SPECTRE Review Thread

[Xenia]

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

No way.

Seconded.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

No way.

Agreed, if for no other reason than John Barry's score. NSNA has one of the worst and most inept scores ever for a big budget film.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

DAF would have been a lousy Bond no matter what, but coming on the heels of the devastating ending of OHMSS, its slack, jokey, campy tone is like farting in church. Blofeld in drag! Jimmy Dean! The mincing gay hitmen Kidd and Wint! Add in subpar special effects (it's obvious the bulk of the movie's budget went directly into Connery's pockets), lines like "Yeeeeeeeee!" and a complete lack of tension and you've got the third-worst Bond movie of them all (I only dislike A View To A Kill and Die Another Day more than this). It pretty much set in stone the trend that all popular, long-running Bond actors have to go out on a terrible, TERRIBLE movie. Only John Barry's typically fine score makes it out of the movie with its dignity intact.

You have a talent for metaphor.

"slack, jokey, campy" with "mincing hitmen" and "a complete lack of tension" describes all five Bond films of the 1970s in a nutshell. Add to that, misogyny. I saw these films when they were new, and like many Bond fans at the time, I always left the theater slightly entertained but feeling disappointed. The Bond films that followed OHMSS had no grounding in anything real that audiences could relate to, and no fidelity to the source. The producers seemed to be in their own world, delivering one non-sequitur after another. Director Guy Hamilton and principle writer Tom Mankiewicz preferred light misogynistic comedy to dramatic thrillers in their trilogy: Diamonds Are Forever (1971), Live and Let Die (1973) and The Man With the Golden Gun (1974). Hamilton was a lazy, indifferent director. By the time Lewis Gilbert and Christopher Wood deliver their pair, The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) and Moonraker (1979), there is nothing left of the spark that started the series. It's all artifice, bad jokes, flaccid action and self-parody in beautifully photographed exotic locations. That's what the producers wanted. They are all bad moves, but at least Diamonds Are Forever had an actor who took the role seriously. Whatever else the film can be criticized for, Sean Connery grounds it. It's a well-produced film. All the budget did not go into his pockets.

The producers made a conscious attempt to restore integrity to the series with For Your Eyes Only (1981). Even Roger Moore changed the tone of his performance, although he denies it in the commentary. It almost worked, but the 1980s Bonds were characterized by a different set of problems.

Casino Royale really shook me up in 2006, but I did not give up on the franchise until Skyfall. Barbara Broccoli took the series out of mild misogyny and comedy and into acute misandry and depression. James Bond couldn't win a fight, hold onto his gun or save a life in Skyfall. If he hadn't been in the movie at all, the outcome would not have changed. The villain would still prove him wrong, outsmart him in every contest, and His M(mother) would still tell him off, belittle him and then face her murderer alone. At that point I just had to give up on the Bond films. Great action and set pieces don't add up to a hill of beans when the characters are corrupted and the stories are depressing.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

You have a talent for metaphor.

"slack, jokey, campy" with "mincing hitmen" and "a complete lack of tension" describes all five Bond films of the 1970s in a nutshell. Add to that, misogyny. I saw these films when they were new, and like many Bond fans at the time, I always left the theater slightly entertained but feeling disappointed. The Bond films that followed OHMSS had no grounding in anything real that audiences could relate to, and no fidelity to the source. The producers seemed to be in their own world, delivering one non-sequitur after another. Director Guy Hamilton and principle writer Tom Mankiewicz preferred light misogynistic comedy to dramatic thrillers in their trilogy: Diamonds Are Forever (1971), Live and Let Die (1973) and The Man With the Golden Gun (1974). Hamilton was a lazy, indifferent director. By the time Lewis Gilbert and Christopher Wood deliver their pair, The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) and Moonraker (1979), there is nothing left of the spark that started the series. It's all artifice, bad jokes, flaccid action and self-parody in beautifully photographed exotic locations. That's what the producers wanted. They are all bad moves, but at least Diamonds Are Forever had an actor who took the role seriously. Whatever else the film can be criticized for, Sean Connery grounds it. It's a well-produced film. All the budget did not go into his pockets.

The producers made a conscious attempt to restore integrity to the series with For Your Eyes Only (1981). Even Roger Moore changed the tone of his performance, although he denies it in the commentary. It almost worked, but the 1980s Bonds were characterized by a different set of problems.

Casino Royale really shook me up in 2006, but I did not give up on the franchise until Skyfall. Barbara Broccoli took the series out of mild misogyny and comedy and into acute misandry and depression. James Bond couldn't win a fight, hold onto his gun or save a life in Skyfall. If he hadn't been in the movie at all, the outcome would not have changed. The villain would still prove him wrong, outsmart him in every contest, and His M(mother) would still tell him off, belittle him and then face her murderer alone. At that point I just had to give up on the Bond films. Great action and set pieces don't add up to a hill of beans when the characters are corrupted and the stories are depressing.

Sounds to me like the Bond franchise doesn't offer you anything outside of the 60s films, which are still rife with misogyny and have more than a few jokes/bad puns.

Roger Moore > Sean Connery, btw

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

Sounds to me like the Bond franchise doesn't offer you anything outside of the 60s films, which are still rife with misogyny and have more than a few jokes/bad puns.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Originally Posted by Infernal King

Roger Moore > Sean Connery, btw

Wrong again.

[Rich65]

Pity the rights got tied up for 6 years, Timothy Dalton would have had 2 more films under his belt, Dalton was the right actor at the wrong time.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Rich65

Pity the rights got tied up for 6 years, Timothy Dalton would have had 2 more films under his belt, Dalton was the right actor at the wrong time.

That's for sure. Timothy Dalton was just what the series needed. The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill had problems -- mainly Michael J. Wilson's interference with the scripts and a plodding director -- but Dalton totally nailed James Bond.

[jawsfan1975]

LICENCE TO KILL is still the 007 film I watch the most, it was way ahead of it's time when it came out.

[Agent Bond]

Never Say Never Again is superior over Diamonds are Forever

Agreed. This time around, Sean Connery actually gave a sh** and looked in much better shape.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.



Wrong again.

Thanks for the excellent discussion but I can't say I'm looking forward to wasting my time responding to/reading one of your posts again.

Ironically, you are objectively wrong about there not being misogyny or bad puns/jokes in the 60s films.

[Xenia]

My two cents:

- the 60s Bonds are (with a couple exceptions) the best. I think this will be hard for filmmakers to top because the era itself played such a part in those early films and because of Sean Connery (in his first 4 outings, at least).

- I really want some humor back in the films. Every era has really had a lot of humor. I love Roger Moore as Bond and his ability to make even the worst lines look expertly written was a marvel to behold. He's my second favorite James Bond easily. Great fun. SKYFALL did a pretty good job of trying to bring that deadpan back and I actually think Craig delivers those sorts of lines pretty well.

- another reason is due to Babs' need to shape Craig's Bond into a "Bond says stop poverty now" or "does it look like I give a damn" Bond that is often a far cry from Fleming's creation of a man whose rejection of postmodern society and norms is part of what makes him so interesting. He refuses to budge from the old school. He's a BIT like Steve Rogers in that regard.

With that being said, I think Craig is a great actor and a great Bond. He keeps him "Bond" enough for me to really enjoy CR and SF. I'd rank them in the top 10 of the series as well I think.

Based on its political agenda alone, however, Quantum of Solace is not a Bond film. Unfortunately there are several other reasons why it fails to fit the bill as well.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Casino Royale really shook me up in 2006, but I did not give up on the franchise until Skyfall. Barbara Broccoli took the series out of mild misogyny and comedy and into acute misandry and depression. James Bond couldn't win a fight, hold onto his gun or save a life in Skyfall. If he hadn't been in the movie at all, the outcome would not have changed. The villain would still prove him wrong, outsmart him in every contest, and His M(mother) would still tell him off, belittle him and then face her murderer alone. At that point I just had to give up on the Bond films. Great action and set pieces don't add up to a hill of beans when the characters are corrupted and the stories are depressing.

Damn them for giving the character some emotional depth and vulnerability. We can't have that. It's just slapping women around and killing the bad guy. That's all we need.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Xenia

- another reason is due to Babs' need to shape Craig's Bond into a "Bond says stop poverty now" or "does it look like I give a damn" Bond that is often a far cry from Fleming's creation of a man whose rejection of postmodern society and norms is part of what makes him so interesting. He refuses to budge from the old school. He's a BIT like Steve Rogers in that regard.

That's kind of how I see Craig's Bond - he's a man out of time. His Bond doesn't feel like a modern update in the way that Brosnan's did. It feels like a Bond that got plucked from the late 60's into a modern film, specifically in Casino Royale. There are constant references to him keeping it "old school" throughout his three films and the overall tone, especially of Royale is to keep it down and dirty, whether with the love interests or the action.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

Ironically, you are objectively wrong about there not being misogyny or bad puns/jokes in the 60s films.

Mysogyny maybe. I'm not sure any of it actively hateful of women, more just general sexism from the standards of the time mixed with male fantasy. Either way you want to define it I'm not bothered by it because I can see it as a product of its time.

Also "bad" puns are throughout the whole series, and part of what makes them enjoyable.

[Xenia]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Mysogyny maybe. I'm not sure any of it actively hateful of women, more just general sexism from the standards of the time mixed with male fantasy. Either way you want to define it I'm not bothered by it because I can see it as a product of its time.

Also "bad" puns are throughout the whole series, and part of what makes them enjoyable.

I agree with this. The male fantasy stuff is what Bond was sort of built on. If not literary Bond then DEFINITELY cinematic Bond.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Mysogyny maybe. I'm not sure any of it actively hateful of women, more just general sexism from the standards of the time mixed with male fantasy. Either way you want to define it I'm not bothered by it because I can see it as a product of its time.

Also "bad" puns are throughout the whole series, and part of what makes them enjoyable.

My point was that he's wrong there isn't any misogyny/sexism in the 60s films ("Man talk" *slaps woman's ass to get her to leave*) and he's especially wrong that there aren't any bad puns in those films ("He had lots of guts!")

I'm only rebutting his obviously false assertions, not criticizing these elements. They are what they are, products of the time. It's unintentionally funny to me now (some of it anyway) and Bond wouldn't be Bond without puns and jokes. These elements didn't just suddenly pop up in the 70s, as he claimed.

Originally Posted by Xenia

I agree with this. The male fantasy stuff is what Bond was sort of built on. If not literary Bond then DEFINITELY cinematic Bond.

Fleming's Bond was enormously sexist and definitely misogynist, much more so than any of the cinematic adaptations.

[Xenia]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

Fleming's Bond was enormously sexist and definitely misogynist, much more so than any of the cinematic adaptations.

I understand that but the 007 films have been, up until Barbara got ahold of the series, "mentertainment" if you will. Male fantasy stuff.

The novels were too but to a lesser extent whereas Bond was more overtly sexist

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Xenia

I understand that but the 007 films have been, up until Barbara got ahold of the series, "mentertainment" if you will. Male fantasy stuff.

The novels were too but to a lesser extent whereas Bond was more overtly sexist

I don't think you've read the novels.

[Xenia]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

I don't think you've read the novels.

I've read every Fleming novel. I guess cinema in general is a better avenue for the male fantasy stuff they went with for the films. Especially films like MOONRAKER with beautiful women EVERYWHERE and a film that is a far cry from the novel.

Bond was very sexist and misogynist in the novels. And he's perhaps less sexist and misogynist in the films but the films themselves, in my opinion, were more male fantasy material (simply because of the added visual element) up until like the late 80's / Brosnan era.

I was just having a hard time getting across what I meant. I never meant to deny Bond's sexism / misogyny in the original Fleming novels.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

My point was that he's wrong there isn't any misogyny/sexism in the 60s films ("Man talk" *slaps woman's ass to get her to leave*) and he's especially wrong that there aren't any bad puns in those films ("He had lots of guts!")

I'm only rebutting his obviously false assertions, not criticizing these elements. They are what they are, products of the time. It's unintentionally funny to me now (some of it anyway) and Bond wouldn't be Bond without puns and jokes. These elements didn't just suddenly pop up in the 70s, as he claimed.

Fair enough. I definitely grimace a bit during "man talk" and some other scenes, but I don't think it's outright misogyny. Slasher films are arguably more misogynistic, reveling in the violent punishment of women who don't fit society's ideal female behavior model.