SPECTRE - Press reviews and personal reviews (BEWARE! Spoiler reviews allowed)

19293959798100

Comments

  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,171
    Saw Spectre for a third time and it continues to do what I require, namely entertain me as a Bond film should. QOS and SF didn't always feel like a Bond film. Heck even CR has moments when I could just be watching a generic spy thriller. But I'll take the origin story element as a reason for this. With SP I felt like I was watching a Bond film. I can't really put my finger on it, but there are subtleties that made me feel like it was like watching a sixties Bond movie. Daniel Craig is at his most relaxed and dare I say it 'Bondian' here. Yes CR cemented him as Bond, but in SP he IS Bond. It's one of my favourite performances of the six actors to play the role. He brings everything to the role, sometimes just a look or expression, but it's all there. Without doubt this is Craig's film, and he shines in it. The story is a little soft shall we say, but then when has Bond been noted for a really decent story. Bond was never Shakespeare. But it does provide us with many of the elements that I enjoy in a Bond film. A stunning opening sequence, a very good title song with title sequence to match. (After my initial viewing of SP, my opinion of 'Writing's On The Wall' only grew. I really like this song.) An alternate briefing by M, a Q scene and then a travelogue around various points of the globe all beautifully shot by Hoyte Van Hoytema ,SP is one of most visually stunning Bond films I recall.
    A great villains turn from Christoph Waltz, who despite being underused is perfect for the part.
    Even the return of the white cat didn't bother me. I liked it in fact. Like a Bondesque comfort blanket, reminding us of times past.
    Léa Seydoux makes a wonderful Bond leading lady, and the relationship between Madeleine and Bond is akin to that of Bond and Vesper or Bond and Kara before. It grows over the course of the film. Again this is a Bond film, so I'm not expecting a great love story. A better than average car chase around Rome, in an Aston Martin (with gadgets) is enjoyable, as is the action set piece in Austria. Nothing new, but certainly nothing bland or weak. The contrast between the Austrian scenes, followed by those in Morocco is stunning, the attire Bond wears reminds us of his look in TLD, and the fight on the train is certainly up there with the likes of TSWLM and LALD. Very brutal and full on. The lair in the dessert is another nice nod to day past, but it is underused and serves only to be destroyed in a massive fireball. I did enjoy the torture scene. There was no reason to torture Bond, and this only in my eyes makes Blofeld a stronger and more dangerous villain. The finale is a little on the weak side, but it's not terrible. With Mi6 (M, Tanner, Q and Moneypenny) the only resources to rely on as the double O program looks to be terminated due to the evil doings of Max Denbigh's C. Again, Andrew Scott is a good actor who plays the minor villain role well. The return of the DB5 at the end could be seen as over use and un-necessary but every time I see it in SP it just brings a smile to my face. Uncalled for here, but I'm happy to go along for the ride and have a grin as wide as a Cheshire Cat as Bond drives away with the Bond theme blaring out at full volume.
    Not the best Bond film, but certainly a very very good Bond film. Easily better than QOS and SF and a very good contender for Craig's best. I look forward to his return in Bond 25.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Murdock wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    No, I didn't.
    See? Popcorn movies need POPCORN! Buttered.

    And lots of it. My new movie theater has it's own serve yourself butter machine. Ooohohoh I felt like Homer Simpson. :))

    Hmmmm....butterrr *drool*

    (Oggled by Flaunders as Flaunders and family head to Peanuts)
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 5,767
    Mansfield wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    The further the film went on, the more I got tired of it.

    I could somewhat enjoy the first half, but with Hinx saying, "shit" at the end of the train fight, it started to deteriorate and wouldn´t stop. I didn´t mind the torture scene as much as before, but nevertheless, the film lost me at some point. By the time Bond shoots the two henchmen in front of the old MI6 building, I couldn´t feel much attachment to anything going on anymore. I didn´t see any sense in watching it through until the end, so I left during the London scenes near the end
    When you say somewhat enjoy the first half, does that mean you liked it and were disappointed in what followed or you didn't like it for a particular reason? I thought the first half was very enjoyable, barring a few things. The car chase was epic except for the interchanging scenes with Moneypenny. That wasn't enough to shake my enjoyment of the scene and it did provide a few nice moments in between the misses. I only begin my retreat from the fantasy of the film when Bond leaves Swann behind and then all those questionable action pieces occur with Bond getting captured and the MI6 crew running around.
    I find thee film borderline from the beginning, because one major reason for me to become a huge Bond fan in the first place was that the films, no matter how serious or silly they were, had a visual appearance that made me feel like I had a two-week holiday after two hours. SF already didn´t fit that expectation, and SP is even more remote from it. Moreover, I didn´t find anything instead of it. Anyhow, this time around I still managed to enjoy it. Craig´s Bond was never more nonchalant, and he nails the funny bits incredibly well. I agree to what you describe as tonal shifts. I first fell almost out of the movie this time after the plane crash, when Bond tries to calm Madeline. The dialogue exchange between the two feels like a scene from a classic 30s or 40s romantic banter. All the more jarring did I find the setting, with clouded sky and rather drab light. That characterises pretty much my whole viewing experience. I understand that there are people who enjoy exactly that, because they interpret it as multilayered. I like it more simple.
    Well, and the "shit" from Hinx ruined a brilliant fight for me already on the first viewing, and the romantic exchange following immediately is also paced very weirdly IMO. After that I had problems staying attached to what happened onscreen.

    Bond many times had tonal shifts, for instance in MR, when Jaws comes out from under the debris of the Rio cable car and meets his girl, that was a paradigmal tonal shift. But until Mendes, I never had much problems to go along with it.

    Mansfield wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    The camera work strangely shifted between mesmerising and annoying.
    I'm pretty sure the problem is deeper than just the camera work. It tonally shifts between a serious introspective Bond and a playful Bond. This occurs within scenes (car chase as aforementioned) and also from scene to scene. The camera work may just be a side effect of having to cut between action and drama.
    What I meant mainly is that the camera makes a lot of fancy movements, like for example the whole first shot with Bond and the girl going into the hotel. Some of those movements pull me into the film, but some are too self-conscious, as if shouting, "hey look what I can do with my camera". Both camera and direction have the problem of not being invisible. It´s funny, because there are directors who are much more obvious on first sight (e.g. Spielberg, Michael Mann), yet are not so intrusive throughout the movie.

    Mansfield wrote: »
    The fight between Bond and Hinx showed how Bond was not invincible and could still be hurt, and then that suspense is just thrown out the window when he gets through the torture scene without any personal damage.
    IMO the fight showed how strong Hinx was. Bond swatted away those two securities in the clinic like flies, and here comes Hinx and throws Bond around like a piece of scrap. But it didn´t really show that Bond could still be hurt. He got more or less knocked out alright, but then immediately after the fight, he is ready to jump Madeline. Basically the same pattern was used with the torture scene.

  • Posts: 486
    boldfinger wrote: »
    IMO the fight showed how strong Hinx was. Bond swatted away those two securities in the clinic like flies, and here comes Hinx and throws Bond around like a piece of scrap. But it didn´t really show that Bond could still be hurt. He got more or less knocked out alright, but then immediately after the fight, he is ready to jump Madeline. Basically the same pattern was used with the torture scene.

    I always smile at the bit in the train fight where the weakened and fatigued Bond goes to throw a punch at Hinx and spectacularly misses.
  • I just don't get all the negativity on here. Been for the 3rd time today. The film for
    me is almost perfect. Typical Bond. I agree the third act is weak but nevertheless didn't take anything away from my enjoyment of the movie as a whole. Much better than SF which I found dreary and depressing - particularly when the action went up to Scotland. DC perfectly nails the role in SP. Never thought I'd say it - but a close second to Connery at his best.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    All agreed. Bar my opinion that only near perfect DC film is CR.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    The train fight would have been better if Craig had blood, cuts and bruises. Spectacularly missed opportunity.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Darren wrote: »
    I just don't get all the negativity on here. Been for the 3rd time today. The film for
    me is almost perfect. Typical Bond. I agree the third act is weak but nevertheless didn't take anything away from my enjoyment of the movie as a whole. Much better than SF which I found dreary and depressing - particularly when the action went up to Scotland. DC perfectly nails the role in SP. Never thought I'd say it - but a close second to Connery at his best.
    Good for you :-).
    I love how Craig does Bond in the film, but I find the film as a film not so good.

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    doubleoego wrote: »
    The train fight would have been better if Craig had blood, cuts and bruises. Spectacularly missed opportunity.

    Agreed.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    suavejmf wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    The train fight would have been better if Craig had blood, cuts and bruises. Spectacularly missed opportunity.

    Agreed.
    Agreed as well.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    All agreed. Bar my opinion that only near perfect DC film is CR.
    Agreed again.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    The train fight would have been better if Craig had blood, cuts and bruises. Spectacularly missed opportunity.

    Agreed.
    Agreed as well.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    All agreed. Bar my opinion that only near perfect DC film is CR.
    Agreed again.

    What all four Craig films give us, is a more intellectual, intelligent theme interwoven in the Bond plot.

    The four Brosnan films for me felt really....hollow, bar the role Elektra King. Brosnan's best Bond film for many still is GE. But with Craig the films didn't go downward after his 1st film. I don't get it why people much Craig's subsequent films as much as Brosnan's three subsequent films.

    Be daring, and compare TND, TWINE, DAD with QOS, SF, SP. One then would realize that the Craig-quadrilogy is at least slightly more interesting than the four Brosnan films.

    And SF and CR? Still, both are cultural, critical and financial Bond phenomenon. We had to wait since the 1960's for such a repeat of "Bond intelligence"
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    The train fight would have been better if Craig had blood, cuts and bruises. Spectacularly missed opportunity.

    Agreed.
    Agreed as well.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    All agreed. Bar my opinion that only near perfect DC film is CR.
    Agreed again.

    What all four Craig films give us, is a more intellectual, intelligent theme interwoven in the Bond plot.

    The four Brosnan films for me felt really....hollow, bar the role Elektra King. Brosnan's best Bond film for many still is GE. But with Craig the films didn't go downward after his 1st film. I don't get it why people much Craig's subsequent films as much as Brosnan's three subsequent films.

    Be daring, and compare TND, TWINE, DAD with QOS, SF, SP. One then would realize that the Craig-quadrilogy is at least slightly more interesting than the four Brosnan films.

    And SF and CR? Still, both are cultural, critical and financial Bond phenomenon. We had to wait since the 1960's for such a repeat of "Bond intelligence"

    I'll agree with that.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I don't really see the need to bring up Brosnan and his films. This is why a number of people feel Brosnan is unfairly bashed constantly.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    Be daring, and compare TND, TWINE, DAD with QOS, SF, SP. One then would realize that the Craig-quadrilogy is at least slightly more interesting than the four Brosnan films.
    As much as I like Brosnan & pray to the altar of TND, I have to yield to your logic here. This is the new golden era of Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    The train fight would have been better if Craig had blood, cuts and bruises. Spectacularly missed opportunity.

    Agreed.
    Agreed as well.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    All agreed. Bar my opinion that only near perfect DC film is CR.
    Agreed again.

    What all four Craig films give us, is a more intellectual, intelligent theme interwoven in the Bond plot.

    The four Brosnan films for me felt really....hollow, bar the role Elektra King. Brosnan's best Bond film for many still is GE. But with Craig the films didn't go downward after his 1st film. I don't get it why people much Craig's subsequent films as much as Brosnan's three subsequent films.

    Be daring, and compare TND, TWINE, DAD with QOS, SF, SP. One then would realize that the Craig-quadrilogy is at least slightly more interesting than the four Brosnan films.

    And SF and CR? Still, both are cultural, critical and financial Bond phenomenon. We had to wait since the 1960's for such a repeat of "Bond intelligence"

    I'll agree with that.
    Agreed as well.

  • doubleoego wrote: »
    I don't really see the need to bring up Brosnan and his films. This is why a number of people feel Brosnan is unfairly bashed constantly.

    I think it's necessary to see things into perspective. Like we do with the ranking topic. If we take all the SP bashing for granted, then it is at most as good as TND and DAD. And frankly, that's not the case of you ask me.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    SP is far superior to TWINE & DAD imho. That much will never change for me.

    I prefer GE to SP by far, and that is unlikely to ever change either.

    Right now I have SP above TND, but honestly, I would rather put TND in the blu ray player than SP.....it's a heck of a lot of fun while being a traditional Bond film, while SP is straddling the fence as far as I'm concerned, trying to be all deep on one hand and also trying to be flippant on the other hand. I will know for sure which I prefer after the blu ray comes out and I can compare it on the small screen with the other Bond films in a row.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I don't really see the need to bring up Brosnan and his films. This is why a number of people feel Brosnan is unfairly bashed constantly.

    I think it's necessary to see things into perspective. Like we do with the ranking topic. If we take all the SP bashing for granted, then it is at most as good as TND and DAD. And frankly, that's not the case of you ask me.

    I wouldn't go as far as to say SP is a TND or DAD-quality film. I think SP gets a fair amount of praise but the criticisms it gets tend to be geared more towards a few aspects rather than the film as a whole and those few aspects are vocally conveyed the most because they were avoidable had EoN not mismanaged their preproduction time. Sometimes, I think it's important and keeps things in perspective to stick to the main topic at hand rather than to tangentially start picking apart another actor and his respective era.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I've been trying to like it too, @boldfinger, what minimal success I've had has been due to much intentional mental ignorance and compromise.

    I don't dislike as much as you guys and did enjoy it but have to say it was disappointing, my first viewing I was kind of taken in but my 2nd viewing definitely some issues there. I would agree with Boldfinger that after Hinx exits it goes down hill rapidly.

    I personally highly rate Skyfall and despite it's plot holes to me it has more dramatic weight whereas SPECTRE just feels lightweight and Bond is hardly in any jeopardy at all.

    I think the PTS is great and the films is pretty much going great guns until after Bond and Swann's introduction and while I don't mind the chase with the plane it looks like something out of the Brosnan era.

    As for the Blofeld element, they totally dropped the ball there and I really wish they'd never attempted all that Bond and Blofeld being connected. Some might be able to ignore it due to all throw backs and Craig swaggering about like full on Bond but to me it's too important to the story to ignore it and it undermines the whole thing.

    I don't mind Craig being more flippant and humorous and he does it really well but it jars with all this personal nonsense it seems Mendes wanted to have his cake and eat it. Many are saying P&W should be sacked and maybe they should but I think it's clear who is to blame here, Logan with the assistance of Mendes egging him on.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    SP is far superior to TWINE & DAD imho. That much will never change for me.

    I prefer GE to SP by far, and that is unlikely to ever change either.

    Right now I have SP above TND, but honestly, I would rather put TND in the blu ray player than SP.....it's a heck of a lot of fun while being a traditional Bond film, while SP is straddling the fence as far as I'm concerned, trying to be all deep on one hand and also trying to be flippant on the other hand. I will know for sure which I prefer after the blu ray comes out and I can compare it on the small screen with the other Bond films in a row.

    Then be daring and put TND above SP in your ranking. Let SP drop four more spots in your ranking. The more I hear you talk about SP, the more I think it's a certified BOTTOM 7 in your TOP 24 ranking.

    I agree with @doubleoego actually. But then....stick to the whole film on hand. One doesn't talk about the aspects and trivialities of TND. For instance how stupid and insane it is that no one properly checks their own GPS satellites, before threatening to shoot down a Chinese Mig. Hoppa, tampering with one computerized territorial circle, and the world powers suddenly are dumber than Putting and Erdoğan together.

    I really think this forum needs a topic in which we discuss all flawed little details. In which we ridicule every Bond film to death, because no one asks him/herself HOW hugo Drax got the whole damn space station in a much higher than ordinary geostationary orbit. But no one asks that because THEY LOVE THE WHOLE DAMN FILM ON THE WHOLE BECAUSE IT WAS ENTERTAINING :-).
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    bondjames wrote: »
    Right now I have SP above TND, but honestly, I would rather put TND in the blu ray player than SP.....it's a heck of a lot of fun while being a traditional Bond film, while SP is straddling the fence as far as I'm concerned, trying to be all deep on one hand and also trying to be flippant on the other hand.
    Precisely. Which is why TND is #3 & SP is #4 in my rankings.
    ;))
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Then be daring and put TND above SP in your ranking. Let SP drop four more spots in your ranking. The more I hear you talk about SP, the more I think it's a certified BOTTOM 7 in your TOP 24 ranking.
    That may in fact happen once the blu ray release comes out. I have no idea.

    I don't passionately like or dislike SP. It's just there.

    Its weaknesses have been noted by many, not just myself. If I agree with the comments, then I state as much. When I have more to add, then I do, as I always do. There is much to criticize.....much that could have been done better. Some undeniable and obvious, and some more a matter of personal preference. If these items had been addressed, it could easily have been a much more balanced film for many more people and for me.

    Currently it's at 10 for me mainly because it's new and fresh, despite its flaws. I understand that this could be because it's still one I've not seen enough times. I think it will indeed decline once I compare it directly with the other Bond classics, all on the blu ray format in a bondathon. I'm most interested to see how it will stack up against QoS.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Right now I have SP above TND, but honestly, I would rather put TND in the blu ray player than SP.....it's a heck of a lot of fun while being a traditional Bond film, while SP is straddling the fence as far as I'm concerned, trying to be all deep on one hand and also trying to be flippant on the other hand.
    Precisely. Which is why TND is #3 & SP is #4 in my rankings.
    ;))

    Despite catering too much to American English I agree that TND is underrated as a Bond film.

    It's just a straight Bond film no lofty goals beyond just to entertain.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Right now I have SP above TND, but honestly, I would rather put TND in the blu ray player than SP.....it's a heck of a lot of fun while being a traditional Bond film, while SP is straddling the fence as far as I'm concerned, trying to be all deep on one hand and also trying to be flippant on the other hand.
    Precisely. Which is why TND is #3 & SP is #4 in my rankings.
    ;))

    Despite catering too much to American English I agree that TND is underrated as a Bond film.

    It's just a straight Bond film no lofty goals beyond just to entertain.
    Pure adulterated fun.
    :))
  • Posts: 486
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Despite catering too much to American English I agree that TND is underrated as a Bond film.

    It's just a straight Bond film no lofty goals beyond just to entertain.

    It's my favourite Brosnan film for just that reason. It was more the archetypal Bond film than GE thought it was and just carried along with sheer fun and confidence.

    I tend to tune out with the Stealth Ship finale but then again the shoot em up conclusions in YOLT and TSWLM bored me too.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I agree with @doubleoego actually. But then....stick to the whole film on hand. One doesn't talk about the aspects and trivialities of TND. For instance how stupid and insane it is that no one properly checks their own GPS satellites, before threatening to shoot down a Chinese Mig. Hoppa, tampering with one computerized territorial circle, and the world powers suddenly are dumber than Putting and Erdoğan together.

    I really think this forum needs a topic in which we discuss all flawed little details. In which we ridicule every Bond film to death, because no one asks him/herself HOW hugo Drax got the whole damn space station in a much higher than ordinary geostationary orbit. But no one asks that because THEY LOVE THE WHOLE DAMN FILM ON THE WHOLE BECAUSE IT WAS ENTERTAINING :-).
    We do this with every film. It's always the turn of the new one to absorb the nit picky details discussion. Then we move on. SF was lambasted on here by many for years....some of those same folks are now singing the praises of SP.

    So it cuts both ways and conversations will focus on the details of the newest film in particular. That's always how it goes. Nothing new about that. If a film has more things to poke at, then it will be poked at.

    I always enjoyed the passionate (and notably detailed), as well as interesting defenses I heard for SF as well as the negatives. They were always great to read, even if I didn't agree with them. That continued here up until a few months ago.....a good long 3 yrs after the film was released.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    I've seen the film four times, and I love it a lot. Dont get me wrong, it's an amazing experience. But as I can now admit, being able to view this film objectively, it does have it's problems.. Calvin Dyson addressed them pretty well in his Youtube review. The first half of the movie is excellent. It's fun, and it doesn't try too hard while being very entertaining. My big problem is very little here, which is the "C" subplot. Then we get to Austria, with the painfully long exploration of the home and the useless crow scare "homage". The "Word of an Assassin" was a very good scene. Then we hit the clinic, and we hit our first big problem, which is Swann, who is basically bland. I also have a problem to the very uninteresting Denby which drags down the compelling journey Bond is on. Nobody cared for it, and yet it felt necessary to have it there. Maybe the story could have gone along with all that bs cut out and just focusing on Spectre. Then we head to Morocco, where the fun stops and the plot comes to a very, very slow halt. We go deeper into the Swann character (the audience doesn't care), using L'American only to play the "oh it was here all along!" cliche. I really wanted to know what was on the Vesper tape. Damn. Then again we have some awkward train conversation that forces an eye rolling question of morality on us, which lasts like... a minute, but we're supposed to believe there's an intense connection and there isn't. Craig trys way to hard to impress a girl he just barely met, he should have been more like "whatever, you're here anyways". She should have been more dependent on him, that would have been more believable. Anyway, I don't buy Craig's connection to her at all. Then there's a fight scene, very good, then it keeps dragging on and on... car through the desert... FINALLY the Moroccan lair. Very good stuff. ESB's introduction is good, dialogue here is good. The biggest problem with Blofeld here though is that is objective isn't clear. He has no direction, only power to... see people? There's no menace in his plan. Then we have a very, very odd scene where Madeline is shown her father's death. Bond imo GREATLY EXAGGERATES the reaction to it. He should have been much more calm, and got way too emotional and out of character, as if he was in love with Madeline. Bond isn't a fool for love and he should be cool as ice. The audience is lead to believe the tapes were edited or something to make it seem Bond killed Mr. White, or something else bad, which would have been interesting. It's actually funny, the opening of the film demonstrates what the second half of the film lacks, menace. The helicopter was flying around in the crowd, it would have been a disaster for it to have crashed. There was none of this or any tension in Blofeld's plan. So basically what you have is a skeleton of an evil plot and unbelievable character connections which is the film's biggest problem. It tried to be deep and personal when it should have just stayed a classic Bond adventure, instead of trying to pull a CR mashed with it. Anyway, the ending is cool but the finale also lacks any intimidation other than the fact that some girl we never cared for (who was going to leave anyway) might die. Now I'm rambling. I still really enjoy this film, the first half is 9/10, Austria turns into 7/10, in Morocco 6/10, Train 8.5, Lair 8/10, finale 7/10. So ultimately I give this film a 7.6 on an objective level.
  • Posts: 3,334
    You raise a good point about Blofeld showing Madeline the tape of her father's death, @Green. I too, thought Blofeld would alter the footage to make it look like Bond had killed Mr White rather than a suicide - that way maybe showing that once he had Nine Eyes he could manipulate the world's intelligence services by phoney propaganda.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited November 2015 Posts: 12,480
    Brosnan's films were exactly, precisely what was needed at that time. And filled the bill beautifully - his first 2 being excellent. TWINE was a mixed bag, though many love it. DAD went off the rails. But to compare eras is always tricky, truly. I love Craig's era. But I also love Brosnan's Bond and his first 2 films. And I definitely can see where they are the kind of film that was needed at that time.

    If you had put Craig's CR in place of Goldeneye (again, not possible; so these kind of ruminations are never exact or really accurate) it would not have floated everyone's boat like it did, deservedly so, when it arrived. It was fate for CR to happen when it did, and with the right actor, too.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    SPECTRE was a blast! :) Start to finish. A fun, great wonderful Bond adventure. I find a few things I'd change, but nothing major really. Perfect? No. But my overall opinion is quite strongly positive. It's fine, more than just good or adequate. It brought back in some key elements so many of us had been wanting, and it was very beautifully filmed. It is a very good Bond film indeed. I know others may dislike it, even intently, for whatever reasons - and that is okay with me. We are individuals, and not here to change others' minds (even though it sure feels like that often); we're all Bond fans. I can read about irks and things that disappointed others but not relate to it. And something I may hate, they may like.

    Just to give my view, since I've seen SPECTRE and I enjoyed it tremendously. I still love Skyfall, by the way. Two quite different films, but both excellent.
Sign In or Register to comment.