Guy Haines said…
Interesting because Spectre clearly is the most bloated of Craig’s four films IMHO. Your other comments raise interesting questions about why “Fourth Bond films” turn out this particular way.
Bryce (003) said…
Was there a “Spectre On Set” book?
Yes, there was! Nice photos but, of course, no real intel on the production that goes beyond the usual PR stuff.
And still this thread will not die.
This thread…kill it with fire.
Anyway I think that Moonraker and Spectre are both great forth films for Moore and Craig. They’re not boring like Thunderball or as stupid as Die Another Day. I’ll take a double take pigeon over Jinx any day of the week.
16 years later… Part of it is Zencat’s review… and my premier party that year for the 40th here in L.A.
I do remember my first viewing because it was a special preview in Cologne, Germany, with Peter Lamont attending.
The cinema itself was a small, old and ugly box. The film started with no sound. The lights went on and the film had to be restarted.
From then on, however, the audience was absolutely in tune with the film, laughing, applauding, wowing. DAD was appreciated and enjoyed fully.
Afterwards, the “conversation” with Peter Lamont was, unfortunately, awkward since hardly anyone wanted to ask him questions, so the moderator of the evening asked the usual ones. Lamont must have thought afterwards: what a wasted night.
But still, the movie worked like gangbusters. Sure, even I noticed the bad CGI. But it did not take me out of the picture. It was more of what I love about these films, this gung ho-see if we care-you don’t think we’re brave enough to dare to do this-attitude.
Kind of like: You think the CGI looks rushed? So what? Would you consider this sequence less over the top if it looked perfectly realistic that a man would build his para-sail-thingee from that vehicle while a glacier melted and a tsunami wave threatened to wash over him?
Writing this I must agree. The bad CGI almost works like a wink to the audience: yep, the whole thing is ridiculous - so stop asking for a more “realistic” special effect. Or do you really believe the Avengers fly through the air and land on one knee just because it looks so real? C´mon…
Apart from that, I do consider DAD a fun film, with the first half trying out unconventional things that deserve recognition, and the second half being just pedal-to-the-medal outrageousness. And to me it is the quintessential anniversary film, a greatest hits package with nods to everything that came before.
Is it my favorite Bond film? No. But it is simply fun and does its job: I am entertained.
That’s my bigger gripe: this scenario is too stupid by far, and even competent effects work wouldn’t have changed that. The fact that they phone it in just adds to the insult.
On the other hand, I find a perverse appeal in your suggestion that they made the CGI laughable on purpose. In a film jammed full of “homages” to earlier entries, we could perhaps take it as a callback to all the crummy rear projection work of the old days. GF gave us a laser, so DAD gives us a fight with a dozen spinning lasers. MR gave us Bond wielding a sword in a property-damaging, running battle, so DAD gives us a swordfight that drags on three times as long and wrecks even more stuff. Everything in this film is bigger and louder and more over-the-top, so why not the CG? It’s like they’re paying homage to vintage scenes of Roger “skiing” in front of too-obvious rear screen by ramping up both the stunt and the fakeness to Level 11.
I like it.
Unfortunately, it’s a bit undone by the DVD commentary, where everyone pats themselves on the back for doing such a great, “convincing” job of it. The stunt itself left me embarrassed, but it was that groundless bragging that made me hate.