172 replies to this topic

[seawolfnyy]

The final act is a jumbled mess. Most of the film was great, but it's painfully evident that the script problems with the film's ending never really got fixed. What we got in the end was serviceable, but one can't shake the feeling that there could've been something better. Personally, I could've done without the destruction of Vauxhall and had the entire finale take place in Morocco. I don't even think it would've been necessary to see C die. The "Whitehall Brigade" had enough evidence of Denbigh's involvement with Spectre that he could've been arrested and we wouldn't have needed the unnecessary scene at CNS. 

[Dustin]

The final act is a jumbled mess. Most of the film was great, but it's painfully evident that the script problems with the film's ending never really got fixed. What we got in the end was serviceable, but one can't shake the feeling that there could've been something better. Personally, I could've done without the destruction of Vauxhall and had the entire finale take place in Morocco. I don't even think it would've been necessary to see C die. The "Whitehall Brigade" had enough evidence of Denbigh's involvement with Spectre that he could've been arrested and we wouldn't have needed the unnecessary scene at CNS.

I didn't in fact care a lot for the Nine Eyes subplot, it felt like something else happening over in London, mostly unconnected to Bond's hunt for Oberhauser. I would have preferred if Oberhauser had been presented as head of an intelligence network whose product had been used for some time by SIS already, that would have tallied with the original's description and still offered the opportunity to show Oberhauser following his own agenda.

[deth]

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.

 

To be fair, he was out of bullets.  What was he going to do. Strangle him?

[hcmv007]

I saw Spectre last night, and I have to say that I was entertained. Is it the best film of the Craig era? No, but it is a good movie nonetheless. I never once checked my phone for the time, or for score updates like I usually do if bored. I would have changed the ending, but my guess is the writer's have plans for that character at some point in the future.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Very disappointing Bond film. I'm ready to move on from Craig's era already to be honest.

[byline]

I would like to see one more Craig film, but if this was his "Swann song", then I'm fine with that. It's not my favorite Bond film of the Craig era, but I would rank it over Quantum of Solace (and I actually like Quantum of Solace).

[Silva25]

The Nine Eyes plot had some potential, but:

 

-They needed to put more thought into it.  Because, as it's presented in the film, it makes very little sense, on multiple fronts.

-It feels like a sideshow, despite being far more potentially interesting than the main plot.

[SecretAgentFan]

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.

[Dustin]

I would have preferred if Oberhauser had knocked at SIS's doors with inside knowledge of the famed Quantum, exposing schemes, operatives, executives and so on, making himself basically their top source on thwarting that organisation. While gaining influence and replacing his own old comrades - Mr White and various other colours - with new ones, amongst them maybe his son Denbigh...

[Guy Haines]

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.

I'm not convinced by the "Blofeld" reveal. "Thank you for setting me on a life of crime, James" - no, I think there's more to it than that. If ESB returns in the next movie - quite likely, I'd say - then I wouldn't be at all surprised if we discover that his father had to be got rid of because of a secret cache of gold which sonny boy Franz/Ernst wanted, and which financed his sick career. Oberhauser/Blofeld was a wrong 'un and would have been even if Bond hadn't shown up in his early life, imho - although simmering jealousy didn't help.

One further point - the avalanche which took ESB's father's life and "killed" Franz Oberhauser supposedly occurred twenty years before the events in the film. Bond's time with Oberhauser senior being the supposed reason junior wanted dad dead.

Bond in SPECTRE is clearly in his forties. Blofeld is clearly in his late fifties. If the "accident" happened when both characters were in theiir teens, then both should be in their early to mid thirties now.

Was this a script mistake? Should have read "thirty" or "thirty five" years ago? If not it meant ESB got rid of dad years after Bond was involved with either, implying either a slow burning jealousy which came to a head, or another reason for ESB wanting father out of the way.

Either way, it seems that "fifty" really is the new "thirty", which as a fifty-something myself I can live with! ;-)

[seawolfnyy]

I believe that the adoption papers Bond looks at are dated 1983. So the absolute longest period of time it could be would be just under 30 years. Assuming of course, that Spectre takes place mere months after Skyfall in 2012 or early-mid 2013.

[Vauxhall]

I noticed that continuity error too. I assumed someone can't count.

[Shrublands]

I would have preferred if Oberhauser had knocked at SIS's doors with inside knowledge of the famed Quantum, exposing schemes, operatives, executives and so on, making himself basically their top source on thwarting that organisation. While gaining influence and replacing his own old comrades - Mr White and various other colours - with new ones, amongst them maybe his son Denbigh...

 

Interestingly, in an early version there was an ideal very like that. Oberhauser (as he would become) was a voice on a phone to the world security services providing information but secretly manipulating. 

[Dustin]

Well, shame they dropped that.

[Shrublands]

If the "accident" happened when both characters were in theiir teens, then both should be in their early to mid thirties now.

 

 

Why does the 'accident' need to have happened when they were in their teens? 

I assumed that Bond spent two winters with the Oberhausers, then the 'temporary guardianship' ended and he returned to the care of Charmain Bond in Britain. 

With the 'accident' happened sometime later. Or have I missed something here?

 

Well, shame they dropped that.

 

Yes, I agree. 

It seems as if this was very much part of the John Logan scrips. It vanishes during the P&W rewrites. 

[Vauxhall]

 

If the "accident" happened when both characters were in theiir teens, then both should be in their early to mid thirties now.

 

 

Why does the 'accident' need to have happened when they were in their teens? 

I assumed that Bond spent two winters with the Oberhausers, then the 'temporary guardianship' ended and he returned to the care of Charmain Bond in Britain. 

With the 'accident' happened sometime later. Or have I missed something here?

 

I thought the same at first, but I think (and I may have remembered this wrong) that the newspaper headline which Moneypenny finds says something like "Hannes Oberhauser and teenage son missing". 

[stromberg]

Not certain about the "teenage son", but there was talk that Oberhauser died "20 years ago".

[Guy Haines]

Not certain about the "teenage son", but there was talk that Oberhauser died "20 years ago".

Oh dear, looks like I may have started something! ;-)

That said, I'm sure when Moneypenny views the translated article the words "aged 16" are in it somewhere.

Either it's a continuity/script error and Bond and Blofeld are actually rather middle aged looking thirty somethings - or fifty really is the new thirty and James, ESB and me should still be jumping around like spring chickens! ;-)

[Shrublands]

One has to be a mistake, "Aged 16" or "20 years ago" - in no sensible world is Waltz 36.

I've seen it 3 times now and I only remember the 20-years-ago bit.

 

Vaux, are you certain that the newspaper says "Hannes Oberhauser and teenage son missing"?

[RMc2]

 

 

If the "accident" happened when both characters were in theiir teens, then both should be in their early to mid thirties now.

 

 

Why does the 'accident' need to have happened when they were in their teens? 

I assumed that Bond spent two winters with the Oberhausers, then the 'temporary guardianship' ended and he returned to the care of Charmain Bond in Britain. 

With the 'accident' happened sometime later. Or have I missed something here?

 

I thought the same at first, but I think (and I may have remembered this wrong) that the newspaper headline which Moneypenny finds says something like "Hannes Oberhauser and teenage son missing". 

 

 

Yeah, pretty sure the newspaper says that (unless the German word for 'teenager' also means 'young man', stromberg?). And I think both Q and Oberhauser say Franz died 20 years ago. So...

[Vauxhall]

One has to be a mistake, "Aged 16" or "20 years ago" - in no sensible world is Waltz 36.

I've seen it 3 times now and I only remember the 20-years-ago bit.

 

Vaux, are you certain that the newspaper says "Hannes Oberhauser and teenage son missing"?

 

No, sorry, can't be certain - but I definitely remember thinking there was a contradiction in there somewhere.

[dirtymind]

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).

[stromberg]

 

 

 

If the "accident" happened when both characters were in theiir teens, then both should be in their early to mid thirties now.

 

 

Why does the 'accident' need to have happened when they were in their teens? 

I assumed that Bond spent two winters with the Oberhausers, then the 'temporary guardianship' ended and he returned to the care of Charmain Bond in Britain. 

With the 'accident' happened sometime later. Or have I missed something here?

 

I thought the same at first, but I think (and I may have remembered this wrong) that the newspaper headline which Moneypenny finds says something like "Hannes Oberhauser and teenage son missing". 

 

 

Yeah, pretty sure the newspaper says that (unless the German word for 'teenager' also means 'young man', stromberg?). And I think both Q and Oberhauser say Franz died 20 years ago. So...

 

No, a teenager usually is in his teens in Germany, too. Might be used for a young man who's 20 years old or if he looks rather young and one is not certain of his age. But a newspaper reporting on it should know about the age.

 

No way Oberhauser is 36 in the movie, but then again, a few years ago (when I was 40), a new apprentice in the company I worked for guessed my age to be 28

[Dustin]

[glidrose]

If you ever get around to reading the leaked scripts you'll find more age/continuity errors.
 
 

Spoiler

In one draft, FO's real parents were Romanian diplomats who were tortured to death for spying on the Nazis.

Try doing the math on that one!

[Revelator]

It would be great to have a centralized thread where people could post about the differences between the earlier scripts and the finished film. There's a lot of information on that topic but it's scattered all over the forum. 

[SecretAgentFan]

Re-visiting SPECTRE

 

 

Too soon?  

 

Well, there are two ways (for me) to see a new James Bond film.  The first is saddled with all my expectations and hopes, stoked by trailers and my own silly ideas.  The second is knowing what is coming from the first viewing and really paying attention to what is there instead of whining about what is not.

 

My whining led to a spoiler-filled first review of all the elements that I wished were different.

 

Now I´m... well, not whining so much anymore.  

 

My second SPECTRE viewing was absolutely relaxed, and I was thoroughly entertained.  Despite its length I never felt bored but was constantly engaged by the proceedings.

 

The action sequences?  Splendid.

 

The short Bellucci appearance?  Mouthwatering - but maybe it was good to limit her screen time.  And it actually is fresh and even kind of revolutionary to have Bond save her.  One thinks she will be the sacrificial lam - and she isn´t!

 

The slower middle part until the train sequence?  Didn´t irk me anymore because it works as character building.  And it also has a suspense undercurrent because I expect Hinx to come in any moment.  When he actually does come in, later on, it is a real shock because at that point I had forgotten about him a little bit.

 

The torture not working?  This time I really paid attention to what Oberhauser is saying.  And he explicitly says "IF the needle hits the right place".  So, he does not manage that.  Can´t do. Shouldn´t do it.  Of course, not.  - At this moment I would like to point out that this whole sequence was added after the December draft (in which this is still a card game that features much more backstory-explaining dialogue that would have made the brother-angle more obvious - yet, it does not have the menace and sadism of the drilling sequence.  So, I´m in favor of the change.)

 

The last act in London?  I went along with it this time and had my fun.  Interestingly, a lot of little scenes in London leading up to the final confrontation in the December draft were cut.  These scenes would have explained a little better why Bond let Madeleine go.  But IMO it was good that this was streamlined - those scenes were taking too much time when one wants the story to move on.  To have M and not Bond deal with C in the end DOES make more sense (I backtrack on this one and apologize).

 

Oberhauser in general?  For me, it is actually handled very elegantly, with the least amount of backstory explanation.  The fact that Oberhauser himself tells Madeleine during the torture sequence why he is doing it also makes sense for me.  And it is mentioned that Oberhauser was older than Bond, so that works, too.  Also, it is very clear that Bond had no real relationship with Franz.  So he does recognize him but he does not feel anything for him, and he certainly has no specific memories of Franz.  Which is perfectly natural, since the young James was still overcome with grief at that time, and Franz certainly did not offer any help or brotherly bonding.  Notice how Franz stands several steps away from his father who has his arm around James on that photo.

 

Waltz?  I actually have to apologize here again.  Looking at him very closely, I think Waltz acts very differently from his usual turns.  He is very restrained, and all the more menacing for it.  I love how Mendes handled his entrance, and there is only one scene where Waltz does his boyish cackle - but in that scene it is earned and even justified: it´s the boy breaking through, the one who gleefully thinks he finally has the upper hand.

 

Hinx?  Would I have loved him to reappear after the train sequence?  Sure.  But it is logical to finish him there because no one could have survived that.  If he had, he would have been Jaws.

 

 

So there you have it.  But while the sound you hear is me eating my hat - I will leave some of that uneaten.  And here are my main gripes which were not eliminated by another viewing:

 

The cinematography

The vistas are great.  So are the movement and the framing.  No complaints here.  BUT the desaturation is - for my amateur eye at least - horrible.  I have seen other films photographed by van Hoytema, and I know that this is not his usual style - so I have to assume that Mendes wanted the colours drained out of the images.  I would really like to know WHY?  If he had attempted to show how Oberhauser´s organization drains the life from this earth, okay - but wouldn´t it have been more interesting to start with vibrant colours and then slowly, with Bond getting closer, get the draining going?  

 

Even then, I don´t think that a Bond film needs that kind of trick.  In fact, SKYFALL with its narrative about Bond having lost his mojo would have justified the colour-draining - but Deakins instead found the most interesting way to shoot darkness and light, with absolutely gorgeous compositions.  SPECTRE, however, sometimes feels to me as if it were a black & white movie.  Okay, film noir and all that, yeah, yeah.  Still - I would have preferred a Bond movie to show its locations in the most attractive way.  And SPECTRE doesn´t.  Even the desert scenes are brownish at best.  Look at QOS, Schaefer exquisitely bringing up contrasts and giving it all a crisp look.  And while I´m at it: even ROME does not look especially appealing here. Look at Darius Khondji´s lensing for Woody Allen´s Rome film, and you know how even the smallest budget can achieve marvels with that.  

 

Again, yeah, I know - this Rome was not supposed to look as lush and welcoming.  But I ask: why not?  What we get from Rome in SPECTRE is again mostly black and white (during the funeral) and than black and orange (during the chase).

 

This really is my major gripe with SPECTRE.  It is, for my taste, one of the least visually appealing Bond films ever made.  If Deakins had wanted to do another Bond it would have made all the difference.

 

So I absolutely hope that BOND 25 will bring back a cinematographer who stands up to Mendes and says: no desaturation, Sir.

 

 

The villain´s scheme

As already discussed, it lacks originality and is not presented as menacingly as it should.  And, one has to add, as it was laid out in the scripts.  I understand why and appreciate how it was all edited down to the bare essentials.  But whlle this makes the film move faster it makes it also lose urgency.

 

 

The smart blood

In my first review I asked how this is different from the implant that Bond gets in CASINO ROYALE.  It isn´t really.  It adds more data.  But the idea is introduced and then eliminated because the smart blood can be used against Bond.

 

This time around, I did think that it explained why Bond has no problem going to Oberhauser without a plan: he still thinks he can be tracked, with enforcements potentially on their way.   On the other hand, hey, Bond often has no real plan and just goes to the villain, knowing that he can provoke him into making a huge mistake, and then winging his way out.  So that didn´t trouble me so much anymore.

 

Still, the previous script drafts do mention how the smart blood was used by Q to track down Bond much more.  Again a cut that did not work a lot in favour of the movie.

 

 

In conclusion

I consider SPECTRE to be an absolutely entertaining Bond film.  Considering the problems during production and the immense pressure to top or at least reach SKYFALL´s B.O., it is astonishing that the film actually works so well.

 

I do think that the film works better if you don´t go in expecting it to be something else, instead letting its charms enfold.  

 

For me, SKYFALL definitely has the edge because it has urgency, emotional power and - sorry that I have to mention it again - the most wonderful cinematography.  SPECTRE also does not give us as much insight into Bond as CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE did.

 

What it does offer is nevertheless interesting.  The humour is wonderfully carried out by Craig who delivers another stellar turn as Bond, this time more relaxed than ever.  This works for me despite Bond being drawn into the plot by a personal agenda again: because Bond has reached a point at which he uses humour as a defense mechanism.  He does not allow to be affected by the cruel events around him anymore so much.  This is exactly how Connery and Moore portrayed Bond, and it suits Craig as well.  I love, for instance, how he waves at the henchman at the funeral.  This was not in the scripts, very likely to be improvised on the spot.

 

I also still love Thomas Newman´s score which is a total grower.  Can hardly stop listenining to it because it works in the Bond theme all the time, ever so subtle.  The new themes for Donna Lucia and for Madeleine are gorgeous, and the use of established themes from SKYFALL absolutely make sense when you look closely at which moments in the film they reappear.  Newman has demonstrated twice now how a modern Bond score can sound: different and familiar, mixing elements of Barry´s legacy with another personal style.

 

 

"I started something with SKYFALL..."

This Mendes quote was always used to explain why he finally decided to come back for SPECTRE.

 

Sure, that is PR talk.  He also could have said: "I was offered so much money I just could not refuse this."  Or: "Try getting an original project greenlighted these days, damn, not even I can do this, and I have an Oscar, I brought in the biggest Bond ever, and still studios only want to do franchises - so I thought: if I want to do more theatre which does not pay my bills, I better stick with this great opportunity as long as they want to employ me".

 

But let´s be very clear about this, Mr. Mendes.  If you only came back for SPECTRE because you had set up a new narrative cycle for Bond you have done this again in SPECTRE.  And therefore you kind of opened up a return engagement for yourself in BOND 25.

 

Because now that Blofeld has been re-established, you have only scratched the surface (pun!) of this character.  And there is much more to be done with his organization which - as the December draft even openly states - is far from finished at the end of SPECTRE.  

 

Actually, getting BOND 25 without picking up where SPECTRE ends would be a major disappointment.  And a lost opportunity as well.

[RMc2]

 

 

 

 

If the "accident" happened when both characters were in theiir teens, then both should be in their early to mid thirties now.

 

 

Why does the 'accident' need to have happened when they were in their teens? 

I assumed that Bond spent two winters with the Oberhausers, then the 'temporary guardianship' ended and he returned to the care of Charmain Bond in Britain. 

With the 'accident' happened sometime later. Or have I missed something here?

 

I thought the same at first, but I think (and I may have remembered this wrong) that the newspaper headline which Moneypenny finds says something like "Hannes Oberhauser and teenage son missing". 

 

 

Yeah, pretty sure the newspaper says that (unless the German word for 'teenager' also means 'young man', stromberg?). And I think both Q and Oberhauser say Franz died 20 years ago. So...

 

No, a teenager usually is in his teens in Germany, too. Might be used for a young man who's 20 years old or if he looks rather young and one is not certain of his age. But a newspaper reporting on it should know about the age.

 

No way Oberhauser is 36 in the movie, but then again, a few years ago (when I was 40), a new apprentice in the company I worked for guessed my age to be 28

 

 

Thanks for clarifying that, stromberg!

 

Congratulations on your youthful looks, sir. Maybe you could put your hat in the ring for Bond 7

[RMc2]

Re-visiting SPECTRE

 

 

Too soon?  

 

Well, there are two ways (for me) to see a new James Bond film.  The first is saddled with all my expectations and hopes, stoked by trailers and my own silly ideas.  The second is knowing what is coming from the first viewing and really paying attention to what is there instead of whining about what is not.

 

My whining led to a spoiler-filled first review of all the elements that I wished were different.

 

Now I´m... well, not whining so much anymore.  

 

My second SPECTRE viewing was absolutely relaxed, and I was thoroughly entertained.  Despite its length I never felt bored but was constantly engaged by the proceedings.

 

The action sequences?  Splendid.

 

The short Bellucci appearance?  Mouthwatering - but maybe it was good to limit her screen time.  And it actually is fresh and even kind of revolutionary to have Bond save her.  One thinks she will be the sacrificial lam - and she isn´t!

 

The slower middle part until the train sequence?  Didn´t irk me anymore because it works as character building.  And it also has a suspense undercurrent because I expect Hinx to come in any moment.  When he actually does come in, later on, it is a real shock because at that point I had forgotten about him a little bit.

 

The torture not working?  This time I really paid attention to what Oberhauser is saying.  And he explicitly says "IF the needle hits the right place".  So, he does not manage that.  Can´t do. Shouldn´t do it.  Of course, not.  - At this moment I would like to point out that this whole sequence was added after the December draft (in which this is still a card game that features much more backstory-explaining dialogue that would have made the brother-angle more obvious - yet, it does not have the menace and sadism of the drilling sequence.  So, I´m in favor of the change.)

 

The last act in London?  I went along with it this time and had my fun.  Interestingly, a lot of little scenes in London leading up to the final confrontation in the December draft were cut.  These scenes would have explained a little better why Bond let Madeleine go.  But IMO it was good that this was streamlined - those scenes were taking too much time when one wants the story to move on.  To have M and not Bond deal with C in the end DOES make more sense (I backtrack on this one and apologize).

 

Oberhauser in general?  For me, it is actually handled very elegantly, with the least amount of backstory explanation.  The fact that Oberhauser himself tells Madeleine during the torture sequence why he is doing it also makes sense for me.  And it is mentioned that Oberhauser was older than Bond, so that works, too.  Also, it is very clear that Bond had no real relationship with Franz.  So he does recognize him but he does not feel anything for him, and he certainly has no specific memories of Franz.  Which is perfectly natural, since the young James was still overcome with grief at that time, and Franz certainly did not offer any help or brotherly bonding.  Notice how Franz stands several steps away from his father who has his arm around James on that photo.

 

Waltz?  I actually have to apologize here again.  Looking at him very closely, I think Waltz acts very differently from his usual turns.  He is very restrained, and all the more menacing for it.  I love how Mendes handled his entrance, and there is only one scene where Waltz does his boyish cackle - but in that scene it is earned and even justified: it´s the boy breaking through, the one who gleefully thinks he finally has the upper hand.

 

Hinx?  Would I have loved him to reappear after the train sequence?  Sure.  But it is logical to finish him there because no one could have survived that.  If he had, he would have been Jaws.

 

 

So there you have it.  But while the sound you hear is me eating my hat - I will leave some of that uneaten.  And here are my main gripes which were not eliminated by another viewing:

 

The cinematography

The vistas are great.  So are the movement and the framing.  No complaints here.  BUT the desaturation is - for my amateur eye at least - horrible.  I have seen other films photographed by van Hoytema, and I know that this is not his usual style - so I have to assume that Mendes wanted the colours drained out of the images.  I would really like to know WHY?  If he had attempted to show how Oberhauser´s organization drains the life from this earth, okay - but wouldn´t it have been more interesting to start with vibrant colours and then slowly, with Bond getting closer, get the draining going?  

 

Even then, I don´t think that a Bond film needs that kind of trick.  In fact, SKYFALL with its narrative about Bond having lost his mojo would have justified the colour-draining - but Deakins instead found the most interesting way to shoot darkness and light, with absolutely gorgeous compositions.  SPECTRE, however, sometimes feels to me as if it were a black & white movie.  Okay, film noir and all that, yeah, yeah.  Still - I would have preferred a Bond movie to show its locations in the most attractive way.  And SPECTRE doesn´t.  Even the desert scenes are brownish at best.  Look at QOS, Schaefer exquisitely bringing up contrasts and giving it all a crisp look.  And while I´m at it: even ROME does not look especially appealing here. Look at Darius Khondji´s lensing for Woody Allen´s Rome film, and you know how even the smallest budget can achieve marvels with that.  

 

Again, yeah, I know - this Rome was not supposed to look as lush and welcoming.  But I ask: why not?  What we get from Rome in SPECTRE is again mostly black and white (during the funeral) and than black and orange (during the chase).

 

This really is my major gripe with SPECTRE.  It is, for my taste, one of the least visually appealing Bond films ever made.  If Deakins had wanted to do another Bond it would have made all the difference.

 

So I absolutely hope that BOND 25 will bring back a cinematographer who stands up to Mendes and says: no desaturation, Sir.

 

 

The villain´s scheme

As already discussed, it lacks originality and is not presented as menacingly as it should.  And, one has to add, as it was laid out in the scripts.  I understand why and appreciate how it was all edited down to the bare essentials.  But whlle this makes the film move faster it makes it also lose urgency.

 

 

The smart blood

In my first review I asked how this is different from the implant that Bond gets in CASINO ROYALE.  It isn´t really.  It adds more data.  But the idea is introduced and then eliminated because the smart blood can be used against Bond.

 

This time around, I did think that it explained why Bond has no problem going to Oberhauser without a plan: he still thinks he can be tracked, with enforcements potentially on their way.   On the other hand, hey, Bond often has no real plan and just goes to the villain, knowing that he can provoke him into making a huge mistake, and then winging his way out.  So that didn´t trouble me so much anymore.

 

Still, the previous script drafts do mention how the smart blood was used by Q to track down Bond much more.  Again a cut that did not work a lot in favour of the movie.

 

 

In conclusion

I consider SPECTRE to be an absolutely entertaining Bond film.  Considering the problems during production and the immense pressure to top or at least reach SKYFALL´s B.O., it is astonishing that the film actually works so well.

 

I do think that the film works better if you don´t go in expecting it to be something else, instead letting its charms enfold.  

 

For me, SKYFALL definitely has the edge because it has urgency, emotional power and - sorry that I have to mention it again - the most wonderful cinematography.  SPECTRE also does not give us as much insight into Bond as CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE did.

 

What it does offer is nevertheless interesting.  The humour is wonderfully carried out by Craig who delivers another stellar turn as Bond, this time more relaxed than ever.  This works for me despite Bond being drawn into the plot by a personal agenda again: because Bond has reached a point at which he uses humour as a defense mechanism.  He does not allow to be affected by the cruel events around him anymore so much.  This is exactly how Connery and Moore portrayed Bond, and it suits Craig as well.  I love, for instance, how he waves at the henchman at the funeral.  This was not in the scripts, very likely to be improvised on the spot.

 

I also still love Thomas Newman´s score which is a total grower.  Can hardly stop listenining to it because it works in the Bond theme all the time, ever so subtle.  The new themes for Donna Lucia and for Madeleine are gorgeous, and the use of established themes from SKYFALL absolutely make sense when you look closely at which moments in the film they reappear.  Newman has demonstrated twice now how a modern Bond score can sound: different and familiar, mixing elements of Barry´s legacy with another personal style.

 

 

"I started something with SKYFALL..."

This Mendes quote was always used to explain why he finally decided to come back for SPECTRE.

 

Sure, that is PR talk.  He also could have said: "I was offered so much money I just could not refuse this."  Or: "Try getting an original project greenlighted these days, damn, not even I can do this, and I have an Oscar, I brought in the biggest Bond ever, and still studios only want to do franchises - so I thought: if I want to do more theatre which does not pay my bills, I better stick with this great opportunity as long as they want to employ me".

 

But let´s be very clear about this, Mr. Mendes.  If you only came back for SPECTRE because you had set up a new narrative cycle for Bond you have done this again in SPECTRE.  And therefore you kind of opened up a return engagement for yourself in BOND 25.

 

Because now that Blofeld has been re-established, you have only scratched the surface (pun!) of this character.  And there is much more to be done with his organization which - as the December draft even openly states - is far from finished at the end of SPECTRE.  

 

Actually, getting BOND 25 without picking up where SPECTRE ends would be a major disappointment.  And a lost opportunity as well.

 

Wonderful review, SAF. I agree with almost everything you say - especially on the cinematography and 'ending'.

 

I put the blame for most of the films' faults squarely at Mendes' feet. The failure to properly emphasise the threat posed by SPECTRE and Blofeld, and the desaturation/grading that ruins an otherwise gorgeous film, as well as (for me) the lack of tension in most of the action scenes (PTS and train excepted) is a result of decision made by Mendes in the final cut. Now, maybe a less pressured editing schedule might have fixed it, but that's pure conjecture and ultimately we have to judge the film as it stands, not as how it was intended or might be.

 

And as it stands, for me, it's a poorly paced and muddled character piece, without the depth of character to support a serviceable but flimsy plot over nearly 2.5 hours. It has many great ideas, adequately but underwhelmingly executed. And for all it's wonderful performances and mostly great moments of levity, it left me cold and bored both times. Shame.

[Dustin]

Stellar review, SAF.