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
May be its not coincidence that I actually quite like QoS then. The fact P+W weren't much involved is reflected in what I personally consider a better than average Bond movie.
Reading my quote I left QS out but I like QS as well. Some very good in there that people just don't always see.
If you enjoy classic Bond and want a fun ride then you'll definitely be happy. The thing is, I think what maybe jarring for some is Craig not being characterised the way he's been for the majority of his tenure as Bond, being comparatively somewhat too serious compared to his predecessors. Craig is in full blown alpha Bond mode; think Connery in TB mixed with Moore in LALD but with the all important Craig magic. That's the Bond we have. The Bond many people have been waiting to see from Craig and we have it; effortlessly executed.
The film isn't as "deep" or as emotionally exploring as SF and I dare say, lacks the subtle nuances of QoS BUT; it's a fine film, a cracking adventure and had SF never been made I'm pretty sure the whole world would have praised SP a million times over and hailed it as the best Bond ever, which I could understand moreso than the praise SF gets but still, I think CR is still the best movie of the Craig era...thus far.
In short, of course, the movie is flawed and there are things I would have like to see done differently but as it is, it's a top tier Bond film, it's much better and more enjoyable than SF and I dare say, this is the Bond movie the series needed.
Same here. Also, I have the feeling that these trailers and TV spots gave me so much and there is little to expect.
Oh man, reviews is a bad thing
Yep, I wish. I think I'll read some old reviews that bang JB films I love just to ignore them :P
I give it a solid 8 out of 10. :)
I was dissapointed by the film because I maybe went with higher expectation, but it's really not that bad, yes I'd give it a solid 8/10 as well, you never feel like looking at your watch!.
That's why I think I'm going to enjoy it so.
The only thing I'm really peeved about right now is that I've read too many spoilers including something about the demise of a character that I didn't mean or want to read.
If you don't enjoy SP you have no soul.
Every action sequence fell flat, especially the car chase. I kept visualizing too many moments lifted from other recent Bond films that made it unoriginal. The high altitude of the helicopter being similar to QoS’s plane stunt. Then the pulling up of the helicopter made me think of Brosnan at the stick in GE. And action cues being lifted virtually verbatim from SF to make matters worse.
Generally pretty fed up with the overuse of helicopters and plane stunts in a Bond film now.
Would like to see different writers brought in now as well- the destruction of the lair doesn’t really allow Bond a chance to use his ingenuity.
I liked all of the scenes with Waltz and there was a stretch after his introduction where I’d have liked to have seen him more. Seydoux’s scenes were quality as well apart from the initial scene, not her fault but again it just felt like the word play scene with the shrink from SF.
Will need to see it again but come away feeling I don’t want another Mendes film or a Thomas Newman score.
Good for you... hope you enjoy.
Where can I go to this? We're both from the same place.
http://www.jborbisnonsufficit.com/2015/10/31/the-spectre-no-spoiler-review/
Yes, that was well written. Thanks for taking the time. I can't wait to see it on Friday.
Daniel Craig is occasionally good, often bored. Lea Seydoux does charismatic, sweet work in a nothing role. Christoph Waltz is badly miscast. Monica Bellucci is barely in it and Dave Bautista, while a great presence, is only there for the muscle. Naomie Harris' Moneypenny gets the least to do of all the MI6 staff, despite being the most action capable.
There's some good stuff in there, with humour that mostly works (thanks to Ben Whishaw's dry delivery) and a willingness to have fun which Craig's movies have often lacked. Could do with being half an hour shorter - the narrative structure moves Bond from points A to B to C, etc, lacking any variation or surprise - having one location fewer, and finding a willingness to be its own thing rather than constantly referencing the past and trying to tie everything together, usually very badly. The score is forgettable and the film looks nice, but not especially distinctive. The ingredients for a great film are there, and with even token consideration, could have at least equalled Skyfall (which I love). Instead, it's marginally ahead of the joyless Quantum. The highs are very high, the lows very low. 6/10 for me.
This comment below of yours is rather distressing to hear:
This comment below seems impossible. Surely he's perfect casting? Maybe not well utilized (don't give anything away as some of us haven't seen it):
Hopefully we can discuss after I've had the privilege in 6 days.
In the interest of balance, some people seem happy with Waltz' work. I personally thought he had no chemistry with Craig and gave a one-dimensional, Christoph-Waltz-eurovillain-101 performance. The Star Trek Into Darkness remark is related to good action, bad plot and lousy overuse of references.
I do hope you enjoy the movie, though. There's definitely some good stuff in there, particularly in the first half.
Anyway, I'll post my thoughts once I've seen it. Cheers
You're not stating the obvious actually, I certainly didn't know. :) I've never bought the (to me ridiculous) claim that SF was borrowing from TDKR, but this isabsolutely the first time I've ever seen it claimed that TDKR borrowed from SF, and that is, frankly, an even more ridiculous claim than that it happened the other way around - for surely obvious reasons. ;)
Not so sure about that. I suspect that kind of stuff doesn't require a specific language anywhere near as much as humor often does. Focus on action is one thing, and you may very well be right on that being appreciated in certain places - after all, it doesn't require language skills. The verbal humor though, is another thing entirely and suffers, in my opinion, more than anything when translated. A lot of the humor in Bond is word play, and it's just something that doesn't often translate well, and often gets lost entirely in translation. What some have called "the funniest line" from M in SP got no reaction at all in my theatre as far as I remember, and most stuff that I found funny in SP and many other Bond movies just isn't funny when translated - either not as funny or not even remotely funny. A lot of verbal humor is impossible to translate to other languages so that it still works as well. Just the nature of languages and their idioms and double meanings of words, etc.
Yes, I agree with that.
Yes, good points.
If one hasn't seen them, or doesn't remember much about them, then yes. Otherwise, doesn't matter if one does or not. (I didn't.)