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
And Barry was a genius, whereas as Newman is merely a well connected moderately talented journeyman
But very little of that gets put to use. Consider Madeline:
Why do we need to learn that Madeline is handy with a weapon if she literally never defends herself or James and is basically just a damsel in distress the whole time? That's a waste of the actress and the screen time.
Lea is stunningly attractive and a great actor too, with great presence. But she's reduced to a cardboard cutout. We don't need another Halle Berry. But I think it could've been great to put her and James in a more platonic relationship like Olga K - two battered but tough survivors. Imagine if instead of saying "I love you" during the torture scene, she'd simply said something like "I believe in you." Show their connection.
All told there are a lot of moments like this in Spectre. What was the point of the torture scene, if it doesn't hurt Bond, there's no risk of information being leaked, no character development. . . why do we spend time on this? What's the point of the safehouse? What's the point of the Blofeld reveal if it means nothing to anyone on screen? What's the point of the car chase except to - apparently - show off two nice cars and frame a phone call from the office? There's no tension (if anything, it's played for laughs) and nobody fears Hinx's driving skills. They fear his, you know, eye-gouging skills. So yeah, squeeze him into a sports car and have him potter slowly around a deserted city!
Argh.
I am not so sure about that. Making movie franchises that establish a continuity is now the norm. Whether it is the Marvel and DC movie adaptations or Star Wars, Star Trek, what have you, many seem to wish to establish stories within a wider frame, instead of self-contained adventures with recurring characters. It's only logical that Bond follows this trend.
(And before people start claiming that Bond should lead, never follow, get a sense of perspective: Bond, from his literary debut to the movies, always followed to a degree the products of his time. Early Bond movies were influenced by Hitchcock, Fleming was writing following a long tradition of popular fiction, taking his influences from spy thrillers and pulp fiction to more classical literature. You do not create in a vacuum.)
I find it ridiculous too. Another Bond fan who wants the "SPECTRE" as it is now to be eliminated from history.
I think you'll find it hard for many to disagree with the fact that Silva was far more memorable and his intro alone will go down in Bond history as opposed to vanilla Blofeld which for many is just embarassing and forgettable.
You've got a real hang up with Bardem and I believe you even criticised his Oscar winning performance in No Country For Old Men which is universally raved about.
Being such a Brosnan fan a shallow suspense free jaunt like SPECTRE is going to be heaven and all the villains in that era bar 006 were dreadful so Blofeld lite is going to be great for you.
All I can say folks is that the warning signs were all there back in 2012.
For my money, although I don't regard either of them as classics, SP is a more enjoyable film. But I'm not going to die in a ditch defending Mendes's contributions to Bond. For me his era represents a missed opportunity. Could have been worse, but also should have been a lot better.
For me, SF is a dreary, incoherent mess. I know what good art house cinema is, and I know what good popcorn is, and SF is neither. May be it fills a vanilla hole in the masses's cinematic diets, but it's not for me.
SP has no suspense and nothing to stimulate you, if you want to cookie cutter crap of the Brosnan era than so be it but at least SF offered something with some emotion.
It's got plot holes but SPECTRE is far more of a incoherrent mess.
The problem is that many wished for Craig to appear in a traditional entry where he was confident and had swagger but by doing that you rob Craig of what made his Bond so his. Instead it looks and feels like something out of Brosnan's era one of the reason the PB fans seem to love it so much.
I'm actually getting close to thinking because of the potential it's one of the worst of the series, not even the Wiz for all his criticisms thinks it's that bad but for me it's a frustrating mess of a film and I'm not willing to forgive it just because it's part of the Craig era.
It it is his last it will be a shame but hopefully the next time round that they get an actor that gives the role the injection that he has they don't fall back on cliches and pleasing the fan boys with rehashes of stuff that came before.
Up to this film Craig felt like he was giving us a Bond of his own in SPECTRE it feels like he couldn't give a shit.
I felt similarly about SF. I felt it was in SF that we lost the the Craig Bond we'd seen in CR and QOS.
And the homages to GF and trotting out of the DB5 were totally depressing for me when I first saw SF. I sat there thinking - really ? We have to sit through this fan-w***ery again?!
SF falls apart after Silva's Island and just becomes silly, directionless, poorly written, dreary nonsense.
I suppose you can say the same of SP from some point around the crater, but I still prefer it.
SF was a one off. Mendes knew that and was correct to not make SF Mark II.
people dont refer to the early movies as being the Mk2 of the movie before, they treat them as seperate movies but they share a common thread in style, tone and character. Some of Bond's dialogue and tone in SP, I just dont reconise from SF, its like he is a different person. Have we ever had that when the actor remained the same?
Connery from GF on. But especially YOLT and DAF
I put it down to different director
She saved Bond on the train.
A good assessment.
Half of the people were disappointed SP didn't turn out as another SF.
The other half was relieved and is very happy SP didn't turn out as another SF.
Personally I like Bond to be a somewhat clichéd action figure because that's what he was up to QOS.
SF is a one off experiment in heavy dreary drama that worked extremely well on the Box Office.
I suppose, but she only winged Hinx, then emptied the weapon without hitting him again and was surprised to find she had no rounds when he recovered. And for that we had the whole story about her having killed the men who attacked her father when she was young?
In some ways this little piece goes to core of my problems with Spectre - the setup is out of all proportion with the payoff.
perhaps, not obvious, but some kind of hint that he was still at 80%?
Let's not forget who was right here all along, after all. Throughout the entire film Bond is the one with the decisive leads connecting the dots between the attacks worldwide, the proposed bombing in Mexico and the organization of SPECTRE, amongst other threads. And he does all this with barely any help, so much so that at one point M even says in no uncertain terms that Bond has to do this mission all on his own, which he of course does before they all come together for the finale and get Blofeld in chains.
I don't think the cinematography is linked to Skyfall, in my honest opinion, as much as I love the cinematography I think it was the wrong choice. I personally believe they should've just tried to really hard to get Deakins back. Don't get me wrong I love Hoytema, I especially love his work on Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, but that's what his style suits, the small almost independent film that's on a lower scale to this spy epic that is James Bond. Insterstellar is different cause it still managed to come across to me anyway as an "independent epic". The cinematography in Spectre, I believe lowers the scale of the film. For example, the establishing shots make the film not feel as epic, whereas Skyfall used these beautiful big establishing shots of these beautiful parts of whatever place we were in, and even the big action sequences felt small in scale, because of the framing, the color correction and that glow effect the film seems to have the whole way through. Hopefully I'm not the only one who noticed it, but everyone seems to glow in a weird way in this film plus, everyone in the scene in Blofeld's lair where he shows Madeleine the video of her father's death, looks extremely fake especially Craig. They almost look animated.
Yes, I did notice that Craig and Madeline in particular looked 'wierd' in the control room. She almost looked CGI (I couldn't help staring at her when I saw the film again a couple of weeks back wondering what was up).