453 replies to this topic

[RMc2]

I agree with the score feeling lazy, that's for sure.

 

And I can imagine Craig pushing Mendes to "do one final one" together and go out with a bang, seems like Craig wants Mendes as his director for Bond. When one goes, so does the other.

 

 

And now after my 00-3rd viewing (proud of that), there are two gaps I would have liked answers to if anyone cares to divulge in them:

 

Spoiler

I) We should have haD more from Judi Dench as 'M' in the video. Giving Bond a name and objective was fine but I wished we found out what SHE knew about SPECTRE, because during 'Skyfall' it was like she had no clue at all about what it could possibly be, but as he got the video days after her death, I wish I could know what she really knew during 'Skyfall' to prepare the video and to get Bond to the funeral.

 

II) How and when did Blofeld know to send a car to pick up Bond and Swann from the Morocco train station? He didn't even know he was coming...unless we are to assume Mr Hinx "phoned ahead"?

 

 

Still a cracking film. And I actually loved the PTS even more this time, the helicopter work is phenomenal.

 

I'd rather have someone new, too. At times it felt very much like Spectre was struggling for ideas - fresh blood needed, I think.

 

Thoughts on your questions...

Spoiler

i) Completely agree! I wonder if later lines/scenes were cut where Dench's knowledge of Spectre was explained?

ii) That was actually one of the moments that really worked for me. Blofeld's whole operation is based on information gathering, so I guess they were aware of Bond's location and activities all along (hence Hinx?)

[thecasinoroyale]

Glad you agree RMc2! And your second point makes total sense - I think this time I was looking too much into things and questioning it to fill the gaps in my own brain.

[Guy Haines]

I agree with the score feeling lazy, that's for sure.
 
And I can imagine Craig pushing Mendes to "do one final one" together and go out with a bang, seems like Craig wants Mendes as his director for Bond. When one goes, so does the other.
 
 
And now after my 00-3rd viewing (proud of that), there are two gaps I would have liked answers to if anyone cares to divulge in them:
 

Spoiler

I) We should have haD more from Judi Dench as 'M' in the video. Giving Bond a name and objective was fine but I wished we found out what SHE knew about SPECTRE, because during 'Skyfall' it was like she had no clue at all about what it could possibly be, but as he got the video days after her death, I wish I could know what she really knew during 'Skyfall' to prepare the video and to get Bond to the funeral.
 
II) How and when did Blofeld know to send a car to pick up Bond and Swann from the Morocco train station? He didn't even know he was coming...unless we are to assume Mr Hinx "phoned ahead"?
 

 
Still a cracking film. And I actually loved the PTS even more this time, the helicopter work is phenomenal.

Agree with you about the PTC scene. As an airshow enthusiast, I was astonished at the helicopter scene, and how they got away with it over hundreds if not thousands of extras.

As for your other points;

Spoiler

M's video message is a mystery. Was she already investigating Marco Sciarra when the SF events interupted and decided to do a quick message for Bond in the event of her death to carry on the investigation?

The Silver Wraith - intended for Mr Hinx after he had bumped off Bond and Madeleine - as per the truck waiting for Grant in FRWL? But how would SPECTRE know where to pick them up? Unless SPECTRE had somehow hacked into Q's "nano blood" invention? But didn't M order him to switch it off? (Maybe too late - Blofeld would have assumed that Bond was coming for him, would work out the co-ordinates of his base in the middle of nowhere and then send out the Roller.

[Guy Haines]

Incidentally, nice to see the way the media reports Bond's "unused holiday" ;-)

Spoiler

In a clear borrowing from a similar scene in CR, the first thing you see after the theme tune is over is a newspaper slammed across M's desk. It's the one I read, and film critic Peter Bradshaw writes for "The Guardian" and the headline - full page, big typeface for this paper and picture underneath - "OUTRAGE IN MEXICO"

[Surrie]

What are everybody's thoughts on the futuristic torture scene/dentist's chair? Although I enjoyed watching a scene with Oberhauser, Bond and Swann - I'm sure they could have made it slightly more menacing?? It just reminded me somewhat of all that DAD was reprimanded for.

[Guy Haines]

What are everybody's thoughts on the futuristic torture scene/dentist's chair? Although I enjoyed watching a scene with Oberhauser, Bond and Swann - I'm sure they could have made it slightly more menacing?? It just reminded me somewhat of all that DAD was reprimanded for.

Spoiler

This is the scene "borrowed" from the Kingsley Amis Bond novel "Colonel Sun". The equipment used in the book isn't shiny and high tech but the villains actions are similar, as is indeed some of the dialogue - the bit about the man losing his eyes and no longer "being there" is almost word for word taken from remarks made by Colonel Sun to James Bond - except in the book Sun refers to someone who doesn't appear in the novel, whereas in the film we know which earlier scene Blofeld is referring to.

[Surrie]

 

What are everybody's thoughts on the futuristic torture scene/dentist's chair? Although I enjoyed watching a scene with Oberhauser, Bond and Swann - I'm sure they could have made it slightly more menacing?? It just reminded me somewhat of all that DAD was reprimanded for.

Spoiler

This is the scene "borrowed" from the Kingsley Amis Bond novel "Colonel Sun". The equipment used in the book isn't shiny and high tech but the villains actions are similar, as is indeed some of the dialogue - the bit about the man losing his eyes and no longer "being there" is almost word for word taken from remarks made by Colonel Sun to James Bond - except in the book Sun refers to someone who doesn't appear in the novel, whereas in the film we know which earlier scene Blofeld is referring to.

 

 

Makes better sense that it is an old reference. But I'm still not sure it was executed as well as it could have been...

[Guy Haines]

What are everybody's thoughts on the futuristic torture scene/dentist's chair? Although I enjoyed watching a scene with Oberhauser, Bond and Swann - I'm sure they could have made it slightly more menacing?? It just reminded me somewhat of all that DAD was reprimanded for.

Spoiler

This is the scene "borrowed" from the Kingsley Amis Bond novel "Colonel Sun". The equipment used in the book isn't shiny and high tech but the villains actions are similar, as is indeed some of the dialogue - the bit about the man losing his eyes and no longer "being there" is almost word for word taken from remarks made by Colonel Sun to James Bond - except in the book Sun refers to someone who doesn't appear in the novel, whereas in the film we know which earlier scene Blofeld is referring to.

 
Makes better sense that it is an old reference. But I'm still not sure it was executed as well as it could have been...

Hmm. It did seem a bit as if

Spoiler

they wanted to get the torture scene over and done so they could get to the serious business of blowing the bad guy's base to kingdom come! There's a lot more that could have been included - not so much about Bond and Oberhauser/Blofeld's past, but his justification for his past crimes. A bit like the grand speech Blofeld did after he had Bond over a geyser in the book YOLT. If he's in the next one maybe we'll get that then.

[thecasinoroyale]

My only issue with the torture scene was....

 

Spoiler

Blofeld really sold it like a nasty piece of equipment and explained the damage and effect it would do.

 

However, Bond then manages to leap out the chair once the controls go and not only has balance, but speed, perfect eye-sight to shoot his way out and strength. It removed any purpose of that scene, and I would have like a little after effects to make him seem like it did do SOME damage. At least in 'CR' we saw him affected and recovering.

[Guy Haines]

I wanted to put this on the "Spectre or SPECTRE" thread but it does contain spoilers. It seems to me that whether we use upper case or title case for the name, the organisation has well and truly lived up to its "four cornerstones of power" as Dr No once described them;

Spoiler

Counter-intelligence - the plan to subvert the "Nine Eyes" project for its own ends - with its own man in charge of it.

Terrorism - Le Chiffre - banker to the world's bomb makers - damning the Bolivian water supply, a form of economic terrorism - the cyber attack on MI6 HQ in SF and all of Silva's other cyber-warfare tricks - the various attacks on places around the world in SP.

Revenge - Silva on M - Oberhauser/Blofeld on 007

Extortion - Quantum's gigolo Yusef Kabira and the blackmail of Vesper Lynd and almost blackmail of Canadian SIS agent Corrine.

[sharpshooter]

The feeling I'm getting from a lot of critic reviews is because there's more humour and classic Bond elements, they're saying it's 'more of the same and a step backwards'. As if these elements automatically equal cheese and scorn. I'm ready for these elements to return, and I'd actually argue adding these touches to the Craig era is something different.

 

I love what they did with CR and SF, but 'camp' and the surreal should always have a place in Bond movies - sometimes this is just pushed further than others. You're never going to please everyone. Some may want a serious LTK outing, and others a MR spectacle. But I think it's important Bond retains his identity. The Bond cocktail shouldn't be something we're embarrassed about - it's part of why we enjoy the films in the first place. And such a tone doesn't mean new ground can't be covered.

[Vauxhall]

With the torture scene:

Spoiler

Bloferhauser did seem uncharacteristically careless to use such a flimsy chair, let Bond keep his watch and allow Madeleine to go over to him while he was fiddling with the computer.

But never mind!

[Guy Haines]

With the torture scene:

Spoiler

Bloferhauser did seem uncharacteristically careless to use such a flimsy chair, let Bond keep his watch and allow Madeleine to go over to him while he was fiddling with the computer.

But never mind!

The overconfident combined with the overly elaborate. Unfortunate, but typical! ;-)

[Guy Haines]

The feeling I'm getting from a lot of critic reviews is because there's more humour and classic Bond elements, they're saying it's 'more of the same and a step backwards'. As if these elements automatically equal cheese and scorn. I'm ready for these elements to return, and I'd actually argue adding these touches to the Craig era is something different.
 
I love what they did with CR and SF, but 'camp' and the surreal should always have a place in Bond movies - sometimes this is just pushed further than others. You're never going to please everyone. Some may want a serious LTK outing, and others a MR spectacle. But I think it's important Bond retains his identity. The Bond cocktail shouldn't be something we're embarrassed about - it's part of why we enjoy the films in the first place. And such a tone doesn't mean new ground can't be covered.

Maybe its just me but compared to Bond films I've seen in the past - particularly the 70s and 80s - I didn't find it over humourous. I used to cringe at the drunks and double taking pigeons of the Moore years, even though I liked Moore's take on Bond. There was none of that here - a couple of gags at Bond's expense in the DB10, the banter between Q and Bond and M's line (and earlier, Bond's) about Denbigh but, to me, it wasn't all that camp - just moreso compared to the other Craig films. I actually found the most (unintentionally?) funny bit was;

Spoiler

"What do we do now?" Cut to Bond and Madeleine desperately trying to take each other's clobber off to the melodramatic strains of WOTW. I don't know why but it made me chuckle!

[SecretAgentFan]

Okay.  I have seen it.

 

Still sorting out my experience.  Right now, I would say I preferred SKYFALL.  But SPECTRE is a very entertaining film, full of interesting moments.  

 

Definitely have to see it again, to have my mind more open to what is there than being full of apprehension and ideas how the trailer moments could fit together.

 

Do you know the feeling when you have waited for a film so long and seen some tantalizing bits - instilling fear that it won´t be as good as your fantasies about it?

 

Well, fantasy has been replaced with reality for me.  And I am slowly beginning to process that.

[RMc2]

 

 

 I actually found the most (unintentionally?) funny bit was;

Spoiler

"What do we do now?" Cut to Bond and Madeleine desperately trying to take each other's clobber off to the melodramatic strains of WOTW. I don't know why but it made me chuckle!

 

 

Loved that bit! Thought it was deliberate...

Edited by RMc2, 29 October 2015 - 04:08 PM.

[The Shark]

Saw it last night at the BFI IMAX. My initial reaction is that it's an incredibly entertaining mess. It's not Skyfall: it lacks an emotional centre or a real sense of jeopardy for Bond, but through its almost psychotic variations in tone (swinging haphazardly between playfulness and sadism--this is the closest Bond has got to horror) and some terrific performances makes for a thrilling, ablate overlong two and a half hours.

[SecretAgentFan]

Saw it last night at the BFI IMAX. My initial reaction is that it's an incredibly entertaining mess. It's not Skyfall: it lacks an emotional centre or a real sense of jeopardy for Bond, but through its almost psychotic variations in tone (swinging haphazardly between playfulness and sadism--this is the closest Bond has got to horror) and some terrific performances makes for a thrilling, ablate overlong two and a half hours.

 

 

That is a pretty good description in line with my initial reaction.

[Guy Haines]

I actually found the most (unintentionally?) funny bit was;

Spoiler

"What do we do now?" Cut to Bond and Madeleine desperately trying to take each other's clobber off to the melodramatic strains of WOTW. I don't know why but it made me chuckle!

Loved that bit! Thought it was deliberate...

Maybe it was. Been to see it again this afternoon (half term - got most of this week off). Liked it even more the second time around, could read more into it, and Waltz is an even more compelling villain than on first viewing. More random jottings later ;-)

[Simon]

Well, I have just returned from my first viewing, and I have to say, I feel this was perhaps the most perfectly realised classic James Bond film I can ever remember seeing, and Liking so much on the first viewing.

 

I went in with some trepidation as I didn't get on with Skyfall and the fact it was the same team in charge of SPECTRE.  I have also been long term experiencing feelings upon first viewings of Bond films of an 'Oh well' sort of reaction, and then over repeated viewings I get to like and appreciate most of the films.  A feeling that perhaps I was too old for this type of film and interest.

 

But all the way through, I was amazed at just how much I wanted to keep watching, keep experiencing, and seeing the characters.

 

The humour was A-class this time; light, intelligent, sporadic - none of that leaden thumping feeling one gets after a 'I bet he's late for dinner' nonsense.

 

Others will say it all better than I, but, I Loved It.

 

This has completely rejuvenated my interest in the field.  5/5.

[Hansen]

Just saw it.

Better than average and Craig's second best after CR.

The first part until the train is fantastic (a little bit more of Monica, would have been great).

The second part is weak, mostly due to the under(and mis)use of Waltz. Blofeld is totally wasted. Unconvincing, his scheme to take revenge on Bond is too far fetched and makes the man lunatic instead of threatening and highly intelligent.

I loved the pace and the humour of the first part and it was a pleasure to see Bond in control, being pro-active and anticipating things.

Great soundtrack (except for the song), good job by Mendes and great cinematography

With the exception of Waltz, the cast is pretty good (but Fiennes is getting ugly. Sorry for that...)

 

Of course I need to watch it again

[univex]

After so many mixed feelings towards the film, I really needed to read that, Simon. Thanks. Six days to go, for me that is. 

[Simon]

A few minor tweaks between trailers and the finished product;

 

1. The strident stroll through the secretary pool was cut - fine by me as the walk was a bit too strident

2. The differing cut / take / angle on the 'taking some overdue holiday' was far better in the final cut - far better realised.

3. The inflexions on the 'welcome James / and here we are' I think I preferred in the trailers but, to be honest...

 

I cannot believe I have just sat through two and half hours of movie as it flew by in no time at all.  It was beautiful, thrilling, soulful, sensual, intelligent and wonderful.

 

I cannot wait to see it again..

[The Dove]

Wow.. I just popped into say that it is great to see that pretty much everyone has positive reactions to the film!! Excellent!! Right.. I'll be back next week when the film comes out here in the U.S.. Cheers everyone...*goes back undercover*

[Guy Haines]

Saw it last night at the BFI IMAX. My initial reaction is that it's an incredibly entertaining mess. It's not Skyfall: it lacks an emotional centre or a real sense of jeopardy for Bond, but through its almost psychotic variations in tone (swinging haphazardly between playfulness and sadism--this is the closest Bond has got to horror) and some terrific performances makes for a thrilling, ablate overlong two and a half hours.

Not sure about it being a "mess" but certainly entertaining and you are right about the swings of mood, though for me there was more playful in the first half and horror in the second. But it is the closest Bond has got to horror;

Spoiler

They clearly had to cut the scene in the SPECTRE boardroom where Hinx deprives his rival of his eyes - perhaps foreign cuts will leave it in but the main summer trailer shows a brief glimpse of the victim hit in the head and it looks as if he has no eyes.

The torture scene of course is not for the squeamish, though I didn't find it as unsettling as the one in CR. Maybe it looks unsettling for your typical audience because Bond is sitting in what looks like a dentist's chair.

One thing I noticed though - Bond can still unsettle the villain even in this dire circumstance, and lands a blow with "Do you know any more bird calls.....Franz". It's clear that ESB doesn't like being called by his former name and that's where we learn what he now styles himself. (And Bond can't resist making light of that "catchy name!")

[Vauxhall]

Spoiler

The line "catchy name" was a real winner for me. Softened the blow of bringing back such an iconic name from Bond lore, as it was so swiftly shrugged off by Bond. Really liked it.

[Guy Haines]

Spoiler

The line "catchy name" was a real winner for me. Softened the blow of bringing back such an iconic name from Bond lore, as it was so swiftly shrugged off by Bond. Really liked it.

Not quite as LOL as "I've got a little itch down there..... would you mind?" but;

Spoiler

It does puncture Blofeld's pomposity about his name. He's sensitive about it - or rather about the name "Franz Oberhauser". Like Bond and Madeleine, he's got a past he'd rather forget.

[Vauxhall]

I actually found the most (unintentionally?) funny bit was;

Spoiler

"What do we do now?" Cut to Bond and Madeleine desperately trying to take each other's clobber off to the melodramatic strains of WOTW. I don't know why but it made me chuckle!

Loved that bit! Thought it was deliberate...

Definitely I'd say. Big laugh when I saw it.

[SecretAgentFan]

One thing I did not quite catch in my first viewing - maybe someone can clear this up:

 

Spoiler

When Blofeld asks if anyone wants to take over the assignment of killing The Pale King, why does the Italian guy gets assasinated by Hinx?  Just a show of force by Blofeld?  Also, all the others at the table seem to be sensible business men/women.  Hinx is a wordless brute.  Wouldn´t it have made more sense to only introduce him as an enforcer? 

[Hansen]

One thing I did not quite catch in my first viewing - maybe someone can clear this up:

Spoiler

When Blofeld asks if anyone wants to take over the assignment of killing The Pale King, why does the Italian guy gets assasinated by Hinx? Just a show of force by Blofeld? Also, all the others at the table seem to be sensible business men/women. Hinx is a wordless brute. Wouldn´t it have made more sense to only introduce him as an enforcer?

Agreed. The Italian (I thought he was spanish) guy seems to be a reliable soldier of Spectre. Let him be killed that way is poor management from Blofeld