SPECTRE Review Thread

[jayman3]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

I think

[Show spoiler]M

told him to

[Show spoiler]on the video

.

I don't know, all I remember is

[Show spoiler]M told him "kill this guy who wronged me and go to his funereal."

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by jayman3

I don't know, all I remember is

[Show spoiler]M told him "kill this guy who wronged me and go to his funereal."

Doesn't he see Sciarro

[Show spoiler]show his ring to the two men in the room while he's spying on them from the adjacent rooftop

?

[TheProf89]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Doesn't he see Sciarro

[Show spoiler]show his ring to the two men in the room while he's spying on them from the adjacent rooftop

?

Yep he does. Bond sees Sciarro show the ring and immediately knows that this will be his in.

[jayman3]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Doesn't he see Sciarro

[Show spoiler]show his ring to the two men in the room while he's spying on them from the adjacent rooftop

?

Yeah...there was some talk about

[Show spoiler]The Pale King.

Okay, that makes sense now that Bond will know that ring will be his next lead.

[Al_The_Strange]

Saw the movie last Tuesday and didn't see that much wrong with it. Despite being a bit long, it's just what I expected from a Bond flick. With the way people were talking, I was expecting a right bloody mess.

One problem I see that sticks out the more I think about it is

[Show spoiler]understanding Blofeld's motivation. Yes, he has that personal stake with Bond, but I find it harder and harder to accept that he ran all of SPECTRE and purposefully disrupted MI6 just to get some revenge against Bond, just because he was the stepbrother who didn't get what he wanted all the time. In the originals, Blofeld ran all his ops to purposefully extort money, power, and influence on all the world powers, and only meddled with Bond and MI6 because they got in the way - here, it feels reversed, and it doesn't seem right to me logically. The film - and the Craig series overall - might make more sense if they nailed the motivations better and explain why it is that Blofeld felt compelled to kick off SPECTRE and become a supervillain.

Other than that, I think the big twist with that character was predictable, with or without the Sony hacks. I could take it or leave it. In general, I was pretty happy with the rest of the plot - I love how it drew various connections to the last three, and the film ends in a way that makes the whole Craig series feel complete.

On top of that, I think there are various other nods to the older films (like having the bombs set at 3 minutes, like in GoldenEye, or the boat coming out of the MI6 building like in TWINE, and I forget what else).

This is a notably dark and drab film. Even though I do favor how colorful and sunny CR and QoS look, and how sharp Skyfall looks, I think this scheme fits SPECTRE fine on its own merits.

Comedy wasn't really a huge standout imo - there are cute moments, but nothing that really screamed camp to me personally. I don't think any comparisons to the Moore era are warranted - this might be more Brosnan or Dalton type of camp, but for Craig I never felt that any of it was too out-of-place.

Craig felt much more Bond-like in this one than in all the others. His performance in the other three films are quite brusque, which I never minded, but something about the dialogue and delivery seems much more in-line with the previous actors. I found it all the more enjoyable that way.

One minor nitpick - I wish the movie didn't open with the words "the dead are alive." I think it's an unnecessary flourish - it would have been punchier if it just cut straight to the opening shot.

Glad to see the opening gun barrel sequence restored. The more I listen to the theme song, the more okay I am with it, but I'm still not a fan of the vocals and how low-tempo it is. The credits sequence is awesome.

Overall, I'd grade this a 4/5. For me personally, it's on the same level as FYEO, TND, Thunderball, or Licence to Kill. Not sure if I'd rank it higher than QoS (because that's a big guilty pleasure for me), but I do like Skyfall and CR better.

[reaperx187]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Saw the movie last Tuesday and didn't see that much wrong with it. Despite being a bit long, it's just what I expected from a Bond flick. With the way people were talking, I was expecting a right bloody mess.

One problem I see that sticks out the more I think about it is

[Show spoiler]understanding Blofeld's motivation. Yes, he has that personal stake with Bond, but I find it harder and harder to accept that he ran all of SPECTRE and purposefully disrupted MI6 just to get some revenge against Bond, just because he was the stepbrother who didn't get what he wanted all the time. In the originals, Blofeld ran all his ops to purposefully extort money, power, and influence on all the world powers, and only meddled with Bond and MI6 because they got in the way - here, it feels reversed, and it doesn't seem right to me logically. The film - and the Craig series overall - might make more sense if they nailed the motivations better and explain why it is that Blofeld felt compelled to kick off SPECTRE and become a supervillain.

Other than that, I think the big twist with that character was predictable, with or without the Sony hacks. I could take it or leave it. In general, I was pretty happy with the rest of the plot - I love how it drew various connections to the last three, and the film ends in a way that makes the whole Craig series feel complete.

On top of that, I think there are various other nods to the older films (like having the bombs set at 3 minutes, like in GoldenEye, or the boat coming out of the MI6 building like in TWINE, and I forget what else).

This is a notably dark and drab film. Even though I do favor how colorful and sunny CR and QoS look, and how sharp Skyfall looks, I think this scheme fits SPECTRE fine on its own merits.

Comedy wasn't really a huge standout imo - there are cute moments, but nothing that really screamed camp to me personally. I don't think any comparisons to the Moore era are warranted - this might be more Brosnan or Dalton type of camp, but for Craig I never felt that any of it was too out-of-place.

Craig felt much more Bond-like in this one than in all the others. His performance in the other three films are quite brusque, which I never minded, but something about the dialogue and delivery seems much more in-line with the previous actors. I found it all the more enjoyable that way.

One minor nitpick - I wish the movie didn't open with the words "the dead are alive." I think it's an unnecessary flourish - it would have been punchier if it just cut straight to the opening shot.

Glad to see the opening gun barrel sequence restored. The more I listen to the theme song, the more okay I am with it, but I'm still not a fan of the vocals and how low-tempo it is. The credits sequence is awesome.

Overall, I'd grade this a 4/5. For me personally, it's on the same level as FYEO, TND, Thunderball, or Licence to Kill. Not sure if I'd rank it higher than QoS (because that's a big guilty pleasure for me), but I do like Skyfall and CR better.

I pretty much agree with everything said here i enjoyed it for the most part and even though it was a long film run time it actually didn't feel like it though.

[jayman3]

Originally Posted by reaperx187

I pretty much agree with everything said here i enjoyed it for the most part and even though it was a long film run time it actually didn't feel like it though.

Let me tell you, after they made it to North Africa and when

[Show spoiler]the Spectre HQ blew up, I thought that was the ending.

But I was wrong for it went on for another 30 minutes which could have been it's own movie.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by jayman3

Let me tell you, after they made it to North Africa and when

[Show spoiler]the Spectre HQ blew up, I thought that was the ending.

But I was wrong for it went on for another 30 minutes which could have been it's own movie.

You thought the movie was over even though Bond

[Show spoiler]tells Madeleine "it isn't over yet"? The C situation still had to be resolved.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by jayman3

Let me tell you, after they made it to North Africa and when

[Show spoiler]the Spectre HQ blew up, I thought that was the ending.

But I was wrong for it went on for another 30 minutes which could have been it's own movie.

So long as they resolve

[Show spoiler]the subplot with C

, the movie could have certainly ended sooner and let

[Show spoiler]Blofeld escape to come back in the next movie

. I'm pretty happy as it is now though - we get great closure all-around.

They could still make another movie with

[Show spoiler]Blofeld returning. I actually think it would be awesome if they open the next movie with SPECTRE people intercepting the prison van holding Blofeld while it's on the move, the same way they did in Licence to Kill. If he escapes, we could have another set of conspiracies and mind games for Bond to tackle.

See, the next movie writes itself.

[jayman3]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

You thought the movie was over even though Bond

[Show spoiler]tells Madeleine "it isn't over yet"? The C situation still had to be resolved.

Oh, it wasn't until after he said that I fully realized the movie continued on. That was a very meta moment in the movie.

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

So long as they resolve

[Show spoiler]the subplot with C

, the movie could have certainly ended sooner and let

[Show spoiler]Blofeld escape to come back in the next movie

. I'm pretty happy as it is now though - we get great closure all-around.

They could still make another movie with

[Show spoiler]Blofeld returning. I actually think it would be awesome if they open the next movie with SPECTRE people intercepting the prison van holding Blofeld while it's on the move, the same way they did in Licence to Kil. If he escapes, we could have another set of conspiracies and mind games for Bond to tackle.

See, the next movie writes itself.

I certainly hope so too. There had to of been a reason for Bond

[Show spoiler]to keep Blofeld alive.

It'd be a shame if

[Show spoiler]Waltz doesn't return; otherwise his role would be a glorified cameo.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by jayman3

I certainly hope so too. There had to of been a reason for Bond

[Show spoiler]to keep Blofeld alive.

It'd be a shame if

[Show spoiler]Waltz doesn't return; otherwise his role would be a glorified cameo.

[Show spoiler]Blofeld

will definitely be back. They just got the rights back to

[Show spoiler]SPECTRE and Blofeld

, you can be damn sure they're gonna use them. And I know I said this earlier, but seemed pretty clear from the ending that

[Show spoiler]the next one could/should be some sort of OHMSS remake

.

[Show spoiler]Blofeld

isn't done with Bond yet.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by FilmKoala

Who was saying that? The credit sequence was great, combining the octopus representing SPECTRE with silhouettes of naked women, which is a Bond credit staple. It's probably my favorite sequence among all of Craig's films.

I lol'd when one critic said the opening made her think of

[Show spoiler]tentacle porn

.

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Saw it tonight. I kind of hated it. Like, I didn't just not like it, I kind of had a really negative emotional reaction. That's probably uncalled for and maybe I was just in a bad mood, but I do think it's a total failure of a movie.

First off, whoever edited this thing needs a swift kick in the bean-bag. It's at least 30 minutes too long for the story and had a ton of meaningless scenes. Also it didn't flow well at all, and felt stitched together. More on Mendes, but other than the opening (amazing) sequence, the rest of the action felt very poorly put together and uninteresting. People complain about Quantum's Borne style shaky-cam, and I agree it sucks, but at least that movie had interesting sequences.

The plot was terrible. They're stuck now in this place where they feel they have to match Casino Royale's tone, realism and personal stakes, but they also want to do a classic Bond movie and don't really have good personal stakes plots. It's a total mish-mash and doesn't work at all for me. Trying to be deep it feels cumbersome and contrived, trying to be serious it just feels joyless, trying to be dark and gritty it just feels repetitive to the three before it and every other modern action film. It's not Bond, and it's not Casino Royale's excellent spy movie either, it's just kind of there. Don;t even get me started on the terrible villain.

If the next Bond movie is another Craig one with the same kind of tone I think I'll wait for blu-ray. I'm just so f'ing bored of it at this point I can't stand it, and this time it wasn't a good movie either. A double-whammy of shit; not Bond enough AND not good. Same thing happened with Star Trek: Into Darkness.

Sedoux is damn pretty though, and that opening in Mexico was amazing. Wish it was in front of a better film. I even liked the song.

Would you say it retroactively makes any of Craig's three previous films worse? That's what I'm a tiny bit worried about. Like, if I rewatch Casino Royale, I'll have to think of the Spectre connections, etc.

I missed my chance to see this yesterday.

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

[Show spoiler]Blofeld

will definitely be back. They just got the rights back to

[Show spoiler]SPECTRE and Blofeld

, you can be damn sure they're gonna use them. And I know I said this earlier, but seemed pretty clear from the ending that

[Show spoiler]the next one could/should be some sort of OHMSS remake

.

[Show spoiler]Blofeld

isn't done with Bond yet.

If the next one is some sort of

[Show spoiler]OHMSS remake,

wouldn't that make it predictable and ultimately inferior to the film it's ripping off/remaking?

[Infernal King]

Intriguing, well-written, crazy theory about the Spectre ending:

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/11/10/spectre-ending

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

If the next one is some sort of

[Show spoiler]OHMSS remake,

wouldn't that make it predictable and ultimately inferior to the film it's ripping off/remaking?

Remake mainly in the sense of

[Show spoiler]OHMSS's ending

. Ideally the next film will delve more into

[Show spoiler]Blofeld/Bond's childhood relationship

and give better motivation to why

[Show spoiler]Blofeld hates Bond so much

, and have

[Show spoiler]Blofeld

escape and kill

[Show spoiler]Swann

(with

[Show spoiler]IRMA BUNT???

) by maybe halfway through the movie, so we can get the revenge-fueled Bond that DAF should've been and QoS kinda sorta was but not really. There are a lot of different ways they can go in terms of remake/re-imagining without being a beat-for-beat redo of a movie we've already seen. That's kinda why I'm so intrigued. SPECTRE, for all its faults, has kinda set up some interesting directions subsequent movies can go in.

EDIT: the EW link you posted is epic. I highly doubt that this theory is what the filmmakers were going for, but it's a brilliant way of looking at the movie.

[Cliff]

Originally Posted by lemonski

Good grief, did you miss the part

[Show spoiler]where he pours the vodka on the floor? He knows there is something special about the room because White keeps coming back there after he splits up with his wife. It's perfectly reasonable to be a hidden room, it couldn't be anything in the open otherwise anyone staying there might have found it, and he needed somewhere to do his satellite image searching. You must have also missed the part where Bond tears apart the whole room and finds nothing and is sitting on the sofa, resigned to failure. It didn't necessarily have to be a hidden room to get him from point A to point B in the plot, but what they chose provides an obstacle that required some ingenuity on Bond's part. It's certainly not a stupid convenience.

You're right... maybe it's just stupid.

[Show spoiler]Look, I spilled a glass of water in the kitchen and it ran under the refrigerator. I never thought to tear the fridge and wall out to find a secret room. Had they had Bond walk up to the wall and notice a faint shadow where he could deduce that the wall had been covered over I would have bought into. But having Bond punch through a hotel wall because he realized there's space between walls (which is pretty much common knowledge anyway) was the least logical motivation next to just guessing (which is pretty much what this was). There are 100 smarter ways he could have figured this out. They chose the dumbest.

And bottom line, if I don't believe the logic behind how he did something, then it's a failure... at least where I am concerned. Other people might be willing to buy into it and that's fine. But I saw everything you did and it lacked the fundamental logic I needed to believe it. Therefore, in my eyes... it's stupid. The massive amount of digital ink in just the past 7 days devoted to SPECTRE's MASSIVE flaws proves I'm not alone.

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Hinx wasn't hired, he himself is

[Show spoiler]a member of SPECTRE who just wants Bond out of the way for interfering too many times (and to settle unfinished business from Rome). I don't think Blofeld ever hired him or told him to go after Bond; that was just Hinx doing his own thing. And besides, I don't think Blofeld would have complained if Hinx had been successful and actually killed Bond before he ever reached Tangier.

Except

[Show spoiler]Blofeld WAS essentially SPECTRE. Given that so much of SPECTRE's mission statement straight from the mouth of Blofeld was to destroy Bond's life, it seems stupid to me to suggest that there was some degree of autonomy within SPECTRE to go off book and do whatever you want with Bond. Hinx was an enforcer for SPECTRE. He's muscle. IF, as you suggest, Hinx was just doing his own thing and out for revenge over Rome, then that's just another failure of the script as it makes that in no way clear. Hinx just shows up to kill Bond and Swan on their way to Blofeld and nothing more is mentioned. LAZY.

[GC Riot]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

Intriguing, well-written, crazy theory about the Spectre ending:

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/11/10/spectre-ending

So... basically Repo Men then?

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Remake mainly in the sense of

[Show spoiler]OHMSS's ending

. Ideally the next film will delve more into

[Show spoiler]Blofeld/Bond's childhood relationship

and give better motivation to why

[Show spoiler]Blofeld hates Bond so much

, and have

[Show spoiler]Blofeld

escape and kill

[Show spoiler]Swann

(with

[Show spoiler]IRMA BUNT???

) by maybe halfway through the movie, so we can get the revenge-fueled Bond that DAF should've been and QoS kinda sorta was but not really. There are a lot of different ways they can go in terms of remake/re-imagining without being a beat-for-beat redo of a movie we've already seen. That's kinda why I'm so intrigued. SPECTRE, for all its faults, has kinda set up some interesting directions subsequent movies can go in.

EDIT: the EW link you posted is epic. I highly doubt that this theory is what the filmmakers were going for, but it's a brilliant way of looking at the movie.

In that case, it might turn out decent but it still feels like an attempt to right the wrongs of both Spectre and

[Show spoiler]Diamonds Are Forever.

The one thing

[Show spoiler]OHMSS

is remembered for is its ending, so in a way, that would still feel predictable, even if it happened midway through.

How would you feel about Spectre if it's never followed up on by future entries, or followed up on poorly/briefly? It sounds like you're liking it more for the possibilities it's set up and expecting that the lack of character/plot explanation will be covered in a sequel.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Except

[Show spoiler]Blofeld WAS essentially SPECTRE. Given that so much of SPECTRE's mission statement straight from the mouth of Blofeld was to destroy Bond's life, it seems stupid to me to suggest that there was some degree of autonomy within SPECTRE to go off book and do whatever you want with Bond. Hinx was an enforcer for SPECTRE. He's muscle. IF, as you suggest, Hinx was just doing his own thing and out for revenge over Rome, then that's just another failure of the script as it makes that in no way clear. Hinx just shows up to kill Bond and Swan on their way to Blofeld and nothing more is mentioned. LAZY.

SPECTRE's mission isn't specifically to just ruin Bond's life;

[Show spoiler]Blofeld

has a personal vendetta against Bond (the explanation of which is flimsy, at best), but he's mainly using SPECTRE as a way of

[Show spoiler]manipulating world events and creating an omnipresent evil surveillance organization that he can do nefarious Bond villain-y things with

. There's no reason for Hinx or any other member to not have autonomy, and frankly, Bond has been nothing by a fly in the ointment. I don't see why the script has to spell out that Hinx is going after Bond on his own for being a thorn in SPECTRE's side; we are never shown (nor need to be shown) Hinx receiving orders or being encouraged to go after Bond.

Originally Posted by Infernal King

In that case, it might turn out decent but it still feels like an attempt to right the wrongs of both Spectre and

[Show spoiler]Diamonds Are Forever.

The one thing

[Show spoiler]OHMSS

is remembered for is its ending, so in a way, that would still feel predictable, even if it happened midway through.

How would you feel about Spectre if it's never followed up on by future entries, or followed up on poorly/briefly? It sounds like you're liking it more for the possibilities it's set up and expecting that the lack of character/plot explanation will be covered in a sequel.

Oh I said it before - if the next Bond movie doesn't resolve the

[Show spoiler]Bond/Swann "romance"

and doesn't go deeper into the

[Show spoiler]Bond/Blofeld relationship (which I know means going back into Bond Begins territory, but in this case I think it would be worth it)

, then SPECTRE definitely suffers in my eyes. The whole last 45-60 minutes would be a complete disaster if they're not helped by the next movie.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

SPECTRE's mission isn't specifically to just ruin Bond's life;

[Show spoiler]Blofeld

has a personal vendetta against Bond (the explanation of which is flimsy, at best), but he's mainly using SPECTRE as a way of

[Show spoiler]manipulating world events and creating an omnipresent evil surveillance organization that he can do nefarious Bond villain-y things with

. There's no reason for Hinx or any other member to not have autonomy, and frankly, Bond has been nothing by a fly in the ointment. I don't see why the script has to spell out that Hinx is going after Bond on his own for being a thorn in SPECTRE's side; we are never shown (nor need to be shown) Hinx receiving orders or being encouraged to go after Bond.



Oh I said it before - if the next Bond movie doesn't resolve the

[Show spoiler]Bond/Swann "romance"

and doesn't go deeper into the

[Show spoiler]Bond/Blofeld relationship (which I know means going back into Bond Begins territory, but in this case I think it would be worth it)

, then SPECTRE definitely suffers in my eyes. The whole last 45-60 minutes would be a complete disaster if they're not helped by the next movie.

Is Spectre/SPECTRE/whatever more of the Bond Begins territory, despite the attempt to add more humor? Because it still deals with

[Show spoiler]his childhood and the trauma caused by the past three movies,

which are all part of his Bond Begins arc.

I have a feeling that the only chance we'll have at breaking free of Bond Begins entirely is for them to recast the role. It feels specifically tied to Craig's version of the character and I can't see them continuing it with another actor.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

Is Spectre/SPECTRE/whatever more of the Bond Begins territory, despite the attempt to add more humor? Because it still deals with

[Show spoiler]his childhood and the trauma caused by the past three movies,

which are all part of his Bond Begins arc.

I have a feeling that the only chance we'll have at breaking free of Bond Begins entirely is for them to recast the role. It feels specifically tied to Craig's version of the character and I can't see them continuing it with another actor.

It's got far less to do with Bond Begins than the trailers let on. Really just the scenes where

[Show spoiler]Moneypenny brings Bond the recovered stuff from Skyfall (the dialogue in that scene consists of lines that sound great in a trailer but fall totally flat in context for some reason), Bond infiltrating the SPECTRE meeting in Rome, and then Blofeld revealing himself to Bond and his whole "why I did this" monologue during the torture scene

. Other than that, it's pretty much a straightforward Bond mission with the occasional dip back into some of Craig's previous movies, but that's all part of the ongoing mission/mystery anyway.

And to your last point - I agree, but I kinda like it that way. I wouldn't want Craig to say SPECTRE is his last movie, and then have another actor come in and finish out this Bond Begins arc, complete with the

[Show spoiler]Swann and Blofeld

stuff that may or may not be carried over from this movie. It wouldn't feel right. Let Craig do one more movie and wrap all this stuff up as nice and neat as possible, and then move onto the OO7th actor.