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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sad that the leaks apparently turned out to be true.

I still think this film *could* have been very cool if
Blofeld used Bond's emotions about Vesper and M to *manipulate* him into basically killing all of Quantum for him, using him to orchestrate his own rise to power and essentially a hostile takeover of the organization, turning it into Spectre, and ending the film with Bond realizing that he was an idiot who let his emotions get in the way of clarity of thought and vowing revenge
. I don't think the Broccolis would ever allow that but it'd be a much cleverer way to introduce Spectre and would involve far less plot fuckery while actually pointing out how unreasonable it *would* be for that plot fuckery to be the case.
 
Blader putting in work on this page, definitely agree with him on how an emphasis on bond's character has made it a more memorable spy franchise
 
GAF is so weird with revisionist history.. QoS was hated so much at the time.. Now, "it's actually pretty good!" My take on it hasn't really changed, it's decent as a part 2 of Casino Royale, but it's horribly fragmented and really needed more time in the oven.

Because one or two people like it that means everyone does?

Its a bad movie..only good parts are the Vesper related scraps (Mr. white, the opera, Mathis and the ending). It doesnt play or feel like the back half of Casino Royale. It feels like an epilogue cut into pieces and spread throughout the Bond on a dumb luck mission formula (come on...20 dollars bills trace to some guy in Haiti who JUST used them).

The opening of Quantum should have been Bond having already got the info from Mr. White goes and finds the Algerian and kills him and then Bond can be Bond after the song and credits. Casino Royale started low key, it could be done again. There was no reason to drag out the Vesper "revenge". Its really not that important in the bigger 22 film picture.

-EDIT-
By the way I think Bond deserves some character and some pathos. But its overkill now. He shouldnt be like every modern movie hero where it was his destiny to be part of the villains evil plans.
 
Vesper Lynd should be the lowest on any lost looks-wise. But character wise with depth and all that, she's probably the best.

Olga Kurylenko is probably my favorite.

Lowest is probably too harsh, but I don't rate her highly at all as far as Bond girl looks go. She has very distinctive and unusual features that sometimes look great and sometimes look bad. It's sort of like people who are selected to be models, where they value uniqueness over the sort of "generic perfection". When I first watched CR I thought she was top tier, but having seen Penny Dreadful and rewatching CR recently, I'm not nearly as sure about that initial assessment. She is very memorable, I'll give her that.

And yes I don't think it's really in dispute that she's either the best or not far from it in terms of characterisation. The only real contender would be Tracey from OHMSS.

Well I'm perfectly fine with a four-part character study on the man at this point. :P

I get people wanting to ease up on making the movies less about Bond, but then I think of the Mission Impossible movies: really fun, slick, well-made spy action films. But who the fuck is Ethan Hunt? Absolutely no one. There's no real character to Hunt, not much of an arc to him, he's just Tom Cruise -- which is fine, but also makes the movies somewhat forgettable for me. Whereas something like Quantum of Solace, despite being a demonstrably sloppier and half-baked movie compared to any MI (except 2), has more bite to it because of its focus on and development of Bond's character arc. His anger over Vesper, or scenes like Mathis' death, resonate more strongly with me than virtually anything in the MI series even if those movies are technically better. And I feel the same about a lot of the pre-Craig Bonds too.

The MI comparison is interesting because I think they're nailing the "fun" aspect. Someone said (on a podcast I think) recently that the MI movies were the best "Old school Bond" movies in the last few decades. I don't think that's a hundred percent accurate, since that series has its own set of tropes that aren't really in line with Bond, but I wouldn't be unhappy if I found out that the producers were taking some notes from them.

I guess something I should reiterate here is - I'm happy to explore Bond as a character, but I would prefer them to do it by his encountering novel situations, rather than by looping back on his past. Or at least, giving that angle a break. Additionally, I don't think it's necessary to do it every time. To draw a comparison, the Nolan batflicks decided to delve into philosophising about the character of Batman and vigilantism and so on. I think it worked for the first two, but by the time TDKR came around I was over it. Cristoph Waltz in this trailer talking about how he's the architect of all your pain yadda yadda was giving me real bad Bane vibes. I can imagine him snapping Bond's spine and telling his soldiers to leave him so he can destroy everything he holds dear first to fully get his revenge. I really hope I'm off the mark here, and it will turn out to be nothing like that.



Unpopular opinion: I thought OHMSS was kind of bad (and not that out of step from Moore's films), and its character development fairly overhyped -- there's much ado about the Bond/Tracy relationship, but she's absent for like the entire middle section of the film!

I think the only pre-Craig movies that had something interesting to say about the man were Thunderball and Goldeneye (and maybe License to Kill? can't remember).
.

I thought OHMSS was a good entry with a bad bond. But eh. Everyone has their own ordering for the films.
 
Yeah that's what I mean. Vesper Lynd is not the lowest looks-wise but it got my point across. Anyway, it doesn't matter really.

Gonna book my Spectre tickets now!
 
Because one or two people like it that means everyone does?

Its a bad movie..only good parts are the Vesper related scraps (Mr. white, the opera, Mathis and the ending). It doesnt play or feel like the back half of Casino Royale. It feels like an epilogue cut into pieces and spread throughout the Bond on a dumb luck mission formula (come on...20 dollars bills trace to some guy in Haiti who JUST used them).

The opening of Quantum should have been Bond having already got the info from Mr. White goes and finds the Algerian and kills him and then Bond can be Bond after the song and credits. Casino Royale started low key, it could be done again. There was no reason to drag out the Vesper "revenge". Its really not that important in the bigger 22 film picture.

-EDIT-
By the way I think Bond deserves some character and some pathos. But its overkill now. He shouldnt be like every modern movie hero where it was his destiny to be part of the villains evil plans.

There is a lot more now than when QoS came out. I remember terms like "worst Bond film ever" when it came out. Some quotes just from this page re: QoS.

I can understand people not thinking Skyfall was the best Bond, but QoS better than it?

1UKKetE.gif


I actually really enjoyed Quantum in the end with more repeated viewings. In the beginning I was disappointed at first I admit, but once you piece it together as directly sequel to CR, it actually turns out pretty decent. Now Skyfall on the other hand. . . Nope.

I like Qunatum of Solace more than most people here it seems, but I really didn't like the fact that it's an immediate sequel to Casino Royale.
I totally didn't get it on first viewing by the way, I mean, Bond cold opening usually involve people that you don't know, and it's not like Mr. White had this huge memorable role in the previous film.
I also didn't think they did anything super interesting with it, like, the same plot could've been achieved without that, it just would've made the start of the movie less confusing.

I do agree with you on the editing, it's fucking terrible, and it's a shame since I think the film has one of the strongest scripts of any of the Bond movies.

Quantum of Solace is one of the best Bond movies (which doesn't say a lot) but it was a very solid entry in the franchise. Totally digged it, and it was by far superior to Skyfall. I hope Spectre can compete with Quantum of Solace, as I will be fine if it isn't on par with Casino Royale.

Quantum is a top 10 Bond, easily. I still don't know why people hate it. It's essentially the second half of CR and it will be looked upon fondly in a few years, much like OHMSS has.

Better than skyfall that's for damn sure.
 
No such person exists.

Perhaps a malfunctioning android might feel that way, but no human being is capable of such dark, twisted thoughts.

I exist..

add: and I don't get how so many people got themselves deceived by the beautiful looks of Skyfall. In the end that movie is just shallow and doesn't make sense, the Prometheus of Bond movies..
 
The brother/sister vibe of Bond and Olga Kurlyenko was brilliant in QoS. The movie was definitely hurt by the writers' strike but it's a worthy coda to Casino Royale and definitely isn't the regressive mess of Skyfall's screenplay.
 
There is a lot more now than when QoS came out. I remember terms like "worst Bond film ever" when it came out. Some quotes just from this page re: QoS.

I can understand people not thinking Skyfall was the best Bond, but QoS better than it?

1UKKetE.gif

QoS is definitely better than Skyfall
IMO

QoS's biggest fault is that it came out after and is a direct sequel to arguably the best Bond movie ever made.
 
Similar to the Bond and Friends comment, the time is coming where we need a story that isn't a personal character study for Bond (we've had Origin, Revenge, and two Personal Missions in a row now) but a story where he's injected into it and has his character moments but the world isn't revolving around him. Similarly the MI6 characters would be spun away from the plot as part of this. Basically, we need a more formulaic 'here's your mission, off you go' structure soon. I think the time has come again.

Think I agree with this (as evidently a few others do).
I mean Bond does things by a formula pretty much always but the MI6 focus in Skyfall and now Spectre and the whole "going against the wishes of the organisation and proving himself" thing is a bit more of an annoying formula at the moment. The thing that most annoyed me about Spectre was its use of tropes, and not all of them being ones just from Bond. The "I'm doing this now because I love you, not just because I have to protect you", the images of the past coming back to him (I'd say to haunt him as it does with all the references to Vesper but mostly it's just a reminder) in different places, the guy who planned all of this and has from the start, etc.

I absolutely love CR and Skyfall. Must have watched both 3-4 times each, maybe more over the years, especially after I bought the steelbook blu-rays of each. That said I wasn't too keen on QoS. To those who have seen it, is it closer in quality, plot and pacing to CS and Skyfall, or QoS?

I can't remember QoS very much because I thought it was awful, so I'd have to say it was closer to that but I'm not sure that's very fair. I felt like Casino Royale played on a fairly straight and direct line but it was done very well. I personally found Skyfall dull in the first hour, but the tension in the last 90 minutes was great and while a lot of people didn't like it, I thought it was simple but done very well (certainly helped by Javier Bardem's performance, he - to me, anyway - was for one a believable character who actually knew what he was doing at every point and what he was aiming for, and only gave Bond a chance at the end because he finally caught up to M. Although then again all of this was dependent on Q being a muppet even though he was supposed to be so incredibly talented and smart). Wasn't overly fond of it taking place predominantly in the UK but it was a different and at the same time I liked that in a way. Spectre feels like it's just all over the place, in literal terms too. It feels like it's just Bond going here there and everywhere and there's no real point to it, like the movie is just taking you there for the view and for the sake of it, probably because Skyfall didn't venture too far away from Britain.
 
Seeing so many positive reviews makes me really look forward to Nov 6.

I saw the trailers, but didn't follow up with the media or potential spoilers. So i think i will be in for a treat. :)
 
I think I have read so many different impressions from all kind of fans of different "Bond styles", I am really really confused now..
 
Local cinema still has seats available tonight, I am tempted to go and watch it, but then again I have TWD and Fargo to watch tonight.....decsions decisions.
 
I think I have read so many different impressions from all kind of fans of different "Bond styles", I am really really confused now..

Just make up your own mind about the movie because some people seem to love it, some (like myself) that don't really like it and some that hate it. So many varying opinions on Skyfall alone, never mind the rest of the Bond movies and it'll always be the same I guess.
 
Quantum is aging well for me. It's on the darker end of the Bond spectrum but it's a quality movie. And I like that the Bond girl has her own revenge plot.

Fun / crazy thing about Quantum -- Daniel Craig and the director had to write a lot of it on the fly because the script was delivered two hours before the writers' strike began:
http://collider.com/daniel-craig-quantum-of-solace-script-problems/

Taking that into consideration, it's remarkable how good it is. Possibly the most artsy-fartsy Bond movie.
 
The editing in QoS was a bit jarring, and not very well done? Rapid editing shouldn't be in a Bond film, but if you're going to do it, fucking do it right, like the Bourne films.

It's as if they shot an action scene, went to the edit room, and decided to close their eyes and cut a scene every 3 seconds.
 
The MI comparison is interesting because I think they're nailing the "fun" aspect. Someone said (on a podcast I think) recently that the MI movies were the best "Old school Bond" movies in the last few decades. I don't think that's a hundred percent accurate, since that series has its own set of tropes that aren't really in line with Bond, but I wouldn't be unhappy if I found out that the producers were taking some notes from them.

Just on the MI point. I think "fun" is something that MI has done well that the Craig Bond's haven't. The Bond writers are being too cautious in my opinion as they clearly want to stay away from the messiness of the end of the Brosnan era and they want to write grittier stories so have extracted some of the humour.

I really enjoyed the last two MI movies and they have developed something of a Walking Dead thing with a strong sense that Hunt and his crew are a real team, they care about each other and they all have great chemistry. Even Renner in his redefined role is embraced into the circle. Bond doesn't and can't have that kind of camaraderie to build jokes and lighten the mood because he is a lone gun.

In the older movies there is almost always a scene where Bond has some playful banter with Moneypenny or Q. In the CR and QoS M is the fun character, she is witty and clever although the fun has been decreasing with CR having several moments, QoS only a couple and Skyfall mostly replaced jokes with "I understood that reference" easter eggs that were far too brash to be fun.

I think most of blame goes to Bond just not being in fun situations. Where is the eccentric secondary character. Felix has been stuffy and Mathis was kind of bland. There isn't a character who is loose and enjoying life, everything is too tense. Mission Impossible has found a way to counter tension with humour (mostly Simon Pegg's stuff) in a way that builds the scene instead of hindering it.
 
Regarding MI.
Forget which is more fun...
There was a time when a Bond movie was the place you saw the newest exciting CREATIVE stunt. Besides the parkour chase in Casino Royale the action in the Craig movies has SUCKED! I don't know how the action in Spectre is or if there is anything memorable but the last two had nothing I would want to rewatch as an isolated set piece.

MI's been cleaning 007s clock when it comes to original and exciting stuntwork/action sequences.
 
^speaking of, I hope they do bring back Jeffrey Wright again. Assuming Craig comes back for one more, it might be nice to get Felix back in one more time too.
 
Watched it last night, thought it was a good bond film. Was enjoyable but felt bautista was a bit underused in terms of him actually talking and being a rival to bond or like a super buff henchman. Plus
his metal nails are used once on some suited up guy who has no relevance to plot. Thought the nails would become something akin to jaws......jaw?
 
Saw it again tonight.

From the gunbarrel, to the crazy stunts, to the jokes, to the Persian cat that was as much as of a bond film as I've hoped for. Love it.

It felt like Thunderball mixed with the best scenes from the Connery and Moore era (train scene was quintessential FRWL).

Was funny when some guy behind me audibly went "oh shit!!" when the Persian cat appeared. Like no shit, took you this long to realise?
 
-In an effort to save people from a terrorist attack, Bond decides to beat up a helicopter pilot causing the helicopter to spin and roll above a mass crowd. Obviously the whole "save people" idea went out the window in an effort to create a dramatic opening. It turned out to be one of the most embarrassing and baffling 'dramatic openings' to an action film in recent memory, much less a Bond franchise that has had some spectacular ones.

-The 'meeting' scene was truly amazing with its intense narrative and lighting. Baptista's introduction was encouraging, and it culminated in a car chase that disappointed in every aspect other than providing a gorgeous background.

-That isn't before Bond sleeps with the wife of a man he's killed after exchanging literally a few glances and words with her. It took me by surprise as it was so sudden and seemingly random.

-Baptista's character, wanting to take a central role in the organisation, doesn't say anything and dies in a predictable battle that begins with Bond, the blonde woman and him. Bond is being thrown into walls and tables before she momentarily distracts Baptista. It then ends predictably, with Bond killing him seconds after that.

-Seconds following that, Bond is sleeping with the blonde woman. Again, any hope of tension and drama is dashed by the sudden and random moments of lust which are audibly frustrating one or two of the audience.

-We meet the villain. It's revealed that he is the 'adopted' brother of James. This is it. All the character development over the last few movies about James' past comes to this point.

-What happens?

-Fuck all. That's what.

-They manage to escape to London where M, Moneypenny and Q seem to take it upon themselves to save the world by confronting Spectre directly. With a laptop. The setpiece of the final act is a generic device plot; a timer set to explode unless Bond can find his new found love.

-He does and they jump out of the building. Onto a safety net. How convenient. He then shoots at a helicopter to bring the villain down.

-Fin.

All the action was predictable, generic and actually quite boring. That's not to mention they will force you to question the point of flying a plane into a convoy that is travelling in between trees. And why a character who wants to be part of the Spectre organisation is actually generic baddie #345 with no lines, but we know him to be a wrestler. This could have been HHH as an extra to a porn parody and the quality would have been no different.

But the biggest gripe I have about this film, aside from being a B version Mission Impossible (minus the charisma, set piece scenes and humour), is that they ruin James' character development. I mean, when the secret is revealed to the audience, its literally a OH SHIT moment. But they stop right there and ignore it going forward. I half expected flash backs.

This film should have been 1/3 flashbacks to show the relationship between the two growing up. That would have made it far more interesting, emotional and memorable.

With Casino Royale, we got James sitting in the shower with a broken Vesper and her sacrifice for him at the end. With Spectre, we got a glimpse of a cat sitting on his lap.

That sums up the film.
 
My rankings of the Craig films:

1. CR
2. Spectre
3. Skyfall
4. Quantum of Solace

Damn, can't believe how much of a "classic" bond feel Spectre had throughout. Was damn good. Easily one of the best in the series IMO. Obviously opinions seem to be all over the place - but anyhow I loved it, speaking as someone who's favourite Bond films are FRWL, OHMSS, TSWLM and the Living Daylights.

And that torture scene was brutal, lifted right from the non-fleming Colonel Sun novel.
 
baptista

for the record, meus really liked the new fantastic four movie. so much so that he tried shilling tickets for it to people who hadn't seen it yet.
 
Damn, can't believe how much of a "classic" bond feel Spectre had throughout. Was damn good. Easily one of the best in the series IMO. Obviously opinions seem to be all over the place - but anyhow I loved it, speaking as someone who's favourite Bond films are FRWL, OHMSS, TSWLM and the Living Daylights.

See, now I'm starting to think I'm going to dig this a little more than I previously assumed.

for the record, meus really liked the new fantastic four movie. so much so that he tried shilling tickets for it to people who hadn't seen it yet.

Oh shit, that's right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom