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
I agree with this. Even if the film is flawed, the cinematography in this movie was top notch. So was the original score (and even some of the reused Cues from Skyfall). Those two elements in and of themselves can take a mediocre or average film and elevate up another level. But Craig himself also carries the film, and even though I didn't have the big issues with Spectre that others had, sometimes how a movie is packaged is more important than what is being showed. Imagine if the same director of Die Another Day directed Spectre! Even if the script and scenes were exactly the same, I don't think I would be singing it's praises as much as I'm doing now!
It's amazing Getafix that a lot of people who liked Skyfall better actually find Spectre more entertaining and watchable (although it sounds liked Spectre more anyway). I think technically Skyfall excels more than Spectre in many aspects, but a lot of Bond fans were missing the more traditional feel of some of the earlier Bond films. I like these two films a lot for different reasons, and that's why there is room for both films in the Bond universe.
Great points as well Mendes. Just as some here find Spectre too cartoonish, others feel there is still too much heavy handedness at times. I guess I like the film because they loosened things up a bit, at least relative to the other Craig films. But I can also see why you and others think it was still too dark. And I agree, the "its personal" storylines need to stop. Hopefully that will occur when a new Bond actor is named. But as long as Craig is around, you will probably get one more of these types of films. Unfortunately the "personal" films started in the Brosnan era with TWINE, and although not as well written during his era, all of these films have one common denominator being a certain two writers who have had their hand in the last six films. Like it or not, many people don't mind this as the box office numbers have been solid to great during this time. As I said, this style probably continues at least as long as Craig is around, if he comes back for another film.
Well said Brady!
I think SP fails in not establishing the villain and his motives very well. I was reminded of the Devil May Care continuation novel, where M says "this is the worst villain we've come across" and the reader is expected to believe that without any emotional attachment or reason to think so.
Another thing that irks me, is the fact that the SPECTRE acronym is never explained.
But, all that said, I think it's a classy entry, and I enjoy it lots. Despite the QoS miss-step, I still think the Craig era has given us the strongest run of quality Bond films since the sixties.
This is as civil as I can get at this point.
I'm aware of the scene in question, and the shot, but again, it doesn't ring of a Moore film to me. There's no cartoonish reaction from the man beyond an awe-struck, frozen look, far removed from the crazy reactions extras gave in Moore's films that were way too overplayed. Of course when a man runs a gondola through a street and smashes into Parisian structures in a cut up car, you'll get people a little concerned, but I think the cut aways to extras got too out of hand after a while, much like the back projection of the 60s.
As I said earlier, those moments feel far too normal to be Moore-esque. It doesn't really equate to Bond throwing a fish out of his submarine-car hybrid after coming out of the sea, or him playing tennis while in the middle of a chase in India, of all things. Moore type humor is the sort that makes me want to face-palm myself to death. I enjoyed the SP humor in contrast because it was closer to the Young films. But this is retreating old ground and I'm frankly sick of talking about it over and over.
Also, as a Sinatra devotee I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the version of "New York, New York" used in the film is not his. Probably because the royalties to his estate were criminal.
With how much they sunk into that chase sequence, I'm shocked they used anything but Sinatra's version.
I quite agree
Perhaps splitting the difference here, it seems like the public has accepted Craig as Bond regardless of the tone of the stories. Spectre made a lot of money, as did the more serious Craig films, and the studio seems to recognize that.
I prefer a tough Bond with some humor that does not undercut the story, like the Young films, or even some of the humor I saw in both CR and SF.
The 'breezy' lighter Bonds of the 1970's just bore me, don't really feel like that's the character as written by Fleming or portrayed by Moore's predecessors. Again, to be specific, the Bonds should have some humor, but not the out-and-out comedy of everything Moore. And Bond should always be tough, and Moore and to a lesser degree Brosnan (after GE) kinda exemplify the more style/less tough Bond that gets parodied over and over.
Some of the humor in CR, QoS, and SF was hard to detect sometimes. I couldn't tell if he was making a serious statement or a joke. The darker tone of those films threw me off on that subject. SPECTRE however, was lighter in tone and I got every joke that was made.
That's the very definition of dry humor.
No comment on the Brosnan statement; I can't bear to continue.
"I thought Christmas only comes once a year" is the definition of cringe-worthy dialogue.
lol I suppose it is but since this isn't a comedy it was hard to tell if it was even dry humor. Now that I've seen his movies over and over I now know what the jokes are.
Bullshit, DAD should've nabbed a few Oscars, because it takes a genius to write dialogue such as "Yo mama!" or "Time to face gravity!"
I always forget about that line :)) everyone finds it cringe-worthy but I laugh every time he says it.
And what I meant by cheesy, is pretty much the Moore era. It worked for his movies back then but it wouldn't today. I think the Brosnan era got it right for the modern day.
I'm also only talking about Bond himself, not the characters around him. Like when M joins in on the sexual innuendo in TND, that was cringe-worthy. Also, the crap that Jinx spews out in DAD is bad... all of it.
Pierce got saddled with three bad stories and bad directors after that.
How thats executed is on the director however.
The latter is a psychopath. That said, many great directors are.
One think you can applaud the Brosnan era for is the amount of risks it took. Apted was selected due to the abundance of strong female leads in his films, which served undeniable importance with regards to Elektra. Tamahori was hired because of his pacing and brutality, after the producers saw Once We're Warriors. Unfortunately, they gave him far too much creative control over the project, which ended up morphing into largely ridiculous, CGI-infested product (though many positive aspects retained). When it came down to Apted, much of his career focused on documentary films, and in turn, when on to be an inexperienced action/thriller director