Spectre (Bond 24)

Avatar MIA

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

QOS is not nearly as bad Spectre. The more I think about spectre, the less I like it. Its a shame considering Casino Royale and Skyfall are so good.

I suppose the only saving grace for Spectre was that it did contain a lot of the Bond formula.

This was evidently appreciated by a certain fan base and were going to like the film for that regardless.

As a piece of stand alone theatre, I think it embarrassed the brand. And Craig's statements that he was happy never to do Bond again before general release makes more sense if he himself could see how bad this movie was.

Sad Professor

I don't get the impression that Craig was unhappy with the film. If anything it seems like he was partially responsible for the return to Moore-era jokes and winks, having been burned by all the complaints about the first two films being too serious. I think his repeated comments about not doing anymore Bond is just a bit of public negotiation. It’s not like he has a career outside of Bond anymore. His last non-Bond film was The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo over 4 years ago. He doesn’t appear to have anything else in the pipeline either.

Shemale

Brosnan was at the same lark, looking for more money and they got rid, Brosnan was a brilliant Bond.

smilerf

Just saw this yesterday and I enjoyed it. It's by no mean a casino or skyfall but it's not a quantum of solace either.

BuilderPlumber

Shemale wrote: »

Brosnan was at the same lark, looking for more money and they got rid, Brosnan was a brilliant Bond.

I think Die Another Day marred Brosnan's reputation. I thought he was a great Bond too and perhaps Tomorrow Never Dies is the most underrated film of the entire series. This film had a great pretitle and climax and had a YOLT/TSWLM plot. There's plenty good action in there and if one likes a good old fashioned superpowers join forces against a common enemy type Bond film, this is it. Goldeneye was very good too but more respected. Its plot also inspired Skyfall. TWINE had its moments and after watching it again, it is not as bad as some paint it. Die Another Day is imo the worst Bond film but it still is watchable and has its good points. Taking out the ridiculous scenes like the silly sword fight, the invisible car and all those deliberate remakes of scenes from previous Bonds and it is ok. The first part of the film is excellent and darker proving Brosnan could have done a convincing Casino Royale or Skyfall too.

syklops

I agree on Die Another Day. Of the modern Bonds its by far the worst.

IMO the Bond gadgets needed to be advanced but believable. Usually around 20-30 years ahead of what you can buy off the shelf or is feasible with known technologies. DaD gave two very big fingers to that idea with the stupid invisible car.

It’s not like he has a career outside of Bond anymore. His last non-Bond film was The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo over 4 years ago. He doesn’t appear to have anything else in the pipeline either.

If I had Rachel Weisz waiting for me at home I wouldn't be keen on working either.

BuilderPlumber

syklops wrote: »

I agree on Die Another Day. Of the modern Bonds its by far the worst.

IMO the Bond gadgets needed to be advanced but believable. Usually around 20-30 years ahead of what you can buy off the shelf or is feasible with known technologies. DaD gave two very big fingers to that idea with the stupid invisible car.

Die Another Day was essentially marred by the infamous invisible car scene. I am unsure how I would rate the film if this scene wasn't in it (this sort of thing belonged in Casino Royale 1967) and I could not take it seriously after that. Other things like the silly sword fight, repeated scenes from Dr No, etc. and a borrowed plot from Diamonds Are Forever could be forgiven as such things happened in other films: there are often silly fights or chases, borrowed plots and repeated scenes like Oddjob breaking a golfball in his hand is repeated by Gobinda in Octopussy have happened and did not destroy things.

Sometimes, gadgets are fine and fit in with things but when they get OTT, then there's a problem. Die Another Day's invisible car is notorious and was to Bond films what Dustin the Turkey was to Irish Eurovision entries.

Another thing I notice is the larger role given to the M and Q characters in later Bonds. In the first few Bonds, M usually only appeared at the start and maybe briefly somewhere else. Bond went to the office and M briefed him on the assignment. Q then demonstrated some gadget and Bond was told how to use it. That was largely it from these 2 back then. Q didn't even feature in 2 early films IIRC: Dr No and Live and Let Die. By the later films, Q often was seen a few times throughout the film often joining Bond on assignment but M was given a much bigger role especially in the Brosnan and Craig films. She was almost a Bond girl in TWINE and Skyfall.

BuilderPlumber

Sad Professor wrote: »

I don't get the impression that Craig was unhappy with the film. If anything it seems like he was partially responsible for the return to Moore-era jokes and winks, having been burned by all the complaints about the first two films being too serious. I think his repeated comments about not doing anymore Bond is just a bit of public negotiation. It’s not like he has a career outside of Bond anymore. His last non-Bond film was The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo over 4 years ago. He doesn’t appear to have anything else in the pipeline either.

Craig is very much known for Bond and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo even sounds like a Bond movie title and all replace girl with man and dragon tattoo with golden gun!

Jokey moments in Bond films predated Moore and go right back as far as Goldfinger. Even in OHMSS, Lazenby does some too and jokey parts were well established at this stage. Early on, they focused around Q's character and a comment about the violent demise of a bad guy like 'he always had an inflated opinion of himself' or 'shocking, positively shocking'. From TSWLM onwards, slapstick comedy elements were entered like the pigeon looking at the carboat in Moonraker, the clown scenes in Octopussy and, to prove it lasted after Moore, the cello scene in The Living Daylights.

Casino Royale got as far from the by then standard elements of a Bond film as it could. The jokey elements were done away with and it felt like a modern version of FRWL and the like. When it comes to debates on what were the best Bond films, most likely the debate will be over 4 films: Skyfall, Casino Royale, Goldfinger and FRWL. Each film is very different to each other: Skyfall had some jokey parts and brought in a bad guy with a revenge mission focused on M who ends up the victim in it. Casino Royale does not attempt to use much humour and introduces a vulnerable Bond who falls in love and learns some tough lessons as he attempts to take down an invisible terrorist group and its financiers. Goldfinger perfectly blended the action, gadgets, humour and serious plot and FRWL really set up the expected action scenes we come to expect (the train fight would be copied by many subsequent Bond films) and did not concentrate on much humour. Craig's early Bond was praised by many but others were saying it was humourless and thus Skyfall and SPECTRE returned elements of the previous Bonds.

Moore's Bond is often poorly thought of today but many are being too harsh on him. Most of the elements that have become associated with his era were in place well beforehand if truth be known. Humour in an action film did not belong just in Bond. There is a lot of humour in similar franchises like Indiana Jones and even on occasion in Mad Max. Going back further, it was used a lot by John Wayne and the directors of Bond were taking note of all these. Chances are if Fleming's Bond of the books was introduced in its pure form in the films, the series would have not done as well. So, the books were often updated and standard operating procedure for action films was taken onboard.

StringerBell

Spectre was just boring, plain and simple. Its the one description I keep returning to. It could have been much better, maybe the editing let it down, but it was just boring.

_Kaiser_

Watched it tonight...

- It's too long for a start... you could easily cut about half an hour out of the first 90 minutes and that'd improve things significantly.. the last hour is so much better it's almost like a different film though
- Bond escapes from the supervillain lair WAY too easily and it blows up from nothing
- Wasn't overly impressed by the opening sequence and the title song is awful but fit with the title sequence alright
- Blofeld (for probably Bond's main foe throughout the series) is criminally underused. Linking the previous villain's (with the exception of yer man in Skyfall) I had no issue with though
- M is back in action again which is a good thing
- C was obviously (I thought anyway) connected to Blofeld so no surprise there when Bond and co discover it
- What exactly was Blofeld's end game? Spy on everyone? Er.. ok
- Definitely felt like this will be Craig's last outing as Bond

Overall I'd give it a 5/6.. when it does finally kick into gear it does get a lot better, but feck it takes its time to get to that point.

Simon2015

StringerBell wrote: »

Spectre was just boring, plain and simple. Its the one description I keep returning to. It could have been much better, maybe the editing let it down, but it was just boring.

Skyfall is also borning yet that got good reviews.

Duggy747

Dull, overlong & forgettable with it being far too much of a service to previous Bond films and a regression of what they wanted to do with Craig by throwing in some nonsensical scenes and corny jokes.

Craig has been a good Bond but after Casino Royale I have no interest in all the other films.

Tigger

Sad Professor wrote: »

I don't get the impression that Craig was unhappy with the film. If anything it seems like he was partially responsible for the return to Moore-era jokes and winks, having been burned by all the complaints about the first two films being too serious. I think his repeated comments about not doing anymore Bond is just a bit of public negotiation. It’s not like he has a career outside of Bond anymore. His last non-Bond film was The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo over 4 years ago. He doesn’t appear to have anything else in the pipeline either.

he'sin the biggest film this year, possibly ever :pac:

also imdb have bond 25 as announced with Craig http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382320/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1

eviltimeban

I've seen it once, enjoyed it very much in the cinema, thought Blofeld was a non-event, but still enjoyed the whole thing. Only after reading all of this kind of stuff do I see the plot holes and flaws, but I don't think I really care.

I'm looking forward to getting the DVD and sitting down to see if I enjoy it more. For Skyfall, I didn't like it in the cinema but loved it when I got the DVD. Spectre could go either way, but overall I reckon I'm going to enjoy it as much, let it all happen on front of me, and get on with my life.

BuilderPlumber

eviltimeban wrote: »

I've seen it once, enjoyed it very much in the cinema, thought Blofeld was a non-event, but still enjoyed the whole thing. Only after reading all of this kind of stuff do I see the plot holes and flaws, but I don't think I really care.

I'm looking forward to getting the DVD and sitting down to see if I enjoy it more. For Skyfall, I didn't like it in the cinema but loved it when I got the DVD. Spectre could go either way, but overall I reckon I'm going to enjoy it as much, let it all happen on front of me, and get on with my life.

Looking forward to getting this on DVD soon. They should have kept Blofeld faithful to Fleming's original incarnation I think. I think they should have kept the story of Skyfall separate as well. CR and QOS clearly fit into the SPECTRE organisation but Skyfall's villain was personal against M.

Agent Coulson

Thom Yorke? :eek:

https://twitter.com/Variety/status/686747028416626688

Wedwood

Most people don't unless you say the moany guy from Radiohead.

Sad Professor

In fairness, Smith is only 23. And obviously hasn't been influenced by Radiohead. The journalist should have known to say "Thom Yorke of Radiohead".

BuilderPlumber

Just got the DVD of SPECTRE on Saturday and watched it twice since then. Overall verdict is that it is a good film, but not as good as Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace or Skyfall. It may be Craig's poorest Bond but that does not mean it is a poor film. I will briefly summarise what I liked and what I thought held the film back.

I liked: the train fight was the highlight and one of the best fight scenes ever in a Bond film. The pretitle as often is the case also is excellent and delivers the usual stunts and action we come to expect. The chase in Austria was good and the escape by Bond from Blofeld's African desert base was also good.

I thought the downside of the film was the actual climax, the weakest since The World Is Not Enough. It was nowhere near the exciting climaxes of the last 3 Bond films. Blofeld was virtually on his own at the end and this would not have been the case in YOLT, OHMSS and DAF where Blofeld was well guarded by a private army. Shooting down a helicopter and then letting the villain in it live despite Bond having a gun pointed to his head is not what we have come to expect. But we all know this is a part 1 of 2 and I'm sure we will only fully appreciate this film when we view it in relation to the next. The C character was a bit too obvious as a bad guy right from the start. As said even before I watched it, I'd have preferred to have seen Fleming's original incarnation of Blofeld used. Also I think it would have been best to leave the events of Skyfall out of the SPECTRE operations.

Overall, I would give it a 7 or 8 out of 10 and look forward to the direct sequel. The question is this: is Madeleine the new Tracy and was Mr White the new Draco? And will Bond 25 be the new OHMSS possibly followed by a remake of YOLT faithful to Fleming's novel?

ButtersSuki

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Just got the DVD of SPECTRE on Saturday and watched it twice since then. Overall verdict is that it is a good film, but not as good as Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace or Skyfall. It may be Craig's poorest Bond but that does not mean it is a poor film. I will briefly summarise what I liked and what I thought held the film back.

I liked: the train fight was the highlight and one of the best fight scenes ever in a Bond film. The pretitle as often is the case also is excellent and delivers the usual stunts and action we come to expect. The chase in Austria was good and the escape by Bond from Blofeld's African desert base was also good.

I thought the downside of the film was the actual climax, the weakest since The World Is Not Enough. It was nowhere near the exciting climaxes of the last 3 Bond films. Blofeld was virtually on his own at the end and this would not have been the case in YOLT, OHMSS and DAF where Blofeld was well guarded by a private army. Shooting down a helicopter and then letting the villain in it live despite Bond having a gun pointed to his head is not what we have come to expect. But we all know this is a part 1 of 2 and I'm sure we will only fully appreciate this film when we view it in relation to the next. The C character was a bit too obvious as a bad guy right from the start. As said even before I watched it, I'd have preferred to have seen Fleming's original incarnation of Blofeld used. Also I think it would have been best to leave the events of Skyfall out of the SPECTRE operations.

Overall, I would give it a 7 or 8 out of 10 and look forward to the direct sequel. The question is this: is Madeleine the new Tracy and was Mr White the new Draco? And will Bond 25 be the new OHMSS possibly followed by a remake of YOLT faithful to Fleming's novel?

Completely off-topic but....I'm 99.99999% certain he (or at least the actor who plays him ) was behind me in the Express (look at me all fancy) Security line in Heathrow last Friday.....

eviltimeban

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

look forward to the direct sequel

You really think that's going to happen? It looks like Craig is done as Bond...

BuilderPlumber

eviltimeban wrote: »

You really think that's going to happen? It looks like Craig is done as Bond...

It is hard to know if Daniel Craig will return as Bond or not. It is uncertain and we have been hearing contradicting views with regard to this. Certainly SPECTRE set up a half told story akin to how season 4 of Love/Hate ended to set up season 5. In fact, the 4 Craig films all have been shown to be interconnected so therefore with or without Craig himself, the story arc has to continue as so much has been invested in it.

With SPECTRE the organisation being brought back I am sure it will be used for quite a few more films. It has appeared in 4 of Craigs 3 times under different names and then as SPECTRE in SPECTRE. So, the conclusion of the Blofeld story is essential. Of course, the original Blofeld featured in the tenure of 3 Bond actors already. He was the power behind Dr No, Grant/Klebb, Largo and (maybe) Goldfinger, and was the main villain in 3 other films. Most of the these were Connery films and one was Lazenby. His last appearance in an official Bond until SPECTRE was at the start of FYEO with Moore. So, there's no problem continuing a storyline with different actors playing Bond. It also would be ridiculous to reboot it again so soon. Blofeld was kept alive for a reason. Tom Hardy would be the ideal replacement for Craig but he will be busy with Mad Max 5.

Wedwood

It's hard to say whether Craig will or won't do another one. Could be a bargaining position for more money to do a fifth Bond picture.

Watched the blu ray the other night, enjoyed it better second time around not spending the movie waiting for the Blofeld reveal.

That said, I think I've had enough of 'gritty' Bond era and would like a return to the lighter Bond movies. If they do go that direction then Craig will probably be 'retired'.

And please not Tom Hardy, he's even moodier than Craig !!!

BuilderPlumber

Wedwood wrote: »

It's hard to say whether Craig will or won't do another one. Could be a bargaining position for more money to do a fifth Bond picture.

Watched the blu ray the other night, enjoyed it better second time around not spending the movie waiting for the Blofeld reveal.

That said, I think I've had enough of 'gritty' Bond era and would like a return to the lighter Bond movies. If they do go that direction then Craig will probably be 'retired'.

And please not Tom Hardy, he's even moodier than Craig !!!

It is probably a bargaining position with Craig. They will probably give him an offer he won't turn down and conclude his tenure with Bond taking down SPECTRE.

With regard to gritty v lighter Bonds, it is hard to tell. Tom Hardy would be excellent in the role if you prefer the Craig/Dalton style Bond but since I am a fan of both Bond and Mad Max I don't want to see both franchises delaying each other! So I'd say Hardy is booked up for that.

As said previously I also enjoyed Moore's Bonds as well. But would they work today is the question? When they were first made, these echoed similar franchises like Indiana Jones very well. Today the competition means Bond has to take into account franchises like Bourne and Mission Impossible. A film like Goldeneye however would be the ideal compromise as was the case back in 1995. That director should return as he also did Casino Royale and is the perfect launcher of a new actor in Bond clearly.

eviltimeban

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

With SPECTRE the organisation being brought back I am sure it will be used for quite a few more films. It has appeared in 4 of Craigs 3 times under different names and then as SPECTRE in SPECTRE. So, the conclusion of the Blofeld story is essential. Of course, the original Blofeld featured in the tenure of 3 Bond actors already. He was the power behind Dr No, Grant/Klebb, Largo and (maybe) Goldfinger, and was the main villain in 3 other films. Most of the these were Connery films and one was Lazenby. His last appearance in an official Bond until SPECTRE was at the start of FYEO with Moore. So, there's no problem continuing a storyline with different actors playing Bond. It also would be ridiculous to reboot it again so soon. Blofeld was kept alive for a reason. Tom Hardy would be the ideal replacement for Craig but he will be busy with Mad Max 5.

I think it was pretty obvious. He said "I've better things to do", threw away his gun, and went off with the girl. That was, essentially, Craig saying "I've better things to do than play Bond again". This was echoed in all the comments he made about slashing his wrists and so on before playing Bond again. I think both Mendes and Craig put that line in as a statement.

I enjoyed it as much on DVD as I did in the cinema. It was a good Bond movie, I'll watch it again happily, I can't say that about all the Bond movies.

Can't see what Hardy would bring - good actor, but I think a really suave Bond would be good. Henry Cavill in Man From UNCLE played almost a parody of a suave Bond, with the accent, suits, hair etc. They could have some fun with that kind of approach.

loyatemu

the last 2 definitely had more light-hearted moments than Casino Royale (haven't seen QoS). I thought they got it right on Skyfall, but Spectre was too long and had a fairly weak plot.

Regardless of what Daniel Craig does, they won't hire Tom Hardy next as he's too well known and would cost too much. They've always gone for relatively cheap actors, Roger Moore was probably the best known when hired, but even he was most famous for TV parts. Connery and Lazenby were unknowns, Brosnan was a TV actor, Dalton and Craig had respectable film careers but were by no means big stars.

Aidan Turner maybe? - he 4th favourite with Paddy Power, but the top 3 are all pretty unlikely IMO (Hardy, Elba, Lewis).

smilerf

Think Tom Hiddleston myself

BuilderPlumber

eviltimeban wrote: »

I think it was pretty obvious. He said "I've better things to do", threw away his gun, and went off with the girl. That was, essentially, Craig saying "I've better things to do than play Bond again". This was echoed in all the comments he made about slashing his wrists and so on before playing Bond again. I think both Mendes and Craig put that line in as a statement.

I enjoyed it as much on DVD as I did in the cinema. It was a good Bond movie, I'll watch it again happily, I can't say that about all the Bond movies.

Can't see what Hardy would bring - good actor, but I think a really suave Bond would be good. Henry Cavill in Man From UNCLE played almost a parody of a suave Bond, with the accent, suits, hair etc. They could have some fun with that kind of approach.

It is hard to know what will happen but Blofeld is sure to come back as too much has been invested in this storyline. But the main problem was that Blofeld wasn't really, er, Blofeld! It seemed the original plan was to have yet another ex pal of Bond turn against him. The Goldeneye plot in other words. A variant of this was done in Skyfall with an ex secret agent loyal to M turn against her. I think that the 'Blofeld' makeover was tacked on once Eon got permission to use the name. It might have been better to have Oberhauser as a Dr No or Largo type villain working for Blofeld with Blofeld introduced from the background.

Yes, SPECTRE overall was a good Bond film and I need to watch it some more to really rate it. I believe we have not seen the end of this incarnation of Blofeld (he is a different character to Fleming's one but he is interesting). We may or may not have seen the end of Craig.

With regard to the style of Bond, the more serious Bond is in vogue at the moment. The troubled and vulnerable hero with personal demons is hugely popular in recent times and that's what has made Casino Royale, Skyfall, Mad Max Fury Road, and the Bourne films among others. Unless there is a swing away from this, and we have to remember all these films are excellent at what they do and are justly rated highly, then the Craig style Bond is going to be with us for some time.

BuilderPlumber

loyatemu wrote: »

the last 2 definitely had more light-hearted moments than Casino Royale (haven't seen QoS). I thought they got it right on Skyfall, but Spectre was too long and had a fairly weak plot.

Regardless of what Daniel Craig does, they won't hire Tom Hardy next as he's too well known and would cost too much. They've always gone for relatively cheap actors, Roger Moore was probably the best known when hired, but even he was most famous for TV parts. Connery and Lazenby were unknowns, Brosnan was a TV actor, Dalton and Craig had respectable film careers but were by no means big stars.

Aidan Turner maybe? - he 4th favourite with Paddy Power, but the top 3 are all pretty unlikely IMO (Hardy, Elba, Lewis).

All Craig's films often broke the rules with Bond. Apart from SPECTRE, the romantic scene at the end with the girl that we saw in every Bond film from 1962 to 2002 is not included. Bond also loses people he was close to. Vesper and especially Judi Dench's M. Things did not always work out happily. OHMSS was the only one before that to do the same.

I enjoyed SPECTRE but Skyfall seemed to be just perfect. It had a good balance of everything. Casino Royale was a great classic too. I like QoS a lot too and found it a great to the point all action movie. It was very short so I think the very best way to enjoy it is to watch it in conjunction with Casino Royale.

Aidan Turner would be a good Bond. I would like to see Tom Hardy do a Bond but know it won't happen for the reasons you just outlined. I would also have liked to have seen what Harrison Ford, Mel Gibson, Liam Neeson or Tom Cruise could have done with Bond too but we also didn't get this for the same reason. But all great actors have to start from somewhere as all these did and sometimes an unknown taking on an iconic character and becoming famous as this works out best. Sean Connery is proof of that.

Avatar MIA

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

or Tom Cruise

Dear god, no, but we have seen what he could do with the MI films.

He's also about 1 foot and an accent* away from being Bond for starters.


* Before anyone suggests anything else I give you ... Far and Away