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
Pretty much.
SP is spectacularly forgettable and quite frankly a wasted entry. There were some good scenes and a lot of potential but they all failed to create any lasting memorable impact. It may not be the worst Bond film of the last 30 years and even that's highly debatable but it's definitely, for me, the most disappointing.
In the words of Marlon Brando in On The Water Front, "I coulda been a contender" SPECTRE the third time round is more infuriatingly a missed opportunity.
While it's not a Die Another Day or a Diamonds Are Forvever due to the way it leaves a black mark on an otherwise quality Daniel Craig tenure and makes a mockery of the most iconic villain of the series I have to declare it one of the worst of the series.
I won't be rushing to have another viewing of this, it will be more than year before I subject myself to this again.
I want Craig back if only to try and make up for this travesty.
Either works for me. :)>-
There's absolutely no recreating the Golden Age of Bond from the 60s. But Craig's Bond is doing a similar thing in our 21st Century in some ways.
SP is more of a TWINE or AVTAK situation for me.
Hugh Jackman is excellent in the role. Working opposite to DC's Bond tenure, his first film was much like Sp: boring, and good-looking; his second film, much improved with flaws; his third, the pinnacle (after playing the role for 16 FREAKING YEARS....)...
Isn't SP a hiccup, like the first Wolverine spin-off? And, much like HJ, so excellent in his role, can't DC bounce back from a mediocre film (although he continued to perform well)? Can't he have his LOGAN-type ending?
If we're talking cultural cinematic significance then you're dreaming.
Can he do it? Yes, I'm sure he can, although he doesn't seem to have the same intense fire in his performances as he did when younger (similar to Connery in this respect). It's clear even as I finished off SF a few minutes ago.
Will he be able to do it even if he can? That will depend on the support he gets, in the director, composer, producer, screenwriter, co-star & cinematographer department. Does this team have a vision, drive and desire to make a first class Bond film again, or is the pressure of a new Bond actor necessary to make them all reawaken their collective creative juices?
I like Craig a lot as Bond, but I'm not wed to him. Like Connery and Moore before him, I think he's become a little creaky as he's gone on and brought some ticks into his performance which I'm not too keen on.
I will say that when I finished CR yesterday (first watch since SP's release) I realized that a lot of the elements that were first broached in that film were revisited in SP, with different results. It was almost like SP was closure to his interpretation and characterization. The ride off into the sunset moment, if you will. They probably did this intentionally to give him the out if he wanted it.
I just hope he does give us a Hugh Jackman 'Logan'-like (I haven't seen it yet but have heard great things) performance if he comes back one more time.
Mad Men.
The score and theme alone are some of the best of the series and coupled with the cinematography and set design it's one of the most recognised of the series.
Shame really there was such potential to riff on the YOLT big battle scene at the end of SP. If Mendes wanted to pay tribute to old school Bond rather than giving Craig Moore like lines, watching it last night they stick out like a sore thumb as not suiting his interpretation.
I disagree that Craig's performance was on a decline, there is an intensity in SF that is so lacking here. I think Mendes had one great Bond film in him that was it. His hesitance to return and then almost leaving in a hissy fit after Fiennes nixed his M is a SPECTRE agent idea should have been the writing on the wall for Babs and Mikey but it was too late by then.
I will say one thing I don't like the CGI explosion in the PTS but minus that the PTS along with the Mr White are the best scenes in the whole film.
I very much doubt that SPECTRE will go down in the rankings of the series at best with the likes of MWTGG or OP & VTAK and maybe that is being kind on it.
If we use "Logan" as an example: Have seen it on thursday and if Craig is able to deliver a last chapter for his Bond tenure of that quality, that would be a wish come true and compensate for SP's messy last third big time. I can highly recommend "Logan" - very good movie.
The Logan example is a little tricky. Firstly, I feel like they tried that in SF and they failed miserably. Bond being old, past his prime and somewhat over the hill is something the movie kept telling us but never really showed. What we actually got was Bond on the job while simultaneously recovering from an injury and even then he was still doing stuff he's been doing in every preceding film. That whole premise of being "washed up" was a joke.
Then SP comes along as Craig's supposed last. Irrespective of it being so or not, the film sucked. For me it was Craig's weakest Bond performance and the writing was 90% trash. Bond never felt like he was in any actual danger, dude gets tortured and seconds later he takes out an enemy base of Blofeld's goons with God-like precision. There were no stakes, no payoffs, just waste. If Bond 25 is going to be Craig's last then that should be the understanding between he and EoN at the very least. Go all out and give one hell of a performance where we feel the intimate struggle to overcome whatever the threat/problem is; just like they did with Logan.
Spectre has it's flaws (Brofeld) but it's way better of a Bond film than DAD for instance.
I may however be proven wrong. But that's just my opinion. Still, I say it might be appreciated more in the future.
Feel same way about SF. I can watch the first third but after that it just disintegrated into total garbage.
I've been saying ever since SF came out that Mendes is not right for Bond. SP is a less annoying film than SF IMO but def not top notch.
Totally agree with your analysis of SF. We were repeatedly told Bond was past it, over the hill etc. but the only way this seemed to manifest itself on screen was him growing stubble.
Definitley don't want Mendes coming back to rehash all that nonsense again.
I also agree that angle wasn't explored satisfyingly in Skyfall - there are just a handful of references to his old age in the script (e.g. "It's a young man's game," "Old dog, new tricks") and they could have easily been cut. It all works a lot better if Bond is simply old-fashioned and off his game due to injury (physical and personal). The "old man Bond" angle comes out of nowhere and goes nowhere.
SPECTRE is full of garbage, I don't get how you can like a generic Moore/Brosnan knock off over a genuine new take on the series, SF for all it's fault was brave in it's approach.
Maybe they handled the over the hill element a bit clumsily but SF has an intensity that SPECTRE is sorely lacking.
Then again if all you wanted was a by the numbers tick the box effort then SPECTRE would have suited you down to the ground.
Although how you can just ignore an iconic villain of the series turned into a mockery, whatever problems you have with SF it never does anything as sacrelidge and please don't say it's only a small moment, from the point they meet in Morocco, Waltz just goes on about brothers and the bit with him in London with the bullet proof glass between him and Bond he labours it even more.
I was actually shocked how much more I noticed it on Friday's not particularly pleasant revisting of it. Also Newman's score save the odd cue here and there is a lazy rehash of his SF score, seriously never have him or Mendes near a Bond film again.
SPECTRE is langishing near the bottom end, it's only the fact I detest the Brosnan era that it would not quite be in those depths but it's made me think about some entries like YOLT or MR that I have given a kicking in the past. Both those films have something to recommend, I can barely think of anything that would do that with SPECTRE, they even hash up the gunbarrel by not opening it up on the Day of the Dead parade and have some pretentious quote instead and no Sam Smith's dirge has not improved since the last time I was subjected to it's caterwaulings
It's also beautifully shot, the scenes in Scotland the visual equal of everything and anything in the series. Adele does a proper Bond theme which helps immeasurably. There's a conscious effort to get some humour into it, which is also very welcome. But it's also slow going, and the pacing has suffered to accomodate the cinematography. Needless. Also Q & MP for me are terribly disappointing. The quartermaster comes across as a useless sulky barely out of teens type and he both annoys, and adds nothing to the film whatsoever. But even for it's flaws, it's a good Bond and my favourite of the Craig era.
Specre is so frustrating. The beginning is brilliant, gun barrel where it ought to be and a wonderfully shot sequence in Mexico, culminating in a classic Bond like fight inside a helicopter. Brilliant stuff.
It's downhill from there. The theme song is tepid and ordinary. Judi Dench clocks in another appearance via video. The writers have an unlimited number of ways to track Bond in the storyline; we get nanotech in his blood. This sets a tone unfortunately.
This all culminates with Bond letting Blofeld live on the bridge, a scene played so absurdly as to beggar belief. Bond has blown up Blofeld with a plastic explosive in a watch, buried him under tonnes of rubble, shot him (saved by bullet proof glass) and just shot his helicopter out of the sky,
Instead we get the lazy out for a potential future appearance.
Spectre was just a massive missed opportunity. Plenty have remarked - and I concur - that it could have been a much better film with an MI6 / MI5 conflict, orchestrated by C and developing Fiennes version of M, and just leaving Waltz as the shadowy figure in the background who gets away with it. Instead we get a formula thriller with an unsatisfying ending, weak score and few memorable moments.
When Jaws, Oddjob or Gobinda went about their business, their lack of dialogue made them colder or more menacing. Whereas in Spectre I know just end up thinking it's because Dave Bautista can't deliver a line to save himself. This sums up why it won't be greatly remembered I think.
The second viewing was in a multiplex and much more enjoyable. Just as I found the love for SF overdone, I'm finding the hate for SP a bit OTT as well.
My prediction about SF has always been that it's reputation will diminish as time passes. With SP I don't know what the general publics opinion is, but I don't think it will be ranked amongst the total duds. Low middle rank probably. I wouldn't be surprised if SP and SF end up hovering around the same territory.