James Bond: Spectre
Discussion
944fan said:
Europa1 said:
Off to see it at the IMAX near the office tonight with a gang of mates from work. Can't wait.
Off to see it in Imax at 8pm on my tod as I am billy no mates. Don't care, least no one will try and talk to me during it.
k sake' either under my breath or in my head.And when the fool behind starts hoofing your seat, there's less reason not to turn around and say something...
Take some Valium.
Ummmm. It was ok. Ignoring having to sit in a packed theatre with sniffing, snorting, talking, rustling people......the film was ok. Nothing special really. At the risk of sounding like I'm trying to intellectualise it...I thought the locations, stunts, filming etc were great. Felt that they had too much strong music going on to try and lift the film as it was lacking in some ways ie not much in the characters and plot. The bond ladies weren't very sexy, the Aston looked like a prototype, the villains weren't very villan like, Daniel Craig had a face like a frog...the names Pond, James Pond.
It was worth a trip to the cinema but it's not a classic.
It was worth a trip to the cinema but it's not a classic.
Just watched Skyfall again in preparation for trip to cinema on Weds and it really is SO obvious that the part of Kincade was written For Sean Connery. Lines like "I was killing bad guys before you were born". Such a shame he decided to pull out. It really would have been an epic end to the 50th anniversary film.
I thought it was pretty good. The only problem is they have tried to bring some of the humor back and the first 30mins it's more Roger Moore. They have lost all the grittiness from casino royale. It seemed to jump around a lot, like they were trying to squeeze in as many locations as possible.
Beati Dogu said:
I thought Skyfall was terrible. The only good thing was Judy Dench getting bumped off.
I'm with you on this, Skyfall was terrible, (only marginally better than the pile of poo QOS was!)where are the plot's FFS? the basic scripts are s
te, it;s like they are making it up as they go along.I am put off spectre when the reviews rate it as almost as good as skyfall...
personally, for me Casino Royal was the best we have had in recent years, it actually had a plot.
Gazzab said:
Ummmm. It was ok. Ignoring having to sit in a packed theatre with sniffing, snorting, talking, rustling people......the film was ok. Nothing special really. At the risk of sounding like I'm trying to intellectualise it...I thought the locations, stunts, filming etc were great. Felt that they had too much strong music going on to try and lift the film as it was lacking in some ways ie not much in the characters and plot. The bond ladies weren't very sexy, the Aston looked like a prototype, the villains weren't very villan like, Daniel Craig had a face like a frog...the names Pond, James Pond.
It was worth a trip to the cinema but it's not a classic.
7/10 for the film. Would have got 8/10 if we'd seen more of the cat It was worth a trip to the cinema but it's not a classic.
Start was excellent, absolutely back up there brilliant - exactly what you expect from Bond
Then we get the theme tune - I was told yesterday that the theme tune would make more sense when I'd seen the film; it doesn't - it STILL sounds like a squealing & wailing banshee with an orchestra behind it to me
As Gazzab says, I don't see where there was so much fuss about the Bond Ladies, but I disagree with him about the Aston - Q tells him its a prototype, and that's what we saw; that maybe because I've worked with prototype Astons, Jaguars & Land Rovers; but (without spoilers) I liked the labels & the humour
Craig, was Craig - played Bond beautifully. Blofeld could have been more Blofeld iykwim
Watched it last night - and was a little disappointed.
Pacing was very hit and miss and I felt a lot of the film was drawn out just so they could meet the "longest bond movie" claim.
Some of the humour felt a little forced and was a bit too gimmicky given the relatively serious tone of the previous movies - it just didn't seem to mesh well.
The "action music" also didn't seem to hit the spot somehow.
Overall i'd place it third after Casino Royale and Skyfall.
Pacing was very hit and miss and I felt a lot of the film was drawn out just so they could meet the "longest bond movie" claim.
Some of the humour felt a little forced and was a bit too gimmicky given the relatively serious tone of the previous movies - it just didn't seem to mesh well.
The "action music" also didn't seem to hit the spot somehow.
Overall i'd place it third after Casino Royale and Skyfall.
Well I thought it was dire and think a lot of the CGI was awful, the Aston looked like a prototype as someone said above. The plot was barely there and it was really obvious where they were just chucking in the Bond references of old. I think its the worst Bond film of the modern era.
I didn't like Skyfall
944fan said:
I thought it was pretty good. The only problem is they have tried to bring some of the humor back and the first 30mins it's more Roger Moore. They have lost all the grittiness from casino royale. It seemed to jump around a lot, like they were trying to squeeze in as many locations as possible.
Gatiss said that. Oh dear, the Bond lot really do seem muddled and not knowing what to do. Back to the pointless travelogues.krunchkin said:
Just watched Skyfall again in preparation for trip to cinema on Weds and it really is SO obvious that the part of Kincade was written For Sean Connery. Lines like "I was killing bad guys before you were born". Such a shame he decided to pull out. It really would have been an epic end to the 50th anniversary film.
Such a shame that Sean has such an issue with the Bond thing. We could have had Gunga Din with Michael Caine, Roger Moore and Sean if he hadn't been an arse back in the 70's/80's.Off to see it tonight, I didn't like Skyfall much, all that "I'm too old for this st" stuff.
Does anyone know why Bond films cost so much to make? $300m-$350m they say to make this, don't know if that includes the money all the advertisers paid to have their stuff in it, but that's a huge amount - considering Star Wars 7 which will likely break all box office records 'only' cost $200m.
t" stuff. Does anyone know why Bond films cost so much to make? $300m-$350m they say to make this, don't know if that includes the money all the advertisers paid to have their stuff in it, but that's a huge amount - considering Star Wars 7 which will likely break all box office records 'only' cost $200m.
P-Jay said:
Off to see it tonight, I didn't like Skyfall much, all that "I'm too old for this st" stuff.
Does anyone know why Bond films cost so much to make? $300m-$350m they say to make this, don't know if that includes the money all the advertisers paid to have their stuff in it, but that's a huge amount - considering Star Wars 7 which will likely break all box office records 'only' cost $200m.
Locations? I seem to recall QoS went nuts with renovating some of their shooting locations. And they favour live action over CG, so the costs must soon add up! t" stuff. Does anyone know why Bond films cost so much to make? $300m-$350m they say to make this, don't know if that includes the money all the advertisers paid to have their stuff in it, but that's a huge amount - considering Star Wars 7 which will likely break all box office records 'only' cost $200m.
After that, promotion? I read yesterday that one budget (I forget which film, not a Bond) was half production and half promo! Sure 30mil + 30mil.
If it isn't already obvious, I have no real idea! Ha.
Gut feelings.
I left Skyfall feeling a little deflated - I'd ignored the spoilers about Judi Dench's M being killed off so that took me by surprise, but the 'Home Alone' aspect of the last act was just too grating (might have been excusable had Connery been persuaded to turn up).
I left Spectre wanting to see it again, immediately. It is a complete wallow-fest for the Bond fan without shoehorning the references in the way 'Die Another Day' did (and Spectre even managed to pay homage to the 'invisible Aston' reveal!). Everything a Bond movie should be and more.
Luvvit!
PS. I initially thought QoS was a disaster, but once you see past the trying-too-hard editing of some of the action scenes it is a grower, and IMO better than SF.
Craig era Bonds rated in order - CR, SP, QoS, SF (IMO).
ETA. Thomas Newman's scores are crud and the music is probably the biggest let-down of this movie - shame that he seems to come as a package with Sam Mendes. Nice to see though that they are still using David Arnold's arrangement of the Bond theme.
I left Skyfall feeling a little deflated - I'd ignored the spoilers about Judi Dench's M being killed off so that took me by surprise, but the 'Home Alone' aspect of the last act was just too grating (might have been excusable had Connery been persuaded to turn up).
I left Spectre wanting to see it again, immediately. It is a complete wallow-fest for the Bond fan without shoehorning the references in the way 'Die Another Day' did (and Spectre even managed to pay homage to the 'invisible Aston' reveal!). Everything a Bond movie should be and more.
Luvvit!
PS. I initially thought QoS was a disaster, but once you see past the trying-too-hard editing of some of the action scenes it is a grower, and IMO better than SF.
Craig era Bonds rated in order - CR, SP, QoS, SF (IMO).
ETA. Thomas Newman's scores are crud and the music is probably the biggest let-down of this movie - shame that he seems to come as a package with Sam Mendes. Nice to see though that they are still using David Arnold's arrangement of the Bond theme.
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 27th October 10:20
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff