Jack's Thoughts - Spectre

I am not going to lie about how much of a shameless James Bond fan I am. Well at least I used to be, until this latest installment Spectre absolutely killed any enjoyment I once had of the classic series of films. Now while not every film has been great, this Daniel Craig film has hit a new low, with more attention paid to fan service than actually trying to make a good movie.

Bond starts out in Mexico, investigating an Italian crime boss who he was directed to by the former M (Judi Dench) in a video message she recorded before her death. This leads him on a journey to uncover a secretive criminal executive named SPECTRE, led by his older foster brother Franz Oberhauser (Cristoph Waltz). Meanwhile, the current M (Ralph Fiennes) is facing pressure from a committee set up by C (Andrew Scott) which is proposing a new surveillance program that would make the 00 Section redundant.

I think what has hurt the last couple of Bond movies the most is this need to make them a continuation of the films that came before. The end of Skyfall seemed so clear cut as though EON Productions were saying that we're going to start afresh and give you a new standalone adventure. But that isn't the case at all. So much assumed knowledge is needed from the previous films it's laughable. Gone are the days of simply enjoying a wacky adventure with a man in a tuxedo. Now you actually have to work when you watch this movie. Top that off with a shitty plot that had me squirming with discomfort and a final revelation that was so obvious that I was actually saying the dialogue in synchronisation with the characters.

I was shocked to learn that this film cost $350 million dollars, but then again I can see where it all went. Maybe spending millions on 10 exclusive Aston Martin cars that will never be available to the public, one of which you destroy completely is not such a great idea. Or maybe spending a lot more on an explosion that will get you into the Guiness Book of Records and not at all add to the enjoyment of your film is an equally bad idea. There is way too much action in this movie. I understand that it's trying to say something about mass surveillance, but I feel as though it's coming a little late to the party.

The film is lacking lots of things, but one I noticed above all else was the lack of sauveness. Bond is a partygoer and the definition of cool, but none of his actions in the movie indicate that. I mean you can still wear a suit and not do cool things, just look at Dave Bautista's Mr Hinx (full disclosure, his fight with Bond on a train was probably the only thing I liked about this film.

I was confused with the choice of cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema to make the colour palatte of this film a dull brown. His previous work on films like Her and Interstellar had been so vibrant, but here it matched Daniel Craig's enthusiasm to play Bond. And speaking of that, he just brought the whole movie down. Toward the end I was hoping that they'd just kill him and put us all out of our misery.

Look how much he hates your enjoyment

Look I'm going to go so far as to say I hated this movie and it's the worse Bond film since Die Another Day. In fact it's much worse. I can at least sit through that film.

Spectre

In the beautiful secrecy of Rome at night James Bond arrives at a secret meeting. Uninvited he smirks his way past the guards in Craig's now signature brutish fashion. As he arrives in the upper gallery viewing deck of this clandestine conglomerate, he makes his way through the witnesses looking down at a vast hall wherein an international assortment of organised crime discusses business. The lighting is low and reflective of the power and secrecy of this event, the sound echoes in the cavernous gloom as Bond stalks silently between faces cloaked in darkness. Suddenly the arrival of a shadowy man in the meeting creates a palpable atmosphere of fear within the cavernous hall. Within minutes a man is killed and no one moves a muscles. The recent arrival. surely the head of this cabal speaks into the microphone. Bond is enamoured, captivated by this man and his power. The man makes a public address to everyone in the room but it seems he has one particular person as his intended audience. "Welcome, James. What took you so long?" The man turns and looks up into the gallery, make direct and immediate eye contact with Bond. The light captures his face, Bond knows this man.

With 2012's Skyfall director Sam Mendes furthered the modern Bond revival with it's stylish action and settings, breath-taking cinematography, retro-appeal and personal storyline. But with Spectre, all the goodwill of Skyfall seems to be slowly bleeding out of a film that too doggedly holds onto contemporary blockbuster ideas on stakes and motivation, and classic Bond nostalgia. The effect being a mixed bag of the good, the bad and the ugly of Bond. Spectre begins with a lovely but needlessly showy (seemingly) single-take shot in Mexico City during Day of the Dead with Bond on the trail of a bad guy. After the event naturally ends in a helicopter fist-fight metres above the streets of Mexico City and Bond killing his target he's left with naught but a strange silver ring whose only distinction is a black octopus engraving. It turns out Bond has gone somewhat rouge after receiving a tape from the now deceased Judy Dence M and without approval from the new M (Ralph Fiennes) goes in search of the men who sent Skyfall's villain Raoul Silva, which turns out to be the eponymous committee. Along the way Bond is surreptitiously joined by Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), Q (Ben Whishaw) and Madeline Swann (Lea Seydoux), a woman with an mysterious link to the organisation and a prime target for them.

Spectre is a lovely film for the most part, fulfilling in all the necessary requirements for a Bond film, beautiful women, beautiful cars, seduction, varied scenery, vodka martini's. secret bases, ridiculous fun action and villains, villains, villains galore. But the whole way through the film just feels off. Motivations are lacking, plot-holes are apparent and a general sense of dualism is present, the film is never sure if it should be a throwback or re-invent the wheel and is seemingly stuck between the two points. In spite of the brilliant and armour-cracking portrayal of the aging, bitter Bond during Skyfall and the surely tragic death of M, Craig has perfected the formula for his Bond in this film. He's strong, silent, smarmy, apparently suave and frankly brutish, and in possibly the most satirical take on Bond's persona after killing an Italian bad guy in Mexico, he goes to the man's funeral, meets his wife, saves her from assassination, fucks her on the night of her husbands funeral and she is gotten by the next scene. It's enough to make even the most casual Bond fan ache for the bravery to return to a campy Bond with torturous puns.

Though the film is surely competent and interesting enough it's the bad that draws the attention after the objectively enjoyed Casino Royale and Skyfall, and (perhaps over-criticised Quantum of Solace). The reveal of Bond's connections to arch-villain Oberhauser are lazy as they are stupid (SPOILER ALERT), Oberhauser's plan is needless, and the whole thing smacks of prequel-level writing in the need to bring things to a certain point. Madeline Swann is one of the most disappointing Bond women in a good while and the romance between her an Bond is nothing short of tacky, there is absolutely no reason these people should be together whatsoever. Finally, the finale is derivative, lazy, blockbuster trash, with a few genuinely interesting moments, but hampered by senselessness and carelessness. Overall, Spectre is a hot mess, when it does well, it can be lovely, but overall it's just an unpleasant odour that lasts for two-and-a-half hours. While not bad, it's certainly a film that will become less appealing the more one applies thought and time to it.

The New James Bond Movie has been announced!

Some very exciting news has just been announced. Director of Skyfall Sam Mendes made the announcement on Thursday from Pinewood Studios (the home of James Bond) that the new Bond movie will be called Spectre.

Fans of the Bond series will instantly recognise what this title alludes to. SPECTRE (standing for Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) was the organisation that Bond was a constant foil to in the early movies, especially the Connery years. This organisation was headed by the ever-changing and mysterious Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

Before you get excited thinking that we are seeing the return of Blofeld, it has been announced also that Christoph Waltz will play the villain Oberhauser, the son of the late Hans Oberhauser, a man who acted as a father figure for Bond. This sounds like a whole bunch of misdirection to me. Remember when they said that Benedict Cumberbatch WASN'T playing Khan Noonien Singh in Star Trek Into Darkness.

In addition to Waltz, the new cast members will include Lea Seydoux, Dave Bautista, Monica Bellucci and Andrew Scott. Returning from Skyfall are Ralph Fiennes as M, Ben Whishaw as Q, Naomie Harris as Miss Moneypenny and Rory Kinnear as Tanner. All more I can say is that we here at the blog are more excited than we have ever been.

Dave Bautista in Bond 24

So remember when I said that Mark Strong may or may not be cast in the next James Bond movie? Well I also mentioned that the producers were on the prowl for a classic Bond henchman. A few months previous a casting call had gone out with this description:

“Hinx (Male, 30 – 45)”

“Ideally over 6′ 2. Hinx is the main henchman/assassin. We are looking for an imposing extremely physically fit actor. He has several fights with Bond and will have to have stunt training. He has to drive. We are looking for someone very unusual, possibly from a sports background.”

“Height: 180cm – 195cm”

Well it seems that this role has been given to the imposing MMA fighter turned actor Dave Bautista, who recently appeared in Guardians of the Galaxy. By the looks of things, the next Bond movie is shaping up to be a good one.

Guardians of the Galaxy

Before I get into the film itself, I have to just say that I'm absolutely sick to death of Marvel's releases. I used to really like their characters but with film after film, franchise after franchise, I feel that they've really diluted in quality and have over-saturated the market to the extent that I now don't want to see any more superhero movies, even from DC or any of their other competitors. Not to mention all the good that their hyper-budgets could do with smaller productions and better script treatments. Anyway, rant over. It's time to see how their latest release Guardians of the Galaxy stacks up!

In 1988, Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) is abducted from Earth, with only a Walkman and a present from his mother as possessions. 26 years later he steals a sought-after orb that lands him in prison, before he teams up with a tree-like humanoid (Vin Diesel), a genetically engineered raccoon (Bradley Cooper), an orphaned alien (Zoe Saldana) and a pissed off guy with tattoos (Dave Bautista) to escape, sell the orb and hunt down Ronan the Accuser.

The plot wasn't quite as convoluted as I was expecting, but was still as ridiculous as in most Marvel films. Having said that, it's really nice to have some fresh characters in the mix, instead of the constant rinse and repeat that we've become accustomed to. It's also great to have more of a pure sci-fi film from Marvel.

There's plenty of decent humour to keep it rolling along, although some of it is a bit cringe-worthy and there were also several jokes (such as the fact that Groot can only say "'I am Groot") that were repeated to death, which got tiring very quickly. But other than a few cliches here and there, and an ending that seemed to go on and on, the plot's really not that bad and is enough to keep you entertained throughout.

There's also nothing particularly wrong with the casts' performances but at the same time, they're nothing special. The only two characters which I actually enjoyed were Rocket (Bradley Cooper) and Peter Serafinowicz's character, Denarian Saal (mainly because it's Peter Serafinowicz), and they were basically the two biggest arseholes in the whole film.

Of course, with a budget of $170 million, it's going to have plenty of eye-candy, and trust me, you won't be disappointed. It's absolutely jam packed with explosions, lasers, spaceships and a CGI racoon, whether that makes up for all it's issues depends on what sort of sci-fi films you enjoy. If you're a fan of Michael Bay, this film will blow your mind with it's strong presence of plot!

At the end of the day, it's a big-budget blockbuster with tonnes of special effects that look fantastic and jokes that will keep you watching. I quite enjoyed this but it still doesn't change my stance on Marvel.

New 'Guardians of the Galaxy' Stills

After the release of new trailers for Guardians of the Galaxy over the weekend, Marvel has provided Empire Magazine with exclusive stills from the set of the film. Guardians of the Galaxy is slated for release in the next couple of months, depending where you live. What do you think of the new stills? Do they tantalize your interest in the film? Head to the Empire article link below to see all of them.

Source: Empire Online