Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.
Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:11 AM
Okay, what I really want to know is how folks felt about Waltz and how well Bloferhauser works as a character.
Both Waltz and his character are massively underused - but I do suspect we haven't seen the last of him.
The familial connections worked quite well for me. At least, much better than a lot of other franchises that have tried this kind of thing. I wish they'd made more of it though - we spend far too much of the film being teased with his identity and their connection, only for it to amount to virtually nothing. By that time, it's the end of the film and we really haven't got a sense of who Waltz's character really is: his background, his activities, his goals, his motivation.
It's essentially, "I'm the bad guy so I do bad things. Things I do are bad because I'm doing them, even if they're not inherently bad things."
But when you think about it - weren't the likes of Joseph Wiseman and Donald Pleasence also underused in their movies, essentially playing similar characters to Waltz's?
And there's a whole scene which has been adapted from one of the Bond novels, right down to dialogue - I recognised it as soon as I saw it.
Colonel Sun?
I've already used this catchphrase once earlier today, but hear we go again; "You might very well say that, I couldn't possibly comment!" ;-)
The screen time he's given I thought he was pretty good - as with Bardem in SF he's not on throughout but his presence permeates the movie. As a villain, like Silva he's a complete fruit-loop, but a bit more restrained.
Couple of other things. The trailers give a little bit of misdirection about some of the scenes, one in particular.
And there's a whole scene which has been adapted from one of the Bond novels, right down to dialogue - I recognised it as soon as I saw it.
This is the spoiler thread, is it not? Which scenes?
Okay, what I really want to know is how folks felt about Waltz and how well Bloferhauser works as a character.
Both Waltz and his character are massively underused - but I do suspect we haven't seen the last of him.
The familial connections worked quite well for me. At least, much better than a lot of other franchises that have tried this kind of thing. I wish they'd made more of it though - we spend far too much of the film being teased with his identity and their connection, only for it to amount to virtually nothing. By that time, it's the end of the film and we really haven't got a sense of who Waltz's character really is: his background, his activities, his goals, his motivation.
It's essentially, "I'm the bad guy so I do bad things. Things I do are bad because I'm doing them, even if they're not inherently bad things."
But when you think about it - weren't the likes of Joseph Wiseman and Donald Pleasence also underused in their movies, essentially playing similar characters to Waltz's?
It's funny, I was comparing Waltz to both of them on my way home, but somehow SPECTRE still disappoints me. I guess we get a full appreciation of the evil of which they're capable (Pleasance's Blofeld was technically his third appearance, after all) before we meet them, and they don't carry the same expectations that casting an actor like Waltz lends to the role.
I guess for me, the difference is we know Blofeld is Blofeld all along during the Connery era, but SPECTRE teases and teases us with it, never allowing us to appreciate him. Also his plan is meh.
That said, I suspect i) I'll enjoy it more the second time around, knowing what's to come, and ii) Bond 25 will make amends.
I love the little MI6 team we had at the end; Bond, M, Moneypenny, Q. It took 4 films but they're a nice cohesive unit now! I just wish there'd been a more gradual buildup to the current tone the films have, rather than Skyfall suddenly being all British and sprinkled with one liners. And without most of the retro schtick!
Another thought, the Spectre stuff made Bond's world feel really small. I'd have liked if they'd mention a few other Spectre people (that haven't been in the films) that Bond had killed between QoS and Skyfall. But no, just Le Chiffre, Green and Silva. I don't feel like they gave Le Chiffre enough emphasis either, a glance from Bond or something "tsk Le Chiffre, one of my first" etc!
Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.
Posted 27 October 2015 - 12:34 AM
Okay, what I really want to know is how folks felt about Waltz and how well Bloferhauser works as a character.
Both Waltz and his character are massively underused - but I do suspect we haven't seen the last of him.
The familial connections worked quite well for me. At least, much better than a lot of other franchises that have tried this kind of thing. I wish they'd made more of it though - we spend far too much of the film being teased with his identity and their connection, only for it to amount to virtually nothing. By that time, it's the end of the film and we really haven't got a sense of who Waltz's character really is: his background, his activities, his goals, his motivation.
It's essentially, "I'm the bad guy so I do bad things. Things I do are bad because I'm doing them, even if they're not inherently bad things."
But when you think about it - weren't the likes of Joseph Wiseman and Donald Pleasence also underused in their movies, essentially playing similar characters to Waltz's?
It's funny, I was comparing Waltz to both of them on my way home, but somehow SPECTRE still disappoints me. I guess we get a full appreciation of the evil of which they're capable (Pleasance's Blofeld was technically his third appearance, after all) before we meet them, and they don't carry the same expectations that casting an actor like Waltz lends to the role.
I guess for me, the difference is we know Blofeld is Blofeld all along during the Connery era, but SPECTRE teases and teases us with it, never allowing us to appreciate him. Also his plan is meh.
That said, I suspect i) I'll enjoy it more the second time around, knowing what's to come, and ii) Bond 25 will make amends.
The villain's plan amused me, not least because in my new role -local government - we sometimes get complaints about it - either too much or not enough! :-)
It's fun. Very very fun. Craig's amazing in this, Seydoux is great if a bit too underwritten and too polarizing characterisation (thanks script rewrites), too little Monica which is a bit expected tbh, Whishaw and Fiennes are MVPs, Waltz is great. So many laughs and cheers in the audience. This is definitely the 21st century version of classic Bond. First 15 minutes, from the first frame of the MGM logo, are absolutely fantastic. Thing is, it feels like it should've been even longer, like 160 minutes even, between the end of the Mexico sequence and Austria it feels really cut down for time, not to mention that it's played far too straight and breezy sterile (thanks again script rewrites) with exception of a couple of fantastic scenes such as the Rome meeting But pacing improves as we go along, and actually the film gets stronger as it goes on, surprisingly the third act is very strong IMO. Dat cinematography (give Hoyte an Oscar finally please), and the song (which Newman actually does his own arrangement of in a later scene) actually works with the amazing titles from Kleinman.
Overall, very fun and enjoyable but not perfect and not Skyfall. It feels a bit too sterile for the sort of thing this really goes for, it should've embraced and been more operatic in both the emotional and the fun sense in some bits, if you see what I mean. Closer to TDKR in that sense - after all, this is indeed TDKR - if you make CR/QoS Begins and SF TDK.
Other points: - First minute will make any Bond fan squee - title sequence is mother of all couch gags - dat opening tracking shot - Epic cheers at end of train fight (you'll see why) - a certain line from Fiennes got the biggest laugh and cheers - JAMES BOND WILL RETURN at the end of credits.
8/10
Trailers: The Hateful Eight teaser (no reaction), Dad's Army teaser (no reaction), Mockingjay Part 2 theatrical (some murmurs of "this is the last Hunger Games"), Star Wars TFA final (cheers and applause at opening shot followed by nearly stunned silence)
MEGA SPOILER THOUGHTS AND ANALYSIS/SCRIPT-TO-SCREEN BELOW
Spoiler
So yeah - seems like a lot was cut down for time from the first half of the film. Which is a real shame and it shows in the first half especially. Stuff just moves on swiftly before it lands. Too streamlined A lot of touches sorely missed - the cameras gag with C and the lack of "Spooky" in the Rome chase is just the start, it felt sterile in the final film and it could've really improved it. There are other smaller bits that were changed for the worse but another big one is the whole dinner scene on the train is cut too short.....the whole "have you ever been in love" exchange will be sorely missed and really would've helped build Bond/Madeleine's relationship.
Madeleine - she's been made excessively polarising - one minute she's like "I'll kill you if you touch me" and 10 minutes later she says the three words. The Morocco hotel sequence in the final version is a bit ugh. That whole thing with Bond doing the complete opposite of what he usually does with Bond girls and Madeleine being drunk-surprised "why the f isn't he kissing me?" was a really nice touch and again, would've helped the relationship. Then the whole "I love you bit" at the SPECTRE base. Which brings me on to:
SPECTRE base and Blofeld reveal - Jesus - ok the torture scene was super great but it screwed everything up. Not only was the Blofeld name reveal is a bit cheesy anti-climax (in the December script it was an epic "oh-bloody-snap" moment from Bond, but then it left a plot hole), the whole "I love you" bit was just WHAT. Also I don't like how they made the whole scene with Blofeld showing Madeleine and Bond round the base about Madeleine and Bond. I would've much preferred what they had in the script with the cause-effect and blackmail demonstration, that was perfect, and how he eventually brought in M and Vesper, and then Mr White. The 'turn that off' bit in the final film was awesome though. And the white cat is welcome.
No complaints on third act changes, in fact it was damn strong. Although I missed some of the stuff on Westminster Bridge but that's probably a minor thing. It's literally in the final film just Bond about to kill Blofeld with the latter urging him to "finish it" and then Bond's like "I'm out of bullets". Then M does the arrest.
Also they cut the "we have all the time in the world" final line.
So yeah......most changes from December script, with the exception of Act 3 and the torture scene (ignoring the implications of said torture scene) are for the worse IMHO. Funny how I do all this with bloody Bond and not Hunger Games
So this'll be fun, I've not read the full script. That last line would have been awful. Awful.
The car chase and the Austria chase, they were so-so really.
Car chase starts being played for laughs halfway through, it's not a proper chase IMO.
Austria, where did he get the plane from?
Thomas Newman's music is so similar and familiar throughout that the set-pieces don't feel like set-pieces. The pre-titles was the only one that did I felt, I loved that snarl Bond had when he'd just made it in the helicopter. Anguish and relief at the same time.
They should make their own iconic moments, not ape the classics!
So Bond and Madeleine were more of a thing in the original script? That line wouldn't have worked in this version of the film. I don't think the bit with the two of them walking away from Blofeld at the end really worked either, they hardly knew each other.
Then the idea that they're off, kind of gives the impression Bond's not a 00 at the end? "I thought you'd gone"? Bit weird if that's the case. Not a very real sense of resolution at the end.
One thing that has really been a true learning experience in the last 16 years or so is the notion that every person has his or hers opinion. And Bond fans opinions differ very very much from fan to fan we hear different strokes about the same thing. Some like more of this, some do not. Some love this, others hate it. There is no true consensus. But it will be fun to read all the opinions and then discuss them over the next three years.
How was the car chase? Why do you think no one has praised it properly?
And the action in Austria? They all are major action sets and people are only speaking about the PTS.
Are the titles THAT weird?
And what do you mean by sterile?
Also...nice reaction review Cheers
The car chase was meh. Way too much slapstick humour - not a bad thing in itself, but the dark setting and coming straight after the very menacing SPECTRE meeting felt right out of place. A couple of the jokes fell flat, and Hinx was surprisingly unthreatening in this scene.
The Austria action was good, but just another chase by that point in the film. Trailers probably spoiled it a bit, tbh. Not the film's fault.
The titles are definitely Kleinman's weirdest. I won't say more, let you discover for yourself
The whole thing is sterile: Bond is too nonchalant for the apparently emotional experience he goes through, the villains don't really seem to care, and the MI6 bunch are surprisingly cheery about it all... no real stakes.
So Bond and Madeleine were more of a thing in the original script?
She was set up as CraigBond's Tracy. Hence the final line.
Craig could have delivered it beautifully. But in the film as it stands, there's no way Swann earned that line. Too many scenes missing.
Hopefully two univex, not three! And not Mendes again, please no!
Lol.
But seriously, please don't come back for a third, Mendes...
Only bit of real emotion was Bond trying to stop Blofeld playing White's suicide to Madelaine.
I saw Madeleine as more of a Camille-type, they had similar traits.
Most of the films since GoldenEye have been recycling the same elements. Rogue spies, enemies from within. It's time for something completely fresh.
That exploding watch though! It just came from nowhere, it felt cheap.
Did SP seem to add to the past Craig movies? Take away from them? Anything?
It ties up loose ends quite nicely.
Quantum is a part of Spectre. As was Silva. I think Le Chiffre probably wasn't working for Quantum, but Spectre itself or a division of it? As Quantum's been said to be the Bolivian branch or what have you.
Loved the mention of Felix!
There were also some echoes of previous lines... "I hear double 0s have a very short life expectancy"... didn't Bond say something similar to Madeleine? And there was another line that I've forgotten.
It's strange that that issue of Empire had Purvis and Wade going through all the previous villains and saying they worked for SPECTRE... that was basically one of the big plot twists. The other being Oberhauser is Blofeld, and that's really your lot, from then on it was just "kill Blofeld, stop C".
So Colonel Sun's torture scene is translated? That's pretty fantastic.
How does Bond manage to escape?
He loosens his watch and gets Madeleine to throw it at Blofeld.
I've just read this note from an exec on one of the early drafts of the script. Unfortunately, its still rings true with the final film:
If this is the movie that resolves the last three films then the emotional significance of that idea for Bond seems only lightly served at best. He finds the Vesper tape but never watches it. He appears to fall in love again for the first time since Vesper but there's no real emotional vulnerability there - why this girl? Why now? When he leaves with her at the end of the movie and throws his gun in the river has he gone for good or is this just a well earned vacation as is so often the ending of a Bond film. Does he feel some sense of completion that he finished the last mission M/Judy left for him? It's hard to know what significance any of these final gestures carry.
It's funny because I kinda thought the conceit of what makes Bond great in Mendesverse is that he's emotionally detached (i.e. it's why he doesn't go the way of Silva who delights in being M's favourite, "I always hated this place", "Waste of good scotch" et cetera as opposed to every other post-Bourne action hero). If the relationship isn't like the Vesper one then it should work, it's meant to be different, but if you can't believe that Bond would pack it in for the girl then yeah, it's going to come off half-baked.
Oh, man. I'm so bummed that they cut the final line. That would have had me cheering.
Same.
Too tired to think properly, but overall - I loved it. Left the cinema feeling even more "full" than I did after SKYFALL. Fewer plot holes, a overriding sense of fun, and probably the most openly funny scenes in a long time. This is one of the good ones.
Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.
Posted 27 October 2015 - 06:52 AM
One interesting thing which was touched upon on the thread about "Who is Oberhauser". Unless I missed something, nobody on the SPECTRE side of the fence refers to our villain as Oberhauser - at one point he's called "your host" but that's it. Rather it is Bond who insists he's seen Oberhauser, even though there's a plot point which makes his people disbelieve him. (And which later on explains why not even our villain calls himself Oberhauser!)
I've just read this note from an exec on one of the early drafts of the script. Unfortunately, its still rings true with the final film:
If this is the movie that resolves the last three films then the emotional significance of that idea for Bond seems only lightly served at best. He finds the Vesper tape but never watches it. He appears to fall in love again for the first time since Vesper but there's no real emotional vulnerability there - why this girl? Why now? When he leaves with her at the end of the movie and throws his gun in the river has he gone for good or is this just a well earned vacation as is so often the ending of a Bond film. Does he feel some sense of completion that he finished the last mission M/Judy left for him? It's hard to know what significance any of these final gestures carry.
Yes! Read that last night too, and was shocked how closely it chimes with the final film. Some other e-mails highlight the same problems I had with the film, but changes obviously weren't made. Mendes must have shrugged off a lot of the execs' feedback, which weirdly I wish he hadn't.
Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.
Posted 27 October 2015 - 09:37 AM
More thoughts,
There are certainly nods, winks and the odd heavy nudge in the direction of other Bonds - some from the classic era of the 1960s/early 70s, others more recent, notably CR and SF, and not just in the attempt to link the events of the Craig era. From the classic era, if I had to pick three movies which influenced this new film I'd go for;
1) OHMSS - because of the leading lady. I think there's a nod towards Tracy in Madeleine.
2) YOLT - because of the villain and what happens to him - and notably his base of operations!
3) LALD - because of the obvious death imagery at the start of the film in particular.
However I wouldn't say this was Daniel Craig's specific answer to TB or YOLT. Rather it feels like his all round classic era movie - as if elements from all the 1960s Bonds, plus one 70s Bond in particular have been mixed into one film. As if some of what happened to Connery Bond, some - but not all - of what happened to Lazenby's Bond and hints of an adventure Moore's Bond undertook have been compressed into one two hour twenty eight minute movie.
The film leaves Bond the character at a fork in the road - and the series. Does Bond the character carry on as before? Will future events force him to? I left the cinema last night thinking that his future - not the film series - seemed a bit ambiguous because
Spoiler
Bond and Madeleine go off together - but from past experience we think we know how this will end. Tragically. Or will it? Might it just be that by the time we get to Bond 25, Madeleine will have upped and gone just like Tiffany Case in the novel Diamonds Are Forever? The end leaves open one or two possibilities - I know which one I think is most likely but I wouldn't rule out others. But the ending is less ambiguous regarding our villain. He may well be back. For Craig's last movie I wouldn't be surprised if he is. However, what happened to - let's not mince names - Ernst Stavro Blofeld leaves open the possibility that he may return played by a different actor, imho.
The series may also face a fork in the road because of Daniel Craig. If he returns for the next movie there may be the prospect of either a continuation of the SPECTRE story arc, or something else. If he doesn't, will a new actor mean a new direction or business as usual battling the same foes with the Whitehall backroom team in place as expected but a new look 007? And how will that square with the ambiguity at the end?
The film makers have left their options open, I think. Others here may disagree but personally I did not get quite the strong sense that I knew where we were heading in the next film. At the end of CR one knew Bond was after "the organisation" next time out. At the end of QoS it seemed as if he had reached closure - time to move on. By the end of SF he'd laid to rest not only the former M but any last demons. But at the end of this - on first viewing I'm not sure where he's heading.
I think I need to watch this again because I had the script far too much in the back of my head last night. Sorta like when all the Hunger Games fans would have their respective books.....
Which scenes?
Cheers
