Spectre: Discussion

PaulWrightyThen

PaulWrightyThen

IOTM Winner
Hi Guys,

Just saw Spectre last night.

While the opening scene was great and a definite series highlight, did anyone else leave the cinema a bit underwhelmed?

I really wanted it to be great. It looked great, another really well shot movie, it was just 'meh' for me.

What a shame.

Be good to get a few different opinions on it.

Paul
 
I haven't seen the movie yet but based from friend's reaction it seems like there's nothing spectacular about the movie aside from the main man Daniel Craig who is as snappy and good looking as ever. My friend is a girl btw :yes:
 
I saw it, today. I went in after reading IMDB reviews, which tempered my expectations. The result? I enjoyed every minute of it. However, Christoph Waltz, who is almost always fun to watch, didn't seem like the best fit for the role. He's not a physical guy, so he's an ultra-smart villian (Blofeld), but he isn't terribly exciting. He lacked the sadistic overtness that makes other villains engaging. I blame the casting and writing.

Craig is good, as always. So were Q, M, C and Dave Bautista's character. Again, I was expecting the movie to be boring, after the awesome opening, but there was pleny of fighting, chasing and sneaking around. I felt this was on par with SKYFALL, but I need to see that movie again. It felt similar, probably because Sam Mendes directed both. I liked it better than QUANTUM OF SOLACE.
 
PaulWrightyThen said:
Hi Guys,

Just saw Spectre last night.

While the opening scene was great and a definite series highlight, did anyone else leave the cinema a bit underwhelmed?

I really wanted it to be great. It looked great, another really well shot movie, it was just 'meh' for me.

What a shame.

Be good to get a few different opinions on it.

Paul
Click to expand...

I would agree. It was a typical Bond film, but it had no surprises or twists to entertain the viewer. That said, it had the required exotic locales, which is what makes a film fun - as I now realize.
 
It was okay. I felt like it was sort of rehashing the exact same themes that Skyfall dealt with (00 program is a the edge of obsolescence etc.), but not handling them that well. Christoph Waltz, who is usually brilliant, was a bit of a disappointment, as well. Opening was cool, though.
 
Felt it tried to force itself into narrative of the other films with no build up other than "we SAY Waltz was involved."

So it doesn't come as a big OMG! Its more like, 'oh, that happened eh?'

Sad, as I really wanted to love it.
 
To get back to a discussion I just had, a movie should not focus on the fancy special effects or the exotic locales; its primary focus must be the story, and the sights and sounds are the means of conveying that story - in other words, the story comes first.
 
The best James Bond film this year was Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation.

Seriously, Tom Cruise was great, and Rebecca Ferguson was leagues ahead of Lea Seydoux in Spectre. Not just in acting chops and presence. But the character of Ilsya Faust was sooooo much more interesting. In fact, I would argue that Ilysa Faust drove the plot of Rogue Nation far more than Ethan Hunt. I mean, between Rogue Nation and Mad Max, haven't we proven that you can have a pretty bad ass male hero and an equally complex and bad ass heroine. One doesn't have to cancel the other out.

To be fair, the Bond series got to that area a little faster (Casino Royale's Vespa) but the franchise template seems to have prevented further development of that, in fact it seems to have squashed it completely.

Spectre wants to have its cake and eat it to, but everybody goes hungry when the cake falls on the floor halfway through.

I agree with folks on here that Christoph Waltz was really underutilized. I didn't know if he was directed that way, or if it was the decision he made about his performance, but, wow, after Javier Bardem's performance in Skyfall, this was really muted performance.

The whole last portion of the film seemed rushed and slapped together as if tying the Craig films up into a unified series was a last minute decision that they worked under the ticking clock of the release date to realize.
 
Aspiring Mogul said:
a movie should not focus on the fancy special effects or the exotic locales; its primary focus must be the story, and the sights and sounds are the means of conveying that story - in other words, the story comes first.
Click to expand...

No! Or at least "No!" for a commercial producer or Aspiring Mogul. Entertainment is always the primary focus, period. The story, along with every other aspect of filmmaking, is just a means to that end. It doesn't need to be a particularly good story, it just needs to be a good vehicle to aid the creation of good film entertainment. In other words, a story which presents the opportunity for entertaining film storytelling.

G
 
AudioPostExpert said:
No! Or at least "No!" for a commercial producer or Aspiring Mogul. Entertainment is always the primary focus, period. The story, along with every other aspect of filmmaking, is just a means to that end. It doesn't need to be a particularly good story, it just needs to be a good vehicle to aid the creation of good film entertainment. In other words, a story which presents the opportunity for entertaining film storytelling.

G
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I will now change my focus to say ...

Entertainment is the second most important focus, but safety (for cast and crew) must come first. The story, along with the scenery, will be means towards that end. With that in mind, however, I will focus on the market niche where the audience wants a story that entertains them with thought experiments, as in "what if there is warp drive?"

Thanks, APE. :)
 
I loved that opening scene and felt that this was going to be really good but while I did enjoy it, it didn't quite hit the mark. Also, I completely understood the plot, which may sound a bit odd but usually I don't quite get what's going on but everything else makes up for it and I walk away thinking 'what just happened'. With this one, while I know what happened, it didn't happen quite as spectacularly as I'd hoped. Also, I don't really want too much reality in my Bond films. I don't want to know that the 00 program is ending, or that he had a difficult childhood.
I also wanted the villain to be....more.
 
I enjoyed every second of the film and felt like each of the Craig films have been building to this. That's what Craig's Bond was all about-- how Bond becomes Bond. I loved the idea of making Bond and Blofeld related. This is the first Craig Bond that felt like the classics from the Conery and Moore era. I can see little seeds being planted that might bring more elements back from the classics in the upcoming films and I can't wait to see how they play out. Bravo, Spectre. Bravo.
 
I think the plot was obvious and not very good. It was obvious because you knew who the bad guys were and what they were up to; it was blah because it was obvious, and there was nothing new to the latest installment of the franchise.

By contrast, Moonraker dealt with a flight to the bad guy space station, and it had a space fight between the space marines and enemy guards, which, as far as I know, hasn't been done again by any tent pole film, while Die Another Day had him in prison, which, again, was fairly new.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top