This is topic Spectre (2015) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=002165

---

Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 11-06-2015, 05:00 PM:
 
I wasn't a big fan of Skyfall, it just didn't feel like a Bond movie for the most part. Spectre feels closer to the older Bond movies, but because of that, kind of looses the specialness of Skyfall which was it wasn't really cartoony or cheesy like many other previous Bonds were. Spectre is basically about Bond having to stop the evil organization because they have been gaining information about MI6. Sam Mendes, who also did Skyfall, appears to be looking to try something new in terms of tone and direction of the series, and he does a pretty nice job with it. Daniel Craig himself is always great, but in this one he appears to be having more fun with the character than in the previous films. Christoph Waltz plays the main villain, Franz, and he could of been a much stronger villain if the writing was stronger and Waltz simply put more effort in. On the other hand, Dave Batista, former WWE superstar and Drax in "Guardians of the Galaxy", gives a much stronger performance as the violent yet silent Mr. Hinx, who feels like a throwback to Jaws from some of the earlier Bonds. The main Bond girl, Léa Seydoux, also does a good job and has a much larger presence in the story than one would think. The action is fun, including a really nicely done opener in Mexico. But a big issue is with the pacing, the action comes by pretty quick, but the normal dialogue scenes didn't seem to move along well, and the ending stretches on a bit too long. Not everyone will agree with this, but for me, it kind of lost the re-watch ability factor. Overall, if you love James Bond and want a fun time at the movies, then go see Spectre. It may not be the best Bond yet, but the character is still better than ever and I look forward to seeing how the franchise goes from here.
Film: 2 and a half out of 4 stars
Presentation: 3 and a half out of 4 stars (saw it in IMAX, looked a little bit grainy and the audio was soft during some action scenes).
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 11-07-2015, 04:28 PM:
 
CINEMA: 13th Avenue Warren, Wichita, KS
AUDITORIUM: 14
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital Cinema/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None
RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

THE PLOT: The double-0 (double-oh?) program is in danger of being mothballed. Wackiness ensues.

Matt and I disagree on something...I LIKE the cartoony cheesiness of the Bond franchise, and that's my big problem with all of the Daniel Craig Bond flicks...they aren't very fun to watch.

Case in point, the opening sequence. Like any good Bond flick, it's spectacular. But here's where it goes wrong. Bond says to the lady on the bed "I'll be back in a few minutes." But he doesn't return at all. Roger Moore's Bond would have parachuted from the helicopter, the fate of the helicopter completely unexplained, and landed on the balcony of the room, walking back in completely unscathed, and said "Now, where were we?" Or better yet, she would ask him where he went and he'd have some witty reply.

And that's pretty much how the whole movie goes. It feels like a Bond movie...it's got a number of hat tips and easter eggs to classic Bond movies...but it just isn't very much fun to watch. And frankly, Christoph Waltz is talent wasted here. He could have been a far better villain with more to work with. And that whole storyline about how his character was responsible for damn near everything that's happened to Bond? Please.

It's said Daniel Craig is tired of playing Bond. Well I'm tired of Craig playing Bond.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-07-2015, 09:58 PM:
 
They're supposedly looking at a couple of black guys to play the next Bond. I'd be OK with that, but only if they change the famous tag-line to:

"Bond. James Mutha-fuckin' Bond."
 

---

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 11-07-2015, 10:20 PM:
 
Or James"SHAFT"Bond
 

---

Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 11-08-2015, 12:57 AM:
 
To be honest, Sam, it was Austin Powers that made me dislike the cheesy/cartoony feel of a modern-day Bond movie. Powers was suppose to represent every cliché Bond pulls and wrap it into one film and it worked. I don't think Bond should be going for the Dark Knight "very gritty" feeling, but I think he works better as a "no distractions" sort of protagonist, he needs to be grounded and live in a society where his "license to kill" profession is a serious matter. I do agree that Bond should still be a fun character to watch and his witty, almost sarcastic sense of humor should be more expressive, at least while Craig's in the franchise. Though, his "Mickey Mouse" remark felt forced to me.

And there should be more Bond girls with the first name "Pussy".
 

---

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 11-08-2015, 01:01 AM:
 
You mean Bond girls Galore?
 

---

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 11-08-2015, 12:51 PM:
 
Whereas Skyfall was a fun and engaging tour-de-force with an appropriatley simplistic story, Spectre felt like a series of nostalgic set pieces without any real tension or development thanks to the repetitive dialogue as straightfoward as the synopsis on the back of a DVD case to remind people the existence of a plot. There is nothing new or daring in this film, should there be any there's the contemporary concept of a strong, empowered female to get even with Bond, only to taste his toungue 20 minutes later.

People have made comparisons to Mission Impossible: Rouge Nation in regards to the plot, but at one point I was reminded of the camp-tastic Kingsman: The Secret Service, but in a more serious, yet sleep-inducing manner. I'd like to add that I didn't really care for "Kingsman" and it had it's own flaws, which is of interest because Spectre did it slightly worse, exceeding my expectations.

If there's one thing to say how Spectre did better than Skyfall, it would be the more consistent cinematography. While I do have my grand respect for Roger Deakins and his work on Skyfall, it was a mix of different digital cameras that gave different results. For instance, in that film, the main photography on the Arri Alexa (2.8K ARRIRAW) revealed great detail on the actors and sets, the aerial footage from the RED Epic (5K Recode RAW) was ironically softer like an old photograph slightly out-of-focus given the higher resolution, and there's one shot out of them all (I don't know the source) was shot at a resolution low enough to reveal aliasing on the grille of the Aston Martin in Scotland. These were all revealed from a Christie 4K DLP projector screening the 4K DCP during its original run. That being said, Sicario was a major improvement for Roger Deakins, and remains the best-looking film of the year in my opinion.

As with Spectre, Hoyte van Hoytema is brought in fresh from Interstellar, shooting the film mainly on 35mm. Because of this, Spectre is given a more organic look on a medium that can be transferred at any digital resolution you'd like. The 4K digital intermediate puts an emphasis on yellows, oranges, and browns, with other colors thrown in for more exotic locales like Austria. There is most definately a layer of grain retained from the negative, and in some cases it helps. I was sitting at the very front row of the theater equipped with the underrated Sony 515 projector. Becaus of this, I was able to see the pixel grid of the 4K projector, at minimal points. Aurally, it might be the biggest bass experience since Titan A.E., with structual collapeses bookending the film blowing through my clothing, creeping to my ribcage, and revealing the most overlooked limitations of the auditorium. On the downside, Spectre favors bombast over clarity with a dynamic range of two points: talking and action. I also read this morning that Spectre had a 7.1 mix, but I couldn't hear how so. The theater I went to see this in had all their screens set up for 7.1 sound, and I hardly noticed any surround back activity. Perhaps the 5.1 DCP was played instead, and it mostly is a front-heavy mix.

The fault of a bad movie is that when you watch it, you think of better movies, like Mission Impossible: Rouge Nation, Sicario, Skyfall, and yes, even Kingsman: The Secret Service. Those were the movies I rather would watch as I watched Spectre.

3.6 out of 10.0
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-08-2015, 08:47 PM:
 
From your description Connor, SPECTRE sounds like like another boring Daniel Craig James Bond Movie. Up until Craig took over the Bond roll, I enjoyed every James Bond movie with their easy to understand plots but the Daniel Craig movies were something else. During the past month, I started to watch the Bond movies on Blu Ray discs in the order they were released beginning with DR NO and right now, I just saw the 11th film in the series FOR YOUR EYES ONLY the other evening and tomorrow night, I am planning to watch MOONRAKER and hopefully watch the 20th Bond film DIE ANOTHER DAY by late next week. the 21st to the 24th Bond movies are Daniel Craig films including SPECTRE and I am planning to skip them.

I hope SPECTRE was Daniel Craig's last Bond movie and a black James Bond sounds very interesting.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-08-2015, 09:56 PM:
 
We watched the movie today. I was less impressed than I thought I would be given the audience reactions we've had so far.

It was yet another superhero movie (without the silly costumes) with an incomprehensible storyline. I will say that the action was less over-the-top than in a typical superhero movie -- that is to say, most of these films have action that's 20 on a zero to 10 scale, but in this movie it was more of a 15. It's hilarious how you can drive a car any old way you want in the movies, including running it into walls and other vehicles, and it still performs flawlessly with only a few dents or scratches.

I guess that's no different than when Bond gets two holes drilled an inch into his neck and then immediately goes right out and kicks major butt without so much as a Band-Aid.

The two "Bond getting it on" scenes seemed sort of forced and didn't really fit into the story, unlike the past Bond films that I've seen. And if there's anything you'd like to have "over the top" in a Bond movie, it's the sexiness of the Bond girls. Don't get me wrong, these looked great, but they weren't the amazing women you usually see in these movies.

The interior scenes all seemed badly lit to me. Either the picture was dark and shadowy, or lit with what may have been yellow bug lights. A few times I thought we had teleported into one of those dim-bulbed AMC theaters I've read so much about on this forum.

The theme song was fairly lousy, I thought. It lacked some of the grandness of other Bond songs. And the title sequence was particularly uninspired (and also badly lit). Even the font they chose for the opening credits seemed lackluster.

I do like the way they're continuing to grace Bond films with a full length opening credits sequence. I'm not a fan of the new trend of opening movies with just the title (or sometimes, without the title).

The other thing I liked a lot was the sound mix. The explosions were nice and rumbly and loud. Good use of the surrounds.

If this is Daniel Craig's last Bond movie, I guess that's OK. I don't really care who they put in the role next, I guess. I did some more thinking about a black Bond -- if they go that route, the one requirement I would impose is, no R&B or rap music in the movie. That would ruin the continuity of the series. Keep the grand Bond scores and leave that other music for the "Ride Along" films and such.

Maybe the filmmakers should do a search and find a good newcomer, the way they found Christopher Reeve who was so perfect in the Superman films. Or maybe it's time for a woman. "Bond....Jane Bond."

I would give this a 2 out of 5.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 11-12-2015, 06:03 PM:
 
I heard this in 7.1, but the volume level which could be best described as played back at "11" was so assaultive and LOUD, the surround channels were drowned as a result. The bass was so low and hit you in the gut - wow!

I hated the theme song, it was so unmemorable. The story felt patchworked, outside of the action scenes, the dramatic plot point progression parts dragged.

grade rating: B-
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 11-12-2015, 10:05 PM:
 
bizarrely - I was noting this in the new issue of American Cinematographer - that even though this movie was shot in 35mm, then had a DI workflow at 4K, the article gave the impression it was then downrezzed (to 2K) for the DCP - which in turn was 4K ... what? if it went out as 4K, what was the point of the 2K encoding/transfer aspect? I thought the image looked great and very filmatic.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-12-2015, 10:56 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Even the font they chose for the opening credits seemed lackluster.

---

Uh, yeah. Glad someone noticed. Century Gothic sucks. It's another one of those Microsoft/Monotype typefaces only at home in MS Word.

There's lots of other far superior geometric-sans typefaces. Futura, Gotham, Neutraface and Avant Garde are just a few examples.

If they let me set the type for a Bond movie title crawl or opening title sequence I'd strongly consider Gill sans. That typeface was designed by acclaimed British typographer, Eric Gill. The Gill Sans type family has a strong tradition in British graphic design. The BBC logo, British Railways and the London Underground use that type family. The lettering on the New Scotland Yard sign appears inspired by Gill Sans even though it is custom. The type design in many Bond movies has relied on Helvetica, which can either be more associated with Swiss design or American design. It's not really a British look.

By the way, there is a new version of Gill Sans that was just released a few days ago. The type family has been expanded to 43 different weights, with each OpenType font file boasting expanded character sets. Most of the font files each contain over 1000 glyphs.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 11-12-2015, 11:15 PM:
 
^

[image]NBC's "The More You Know" logo[/image]


 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-15-2015, 11:35 AM:
 
I'm tired of the implied "Bond made relevant in a modern world" subplot. Classic Bond sure could taken care of the ladies in a way that they may not have liked,, but did respect.

Sonically I agree with all of the above audio comments. I saw it at a cinema with really excellent audio. Only nit I had was that the music seemed muted. Not the effects and dialog, only the music. Perhaps this was a creative choice. Good and loud at this cinema, which is good since distortion cannot occur there.
 

---

Posted by Frederick Lanoy (Member # 5416) on 11-15-2015, 01:32 PM:
 
Woua... after the great Skyfall, Spectre is a real disappointment.

Oh yeah, it has been shoot on film. I like the idea. Yet, i did not like the soft and grainy 4K DCP.

By the way, if Skyfall was so beautiful, it's thanks to Roger Deadkins who did an amazing job on this movie.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-15-2015, 07:17 PM:
 
Cinema: Carmike Patriot Cinemas 13, Lawton
Screen: IMAX Brand
Format: Dual 2K Xenon, 5.1 (or is it 5.0?) audio
Presentation Problems: Screens this big need 4K.

Rating 2.5 stars out of 4.

Spectre is yet another fairly routine installment in the James Bond saga. It's well produced and has the usual obligatory ingredients of any globe-trotting action movie. It's is entertaining in fits and starts, but ends up feeling like chewing gum for the eyes and ears. Once the amusement park ride is finished there's not all that much of substance to remember.

The biggest problem is Bond is rarely ever in any real danger.

For much of the movie's length there's hardly any real dramatic tension. We get to watch a helicopter doing loop-di-loops in the opening action sequence and then get treated to a car chase where multiple copies of two different super douche-bag coupes get beat to shit on the streets of Rome. It's a little fun to watch, but who is actually worried Bond could die in any of that? It's only in the final fist fight with a certain MMA veteran and a freaky scene where Bond is strapped to a chair and menaced with robotic drill bits that things finally get interesting. But his escapes from both situations are fairly predictable. The whole thing gets me thinking about the "Save The Cat!" paint by numbers, clip art movie making process these days.

One of the biggest weaknesses in the entire James Bond canon has been this concept where, after some cloak and dagger brinkmanship and difficulty, Bond is politely invited into the super-villain's ultra-douchey lair. Okay, sometimes he manages to sneak in there. But almost always the villain knows what's happening. The Austin Powers movies make fun of this nonsense and how it just wouldn't work in the real world. Why doesn't the villain just kill Bond when given so many chances over and over again? Why not write the movie to where Bond can't afford to give the villain a chance to kill him? Obviously that's a lot more difficult to do. It would require a more clever, less predictable screenplay.

And then we have the real world events involving ISIS or whatever the hell it's called. The members of Spectre are rich, have handsome estates, drive über douchey sports cars, yet they can be foiled by one frowning dude armed with a Walther PPK. No one in real life has any practical solutions on how to deal with the ISIS criminal organization.

Anyway, moving on to presentation standards.

This new Carmike operated IMAX theater has a fairly huge screen. The theater seems just about as big as the Moore Warren IMAX theater an hour's drive Northwest in Moore, OK. It's not decorated quite as nicely, nor is the screen equipped with any curtains like the Warren house. Like the Warren screen, the picture on this one is evenly bright. But the screen is a bit too big for 2K imagery. Things are just a tad bit soft. I think IMAX' new 4K laser-based system would offer a noticeable improvement.

Audio quality is typical of many IMAX houses. Pretty loud, noticeably louder than the Moore Warren IMAX. Bass response was pretty impressive, enough to thump the air in my chest and vibrate the seats. One scene late in the movie featuring a building implosion was quite rib-rattling. EQ-wise, not so great. A little harsh, kind of like a rock concert PA system. Surround coverage was lacking. Just two huge enclosures in the rear corners of the room. That's not really any different fundamentally from an average home theater system.

Like Mike, I wasn't very impressed with the opening title sequence or song. It was well rendered, but the concept was nothing new. They need to put more thought into those things if they're going to bother with them at all. The one in Casino Royale seemed novel, but it didn't look like any of the other Bond movie opening title sequences either. And, yeah, Century Gothic was a bad font to use. They used a "black" weight of Avant Garde in the end title credits, probably because Century Gothic has only a mere 4 weights to it.

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa

---

SPECTRE sounds like like another boring Daniel Craig James Bond Movie. Up until Craig took over the Bond roll, I enjoyed every James Bond movie with their easy to understand plots but the Daniel Craig movies were something else.

---

quote: Aron Toplitsky

---

It almost feels like there is bass generating from the seat itself. Is that possible?

---

With enough sub-bass power it can feel like wind has been generated in the room. Brad Miller's old in home cinema was able to do that.


Some theaters do have seats with speakers or sub bass kickers in the seats. If I recall correctly, AMC's "Prime" auditorium seats have that capability.
 

---

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 11-21-2015, 10:06 PM:
 
Went to see this new Bond film last week in Sparks Nevada on the Imax screen at the Luxury Galaxy Theatre. The whole movie on the large Imax screen was ruined by stray LED aisle lights on the bottom right and left part of the giant screen. The movie was so so. What is so strange on many of these films like on the train fight part of the film in the passenger car and dining car shots no one was on the train in the seats or in the kitchen in the background. The director needed to add some old ladies yelling and cooks in a panic. This part of the film looked so shot on a studio set. This was the first Imax Theatre I have been to that ran boring commercial ads on the screen for 20 minutes with low light just in the middle part of the screen. No masking so I had to see white screen at the top and bottom. On some Imax movies I have seen at times on certain shots the whole screen came on. I guess this 'Spectre' film was just a scope movie blown up to Imax blinds. Some parts did look very crisp but most was soft. With only 2 large surround Imax speakers in the back corners the split surrounds sounded good and not to loud. Time to replace Craig with someone new and younger.
 

---

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 11-24-2015, 10:45 AM:
 

quote: Aron Toplitsky

---

It almost feels like there is bass generating from the seat itself. Is that possible?

---