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
Will DC be back for B25? After seeing the ending, I'm not too sure he will.
I don't get that comment, either. Sure didn't look bored to me.
If anything he looked to be having more fun than ever with the character! I really feel he put everything into this, hence why he was probably feeling totally burnout at the end of the shoot.
That and the film is totally fantastic too
I think it is important that we don't dismiss people's criticisms of SPECTRE as just being criticisms for the sake of it.
This is exactly what happened with SKYFALL three years ago, and we all know where that lead.
I think people have genuine issues with the film, as do I, and I think for a lot of people these issues detracted from what they saw could gave been one of the very best Bond films.
But for the record, I see a lot more positivity for the film than this apparent mass negativity. In fact, there have only been a handful of negative reviews posted on here.
The younger fans who've only followed Bond since PB which then significantly shifted with CR, like the dark heavily centred characterisations more matched with the tortured hero similar to recent Batman films and don't want this shift towards a lighter assured touch of a Connery / Moore Bond on top of his game and is almost nonchalant which plays better to the previous Bond generations. Yep maybe I'm just talking bollocks but it seems those that didn't go for the dark SF like the lighter SP and those that love SF can't stomach SP?
Obviously perhaps I'm using too broad a brush and generalsed too far maybe but it is an impression I have whilst there are always going to be many exceptions to every rule.
SF I loved! I need more time to decide if I love SP though...
spectre a few more times.
If that's the case I may be in the hater crowd in 6 days because I actually didn't mind SF at all despite all its flaws. I certainly came out of the theatre 3 yrs ago more enthused than after I watched QoS, although I realize the latter is a grower (slow burner)..
Honestly, imo had SP been released in 2012 it probably would have been received better than SF and make more money too. Regardless, SP is an amazing film.
Also it seems better if you go in without expectations of SF2.
And better if you were strong and avoided all spoilers like some guy did on here ..forgot who it was though.
And like stated above yes I think does also depends on the generation of Bond you grew up on.
The fact we can even talk generations of Bond is pretty amazing if you think about.
I was going to say exactly this earlier but didn't have an opportunity to form the point as I was just about to step out from the computer. Yes, I believe this is a very fair point. There seems to be this feeling that SP isn't a worthy follow on from SF though heaven knows why. DC is truly outstanding in the latest outing and if there was a key criticism it's not so much with Mendes or cinematography which are excellent but the usual Bond bugbear of a shaky script which is fuelling disappointment. Like SF was a masterpiece in this department...
Yes, SF has numerous script related problems, as has been acknowledged and debated ad nauseuam on this site. The key though (for me) was that SF brilliantly was able to cover up such plot holes with overriding themes that connected emotionally, wonderful, fleshed out characters & motivations as well as excellent acting. Killing off a major character also hit an emotional nerve, but it was not central to its success imho. The incredible cinematography didn't hurt either. This was its 'sleight of hand' if you will.
If it was a more conventional film, such flaws would have been more readily exposed bare, & perhaps this is SP's crime for some
I'd say I really like SF, despite some elements that irk me. Having seen SP 3 times now I can say pretty wholeheartedly that I love it. It just works for me. It also elevates SF and clarifies a few anomalies. It's retcon, which could be seen as being a bit crafty, but I buy it. I'd actually go as far as to say that SP has elevated the whole Craig era.
I am very pleased to hear this, @RC7! :)
With the thought of DC settled into the role, a great team of actors, a class director, great new actors, massive PR machine etc etc and a return to a classic Bond, its understandable that expectations were sky high (they were in my household) so I can understand fans both loving it and wanting to love it and also being very defensive concerning critique.
But now the movie has been out for a few days, its not as if the negativity is random (and therefore thoughtless or needless), there is a clear focus on the script. Fans have every right to defend the script but many have had to admit that SPECTRE is not the all time classic that many (including myself) thought it would be.
I will comment on Friday, but I agree with you @patb from what I've read anyway. The negativity and criticisms I have seen are specific and deliberate, as well as well thought through. They are not random bashing. I am reading more interesting and intelligent commentary on the critic side than on the benefit side to be honest.
Having said that, this could be because people can't really comment specifically without spoiling it for others.....not sure.
What I'm saying is, I don't sense any bashing. Just constructive criticism, which I respect. The same as what I heard when discussing WOTW.
It will not impact my perception (and may help it, because my expectations are deflated which can only be a good thing).
That's rather unfair on those people who genuinely liked and enjoyed SPECTRE and are indeed perfectly entitled to do so without buying into a general fan consensus.
If somebody likes something in the film, then great, they don't need to defend it unlike those less pleased with SP who drill down to the minutiae of every single aspect of production.
Yes there was a lot of hype for this film but the teaser and tv spot didn't do much for me so I went into the film with an open mind and found I really liked it. Just like QOS was over criticised and SF over praised, SP is ridiculously being referred to as divisive when it seems to have more people pleased with it than not from what I read.
It has a lot of cliched Bond ingredients which are nice to see presented in Sam Mendes' impeccable visual style, Daniel Craig is uber confident in the role just like Connery was in his 4th film, Lea Seydoux does so much on the screen even in non verbal scenes, Waltz plays his role pitch perfect after the ill-judged OTT one we had from Javier Bardem. This film has possibly the best ensemble so far and the M,Q and Moneypenny that Mendes introduced in SF excel in SP.
I'll take this over Skyfall any day and that's a heartfelt opinion rather than one of mere mischief or delusion.
Without touching on specifics/details again -- since I posted a detailed review a fair few pages back -- my mine gripe with Spectre is, and I don't see this changing upon multiple viewings -- is that everything feels suffocated. There's no point where the film takes a long breath and settles down in one location, like Casino did in Montenegro and Skyfall in London. Apposed to all the grand action scenes and switching of locations, there has to be a counter-balance where the film finds its feet for a moment or two, and this is the issue with Spectre, it doesn't. Add to this, the muted colour pallette, and the choice to shoot anamorphic -- which squeezes the frame -- and the whole viewing experience itself feels to a degree, suffocating too.
That's very true indeed, and I'm not really looking for them to defend it. However, I don't expect them to take shots at those who don't like it either, which is what I am sort of feeling in this thread.
So far I feel that the negatives have been more constructive. The positives are more defensive.
Those who don't like it shouldn't have to keep quiet. They are not responsible for marketing this film. EON/Sony are.
Good summary and I'm looking forward to seeing it. As I said above, perhaps the lack of an emotional connection (something which SF did so well no matter what one thought of it and which no doubt contributed to its massive success despite all its plot holes) is what is causing SP to come under perhaps undue criticism (by some only for sure). We unforgivably haven't really had a great Bond script since CR imho. SF just masked it brilliantly..
I don't doubt the criticisms are fair but I also truly don't think that the degree or impact of the criticisms are enough to take away the enjoyment of the film.
Agreed. We all want this to be a great film since we've had to wait 3 long years, after a previous even longer 4 year wait (and this is the really unforgivable part imho and why expectations are very high, as hoped).
So any criticisms are likely to feel magnified. I'm sure one year from now we'll all have settled down and be discussing this film more rationally.