In time, will SP be more or less appreciated?

1356751

Comments

  • Posts: 4,622
    Although SP is a little plodding especially towards the end and a tad heavy and dark, for a Bond film, I find it the most watchable of the re-boot films, basically because there is a lot about it that I like, especially Craig's performance as Bond , and the whole deal with Blofeld, Spectre and cat being back in such a big way!!!!
    So I'll be watching this one quite a bit for the rest of my earthly existence.
    However I do think with the broader audience, CR and SF are likely to resonate more as time marches on.
    Both were very impactful films when released
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Birdleson wrote: »
    OmegaX wrote: »
    I would say that it could very well go both ways. It all depends on how good Bond 25 is. Imo, if the next bond movie could in a sense progress further from whats established in SP, while making it feel more cohesive with SP, and it itself not being entirely based on SP (like SP does on every previous DC film), AND it itself being a good movie, then future audiences might view SP in a better light, as they see it as a buildup to Bond 25, which despite its flaws, manages to do that very well and make SP and Bond 25 feel more cohesive. SP leaves its end relatively open by not killing ESB (but again who does? =P) , so Bond 25 might very well have the opportunity to pick it up directly from there and make SP better, in a sense.

    That said though, on the other hand, audiences may less appreciate SP in the future, due to the flaws mentioned in many other threads, if they are not exposed to a big event of sorts that changes their perspective, which Bond 25 has great capacity to do so.

    If we're talking public opinion, not on these forums, I really doubt opinion will turn. I have yet to talk to anyone who is not a hardcore Bond fan who enjoyed it (and obviously several of us didn't either), save one of my students. The funny thing is, because of my known investment with the franchise, they either seem to blame me or act very apologetic about it.
    Conversely, when SKYFALL came out, everyone I talked to (student, coworker, girlfriend, family, friends) loved it. In fact it was the memory of SF, I'm sure, which led to the strong opening box office of SPECTRE.

    I had a text from my uncle, yesterday, saying he thought SP was the best in the series. He's just a casual film goer. My wife thought it was more enjoyable than SF, as did my best mate. This means nothing in the grand scheme of things, but I refuse to believe only hardcore Bond fans enjoyed it. If anything I'd say the hardcore are the most scathing.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    My mom isn't a hardcore Bond fan and she enjoyed it.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,195
    I would have preferred had there been no connection between Bond And Blofeld other than one that evolved starting with the events of Casino Royale; Then, at some point in SPECTRE Blofeld would have said something to the effect

    'You were nothing to me but you kept getting in my way; then you became a distraction and now Mr. Bond I'm afraid you've become a threat. Over these years, without even trying, I became the author of all your pain and now I shall put you out of my misery.'

    Or something like that ;)
  • OmegaXOmegaX Singapore
    Posts: 39
    Birdleson wrote: »
    OmegaX wrote: »
    I would say that it could very well go both ways. It all depends on how good Bond 25 is. Imo, if the next bond movie could in a sense progress further from whats established in SP, while making it feel more cohesive with SP, and it itself not being entirely based on SP (like SP does on every previous DC film), AND it itself being a good movie, then future audiences might view SP in a better light, as they see it as a buildup to Bond 25, which despite its flaws, manages to do that very well and make SP and Bond 25 feel more cohesive. SP leaves its end relatively open by not killing ESB (but again who does? =P) , so Bond 25 might very well have the opportunity to pick it up directly from there and make SP better, in a sense.

    That said though, on the other hand, audiences may less appreciate SP in the future, due to the flaws mentioned in many other threads, if they are not exposed to a big event of sorts that changes their perspective, which Bond 25 has great capacity to do so.

    If we're talking public opinion, not on these forums, I really doubt opinion will turn. I have yet to talk to anyone who is not a hardcore Bond fan who enjoyed it (and obviously several of us didn't either), save one of my students. The funny thing is, because of my known investment with the franchise, they either seem to blame me or act very apologetic about it.
    Conversely, when SKYFALL came out, everyone I talked to (student, coworker, girlfriend, family, friends) loved it. In fact it was the memory of SF, I'm sure, which led to the strong opening box office of SPECTRE.

    Yea I am also getting the impression that SP is not viewed as favorably as SF, and I would say that it is due to the amount of hype it suffered, just like how QoS suffered from CR being a great film. Hence I will expect Bond 25 to perform worse in its box office than SP or SF, but be looked upon in future as favorably as CR or SF.

    However, it is still my belief that SP will be appreciated more if Bond 25 does well, as SP is essentially "Part 1" in a many-part ESB trilogy (at least thats what I hope), and trilogies having a relatively "bland" start is more easily forgivable, in a sense.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    In my extended social circle at least, CR & SF are the Bond films that people have had favourable and passionate impressions about. When I asked them about these films at the time, the reactions were invariably enthusiastic. The few I've heard talk about SP have felt it was 'meh' (which coincidentally mirrors my own thoughts as of this moment) and others have not even bothered to see it yet.

    Like @Birdleson, I hope I have an improved perception of the aesthetics at least when I see it in high definition on the small screen with the other Craig films. The ret"con" story will never improve for me on its own.

    I personally hope they just let this sleeping dog lie to be honest and revisit Blofeld down the road in a more impressive manner with a new actor.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Birdleson wrote: »
    They fall through the holes in his hands.

    But didn't they drive the nails through the wrist as the tissue in the hand is not strong enough to bear the body weight and they would just rip off?

    Another ahem nail in the coffin for those who take the bible literally.

    Way off topic but the Roman crucifixion crosses were probably X shaped and closer to the ground.

    The typical crosses we see are artists renditions years after the fact.

    The crucifixion I my belief is very real and very literal.

    Anyhoo . what were we talking about?
  • OmegaXOmegaX Singapore
    edited December 2015 Posts: 39
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The general public will not retrospectively reevaluate SPECTRE based on BOND 25. It's s fundamental blandness that seems to be what the audience is coming away with (and with good reason if you ask me). No matter what the next one is like, it's not going to change this current one for me, and I'm actually invested in the product, it has to work on its own. The general movie-goer simply doesn't care enough to reassess SP. I think this trilogy idea is a fantasy and, even if it did end up being so, would be lost on the movie going public.

    Yes I do agree that a good film should make a good film standing on its own, which is why the first criteria I feel that Bond 25 should have is to have a standalone plot while beautifully weaving in the ESB plotline from SP, which could be achieved imo by SP's second in command being the main antagonist of Bond 25, and ESB as a not-so-major sub-plot.

    However, SP borrows so much from previous DC films (plot lines, characters, even the soundtrack) that one cannot help but to view it together with previous DC films to gain a better understanding and appreciation of the film. This is personally something I dont like, as regular movie-goers who didnt watch previous DC films would view this as bland, but it changes how we view the DC franchise, no matter we like it or not. I believe that many movie-goers have SF in mind (most likely not others I agree) when they watch SP (hence suffering from hype as they compared it to SF).

    But yea u do have a point. Most general movie-goers wouldn't probably care how Bond 25 links to SP. I would guess that they would go "Oh a new Bond film! I remember the last one! It was bad.". So they would remember SP in a sense, but wont care much about the details.

    EDIT: Also to add on a bit, if (GOD FORBID) Bond 25 is worse than SP, then the general movie goer would probably go "Hm compared to this, the last one was better", hence viewing SP in a better light. However, I'm no average movie-goer, so I may be dead wrong =P
    bondjames wrote: »
    In my extended social circle at least, CR & SF are the Bond films that people have had favourable and passionate impressions about. When I asked them about these films at the time, the reactions were invariably enthusiastic. The few I've heard talk about SP have felt it was 'meh' (which coincidentally mirrors my own thoughts as of this moment) and others have not even bothered to see it yet.

    Like @Birdleson, I hope I have an improved perception of the aesthetics at least when I see it in high definition on the small screen with the other Craig films. The ret"con" story will never improve for me on its own.

    I personally hope they just let this sleeping dog lie to be honest and revisit Blofeld down the road in a more impressive manner with a new actor.

    SP is beautiful imo, especially with the scene of Bond running down the bridge at night. I believe that high definition wouldn't disappoint =)

    About having a new actor for Blofeld though, I am on the fence for this. On one hand I believe that Waltz has much more untapped potential (as seen in his other films) that could make Bond 25 much more exciting, but on the other I feel that I'm bored by his portrayal of ESB, and some change with a new actor would be welcome. It would be hard to logically link the storyline if a new actor comes on board though...having plastic surgery in prison? =P
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    They really need a new writing team and more dynamic director, hence why I've been championing Alfonso Cuaron for so long. Him coming on board won't just be "oh another Bond film" and he made arguably the best Potter movie which stood on its own and told it's own story while weaving in an undercurrent threat of Lord voldermort who appeared in some shape and form in tge previous 2 films but was completely absent in Cuaron's film. Bond 25 really needs to focus on telling a worthwhile story where tge stakes are thrilling and serious and the consequences severe; all the while delivering on inventive, hard hitting action.

    I was watching CR the other day and the film is handled so well that I got so mad and angry at how EoN have become somewhat lackadaisical with their whole production process in telling a complete and compelling story since then. There's a huge opportunity for Bond 25 to truly be a great film but EoN have to want it. QoS and SP relied heavily on the goodwill of their respective preceding movies. EoN, it's time to get to work.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    OmegaX wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I personally hope they just let this sleeping dog lie to be honest and revisit Blofeld down the road in a more impressive manner with a new actor.
    SP is beautiful imo, especially with the scene of Bond running down the bridge at night. I believe that high definition wouldn't disappoint =)

    About having a new actor for Blofeld though, I am on the fence for this. On one hand I believe that Waltz has much more untapped potential (as seen in his other films) that could make Bond 25 much more exciting, but on the other I feel that I'm bored by his portrayal of ESB, and some change with a new actor would be welcome. It would be hard to logically link the storyline if a new actor comes on board though...having plastic surgery in prison? =P
    @OmegaX, re: my last point, I wasn't clear - I meant I'd prefer them not to do a continuation story in B25, but rather just let SP's story lie as it is.

    Then revisit SPECTRE the organization & Blofeld in a reimagined fashion with a new Bond actor and a new Blofeld actor down the road. Let SP just be seen as a SPECTRE foundation story for the Craig period. They didn't really delve into the organization much anyway, so they can go in several directions in the future depending on what they want to do.
  • Posts: 486
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'd be fine keeping Waltz, but, as @bondjames says, bringing him back down the road about with an unrelated storyline. I'm also open to a new actor taking on the role.

    I imagine it depends on how many more Craig wishes to do. If it's one more then they may wrap it all up for Bond 25 or otherwise if Craig will be around for Bond 26 I could see Waltz's Blofeld (escaping?) being just a subplot in the next film with a new villain taking center stage.

    Skyfall stole a couple of things from the last series of Spooks so maybe Bond 25 will reference Bugs with the imprisoned arch enemy still influencing criminal events outside.

    The childhood connection with Blofeld should never have been established but it nevertheless has happened and as irksome as it may be I still wouldn't want the casting of Waltz thrown away just so we can put our heads in the sand and pretend all this never happened.
  • Posts: 486
    I'd rather they finish what they started. If EON have no plans to continue with it fair enough but enough other film and TV series have been ruined by yielding to the wishes of fans who'll moan in any case.

    True Bond finished for me in 1989 anyway, I just treat the new stuff as a bonus but nothing to get too worked up over. Take it or leave it.
  • OmegaXOmegaX Singapore
    Posts: 39
    There seems to be a lot of discussion about whether they would continue the Blofeld storyline in future. As Bond 25 looks to be DC's last film as Bond, I would hazard a guess that yes they would continue with SP's storyline, which i personally disapprove. (Like some i prefer it to be a subplot of Bond 25, giving closure to those fans who like to see the end of it but also offering a new storyline/villain as the main driving plot for those who didnt want it to continue)

    It just occured to me that the ending of SP has many similarities to that of CR, where a villain is captured by Bond...and we all know how that ended for them. =p

    Having Blofeld killed in the first ten minutes of Bond 25 might be a viable option (like Hobbit did for Samug or Avengers did for Von Strucker). I normally dislike such plot developments, but in this case it might be the best. Thenn SP's second in command would go on revenge etc etc
    bondjames wrote: »
    OmegaX wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I personally hope they just let this sleeping dog lie to be honest and revisit Blofeld down the road in a more impressive manner with a new actor.
    SP is beautiful imo, especially with the scene of Bond running down the bridge at night. I believe that high definition wouldn't disappoint =)

    About having a new actor for Blofeld though, I am on the fence for this. On one hand I believe that Waltz has much more untapped potential (as seen in his other films) that could make Bond 25 much more exciting, but on the other I feel that I'm bored by his portrayal of ESB, and some change with a new actor would be welcome. It would be hard to logically link the storyline if a new actor comes on board though...having plastic surgery in prison? =P
    @OmegaX, re: my last point, I wasn't clear - I meant I'd prefer them not to do a continuation story in B25, but rather just let SP's story lie as it is.

    Then revisit SPECTRE the organization & Blofeld in a reimagined fashion with a new Bond actor and a new Blofeld actor down the road. Let SP just be seen as a SPECTRE foundation story for the Craig period. They didn't really delve into the organization much anyway, so they can go in several directions in the future depending on what they want to do.

    Yea i also hope for SPECTRE to be reinvented down the road (they could very well learn a few things from SP), but i believe that dropping the storyline entirely would be a bit too adrupt. However thats what they did to SF after QoS so it might work quite well. I would appreciate a few references to SP though, for us Bond fans =p
  • Posts: 7,407
    Well, all I know is that my first viewing of Skyfall, the packed audience were Very subdued/quiet when the lights went up. I think that word again, underwhelmed comes to mind! The media had everyone stoked that this was indeed one of the best, if not THE best Bond movie, and it just didn't live up to the hype. And my subsequent viewings in the cinema, audiences seemed the same.
    On the other hand, there was definitely more of a buzz at Spectres end titles at my first showing, and people were chatting to each other about it in a good way. I certainly came away on a more positive high than SF, and my other 6 viewings of SP haven't changed that opinion.
    I would like to see Bond 25 as a standalone film, but definitely with Craig in the lead.
    (And I agree with doubleoego, Alfonso Cuaron to Direct, and I would like Paul Haggis back on writing duties)
  • Posts: 11,189
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Well, all I know is that my first viewing of Skyfall, the packed audience were Very subdued/quiet when the lights went up. I think that word again, underwhelmed comes to mind! The media had everyone stoked that this was indeed one of the best, if not THE best Bond movie, and it just didn't live up to the hype. And my subsequent viewings in the cinema, audiences seemed the same.
    On the other hand, there was definitely more of a buzz at Spectres end titles at my first showing, and people were chatting to each other about it in a good way. I certainly came away on a more positive high than SF, and my other 6 viewings of SP haven't changed that opinion.
    I would like to see Bond 25 as a standalone film, but definitely with Craig in the lead.
    (And I agree with doubleoego, Alfonso Cuaron to Direct, and I would like Paul Haggis back on writing duties)

    Pretty much the opposite to my experience. I remember a lot of laughs and audience interaction in SF but not as many in SP.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    In CR Campbell gave us a great adult comic book Bond come to life based on a great novel.
    In QOS Forster gave us a fast & furious bit of action & Bond character development.
    In SF Mendes gave us an art-house directed pretty Bond film.

    In SP Mendes gave us a Bond film.

    Sometime simple & unpretentious is the way to go IMO.
  • Most Bond films, and actors, face a backlash after the honeymoon period. Spectre will almost certainly face one, just as Skyfall did. I think it will ultimately end up quite a bit lower than SF in the overall consensus, but then I'm biased.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    but then I'm biased.
    And the rest of us are not?
    ;)
  • It'll certainly be a classic.
  • I will use the legendary power of logic and extrapolation to determine that in time, SP will be even less appreciated.

    Remember Brosnan's era? During those days, everyone thought the man was second to Connery, right? That's what people think about Craig now. And forget about Brosnan! He is now considered the antithesis of Craig and therefore one of the lesser Bonds.

    So when the next actor steps up - presuming that his films are well received - people will point to Craig's era and say how 'dreadfully dull they were, with so much angst in them' and he will go to the bottom, as will his films, just like Brosnan's have now. Or at least, QOS, SF and SP will, I'm not sure about CR.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited February 2016 Posts: 9,117
    BondBug wrote: »
    Due to a utterly ridiculous plot contrivance that could have been edited out by taking less than 30 seconds of the film, it will be remembered in the same way as Die Another Day.
    Moves like establishing Blofeld's relationship with Bond etc. will probably make it the next Die Another Day.

    The hyperbole in this thread is ludicrous. Try and be sensible people and dont let the Oberhauser/Blofeld brother bullshit (which I also detest myself) blind you from the fact that about 80% of SP is a very very solid entry. To compare it with DAD really does not reflect well on your critical abilities.
    I think some people exaggerate their connection precisely like Blofeld does; Bond knows him, of course, but barely even cared. Oberhauser is crazy and Bond's job is to stop him. Blofeld is the one who keeps insisting there was something else, that Bond somehow shifted his father's attention from him. Blofeld is obsessed with Bond the same way that fans are obsessing over this tiny plot point that ultimately affects the plot very little.

    Is it stupid and contrived? Sure. But it also gives Blofeld a quick and convenient personal angle with which to attack Bond and be angry with him over, which is why some people love the Blofeld character so much, because it's personal for Bond. That was the old timeline. I would have been much more incensed if all of a sudden Blofeld brought up the events of OHMSS or Bond killing Dr. No or something like that. Does this derail SP and put it in the likes of DAF, MR, and DAD? A thousand times no. If the third act had been improved slightly SP would be top 10 material.

    Thats more like it. Some common sense spoken finally.

    doubleoego wrote: »
    They really need a new writing team and more dynamic director, hence why I've been championing Alfonso Cuaron for so long. Him coming on board won't just be "oh another Bond film" and he made arguably the best Potter movie which stood on its own and told it's own story while weaving in an undercurrent threat of Lord voldermort who appeared in some shape and form in tge previous 2 films but was completely absent in Cuaron's film. Bond 25 really needs to focus on telling a worthwhile story where tge stakes are thrilling and serious and the consequences severe; all the while delivering on inventive, hard hitting action.

    I was watching CR the other day and the film is handled so well that I got so mad and angry at how EoN have become somewhat lackadaisical with their whole production process in telling a complete and compelling story since then. There's a huge opportunity for Bond 25 to truly be a great film but EoN have to want it. QoS and SP relied heavily on the goodwill of their respective preceding movies. EoN, it's time to get to work.

    I am not a child so therefore have no interest in Harry Potter but you are bang on the money here. Based on the stunning action scenes in Children Of Men has been my choice for a while now. The guy can tell a good dramatic story but also has a flair for action that Mendes doesnt. And there is already clearly some sort of connection between him and EON if you check out the end credits of QOS so hopefully this might be a genuinely realistic proposition.
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Well from countries where the people's have been brought up on Bond SP was mostly liked, but from what i've read from people from countries like China and India, the reaction was that many people there didn't like SP at all. In fact at a Chinese BO forum, the film was considered to be terrible.

    You mean the same China that has Furious 7 and Transformers in its top 5 highest grossing films of all time and India where every film has an inane song and dance sequence every 5 minutes?

    Excuse me if I dont give the slightest f**k what the average person in either of these countries thinks. Theyve got their culture of chop socky and Bollywood ruling the box office which is fine if you like that sort of thing but their opinion of how to make a western action thriller is of little account as sparrow's tears in my book.

    Annoyingly of course the studio will think otherwise as they crave box office in these places like Amy Winehouse trying to get hold of some crack so it wouldnt surprise me if they depressingly try and tailor B25 to appeal to these markets even more.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    BondBug wrote: »
    Due to a utterly ridiculous plot contrivance that could have been edited out by taking less than 30 seconds of the film, it will be remembered in the same way as Die Another Day.
    Moves like establishing Blofeld's relationship with Bond etc. will probably make it the next Die Another Day.

    The hyperbole in this thread is ludicrous. Try and be sensible people and dont let the Oberhauser/Blofeld brother bullshit (which I also detest myself) blind you from the fact that about 80% of SP is a very very solid entry. To compare it with DAD really does not reflect well on your critical abilities.
    More like QoS at the moment from what I can see elsewhere.

    In time, it could definitely be seen as Craig's DAD, or MR, and I think that is more likely if he steps down from the role.

    If he's back for one more, then, like QoS, SP may receive a reassessment by those who have written it off imho.
  • Posts: 4,325
    It will be thought of as a solid entry, but one that didn't push the series into any new territory. I think a lot of disappointment is really to do with that it seems to backtrack on where it looked like the DC films were going, along with the flaws in the script that everyone has pointed out. But if this had come out after DAD and DC's Bond not being a reboot I think there would be a more positive vibe from Bond fans about it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I agree. I think SF just pushed the envelope in terms of what a Bond film could be. That was what I found impressive about it anyway. It certainly was different and quite unpredictable. Impressive, given it was a 50th anniversary product.

    So I think expectations were too high (creatively) for SP. I think they were a victim of their own success in a way.

    I was thinking just that the other day. If SP followed QoS, it would have been viewed more positively imho.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    It will be thought of as a solid entry, but one that didn't push the series into any new territory. I think a lot of disappointment is really to do with that it seems to backtrack on where it looked like the DC films were going

    No other Bond film delivers the unique atmosphere SP does, for me that's justification enough. While it may not make glaring strides into brand new areas it's harsh to single it out given most Bond films don't do that either. You can't reinvent the wheel every time. I also don't believe it does any backtracking, it was very obvious to me that SF seeded what was to come in SP. The greatest leap in tone is from QoS to SF.
  • Posts: 4,325
    RC7 wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    It will be thought of as a solid entry, but one that didn't push the series into any new territory. I think a lot of disappointment is really to do with that it seems to backtrack on where it looked like the DC films were going

    No other Bond film delivers the unique atmosphere SP does, for me that's justification enough. While it may not make glaring strides into brand new areas it's harsh to single it out given most Bond films don't do that either. You can't reinvent the wheel every time. I also don't believe it does any backtracking, it was very obvious to me that SF seeded what was to come in SP. The greatest leap in tone is from QoS to SF.

    I agree @RC7 wholeheartedly. I guess backtrack wasn't necessarily what I meant, just that for me personally from CR I expected his era to go along a route that was more in step with that film. Absolutely SF seeded what was to come in Spectre. At the same time Spectre is a very different type of Bond film to Skyfall.
  • Posts: 1,092
    I will use the legendary power of logic and extrapolation to determine that in time, SP will be even less appreciated.

    Remember Brosnan's era? During those days, everyone thought the man was second to Connery, right? That's what people think about Craig now. And forget about Brosnan! He is now considered the antithesis of Craig and therefore one of the lesser Bonds.

    So when the next actor steps up - presuming that his films are well received - people will point to Craig's era and say how 'dreadfully dull they were, with so much angst in them' and he will go to the bottom, as will his films, just like Brosnan's have now. Or at least, QOS, SF and SP will, I'm not sure about CR.

    No way. Look at all the critical aggregate sites out there. Brosnan's 4 films average out at barely 60% on Rottentomatoes, while Craig's are over 79%. That's a massive difference. In a few year's time that is not going to change much, if at all. Hell, Brosnan's have actually gone down even more the last few years. GE used to be 82, now it's 77. For Craig, QoS has gone up from 62 to 65. Not much, but it's something. The same thing will happen with SP, IMO. It will go up some.

    Craig will be looked at a fantastic Bond no matter what happens with the next actor, mark my words.
  • It is too big of a coincidence, for me.
  • Posts: 1,394
    Its already seen as a mediocre film amongst critics and fans.There were naturally glowing reviews on release due to the reception of the last film but it didnt take long before the fact the film is overlong and, well just not very good sank in.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited February 2016 Posts: 11,139
    I think what really stings me about SP us tgat it had so much going for it in every aspect but conceptually it was flawed and the execution of it all was even worse. It had so much potential going into the preproduction stage, financial backing, great cast and crew, Mendes returning, awesome locations but it was all wasted and pretty much forgettable. SP's a decent movie at the extreme best but there's just no sparks and fireworks with the movie. It's a passing footnote that I for one can't see getting a significant positive reappraisal.
Sign In or Register to comment.