Spectre - How to Ruin the James Bond Franchise

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Spectre - How to Ruin the James Bond Franchise

James Bond returns in Spectre, a sightseeing tour for its stars and an example of how not to write a screenplay.

Read Full Article

Yeah, I knew this one was going to suck when I read about that interview where he talked about how he was completely done with this role and when asked if he would consider doing the role once more he said "Fuck no!" going on to add "The ONLY reason I would do it again is for the money."

Marter:
This is all wonderful, and if you're just here to see James Bond do action-y stuff - much like one of the pre-Craig films - then you're not going to be too disappointed.

Sold! 8-)

Kind of annoying, though. Not just the wasted potential, but it's like, action looks better on the big screen, but I don't like to waste money on the big screen for movies that aren't very good. Hrmph.

Marter:
It may feel more like a "Bond film" than any other Craig-led installment, but this may be the point where we begin to question if that's something we want.

Nope, I never did. Then again I still maintain Quantum Of Solace is one of the best Bond films of all, and barely anyone/no-one seems to agree with me...

Generally I've heard good things - Mark Kermode loved it (he loathed 'Question Of Sport') - so this negative take is kinda surprising. Most liked Skyfall, which I thought was rather horrible (it rammed the series into an inelegant hard-reverse), though, so I'm used to not agreeing with consensus takes on Bond flicks. I wouldn't be surprised if I disliked Spectre.

Well, Skyfall is still the bar for this era for me.

Fantastic opening sequence, fun villain and a good sense of pace throughout without feeling so labourious that it stops dead nor so energetic that you can't see anything (*cough* Quantum of Solace *cough*) that it's just a good movie throughout.

This one also felt a bit underhyped too, which makes sense :/

Villians and intelligent villian plots are all i ask for in films, why does that hardly ever happen? The villian is the sole reason for the films existing, they need to be great. They need to feel a threat with high intelligence and unforgettable character. And their deaths have to feel spectacular enough to warrent a "fuck yeah, they deserved that!" Maybe the market is too oversaturated that it is nigh impossible to hit an original idea with these traits, but it tends towards disappointment mostly. Will still see this one, as it's cheaper than travelling and more legal than criminal damage alongside murder.

Pyrian:

Marter:
This is all wonderful, and if you're just here to see James Bond do action-y stuff - much like one of the pre-Craig films - then you're not going to be too disappointed.

Sold! 8-)

Ditto. I know the writing has been getting a ton of criticism, like MovieBob who said that this in the the bottom five Bond films ever, from everybody I've heard its otherwise a traditional Bond film that manages to be solid in every other regard. If they went with a traditional Bond villain I don't think they would've had the same problem with the writing. Trying to do the mish-mash of each style seems to be the fatal erring. This movie currently has the same rating as Quantum of Solace on Rotten Tomatoes and I haven't heard a single reviewer say that its worse than QoS.

It was...okay. Skyfall was better, but as two hours of escapism, it was okay.

(I don't think there are any spoilers in the next bit, but...)

It's a shame it's going to be Craig's last - frankly, bowing out with Skyfall would've been better.

In the end it doesn't even matter if it's good or not. Bond somehow can survive these dips because he's just that iconic. If they can bounce back from Diamonds Are Forever and Die Another Day, they can definitely survive Spectre.

Huh. I wouldn't think it was a bad idea to give the Bond movies a tighter continuity than they used to. And if any character could be used to explore real-world issues regarding espionage, it aught to be James Bond, but I think that drum's been beat enough times for better (CA: The Winter Soldier) and worse (ST: Into Darkness).

EDIT: But if they changed what SPECTRE means, I am going to be a very unhappy camper.

Well, maybe this is why Daniel Craig said he'd rather slash is wrists than be Bond again. ;p

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3264241/I-d-slash-wrists-Daniel-Craig-says-t-imagine-playing-James-Bond-does-money.html

He says he'd do it again for more money though, so I guess this one may not end up as his worst. Yay?

Oh well. There will always be more Bond movies.

Darth_Payn:
But if they changed what SPECTRE means, I am going to be a very unhappy camper.

They never mention what SPECTRE stands for, or if it even stands for anything at all.

I'll be completely honest, Mr. Hinx's fight scene was the only thing to get a real laugh out of me.

But yeah, the more I think about the movie, the less I like it. And a large part of that is how they tied Oberhauser into the plot of the last three movies, diminishing them in turn, like how a horror movie prequel explaining the backstory of the abominable monster makes it less threatening.

I'd recommend not watching this one, to be honest. It's clear that there's been some serious problems with production, since Craig'd rather slit his wrists than play Bond again.

I really stopped caring about the plot, and was just happy that there was finally a proper car chase scene. And another one. With a plane. In the Alps.

think was average at least. still an ok watch but not as good as casino. skyfall was also better than quantum. good thing i have watched it in the cinema. still cheaper than on dvd.

This summarised my feelings about it quite well. I was enjoying it and all its lovely action and visuals, but as I got closer to the end I couldn't shake off how much the story was bothering me.

On a side note: Skyfall was both the better film and the better ending, so Spectre felt entirely redundant.

MarsAtlas:
Ditto. I know the writing has been getting a ton of criticism, like MovieBob who said that this in the the bottom five Bond films ever,

Okay, I haven't seen the film yet, and it won't be out in Oz until next week. But having seen the Movie Bob review, I have to ask...is everything a comic book movie to him? I mean, Batman Begins? The Dark Knight? Captain America? Yeah, Bourne's thrown in as well, but jeez...

Sorry, off-topic I know, but please tell me I'm not the only one who wonders if MB has a point of reference outside comic book movies. 0_0

Hawki:

Sorry, off-topic I know, but please tell me I'm not the only one who wonders if MB has a point of reference outside comic book movies. 0_0

If he does, they are camp movies that are so full of cheese the theatres playing them will have rat problems as a result of screening them.

Marter:
revealing that it wants to haphazardly and half-heartedly connect itself to the last three Bond films, making them retroactively worse in the process

Now that's just not true, Casino Royal and Quantum of Solace where already bad movies, and all this movie did was remind us of that fact.

Hawki:

MarsAtlas:
Ditto. I know the writing has been getting a ton of criticism, like MovieBob who said that this in the the bottom five Bond films ever,

Okay, I haven't seen the film yet, and it won't be out in Oz until next week. But having seen the Movie Bob review, I have to ask...is everything a comic book movie to him? I mean, Batman Begins? The Dark Knight? Captain America? Yeah, Bourne's thrown in as well, but jeez...

Sorry, off-topic I know, but please tell me I'm not the only one who wonders if MB has a point of reference outside comic book movies. 0_0

Other than because many of the best action films of the past decade have been comic book adaptations? Its because James Bond is a serial character just like comic book superheroes. Bond never ages nor do any of the people around yet the settings of the stories change and adapt to modern times seamlessly. There are cliches that are hallmarks of the franchise that appear consistently. Bond is immortal because they can't make a new 007 movie without 007 the same way and reason that comic book characters who do die never stay dead for long. Bond has a consistent visual design and trademark personality traits alongside iconic imagery - Bond walking across the screen and firing at the camera to start the film is as iconic as Clark Kent tearing his shirt open to reveal his superhero outfit. Bond as a recurring movie character was around when both my parents were me were children and I can't say that about anybody other than comic book superheros, the cast of Sesame Street and The Muppets - all serials. I can't say that about Luke Skywalker or Captain Kirk but I can say that about Bond because he's a timeless ideal of a character more than an actual man. He's a mythic character, like Superman or Mad Max. Nobody questions Superman and his parents not aging in real time because they're mythic depictions of people always present in society. Superman grew up in the 1930s' at one point, now he grew up in the 80s' and it doesn't effect his character the same way Bond once grew up in the 1930s' and now having grown up in the 1980s' it doesn't effect his character.

That this movie "retroactively ruins" prior Craig Bonds seems like kind of a tall claim, but I guess I'll wait until I see it (whenever that comes about) to pass judgement. I mean, the Star Wars prequels were pretty bad, but they didn't actually take away my ability to enjoy the original trilogy.

I'll see spectre when it comes out on video, but I'm not surprised it's Craig's last: he's getting a little long in the tooth to play the role as he has in the past. I consider it a miracle the movie even got made between the time between films, craig's aging, the legal nightmare that was MGM at one point during Craig's run, and the increasingly 'I'm offended' engine the internet is turning into.

Also, I'm not sure anything could have followed Skyfall and really held itself up as a success: that was a pretty spectacular movie all around (that guy is still my favorite Bond villain). At this point I'm kind of looking forward to what the next Bond director and actor combo will bring to the table.

It was pretty average overall. You can really tell the contempt Craig has for Bond, and while that worked in Casino Royale and Skyfall, which were both trying to say something about the character, it doesn't work here.

It had it's moments - the train fight was spectacular, the bit with the rat was a good gag (though not a very Bond-y one) and the Bond girl was a 10 out of 10. But there was a lot of wasted potential. I enjoyed the bits with M, Moneypenny and Q more than the main stuff, but the villain of that subplot was a nobody and the resolution was anticlimactic. And on the subject of villains, they had Cristoph Waltz putting in a fantastic turn in a villain role he almost born to play - and then did almost nothing with him! I get what they were going for with the character, but he was barely present, and went out just as anticlimactically.

Interesting, I've read many reviews saying that this film was great (from well regarded critics)
Clearly this is a film which polarizes people. I'll check it out myself and make my own decision.

Beautifully shot, Bautista was great, Seydoux was oh so beautiful and the plot was basically a bunch of "It's not over yet"s strung together. Imo it's not worth it for the 4-6 times per year type of movie-goer.

Marter:
Spectre - How to Ruin the James Bond Franchise

James Bond returns in Spectre, a sightseeing tour for its stars and an example of how not to write a screenplay.

Read Full Article

What would you say was the biggest weakness of the movie (besides the villain not being as good as Emilio Largo)?

Darth Marsden:

Darth_Payn:
But if they changed what SPECTRE means, I am going to be a very unhappy camper.

They never mention what SPECTRE stands for, or if it even stands for anything at all.

Well, going back to Dr. No, SPECTRE is an acronym for SPecial Executive of Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion. Explained to James Bond by Dr. No in typical supervillain fashion: over a delicious, non-poisoned lunch in the lair's dining room with a carnivorous fish tank in the wall.
So, basically, in the '60's, they were James Bond's HYDRA.

The entire film and plot were too obvious, everything was layed on there so thick that nothing seemed surprising and it felt more like a joke that everyone in the movie was in on.

Also casting one of the villains with a guy who is one of the most noteworthy villain actors in recent british television history was a very poor move to my opinion, it would have been a twist if they hadn't made this guy the villain and the way they develop his character and wrap it up just makes it even worse.

Aside from that there were a lot of filming mistakes, maybe I've been too influenced by cinema sins but I'll give two obvious examples :

1 The car he drives in the Rome chase scene keeps switching number plates.
2 In the scene with the plane in Switzerland/Austria? the backpane of his planes windows always apears broken by a bullet but there is no moment even after crashing where anything happens to said window on-screen

Bonus: in the Mexico scenes there is a moment in the chase scene where one of the actresses in the parade suddenly makes very random movements for no reason which make it look like there was something that happened there that they cut out but edited very poorly.

TLDR:
Unless you're an avid James Bond fan this film was just short of being a complete failure, I would give it a shallow passing grade normally, if you don't mind all the clichés and predictable plot you might still have a good time.

It's not like I wasn't entertained it was just not satisfying and made one want to leave early.

Callate:
That this movie "retroactively ruins" prior Craig Bonds seems like kind of a tall claim, but I guess I'll wait until I see it (whenever that comes about) to pass judgement. I mean, the Star Wars prequels were pretty bad, but they didn't actually take away my ability to enjoy the original trilogy.

I think OP means that they actively influence and affect the plot of previous movies and do that in a very poor and silly way.

After watching Spectre and knowing what certain characters actually meant and did you will not get as much satisfaction out of it.

It's not like watching the prequels will ruin the originals for you.
It's more like you watch the first 2 original films and in the third one it turns out that Darth Vader is John Cena and the stupid theme song starts playing and as an after thought Darth Maul is now in the third original movie because they forgot to cram in a meaningful villain and figured this would fix it all.

The original 2 "Craig" Bond films are actually demerited in a lot of ways in their plot by making it all so meaningless and senseless in Spectre.

Politrukk:

The original 2 "Craig" Bond films are actually demerited in a lot of ways in their plot by making it all so meaningless and senseless in Spectre.

And Skyfall was also undermined by just crowbarring M in the most haphazard fashion imaginable.

Damn, people really don't seem to like this movie. Were they expecting every Craig Bond to be Casino Royale? How did you not expect a film like this after the end of Skyfall, where they pretty much say "Yeah, we've got the classic Bond formula back, be ready"?

I thought it was fine. Definitely not worth 14,50 €, though that's a stab at movie ticket prices, not at the film. I'll probably forget it in a month, but there was fun action, good humor and whatever little Christoph Waltz they had was great (that introduction scene, holy crap!). I have to say, Dave Bautista as the henchman was a casting choice on par with Craig as Bond. He really brought the classic "big burly bad guy" vibe to the film.

One thing that did bother me a lot though was that the cuts to get it down to PG-13 were really obvious. Like the eye-gouging scene and the suicide bit: no sound effects, no screaming, no blood. Pussies.

Darth_Payn:

Darth Marsden:

Darth_Payn:
But if they changed what SPECTRE means, I am going to be a very unhappy camper.

They never mention what SPECTRE stands for, or if it even stands for anything at all.

Well, going back to Dr. No, SPECTRE is an acronym for SPecial Executive of Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion. Explained to James Bond by Dr. No in typical supervillain fashion: over a delicious, non-poisoned lunch in the lair's dining room with a carnivorous fish tank in the wall.
So, basically, in the '60's, they were James Bond's HYDRA.

I meant it's never explained in THIS film. I know what it meant in the old continuity :)

Saw it last night, yeah, 'decent' is probably the best word I'd use to describe it. It's definitely better than Quantum of Solace, but definitely not as good as Skyfall and doesn't hold a candle to Casino Royale (my favorite one).

Craig definitely feels like he's phoning it in at this go around and is pretty clearly done with the role.

Besides that, the acting is pretty solid all around. Christoph Waltz is good (as expected) but is underused. Lea Seydoux is (in addition to being ridiculously hot) a solid actress who I'm interested in seeing more of her...acting (get your mind out of the gutter). Dave Bautista is genuinely intimidating and is very good at doing fight and action sequences, though I do wish they'd given him more personality.

As some have noted, it's definitely the most "return to form" Bond movie we've had in a while. The action definitely has a more over the top and somewhat cheesy feel to it, and the baddy's scheme is definitely way more 'world domination' than any of the ones in the previous Craig movies.

If you're a huge fan of the franchise it's worth it to see in the theaters. If you just have a passing interest I'd wait till it's on video.

Funny, I thought that's what they said about Skyfall. Sounds like Doom Prophet's Disease has struck again by people declaring things to be 'Ruined Forever'. Thinking no.

I only just realised I was annoyed with Dave Bautista's character being like Drax the Destroyer..... and that the reason for that is because he's obviously the same guy -.-

I think that they just made a few wrong casting calls, if you've seen Guardians of The Galaxy and Sherlock... these actors do nothing but play a very similar role to which they played in said movies.

Darth Rosenberg:

Marter:
It may feel more like a "Bond film" than any other Craig-led installment, but this may be the point where we begin to question if that's something we want.

Nope, I never did. Then again I still maintain Quantum Of Solace is one of the best Bond films of all, and barely anyone/no-one seems to agree with me...

Just letting you know, you have an ally. I agree with you there :D

I think I'll still go see this one, because I've enjoyed all the Daniel Craig Bond movies.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here