Post by wvengineer on Nov 9, 2015 0:50:38 GMT
Moved from a different thread. No Spoilers since this is still new in the US.
Spectre is a direct continuation of each of the three previous Bond films, Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall. All three had really creepy villains. I really liked the setup of Quantum, it was much more sinister for an organization to be going after the most basic of resources instead of stuff like oil. Too bad the rest of the movie was rather uninteresting.
A think part of the problem here is that following up from Skyfall is going to be extremely difficult. Skyfall was nominated for five Oscars and seven BAFTAs, wining two of each. They had huge expectations to live up to and it really isn't surprising that they couldn't quite do it.
I won't go into any plot details because it is still fresh in the theaters here. Spectre pulls together elements from the previous three films, recognizing all three of them into it's continuity. I like how they expanded their universe and the villains setup previously and added them into a new, larger conspiracy, while keeping it believable.
Action sequences are well done. They go big without being over the top and keep it believable. At the same time, they don't overload it with action sequences like Quantum did or other film makers. (JJ Abrams and Micheal Bay, I'm looking at you.) There is sufficient time to catch your breath and to build up and explore the characters and their relationships without looking the pacing of the movie.
I really like what they are doing with the characters of M and Q. Both work in a modern setting. M as the department manager trying to balance his job with government politics and Q as the tech modern genius that doesn't dive into the campy side that they used to. Moneypenny is serviceable as a way to further the plot, other than that, they don't do much with her.
I have two big criticisms with Spectre.
First, they do very little that is new with this film. Too many elements are recycled from previous filsm that they have become tropes. Bond has to go rogue, been there done that in at least seven films that I can quickly think of. Bond creates an international embarrassment for MI-6, been there, done that. Seeking out an old foe for help, done that. The henchman who won't die, been there. Protecting the girl who the villains want to kill, done that. Debate on if the double-O program is relevant in a post cold war/21st century environment, we heard that one before. Bond being tortured, here we go again. Really, even Spectre is nothing new or very different.
One of the things that made the previous three Bond films interesting was that took the familiar elements in a new direction and tried new things to make Bond fit in with the 21st Century. Here, they just played it safe going with the tried and true.
Second, the villains are terribly under utilized. Christoph Waltz has done some seriously creepy work (Hans Landa in Inglorious Basterds) and Andrew Scott did the borderline psychotic mastermind with Moriarty from the BBC's Sherlock. Neither is given a chance to really do much with their rolls. As a result, what could have been creepy and memorable characters are flat and boring.
There are two twist regarding Christoph Waltz's character. One is his roll which is one of the worst kept secrets of the film. Second is his relation to Bond. This one really doesn't seam to work with the film and seems pushed in for sequel bate. Not sure if I find that one plausible or not.
Overall, it is a good and enjoyable film. It holds it's own against the Connery era films and it easily surpasses many of the Moore and Brosnan era ones. It is disappointing to have such an opportunity to take the Classic villain in a new, modern direction, only to play it safe.
I think that part of it is that this film is primary trying to setup the next film and as such let's itself suffer for the sake of the next go-round.
Spectre is a direct continuation of each of the three previous Bond films, Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall. All three had really creepy villains. I really liked the setup of Quantum, it was much more sinister for an organization to be going after the most basic of resources instead of stuff like oil. Too bad the rest of the movie was rather uninteresting.
A think part of the problem here is that following up from Skyfall is going to be extremely difficult. Skyfall was nominated for five Oscars and seven BAFTAs, wining two of each. They had huge expectations to live up to and it really isn't surprising that they couldn't quite do it.
I won't go into any plot details because it is still fresh in the theaters here. Spectre pulls together elements from the previous three films, recognizing all three of them into it's continuity. I like how they expanded their universe and the villains setup previously and added them into a new, larger conspiracy, while keeping it believable.
Action sequences are well done. They go big without being over the top and keep it believable. At the same time, they don't overload it with action sequences like Quantum did or other film makers. (JJ Abrams and Micheal Bay, I'm looking at you.) There is sufficient time to catch your breath and to build up and explore the characters and their relationships without looking the pacing of the movie.
I really like what they are doing with the characters of M and Q. Both work in a modern setting. M as the department manager trying to balance his job with government politics and Q as the tech modern genius that doesn't dive into the campy side that they used to. Moneypenny is serviceable as a way to further the plot, other than that, they don't do much with her.
I have two big criticisms with Spectre.
First, they do very little that is new with this film. Too many elements are recycled from previous filsm that they have become tropes. Bond has to go rogue, been there done that in at least seven films that I can quickly think of. Bond creates an international embarrassment for MI-6, been there, done that. Seeking out an old foe for help, done that. The henchman who won't die, been there. Protecting the girl who the villains want to kill, done that. Debate on if the double-O program is relevant in a post cold war/21st century environment, we heard that one before. Bond being tortured, here we go again. Really, even Spectre is nothing new or very different.
One of the things that made the previous three Bond films interesting was that took the familiar elements in a new direction and tried new things to make Bond fit in with the 21st Century. Here, they just played it safe going with the tried and true.
Second, the villains are terribly under utilized. Christoph Waltz has done some seriously creepy work (Hans Landa in Inglorious Basterds) and Andrew Scott did the borderline psychotic mastermind with Moriarty from the BBC's Sherlock. Neither is given a chance to really do much with their rolls. As a result, what could have been creepy and memorable characters are flat and boring.
There are two twist regarding Christoph Waltz's character. One is his roll which is one of the worst kept secrets of the film. Second is his relation to Bond. This one really doesn't seam to work with the film and seems pushed in for sequel bate. Not sure if I find that one plausible or not.
Overall, it is a good and enjoyable film. It holds it's own against the Connery era films and it easily surpasses many of the Moore and Brosnan era ones. It is disappointing to have such an opportunity to take the Classic villain in a new, modern direction, only to play it safe.
I think that part of it is that this film is primary trying to setup the next film and as such let's itself suffer for the sake of the next go-round.
