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
Totally agreed.
Agreed as well.
I kind of wish that they had kept the original version of Blofeld intact for the film (as well as a lot of Logan's ideas that were scrapped). They weren't ideas that were the most faithful to Fleming's idea of Bond that we've ever seen, but given the absolute bore of a film that Spectre turned out to be, I would have welcomed the alternative, which could at least have been an interesting, if still messy, film.
Bond and Madeleine worked the best for me yet this watch, and I just enjoyed the whole experience more with repeated viewing. It's great to see Dan playing so many scenes how I'd imagine Sean would play them in his day, too. Everything he does feels so cool and calculated, as if I'm watching a 60s Connery and not a modern day Bond. The film is also a technical marvel. There's CGI that you don't even know is CGI, great photography and phenomenal sound design, the magnum opus of which is in the Rome meeting, where you hear the creak of every unsettled SPECTRE member's seat as Blofeld enters, and all the coughs and cruel whispers in between. You can feel the fear and anxiety bursting in the room.
Sam and Hoyte beautifully play with a lot of motifs as well, from doubles and reflections, to eyes, skulls, ravens, and more, that all come together to paint a very unsettling, cruel picture. SPECTRE almost feels gothic and disturbed at times, and I love that.
The only thing that still bugs me is that torture scene. If they'd have shown Bond visibly struggling afterwards, with Madeleine having to step in and pick up his slack with a gun, it'd make for one of the best scenes in the film. As it stands, it just doesn't make sense, unless Blofeld has a bad eye and he completely missed the spot that he was aiming for to do maximum damage. How it was filmed as is has been a perplexing mystery to me, because it could have been so easily improved, with little to no effort.
Still, as it stands, I love the film and how it advances the journey of James Bond across these four movies. I actually think I prefer SP to SF, too, though it's the Craig era and I love them all for different reasons. CR still takes the crown, though.
With a chair like that, I'm sure he knew what he was talking about.
Agreed.
Blofeld's just waiting for the next film where they retcon everything again to show the torture actually working. ;)
BLOFELD: So, if I want to drill into his skull, where do I do it?
SCIENTIST: Wherever.
BLOFELD: But to scare him?
SCIENTIST: Anywhere will scare him.
BLOFELD: I mean, psychologically!
SCIENTIST: Use obscure technical brain references and say that he'll lose his vision or memory or something.
BOLFELD: I like it!
SCIENTIST: Enough for a bonus?
EON must accept this dialogue as canon immediately! It's the only thing that makes sense of it. :D
So if Bond 25 (with a new actor) will be great , Sp will be less appreciated.
It doesn't have the story, acting or innovation to be one of the greats, but it wont be remembered as badly as some hate suggests either.
Despite the plot holes, SF will always be fondly remembered and CR is an instant classic and deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as FRWL, OHMSS. While SP will just be a footnote.
Its almost a pity because I actually enjoyed SP.
I've tried to think about this over the last year and now I feel SP will be one of those more controversial Bond films.
As with other films in the Craig era it tries to go deeper into Bond's past life and paint him out as a more "complex" character. Problem is, where it was somewhat successful in other films, here the inclusion of Blofeld's as Bond's step-brother was met with raised eyebrows from not only hardcore fans but also members of the public.
They arguably went too far with the personal angle and a fair number of people seem to see through it.
1) Casino
2) Spectre
3) Quantum
4) Skyfall
That's my list...
SP and CR are neck and neck imo.
Also, Bond didn't live with blofeld for long and he was never adopted into his family. Just a close family friend whose parents died and blofelds dad focused more on bond apparently than blofeld.
No evil brother story.
I don't think it will grow on audiences like Quantum seems to do but over time leave many people's Top 10 if they have ranking this high after all. Too bad for it's definitely existing awesome scenes and moments ...
I haven't really seen many of Joe Public reassess QoS either. It's rather a forgotten film for those I know who are casual fans. It's really only in the 'hardcore fan community' where it has received a revival of sorts as far as I can tell.
As I've written about a lot in the past, the themes of the film are immaculate, with a special focus on paternal relationships and surveillance, as well as with featuring Bond examine a future for himself beyond what he's doing at the time a la OHMSS. Daniel is so relaxed in the role, and so many moments feel like a return to Terence Young's style with a nice balance in earnestness and wit. The finale isn't the greatest of all time, but I do get tingles in my stomach and feel excitement when Bond looks up at the ruins of MI6 and sees the game unfolding before him, racing to save Madeleine. I also think that on a technical level the film is really impressive, especially when it comes to its use of sound design, an element which hasn't felt as important to me in any other Bond film for some reason.
It's very hard to view SF and SP separately, because they are so attached to the hip in my mind, a true part 1 and 2 set of films that are better experienced back to back then separately, sharing strengths to combine into one journey or adventure.
I absolutely agree that the Blofeld personal angle is disappointing, and I think that it makes him a lesser villain because of it. I love Christoph's performance and how the film endeavors to make Blofeld a manipulator/controller with agents that react to his every beck and call like robotic drones, but when he reveals his past with Bond the dialogue and context of the moment make him seem like a petulant child whose daddy issues made him want to take over the world. It's not fully because of that, as I think Blofeld simply wanted to show everyone how amazing he was in general (as the character has always been an egotist) but one could make the impression that his daddy issues are the source of his evil if they only go on what the film has given them. I hope that with another Craig film we'll get a better sense of him as a character, and I hope the script is able to give Blofeld some real meat without pressing the personal angle between him and Bond.
I think SP would be immensely improved and far more favored if Blofeld simply went after Bond because he's angry at how many past schemes of his he has foiled in the past. That's how it was in the Connery era, and that's all the motivation Blofeld needed, because as an organizer of crime there's nothing more dangerous than an agent or agency that can spot your plans and cost you manpower and resources over and over again as Bond did post-FRWL when he could tell just what kinds of schemes SPECTRE would go in for, like the NATO nuke job and the shuttle theft in TB and YOLT respectively.
In SP it would have been interesting if Blofeld was simply going at Bond because he was sick of his meddling, and nothing more. Little in the film would have to change to reflect this motive, and with only White and Madeleine familiar with Blofeld, it would make Bond even more uneasy as to what kind of man this bastard is that's trying to kill him for his past work against Quantum. A lot of impact, mystery, fear and suspense is lost in SP by Bond already knowing Ernst, and I think that element in the script is a reason why so many think there's no stakes or tension to the story. I also think there's a subconscious mourning of Judi Dench's M going on, who for the first time in twenty years (!) wasn't in a Bond film. I know some don't like this M, but for those that did I think on some unconscious level her absence in SP has also impacted the film negatively, as she had become a familiar face in the series and to suddenly be without her makes the movie feel inherently odd and strange.
I completely get the complaints of people here, and find most of them to be quite understandable and supported by argument, which isn't always the case for the dissenters of some other films. More than anything it can at times be a frustrating film, because minor tweaks could have made it so much better (though I enjoy it already), including a tweaking of the Blofeld motive, and in the torture scene, actually making Bond seem out of it following Blofeld's work on him to make his escape from the base seem dangerous.
It's hard to say how SP will be viewed in a few year's time, but I hope it goes far more the way QoS has to a greater level of respect in the Bond community for what it tried to do, as experimental as it was to some. I hope its hints of the Young films, its use of suspense, Bond's characterization as a predator and the hints it carries of Dr. No pull people in as the film ages, as they have me, in addition to the Hinx fight that has become one of my favorite scenes in Bond, the continued development of Bond as a character and the many strong themes and motifs the film has that makes it quite a rich piece of cinematic art.
As it stands now SP is probably my least loved Craig film, but that's like saying The Dark Knight Rises is my least liked Nolan Batman film; I love them all, and one of them has to take the last spot by design. The Craig era is still the only era in which I love all the films to a high degree, and that is something.
That's all from me for now regarding SP, but I'd be happy to discuss things more if people had further questions on the film and what I think of it.
In my mind, Craig has made two very good Bond Films (CR & SF) and too distinctly average Bond films (QoS & SP).
CR was fresh and reinvigorated the franchise. The story was good, Craig excellent and it had a depth rarely seen in Bond films. The ending in Venice was a little bloated but all in all they executed it very well. Craig's best.
QoS felt hurried and confused. Whilst the idea of picking up the story was a good one, the writing lacked the depth and vision of its predecessor (not helped by the writers strike no doubt). Craig is still excellent, but actors can only work with the material they are given.
SF had class and elegance and restored some of the classic Bond staples that had been missing from the previous entries. Craig and Mendes clearly had chemistry and they had a story to work with. It has its flaws and doesn't quite reach the levels of CR, but a classy outing nonetheless.
SP wont age well in my view. Whilst it has several memorable and well executed sequences, the spine of the story fails to bring them together. Tonally it seems confused, as if they were trying to usher in more humor whilst at the same time return to the depths of CR. And the Blofeld and Swann stories don't quite carry the same weight as say Vesper or the OHMSS incarnation of Blofeld. Ultimately it all comes back to the writing and for whatever reason the script felt like it was a hodgepodge of ideas constructed by committee without the oversight of someone who knew where the story was supposed to be heading.