If skyfall gets bad reviews will you still go see it at the cinema?

124

Comments

  • Posts: 774
    001 wrote:
    Volante wrote:
    Yes, because critics are often wrong. Some of my favourite movies, some of the most entertaining movies I've seen have received 'mixed' reviews from critics.

    That's true with the mixed reviews.
    What were some of the films?

    'The Expendables 2' got mixed reviews, I loved it. 'Rudy', I understand a lot of people hate, but it's one of the only films that makes me cry everytime. 'Patriot Games' wasn't well received critically but I enjoy it a lot. One of my favourite films, 'Stardust', recieved this review: "[the film] fails on every level and plumbs new depths of camp embarrassment." but I consider it to be brilliant. 'The Island', I just watched this evening, and I loved it, despite very mixed reviews. The original 'The Thomas Crown Affair' is generally accepted by critics to be nowhere near as good as the remake, but I infinitely prefer the original. Just a few examples.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Rambo 3 was panned by critics and it's one of my favourite films (I know all my film credibility has pretty much gone now).
  • Posts: 1,497
    Of course I'll see it! That's a ridiculous notion. Besides the critics won't pan it. The critics are so in the pocket of the studios and the media these days. I feel like there is very little honest criticism anymore. Most critics get on the bandwagon of what they are 'supposed' to like. I welcome harsh criticism, especially for my favorite series. We shouldn't just be told what we want to hear. The Avengers is a perfect example. Critics and fans gobbled that movie up, and it has a 92% rating on Rotten Tomatoes-what a joke. Tell me how that movie was any different than any other assembly line comic book movie of the past few years...oh right it has Ironman, the Hulk, Thor, Captain America all in one movie! The King of Summer Blockbusters! Ooooh, ahhhh! How impressive! I have a feeling Skyfall will yield the same results: it's got Mendes, Bardem, and Fiennes all attached to it, plus it being the 50th anniversary. I'm sure the critics will be kind. Don't get me wrong, I want Skyfall to blow me away as much as anyone here, but when we're talking about what the critics will say, I could honestly not give two craps.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    001 wrote:

    Like i said because you seem to not understand what i am trying to say wiz.
    If the film gets qos like reviews, 2/5, it's very unlikely to be my favorite bond film is it,
    don't you think?


    Well seeing as you seem to be in thrall to whatever the critics tell you to think then probably not.

    Myself, I am quite confident that I'll be able to make my own mind up when I see the film rather than getting to the cinema and on seeing no 5 stars from Alex Zane or some such non-entity on the poster deciding I'll just go home as someone of his intellectual calibre cant be wrong.

    As examples;

    DAD got pretty reasonable reviews from 'the critics' at the time -4 stars in Empire if I recollect - yet I was able to discern myself that it was a pile of crap on first viewing. I presume you must have been rather confused as they had assured you it was going to be good yet it turned out to be a disgrace - how could that have happened? Surely the critics couldnt have got it wrong? I might be mistaken though - perhaps you just slurp up whatever they say as gospel so still think DAD to be worthy of 4 stars?

    On the other hand I can predict precisely what the average critic would say of OP which is one of my favourites and close to being in the top 5 - 'Run of the mill, same tired old rehash, when will Moore retire, not as good as GF, etc, etc,'

    So should I hate OP because the critics cant tell the difference between it and any other Bond film? Of course not.

    You forget the critics are just representative of the general cinema going public and whilst I might consider their opinion on other films before viewing them when it comes to Bond they know absolutely zero compared to me so I am a far better judge of is it a good Bond film or not and therefore need to see it myself before a definite judgement can be passed.

    The people on this forum are infinitely more qualified to say if SF is a good Bond film than anyone else. If I came on here and the reviews were uniformly bad then I would be worried but clowns who write for the Sun and the Mirror and who have reviewed every Bond film for the past 48 years with the line 'Its not as good as GF' really are of no consequence to me.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Of course I will! The reviews could say it was the worst film ever made that I would still watch it.

    One thing is when you are thinking of going to watch a film in the cinema but you're not quite sure. You read the review and maybe (only maybe) that will help you make a decision. Another thing is being a fan and deciding that because someone else didn't like it, it's suddenly not worth it.

    A Bond fan will watch the film at a cinema, unless it is virtually impossible. Nothing will convince me otherwise.

    Watching a film in a theater is another experience altogether, not just for Bond but for any motion picture. It cannot be repeated at home unless you have a cinema at home, and I'm talking about a real one not a home theater system. And even then, it lacks the almost religious experience of entering a room with a bunch of strangers and hopefully a few friends and share, for the time the film lasts, a common experience that will never be repeated again.

    Rant over.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Regarding critics and Bond the Radio Times 5 star review system has rather predictably

    GF 5 Stars
    FRWL 5 stars
    DN 5 Stars

    but...

    YOLT 5stars?
    TLD 2 Stars?
    LTK 2 Stars?


    This says it all for me, any Bond fan knows that YOLT is far from a 5 star film but film critics obviously get a too blinded by the Connery factor. Everything is compared to GF and I know some Bond fans love it but a good percentage of us don't and think it's entertaining but nothing near the top of the pile I actually prefer SWLM myself.
  • Posts: 1,497
    I will say this, I do plan to intentionally avoid reading any reviews of Skyfall prior to seeing it so as not to color my perception of the film one way or the other.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Sandy wrote:
    Of course I will! The reviews could say it was the worst film ever made that I would still watch it.

    One thing is when you are thinking of going to watch a film in the cinema but you're not quite sure. You read the review and maybe (only maybe) that will help you make a decision. Another thing is being a fan and deciding that because someone else didn't like it, it's suddenly not worth it.

    A Bond fan will watch the film at a cinema, unless it is virtually impossible. Nothing will convince me otherwise.

    Watching a film in a theater is another experience altogether, not just for Bond but for any motion picture. It cannot be repeated at home unless you have a cinema at home, and I'm talking about a real one not a home theater system. And even then, it lacks the almost religious experience of entering a room with a bunch of strangers and hopefully a few friends and share, for the time the film lasts, a common experience that will never be repeated again.

    Rant over.
    That was too pleasant to be a rant, my dear @Sandy. I completely agree with your points. Going to the movies is a rare event in life where you are able to forget your troubles for a while and go off on amazing adventures. My wish is to have an actual theatre room with a large screen, rows of seats,and working projector in my future home. Well, I can dream, can't I?
    8->
  • Posts: 11,189
    Shardlake wrote:
    Regarding critics and Bond the Radio Times 5 star review system has rather predictably

    GF 5 Stars
    FRWL 5 stars
    DN 5 Stars

    but...

    YOLT 5stars?
    TLD 2 Stars?
    LTK 2 Stars?


    This says it all for me, any Bond fan knows that YOLT is far from a 5 star film but film critics obviously get a too blinded by the Connery factor. Everything is compared to GF and I know some Bond fans love it but a good percentage of us don't and think it's entertaining but nothing near the top of the pile I actually prefer SWLM myself.

    TB had 3 stars
    DAF had 2
    (NSNA had 3)

    I'm not entirely convinced they are "blinded by the Connery factor". DN, FRWL and GF are all solid films and deserve high ratings.

    OK YOLT is polarising amongst fans but there's plenty to still rate it relitively highly (the sets, the music and Donald Pleasence).
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    LTK is easily a 4 star rating on a 5 star scale.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited October 2012 Posts: 4,043
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Shardlake wrote:
    Regarding critics and Bond the Radio Times 5 star review system has rather predictably

    GF 5 Stars
    FRWL 5 stars
    DN 5 Stars

    but...

    YOLT 5stars?
    TLD 2 Stars?
    LTK 2 Stars?


    This says it all for me, any Bond fan knows that YOLT is far from a 5 star film but film critics obviously get a too blinded by the Connery factor. Everything is compared to GF and I know some Bond fans love it but a good percentage of us don't and think it's entertaining but nothing near the top of the pile I actually prefer SWLM myself.

    TB had 3 stars
    DAF had 2
    (NSNA had 3)

    I'm not entirely convinced they are "blinded by the Connery factor". DN, FRWL and GF are all solid films and deserve high ratings.

    OK YOLT is polarising amongst fans but there's plenty to still rate it relitively highly (the sets, the music and Donald Pleasence).

    The obvious dislike of Dalton is so evident though from this, some might like YOLT I like elements, the music, the sets and the cinematography but that does not equate to a good film if the actor playing Bond looks bored and it's pace is at times incredibly slow.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Shardlake wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Shardlake wrote:
    Regarding critics and Bond the Radio Times 5 star review system has rather predictably

    GF 5 Stars
    FRWL 5 stars
    DN 5 Stars

    but...

    YOLT 5stars?
    TLD 2 Stars?
    LTK 2 Stars?


    This says it all for me, any Bond fan knows that YOLT is far from a 5 star film but film critics obviously get a too blinded by the Connery factor. Everything is compared to GF and I know some Bond fans love it but a good percentage of us don't and think it's entertaining but nothing near the top of the pile I actually prefer SWLM myself.

    TB had 3 stars
    DAF had 2
    (NSNA had 3)

    I'm not entirely convinced they are "blinded by the Connery factor". DN, FRWL and GF are all solid films and deserve high ratings.

    OK YOLT is polarising amongst fans but there's plenty to still rate it relitively highly (the sets, the music and Donald Pleasence).

    The obvious dislike of Dalton is so evident though from this, some might like YOLT I like elements, the music, the sets and the cinematography but that does not equate to a good film if the actor playing Bond looks bored and it's pace is at times incredibly slow.

    Last time I rewatched YOLT I actually really enjoyed it. OK it's not Connery's greatest performance in the role but I love Donald Pleasence and I liked the spectacle of the film.

    Dalton's films do deserve higher ratings I agree but part of me can see why LTK is ranked low. The film DOES lack style - something that's important in Bond. It feels generic and sometimes has poor production values.

    Part of me actually thinks YOLT is a better Bond film overall.

    And in fairness even a bored Connery is still quite entertaining.

    @Wizard. DAD has ALWAYS had a three star review from Empire. I remember buying the magazine at the time.
  • Posts: 144
    Silly silly question. I have never payed attention to a critic of anything in my entire life. I make up my own mind on all things under the sun. Free your mind Neo....
  • doubleoego wrote:
    LTK is easily a 4 star rating on a 5 star scale.

    No, 5 stars!!!! ;)
    JBFan626 wrote:
    but when we're talking about what the critics will say, I could honestly not give two craps.

    That's how I feel about SF winning Oscars.

    I do want SF to get good reviews, but even if it's panned it won't stop me seeing it.
  • Posts: 11,189
    doubleoego wrote:
    LTK is easily a 4 star rating on a 5 star scale.

    No, 5 stars!!!! ;)
    JBFan626 wrote:
    but when we're talking about what the critics will say, I could honestly not give two craps.

    That's how I feel about SF winning Oscars.

    I do want SF to get good reviews, but even if it's panned it won't stop me seeing it.

    I think it's fair to say it WON'T get panned. While I have a feeling some critics may be hard on it (*cough*Chris TookeyDaily Mail*cough*) I'm sure most will like it.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    BAIN123 wrote:

    @Wizard. DAD has ALWAYS had a three star review from Empire. I remember buying the magazine at the time.

    Well as that's still three too many my point still stands.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 418
    I havent been to the cinema for 4 years, and the last time i went, was to watch QoS. I never really payed much attention to all of the negative reviews, because as far as i was concerned, it had been quite a while since i'd seen a new Bond film at the cinema, and i was pretty excited about going to see the latest one on the big screen. I've already booked and payed for my ticket for Skyfall on Friday the 26th, and because i'm so excited, and waited for 4 years for another adventure, i wont be reading any reviews this time - not only because i know for a fact that they wont change my opinion, but i also dont want to read any spoilers. I only know in advance the basic's about Skyfall, and i intend to keep it that way because i' cant wait to watch it 'blind' so to speak...

    The reason i havent been to the cinema since QoS is because i dont mind watching other movies on DVD. I enjoy watching them at home - but when it comes to a new Bond movie, i regard it as a special occasion, i love going to watch them on the big screen, nothing could keep me away from a Bond film at the movies, and i cant wait for October the 26th to see what looks like a cracker!
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2002/11/09/die_another_day_2002_review.shtml

    The BBC's review giving DAD 5-Stars - by Nev Pierce - now editor at Empire.
  • RC7 wrote:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2002/11/09/die_another_day_2002_review.shtml

    The BBC's review giving DAD 5-Stars - by Nev Pierce - now editor at Empire.

    That review actually makes the film sound really good.

    To be honest I actually agree with lots of it, they just failed to mention the stupid story and the CGI.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,189
    According to the Radio Times review for DAD "the series has never looked better" :))

    I like the Radio Times but that's just taking the mick.

    I actually confess to enjoying DAD when it first came out - even though I knew most of the SFX were naff.

    It's actually about to start on the Bond movie channel. Should I watch it? :-?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    It just reinforces the point that at the time it was well received, it was only in retrospect most people decided to utterly despise it.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Some of us might have done it retrospectively but I had lost faith in this era as soon as I saw GE, I didn't jump on any bandwagon I've never liked any of his films although DAD does get worse the more you watch them, much like TWINE & TND.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Even if you think GE is overrated/cheesey (which even as a lover of the film I admit it kind of is in places) I don't get how you can hate that and love CR. They were directed by the same person :p
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Even if you think GE is overrated/cheesey (which even as a lover of the film I admit it kind of is in places) I don't get how you can hate that and love CR. They were directed by the same person :p

    Just because films are directed by the same person means nothing, I love Jaws but find Saving Private Ryan grossly overrated.

    A bit of a pointless and not very well thought out argument, for me the difference between GE and CR are night and day for one CR doesn't look live a TV film and another something to do with someone call Daniel.

  • Posts: 1,497
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Even if you think GE is overrated/cheesey (which even as a lover of the film I admit it kind of is in places) I don't get how you can hate that and love CR. They were directed by the same person :p

    Let's extend that argument in-series for a moment. "I don't get how you can hate DAF and love GF. They were directed by the same person!"

  • edited October 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Shardlake wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Even if you think GE is overrated/cheesey (which even as a lover of the film I admit it kind of is in places) I don't get how you can hate that and love CR. They were directed by the same person :p

    Just because films are directed by the same person means nothing, I love Jaws but find Saving Private Ryan grossly overrated.

    A bit of a pointless and not very well thought out argument, for me the difference between GE and CR are night and day for one CR doesn't look live a TV film and another something to do with someone call Daniel.

    Hmm maybe that was a bit of a poorly thought out arguement but even so - in GE Martin Campbell still shows he's a good action director, and its something he'd perfect in CR.

    Hmm perhaps @JBFan :p

    I don't hate DAF - I just don't like it that much - there's a difference :p (and I think Martin Campbell is probably a better Bond director than Guy Hamilton)
  • Posts: 37
    can we talk about the Greek gal Tonia or something like that....she seems to be foaming at the mouth ...she is overly enthused about Daniel Craig...that bed scene has gone to her head....do you know what I mean...its like Daniel Craig was so wonderful in bed it was so much fun...this is a dream come true....too too much lady... get a life...jeez Daniel Craig is "married".....
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 3,494
    sohot2 wrote:
    can we talk about the Greek gal Tonia or something like that....she seems to be foaming at the mouth ...she is overly enthused about Daniel Craig...that bed scene has gone to her head....do you know what I mean...its like Daniel Craig was so wonderful in bed it was so much fun...this is a dream come true....too too much lady... get a life...jeez Daniel Craig is "married".....

    Sure we can. Tonia is H-O-T just like Berenice. It's the first major acting break for both of them, I can understand why they are so enthused. Who wouldn't want to be in a Bond movie?

  • 001001
    Posts: 1,575
    Some people are very rude on this forum ,not many just a few, and on this question i brought up, responses like "use your own brain" "do you always agree wholeheartedly with what the critics say? " "stupid question" are uncalled for and juvenile.





  • Whatever is said about it from movie goers or critics alike will not put me of seeing any Bond film, and that applies to Skyfall too. It could be as good as Casablanca or resemble Police Academy 6 for all I know, but we understand and realize it's most likely to be a success. Whatever is said, in terms of negative responses, I will still go along, as always, to take in a viewing. It applies to all James Bond movies
Sign In or Register to comment.