This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I can't help but be impressed with the opening scene in Spectre. It's just one camera viewpoint yet it's moving all over the place capturing the action and mood.
6
2
2
11
2
In reply to The Lemming:
I like the “Wallace and Gromit” ending of that scene where he lands sitting nicely on a handy sofa. They should have some toast pop up though (am I right in thinking that a toaster does land nearby?!)
I like the “Wallace and Gromit” ending of that scene where he lands sitting nicely on a handy sofa. They should have some toast pop up though (am I right in thinking that a toaster does land nearby?!)
Post edited at 05:20
In reply to Steve Perry:
Plus the line from Madeline “what do we do now?”
I almost shouted the obvious answer out loudly in the cinema but decided against it
> I like the fight on the train best..."Shit!"
Plus the line from Madeline “what do we do now?”
I almost shouted the obvious answer out loudly in the cinema but decided against it
1
3
In reply to The Lemming:
Spectre -Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion
James
Spectre -Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion
James
1
In reply to james mann:
It scans better as Specter – Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Extortion, and Revenge. I'll have a word with their branding people.
It scans better as Specter – Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Extortion, and Revenge. I'll have a word with their branding people.
1
4
1
1
In reply to james mann:
I do recall the Technological Hierarchy for the Removable of Undesirables and the Subjugation of Humanity!
I do recall the Technological Hierarchy for the Removable of Undesirables and the Subjugation of Humanity!
2
In reply to wercat:
Did your Uncle teach you that?
Did your Uncle teach you that?
> I do recall the Technological Hierarchy for the Removable of Undesirables and the Subjugation of Humanity!
4
In reply to The Lemming:
I love tracking shots in any film and this one is fab.
Unfortunately I fell asleep on the sofa about 45 mins in so can't really comment on the rest
> I can't help but be impressed with the opening scene in Specter. It's just one camera viewpoint yet it's moving all over the place capturing the action and mood.
I love tracking shots in any film and this one is fab.
Unfortunately I fell asleep on the sofa about 45 mins in so can't really comment on the rest
In reply to Babika:
You didn't miss anything.
Basically, the entire thing was a set-up flick for a villain who, presumably, will be The Bad Guy for the foreseeable future. This was the only "point" I could derive from the waste-of-time that the story was.
You didn't miss anything.
Basically, the entire thing was a set-up flick for a villain who, presumably, will be The Bad Guy for the foreseeable future. This was the only "point" I could derive from the waste-of-time that the story was.
1
In reply to Xharlie:
The film was spoilt for me when I went to the cinema. At the time you could watch the film in normal cinema resolution or you could pay extra for 4K resolution.
Being a tight wad, I payed for the advertised 2k version. Right from the outset of the adverts I could tell that the screen was out of focus. I tried to complain to the cinema staff during the commercials but they could not do anything.
During the movie, only anything front and centre was in focus, everything else was blurry. At the end of the flick I spoke to the manager who said that the projector was behind a locked door and was operated remotely. Also focusing was done by lazers.
However the manager stated that I was not the only person who had complained about focusing issues.
my own personal thought son the out of focus film was more to do with the down/scaling or down-resolution from 4k to 2k that feked things up.
But on the whole, it wasn't the best Bond film, mainly because the film was behind the curve rather than ahead in a science-fiction way when it came to the bad guys using digital surveillance of everybody in the world.
The NSA, GCHQ and the 5 eyes have that covered right now in real time. Mr Snowden burst that bubble.
As the film progressed, the baddie wasn't all that scary, much in the same way as the baddie in Batman's Dark Knight rises.
That was poo.
> You didn't miss anything.
The film was spoilt for me when I went to the cinema. At the time you could watch the film in normal cinema resolution or you could pay extra for 4K resolution.
Being a tight wad, I payed for the advertised 2k version. Right from the outset of the adverts I could tell that the screen was out of focus. I tried to complain to the cinema staff during the commercials but they could not do anything.
During the movie, only anything front and centre was in focus, everything else was blurry. At the end of the flick I spoke to the manager who said that the projector was behind a locked door and was operated remotely. Also focusing was done by lazers.
However the manager stated that I was not the only person who had complained about focusing issues.
my own personal thought son the out of focus film was more to do with the down/scaling or down-resolution from 4k to 2k that feked things up.
But on the whole, it wasn't the best Bond film, mainly because the film was behind the curve rather than ahead in a science-fiction way when it came to the bad guys using digital surveillance of everybody in the world.
The NSA, GCHQ and the 5 eyes have that covered right now in real time. Mr Snowden burst that bubble.
As the film progressed, the baddie wasn't all that scary, much in the same way as the baddie in Batman's Dark Knight rises.
That was poo.
In reply to The Lemming
Did you think it was possibly the best Daniel Craig Bond despite still not being that great? I did, because they stopped trying to be so totally separate from earlier Bond films and in fact almost made it like a “greatest hits homage” (mountaintop resort from OHMSS, brutal fight on train from From Russia With Love, Street procession/carnival pre-credit opening similar to Dr No and Live and Let Die)
It was odd indeed, that the thing that really dragged the film down massively (from a potential 9/10 to just about scraping 7/10) was the characterisation and performance from the two-time acting Oscar winner
> But on the whole, it wasn't the best Bond film
Did you think it was possibly the best Daniel Craig Bond despite still not being that great? I did, because they stopped trying to be so totally separate from earlier Bond films and in fact almost made it like a “greatest hits homage” (mountaintop resort from OHMSS, brutal fight on train from From Russia With Love, Street procession/carnival pre-credit opening similar to Dr No and Live and Let Die)
> As the film progressed, the baddie wasn't all that scary, much in the same way as the baddie in Batman's Dark Knight rises.
It was odd indeed, that the thing that really dragged the film down massively (from a potential 9/10 to just about scraping 7/10) was the characterisation and performance from the two-time acting Oscar winner
> That was poo.
In reply to Run_Ross_Run:
Pah. It's a squid.
Ooh a gang of baddies with a squid emblem....
> Spectre....
Pah. It's a squid.
Ooh a gang of baddies with a squid emblem....
In reply to Blue Straggler:
For my money, Skyfall was the best Daniel Craig Bond by miles. Sadly, they only kept the worst feature for Spectre, an implausible villain with a ridiculous plan.
> Did you think it was possibly the best Daniel Craig Bond despite still not being that great?
For my money, Skyfall was the best Daniel Craig Bond by miles. Sadly, they only kept the worst feature for Spectre, an implausible villain with a ridiculous plan.
3
In reply to Blue Straggler:
They made a check-list of all the "things" that happened in the past Bond films and then went box ticking. They ticked many boxes, as you say, but they lost the character and suavity of James Bond in the process.
No other scene illustrates this more conclusively than the moment when Bond smashes his champagne crystal before an action sequence, early on in the film. That was out of character, according to my mental image of who 007 is (or used to be, back in the day.)
Old Bond would have made the time to set the glasses aside and possibly even returned to his drink (and his woman) once the violence was handled. Sure, getting rid of the glass might make practical sense but the result is just your average fighty shooty man and we have enough of those in other films. Bond was not an average shooty man -- he was cool, suave, in control.
He didn't just have "fast car with guns" and a Deus-Ex-Machina shaped wrist-watch. He also had class and style. For me, the Bond in Spectre was just another action hero and nothing more.
> and in fact almost made it like a “greatest hits homage” (mountaintop resort from OHMSS, brutal fight on train from From Russia With Love, Street procession/carnival pre-credit opening similar to Dr No and Live and Let Die)
They made a check-list of all the "things" that happened in the past Bond films and then went box ticking. They ticked many boxes, as you say, but they lost the character and suavity of James Bond in the process.
No other scene illustrates this more conclusively than the moment when Bond smashes his champagne crystal before an action sequence, early on in the film. That was out of character, according to my mental image of who 007 is (or used to be, back in the day.)
Old Bond would have made the time to set the glasses aside and possibly even returned to his drink (and his woman) once the violence was handled. Sure, getting rid of the glass might make practical sense but the result is just your average fighty shooty man and we have enough of those in other films. Bond was not an average shooty man -- he was cool, suave, in control.
He didn't just have "fast car with guns" and a Deus-Ex-Machina shaped wrist-watch. He also had class and style. For me, the Bond in Spectre was just another action hero and nothing more.
2
In reply to Philip:
That nice Mr Waverley, unfortunately not my uncle!
I did have a relative who was a shunting consultant on the Great St Trinian's ~Train Robbery though
That nice Mr Waverley, unfortunately not my uncle!
I did have a relative who was a shunting consultant on the Great St Trinian's ~Train Robbery though
Post edited at 11:08
In reply to Luke90:
Ha, to each his own! I even liked QoS better.
That bit where Albert Finney spouts “I was ready before you were born”, just before the finale, was appalling and the final nail in the coffin for a very disappointing outing
> For my money, Skyfall was the best Daniel Craig Bond by miles.
Ha, to each his own! I even liked QoS better.
That bit where Albert Finney spouts “I was ready before you were born”, just before the finale, was appalling and the final nail in the coffin for a very disappointing outing
In reply to The Lemming:
Is this the carnival.of dead one? Yes first ten minutes of the film are lovely to look at and tense, the rest of the film is a slow wet fart of empty dialogue and plotting confusion by committee and test auduience and horribly wasted talent, notably Christopher Waltz.
I wish DC would leave it alone now, I wish they would stop making them entirely...Is that DC 4th Bond and they still haven't a clue what to do with the franchise. He looked like he was phoning it in in this one.
D
Is this the carnival.of dead one? Yes first ten minutes of the film are lovely to look at and tense, the rest of the film is a slow wet fart of empty dialogue and plotting confusion by committee and test auduience and horribly wasted talent, notably Christopher Waltz.
I wish DC would leave it alone now, I wish they would stop making them entirely...Is that DC 4th Bond and they still haven't a clue what to do with the franchise. He looked like he was phoning it in in this one.
D
In reply to The Lemming:
Are people setting their expectation levels rather too high? Come on, none of the Bond films have actually been THAT good, they're all pretty preposterous. I didn't think was any worse than most, and preferred it to Skyfall. At least this one paid homage to its own back catalogue, whereas all that Skyfall stuff in the old house seemed to me to be paying homage to Home Alone. One thing Spectre could have done with was more Monica Bellucci and less of the blank-faced blonde who played the main female role. I've already forgotten her name. Agree about Waltz, very wooden, but I found that less grating than Javier Bardem's ridiculously overblown effort in Skyfall.
Are people setting their expectation levels rather too high? Come on, none of the Bond films have actually been THAT good, they're all pretty preposterous. I didn't think was any worse than most, and preferred it to Skyfall. At least this one paid homage to its own back catalogue, whereas all that Skyfall stuff in the old house seemed to me to be paying homage to Home Alone. One thing Spectre could have done with was more Monica Bellucci and less of the blank-faced blonde who played the main female role. I've already forgotten her name. Agree about Waltz, very wooden, but I found that less grating than Javier Bardem's ridiculously overblown effort in Skyfall.
3
In reply to ripper:
Respectfully, no.
With the Daniel Craig incarnation, the producers and studio and press have been hyping it all up as a "proper gritty Bond, none of the silly gadgets and innuendos of the Moore era" etc. etc. Harking back to the novels and all that.
Arguably they achieved this with Casino Royale but that film is actually a bit boring for it (only 3 major action set-pieces and 2 minor ones, with the bulk of the film being a card game)
QoS was filmed in a style that was an obvious kneejerk reaction to Paul Greengrass' Bourne "shakycam" and choppy close-ups style, which really took away from what was alway good about action in Bond - long wide shots of spectacularly set-up stunts, but it did have its moments (the plane sequence)
When Sam Mendes was brought on board for Skyfall there was a lot of hype about him being a "grown-up" director with "proper" films like American Beauty and Revolutionary Road under his belt (plus his big theatre background).
He didn't bring much to the table, frankly, and Skyfall failed on many points - Judi Dench at her worst, Javier Bardem looking a bit embarrassed at it all (and looking weirdly like Boris Johnson when he "disguised" himself as a bobby on the beat), James Bond on the tube, the nonsensical Aston Martin "reveal", the whole Home Alone finale etc, Q branch stupidly plugging the USB stick in, the terrible Heineken product placement etc.
Mendes on board again for Spectre....lots of hype about Christoph Waltz being in it...and what do they do but ditch all ideas of NOT being like Moore, and instead as mentioned earlier by me and echoed by yourself, they throw in a few "greatest hits" some of which worked, some of which didn't. But definitely we were sold "gritty and inventive and convincing" and they gave us: supercar chase around weirdly deserted streets; boring bit with aeroplane slowly disintegrating as it slides down some snow; drilling Bond's face; a single gunshot blowing up the complex; another single gunshot, from a pistol whilst standing on a boat in water bringing down a helicopter; and worst of all, the Bond girl literally tied to a bomb with a ticking countdown.
It's fair to say that our expectations WERE set higher than this.
Some of the past Bond films were actually pretty good:
My personal top four are From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights. Funnily enough, not many outlandish gadgets feature in those films and they all have a slightly gritty edge to them which is rather better done than in any of Daniel Craig's outings so far.
> Are people setting their expectation levels rather too high? Come on, none of the Bond films have actually been THAT good, they're all pretty preposterous.
Respectfully, no.
With the Daniel Craig incarnation, the producers and studio and press have been hyping it all up as a "proper gritty Bond, none of the silly gadgets and innuendos of the Moore era" etc. etc. Harking back to the novels and all that.
Arguably they achieved this with Casino Royale but that film is actually a bit boring for it (only 3 major action set-pieces and 2 minor ones, with the bulk of the film being a card game)
QoS was filmed in a style that was an obvious kneejerk reaction to Paul Greengrass' Bourne "shakycam" and choppy close-ups style, which really took away from what was alway good about action in Bond - long wide shots of spectacularly set-up stunts, but it did have its moments (the plane sequence)
When Sam Mendes was brought on board for Skyfall there was a lot of hype about him being a "grown-up" director with "proper" films like American Beauty and Revolutionary Road under his belt (plus his big theatre background).
He didn't bring much to the table, frankly, and Skyfall failed on many points - Judi Dench at her worst, Javier Bardem looking a bit embarrassed at it all (and looking weirdly like Boris Johnson when he "disguised" himself as a bobby on the beat), James Bond on the tube, the nonsensical Aston Martin "reveal", the whole Home Alone finale etc, Q branch stupidly plugging the USB stick in, the terrible Heineken product placement etc.
Mendes on board again for Spectre....lots of hype about Christoph Waltz being in it...and what do they do but ditch all ideas of NOT being like Moore, and instead as mentioned earlier by me and echoed by yourself, they throw in a few "greatest hits" some of which worked, some of which didn't. But definitely we were sold "gritty and inventive and convincing" and they gave us: supercar chase around weirdly deserted streets; boring bit with aeroplane slowly disintegrating as it slides down some snow; drilling Bond's face; a single gunshot blowing up the complex; another single gunshot, from a pistol whilst standing on a boat in water bringing down a helicopter; and worst of all, the Bond girl literally tied to a bomb with a ticking countdown.
It's fair to say that our expectations WERE set higher than this.
Some of the past Bond films were actually pretty good:
My personal top four are From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights. Funnily enough, not many outlandish gadgets feature in those films and they all have a slightly gritty edge to them which is rather better done than in any of Daniel Craig's outings so far.
1
In reply to Xharlie:
>the Bond in Spectre was just another action hero and nothing more.
oh come, come! Surely a sales vehicle for video games too?
>the Bond in Spectre was just another action hero and nothing more.
oh come, come! Surely a sales vehicle for video games too?
In reply to The Lemming:
Another rather guide example of a tracking shot from True Detective...
youtube.com/watch?v=s_HuFuKiq8U&
No cuts / edits...all one running shot.
I enjoyed the series as well...
> I can't help but be impressed with the opening scene in Specter. It's just one camera viewpoint yet it's moving all over the place capturing the action and mood.
Another rather guide example of a tracking shot from True Detective...
youtube.com/watch?v=s_HuFuKiq8U&
No cuts / edits...all one running shot.
I enjoyed the series as well...
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...