Spectre - members review thread

Control wrote:

the only thing that SPECTRE has going for it is the score by Thomas Newman. Beautiful music, and far too complex for such a boneheaded story.

Don't agree about the music. Sure there some nice cues, but everything else is either a retread of SF or the usual sterile noise he churns out.

One of the things I really like about SP's music is the gunbarrel music. In fact, the whole gunbarrel sequence, with the theme starting before the dots appear, and of course, it being at the start of the film. Best opening since TWINE and TND.

And the gunbarrel music is more Skyfall rehash.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Nothing good was ever going to come out of this plot concerning Bond and Blofeld being foster-brothers; it was wrong then, wrong now, and will be forever wrong. Just stupid and amateurish beyond belief.

But easily fixed:

Bond and Blofeld meet face-to-face. Blofeld asks when Bond realised he was not Oberhauser; Bond replies that he never knew Oberhauser's mother's maiden name, looked it up and found that it wasn't Blofeld. Blofeld tells him that he knew one man derailed his plans in CR, QOS and SF, and looked into Bond's past where he found the real Oberhauser. He interrogated Oberhauser (who was only too quick to help), then killed him and assumed his identity. He did such a good job that, in a sense, he was Oberhauser.

Blofeld's actual history is that he is the son of a Pole and a Greek living in Romania. After his parents were murdered, he feld to Sweden, where he was adopted by a German and a Dane. He was sent to boarding school in Switzerland and university in France. Where Bond is a loyal servant of the crown, borders mean nothing to Blofeld.

Bond then reveals that he has thwarted Blofeld's latest scheme and that his employers (China?) will not be happy. Blofeld dismisses it because he has plenty of other plans in motion. He is disappointed because "there is only one person who can kill me, James - you, which is why I am going to kill you first" and "it's a shame, because you were just starting to get interesting", at which point Bond is shot. Roll credits.

Interesting PM...

I'm still hoping for some revision of Blofeld in Bond 25. The fact is that Blofeld could have easily been behind the events of CR and QOS, and ties in perfectly with Fleming's backstory of the antagonist's work in South America.

Watched SP with the Khantessa Friday night, and she had a few interesting observations. She said it was a dreary movie. Everything in shadow, everybody whispering, and nobody smiling. She felt the humor was forced and ineffective and that much of the dialogue, cliched. I think the Khantessa would fit in well here.

I, OTOH, have one positive remark. To wit, SP takes a fairly robust stab at totalitarianism and one-world governance. For instance, M telling Denbigh that the Nine Eyes building is "Orwell's worst nightmare." Furthermore, Blofeld's weapon of mass destruction is not a nuke or a bio-weapon, but a combined, unitary intelligence apparatus, the sort for which the UN and EU are doubtless salivating. SP shows rather clearly the danger of concentrating so much power in a single entity. Kudos to the writers for staking out this rather courageous ground.

Of course it's an interesting concept, but nothing is done with it. There's no sense of danger (despite a tonal bleakness) which is why the film feels so bloated and self important. There's nothing to propel the story.

Oh, and sign the Khantessa up!

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Of course it's an interesting concept, but nothing is done with it. There's no sense of danger (despite a tonal bleakness) which is why the film feels so bloated and self important. There's nothing to propel the story.

Oh, and sign the Khantessa up!

It's a critique, not a concept. And there is plenty danger and menace, much of it established by Hinx, who is the most lethal and brutal henchman in all of Bond, Krasno Granitskii included. Additionally, I daresay having somebody stick a drill bit in your head connotes a wee bit of danger...

I do think more could have been done with the coordinated attacks SPECTRE was orchestrating. After the failed stadium bombing in Mexico due to Bond inadvertently shooting the bomb in the briefcase, we should have got a bit more than exposition and a very brief TV news report.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Of course it's an interesting concept, but nothing is done with it. There's no sense of danger (despite a tonal bleakness) which is why the film feels so bloated and self important. There's nothing to propel the story.

Oh, and sign the Khantessa up!

It's a critique, not a concept.

Semantics.

Considering the villain's plot centres on manipulating surveillance and intelligence agencies, there needs to be more than just a few throwaway lines and exposition. MP nails it: we don't get to see the danger of that. So MI6 closes its 00 section. Good riddance, after the disaster that Craig-Bond's run has been there (and since the global terrorism seems to stem from his childhood).

Perilagu Khan wrote:

And there is plenty danger and menace, much of it established by Hinx, who is the most lethal and brutal henchman in all of Bond, Krasno Granitskii included.Additionally, I daresay having somebody stick a drill bit in your head connotes a wee bit of danger...

Again, there's no payoff for that kind of torture. We're told of the effects but Bond doesn't seem to be affected at all. He soldiers on with perfect aim, balance and awareness because a girl he's willing to leave in London before the mission is complete expressed her love to him. How can you defend this nonsense?

You're right about Hinx. He's not the best henchman by any stretch but he's the only aspect of that film that is terrifying. More should have been done with those thumbnails, and that spike in the meeting room should have been used in some way.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Of course it's an interesting concept, but nothing is done with it. There's no sense of danger (despite a tonal bleakness) which is why the film feels so bloated and self important. There's nothing to propel the story.

Oh, and sign the Khantessa up!

It's a critique, not a concept.

Semantics.

Considering the villain's plot centres on manipulating surveillance and intelligence agencies, there needs to be more than just a few throwaway lines and exposition. MP nails it: we don't get to see the danger of that. So MI6 closes its 00 section. Good riddance, after the disaster that Craig-Bond's run has been there (and since the global terrorism seems to stem from his childhood).

Perilagu Khan wrote:

And there is plenty danger and menace, much of it established by Hinx, who is the most lethal and brutal henchman in all of Bond, Krasno Granitskii included.Additionally, I daresay having somebody stick a drill bit in your head connotes a wee bit of danger...

Again, there's no payoff for that kind of torture. We're told of the effects but Bond doesn't seem to be affected at all. He soldiers on with perfect aim, balance and awareness because a girl he's willing to leave in London before the mission is complete expressed her love to him. How can you defend this nonsense?  

You're right about Hinx. He's not the best henchman by any stretch but he's the only aspect of that film that is terrifying. More should have been done with those thumbnails, and that spike in the meeting room should have been used in some way.

No, it's not semantics. I was speaking of political content (critique), not plot mechanisms (concept). The former is praiseworthy, the latter is open for debate.

We're talking danger, not "payoff." If you're strapped in a dental chair and somebody's moving a live drill toward your head, you are in danger. Period. Just like the laser in GF.

As for plot-holes and inconsistencies, that stuff is commonplace in Bond. We're talking Bond films, not Bergman. Turn the gimlet eye on the majority of Bond films and you will find plenty of indefensible nonsense. Personally, I don't sweat it overmuch.

The two are intertwined. Only because not enough is done with it, it might feel more like a critique when it was intended to be a concept. You said it yourself: "SP shows rather clearly the danger of concentrating so much power in a single entity". But I disagree that it does that "clearly".

Yes, we're talking danger. But if there are no consequences to the danger, how can it be dangerous? In GF, the laser never actually touched him but the sense of danger was real (because we're shown the laser burning through the table): Bond is getting is sliced in half unless he can get himself out of it. He does, barely, but the consequence is that he gets sedated and is kidnapped. In SP, we're told the effects of this method of torture, Bond gets his head drilled in 2 or 3 times and then escapes with no said effects affecting him. In isolation it's horrific, sure, but without any repercussions, it's suddenly less dangerous and more gimmicky.

The only real element of danger in that scene is Oberhauser becoming Blofeld. I'm still feeling the ramifications of that today.

My understanding about the drilling was that they were only attempts. Blofeld didn't get the drill on the spot he wanted because of Bond's convulsing interrupting it. That's why Blofeld tried twice, but never made the mark. If Blofeld had done it correctly he would have sedated Bond, but that would have spoiled the fun of torturing Bond fully awake.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

The two are intertwined. Only because not enough is done with it, it might feel more like a critique when it was intended to be a concept. You said it yourself: "SP shows rather clearly the danger of concentrating so much power in a single entity". But I disagree that it does that "clearly".

Yes, we're talking danger. But if there are no consequences to the danger, how can it be dangerous? In GF, the laser never actually touched him but the sense of danger was real (because we're shown the laser burning through the table): Bond is getting is sliced in half unless he can get himself out of it. He does, barely, but the consequence is that he gets sedated and is kidnapped. In SP, we're told the effects of this method of torture, Bond gets his head drilled in 2 or 3 times and then escapes with no said effects affecting him. In isolation it's horrific, sure, but without any repercussions, it's suddenly less dangerous and more gimmicky.

The only real element of danger in that scene is Oberhauser becoming Blofeld. I'm still feeling the ramifications of that today.

Yes, it was critique and concept, but my point focused exclusively on the critique. In your eagerness to get another lick in against SP, you introduced a straw man.

I daresay we don't need to see the dental drill bore through a sample bone to appreciate the danger of having one bore through Bond's skull. As to the rest of your point, MP addressed it.

Are you two going to go at it again?

I'm not complaining it and enjoy it but you do get along better when you are talking about all the crude things you want to do to Denise Richards. you all really get on the same page then

Well, who DOESN'T want to do crude things to Denise Richards? Hell Heidegger and Bertrand Russell both could have gotten behind that...

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Watched SP with the Khantessa Friday night, and she had a few interesting observations. She said it was a dreary movie. Everything in shadow, everybody whispering, and nobody smiling. She felt the humor was forced and ineffective and that much of the dialogue, cliched.

Spot on observations.

I just finished watching it. Only the third viewing I've ever seen of it. Has not improved at all with time. I still think it's the worst of the entire series including NSNA.

There's so much to hate that I don't know where to begin, but I'll give it a stab:

Awful theme song.
Awful plot. The scene with Blofeld explaining to Madeline why he's torturing Bond was just plain embarrassing for all involved.
Cliched dialogue.
The most worthless villain of all time. How do you f- up Blofeld?
The least memorable score of any Bond film that I can recall.
Madeline isn't poorly acted; it's just that Mendes goes for the wrong type of Bond Girl. Who wants to sit around and spend 2. 5 hours with a miserable person? Yet that's what Mendes is asking us to do. Mendes has Seydoux make all the wrong choices in this film. She's a total wet blanket. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but give me Tanya Roberts or Denise Richards any day OVER THIS.
No humor.
No color in this movie. Damn! This movie was all gold, all tan, all beige, all cream, all brown....who authorized and approved this? Why was any color drained from this film?
Poor characterization. Clearly they didn't know what to do with Madeline. She dumps Bond in London and then proceeds down a dark, empty street knowing that her life may be on the line? Good God! Why didn't Mendes just have a blimp sneak up on her? It was that stupid.

$300 million dollar turd that had no right to be as bad as it was. It burns me up to see good money wasted on crap like this.