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
:)) She's good with a gun, you know!
I never Saud that about the Caribbean.
Let it be known that I thoroughly enjoyed Spectre. More so than Skyfall in fact. But not quite up to the highs of Casino Royale. But still a very enjoyable Bond film. And for me this is what Spectre is. A good Bond film. As much as I like the realistic and more down to earth approach of films like FRWL, OHMSS and CR, I also love the over the top fun of TB, TSWLM and GE. Bond has never been a film franchise that required intense concentration or dialogue to rival Shakespeare. Bond to me is elements of Fleming (from time to time, or as much as you like), a dash of Cubby and Harry (every penny on the screen) a romp for a PTS, an objective for Bond to defeat, a decent amount of action, good Bond girl and a sly villain. For me Spectre delivers on that front. It's not the best Bond film, but it's far from the worst. Daniel Craig puts in what I would describe as his most relaxed Bond performance. A little more humour here and there, whilst keeping it a Craig Bond film. Lea Seydoux makes for a very good leading lady. I really enjoyed her part. Christoph Waltz is slightly underused as...well you know if you've seen the film. He looks like he's enjoying himself and does villain with his eyes closed. But what he does bring to the film is enjoyable. The rest of the cast are fine, with no real instances of poor acting, bad dialogue or bad casting. I did on my second viewing notice that no matter where Bond goes to in Spectre, everyone else seems to be somewhere else, be it Rome, Morocco or even London. Where has everybody gone?
But that's not enough to ruin the film for me.
The only real downer for me was the score. Reusing parts of the SF soundtrack is lazy and unacceptable in my opinion. Very poor effort.
Visually I thought it was one of the most beautifully shot Bond films I can recall. The opening shot is stunning. Very cool.
I love the use of location and the transition from continent to continent. The action is certainly up to scratch, with aerial action, a car chase, a plane set piece in the alps, a better than average fist fight and a game of cat and mouse to boot.
So there you have it. Not perfect, but pretty damn good. I enjoyed it as a good Bond film. And as a Bond fan, what more could I ask for.
I agree that SP is all over the place....Mendes did indeed trip all over himself (unusual screw up for someone so good with character drama) with this film and that's why many (myself included) cannot see it as a classic film in the canon. He shouldn't have brought in the brother angle at all, as many have noted. It was completely redundant & unnecessary retconning. If he insisted in doing it, there should have been more emotional resonance.....not treated so casually, as it was here.
The problem, as you correctly note, is that Blofeld appears obsessed with Bond, and yet Bond appears disinterested. That is where a lot of the imbalance takes place for me. All we see of Bond reflecting is when he stares at that torn photo in his apartment. Even when he sees Blofeld in the Rome meeting, shortly afterwards he's casually making connections in the car with Mr. White & Quantum to MP......while being chased by Hinx.....another thing he does casually.
So I personally believe it is the 'Bond' portrayal that is problematic here, given the gravity of the connections (Vesper killer......long lost step brother etc...) being made and the deep implications. Bond shouldn't be so carefree about such connections. If he is, then why the hell should the audience care.
So I don't think this aspect of Craig's performance was a good one. He should have cared. We expect 'emo' Craig Bond to care. The audience (accustomed to him through 3 previous films) expect this. He is not Moore Bond. He is Craig Bond. I think that threw a lot of people.
So either don't go there at all (my preference), or if you do in fact go there, make it count. Mendes tried to have his cake and eat it too here, and he failed on both accounts imho.
I disagree here. I actually thought SF was about M's and Silva's journey. A journey of betrayal in pursuit of duty, and a journey of revenge. It was emotionally compelling, and Dench & Bardem sold it magnificently. One felt for both of them......and they both showed (through their acting) their regret and hatred. One related and sympathized. Bond was more of a bit player in this deep emotional scenario.
It worked because of the quality of Dench's and Bardem's performances, and because we all knew Dench in this series for years. She was established and we could relate to her. It's difficult to do the same with Waltz, who we only see for a few minutes in this film.
So the audience can in fact relate to a villain's personal demons. They just have to be sold convincingly to the audience. That was not done with SP, while it was in fact done with SF imho.
I agree with most of your excellent post, but this bit surely must be wrong. That wouldn't have been in the movie if nobody else liked it. Whoever originally wrote it must have thought it was a good idea, but at least a couple of Barbara, Michael and Daniel (or all three) must have thought it was interesting, too. The rest of the world, though... yeah, maybe not.
-SF lovers related to the emotional drama and forgave the plot holes
-SP lovers related to the Bondian aspects of the film (absent in SF) and forgave the plot holes.
In both cases however, we do have melodrama (this is Mendes after all). I think the melodrama was better handled emotionally in SF, so I found the SP plot holes more jarring (I realize I am no longer moved/excited by apparent callback Bondian tropes........an interesting discovery on my part).
In both cases, we had weak scripts.
Mendes must go.
The whole Blofeld is Bond's brother thing is the biggest problem with the film, I was willing to deal with what they did in SF and still love the film for all it's flaws but SP could have been a cracking film but that element just is too much.
This alone makes me hope Mendes won't return, unless he can reign this kind of thing in. I feel sorry for Waltz because he does a great job with what he's given but that whole element underwhelms the character.
If ESB is back in the next one they need to re -establish his shadowy present, play down all this Daddy didn't love me as much as you rubbish and present the head of SPECTRE as a force to be reckoned with not some problem page cry baby.
SF: obnoxious, sulken ex- MI6 prodigy - vs. M
SP: obnoxious, sulken ex- foster brother - vs. Bond
Mendes is only really interested in exploring these (or this, as it's really the same in both) concepts, which leads to the rest of the film feeling incoherent, cobbled together and poorly executed.
Luckily SP has plenty of entertainment scattered around it to keep you going...
I'd agree with you except for the fact that Mendes never actually 'explores' these concepts. They premise is there but does it add anything to either film? I'd argue that on an emotional/dramatic level they're both quite shallow - like most Bond films. The relationships are not as convincing or as involving as in OHMSS, TLD or CR, and they're pretty crudely shoe-horned in.
Silva's motivations are almost entirely unconvincing and they actually detract from his sense of menace. And the Blofeld 'brother' thing in SP has the unfortunate effect of making the whole DC story arc into a sort of superhero narrative.
Having said this, it's hopefully just a phase the Bond films are going through. It does reflect the current context of superhero and origins movies. In ten years time things will have moved on and Bond will be racing to catch up. A shame Bond is my less of a trend setter these days. Was it Charlie Higson who said that ever since LALD Bomd has been a copier more than a trendsetter?
I think that in his head he does want to do this, ie. explore further, and his edit would have a lot more of this... if he got his way entirely.
Thank goodness EoN kept some kind of leash on him then...
Mendes' perfect Bondfilm would be a sort of SF, SP, LALD menage à trois with about 70% character drama, 25% ambient & moody cinematography and 5% thriller/action material...
Great that we had him....some like SP and some like SF but there are few who dislike both.
Now let's get back to basics please. No more Mendes.
On balance I probably agree. However, he did enough with SP to at least keep me entertained.
And @bondjames what’s this about Bond not being bothered by Blofeld’s revelations? Isn’t this just the same, but even stronger Bond we saw in Skyfall with the “it’s a waste of good scotch line” – as in, never letting them see him bleed/hurt (be it physically or emotionally)? Bond is now fully complete in this film and as such ISN’T meant to be the emotional wreck he has been at times. He may, and indeed will, still feel it, but he hides it better than ever now, fully focussed on his job. The armour is fully erected. He has already grieved for Vesper, M etc, so the revelation that someone he grew up with was behind everything is a shock, but not one that’s going to tip him over the edge. What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger and Bond is stronger than ever now after all the crap he has been through. Just my take anyway.
While I love character driven films (Kubrick and David Lynch are among my favourite directors), I don't think Bond movies should be a vessel for exploring such motifs. When I watch a Bond film, first and foremost I want to be entertained. Bits of character depth are okay, but to me this looks like they are doing this just for the sake of looking smart, while they really aren't offering anything substantial.
I certainly don't want another DAD, but something like CR is a great combination of "seriousness" and fun. That's why I think auteurs like Mendes or Nolan are not the right people for Bond. They should hire craftsman directors in the vein of Peter Hunt, John Glen and Martin Campbell.
Is it? Thanks, I didn t notice that either. Idiotically unfathomable.
[/quote]
Mexico.
Mexico.[/quote]
Ha ha.
So true. They blew the 'extra's' budget right there.
B25 may feature flashbacks to SP, with Bond suddenly realising that Blofeld had been killing everyone off secretly in the background, while distracting Bond with his daddy/brother/ cuckoo issues.
I do keep them to myself. On the internet. No need to read my posts, they are just meant for myself actually.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/16/human-bondage