SPECTRE Review Thread

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

I went to see Skyfall with one of my friends, who is actually a real Bond fan (like myself). I liked it (didnt love it - I admit) but he hated it. He just said it was really boring and didn't feel or sound like a Bond film.

I think what they are doing now with Bond is that they are actually trying to produce a critically acclaimed film, which I don't think they really have done in the past. John Glen, whilst a competent director, is no David Lynch or The Coen Brothers, however he made some solid films. I think they are trying to give Bond more credibility in terms of being a respectable film, hiring respected cinematographers/directors etc. In that past the modus operandi was, get some girls, some gadgets, a hammy villain and let Bond play with it. Now it seems like they want to actually get to know Bond, explore his past etc, which I don't think sits very well with people who want Bond to be throw away entertainment.

I guess the box office doesn't lie though and the takings for Skyfall have to be an endorsement in how the audience feels about the direction of the franchise.

I'm not sure what consists of a real Bond fan, but I've read the books, and I've seen all the films on multiple occasions. The Craig series for me is best one since the Connery days, in my opinion, and I think learning about Bond has made the character much better. It adds a much needed layer to his character that is rarely explored. We've seen it in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and that was really one of the few times we were emotionally invested in Bond because we cared about his plight. That kind of thing makes the character stronger. Bond is much more than a throwaway action hero, so I respect the producers for trying to make sure of that. By fleshing out his past, delving into his insecurities, emotionally breaking him, and really just pushing Bond through the wringer, we get a much more defined and well rounded character. It's great, and it creates a much more complex characterization, because filmgoers like heroes with substance, we don't want just flash, bang, boom anymore. I adore the original films, but this direction works just as well as it ever did, and honestly makes the series all the better for it.

[Xenia]

I do think the character building of CASINO ROYALE really helps to "build up" the previous entries in the series. It's a great film that shows why Bond is the way he is (aloof, dismissive, steely and suave, etc.) in the rest of the films.

[Luke B.]

Casino Royale and Skyfall are my favs, along with Goldfinger.
Also, I didn't watched the 23 films yet, but, I absolutely love these three.

[Infernal King]

I don't like Craig as Bond, I don't like his films and I don't like nearly everything they tried to do with them. In fact, I used to be a HUGE Bond fan before Casino Royale. Now, my interest in the series is at an all-time low and I can't even watch most of the films anymore. I'm in the minority of people who just don't enjoy the direction this series has taken.

As far as I'm concerned, all the Bond series was ever meant to be is witty escapism. A film like Moonraker succeeds in this regard. Stick that in your martini and shake it.

Also, sorry Xenia, but I really hate Thunderball. For me, it doesn't even approach the heights of From Russia With Love and Goldfinger (which were the Bond franchise at its peak and the two films where Connery's performance was legitimately great).

I posted my thoughts in the UO thread on the following Bond movies being overrated but what the hell, I'll do it here too:

Dr. No, Thunderball, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only, Casino Royale, Skyfall

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

I posted my thoughts in the UO thread on the following Bond movies being overrated but what the hell, I'll do it here too:

Dr. No, Thunderball, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only, Casino Royale, Skyfall

I love all of these (with the exception of Skyfall which, as much as I like, is a bit overrated).

Meanie.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

I love all of these (with the exception of Skyfall which, as much as I like, is a bit overrated).

Meanie.

I have some really impassioned reasons for thinking they all need to be taken down several pegs but I'll withhold them so as not to rub salt into the wound.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

I don't like Craig as Bond, I don't like his films and I don't like nearly everything they tried to do with them. In fact, I used to be a HUGE Bond fan before Casino Royale. Now, my interest in the series is at an all-time low and I can't even watch most of the films anymore. I'm in the minority of people who just don't enjoy the direction this series has taken.

As far as I'm concerned, all the Bond series was ever meant to be is witty escapism. A film like Moonraker succeeds in this regard. Stick that in your martini and shake it.

I more or less agree. I still enjoy Casino Royale as a spy film though, it's just not a good Bond film. I don't think Quantum or Skyfall are good anything.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I more or less agree. I still enjoy Casino Royale as a spy film though, it's just not a good Bond film. I don't think Quantum or Skyfall are good anything.

If Casino Royale were not a Bond film, I'd probably enjoy it more but still wouldn't be over the moon about it.

I laughed at "I don't think Quantum or Skyfall are good anything".

[Xenia]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

Also, sorry Xenia, but I really hate Thunderball. For me, it doesn't even approach the heights of From Russia With Love and Goldfinger (which were the Bond franchise at its peak and the two films where Connery's performance was legitimately great).

It's all good man. As I mentioned somewhere else those first 4 Connery films are arguably my favorite.

Nice to see some MOONRAKER love as well.

[AKORIS]

there's no such thing as "an overrated Bond film"....

there's no such thing as "a bad Bond film"....


that is all.

[Infernal King]

I think the main problem people have with Moonraker is that it's a comedy first and foremost (but not a parody; a crucial distinction). That's not what's expected, appreciated or even enjoyed by a lot of Bond fans, particularly those who prefer the more serious entries, or more conventional spy thrillers in general.

[jscoggins]

With regards to Thunderball, some people feel that Never Say Never Again was a better version of that story.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

With regards to Thunderball, some people feel that Never Say Never Again was a better version of that story.

I've only seen Never Say Never Again once, way back in my childhood, so these people will have to speak up and say why.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

I've only seen Never Say Never Again once, way back in my childhood, so these people will have to speak up and say why.

You can see for yourself while someone is still selling it for cheap:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=256648

It's been OOP for a while, and people were paying around $100 for it.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

You can see for yourself while someone is still selling it for cheap:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=256648

It's been OOP for a while, and people were paying around $100 for it.

How disgusting.

[SymbioticFunction]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

With regards to Thunderball, some people feel that Never Say Never Again was a better version of that story.

Ugh. I haven't read the book but NSNA certainly isn't a better film. I personally choose not to own it. btw Did Sean Connery just agree to it out of spite?

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

Ugh. I haven't read the book but NSNA certainly isn't a better film. I personally choose not to own it. btw Did Sean Connery just agree to it out of spite?

I'm guessing it was another "agree to it solely because of the paycheck" situation like with Diamonds Are Forever.

[WilsonBros]

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

Ugh. I haven't read the book but NSNA certainly isn't a better film. I personally choose not to own it.

No doubt PETA applauds your decision, too...

NSNA suffers from lethargic pacing and the lack of some intrinsic elements from the official movies. Oh, and Rowan Atkinson.

[Tekka]

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

Ugh. I haven't read the book but NSNA certainly isn't a better film. I personally choose not to own it. btw Did Sean Connery just agree to it out of spite?

Spite was one of the primary reasons. Connery has been well known for holding MASSIVE grudges against people and he had massive grudges against the people he worked with on the original bond films.

[Xenia]

What's so interesting about DIAMONDS is that he gave his entire paycheck to charity. Everyone always cites that as "the role he just took for the paycheck" but I'm not entirely sure.

Connery was definitely not happy with Cubby and Harry because, as the Bond films became more successful, the producers were making considerably more without compensating him as proportionately. So yeah, NSNA was probably a grudge move, but then again, there was some interview stating that Moore was almost in NSNA and vice versa.

Also an interesting tidbit (and in support of MOONRAKER's quality as a film) is that, for all of its levity and humor, MOONRAKER contains perhaps the most affecting death scene in the entire series (Corrinne's death). That was also one of the last Bond films with a truly MASSIVE scope, and I love it for it.

John Barry's score for that film is perfect. Ethereal. The man was a god.