I did but was unable to conceptualize that feeling in written language.
I've seen it 10 times now and I find it brimming with energy. I think Craig's performance might have a lot to do with the varied opinion. He's nonchalant, but I buy his nonchalance, it's engaging to me. He's flippant with 'M', completely carefree, disregards the professional implications his actions have on his colleagues and it all builds to the pressure-cooker circumstances surrounding Swann and himself. If anything I think it is the film that translates what Fleming describes as accidie better than any other. I know others think he's bored. That's not what translates to me and I'm pretty sure it's not what he had in mind.
I've been fairly critical of SP, but I have to say that's a pretty accurate assessment and one I agree with for the most part. I would argue the cinematography in SP is very state of the art and accomplished, though I do feel it's a notch or two below Roger Deakins' excellent work in SF, though that's to be expected as he's one of the best in the biz.
Where SP sinks though IS in both the 'step brother' angle and the retconning of the plot. It really deflates the film for me. The reason being is that the set-up was so enticing, from the moment the title was revealed at the EON press conference, to the announcement of Waltz (who you knew who he was going to be), to that first proper trailer with Waltz in nehru-suited silhouette and the return of haggard Mr. White!...as a Bond fan I was expecting a huge pay-off for all the build-up. So yes, perhaps this is a bit unfair as a judgment on film, as it's more of a let-down of high expectations. Yes the films stacks up well to Bond films of past when you do a box-checking comparison, but the whole crux of perspective for me was that Spectre was going to go above and beyond what came before. The Brosnan era ticked off the boxes and that's all well and fine, but the Craig era promised so much more from the very first black and white scene of CR. The promise continued with SF, as that film was able to parlay the serious tone of the first 2 films with a more traditional approach to Bond. SP just failed to deliver on that promise. So yes, if we go down the list: suspenseful PTS, check, generally well staged action sequences, check, mystery plot set-up, check, menacing henchman, check, etc, etc, SP is not that bad. Certainly not anywhere near DAD - that is just laughable and is akin to comparing SW The Force Awakens to The Phantom Menace. So yes, I think SP might eventually serve well as a breezy Sunday afternoon Bond film that you casually view while sipping a bloody mary.
It's just too much of a coincidence for me.
I think you nail it there.
They tell us this is going to top SF, they give us this dark and brooding trailer and they even put the OHMSS music over it to try and convince us that this is going to be the Bond to end all Bonds.
And then it just turns out to be a decent middle of the pack entry and instead of a stunning climax to the Craig era the whole thing unravels in the final act.
Mind you how many times have they promised in the marketing campaign the biggest Bond of all only not to deliver on the promise?
The smart blood is shit to be sure - utterly superfluous to the plot and already done in CR - but it's a long way from being as embarrassing as the invisible car.
I'm with you on this. I find Dan phenomenal in SP; no real surprise. He's gotten to the point where he's so Bondian to me, I never once think I'm watching a movie.
I actually think that Dan is so relaxed and confident in the role at this point that he can come off to some as uninterested or even bored. Crazy, that.
The film did not reference every other film in the franchise. For crying out loud, it was made up of every other film in the franchise. Some things, like falling on a couch in the PTS, are just references (here to YOLT). Most other things are just 21st century revisions of previous sequences. The train fight is SP's chunk from FRWL. The Austrian clinic, conceived in an all-too-similar vein to Piz Gloria, is the chunk from OHMSS. The admittedly great helicopter opening is the FYEO chunk, the lame boat chase was the watered-down TWINE chunk and really, that sequence where M calls C careless is ripped from Craig's debut! The film is literally composed of sequences that are straight from previous films, crossing the line of 'paying homage to'. It has no identity of its own, it was just a James Bond scrapbook.
The film had way too many writers, and it really shows. It is the longest Bond film, but even so, it fails to get everything done in its running time because it has too many ideas and ambitions. The film tries to introduce Spectre, it tries to introduce Blofeld, it tries to establish an unnecessary link between Blofeld and Bond, it tries to establish a link between Spectre and Quantum, it tries to retcon the four Craig films so they are connected, it tries to look even deeper into the Bond character (as if we haven't already!), it tries to have a topical focus on surveillance, it tries to give the whole MI6 team a moment in the limelight, it tries to establish a love story between Bond and Madeline, and of course it tries to be fun whilst precariously balancing it with the overall serious and emotional tone of the Craig films, as well as balancing the newness of the Craig era with the general tropes of the past. And to top it all off, the film tries to cover it all thematically with the usual Mendes pretentious motif (the dead are alive), whilst haphazardly throwing money here, there and everywhere except for the place it is most needed - the notably lazy finale.
And as a result, the film really just bursts under the weight of its ambition. Blofeld is wasted, Hinx is wasted, Madeline is wasted, Lucia Sciarra is wasted, C is wasted. Therefore, the film is, in some ways, a waste.
Not as much of a waste as QOS, I'd argue. Spectre is a good film, because you can feel the effort the filmmakers put into it. It just wasn't made cohesively enough to truly succeed.
As far as rankings in the Craig era, this is how I'd do it:
3. Casino Royale
13. Spectre
14. Skyfall
21. Quantum of Solace
Funny, that's exactly where I have it now, except it's QoS that's no. 18, not TND.
I still think it's a decent film, and certainly a popular one given its box office attractions. It's just that the film is basically thinly-veiled chunks of other Bond films (with minor alterations at best) slotted together in a way that resulted in a mediocre entry where there's just nothing strong enough for it to break a top 10 on my list.
However, I'm not as critical of Craig as some of the other users here. I thought he was good in the role.
That may have been intentional, given the Spectral nature of the title and theme (Dead, gouging eyes, cat and mouse etc.) and if so, that's fine. It obviously works for some and even many, and the production qualities are absolutely first class. Impeccable in fact, if not for the colours.