SPECTRE - Press reviews and personal reviews (BEWARE! Spoiler reviews allowed)

11617192122103

Comments

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    The free newspapers that practically the whole workforce is reading on its way to work may just be the most important tool to get people to watch Spectre.

    If the London Metro has a very good review as has been mentioned then that is great.

    The widest read newspaper by far in Switzerland also is the free tabloid-ish "20 Minutes" which will have a review during the next days. It is also an app and reaches even more people through that. Looking forward to that review.
  • I have to translate one section of the Swiss Tages-Anzeiger review because it's so sweet :x
    mind you, it's a tiny little spoiler of one particular short scene so I hide it in the spoiler.
    "Und einmal spricht er mit einem Mäuschen. Ja, eine kleine, neckische Maus mit schwarzen Augen schaut den besten Geheimagenten der Welt an, als sei dieser ein grosser Käse. Der senkt prompt die Pistole, mit der er das Tier eigentlich wegpusten wollte."

    "And once (Bond) speaks to a little mouse. Yes, a tiny playful mousie with black little eyes looks at the best spy of the world, as if he was a big cheese. (Bond) promptly lowers his gun with which he actually wanted to blow the pet away."[/spoiler]


    Another homage from Sam Mendes..



  • Posts: 4,281
    I would love to see some research on what motivates the audience to see a movie. Some have already booked tickets, some will decide having read those reviews and some will wait and ask their friends/family/workmates. Others have no plans to go but change their minds. Its these last two sections where word of mouth is so important and that's really down to the movie itself.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    patb wrote: »
    I would love to see some research on what motivates the audience to see a movie. Some have already booked tickets, some will decide having read those reviews and some will wait and ask their friends/family/workmates. Others have no plans to go but change their minds. Its these last two sections where word of mouth is so important and that's really down to the movie itself.

    Reviews are more important than you think. They can sink a movie before it's started.
    Or elevate the hype to unknown heights as happened with Skyfall, where probably half the audience was sure SF was great even before it saw it. That's called manipulating/swaying/affecting.

    Word of mouth is definitely the important thing once the movie has hit the theaters.
    If WoM is good it will help the movie, even if reviews were mixed. If WoM is mixed then other factors will weigh in heavily like the competition (the undecided will maybe, maybe not go and watch it).

    In any case, it's a complicated science that no one has mastered yet, or we would only have sure hits in the cinema :)
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    The film industry is not my calling or desire but even in my field word of mouth and the related name recognition are two significant selling points.
  • Posts: 4,281
    But SF had great "legs" and that can't be because of the reviews?
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    patb wrote: »
    But SF had great "legs" and that can't be because of the reviews?

    At first the hype and the reviews made the general public want to go and see it.
    WoM was very good on SF, it's a mixture of everything.
    And SF is an example where everything was falling into place perfectly!

    SF as GF will always be one of the greats in the memory of the general public.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Right .. SF had good word of mouth also.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    But SF had great "legs" and that can't be because of the reviews?

    That's true. The reviews will get butts in the seats at the beginning (and perhaps some of the late comers who don't come out on week 1) but inevitably it's the film's quality in a first hand impression (and more importantly, 'feel good' factor) which will draw in repeat viewers.

    SF was an unquestionable phenomenon. It was a 'feel good' and more importantly a 'look good' film - particularly on the big screen. After TDKR disappointed a little in that respect, SF took the baton for 2012. Regular casual people saw it and then insisted on seeing it again with either family or friends....something that normally only diehards do.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    But SF had great "legs" and that can't be because of the reviews?

    That's true. The reviews will get butts in the seats at the beginning (and perhaps some of the late comers who don't come out on week 1) but inevitably it's the film's quality in a first hand impression (and more importantly, 'feel good' factor) which will draw in repeat viewers.

    SF was an unquestionable phenomenon. It was a 'feel good' and more importantly a 'look good' film - particularly on the big screen. After TDKR disappointed a little in that respect, SF took the baton for 2012. Regular casual people saw it and then insisted on seeing it again with either family or friends....something that normally only diehards do.

    But it wasn't a phenomenon for you ;-). It's funny how many reviewers...and MI6community-forummembers are now saying that. When I said that for the past 36 months, people in here made me....rather ridiculous :-). To put it mildly. I said on numerous occasions that SF was that "special" Bond film that drew in new audiences, that would be loved perhaps more by critics than by typical Bond fans. "To heel to critics" many said, but the $1.1 Billion does say something about the universal attraction and magnetism of the film.

    "SF" is perhaps the best film from Craig within and outside the franchise. But "SP" is perhaps the best Bond film within the franchise...
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited October 2015 Posts: 4,116
    Or at least one of the best traditional Bond films.

    Again even the more negative reviews are saying the film is entertaining at least. I think that is going to give the film legs.

    If SF was a fine five course meal then SP is a big ol Texas bbq. Big overblown but just as tasty.

    DAD and QS are like McDonald's and Burger King respectively ..nasty but we eat there anyway and sometimes like it.

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    @Gustav_Graves

    Yes, SF is, as I said before, like GF and will always remain that way for the general public.

    Critics and hard-core fans like we are, will look upon SF differently with time.

    SP is hard to tell right now. Some say it's Craig's TB, I said it's his YOLT.
    But who knows, it might be another QOS (without the editing mess), it might be Craig's DAD, MR or TSWLM, we will see.

    In any case we have Casino Royale which no one will ever be able to take away from us.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited October 2015 Posts: 5,159
    bondjames wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    But SF had great "legs" and that can't be because of the reviews?

    That's true. The reviews will get butts in the seats at the beginning (and perhaps some of the late comers who don't come out on week 1) but inevitably it's the film's quality in a first hand impression (and more importantly, 'feel good' factor) which will draw in repeat viewers.

    SF was an unquestionable phenomenon. It was a 'feel good' and more importantly a 'look good' film - particularly on the big screen. After TDKR disappointed a little in that respect, SF took the baton for 2012. Regular casual people saw it and then insisted on seeing it again with either family or friends....something that normally only diehards do.

    But it wasn't a phenomenon for you ;-). It's funny how many reviews are now saying that. When I said that for the past 36 months, people in here made me....rather ridiculous :-).

    I don't even know whats going on anymore.
    When Skyfall was released, everyone around me was hating it. I remember people coming out of the Cinema and just whining all about it. i had to defend it everywhere while people were saying "this is not a Bond Movie".

    Thats why i don't even care for all the negative comments about Spectre. Most of these Critics don't even care for what a Bond movie is, or supposed to be.

    LTK and Goldeneye only have around 82% on RottenTomatoes. Who Cares?
    This could be my favorite Movie of Craig, there is no reson for me not to think that. It could have an awesome revenge plot and great action.
    Movie critics never get good action movies and never will, they only care about movies when someones crying at the end and feeling bad about himself
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    But SF had great "legs" and that can't be because of the reviews?

    That's true. The reviews will get butts in the seats at the beginning (and perhaps some of the late comers who don't come out on week 1) but inevitably it's the film's quality in a first hand impression (and more importantly, 'feel good' factor) which will draw in repeat viewers.

    SF was an unquestionable phenomenon. It was a 'feel good' and more importantly a 'look good' film - particularly on the big screen. After TDKR disappointed a little in that respect, SF took the baton for 2012. Regular casual people saw it and then insisted on seeing it again with either family or friends....something that normally only diehards do.

    But it wasn't a phenomenon for you ;-). It's funny how many reviewers...and MI6community-forummembers are now saying that. When I said that for the past 36 months, people in here made me....rather ridiculous :-). To put it mildly. I said on numerous occasions that SF was that "special" Bond film that drew in new audiences, that would be loved perhaps more by critics than by typical Bond fans. "To heel to critics" many said, but the $1.1 Billion does say something about the universal attraction and magnetism of the film.

    "SF" is perhaps the best film from Craig within and outside the franchise. But "SP" is perhaps the best Bond film within the franchise...

    @Gustav_Graves, I think it's been quite obvious to all of us that SF was a phenomenon. You are not the only one to grasp that. It is well known that the film brought in new audiences and garnered a lot of praise. However, one should not confuse that with its quality (irrespective of the glowing/fawning/gushing/cooing tributes from reviewers everywhere). Those reviews were an added boost.

    I objectively think it's severely overrated by the general public and on this forum. I've said that many times. It has several flaws, and those who dislike it are correct to point it out here and elsewhere. That does not subtract from the fact that it provides a very enjoyable subjective viewing experience, which I've also said on many occasions, particularly on the lengthy SF critique thread. That is why it got repeat viewings, and why it made bucketloads of money.

    It is not, however, a 'special' Bond film. It is just a film that exceeded expectations - and this is the key. Expectations that were terribly low after QoS failed to deliver for the majority of casual (and die-hard) fans, and which were built up after the 4 year (and perhaps 6 year since CR) wait. It harked back to the Bond films of old (with the reintroduction of familiar elements like Q, male M & MP) and also was visually stunning. Most importantly, it captured the British public's imagination in a banner year (Olympics & Jubilee). The timing was perfect. The mood was perfect.

    One should not confuse that success with how good of a film it is. SF is certainly not the best film from Craig within and outside the franchise. That is undoubtedly (imho) CR, until I watch SP.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited October 2015 Posts: 4,116
    Because CR was so groundbreaking I don't any Craig film will surpass it. Although, I truly wish one would.

    Having said that I am expecting based on what I have read to just thoroughly and blindly enjoy SP for what it is. Maybe it's groundbreaking in that way.... celebration of all Bond and the culmination of the road travelled through the Craig films(?).

    Like Oz for Bond.
  • Posts: 315
    While the 'official opening' in the U.S. is listed as Friday, Nov. 6th, I'm finding some local theatre evening showings on Wednesday, Nov. 4th. Cost is $15.50 for iMax. I can sneak the Texas brisket bbq in with no problem, it's the cold adult beverages that pose a problem. I am hoping they have the free poster giveaways for the lucky firsts
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,432
    FLeiter wrote: »
    While the 'official opening' in the U.S. is listed as Friday, Nov. 6th, I'm finding some local theatre evening showings on Wednesday, Nov. 4th. Cost is $15.50 for iMax. I can sneak the Texas brisket bbq in with no problem, it's the cold adult beverages that pose a problem. I am hoping they have the free poster giveaways for the lucky firsts

    Oh no, you're not one of those people who eats in the cinema are you?
  • RC7RC7
    edited October 2015 Posts: 10,432
    -
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    RC7 wrote: »
    FLeiter wrote: »
    While the 'official opening' in the U.S. is listed as Friday, Nov. 6th, I'm finding some local theatre evening showings on Wednesday, Nov. 4th. Cost is $15.50 for iMax. I can sneak the Texas brisket bbq in with no problem, it's the cold adult beverages that pose a problem. I am hoping they have the free poster giveaways for the lucky firsts

    Oh no, you're not one of those people who eats in the cinema are you?

    Lol ...those cinemas that serve dinner during the movie are cool but I'd rather not see SP in that venue.

    Just for tmi reasons

    :D
  • Posts: 1,032
    Mark Kermode, probably the UKs most influential and respected film critic absolutely loves it
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 6,601
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Mark Kermode, probably the UKs most influential and respected film critic absolutely loves it

    =D dancing the happy dance.

    A friend just posted:
    I have just been listening to Mark Kermode on BBC Radio 5, broadcast in front of an audience from the Empire Leicester Square. He has given Spectre a great review.

    Daniel gave a good interview with Simon Mayo. I watched the video.


    i remember Piercetodaniel saying, he sat before him and he draw a big sigh at the end, which he said, was of being happy, it was over. So happy, that was wrong.
  • Posts: 1,032
    Yes I read that and that more than anything got me worried. But the type of reviews and papers that I respect in terms of opinion are generally the 5 star ones.

    If the main criticism of Spectre is that it feels more like a traditional Bond Movie then i for one will be over the moon. I just read a 5 star review online that said Spectre is "the most Bond Bond film ever."
  • Watched Kermodes review and it has made my day. I loved Skyfall but I just know that I will love Spectre so much more. I expect to be transported to my childhood bond experiences and I CANT WAIT
  • Kermode's review has me even more excited!
  • Posts: 498

    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    But SF had great "legs" and that can't be because of the reviews?

    That's true. The reviews will get butts in the seats at the beginning (and perhaps some of the late comers who don't come out on week 1) but inevitably it's the film's quality in a first hand impression (and more importantly, 'feel good' factor) which will draw in repeat viewers.

    SF was an unquestionable phenomenon. It was a 'feel good' and more importantly a 'look good' film - particularly on the big screen. After TDKR disappointed a little in that respect, SF took the baton for 2012. Regular casual people saw it and then insisted on seeing it again with either family or friends....something that normally only diehards do.

    But it wasn't a phenomenon for you ;-). It's funny how many reviewers...and MI6community-forummembers are now saying that. When I said that for the past 36 months, people in here made me....rather ridiculous :-). To put it mildly. I said on numerous occasions that SF was that "special" Bond film that drew in new audiences, that would be loved perhaps more by critics than by typical Bond fans. "To heel to critics" many said, but the $1.1 Billion does say something about the universal attraction and magnetism of the film.

    "SF" is perhaps the best film from Craig within and outside the franchise. But "SP" is perhaps the best Bond film within the franchise...

    @Gustav_Graves, I think it's been quite obvious to all of us that SF was a phenomenon. You are not the only one to grasp that. It is well known that the film brought in new audiences and garnered a lot of praise. However, one should not confuse that with its quality (irrespective of the glowing/fawning/gushing/cooing tributes from reviewers everywhere). Those reviews were an added boost.

    I objectively think it's severely overrated by the general public and on this forum. I've said that many times. It has several flaws, and those who dislike it are correct to point it out here and elsewhere.

    But the problem is every time someone like BondJasonBond points out criticism, there are people like germanlady who'll all out attack him.
    we have to accept there are movies like OHMSS which are above criticism over here
  • Posts: 498
    jorbri66 wrote: »
    Watched Kermodes review and it has made my day. I loved Skyfall but I just know that I will love Spectre so much more. I expect to be transported to my childhood bond experiences and I CANT WAIT

    what was Kermode's verdict on Skyfall >
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Skyfail wrote: »
    jorbri66 wrote: »
    Watched Kermodes review and it has made my day. I loved Skyfall but I just know that I will love Spectre so much more. I expect to be transported to my childhood bond experiences and I CANT WAIT

    what was Kermode's verdict on Skyfall >

    He loved it, for different reasons than he did SP, these are two different beasts.
  • Posts: 498
    Sandy wrote: »
    Skyfail wrote: »
    jorbri66 wrote: »
    Watched Kermodes review and it has made my day. I loved Skyfall but I just know that I will love Spectre so much more. I expect to be transported to my childhood bond experiences and I CANT WAIT

    what was Kermode's verdict on Skyfall >

    He loved it, for different reasons than he did SP, these are two different beasts.

    That's a good thing
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,263
    Personally I don't like the fact that certain films are above criticism here, like OHMSS and CR. Anything negative said about these films is viewed as deliberately inflammatory by members who prefer to toe the party line.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Nah, casino royale is pretty good. Ohmss? Far from perfect. It's a good movie without a decent James Bond. There, I said it
Sign In or Register to comment.