I don't know why the stuff with the Sciarras was in the movie in the first place.
It let us have the entertaining Mexico City stuff, but it didn't really do anything for the rest of the film. We spend 45 minutes trying to find Spectre, but the film isn't about finding Spectre. It's about taking the leader of the organization down. The means with which he finds them initially aren't really interesting or important. They can keep the Mexico City stuff as the traditional semi-related opening action scene, but he should just find out about the meeting in Rome then and there when he's listening in.
Yes, you're right. It's entirely that political. Not just a fairly tame Bond flirtation, but rather a grand statement on the fact that women are asking for it =\
How so? The US critics didn't see it until long after the English ones did. And from what I've read of them so far, I'd be willing to trust the Yanks in this situation, given that they've laid out legitimate movie breaking (and potentially series breaking, judging from how the movie retroactively inserts references that were never brought up in the prior Craig films in a vain attempt to make the whole thing seem more connected) criticisms that should be taken as a warning to those who either want to go and see the movie, or for the filmmakers to look at what was wrong and try to correct that the best they can in the next one. I don't know how much control Sony has had over its production, but it's especially clear judging from the abhorrent Amazing Spiderman movies and what they had planned for them, that they wanted their own take on the Avengers and MCU in general. And like I said, seeing that Spectre tried to make every prior Craig movie in the series seem more important than they really should be, among the other issues they highlighted, I feel that I would trust the US critics in that regard.
Why do people keep saying this? CR and QoS already laid out how its villains and Vesper were all part of the same shadowy organization. The major retcon here is adding
Silva as a member of SPECTRE, and revealing Quantum as a branch of SPECTRE
. But the idea that none of the prior Craig movies alluded to something big behind the scenes is totally false.
And Sony has no creative control over the Bond movies, they just distribute them.
I don't know why the stuff with the Sciarras was in the movie in the first place.
It let us have the entertaining Mexico City stuff, but it didn't really do anything for the rest of the film. We spend 45 minutes trying to find Spectre, but the film isn't about finding Spectre. It's about taking the leader of the organization down. The means with which he finds them initially aren't really interesting or important. They can keep the Mexico City stuff as the traditional semi-related opening action scene, but he should just find out about the meeting in Rome then and there when he's listening in.
Of course it's his "fault"... and had he made that comment seriously, and under a less mutually flirtatious context, it would've been very troubling indeed.
Anyways, I'm not going to go in circles. Agree to disagree.
I don't know why the stuff with the Sciarras was in the movie in the first place.
It let us have the entertaining Mexico City stuff, but it didn't really do anything for the rest of the film. We spend 45 minutes trying to find Spectre, but the film isn't about finding Spectre. It's about taking the leader of the organization down. The means with which he finds them initially aren't really interesting or important. They can keep the Mexico City stuff as the traditional semi-related opening action scene, but he should just find out about the meeting in Rome then and there when he's listening in.
Of course it's his "fault"... and had he made that comment seriously, and under a less mutually flirtatious context, it would've been very troubling indeed.
Anyways, I'm not going to go in circles. Agree to disagree.
Yeah, he's passing the fault over from himself to her, by saying "you shouldn't dress like that". It doesn't matter what context the comment is put in, it's still sexist.
Yeah, he's passing the fault over from himself to her, by saying "you shouldn't dress like that". It doesn't matter what context the comment is put in, it's still sexist.
Haha. You know, if the tables were turned (let's say I'm in a relatively awesome Tom Ford suit) and Léa Seydoux said those exact same words to me, I'd probably take it as a politically incorrect joke and a complement, rather than a legitimate attempt at suggesting that I'm at fault for her gaze. Admittedly, I doubt a Tom Ford suit would be enough for Léa Seydoux to stare at me, but hey.
Now, I understand that I'm a man, and that changes the implications of the situation, and I also understand that the line rubbed you the wrong way. To me, that just seems a bit hyper-sensitive -- in the context of the situation (and for Bond more generally), the joke is fine. Sarcastic, even. Different strokes, I guess.
When I realised he wasn't speaking all through the film I became pretty convinced he was going to open his mouth at a climactic point and reveal a set of metal teeth.
I'm not sure if I'm disappointed or relieved that didn't happen.
Now, I understand that I'm a man, and that changes the implications of the situation, and I also understand that the line rubbed you the wrong way. To me, that just seems a bit hyper-sensitive -- in the context of the situation (and for Bond more generally), the joke is fine. Sarcastic, even. Different strokes, I guess.
I can see it being a cheeky exchange between a couple that is aware of the sexism inherent in the line, but I didn't feel that their relationship was anywhere near that, at that point.
You can say it's hyper-sensitive, but we're dealing with a series that is steeped in sexism/misogyny. Of course it's going to come under scrutiny. Maybe it was meant to be a harmless line/flirtation, but that's the exact same excuse that men use in real life. "What? You're dressed like that, I can't help but stare. It's a compliment, I think you're hot, etc."
Compare it to Vesper (covertly) staring at Bond and sizing him up to know his suit fitting. It shows not only that she finds him at least physically attractive, but she's intelligent and delivers the line in a "I'm smarter than you" way. Flirtation there reveals information about her character and their relationship. Here it's "damn girl, you HOT, I can't not stare!"
You can say it's hyper-sensitive, but we're dealing with a series that is steeped in sexism/misogyny. Of course it's going to come under scrutiny. Maybe it was meant to be a harmless line/flirtation, but that's the exact same excuse that men use in real life. "What? You're dressed like that, I can't help but stare. It's a compliment, I think you're hot, etc."
Compare it to Vesper (covertly) staring at Bond and sizing him up to know his suit fitting. It shows not only that she finds him at least physically attractive, but she's intelligent and delivers the line in a "I'm smarter than you" way. Flirtation there reveals information about her character and their relationship. Here it's "damn girl, you HOT, I can't not stare!"
Yeah. I mean, it's just one of the many ways in which Casino Royale is the superior film. The "perfectly formed ass" comment also subverted the usual misogyny in an interesting way.
-And yes. I agree that the line is politically incorrect. Men do use that excuse to justify sometimes criminal behavior, and that's a genuine problem. The fact that it's intentionally politically incorrect - maybe even sarcastic - is what made it feel harmless to me. But I do see your point. I'd rather not be confused for defending sexism - in film or otherwise. That's really not my jam.
Yeah. I mean, it's just one of the many ways in which Casino Royale is the superior film. The "perfectly formed ass" comment also subverted the usual misogyny in an interesting way.
-And yes. I agree that the line is politically incorrect. Men do use that excuse to justify sometimes criminal behavior, and that's a genuine problem. The fact that it's intentionally politically incorrect - maybe even sarcastic - is what made it feel harmless to me. But I do see your point. I'd rather not be confused for defending sexism - in film or otherwise. That's really not my jam.
No problem, I see where you're coming from/I don't think you're defending sexism. Like I said, it's just one line that put me into a "I thought we had moved beyond this" eyeroll. The script has bigger/more relevant problems than that moment.
It was me, James, the reference!
Disappointed with the lack of a stainless steel delicatessen.
Remember all those better movies? Here, we're gonna reference them copiously, in the most subtle ways! Your average movie-goer won't even tell how smart we are!
We'll fill in the blanks with a lot of goes nowhere, don't worry.
This was like a complete reversal of Skyfall. Skyfall was a great movie, but terrible as a Bond installment. This here was a great Bond movie, and the script holds zero water.
They offered notes and advice but they absolutely have no creative say nor ownership of the franchise at all.
It is highly likely Spectre is the last Bond film they distribute. Most speculation is EON/MGM is going to switch over to WB for distribution on the next one.
When I realised he wasn't speaking all through the film I became pretty convinced he was going to open his mouth at a climactic point and reveal a set of metal teeth.
I'm not sure if I'm disappointed or relieved that didn't happen.
we never did see a body. I was like "they could bring him back" and my wife was like "no way that didn't break his neck" and I was like "What neck" and besides, Bond hit him WITH A FUCKING PLANE and he still got up.
So you never know. It wouldn't be the weirdest thing.
we never did see a body. I was like "they could bring him back" and my wife was like "no way that didn't break his neck" and I was like "What neck" and besides, Bond hit him WITH A FUCKING PLANE and he still got up.
So you never know. It wouldn't be the weirdest thing.
Yeah, he's passing the fault over from himself to her, by saying "you shouldn't dress like that". It doesn't matter what context the comment is put in, it's still sexist.
Oh fuck me to hell with that sexism talk.
That wasn't sexism or offensive or anything. It was flirting at that point.
Solo, post your rankings when you get back from the cinema.
I bet you will like Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace more than this one, but to me it sure was better than Skyfall.
they would use him with Blofeld in the opening of the next and kill her OHMSS style as it fits perfectly, however I've been thinking and I remembered they already played the whole revenge plot out at the end of Casino and all during Quantum. It may not go over well with audiences if they re-do that whole plot.
they would use him with Blofeld in the opening of the next and kill her OHMSS style as it fits perfectly, however I've been thinking and I remembered they already played the whole revenge plot out at the end of Casino and all during Quantum. It may not go over well with audiences if they re-do that whole plot.
Going into the film, I was already aware of a lot of the criticism regarding
Blofeld’s motivation
. Correct me I’m wrong, but it seems like a lot of people are reaching in their interpretations.
I don't believe the film means to imply Spectre was created as a way to enact revenge on Bond. After all, the organization was in play before Bond attained 00 status. Blofeld does state that the impact Bond had on him as a kid played an important role in his "rebirth", but that's about it. Spectre's illicit pursuits aren't simply an instrument for toying with Bond -- he never implies that the organization is a personal revenge machine.
Later in the film he says something along the lines of “and then suddenly there you were, popping up wherever I went.” In other words, Bond’s rise through the ranks of MI6 (and his subsequent interference) wasn’t an expectation of Blofeld, but rather a coincidence.
“I’m the author of your pain” refers to the fact that Bond’s losses throughout these four films trace back along the many tentacles of Spectre. He's not really saying "I sent Le Chiffre after you, and then Green, and then Silva!" It's more like "we had plans. You interfered, and in so doing you lost things dear to you".
I suppose it’s a case of splitting hairs, but it’s still a meaningful distinction. In fact, it kind of saves that aspect of the film for me. What I'm about to say does NO SERVICE to my argument, but... it reminded me a bit of
Going into the film, I was already aware of a lot of the criticism regarding
Blofeld’s motivation
. Correct me I’m wrong, but it seems like a lot of people are reaching in their interpretations.
I don't believe the film means to imply Spectre was created as a way to enact revenge on Bond. After all, the organization was in play before Bond attained 00 status. Blofeld does state that the impact Bond had on him as a kid played an important role in his "rebirth", but that's about it. Spectre's illicit pursuits aren't simply an instrument for toying with Bond -- he never implies that the organization is a personal revenge machine.
Later in the film he says something along the lines of “and then suddenly there you were, popping up wherever I went.” In other words, Bond’s rise through the ranks of MI6 (and his subsequent interference) wasn’t an expectation of Blofeld, but rather a coincidence.
“I’m the author of your pain” refers to the fact that Bond’s losses throughout these four films trace back along the many tentacles of Spectre. He's not really saying "I sent Le Chiffre after you, and then Green, and then Silva!" It's more like "we had plans. You interfered, and in so doing you lost things dear to you".
I suppose it’s a case of splitting hairs, but it’s still a meaningful distinction. In fact, it kind of saves that aspect of the film for me. What I'm about to say does NO SERVICE to my argument, but... it reminded me a bit of
For me, it reminds me of True Detective season 2: all of the plot and information may be there, but the storytelling fails to present it in an organic way.
For me, it reminds me of True Detective season 2: all of the plot and information may be there, but the storytelling fails to present it in an organic way.
The movie was honestly fine for me right up until the end when he decides to leave (retire?) with absolutely no motivation whatsoever other than a 2-minute conversation over drinks with yet another love interest that is seemingly not any more special than his dozens of other love interests.
And of course there's also the fact that after ripping an entire train to shreds, the staff is cool to just let him go off and boink with his lady friend with no repercussions at all.
The way I see it, Casino Royale and Spectre are on opposite sides of the "modern Bond" coin: CR strips away much of the Bond formula to ground the character in a modern context, while Spectre is more like a modernized facelift to the Bond formula. And you could think of Skyfall as the transition from one to the other.
Going into the film, I was already aware of a lot of the criticism regarding
Blofeld’s motivation
. Correct me I’m wrong, but it seems like a lot of people are reaching in their interpretations.
I don't believe the film means to imply Spectre was created as a way to enact revenge on Bond. After all, the organization was in play before Bond attained 00 status. Blofeld does state that the impact Bond had on him as a kid played an important role in his "rebirth", but that's about it. Spectre's illicit pursuits aren't simply an instrument for toying with Bond -- he never implies that the organization is a personal revenge machine.
Later in the film he says something along the lines of “and then suddenly there you were, popping up wherever I went.” In other words, Bond’s rise through the ranks of MI6 (and his subsequent interference) wasn’t an expectation of Blofeld, but rather a coincidence.
“I’m the author of your pain” refers to the fact that Bond’s losses throughout these four films trace back along the many tentacles of Spectre. He's not really saying "I sent Le Chiffre after you, and then Green, and then Silva!" It's more like "we had plans. You interfered, and in so doing you lost things dear to you".
I suppose it’s a case of splitting hairs, but it’s still a meaningful distinction. In fact, it kind of saves that aspect of the film for me. What I'm about to say does NO SERVICE to my argument, but... it reminded me a bit of
I agree, I didn't get the sense at all that SPECTRE was
purposely set up to go after Bond -- and like you point out, the organization would have existed long before Bond became a secret agent anyway. Crossing paths with Bond and being able to cause him great personal pain was a happy coincidence for Blofeld.
Madelyn got kidnapped, hidden in a building, and tied up in explosives in the course of approximately 5 minutes. And apparently being able to do that that was the crux of Blofeld's entire revenge plan.
After sleeping on it: remember when Bond destroyed an enormous Evil Base by shooting one bullet at a pressure gauge. That's right, a gauge. Not even a tank or whatever. Like. A little metal dial with a glass face.
Yeah, he's passing the fault over from himself to her, by saying "you shouldn't dress like that". It doesn't matter what context the comment is put in, it's still sexist.
I like Solace a lot and still think this is the weakest of the four. There's some good cinematography and scenes but I think QoS was better as an overall, cohesive movie.
pretty bad from most aspects...still OK on some of the action scenes. Definitely steering back to cheese and over the top stuff, but in an in-cohesive manner.
It has too many jarring inconsistencies - it REALLY bugged me when there was full on SWAT level emergency response with police tape, flares, etc....all on scene before he could even kick the door out of the helicopter and get out.
After sleeping on it: remember when Bond destroyed an enormous Evil Base by shooting one bullet at a pressure gauge. That's right, a gauge. Not even a tank or whatever. Like. A little metal dial with a glass face.
