SPECTRE - Your reviews. NO SPOILERS.

1181921232434

Comments

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited November 2015 Posts: 9,020
    Spectre is Craig's Goldeneye, I can't say that enough times.

    There are so many things in it resembling GE (on purpose?) that I'm feeling the adrenaline flowing through my body just thinking of it.

    Just to name one example:
    The plane crashing through the wooden house and landing on the slopes
    Even the camera angle is the same as when the tank crashes through the wall and is landing on the streets. :D
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,978
    @jake24, it could possibly be! In spoiler tags, what other nods did you notice? I meant to spoiler tag mine earlier, but that was when I was confusing threads and couldn't help but share in the excitement of the movie. Oops!
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @jake24, it could possibly be! In spoiler tags, what other nods did you notice? I meant to spoiler tag mine earlier, but that was when I was confusing threads and couldn't help but share in the excitement of the movie. Oops!
    Aside from what you mentioned, the first thing I noticed immediately was the snow plane sequence, and how it very much resembled the tank chase. The Bond girl gets Kidnapped, and Bond proceeds to chase after them with an outlandish vehicle, while avoiding certain obstacles. Done with such class.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited November 2015 Posts: 9,020
    jake24 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @jake24, it could possibly be! In spoiler tags, what other nods did you notice? I meant to spoiler tag mine earlier, but that was when I was confusing threads and couldn't help but share in the excitement of the movie. Oops!
    Aside from what you mentioned, the first thing I noticed immediately was the snow plane sequence, and how it very much resembled the tank chase. The Bond girl gets Kidnapped, and Bond proceeds to chase after them with an outlandish vehicle, while avoiding certain obstacles. Done with such class.

    Exactly, just as I mentioned in my post above (jammed between your and Creasy's post :)) ).
    The tank chase, which is my favourite chase in any Bond movie has now been surpassed with the plane chase
    It's so freaking fantastic that I want to scream! :))
  • Posts: 582
    Spectre is Craig's Goldeneye, I can't say that enough times.

    There are so many things in it resembling GE (on purpose?) that I'm feeling the adrenaline flowing through my body just thinking of it.

    Just to name one example:
    The plane crashing through the wooden house and landing on the slopes
    Even the camera angle is the same as when the tank crashes through the wall and is landing on the streets. :D

    I hadn't really felt a resemblance to the tank chase whilst watching it. However the other day I did read Michael France's original first daft script for GE and the chase involving a plane in snowy conditions with the original GE Bond girl Marina really reminded me of the Austrian action scenes in SPpectre.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    And FINALLY..........here we are!

    I just watched it and enjoyed it. It's great fun and in some places is very reminiscent of some of the classic Bond films of yore - and that's a good thing. However,.......and wait for it.......THIS IS NO SKYFALL (I never thought I'd say that).

    Most (not all) of the criticisms that are being leveled at it are entirely justified. As I suspected, this is a polarizing Bond film. There's no two ways about it. It is very compelling in some ways (more so for us Bond fans), but is void of heart and soul for some strange reason. Like it's going through the motions, ticking the boxes.

    The visuals are incredibly enticing in places, and it is a beautiful film to behold.

    The action scenes do indeed lack tension and seem 'inserted' as has been stated by some. Definitely a case of more is less in many ways in some areas, and that's a damn shame.

    There is way too much time spent with the MI6 gang imho. Unfortunately (because I never thought I'd say this, given my vocal dislike for her M) this film seems to deeply miss Judi Dench. There was a heft/gravitas in her performance which none of the three replacements (Fiennes, Harris, or Whishaw) came close to. Whishaw is far and away the best.

    Thomas Newman does a fine job imho, but his action scoring is really dialed up too much (volume wise) in some scenes and that becomes distracting, particularly in the finale.

    It's true that Christoph Waltz is wasted, although he really does the best with what he's given and is incredibly charismatic as always.

    The same goes for Lea Seydoux, who does a great job with her thinly written part. She should be commended for her efforts. She's endearing but does not have the magnetism of Eva Green.

    The star of this film is Daniel Craig in more ways than one. He inhabits the James Bond persona completely here. This is 'total Bond', not 'rookie Bond', not 'grieving Bond' and not 'angry Bond'.............it's 'total Bond'. Excellent performance by him, but......but....he is not as comfortable with the one liners as Connery/Moore and it shows in places. He's still at his best when he gets to do real acting, and not when he's being flippant. Bottom line: He's far too good an actor for the script.

    And therein lies the problem with this film. The script is a turgid mess and all over the place. It's a real pity, given how long it took to get this thing together and given how many people they had working on it. As I said earlier today, tonal consistency is critical to a Bond film having long term apprecation. SPECTRE is tonally jarring in some ways. It is humorous, glib, serious, intense, exciting/fast paced, and boring all at once. That's why it's difficult to get a read on it during the first viewing. It demands a 2nd viewing and it demands not be take seriously (imho), and that is something that takes some getting used to.....given what DC has given us before.

    Objectively for me it's not up to the level of this summer's MI-RN. Subjectively, it's better.......why?......because it's James Bond, that's why.

    Ultimately, & at this point, it's a middle of the road Bond film for me. I enjoyed it, and I'll be back on Tuesday (after a small break) to take in my 2nd showing. I have no real complaints, but it could have been so much more.........so much more. Blame the script.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited November 2015 Posts: 10,591
    jake24 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @jake24, it could possibly be! In spoiler tags, what other nods did you notice? I meant to spoiler tag mine earlier, but that was when I was confusing threads and couldn't help but share in the excitement of the movie. Oops!
    Aside from what you mentioned, the first thing I noticed immediately was the snow plane sequence, and how it very much resembled the tank chase. The Bond girl gets Kidnapped, and Bond proceeds to chase after them with an outlandish vehicle, while avoiding certain obstacles. Done with such class.

    Exactly, just as I mentioned in my post above (jammed between your and Creasy's post :)) ).
    The tank chase, which is my favourite chase in any Bond movie has now been surpassed with the plane chase
    It's so freaking fantastic that I want to scream! :))
    I apologize for missing your post Jason, it can get pretty crowded around here ;).

    By the way,
    Did anybody spot Tom So, aka Mr. Fukutu's cameo at the Spectre meeting?
    Also,
    Did the crew ever actually travel to Tokyo? If anything I'm assuming the second unit did over the course of the shoot.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    And FINALLY..........here we are!

    I just watched it and enjoyed it. It's great fun and in some places is very reminiscent of some of the classic Bond films of yore - and that's a good thing. However,.......and wait for it.......THIS IS NO SKYFALL (I never thought I'd say that).

    Most (not all) of the criticisms that are being leveled at it are entirely justified. As I suspected, this is a polarizing Bond film. There's no two ways about it. It is very compelling in some ways (more so for us Bond fans), but is void of heart and soul for some strange reason. Like it's going through the motions, ticking the boxes.

    The visuals are incredibly enticing in places, and it is a beautiful film to behold.

    The action scenes do indeed lack tension and seem 'inserted' as has been stated by some. Definitely a case of more is less in many ways in some areas, and that's a damn shame.

    There is way too much time spent with the MI6 gang imho. Unfortunately (because I never thought I'd say this, given my vocal dislike for her M) this film seems to deeply miss Judi Dench. There was a heft/gravitas in her performance which none of the three replacements (Fiennes, Harris, or Whishaw) came close to. Whishaw is far and away the best.

    Thomas Newman does a fine job imho, but his action scoring is really dialed up too much (volume wise) in some scenes and that becomes distracting, particularly in the finale.

    It's true that Christoph Waltz is wasted, although he really does the best with what he's given and is incredibly charismatic as always.

    The same goes for Lea Seydoux, who does a great job with her thinly written part. She should be commended for her efforts. She's endearing but does not have the magnetism of Eva Green.

    The star of this film is Daniel Craig in more ways than one. He inhabits the James Bond persona completely here. This is 'total Bond', not 'rookie Bond', not 'grieving Bond' and not 'angry Bond'.............it's 'total Bond'. Excellent performance by him, but......but....he is not as comfortable with the one liners as Connery/Moore and it shows in places. He's still at his best when he gets to do real acting, and not when he's being flippant. Bottom line: He's far too good an actor for the script.

    And therein lies the problem with this film. The script is a turgid mess and all over the place. It's a real pity, given how long it took to get this thing together and given how many people they had working on it. As I said earlier today, tonal consistency is critical to a Bond film having long term apprecation. SPECTRE is tonally jarring in some ways. It is humorous, glib, serious, intense, exciting/fast paced, and boring all at once. That's why it's difficult to get a read on it during the first viewing. It demands a 2nd viewing and it demands not be take seriously (imho), and that is something that takes some getting used to.....given what DC has given us before.

    Objectively for me it's not up to the level of this summer's MI-RN. Subjectively, it's better.......why?......because it's James Bond, that's why.

    Ultimately, & at this point, it's a middle of the road Bond film for me. I enjoyed it, and I'll be back on Tuesday (after a small break) to take in my 2nd showing. I have no real complaints, but it could have been so much more.........so much more. Blame the script.

    Very nice review and I agree but the detriments didn't impact me as much. I too enjoyed it more than MI although I concede MI is probably objectively better.

    The ending of the two are eerily close considering they were filmed almost during the same time.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Thanks @mcdonbb. I actually enjoyed it a lot, but some of the script work was just horrid in places. Unbalanced. I think it will get better with repeated viewings.

    Interestingly, I had the same feeling walking out of the theatre today as I did when I first saw QoS (DC great.....the rest ok but could have been so much better). That's another film that grows with multiple viewings, when all the nuances of the acting can be picked up.

    Surprisingly, Sam Smith's debacle didn't sound bad at all today, and I actually enjoyed all the alleged 'octopus porn' of the title sequence.

    Everything people highlight as being great is in fact great (pretitles, train sequence) and what they say is poor is poor imho. It didn't bother me though. This is no TWINE (thank god!). It's a fun Bond film.
  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    Posts: 538
    bondjames wrote: »
    Surprisingly, Sam Smith's debacle didn't sound bad at all today, and I actually enjoyed all the alleged 'octopus porn' of the title sequence.

    My opinion of the song also changed (for the better) when seeing the song in conjunction with Bond-related visuals. Definitely not something that will ever be on my playlist, but appropriate for the movie.
  • MansfieldMansfield Where the hell have you been?
    Posts: 1,263
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I just knew this film was really going to split opinions hard. Seen so many that really liked/loved it and several that think it's disappointing and not so great.
    Quite honestly @FoxRox, even with my praise of the film, parts of it conflict me. It really needs more of the story to be told - to complete the developments that transpired. In light of this, I love how the meat and potatoes of classic Bond were present.
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2015 Posts: 10,512
    Glad you enjoyed the title sequence @bondjames I too think it works a treat. I think this film will grow on you, but respect you're not doing the conga.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    SP is a fantastic Bond film and I've just come back from my 4th viewing of the film and what's clear is, as great and enjoyable as it is, it could have been better if the script and screenplay hadn't been compromised the way it was.

    This is an example of why I don't want to hear about 3 or 4 year gaps for each movie. Rubbish. Every movie needs a script and narrative at its foundation and if it's fractured the movie will suffer. Logan, Mendes and the producers messed up here for what is a critical process in preproduction. Had the proper care and management of the script been worked out properly SP likely wouldn't be as polarising as it is and would be a much better movie.

    Going forward and with Bond 25 especially, EON need to focus, invest and manage the scripting process better than they ever have before. Hire new writers and really get the money's worth. It's clear EoN have no problem casting talent for in front and behind the camera for tge most part so in that regard it'll sort itself out but the writing must and needs to be addressed and upgraded.

    SP is a wonderful film as it is and I for one love it, ranking it within my top 6 Bond movies BUT it could have been so much more and been on the same wavelength as CR but the writing and a few creative liberties stop this from being the case.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Thanks @RC7.

    Seydoux as the wounded Swann is an interesting character. She is the one I really want to pay more attention to next time. I liked her portrayal and wish she had more air time.

    I found Waltz quite chilling (I don't know why critics are comparing him negatively to Hans Landa......he is much more terrifying here with little of the humour that Hans had).

    I really think they should have cut out some of the Whitehall/MI6 subplot and focused more on the above two. What a borefest, and we've seen that so many times already over the years in other films.

    I agree with you @doubleoego. The primary issues with SP are script related, which unfortunately is critical. The rest of it is first class. The team did a great job with what they were given.
  • Posts: 486
    For me Seydoux does so much on screen with so little actually on the script for her to work with. I am surprised even Mendes allowed such a slight script for her BUT at least he got a great actress to carry it.

    She does a terrific job of selling
    the horror of the torture sequence.

    The romance between the two characters may have felt a little rushed but thanks to Craig and Seydoux it was by no means unconvincing.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    edited November 2015 Posts: 755
    I'm a tough critic and am very opinionated about my James Bond. I saw the movie this afternoon and was expecting the worst... all those reviews and comments... it ruined the reboot, it's ham fisted, it's too light, it's too dark, cast is wasted, too James Bond (wtf)...

    Thank God, I ended up loving it. It's not perfect but I put it second behind CR for Craig's films, easily, no contest.

    There are many things I could quibble about but the only thing I would say is significant for me is there needs to be a sequence, we're talking only 5 - 10 mins or so, with Bond and Swann, give them something more to do, preferably in Austria with Hinx stalking them, adding even more tension, suspense... Hinx needs one more scene/sequence and Bond/Swann need a little more to build relationship. Then I'm cool with the rest. Yeah the ending, but almost all JB endings are anti-climactic, IMO. CR the great exception. They should slave over writing a great ending and then work backwards. It definitely helps a movie when you can't wait for the ending and you walk out completely thrilled.

    People are totally over critizing this movie and like many have said, it's part over rating of Skyfall, the damning script leaks, MI Rogue Nation stealing a lot of thunder (this I can't agree enough but that movie too doesn't deserve a RT score of 93 to SP's 63). and of course, criticism is hard to avoid when there's such build up and hopes of perfection in everyone's anticipation and imagination.

    I totally disagree that this is a Roger Moore Bond movie or worse Brosnan. Yeah Craig does a wave and maybe a look and there's some humorous lighter moments but it hardly qualifies at those low levels.

    The film has a slight 60s vibe, attempting to capture that era's level of Bond awesomeness with a few more moments acknowledging or emulating of others. but I also didn't find it to be a highlights film. Again, some added middle with Bond and Swann would help give further definition to the movie.

    Looking forward to seeing it again.
  • brinkeguthriebrinkeguthrie Piz Gloria
    Posts: 1,400
    BTW- when Craig tosses the gun away and then Q says 'I thought you'd gone,' I thought for a minute that meant 007 had quit...?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    =bg= wrote: »
    BTW- when Craig tosses the gun away and then Q says 'I thought you'd gone,' I thought for a minute that meant 007 had quit...?

    Spoiler tags
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    bondjames wrote: »
    Thanks @RC7.

    Seydoux as the wounded Swann is an interesting character. She is the one I really want to pay more attention to next time. I liked her portrayal and wish she had more air time.

    I found Waltz quite chilling (I don't know why critics are comparing him negatively to Hans Landa......he is much more terrifying here with little of the humour that Hans had).

    I really think they should have cut out some of the Whitehall/MI6 subplot and focused more on the above two. What a borefest, and we've seen that so many times already over the years in other films.

    I agree with you @doubleoego. The primary issues with SP are script related, which unfortunately is critical. The rest of it is first class. The team did a great job with what they were given.

    I'm glad you like and enjoyed SP because you had some serious concerns based on the reviews that played up tge adverse aspects so it's great to read you largely enjoyed it.

    RE: the script you're right. It's the one component so flawed it renders everything else so masterfully done to be polarising. This film is definitely a success and delivers on the overall Bond experience and I hope the troubled scripting process really pushes the producers to make the much needed changes to break this curse that's plagued the series for so long.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Cowley wrote: »
    For me Seydoux does so much on screen with so little actually on the script for her to work with. I am surprised even Mendes allowed such a slight script for her BUT at least he got a great actress to carry it.

    She does a terrific job of selling
    the horror of the torture sequence.

    The romance between the two characters may have felt a little rushed but thanks to Craig and Seydoux it was by no means unconvincing.

    Seydoux is spectacular, I can't put it more modestly.
    From the first scene to her last, the acting is top-notch, her gestures, her face-expression, her voice, simply great.
    The tension between her and James is great when she's asking him all the questions and especially when he tells her what is profession is. That's top acting and the dialogue is perfect to the last word, in fact after seeing it only twice I could recite quite a bit of it.
    The scene after the plan/car chase when she confronts James that he's responsible for those men going after her is gripping and again top acting.
    Again when she is showing James what she can do with a weapon, first at the dinner table, later during the fight in the train.

    I truly cannot understand if someone is saying she doesn't make an impression or is a weak Bond girl.
  • I have watched the movie this evening. It is a very good Bond movie, maybe not as great as CR or FRWL, but it may be in my Top 5. I have enjoyed it more than SF or QoS.
    My score: 8.5/10
  • I saw it Thursday evening at the first IMAX preview screening in Toronto. The theatre actually started playing Crimson Peak by mistake for a good few minutes, prompting a mix of laughs and boos from the audience.

    I will do a proper review after a second screening on Sunday, but initial reaction is I had loads of fun watching it, it is a proper big Bond film like the post-FRWL Connery ones plus The Spy Who Loved Me, but it's no Casino Royale or Skyfall in terms of overall quality and impact on me. Nevertheless, a roaring greatest hits Bond adventure. I can't say yet where I'll rank Spectre among the 24... certainly in the top half, but not sure about top 10 yet.

    Highlights: Daniel Craig, the Mexico City opener, final shot of Monica Bellucci
    Biggest disappointments: Hack effort by Thomas Newman, 3rd act plotting
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    I saw it Thursday evening at the first IMAX preview screening in Toronto. The theatre actually started playing Crimson Peak by mistake for a good few minutes, prompting a mix of laughs and boos from the audience.

    I will do a proper review after a second screening on Sunday, but initial reaction is I had loads of fun watching it, it is a proper big Bond film like the post-FRWL Connery ones plus The Spy Who Loved Me, but it's no Casino Royale or Skyfall in terms of overall quality and impact on me. Nevertheless, a roaring greatest hits Bond adventure. I can't say yet where I'll rank Spectre among the 24... certainly in the top half, but not sure about top 10 yet.

    Highlights: Daniel Craig, the Mexico City opener, final shot of Monica Bellucci
    Biggest disappointments: Hack effort by Thomas Newman, 3rd act plotting
    I think I was there too! Which theatre were you at?
  • brinkeguthriebrinkeguthrie Piz Gloria
    Posts: 1,400
    edit
  • Posts: 1,997
    As an original Bond fan, my last thrill at a Bond opening was TB. No new Bond film since has had the same charge as those first four. Fifty years on, I find myself hoping for the thrill, but it's never the same. To be sure, I see all the films, but none grab me like those early films. I've also come to terms with the lack of chronological continuity. I regard each actor's Bond films as a separate series with no connection to the films of previous Bonds. That's the only way I can make sense of the Craig era.

    SP starts out well-enough, but the helicopter sequence has an element of total recklessness about it as it takes place above thousands of festival goers. Same can be said of the final copter sequence. Bond shows a complete disregard for the lives of innocents.

    Writings on the Wall has some nice instrumental moments, but the falsetto doesn't fit the Bond film persona. Recent films have suffered from the absence of the old school
    blaring of horns. Tired of these drippy, introspective songs.

    We've seen enough previews that there really aren't any surprises in the film.
    Waltz, who is often quite effective on screen, just doesn't have the chops here to pull off the ESB role. The off screen ESBs in FRWL and TB were actually more menacing. Savalas, although I always thought he was wrongly cast, has been the best so far. I've read a lot of commentary that Waltz didn't have much to work with. I disagree. He gave us nothing interesting or memorable.
    Watch the special features of The Usual Suspects and see how Benicia del Toro created a memorable role from nothing. Everyone else was fine.

    From a writing standpoint, I'm tired of the storyline whereby Double Os are a thing of the past. Computers reign, and all that mumbo jumbo we've had more than enough of. The trumped up relationship to Bond's past just doesn't work. It feels silly, contrived, and completely unnecessary. Talk about daddy issues.

    Thomas Newman phones in the score. Recycles SF and makes a concerted effort not t sound like a Bond film.

    Final scene between Q and Bond is a "not again" moment.
    Good God, get over the car already.

    The look of the film is great, and fresh in many respects. Lots in the film is a conscious effort to remind us of previous films. Pardon the pun, but it does feel like Craig's
    Swan(n) song.

    Despite a few disappointments, this is a good film that I like as well if not better than SF. But that's after one viewing. Subsequent viewings will tell for sure.

    For me CR remains the Craig masterwork.















  • Posts: 4,617
    bondjames, we must stop agreeing with each other, see below my review in a nutshell.

    "Visually stunning with some great performances but I just felt a little empty. It lacked an emotional core IMHO."

    Everyone wants different things from a Bond movie (or indeed movie) but if you want a well crafted script with character development, this is not the movie for you. Others clearly have different requirements and I can see that it is strong in other areas.But the script is the foundation of the building, the thread that holds a necklace together, the words through a stick of rock and any other metaphor you want to use. Mendes and DC were facing an up hill battle from the beginning.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 76
    Hello UK Cousins. Saw film today in Sacramento, CA. Did not read anything on film so as to be completely candid. GOOD OLD FASHIONED 007 BOND LTK flick. Finally got over BORNE SUPREMACY competition. Not all way to HADRIAN'S WALL but Harkens back to THUNDERBALL. Moneypenny, Blofeld, and even the White Pussycat are back!!Thank you BROCCOLI and Company. GOOD FLICK.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    @patb, yes I totally agree with you. Something is definitely amiss in terms of it being able to connect. It seems to lack heart and soul. What they've added to create a connection seems a little contrived (Smith's lyrics, romantic behaviour, twists/surprises) also. The stench of too many cooks spoiling the broth is definitely in the air here.

    I can appreciate DC/Mendes' frustration now. They've been essentially running a salvage operation since filming began. They've done a great job with what they had to work with imho.

    I think this one is definitely going to be a grower though, at least for me. I came out of it a little disappointed (like with QoS), but there's enough there to keep me interested and to get more out of future viewings. I'm sure I'll be more positive about it in six months now - even now I'm earnestly looking forward to my next viewing early next week actually.

    The one element that is a total downer imho is the entire last act in London. Completely superfluous and could have been eliminated entirely with some tweaks here and there, thereby leaving more time to focus on better characterizations for the leads. Pity.

    The film gives off a kind of unnerving feeling (it's kind of surreal / dreamlike even) and I'm curious to see if that will stay with me on repeated watches.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 4,617
    I was lucky enough to recently attend a screenwriting seminar in London and one of the guests was the guy who wrote Jaws. Its easy to focus on the shark BUT it has much more impact if you grow to like/know the characters so when the you come to the showdown , the audience cares more about the outcome and this adds to the tension and the emotional experience. Spielberg is a great directer but he had a great script to work with. Mendes is a great director but this is a poor script. I dont think the best director in the world can make a classic movie with a poor script.
    PS the unnerving feeling is there (for some) and could easily explain some poor reviews. Its almost as if the whole thing is a nightmare, not in the real world.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,591
    I just left the theater. Three words....

    Bloody fucking fantastic! !!!!!!!

    I'm counting down until I see it again
Sign In or Register to comment.