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
That’s the one for me.
Though I agree Bond looks great in Morocco, both casual and formal attire.
They reminded me of Cary Grant and Grace Kelly from an Hitchcock film.
Good catch. I can see this.
There is a lot to like in SP, for sure.
But I think Mendes went into filming this before the script was ready. He knew it. DC knew it. But they were forced to plow ahead.
I think instead of having the scene in the courtyard, which was an odd choice anyway, they should've had Bond leave M's office into hers, had some classic flirty dialogue, and then have Moneypenny give him the "personal effects" in the office, before asking her to come to his apartment.
Great call.
There should be a thread where we rebuild Spectre the way we'd have liked to have seen it.
https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/13737/spectre-what-would-you-have-done-differently#latest
hey how did Walecs get banned
Yeah that courtyard scene is very weird,its like Bond is trying to get away from her and actually finds her annoying.
I really enjoyed this film. I was pleasantly surprised how much Spectre is an actual 'espionage thriller'. It's a genuinely engaging and entertaining movie. Considering how much SF was 'a Sam Mendes film', it's noticeable that Mendes is a little more muted and workmanlike behind the camera. Mind you, you can still feel his fingerprints - especially with that one long silky take and the character work. However, this feels much more like 'a James Bond film.' A fairly traditional, but entertaining one at that. This is Craig's TND (which is a compliment).
Personally, I loved the tone of the picture. There is a moody, smokey and atmospheric feel to the film. It's steeped in the great tropes of espionage fiction in this sense. At times, it's more reminiscent of the somewhat overcast and grimy world of John le Carré. A similar visual style was implemented in HBO's Chernobyl and even Marvel's Black Widow. However, Mendes doesn't skimp on the glamour and the middle section of the film could have come straight out of the 1950's (a welcome throwback).
Nonetheless, this still feels like a very modern film, especially in respect to it's liberal politics. The plot has some genuine stakes and the finale - with its creepy, haunted house feel - may be less high-octane but is really rather exciting if you ask me. The themes are there though. This time with MI6 proving the value of field agents making tough decisions when faced with enemies and Bond deciding to walk away. The script is particularly sharp in this sense (not as good as SF's though), however there are a few clunky lines. The central plot and mystery is a little underwhelming, but the film still entertains and I was never bored.
Craig’s clearly having fun with a slightly looser, less grim-faced Bond, while pulling off the action with his usual crunchy aplomb. He's very good at selling Bond’s humanity and completely owns this role, having reinvented it for the new millennium. However, he is looking a little older and there are times here when it feels like his eyes have glazed over. He seems a little more bored than he did in the other three films. There is also an issue that the plot seems to hinge on Bond deciding to leave MI6, however, this idea isn't developed enough. If anything this film is the closest Craig got to a Connery/Moore-esque adventure, where Bond goes on a mission and has little arc.
Where you really sense Mendes' spirit as a director comes in the characters. I think Lea Seydoux is fabulously soulful and heartbreaking. Her arc is by far the strongest. Mendes isn't afraid to let dialogue scenes run long and explore character and the material between Bond and Madeleine is particularly strong. I also think the MI6 team are terrific. This film does a terrific job of cementing the relationships between Bond and M and Q. You really get the sense of their partnership at the end and truly root for them as a team in the finale. Ben Whishaw is particularly excellent. Also, Jesper Christensen makes a terrific impression in a scene that is catnip for Bond fans after their previous confrontation at the end of CR. Finally, Monica Bellucci is stunning.....
The film does have a glaring villain problem. Waltz's performance is way too bland and Blofeld feels slightly botched. The notion of making them 'brothers' is actually kind of interesting as it bases their relationships around family traumas and ancient grudges. However, it's hampered a script which fails to make his long-standing grudge against Bond plausible. However, he's excellent whilst silhouetted during the Rome meeting and does look really cool in the final act. I hope he can redeem himself in NTTD. Also, C is a bit 'meh'.
The other big problem is that the action is tepid at best. The set-pieces are just 'fine' and if anything the film works better as a travelogue 'thriller' than a true-blue action bonanza. I'd also like to change my mind on three points: (i) Sam Smith is a great singer but the title song is a bit rubbish, (ii) Kleinman's titles have grown on me, and (iii) the torture sequence is still slightly risible but I did find it tense.
This film was really up my street. It's not perfect and you could nitpick it to death but it's an entertaining movie. It's not vintage Bond but a solid if unremarkable adventure.
⭐⭐⭐⭐/5
I agree with this review, @Pierce2Daniel. Well-written, a blast to read!
I agree. I think SF spoiled audiences. It was a surprising and elevated Bond film. The truth is SP is way more conventional. It's a fairly run-of-the-mill 007 film. It's more like a good Brosnan-era film. I think people have the knives out for SP as it isn't close to SF. It's more blandly Bond. But that's no bad thing. I quite enjoy middle of the road Bond, It makes for pleasant Thursday night viewing. Plus its stunning to look at and there's Lea Seydoux, Monica Bellucci and the Aston Martin DB10 😍😍😍
There are plenty of things to nitpick. I think people were a little too harsh on it. In actual fact, I was one of the people gunning for it. We wanted another SF, but got TND. In any case, SP has aged quite well. At the end of the day, it's a two-and-half hour Bond film, what's not to like? It's easy viewing.
One thing I really liked was the introduction of Spectre in that Rome scene. It's sorta a cross between some corporate AGM and Eyes Wide Shut. It should be camp (and it is a bit) but it's also pretty sinister. Mendes and Hoyte give it such a rich, old moneyed luxurious but ominous feel. I'm very excited to see Spectre return in NTTD. Which is another reason SP works as it feels like a culmination of Craig's other films.
Truth be told, Daniel Craig never had a stinker Bond film. All of his films are top notch, one way or another.
It is also my least favorite of Craig’s movies; I’ve found his more unique first 3 further apart from the old formula his best ones, as they are more tailored to his strengths I believe in playing his own Bond. His SP performance feels *too* different for me coming off the others. The SF one was a nice transition from his gritty Bond a bit closer to “classic,” but I think SP was him going too far in that light direction with mixed results.
I have a good feeling Craig’s performance in NTTD will be very good, as he excels when the darkness and drama is turned up as it looks to be. SP disappoints me in a few ways, especially after loving it initially but feeling it weakens with rewatches. It is tough to call it “a disappoint” on the whole though when there’s still a good amount of content I enjoy from it. Overall I still like the movie, but I’m frustrated with certain choices and found the whole third act definitely one of the series’ weakest segments. It’s still a fine time and beats most other popcorn flicks coming out these days, I just heavily prefer the first three Craig films.
Looking backward and forward, I note the most vocal reactions to Craig's films have been Love It, Hate It, Love It, Hate It. And they can change over time.
So I expect with No Time To Die: Love It will carry the day.
That’s largely how I feel as well. Spectre felt like they were designing a Bond film that they thought audiences wanted rather than one that really works for Craig. Not that I don’t think a more traditional Bond film can’t work for him, just that it needs to be filtered through, like you say, a bit more darkness, grit, urgency, and drama. NTTD looks like it’s striking a far better balance. If he the epic stakes, some humor, and even similar production design to “classic Bond”, but the action looks really visceral and the story goes to some intense places.
I think so too....Also, I think that watching the other Craig films in order leading to SP heightens the experience. It's really a culmination film. For example, one fo the strongest aspects of the film is the use of Mr White. How he went from being the kingmaker to a husk of a man. His sequence with Bond is A+. Plus, the decision to interweave his daughter in the film is so satisfying and makes the dynamic between 007 and Swann so much more interesting. I hope NTTD really explores Madeleine and the fact she's Mr White's daughter. Or should I say a "Daughter of Spectre"......
One of the problems with SP - aside the banal action sequences - is that the script doesn't aim for a Tennyson level scene. That was such a perfect moment where all the films themes coalesced so perfectly. The closest SP has is the bridge scene. Which ties together the themes of Bond staring the enemy in the eye and deciding not to pull the trigger and go further down that road as a killer. Instead he picks Madeleine over MI6.
That's very true! Even his motives for developing it are never really made clear.