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
As it stands now, it's just the redheaded stepchild of the Craig era for me. It opened my eyes and allowed me to take off my rose colored glasses to see SF's faults in a new light, while also helping me to appreciate CR and QoS all the more.
Yes, I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly. Mendes' films tend to be about ACTING, which works for several viewings but then wears off. There is something rewatchable about QoS and of course CR; I believe it has to do with story and atmosphere.
Polished
Empty
Careless
Tainted
Retcon
Ending
That's not to say that Logan's elements would have been good, but they were somewhat imaginative, as Bond films go anyway.
It depends on your personal point of view I guess. No two people agree about anything let alone which Bond films are good and which are bad.
I read the thread title which says 'In time will Spectre me more or less appreciated?' and my first thought is 'Who by exactly?'
Critics? Fans? Joe Public? All of the above?
On balance critics were reasonably positive. Mixed reviews (not that I read them - I don't). They don't alter opinions much because they don't multi-view Bond films like we do. So they will probably still give it 3 out of 5 stars when they lend their pomposity to a further viewing.
The public? Who cares, what do they know?
Which leaves us Bond fans. My opinion has changed every time I have watched it, which is unusual because usually my initial opinion sticks. With Spectre, I loved it the first time, and the second and third, but noticeably a little less each time. I now only like it, and I do worry if I watch it again I will revert to 'ok'.
My gripe isn't the story. Blofeld/brother doesn't concern me one iota. Blofeld as a character has always been tossed away in the films anyway with clumsy re-casting decisions, lack of continuity etc. The unseen Blofeld was great in the early films, but boy did it all go the pot when they began to show him.
My gripe is the length.
Casino Royale as a re-boot film, a new Bond actor, a celebration of obtaining rights to the first book etc deserved a long running time.
Skyfall was the 50th anniversary, London Olympic year, all things Bond. It deserved a lengthy running time.
Spectre? WTF? 2 hours and 10 minutes maximum. Absolute maximum. It feels like an undeserved epic. Too much time has to be put aside to watch this epic film that isn't really an epic.
That's my gripe.
Weird how that works out. Four actors with opening films that are always well thought of, and closers (or latest in Craig's case) that fall short
Weird, indeed, I always find it intriguing how a lot of my favorites can be found in the first film of an actor's tenure, where a lot of the overall least favorites are found in an actor's final film. Odd, how that has managed to consistently play out over the decades.
I guess there are many reasons:
1. By the first film, the producer usually have to care more about the overall quality of a film in order to establish a new actor.
2. The actor himself also has to give his best in order to leave a mark and convince the Bond fans that he is the "new Bond" now.
3. Usually there is a bigger time gap before the film (especially between LTK and GE and DAD and CR), hence the writers have more time for writing a good script, developing new ideas and inventing good dialouge. These time gaps also reveal technical improvements in favour of the new actor. (Most obvious was the change in title sequence between late Binder in LTK and early Kleinman in GE)
4. Usually the producer milk the success and popularity of a particular Bond character to death. In the end, Moore was a bit too too old, Brosnan films became way too action packed and silly and Craig's emo Bond character might have become a bit boring meanwhile. I guess at some point, people just wish to have the franchise renewed. The last film of a Bond actor's tenure is therefore often regarded as the film where they finally crossed the line. Negative reviews lead to a change in the direction which even emphasizes the negative reputation of the previous film. (For istance, had Moore even made one more film, only few people would ciritcise Moore's age in AVTAK).
Personally, I think both the Sam Mendes films will be less revered as time goes by. I think Mendes’s bloated and self-involved approach will make the films less appreciated over the years.
Personally, I think SF is a masterpiece, but I’m already feeling the general tide turning against it. Mainly as it makes a very deliberate decision to go off-piste by being slightly more esoteric and ‘arty’. There are elements of the film that I can understand people naturally not having a strong affinity towards. For example, the decision to make M the female lead and have her die in Bond’s arms feels a far cry from the traditional Bond girl. Also there is a big bump given to the MI6 supporting characters making them fully-fledged supporting roles. Bond is given an emotional arch to overcome. The villain doesn’t really have a grand scheme – more an emotional one that makes no logical sense. For me, many of these elements make SF a rarity in the series and a true one-off.
SP will either be dismissed as a generic paint-by-numbers affair (think TND) or an outright failure (how badly Mendes screwed up Blofeld). It’s ironic as SP had all the flair of a traditional Bond film, something the diehard fans were craving. However, it simultaneously distances the hardcore by making silly story decisions (Blofeld and Bond are brothers?). I’m very curious how the Bond purists feel about it.
I’m a big Bond fan – but I support innovation in the series. Some bemoan the suggestion of Moneypenny as a field agent, or M being a woman – as it flies in the face of tradition. SP must have been both seen as catnip and misjudged for the hardcore.
So in summary….both SF and SP will be less regarded in the fan community in the years to come.
A lot depends on the next Bond though. If he’s crap (Tom Hiddlestone), the Craig era will be more loved. If he’s great (Tom Hardy), everyone will rush to attack Craig’s movies.
The opening sequence is magnificent, except for the Moore-like couch gag.
The Rome car chase was okay, ruined by more silly Moore stuff.
The Austria chase was okay.
The fight on the Train started off great but had a horrible gag at the end.
The escape from the SPECTRE base was silly. Just silly.
The end stuff was anticlimactic and worthy of the lesser Lethal Weapon sequels.
I've come to appreciate the uncomfortable feeling that permeates SP however. There's an underlying element of foreboding which is unusual for a Bond film. I think that was certainly by design.
Wasn't that more of a homage to YOLT?
TOTALLY agree.
I personally suspect appreciation for Spectre will drop in years ahead. A year out that trajectory has already begun. Spectre currently holds the same rating on IMDB as where QOS has settled after nearly a decade, and will likely drop further as new blockbusters tend to do once the new car smell has evaporated.
Furthermore, (and I just mentioned this in another thread), the general sentiment in just about every film news article I read these days is that Spectre was underwhelming/disappointing/a let down. Waltz himself has come out less than a year from release and said he was unsatisfied with his Blofeld. Public opinion of the film has been shaped already and will only continue to be further defined by whatever comes next. If history has anything to say about it, that doesn't bode well for the fate of Spectre.
I was lucky enough to enjoy it with my first viewing (I wonder why...), but after that, it went downhill very quick.
I liked it the first time too despite having major reservations about the ending. I think the enjoyment the first time round came from the novelty moreso, though. Like you, the novelty wore off quite quickly.
Edit: I liked the CGI mouse too.