SPECTRE - Press reviews and personal reviews (BEWARE! Spoiler reviews allowed)

16768707273100

Comments

  • fanbond123 wrote: »
    They should just end Bond. For a while at least. Five years or so gap. Let things cool down and then wham - new creative team, new Bond, perhaps with no backstory stuff. A nice soft reboot. Forget about Blofeld with daddy issues, forget Vesper, forget Silva. A clean slate in 2020.

    The gap between DAD and CR felt like eternity to me, and that was only 4 years. Ignoring everything that came before after all this build up would be a huge disappointment.
  • Thunderball007Thunderball007 United States
    Posts: 306
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Everyone, I'm kind of feeling down about some of the negative reviews for SPECTRE.

    I'm American, and I haven't had the chance to see SPECTRE at the cinemas yet.

    Is it true that this film is too long, dark, brooding, or boring, rehashed, etc.?

    Where should I make a comment like this? I didn't want to make a new discussion.. :(

    No.......none of those things are correct...........just go and see the film for yourself, and don't let others, stop you enjoying the things you like! :)

    Lol! Thank you! I will be watching and enjoying no matter what! I'm a huge fan!

    :))
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    I am sometimes all serious about replies to my posts here concerning my favourite Bond movies, but right now I have few f***s to give about any negativity concerning SPECTRE as I am still floating in my cloud of happiness with this film. \m/
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I am sometimes all serious about replies to my posts here concerning my favourite Bond movies, but right now I have few f***s to give about any negativity concerning SPECTRE as I am still floating in my cloud of happiness with this film. \m/

    Keep flying high and enjoy :) ..I enjoyed it too.

    Oddly and I thought if TLD wandered up my rankings after SP. No I can't explain why.... just go with it.

    LTK stayed at the bottom fighting sharks so don't get too excited. :P
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    LTK stayed at the bottom fighting sharks so don't get too excited. :P
    Who cares right now. We both love SPECTRE and that's all that matters. What a great Bond!!!!
  • One thing that is sticking in my head: Those of you who enjoyed Spectre, thought it was real, solid, top ten Bond material, what did you think of the big twist with Bond and Blofeld? Did you find the drama they poured into it appropriate? Did it enhance the moment? What about Blofeld and Bond being adopted brothers, and Blofeld being driven by his daddy issues? Did that work for you guys?

    I know, as I've carped about plenty, that this was a lowlight for me and really damaged the whole movie. I'm curious whether you thought it was well done, could take it or leave it, or thought it was bad but nearly so ruinous as I did?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,218
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    To be quite frank, I preferred the way Quantum was introduced in QoS at Tosca.

    That had a little more maturity and weight to it than the TB caricature that they did here. Having said that, it's always good to see a good old fashioned SP meet with some thug being killed for whatever reason in front of #1. Where was pussy? Oh I forgot.....it appeared later.

    There was a restraint to QoS that SP has made me appreciate all the more. I thought I wanted more Vesper but I actually wanted less.
    dragonsky wrote: »
    Here's an article with the references (some might be a reach) in SPECTRE:

    http://www.thebondbulletin.com/the-bond-references-in-spectre

    Hang on, there was a helicopter roll filmed for GE?

    Yes that Eurocopter..but I don't think for real because I recall the stunt team saying it was too dangerous... I think.. not sure.

    Didn't we get a glimpse of it in the GE teaser trailer? I seem to recall a snippet of something similar at least, somewhere.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    I'm curious whether you thought it was well done, could take it or leave it, or thought it was bad but nearly so ruinous as I did?
    It's NOT a choice I would have made, but it makes sense it this narrative IMO. I can deal with it.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    HASEROT wrote: »
    One thing that is sticking in my head: Those of you who enjoyed Spectre, thought it was real, solid, top ten Bond material, what did you think of the big twist with Bond and Blofeld? Did you find the drama they poured into it appropriate? Did it enhance the moment? What about Blofeld and Bond being adopted brothers, and Blofeld being driven by his daddy issues? Did that work for you guys?

    I know, as I've carped about plenty, that this was a lowlight for me and really damaged the whole movie. I'm curious whether you thought it was well done, could take it or leave it, or thought it was bad but nearly so ruinous as I did?

    coming from someone who really enjoyed Spectre.. the Bond and Blofeld foster brother angle is something that really didn't bother me, but i didn't find it necessary either.. i think they could've gotten the same drama and impact between the two characters across without the childhood connection - Blofeld simply being the one who destroyed Bond's life because 007 decided to interfere in his business made it personal enough... the brother angle seemed like it was thrown in for the sake of being thrown in...

    but it didn't ruin the movie for me.... even my gripes i listed a few pages ago didn't ruin the overall film as a whole for me.,,, i have gripes with almost every Bond film - doesn't mean they are all bad.. there were plenty of Bond films that did it worse than SP, but i still enjoy them.

    Agreed.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    TripAces wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    One thing that is sticking in my head: Those of you who enjoyed Spectre, thought it was real, solid, top ten Bond material, what did you think of the big twist with Bond and Blofeld? Did you find the drama they poured into it appropriate? Did it enhance the moment? What about Blofeld and Bond being adopted brothers, and Blofeld being driven by his daddy issues? Did that work for you guys?

    I know, as I've carped about plenty, that this was a lowlight for me and really damaged the whole movie. I'm curious whether you thought it was well done, could take it or leave it, or thought it was bad but nearly so ruinous as I did?

    coming from someone who really enjoyed Spectre.. the Bond and Blofeld foster brother angle is something that really didn't bother me, but i didn't find it necessary either.. i think they could've gotten the same drama and impact between the two characters across without the childhood connection - Blofeld simply being the one who destroyed Bond's life because 007 decided to interfere in his business made it personal enough... the brother angle seemed like it was thrown in for the sake of being thrown in...

    but it didn't ruin the movie for me.... even my gripes i listed a few pages ago didn't ruin the overall film as a whole for me.,,, i have gripes with almost every Bond film - doesn't mean they are all bad.. there were plenty of Bond films that did it worse than SP, but i still enjoy them.

    Agreed.

    Yes, agreed. It didn't ruin anything for me personally, but it was ham-fisted and redundant (it served no real purpose), so if it upset some people (including members of the general public/casual fans) then it was a silly/stupid thing to do.
  • Posts: 12,477
    HASEROT wrote: »
    One thing that is sticking in my head: Those of you who enjoyed Spectre, thought it was real, solid, top ten Bond material, what did you think of the big twist with Bond and Blofeld? Did you find the drama they poured into it appropriate? Did it enhance the moment? What about Blofeld and Bond being adopted brothers, and Blofeld being driven by his daddy issues? Did that work for you guys?

    I know, as I've carped about plenty, that this was a lowlight for me and really damaged the whole movie. I'm curious whether you thought it was well done, could take it or leave it, or thought it was bad but nearly so ruinous as I did?

    coming from someone who really enjoyed Spectre.. the Bond and Blofeld foster brother angle is something that really didn't bother me, but i didn't find it necessary either.. i think they could've gotten the same drama and impact between the two characters across without the childhood connection - Blofeld simply being the one who destroyed Bond's life because 007 decided to interfere in his business made it personal enough... the brother angle seemed like it was thrown in for the sake of being thrown in...

    but it didn't ruin the movie for me.... even my gripes i listed a few pages ago didn't ruin the overall film as a whole for me.,,, i have gripes with almost every Bond film - doesn't mean they are all bad.. there were plenty of Bond films that did it worse than SP, but i still enjoy them.

    Also agreed. I think it didn't really help the movie at all; I mean it would have made enough sense for Blofeld to target Bond repeatedly after Bond continually messes things up for SPECTRE. The foster brother thing was just meh. Unnecessary is definitely the word for it.
  • DomesticKittenDomesticKitten Blofeld's Lap
    edited November 2015 Posts: 29
    Okay, my brief thoughts on SPECTRE after my 3rd viewing.

    This is Craig's best Bond film.

    It's the Bond film I have been waiting a long long time for, because in my opinion, we finally have all the elements that make Bond what we know and love it for. It feels like a Connery adventure, ripped from the 60's and brought into the modern day. Of course you can say it's got the great action we expect, the fast cars, the amazing locations - but the most important thing for me, is that in this film, James Bond is finally the ludicrous, over the top adventure it once was.

    Spectre is a film that manages bring the fun back into a franchise that has always been about winking at the audience, and showing them ridiculous things that you would never see in any other film series. James Bond is a man who always manages to save the day with 007 seconds left on the timer, and I think Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig have captured that feel beautifully, creating a film that celebrates everything Bond, while still telling a ridiculous story about the world we live in.

    Craig looks more comfortable in this film than he has in any of his previous efforts. He just OOZES Bond in this film in a way that he never has before. This is the first time we have seen Craig's Bond where he isn't "becoming the man we all know". Daniel Craig finally IS James Bond. The sneaky, suave secret agent once again. The man who steals cars from his own organisation, waves to bad guys he will later kill, and chases down a convoy of 3 jeeps with a light aircraft (Yup. Why not).

    We see the return of many significant elements that ensure this film feels more like classic Bond than any of the others. We finally see the return of the silent henchman, the villain's lair (complete with uniformed minions doing busy work on computers), hell there is even a train fight. I also love the smaller notes of Bond that Mendes and the writers have included, such as Bond and Madeline being treated as honoured guests at SPECTRE's compound, with lovely rooms and "Drinks at 4". This attention to detail shows a serious love for the original material, and a respect for it also.

    For me, this is exactly the film I have wanted to see since Craig took over the role. As much as I love Casino Royale and Skyfall (we don't talk about Question of Sport), this is the film where we finally see Craig's Bond go on a classic 007 adventure. It may have it's issues, I'm by no means saying it is flawless, but in my opinion it is 110% James Bond.

    ★★★★★
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I am sometimes all serious about replies to my posts here concerning my favourite Bond movies, but right now I have few f***s to give about any negativity concerning SPECTRE as I am still floating in my cloud of happiness with this film. \m/

    Keep flying high and enjoy :) ..I enjoyed it too.

    Oddly and I thought if TLD wandered up my rankings after SP. No I can't explain why.... just go with it.

    LTK stayed at the bottom fighting sharks so don't get too excited. :P

    Huh, and I actually have demoted TLD from 2nd to 5th rank due to the shuffle SP caused in my Top 5.

    It took 20 years for this to happen, before GE, TLD was my number one.

    SP GE stand firmly at 1 and 2.
    OHMSS CR and TLD at 3-5 but to be honest those three could swap places any time within that 3. It's damn difficult to rank them, they are a tie really.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    My wife who knew nothing of SP whispered to me "that is Bond's Brother you'll see" after Oberhauser was turning his face into the light in the Rome scene, when we were seeing it at the cinema.
    After 11 seasons of Grey's Anatomy and 5 seasons of Private Practice she's an expert on such things!

    So the "brother" thing certainly didn't feel forced or artificial.
    And I can't imagine that turning anybody off, especially after the soap opera Skyfall.

    Waltz delivered every line and gesture powerful and believable anyway.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    lalala2004 wrote: »
    I find it interesting that people are saying it gets better with multiple viewings. I've found the opposite to happen to me with some past Bond films. I loved DAD when I first saw it, and the more I watched it, the more I saw it's flaws. Given, I was only 15 at the time....

    People were also mentioning the "formula". I actually thought the elements of the Bond formula that were thrown in were some of the strengths of the film. It was just where they took it too far, with Q, M, and Moneypenny doing way too much.

    Seconded. This was the only thing that really irked me. Otherwise a perfectly enjoyable Bond movie.
  • Posts: 1,970
    lalala2004 wrote: »
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    They should just end Bond. For a while at least. Five years or so gap. Let things cool down and then wham - new creative team, new Bond, perhaps with no backstory stuff. A nice soft reboot. Forget about Blofeld with daddy issues, forget Vesper, forget Silva. A clean slate in 2020.

    The gap between DAD and CR felt like eternity to me, and that was only 4 years. Ignoring everything that came before after all this build up would be a huge disappointment.

    I felt like an eternity for me too. For some reason the gap between Qos and SF felt shorter an it was a 4 year gap as well.
  • Posts: 4,617
    I think the claim that you have to see it again comes from those who are massive fans and are struggling to face the reality that it may not have reached the heights of a classic. Movies are meant to be enjoyed on viewing, not on viewing a second or third time, what percentage of jo public will tolerate having to go and see a movie trice, I think it is just showing too much good will towards a movie
  • Posts: 1,314
    Ive seen it 4 times. I'm done. Worst viewing was the second, but it has slowly improved well. Its a solid, good Bond film. The problem is Craig isn't *just* a solid Bond. he deserved a better film.
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2015 Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    I think the claim that you have to see it again comes from those who are massive fans and are struggling to face the reality that it may not have reached the heights of a classic. Movies are meant to be enjoyed on viewing, not on viewing a second or third time, what percentage of jo public will tolerate having to go and see a movie trice, I think it is just showing too much good will towards a movie

    Pot, kettle etc. You seem to be pushing this 'failure' narrative pretty hard. If people want to wet their pants about this film it's their prerogative and this is the first place they should be allowed to do it. Objectivity can sometimes go out the window when you love something, maybe call people on it in six months when the dust has settled, but you come across as a bit of a killjoy in most of your posts considering it's only just been released and people are having fun with it.
  • Well said.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    patb wrote: »
    I think the claim that you have to see it again comes from those who are massive fans and are struggling to face the reality that it may not have reached the heights of a classic. Movies are meant to be enjoyed on viewing, not on viewing a second or third time, what percentage of jo public will tolerate having to go and see a movie trice, I think it is just showing too much good will towards a movie

    Don't agree at all with this. Surely as a Bond enthusiast you must appreciate the effect that both time (however short), reflection and repeated viewings can have on our perceptions of these films & it's character that we love?

    I cannot stand either LALD or DAD, but I can certainly comprehend that some of the board members find what they are looking for in these movies, ie. their own personal '007 fix'.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 4,617
    Fair points, sorry, did not want to upset anyone, but the reality is that this movie was not made for us (or other people who are happy to go and watch a movie 2 or 3 times to form a final opinion) , it was made for mass market. If the next Star Wars movie has to be seen twice to be appreciated (Like Star Wars and Star Trek, Bond has to please the mainstream to succeed,), then that too has failed IMHO. Bond movies are not exempt from the same commercial pressures plus word of mouth will never be good if it relies on a second or third showing. Peoples lives are busy, they dont have the time or inclination and many people dont even consider giving a movie a second chance. They want to walk out of the cinema with a great positive feeling - not, "well, I'll come back next week and give it another go". I cant think that a director or script writer is thinking " its OK if they miss that as they will see it when they come back next week" , I fully appreciate that great art has depth and should be looked at over and over again but, commercial movies IMHO should offer instant audience involvement and gratification. Did any of the SC series need a second or third viewing? They were great , "out of the box"
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    patb wrote: »
    I think the claim that you have to see it again comes from those who are massive fans and are struggling to face the reality that it may not have reached the heights of a classic. Movies are meant to be enjoyed on viewing, not on viewing a second or third time, what percentage of jo public will tolerate having to go and see a movie trice, I think it is just showing too much good will towards a movie

    Rubbish. People hated OHMSS and said it was a failure creatively as well as financially and yet the movie after being revisited, for some time now, is regarded as a classic and one of the best if not the best in the series. I for one don't need to revisit SP to like and enjoy it for what it is and nor do I need to watch it numerous times to force myself into liking it. I've seen SP 4 times now and with each viewing it's been for my own satisfaction and appreciation for an enjoyable Bond movie.
  • Posts: 97
    I really liked Spectre for the majority of it's runtime - the Day of the Dead festival, Craig in wonderfully dry form, Monica Bellucci, the sense of mystery, Mr White's backstory actually giving an idea of what it might really be like to live than kind of life. However, once we got about half-way in a few things really started to jar with me. In no particular order:

    1) Blofeld's familial relationship with Bond: either ditch it entirely or explore it properly. What we got reduced ESB to a deranged little man with daddy issues - not the kind of leader in whom any self-respecting SPECTRE agent would put their trust! Personally I'd rather they'd ditched this rather fan-fic idea entirely as it screamed 'Goldmember' at me, but it could have been executed better. Blofeld should have got more specific about his beef with Bond, and Bond should have really known how to push Blofeld's buttons like only an unwelcome foster brother would. And whilst I love Waltz as an actor, Spectre really demonstrates how much better written Hans Landa was than 'Franz Oberhauser'.

    2) I didn't buy Bond and Madeleine falling in love and going off into sunset together. They were great together but a simply but profound mutual understanding between them would have felt more authentic to me than the ending we got.

    3) Denbigh and Hinx both felt underwritten. Hinx was set up well as a modern Red Grant/Oddjob hybrid, but his character felt like he'd been deprived his climactic character moment in the spotlight. Red Grant got his speech on the Orient Express, Oddjob got to make his big show of loyalty to his master in Fort Knox. I'd have liked to have seen more of Hinx's growing animosity towards Bond than we got.

    4) The problem with casting big names at M, Q, Moneypenny and Tanner is that the filmmakers (or maybe the actors agents) feel the need to give them (or demand) more to do than the genre requires of them. The third act felt way more 'Spooks' than 'Spectre', lol.

    5) The consequences of the Nine Eyes plot could have used a little more dramatisation that it got. We had a countdown to the programme loading, but if Spectre had had some immediate plans on how it intended to *use* its newfound access to intelligence, I'd have been more invested.

    6) The climax in London felt too much to me, and the showdown at Vauxhall Cross was dull, overwrought and predictable. The movie could easily have finished at Spectre's crater base and we wouldn't have lost anything.

    However, there was so much to love in this movie - the above simply got in the way of what was for the most part an extremely enjoyable viewing experience. It looks gorgeous, the humour works, Bond and Madeleine's reception in Morocco which had a real 'Dr. No' vibe to it, and it's great how confident the production feels. I will say though that the problem with giving Bond SO much backstory is that slightly misses the point of the character - the audience doesn't really want a fully-rounded protagonist in Bond, we want to vicariously enjoy his adventures. A little bit of depth hinted here and there is okay but I feel like we know too much about Craig's Bond now. And for Bond 25 it'd be great to have a villain who doesn't have a personal beef with a member of MI6...

    Anyway, peace out!
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    patb wrote: »
    Fair points, sorry, did not want to upset anyone, but the reality is that this movie was not made for us (or other people who are happy to go and watch a movie 2 or 3 times to form a final opinion) , it was made for mass market. If the next Star Wars movie has to be seen twice to be appreciated, then that too has failed IMHO. Bond movies are not exempt from the same commercial pressures plus word of mouth will never be good if it relies on a second or third showing. Peoples lives are busy, they dont have the time or inclination and many people dont even consider giving a movie a second chance. I cant think that a director or script writer is thinking " its OK if they miss that as they will see it when they come back next week" , I fully appreciate that great art has depth and should be looked at over and over again but, commercial movies IMHO should offer instant audience involvement and gratification. Did any of the SC series need a second or third viewing? They were great , "out of the box"

    Don't think anyone was upset, it's your opinion, mate :)>-

    You are, I think, referring to the instant appeal that these films need to have. But that is, again, pretty subjective isn't it?
    I came out of the cinema quite content. Not blown away, but I'd def give it another viewing. It did what it said on the bottle (or 'box', if you like :> )
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Tanner's screen time was so minimal it was any wonder why he was in the film. Hopefully, they can scale back the MI6 team a bit more in the next film and really focus on Bond and the immediate components of his mission.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Sorry, another point,when they run the test screenings, (happy to be corrected) but they do ask for feedback after one showing? on the basis that its the aim of the movie to entertain within that parameter
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    patb wrote: »
    Sorry, another point,when they run the test screenings, (happy to be corrected) but they do ask for feedback after one showing? on the basis that its the aim of the movie to entertain within that parameter

    I wouldn't overestimate the positive impact a test screening can have... such a small demographic usually ends up harming the final edit more than helping it.
  • fjdinardo wrote: »
    lalala2004 wrote: »
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    They should just end Bond. For a while at least. Five years or so gap. Let things cool down and then wham - new creative team, new Bond, perhaps with no backstory stuff. A nice soft reboot. Forget about Blofeld with daddy issues, forget Vesper, forget Silva. A clean slate in 2020.

    The gap between DAD and CR felt like eternity to me, and that was only 4 years. Ignoring everything that came before after all this build up would be a huge disappointment.

    I felt like an eternity for me too. For some reason the gap between Qos and SF felt shorter an it was a 4 year gap as well.

    An effect of getting older, perhaps? Not knowing who the new Bond would be and how things would turn out for so long was part of the challenge as well. Plus I spent a lot of time on KTBEU, so I was obsessed about it, whereas between QoS and SF I stayed away. It doesn't seem to me like a long length of time between films has a huge effect on the quality of the film itself.
Sign In or Register to comment.