MovieChat Forums > Spectre (2015) Discussion > Finally saw it...surprisingly bad

Finally saw it...surprisingly bad

posted 9 years ago by MontyD
13 replies | jump to latest

I say this as someone who didn't enjoy Skyfall at all and found it ridiculously overrated.

Spectre has a lot of the same flaws but is worse at hiding them.

The plot is extremely weak and un-involving (global surveillance? Oh my, that's original), Mendes again makes the huge mistake of placing too much of the action in London/UK and thinking that Bond's support staff should be involved in said action. It's almost like he doesn't understand Bond movies.

Craig looks incredibly tired and bored through this entire film, which makes his outspoken comments on playing Bond make a lot of sense. He's clearly not enjoying himself and it comes through onscreen. Christoph Waltz (a great actor) is entirely wasted, playing a one note villain with barely any screen time, relying on a weak script that confuses long dramatic pauses with actual drama. All the Spectre stuff is incredibly forced (Spectre was behind everything in the first three films? Really!) and relies on nostalgia for the Connery films.

And can we stop with the "personal" connections for Bond? Amazingly we've had dozens of Bond movies without having to explore James Bond's troubled upbringing or laughable personal connections to the main villains.

I can't believe I'm saying this but Bond needs another reboot.

[–] jkdjumpy 9 years ago

The excitement I have for Bond will return when they tease the tagline...

This time, it isn't personal

The mans tongue didnt come through customs!

[–] MontyD 9 years ago

The "Mommy and Daddy loved you more" trope is so overused and clichéd that I'm still getting over the shock that they actually included it in this film, and with an actor of Christoph Waltz's caliber no less. I guess being head of an all powerful Illuminati esque organization wasn't good enough for a Bond villain, we needed some sibling rivalry too. Because that's what's been missing from Bond films all these years...

[–] jkdjumpy 9 years ago

Yeah I wish they hadn't done that with Blofeld himself. If Blofeld had found the wayward ex-step brother of Bond and groomed him as a high level subordinate, that would be fine. But Blofeld himself? no

The mans tongue didnt come through customs!

[–] HugeDaiCottermee 9 years ago

The glory days of Bond are long gone if the producers feel they have to diminish the impact of two great films (CR & SF) by foolishly establishing a link between their storylines and that of SPECTRE.

[–] jkdjumpy 9 years ago

It seems like one of those sequels that retroactively diminishes the quality of previous ones. A shame
Skyfall hinted just enough at Bond's past, and as a 50th anniversary film I thought it appropriate that they do that. I also hoped that they would go no further.

The mans tongue didnt come through customs!

[–] charcoalchicken 8 years ago

Agreed this movie was just an overlong boring mess, avoid, avoid, avoid!!

[–] MovieBoy016 8 years ago

Have you even seen a Sam Mendes film?! His films are supposed to be like Spectre! Long, atmospheric and more character-driven. It's better than *beep* like Jurassic World and Batman Vs Superman.

[–] nick-searle 8 years ago

Not surprising given the early negative leaks from the set that the plot comprised of "a series of watery chases".

[–] MovieBoy016 8 years ago

In this decade, Sam Mendes gets trashed for creating interesting characters yet Gareth Edwards gets rewarded for creating poor characters.

Real nice of you people.

[–] jkdjumpy 8 years ago

you think very highly of us, the three or so people involved in this thread, that we may be the ones who create and inform the entire internet of their unanimous opinions.

talk about tarring with the same brush. You have no idea what my opinion of Gareth Edwards is. Enjoy your tedious pro-mendes crusade which completely avoids the points we are making

The mans tongue didnt come through customs!

[–] ActionJunkie007 8 years ago

Have you even seen a Sam Mendes film?! His films are supposed to be like Spectre! Long, atmospheric and more character-driven. It's better than *beep* like Jurassic World and Batman Vs Superman.

I agree and disagree. Mendes' strengths were on full display in Skyfall and I do think he brought a unique take to the character and a great subtext. But for some reason, Spectre just didn't come together the right way. Perhaps it was a bad script to begin with and they all tried their best to provide a similar themed follow up, but he just couldn't deliver.

It's not too hard to see the major dip in critical, commercial success from Skyfall to Spectre and a lot of it is really on Mendes for giving us an extremely weak narrative accompanied by lackluster directing on both the filming end and how he instructed the actors. They really should have left him at SKyfall and got someone else to do Spectre.

Who's strangling the cat?

[–] pking-2 8 years ago

I liked or at least didn't mind many of those "flaws".

While cybercrime/surveillance is tired...basically every plot mechanism from every Bond-style adventure is a retread at this point so I'm not going to lie and pretend any of them are original. So...if the next Bond thing goes after nukes or drugs or bioweapons or terrorism or government corruption or crime...its unoriginal. And if we "manufacture" originality by juxtaposing two thingies that simply have not been jammed together before, that does not show originality but desperate laziness. (I know...Bond could battle extraterrestrial extortionists with robot zombies! Haven't seen that before.) The pass that "critics" give to any/all other stories that they hold up as "more original" is transparently telling because they are not so. In fact, most of the villainies of the competition were tackled by Bond, first, to be accurate. (Bourne is original because he's lost his memory! Fleming's You Only Live Twice. Skyfall copied Mission Impossible is original because of the NOC list! Hmmm. Yeah. Right. A spy chases to prevent the loss of confidential documents is staple not original...there's nothing about this macguffin that matters, really...) Point being: "original" plot machinations are not to be found in Bond or elsewhere, typically...its all about execution and storytelling style...so I don't mind it when we are chasing documents yet again or bombs yet again or chemicals yet again or hackers yet again. I certainly don't pretend others are more original than SPECTRE when they are instead all on the same plane and have been so for decades.

Mendes again makes the huge mistake of placing too much of the action in London/UK and thinking that Bond's support staff should be involved in said action

But we've been to Mexico and Africa and the Alps already. So to pick yet another "exotic" locale instead of "homeland" would actually be repetitive. So, no big deal. In fact, historically Bond has always had a bit of a dearth in locale adventure so he would have to do a heck of a lot more in London before he even catches up to his "beach" or "mountain" or "exotic asia" or "cold war" or "down home America" quotient. There ARE some spots he might consider for novelty...but no reason to pantybunch if a character who originally spent more time in London than the movies have led you to believe is finally doing so.

And yeah, I like the nostalgia fueled engine of James Bond. I can't think of a Bond film since Thunderball that didn't either delight me or try to delight me by doing that; I don't demerit SPECTRE for following suit and I do notice that you have to cherry pick to deny that all of SPECRE's predecessors do so similarly. You are probably simply not Bond fan material if it turns you off when they cash in on sixties/prior Bond nostalgia and homages...because really that's the primary differentiating ingredient that Bond has to offer at this point. That stuff and the known sayings and cars and music and motifs etc etc etc are what I want, not what I don't want. At least I want that stuff interspersed with "new" sayings and cars and music and to be accurate: that's what SPECTRE (and each and every Bond film, from my favorite to my least) has been doing.

And can we stop with the "personal" connections for Bond?

Or better ones, perhaps. But the character has always had personal history and character traits, since day one, that movies have glossed over instead of mined (or made up). No, I don't mind that stuff at all, in principle. It's what makes Bond a character instead of a prop.

That all said, I see plenty of reasons why SPECTRE (or honestly ANY Bond film; name one and I can tear it up) could be changed to your liking, and mine, and many others'. Just...the rationale for the dislike doesn't make sense to me if its "London" or "personal relationships" or "nostalgia" or "forced/unnecessary plotpoints" since that's simply the deal, here. Instead...what I think folks want are "London, maybe, if done the way I would want to see it" or "relationships that I am more interested in" or "nostalgia done in the way I prefer" or "forced plotpoints that I choose to revel in" cuz that's the best we're ever going to get. That's all Bond has ever offered and what it will continue to produce.

And that makes the criticism more akin to "give me what I specifically want more than others" rather than "this is what Bond is doing wrong."

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

[–] ActionJunkie007 8 years ago

And that makes the criticism more akin to "give me what I specifically want more than others" rather than "this is what Bond is doing wrong."

Back to your cherry picking ways, eh Pking? LOL It's been a while since I've engaged you with one of these retorts and I felt like why not, always fun to debate with you! HAHA!

So, I get what your saying about the OP's criticism for the Global Surv. stuff, but they started it off with "The plot is extremely weak and un-involving", so regardless of the specific mention to being "unoriginal", that still is a valid criticism for what Bond IS doing wrong. You even allude to that with what I feel is the true issue with these newer films and their lack of impact on the mission end.

OP stated "And can we stop with the "personal" connections for Bond?" and you followed up with "Or better ones, perhaps". OHMSS is a good example of having a personal stake that compliments the mission. But these new films, especially Mendes' offerings SACRIFICE the mission with some convoluted "personal connection" garbage that makes the actual mission weak and really, just a side note "box tick" to make it a "bond movie".

In the older films, since you love bringing up what Bond films have done in the past, they made sure to flesh out a fantastic mission for Bond to be on. And from that standpoint, they would then spice it up with some personal connections. Like FYEO alluding to Tracy and the connections with revenge which benefits the "ATAK" macguffin but doesn't distract or overwrite it. At the end, its still about Bond climbing that wall to make sure that tech doesn't get into enemy hands.

In Spectre, that stuff is left to the "Scooby squad" and Bond is off dealing with his half bro, Vesper and all the BS connections, in his saw trap funhouse of horrors and when its all over, the story keeps circling back to Bond leaving the service and his personal connection/motivations being the PRIMARY focus. Even the film starts off with the lame "The Dead are Alive" to make sure the film focuses on Bond's inner turmoil and reluctance to be an assassin for the rest of his life. If they keep doing this, then the missions will continue to be garbage.

That's all Bond has ever offered and what it will continue to produce.

What Craig's films have done, especially Mendes' offerings, is NOT what Bond has "always done". It doesn't take long to find articles from other directors, who never wanted to do a Bond film, suddenly peaking their interest because of how "different" things are today. They have taken James to a new territory and the criticism for the last two films, like it or not, is far more valid than you paint it out to be. In the end, all it ever really comes down to is your insistence that every bond film is with/without "valid" gripes, so everyone should just, um, keep it to themselves? I've still never understood your reasoning behind what drives you to battle every kind of criticism, but maybe one day Ill get it.

Who's strangling the cat?