RedEyedGhost Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 3 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said: I think Hiddleston could inject the right amount of humor but still be serious. He did a great job in The Night Manager, which felt like an audition for Bond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch-MaesterPhilip Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 11 minutes ago, RedEyedGhost said: He did a great job in The Night Manager, which felt like an audition for Bond. I've got it on DVR. I need to watch it but that's what I've heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 3 hours ago, RedEyedGhost said: What the believability rating of The Daily Mail? Well... Anyway I think it's an odd one if true- like Cumberbatch, Hiddlestone strikes me as much more a Bond baddie than Bond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The BlackBear Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 Craig has spoiled me, I have a hard time picturing anyone not built like a shed as a modern Bond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrddin Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 I finally saw this last night and I'm conflicted. The set pieces were all very well done individual scenes (especially the long first shot without any cuts) but a lot of the connecting tissue used to link them together felt forced. This is the type of movie I imagine coming out of a committee. One person loves Live or Let Die, so let's do something similar except in Mexico during the Day of the Dead festival. Another person loves snow chases, so that's in. Oh! Car chases in old historic European cities too. Add Rome! Remote bad guy lair in the desert is always fun, and Tunisia is nice this time of year. But let's bring it back home to London for the finale so we can have M be involved somehow again. Hand this to a writer to figure out how it all fits together with the previous three films, even though there was no foresight into an overall narrative. I know! photos of the the deceased! Brilliant! Ok, that makes it sound worse than it was.... It just felt disjointed to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhom Posted May 26, 2016 Author Share Posted May 26, 2016 33 minutes ago, Myrddin said: I finally saw this last night and I'm conflicted. The set pieces were all very well done individual scenes (especially the long first shot without any cuts) but a lot of the connecting tissue used to link them together felt forced. This is the type of movie I imagine coming out of a committee. One person loves Live or Let Die, so let's do something similar except in Mexico during the Day of the Dead festival. Another person loves snow chases, so that's in. Oh! Car chases in old historic European cities too. Add Rome! Remote bad guy lair in the desert is always fun, and Tunisia is nice this time of year. But let's bring it back home to London for the finale so we can have M be involved somehow again. Hand this to a writer to figure out how it all fits together with the previous three films, even though there was no foresight into an overall narrative. I know! photos of the the deceased! Brilliant! Ok, that makes it sound worse than it was.... It just felt disjointed to me. I don't want to say they had no foresight or an overarching idea. Very clearly, QUANTUM was supposed to be the new SPECTRE; but they did not get the rights to the name until recently. Why they didn't tie Skyfall in better previously; I'm not quite sure. Seems like it would have been quite simple for Silva to have admitted that his oddly loyal army of followers were part of QUANTUM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 38 minutes ago, Myrddin said: I finally saw this last night and I'm conflicted. The set pieces were all very well done individual scenes (especially the long first shot without any cuts) but a lot of the connecting tissue used to link them together felt forced. This is the type of movie I imagine coming out of a committee. One person loves Live or Let Die, so let's do something similar except in Mexico during the Day of the Dead festival. Another person loves snow chases, so that's in. Oh! Car chases in old historic European cities too. Add Rome! Remote bad guy lair in the desert is always fun, and Tunisia is nice this time of year. But let's bring it back home to London for the finale so we can have M be involved somehow again. Hand this to a writer to figure out how it all fits together with the previous three films, even though there was no foresight into an overall narrative. I know! photos of the the deceased! Brilliant! Ok, that makes it sound worse than it was.... It just felt disjointed to me. I have to agree with this. I liked a lot of aspects of the film, but the whole felt rather disjointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrddin Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 42 minutes ago, Rhom said: I don't want to say they had no foresight or an overarching idea. Very clearly, QUANTUM was supposed to be the new SPECTRE; but they did not get the rights to the name until recently. Why they didn't tie Skyfall in better previously; I'm not quite sure. Seems like it would have been quite simple for Silva to have admitted that his oddly loyal army of followers were part of QUANTUM. I didn't know Spectre wasn't available to them until now. But agreed: Silva should've at least been better tied to Quantum. Maybe a better approach here would've hinted that Quantum was only one tentacle of the Spectre octopus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarGalley Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 3 hours ago, Myrddin said: I finally saw this last night and I'm conflicted. The set pieces were all very well done individual scenes (especially the long first shot without any cuts) but a lot of the connecting tissue used to link them together felt forced. This is the type of movie I imagine coming out of a committee. One person loves Live or Let Die, so let's do something similar except in Mexico during the Day of the Dead festival. Another person loves snow chases, so that's in. Oh! Car chases in old historic European cities too. Add Rome! Remote bad guy lair in the desert is always fun, and Tunisia is nice this time of year. But let's bring it back home to London for the finale so we can have M be involved somehow again. Hand this to a writer to figure out how it all fits together with the previous three films, even though there was no foresight into an overall narrative. I know! photos of the the deceased! Brilliant! Ok, that makes it sound worse than it was.... It just felt disjointed to me. Very funny. Never made the connection about transitioning from one 'Bond setting' to another but that sounds pretty accurate. 2 hours ago, Rhom said: I don't want to say they had no foresight or an overarching idea. Very clearly, QUANTUM was supposed to be the new SPECTRE; but they did not get the rights to the name until recently. Why they didn't tie Skyfall in better previously; I'm not quite sure. Seems like it would have been quite simple for Silva to have admitted that his oddly loyal army of followers were part of QUANTUM. I mean they clearly had some intention of making a serious and powerful evil secret organization with Quantum. But the way they pulled it off was sooo transparently cheap and lazy. I wanted some epic Littlefinger-style reveal behind Blofeld being the multi-movie mastermind and we got.... pictures strung on a clothesline? Are you kidding? It's like the studio told some writer to get them a script in a couple of days. My disappointment was even more compounded with the waste of having an actor like Waltz play Blofeld and... this was the character they created? They had this supreme opportunity to really make an awesome and well-casted film. They should also have come right out at the beginning and declared Waltz as Blofeld.. that would not have been a spoiler for a movie titled Spectre. That reveal was like the trick of toddlers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrddin Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 It really did feel like a wasted opportunity. The various and exotic settings are what make a Bond film a Bond film, so I do love them. But there needs to be a natural flow. I watched some of the special features this morning and they confirmed what I guessed above about the love of Bond locations. There was talk about story too, of course, but Mendes repeated a love letter version of what I wrote above. The funny thing about the script is John Logan is a good writer. Not sure if he was just pressed for time or what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamjm Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 3 hours ago, Myrddin said: The funny thing about the script is John Logan is a good writer. Not sure if he was just pressed for time or what. I think Logan's always been a bit hit-and-miss, he's written plenty of good things but was also responsible for duds like Star Trek : Nemesis or the remake of The Time Machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raja Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 On 5/20/2016 at 6:42 AM, RedEyedGhost said: He did a great job in The Night Manager, which felt like an audition for Bond. Yeah, I disagree. I thought he brought nothing to that role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red snow Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 Watched it last night. The opening scene and first half hour had me thinking I was watching the first strong Bond since Casino Royale. Gorgeous visuals and the whole thing just oozed style. Then it seemed to turn into a postcard collection without much holding together Bond's travelog. The Blofeld thing pissed me off as it was a re-run of the Khan/Cumberbatch pointless denial scenario. I didn't mind the blunt attempt at making Blofeld a mastermind of the last 3 years but I was not a fan a tall of the weak step-brother angle. I really don't get why they want to give us backstory on Bond's childhood - he's a mythic character who works best when he just is. The recent attempts at trying to inform the character via his past doesn't work for me because it just reminds me that he is a caricature and the only way to explain how he is what he is probably requires that he had an awful childhood or was hatched out of a vat and is living his teenage years as a grown man. The film reminds me yet again how the script is such a low priority and how counter intuitive that is. If the story had matched the style and visuals seen in this film it could have been a classic. But they don't. British media has been grooming people to accept Hiddleston as the next Bond for a couple of years now. I'm not sure what came first, the media idea or some great work by Hiddleston's agent. I think he'd work although I was actually more interested by the Jamie Bell mention as I think he'd be more in the physical vein of Craig. Then again they may be wanting to change things up by casting a bit different or back towards the suave model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.