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
It actually reminds me most of Die Another Day in terms of frustration. We all wanted them to take the set up to that film (Bond being captured and tortured) and run with it, but instead they pull it back to the standard Brosnan fare. Well, here it's the same thing. We are given some humourous scenes, a nice chase, but when push comes to shove its back to the standard Craig stuff. This character has a history with this character, this character can't trust this character etc. The scene where Madeline falls asleep on the bed drunk is one of the worst in Bond history. I think we just have to face the fact that we are never going to get the standard formula just updated to the modern era until there is a new actor playing Bond.
Agreed! FYEO-LTK are all good examples of using actual Fleming. In each, the Fleming is the best part. I don't know why they jettisoned this idea after LTK, although I suppose they did use MR for GE and DAD.
Frustration is a good way to describe it. I really liked the return to formula ( q scene, even the subtle humour) but it fails on mainly the plot and score. And also unnecessarily mess up so many things - gun barrel, cartoony helicopter fight, Bond becomes Superman after the excellent torture scene. It's almost a mirror image of dad (Skyfall as well - suddenly you've become useful again, re evaluation, someone from Bond past resurfaces)
It's like they remade Skyfall, except the villain is after Bond not M, and instead of the family home at the end its the old office building.
I'll reiterate what I've said before: the smartest person involved with Spectre (apart from Ralph Fiennes) is Roger Deakins, who turned the project down because he believed he'd only be repeating himself.
There's always a chance that 20 years from now popular tastes around narrative/character have changed and the story is re-appraised. That might redeem some of the part of the movie that I find most frustrating.
But at the very least, I think odds are good that it will always be appreciated as a good looking Bond movie.
1-A storyline that tells too quickly, basically a film that compresses two into one, leading to untold explanations and underwritten characters.
2-Oberhauser being Blofeld being Bond's "foster brother".
3-The London Finale done MI5/Spooks style.
Otherwise, I like the film and don't demonize it as much as the other members do.
The Writing is On the Wall and Newman's score.
The Bond-wagon has had a few dodgy moments since then. Still not sure EON has it back under control.
In a way the same can be said about SP. I'm not saying it's the same level as FYEO, just that I was amazed by the enthusiasm of the public for a film that isn't that outstanding compared to others in the series. Yes I loved it, and love it far more now as it really works fantastic on the big screen, but still.
I think it went down far better in some European countries in comparison to stateside (as evidenced by relative box office). It has a sort of deliberate Euro aesthetic to it, and the characters are a bit detached and cold (I'm not saying that is a European characteristic mind you - just that I can understand its appeal to some).
It's ironic therefore that there are many American fans on this forum who like it.
Yes, SP is perhaps darker and more 'cold' then previous entries and I think that certainly appeals more to a European audience. See the average European film and you'll notice they're far more gritty, dark and less optimistic. Even the compulsory happy ending is often not there at all. Go watch a Scandinavian film and you'll end up depressed for sure.
Easy.
SP is nowhere near OP.
A narrative mess with extremely mediocre action, a dismal score and bog average villain or Sir Rog at his absolute zenith delivering blistering entertainment with a tension filled climax, two (count them!) cracking villains hamming it up to perfection, a John Barry score and the stunt team hitting out of the park.
Not even close.
OP's flaws are annoying but superfluous (some of the tuk tuk chase, Tarzan, gorilla suit) and can be just ignored. SP's are the underpinning foundations of the plot and thus the whole edifice comes crashing down like an old house in Venice after someone has shot the airbags holding it up.
OP is one of the top three Bond films; SP is one of the worst.
You seem to have summed it up quite nicely, I'd say.
Worldwide box office is why Schwarzenegger and Cruise have had careers long after they were past their sell-by date in the U.S.
It's LTK all over again.