James Bond’s back again! Sam Mendes returned as well – this
time he’s with Cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema. This is what filmgoers are waiting
for, Bond facing his long-time nemesis, SPECTRE. But, is this film worth
watching? Is the $ 300 million budget finally paid off with great story and
action?
I think…. NO!
Daniel Craig’s era is the most interesting and the most
profitable among other Bonds era. But, Spectre showed me how the era can ran
out of ideas. The film didn’t use new ideas, instead it seems that the
franchise used the old formula from the previous era.
The old formula consist of James Bond being a superhero, I
mean literary a superhero – doing what a normal human being can’t do. He is
unstoppable. The other is the fancy gadget – we see some of it in the movie.
And torture. And other clique things. You’ll see a lot of it in the movie.
The most iritating thing was the budget. They waste a lot of
money to make what had been made decades ago. I don’t think it was worth the money.
The thing that I don’t like the most is the antagonist of
the film. Chistoph Waltz played the character. When I first heard about his
casted, I was so excited. Looking back, we see him played the most interesting
villain of all time in Tarantino’s films. But, it turned out quiet
disappointing. The exposition of the character was very frightening in the
first ¾ of the movie, but in the end, he wasn’t so much as a villain.
But I have to say, I really like what Hoyte van Hoytema had
done with the cinematography. I think it is really interesting to combine
celluloid film workflow with digital workflow. It perfected each other. The
lighting set-ups were really complex, but he knailed it!
The verdict:
There’s a saying, “With BIG BUDGET, comes GREAT RESPONSIBILITY,”
this film doesn’t hold it.
No comments:
Post a Comment