"Did you just move in?" -Moneypenny (looking around the spartan apartment full of boxes.)
"No." -James Bond
Yet another Jame Bond. It is not the best James Bond. It may not be even in my Top Ten James Bonds. It is certainly better than the Pierce Brosnan and Halle Berry Bond-YUKC!!!
Spectre takes it self seriously. This James Bond is out to make its case as coherent cinema and not schlock. Its most memorable characteristic was the stunning amount of silence within the film. Spectre has almost Kurosawa levels of dramatic pauses, significant glances, and meaningful silences. At 148 minutes it is also the longest running Bond. These two factors make Spectre a cinematically compelling if occasionally boring James Bond. I personally liked these aspects, but I tend towards slow somber films. If you do not...prepare to be disappointed by Spectre. Spectre contains a large of number of references to the previous Daniel Craig iterations of 007. If you haven't seen these, Spectre is possibly impenetrable as to character motivation and plot. Let's be honest, the plot of Spectre is actually rather meager and not particularly compelling. Additionally, while it can be helpful to have a A and B plot line for dramatic intertwined story telling, if neither story can stand alone, all one does is make the entire narrative muddled and confusing. There are positives to Spectre. Daniel Craig is a great James Bond. The opening sequence in Mexico City is an amazing bit of single shot magic. Bond once again drives a car, a plane, and a boat. Dave Bautista is muscly and scary. And the opening title/credit sequence is as sexy oil hallucinogenic as ever. I will look forward to more Bonds in the future.
On to the more interesting topic: franchise continuity. The idea of the "franchise" is a reasonably new concept in the history of cinema. In a simple case, one makes a film with a start and a finish. It is self contained. There are classic exceptions to this, notably 6 part sagas and planned trilogies. But, the idea of maintaining continuity outside the confines of a planned film structure is new and from my perspective a product of business thinking, not art. There are positives and negatives to the development of the franchise. On the positives, the franchise offers a broader and more expansive pallet for those willing to add to a related community. It also brings with it a captured audience and sometimes a great deal of myth from which to be creative from. On the negatives, franchises adversely affect the exploration of uniquely inspired and incepted ideas. Franchises also have their own distinct agendas that are not related to single films. This reigns in the potential for coloring outside the lines. Where in the old days, all projects were betting on the unknown, now betting on the unknown is a real gamble. Artists, addicts, and zealots like to gamble. Banks, and financiers do not.
On a scale of 006 to Agent 99, I give Spetcre 3.125 out of 5 stars.
Oh Spectre is kinda of waste of the incredible talents of Christoph Waltz, although I do love that he ended the film with a a scar over one eye and a white cat. (Nice touch!)
Spectre takes it self seriously. This James Bond is out to make its case as coherent cinema and not schlock. Its most memorable characteristic was the stunning amount of silence within the film. Spectre has almost Kurosawa levels of dramatic pauses, significant glances, and meaningful silences. At 148 minutes it is also the longest running Bond. These two factors make Spectre a cinematically compelling if occasionally boring James Bond. I personally liked these aspects, but I tend towards slow somber films. If you do not...prepare to be disappointed by Spectre. Spectre contains a large of number of references to the previous Daniel Craig iterations of 007. If you haven't seen these, Spectre is possibly impenetrable as to character motivation and plot. Let's be honest, the plot of Spectre is actually rather meager and not particularly compelling. Additionally, while it can be helpful to have a A and B plot line for dramatic intertwined story telling, if neither story can stand alone, all one does is make the entire narrative muddled and confusing. There are positives to Spectre. Daniel Craig is a great James Bond. The opening sequence in Mexico City is an amazing bit of single shot magic. Bond once again drives a car, a plane, and a boat. Dave Bautista is muscly and scary. And the opening title/credit sequence is as sexy oil hallucinogenic as ever. I will look forward to more Bonds in the future.
On to the more interesting topic: franchise continuity. The idea of the "franchise" is a reasonably new concept in the history of cinema. In a simple case, one makes a film with a start and a finish. It is self contained. There are classic exceptions to this, notably 6 part sagas and planned trilogies. But, the idea of maintaining continuity outside the confines of a planned film structure is new and from my perspective a product of business thinking, not art. There are positives and negatives to the development of the franchise. On the positives, the franchise offers a broader and more expansive pallet for those willing to add to a related community. It also brings with it a captured audience and sometimes a great deal of myth from which to be creative from. On the negatives, franchises adversely affect the exploration of uniquely inspired and incepted ideas. Franchises also have their own distinct agendas that are not related to single films. This reigns in the potential for coloring outside the lines. Where in the old days, all projects were betting on the unknown, now betting on the unknown is a real gamble. Artists, addicts, and zealots like to gamble. Banks, and financiers do not.
On a scale of 006 to Agent 99, I give Spetcre 3.125 out of 5 stars.
Oh Spectre is kinda of waste of the incredible talents of Christoph Waltz, although I do love that he ended the film with a a scar over one eye and a white cat. (Nice touch!)
No comments:
Post a Comment