172 replies to this topic

[SecretAgentFan]

Ha!  And the media making fun of SPECTRE... hmmm, maybe Elliot Carver is still alive and ALSO in bed with that organization...

[Guy Haines]

Ha!  And the media making fun of SPECTRE... hmmm, maybe Elliot Carver is still alive and ALSO in bed with that organization...

It goes further. This new bill, if made law, means our government will force internet providers to record every website visited by everyone for at least twelve months.

Spoiler

And if they're looking for anything salacious, they'll be pretty disappointed with us UK Cbner, I imagine. Or to quote ESB "I think I detect a pattern emerging here!"

What's this "commanderbond" site he keeps visiting? ;-)

[Simon]

Vauxhall  (Still can't 'Quote' on these boards - just offers a blank screen)

 

But once the mission is accomplished, he can focus and consider other things.  I think Craig Bond is a bit binary.  Complete the mission, get the girl.  Not all at once.

 

That was how it came across to me in the cinema, and without the benefit of hindsight or retrospective thinking.

[Vauxhall]

You're right - I'm overthinking it. I can see the logic based on his character's priorities.

[Shrublands]

I don't think you are over thinking it, Vaux. Had the Swann / Bond relationship worked properly at that key moment, the film's message would have functioned so much better.

Should Bond stay in the life of the secret service or choose a life with this woman, away from all that? I think many people come away from this film not even noticing that key choice.

 

It's a big deal and the film's unique story element - But it's largely lost.

 

The film comes across as hugely entertaining yet just a typical, substance-less Bond blockbuster and it needn't have looked that shallow.

[Simon]

So, you think you may be in love with a young someone, but definitely there are many lives at stake.

 

Are you really thinking that your thought processes, as a trained agent, would be; 'Well erm, all those lives can go to hell 'cos right now, I want to continue chasing this girl around the block.'

 

As opposed to, 'I am just That good, so I will sort the one and then come back to the other.'

 

For me this is the cold hearted truth of a trained agent as opposed to something more in keeping with a soap opera.

[Shrublands]

I'm talking more about the way it is done (script, direction), not the decision within the story. I don't buy it as real.

 

You can see the mechanics of the film at work and not the human story. We need Bond and Swann to part there so he can be involved in the action of the climax, that is about to unfold, and she can be a damsel in distress. The same decision from Bond could have been depicted, taking us to the very same events, but a much better written and directed scene was needed.

 

It's moments like this at key points that make the film appear shallow when it needn't have been.

 

Also, does Bond 'save many lives' in the climax? Is that what his role is intended to be in this final operation?

As it turns out, he only saves Swann, who was only in danger because he walks off and leaves her alone in the street anyway.

It's Q who shuts down the 9 Lives link up and that's what they set out to do.

[RMc2]

Also, does Bond 'save many lives' in the climax? Is that what his role is intended to be in this final operation?

As it turns out, he only saves Swann, who was only in danger because he walks off and leaves her alone in the street anyway.

It's Q who shuts down the 9 Lives link up and that's what they set out to do.

 

Hehe, good point Shrublands!

 

I agree entirely that they fudged the Swann/Bond thing at the finale. It could have been done much better to feel much more organic. Instead it reeked of:

-'How do we get her into danger?'

-'Here's a quick placeholder until we think of something better.'

-'I love it! Greenlight!'

[Shrublands]

 

Also, does Bond 'save many lives' in the climax? Is that what his role is intended to be in this final operation?

As it turns out, he only saves Swann, who was only in danger because he walks off and leaves her alone in the street anyway.

It's Q who shuts down the 9 Lives link up and that's what they set out to do.

 

Hehe, good point Shrublands!

 

I agree entirely that they fudged the Swann/Bond thing at the finale. It could have been done much better to feel much more organic. Instead it reeked of:

-'How do we get her into danger?'

-'Here's a quick placeholder until we think of something better.'

-'I love it! Greenlight!'

 

 

Exactly.

There is way too much of this sort of thing in evidence.

 

"In Skyfall, we loved the bit with M in contact during the PTS and the Bond/ Q conversation during the Tube chase, can we have something like that again?"

"What about Bond on the phone to Moneypenny during the car chase?"

"But there is no reason for that, why phone her about that whilst his life is in danger? He could just give her a call slightly later."

"True, but let's just put it in for now and come up with something more sensible later."

"I love it! Green light!"

[PPK_19]

One thing that just occurred to me.

Spoiler

In Spectre we have the exploding watch, whereas Q said in Skyfall "What were you expecting, an exploding pen? We really don't go in for that sort of thing anymore"

Hmmmm

[Shrublands]

One thing that just occurred to me.

Spoiler

In Spectre we have the exploding watch, whereas Q said in Skyfall "What were you expecting, an exploding pen? We really don't go in for that sort of thing anymore"

Hmmmm

 

That I'm fine with. Q has had more experience of Bond since then.

He was part of the doing-damage-with-computers philosophy, that C holds.

Now he is coming round to Bond's way of doing things and seeing the value of his approach.

 

I see this as character development and the growing mutual respect.

[Simon]

Sorry, 'save lives' was more of a euphemism than a reality.

 

But, I understand the rest.

[PPK_19]

One thing that just occurred to me.

Spoiler

In Spectre we have the exploding watch, whereas Q said in Skyfall "What were you expecting, an exploding pen? We really don't go in for that sort of thing anymore"

Hmmmm

That I'm fine with. Q has had more experience of Bond since then.
He was part of the doing-damage-with-computers philosophy, that C holds.
Now he is coming round to Bond's way of doing things and seeing the value of his approach.

I see this as character development and the growing mutual respect.

Didn't think of it that way. I had no problem with it, but it's just something that popped into my mind today

[byline]

The big "reveal" was handled in a way I should have seen coming but didn't - talk about "hidden in plain sight".

OK, now having just seen Spectre tonight, I'm puzzled. Was the big reveal who Oberhauser actually is?

 

Also, great review, Vauxhall. You make some excellent points, all of which I agree with.

 

Was there any "sacrificial lamb" in this film? I can't recall one. Is that a first?

[Desk]

.

Edited by Desk, 06 November 2015 - 01:22 PM.

[Ace Roberts]

I enjoyed the film on first viewing last night in the states.  Not my favorite Daniel Craig entry, but not close to ones I consider "weak". There's no such thing as a bad Bond film, IMO.    I haven't dissected it in my brain yet, but one thing that stood out is the entire film (seems) to take place in a narrative first-person format - i.e. we don't break away from Bond to spend time with the villains hatching their plot or causing havoc.  The only time that seems to happen is with the MI6 team and their back and forth with C.  I can see where this is purposeful, moving toward "the big reveal", but this is a format used in the early Connery films that Craig and the producers keep trying to capture.  Anyone else notice this? 

[Guy Haines]

The big "reveal" was handled in a way I should have seen coming but didn't - talk about "hidden in plain sight".

OK, now having just seen Spectre tonight, I'm puzzled. Was the big reveal who Oberhauser actually is?
 
Also, great review, Vauxhall. You make some excellent points, all of which I agree with.
 
Was there any "sacrificial lamb" in this film? I can't recall one. Is that a first?

No sacrificial lamb in the film - in the Craig series yes. In each of the previous films at least one leading lady died and in CR both did.

As for the "reveal" - meant that of all the explanations of Oberhauser's identity I should have realised that;

Spoiler

he was born Oberhauser, but adopted the name Blofeld in later life, although it never occurred to me that Blofeld might be his mother's maiden name.

I think all the tying up in knots that I and other got into on the "Who is Oberhauser" thread was down to this - wetried to reconcile the background Ian Fleming gave to Blofeld in the books with the "Oberhauser" angle the character was given in this film. I should have remembered - this is the reboot era. If Moneypenny can be given a different background and backstory, and Q can be cast as a much younger man, why did we expect Ernst Stavro Blofeld to escape changes?

[RMc2]

I enjoyed the film on first viewing last night in the states.  Not my favorite Daniel Craig entry, but not close to ones I consider "weak". There's no such thing as a bad Bond film, IMO.    I haven't dissected it in my brain yet, but one thing that stood out is the entire film (seems) to take place in a narrative first-person format - i.e. we don't break away from Bond to spend time with the villains hatching their plot or causing havoc.  The only time that seems to happen is with the MI6 team and their back and forth with C.  I can see where this is purposeful, moving toward "the big reveal", but this is a format used in the early Connery films that Craig and the producers keep trying to capture.  Anyone else notice this? 

 

Yes, and I think it's a device that doesn't really work in SP because the 'revelations' are so weak. I think they come too late into the film to make any difference, and rob us of time with Oberhauser. They could have still kept the mystery and cut away to Waltz and his schemes. It actually would have added to the tension, rather than the slow build up and ultimate bathos the final film opted for.

 

Of the Connery Bonds, I think only Goldfinger tells the story entirely from Bond (and Felix)'s perspective?

 

- Dr No has that scene between Strangways and No (but still maintains the mystery, as per my point above)

- FRWL spends its first few scenes exclusively with the villains explaining their plan

- TB divides evenly between the villains and Bond

- YOLT also spends time with the villains discussing their plans to dispose of Bond (and still has a dramatic reveal)

[Ace Roberts]

I enjoyed the film on first viewing last night in the states. Not my favorite Daniel Craig entry, but not close to ones I consider "weak". There's no such thing as a bad Bond film, IMO. I haven't dissected it in my brain yet, but one thing that stood out is the entire film (seems) to take place in a narrative first-person format - i.e. we don't break away from Bond to spend time with the villains hatching their plot or causing havoc. The only time that seems to happen is with the MI6 team and their back and forth with C. I can see where this is purposeful, moving toward "the big reveal", but this is a format used in the early Connery films that Craig and the producers keep trying to capture. Anyone else notice this?

Yes, and I think it's a device that doesn't really work in SP because the 'revelations' are so weak. I think they come too late into the film to make any difference, and rob us of time with Oberhauser. They could have still kept the mystery and cut away to Waltz and his schemes. It actually would have added to the tension, rather than the slow build up and ultimate bathos the final film opted for.

Of the Connery Bonds, I think only Goldfinger tells the story entirely from Bond (and Felix)'s perspective?

- Dr No has that scene between Strangways and No (but still maintains the mystery, as per my point above)
- FRWL spends its first few scenes exclusively with the villains explaining their plan
- TB divides evenly between the villains and Bond
- YOLT also spends time with the villains discussing their plans to dispose of Bond (and still has a dramatic reveal)

I thought the danger of the SPECTRE organization could have been broadened with Scirarro assassinating someone in the room in Mexico versus what unfolded.

[Dustin]

BEWARE! POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!

Oh my...

Well, now that I've seen it I have to say...

Well...

Could have done with an hour less. Could also have done with a bit more plot, maybe about an hour's worth.

Two out of five for me. Visually I liked it a lot, more than SKYFALL I'd say. But the story has no real centre, oscillates between various themes, the intelligence coup in London, the meetings Bond/widow; Bond/White; Bond/Swann; Bond/Oberhauser. Obviously the relationship between father figures and kids is a strong theme. But none of it for me has the necessary import on the story, or on Bond for that matter.

Storywise SPECTRE has less holes than SKYFALL. But SKYFALL has by far the better story and the better use of its characters for me. SPECTRE makes unnecessary mistakes by sacrificing inner logic to action. And I practically never got the feeling the Bond/Oberhauser relationship rang true. Not one single moment.

Neither did I have the feeling Operation Wrap-It-Up was a success. Apart from a few lines of dialogue there was no convincing reason presented the Craig storyarch had really one big behind-the-scenes operator. The Big Brother idea was interesting but hardly came down to more substance than just another race-against-the-clock.

Finally the villain goes to great lengths to erase Bond from the picture, yet in the next frame he has another nasty surprise for him, evidently already counting on Bond to survive. At one point Bond is abducted by the usual goons-are-us Spectre employs for such tasks; but right after he killed them he follows the directions Oberhauser, always the thoughtful host, left for him in order to deliver another brilliant speech. I wouldn't want to miss Waltz' performance. But by all means he should not have use for his schemes, provided he really wanted to kill Bond.

Lastly - after 'finally' in the paragraph above - I strongly disliked the comeback of the silly jokes. I was already not too happy with SKYFALL's couple in the tube. Compared to some of the gags in SPECTRE that couple was a glowing example of gritty surrealism.

Well, that's my take. Sorry to be negative about this vehicle.

[Silva25]

It's decent, but no more than that.  And that's my biggest problem with it, wasted potential.  It's not BAD, but it's not great.  I'd put it on the same level as Tomorrow Neer Dies or The World Is Not Enough personally, it's "a Bond film."  Enjoyable in the moment with some good elements, but not all that memorable.

 

Spoiler

And I REALLY don't like the Blofeld "reveal."  That, and his motivations, were just lame.

Edited by Silva25, 06 November 2015 - 08:36 PM.

[RMc2]

BEWARE! POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!

Oh my...

Well, now that I've seen it I have to say...

Well...

Could have done with an hour less. Could also have done with a bit more plot, maybe about an hour's worth.

Two out of five for me. Visually I liked it a lot, more than SKYFALL I'd say. But the story has no real centre, oscillates between various themes, the intelligence coup in London, the meetings Bond/widow; Bond/White; Bond/Swann; Bond/Oberhauser. Obviously the relationship between father figures and kids is a strong theme. But none of it for me has the necessary import on the story, or on Bond for that matter.

Storywise SPECTRE has less holes than SKYFALL. But SKYFALL has by far the better story and the better use of its characters for me. SPECTRE makes unnecessary mistakes by sacrificing inner logic to action. And I practically never got the feeling the Bond/Oberhauser relationship rang true. Not one single moment.

Neither did I have the feeling Operation Wrap-It-Up was a success. Apart from a few lines of dialogue there was no convincing reason presented the Craig storyarch had really one big behind-the-scenes operator. The Big Brother idea was interesting but hardly came down to more substance than just another race-against-the-clock.

Finally the villain goes to great lengths to erase Bond from the picture, yet in the next frame he has another nasty surprise for him, evidently already counting on Bond to survive. At one point Bond is abducted by the usual goons-are-us Spectre employs for such tasks; but right after he killed them he follows the directions Oberhauser, always the thoughtful host, left for him in order to deliver another brilliant speech. I wouldn't want to miss Waltz' performance. But by all means he should not have use for his schemes, provided he really wanted to kill Bond.

Lastly - after 'finally' in the paragraph above - I strongly disliked the comeback of the silly jokes. I was already not too happy with SKYFALL's couple in the tube. Compared to some of the gags in SPECTRE that couple was a glowing example of gritty surrealism.

Well, that's my take. Sorry to be negative about this vehicle.

 

 

It's decent, but no more than that.  And that's my biggest problem with it, wasted potential.  It's not BAD, but it's not great.  I'd put it on the same level as Tomorrow Neer Dies or The World Is Not Enough personally, it's "a Bond film."  Enjoyable in the moment with some good elements, but not all that memorable.

 

Spoiler

And I REALLY don't like the Blofeld "reveal."  That, and his motivations, were just lame.

 

Agree with you both very much! I'm hoping it will grow on me, but my instinct is that lots of truly great ideas were spoiled by decidedly okay execution. 

[Tarl_Cabot]

I saw it today and I loved it. 5/5 stars. It's a Bond movie not the godfather franchise so I don't get all the hating on this movie. It is enormous entertaining from start to finish. I could watch two more times today. I loved that the film sets up the next because I was expecting a Dark Knight Rises-it's all over type of ending. I'll write a full review soon…but right now I'm in full on 007 heaven. 

[sharpshooter]

I saw it today and I loved it. 5/5 stars. It's a Bond movie not the godfather franchise so I don't get all the hating on this movie. It is enormous entertaining from start to finish. I could watch two more times today. I loved that the film sets up the next because I was expecting a Dark Knight Rises-it's all over type of ending. I'll write a full review soon…but right now I'm in full on 007 heaven. 

Looking forward to your full review, Tarl. It's most curious how some people rip the film to shreds and some come out entertained and fulfilled. Glad you came out on the positive side.

[Tarl_Cabot]

 

I saw it today and I loved it. 5/5 stars. It's a Bond movie not the godfather franchise so I don't get all the hating on this movie. It is enormous entertaining from start to finish. I could watch two more times today. I loved that the film sets up the next because I was expecting a Dark Knight Rises-it's all over type of ending. I'll write a full review soon…but right now I'm in full on 007 heaven. 

Looking forward to your full review, Tarl. It's most curious how some people rip the film to shreds and some come out entertained and fulfilled. Glad you came out on the positive side.

 

I loved the movie; some movies that entertain fall apart in your  head later on(Avengers age of ultron for example). Spectre is terrific. I can't wait to take my nephew tomorrow. 

[univex]

Yep. It´s THAT good. I still think it was just a dream. Yep, must have been dreaming. Can´t wait to make that one a recurring dream

[TheREAL008]

I....don't know what to make of it. 

1. I loved the sense of mystery in the beginning of the film, that sense that there was something beneath the surface that was left over from Royale and oozed with Thunderball. It was a missing element that I'm glad to have seen back. 

2. There should have been something more to SPECTRE, the group. I loved how it was handled for the modern day but it feels like a cop out to just assume that they've always been there. It's cool that they're the "group behind the group" because that's what SPECTRE should always be, but perhaps Mendes could have taken a page from Thunderball and feature the group with Bond trying to find out about them...maybe a missed opportunity.

3. Mexico. BEAUTIFULLY done! I absolutely loved the flow of the entire scene. Possibly my favorite PTS. So very glad Bond wasn't written against his own character and destroying a village. (Honestly, wtf is that about?)

4. Whoever is writing the scripts needs to stop writing Bond as a rogue agent. Jason Bourne had his little moment in the sun and Bond needs to take the wheel. Seriously, it needs to stop, Aside from CR Bond hasn't acted like a OO agent and that has to return.

5. I loved the sinister aspects of Oberhauser. The reveal didn't bother me all that much, it was handled with respect and that's all I care about. 

6. I wanted more Monica.

7. It was clever how it was tied into current events. Would have loved to see more of Andrew Scott's character, and Mr. Hinx....behemoth, modern day Oddjob. I hope we haven't seen the last of him.

What I didn't like was the ending. I can see why the American press is not liking certain aspects and frankly if someone could PM me with this nagging issue I have, please do. The ending left me indifferent. The bad guy stopped, the threat thwarted but what's supposed to happen now? Does Bond now have inner peace since all the loose ends are supposedly tied?

The ending didn't feel Bondian and that's a giant misstep. I feel Sam Mendes botched this one up alittle bit, or maybe this was a result of the script leak. Either way I enjoyed it for what it truly was, a damn good fun film. 

[DCI_director]

(Spoilers ahead)

 

Even though I think the writing and directing were better in Skyfall, I enjoyed Spectre so much more.  This felt like a Bond movie! Don't get me wrong, there were things wrong with it, but this movie took me back to how Bond movies were when I was growing up.  It had the escapism.  I smiled and laughed and completely enjoyed myself with this one.  It was actually fun! It seems we have finally come full circle and I welcome this.  There is only so long that the gritty type style Bond movie can last before it starts to wear thin.  I don't want Bond to go back into outer space, but I also don't want every movie to be so serious that a joke isn't even thrown in.  And I admit, I'm getting tired of Bond going rogue.  I'm ready for Bond to actually get a mission that he has to save England from a serious threat in some way.  I was always happy with the old Bond formula so I'm glad some of it has come back.  As for plot, I think it's a bit weak and I actually don't like that they tied this one to Craig's last 3 movies.  I prefer stand alone movies, but I can look past it.  I think because I feel that is what we will get with Bond 25.  Blofeld's motivation (his daddy issues) was a weak point in the plot for me BUT i enjoyed the reveal and I loved that his precious cat was brought back.  I LOVED THAT THE GADGETS WERE BACK!!!!  About time!  And as a fan, I enjoyed all the subtle nods to past Bond films.  I was thrilled that the gun barrel was back in it's rightful place but I didn't understand the whole fade to black and then the words that showed up on screen after.  I didn't quite understand why that needed to be there.  It was a welcome site to see the return of the naked silhouette girls.  They were much more prevalent than in the titles for Skyfall.  Overall, i thought Spectre's title sequence was better than Skyfalls. However, I HATED HATED HATED Sam Smith's pathetic title song.  To me, it didn't even sound like a Bond song.  Sounded more like a cat dying!  I wish there would have been more of Monica Bellucci.  She is such a site to see and she just commands attention.  The action was okay, not great and the car chase seemed slow at times but I did enjoy 009's playlist.  LOL!  The Bond/Swan relationship at times felt hollow and their chemistry at times was questionable.  I really disliked Thomas Newman's score.  He never really opens up Bond music when it's time to see an action cue.  It seems like it's just plain old action music for any kind of action movie and not a Bond movie.  I felt his score was as bland as Skyfalls.  I just don't feel he is the right composer for a Bond movie.  His music is just so boring to me.  It never seems timeless and grand - it just seems like it just lays there like a dead horse and when it's time to put some music over something, he just slaps something on there in true Newman form.  I think Michael Kamen's score for License to Kill and Marvin Hamlisch's score for The Spy Who Loved Me were much better non-Barry scores.  I think both those composer's understood what was needed and they felt like true Bond scores.  It never seems like Newman puts any type of "theme" into these past two scores like the great John Barry did and David Arnold.  And he just rehashed a few bits from Skyfall and it just seems lazy and weak.  I'm really hoping he won't return and I welcome David Arnold's comeback.  

 

In the end, I thought it was a very enjoyable Bond film.  Was it the best? No, but it was indeed a film that FINALLY felt like a Bond film.  It was no Goldfinger, but it wasn't Die Another Day either.  I'm ready for Sam Mendes to bow as director and a new one to come in.  I hope Craig returns, but if not, I'm glad with what he gave us and will welcome a new actor for the role if that is what the future holds.

[bill007]

Well said, DCI_director.  A fun ride, and perhaps a few holes.  A little too much Moore-era flute hook for me.  But, wow, this was a blast.

[casinoroyale75]

I loved your analysis SecretAgentFan (on Spectre). The decision Bond makes on the bridge was way too much like QOS at the end. It made the film feel incomplete. Add the edited ending of QOS, and wow. That would have been great (the cut ending that is). Mendes had Bond seem so ho-hum about all the tumult, trauma, and pain endured during his life: the work of one individual. I just can't see the ending playing out that way.