Spectre - members review thread

The title sequence had my hands over my face peeking through my fingers. I know title sequences are by and large not meant to be serious (Roger Moore pushing over a line of women in TSWLM's titles. Doing cartwheels or whatever the hell he's doing in that or Octopussy) but Spectre's was downright odd and weird. Maybe it was the song on top of the images including Craig.

It's the tentacles. It's one of those things that sounded good on paper, but the execution - in this case - was just fucking creepy.

It certainly gave me the weirdest erection of my life.

There were obvious writing issues involved with this entry of the series, but did they even have a script for the third act? Even compared to the mess that is the rest of the film, that section stands out negatively.

The sole stand-alone section of the film that sort of works (within its own constraints) is the pre-title sequence. Not that I would list it among my favorites, but it did what it's supposed to and the setting was a classic Bond location.

Salomé wrote:

There were obvious writing issues involved with this entry of the series, but did they even have a script for the third act? Even compared to the mess that is the rest of the film, that section stands out negatively.

I get the feeling that a lot of stuff was cut. Remember the rumours of a two-part film? I wonder if that was the original plan before it was condensed down into a single film. I remember reading that Blofeld had a much more substantial backstory - that he was the son of Romanian dissidents who were captured and tortured to death, and he was sent to Austria for his own protection. It would explain a lot about his character: an orphan who struggled to adjust after the death of his parents and ultimately went down a different path to Bond. It makes sense because the film tries to position Bond and Blofeld as two sides of the same coin. Blofeld is the head of SPECTRE, a transnational criminal organisation trying to impose a singular view of the world, one without the concept of statehood or loyalty to traditional establishments. I think that fits in with the original plan for Blofeld.

I've just had my second watch of Spectre. I'm coming around. I think its only major problems are that Daniel Craig seems completely unaffected by it all and they play it too coy with Blofeld. Other than that, it looks great, the score is great, and Lea Seydoux is great. It's a bit long in the tooth but it's a solid step forward for a more traditional Bond, even though it feels like they're still trying to find their feet.

The problem around here is something can only be perfect or terrible. It's all so black and white and it's unbearable. Spectre is neither, as much as the drama queens make it out to be. It's serviceable but teeters more toward the good side than the bad. I think it's a solid B.

I don't think it's terrible or perfect. I still enjoy it and can't wait to watch it on DVD when it comes out (though I think because I just love the PTS and can't wait to see that again). The problems I have with it still lurk in the back of my head and that is that the action isn't that Bondian, particularly the plane chase, and some of the writing, especially the Blo-bro twist. But I do agree that it looks stunning, Lea does a solid job (but the character severely underwritten), Belucci is great, Bautista is brilliant and Waltz does a good job despite the writing of his character.

I just prefer the majority of other Bond films to it because they're more confident. But hey, that's coming from the guy who rates the 90s Bond as highly as the 60s Bond.

SPECTRE seems to have been torn a new one around here for not being Skyfall 2. I say it was foolish to expect 2 'series highpoint' entries in a row.

It sends Our Man on a fast-paced, globe-trotting adventure ... along the way there's action, chuckles and beautiful women, with nods to contemporary concerns/issues regarding the security of our way of life in the Western world.

Which is what the films have always done.

I still feel warm towards it but having not seen it since the cinema, it's going a bit lukewarm. It's disappointing it's not been well received but not every Bond has been has it. For every say OHMSS, FRWL and TLD, there's a TMWTGG, DAD and QOS.

My logic's skewered but blame the wine.

DVD/on-demand release in a fortnight, Hilly. A chance to renew your acquaintance.

I'm mixed on it. Overall I really enjoyed it, but I'm mixed on it in relation to the rest of the series. Have it around 16/17 or so.

Hardly terrible, hardly perfect, although I'm not sure it's a good movie. I think the first 60/70 minutes are very good. Once we get to the lair it really starts going downhill for me. Not a fan of Waltz in the role, and the writing drops off a cliff. The last act is fucking bad.

Xenia93 wrote:

I'm mixed on it. Overall I really enjoyed it, but I'm mixed on it in relation to the rest of the series. Have it around 16/17 or so.

That's where I'm at. Looking forward to throwing it amongst the other films this year and seeing how it sticks. Much like Craig's action sequences.

FieldsMan wrote:

Xenia93 wrote:

I'm mixed on it. Overall I really enjoyed it, but I'm mixed on it in relation to the rest of the series. Have it around 16/17 or so.

That's where I'm at. Looking forward to throwing it amongst the other films this year and seeing how it sticks. Much like Craig's action sequences.

Yeah, as a Bond fan I probably appreciate it far more than most people who saw it. So my "negative" reaction on a board like this is really me judging it in relation to the rest of the series (and I really really like most of the movies, so it ranks somewhat low right now). Hoping it goes up, but the way it's "sitting," I kinda doubt it.

Xenia93 wrote:

I'm mixed on it. Overall I really enjoyed it, but I'm mixed on it in relation to the rest of the series. Have it around 16/17 or so.

Hardly terrible, hardly perfect, although I'm not sure it's a good movie. I think the first 60/70 minutes are very good. Once we get to the lair it really starts going downhill for me. Not a fan of Waltz in the role, and the writing drops off a cliff. The last act is fucking bad.

I agree with this. I actually think Waltz was a good choice for the role, I just thinl that the character was badly written. The ending is terribly rushed, especially when compared to previous Craig's films, and that's what bothers me the most.

Jack Wade wrote:

I've just had my second watch of Spectre. I'm coming around. I think its only major problems are that Daniel Craig seems completely unaffected by it all and they play it too coy with Blofeld. Other than that, it looks great, the score is great, and Lea Seydoux is great. It's a bit long in the tooth but it's a solid step forward for a more traditional Bond, even though it feels like they're still trying to find their feet.

The problem around here is something can only be perfect or terrible. It's all so black and white and it's unbearable. Spectre is neither, as much as the drama queens make it out to be. It's serviceable but teeters more toward the good side than the bad. I think it's a solid B.

Four films into the Craig series and "they're still trying to find their feet" ????? I would actually agree with that, but therein lies a problem. They wasted two films not giving us Moneypenny or Q, then using the third film to transition between M's, only to give us a Bond who is giving it all up at the end of the 4th film (and presumably setting us for another relaunch, which would mean that the efforts of Harris, Fiennes and Whishaw will essentially be brief when compared to other actors who've played the roles)

Then again, maybe they just recast Bond and keep on with the current office staff; who knows.

The film is garbage. Expensive garbage, but garbage nonetheless. You can't tell me with a straight face that revealing Oberhauser as Bond's long-lost relative (so to speak) added one bit of needed character development to the overall story. You could eliminate that subplot entirely and never miss it in the bigger narrative. It was a waste of time. What's more, similar ground was covered (and done better) in GOLDENEYE. Mences and EON have SUPERMAN RETURNED-ed the Craig Bond into a corner he can't get out of. Time to reboot.

And though Bond has technically not been to Mexico in the movies, couldn't that pre-credits sequence have been filmed somewhere else? The location wasn't storyline-specific, so it could have been filmed anywhere. What a missed opportunity for Bond to finally go someplace he hasn't been in the movies. Imagine how much more interesting that scene might have played out over a more familiar locale such as Sydney's famed Opera House. Instead the producers got paid off by Mexico to film it there instead of someplace more interesting.

Even the blu-ray is getting bad reviews for lack of extras. This is the shortest window I can ever recall for a Bond film to go from theater to home entertainment; definitely a sign that the studio was trying to cash in and make a quick buck on a dvd/blu-ray.

The era of Michael Fassbonder must come quickly.

It surely must.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

I've just had my second watch of Spectre. I'm coming around. I think its only major problems are that Daniel Craig seems completely unaffected by it all and they play it too coy with Blofeld. Other than that, it looks great, the score is great, and Lea Seydoux is great. It's a bit long in the tooth but it's a solid step forward for a more traditional Bond, even though it feels like they're still trying to find their feet.

The problem around here is something can only be perfect or terrible. It's all so black and white and it's unbearable. Spectre is neither, as much as the drama queens make it out to be. It's serviceable but teeters more toward the good side than the bad. I think it's a solid B.

Four films into the Craig series and "they're still trying to find their feet" ????? I would actually agree with that, but therein lies a problem. They wasted two films not giving us Moneypenny or Q, then using the third film to transition between M's, only to give us a Bond who is giving it all up at the end of the 4th film (and presumably setting us for another relaunch, which would mean that the efforts of Harris, Fiennes and Whishaw will essentially be brief when compared to other actors who've played the roles)

Then again, maybe they just recast Bond and keep on with the current office staff; who knows.

The film is garbage. Expensive garbage, but garbage nonetheless. You can't tell me with a straight face that revealing Oberhauser as Bond's long-lost relative (so to speak) added one bit of needed character development to the overall story. You could eliminate that subplot entirely and never miss it in the bigger narrative. It was a waste of time. What's more, similar ground was covered (and done better) in GOLDENEYE. Mences and EON have SUPERMAN RETURNED-ed the Craig Bond into a corner he can't get out of. Time to reboot.

And though Bond has technically not been to Mexico in the movies, couldn't that pre-credits sequence have been filmed somewhere else? The location wasn't storyline-specific, so it could have been filmed anywhere. What a missed opportunity for Bond to finally go someplace he hasn't been in the movies. Imagine how much more interesting that scene might have played out over a more familiar locale such as Sydney's famed Opera House. Instead the producers got paid off by Mexico to film it there instead of someplace more interesting.

Even the blu-ray is getting bad reviews for lack of extras. This is the shortest window I can ever recall for a Bond film to go from theater to home entertainment; definitely a sign that the studio was trying to cash in and make a quick buck on a dvd/blu-ray.

Agreed with all points except the Mexico paragraph. Nothing as unique as Day of the Dead happens in Australia, and the PTS is the best thing about the film, so I'm happy we got Mexico and they paid $20m to make sure we saw it.

CJB wrote:

The era of Michael Fassbonder must come quickly.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

FieldsMan wrote:

Nothing as unique as Day of the Dead happens in Australia

Just wait until Bond crashes the Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras in Q-Branch assless chaps.

Don't tease me with such a great, err I mean, silly idea, CJB.  


Well, fellow forum members. I've gotten around to this film at last. Seeing as I'm a socially awkward misanthrope I tend to prefer to wait for Blu-rays so I can watch a film was meant to be seen: In bed, after dark, in my underwear, with a bottle of Dr. Pepper. Here are my thoughts.

This film is just downright bizarre. This is like stumbling onto a weird yet still captivating fan fiction at three in the morning with a plot so off the rails and oddball it makes me wonder if I got sent a joke copy of the film or something. On one hand you have Bond face to face with his old nemesis in new form but on the other you have this weird, wacko conspiracy thriller involving global surveillance and Daddy issues. Though I can safely say cross-dressing Blofeld from DAF is much more intimidating than Waltz's benign super-villain who's turned SPECTRE into essentially a weird Illuminati thing where they sit around in darkened, not too well-protected room and stare at each other awkwardly. When we finally see Blofeld out in his desert lair he comes across more as a slightly annoyed Google employee rather than the criminal mastermind we all know and love. I also find it hard to believe that this is what QUANTUM would become plus Le Chiffre, Silva or even Mr. White (who is just wasted here, BTW) were working for this sad bunch of keyboard warriors hiding out in the most flammable lair you could possibly have.

Okay, breathe. Now what's positive here? Well there's a lot of fun sequences here. The train scenes are great, the gunbarrel is back, the pre-titles sequence is a blast, M and Moneypenney are well used here which is great because Ralph Fiennes is a bad-ass M. Despite lacking Deakins the cinematography is gorgeous for the most part despite some stupid shaky stuff in the opening plus the score is decent enough in parts (I'm glad to hear the Bond theme put to use more in the film). Lea Sydoux is a good bond girl although Monica Belucci's character is in and out of the film quickly enough to make getting her sadly a wasted effort for this film. Despite how stupidly easy it was for Bond to blow up the lair it was a good, although brief explosion. The chase with the plane was also a pretty fun sequence. Bautista's henchman wasn't bad although like every other good henchman he's underused and has one of the most cliche lines they could have come up with for his grand finale. Andrew Scott's character was laughably obvious from the get-go but his exit was a highlight although needed a Wilhelm scream for good measure.

Also I haven't brought up the titles sequence. Again, they just went weird with this one. Between the mediocre theme song and the grabby Octopus I felt more awkward than entertained by the sequence and given I'm a perverted shut-in that's saying something. I did like how the first ten seconds of orchestra meshed so well with the pre-titles sequence coming to a close though. The ending though definitely feels like they wrote it to be open enough to where if Craig wants to walk away from the series his storyline would feel complete but there's still enough there to make a fifth film if he wants to come back and although I enjoyed him here I wouldn't be too upset if this is his final film as Bond or would gripe is he comes back for one more. Overall I'd say I enjoyed it for the most part despite my negativity above but they took such a loony bin direction with this film it makes me question if Babs and her writers have gone insane and are at a dead end with where to go with this series.

Interesting review, Strangways, though as you may know I only agree with some of it. However, Babs has been insane since DAD.

Sums it up nicely, Strangways.

SPECTRE made me realise that my erstwhile pining for a "traditional" Bond film was misplaced. Though I maintain that QOS swung the pendulum too far in the other direction (as well as being a terrible film overall) CR and SF got the balance right by bringing something fresh to the table and cutting a few apron strings. SPECTRE's checklist-ticking felt awkward, forced, and just plain boring. Recycling 53 year old tropes and mixing it with an unimaginative fan-fiction-worthy plot makes for a stale, soulless product.

I reckon you can still get a traditional Bond film so long as the writing works. In SP, the writing is mediocre for most part, but it's the same with QOS and CR and hence why those films don't work quite as well as Bond films, either.

Besides that I think the problem here was they didn't really commit fully to just making a classic Bond film. Here they had a lot of elements in play such as humor, action, globe trotting, a cool car with gadgets, multiple girls for Bond's bedtime pleasure, SPECTRE and Blofeld but they couldn't resist shoehorning the old "personal issues" thing this time by throwing in that eye-rolling backstory for Blofeld mixed with him being this grand puppet master responsible "for all of Bond's pain" instead of just having him be a intelligent super-villain driven by his ego. Up until the big reveal besides the back and fourth internal politics at MI6 this was very much classic Bond for a large chunk of it with some flaws but nothing that couldn't have been ironed out with some touch-ups to the script primarily to make SPECTRE more ominous and threatening and not have a huge chunk of their plan based in a near-abandoned lair that blows up entirely just by rubbing your hair with an inflated balloon next to a gas can.

^^ Exactly. Four films into the Craig era and it's still plagued by an identity crisis.