In honor of Bond, and this movie, I've bought the box-set of the complete James Bond collection on Blu-Ray. Watched Dr. No earlier this evening. Looking forward to seeing Spectre as soon as possible.
C- I found it too long, mostly dull and actually thought about walking out and going home. It seems that the odd Daniel Craig Bond movies are great and the even Bond films are not good. Daniel Craig seems to have one form of acting now as Bond and I really don't want to see him come back if he's going to give this lazy of a performance. It had its moments but I can think of better ways to spend my time. I should have realized this movie wasn't going to turn on well based on the completely uninteresting trailer.
I liked it more than Skyfall (which I didn't care for) but less than the other Daniel Craig movies and also less than the Mission Impossible movie from earlier this year. Grade: B? Maybe? Something like that.
Something else I noticed about SPECTRE is that it seemed to really downplay the sex appeal factor. Previous Bond movies did not shy away from Bond taking his shirt off or a "Bond Girl" showing off her bikini bod. SPECTRE avoided that.
This movie doesn't work, I'm afraid. Now, I could critique any number of plot points (like why Blofeld's henchman is still trying to kill Bond even though he's just heading right to Blofeld's residence, which is apparently where Blofeld wants him; or why M needed Bond to kill that guy and what exactly she knew about this whole situation), but the truth is, most movie plots, particularly in spy thrillers, can be picked apart. People said, correctly, that if you think much about it, the villain's actions in Skyfall (or The Dark Knight, from which the former borrows heavily) are absurd. But the reason that I thought Skyfall was a great Bond movie and this isn't is all in the character. To me, the improbability of the villain's plan isn't a big deal, so long as the character dynamics compel, which in that movie they did; Silva was a strong villain, and the movie worked, because I bought his vendetta against M, and the way that this affected M and Bond. Here they bring back Blofeld in a way that feels like the first draft of a script meant to create a closer link between Bond and Blofeld -- but like I said, it's a first draft, because there's just no there there. It doesn't add anything noteworthy to Blofeld's character, or Bond's, and nor does the attempt to make this feel like the culmination of the previous Craig movies feel natural. I quite like Waltz as Blofeld, for the record. There are a few moments that he sells really well. But there's just not much to the character, and even though the movie leaves him alive, I can't think of any pressing reason I'd want to see this character again, which is kind of failure. I'm a big fan of Lea Seydoux, and she has some very good moments here (and, of course, looks amazing), but there's some very ropey plotting around this character, like her suddenly running off just before the climax (for a character reason that really has not been built up at all), solely so that she can be captured and used as a hostage in the final minutes. More generally, I'm not how this character fits into the franchise. Most Bond movies end with him heading off for some R&R with the main romantic interest, of course, but this movie drops the "love" bomb and his choosing to run off with her instead of killing Blofeld (another dilemma that really doesn't fly; Bond isn't the Punisher, and if we're meant to think he's being driven to the edge by this guy, I really didn't feel it) is played like some sort of turning point for the character. I don't object to that in principle, mind you, but is that really going to be followed up on?
B- (maybe too generous). Was not impressed and it is definitely no Casino Royale or Skyfall. The pre-credits scene in Mexico City was pure Bond, awesome as always but also something we have seen quite a few times in Bond movies (fight location in the helicopter was new though). However the movie quickly degraded.. from an always sour M throughout the whole movie (seriously.. Fiennes is a tremendous actor yet he had one expression throughout the whole movie) to Bond playing pick up the bread crumbs for more than half the movie until he faces Blofeld it just felt very dull. Dave Bautista was great in Guardians of the Galaxy but here he was just the bump in the road to break up a slow movie with some action sequences.. really paint by the number and not very original. The big villain played by Hollywood darling Waltz also kinda fell flat as the great mastermind in Craig's Bond movies. It's not Waltz' fault but the character was just not that very interesting.. just monologuing his way through his scenes without much passion. Thinking about it the B- is too generous.. it's somewhere in the C area. Is that Craig's last Bond? The movie seemed to end like this but i had in mind that he was contracted for another one. I'll pass if it's like this movie.. you could feel that Craig's heart was not in it anymore (not mad at him, he made Casino Royale and Skyfall after all).
It was fun. Not terrible. Not amazing. But pretty good. I think it lands probably in the lower half of my top ten Bond films. Probably a solid B from me.
Just got back and I thought the movie lacked heart. You can be a serious film but still have the emotional resonance and passion and I'm not sure this film had that. Also, I was so excited when Waltz was named bond Villain because I loved him in movies like Django Unchained and Inglorious Bastards. I felt he was kind of wasted in this movie. It was decent, but I would rank it closer to Quantum of Solace than Skyfall. C-
I gave it a B+. Hubby and both enjoyed it; the audience seemed to really enjoy it, too. I like the chase sequences and fights--the usual action sequences really felt tense. I also like the drama back in the London. No, it certainly didn't have character development of Skyfall but I found it far more enjoyable--and more coherent--than Quantum of Solace. The only thing that bothered me was the escape from Blofeld's desert compound. Shouldn't James have brain damage after all that? That was a WTF? moment for me.
^ It was a small drill that was stimulating the brain more than anything. That's how I saw it. The real damage should be to his skull and jaw or wherever the drill penetrated. I found it odd that the restraints on the chair just released him when the bomb went off. Awfully convenient. I suppose you could say that it was a safety feature in case of a fire or something.
A torture chair that is designed to free someone if a general alarm is sounded? As with superhero shows you need some kind of suspense of disbelief.. if someone like us were to have two holes drilled into our skull and into our brain we'd be out for the day most likely. But then we are not hard bastards like 00 agents who then proceed to take out a dozen henchmen and escape via helicopter while simulataneously destroying a big underground complex just by shooting at a gas valve
I just got back from seeing Spectre. I thought this was excellent! The only sour note (for me) was the lousy opening theme song. It sounded blech(!) and there was nothing memorable about it. But the rest of the film was note perfect. I'm reminded of a review where it said, "This is Bond for grownups." I agree largely because there's an overall tone to Craig's Bond films that avoids the overt camp and overt ridiculousness of many previous Bond films. I hope this isn't Craig's swan song because I'd love for him to do another. I hope he's good for at least one more. Spectre takes its place among my list of top Bond films. Indeed three of Craig's outings are on that list.
Saw it last night and really enjoyed it, liked seeing the return of certain James Bond "tropes" (how he says his name, the martini particulars, the thugish henchman.) I found it odd the media praised the movie so much for using Monica Bellucci for being the first "older" "Bond Girl." I get that, technically, she's a Bond Girl since he hooked up with her but the relationship and encounter was pretty much meaningless and I argue hardly makes her appearance noteworthy. Does it really matter that Bond sleeps with a woman his own age when the main love interest, the woman he has a more passionate hook-up with, and in the end "rides off into the sunset with" is a woman almost 20 years younger than him? Seems like the ageism/sexism Bond Tropes are still alive and well. And, no, I'm not playing SJW here. I've no problem with Bond hooking up with the younger woman, nor any problem with him hooking up with an "older" woman. It's the gimmick of the entire franchise that Bond hooks up. I just don't understand the "praise" the movie got over Bellucci being a "Bond Girl" when she disappears never to be seen or spoken of again and Bond hooks up with a younger woman. The main action-pieces were very well done but I found it odd that an early report I recall said something about this Bond movie having a larger vehicular "death toll" than the latest Fast and Furious movies. Which only a handful of vehicles were destroyed here, compared to the FF movie(s) where upwards of a dozen are more destroyed.) I guess the report was more on the cost of the destroyed vehicles since the main vehicles destroyed were very high-dollar prototypes and show cars. Sort of meh on the opening song/sequence. I think I like it more when the lyrics of the opening song has the title of the movie in it. (Granted, this doesn't happen all of the time.) Loved the use of Moneypenny (would have liked to seen more of the subtle flirting between her and Bond, though), the new M, Q and the other 00 agent(s.) So, the previous movie took a touch of heat because part of it's plot was similar to the first Avengers movie, and to that even "The Dark Knight" where the main villain arranges for himself to be captured in order to set into motion his larger plan. (Loki getting onto the Hellicarrier, Joker getting into Gotham's holding area to get audience with Batman.) This movie seems to borrow from "The Winter Soldier" where a large international agency is planning to begin the "last line" in modern preemptive defense (in TWS it's the Hellicarrier system, in this movie the international drone/satellite program) but this agency is unknowingly being controlled by another agency with more sinister goals (Hydra infiltrating/contolling SHIELD through Alexander Pierce, Spectre infiltrating/controlling MI6/British Intelligence through C.) and naturally there's only a handful of rogue agents set-out to stop this (Cap, Black Widow, Fury, Falcon / Bond, Moneypenny, M, Q.) In the end, though, I liked it. Though I think it was maybe a touch too long. I think there's some stuff that could have been trimmed out but I liked the extended action sequences. (DdlM, chase in Rome, mountainside chase, train sequence, etc.) On a related noted, started into my BD Bond collection, I've watched Dr. No. Trying to take it easy with this and will likely only watch a movie every other couple nights or something.
I really enjoyed the opening, teh train fight and the case scenes and I liked how they hooked all of Daniel Craig movies together. Lea Seyoux was amazing and really Andrew Scott was pretty obvious as the baddie after seeing him as Moriarty on Sherlock. I thought it was a nice followup to Skyfall and I really liked Skyfall.
Haven't seen it yet but Dave said that his wrestling background had taught him to be able to act with just his face when need be so hoped that would serve him playing the character. He's done pretty well in Hollywood, I say second only to The Rock in terms of those coming from a wrestling background.
Terrible film IMO. The only redeeming part of the film was the Mexico city scenes in the opening. From there - down hill. Problems with the film: 1. Spectre's global plans were fuzzy at best. World-wide spying on people - to what end? 2. The villain was anti-climactic to me and his lifelong obsession with Bond was sophomoric. He's mad at daddy because daddy went rock climing with James as a boy. WTF? 3. Who the fuck builds a planetarium type building to display meteor in the desert? And why? 3. James of course doesn't forget who she is and the brain surgery fails. Roll eyes 4. Trains without passengers traveling in the middle of the desert? Roll Eyes. OH and where were the train porters and staff while Bond was fighting? 5. The super Bond explosive watch that apparently can destroy an entire complex powered by solar power - utterly perposeteous. 6. Big time nitpick - James Bond is not supposed to fall in love with his female co-stars firstly. Secondly, who the fuck falls madly in love on the first date, least of all James Bond? 7. Super villains white Persian long haired cat - who he if you caught it seemed to hate after dusting the hair off his suit after holding the animal. There were just so many plot holes and unbelievably preposterous premises in this film that weren't even tied together correctly IMO. The largest one IMO being making Spectre's whole reason for existence a let down. D IMO
Can you clarify the canon explanation for why Bond isn't allowed to fall in love? Also can you clarify why he was allowed to fall in love with Tracy and Vesper (in both the books and the films). I'd argue there were other girls he clearly felt very strongly about (Kara, Paris, Natalia). There's no reason Bond can't fall in love, I would agree that it happened surprisingly quickly in this however which bugged me too) Re the planetarium, hadn't it been built there because that was the crater where the meteorite had landed? It did blow up very easily (possibly made by the same company that manufactured the amazing exploding hotel in Quantum) Telly Savalas didn't seem that enamoured of the cat either as I recall I imagine the passengers/crew on board the train were keeping well out of the way, it did seem a surprisingly empty train however. Given what Bond's survived over the years I'll give him leeway to survive brain surgery, I still find the most preposterous thing in the film taking down a chopper with a PPK however. I think you're spot on about the villain's motivation and Spectre's plan however.
I miss the over-the-top super villains of Bonds past and with their super plans to either destroy or repopulate the world. While I'm biased as a sci-fi fan, Drax IMO was one of the best super villains except for of course Gold Finger. Even Christopher Walken's take as a Bond villain and his plan to destroy Silicon Valley to create a monopoly on computer chip production was better than this films premise of spying on the worlds population. Shit don't we already assume that CIA is doing that now in real life? At least Walken had a Zeppelin which was awesome.