Spectre (Bond 24)

Nerdlingr

The part where Walz

shows Seydoux her father shooting himself, I thought he were going to alter/edit the CCTV to make it look as if Bond had done it "dont look at it, look at me".

Thought it might have been an intersting twist but then i guess that would have made the film a totally different one.

eviltimeban

Tony EH wrote: »

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

Well he was obviously mentally unstable, even from a young age.

Was I was HOPING to see was that him and Bond were actually close when they were younger, that they were "brothers" in that sense of the word, but something happened between them to push them apart.

Mitch Connor

eviltimeban wrote: »

Well he was obviously mentally unstable, even from a young age.

Was I was HOPING to see was that him and Bond were actually close when they were younger, that they were "brothers" in that sense of the word, but something happened between them to push them apart.

i had hopeed bonds links to him would have been used as part of a way to make MI6 distance themselves from Bond, and the rest of the intellegence community distance themselves from MI6; but in the end their past relationship made little difference to the overall plot.

A lot of this movie I just didn't like.

Swan falling for Bond in the space of a day, Bond fall for her so completely in the same time frame "I'll always recognise you". BLEH. The way he chucks the gun away on the bridge, the "I've got better things to do" line. BLEH. The way the entire evil base was blown up by, basically, one bullet. BLEH. The sex scene with MB, so poorly transitioned. What was the story with the young one at the beginning of the movie - was her room the only way to get on to that roof top? If a fat old man had been in that room would Bond have seduced him instead?

A very poor movie, imo.

Baggy Trousers

Saw this this evening. It was quite disappointing. Large parts were just plain boring. Bond himself looked bored at times. The plot was silly and the ending was silly. So many questions and holes. I actually got sleepy at some points (I think it was the never-ending Bond music) which is unusual for me.

I just read the post above, the phrase "poorly transitioned" was so apt for the whole movie. The directing/editing was very poor.

I have seen better/scarier bad guys in CSI Miami.

And what was Dr Moriarty doing in it? Oh stop, I don't even want to think about it anymore.

CasinoR = 9; Skyfall =7; Spectre = 3.5; QoS = 2

MilesMorales1

Now I've seen it more than once, man spectre was so disappointing, specially since skyfall is so good. Just for the same points everyone else has made, Craig feels like he's phoning it in as Bond at this point, he's effortlessly good at the role, I won't argue, but it really doesn't feel like he's into it.

The Bond Girl(s) are useless, the romance plot is weird, since even if we assume it took a few days between Bond meeting Madeline, them travelling to Tangiers, then onto Blofeld's base, they could fall in love? Why, how? they showed us nothing. I didn't think of it till I read the review above, but compared to Vesper that is pretty lame, or even Severine in Skyfall.
And Bellucci's character (Might have spelt her name wrong) is in the movie for about 5 minutes or less?

Scott and Waltz are so underused, it was a terrible waste. C hardly got any time to develop, then his 'revelation' turned out he was working for Spectre anyway, which means his character is pretty perfunctory too, as was it turns out, most of the villains from Casino Royale onwards, if they were all just in Blofelds web of deceit so to speak? Boo. And then like I say, Waltz is criminally underused, so he ends up just being like Silva from Skyfall. Wow, daddy issues caused you to become the worlds biggest super villain, **** off.

The 00 being obsolete thing was indeed used before in skyfall, felt like the movie was beating us over the head with the whole 'too much surveillance is bad' thing.

It looks nice, I guess. These movies always do though. It looks nice, very clean action, although its also boring as sin. Compared to say, the parkour scene from casino royale, or the underground scene or even the house fight in Skyfall, bleh, boring.


Honestly, the biggest criticism I can give Spectre, is that its so bland, boring, mediocre, that it doesn't feel like James Bond at all, like QOS but worse. Its like a generic action movie, that just happens to be wearing the James Bond skin. I know Craig is contracted for one more movie, but I'd hope he's replaced sooner than that if he's going to be so bleh in the role. What a let down, Bond deserves better.

e_e

http://filmspotting.net/reviews/1397-563-spectre-top-5-james-bond-tropes.html

New Bond-themed Filmspotting episode was excellent. Josh imo nailed what was so wrong with Spectre, especially just how exhausted it felt with everything it tried to do.

dr.fuzzenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

You complain about Bond being put in a contrived, easily escacepable death scenario that can only fail? You know this is Bond we're talking about? This is practically a hallmark of the series. Otherwise he would have gotten a bullet to the head 5 minutes into Dr. No and that would have been that.
A lot of people expected this gritty, realistic action film, again, Bond. If you want it to be something its not, you will be disappointed.
I do think it started veering more towards the Roger Moore films in tone, but thankfully not too far.
Mr. Hinx should not have been this easily defeated and the explosion of Blofeld's lair was a bit much, but look at any of the evil genius's lairs, they all use contractors that have a fondness for exploding concrete.
In the end it's Bond. If it was made into a completely believable, gritty, plausible action movie that dispensed with all the clichés, it wouldn't be Bond and people would complain about that instead.
You can only repeat the same formula so often before it repeats itself. If people want something new and radical, it won't come from the Bond franchise.

FunLover18

dr.fuzzenstein wrote:

If it was made into a completely believable, gritty, plausible action movie that dispensed with all the clichés, it wouldn't be Bond and people would complain about that instead. You can only repeat the same formula so often before it repeats itself. If people want something new and radical, it won't come from the Bond franchise.

You mean like Casino Royale? Regarded as one of the best Bond films? Was that not Bond?

dr.fuzzenstein

FunLover18 wrote: »

You mean like Casino Royale? Regarded as one of the best Bond films? Was that not Bond?

Oh yes, undercover spy goes to glitzy casino and gambles millions of state funds whilst wearing extremely expensive evening wear, driving a tricked out Aston Martin, giving his identity away the second he arrives and drinking vodka martinis by the gallon. Dinner of choice? Beluga caviar washed down with champagne (Bollinger I think).
Yes, absolutely nothing whatsoever like the books or early movies, nothing whatsoever.
Or maybe I'm missing a leg pull alert.

edit:
Casino Royale cliché count:

Vodka Martini
shaken not stirred
Bond, James Bond
Aston Martin
Beluga Caviar
Bollinger
Tux and bow
Walther PPK
Boatchase
Omega watch
Yachts
Poker
shootouts
car chases
Stefanie Broadchester


Even the Bond hooter was in it! (when he shoots up the embassy, the alarm that sounds is an old style submarine hooter heard in every Bond movie up to that point with the exception of Moonraker)

I'm sure I'm missing a few thousand. Casino... was a very old style, traditional Bond, but repacked just a little bit for the 21st century. It's so traditional, I even hear lines from the film in my head as spoken by Sean Connery in the 60's. Him and Daniel Craig even fight alike. Nothing fancy or impressive looking for the camera, just brutal fighting to the death with the sole aim of killing the other guy.
I think that's why it worked. Maybe they're moving too far from that style? But then it wouldn't be Bond anymore, Maybe we could just burn the Fleming books and completely re-invent Bond? Maybe as a women? Get rid of the drink, the sexist remarks, the casual flings, the off color jokes, the flashy and glitzy ambience and turn it into a completely realistic, believable spy series.
And maybe that would be a good idea, but you couldn't call it Bond. Bond movies have always been nothing but a giant advert for a certain type of lifestlye, it's simply consumerism at it's very limit:
http://jamesbondlifestyle.com/

FunLover18

dr.fuzzenstein wrote:

Oh yes, undercover spy goes to glitzy casino and gambles millions of state funds whilst wearing extremely expensive evening wear, driving a tricked out Aston Martin, giving his identity away the second he arrives and drinking vodka martinis by the gallon. Dinner of choice? Beluga caviar washed down with champagne (Bollinger I think). Yes, absolutely nothing whatsoever like the books or early movies, nothing whatsoever. Or maybe I'm missing a leg pull alert.

A terrorist accountant setting up a poker game in order to win back all the terrorist money he lost so he isn't killed, and an agent sent in to win the game so the accountant has nowhere else to turn but the authorities . You can twist anyway you want but compared to the previous outings and compared to Spectre (an psychopath sets up an international group for terrorism and evil so he can have revenge on the boy his own father liked better than him, and oh did I mention that that boy happened to grow up to be just the kind of secret agent who could stop him) it's practically a documentary.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote:

Vodka Martini shaken not stirred Bond, James Bond Aston Martin Beluga Caviar Bollinger Tux and bow Walther PPK Boatchase Omega watch Yachts Poker shootouts car chases Stefanie Broadchester

My point wasn't that CR did away with the cliches but that it was much more gritty and plausible than previous outings. I fail to see anything implausible about any of the above cliches (btw when asked if he wants his martini shaken or stirred he replies "do I look like I give a damn" and the car chase is hardly a car chase, Bond drives really fast along the route he knows Vesper has been taken) certainly nothing that would have yelling "oh, come on!!" At the screen. Le chiffre didn't have a secret lair and I would hardle describe that torture scene as a contrived, easily escapable death scenario. It may have all the glamour of Bond but it was much much grittier and plausible than Spectre which feels like Austin Powers but without the humour.

MilesMorales1

Gritty & dark and realistic aren't mutually exclusive. Lots of movies can be gritty while not containing an ounce of realism, and vice versa. Casino Royale is definitely gritty and more realistic, while still not what actual intelligence agents would be probably be getting up to :P

dr.fuzzenstein

FunLover18 wrote: »

A terrorist accountant setting up a poker game in order to win back all the terrorist money he lost so he isn't killed, and an agent sent in to win the game so the accountant has nowhere else to turn but the authorities . You can twist anyway you want but compared to the previous outings and compared to Spectre (an psychopath sets up an international group for terrorism and evil so he can have revenge on the boy his own father liked better than him, and oh did I mention that that boy happened to grow up to be just the kind of secret agent who could stop him) it's practically a documentary.



My point wasn't that CR did away with the cliches but that it was much more gritty and plausible than previous outings. I fail to see anything implausible about any of the above cliches (btw when asked if he wants his martini shaken or stirred he replies "do I look like I give a damn" and the car chase is hardly a car chase, Bond drives really fast along the route he knows Vesper has been taken) certainly nothing that would have yelling "oh, come on!!" At the screen. Le chiffre didn't have a secret lair and I would hardle describe that torture scene as a contrived, easily escapable death scenario. It may have all the glamour of Bond but it was much much grittier and plausible than Spectre which feels like Austin Powers but without the humour.

I wouldn't go as far as Austin Powers. I still liked Spectre.

As for Oberhauser/Blofeld, it has been suggested that he built Spectre purely to get at Bond, that is not the case. Destroying Bond was never his sole aim. He built Spectre as an international crime syndicate for the purposes of world domination (yes, that old hat, but it is an inescapable and integral part of the Bond universe). Over the last few movies Bond kept pissing in his soup and foiling his evil schemes.
He just finally snapped and now goes after Bond. It's more a grudge match and to settle old scores. it's inevitable this should happen when you piss off a raging psychopath. And of course being who he is, he would never do anything as trite as sending an assassin to put a bullet in Bond's head from behind.

It does rather neatly take all the preceding Craig movies and tie them up as a whole package.
In a way it's the exact same thing the Marvel movies get panned for, the fact that they are not self-contained, but rather parts of a larger picture. Personally I do like that approach.
In the end Bond and Marvel are massive franchises that are there to make money, they just happen to make movies as well, so yes, it will never be edgy, gritty and realistic, any more than McDonald’s will ever be a gourmet restaurant. I get what you're saying.

Icaras

Saw it last night and echo what is being said here:
Opening sequence was great, really liked it, the couch bit for me was classic bond humour.
Really like C spoiler

and was sorry they killed him off - i thought he had great potential.

The villan didnt feel threatening at all and the gravity of him being in control of so much information was never hammered home, I keep thinking MGS2 done a much better job with that storyline. I was expecting Blowfeld to frame Bond for something and put his face out everywhere.

The Bond girls being more than useless is getting very annoying.

Why did they go to his desert base with nothing but one gun? Thats still annoying me.

I know its Bond and meant to be a little silly - I think that was captured perfectly in the opening sequence but went rapidly downhill after that.

Avatar MIA

I didn't rate this movie, and hope Craig does do the one more contracted movie. He has been a great Bond, and he deserves better than this.

Gamb!t

Does Craig have to do another Bond movie with Mendes or can they get a different director ?

Sad Professor

Mendes already said he's not doing any more.

Tony EH

I think after the...em..."mixed" reception to 'Spectre', it would take something really special to get Mendes (and possibly even Craig) back in the fray for another Bond film.

SimonTemplar

Yeah, Bond's decision to

go to the desert base was basically "let's go there for the craic and see what happens". No actual plan or covert spying whatsoever. Just basically wait to be captured. Really lazy writing.

Telecaster58

Tony EH wrote: »

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

Not so sure about that. I am no advocate for censorship and believe it is a parental decision as to whether a child sees any film, whether it's deemed age appropriate or not. That is why we have 12A and 15A. You can take a 6 year old to see a 15A if you wish. My problem lies with defining this as a 12A. Two scenes come to mind:
1.

The heavy gouging someone's eyes out in full view. Well, I think that happened
as I looked away.

2.

Needles being inserted into Bond's face. Again WTF?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Tony EH

I can't see anything there that most 12 year old's wouldn't be able to deal with comfortably enough.

Christ, when I younger than that I'd seen people with their arms chopped off (Star Wars), eaten by sharks (Jaws) and melted by god (Raiders of the Lost Ark) and all in PG films.

fin12

Telecaster58 wrote: »

Not so sure about that. I am no advocate for censorship and believe it is a parental decision as to whether a child sees any film, whether it's deemed age appropriate or not. That is why we have 12A and 15A. You can take a 6 year old to see a 15A if you wish. My problem lies with defining this as a 12A. Two scenes come to mind:
1.

The heavy gouging someone's eyes out in full view. Well, I think that happened
as I looked away.

2.

Needles being inserted into Bond's face. Again WTF?

I cant even remember the first scene you mentioned.
and ya the second point was pretty sick all right.

SimonTemplar

Regarding the second point above:

It does open up an interesting debate about explicit versus implicit violence in terms of rating a movie. Looking at that drill scene shot by shot, there is no specific shot of extreme violence or gore that would obviously push the rating to a 15. You see the drill moving toward his head, then his screams of pain, followed by a shot of the x-ray on the monitor showing the drill in his skull, and then to the drill being removed from his skull with a few drops of blood. You never actually see the drill entering (or even in) his skull. Everything is implied (like the shower scene in Psycho).

However, adding all those elements together creates a fairly intense moment which is really punctuated by our hero sreaming in pain. A number of adults in my two screanings had difficultly with the scene (one guy behind me was probably shouting in pain more so than Bond), so therefore it is fair to assume to would be very tough watch for 12 year olds.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Tony EH

Because those two examples aren't "fantasy violence", like the Blofeld's mini drilling torture device.

The folks at the BBFC, while they are light years ahead these days, compared to James Ferman's time, still get hairy with regards to realistic violence (gouging someone's eyes) as opposed to something that will never really happen, (mini drill torture chair).

mynameis905

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.

+1

Casino Royale was a breath of fresh air because it's close to the literary Bond - a jaded, sexist cold-hearted burn out case living on the edge, barely held together by alcohol and pills. It stripped away all the horseshít of the Moore and Brosnan era but with every movie since then the baggage has started to creep back in. Moneypenny, Q, Blofield etc.

I almost left the cinema during the car chase screen when he presses the button and "009's favourite music" came on and when he was pushing the old guy in the Fiat 500. In particular, whoever decided to steal the eye gouging idea from Game of Thrones deserves to be taken out and shot.

The torture scene in CR is visceral, raw and truly frightening. By comparison, Christopher Waltz drilling into the side of Bond's head in Spectre was about as frightening as a routine visit to the dentist. And a fúcking white cat randomly appearing in the middle of it? Wtf were the writers thinking?

Baggy Trousers

Tony EH wrote: »

I think after the...em..."mixed" reception to 'Spectre', it would take something really special to get Mendes (and possibly even Craig) back in the fray for another Bond film.

I think it's safe to say that Spectre is a muck film. Those with Bond tinted glasses might see the Emperor's new clothes but there is really no doubting how poor it was. It's also the kind of poor movie making that annoys people because they even got the simple things wrong, throughout.
Yeah some people say it was a gritty, realistic, true-to-the-books movie etc but I don't buy that - The vast majority will perceive this movie to be poor fare and perception is king no matter what "they were trying to do".

I loved it really.

MilesMorales1

If Craig is contracted for another movie, unless they mutually agree to terminate it, it'd probably be too expensive to just terminate, so I assume we'll see him as Bond again in 2018/19.

Smertulitanus

with new James bond Daniel Craig and Sean connery James bond from goldfinger they've same suit

BuilderPlumber

mynameis905 wrote: »

+1

Casino Royale was a breath of fresh air because it's close to the literary Bond - a jaded, sexist cold-hearted burn out case living on the edge, barely held together by alcohol and pills. It stripped away all the horseshít of the Moore and Brosnan era but with every movie since then the baggage has started to creep back in. Moneypenny, Q, Blofield etc.

I almost left the cinema during the car chase screen when he presses the button and "009's favourite music" came on and when he was pushing the old guy in the Fiat 500. In particular, whoever decided to steal the eye gouging idea from Game of Thrones deserves to be taken out and shot.

The torture scene in CR is visceral, raw and truly frightening. By comparison, Christopher Waltz drilling into the side of Bond's head in Spectre was about as frightening as a routine visit to the dentist. And a fúcking white cat randomly appearing in the middle of it? Wtf were the writers thinking?

Still haven't got around to seeing SPECTRE. Unfortunately, watching all the real life SPECTRE and their actions in Paris dominated this week.

The problem in past Bonds is that elements were brought in that worked well in one film but were foolishly continued on in other films and did not work. Examples include:

1. The Louisiana police chief in Live and Let Die. Excellent in this film and fits in with the proceedings. Unneeded and distracting in The Man With The Golden Gun.
2. General Gogol was a great character but I felt was often just put into some of the films for the sake of it. He is essential in The Spy Who Loved Me and Octopussy but serves no real purpose apart from mild comedy cameo in the otherwise excellent The Living Daylights as Pushkin has taken over.
3. Miss Moneypenny: the hints at romance between her and Bond became cliched and distracting and was tired by the late Connery films let alone Lazenby's and Moore's as well. I hope they do not revive this storyline.
4. Q: From Goldfinger right up to Brosnan's films, there was always that compulsory scene of comedy between Bond and Q. At first, it was funny but it became more or less the same thing repeated over and over. It seemed totally out of place in Licence to Kill for instance. There was a hint of this revived in Skyfall and I hope it does not get continued.

One of the laziest things the series could do is go back to remaking earlier films. Talks of another Thunderball remake have been rife for years as have a remake of OHMSS. If these were to happen, then a new Goldfinger, FRWL and Dr No could also follow. Instead, there is plenty unused Fleming material there. The contents of the short story From A View To a Kill and the entire novel The Spy Who Loved Me were never used for instance. Some good stuff there in both. Of course, a new name should be used as these 2 titles have already been used but ONLY the titles. The 3 Fleming titles never used are 007 in New York, The Property of a Lady and The Hildebrand Rarity. The middle one is the best title and was meant to be Dalton's 3rd. Of course, the contents of that short story already are included in Octopussy but perhaps using that title with unused Fleming material from The Spy Who Loved Me and From a View To a Kill would be a good idea.

Japandamo

Am I the only one who liked Roger Moore as Bond?

He's getting an awful doing!

Telecaster58

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Still haven't got around to seeing SPECTRE.

4. Q: From Goldfinger right up to Brosnan's films, there was always that compulsory scene of comedy between Bond and Q. At first, it was funny but it became more or less the same thing repeated over and over. It seemed totally out of place in Licence to Kill for instance. There was a hint of this revived in Skyfall and I hope it does not get continued.

You're going to be disappointed then. Much larger role for Wishaw in this one

aphex™

Never had a problem with that. Surely it's a result of a clash of two characters- the messer and the science boffin.

Generally takes place before he goes out on a mission so how is it 'out of place'.

mynameis905

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Still haven't got around to seeing SPECTRE. Unfortunately, watching all the real life SPECTRE and their actions in Paris dominated this week.

The problem in past Bonds is that elements were brought in that worked well in one film but were foolishly continued on in other films and did not work. Examples include:

1. The Louisiana police chief in Live and Let Die. Excellent in this film and fits in with the proceedings. Unneeded and distracting in The Man With The Golden Gun.
2. General Gogol was a great character but I felt was often just put into some of the films for the sake of it. He is essential in The Spy Who Loved Me and Octopussy but serves no real purpose apart from mild comedy cameo in the otherwise excellent The Living Daylights as Pushkin has taken over.
3. Miss Moneypenny: the hints at romance between her and Bond became cliched and distracting and was tired by the late Connery films let alone Lazenby's and Moore's as well. I hope they do not revive this storyline.
4. Q: From Goldfinger right up to Brosnan's films, there was always that compulsory scene of comedy between Bond and Q. At first, it was funny but it became more or less the same thing repeated over and over. It seemed totally out of place in Licence to Kill for instance. There was a hint of this revived in Skyfall and I hope it does not get continued.

One of the laziest things the series could do is go back to remaking earlier films. Talks of another Thunderball remake have been rife for years as have a remake of OHMSS. If these were to happen, then a new Goldfinger, FRWL and Dr No could also follow. Instead, there is plenty unused Fleming material there. The contents of the short story From A View To a Kill and the entire novel The Spy Who Loved Me were never used for instance. Some good stuff there in both. Of course, a new name should be used as these 2 titles have already been used but ONLY the titles. The 3 Fleming titles never used are 007 in New York, The Property of a Lady and The Hildebrand Rarity. The middle one is the best title and was meant to be Dalton's 3rd. Of course, the contents of that short story already are included in Octopussy but perhaps using that title with unused Fleming material from The Spy Who Loved Me and From a View To a Kill would be a good idea.

Unfortunately Moneypenny and Q have pretty big roles in this movie. Q even randomly appears half way through the action to order a vegetable smoothie. Yes you read that right. I wish I was joking.

I think they made a huge mistake in killing off M in Skyfall. The implied sexual tension between Judi Dench and Daniel Craig is sorely missed in Spectre.

eviltimeban

mynameis905 wrote: »

The implied sexual tension between Judi Dench and Daniel Craig is sorely missed in Spectre.

You might be alone in that. :eek:

eeguy

mynameis905 wrote: »

Unfortunately Moneypenny and Q have pretty big roles in this movie. Q even randomly appears half way through the action to order a vegetable smoothie. Yes you read that right. I wish I was joking.

What's worse is the actual reason he's there was written out, so it looks like he just popped into the movie for a bit, then disappears.

BuilderPlumber

Japandamo wrote: »

Am I the only one who liked Roger Moore as Bond?

He's getting an awful doing!

I like Moore's Bond too. Many of his films are very underrated such as Octopussy, Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only. Others are 'officially' appreciated like Live and Let Die and The Spy Who Loved Me. Some of the elements criticised by Bond fans about Moore's era, such as the jokes with Q and reliance on gadgets actually started long before Moore's era. As early as Goldfinger actually! Perhaps, by A View To A Kill, he looked tired and somehow sidelined. But this too is underappreciated and does not deserve the reputation it has: Walken's Zorin is perhaps the best villain ever and his realistic portrayal of a violent psychopath is perhaps what sidelined everything else here incl. Bond.

The Man With The Golden Gun is admittedly a bit of a disappointment but these things happen. Perhaps, the fact it was made one year after Live and Let Die and its concept changed a lot (from an Iran-set film to what we get) meant it was a bit rushed. The action is poor in Bond terms and the waste of Christopher Lee, who could have well played one of the best villains if given the plot, on a guy who just has a solar energy source is a crime. Still, I'd rate this film higher than Brosnan's last 2.

Wedwood

Japandamo wrote: »

Am I the only one who liked Roger Moore as Bond?

He's getting an awful doing!

Roger Moore was great and hugely popular as Bond, he wouldn't have made 7 Bond movies if he wasn't.

Moore's movies are suffering a similar berating to the one dished out to ABBA during the 80's/90's, where they were castigated as outdated and old fashioned. They were made 'fashionable' again in the 00's after the musical Mama Mia came out and ABBA discovered a new younger audience.

Maybe as audience tastes yearn for a less serious Bond, Moore's movies will come back into vogue again.

BTW, I wouldn't confuse the rantings of a few anti Moore 'know it alls' as representing the mainstream view of Moore's movies.

beard_grower

Japandamo wrote: »

Am I the only one who liked Roger Moore as Bond?

He's getting an awful doing!

possibly the worst actor ever to get paid for it but i still have a soft spot for his bond era , spy who loved me is a classic

BuilderPlumber

Wedwood wrote: »

Roger Moore was great and hugely popular as Bond, he wouldn't have made 7 Bond movies if he wasn't.

Moore's movies are suffering a similar berating to the one dished out to ABBA during the 80's/90's, where they were castigated as outdated and old fashioned. They were made 'fashionable' again in the 00's after the musical Mama Mia came out and ABBA discovered a new younger audience.

Maybe as audience tastes yearn for a less serious Bond, Moore's movies will come back into vogue again.

BTW, I wouldn't confuse the rantings of a few anti Moore 'know it alls' as representing the mainstream view of Moore's movies.

I think Brosnan's films were an attempt to recapture the feel of Moore's films after it was decided by the makers of the series the world was not ready for the more 'serious' Bond. Moore's films by and large were much better than Brosnan's it has to be said.

I do not think any actor should try and copy the previous one. That's why perhaps the Brosnan films suffered as the series then did not know what to do (it made a brave step with Dalton but shied away from it). I think Connery, Moore, Dalton and Craig all made Bond their own whereas Brosnan, who was a good actor and a good Bond, was restricted by scrips that tried to incorporate a mix of Moore and the more humorous Connery Bonds. I'd have liked to have seen Brosnan in a Bond film designed around him rather than attempting to go back to the Moore/late Connery style. Craig's first 3 films have been daring and original and I just hope SPECTRE which I have yet to see does not go down the going back to the older films style as it did not work with Brosnan.

Gamb!t

Japandamo wrote: »

Am I the only one who liked Roger Moore as Bond?

He's getting an awful doing!

You have another fan here

skipper_G

Saw this last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. I've heard and read some (imo) ultra critical comments which I don't understand at all. Perhaps my expectations were different. The only criticism I have concerns the score, it needed a bit more oomph. 7/10

Penn

The film was good. Probably not as good as Skyfall but certainly better than Quantum of Solace. Have to say Casino Royale is still my favourite Craig Bond film though. Don't even really know why. Maybe it's just because it was the least Bond-like film.

Riddle101

I've been watching the Brosnan bond movies the last few nights now. I've actually found myself appreciating those films more now, after watching Craig. They just come off as real action packed popcorn movies that you can just sit back and enjoy. Also I'm stating the think that Spectre is to Craig's Bond, as Die Another Day was to Brosnan's bond. Both were the fourth Bond movies to feature those two actors, and both have come under heavy criticism by Bond fans. I often hear people go on about how Die Another Day wasn't very good, and now with all the reactions to Spectre, it might be the same for Craig's Bond too.

Has it ever been explained why Judi Dench's M was featured in both film series, despite Craig's Bond being a reboot? Dench was introduced in Goldeneye as Bond's new superior, yet in Casiono Royale, she is already Bond's superior before he becomes a double 0 agent.

FunLover18

Riddle101 wrote:

Has it ever been explained why Judi Dench's M was featured in both film series, despite Craig's Bond being a reboot? Dench was introduced in Goldeneye as Bond's new superior, yet in Casiono Royale, she is already Bond's superior before he becomes a double 0 agent.

I think it's just a rare case of an actor playing the same character and two different franchises. Craig's Bond is definitely a reboot and not connected canonically with the previous films.

StringerBell

Finally got to go see it last night, I gotta admit overall I was pretty bored. It was ok, it could have done with some editing to shorten it and lose some needless scenes, or at least shorten some scenes.

I think Craig plays the character so naturally that it can appear he is sleepwalking or a little bored himself, I do wish he had been given a better script, didn't like a lot of that or the dialogue. Some very good set pieces and action sequences but overall it was just too long and it dragged in parts.

I would like to see him do one more but if they leave it at that with him I will ok, he will have done 1 excellent film, 2 very good ones and 1 alright one. No shame in that.

Don't get the hate for the main Bond girl, she was grand. Played the part well and I did enjoy the nod to Inglorious Basterds with herself and Walz. He was underused but then again that is how you want to introduce your super villain. You need to leave people wanting more of him. Looking forward to seeing how events unfold for him next time out. The computer geek baddie (not Q) has a very easy to hate face, so I guess that was good casting?

Overall I give it a 6 out of 10 I think, not terrible, just a poor cut more then anything else.

BuilderPlumber

Riddle101 wrote: »

I've been watching the Brosnan bond movies the last few nights now. I've actually found myself appreciating those films more now, after watching Craig. They just come off as real action packed popcorn movies that you can just sit back and enjoy. Also I'm stating the think that Spectre is to Craig's Bond, as Die Another Day was to Brosnan's bond. Both were the fourth Bond movies to feature those two actors, and both have come under heavy criticism by Bond fans. I often hear people go on about how Die Another Day wasn't very good, and now with all the reactions to Spectre, it might be the same for Craig's Bond too.

Has it ever been explained why Judi Dench's M was featured in both film series, despite Craig's Bond being a reboot? Dench was introduced in Goldeneye as Bond's new superior, yet in Casiono Royale, she is already Bond's superior before he becomes a double 0 agent.

Will finally get around to seeing SPECTRE tomorrow or Saturday. For some reason, the last film by all the Bonds remain underappreciated!!

For Connery, he had set the bar very high himself with early classics Dr No, FRWL, Goldfinger, Thunderball and YOLT that Diamonds are Forever seems somehow lacking. The latter imo is very good but it was not what I expected at this stage. But the Bond franchise is unpredictable. That leads to OHMSS, its predecessor where Lazenby's only performance of Bond continues to get undeserved negative reaction.

The debate between the serious v lighthearted Bond started here. Some Bond fans loved the tragic ending of Lazenby's film and wanted more. But it sold relatively poorly Diamonds are Forever instead gave them a more happy go lucky Bond and sold way better. But this would only work in Bond: suppose Mad Max 1 ends with the scene where Toecutter and co kills his wife and child and Mad Max 2 follows with a happy go lucky rather than Mad Max joking and going about another mission in a carefree manner. It would not work. Of course, even though the revenge here was concluded in the first movie, the affect on Max's character is evident in the sequels.

The next Bond actor was Moore and his last film too is often slated for various reasons. Some say Moore was too old, others say it showed too much indiscriminate violence. A View To A Kill in fact has a lot going for it: perhaps the best villain in Zorin, some great action scenes including one of the best pretitle sequences, and an inventive climax that showcases Zorin's madness (the indiscriminate violence of Zorin killing all his innocent workers with a machinegun shocked some but it showed how evil and deranged this villain was).

Next we have Dalton. His second film was often criticised for being too un-Bondlike and that it was more Miami Vice or Lethal Weapon in style. True, it is not your typical Bond film but it one hell of an excellent film and perhaps gave us that revenge focused film we craved. Bond leaves the secret service to avenge the drug dealer who kill his friend's wife akin to how Blofeld did his own. Whether this incarnation of Bond went back or not to the MI6, we can decide but this film was the right way to wrap up the 1962-89 incarnation of Bond.

Jump to Brosnan. New reboot, new Bond. New era. After a good opener and a very good second film, the third was let down via having no strong villain and it seems the main villain was a mere henchman type allied to a mentally unstable rich woman. But Die Another Day while watchable was marred by invisible cars et al and was the worst of the series.

Craig set the bar high with classics like Casino and Skyfall. SPECTRE? I'll know soon!!

Boo Radley

Got to see this recently. I've been absent from Boards for a number of years now but was compelled to come back and see what's been going on.

So, I cliche doesn't even begin to describe this film. I know they're trying to go back to basics and whatnot but subtle this was not.

I'm fully expecting the next Bond film to have a henchman with actual hams for fists, as that seems to be the general trajectory of the franchise.

I'm not sure what the idea was with making Bond the centre of recent world events in the way they have. It changes him from a spy into a chosen one (as a friend put it). Anyway, I was underwhelmed. It looked beautiful. Craig is a great Bond, but as far as story telling goes this was a bit of a mess really.

Haven't read through all the posts in this thread so I'm probably not adding anything new, but there we have it.

Edit: Oh, and

aren't they just setting Craig's Bond to have his wife/partner shot a la Connery's Bond

?

Wedwood

i think Spectre ultimately falls into the Quantum of Solace bracket, rather than Casino Royale/Skyfall.

It's hard to see where Bond movies should go from here, maybe a hiatus for a while.

The further Bond leaves the Cold War era behind, the less recognisable he is as Fleming's Bond. Perhaps the next series of Bond movies should place him back in the '60's', where he truly belongs.

Agricola

Thought it was poor enough. Even for a Bond film, the very obvious procession of setpieces was too much. Oh heres the first reference to sex, heres the OTT action scene, heres the car chase, heres the intense brawl, heres the second reference to sex, now the third.... etc etc.
I'd love to see a Bond film that completely breaks the mould, even more so than Casino Royale. Stop trying to hit all these marks for once and write a spy thriller first and foremost. It'll never happen of course.