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

18485878990100

Comments

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    tigers99 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    I think Brozza's being a bit harsh on Spectre, but he's entitled to his opinion.

    It's better than any Bond film he appeared in though (including box office receipts)......ironic really.

    I agree.

    I agree too. Anyone else agree? If we find 50 'agrees' we win the lottery :-P.

    On this site you'll get 50 votes in no time.
  • tigers99 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    I think Brozza's being a bit harsh on Spectre, but he's entitled to his opinion.

    It's better than any Bond film he appeared in though (including box office receipts)......ironic really.

    I agree.

    I agree too. Anyone else agree? If we find 50 'agrees' we win the lottery :-P.

    On this site you'll get 50 votes in no time.

    >:D< you need a hug
  • Posts: 582
    tigers99 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    I think Brozza's being a bit harsh on Spectre, but he's entitled to his opinion.

    It's better than any Bond film he appeared in though (including box office receipts)......ironic really.

    I agree.

    I agree too. Anyone else agree? If we find 50 'agrees' we win the lottery :-P.

    On this site you'll get 50 votes in no time.

    >:D< you need a hug

    Can I agree a second time? :)
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    tigers99 wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    tigers99 wrote: »
    I think Brozza's being a bit harsh on Spectre, but he's entitled to his opinion.

    It's better than any Bond film he appeared in though (including box office receipts)......ironic really.

    I agree.

    I agree too. Anyone else agree? If we find 50 'agrees' we win the lottery :-P.

    On this site you'll get 50 votes in no time.

    >:D< you need a hug

    Can I agree a second time? :)

    Spectre is the best Bond movie ever, closely followed by Goldeneye, tee-hee <:-P
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited November 2015 Posts: 2,138
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Because Ben and Naomi are big stars now? As in Halle Berry big? Or Denise Richards big? And were they so prominently used in SP?

    Ludovico I could have gone to a bookmaker and put money on anyone on this forum coming back with arguing black was white it would be you.

    Berry and Richards were your typical cast Bond girls, they have always been prominent in the movies. My point is that the whole case now is made up of people and when scripting they are trying to share screen time to keep them all happy. In this Waltz and Seydoux give them loads of screen time absolutely but not have Mallory, Q and MP out in the field and anything more than a few minutes in the film. Because of this it has developed in to a TEAM MI6 thing. That's not really Bond, Bond is a lone wolf.

    You ditch the need to keep a high profile supporting cast, you limit their time on screen it gives you more creative space to focus on Bond, the mission, the villain the over all plot. Rather than "we better make him go back to London again, so that we give Fiennes, Wishaw and Harris some more screen time.

    Old formula

    PTS
    Bond doing something at his leisure before being summoned to HQ
    MP - A few minutes flirting
    M - 5 to 10 minutes tops "here is your mission report to Q branch in the morning/now"
    Q - 5 minutes - "Here is what I have for you 007"
    Bond arriving in some far off location, investigating
    Bond Meets the main Bond girl of the movie, likely using her to get to someone else
    Car chase
    A twist
    Second Exotic Location
    A second girl
    A showdown and gun fight
    Bond 1 on 1 with the villain
    MP - final flirt a few minutes
    M - Congratulation - a few minutes

    I don't mind it cutting back to London showing M in meeting with ministers or official is it is pertinent to the story. Those aspects have been around from Connery films. Just not central to the action or helping Bond do his job in the field.

    We have gone from the UK supporting cast being in the film for 20 minutes to them featuring in most of the films. It started with Dame Judi - "Oh we have Dame Judi, we better use her more than we did any previous M and it has just grown arms and legs it didn't matter where he went she would show up, right through Brosnan and now Craig, I thought when they did away with her in Skyfall all of it would stop, but it was worse in Spectre.

    Bond 25 give me William Boyd - Solo, just so I can see Bond solo again without it before we start renaming the films "The M Team".

  • Posts: 15,124
    dragonsky wrote: »
    Interesting comment I found on youtube:


    This is just a thought, but could the villians of the Daniel Graig James Bond films represent the Seven Deadly Sins?
    Casino Royale: Le Chiffre = Greed (banker of the underworld)
    Quantum of Solace; Greene = Gluttony (wants the watersupply of Bolivia)
    Skyfall: Silvia = Wrath (wants revenge on MI6 and M)
    spectre: Blofeld = Pride ('i am the author of all your pain' (or something like that), he sees himself above Bond, which you could say 'pride').

    What is left: Envy, Lust and Sloth.

    Involuntarily but yes.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    To be fair, @Gustav_Graves - and I'm going off of a page 86 post of yours - you did trash QoS for not being in depth and explaining where the dams came from, and yet a few posts later, you said that we should look to the older films, where we were simply entertained and didn't need all the answers. So, which is it? I see the plot of QoS trashed a lot on here, when it really isn't that difficult to grasp. Do we really need to see how the dams are built? Should we go into Greene's backstory as a kid? Maybe delve into what types of sweets are Elvis' favorites, while we're at it?
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Ludovico wrote: »
    dragonsky wrote: »
    Interesting comment I found on youtube:


    This is just a thought, but could the villians of the Daniel Graig James Bond films represent the Seven Deadly Sins?
    Casino Royale: Le Chiffre = Greed (banker of the underworld)
    Quantum of Solace; Greene = Gluttony (wants the watersupply of Bolivia)
    Skyfall: Silvia = Wrath (wants revenge on MI6 and M)
    spectre: Blofeld = Pride ('i am the author of all your pain' (or something like that), he sees himself above Bond, which you could say 'pride').

    What is left: Envy, Lust and Sloth.

    Involuntarily but yes.

    Blofeld was Envy when you think about it. But no surprise as the trigger for a mad man will always be something sinful.
  • Posts: 11,425
    You people live in your own world.

    All 4 Brosnan movies did more than good. I'm pretty sure everyone involved was very happy from 1995-2002.

    And outside of such forums, the Brosnan-era is not looked upon more critically than Dalton's or even Moore's.

    Get a grip and face reality.

    A lot of people have mentioned to me recently how awful the Brosnan era was. A friend of mine who grew up with Brosnan as Bond could only muster 'GE was pretty good, but that's because of Sean Bean'.

    Look at the Brosnan and Dalton movies on IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes or wherever, and apart from GE all the Brosnan films rank lower than the Dalton films. Even GE ties with LTK on Rotten Tomatoes.

    There's an outdated assumption that people don't like Dalton, but times have changed. As with Lazenby and OHMSS (once dismissed as a second rate irrelevance) fans and critics have come to appreciate Dalton a lot more. Infact, if you read the reviews, Dalton was getting a lot of positive press even at the time.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Getafix wrote: »
    You people live in your own world.

    All 4 Brosnan movies did more than good. I'm pretty sure everyone involved was very happy from 1995-2002.

    And outside of such forums, the Brosnan-era is not looked upon more critically than Dalton's or even Moore's.

    Get a grip and face reality.

    A lot of people have mentioned to me recently how awful the Brosnan era was. A friend of mine who grew up with Brosnan as Bond could only muster 'GE was pretty good, but that's because of Sean Bean'.

    Look at the Brosnan and Dalton movies on IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes or wherever, and apart from GE all the Brosnan films rank lower than the Dalton films. Even GE ties with LTK on Rotten Tomatoes.

    There's an outdated assumption that people don't like Dalton, but times have changed. As with Lazenby and OHMSS (once dismissed as a second rate irrelevance) fans and critics have come to appreciate Dalton a lot more. Infact, if you read the reviews, Dalton was getting a lot of positive press even at the time.

    Dalton was the basis for Craig Bond, Dalton did Gritty Bond first, without a doubt a greater appreciation for Dalton since the Craig films. People have gone back and said "I can see what Tim was trying to do there".
  • Posts: 15,124
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Because Ben and Naomi are big stars now? As in Halle Berry big? Or Denise Richards big? And were they so prominently used in SP?

    Ludovico I could have gone to a bookmaker and put money on anyone on this forum coming back with arguing black was white it would be you.

    Berry and Richards were your typical cast Bond girls, they have always been prominent in the movies. My point is that the whole case now is made up of people and when scripting they are trying to share screen time to keep them all happy. In this Waltz and Seydoux give them loads of screen time absolutely but not have Mallory, Q and MP out in the field and anything more than a few minutes in the film. Because of this it has developed in to a TEAM MI6 thing. That's not really Bond, Bond is a lone wolf.

    You ditch the need to keep a high profile supporting cast, you limit their time on screen it gives you more creative space to focus on Bond, the mission, the villain the over all plot. Rather than "we better make him go back to London again, so that we give Fiennes, Wishaw and Harris some more screen time.

    Old formula

    PTS
    Bond doing
  • Getafix wrote: »
    Is it too late to join the party? Just got back from my first viewing of SPECTRE in IMAX, I'll try to gather some thoughts.



    The opening pre-title sequence is absolutely amazing, from the tracking shot to the helicopter sequence it's an absolute wonder and by the time Writing's On The Wall had finished, I had found a new appreciation for it. The ensuing plot of Bond following trail of breadcrumbs felt like watching all the best parts of moonraker. Seeing Mr White again was a treat, I wasn't aware of how much he would play into the plot, but they use him quite a lot and it puts a nice little bow on the whole Casino Royale- Quantum storyline.

    I can't go on without talking about the performances either, pretty much everyone hits their mark. I'll get into Blofeld a little bit later, but the cast of MI6 is fantastic as always, ESPECIALLY Ben Whishaw who has really managed to bring something unique and great to the role of Q. Léa Seydoux does a wonderful job as well, her an Craig have enough chemistry to make the whole "I love you" part work, but only just barely. It was always going to be a hard act to follow Vesper and while this doesn't beat that, I had no real objections with how the Bond-Swann relationship turned out. Andrew Scott was good enough to where I wanted to see more of him and same can be said of Bautista. He brings a quiet, charming presence to Mr Hinx and manages to stand out in a sea of henchmen with just a smile. It was a shame he left the movie as early as he did, his presence would have severely lifted the last 30 minutes.

    I've avoided talking about the main man himself, Daniel Craig, so far, but now is the time. He's perfect. Daniel Craig IS Bond in this movie. The character arc he's gone through from Casino Royale to Skyfall feels like it finally paid off, every scene oozes with confidence and charm and all the little jokes worked PERFECTLY for me. It's the biggest positive I take away from Spectre and considering the perfeormance of a Bond actor has always been the driving force behind all these movies, it lifts Spectre up considerably.

    I found myself really really enjoying all of the action and set pieces leading up to the Blofeld lair bit. They blow their biggest and best pieces early on, but I was never bored for even a moment and the plot is genuinely intriguing enough to have kept me fixated. Really, the movie was riding a on a major major high note for me right up until the last 30 minutes or so, where things start to fall apart.

    So Blofeld, let's talk about him shall we? Christoph Waltz is a good actor, NAY a GREAT actor, his presence and performance in the Tarantino movies are simply mesmerizing, but for some reason he couldn't bring that same energy to Spectre. He's not bad by any means, he simply falls victim to higher expectations and odd pacing. The meeting room scene early on is wonderfully tense and the torture sequence is both exciting and excruciating, but for the most part the whole Blofeld storyline feels underutilized and the sequence taking place in his evil lair almost feels like an afterthought. Over in a blink of an eye.

    Why go through the effort of setting up this relationship between him and Bond and then not really do anything with it? There really isn't an emotional confrontation between them and his motivations just aren't conveyed strongly enough. We are supposed to believe he's hated Bond his entire life, all because of daddy issues? And he's spent so much time making sure Bond suffers, when he's minutes away from becoming one of the worlds top leaders? It's hard to buy it all and it comes across as a lazy attempt at trying to add depth. The only thing it adds, is that Blofeld finally has a reason to keep Bond alive besides having to fill his broomcloset.

    Blofeld feels more like a necessity in the movie than anything logical to the plot, they don't actually DO anything new with him, anything that would set him apart from the 60's version, it feels like they HAD to have him in the movie, he HAD to be the big boss, he HAD to have the lair, he HAD to have the jacket and he HAD to get a scar in the end. And all of that SHOULD be wonderful and make us Bond fans jump up and down with glee, but it just comes across as lazy and tired. There's nothing new or interesting about him. I enjoyed seeing the persian cat, but the scar serves NO purpose and doesn't even make sense when you think about what caused it. It should be a "FUCK YES" moment when he finally reveals his name, but instead it's just a "oh? yeah okay then" one. They spent all this time making sure nobody spoiled that Waltz was playing Blofeld and even created a fake name like Oberhauser, but it's obvious to ANYONE that he was Blofeld all along. So the whole "Oberhauser" part serves no purpose and the name reveal is as underwhelming as it could be.

    All of this leads the last 30 minutes of the movie feeling a bit empty, the action sequences aren't as interesting as the ones that came before and without really any investment to Blofeld, you lose interest. I actually found myself being MORE interested about C and would have liked to see him have a bigger role. That's not to say the last 30 minutes are AWFUL or anything, it's great to see the MI6 crew running around, Bond having to rush against a ticking bomb to save Swann is fun and the old MI6 building location is really interesting. It's just a disappointing way to end and otherwise great GREAT Bond adventure.

    So how do I wrap this up? Well, despite all I mentioned above, I enjoyed Spectre GREATLY and can't wait to rewatch it soon. The first 2 hours or so are probably my favorite out of all the Craig movies and I LOVE CR and Skyfall. The last act IS disappointing and Blofeld doesn't live up to his potential, but it's not enough to ruin the movie for me and I have a feeling I will end up watching Spectre a lot more than CR or Skyfall, simply due to how fun it is. A few rewrites here and there and it could have been an easy top 3.

    I think there is an answer to your criticisms - Purvis and Wade. The sooner we see the back of them the better. Whenever plodding cliche makes an appearance in a Bond movie I recognise their signature straight away.

    I agree with a lot of what you say here. Blofeld is a bit of a disappointment in the end, but still, overall it's a decent entry.

    To reiterate, my only problems with the movie stem from the script, it's a beautifully shot, well directed, excellently acted film othwerwise. It's hard to know who to really blame here, Purvis and Wade can certainly be a part of the problem, but I feel the whole "Blofeld is Bond's brother" came from Logan as did the love story.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Getafix wrote: »
    You people live in your own world.

    All 4 Brosnan movies did more than good. I'm pretty sure everyone involved was very happy from 1995-2002.

    And outside of such forums, the Brosnan-era is not looked upon more critically than Dalton's or even Moore's.

    Get a grip and face reality.

    A lot of people have mentioned to me recently how awful the Brosnan era was. A friend of mine who grew up with Brosnan as Bond could only muster 'GE was pretty good, but that's because of Sean Bean'.

    Look at the Brosnan and Dalton movies on IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes or wherever, and apart from GE all the Brosnan films rank lower than the Dalton films. Even GE ties with LTK on Rotten Tomatoes.

    There's an outdated assumption that people don't like Dalton, but times have changed. As with Lazenby and OHMSS (once dismissed as a second rate irrelevance) fans and critics have come to appreciate Dalton a lot more. Infact, if you read the reviews, Dalton was getting a lot of positive press even at the time.

    You preach to the choir.
    No argument about Dalton here, he's still criminally underrated in rankings :)
  • Posts: 15,124
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Because Ben and Naomi are big stars now? As in Halle Berry big? Or Denise Richards big? And were they so prominently used in SP?

    Ludovico I could have gone to a bookmaker and put money on anyone on this forum coming back with arguing black was white it would be you.

    Berry and Richards were your typical cast Bond girls, they have always been prominent in the movies. My point is that the whole case now is made up of people and when scripting they are trying to share screen time to keep them all happy. In this Waltz and Seydoux give them loads of screen time absolutely but not have Mallory, Q and MP out in the field and anything more than a few minutes in the film. Because of this it has developed in to a TEAM MI6 thing. That's not really Bond, Bond is a lone wolf.

    You ditch the need to keep a high profile supporting cast, you limit their time on screen it gives you more creative space to focus on Bond, the mission, the villain the over all plot. Rather than "we better make him go back to London again, so that we give Fiennes, Wishaw and Harris some more screen time.

    Old formula

    PTS
    Bond doing
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I like Brosnan and although I'm not his biggest fan give the guy some credit. I think he gave an honest and fair opinion of what he thought of SP and Craig. Say what you want about his Bond movies but he himself knows his Bond movies were creatively suffocated and I think he's smart enough to know they could have been better. Still, just because his movies weren't FRWL or CR it doesn't mean he can't give an honest assessment on how he feels about the Bond movies after his tenure. It's important to know that he didn't trash the film but only expressed a couple of issues he had with it like everyone of us here and had nothing but praise and support for Craig.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Because Ben and Naomi are big stars now? As in Halle Berry big? Or Denise Richards big? And were they so prominently used in SP?

    Ludovico I could have gone to a bookmaker and put money on anyone on this forum coming back with arguing black was white it would be you.

    Berry and Richards were your typical cast Bond girls, they have always been prominent in the movies. My point is that the whole case now is made up of people and when scripting they are trying to share screen time to keep them all happy. In this Waltz and Seydoux give them loads of screen time absolutely but not have Mallory, Q and MP out in the field and anything more than a few minutes in the film. Because of this it has developed in to a TEAM MI6 thing. That's not really Bond, Bond is a lone wolf.

    You ditch the need to keep a high profile supporting cast, you limit their time on screen it gives you more creative space to focus on Bond, the mission, the villain the over all plot. Rather than "we better make him go back to London again, so that we give Fiennes, Wishaw and Harris some more screen time.

    Old formula

    PTS
    Bond doing something at his leisure before being summoned to HQ
    MP - A few minutes flirting
    M - 5 to 10 minutes tops "here is your mission report to Q branch in the morning/now"
    Q - 5 minutes - "Here is what I have for you 007"
    Bond arriving in some far off location, investigating
    Bond Meets the main Bond girl of the movie, likely using her to get to someone else
    Car chase
    A twist
    Second Exotic Location
    A second girl
    A showdown and gun fight
    Bond 1 on 1 with the villain
    MP - final flirt a few minutes
    M - Congratulation - a few minutes

    I don't mind it cutting back to London showing M in meeting with ministers or official is it is pertinent to the story. Those aspects have been around from Connery films. Just not central to the action or helping Bond do his job in the field.

    We have gone from the UK supporting cast being in the film for 20 minutes to them featuring in most of the films. It started with Dame Judi - "Oh we have Dame Judi, we better use her more than we did any previous M and it has just grown arms and legs it didn't matter where he went she would show up, right through Brosnan and now Craig, I thought when they did away with her in Skyfall all of it would stop, but it was worse in Spectre.

    Bond 25 give me William Boyd - Solo, just so I can see Bond solo aga
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    dragonsky wrote: »
    Interesting comment I found on youtube:


    This is just a thought, but could the villians of the Daniel Graig James Bond films represent the Seven Deadly Sins?
    Casino Royale: Le Chiffre = Greed (banker of the underworld)
    Quantum of Solace; Greene = Gluttony (wants the watersupply of Bolivia)
    Skyfall: Silvia = Wrath (wants revenge on MI6 and M)
    spectre: Blofeld = Pride ('i am the author of all your pain' (or something like that), he sees himself above Bond, which you could say 'pride').

    What is left: Envy, Lust and Sloth.

    Interesting indeed.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Getafix wrote: »
    I think there is an answer to your criticisms - Purvis and Wade. The sooner we see the back of them the better. Whenever plodding cliche makes an appearance in a Bond movie I recognise their signature straight away.
    There have been much sillier scripts made into much more entertaining Bond films, so P&W are the smallest problem, if at all.

  • Posts: 11,425
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I think there is an answer to your criticisms - Purvis and Wade. The sooner we see the back of them the better. Whenever plodding cliche makes an appearance in a Bond movie I recognise their signature straight away.
    There have been much sillier scripts made into much more entertaining Bond films, so P&W are the smallest problem, if at all.

    I always feel there's a plodding dead-weight to the films almost whenever P+W are involved.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Getafix wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I think there is an answer to your criticisms - Purvis and Wade. The sooner we see the back of them the better. Whenever plodding cliche makes an appearance in a Bond movie I recognise their signature straight away.
    There have been much sillier scripts made into much more entertaining Bond films, so P&W are the smallest problem, if at all.

    I always feel there's a plodding dead-weight to the films almost whenever P+W are involved.
    Perhaps, but they still remain the smallest problem ;-).

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    This is really strange... I want to know it I'm the only one.
    During the film, in the scenes in the compound in the meteor crater, I never ONCE though about YOLT's volcano lair. In fact, NO OTHER Bond film came to mind at all during my viewing. I was just so in the moment with the movie.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    chrisisall wrote: »
    This is really strange... I want to know it I'm the only one.
    During the film, in the scenes in the compound in the meteor crater, I never ONCE though about YOLT's volcano lair. In fact, NO OTHER Bond film came to mind at all during my viewing. I was just so in the moment with the movie.

    I thought, as with a lot of the film, there were allusions to the mythos but done in a brilliant way. If you'd told me on paper they were riffing on the volcano lair I'd have hated it, but in reality it's bloody perfect and I love the theatricality of the meteor exposition. Straight out of a Fleming novel.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,423
    In the scene where Bond and Dr. Swann are examining the meteoric, with the disembodied voice of ESB I was reminded of Dr. No's tarantula room. There's even a skylight similar to the wonderful Ken Adam set. And what with Bond and Swann arriving to their rooms, with their clothes laid out, I felt a very Dr. No type of vibe.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    royale65 wrote: »
    In the scene where Bond and Dr. Swann are examining the meteoric, with the disembodied voice of ESB I was reminded of Dr. No's tarantula room. There's even a skylight similar to the wonderful Ken Adam set.
    I got a very familiar Bond feel during that, but didn't consciously make the connection then.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    chrisisall wrote: »
    royale65 wrote: »
    In the scene where Bond and Dr. Swann are examining the meteoric, with the disembodied voice of ESB I was reminded of Dr. No's tarantula room. There's even a skylight similar to the wonderful Ken Adam set.
    I got a very familiar Bond feel during that, but didn't consciously make the connection then.

    Which is why it's so good imo. It combines ingredients that feel Bondian, but it isn't a straight rip off.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I was largely pretty happy with how the film looked.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    RC7 wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    royale65 wrote: »
    In the scene where Bond and Dr. Swann are examining the meteoric, with the disembodied voice of ESB I was reminded of Dr. No's tarantula room. There's even a skylight similar to the wonderful Ken Adam set.
    I got a very familiar Bond feel during that, but didn't consciously make the connection then.

    Which is why it's so good imo. It combines ingredients that feel Bondian, but it isn't a straight rip off.

    Exactly, SP just nails it!
  • Posts: 1,993
    Saw SPECTRE again last night and actually enjoyed it quite a bit more. Sometimes on a first viewing there's almost too much to take in. Much in this film references previous films. A lot felt familiar, but in a new way. Meteorite room is definitely a reminder of Dent waiting for orders from Dr. No. Train fight, expanded FRWL. White cat and "Hello, Pussy."
    But also Lawrence of Arabia, Casablanca, Touch of Evil, etc. So many, a separate thread might serve better.

    But a couple of quibbles, as there always seems to be in a Bond film. Not sure how much time passed between blowing up ESB's fortress and Bond arriving at the bombed out
    MI6 building. I assume very little, since Blofeld wasn't even wearing a bandage over that nasty wound. It's the red strings in the MI6 building that bother me. Who rigged them up and when? How long did it take? Also, what was the purpose of the net inside the building? I realize one should never think too hard about a Bond, but sometimes the little things rankle.





  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited November 2015 Posts: 17,801
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Also, what was the purpose of the net inside the building?
    That's a standard net they use in buildings with missing floors & rubble about to protect workers from falling debris on the site. When Bond jumped I'd forgotten we'd seen it just minutes before and I realized what a genius he really is. \m/
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @CrabKey

    The building was prepared by the city to be blown up controlled.
    Those are the many red cables.
    The net was there for safety reasons.
Sign In or Register to comment.