Badmovies.org Forum

I didn't see a thread for Spectre so here is one.

I'm very much looking forward to seeing in the theater.  :teddyr:

I am too: I will buy some earplugs for that theme tune, though.  :smile:

I stumbled across an article saying the film needs to rake in 650 million dollars to expenses. I think it can do it.  :thumbup:

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/s/box-office-spectre-needs-650-million-break-even-175721163.html (https://www.yahoo.com/movies/s/box-office-spectre-needs-650-million-break-even-175721163.html)

Not able to see it this weekend, but . . .?! I do have plans to see it next weekend, if only because I have seen all the Bond films to date, dating back to 1962's "Dr. No."
Some 2 dozen films and 53 years later, Bond may be getting a little old and a little tired, but . . .?! It still has to be the longest running film series from Hollywood.

Actually, the film version of Bond dates back even before 1962 with an episode of the TV anthology series called "Climax" from 1954 called "Casino Royale." Which was the 1st appearance by Bond on film and was believed lost, till it was found. Though the last 3 minutes of it appear to be totally lost. Quite something with Barry Nelson playing an American Bond, a British Leiter played by Michael Pate, and Peter Lorre as the villain Le Chiffre.

A side note about another film series worth checking out is the Thin Man series with William Powell and Myrna Loy, which while it only included a half dozen films and only lasted from 1934 to 1945, it was always up to date. Thus, it is interesting to note the changes in American automobiles, American fashions, and American interior decoration within that time period.

Later . . . more later.

I saw this earlier today on ULTRASCREEN . I really enjoyed this. The cast and script was amazing. I had big expectations going into this based on Skyfall and was not let down at all. I will be buying this on bluray when it comes out on DVD.

Oooooh, so cool!  It opens in Australia tomorrow, but I need to work...   :bluesad:

Honestly, while I absolutely loved the revamping of James Bond that began with Casino Royale, the later movies have had less ruthless grunt and a bit more poncery, if that makes sense.  I do hope that Spectre has considerable grunt.   :teddyr:

This is going to sound retarded, but I enjoyed eveything but the plot. It wants to be a closure to the arch they started with "Casino Royale" and the introduction of Daniel Craig as Bond, but it does fall short.

Basically, the problem is how they've chosen to develop SPECTRE and Blofeld this time around. It's seriously flawed, really.

On the other hand, it's a Craig-era Bond with Sam Mendes at the helm, so expect to be entertained all the way through with the occasional visual flourish, but compared to "Skyfall" this one is clearly the lesser of the two.

That's what I hear most people say about the film.  :smile:

I also thought Skyfall was better, but found this enjoyable as well

*SPOILERS AHEAD*

Nobody else has issues with the way they used SPECTRE? It seemed to me it's no longer an international crime syndicate, but a rather silly organization whose main purpose is to convince Bond life sucks.

And what's with Blofeld now being related to Bond? Now the saga uses Autin Powers as inspiration?

Seen it the Friday after Thanksgiving. I'll talk about extraneous issues here, which is more fun, and I'll talk about the film itself later.

This is supposedly the last Bond film to star Daniel Craig. The next Bond film is said to star . . . any one of these actors. All of whom except Damian have a full slate of films planned to 2017 or later.

Damian Lewis
Emily Blunt
Henry Cavill
Idris Elba
Tom Hardy
or Tom Hiddleston.

This is also the last Bond film to be distributed by Sony Columbia, which is under going an austerity program and won't be distributing the next Bond film. It looks to me that either Universal NBC or 20th Century Fox will become the next distributor. Neither Paramount Viacom and/or Time Warner has the cash need to make the bid, and it does not fit into Disney/Lucas/Marvel/Pixar's slate of films.

And we'll see what we'll see.

The only print film critic I read regularly is the one for the free weekly rag in my area. More to keep up with what is showing in my area than for his opinion as to what to see or not to see. Reason for which I'll get to later.

"Nobody does it better."
Not here. Not now.
I knew I might dislike it. I just did not know how much I might dislike it. From the pre-credit opening to the ending. All of which have been done better in other Bond films.

Pre-credits opening
"A horse is of course a horse. Unless . . ."
Unlike the pre-credit opening in one of Roger Moore's Bonds. Here I thought I was watching a commercial ad. Of course, that may because I was seeing the film in a cinema that runs ads before the film. And here they skipped the ads and e'en any trailers before going right to the film.

And it gave the wrong idea about Mexico and Mexicans, as the Mexican Dia de Muertos. is being replaced by something called Halloween.

Title song and music.
Disliked

Action
The film critic previously mentioned liked the action scenes in the film. I thought they were crap. E'en by the standards of previous Bond films. None of which I liked, except for once. An action scene everyone else seems to dislike. The action scenes set in the Casino in Casino Royale. Not the 2006 version, but . . . the 1967 version.

Look right, and it's William Holden as Ransome kicking the crap out of the villains. Look left, and it's Native Americans doing a war dance. Look up, and it's the paratroopers from the French Foreign Legion coming thru a hole in the Casino roof. Look down, and it's coin flippin' George Raft, who says: "I think I shot myself!" And then drops dead. And WTF! Is that David Prowse as the Creature shambling thru the scene.

And if one actually knows anything about action in the real world and how uncontrolled it oft is, which is the antithesis of film action, which is controlled to the nth degree. Here is one that actually gives the appearance of being out of control.

And the filmmakers knew how important music is to an action scene. Here backing the action with the "Theme from Casino Royale" by Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass.

Villains.
Dislike. Badly written I thought.

Villain organization.
Dislike. In this day and age, something like that in the film does not make any sense to me, as it is a product of time gone by.

Daniel Craig.
This says more about me, then Craig as an actor and person, but . . .?! He is my least favorite actor to play the role. Again because . . .

Bond.
Dislike. Badly written.
I can take Len Deighton--seriously!
I can take John le Carre--seriously!
But . . .?! Ian Fleming? I can't take seriously!
Thus, a serious Bond in a serious film does not work for me.
It and he needs more comedy.

Ending.
What amounts to a double ending, and that, as here, normally does not work, as here.

Final thoughts.
The Bond series of films is hardly the most logical series of films, but . . .?! I see no logic to the fact that there are no repercussions to whatever happens, except a few newspaper headlines, and this is getting tiresome.

They could not e'en get the small details right. You ne'er e'er sit with your back to the door. You always sit with your back to the wall.

And not till now, have I found, as much as I dislike or like the previous films. it to be . . .
Boring! Till now.
Confusing! Till now.

Not that they need my help, as the film had the biggest opening week of any Bond film next to "Skyjack," but . . .?! I suggest they . . .
Get better writers.
Get a better stunt coordinator.
And get rid of the foreign locations, in a world where foreign travel has become so easy, they no longer work.
Instead go with a strength. The one thing the filmmakers did right. The British vibe, and set the next Bond film entirely in England, using British actors.

And there will be another Bond film next year in 2016. "Silence is Golden" w/ Matthew Wood. An "unofficial" Bond film. No word as to when we'll get another "official" Bond film.

Re: Spectre


respect her

Emily Blunt?  What? 

I am positive someone made that up completely, probably someone who believes the "James Bond is a cover identity" fan theory that is obviously false.  Idris Elba is similar, though if they're planning to reboot it AGAIN I could see it.  Is that what they'll do now?  A reboot every actor change?

Also, I wouldn't be certain this is Craig's last.  He said "I hate all this crap blah blah blah", then eventually basically was like, "Well....  Maybe.".  I could see one more happening. 

I saw it twice a few weeks ago, but neglected to post about it.  It was my favourite of the Daniel Craig series, but I did find it very enjoyable.

What I didn't like:

- the main villain didn't seem truly menacing, as much as the plot wanted him to be.  Christoph Waltz didn't quite do it for me, here.
- the double ending was okay, but I would have preferred a single ending.  That's just me.

What I liked:

- as was to be expected, the cinematography and editing was top notch.  The Day of the Dead opening continuous tracking shot (which was actually shot in multiple takes, but blended together artfully) was completely arresting.

- Batista playing the silent, violent psychopathic henchman was the real villain.  Goodness, that was impressive.  He had the physicality of Oddjob and the brutality of Jaws, with none of the tongue-in-cheek humour of either.

- the injection of visual and scene references to Connery and Moore-era Bond movies, like Daniel Craig's tight black sweater with shoulder holster; the Walther PPK featuring prominently; the use of a classic-style Omega watch with a NATO strap (half marketing, half homage); snow fields chase scenes, vintage style colour grading, and much more.  It was like watching a classic era Bond with modern technology.

- spolier alert (or not, as the case often is): Bond gets the girl.  Like, he really gets her.  If this was Daniel Craig's last James Bond (although I have read he is contracted for one more), Spectre would be a great swansong.

Yeah, I have to say Bautista is a great choice for that type of villain.  He has real screen presence, can act, and he's huge.  He even has quite good comedic timing if the role calls for it.  Really shows why pro wrestling is a better source for character roles than UFC likely ever will be - they're already acting and creating a show.

Totally agreed.  Professional wrestlers like Bautista and The Rock are actors as well as combat athletes, so they can do stunts and show presence when needed.  UFC athletes don't have the necessity of creating stage presence or depicting emotion.  Mind you, I think Dwayne Johnson is an outlier, even in pro wrestling.  He has great presence and charisma, and his acting chops are very passable, too.  Not all pro wrestlers have these qualities to the degree of Dwayne Johnson.