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. I find myself criticising it a lot on here but I do love it. It's top five for me. They finally seemed to realise that you can still have a fleshed out human Bond in a fun OTT film and it had pretty much everything I'd been asking for since CR. It's way more flawed than my other favourites, so I think it's probably just a case of the good stuff being so good I can forgive those flaws.
Well the answer is purely that you both are Bond fans,and everyone likes different films,so good luck to you...i dont mind it ,its #12 in my rankings...
Make that three. I think I forgive its flaws merely because Spectre and Blofeld are back.
On the topic of Blofeld with all his flaws and the stepbrother notwithstanding I find Waltz's incarnation to be better than all of the ones that show their face and yes this includes Savalas'.
SP on the other hand is a sheep dressed in wolves clothing. It manages to be both pretentious and goofy at the same time. A rare feat indeed. It combined the worst of DAD and SF together.
Babs and co now have one more chance to salvage Craig's tenure, CR not withstanding.
SP does try to be a bit of everything and yes gets too sllly at times. But it doesn't reach the spectacularly ridiculous levels of DAD.
However, I do think It's done quite a lot of damage to Craig's run.
Far too much 'Navel gazing'. Way too pretentious. Constantly going back and forth from an action scene to Mi6 Hq, where either one of the M's, Moneypenny or Q are talking Bond through something or surveying the scene. Weak climaxes. Sub par motivations for the villains.
It really hit home to me how far things have dropped since CR when we got the Randall(Bond) and Hopkirk deceased(Dench's M) scene from SP.
I'm sorry but nothing has ever been as terrible as revealing Blofeld as Bond's foster brother. I would take an invisible Vanquish over that any time.
I was just thinking the other day that I really would appreciate if we don't get scenes like that in B25.
--
I find it just as ridiculous, but not in an in your face cartoonish manner. The difference is it thinks it's being smart. I don't think that the Craig universe works well with the tropes or the OTT elements of the old days for one, but additionally some of the scenes in the latest film just take me out of it every time. Mads/Bond jumping each other post-Hinx fight, the threat to leave in London (bloody cringeworthy acting and line delivery by both), the building collapse and of course 'Superman' post-drill.
--
From my perspective at least, the damage has been irreparable to his iteration's credibility, which was pretty much all he had as a gritty reboot take - hence my enthusiasm for B26 and a soft-reboot.
You could write that on the Craig era tombstone.
As it stands, I'm personally very happy with this era, especially from CR-SF... If Bond 25 proves to be a gritty and organic ending to DC's run, SP will look like the hiccup it was-- the crazy-artsy-pseudo-Freudian and, one-helluva sexy-looking-lit-and-costumed misfire that it is.
If B25 is crap and fails in all of its efforts (to be a kick ass Bond film, a kick ass action film, a great piece of character work for DC and, being able to tie all threads together (and brush under the carpet the blunders of the previous film)), then I will re-assess the era.
I may be an optimist, but I think all the players in this know how important this film is; how risky it was, creatively, bringing back DC and; the baggage of the last film, but they did it anyways. Why?
Because they think they can do better. DC himself hinted as much!
So, I will (blindly) not judge this era until it's over; at present, I have three, top eight films that have come out of DC's run (one of them is a top one, or two, or three film, depending on my mood; the other is top three to five, depending on my mood)), and one, that probably, and magically, and undeservedly, somehow sits in my top twelve or fifteen. But looking at those first three films, I am happy to say it's the best since the Connery era-- and he had a misfire or two as well (although looked upon with fonder glasses as time passes by (I am guilty of this as well)).
Moore had TMWGG mis-fire (although I have always enjoyed it, "moore-so" now), and recovered with TSWLM...
I've got to believe that DC and Co will bounce back out of necessity-- they know they have to!!
However, they're not incompetent and they have a decent (if aging) lead who has one more in him. So I'm quite certain I'll be able to enjoy the film (it is Bond, my favourite franchise after all!), but from my perspective at least, this era's position in the pantheon has been irreparably harmed on account of B24. I enjoyed the first 3 and have 2 in my top 10, but it hasn't been worth the waits for me.
After a decade, I look forward anxiously to the new take (hopefully in 2021 but most likely 2022).
--Out of necessity, to make this franchise viable in a crowded market, B25 has to be a powerhouse.
I'm not saying it has to be CR 2.0.
But it has to have the same effort as CR.
It has to be so strong, a tsunami that thunders and crashes into us, to rectify the mistakes of the last film.
I think they realize this. They're smarter and richer than me, and they know the last film, with a great leading man, wasn't a success-- no matter what the box-office said.
I think, as an ignorant fan, they know better than me; that the stakes, and bringing DC back (the only viable Bond at the moment), was a risk , but; also words of anticipation: we're gonna get the last one right.
Not crap + 1... But... something more, because they need something more. And every time this company needed more, they have always done it....
... IMHO...
P
SP - regardless of how you feel about the finished product - assembles the most talent (on both sides of the camera) that a Bond film has ever had.
runner-up? OHMSS.
The foster brother idea is definitely a more harmful one. It affects several films and makes the plot of the Craig era all about Bond himself, instead of the mission. Now Bond is part of the mission, in the craziest, most unlikely way! Not good. I'm not closely familiar with Spectre's production history, but this was Mendes' idea, right? (And therefore not the primary fault of the screenwriters.) If that is the case, I must say that, listening to Sam Mendes talking about it, for me it's not that difficult to see how he got everybody on board with the concept, since he describes it in such a way that it almost seems like some sort of allegorical, in-depth, profound exploration of Bond's past. (Which it's not, of course.)
- the relationship between Mallory and Bond. In SF it's Mallory covering Bond whilst he 'kidnaps' M (finlly beeing 'the worm on the hook'herself) but we start out with Bond not trusting M(allory) at all. Why wouldn't he show that video to him? Instead making an offensive quip?
- M's position, from head of MI6 now, after a merger, down to head of the 00-section (eh, programme????). With C as a new top boss? So what happened to everybody else at MI6? And yes, C may have been introduced as 'connected to the PM', but he seems in no way the top civil servant you'd expect. Instead, it's a worm of a guy who'd never survive in any civil service.
These two I find far more frustrating then stepbrothergate. They make a mess of the story and of the thread. Indeed, with Mallory beeing the bad guy it would've made more sense, at least the film and Bond's behaviour would've, but they made that as good as impossible at the end of the previous film.
Th worst thing is, the writers of DAD and SP are back.....
The 'lover' suggests that Blofeld's connection to Bond exists on a character level as much as it does on a plot level. He further suggests that Mendes intended for Blofeld to be Bond's mirror image. According to him, the tonal tension between 'camp' and 'serious' Bond which many of us experienced is 'intentional', and there to reconcile reboot Bond with old school Bond. A sort of wrenching shift. When Bond doesn't kill Blofeld on the bridge, the transformation is complete. Old Bond is back. Gritty, grumpy Bond is dead.
It's a fascinating read, but it works better if one looks at SP as Craig's last.
http://www.popmatters.com/feature/the-flipside-6-spectre/
Still, I wouldn't mind if he stayed on. Great actor.
Fiennes is a Bond fan, and M is a good part. I hope he changes his mind when the next Bond comes around.
Fiennes especially I hope is around for a long, long time.
The foster brother debacle is the single most damaging thing in the history of the series.
A couple of years on and I still can't believe they did it.
+1.
I know so well how you feel. I can't get over it myself. I wish we could sent Arnie back in time to correct it Terminator style.
It almost ruins You Only Live Twice for me. Thankfully it's at least an alternate timeline.