It seems to me that this video doesn't explain as much about Spectre as it mostly explains how and why Dark Knight works... That being said, keep up with this because you're great at it and I love your Spiderman video.
Radar0344 knowing why the dark knight works brings out why spectre fails...biofield doesn't challenge bond or force him to make difficult lasting choices
I don't think you really showed how The Dark Knight influenced Spectre, more that The Dark Knight worked better as a film. But yeah, SPECTRE was dull. It wasn't like it did anything offensive or terrible. Die Another Day - to name an infamous Bond example - has cringy scenes, SPECTRE's cringy scenes aren't nearly as memorable. It's just a bit of a bore. It's unfocused, with some good ideas here and there but doesn't really go anywhere interesting. It made you think they would bring back the more ''fun'' Bond, like it would go for some Brosnan/Craig hybrid, but that didn't really happen either. It also has some of the dullest action scenes in Bond memory. I was getting bored during the plane crash sequence, how can you make such a thing boring?
After watching Spectre I actually went and watched Die Another Day again. Die Another Day was cringy but it was also fun. Some of the scenes were legitimately awesome, like that hovercraft opening. I enjoyed that single scene more than anything in Spectre. Sure the CG was terrible but you can laugh at it at least. Watching Craig attempt humour was just pathetic in Spectre, like when he threw the guy off the train. Craig can't be witty or cheeky for shit. I don't hate Craig and I think Casino Royale is great but I don't think he's right for the role. I'd call myself a big fan of the series but I really can't be bothered to watch Spectre again.
+sutho Skyfall is like The Dark Knight while Spectre is like The Dark Knight Rises granted The Dark Knight Rises is still a much better film than Spectre!
What Specter does is dunk all over the 3 previous films. If anything it falls victim to marvel, trying to have them all connect and that Bloefeld was actually the master mind of everything is awful.
The escape and destruction of the solar facility in Spectre was so easy, I actually thought while it was happening that it might be some sort of Brazil-style torture hallucination. Alas, no. I also had the same thought during the pirate shootout in The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou - the tone changed and the whole thing felt strange. Clearly, Brazil has scarred me forever, lol.
There's a truly good Bond movie hidden in Spectre. You can see it in every scene. It's missed cuts and poorly timed reveals. The cinematography is spectacular and I feel like whoever edited the mexico city scene left the movie right afterwards. Dave Batista was absolutely wasted and so was Monica Bellucci. Her character should have been the one Bond was with the whole movie, not Lea Sedoux.
I know it's an old video and I think the first of the channel. It's alright, but you need to work on the structure... you never got to the point and then when you did, you didn't really drive it home because of the fact that you were all over the place. I still subscribed and think you have talent for this. Hope you take this as constructive criticism for future videos. Cheers
Bastista has acting chops surprisingly. He was fantastic as Drax in _Guardians of the Galaxy_. Now I can't help but hear his voice whenever I read the comic.
You're right that Spectre deviates a lot from Daniel Craig's other bonds, but Spectre in particular seems more oriented around the classic Bond films. The films where Roger Moore could get out of sticky situations by hopping in a fake alligator, or swinging across vines while yelling like Tarzan. The films where Sean Connery casually sets up a sky hook (which is ironically referenced in the Dark Knight in a weird cycle of Nolan borrowing from Bond who'd borrow from Nolan later). The films where Sean Connery has a Jet Pack stowed away on a rooftop for a quick get away, or the infamous "Pierce Brosnan" surfs a wave created from a falling glacier. I'm not saying it's Shakespeare, but it is true to pretty much the entire 50 year history of the series.
I don't particularly like JB movies but boy do I miss those cringey dumb moments. Like that boat chase scene with Roger Moor, or that scene where he drives a car cut in half, the ski sequence with George whatever, Pierce driving a tank and looking so dumb. James' always been kind of an idiot, I kinda wish we got more of that back. But yeah I'm not a JB fan anyway so idk if big fans share that sentiment
movierr111 It's not the fault of the Dark Knight, but it is a consequence. Having such a critically acclaimed success leads to cheap rip offs that miss the point.
Strongly disagree, I like his vocabulary/ explaining ideas, maybe not actually talking about his title though. Also this is an amazing channel if I remember correctly, but apparently this is his first vid. Really fantastic editing imo, and really fun to watch
@@jakesampson5629 It's basic editing. And if he's not talking about what the title is, then what's the point of the video? Doesn't really matter if it's his first video. That's basic logic for a video. This is just bad.
Manlet Fitness.. I doubt you should call someone a meathead with grammar like that, maybe you should spend more time working on those little muscles of yours.
For me I think what ever happed after the "drilling" scene, is a dream inside bonds head, I mean the guy could even hit a dummy at a point blank range in skyfall and here he is pulling off 360 no scopes everywhere
In fairness to the TDK comparison, the hospital scene was partially ad-libbed because the pyrotechnics didn't all go off as initially planned. Ledger went with it, and eventually the rest of the building came down, and that's why that seems organic: basically because it was. That said, the point about SPECTRE being put together with the kind of precision that ends up feeling like it's on auto-pilot, it's still pretty true.
Yes, I filled with rage when the entire compound was destroyed because he shot 1 gas regulator valve that was sticking up in the open. Unless this is a warning against deregulation, the preposterous implausiblity of it was very insulting.
Keep up the good work, bro. I think you've done a great job here. Your point has multiple layers to it, and yet it's also very concise and to the point without too much 'fat.' Can't wait to see more.
Really dug this video bro, even though I completely disagree. I see Spectre as the ultimate big-budget risk, Sam Mendes attempt at bucking a trend that Skyfall fell victim too (Skyfall is excellent, but it bleeds TDK all over). I saw Spectre as a return to coincidental Bond camp but with the modern cynicism of the first 3 Craig iterations. I think that's what Mendes was going for. It didnt always work and it was definitely a bit dry, but I for one appreciated the massive 180 in tone and delivery. I wouldn't be surprised if the next film takes major cues from Bourne 5.
From time to time, the Bond franchise falls down the rabbit hole of mimicking current trends in filmmaking. It's inevitable, really-- it's a franchise that is more than 50 years old, and the overall premise of James Bond relies on having a timely feel, to connect it to a geopolitical reality that we as an audience can at least somewhat recognize. So, one of the big ways the series has survived as long as it has is by appropriating tropes from other genres into itself. Live and Let Die borrowed from blaxploitation films, The Man With the Golden Gun borrowed from 70s martial arts movies, Moonraker borrowed from sci-fi (particularly Star Wars), Licence to Kill borrowed from 80s buddy cop movies like Lethal Weapon, and so on. In a way, it's actually kind of impressive to go back over the entire Bond catalog and see the documentation of film styles that have come and gone-- 007 functions a bit like a 50-year history of film. And Skyfall and Spectre do indeed fit into that tradition as well, with their ties to The Dark Knight and other recent 'gritty' action films. Occasionally, like in Skyfall's case, the borrowing works, because it serves to contextualize Bond for a new generation. On the other hand, sometimes, like in Spectre's case, the borrowing comes off as an unoriginal and lazy ploy, just trying to coast on the strength of a recent fad. To give Spectre a little credit for the things it does right-- I think the cold open sequence in Mexico City was the best part of the movie, and Dave Bautista was absolutely a fitting henchman for a Bond movie. But that's about it. I think the biggest thing that Skyfall had going for it, which Spectre unfortunately did not, was genuine unpredictability. Silva actually felt like a suitable threat, not just because he matched wits with Bond, but because we as an audience weren't fully aware what exactly he was really capable of. The story not only served as a great showcase for several wonderful action set pieces and nicely moderated fanservice moments, but it was itself an organic and interesting plotline. The story was propelled by the cat-and-mouse game between Bond and Silva, one always appearing to be ahead of the other until there was a surprising subversion of those expectations. Obviously, Bond movies do have a bit of a formula to which they adhere, but the end result of Skyfall was not a foregone conclusion. Spectre, however, suffered from its branding. The big 'twist' of the movie was an absolute joke-- because, of course, as a fan of the Bond franchise, if you go into a movie named 'Spectre', and you know Christoph Waltz has been cast as the main villain... no matter what the studio TELLS the viewers before they see it, there's immediately going to be an assumption that Waltz's character is actually going to turn out to be Blofeld. The title of the movie and the casting choice completely throws away all of the surprise of the movie's biggest reveal. And from there, it's not hard to extrapolate that he's been orchestrating things behind the scenes, even without being explicitly told that this is what has been happening later on in the movie. Spectre fell flat because it didn't really offer Bond fans anything NEW. Even the title sequence, which is usually one of the personal highlights for me with any Bond movie, wasn't particularly impressive here. There were no especially novel action sequences, nothing particularly noteworthy in terms of Bond's chemistry with the women in the film, and the villain was an absolute dud. And that latter point is especially disappointing and frustrating, because this is BLOFELD we're talking about-- Bond's number one rival of all time, the truest match for all of his skill and cunning. Blofeld doesn't need a backstory about wanting vengeance against Bond to be threatening-- the original version's lust for power on a scale of world domination was already threatening enough. Personally, I'm relieved that Sam Mendes is not returning for the next installment. While I enjoyed Skyfall immensely, and believe it's one of the best Bond movies in decades, after having seen Spectre, I think the franchise needs to go in a different direction now.
The best thing with spectra and what made it stand out from the rest in the Craig series is instead of distancing itself to the old movies it was a straight up homage to them.
Casino royal: awesome story, really good characters and main villain le chiffre, the end is really awesome. Quantum of solace: so i really like it, really good story with a good villain Dominic green and the james bond girl is good but her story is classic and not interesting, not very good realization. Too much cut and the film is 39min shorter than casino royal, they make it too fast but i love it. Skyfall: it’s literally the best film of Craig for me, the main villain is awesome Silva. its like casino royal but better i love it. Spectre: i dont know why peoples dislike this film, blofeld is not the best villain of all time but hes really good, the film has a good story and good action scene. Alright maybe some scene are a little boring just for make a film 2h28 and beat the 2h23 of Skyfall but this IS a good film. No time to die: some peoples hate this film but hes really good, its just a little different than the other and he has a really good story, the opening scene is much longer than all the other but its very enjoyed, the film is 2h45 longer and its not boring at all and the main villain Safin is good but not the best. A really good film i love it, thx to Craig. So im french thx if u read this but i just want to tell that because i think i have a correct English but maybe not at all🤷.
the problem with spectre is the end, how they randomly are in a white room and then blofeld says if bond moves he dies and then he just moves and doesnt die and easily gets out when it was set up that it would have been way more difficult
@@minerpvpgaming2160 yeah ur right, this scene makes no sense, also the end when they are in the mi6 buildings is weird.. blofeld is like « hey james, instead of kill u now we make a little game just for you » and also why there is a hole where they can jump with a net for save them at the end (even if bond see that earlier) and also madeleine is not good hide at all, but the rest of the film is pretty good i think :D
very intriguing main argument but all this was explained so lazily and loosely. it's as if he knows what he wants to talk about but meanders and only touches upon lowest level of analysis. not the best film essay I've seen on RU-vid.
Spectre...........yeah I remember that one, had the um, the love interest I didn't care about, a boat chase, that Sherlock villain, Voldemort actor, a board meeting in Rome aaaaand...... :/ BTW love the edited shot at 3:33 I was laughing for 5 mins non stop XD
Just found your channel, and I have to commend your choice of music. Snarky Puppy might be my favorite fusion jazz band out there, but the placing is off. Im sure your newer stuff is more polished :) new sub
Good video. Piece of friendly advice, from a film-maker, level your sound a bit better - I couldn't hear the Joker's dialogue without turning up the volume. But a good video all the same. I personally never saw Spectre because friends told me it was no good so I was interested to find out why they thought that (they don't know themselves, to them it was just 'crap' and that's as far as their analysis ever goes).
I have to say I often check out when someone starts an analysis by declaring hate for the subject of analysis. It doesn't lend any confidence that counterpoints were considered.
Hey, the point we do agree on is that the last action piece was sterile. I have rarelly seen such a lack of interest in planning and executing an action sequence, Bond is dull holding the girl and doesn' t even try to dodge the bullets but shoots all those heavier armed bad guys like they' re not even there and the explosions are exagerated. But it is still a good film, the cinematography was wonderful and I found that they broke some cliches like the main Bond girl not jumping at Bond right away and the Dave Bautista character not alive at the end for a last showdown.
although i do agree with you on alot of these finer points, overall i think spectre was a great addition to the franchise, as a heavy bond fan it felt like just another campy lucky, gagety bond film, following the bond formula to a T. starts out on a mission, gets some intel on a bigger operation, goes to find out more, finds out he needs to "squeeze" some info out of a girl, she is resistand, the enemy all but invites bond to his Lair, far from civilization, they chat, the plot is revealed, bond escapes, the lair explodes. and he gets the girl. its like cookie cutter bond film, and thats why i loved it. i know that to stay competitive the bond franchise should be more progressive, and i think comparing bond to other series like the MCU or the ever growing batman universe of film, is something alot of people do. and its a little unfair. Spectre is a callback to the Moore days of bond, and i dont want them to get edgy or too dark or change the formula too much because then it just wouldnt be..... bond. like watch the spy who loved me and spectre back to back, damn near the same movie haha. but i WILL agree that Skyfall is on another level. i called spectre skyfall for damn near a year after its release haha. there is that pesky detail of the bond song for spectre being lackluster in my opinion but thats a story for another day
You know essentially, Skyfall and Spectre are the same; they follow the same beats, have identical villains with the same motivating factors and discard plot elements as the film continues.
The only problem I had with "Spectre" was it couldn't live up to "Skyfall." That being said, it still beat any of the Moore and Brosnan entries. Don't overthink Bond movies. You'll take all of the fun out of them. The largest explosion in film history took us back to "Dr. No" and "You Only Live Twice."
Yeah, that secret base had woefully inadequate fire suppression systems installed. Though, safety regulations and super villains never seem to go together lol
I really liked this video, I subscribed because of it, and I'm excited to see your other work and how you evolve, but I'm going to echo some of the others and critique it a little. You made good points, but they were a little jumbled and never came together in the end. You looked at both movies but didn't exactly look at how TDK effected Spectre. Still a great video for your first work. Keep it up
I still think that the movie should have been called something else that wouldn't have eluded to the twist so easily. True, well versed Bond fans will understand and know that the movie could have been called "The Hildebrand Rarity" and completely have thrown you off of everything in the film...until the opportune moment. Films can be bad because the title gives too much away.
I enjoyed Specter the first time I saw it. But it is the only Craig-Bond film I was not really to see again almost immediately. And I liked it far less once my “fan boy” of this current launch was taken away from my objectiveness. I really liked your comparison here.
I can tell you the name a film that is lazy and unoriginal, yet still somehow manages to be exciting... hint. It rhymes with Star Wars The Force Awakens. Actually that's it, my bad.
Honestly, the only thing I still don't understand about this movie is how easy it was to blow up the entire "hidden facility." It was nice to see a film that-in itself, is more faithful and holding in many ways to "you only live twice" the story/book as opposed to the "volcano lair" film. But why was it so simple to destroy it? I mean the over-arching plot of the film with the side-characters going after the spectre agent was cool, but most of that whole creepy set-up for bond would've been way better done if he was basically in like a maze trying to get out of the facility and he defeated blowfield there. That's what I would change.
i feel that Spectre's problem is that it tried to put 3 movies (one Jason Bourne movie, one old-school James Bond film, and one John Le Carre spy thriller) into one but it captured neither of their advantages.
The point of Spectre, I believe, was to make some call backs and classic lore references. Down to the sets even. A meteor as a central decoration in a dark room, the secret base hidden in a crater and of course the scar and cat. It wasn't as good as Skyfall, which really was a good Dark Knight styled Bond.
