I disagree with consensus here that it sucked, however Judi adench retired and should be ceased from being featured in the new Bond films. She was killed and M is now Ralph Fiennes.
Despite some of my comments in the other thread, I’ll go against the consensus and say it didn’t suck. Actually, I’d put it as the second-best Craig Bond film.
Does it have problems? Of course it does! Every Bond film can be dissected to the point that only the stupid is left. Even the sainted Connery films. It’s what you personally can stand that determines which films you think are the best. There’s no true objective way of ranking them. In other words, they’re ALL stupid at the core.
Agree with OP. Knew it was bad by the time the credits came up. Lands on a sofa through pure luck, then fighting in the helicopter in complete disregard for the lives of the thousands of people below (and did he know the pilot was a henchman)?
Yeah, pure luck and questionable morals are part of all the bond movies, but the Craig ones have not normally been so overt and humourless about it.
And then after that, Dench’s ghost saying go kill a guy set the tone for the remainder. A bunch of nice locations sans plot.
This has actually tipped me over into unsubscribing from the Mark Kermode film review podcast. I’ve disagreed with his opinion many times recently, but his gushing review, held at the premiere, was the final sell-out. Having seen it I don’t know how anyone could say better than skyfall with a straight face.
I know one of the world’s most popular, and free, podcasts is unlikely to miss one listener, I’m just sayin’.
It was WAY fuckin’ better than Skyfall. Skyfall makes my head hurt from how stupid the plot was. I don’t know how anyone could say Skyfall was better than Spectre.
Spectre - nonsensical action sequences (but fun)
Skyfall - nonsensical plot (head hurts)
It wasn’t a bad movie as far as production, action and thrills go. It was definitely the Bond formula, with an attempt to give him more than two dimensions by referring to his childhood.
There were too many “lucky shots” to stay within the bounds of semi-credibility, like Bond being able to shoot down a helicopter with a pistol, Bond shooting a tank gauge and causing the whole compound to explode, and Bond being able to find the bad guy in the first part of the movie by walking on a couple of rooftops and finding his quarry formulating his evil plan right by an uncurtained window across the street at the same elevation. But this is typical of Bond movies, just like when Roger Moore swapped out a Faberge egg with a bugged duplicate with just one hand in front of a roomful of people and security guards in Octopussy.
All the actor playing Bond is required to do is look cool. Never change facial expression, except to show mild discomfort when surrounded by flame jets shooting at you while suspended above a shark tank and an oscillating blade is slowly cutting away the rope. Women will fall in love with him instantly, unless they’re overzealous corporate or government leaders with a chip on their shoulder vs all men, in which case they’ll eventually melt, jump into a passionate relationship with him, then disappear into obscurity when the next case comes up.
It’s what they’ve been doing for the past 50 years, so why change now?
Yeah, it sucked pretty bad. I did like the first half of the opening sequence (before the helicopter), I thought it was a nice nod to Live and Let Die and was looking for a ‘dedicated to Geoffrey Holder’ tag, but I guess not.
It wasn’t a gunshot that blew it up, it was a watch-bomb (bomb-watch?). that’s something completely different.
Because rail travel is ‘romantic’. Haven’t you seen ‘Murder on the Orient Express’?
I thought it was ‘meh’. The logical inconsistencies don’t bother me all that much, because it’s basically just a comic book, but on the whole I found it rather boring. This was actually the first Daniel Craig Bond film I’ve seen…I was expecting better.
I think it was fine as an old school Bond movie. Old school Bond movies always had a contrived plot, with Q giving Bond three Chekov’s guns and Bond doing no actual spying. The “secret” base was a nice nod back to “this is what the future will look like, as interpreted by people in the past” that a lot of older Bonds had.
I’ll agree that it failed as a Daniel Craig Bond movie, since they’ve been trying for more ‘realism’ by him do actual spying, haven’t had ridiculous gadgets, and justified scene changes by clues he found spying (though the villain plans were pretty nuts throughout)
Where did he get the airplane though?
No, the watch bomb enabled him to escape from the torture chair.
A few minutes later he shot at a tank gauge, and started a series of explosions that blew up the whole base.
I’m surprised how many people think it’s worse than Quantum of Solace. I remember walking out hating it, and can barely remember what happens in it (except for the scenes referencing Goldfinger and The Spy Who Loved Me).
I like what it represents more than what it actually is. That is, moving back to what Bond used to be (without completely abandoning the new). But whereas Skyfall managed to combine the new and the old fairly well, this one didn’t do as good a job.
Anything with Christoph Waltz cannot be all bad.
It was an old-timey Bond film for those that haven’t seen them – don’t kill Bond before explaining everything, have the trap he’s in move so his hands are together, have the trap open so he can escape. Inexplicably have them have lovely wardrobes fit for any circumstance no matter where they are (Reddington on Blacklist pulls this off too). Have a big dumb guy pursue them and be killed with a quip. I found it satisfying action.
Well, I’m unlikely to change anyone’s opinion, but here’s where I’m coming from on this:
Skyfall: Best opening of any bond film (genuinely shocking), one of the best theme songs, fascinating enemy in Silva, and a nice theme of bond needing to come to terms with whether he is still up to the task and whether he wants to be. M meanwhile needed to defend herself and much of MI6 from being similarly retired.
On the negative side the Home Alone end fight was stupid, and Silva’s plan seemed to rely on countless lucky events that he had no control over.
Spectre: Opening only memorable in that it made me lose sympathy for bond immediately. Boring theme with bond shirtless because fan service. Bond tasked with “kill this guy” by ghost of M (and you complained about skyfall’s plot)?
Beefy assassin was somewhat interesting, but Waltz was wasted in a wholly uninteresting character.
Double-0 programme being shut down might have been interesting if that wasn’t something recycled from last film.
I will say Spectre was very stylish and had some great locations, but that’s true of Skyfall too and all the recent Bonds. I can’t think of any other positives.
Bland. James Bland.
We finally saw it.
“Spectre” isn’t a great movie, but no Bond movie is a great movie. Some are a bit better than others (Goldfinger, Casino Royale) and some worse (Quantum of Solace, Octopussy) but they’re all very silly. All Bond movies are full of plot holes, have ridiculous villains, and jump from point to point way too fast. Even “Casino Royale” was silly as compared to movies that aren’t Bond films. If you remade any Bond film more or less scene for scene but changed the names of the characters everyone would think it was a piece of crap.
James Bond movies have to be seen as, well, James Bond movies. They have to follow certain devices, plots, and structures, and the idea is you enjoy a familiar ride. “Spectre” wasn’t the best effort they’re ever made, especially in that I agree they wasted Christoph Waltz, but it had all the things it needed. Bond doing it with beautiful women who fall instantly in love with him? Check and check. Great opening action sequence? Check. Crazy chase down a mountainside in an unlikely vehicle? Check. People having a seemingly unlimited supply of designer clothes? Check. Ridiculously elaborate world-conquest plot? Check. Secret base that blows up real good? Check. I paid to see a Bond movie and got one, and unlike “Quantum of Solace” the plot kind of made sense, sort of.
I agree with almost everything u said except From Russia with Love. It was much more down to earth and fx free. And the final fight was a brutal even affair that almost hurts to watch.
Goldfinger? Seriously? If you’d have picked From Russia With Love, Thunderball, even in a pinch Dr. No, I could agree. But Goldfinger? That one is almost stupider than Skyfall. In fact, it’s one of the most non-sensical Bonds ever.
Also, I really don’t get the hate for Octopussy. The plot is pretty straightforward and the villain’s plan makes sense (and might have even worked). What does everyone hate about it?
Just asking questions:
I suspect a lot of people hate the “campiness” of it, e.g., Bond doing a Tarzan-yodel through the jungle during the “Most Dangerous Game” scene, or the crowd turning their heads back and forth as Bond fights off his pursuers with a tennis racket.
Personally, I love that stuff. I like my Bond with a semi-smile and a wink at the audience. One of my favorite scenes in the entire Bond canon is the backgammon game in Octopussy.
Ah. That’s one reason why I dislike Moonraker. There’s perfectly working spaceshuttles, space marines, laser gun battles, and a door lock whose code was the 5 note theme from Close Encounters, but the pigeon doing the double take in Venice is what sealed it for me.
My theory is that the filmmakers also realized they went too far, which is why the next one, For Your Eyes Only, was such a straightforward spy story with minimal gadgetry.
To be fair, the plane is nothing more than self-propelled sled at that point. A very large snowmobile with its propelling mechanism overhead rather than underneath.