SPECTRE Review Thread

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

Casino Royale is a really good, even great, spy action movie. But it is not a great Bond movie. I've talked about how it is "Bond Begins" and why they chose to strip away many elements that they gradually added throughout the movie until "The name's Bond... James Bond" became the final line. If we're disqualifying Licence to Kill, then Craig's movies will have to go as well.

I'm sorry, but Casino Royale is the movie that is most like the book and the Fleming Bond in general, so it is most definitely a great Bond film.

[Xenia]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

I'm sorry, but Casino Royale is the movie that is most like the book and the Fleming Bond in general, so it is most definitely a great Bond film.

I've always thought From Russia With Love captured the tone and atmosphere of Fleming the best. Terence Young in general, I suppose, but particularly FRWL.

I do like how Casino was adapted though for sure.

[Todd Tomorrow]

I don't care how authentic the Bond films are, as long as they are fun. The films carved out their own path and it's not like the books were literary masterpieces.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

I'm sorry, but Casino Royale is the movie that is most like the book and the Fleming Bond in general, so it is most definitely a great Bond film.

I disagree. The entire first hour is not in the book at all and neither is the Mr. White plot (although Le Chiffre is executed by his Soviet superiors in the book). Bond is also not a newbie in Fleming's version.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Still, Goldeneye is great and I personally think Tomorrow Never Dies is good. We got a couple good ones out of Pierce before the producers went nutty.

I enjoy those films immensely. Although TWINE isn't the best film (I like the mood and tone except when Denise Richards is on the screen), Brosnan is very good as 007 here. As mentioned before, his line "I never miss" is a great one.

Goldeneye was dark because it was originally written for Timothy Dalton but it works well for Brosnan too. I like the idea of him in an R-rated 007 film.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Tomorrow Never Dies is among my least favourite Bond films, maybe just above Quantum of Solace. It may just be the poorest in terms of characterisation. I quite like all the other Brosnan films.

[Infernal King]

All this Brosnan talk is making me want to rewatch Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies. I think I'll skip TWINE and DAD for obvious reasons. Not sure about Craig's films. Hmm...

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

In what way were Mendes and Craig moving in the right direction? Please explain.

True, Skyfall has less dialogue than Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace combined, and the silences are welcome. But James Bond keeps finding his gun useless. Once he throws it away. Later it gets taken away from him twice. He can't even hold onto his gun. Instead of dodging the first bullet, he steers the crane into it so that he gets shot. When he is wounded by friendly fire, he runs off to a beach and pouts like a baby. He has two chances to retrieve the computer chip listing MI.6 spies, and blows both chances. He can't win the fight on the train. He can't win the fight in the skyscraper. He can't win the fight in the Chinese casino. He promises to protect Severine, and then lets Silva kill her. He springs into action after she's been shot dead. Being captured is what Silva wants, so Bond facilitates that, bringing about the destruction and havoc on MI.6. Then he lets Silva escape in London. In trying to protect M, he unwittingly maneuvers her into position to be murdered. While she hides in the church expecting James Bond to defend her, he's busy not winning a fight in the lake. M faces her murderer alone because Bond isn't there to defend her.

If that's not bad enough, we are asked to cheer as the Aston Martin is shot to pieces to the tune of the James Bond Theme. The James Bond Theme has been withheld from the main action for three films, and when they finally use it, it's to glorify the destruction of an iconic symbol of the series. How fans can praise this scene as one of the great action scenes is beyond me.

Worse still, the opening title design pushes into Bond's bleeding wound until we are inside his guts. Then we are taken through a kaleidoscope of rot and decay, moving past headstones in a graveyard into a hall of mirrors where all Bond sees are reflections of himself as he shoots at vague shadows. In other words Bond is dead inside, the result of his own vanity and ego, a rotting decaying thing who has no relevance or legitimacy.

James Bond is portrayed as a total failure and a loser in Skyfall. Scene after scene is designed to show him as ineffectual. How is all this deconstruction and subversion moving in the right direction?

[SymbioticFunction]

Weirdest thing about Skyfall is how obviously influenced by Batman it appears to be. Not only the villain wanting to be caught as a part of his masterplan but the return to an orphan's ancestral home (complete with secret passage) with Albert Finney playing an "Alfred" role. And Bond's idea to take M there, unaccompanied by any other agents, was terrible - I'm not surprised she was killed.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

I'm sorry, but Casino Royale is the movie that is most like the book and the Fleming Bond in general, so it is most definitely a great Bond film.

The books are the books, the movies are a different animal. After 20+ movies over 50 years people have a very clear idea of what a "Bond movie" is.

[Xenia]

There's a definite difference between literary and cinematic Bond, you're right Velvet.

@Todd - Even though the books aren't "literary masterpieces" I do find Fleming's prose really great most of the time. He was a great writer. Certainly better than Benson.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

The books are the books, the movies are a different animal. After 20+ movies over 50 years people have a very clear idea of what a "Bond movie" is.

So in order to be a Bond movie it has to be the same thing over and over again? No deviation? No influence from anything else? It's just Goldfinger...for 50 years? Again and again? Please. I've been watching this franchise my whole life. I know what a god damn Bond movie is. Casino Royale is a Bond movie.

[Richard--W]

In name only. It uses the framework of the novel, but the characters and underlying motivations, the theme, are subverted into something else. Casino Royale may be an exciting film, but it is certainly not a Bond movie.

Since EON changed the internal makeup as well as the outer traditions they should have changed all the names as well. If they'd had the integrity to change all the names in accord with the new characterizations and the new theme of an autistic spy who needs to be taught on-the-job by his mother I'd have more respect for the film.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

So in order to be a Bond movie it has to be the same thing over and over again? No deviation? No influence from anything else? It's just Goldfinger...for 50 years? Again and again? Please. I've been watching this franchise my whole life. I know what a god damn Bond movie is. Casino Royale is a Bond movie.

You make the really sideways counter-arguments sometimes. You said Casino Royale is the most like the book and I was saying the books and movies have always been very different, so that being like the book doesn't make it the truest Bond movie. Being a good "Bond movie" is a totally different thing from being most like the books.

I never said they had to be the same thing over and over. They never have been, every era has major differences. Some movies here and there, like Licence to Kill and Quantum of Solace, have gotten justifiable heat for being not "Bond movie" enough. I think Casino Royale falls into that camp as well, at least partially, but it was trying to be a prequel so it's understandable. With Quantum of Solace it was much less so.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

In name only. It uses the framework of the novel, but the characters and underlying motivations, the theme, are subverted into something else. Casino Royale may be an exciting film, but it is certainly not a Bond movie.

Since EON changed the internal makeup as well as the outer traditions they should have changed all the names as well. If they'd had the integrity to change all the names in accord with the new characterizations and the new theme of an autistic spy who needs to be taught on-the-job by his mother I'd have more respect for the film.

Your ideas about the Bond franchise are ludicrous and down right false in most respects. I feel sorry for you.

[Canada]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

I disagree. The entire first hour is not in the book at all and neither is the Mr. White plot (although Le Chiffre is executed by his Soviet superiors in the book). Bond is also not a newbie in Fleming's version.

You never get told how long Bond was an agent before he got his 00. M says " I knew it was too early to promote you" implying to me at least he had been an agent for a while.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Your ideas about the Bond franchise are ludicrous and down right false in most respects. I feel sorry for you.

My information is factual and my views are shared by people who know better. I feel sorry for you that are unable to comprehend what you watch.

By all means enjoy the current "Bond" films and look forward to the 24th, but for you to deny the obvious is just childish.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

I disagree. The entire first hour is not in the book at all and neither is the Mr. White plot (although Le Chiffre is executed by his Soviet superiors in the book). Bond is also not a newbie in Fleming's version.

We found something to agree on.

True, Bond is not a newbie in the novel Casino Royale. He's obviously been an agent for awhile, but falling in love was new to him. In the last chapter as we read his thought process he comes to certain realizations, in part about women spies and the cost of spying that brings us back to the first page's reference to "soul erosion." One gets the impression there is a maturation in Bond and a steeling of his resolve, together with bitterness and grief. His last words reveal just how much Vesper's behavior and death have impacted him.

The film should have opened liked the book, with the card game, and ended with the words "The bi tch is dead now." Hold on his expression for a moment and fade to black.

[Talzin78]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

My information is factual and my views are shared by people who know better. .

Wait...who are These People?

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

My information is factual and my views are shared by people who know better. I feel sorry for you that are unable to comprehend what you watch.

By all means enjoy the current "Bond" films and look forward to the 24th, but for you to deny the obvious is just childish.