Saw Spectre last night. Perhaps I should wait a while before penning a review, in case I change my mind. Nah. Sorry it is long. Actually, no I’m not. If you sat through Spectre, this will seem like a nano-second to read ;-).
Hmmm... as a Bond fan I can see what they were trying to do, but they continue to dance around the wonderful opportunities to really get this franchise going again. Craig is established as Bond, yet they just seem to wallow in this whole 'Bond's past/Bond goes rogue /MI6 under siege thing', which is getting tiresome. Believe me, I really wanted to love this movie, I really did. I didn’t hate it, but I didn’t think it was as good as it could easily have been. Also, I know it is a movie and I am willing to suspend disbelief for less cerebral sequences like helicopter stunts and falling buildings. My beef is with what I believe is the producers/directors attempts to tell Bond’s story and they are just not hitting it.
I believe they spent far too long on issues of less importance (land, air, sea action sequences ala Quantum of Solace, or any of the Bourne movies you care to recall), and did not really build the character of Waltz enough, given the significance of his relationship to Bond and who he eventually turns out to be. I must say that they just really rushed the whole 'How I became a super-villain thing' and I was left unsatisfied with Waltzs' 'I was a neglected, jealous child because of 2 summers I shared my Dad with Bond, so I had to etc...'. A little lame really when one considers who he is and what the organisation stands for. I mean, this is SPECTRE. They are bad-ass beyond anything else Bond has ever tackled. They demand better development and perhaps display a little more resilience.
A recent interview with Bautista indicated he was glad of the opportunity to step out of his being type-cast as a blank, menacing bad guy who just hurts people - ummm, ok, Dave. You spent the whole time looking 'blank', intimidating people with your sheer size and 'menace', and bashing Bond to a pulp. The sum total of your lines was'Oh, shit'- in a bad Italian accent.
Bond's previous proclivity to sprint everywhere has been reduced to now staring at the bad guy/terrible situation and casually walking towards or from said identified threat. This probably explains the 2hrs 48min the movie needs to cover everything.
While on that point, I am nearly 40 and my bladder is not as willing to hold for that length of time. As a precaution, I did not drink fluids for 3 hours leading up. Some may say “that’s excessive”, or “too much information mate”, but that is how much I was looking forward to this movie and I hate having to duck out quickly and miss an important sequence or conversation. If you have the same issue, do not worry. Drink triple-shot espresso and pop caffeine tablets like they are candy/lollies, as you won’t miss too much.
Ahh, yes, and they do try to cover everything, except building a meaningful connection between Bond and Waltz. The latter was passable, but I believe was not given the room to flex his much-vaunted acting muscles. I feel his performance was a discount version of his Inglorious Basterds SS officer. His version of 'B' was somewhere between your Dad, and a teacher you really didn't get on with. Mildly menacing, but somehow ineffective. And what the hell was the whole sequence with 'that' machine? Short of giving socks with sandals he really acted a bit of a ‘duffer’. I mean, they gave away his two best lines in the previews, and they didn't really lead to any meaningful exchanges. Ho hum - missed opportunity.
When I heard the name ‘Oberhauser’ in the lead up to the release of the movie, I was tremendously excited. For those who have read the Bond short-story, ‘Octopussy’, Oberhauser is introduced and meets an untimely end in a Bavarian glacier shortly after WW2. It is during this story that we discover that after Bond’s parents are killed in a climbing accident when he was 8, that Hannes Oberhauser became a father-figure to him, “at a time when I really needed one”. This was one of the main reasons I thought this was going to be a great story. However, it too was glossed over a little too quickly and never really got traction or elicited the emotion it should have.
Ralph Fiennes should be a great 'M'. He is a great actor and yet, he just doesn't get beyond being 2-dimensional. Again, a victim of the producers/directors trying to do too much and include everyone in every possible facet of the movie. And what’s with Bond back-answering and being a smart-arse to him, in his office, without having his arse handed back to him? Perhaps they should read the books again and even watch a few of the older movies. 'M' is at the start, rarely in the body of the film, and may be there at the end, briefly.
'Q' is interesting enough and appears determined to break the mortician look, and was probably my favourite character in this one, but, he shouldn't be. However, Lea Seydoux has a really classical beauty and screen presence that I just couldn’t look away from. However, still a bit 2-dimensional on occasion.
Overall, my review may seem harsh, and there were a lot of entertaining parts, but my skirt was not blown up by any means. Not as much as I expected. I think they missed another opportunity to get back on line where Casino Royale started and tell Bond’s story (if that was their intention). Quantum of Solace (universally panned and the only Bond film I have seen only once, and almost walked out of) was a big step back. Skyfall was another meandering effort, but plenty of 'good parts', and they finally got rid of Judi Dench (3 movies too late).
I really wanted to love Spectre as it promised so much and was probably 'over-hyped' and 'over-spoiled'. Perhaps the expectation was too high. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t watch Bond for the great acting, but I do expect that they do tell a good story given that Ian Fleming did all the hard work for them. As a Bond-aficionado (books and movies) for nearly 3.5 decades I feel that Bond is in real danger of becoming the best player in our favourite sporting team that played one too many seasons, only to be remembered for that last, lack-lustre effort before ultimately, and inevitably, being cut prior to the last few games of the schedule.
I hope not, as I love Bond. But, as they often say, if you truly love something ...
Hmmm... as a Bond fan I can see what they were trying to do, but they continue to dance around the wonderful opportunities to really get this franchise going again. Craig is established as Bond, yet they just seem to wallow in this whole 'Bond's past/Bond goes rogue /MI6 under siege thing', which is getting tiresome. Believe me, I really wanted to love this movie, I really did. I didn’t hate it, but I didn’t think it was as good as it could easily have been. Also, I know it is a movie and I am willing to suspend disbelief for less cerebral sequences like helicopter stunts and falling buildings. My beef is with what I believe is the producers/directors attempts to tell Bond’s story and they are just not hitting it.
I believe they spent far too long on issues of less importance (land, air, sea action sequences ala Quantum of Solace, or any of the Bourne movies you care to recall), and did not really build the character of Waltz enough, given the significance of his relationship to Bond and who he eventually turns out to be. I must say that they just really rushed the whole 'How I became a super-villain thing' and I was left unsatisfied with Waltzs' 'I was a neglected, jealous child because of 2 summers I shared my Dad with Bond, so I had to etc...'. A little lame really when one considers who he is and what the organisation stands for. I mean, this is SPECTRE. They are bad-ass beyond anything else Bond has ever tackled. They demand better development and perhaps display a little more resilience.
A recent interview with Bautista indicated he was glad of the opportunity to step out of his being type-cast as a blank, menacing bad guy who just hurts people - ummm, ok, Dave. You spent the whole time looking 'blank', intimidating people with your sheer size and 'menace', and bashing Bond to a pulp. The sum total of your lines was'Oh, shit'- in a bad Italian accent.
Bond's previous proclivity to sprint everywhere has been reduced to now staring at the bad guy/terrible situation and casually walking towards or from said identified threat. This probably explains the 2hrs 48min the movie needs to cover everything.
While on that point, I am nearly 40 and my bladder is not as willing to hold for that length of time. As a precaution, I did not drink fluids for 3 hours leading up. Some may say “that’s excessive”, or “too much information mate”, but that is how much I was looking forward to this movie and I hate having to duck out quickly and miss an important sequence or conversation. If you have the same issue, do not worry. Drink triple-shot espresso and pop caffeine tablets like they are candy/lollies, as you won’t miss too much.
Ahh, yes, and they do try to cover everything, except building a meaningful connection between Bond and Waltz. The latter was passable, but I believe was not given the room to flex his much-vaunted acting muscles. I feel his performance was a discount version of his Inglorious Basterds SS officer. His version of 'B' was somewhere between your Dad, and a teacher you really didn't get on with. Mildly menacing, but somehow ineffective. And what the hell was the whole sequence with 'that' machine? Short of giving socks with sandals he really acted a bit of a ‘duffer’. I mean, they gave away his two best lines in the previews, and they didn't really lead to any meaningful exchanges. Ho hum - missed opportunity.
When I heard the name ‘Oberhauser’ in the lead up to the release of the movie, I was tremendously excited. For those who have read the Bond short-story, ‘Octopussy’, Oberhauser is introduced and meets an untimely end in a Bavarian glacier shortly after WW2. It is during this story that we discover that after Bond’s parents are killed in a climbing accident when he was 8, that Hannes Oberhauser became a father-figure to him, “at a time when I really needed one”. This was one of the main reasons I thought this was going to be a great story. However, it too was glossed over a little too quickly and never really got traction or elicited the emotion it should have.
Ralph Fiennes should be a great 'M'. He is a great actor and yet, he just doesn't get beyond being 2-dimensional. Again, a victim of the producers/directors trying to do too much and include everyone in every possible facet of the movie. And what’s with Bond back-answering and being a smart-arse to him, in his office, without having his arse handed back to him? Perhaps they should read the books again and even watch a few of the older movies. 'M' is at the start, rarely in the body of the film, and may be there at the end, briefly.
'Q' is interesting enough and appears determined to break the mortician look, and was probably my favourite character in this one, but, he shouldn't be. However, Lea Seydoux has a really classical beauty and screen presence that I just couldn’t look away from. However, still a bit 2-dimensional on occasion.
Overall, my review may seem harsh, and there were a lot of entertaining parts, but my skirt was not blown up by any means. Not as much as I expected. I think they missed another opportunity to get back on line where Casino Royale started and tell Bond’s story (if that was their intention). Quantum of Solace (universally panned and the only Bond film I have seen only once, and almost walked out of) was a big step back. Skyfall was another meandering effort, but plenty of 'good parts', and they finally got rid of Judi Dench (3 movies too late).
I really wanted to love Spectre as it promised so much and was probably 'over-hyped' and 'over-spoiled'. Perhaps the expectation was too high. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t watch Bond for the great acting, but I do expect that they do tell a good story given that Ian Fleming did all the hard work for them. As a Bond-aficionado (books and movies) for nearly 3.5 decades I feel that Bond is in real danger of becoming the best player in our favourite sporting team that played one too many seasons, only to be remembered for that last, lack-lustre effort before ultimately, and inevitably, being cut prior to the last few games of the schedule.
I hope not, as I love Bond. But, as they often say, if you truly love something ...
Last edited: