SinShep
Member
Just for the trailer.
007 SPECTRE |OT| It's me, Austin. It was me all along, Austin.
- Thread starter Rich!
- Start date
- Status
Just for the trailer.
I enjoyed the first hour or two but the finale was just silly.
first saved by a sofa, then a hammock, give me a breeeak
also, why did he have to be his brother? did it make any difference to anything? nobody in the movie cared
why did bond and that love interest woman walk right into his lair. why why why would they do this
also, why did he have to be his brother? did it make any difference to anything? nobody in the movie cared
why did bond and that love interest woman walk right into his lair. why why why would they do this
show me your skeleton
Member
huh, that is so odd. it didn't quite feel like he was there/so high up.
Sumio Mondo
Member
With the next Bond film, I definitely think it's high time we got another intimidating female Bond henchwoman (like Xenia, Mayday or Rosa Klebb). At least, now that they're obviously going to be having henchmen/women secondary villains again who pursue Bond around everywhere. They haven't done one in such a loooong time now. Like, who was the last evil Bond woman anyway? Electra?
IdreamofHIME
Member
It's not a hammock....it's a safety net that are found on construction sites.
They shot scenes on location in Mexico, but no way was the long opening shot with no cut done without greenscreen and without a purpose built street, hotel lobby, elevator, hotel room and rooftop for the camera to move around. That shot was done on the 007 stage at Pinewood.
Oh that was such a tease!
I haven't seen the movie yet so I don't know what the opening sequence actually entails, I've just seen the set photos and b-roll of Craig running over rooftops in Mexico City.
show me your skeleton
Member
i thought there was an all too convenient pan to a poster as the camera followed bond into the hotel lobby.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Matt Zoller Seitz ALSO not much of a fan:
At least he doesn't go so far as to say the film retroactively ruins the previous three films (which is silly. It's not like Diamonds are Forever retroactively ruins Goldfinger or From Russia With Love. But then again Drew just came out of a theater all pissed off and tweeting)
At least he doesn't go so far as to say the film retroactively ruins the previous three films (which is silly. It's not like Diamonds are Forever retroactively ruins Goldfinger or From Russia With Love. But then again Drew just came out of a theater all pissed off and tweeting)
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Matt Singer really didn't like it, and Scott Mendelson REALLY fuckin' hated it
Also, Devin Faraci hasn't written yet, but this tweet sums it up:
Looking forward to this movie!
Also, Devin Faraci hasn't written yet, but this tweet sums it up:
Looking forward to this movie!
Liked it, didn't love it. Man, there's some really hacky shit in there.
Come on.
I guess most of the
stuff can charitably be chalked up to 'tradition' and 'hommage', but it still smacks of lazy clichés (
), especially since none of the tropes are ever turned on their ear. It all unfolds rather predictably and - sometimes - pretty stupidly.
Still, Mendes once again manages to elevate a mediocre script with some beautiful shots, especially in the opening sequence, the cast is game and the action mostly works (
). But I can't help but feel the Craig run has been a bit of a letdown after the supremely satisfying start that was CR.
Also, I found the plot (such as it is) similar to the latest Mission: Impossible and the comparison is for the most part unflattering for Spectre.
Opening the scene in M's office with M slamming down newspapers with front page stories of what happened in the opening sequence? The 'psychological test' meeting between Bond and Seydoux' character?
I guess most of the
Blofeld
talking killers, ticking time bombs
Still, Mendes once again manages to elevate a mediocre script with some beautiful shots, especially in the opening sequence, the cast is game and the action mostly works (
Honestly, has there ever been a fistfight on a train that wasn't satisfying?
Also, I found the plot (such as it is) similar to the latest Mission: Impossible and the comparison is for the most part unflattering for Spectre.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Thats one way to discredit someone's opinion.I guess SPECTRE did not have the character development of Age of Ultron
Silly but that's one way.
Matt Singer really didn't like it, and Scott Mendelson REALLY fuckin' hated it
Also, Devin Faraci hasn't written yet, but this tweet sums it up:
Looking forward to this movie!
I just assume Devin hates everything nowadays
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Interesting seeing the divide between the UK's reaction and the US's.
I don't like his opinion on almost anything, period.
But picking on him for his Age of Ultron defense is too much fun for me.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Man, I miss this Bond:
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Did you miss his reviews for The Martian, Bridge of Spies, and Crimson Peak
maybe this movie is just not great, sorry Chinner
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Well if you consider someone's opinion as "defense" I can see how that would be a problem.
superman IV: quest for peace >>>>> fast & furious: tokyo drift >>>>>>>>>> spectre
Would have bee really interesting to see what might have happened if MGM had never gone down the shitter. Perhaps we'd have a Bond in 2010 before Skyfall. Perhaps Skyfall may have been something drastically different.
I always liked that jacket.
Would they have that much input on Bond anyway? Seems like Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli have most of the creative control.
I see that Sony's distribution deal has expired too.
Yeah I don't understand how it's considered a Bond classic and the best of Moore's run.
I think most would consider FYEO the best of his run. But lets be honest......none of his run is amazing. Despite having the longest tenure, every single other Bond actor made at least one better film.
Almost no output, so nothing would have changed creatively as far as MGM is concerned. But their collapse likely cost one Bond film, and depending on what is was or how it was received it would have shaped what became Skyfall.
Or Skyfall just would have come in 2010.
Almost no output, so nothing would have changed creatively as far as MGM is concerned. But their collapse likely cost one Bond film, and depending on what is was or how it was received it would have shaped what became Skyfall.
Or Skyfall just would have come in 2010.
Given the amount of meta-commentary that permeated Skyfall, I'd say it's highly likely that Bond 2010 would have featured Silva but with a drastically different plot around it. In particular, I doubt that the scenes with M defending her record would have been in, although I suspect the climax in the church is likely a remnant of the original script even if the stuff at Skyfall and Bond's training montage most probably aren't.
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
What are the chances of Craig coming back for a fifth?
He's signed for it. So it depends on if a Dalton or Brosnan situation happens.
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
Matt Singer really didn't like it, and Scott Mendelson REALLY fuckin' hated it
Also, Devin Faraci hasn't written yet, but this tweet sums it up:
Looking forward to this movie!
The worst Bond movie in thirty years???
die another day can finally rest it's crown.
He's contracted. I think it's highly likely he comes back and that his words in the interview where he was critical of the filming process were A) taken out of context and B) a negotiation tactic to see if his agent can squeeze a little more retirement money out of MGM.
Also, the next film has to be about dealing with the rest of SPECTRE, right? So it wouldn't make sense to pass the torch just yet, I'd have thought.
I watched this the other day.
I think I'm getting tired of self-referential Bond movies, and Spectre is the epitome of that.
We get it, James Bond has tropes, but we don't need every single one in the film. Aside from looking great it's a weak film that can't stop winking at the audience long enough to scrape together a decent plot or interesting characters.
The franchise needs to make like a Martini and get shaken up.
I think I'm getting tired of self-referential Bond movies, and Spectre is the epitome of that.
We get it, James Bond has tropes, but we don't need every single one in the film. Aside from looking great it's a weak film that can't stop winking at the audience long enough to scrape together a decent plot or interesting characters.
The franchise needs to make like a Martini and get shaken up.
MGM's financial problems really threw off Craig's run.
It almost felt like Skyfall was a reboot to the reboot as a result, except it reintroduced the shit that people were tired of and got rid of the new elements that people had grown to like.
Fancy Clown
Member
I find it curious how Bond got the perfect revitalization and shake up to the formula with Casino Royale, and then after people didn't like Quantum of Solace they immediately started to steer the direction back to the classic formula in a really abrupt way, rather than the gradual progression of "origin story Casino Royale Bond" to James Bond as we know him. I figured the entirety of Craig's tenure would be the more brutal/stripped down version of Royale, but the Mendes films are very stylized and filled with homage. I liked Skyfall so I can't complain too much, but I really liked the direction of Casino Royale.
It does awkwardly lurch from the newly minted 007 of CR and QoS to Bond suddenly as an old, grizzled agent who may not be relevant or up to the job anymore.
I get why they did it -- it's a nice meta tie-in to the 50th anniversary -- but it would've been nice to have a movie in between QoS and Skyfall that had a Bond who wasn't too new or too old.
Well in Skyfall it was justified by them needing/wanting to celebrate the 50th (I think?) anniversary of the franchise, but yes, I agree that they probably went a bit abruptly with Spectre.
Lashley
Why does he wear the mask!?
Just got back from seeing it.
Liked it, didn't love it. Only really picked up in the last hour. Mother and Gran, who both love the Bond movies both said this one was decent, if not a little long.
Loved the
stuff and Dave as Hinx was brilliant, but yeah, not exactly a brilliant movie.
7/10 if I had to rate it.
Liked it, didn't love it. Only really picked up in the last hour. Mother and Gran, who both love the Bond movies both said this one was decent, if not a little long.
Loved the
Blofield
7/10 if I had to rate it.
Yeah, that was all kinds of awkward.
And now I'm hearing they kind of do the same "is Bond relevant anymore?" shtick with this one, too?
Kind of, yes, although not to anywhere near the same degree as in Skyfall (which both helps and hinders it IMO).
Meta-commentary has been a big thing for the Bond writers since Die Another Day, tbh.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Drew's full review came out and he's as close as I've seen him in awhile to the sort of fire he used on Abrams' old Superman script. Nowhere near that bad, of course - but he's definitely out to kick the picture in the shins pretty hard.
The review flat out spoils "the twist" as it were, and then he spends a couple paragraphs explaining why he thinks its so stupid, and why it retroactively kills the previous 3 movies for him.
Really does, so far, seem to be a clean split down the Atlantic as to how the movie's being received.
The review flat out spoils "the twist" as it were, and then he spends a couple paragraphs explaining why he thinks its so stupid, and why it retroactively kills the previous 3 movies for him.
Really does, so far, seem to be a clean split down the Atlantic as to how the movie's being received.
Fancy Clown
Member
Yeah, it was sitting pretty at like 90% on RT for the UK premiere, and then US critics dropped it to 65 or whatever it is now. Is it the campiness I hear about that does it? I may be talking out my ass but maybe the Brits enjoy that sort of thing in their spy fiction more than Americans, like I think Kingsman may have been more popular across the pond than it was here for that reason (based on totally anecdotal evidence).
SJRB
Gold Member
In Skyfall it was more personal about Bond as an agent, in Spectre it's more about
the [ir]relevance of a 00-section and traditional espionage in a digital age.
Both movies have similar concepts though, which I found pretty disappointing. We don't need two movies proving the relevance of James Bond.
^Without knowing how it plays out in the film, at least that sounds like a sensible follow-up to Skyfall's theme. Which, thinking about it, never really 'resolved'
the relevance of MI6 as an institution. M's hearing was interrupted by Silva and then we never got back to that plot, so it makes sense that the government would still be looking to push that initiative again
- Status