Fanible
Administrator 
Join Date: Oct 2002
I peered into the vastness and saw nothing. Felt nothing.
Posts: 19,184 
Likes: 788
Location:
Last Online Nov 6, 2024 0:31:29 GMT -5
|
Post by Fanible on Nov 7, 2015 23:23:08 GMT -5
I actually don't know what was going on in the movie. It was all I could think about.
6 / 10
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,783
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 23:39:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Nov 7, 2015 23:25:41 GMT -5
I actually don't know what was going on in the movie. Blofeld has daddy issues. If he were a woman, he would have been a stripper. |
|
Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Nov 8, 2015 0:35:33 GMT -5
I liked it. I'll say more later in the week, but I'm thinking 3 out of 4 stars, about now. It was certainly classic Bond. I was reminded of about half a dozen old Bond movies - From Russia With Love, The Spy Who Loved Me, Thunderball, hell even Moonraker. Though it didn't feel like rip-offs; more like a movie that has finally reentered its own franchise.
They really could have eased back on the references to the other Craig movies, though. Near the end when he saw all those photos of the past characters on the walls, that could have been pretty goosebumpy if they hadn't been shown and discussed throughout the whole movie...including the title sequence.
It was really interesting to see them finally embrace the old Bond formula and see what still works and what doesn't. Humorous scene with Bond wandering through Q's lab and ticking him off? Still works. Overly polite villains with huge plans? Still works. Bond girls that first hate Bond and then fall in love with him...maybe that one should die.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,303
Likes: 6,769
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 23:26:18 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Nov 8, 2015 0:55:24 GMT -5
Not a lot of love for Dominic Green though. They more or less skipped over him when showing Le Chifre and Silva over and over.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,783
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 23:39:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Nov 8, 2015 1:19:25 GMT -5
Not a lot of love for Dominic Green though. They more or less skipped over him when showing Le Chifre and Silva over and over. Next to Silva, Dominic Green is the best villain of the Daniel Craig era. Le Chifre was a stupid villain who went out like a bitch. And they turned Blofeld into, like, a Batman villain or something. Dominic Green was a classic post-70's style Bond villain. You could have put him in an 80's or 90's Bond movie and he would have fit right in. |
|
Deexan
CS! Silver
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,196
Likes: 2,995
Location:
Last Online Nov 13, 2021 19:23:59 GMT -5
|
Post by Deexan on Nov 8, 2015 2:35:09 GMT -5
I think Neverending has made the most pertinent point of all about Craig's era: he started off as a young upstart and was a seasoned, ready-to-retire-veteran by film 3.
They take too long between films.
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,649
Likes: 4,066
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by PG Cooper on Nov 9, 2015 19:48:46 GMT -5
In 2012, the 23rd official James Bond adventure Skyfall came out to a ton of positive reviews, huge box-office, and in the midst of “Bondmania” celebrating the 50th anniversary of the franchise. I was one of the many who sang the film’s praises but looking back, I was clearly blinded by the hype. I still like Skyfall a lot, but it isn’t the great film I used to think it was. The writing has a lot of problems, but more frustrating, the film almost seemed embarrassed to be a Bond film. The script seems to constantly want to outsmart the series and the allusions to Bondian tradition felt like forced fan-service. As a Bond fan, I want the series to embrace its roots, not shun them. I’m all for modifying the character for the times, and I should also stress that I love 2006’s Casino Royale, but I also want James Bond to be James Bond. This is why Spectre, though far from perfect, is exciting.
After taking an unofficial mission in Mexico, secret agent James Bond (Daniel Craig) discovers a ring with a suspicious symbol belonging to a crime lord. Bond suspects that the symbol denotes a greater criminal organization and soon finds his suspicions are correct. Bond’s investigation brings him back into contact with Jack White (Jesper Christensen), a fugitive who had dealings with the secret organization. White points Bond to White’s daughter, Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux), who knows enough to aid 007. The two engage in an action-packed investigation as a mysterious villain (Christoph Waltz) lurks in the background. Meanwhile, a merger of MI5 and MI6 threatens to destroy the double 0 program, despite the efforts of M (Ralph Fiennes), Q (Ben Whishaw), and Moneypenny (Naomie Harris).
As a dedicated Bond fan, the biggest joy from Spectre comes from how the film embraces the series tropes. This feels like a Bond film through and through. The gun barrel opening, pre-credit action sequence, musical credits, deformed and mute henchman with severe physical strength, multiple Bond girls, evil villains meeting in secret, big action sequences, humour, the Bond theme, and interactions with the likes of Q, M, and Moneypenny. Unlike Skyfall, which referenced the series as either overt fan-service or to undercut the series, Spectre simply embraces the Bond formula and proceeds. The film also incorporates the elements which have come to define the Craig era. There is still an emphasis on the emotional toll the action has on Bond and the tone maintains some grit, but it uses this in conjunction with the series’ charms.
Much as I am thrilled to see a James Bond movie comfortable being a Bond movie, Spectre does have a lot of problems. The central issue is the plot, which is very thin and simultaneously flimsily held together. One might say this is true of most Bond films, but the problem is exasperated here by the amount of “plot scenes” and the films long running time. Additionally, the subplot involving the potential cancellation of the double 0 program struck me as repetitive after Skyfall dealt with similar material. However the biggest problem comes in the writing of Christoph Waltz’ villain. First off, the producers’ decision to keep the character’s identity a mystery is really pointless. Any Bond fan worth their salt will know EXACTLY who this is and trying to make it a reveal is totally unnecessary. What’s worse, the film gives he and Bond a past connection which struck me as cliché, pointless, and kind of dumb. The film could have spent this time developing the character and his current goals, which would have been better. To Waltz’ credit, he’s entertaining in the role, I just wish the villain be better written.
Despite the writing problems, Spectre is largely saved by director Sam Mendes, who keeps the film entertaining and engaging throughout. Like Skyfall, the cinematography is once again a highlight. Hoyte van Hoytema’s work may not be as showy as his predecessor Roger Deakins, but it is quite good and blends with the film well. The music here is also quite good. The Bond theme is used effectively (though still sparingly) and Thomas Newman’s original score works well. I’m not totally crazy on Sam Smith’s vocals for the opening song “Writing’s on the Wall”, but the instrumental arrangement and lyrics are strong. Also the opening visuals are pretty good. Finally, the film is full of fun action sequences. The highlights are the opening Day of the Dead scene, a car chase through Rome, a brutal fist fight in a train, and a climactic ticking clock scene.
Most of the response for Spectre has had an air of disappointment. All told, this probably is inferior to Skyfall as a film, but as Bond fan, there’s a real thrill in seeing James Bond be James Bond on screen. It’s been a long time since the series has just been allowed to be itself and I’m glad it’s back. Does that mean I’m blind to the film’s flaws? Hell no. I really wish the plotting could have been tighter and the decisions regarding the villain in particular baffle me. These hurt the film, but they don’t ruin it. This is still an exciting and entertaining blockbuster which works for those seeking blockbuster thrills, and for long time series fans.
B
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,303
Likes: 6,769
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 23:26:18 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Nov 10, 2015 20:07:03 GMT -5
Spectre is the kind of movie that leaves me a little conflicted. I found myself entertained, there was a lot of good coming from the movie and I think it’s one that will have good replay value like all the other Craig films. I also am well aware of the criticisms and find some of them pretty valid. At the end of the day it’s an imperfect movie that attempts to be a hybrid of the new millennial Bond and the classic, formulaic Bond of old. It’s a balancing act that could have been disastrous but Sam Mendes did it well, albeit not totally seamlessly.
Plot aside, Spectre tries its damnedest to not only pay homage to the classic Bond films, it tries to take us back to them. I’ve been pretty vocal in my disdain for hearkening back to the traditional Bond setup. Yes, there are the superficial characteristics like the opening gun barrel and the ‘James Bond will return’ and those are just fine, keep ‘em, however in many other respects I’ve always felt that we’ve moved past much of the rest. We’ve evolved, we’ve grown up, we’ve successfully brought Bond into the new millennium. We don’t need to go back to Die Another Day. I know that the same formula gave us Goldeneye but considering what the road we’ve travelled, I just don’t think we need to have a briefing with M followed by a meeting with Q going over the new zany gadgets. We can do better. If we don't then eventually, much sooner rather than later, we’ll be back to the Die Another Day’s. That said, this movie straddles that line highlighting solid action while mixing that with some of the classic Bond persona and the traits of Bond villains, right down to the henchman and remote layer. The movie begins with a great action sequence, starting with a clever tracking shot featuring Bond in disguise shadowing his target from a Dia de los Muertos parade in Mexico City. There are throwbacks to many of the Bond films including a henchman fight on a train, something I appreciate.
Spectre sets up a world that transitions from Craig Bond to Classic Bond as smoothly as it probably could. Sure there would be bumps along the way and each Bond fan will have his or her own opinion as to where they think the franchise should go. There are missteps as well. Tonally the movie is inconsistent and the plot itself is nothing we haven’t already seen in more than one Mission: Impossible movie. Ultimately I appreciate what Spectre is and what it was trying to become. It won’t be remembered as the best Craig movie or placed high on the list of Bond films but it tries to stand out and be its own movie while continuing the current storyline. To me that counts for something.
B so says Doomsday
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,303
Likes: 6,769
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 23:26:18 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Nov 10, 2015 20:08:56 GMT -5
Le Chifre was a stupid villain who went out like a bitch. To be fair, that's how he went out in the book. |
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,783
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 23:39:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Nov 10, 2015 21:09:57 GMT -5
Le Chifre was a stupid villain who went out like a bitch. To be fair, that's how he went out in the book. The book wasn't that good. The movie, by far, was better. And yet, they chose to keep some of the dumber elements. |
|
Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Nov 10, 2015 21:54:23 GMT -5
At least it wasn't baccarat.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,105
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Nov 10, 2015 22:18:37 GMT -5
At least it wasn't baccarat. It should have been. This was a high class European casino, they would have been playing a peasant game like Texas Hold 'Em. And if they had to be playing poker they could have at least done it right, the poker in that movie is ridiculous, the odds of that many strong hands being dealt in a single game are hundreds of millions to one. |
|
Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Nov 10, 2015 22:51:47 GMT -5
Spectre (2015)
James Bond is back. So begins every Bond review going back over 50 years, but this time it’s true. After winks and teases through the three Craig films, we’ve finally reached a time where it appears the goal was to make a classic James Bond film. This means Bond meets with M, quips with Q, uses espionage to get closer and closer to the villain’s elaborate lair, and shags a couple women along the way. Perhaps more importantly, it means the little things, such as opening with the iconic barrel scene, using gadgets, and saying things like “shaken, not stirred” without irony. However, it’s been over ten years and one Bond since we’ve left this comfort zone. Can these things be properly integrated into the gritty and increasingly nostalgic Daniel Craig era?
I think the strongest aspect of this movie is its structure. It has the comfortable linearity of a Connery film, but with a well-integrated B-story involving M, Q, Moneypenny, and the new player, “C.” Both stories have a strong drive and they continuously bounce things off of each other. Revisiting the Craig canon is certainly fun and gives the movie this drive, though occasionally it tries a bit hard. There must be 3 or 4 scenes, including the title sequence, that show images of Ex M, Vesper, Mr. White, Silva, Le Chiffre, blah blah, and it starts to lose its effectiveness pretty quick. Also, the idea that all of these guys were working under Blofeld (spoilers) is a pretty big stretch.
The introduction and use of the main Bond Girl, Madeline Swann (Lea Seydoux), is classic as well. They both have a motive relating to the main plot, are thrust together, and Bond has to protect and save her along the way. However, things get a bit weird when Ms. Swann professes her love for Bond. Bond Girls would do this in the past, but these days it makes her character shallow and not deserving of our respect. But they’re up to something interesting here. What is it that Blofeld says just before he plans to kill Bond? “That’s too bad. The daughter of an assassin: she was the only one who could have understood.” Not only are they trying to match Bond with an actual romantic interest (again), but unknowingly or not, they did it with the classic and somewhat creepy “daddy issues” method. As best as I can figure, they rushed the “I love you”s (or one of them anyway, SOMEone has commitment issues) in case this is Craig’s last Bond film so he can drive off into the sunset with his girl and DB5. (Actually, there’s a lot more to discuss here with Bond’s choice of Swann over M at the bridge with the line “I’m all out of bullets.” It’s almost as if the movie ended with his retirement….of course, that’s crazy, right?…)
But speaking of rushing things, how about the action? Wouldn’t you know it, this is the low point of the film, for me. With above-average action, I could easily have bumped this movie up a whole half-star. I’ve seen this movie twice already, so I got to pay close attention to all aspects I hadn’t yet solidified an opinion on. Looking closely at the action, there’s nothing wrong with it on paper. There’s car chases in Rome (best part being the music), planes chasing cars in the snow, upside-down helicopters, and fights in trains. All of this has succeeded for 50 years, but falls a bit flat here, and I blame Sam Mendes. He just can’t direct action. Looking closely, the camera shots are almost all close-up and low angle. Back forth, back forth. No appreciation for the setting as a whole or for the audience to get any perspective. It’s the non-action movie’s equivalent of the over-the-shoulder editing technique. It’s the bare minimum to convey what’s happening, except instead of dialogue, it’s action. The only time the action really shines is when it’s made to be suspenseful. This includes the intercutting of Bond’s action in the mountains with Q’s escape from the goons, and especially the impeccable choice of the ruins of MI6 for the great finale with Blofeld.
Christoph Waltz as Blofeld is wonderful. From the Thunderball-inspired Spectre meeting, to the Moonraker- and You Only Live Twice-inspired villain lair, to the ruins of MI6 and the streets of London, all of this stuff was very enjoyable. I was particularly impressed with the inclusion of the “easily escapable situation involving an overly elaborate and exotic death.” It was risky and it worked just fine. That’s how the gadgets should be used: at the last minute (no pun intended). But speaking of rushing things for a third time, the complex blowing up in a ball of flame was anachronistic and a script cheat to get Bond out of there without having to blow up the complex himself. I’ll just go with what my friend said: “Maybe it had a self-destruct.” Waltz was an inspired choice as Blofeld. When he spoke and said things like “I’m the author of all your pain,” I believed it! That’s why it was very unfortunate and sad they felt they had to make them “brothers.” God, for a while there I was honestly worried they were going to reveal Blofeld killed BOND’S parents. I was also very happy with Dave Bautista as the Jaws/Oddjob hybrid. Not as pleased with his final words.
So, hopefully they learn what worked with the “Bring James Bond back project” and what didn’t and move the franchise forward. Because James Bond CAN continue to exist as the ultimate male-fantasy in the 21st century. The Brosnan era figured out how to move it along, and now the Craig era is about there as well, (just in time for him to quit). We can have elaborate and political stories with pen grenades and metallic thumbnails. It’s called style.
“I told you to bring it back in one piece, not to bring back one piece.”
***/**** |
|
Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Nov 10, 2015 22:53:35 GMT -5
At least it wasn't baccarat. It should have been. This was a high class European casino, they would have been playing a peasant game like Texas Hold 'Em. And if they had to be playing poker they could have at least done it right, the poker in that movie is ridiculous, the odds of that many strong hands being dealt in a single game are hundreds of millions to one. But that's EVERY movie that has poker. Hell, even Matthey McConaughey gets a straight flush in a Lincoln commercial. Are you familiar with baccarat? It's a luckier version of Blackjack. You can't build a whole sequence around it. |
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,105
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Nov 10, 2015 22:58:23 GMT -5
It should have been. This was a high class European casino, they would have been playing a peasant game like Texas Hold 'Em. And if they had to be playing poker they could have at least done it right, the poker in that movie is ridiculous, the odds of that many strong hands being dealt in a single game are hundreds of millions to one. But that's EVERY movie that has poker. Hell, even Matthey McConaughey gets a straight flush in a Lincoln commercial. Are you familiar with baccarat? It's a luckier version of Blackjack. You can't build a whole sequence around it. Its not like that with every movie with poker, I could name a few that don't. Besides, audiences are a lot more savy about the game now that its been heavily televised. As for baccarat, it's not my favorite game but I feel like its part of the Bond brand. Fleming was able to build a sequence around it... |
|
Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Nov 10, 2015 23:00:49 GMT -5
In a 181-page book.
|
|
SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,626
Likes: 3,182
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 17:07:20 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on Nov 11, 2015 14:52:26 GMT -5
Spectre marks the 4th film as James Bond for Daniel Craig, and while it never reaches the soaring heights of Casino Royale and Skyfall, it's still got enough going for it to make it an enjoyable Bond outing. This is one of, if not the only, series where formula isn't met with disdain but rather welcomed, and Spectre certainly leans on this pretty heavily. The film opens with an expertly executed tracking shot set midst a Day of the Dead celebration in Mexico City that's teeming with extras and beautiful buildings that grabs you from the start. Throw in a crumbling building, an out of control helicopter, and Bond kicking ass and you've got your usual Bond opening sequence that dazzles and thrills. Unfortunately, none of the other action pieces quite live up to this one (just like Quatum of Solace) though there's still a fair share of thrills despite the film's action sequences being relatively (I did say relatively) grounded compared to what we're used to from the long-running franchise. Mendes does a good enough job handling the action, but it's clear that it's not the theater-background filmmaker's greatest asset either. A lot of it isn't really his fault, more on the four screenwriters, but after the exciting opening it's a bit underwhelming to see the other major action pieces reduced to car chase, snow chase, and short-lived shootout especially since that feeling of "we've seen all this before" creeps on. But the film, despite the very lengthy running time, moves pretty well and never succumbs to tedious exposition. The film looks good from a cinematography standpoint, but doesn't equal the visual flair of Roger Deakins from Skyfall. The set pieces aren't particularly interesting this time around, and there's not a whole lot diversity in terms of shooting the action or exotic locations either. Still, the Spectre meeting especially as well as the finale in the abandoned building look great and while there's nothing very spectacular about anything it doesn't look flat either. Plus the aforementioned tracking shot at the beginning was awesome. Why not throw another sequence like that somewhere in the film? The cast does a good job here as you'd expect. Fiennes has always worked for me a M, the young Q had some very funny quips and banter with Bond, and Waltz plays Blofeld with a maniacally subdued intensity that's a lot of fun to watch. Unfortunately the script is pretty thin, especially when you consider how long the film is. We spend a lot of time going here and there, and then Bond and Blofeld have a true meeting at the end. It all just wraps itself up a bit too easily, and aside from the action pieces there's not many intriguing scenes in regards to dialogue or revelations. The Daniel Craig films have certainly gone a different route from past entries by connecting all four films to one another, and for the most part it's worked well to maintain some semblance of continuity. On the other hand, the constant references to the previous three films (no one cares about Quantum of Solace except for Neverending we don't want to hear about it in this film) gives off the feeling that this movie never really becomes it's own in terms of a stand-alone feature, which every Bond before the Craig era, good or bad, could say. I felt the attempt at backstory and adding depth to the character worked well in Skyfall, but in Spectre we don't need Bond and Blofeld to have a prior relationship to make it interesting. I don't at all mind them referring to past villains or characters, but they should've spaced some of these out as opposed to showing them all in the opening titles, throughout the film, and then again at the end. Spectre gets so caught up reminiscing on previous Bonds that it never grasps it's own story or fleshes out Waltz like it should have. Overall, despite the film's shortcomings, Spectre is a fun ride that hopefully isn't the last we see of Daniel Craig as James Bond. He resurrected this franchise from the depths of film hell (Die Another Day) and has reinvigorated it with complexities and nuances we haven't seen for the character in previous entries. The ending isn't the jump out of your seat moment you'd hope for if this is indeed Craig's send off, so let's hope there's one last film in store. 7/10 |
|
Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Nov 11, 2015 21:27:28 GMT -5
There's something that really bugs me in the opening sequence. Bond is fighting the guy after getting in the helicopter, and then out of the middle of nowhere he takes the pilot's head and bashes it against the wall. What, did Bond suddenly feel they weren't in enough peril? Typically a movie pilot catches a stray bullet or attacks Bond causing trouble, but instead Bond seems like the dumbest, hot-headed agent ever.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,105
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Nov 11, 2015 22:11:15 GMT -5
There's something that really bugs me in the opening sequence. Bond is fighting the guy after getting in the helicopter, and then out of the middle of nowhere he takes the pilot's head and bashes it against the wall. What, did Bond suddenly feel they weren't in enough peril? Typically a movie pilot catches a stray bullet or attacks Bond causing trouble, but instead Bond seems like the dumbest, hot-headed agent ever. That whole opening seemed a bit off to me, that stunt with the helicopter seems like it would be cool in theory but it just never looked as thrilling as it should have on camera, not enough wide angles or something. |
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,783
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 23:39:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Nov 11, 2015 22:25:16 GMT -5
I’ve been pretty vocal in my disdain for hearkening back to the traditional Bond setup. Yes, there are the superficial characteristics like the opening gun barrel and the ‘James Bond will return’ and those are just fine, keep ‘em, however in many other respects I’ve always felt that we’ve moved past much of the rest. We’ve evolved, we’ve grown up, we’ve successfully brought Bond into the new millennium. We don’t need to go back to Die Another Day. I know that the same formula gave us Goldeneye but considering what the road we’ve traveled, I just don’t think we need to have a briefing with M followed by a meeting with Q going over the new zany gadgets. We can do better. You know what's funny? The Daniel Craig movies have created their own formula, and like PG Cooper said, they're already getting boring after 4 movies. Don't believe us? Well, consider this. Skyfall AND Spectre deal with the government trying to take away the double-o program. Skyfall AND Spectre show MI6 headquarters being attacked. Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace AND Spectre show James Bond defying M (and his other superiors) in order to go on secret (and personal) missions. Quantum of Solace AND Spectre show moles in MI6. In that case of Quantum of Solace, it's M's bodyguard who almost kills her and allows Mr. White to escape. In Spectre, it's "C" or whatever you wanna call him. And, Casino Royale and Spectre show James Bond quitting after falling in love. Love it or hate it, this franchise has ALWAYS relied on formula. Unfortunately, none of the other action pieces quite live up to this one I disagree. I think the Rome car chase was awesome. But I do agree that the action scenes here are the worst of the Daniel Craig era. And it kind of reminds me of the 1980's. In the 60's and 70's, the James Bond series was revolutionary with its action scenes. Even stuff that seem silly for today's standards, were cutting edge at the time. But then came the 80's with Indiana Jones and Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mel Gibson and Bruce Willis, and suddenly, the James Bond series was getting left behind. I feel that's happening again. Like Dracula said, there's a handful of action movies this year that had WAY better action scenes than Spectre. That ain't right. For the next James Bond movie, they REALLY need to go back to setting the standards. It has been 9 years since Casino Royale. We have waited long enough for James Bond to rule the action movie genre again. |
|
Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Nov 11, 2015 23:14:23 GMT -5
There's something that really bugs me in the opening sequence. Bond is fighting the guy after getting in the helicopter, and then out of the middle of nowhere he takes the pilot's head and bashes it against the wall. What, did Bond suddenly feel they weren't in enough peril? Typically a movie pilot catches a stray bullet or attacks Bond causing trouble, but instead Bond seems like the dumbest, hot-headed agent ever. ...but it just never looked as thrilling as it should have on camera, not enough wide angles or something. Did you read my review? |
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,105
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Nov 11, 2015 23:19:12 GMT -5
...but it just never looked as thrilling as it should have on camera, not enough wide angles or something. Did you read my review? ... not entirely, was waiting until after I finished my full review. |
|
Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Nov 11, 2015 23:22:41 GMT -5
I got on the action's case for being too close-up, high angle and cinematically lazy.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,783
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 23:39:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Nov 11, 2015 23:29:48 GMT -5
I got on the action's case for being too close-up, high angle and cinematically lazy. Better or worse than this? |
|
Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Nov 12, 2015 1:05:51 GMT -5
I dunno. About the same. At least the Quantum scene got my heart pumping.
|
|
