007 SPECTRE |OT| It's me, Austin. It was me all along, Austin.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just got back from seeing it. While I enjoyed it, it's definitely my least favorite of the Craig Bond films, but probably still in the upper half overall of all Bond films. Lea Seydoux is so goddamn attractive, wow.

A little bit of spoiler talk about a few scenes:

Train fight scene was legit. Up there with the stairs fight in Casino Royale and the brief Shanghai sniper fight in Skyfall. Rome car chase looked pretty but I wished more was done with it. Opening action was great.

Ending was an anti-climax. Loved the music in the finale but that was it - Waltz played well off of Craig and they worked well as nemeses, but the finale sorely needed Batista for one final fight scene or something. Also their escape from the desert base was way too easy. Needed more there too.

Monica Belucci was wasted, damn. They need to stop including extra women for Bond to fuck - if they aren't going to be around for more than one scene, rewrite the plot dammit.

I may see it again in theaters again but really, I think I'm just gonna watch CR, QoS, and Skyfall again instead.
 
spawnsniper said:
For those who saw both ghost protocol and this film, which is better?
Click to expand...
Ghost Protocol is smarter and has more energy, the way it played with clichè was fantastic. I don't get the "it's a cartoon!" argument, that actually makes it even better for me.
SPECTRE is classic Bond, it's got some problems in pacing I guess, but still a very good movie. I would have liked it more if it went full Roger Moore.
 
spawnsniper said:
For those who saw both ghost protocol and this film, which is better?
Click to expand...

Skyfall > Casino Royale > MI3 > MI > QoS > Spectre > Rogue Nation > Ghost Protocol > MI2

Although I'm hesitant to even put the original MI in this kind of ranking since it's so different to ally compared to everything else.
 
spawnsniper said:
That sounds depressing lol
Click to expand...

Despite sharing a genre, it's an apples and oranges type deal. There's more depth to Craig's Bond films (and, at the risk of sounding pretentious, I think they're more elegantly made). That remains true of Spectre as well -- it's more narratively ambitious than Mission Impossible; there's more pathos. Then again, some have judged that ambition to be misguided this time around, and I think I'd say that it's messier than the recent Mission Impossible movies (but again, it's shooting higher as well, so there's a trade off). As a straight up action movie with incredible set-pieces and an entertaining team dynamic, Ghotocol and Rogue Nation easily take the cake.
 
I rather disliked the song's visual theme and thought it didn't fit well. Also the singer is hardly what I would call good. If they wanted to do a song like that they should have just gotten a good female vocalist. I rather liked the musical arrangement though, even though I hated Sam Smiths vocals.

I liked this one more so than the previous Craig movies. I liked it just as much as I like Casino Royale. I don't know why, but Skyfall just didn't work for me and don't get me started on QoS.
 
Just got back from it. Wasn't a huge fan of the pacing or direction it took, but the cinematography had some great moments. It's probably my favorite looking action film this year after Fury Road.

Fudgepuppy said:
Moviebob is the kind of critic that makes creative people hate critics. Doesn't really matter how valid his points are, but being that loud and condescending only discourages people from being creative.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he's more obsessed with being a critic than he is actually being constructive or thoughtful in his criticism. Quite full of himself, immature, and a little unhinged at times.

He's to movie criticism what a stand-up comedian that only tells rape and dead baby jokes is to "edgy" comedy.
 
Is the "Austin" thing in the thread title supposed to be about Austin Powers? Even then I don't get it. I'm not sure why OP people thought they should be funny or why they even thought they could try.
 
mac said:
Is the "Austin" thing in the thread title supposed to be about Austin Powers? Even then I don't get it. I'm not sure why OP people thought they should be funny or why they even thought they could try.
Click to expand...

2XNHwy1.gif
 
Nerdkiller said:
And while we're on the subject of critics...have any of the English ones taken a second look after the US reviewers gave the movie a good thrashing? Because I feel with the way they're reacting, the Brit crits feel so embarrassed with how much they gave the movie a pass.
Click to expand...
Just wait until the next Bond releases, they'll come around. One of the reasons I don't really care about professional critic's reviews is because of how changeable they appear to be.

For instance, when Skyfall was released every critic here in The Netherlands hailed it as the best Bond ever, now Spectre is here and suddenly some of those same critics made a point of Spectre being better than the "disappointing" Skyfall. I fully expect that when the next Bond is here those same critics will again lament how much of an improvement it is over Spectre.
 
mac said:
Is the "Austin" thing in the thread title supposed to be about Austin Powers? Even then I don't get it. I'm not sure why OP people thought they should be funny or why they even thought they could try.
Click to expand...

spectre is a comedy first. it is the more roger moore than roger moore itself.

its also ranked lower on rotten tomatoes (TM) than the majority of moore's bond films.

save yourself your time, your eyes will thank you
 
DevelopmentArrested said:
The three dumbest fucking moments


1) max's dumb falling death - what a waste of moriarty
2) bond's escape from the bomb jumping into a giant handy net
3) lets separate from the girl only to have her kidnapped 2 mins later
Click to expand...

Anton Sugar said:
Moriarty's death--seriously, wtf? Loses his balance after struggling with M.

WHAT WAS WITH THE NET?! And the boat that was apparently waiting to be ridden out for an escape?
Click to expand...

To be fair
if I am not mistaken, safety nets are comonplace in buildings that are heavely damaged or rigged for destruction, to catch debris

It is just not set-up here,so it feels random.
 
Man, that was a letdown. The whole movie felt like a slog. Felt like every actor gave 0 effort aside from the occasional Q moment where he brought a little spark to the scene. Lea Seydoux was so damn attractive, but it's hard to care for her character given the rushed back story and
unnecessary connection to past bonds
. The first mexico city scene felt pretty fresh with the cool tracking shot and dope outfit for Craig (aesthetically pleasing for sure) but even then I didn't feel the overly CG dependent set piece. Plus it was poor CG. Waltz was a villain who really wasn't there and didn't feel like a threat.
The sort of brother thing was completely thrown in there for what point? It didn't even serve as some sort of motivation or anger for Bond. It was thrown out there and we are expected to care about it. I didn't.
The train scene was definitely the best action scene, it packed some tension and thrill. The chase scene in Rome with Bautista on the other hand was fucking dull. I felt like I was watching a 7 minute car ad
the fiat gag was kind of funny.
. Where was Bond here. Craig gave a lifeless still performance with no chemistry with any of the stars. That part hurt the most. No electricity.

After Skyfall I felt that this Bond was a little lost in tone. Unsure if it wanted to go more campy or more serious. Spectre was the realization of those fears. Shoddily written villain(s), a henchman, and some gadgets thrown in for good measure. Although I guess Skyfall was really nostalgia reliant, but that movie had some style to it. This movie was just kind of there.

I hope Craig gets one more shot. I remember watching Casino Royale when I was 13 and it felt so fresh. The action so visceral and Bond struck a balance between suave/brutal. There were emotional beats I cared about and a female love interest that was fully developed. The villain had the perfect conflict through fucking poker... and I don't give a shit about poker.

Maybe a 5/10
 
Man, this was a real step back from how I felt from Skyfall. I always thought Casino was the better action movie, but Skyfall was the better "Bond" movie if you will. And this was their chance to try to combine both. And they were almost there too, until they get to the
torture sequence
Then it goes from being a Bond film to being rather unsettling/graphic and culminating in a final act that just, as others have said, lacks identity.

Up to that point the film had that Moore "fun" feeling, where Bond is invincible and kind of knows it, but acts rather resigned to it all (mixed with having fun). I loved it (maybe cause I grew up a Moore kid) and dug every moment. And boy were they determined to remind the audience about
every villain was actually working for him!
. I got it, geeze.

Ultimately it's rather disappointing and actually feels almost out of touch? I don't know.
I also had a startling thought that I'm not being impressed by action movies anymore, which is eye opening. Nothing has yet to make me feel like I did when watching Casino Royale the first time.

Edit: Also, like many others have felt, the film lacks tension and the stakes are never quite high. Which is why the train sequence and the helicopter fight have some energy to them.
 
Osahi said:
To be fair
if I am not mistaken, safety nets are comonplace in buildings that are heavely damaged or rigged for destruction, to catch debris

It is just not set-up here,so it feels random.
Click to expand...

wasn't the net set up multiple times when he first got to the building? I remember shots from above that I thought were metal grating but i figured were the net later on once he interacted with it. there was definitely some kind of mesh in the environment, above him, before that scene though
 
The relationship between Bond and Lea Seydoux's character.
"I love you"? Err, why? This almost took me completely out of the movie. Didn't help that these actors had zero chemistry with each other unlike Craig and Eva Green in Casino Royale.

Step down from Skyfall to be sure. I enjoyed the set up but the movie didn't deliver after that.
 
Chamber said:
The relationship between Bond and Lea Seydoux's character.
"I love you"? Err, why? This almost took me completely out of the movie. Didn't help that these actors had zero chemistry with each other unlike Craig and Eva Green in Casino Royale.

Step down from Skyfall to be sure. I enjoyed the set up but the movie didn't deliver after that.
Click to expand...

I personally don't believe it was said for any other reason than to try and get a reaction from him. It worked.

Dude was about to
have his brains drilled out and she was instructed to try and get him to remember her
.

I see nothing wrong with it.
 
just saw it tonight. better than Skyfall, IMO. But, I don't think Sam Mendes makes good James Bond movies for me.

the cinematography was great, but the story was boring and predictable. lots of stupid stuff was going on that is out of place with Craig's Bond, they're putting too much of the "fantasty" elements of James Bond back in and it is out of place with what was initially established for his character in Casino Royale/QoS.

i wish C was in it more for his own interest rather than being a protege. Bautista needed to use his thumbs to kill someone again
 
bounchfx said:
wasn't the net set up multiple times when he first got to the building? I remember shots from above that I thought were metal grating but i figured were the net later on once he interacted with it. there was definitely some kind of mesh in the environment, above him, before that scene though
Click to expand...

I think that were
the wires running trough the building attaching the bombs together. They were very orange, so I immidiatly assumed those were electrical wires. It could be that the net was shown, but I'm not sure.

I didn't have too much problems with it though. When they fell in the net I thought 'right! there are safety nets in these kind of buildings'. But I can understand people having problems with it. A good, subtle set-up (not phoning it in) would have been nice. For instance, when Bond is looking for her, the net is in the way and is an obstacle. He has to find another way, takes a flight of stairs, etc. The net is then ingraved in our minds, but we wouldn't immidiatly think about it when they have to jump, because we associate the thing with an obstacle for Bond
 
I didn't realize the opening credits was gunna be a hentai
(and I wasn't prepared for the chub it gave me)
.

Really a limp film. Villain was totally unmotivated. "I was pulling the strings all along!", he claims, without presenting any evidence that he had done so. This movie wanted to be the climax of some big arc but forgot to build up to it throughout the other Craig films. At least retcon in some flashbacks to the other movies with him glowering in shadows or something. The antagonist is ESPECIALLY weak considering Rogue Nation came out earlier this year. Oh. This again, then? Sure, I guess.

Aesthetically wonderful though, for the most part. Batista was a great presence, really menacing and inevitable -- and impeccably dressed, damn. Waltz was a confused choice here. He was doing his sinister thing just the same as he always does, in the vein of Inglorious Basterds, but weaker. And why? Skyfall *just* did the mirror-image-antagonist-cum-weird-sexual-tension-with-Bond. Waltz's presence sort of sums up the whole thing for me. Just uninspired, this movie doesn't use any of its people in ways you haven't seen them, doesn't introduce any ideas the Craig series itself hasn't explored already. I'm pretty sure Léa Seydoux wears a coat in this one that she had already worn in Mission Impossible.

Lovely scene dressing, excellent locations, sharp costumes. Adored the shit out of that Mexico City long tracking shot at the beginning. Lots of cool framing. But even there, shit was smack on the nose occasionally. Bond stands on a literal bridge with The Job at one end and The Girl at the other, contemplating his choice. Trite, obvious, boring.

Also if I'm going to add a nitpick the "technology" on display is so far beyond ridiculous now. Fucking nanomachines? That's where we're going with this? Dude has a laptop with a dongle that DNA-analyzes like seven samples off one ring (that none of the dudes in question ever wore, even?)? Just say Q is a literal wizard and be done with it.

Third best Classic Spy Franchise film of the year, I'm disappointed to say. Rent UNCLE, instead. If you watched Missions Impossible Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation you've already seen everything this movie has to offer. This was just inessential overall.
 
After watching the movie:

What the hell was that train scene about?

The bad guy expected Bond to come to his secret factory in the desert, but has one of his henchmen send to kill Bond on that train Bond takes to actually got to said factory?

Why the whole explanation when they were there? Why the whole "Look at this, look at that"?

Shut up and shoot a bullet in his head if you hate him so much? Instead he does some neurosurgery that doesn't seem to have any influence on Bond whatsoever, except for a few moments of pain..

Why does Bond actually travel to meet him is something I don't understand either. Why not sneak into the factory? No, instead he gives them his weapon, gets a nice little factory tour and some torture. For what?


This movie is so dense and forgettable..
 
CR/QoS really did a much better job of doing the shady criminal network with Quantum than how SPECTRE was presented. Mr White's role in CR and the Opera scene in QoS were really good, it felt like Quantum really were everywhere.

This movie even sort of retroactively ruins that by making Quantum essentially a branch office of SPECTRE. Aside from a brief mention of sex trafficking and the weird surveillance plot it didn't really give the impression SPECTRE did anything, no matter how much Blofeld yelled about how it was him all along.

They should have dropped some hints about Silva working with Quantum in Skyfall and just had Quantum be SPECTRE. Or just let Skyfall be its own thing and bring Quantum back for this film, I don't know.
 
RedShift said:
CR/QoS really did a much better job of doing the shady criminal network with Quantum than how SPECTRE was presented. Mr White's role in CR and the Opera scene in QoS were really good, it felt like Quantum really were everywhere.

This movie even sort of retroactively ruins that by making Quantum essentially a branch office of SPECTRE. Aside from a brief mention of sex trafficking and the weird surveillance plot it didn't really give the impression SPECTRE did anything, no matter how much Blofeld yelled about how it was him all along.

They should have dropped some hints about Silva working with Quantum in Skyfall and just had Quantum be SPECTRE. Or just let Skyfall be its own thing and bring Quantum back for this film, I don't know.
Click to expand...
I agree with this.

Quantum did the whole secret organization much better. Though, I don't agree that Spectre retroactively ruins anything. It only hurts Spectre but not the other films.
 
Incendiary said:
Skyfall > Casino Royale > MI3 > MI > QoS > Spectre > Rogue Nation > Ghost Protocol > MI2

Although I'm hesitant to even put the original MI in this kind of ranking since it's so different to ally compared to everything else.
Click to expand...

I genuinely have a hard time understanding what some people love so much about MI3. It felt so dull and lifeless to me, like an extended Alias episode with a shitty MacGuffin they didn't even bother to write and one of PSH's least interesting performances.

It's sort of nice Spectre only comes out next week here, that way I already know not to expect too much out of this.
 
The "Austin" reference was a professional wrestling maneuver, or reference.
I guess that is how the James Bond series has grown beyond me.
 
It's so odd to see Craig do "classic" Bond stuff, complete with the comedy, but I think it was good. With that said the train segment of the movie felt like padding.

Jb said:
I genuinely have a hard time understanding what some people love so much about MI3. It felt so dull and lifeless to me, like an extended Alias episode with a shitty MacGuffin they didn't even bother to write and one of PSH's least interesting performances.

It's sort of nice Spectre only comes out next week here, that way I already know not to expect too much out of this.
Click to expand...

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks about that with MI3. Don't forget the shitty camera. I don't think there was an actual heist too.
 
Patrick Bateman said:
After watching the movie:

What the hell was that train scene about?

The bad guy expected Bond to come to his secret factory in the desert, but has one of his henchmen send to kill Bond on that train Bond takes to actually got to said factory?

Why the whole explanation when they were there? Why the whole "Look at this, look at that"?

Shut up and shoot a bullet in his head if you hate him so much? Instead he does some neurosurgery that doesn't seem to have any influence on Bond whatsoever, except for a few moments of pain..

Why does Bond actually travel to meet him is something I don't understand either. Why not sneak into the factory? No, instead he gives them his weapon, gets a nice little factory tour and some torture. For what?


This movie is so dense and forgettable..
Click to expand...

It´s an ode to the old films, please understand.

Completely agree with what you said.
 
Patrick Bateman said:
After watching the movie:

What the hell was that train scene about?

The bad guy expected Bond to come to his secret factory in the desert, but has one of his henchmen send to kill Bond on that train Bond takes to actually got to said factory?

Why the whole explanation when they were there? Why the whole "Look at this, look at that"?

Shut up and shoot a bullet in his head if you hate him so much? Instead he does some neurosurgery that doesn't seem to have any influence on Bond whatsoever, except for a few moments of pain..

Why does Bond actually travel to meet him is something I don't understand either. Why not sneak into the factory? No, instead he gives them his weapon, gets a nice little factory tour and some torture. For what?


This movie is so dense and forgettable..
Click to expand...

Hinx was indeed just another henchman. He was sent after Bond, but I don't think Blofeld cared if Hinx succeeded or not. I think his idea was more to cause Bond some trouble along the way, he never expected Hinx to actually defeat Bond.

Bond goes straight to Blofeld because he has no choice. The nano-technology they injected in his blood made it impossible to sneak in because Blofeld knew where he was at any time [sans the convenient first 48 hours I guess, but even then he knew]. So Bond just said "fuck it" and walked in through the front door, improvising along the way.

Blofeld of course assumes his stereotypical arch-nemesis role by playing the good host, showing the entire facility and explaining the entire plan before torturing Bond. Very oldschool "I'll explain my evil masterplan before I kill you" mechanic.
His point was never to straight up kill Bond, he wanted Bond to suffer. To torment him. So that's why he doesn't just shoot him in the face, but instead tortures him with the end goal of destroying his memories and motoric skills. Because a life in agony was more rewarding than a quick death.

Sure the torture bail-out with the bomb watch was way too convenient, but it was a typical Bond-esque escape. I had no problem with any of it, and thought it was a pretty solid way of handling it.

Of course the sequence is not without flaw. The insane "I love you", as well as the Rambo-esque escape were cringeworthy. And Blofeld is never truly menacing, which is something I absolutely expected Waltz to pull off flawlessly].
 
SJRB said:
Bond goes straight to Blofeld because he has no choice. The nano-technology they injected in his blood made it impossible to sneak in because Blofeld knew where he was at any time [sans the convenient first 48 hours I guess, but even then he knew]. So Bond just said "fuck it" and walked in through the front door, improvising along the way.
Click to expand...

I thought
M had already made Q turn it off?
 
SJRB said:
Hinx was indeed just another henchman. He was sent after Bond, but I don't think Blofeld cared if Hinx succeeded or not. I think his idea was more to cause Bond some trouble along the way, he never expected Hinx to actually defeat Bond.

Bond goes straight to Blofeld because he has no choice. The nano-technology they injected in his blood made it impossible to sneak in because Blofeld knew where he was at any time [sans the convenient first 48 hours I guess, but even then he knew]. So Bond just said "fuck it" and walked in through the front door, improvising along the way.

Blofeld of course assumes his stereotypical arch-nemesis role by playing the good host, showing the entire facility and explaining the entire plan before torturing Bond. Very oldschool "I'll explain my evil masterplan before I kill you" mechanic.
His point was never to straight up kill Bond, he wanted Bond to suffer. To torment him. So that's why he doesn't just shoot him in the face, but instead tortures him with the end goal of destroying his memories and motoric skills. Because a life in agony was more rewarding than a quick death.

Sure the torture bail-out with the bomb watch was way too convenient, but it was a typical Bond-esque escape. I had no problem with any of it, and thought it was a pretty solid way of handling it.

Of course the sequence is not without flaw. The insane "I love you", as well as the Rambo-esque escape were cringeworthy. And Blofeld is never truly menacing, which is something I absolutely expected Waltz to pull off flawlessly].
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this as well, though I felt the Rambo-esque escape were a nod to the old films as well and felt really old school in a good way to me. The only cringe-worthy and weird scene, were as you mentioned when
Madeleine Swann says she loves him. Probably to get a reaction out of him but she meant it, and that's what was weird.

Boss Doggie said:
I thought
M had already made Q turn it off?
Click to expand...

Q did. But that doesn't mean,
that Blofeld couldn't keep track of him anyway. Who knows, maybe he could have hacked into the system
.
 
Patrick Bateman said:
After watching the movie:

What the hell was that train scene about?

The bad guy expected Bond to come to his secret factory in the desert, but has one of his henchmen send to kill Bond on that train Bond takes to actually got to said factory?

Why the whole explanation when they were there? Why the whole "Look at this, look at that"?

Shut up and shoot a bullet in his head if you hate him so much? Instead he does some neurosurgery that doesn't seem to have any influence on Bond whatsoever, except for a few moments of pain..

Why does Bond actually travel to meet him is something I don't understand either. Why not sneak into the factory? No, instead he gives them his weapon, gets a nice little factory tour and some torture. For what?


This movie is so dense and forgettable..
Click to expand...

That whole segment was just nonsense, absolute nonsense. Nothing made sense.
 
Just saw this today. Among the many other issues I had,
the fact that Blofeld didn't strip Bond down or take his gadgets away from him during the torture scene bugged the hell out of me. You know he is a 00 spy, capable of some incredible shit and you leave him with his tools? Wtf. I also did not like the "I am responsible for all your misery" revelation.
 
mac said:
The "Austin" reference was a professional wrestling maneuver, or reference.
I guess that is how the James Bond series has grown beyond me.
Click to expand...

What's your problem? It's a harmless and witty joke. This is what is done with most, if not all OTs. You'd be better off getting used to it if you plan on spending a lot of time on GAF.
 
I'm more in line with the British critics on this movie.
Comparisons between SPECTRE and The Winter Soldier? WHAT? That's one of the worst reviews I've seen.
 
Anth0ny said:
Just got back.

Good, not great. Hard to follow Skyfall imo. Still better than Quantum.

Casino Royale remains the GOAT.
Click to expand...

That about sums it up. I was super disappointed with this film. Loved the opening sequence and the title sequence and it just went downhill from there. Huge waste of Christoph Waltz.
 
Thinking about checking it out in IMAX today. Hopefully it's the Bond that ruins the franchise like I've been hearing! That'll be quite a feat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Eddington | Trailer | July 18 | Dir. Ari Aster | Pedro Pascal, Emma Stone, Austin Butler and Joaquin Phoenix
40
1K
Durien replied
Apple to rename all of its operating systems
23
388
Drew1440 replied
It's been like 6 years and LittleFinger's ending still upsets me. Game Of Thrones Spoilers.
2
61
3K
Madflavor replied
We live in a world of streamers. Streamers take over a bar in Austin, Texas
24
2K
Hawking Radiation replied
Corporations unilaterally changing conditions and making them binding is pissing me off
14
244
Dr.Guru of Peru replied
Top Bottom