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
Phenomenal post, this exactly!!!
The second thing that bothers me is how people are complaining that there were no gadgets, and the film was too silly. Do people even pay attention? I could've sworn I saw some gadgets, but maybe I'm just delusional. When Skyfall came out people complained that it was too serious. Now SPECTRE comes out and people are saying it's too humorous. Will people ever be freaking satisfied? The humor in the movie was well done. Craig's delivery of lines were perfect, and the movie still kept its serious/dark undertones. Furthermore, what exactly is the issue with humor? Bond movies have always had a sense of humor and I have no issues with it, as long as they don't get as campy & cheesy as the Moore era films.
Finally, what is this crap people are saying that Daniel Craig looked bored in the film? I can't even say that this one comes down to perspective because it's just a terrible observation. Craig looked great in this film. He was confident, a bit cocky even, and had a swagger to him. Not once did I think he looked bored or tired. If anything thats how he looked in Skyfall. As I said before I'm convinced people just want to find things to complain about. I for one enjoyed the film thoroughly. Every last minute kept me entertained, and I never found myself confused or questioning something that seemed logical/illogical. So maybe pacing wasn't the best... Big deal. The movie was fun, and through and through a Bond film. I don't know how anyone could argue that it wasn't.
It's certainly not the worst imho. It's middle of the road for me. Just cracking the top 10. May fall out of it from time to time and may come back in, depending on how I assess things.
Only one reviewer at Forbes said it was the worst, and he was just trying to pull an Elliot Carver and boost circulation.
The issue is not with the humour. That's welcome.
It's not with Craig either. He's excellent.
The issues people are finding relate to the shoddy retcon and the poorly written backstory for the villain. The whole thing is clumsy and could certainly have been done far better.
I personally found the whole 'overseeing' subplot to be a waste of time. They should have just dropped that whole sub-angle, kept M/MP/Q in their offices, and focused primarily on the 'daddy' issues (of both Waltz's and Seydoux' characters) if they wanted to, but not try to do both here (we don't have the time, even at 2.5 hrs, to do both justice, as can be seen).
Finally, the finale is a complete let down and totally unnecessary. They should have extended, better explained and ended the entire thing at the earlier Moroccan location.
Having said all that, this is a decent enough film. Nothing great, nothing bad. Good to see DC at his most Bondian bad ass ever.
Fair play to much of this but the only thing I'd add is how can ANYONE rank this is as the best Bond film or second best after CR, ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!
I'm a proud pa pa... they liked SF and Hunger Games.
Mendes tested the waters with his imperfect SF, but now he gifts us with this masterpiece! I could NOT be more pleased.
The film doesn't come out here in Shanghai until next Friday the 13th but from what you say, I think this is great. I hated how in the Brosnan era, everyone were comedians. If they are to make one character in the film funny, it should only be Bond. Obviously I am over exaggerating when I use the word "comedian".
It sounds like this film is a lot of fun but fell a bit short with a script that is weak in the area of characterization. Disappointing to hear that what they're doing now is what they did in the Brosnan era, sacrificing character movement for action...and just when it was all going all so well.
It was more like the opposite for me. There was way more character moments than action.
Mendes is certainly in part responsible for a weak script. If he hadn't have liked the re-write that P & W did, then he would have got someone else to work on it. Well, he did get someone to do a polish or did Butterworth do more than a polish? Either way, it's up to him in the end.
@bondjames
"I personally found the whole 'overseeing' subplot to be a waste of time. They should have just dropped that whole sub-angle, kept M/MP/Q in their offices, and focused primarily on the 'daddy' issues (of both Waltz's and Seydoux' characters) if they wanted to, but not try to do both here (we don't have the time, even at 2.5 hrs, to do both justice, as can be seen)."
Even though I haven't seen the film, I'm sure I will agree with you on this. They did the whole relevance of the secret service thing in SF anyway, and now they're doing it again but merely from another angle. Without all these scenes, more time could have been spent on developing the two Bond girl's and the villain's characters, complete with a more thorough backstory and further plot development. The problem is that these big name actors like Fiennes may not have wanted to take on the role if they had have been given minimal parts to play. In saying this, I find myself possibly wishing that they hadn't have cast such a great actor to play M, as much as I love Fiennes. Then, another actor wouldn't have minded merely having a small part behind the desk like in the earlier films. As long as the guy can act well, then I'd be happy.
Really? So, how would you compare the characterization in SP to SF and CR? Maybe a ranking for each out of 10? :)
@Bounine the action is there, but it's not entirely all that exciting or creative. They didn't really up the ante in any way on the action front except in the wonderful pretitles (which is superbly inventive). It's all somewhat dull & by the numbers on that front.
This is also no Brosnan film thankfully. It's definitely from the Craig era, but he's got a bit of the Moore playful humour in this one. It's a bit jarring at first because we don't expect this from him (he's usually such a serious chap) but it works, and gives the film its needed levity.
The issue is indeed with the script. It's a bit of a mess towards the end & the finale is quite weak, but overall the film is indeed a lot of fun & is not like anything else Craig has done.
Key to enjoying this one: leave all preconceptions and expectations (especially about the DC era) at home. Just go in expecting a good time & to be entertained.
I'll be catching it again this Tuesday & can't wait to see if it improves for me. It's amazing but the overall impression on first viewing is exactly like how I felt after seeing QoS. Confused.....because it's not like its predecessor, but still has connections to that film.
Honestly, when I first saw the 2nd and 3rd trailer and the behind the scenes clips, aside for the pre title sequence, I really did get the impression that the action seemed a little on the dull side, kind of like in TWINE, but I decided not to say anything for obvious reasons. Honestly, I wouldn't say this, if I hadn't have really felt like this. :)
As for the film, Everyone had an adequate time to shine. Q got some growth. I enjoy his chemistry with Bond. I thought the film was perfectly acted. The writing didn't bother me like it did some people. There were a few things that could have been changed or been left without but the good to me heavily outweights the bad which for me there was little wrong with the film. My main gripes were the score which was mainly very little new music and most of Skyfall's music reused. All in all, It was Classic Bond on a new adventure with some nice nods to the franchise as a whole, and a great use of Fleming material. I think you'll enjoy it.
Yes, I'm sure that this is the case.
No. Welcome to the Internet.
I am not really sure what to make of the James Bond series anymore. For the last 27 years, the franchise has been on a steady decline. I am not even sure what I saw was a James Bond Movie. The franchise has turned into cinematic equivalent of NFL Europe. The latest film is essentially a carbon copy of Mission Impossible Rouge Nation, in fact, some of shot locations appear to be same. The movies steals from Bill Grainger’s “Code Name November” as well.
The movie opens up in Mexico City on the Day of the Dead, I guess this is supposed to some sort of pun, but any way, the pre-title sequence is not a good as some critics have said. The quality film cause the action scenes to be jerky, somewhat reminds of the scene in last Die Hard movie. Everything is so predictable.
Then back to London where we find out that the 00 section is on the chopping block as this merger between MI-6 and MI-5 is about to take place. Then off to Rome where Bond is trying to hunt down the widow of the man he killed in Mexico City. She is played for 5 minutes by Monica Bellucci.
Bond finally meets the organization. The scene is which we are introduced to Spectre is reminiscent of that of Thunderball and the scene in the novel. Except it is not as good. There does not seem to be any reason for the existence of SPECTRE, we are never told. Then we go this pointless and tedious car chase through the streets of Rome. Bond meets Léa Seydoux, who seems to have only tight fitting clothing, not that I am complaining.
Léa Seydoux was actually in Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol. I wonder if this was some sort of inside joke. You Ghost Protocol…Spectre.
After an hour of moaning a groaning by Craig, anti-hero and villain are reunited in some of silliest dialog ever. Bond is tortured (along with audience) and the big hook is dropped. At this point in movie you just want the movie to end and is not impressed with the big revelation with the usual prop. In fact, I am not sure any under 30 will really understand it or care to understand it. The villain played by Christopher Waltz is Solomon Lane is the same character from Rogue Nation.
Again, leave to the writers to screw the film up. This movie lacks originality. It robs the remaining the literary connection to Fleming. Bond is no longer Bond, he is part of the Mission Impossible Force. Q is essentially Benjie. The movie does not seem to have relevance any more to series. This is not fault of the Craig era, but this started somewhere in the Brosnan era.
Craig cannot act. There was an attempt to lighten up the movie with humor, but all of the gags seem to fall flat and are ill timed the weird thing about the movie is that movie is a tribute film, but to whom? Perhaps, the film is Craig last. I wish EON would relinquish control over the movie but whether the movie is bad or good, it is going to make money. The music is good. However, the producers decided to reuse the musical themes established in Skyfall, so there is a lot of rehashed music.
One Star. Which is better than the No Star I gave Skyfall.
AMEN AND HALLELUJAH for that assessment which is 100% nail hit on head, spot-on, dead right and absolutely true and correct and flawless and accurate.
Make up your own mind but do go and and see it....but keep all expectations at home, including those about DC and a DC film.
Yes, very true.
As for hyperbole, sometimes it's time for celebration and then some hyperbole is ok.
It's obvious Spectre does not please everybody. Just look at the ratings on the various places they can be looked up.
I dare to say though, that a majority is very pleased with Spectre. Maybe history is repeating itself with SF and SP.
Both movies pleased a majority and got some harsh criticism by a minority (including myself for instance).
This is the spoiler-free thread. For someone so perceptive he needs to write a two-page review on the subject, you should be able to read headlines. Or are you just trolling?