172 replies to this topic

[Major Tallon]

Your re-review reflects a lot of my feelings after my third viewing, SAF.  Very nice job.

[casinoroyale75]

Question guys: what percentage of the actual script leaked? And could you give a letter grade to the original script (leaked) vs. the final product? Just curious; I stayed far away from it because I hate spoilers. If I'm off track here, please overlook me.   I read somewhere that there was a poker game, would have loved that to be included.

[jamie00007]

Well I absolutely loved it. As did the people I saw it with, and, standing in the foyer afterwards listening to the crowd, it seemed to have gotten a very positive reception from the audience too (something I can't say about my first viewing of Skyfall). So it's kind of disappointing to log into this site after avoiding it like the plague for the past few weeks to see so much complaining and disappointment and I have to admit I don't really get it.

It's far from a perfect film, if I wanted to put on my movie critics hat I could come up with a laundry list of problems I'm sure, but it wasn't award winning scripts or character studies and "emotional depth" that made me a Bond fan. It was fun and excitement and watching Bond being Bond and having a good time. And imo, the film the totally nailed it. It might not become a BAFTAs darling, but it will sure sit comfortably on my shelf next to the likes of The Spy Who Loved Me and You Only Live Twice.

[Vauxhall]

Question guys: what percentage of the actual script leaked? And could you give a letter grade to the original script (leaked) vs. the final product? Just curious; I stayed far away from it because I hate spoilers. If I'm off track here, please overlook me. I read somewhere that there was a poker game, would have loved that to be included.

Two entire draft scripts leaked - one from October 2014 and one from December 2014.

Roughly, I'd say about three-quarters of the December draft made it into the final film, although some scenes had their dialogue significantly rewritten.

[Shrublands]

 

Question guys: what percentage of the actual script leaked? And could you give a letter grade to the original script (leaked) vs. the final product? Just curious; I stayed far away from it because I hate spoilers. If I'm off track here, please overlook me. I read somewhere that there was a poker game, would have loved that to be included.

Two entire draft scripts leaked - one from October 2014 and one from December 2014.

Roughly, I'd say about three-quarters of the December draft made it into the final film, although some scenes had their dialogue significantly rewritten.

 

 

Yes. Other than that, the main additions to the December script are the torture scene, the safe house and M's confrontation with C in the CNS building at the end.

[coco1997]

I thought the earlier draft had some plot points and material that were stronger than the finished script. Q being kidnapped and held captive at Blofeld's complex, M publicly exposing Denbeigh at the launch of Nine Eyes and the rainstorm during the climax were all great.

[A Kristatos]

While the early draft of M publicly exposing Denbeigh would have been fun to see, I for one am glad the Q kidnapping was written out.  Yeah, M was kidnapped in TWINE, so it would not be without precedent.  But what's going to be next.  Kidnapping Moneypenny and Tanner?  I don't think all of the incendiary Bond characters need to have a crisis moment in every single Bond film.  Too much artificial drama for my taste. 

[Silva25]

It'd have been better than

Spoiler

the main Bond woman being reduced to a damsel in distress, AGAIN. 

 

I disagree - it did make sense.  Total surveillance, controlled by those who want to use it for their own gains, would be a global nightmare.

 

My gripe: it is not a really fresh idea and has been done to death by so many tv shows in the last decade.  It also reminded me of Carver´s scheme in TND.

 

Bond villains should have a really new take on diabolical plans.

And don't forget Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Members of HYDRA (SPECTRE) infiltrate SHIELD (SIS) to gain control over Project Insight (Nine Eyes).

Except that that made far more sense.  The problem with Nine Eyes is simple, no nation is ever going to agree to it.  It's just not going to happen, the "politics" of this movie seem really immature/naïve in that regard.  With the HYDRA thing, it was one organization (SHIELD) doing it.

Edited by Silva25, 14 November 2015 - 07:59 PM.

[Professor Pi]

Which is why the Austin Powers bit is so funny about trying to come up with a diabolical plan.  "Oh hell, let's just do what we always do.  Hijack some nukes and hold the world for ransom."

[sharpshooter]

While the early draft of M publicly exposing Denbeigh would have been fun to see, I for one am glad the Q kidnapping was written out. 

Me too. If a character had to be kidnapped in SPECTRE, Madeleine made the most sense. 

[glidrose]

It's either a harsh 6.5 or a generous 7 out of 10 for me.

It moves at a fast clip. I was never bored. But I also was rarely involved, especially during the first half. The second half is more engrossing but the final quarter or so is jumbled and its clear the filmmakers never bothered to work out all the script problems. It's like they threw in the towel and were saying, of course this is stupid, so let's make it as dumb as possible.

I loved the 4 minute opening steadicam shot. I've watched it online many times and will probably never tire of it. I love those stunning shots of the helictoper flying around the Mexico City skyscrapers. In Bonds of old, the filmmakers would have cut to the credits. But the tired second-unit helictoper action stuff in between left me cold. I enjoyed the sequence the first time I saw it in FYEO. Oh look, a nod to TMWTGG with special music effects. In fact none of the film's action sequences terribly thrilled me. Okay, I felt a glimmer at the end of the snow plane chase when Bond is heading towards the lodge and we see the cars about to pass in front of it. And the train fight was good enough I suppose. I have to force myself to remember the other action sequences. The film is something of a blur in my mind right now. Kind of felt like being in an art gallery on rollerskates where the guide keeps hauling me off to look at something else.

Others have complained how visually dark parts of the film are. It does indeed seem to have been shot in glaucoma-vision. The color processing was generally good. I wasn't disappointed about that the way some people here are.

But what did bother me was how badly the DOP (cinematographer) shot the performers. Fiennes and Seydoux especially. Fiennes in his first office scene looks physically ill, rather chalky looking. And why did the DOP shoot Fiennes with such unflattering short-focal (wide angle) length lenses? Big nose, small chin. It seems that the DOP used different focal length lenses during the Fiennes-Scott hall confrontation (where the MGW cameo is) because Scott's facial features aren't as protracted in his close-ups. As for Seydoux, there's one truly horrible shot of her where her nose has a very unflattering curve, I believe it's in the L'Americain sequence.

Don't know if it's me or the cinema I was in, but the sound recording was terrible. Everybody seemed to rush through and mutter their lines. I missed half the dialogue.

Newman's music score is adequate. Other than the obtrusive Skyfall bit during the PTS helicopter fight, I didn't mind the retreads. In fact I'm glad Newman extensively re-used that staccato electric guitar motif from Skyfall. Love the Bond theme bit when Bond exits the Mexican hotel room out the window and the camera swoops around him as he walks outside the building. Shame the otherwise strong gunbarrel music cuts out the main part of the Bond theme a la David Arnold.

The title sequence is far and away Kleinman's worst. Too much octopus porn.

Waltz has a useless, underwritten, underwhelming part. Despite this he gives a good, cunning performance. I love how he said those Kingsley Amis lines during the idiotic torture scene. Oh yes, that is one dumb, carelessly written sequence with some fantastic visuals.

Ultimately, the film has too many ideas, few if any of them properly developed. Some people complained about the Bond-Swann relationship. I didn't have a problem with it. It's superficial and underdeveloped but I found the progression credible and logical.

And I had the same reaction to this film that I did with Skyfall - it's not Bond. It's a movie made by people who don't understand Bond.

For the next film I hope they get a first-rate journeyman to direct. Enough of the "auteurs".
 
 
 
 
UPDATE
 
Despite my complaints about the final quarter I am glad to see surreal sci-fi elements back in the series. I loved the Morocco sets, even if the all those minions on computers did seem rather silly though the sequence itself is tense, well-acted and well-directed. The initial exterior shot has a quaint 1930's Los Angeles vibe. The rest of the villain's lair sets boasted fantastic production design, set decoration.
 
White's hysterical line "he's everywhere" was stupid the first time we heard a variant of it in Quantum and it's even worse here. How does any organization remain this unknown with so many employees?
 
How did Monica Bellucci's character know where, when and how Spectre would pick a replacement for her husband? And all that DNA nonsense linking the ring with the villains? Probably the filmmakers taking the piss knowing us Bond fans would try to pick it apart.
 
Rome was wasted in this film.
 
Glad to see Kleinman went for a Binder-style gunbarrel. As for his title sequence, I just found it too murky, off-putting and artificial. And that's on top of my earlier complaint about too much "octopus porn". There's one striking, creepy image tho': that very gothic-looking face that belongs in a silent era horror movie.
 
The MI6 gang trying to stop C during the finale felt wrong - can you imagine Bernard Lee, Desmond Llewelyn and Lois Maxwell taking active part in the climax of a Connery-Moore Bond film? C's death smacks too much of Patrice's death in Skyfall. Again, M in an action sequence doesn't feel right.
 
Regarding RMc2's comment below, it's a fairly good movie. But when I wait three years for a Bond film, I expect better than fairly good.
 
Regarding Major Tallon's comment elsewhere: this film does indeed play better onscreen than it reads on the page. While you can't make a great movie from a terrible script, it seems that you can make a good enough movie from a seriously defective misguided script which is exactly what the filmmakers have done here.

Edited by glidrose, 20 November 2015 - 01:26 AM.

[RMc2]

It's either a harsh 6.5 or a generous 7 out of 10 for me.

It moves at a fast clip. I was never bored. But I also was rarely involved, especially during the first half. The second half is more engrossing but the final quarter or so is jumbled and its clear the filmmakers never bothered to work out all the script problems. It's like they threw in the towel and were saying, of course this is stupid, so let's make it as dumb as possible.

I loved the 4 minute opening steadicam shot. I've watched it online many times and will probably never tire of it. I love those stunning shots of the helictoper flying around the Mexico City skyscrapers. In Bonds of old, the filmmakers would have cut to the credits. But the tired second-unit helictoper action stuff in between left me cold. I enjoyed the sequence the first time I saw it in FYEO. Oh look, a nod to TMWTGG with special music effects. In fact none of the film's action sequences terribly thrilled me. Okay, I felt a glimmer at the end of the snow plane chase when Bond is heading towards the lodge and we see the cars about to pass in front of it. And the train fight was good enough I suppose. I have to force myself to remember the other action sequences. The film is something of a blur in my mind right now. Kind of felt like being in an art gallery on rollerskates where the guide keeps hauling me off to look at something else.

Others have complained how visually dark parts of the film are. It does indeed seem to have been shot in glaucoma-vision. The color processing was generally good. I wasn't disappointed about that the way some people here are.

But what did bother me was how badly the DOP (cinematographer) shot the performers. Fiennes and Seydoux especially. Fiennes in his first office scene looks physically ill, rather chalky looking. And why did the DOP shoot Fiennes with such unflattering short-focal (wide angle) length lenses? Big nose, small chin. It seems that the DOP used different focal length lenses during the Fiennes-Scott hall confrontation (where the MGW cameo is) because Scott's facial features aren't as protracted in his close-ups. As for Seydoux, there's one truly horrible shot of her where her nose has a very unflattering curve, I believe it's in the L'Americain sequence.

Don't know if it's me or the cinema I was in, but the sound recording was terrible. Everybody seemed to rush through and mutter their lines. I missed half the dialogue.

Newman's music score is adequate. Other than the obtrusive Skyfall bit during the PTS helicopter fight, I didn't mind the retreads. In fact I'm glad Newman extensively re-used that staccato electric guitar motif from Skyfall. Love the Bond theme bit when Bond exits the Mexican hotel room out the window and the camera swoops around him as he walks outside the building. Shame the otherwise strong gunbarrel music cuts out the main part of the Bond theme a la David Arnold.

The title sequence is far and away Kleinman's worst. Too much octopus porn.

Waltz has a useless, underwritten, underwhelming part. Despite this he gives a good, cunning performance. I love how he said those Kingsley Amis lines during the idiotic torture scene. Oh yes, that is one dumb, carelessly written sequence with some fantastic visuals.

Ultimately, the film has too many ideas, few if any of them properly developed. Some people complained about the Bond-Swann relationship. I didn't have a problem with it. It's superficial and underdeveloped but I found the progression credible and logical.

And I had the same reaction to this film that I did with Skyfall - it's not Bond. It's a movie made by people who don't understand Bond.

For the next film I hope they get a first-rate journeyman to direct. Enough of the auteurs.

 

Sorry to hear you were disappointed, glidrose, but I agree with you pretty much entirely. Still, 7 out of 10 implies you enjoyed it? I'd rate it lower.

 

Did you watch it in IMAX? I saw it in that format first and the sound mix was ideal. Some cinemas these days have awful sound.

 

I'd very much welcome a reliable journeyman for Bond 25 too. Martin Campbell's my too-obvious choice...

[Revelator]

... In fact none of the film's action sequences terribly thrilled me. Okay, I felt a glimmer at the end of the snow plane chase when Bond is heading towards the lodge and we see the cars about to pass in front of it. And the train fight was good enough I suppose.

 

Yes, the action sequences didn't have the customary spark or ingenuity one expects from Bond. I don't know whether to blame the second-unit directors or the editor, who was borrowed from Chris Nolan. The train fight was good enough but too reminiscent of FRWL, which still has the better fight. Reminding the audience of better movies in the series is always a mistake. Great Bond films don't need such crutches.

 

..Newman's music score is adequate. Other than the obtrusive Skyfall bit during the PTS helicopter fight, I didn't mind the retreads.

 

Agreed. If he repeated his earlier score, it's more memorable this time around.
 

...The title sequence is far and away Kleinman's worst. Too much octopus porn.

 

The audience I was with giggled at the shirtless Craig shot. I'd like more silhouettes and less CGI.

 

...Some people complained about the Bond-Swann relationship. I didn't have a problem with it. It's superficial and underdeveloped but I found the progression credible and logical.

 

Having Bond prove himself to Seydoux's character was a good idea, but her "I love you" felt unearned and the rest of the film didn't know what to do with her, aside from making her a damsel in distress.
The scenes with the widow were rushed, quickly dropped, and creepy--Bond clumsily tried to extract information but the film hadn't worked up enough sexual attraction, so he looked  predatory.
 

...For the next film I hope they get a first-rate journeyman to direct. Enough of the auteurs.

 

The irony is that the critics who throw around terms like "auteur" don't regard Mendes as one. He's usually dismissed as hopelessly middlebrow. The auteur theory actually began as an attempt to elevate directors who'd been dismissed as first-rate journeymen to major artists. My own take is that Mendes is a solid director who works best when given a good script and cinematographer, which is why he did better with Skyfall. I don't think he'll return post-Spectre, so the hunt is on for good journeymen. I doubt Wilson and Broccoli will try for a big name like Nolan.

Edited by Revelator, 19 November 2015 - 11:41 PM.

[Dustin]

Very concise review there, glidrose. Am a bit surprised by the rating in light of your observations. While I too felt still entertained in many parts my general rating would be not as high as yours.

[glidrose]

Very concise review there, glidrose. Am a bit surprised by the rating in light of your observations. While I too felt still entertained in many parts my general rating would be not as high as yours.

Thanks for the kind comments. Here's the thing, if not for the fact that I did read all the leaked materials at the outset - and so have had a full year to come to grips with what would obviously be a very flawed product - then I suspect my rating would be lower. Instead, I was able to appreciate the surface gloss, the smooth direction, etc. And I can't exaggerate how important it is that I not get bored during a movie.

[Dustin]

I'm starting to wish I hadn't played my ostrich act during SPECTRE's production...

[Professor Pi]

I remember way back in 2013 reading on this site about EON bringing in P&W as there were problems with John Logan's script and thinking, ... they'll fix it.  Can't say we couldn't read the tea leaves ...

[SecretAgentFan]

I wish they would have been the final writers on this.  IMO, Butterworth made it worse.  Although that may have been due to what Mendes wanted him to do.

[RMc2]

What changed between P&W and Butterworth's drafts?

 

I haven't read the leaked stuff, and would love to know.

[glidrose]

My review above. http://debrief.comma...-6#entry1324369

 

My thoughts after a second viewing:

 

Even visually darker this time around. Couldn't even see Bellucci or Seydoux let slip the furtive tear.

 

The titles are still terrible. It's not the title song, which is okay even if I still don't particularly care for Smith's voice.

 

Contrived M-Bond scene after the titles. Don't believe M would chew Bond out this way, or that Bond would withold crucial information from him, but alas, the plot requires it. Gawd, is Fiennes badly lit and made up in this scene. Don't know what the filmmakers were aiming at here.

 

That opening steadicam sequence still remains one of the great Bond sequences. Should be taught in cinema studies classes. Bond walking outside the buildings with the Bond vamp thumping away in counterpoint to that hypnotic drum riff that opens the film is fantastic. Some guy on youtube has edited that track so that we get more drums. Am I the only person here who has listened to that version many times? I also love that shot of Bond in the skeletal mask turning to look at the screen in tight close-up as he stalks Sciarra. Great cane prop too.

 

The PTS helicopter action and the Rome car chase still not much. How dull was the helicopter action? My attention wandered and I thought back to the shot of Tracy Bond's tombstone in FYEO. Great low-angle shot of Craig as he gets the helicopter under control, tho'. The Austrian action sequence more fun this time but still hardly top-drawer Bond action. Good train fight. Love that shot of Hinx kicking the table out from under Bond.

 

Great tracking shot during the botched widow Sciarra assassination sequence. I like these arty filmmaking touches.

 

Hinx is clearly the best henchman in years. He's got that glint in his eyes. He's still alive, I tell you, alive. Like to see him return in another Bond film.

 

The Mr. White scene really falls flat and is utterly boring - the only dull bit in the entire fast-paced, overloaded film. Oh yes, overloaded it is. Reminds me of my initial reaction to AVTAK - a Bond film I genuinely like: overloaded, doesn't know what it wants to be, too many ideas.

 

Fantastic Moroccan villain's lair set explosion.

 

The home stretch is sloppy, but I don't think too many people will disagree with me. The final twenty or so minutes go by in a careless blur.

 

Don't believe for a second the "author of all your pain" concept. Like some people here, I prefer to think Oberhauser is merely playing with Bond's head.

 

Mendes's smooth direction does wonders for the film.

 

I had no problem with the underwritten Bond-Swann relationship first time I saw the film, but I thought of a reason to justify Bond's decision to quit the service for Swann: this is the first time Bond's gone up against "family" in a film and as Swann's father was herself involved in the plot, it seems credible IMO that this personal touch is enough to make Bond finally say "enough is enough".

 

Blofeld should never have been Oberhauser. This is wrong on so many levels. It trashes Fleming, it trashes the original cinema timeline. It's something the 1967 CR would have done.

 

I had another objection to the "Oberhauser is Blofeld" and "daddy loved you more than he loved me" backstory but I can't for the life of me remember what it is. For those of you who haven't read the leaked draft script, Bond was supposed to drop the following bombshell on Franz Oberhauser: Hannes Oberhauser wasn't your flesh and blood father. You were adopted. Your parents were Romanian diplomats who spied on the Nazis. Your birth name was Ernst Stavros Blofeld.

 

Love the Moroccan villain's lair sets. The entire sequence is the film at its most tense.

 

I think I'm a bit more open to Mendes directing a third film, but somehow I don't think he will.

 

You know what? I think I may see the film a third time if it's still playing.

[Dustin]

So Bond was supposed to know the truth about Bloferhauser? And his parents, too? At what age, twelve or fourteen at the most. My, Dench-M really recruited them early...

[RMc2]

Nah, they just aged really badly. Remember Bloferhauser killed his father just 20 years ago...

[Guy Haines]

Nah, they just aged really badly. Remember Bloferhauser killed his father just 20 years ago...

The twenty years ago business I can't quite reconcile, if only because of the actual ages of the actors involved. Christoph Waltz is, like me, in his fifties - a bit older than me in fact. Apparently two winters with Bond in the Oberhauser household persuaded Franz that Dad had got to go. Bond must have been in his teens, Franz a bit older perhaps? Nevertheless it must have been a long simmering hatred of dear old Dad to have finally led to a tipping point some time in Franz Oberhauser's mid to late thirties, resulting in his father's unfortunate demise in an avalanche and sonny boy's re-emergence as Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

Which is a wordy way of saying - do you think they really meant "thirty years ago" in the script? (And somehow overlooked it until it was too late?) ;-)