Spectre - How to Ruin the James Bond Franchise

[flying_whimsy]

I'll see spectre when it comes out on video, but I'm not surprised it's Craig's last: he's getting a little long in the tooth to play the role as he has in the past. I consider it a miracle the movie even got made between the time between films, craig's aging, the legal nightmare that was MGM at one point during Craig's run, and the increasingly 'I'm offended' engine the internet is turning into.

Also, I'm not sure anything could have followed Skyfall and really held itself up as a success: that was a pretty spectacular movie all around (that guy is still my favorite Bond villain). At this point I'm kind of looking forward to what the next Bond director and actor combo will bring to the table.

 

[Kingjackl]

It was pretty average overall. You can really tell the contempt Craig has for Bond, and while that worked in Casino Royale and Skyfall, which were both trying to say something about the character, it doesn't work here.

It had it's moments - the train fight was spectacular, the bit with the rat was a good gag (though not a very Bond-y one) and the Bond girl was a 10 out of 10. But there was a lot of wasted potential. I enjoyed the bits with M, Moneypenny and Q more than the main stuff, but the villain of that subplot was a nobody and the resolution was anticlimactic. And on the subject of villains, they had Cristoph Waltz putting in a fantastic turn in a villain role he almost born to play - and then did almost nothing with him! I get what they were going for with the character, but he was barely present, and went out just as anticlimactically.

 

[Li Mu]

Interesting, I've read many reviews saying that this film was great (from well regarded critics)
Clearly this is a film which polarizes people. I'll check it out myself and make my own decision.

 

[McElroy]

Beautifully shot, Bautista was great, Seydoux was oh so beautiful and the plot was basically a bunch of "It's not over yet"s strung together. Imo it's not worth it for the 4-6 times per year type of movie-goer.

 

[Mangod]

Spectre - How to Ruin the James Bond Franchise

James Bond returns in Spectre, a sightseeing tour for its stars and an example of how not to write a screenplay.

Read Full Article

What would you say was the biggest weakness of the movie (besides the villain not being as good as Emilio Largo)?

 

[Darth_Payn]

But if they changed what SPECTRE means, I am going to be a very unhappy camper.

They never mention what SPECTRE stands for, or if it even stands for anything at all.

Well, going back to Dr. No, SPECTRE is an acronym for SPecial Executive of Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion. Explained to James Bond by Dr. No in typical supervillain fashion: over a delicious, non-poisoned lunch in the lair's dining room with a carnivorous fish tank in the wall.
So, basically, in the '60's, they were James Bond's HYDRA.

 

[Politrukk]

The entire film and plot were too obvious, everything was layed on there so thick that nothing seemed surprising and it felt more like a joke that everyone in the movie was in on.

Also casting one of the villains with a guy who is one of the most noteworthy villain actors in recent british television history was a very poor move to my opinion, it would have been a twist if they hadn't made this guy the villain and the way they develop his character and wrap it up just makes it even worse.

Aside from that there were a lot of filming mistakes, maybe I've been too influenced by cinema sins but I'll give two obvious examples :

1 The car he drives in the Rome chase scene keeps switching number plates.
2 In the scene with the plane in Switzerland/Austria? the backpane of his planes windows always apears broken by a bullet but there is no moment even after crashing where anything happens to said window on-screen

Bonus: in the Mexico scenes there is a moment in the chase scene where one of the actresses in the parade suddenly makes very random movements for no reason which make it look like there was something that happened there that they cut out but edited very poorly.



TLDR:
Unless you're an avid James Bond fan this film was just short of being a complete failure, I would give it a shallow passing grade normally, if you don't mind all the clichés and predictable plot you might still have a good time.

It's not like I wasn't entertained it was just not satisfying and made one want to leave early.

 

[Politrukk]

That this movie "retroactively ruins" prior Craig Bonds seems like kind of a tall claim, but I guess I'll wait until I see it (whenever that comes about) to pass judgement. I mean, the Star Wars prequels were pretty bad, but they didn't actually take away my ability to enjoy the original trilogy.

I think OP means that they actively influence and affect the plot of previous movies and do that in a very poor and silly way.

After watching Spectre and knowing what certain characters actually meant and did you will not get as much satisfaction out of it.


It's not like watching the prequels will ruin the originals for you.
It's more like you watch the first 2 original films and in the third one it turns out that Darth Vader is John Cena and the stupid theme song starts playing and as an after thought Darth Maul is now in the third original movie because they forgot to cram in a meaningful villain and figured this would fix it all.

The original 2 "Craig" Bond films are actually demerited in a lot of ways in their plot by making it all so meaningless and senseless in Spectre.

 

[Evonisia]

The original 2 "Craig" Bond films are actually demerited in a lot of ways in their plot by making it all so meaningless and senseless in Spectre.

And Skyfall was also undermined by just crowbarring M in the most haphazard fashion imaginable.

Spoiler: Skyfall spoilers and Spectre I guess

Oh I see, she had some understanding of what was going on, but she just decided that the villain was only worth tracking down when Bond was in a position where he can't rely on her to get support from the organisation that he's been employed to for years.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Damn, people really don't seem to like this movie. Were they expecting every Craig Bond to be Casino Royale? How did you not expect a film like this after the end of Skyfall, where they pretty much say "Yeah, we've got the classic Bond formula back, be ready"?

I thought it was fine. Definitely not worth 14,50 ?, though that's a stab at movie ticket prices, not at the film. I'll probably forget it in a month, but there was fun action, good humor and whatever little Christoph Waltz they had was great (that introduction scene, holy crap!). I have to say, Dave Bautista as the henchman was a casting choice on par with Craig as Bond. He really brought the classic "big burly bad guy" vibe to the film.

One thing that did bother me a lot though was that the cuts to get it down to PG-13 were really obvious. Like the eye-gouging scene and the suicide bit: no sound effects, no screaming, no blood. Pussies.

 

[Darth Marsden]

But if they changed what SPECTRE means, I am going to be a very unhappy camper.

They never mention what SPECTRE stands for, or if it even stands for anything at all.

Well, going back to Dr. No, SPECTRE is an acronym for SPecial Executive of Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion. Explained to James Bond by Dr. No in typical supervillain fashion: over a delicious, non-poisoned lunch in the lair's dining room with a carnivorous fish tank in the wall.
So, basically, in the '60's, they were James Bond's HYDRA.

I meant it's never explained in THIS film. I know what it meant in the old continuity

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Saw it last night, yeah, 'decent' is probably the best word I'd use to describe it. It's definitely better than Quantum of Solace, but definitely not as good as Skyfall and doesn't hold a candle to Casino Royale (my favorite one).

Craig definitely feels like he's phoning it in at this go around and is pretty clearly done with the role.

Besides that, the acting is pretty solid all around. Christoph Waltz is good (as expected) but is underused. Lea Seydoux is (in addition to being ridiculously hot) a solid actress who I'm interested in seeing more of her...acting (get your mind out of the gutter). Dave Bautista is genuinely intimidating and is very good at doing fight and action sequences, though I do wish they'd given him more personality.

As some have noted, it's definitely the most "return to form" Bond movie we've had in a while. The action definitely has a more over the top and somewhat cheesy feel to it, and the baddy's scheme is definitely way more 'world domination' than any of the ones in the previous Craig movies.

If you're a huge fan of the franchise it's worth it to see in the theaters. If you just have a passing interest I'd wait till it's on video.

 

[FalloutJack]

Funny, I thought that's what they said about Skyfall. Sounds like Doom Prophet's Disease has struck again by people declaring things to be 'Ruined Forever'. Thinking no.

 

[Politrukk]

I only just realised I was annoyed with Dave Bautista's character being like Drax the Destroyer..... and that the reason for that is because he's obviously the same guy -.-

I think that they just made a few wrong casting calls, if you've seen Guardians of The Galaxy and Sherlock... these actors do nothing but play a very similar role to which they played in said movies.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

It may feel more like a "Bond film" than any other Craig-led installment, but this may be the point where we begin to question if that's something we want.

Nope, I never did. Then again I still maintain Quantum Of Solace is one of the best Bond films of all, and barely anyone/no-one seems to agree with me...

Just letting you know, you have an ally. I agree with you there

I think I'll still go see this one, because I've enjoyed all the Daniel Craig Bond movies.

 

[UrinalDook]

To me, the film can be best summarised with two consecutive lines of dialogue. The first is the funniest one-liner of the film, and the second immediately does its best to utterly nullify that humour.

Spoiler

M's line to the film's secondary bad guy, known as 'C': "Well, I guess we know what C stands for" was hilarious, because it's left entirely to the audience to fill in the punch line, and yet everybody in the cinema (when I watched at least) got it immediately. So why do they then have M fill that blank immediately with something that isn't at all funny: "Careless"? Ugh. Awful script.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

The opening had me pumped. By the end of it, I was regretting my decision to not just rewatch Skyfall and save my admission money. Oh they're doing the linking every movie to this villain thing despite it never being established earlier. Yaaaaaay... -.-

 

[Hawki]

So, got back from seeing it, as it's just been released in Oz. And...overall, I thought it was "good," but it's with the caveat of being a very flawed "good."

What others have pointed out is the issues with the story. There's the big one, what with Blofeld's scheme/background being one of contrivance, but there's multiple smaller leaps of logic as well. How does Bond steal the car? Why do the Spectre thugs drive all this way to kill Madeline before doing it just out of sight of the resort? How did Mr. White build a safehouse inside the L'American? How did the hotel react to Bond breaking everything? How did no-one notice the train fight? Why did the thug try to kill Bond when apparently, Blofeld was happy to let Bond come to his base anyway? Why did a single gas explosion knock out the entire facility? How did M and co. gain access to the new building? Why were no security in the new intelligence building? Speaking of intelligence, in what kind of world would the UK and China share it? Why is Quantum of Solace given minimal reference when compared to Casino Royale and Skyfall? Yeah, QoS was lacklusture, but that doesn't mean it should be forgotten.

And yet, I enjoyed this film. The action was good, the cinematography was good, I liked the characters, and I actually think it did a good job of merging old and new Bond, and if anything, Blofeld's base symbolizes this. Similar to old Bond, this is very much a villain's lair. On the other, its purpose is to gather information, not be the headquarters of a death laser or anything. It's a concept born out of the 21st century, merged with elements of the 20th. And that's added to the side characters like M, Moneypenny and Q taking a far more active role, in a way that I was actually reminded of Rogue Nation (which, among other similarities, also ended in London, and also dealt with information control). Not that this was a bad thing.

Taking Spectre by itself, it does feel like the end of an era, how Bond apparently retires (yeah, we'll see), and while some of the connections are forced, it does tie up a lot of the plot threads that began with Casino Royale. So, yes, I enjoyed it. It's not going to change my top 3 Bond films (GoldenEye, Skyfall, Casino Royale), but it's a far cry from the likes of Die Another Day, Diamonds Are Forever, and Quantum of Solace (probably my bottom three).