Spectre - members review thread

Well what a let down.

After the dense and multilayered Skyfall – very much a writer’s film - Spectre is a return to the underplotted Bonds of old, beautifully photographed but essentially just a series of chases and travelogues without sufficient grey matter to hold it together.

It’s also a strangely coy and sexless Bond film. Lea Seydoux and Daniel Craig play out a sweet sugar daddy routine that works for me, but after all the hype Monica Bellucci is onscreen for less than five minutes and looks painfully old. Sadder still is Christoph Waltz as an expensive piece of fluff, turning in one of the most unimpressive Bond villains of them all and that's saying something.

None of this is to say Spectre is a bad film. It's not, but  Skyfall is a masterpiece and - as it turns out - an impossible benchmark. I went into Spectre with no prior knowledge, but needn’t have taken such precautions; its story is simply too anaemic and self-referential for any of that to matter.

Ah, was looking for a thread of this kind. My thoughts from the "Last Bond Movie You Watched" thread:


It's a monumental disappointment. I'm completely dumbfounded. SKYFALL got it so so right, it's unbelievable that this is what follows.

It's lifeless, soulless, unexciting and, most surprisingly of all, just not fun. It spends too much time paying tribute to what's been done far better in previous films, and for a two and a half hour film, so little time on character or plot - it's so underwritten!

Craig is phoning it in and it shows - he's rubbish. The Bond of SPECTRE is an arrogant, boring, unsophisticated beer-swiller. A man who refuses to shoot even his worst enemy in cold blood - a far cry from the days when Professor Dent had his six. Shoehorning in the DB5 at the end (again!) does not make Bond Bond.

Hinx, Lucia Sciarra, Oberhauser - so much hype for so little screen-time. Bellucci's performance is particularly poor.

Plus points include the torture scene and lines lifted from Colonel Sun. The title sequence is also effective. But that's about it.

SKYFALL promised so much, it seemed proof that Bond could enter the 21st century and still retain the elements that made the classic films great. This is a giant step back.

So SKYFALL ended with the promise of Bond getting back to the traditional formula, and SPECTRE does that exactly.

Honestly, this sounds like what I wanted for Craig to have at least just once. However, if what I'm hearing of the ending is true, makes me hopeful that if Craig returns they can do a loose adaptation of YOLT, or at least take that whole concept of the Garden of Death. If done right, it could be one of the most surreal and effective sequences in all of Bond films. I really want that to happen.

The Garden of Death is something I've been wanting to happen too - unfortunately SPECTRE hasn't turned out to be Craig's OHMSS.

G section wrote:

SPECTRE hasn't turned out to be Craig's OHMSS.

Certainly not. Spectre is an amalgam of the forced nostalgia of Die Another Day and the relentless careening of Quantum of Solace.

The more I think about this film the worse it gets.The exact opposite of Skyfall, where the harder you look the more you see.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Well what a let down.

After the dense and multilayered Skyfall – very much a writer’s film - Spectre is a return to the underplotted Bonds of old, beautifully photographed but essentially just a series of chases and travelogues without sufficient grey matter to hold it together.

It’s also a strangely coy and sexless Bond film. Lea Seydoux and Daniel Craig play out a sweet sugar daddy routine that works for me, but after all the hype Monica Bellucci is onscreen for less than five minutes and looks painfully old. Sadder still is Christoph Waltz as an expensive piece of fluff, turning in one of the most unimpressive Bond villains of them all and that's saying something.

None of this is to say Spectre is a bad film. It's not, but  Skyfall is a masterpiece and - as it turns out - an impossible benchmark. I went into Spectre with no prior knowledge, but needn’t have taken such precautions; its story is simply too anaemic and self-referential for any of that to matter.

Many reviews seem to mention this aspect of it, both the positive and negative appraisals.

I absolutely hate this trend. I do not go into a Bond film (or any film for that matter) to be bombarded with nothing but references and "clever" nods to the iconography and totems of a franchise's past.

I agree it's not Skyfall. It's possible that expecting that high-water mark again was unrealistic.

But I enjoyed it rather a lot regardless ... that early trailer was a red herring, because this is easily Craig's most 'traditional, Bond-least-personally-affected-by-the-narrative' 007 flick of his tenure. It's a bloody entertaining night at the movies, and is probably 2015's most entertaining action-adventure-thriller overall.  

I waited to see 'James Bond Will Return' in the credits, and was still whistling the Bond theme on the way to get a taxi home. Which is fine (and enough) by me.

Salomé wrote:

I absolutely hate this trend. I do not go into a Bond film (or any film for that matter) to be bombarded with nothing but references and "clever" nods to the iconography and totems of a franchise's past.

It's an annoying trend that suggests the end of film as a serious art form. People are raving about the beginning of Spectre, but all I thought was, 'Oh, Mendes likes Touch of Evil'. And helicopters. Lots of fucking helicopters.

None of this should be so complicated; get the script right and all else follows. Auteur theory has destroyed cinema - it's all about the story, people.

I personally have no issue with a Bond by the numbers...tbh it is now the rarity so if that is the real problem I remain hopeful I will enjoy it. Stuff all the personally invested crap in a nearby Bog please and give me an thrilling tale that engages me in the scope of the film unfilding rather than all the stuff that didn't happen here.....

Having watched the Jonathon Ross SPECTRE preview show I got pretty sick of all the pretension heaped onto the modern films, times have indeed changed and Bond generally moves with them, but now we seem so conceited and stuck up our own backsides we can't stop mentioning it as some great revelation or surprise.

What people seem most consistent about in the praise dept is Lea Seydoux's character...is that not the significant positive some have mentioned?

Erica Ambler wrote:

lachesis wrote:

What people seem most consistent about in the praise dept is Lea Seydoux's character...is that not the significant positive some have mentioned?

Erica Ambler wrote:

Lea Seydoux and Daniel Craig play out a sweet sugar daddy routine that works for me

I caught that but the dreaded 'every bit Bonds equal' and 'best Bond girl in years' comments are being trundled out again and therefore I somehow expected more........ although I suppose historically they aren't phrases known for their accuracy.

Big comments thread in the Grauniad. This one sums up my feelings best:

Quote :

I left the cinema feeling really depressed and sad because what I'd just witnessed was seemingly most people's idea of a great night out at the cinema.

Spectre is shit. Don't believe the hype.

Popped over to MI6 just to check out what the kids thought of it. Seems that most of them really liked it, with a few mixed impressions as well.

What's concerning is all the talk about how self-referential the film is. I was mostly cool with that in SKYFALL because it was the 50th anniversary and Mendes was able to handle those things rather tactfully. But, to hear that they are still looking backwards for cute little nods and references is really disappointing, especially from a guy like Mendes. Not sure why this franchise is so adverse to trying anything new, but the fact that this is (seemingly) the second of Craig's film to have major scripting issues makes me wonder if EON needs to re-evaluate how these films are written going forward (although, QUANTUM had an built-in excuse with the writer's strike).

Ambler, would you say it's more self-referential than SKYFALL? Or less?

dr. strangelove wrote:

Ambler, would you say it's more self-referential than SKYFALL?

Far more self-referential. It's up there with DAD.

How would you rate the action sequences?

bitchcraft wrote:

How would you rate the action sequences?

No point asking me. I like character and plot development. You know, the boring stuff in Skyfall.

Erica Ambler wrote:

bitchcraft wrote:

How would you rate the action sequences?

No point asking me. I like character and plot development. You know, the boring stuff in Skyfall.

I'm certainly with you on that but one of the things that separates the best Bonds from the pack is the way the story give rise to the action....quite a few films films suffer by almost arbitrarily putting the story and character on hold to accommodate some generic sequence (almost playing out like two unrelated films in collision), whereas the better Bonds actually see the action develop out of the story or environment and even contribute to the narrative....this was an area I felt Skyfall played pretty well even if it did make some of the action less exciting in isolation, I assumed this was a Mendes trait as it has been absent from the series for so long?

lachesis wrote:

one of the things that separates the best Bonds from the pack is the way the story give rise to the action

Exactly. With many Bond films, Eon starts with a checklist of machines, locations and gadgets, and then comes up with thin and unconvincing plot to link them. With Skyfall the action was either organic or, like the tubetrain, new MI6 HQ or priesthole sequences, there to emphasise the shadows/subterranean subtext. That's what I meant by Skyfall seeming to be writer rather than producer-led. Plus there is the fascinating water/resurrection theme; all in all, very much a Bond film to think about unlike Spectre, which was long enough for me to give my balls a good scratching while my brain died a long cruel death.

Erica Ambler wrote:

bitchcraft wrote:

How would you rate the action sequences?

No point asking me.

Point noted. Anyone else?

The car chase promised a lot but resorted to Johnny English-style gags.

G section wrote:

The car chase promised a lot but resorted to Johnny English-style gags.

I'll be pissed if I have to continue watching Fast and Furious sequels and other franchises for car action...

Well chums and lady chums, vee are in from our viewing. My viewing.

You know, I started on this thinking, I guess I'll have to find a way to dislike this film but damned if I didn't. I thought about the negative reviews on my way to the cinema (decent indie affair in Mayfair, worth going in for ambience alone and the photos they had of Bond girls and chaps) and I thought about what Blunty said the other night.

This is no Skyfall but it's no QOS either or God forbid, TND/TWINE. It's not the best Bond but it's far from the worst. I liked a few of the one-liners that I heard, I liked little tidbits like the glimpse of a Vanquish (might've been a DB9) in the lab (why? I guess I like the idea of Aston being the company car in general not just for 007, though if I ever get my 1987 Vantage and it breaks, I'd get MI6 to fix it considering how quickly they had the DB5 up and running). M's office looking something akin to the old days, the Hildebrand Rarities room, the feel of the film wasn't too bad and the look as well though I missed Deakins' touch.

The title sequence must surely have been done during a drinking binge by Kleinman. I know these things never really make sense other than say OHMSS with flashbacks to the previous Bonds but this one boggled. The song seemed better when set against the titles but when the high notes hit I crumpled and I heard someone cry out across the screen something akin "God's teeth!"

Craig like in Skyfall seems more at ease, Fiennes I'm liking as M (though in his first scene it was as if he were wearing false teeth), Monica Belucci...corr, Vincent Cassel is a lucky sod, Seydoux was good reminded me a little of your Melina's or even Kara in Living Daylights. And the general look...Oberhauser's retreat in the desert somehow reminded me of Drax Industries meets Goldfinger's ranch. It was more akin to Dr No's lab really and suitably surreal. I mean a butler in that shithole.

The fight on the train was a sped up more brutal TSWLM fight and I'm willing to bet Hinx will return. Just hopefully not during a parachute jump or Venice boat ride. Indeed, as the film wound down I wondered how Blofeld's escape would pan out as he's Blofeld and surely will be returning. On that note I like Waltz, one of the best actors going. Hinx wasn't as bad as I feared when I first heard about him all those moons ago.

And MI6 HQ...

It's Andrew Scott I never care for. Always feels like, well...there's acting and there's acting. That kind that some have, not quite hammy, but "look at me, I'm acting!". It appeases the fangirls in Sherlock but no. Not for me. (The "what the C stands for" got a big laugh just before M sort of killed the joke by saying "It's for careless").

8/10

Sorry chaps. Maybe like CR in time I'll come to dislike it and it'll nose past Moonraker in the rankings but for now I quite liked it. Now, I'm off to the rankings thread. Needle nardle noo.

Vincent Cassel is not married to Monica anymore, she is I think now single.

Stamper wrote:

Vincent Cassel is not married to Monica anymore, she is I think now single.

I think they have been separated for a while now.

On the subject of Bellucci, if it is true she is only on-screen for a very short time, it makes the decision to cast her even more baffling. 10-15 years too late and for an extended cameo?

I guess the closest thing she will end up coming to being a real Bond girl was her turn in "Agents Secret" with her then husband.