Spectre (Bond 24)

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.