I saw Spectre on Friday evening. I found it OK but I was underwhelmed and a little bored. I certainly can’t see where all the five star press reviews came from. I remember briefly closing my eyes once or twice. What the hell did I miss in those few seconds!
What am I missing with the new Bond Film?
by 49 Comments
I’m mystified about the press reaction, too, and suspect word-of-mouth is very different. I haven’t yet spoken to anybody who didn’t think it was bollocks.
Agree Martin, i enjoyed it but it was too long and although not a pre-requisite in Bond films the story was very thin…..and it almost felt like Daniel Craig was under-used…..oh and I struggled to stay awake at start but put that down to a few pints watching football and steak pudding for tea on way to Cinema.
We live the high life in Bury……
I refer the right honourable gentleman to my previous withering analysis, here:
Ahhh. It’s been done before! Apologies…
Yup, saw it Sat night. I liked Skyfall, taken as a big daft Bond fillum, but this was just… meh. Weird disconnect between critical reaction and the reaction of everyone I know.
Seems to me for big budget films these days the reviews are just part of the marketing campaign. e.g. Kermode and Mayo had a Bond special with the director and star as guests, is he then going to slam the film?
It’s this.
Critics don’t want to get it wrong, so they tend to flock to a common position.
When the movie costs £200m plus, has a massive marketing budget and is following on from a huge critical and box office smash the early reviews are always going to be positive. Risk aversion.
Probably often true, but isn’t it also that if critics of any kind were honest, most films, music or anything else, are not brilliant or terrible, but mediocre. If you have to fill up a column every week with reviews and point this out, your reviews will be tepid, and end up as flat as the subject. Reviews are a product of the entertainment industry as much as anything else and the writers have a reputation to create and maintain. Going with the crowd does happen, maybe in this case, but you also get deliberate provocations to make the writer stand out – like saying The Exorcist and Mary Poppins are among the best films ever made, as Mark Kermode does.
You do indeed. But the divergence between the reviews of Spectre and people’s actual experiences is basically Be Here Now syndrome applied to cinema.
Two things Bond has the Entourage does not.
1. It’s a British “institution”
2. Gentlemen of a certain age (such as Mark Kermode) must get a little crotch tingle from even the most random occurrence of the digit sequence 0-0-7.
Harder to review with the same detachment as other films, perhaps..?
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
Why Spectre sucked, according to me.
1. Tone. At times it was like Bourne crossed with Johnny English. As soon as he hit that sofa at the beginning I knew we were in trouble and so it proved. We were a long, long way from Casino Royale’s much-vaunted return to realism. It was practically formula-Bond, complete with rather tiresome references to previous, far more gracefully executed films.
2. Lame setpieces. There was too much CGI in the opening and why on earth was he attacking the pilot anyway? The pilot was no threat. Bond stops the helicopter ploughing into the people below, but the helicopter was only in danger of ploughing into the people below because he kept ramming the pilot’s head into the dashboard. Huh? Worst opening of the Craig era.
3. And that Rome car chase. Wow, the thought that went into that. A boring chase including a terrible slapstick gag worthy of Moonraker, intercut with Bond on the phone to Moneypenny. Say what you like about Quantum of Solace but it had a tremendous car chase. This one is the worst of the series. Not Craig era. The WHOLE series. Then that bit in the plane. More comedy-Bond. (As an aside, I get that Bond can fly a plane in an emergency — he often has in the past — but I don’t really buy him being a full-fledged pilot. Not a major beef, all told, but still.) And then we end with another bit on a helicopter. Did someone get a deal on helicopters or what?
4. Walking into the baddies’ clutches. He did this in Skyfall too. Literally just allows himself to be captured. ‘Aha,’ you think, ‘Bond must have a plan!’ Cut to him tied up and, in this case, being tortured.
5. On which note. What the flipping fuck was all that about? They drill into his head with the promise that he’ll lose his memory, but… um, he doesn’t. Matter of fact, him being tortured has no effect on him or the plot whatsoever. And then he escapes using the patented Roger Moore gadget-for-every-occasion method, being sure to leave the baddie alive. This scene leaves me with the impression that vast bits of the script are missing but the holes not filled? It’s the same with Monica Belluci’s character. You can’t tell me there wasn’t an early iteration of the script that explained her fate. Yet for some reason the world’s second-most expensive film just left that loose end hanging.
6. Oh, yes, the baddie. Two-thirds of the film talking him up like he’s the living incarnation of evil, the last bit proving he had all the fear factor of a Teletubbie. That ending. Jesus.
And I’m sure I’ll think of some more when I’ve had a lie down.
Nice one Poppy, its back to the books for me…….
There is a lovely reference / Easter egg for fans of the books but in no way does that forgive the film its other crimes.
Yes! All of that. It started daft and got dafter. I suppose the point is to not worry too much about the colander plot and enjoy the Spectre-cal. But the clunkiness was all I could think about. The torture scene in particular – compared to the menace of the one in Casino Royale, this was like a bad episode of the New Avengers.
There were some awful edits too. Walking across the sand at his secret lair, the baddie says “Information….” and then, inside the building and walking down a corridor, says the rest of the sentence. Unless I nodded off and missed a bit, which is quite likely.
Somehow missed this fine comment previously, but will simply add:
“Delete the smart blood files”
And
“I’ve got something better to do”. He might as well have said “[placeholder while we think of something really cool and funny and sexy for Daniel to use as a kiss off]”
I also enjoyed the endless scenes of Christoph Waltz explaining how he was responsible for “all” James’ “suffering”, none of which we’ve seen or had any real indication of. Maybe he was referring to his spectacularly cruel attempt to perform DIY brain surgery so that Bond would suffer the torture of forgetting a woman he’s known for fully 48 hours.
Seriously though, those smart blood files won’t delete themselves…
Kenmore would and has been rough on films in front of actors and directors. Reviews are opinions and should be taken as seriously ‘s such. If people took any notice then Entourage, SATC2 and Pirates of Caribbean would have bombed at the box office
Good news! Entourage DID bomb at the box office!
Kenmore? KERMODE you dumb FUCKING phone. I give this autocorrect function two thumbs down
I’m disapplointed, very.
SPOILERS again…
..
.
.
.
.
The monologuing…. the stupid actions of everyone…. the length… the pointlessness of Rory Kinnear’s character… the sheer accuracy of Bond’s shooting (I literally had my face in my hands as he shoots form hundreds of yards away with a handgun from a motorboat at a speeding helicopter, hoping this was not the real conclusion)… the race against ANOTHER pointless countdown.
I loved Casino Royale and thought we were entering a golden age of a Bond informed by Bourne. . My generosity towards this iteration has been drained.
There was a bad episode of ‘The New Avengers’?!
Oh yeah, ‘Gnaws’ was a shocker.
Is the answer to the original question…..’because it wasn’t made in the 60s’?
The one about the white rat is a bit of a bore.
Also, as an overall criticism, waaaay too much leching over Purdey.
Quite right, @poppy-succeeds. Emma Peel is the one to drool over.
Agree with all of the above. We went en famille, Mrs.T thought it was good par for the course Bond. Twang Jr, age 11, though it awesome. Sorry, AWESOME. I thought it was slow, dull, boring even, over hyped and a great disappointment. I thought DC in Casino Royale was excellent, not bad in Skyfall though the dependence on CGI really bothered me. And this was utter tosh.
Hey, at the age of 11, I thought the David Niven “Casino Royale” was awesome….actually, at 55 I still quite like it.
I thought it was dull drivel too. Skyfall had all that Scottish atmosphere. This had no soul at all. A waste of millions.
GLW and I went to see it at weekend.
I don’t have any great expectations from Bond movies to be honest.
I agree with Colin H that this was particularly soulless and even more contrived that usual.
Felt like they designed the big set pieces first, then got some big name actors.
And lastly engaged a scriptwriter to try and tie it all together.
A very cynical exercise.
Probably the most important things were the ads before the film which referenced it and then hey presto they were in the movie, I am thinking in particular of the Sony smart phone.
It doesn’t seem to have been reviewed in the US yet.
I wonder what our friends ‘on the other side of the pond’ will make of it.
‘The name’s Pond, Atlantic Pond…’
Perhaps we need someone to start a thread called “James Bond: The Scientology of Cinema”……
Thought it was fun. I see the shortcomings but could cope with them for the compensation of glossy physical action but did have a big issue with the lkast half hour in London.
Thw worst thing was M,Q, Moneypeeny all in the car like Scooby Doo, embarassing. Terrible sub-Baddie in moriarty – it was so telegraphed from the start. I did though think the first hour was supremly entertaining.
SPOILERS
I enjoyed this more than Skyfall. Then again I had high hopes for that and was actively looking forward to it. It let me down.
For this one I didn’t expect too much and chose to let it wash over. Parts of it put together well. But as Poppy says above the ‘humour’ that is injected from the sofa onward is leaden and a world away from the attempt at angst in Casino Royale.
What interested me most was where he got all his many and various changes of stylish and expensive clothes from? How did he have time to shop and try things on in between all the jet setting across 72 hours or whatever it was?
Yes, the car chase. In a gadget filled Aston. God.
And how is it that an internationally accessible IT system is set to go live with only the chief of staff present, at night, in a deserted building? Ou est the droves of contractors who would have been on a project of that scale for months. Not even one other techie around to rollback just in case.
On a show-off note I have worked in a couple of the actual govt buildings swathed in nighttime shadow at the end. Lucky me.
Saw it last night. Verdict: it’s a bit shit. Principle problems are the script, the plot, the baddie, Bond’s wardrobe.
Taken in turn:
Poppy nails number 1 with the Johnny Englisg reference. Bond should always be knowingly camp, but Spectre crosses the boundary into parody.
Number two, the watch. How it is set up by Q, and how Bond is given so long to explain its use to the latest Bond babe.
3. I can’t better Poppy’s Tellytubby reference. Was it meant to be a deliberate tribute to Goldmember?
The clothes, oh dear the clothes! Craig has never been a well dressed Bond but this was even worse than usual. He never looks good in a suit (too short and muscular) but the duff check number in the opening scene was hideous. He has always work pn his ties too short, but what on earth was going on with those huge collars (what we called a ‘fuck off collar’ when I was at school, because they were so out of fashion even in 1980)?
BBC News Flash!
Critics outside the UK don’t particularly like it.
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20151106-is-daniel-craigs-bond-tired-and-dull
Having seen it last night, I thought I’d read this thread.
It’s interesting – I thoroughly enjoyed it. The humour was a bit corny in parts (sofa, “shiiiiit…” moments (both)) but as a spectacle (which is all I really wanted out of it) – excellent. I particularly enjoyed the single shot used at the start – did wonder how long they’d keep it going.
I also thought both main female leads were under used (was Monica Belucci’s part literally a cameo)? But it was certainly a satisfying end to the weekend.
Can see reading the comments above why it might divide the audience. It wasn’t as dark or gritty as the (excellent) Skyfall and if you’re not a fan of the more campy 70s-80s Roger Moore films (which I am) then the humour might pall somewhat. But there you go – my 2 pence 🙂
Anyone else think Blofeld looked a little bit like Chris Moyles?
Mrs Biggles and I both enjoyed it. Not as good as Skyfall or, more particularly, Casino Royale. The trainspotter in me also quite liked references to previous films etc., but certainly not convinced by the “Roger Moore humour” elements.
Probable highlight for me was the ‘plane chase scene – the aircraft used was one of Aurigny’s old ones.
The main problem with the Bond series is just that: it’s a series. After twenty-odd films, there’s nowhere left to go and it’s descended into pastiche.
In our age of pre-internet nostalgia, Bond is a link to the past and, quite simply, guarantees a huge box-office return. I’d love to see the makers be bolder and rip up the formula, but Bond is a comfort blanket and people seem to want ‘classic’ Bond. In this sense, I thought Skyfall was poor – it was just like a greatest hits.
Maybe sticking him back in the Cold War era might provide a bit more of storyline, but I doubt it would play well with a younger international audience. The series certainly needs a bloody good rest; we can’t miss you if you don’t go away.
\i know one has to suspend disbelief, but firing a pistol at a helicopter 100s of yards away. Aw, c’mon.
Fun theory here.
http://www.ew.com/article/2015/11/10/spectre-ending
Condensed: everything after the torture scene is in Bond’s mind.
That’s a great article.
SPOILERS
I’m glad someone else noticed the sheer weirdness of Bond’s escape from Blofeld’s lair. Particularly the bit where he simply walks on out of the compound, holding the Bond girl’s hand, occasionally turning and casually spraying his machine gun, one handed, not bothering to aim at all, at the pursuing henchmen, all of whom instantly drop down dead. And then the big explosion, as they casually jump into a helicopter. The whole thing looked absolutely preposterous, even by Bond standards.
Exactly. And why, having gained the upper hand, he didn’t at least try to kill off the baddie at the same time. And how come the torture had no discernible effect on him?
But this is why the whole thing was such a colossal disappointment. It lighthearted Bond clumsily welded to serious Bond. The theory doesn’t justify Bond rocking up to the baddie’s lair and handing himself in for torture, but at least it explains the mess afterwards.
The whole torture thing was weird, as well.
For one thing, I’ve no idea what he was meant to be doing to Bond, or why drills should be capable of removing individual memories. For another, I have no idea why the greatest torture this dude could possibly imagine for Bond was to forget a woman he’d met less than a week earlier.
The whole thing typified what was so terribly wrong with Waltz as a villain: he spent an inordinate amount of time telling Bond how evil and terrible he was, how he was “the author of all your misery”, but he never actually seemed to DO anything particularly bad in amongst all the speeches, and we never got the sense that Bond had suffered any misery at all.
Dentist’s chair aside, I’m fairly sure I’ve been through work appraisals more threatening. He even lapsed into outright Kenneth Williams country when Bond is stood in the meteor room and his voice emerges from offscreen, instructing Bond to “touch it”.
The crowning moment of the whole sorry affair, though, had to be Bond’s “I’ve got something better to do” line, right at the end. Jesus wept. Someone (or rather, numerous “someones”) was being paid hundreds of thousands to write this script, and THAT’s the best they could come up with? So, so tired.
I saw it again at the weekend. The other half hadn’t yet, and I’d seen all but the last few minutes, so I thought, sod it.
It’s really not very good at all. I could deal with all of the above if it weren’t for the fact that the baddy had all the debonair, ice-cold, psychopathic insouciance of Sooty.
I have an alternative theory which might explain a lot of what’s on screen: neither Waltz nor Craig ever agreed to be in this film. Both were kidnapped and forced to perform at gun point.
Seriously – think about it.
So meta.
In typical Empire podcast style their Spoiler special on Spectre is exceleent – illuminating from Mendes than a good balanced discussion of the film
https://soundcloud.com/empiremagazine/spectre-spoiler-special-sam-mendes
Cor, thank for this, Tim Tunes, am listening now, and already pleased that somebody else picked up on the same Easter egg that I did.
Mendes is talking about the decision to make Waltz’s character into Blofeld. It’s absolutely nonsensical.
That is the bit I just didn’t get at all!
Please can someone explain? Please?
VG review here. Agree with every word.
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/11/04/spectre-review-bond-betrayed (although I wish I knew what had happened in the Star Trek movie that causes everybody to compare the two.)
Thing is though – like it of loathe its not dull. Whatever your position its a good film to debate.