Spectre (Bond 24)

Smertulitanus

with new James bond and George Mcfly from back to the Future they have same suit

That_Guy

I'm not entirely sure what people expect from a James Bond film. It is a ridiculously OTT series as it is.

I quite enjoyed Spectre. I don't think it was as good as Skyfall or Casino Royale but there is enough in this to like.

The set pieces were pretty decent although the

close combat scene on the train moved extremely quickly that it was hard to convey what was happening at some moments.

I enjoyed the story arc of Craig's Bond but I hope that we won't be treated to a reboot of the series down the line.

Sam Smith's song was rubbish and the opening 4-5 minute tracking shot was superb. Beautifully shot.

I enjoyed it anyway. Plot wise, it's got some things just tacked onto it but with Bond films, I never let ridiculous storylines get in the way of a good elaborate murderin' spree from England's finest.

eviltimeban

check_six wrote: »

Did you ever see him meet a bad guy he didn't kill? He does a bunch of murderin'. Enough to qualify as an assassin.

It's fair to assume that Bond got a new place to live since the events of Skyfall, which could have been a reasonable period of time ago.

Well it's one thing killing bad guys along the way, but to actively go out and kill them, as the mission itself...

With regards to the apartment, we have to assume the events of Spectre took place shortly after the events of Skyfall. Why would Bond wait a long time to act on the information given in old M's video?

Andrew Laeddis

So did he shag MoneyPenny?

She leaves his gaff, walking down the street like John Wayne and then he's in his dressing gown

flangemeistro

Andrew Laeddis wrote: »

So did he shag MoneyPenny?

She leaves his gaff, walking down the street like John Wayne and then he's in his dressing gown

I was also wondering this but from memory he wasn't in a dressing gown he was still in shirt and pants.

ThisRegard

He was wearing a dressing gown. It's probably left ambiguous purposely, otherwise he decides to open the package a while after she leaves.

fin12

Andrew Laeddis wrote: »

So did he shag MoneyPenny?

She leaves his gaff, walking down the street like John Wayne and then he's in his dressing gown

probably,

did anyone else thing the scene where he shagged the widow was really weird

, I mean just came out of nowhere.

eviltimeban

fin12 wrote: »

probably,

did anyone else thing the scene where he shagged the widow was really weird

, I mean just came out of nowhere.

She obviously hadn't had any for a while so she was gamey.

Andrew Laeddis

He shags who he wants

License to shag

For the record Money Penny is MINT

aphex™

ThisRegard wrote: »

Enjoyed the movie but jesus, the lead in time before the movie starts is just ridiculous. I timed it at around 30 minutes at a recent Odeon showing I was at, and their stupid own ads and infomercials really angry up the blood.

Yeah they seemed to have extra ads for Skyfall in Odeon, so I was worried it would happen again. :rolleyes:

Haven't seen it yet myself. Might catch a morning show in the Imax at some point, hopefully ads won't be too bad.

evil_seed

I haven't trawled through the thread, what's the general opinion of the movie? I went with 2 other people and we all that it was dreadful. Another friend of mine thought the same and people at my work thought the same too.

dr.kenneth noisewater

evil_seed wrote: »

I haven't trawled through the thread, what's the general opinion of the movie? I went with 2 other people and we all that it was dreadful. Another friend of mine thought the same and people at my work thought the same too.

I'd say 70-80% of those who have posted on this thread agree with you

Avatar MIA

dr.kenneth noisewater wrote: »

I'd say 70-80% of those who have posted on this thread agree with you

There seem to be some Die Hard (wrong franchise ?!?) Fans coming in of late that like it.

Gamb!t

evil_seed wrote: »

I haven't trawled through the thread, what's the general opinion of the movie? I went with 2 other people and we all that it was dreadful. Another friend of mine thought the same and people at my work thought the same too.

I thought it was poor enough overall,the trailer gave a good idea it wasnt going to be a hit,not sure which one I disliked the most this or QOS.

The opening scene was great and

the car chase bits.

but that was about it.

There also wasnt enough of C.Walz.

6/10

ButtersSuki

Posted earlier in the What have you watched recently thread:

....went to see Spectre at the weekend. I need to preface this by saying I'm a big Bond fan as well as a big "Craig as Bond" fan (Casino Royale for me is Top 3 Bond Movies ever); all of which actually makes this harder for me to p*ss all over it but that's what I'm going to do. It was painful. This was Bond by numbers; like they asked some focus group "tell us exactly what you need in the next movie" and they answered "everything", and then they tried to deliver that and created this mess. It's simplistically formulaic - open with chase scene; then naked girl titles; then into the office for a meeting, a telling off and then head down to Q for some gadgets; then some silly titillation and so on. They attempt to tie up each and every loose end from the last three movies in a story arc that makes about as much sense as a Bertie Ahern Tribunal speech. The dialogue is awful and clichéd; the storyline has more holes than a Swiss Cheese factory and there are enough goofs and mistakes to keep even the biggest mistake spotters happy

example: the police turning up in seconds and mounting two major roadblocks in central London after the helicopter crash - I know a degree of suspension of belief is required for these things but come on!

. Part of the problem is the bar had been set so high by Casino Royale, that every one since (including Skyfall) has disappointed. There were people laughing aloud at the screening - you couldn't have imagined the dark, disturbed and tortured Bond in Casino evoking a laugh. People will think I'm just saying this for effect (I assure you I'm not) but I even preferred Quantum of Solace to this. Craig's Bond has almost now gone full circle back to the cheesy grin and one liners of Moore and Brosnan, and is all the worse for it. Bellucci (who for once looks her age) is in it for a matter of minutes, whilst Christoph Waltz manages to simultaneously ham it up and yet still appear under and badly used. The other Bond girl is possibly the blandest Bond Girl ever, I'm genuinely struggling to remember anything about her character after a day. Finally, on the dialogue again, some of Ralph Fiennes lines must have been scripted by a transition year student

one of the latter scenes, couldn't he have just left it as "C", without pausing for effect and then saying "clumsy"

? A deeply disappointing mess 4/10 - it's getting that for stunts basically. Oh and the IMAX is LOUD!

This was (almost) my reaction for the majority of the film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PbubaeuIsw

BuilderPlumber

Hope to get to see SPECTRE Friday. It seems to be getting mixed views. It seems most people regard Casino Royale very highly and regard Quantum of Solace as poor enough, but views on Skyfall and SPECTRE seem mixed.

I would rank the three Craig films I have seen as all among the better of the Bonds. Casino Royale and Skyfall to me around among the best ever. Quantum of Solace is decent too.

To each generation, I guess the different Bonds speak to people in different ways. The first Bond film I ever saw was Goldfinger and thus the first Bond I got to know was that of Connery. The next Bonds I saw were a mix of the other Connery and Moore films. I got to see Lazenby, Dalton, Brosnan and now Craig after that.

The likes of Goldfinger, From Russia With Love, Thunderball and You Only Live Twice set up in my mind what a classic Bond film should be. These 4 I mention are all different to each other but are probably the template films for all that follows. The car chase in Goldfinger, the train fight in FRWL, the underwater battles in Thunderball and the baddie trying to ignite world war 3 in You Only Live Twice have ALL been used over and over again in the subsequent films. Villains like Goldfinger, Oddjob, Blofeld, Grant, Klebb and Largo are all among the most memorable as well. Pussy Galore is perhaps the most memorable Bond girl.

On the other hand, Die Another Day conjures up in my mind a Bond film that slides off its rails. While not as bad as some may say, it is a mess. The very serious POW opening scene where Bond is held by a fictional Asian dictator could have given us a real classic Bond instead of the mess we got.

Casino Royale and Skyfall to me are along with the 2 Dalton films the modern answer to the early Connery classics. Craig's Bond came at a time when the franchise seemed to have gone as far as it could go.

The problem too with all the Bond actors is that sometimes they may end up doing 1 or 2 films too many. Moore was the longest serving Bond. He bridged the link between his and Connery's Bond in the excellent straightforward thriller Live and Let Die, then followed it up with his poorest film The Man With The Golden Gun. He cemented his style in the excellent Blofeld-era like The Spy Who Loved Me and continued this in the underrated Moonraker and Octopussy. For Your Eyes Only was an example of a more straightforward Bond film that was serious enough. Moore did some great films but perhaps he should have ended on (forgive the pun) an alltime high on Octopussy? By A View To a Kill, he seemed too old and largely out of the action. This is quite a good film but it is Christopher Walken's Zorin who steals the show here.

Connery was the next most prolific Bond opening on a strong note with Dr No and upping it even further with his next 4 films. Perhaps his return with the more lighthearted Diamonds Are Forever, which is not a bad film by any means, was poor timing after what happened Tracy in Lazenby's film (which largely kept the style of the early Connery ones). I enjoyed Never Say Never Again too even if it is just an unnecessary remake of the excellent Thunderball. But what if Connery made one more say in 1987? Would he be just like Moore in his last film? Taking a back seat.

The other extreme is a Bond who did not get enough films. I would have liked to have seen a few more Dalton Bonds for one. He made 2 of the best films in the franchise.

One can say what you like about the Brosnan era films. But they were a symptom of the times. The cold war and its consequences were over and the idea of Bond allied to KGB agents taking down a common enemy was not relevant any longer. Plus, they could not make another Licence to Kill where Bond goes after another drug dealer after another friend is killed or maimed. Therefore, there was confusion in what to do with Bond. Bond went up against some of the most ridiculous enemies not seen since Scaramanga in Golden Gun. Goldeneye's ex-MI6 villain was probably the most memorable. TND's Robert Maxwell type villain was not convincing even though this was a good You Only Live Twice/The Spy Who Loved Me type film. Elektra King was hardly anyone's idea of a villain and Bond killing her in cold blood rather than assigning her to a mental institution for treatment and depression was further evidence of the confusion. The start shows the henchman very much afraid of some master villain we never get to see! Renard seemed more a hired hand than a master villain. Die Another Day ended this confused era of Bond at an all time low but I would have liked to have seen Brosnan in a really good Bond film with a strong villain and a memorable plot.

Craig's Bond has made the character more relevant again and dealing with realistic issues like terrorist fundraising as in Casino Royale. Skyfall admittedly nicked the plot of ex-MI6 gone bad from Goldeneye but it did it better imo. The one thing about Quantum of Solace is that it lacked a real plot and villain just like The Man With The Golden Gun did. But it perhaps had more action in it than any Bond film. Even if Quantum is Craig's poorest outing, it still imo anyway is entertaining.

Senna

Just back from Spectre, glad I read the disappointing reviews here as I went in with low expectations. Enjoyed the whole film, bit slow at times, bit paint by numbers, bit predictable, under use of some characters and others were far too forgettable, but as a bond films go, I would recommend.
4/5

As an aside, I didn't enjoy casio royal, I must watch it again as I think I was a bit drunk watching it and it might have been lost on me.

weadick

Thought Spectre was terrible. I'm sick of all the grovelling over Daniel Craig and his oversized pecs. Why does every Bond movie now have to have a ridiculous love story clumsily thrown in? To appeal to a female audience?

I heard people laughing out loud at certain times in the movie, the Isabella Rossolini seduction scene being the worst. Haven't heard laughter like that at a Bond movie since Craig sucked yer ones fingers in the shower in Casino Royale.

BuilderPlumber

Senna wrote: »

Just back from Spectre, glad I read the disappointing reviews here as I went in with low expectations. Enjoyed the whole film, bit slow at times, bit paint by numbers, bit predictable, under use of some characters and others were far too forgettable, but as a bond films go, I would recommend.
4/5

As an aside, I didn't enjoy casio royal, I must watch it again as I think I was a bit drunk watching it and it might have been lost on me.

I look forward to seeing SPECTRE next Friday. I feel I will enjoy it too and find that there is something in all the Craig Bonds that keeps me interested. Do watch Casino again as it is very good and stays close as possible even to the original book. It is surprising it was not made years earlier.

On that note, the one film that should be avoided at all costs is Casino Royale 1967 as that is not a proper Bond film but a stupid spoof. Yet, this thing must have had a massive budget for the time as it featured David Niven, Woody Allen and Ursula Andress. Everyone in it seemed to be Bond! But it was not Bond. Along with some terrible martial arts films I had the misfortune to see such as Karate Kid 3, Casino Royale 1967 is the worst film I ever saw.

Avatar MIA

Excellent review Buttersuki

ThisRegard

weadick wrote: »

Why does every Bond movie now have to have a ridiculous love story clumsily thrown in?

Haven't they had them since the very first Bond movie?

Das Kitty

ThisRegard wrote: »

Haven't they had them since the very first Bond movie?

And the books.

Giruilla

The signs were there Spectre would be a mess a year ago
http://defamer.gawker.com/new-bond-script-leaks-execs-scrambling-to-fix-awful-en-1670479885

One thing I really disliked was all the 'nods' and 'easter eggs' to the old films. Just shows the lack of ingenuity in the script and fear of doing something completely new.

That 'mickey mouse' line.. wow.

johnny_ultimate

What stood out about the film to me, more so than its immediate predecessors, was the jarring contrast between the James Bond character and the world he occupied. For a film whose plot is built around the collection and exploitation of data - and the script is actively critical of such things - it's odd that the saviour is in essence an old-school mass murdering (surely Spectre has a higher body count than almost any of the previous titles?) alcoholic with suspect gender politics. That's reductive, yes, but it does point towards the contradiction I don't feel the film was able to address. While its liberal post-Snowden ideology was to be admired - albeit not quite to the same extent as Citizenfour - it either fumbled or mumbled its way when trying to articulate the reasons why Bond was a welcome alternative (arguably necessitating a villain who was almost cartoonishly evil to offset Bond's suspect qualities). I don't believe it would have been as jarring had the filmmakers not made an explicit attempt to question it themselves.

It's a conundrum I can imagine each set of new writers coming up against now. How do you bring James Bond into the 21st century without abandoning the characteristics and tropes that make the character who he is? More so than any previous film, Spectre felt like an awkward attempt to do both at the same time.

The King of Moo

Giruilla wrote: »

The signs were there Spectre would be a mess a year ago
http://defamer.gawker.com/new-bond-script-leaks-execs-scrambling-to-fix-awful-en-1670479885

That's interesting reading, and explains why the final act felt very cobbled together and poorly-paced.

I thought the film wasn't too bad overall. It had the same problems as Skyfall for me, trying unsuccessfully to balance the serious tone of Casino Royal and Quantum of Solace with the outlandishness of the older films (and I'm frustrated by that, because originally I missed those elements in the Craig films, though I've come to reappreciate Casino Royale).
The opening scene was great, but then it settled into Bond by Numbers, leading into a flabby final half an hour.

A few nitpicks:

Why did the old M send Bond to kill the Italian guy? Why did it have to be done after her death? Did she know about Spectre already, and if so why not do something about it? And why specifically kill this guy? (I think the answer to all of the above is "to get the plot started.")

Why didn't the torture to destroy the facial-recognition part of Bond's brain work? The power of love?

Did there really need to be a personal connection between Blofeld and Bond? It just makes everything seem so much smaller.
And why didn't Blofeld kill Bond when he was a teenager. Why decide to wait until he was in his late 30s/early 40s and then destroy him slowly by taking those he loved away from him?

And I was really annoyed about the "secret" of Oberhauser being Blofeld. First of all, with the film being called Spectre and Christoph Waltz clearly being the main villain, it was already pretty obvious. And even though he's not called Blofeld for most of the film, he's already fulfilling the role of Blofeld, so once he awkwardly tells Bond the new name he's chosen, it doesn't change things in any way. It's just giving the character a new name, but he's still got the same plan he already had. The only effect keeping the revelation as a late "twist" is that it means we get to see too little of Waltz, to keep him under wraps until then. I think it would have been much more satisfying if he were clearly Blofeld, Blofelding things from the start.

And then of course they have to show how he gets his scar, and how he loses the use of his legs, because of course we all wanted and needed to see that!
Hopefully before the next film they'll release a series of webisodes showing how he loses his hair and buys a volcano.

eeguy

Giruilla wrote: »

The signs were there Spectre would be a mess a year ago
http://defamer.gawker.com/new-bond-script-leaks-execs-scrambling-to-fix-awful-en-1670479885

One thing I really disliked was all the 'nods' and 'easter eggs' to the old films. Just shows the lack of ingenuity in the script and fear of doing something completely new.

That 'mickey mouse' line.. wow.

Can't believe they let that line through. He should have said "Scooby Doo, asshole";);)

That also explains why Q appeared in the ski resort/hospital to tell them about the ring. Seemed a waste of a trip really when he could have used the phone.

flangemeistro

Ya what a terrible mess of a film. An absolute abomination.
So bad in fact that it has smashed an 11 year box office record previously held by Harry Potter.
Mendes, Craig and MGM must be very worried about all these meaningless reviews. Ha .
As I said the box office would tell all.
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-11-02/james-bond-beats-harry-potter-as-spectre-breaks-uk-box-office-record

Amazing film.

eeguy

flangemeistro wrote: »

Ya what a terrible mess of a film. An absolute abomination.
So bad in fact that it has smashed an 11 year box office record previously held by Harry Potter.
Mendes, Craig and MGM must be very worried about all these meaningless reviews. Ha .
As I said the box office would tell all.
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-11-02/james-bond-beats-harry-potter-as-spectre-breaks-uk-box-office-record

Amazing film.

James Bond was never going to tank, but it's a far cry from Casino Royale and Skyfall.
To me it seems like it collapsed under the weight of half-arsed rewrites, that left a load of loose ends throughout that made little sense.

It's a good example of a film made by committee, with a marketing dept that that overemphasised the wrong points in the movie, leaving audiences underwhelmed.

FunLover18

flangemeistro wrote:

As I said the box office would tell all.

No, it tells us people are going to see it and that is all it tells us. It does not tell us that those who pay to see it all love it (as this thread proves) nor that it is a good film, see Avatar, Jurassic World, and F&F7 (which I enjoyed but is no Oscar winner) for proof, or Shawshank Redemption in the opposite direction which did very poorly at cinemas but is now regarded as a classic.

eeguy

flangemeistro wrote: »

Y
As I said the box office would tell all.
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-11-02/james-bond-beats-harry-potter-as-spectre-breaks-uk-box-office-record

Amazing film.

If that was true then Jurassic World and the Avengers would be the best movies ever made.

I think box office records are due more to increasing ticket prices for 3d and IMAX that actual film quality.

flangemeistro

FunLover18 wrote: »

No, it tells us people are going to see it and that is all it tells us. It does not tell us that those who pay to see it all love it (as this thread proves) nor that it is a good film, see Avatar, Jurassic World, and F&F7 (which I enjoyed but is no Oscar winner) for proof, or Shawshank Redemption in the opposite direction which did very poorly at cinemas but is now regarded as a classic.

No it proves that people are going to see it in their droves and enjoying it so much that they then recommend it to friends and family who do the same and so on and so forth.
If what you're saying is true then why didn't any of the films you mentioned topple the 11 year record never mind nearly double it?
Because the majority of people didn't enjoy those movies so they didn't recommend them and their box office takings plummeted after the original rush because there was no ripple effect.
No matter how much you disliked the movie and try to say people with your opinion will change what really counts and that's footfall and box office takings.

flangemeistro

eeguy wrote: »

If that was true then Jurassic World and the Avengers would be the best movies ever made.

I think box office records are due more to increasing ticket prices for 3d and IMAX that actual film quality.

No one here has labeled Spectre as the best movie ever, and your point makes absolutely no sense as neither Jurassic World or Any of the avengers series touched the 11 year record that Harry Potter held yet Spectre has almost doubled it.
Look the figures speak for themselves and just because this thread has mainly negative views proves only our era's addiction to taking time out of their day to negatively comment on movies, restaurants and hotels yet they don't seem to have the same time to give positive reviews when they have a good experience.
We're a nation of moaners.

pixelburp

flangemeistro wrote: »

No it proves that people are going to see it in their droves and enjoying it so much

You can't presume that attendance === enjoyment in any case of box office takings, no matter how much you personally enjoy a film; it's reductionist and makes no sense. No sensible person prejudges something before they've watched / read / listened to it, so how else can a person form an opinion of Spectre, or any other film, without first shelling out the cash to see it in the cinema?

I've yet to see it myself, but by your own logic my attendance must equate to my eventual enjoyment. I get there's a varied opinion on the film, but I'd prefer to make up my own mind, that's how these things tend to work. It's clear you loved the movie, more power to you, so why not just enjoy it on its own merits & in the spirit of discussion, rather than assume that 'moaners' are trying to harsh on your personal buzz? It's pulling in the scheckles, but it doesn't inform anything other than that it's making money.

James Bond is a franchise that practically markets itself, it's a big ticket film with possibly one of the largest, most recognised brands in cinema. It's not without reason that aspirational & luxury commercial brands try to tie-in with the films. And with most blockbusters there tends to be a 'casual' footfall of attendees; people who simply don't read reviews or blogs or boards.ie, and just go to the cinema for something to do. And again, it can't be assumed that all those going are loving what they see. I'd be more surprised if people weren't attending a James Bond film tbh.

All that said, if those reports are true and the film cost $300+ million, it'll take some haul for the studio to call it a resounding success financially.

eeguy

flangemeistro wrote: »

No one here has labeled Spectre as the best movie ever, and your point makes absolutely no sense as neither Jurassic World or Any of the avengers series touched the 11 year record that Harry Potter held yet Spectre has almost doubled it.

My point is that Jurassic World, Avengers are the highest grossing movies in the world, not just the UK.

flangemeistro wrote: »

Look the figures speak for themselves

Well here's some more for you:
Uk box office No. 1 = Spectre 65% on Rotten Tomatoes
Uk box office No. 2 = Prisoner of Azkaban 91% on RT
Uk box office No. 3 = Mamma Mia 54% on RT

Box office list do not represent film quality. They more accurately represent marketing quality and brand appeal, which Bond has plenty of.

flangemeistro wrote: »

We're a nation of moaners.

I prefer the term "critic" :)

EDIT: Just to note that both flangemeistro and the Radio Times use the top UK opening weekend figures for films produced in Britain. The number 2 UK opening weekend for films produced worldwide is Avatar.

Nerdlingr

flangemeistro wrote: »

As I said the box office would tell all.

"Tell all"?
No it doesnt. All it tells is how many people are going to see the movie.
Nothing more.

The Shawshank Redemption, Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz, Blade Runner etc (amongst countless others) all bombed at the box office.

Does this "tell all" as well ?

FunLover18

flangemeistro wrote:

No it proves that people are going to see it in their droves and enjoying it so much that they then recommend it to friends and family who do the same and so on and so forth. If what you're saying is true then why didn't any of the films you mentioned topple the 11 year record never mind nearly double it? Because the majority of people didn't enjoy those movies so they didn't recommend them and their box office takings plummeted after the original rush because there was no ripple effect. No matter how much you disliked the movie and try to say people with your opinion will change what really counts and that's footfall and box office takings.

It proves that people are going in their droves yes but when I bought my ticket I didn't have fill out a survey about why I was buying a ticket or how I heard about the film nor did I fill out a survey when I left the cinema. The box office solely accounts for tickets sold and nothing else. You can assume if you want but it is no more than an assumption and as this thread proves your assumption that people are buying tickets because they heard about the film from people who loved it is wrong. You keep going on about the 11 year old record which Potter film is that and is it the best film? Is the Phantom Menace an amazing film?

I have no problem with you or others liking Spectre, I disagree but it's your opinion and you're entitled to it but I do have a problem with you equating every ticket sold with a five star review. People (not all people) don't like the film and no matter how much to try to twist irrelevant figures it won't change the fact that what you think is amazing others might think is mediocre or downright ****.

ButtersSuki

flangemeistro wrote: »

No one here has labeled Spectre as the best movie ever, and your point makes absolutely no sense as neither Jurassic World or Any of the avengers series touched the 11 year record that Harry Potter held yet Spectre has almost doubled it.
Look the figures speak for themselves and just because this thread has mainly negative viewsproves only our era's addiction to taking time out of their day to negatively comment on movies, restaurants and hotels yet they don't seem to have the same time to give positive reviews when they have a good experience.
We're a nation of moaners.

Way to make a generalisation there!
Read my reviews on films I liked on the aforementioned "What Have You Watched Recently" thread. Whilst I shat all over Bond, there are films I have gone out of my way to tell people about positively, esp. documentaries. And I'm not the only one. Just because you write a negative review does not make you negative. I'll go out of my way to praise films I like and urge others to see them, and I'm not the only one on boards who does this by any means. My rating for many films I've watched on that thread would be 7/10 or higher - why? because I'm selective in what I watch and tend to avoid the mainstream fodder that populates most of our cinemas.

Giruilla

This is an excellent review http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/11/03/review-spectre-is-the-worst-007-movie-in-30-years/

the narrative inertia and lack of much entertainment value in the form of engaging action or nuanced screenwriting is something of a shock.

Pretty much everything Spectre has to offer amounts to something that a previous Bond movie did better. And that’s the trap of doing a Bond movie in the “generational nostalgia” sandbox.

ThisRegard

Actually, I was just reminded that during the lull after the midpoint I dozed off for a while, I think it was just before the train scene.

I'm no stranger to doing this at home, but only the second time doing so in the cinema. The other being bloody Shakespeare in Love.

OU812

Just in format. Have to say, absolutely loved it. I thought they tied the four movies together perfectly, great introduction of a worthy foe & a weakness introduced (that I'm sure will be exploited in the next one). Loved the nods to the earlier movies, this one felt like a 60s/70s 007. Barest hint of gadgets, fast car, beautiful women, exotic locations & low tech action.

My one complaint was the slightly dodgy green screen in the helicopter at the start. Would love if there was a sequel out next week

BuilderPlumber

pixelburp wrote: »

James Bond is a franchise that practically markets itself, it's a big ticket film with possibly one of the largest, most recognised brands in cinema.

Excellent point. James Bond is the most successful collection of firms ever made when it comes to longevity. I don't think there is any other set of films that have been consistently successful over a 50+ year period. 24 official ones along with 1 decent unofficial one along with the poor comedy spoof version of Casino Royale equals 26 films. In terms of longevity, only TV's Dr Who is comparable.

It has become easier these days to make a sequel or a reboot of an old idea. We have seen a lot of the top commercial films this year (some excellent, some not so great) coming from revisits to old franchises and all were successful because they market themselves to a large extent: SPECTRE, Mad Max: Fury Road, Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Terminator: Genisys, Macbeth, Pitch Perfect 2, Jurassic Word, 50 Shades of Grey, Fast and Furious 7, etc. are all films based on either old successful film series, popular plays, popular books, etc. that already had an audience.

Other recent years have given us a similar picture. We have the likes of Rambo, The A Team, Miami Vice, Indiana Jones, Bond again, Terminator again, Star Wars again, the Bourne films, Jack Reacher, Star Trek, Batman, etc. all made into films. Once more, all familiar material.

On the other hand, we will not likely get such films as Waterworld 2, Catwoman 2 or The Postman 2. These would all be considered too risky to undertake due to the poor perception most of the public have of the original films.

e_e

Giruilla wrote: »

This is an excellent review http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/11/03/review-spectre-is-the-worst-007-movie-in-30-years/

Pretty much everything Spectre has to offer amounts to something that a previous Bond movie did better. And that’s the trap of doing a Bond movie in the “generational nostalgia” sandbox.

Jurassic World anyone? I'm really tired of this lazy nostalgia pandering, it's like they're admitting that they've run out of ideas and aren't even trying.

Evac101

Wife and I went to see it, neither of us left the cinema feeling like we had 'engaged' with the film at any point. There were some amazing stunts, there were some amusing nods to previous Bond films (and a couple to the original books) but neither of us felt swept away by the action or narrative at any point, which was frustrating. Packed screening, plenty of drink and treats, leg room - good conditions to watch a movie in. The other cinema goers adhered to Kermodes Rules of Conduct (by and large). What I'm saying is that nothing off screen affected our reception of the movie and yet, maybe 80 minutes in, we were both waiting for it to end rather than waiting for the next screen. Which is a pity as it seemed to me like

this signaled the intention of Craig and Mendes to make this their final outing

eviltimeban

There were two problems, firstly the JB fanboys (if there is such a thing) getting their knickers in a twist about

Blofeld

. If it were some new bad guy, a la De Silva, there would've been less of an issue. It was the weight of expectation of what his character would bring, and some people were let down.

I thought the opening parts with

Blofeld were fantastic, in the meeting in Italy, and when we got to his base

I was genuinely hooked and interested in seeing where it would go.

I actually wasn't sure if he was dead or not (I figured he wasn't) and was pleased when he returned in London. I was also pleased that Bond didn't shoot him - I thought, whatever his motivation for holding back, it was the right thing to do.

The second issue was people saying "I want a traditional Bond film!" after Skyfall. Look at the start of this thread - so many posts asking for action and gadgets and Bond girls and car chases etc. That's exactly what they got. What if Mendes had made "Skyfall 2"?

While I love Skyfall now, I didn't like it the first time I saw it. It took a few viewings on DVD to find the nuances. But let's be honest - the plot of Skyfall is ridiculous. This, from Movieplotholes.com:

"Silva’s plan makes no sense. He wanted to get caught on that depressing **** of an island to then escape to find M, so he…

1) Needed Patrice to die at the hands of MI6
2) Needed to make sure Patrice would have his Macao casino chip in his coat
3) Assumed James Bond would just go to the casino after finding the chip because where the **** do you want a better clue to the hideout of a villain than to assume the farfetched notion that assassins enjoy the thrills of gambling risks
4) Assumed James Bond would find his girl, Sévérine, and proceed to not get killed by her 3 body-guards
5) Assumed Sévérine would like James Bond and offer him to join her on that boat for some shower-sex based on her secret desire to find a man strong enough to kill Silva
6) Assumed James Bond would be wearing a tracking device to the island so MI6 could send a few choppers to arrest him
7) Assumed his guards would not search Bond for aforementioned tracking device OR assume none of his guards cared about getting caught by MI6
8) Assumed the MI6 nerds would hook-up his virulent computer to their mainframe instead of an isolated server
9) Assumed there would not be mechanical locks to his cell - even though they were in an underground WW-2 bunker

In order to succeed, Silva had to sacrifice many of his men and pray every night to the dwarf moon-god of luck to make sure all those steps happened."

It's true! So in that sense, at least Spectre had a more straight forward plot and focused on the action, which is what people wanted in the first place.

I look forward to seeing it again on DVD.

OU812

I'm considering going to it again next week in one of the isense screens, have never been to one & want to try it out before Star Wars next month.

super_furry

Saw it last night and left pretty unimpressed – it just felt silly, like one of the later Pierce Brosnan films. There was zero nuance to it and everything was so telegraphed.

After about 30 seconds of being introduced to C, I knew he was going to be a ‘baddie’. The traps that Blofeld set and the torture scene felt like just as convoluted and unnecessary as the height of camp-Bond/Austin Powers as everything is explained to him just as it looks like he’s doomed and he then somehow escapes. Not sure if it's been confirmed yet but I fully expect Mr Hinx to be back in the next film, having replaced the teeth he lost falling off that train with a big set of metal jaws.

I honestly thought that the only thing it was missing was a Russian nuclear submarine base or a trip to the moon.

Riddle101

Saw it today. I enjoyed it for what it is. It probably won't blow you away, but I was satisfied with it.

mickoneill31

Saw it last night. Great action, unbelievable story and diabolical dialogue. I'd give it a 6 out of 10

cloudatlas

Was Andrew Scott's character 'C' in Spectre supposed to be Irish? or was that a bad attempt at disguising his Clontarf (?) accent. If so an Irish director of Mi6 was the most improbable thing about the film, I would think even now it would be impossible for someone Irish to even be in a low level clerical position in the British intelligence service.

The opening sequence was poor. The parkour opening in casino royale was one of the more memorable for me.

I thought Lea Seydoux was great. Beautiful, intelligent, deadly, well timed nuanced acting, all that you would want in a modern bond girl none of this 'what's your name', ' It's Fanny Hotlips' rubbish.

The evil lair was unfabulous and the ending petered out.

e_e

What was with the grey-brown look to Spectre? Wants to be campy fun but it's as drab as a war film. Is a bit of color and visual flash really too much to ask for from an "exciting" globe-trotting spy movie?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvSHbaA4ep8

This review is fairly spot on, Spectre just gets worse the more I look back on it.