Spectre (Bond 24)

LaGlisse

I reckon theres a bit of the marketing budget that goes on buttering up English Film critics,dont know how this reviewes so well.
Its a bit like how you just cannot trust Irish reviewers opinions on Irish movies, they are always going to boost it

BuilderPlumber

Riddle101 wrote: »

With Blofeld being reintroduced I wonder will we see more Bond villains from the past in future films. Namely Dr No and Goldfinger.

Still haven't got around to seeing SPECTRE but hopefully this weekend. I hope we do not go down the remake road with a new version of Goldfinger or Dr No. We already got a remake of Thunderball and there was plans for another that somehow never got made called Warhead 2000.

Reintroducing Blofeld works and part of this was he was intended to be in the earlier films again after the Kevin McClory stuff died down. The assumption was he survived Diamonds are Forever and would be back later (he was supposed to be the main bad guy in The Spy Who Loved Me but McClory intervened and indeed Stromberg is really a Blofeld derivative anyway). The series then gave up on Blofeld's return and just showed his demise in a pretitle sequence in the 1980s.

A total remake of Goldfinger or From Russia With Love probably would not work and would not be as good as the originals. This would also spell the end of the series imo too. It is best to use instead unused Fleming material like the short story From A View To A Kill, etc.

BuilderPlumber

StringerBell wrote: »

Not exactly the right thread for it I guess, but I rewatched QOS recently and still don't get the extreme hate it got/gets, is it because it is basically a revenge movie? A more direct sequel then you would usually associate with Bond? Is it cause it was more action then thought?

It is a hell of a lot of fun really and I must say I enjoyed the re watch probably more then I remembered liking it the first time around, I was a big fan of License to Kill also though which was not your typical Bond film either. I have yet to watch Spectre, but for my moneys worth Craig hasn't had a "bad" outing yet as Bond.

Hoping it keeps up when I do get around to watching Spectre

I have always enjoyed Quantum of Solace too. It is a good action film. As a fan of both Bond and Mad Max, I think this film blends elements of the two. The scene where Bond leaves Greene out in the desert with the can of oil is very like the end scene of the first Mad Max. Then, there's a Thunderdome style fight as well and the water scarcity plot.

I think why the film gets a lot of undeserved hate is because it followed up Casino Royale, which is the best Bond for years. It was always difficult to follow but Quantum to me is a much better film than given credit. Way better than all 4 of Brosnan's films for certain. Also, it should be seen as the conclusion of Casino Royale and you need to see both films to appreciate them fully.

Craig has not done a bad Bond and I find myself watching all 3 of his pre-SPECTRE outings over and over. Much better than many other ones in the series.

SimonTemplar

I noticed a fun little movie connection.

When Christophe Waltz first meets Lea Seydoux in the asteroid room he says "I once visited your house to talk to your father". That is exactly what happened at the start of Inglorious Bastards. Lea had a tiny role as one of the farmer's daughters.

Technocentral

I don't like action movies in general but thought it was enjoyable enough nonsense, though

that net that happened to be there at the end in the old MI6 HQ as they fell

was really taking the piss!

flangemeistro

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I noticed a fun little movie connection.

When Christophe Waltz first meets Lea Seydoux in the asteroid room he says "I once visited your house to talk to your father". That is exactly what happened at the start of Inglorious Bastards. Lea had a tiny role as one of the farmer's daughters.

I put two and two together and presumed he was the guy who she shot when she was a child when he came to the house to kill her father.

ButtersSuki

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I noticed a fun little movie connection.

When Christophe Waltz first meets Lea Seydoux in the asteroid room he says "I once visited your house to talk to your father". That is exactly what happened at the start of Inglorious Bastards. Lea had a tiny role as one of the farmer's daughters.

Well if you want another....

Ben Wishaw (Q) kills Craig at the end of Layer Cake - which contains a very Bond-like scene when he's given Gene's gun...even Matthew Vaughn mentions it in the Director's Commentary, some quip along the lines of "someone thinks they're James Bond here"

ancapailldorcha

Saw it last week. Dreary, tedious nonsense that was above the ability of even Christoph Waltz to save. It badly needed more of Monica Bellucci instead of the generic love interest but it's all been seen before. Ultimately, the plot boils down to

a petty tiff which somehow spans the globe.

The worst of the lot which is a shame given how great Craig is in the role.

flangemeistro

Saw it for the second time last night and once again all three screens in my local omniplex were sold out.
It's even better on the second showing you notice a few more details.

Like I never noticed Blofeld at the Rome funeral until last night.
Also the opening sequence actually makes a lot more sense on the second viewing.
I can confirm you can clearly see Bonds white shirt collar as he's watching MoneyPenny leave through the window so no he did not have sexual relations with that woman,
I was also looking out for Bonds use of a Sony phone as there was a ridiculous story in the times that Craig and Mendes refused £50 million offers from Sony and Samsung to have Bond use their handsets but they wouldn't because " Bond only uses the best". But he clearly uses a Sony phone on Hands free mode during the Rome car chase.
I also don't see people's problem with the safety net in the old headquarters, you can see when he looks up through the net that the top of the building has broken away and is unsafe so this is a debris net, it's laughable that people are saying the safety net out is laughable but don't mention the Mexico couch scene.

Still a highly enjoyable movie second time around. Would highly recommend.

eeguy

I rewatched Quantum last night and it's much better on the second go.

Maybe not Bond quality, but by no means a bad movie in terms of action and characters, although the plot is still absent.

Hopefully a rewatch of Spectre could shine a better light on it.

Tony EH

'Quantum of Solace' isn't a bad picture, although I thought it was a bit "meh" the first time I saw it. I think the main trouble with it, is it's a bit too short and it's unfocused. Watched back to back, 'Casino Royale', 'Quantum of Solace' and 'Skyfall + a few beers'n'pizza isn't a bad night in.:cool:

The trouble with 'Spectre' is that it's just too stupid, packed with too much misguided fan service and it goes back on everything that was making the Craig Bond films good.

SimonTemplar

Regarding the silliness of the plot and the villain's background:

I don't really have am issue with Blofeld being behind the previous three villains. Le Chiffe and Greene were obviously part of or connected to a larger organisation. Blofeld's connection with Silva could simply have been to provide him with funds and manpower and watched frpm a far while Silva wrecked havoc.

The problem I do have is making Blofeld Bond's step brother because it adds absolutely nothing to the movie. It is admirable that Mendes is trying to make Bond a more rounded three dimensional character but Bond being related to the very person he is hunting didn't work for me. This isn't Breaking Bad.

I was also bored by most of the Austrian sequence especially the plane / car chase. That action scene was very pedestrian and gimmicky - something more akin to a lesser Moore or Brosnan movie than a Craig one.

Also Monica Bellucci was criminally underused, especially as I believe the producers had been wanted her in a Bond movie for years. It would have been interesting, and I'm thinking off the cuff here, if Mendes played a double bluff and Bellucci ended up being Blofeld and Oberhouser was number 2 simply playing the role of Spectre head for deception purposes. The Craig era is a reboot so they would have had freedom to do it. It really would have been a WTF moment for Bond as he woke up on the torture chair to find her at the controls.

That being said I think Waltz did a good job. I was concerned that would have too much faux-friendliness like Hans Landa but he was proper menacing. The trailer did spoil the cool moment were he reveals he knows Bond is at the meeting. That would have been a better moment if it wasn't spoiled for us.

All in all, it has problems and is definately too long but it has enough entertainment value to keep it within the top 50% of the franchise. Craig continues to impress and I believe he gives the best acting performances of all the Bond actors.

I would like him and Waltz to have one final confrontation before he leaves the series.

Telecaster58

I was quite disappointed with Spectre. I found it overblown and certainly overlong. The plot holes, outlined in the spoilers above, really did detract from the film. The song over the opening credits is one of the worst I have ever heard and deserves all the criticism it is receiving. I was going to say the whole film is a triumph of style over substance, but I don't even think it reaches that level.
On a slightly different issue, the classification of the film as a 12A is strange. Certainly it is at the top end of this classification, and if honest should have been a 15A. There were certaily a couple of scenes that made me wince.

fin12

Telecaster58 wrote: »

I was quite disappointed with Spectre. I found it overblown and certainly overlong. The plot holes, outlined in the spoilers above, really did detract from the film. The song over the opening credits is one of the worst I have ever heard and deserves all the criticism it is receiving. I was going to say the whole film is a triumph of style over substance, but I don't even think it reaches that level.
On a slightly different issue, the classification of the film as a 12A is strange. Certainly it is at the top end of this classification, and if honest should have been a 15A. There were certaily a couple of scenes that made me wince.

Ya I've only noticed that with one other film, Rock of ages has a 12 classification but I definitely think it should have been 15.

Tony EH

There was nothing in 'Spectre' that a 12 year old couldn't handle.

byronbay2

LaGlisse wrote: »

I reckon theres a bit of the marketing budget that goes on buttering up English Film critics,dont know how this reviewes so well.

Yeah, no doubt about that. Maybe they ask the reviewers to "put on the white jersey" when it comes to Bond. Anyway, as someone has already said, it reflects badly on (in particular) Mark Kermode and The Guardian (Peter Bradshaw) for their over-the-top and completely unjustified gushing reviews for Spectre.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/21/spectre-review-james-bond-is-back-stylish-camp-and-sexily-pro-snowden

e_e

LaGlisse wrote: »

I reckon theres a bit of the marketing budget that goes on buttering up English Film critics,dont know how this reviewes so well.
Its a bit like how you just cannot trust Irish reviewers opinions on Irish movies, they are always going to boost it

My theory is that they were all given pitchers of martini before the screening. :pac:

I doubt British critics would have been as forgiving if it was a Mission Impossible movie.

Giruilla

e_e wrote: »

My theory is that they were all given pitchers of martini before the screening. :pac:

I doubt British critics would have been as forgiving if it was a Mission Impossible movie.

Did you read Peter Bradshaws review? Heres a quote from it when he describes Spectre..

This is the evil organisation whose tentacular reach and extensive personnel may in fact have accounted for all Bond’s woes in Craig’s previous three movies.

The guy is a cretin. His reviews are basically just summaries of what happens in the film.

Kermode, I'm surprised at. His reviews definitely don't hold the weight they used to.

Tony EH

Well, in fairness to Kermode, it's one hiccup in a sea of largely spot on reviews.

eviltimeban

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, in fairness to Kermode, it's one hiccup in a sea of largely spot on reviews.

No I think he got it right. It's a Bond movie FFS, he knows that, and most people know that. People are getting their knickers in a twist because it's not something Lars Von Triers might have directed.

johnny_ultimate

As much as I disliked the film and surprised by the wildly positive response from some quarters, I also don't believe there's any sort of sinister film critic collusion or bribery afoot. Certainly didn't get any sense there was anything particularly insincere about the reviews from the likes of Robbie Collins - as much as I respect him, his writing style and frequent enthusiasm/promotion for films of all shapes and sizes, I routinely couldn't disagree more with him (and I think it's silly to expect to agree with any critic all the time) :pac: Never underestimate the phenomenon of seeing films in isolation, either - being aware of the consensus will influence a viewers' response subconsciously, whereas critics see it 'blind' before the the conversation starts.

As long as a review is honest and articulate, it's 'spot on' as far as I'd be concerned, no matter how wildly it diverges from my or the general response to the film in question.

Tony EH

eviltimeban wrote: »

No I think he got it right. It's a Bond movie FFS, he knows that, and most people know that. People are getting their knickers in a twist because it's not something Lars Von Triers might have directed.

He gave it 4/5.

Regardless of whether it's a Bond film or not, nor who starred, produced or directed it, the film is nowhere near a 4/5.

Tony EH

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

As long as a review is honest and articulate, it's 'spot on' as far as I'd be concerned, no matter how wildly it diverges from my or the general response to the film in question.

Of course.

A review is a snapshot of how the reviewer felt at the time. Kermode himself has said a number of times that he'd been previously harsh/easy on some films and would give a different score if reviewed again.

If the good doctor thought that 'Spectre' was a 4/5 film, then that's what he thought.

I certainly wouldn't give it that.

Giruilla

Tony EH wrote: »

A review is a snapshot of how the reviewer felt at the time. Kermode himself has said a number of times that he'd been previously harsh/easy on some films and would give a different score if reviewed again.

Yeah he gave Interstellar a glowing review because he's Christopher Nolan fanboy, then said later in passing it was actually pretty rubbish on second viewing. Reasons like that I don't rate his reviews highly.

Tony EH

Did he?

I think he just said he preferred 'Contact'.

e_e

eviltimeban wrote: »

It's a Bond movie FFS

It is a Bond movie, but it's a Bond movie with bland direction, uninspiring action, terrible writing, ponderous pacing, a boring villain and dull love interest. But it's also a Bond movie that wants to have its camp cake and eat it while trying to be this dark, weighty and serious Snowden-esque global conspiracy. "It's Bond" is no defense for a film this tone deaf and humorless, I would have loved a really colorful and exciting globe-trotting adventure but this movie was just way too up itself. Tbh the worst offense this movie does is that it's just no fun, there's no personality or energy to anything. Even Nolan's Batman movies had more life to them ffs.

eviltimeban

e_e wrote: »

It is a Bond movie, but it's a Bond movie with bland direction, uninspiring action, terrible writing, ponderous pacing, a boring villain and dull love interest. But it's also a Bond movie that wants to have its camp cake and eat it while trying to be this dark, weighty and serious Snowden-esque global conspiracy. "It's Bond" is no defense for a film this tone deaf and humorless, I would have loved a really colorful and exciting globe-trotting adventure but this movie was just way too up itself. Tbh the worst offense this movie does is that it's just no fun, there's no personality or energy to anything. Even Nolan's Batman movies had more life to them ffs.

Disagree with all that. Nolan's Batman movies were the most humourless movies you could ever imagine.

Bland direction? Nope. The rooftop opening - very cool. The car chase - very cool. The darkened boardroom - very cool. Three examples of non-bland direction.

Uninspiring action - when is action ever "inspiring"?

Terrible writing - there were bigger plotholes and sloppy writing in Skyfall, yet no one seems to notice (see my previous post about the major plot hole)

Ponderous pacing - I thought it was well paced. I wasn't bored once. I was bored in Skyfall a few times, and bored in nearly all Bond movies at some point. In fact, a lot of the Moore era Bonds were completely boring.

Boring villain - sure, more could have been done with him. But he wasn't boring. He was set up very, very well - but in a way I'm glad he didn't turn into Hans Landa, as someone else said. He just wanted to make Bond's life hell. The drilling scene was far from boring.

Dull love interest - for you, maybe. I'm sure Bond enjoyed it. :pac:

Tony EH

The villain in 'Spectre' was ridiculous.

He follows Bond around making his life a misery...all because daddy liked little Jimmy better than Franz/Ernst?

Wha?

There really should have been a much better motivation there.

eviltimeban

Tony EH wrote: »

The villain in 'Spectre' was ridiculous.

He follows Bond around making his life a misery...all because daddy liked little Jimmy better than Franz/Ernst?

Wha?

There really should have been a much better motivation there.

Psychos / lunatics don't really need sensible motivations.

Tony EH

Entertaining scripts do though.

Besides, maybe the guys who sit in their own feces, mumbling inanities don't need too much in the way of a point.

But, someone who uses an inordinate amount of wealth and power and has an army of people to do his bidding does.

eviltimeban

Tony EH wrote: »

Entertaining scripts do though.

Besides, maybe the guys who sit in their own feces, mumbling inanities don't need too much in the way of a point.

But, someone who uses an inordinate amount of wealth and power and has an army of people to do his bidding does.

You hear of a "Bond villain" before yes? "I want to destroy the world" and all that?

Gamb!t

The ratings on IMDB are coming down to reality at last,its now at 7.3 and will probably drop a another few.

davesaunders

It's a perfectly fine film, but I preferred the tone of the first three in the Mendes/Craig collaboration. We still have a draker Bond than before in Spectre, but the tone is just too light-hearted for me, in comparison to the first three films.

johnny_ultimate

davesaunders wrote: »

It's a perfectly fine film, but I preferred the tone of the first three in the Mendes/Craig collaboration. We still have a draker Bond than before in Spectre, but the tone is just too light-hearted for me, in comparison to the first three films.

Mendes has only been involved for two

Tony EH

eviltimeban wrote: »

You hear of a "Bond villain" before yes? "I want to destroy the world" and all that?

That's not the point. Why regress to the stupidity of what came before? Especially when so much effort had been made to get away from that with this reboot? They were doing so well.

FunLover18

The fact that plotholes have become a staple of this franchise is both admirable and lamentable. Bond could be so much better as proved by CR but for some reason fans are willing to settle for less because 'it's Bond'.

Frank Bullitt

Saw it last night and I enjoyed it. It dragged a lot in the middle but over all I was very entertained.

Great opening sequence, I thought Craig was very good yet again as Bond. Waltz is a decent villain but he wasn't used enough in this. Action was good and that Aston is art on wheels, along with the Jag.

Not as good as Skyfall but I would have it on par with Casino Royale myself.

8/10

Rjd2

Tony EH wrote: »

He gave it 4/5.

Regardless of whether it's a Bond film or not, nor who starred, produced or directed it, the film is nowhere near a 4/5.

I don't bother with Kermode anymore, but what is the story here?

He from what I recall of him is a pretty safe critic, once it opened to acclaim initially he was never going to be a dissenting voice. The only stuff he used to criticise towards the end when I listened to him was stuff had already been panned.

What was the last critically acclaimed film he actually had the balls to say he did not like?

FunLover18 wrote: »

The fact that plotholes have become a staple of this franchise is both admirable and lamentable. Bond could be so much better as proved by CR but for some reason fans are willing to settle for less because 'it's Bond'.

Agreed, and you are called a bore or film snob if you dare point it out.:(

There were too many stupid moments in this movie but it was still enjoyable. To expand

one example would be Blofeld sitting in the helicopter while Bond shoots at it from a boat, yes, let's fly directly over the river so he can continue to shoot at us, that was so idiotic.. and Blofeld sits there grinning like an idiot while this happens too.

Not to mention giving him 3 minutes to find her in the building, would they not just blow the fecking thing up? Very dumb at times.

I'll give it a 5.5 out of 10.

Wedwood

Seems to be a bit of Bond fatigue setting in perhaps. Part of Spectre's problem is that the middle sags a bit, which a shorter running time could have resolved.

I still thought Spectre was a good movie, but I think the reboot now needs another reboot, or left to rest for a few years.

Facekicking 2 The Future

Casino Royale is one of the greatest action films ever and is by light years the best Bond film ever made.

Within 20 mins of watching it in 2006, it was like the rest of the movies and the entire history never happened t and I was introduced to this amazing new character, who was unrecognisable, but completely recognisable.

The cinema experience was so whole, the film so wholly complete, chemistry of Craig and Green, that I remember thinking this what it must have been like to watch Star Wars in 1977. And what's more remarkable it was really ****ing brave, it feels like a non franchised film in a franchise that was made because because passionate people wanted to be made, not because it was the 23rd film in a series

Why not just keep the hard boiled James Bond (more akin to Asian cinema), the aggressive but classy style of Martin Campbell, the headrocking masculine lyrics of Chris Cornell in further films. I'm tired of this generational nostalgia in all franchises. Quantam was a disappointment, but I didn't think they were going to throw it all out with Skyfall and Spectre.

Sam Smyth sounds like he was having a crying **** and it was even worse when layed over the credits in the cinema, still didn't work.

Facekicking 2 The Future

Craigs films dropped off a cliff after Casino Royale.

Casino Royale is one of the greatest action films ever and is by light years the best Bond film ever made.

Within 20 mins of watching it in 2006, it was like the rest of the movies and the entire history never happened t and I was introduced to this amazing new character, who was unrecognisable, but completely recognisable.

The cinema experience was so whole, the film so wholly complete, chemistry of Craig and Green, that I remember thinking this what it must have been like to watch Star Wars in 1977. And what's more remarkable it was really ****ing brave, it feels like a non franchised film in a franchise that was made because because passionate people wanted to be made, not because it was the 23rd film in a series.

Why not just keep the hard boiled James Bond (more akin to Asian cinema), the aggressive but classy style of Martin Campbell, the headrocking masculine lyrics of Chris Cornell in further films. I'm tired of this generational nostalgia in all franchises. Quantam was a disappointment, but I didn't think they were going to throw it all out with Skyfall and Spectre.

Sam Smyth sounds like he was having a crying **** and it was even worse when layed over the credits in the cinema, still didn't work.

All that potential squandered, clutching defeat from the jaws of victory. I have zero problems with Bond being more like Bourne in a superficial/visual sense.

fin12

Facekicking 2 The Future wrote: »

Casino Royale is one of the greatest action films ever and is by light years the best Bond film ever made.

Within 20 mins of watching it in 2006, it was like the rest of the movies and the entire history never happened t and I was introduced to this amazing new character, who was unrecognisable, but completely recognisable.

The cinema experience was so whole, the film so wholly complete, chemistry of Craig and Green, that I remember thinking this what it must have been like to watch Star Wars in 1977. And what's more remarkable it was really ****ing brave, it feels like a non franchised film in a franchise that was made because because passionate people wanted to be made, not because it was the 23rd film in a series

Why not just keep the hard boiled James Bond (more akin to Asian cinema), the aggressive but classy style of Martin Campbell, the headrocking masculine lyrics of Chris Cornell in further films. I'm tired of this generational nostalgia in all franchises. Quantam was a disappointment, but I didn't think they were going to throw it all out with Skyfall and Spectre.

Sam Smyth sounds like he was having a crying **** and it was even worse when layed over the credits in the cinema, still didn't work.

So true about Casino Royale, that film is f**king amazing. :)

flangemeistro

fin12 wrote: »

So true about Casino Royale, that film is f**king amazing. :)

Ya and absolutely no stupidity or plotholes.
Like every car now made has a defibrillator in the glove box.

Thank you casino Royal.

eviltimeban

Tony EH wrote: »

That's not the point. Why regress to the stupidity of what came before? Especially when so much effort had been made to get away from that with this reboot? They were doing so well.

Well, there was little difference in the motivations of Silva and Franz - one was pi**ed off as his life was destroyed by M's actions,

the other pi**ed off as his life was ruined by James Bond being in it (his father loved James more, obviously).

The motivation didn't bother me. I was expecting more of Franz, maybe a nice big long speech but in a way glad we didn't get it. He set up a trap, much like the trap that Silva set for Bond, to get himself caught and brought to M, which is FAR more ridiculous.

fluke

Facekicking 2 The Future wrote: »

Casino Royale is one of the greatest action films ever and is by light years the best Bond film ever made.

Plus all this and the rest of your post.
Crywanker... could be the title of a Bond film

eviltimeban

fluke wrote: »

Plus all this and the rest of your post.
Crywanker... could be the title of a Bond film

Yeah I had a laugh at that myself. It did sound like that.

Tony EH

eviltimeban wrote: »

Well, there was little difference in the motivations of Silva and Franz - one was pi**ed off as his life was destroyed by M's actions,

the other pi**ed off as his life was ruined by James Bond being in it (his father loved James more, obviously).

The motivation didn't bother me. I was expecting more of Franz, maybe a nice big long speech but in a way glad we didn't get it. He set up a trap, much like the trap that Silva set for Bond, to get himself caught and brought to M, which is FAR more ridiculous.

Silva's motivation is much more believable though. He was a loyal agent, completely trusting of the organisation, who believed what he was fighting for and felt betrayed by that same organisation and a person he viewed as having his back, who sold him out, leading to his imprisonment, torture and attempted suicide.

That's a motivation for revenge that I can buy into.

eviltimeban

Tony EH wrote: »

Silva's motivation is much more believable though. He was a loyal agent, completely trusting of the organisation, who believed what he was fighting for and felt betrayed by that same organisation and a person he viewed as having his back, who sold him out, leading to his imprisonment, torture and attempted suicide.

That's a motivation for revenge that I can buy into.

Franz

killed his own father out of jealously

, so I expect he was a little more unhinged than Silva.

Tony EH

eviltimeban wrote: »

Franz

killed his own father out of jealously

, so I expect he was a little more unhinged than Silva.

But his motivation for being "unhinged" was too silly.