SPECTRE: Official Critics Review Topic (accumulative topic, NO SPOILERS, just links)

1356717

Comments

  • Posts: 1,094
    Kermode, probably the UKs most influential and respected film critic absolutely loves it
  • Posts: 11,119
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Kermode, probably the UKs most influential and respected film critic absolutely loves it

    Link?
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Kermode, probably the UKs most influential and respected film critic absolutely loves it

    Yay!!!! Yea I wanted his approval almost as if I made the movie myself lol.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,432
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Kermode, probably the UKs most influential and respected film critic absolutely loves it

    Link?

    The audio will be up soon. He really rates it. Described the plot as 'ludicrous', but so much fun you roll with it. Said it hit him 2/3 of the way through that it was great.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 4,309
    great news, I can breath a sigh of relief, cant wait
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06k9wgp
  • Just Heard Kermode review SP. He really liked it!
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 1,094
    Just listened live on the radio on 5 live @Gustav_Graves so no link yet. There will probably be a written one in the Observer on Sunday by him. I would estimate it as a 5 star to be honest. The guy is great, and knows his film without ever being out to make a name for himself.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Kermode, probably the UKs most influential and respected film critic absolutely loves it

    Link?

    It was a live show and it just finished, a link should be showing up soon here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lvdrj

    He was hugely, and I mean hugely enthusiastic about it. He was constantly saying how much fun he had and how he could feel the audience on Wednesday was feeling the same way and laughing at the jokes, at how praising the cast performances, etc. They were joking about the characters wardrobe and something funny about Oberhauser's, particularly (under spoiler just in case)
    in the film you learn you should never trust a man who doesn't wear socks with shoes.

  • edited October 2015 Posts: 115
    jorbri66 wrote: »
    Kermodes review on bbc radio 5 live at 2

    Thank God they praise the movie

    ;)

  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.

    I think we need to compare the reign of Craig entirely with Sean Connery and his first 4/5 Bond films.

    I second that

    Let's face it. Sean Connery does "DN", a rather gritty, but still suave and exotic spy movie. I think "CR" is like that too, although it has a nice "FRWL"esque flavour to it as well.

    Sean Connery's 2nd outing is perhaps his most gritty, violent Bond film. "FRWL" is a true Fleming-esque/Hitchcock-ian spy thriller. Devoid of lush casinos, palm trees. And we all know "QOS" is Craig's most violent Bond film.

    Craig's outing in "SF" in a way has a gripping spy story, with a FRWL-esque McGuffin (the harddrive), but it does explore the emotional debts we saw in "OHMSS", and perhaps also in Connery's "GF".

    Then Connery returned in his 4th Bond outing "TB", which was celebrated as the biggest Bond of all, but already getting some mild critiques that "FRWL" and "GF" didn't receive. But obviously Connery was at his funniest in this film. Completely devoid of angst or fear. I think we'll get that from Daniel Craig in "SP". With a "YOLT"-esque volcano.

    Off course some comparisons are a bit farfetched, and there are a lot of differences between Connery's first 4 films and Craig's first four films. "QOS" wasn't as good as we hoped for. But in return we did get better chronology and movies that are better knitted together with continuity and plot.

    But bottomline is: I really try to think that Daniel Craig kicked off an entire new timeline, that leaves the door wide open for perhaps a 5th or 6th outing with Craig. Or what about one single outing with Tom Hardy in Bond #25, and then Craig returns for one final time?
    So please no reboots anymore. Now go on with the flow. We already had some tense, gritty, Oscar-heavy Bond films. Don't try to top that. Just bring in some more 'fun', like I mentioned this topic:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13322/realistic-serious-story-ideas-for-bond-25-to-be-used-by-eon-productions-ltd#latest

    With Daniel Craig? I sincerely hope so. Without Craig? Then the next Bond-actor need to be a good follow-up of Craig. But he can't enjoy the same wishes for a big reboot molded around his wishes. He needs to be Bond in the timeline that Craig kicked off.

    The future success on the next actor, is dependant on who that actor is. Because Daniel Craig bought in to this. He has made sure his voice was heard and had input on everything from Script, to clothes, to the cars and the casting. He has used his status to draw in Oscar winning actors and directors.

    Your right Craig was allowed a blank canvas. The next will not be giving the same, the films are successful and it has to be about continuity on this new timeline.

    The next Bond would need to deliver the same, for any actor it is a it a red herring.

    I used to say Connery 1st then Craig. But now I can't separate them, they are the golden age Bonds and for the very reason they were the first of their kinds.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.

    I think we need to compare the reign of Craig entirely with Sean Connery and his first 4/5 Bond films.

    I second that

    Let's face it. Sean Connery does "DN", a rather gritty, but still suave and exotic spy movie. I think "CR" is like that too, although it has a nice "FRWL"esque flavour to it as well.

    Sean Connery's 2nd outing is perhaps his most gritty, violent Bond film. "FRWL" is a true Fleming-esque/Hitchcock-ian spy thriller. Devoid of lush casinos, palm trees. And we all know "QOS" is Craig's most violent Bond film.

    Craig's outing in "SF" in a way has a gripping spy story, with a FRWL-esque McGuffin (the harddrive), but it does explore the emotional debts we saw in "OHMSS", and perhaps also in Connery's "GF".

    Then Connery returned in his 4th Bond outing "TB", which was celebrated as the biggest Bond of all, but already getting some mild critiques that "FRWL" and "GF" didn't receive. But obviously Connery was at his funniest in this film. Completely devoid of angst or fear. I think we'll get that from Daniel Craig in "SP". With a "YOLT"-esque volcano.

    Off course some comparisons are a bit farfetched, and there are a lot of differences between Connery's first 4 films and Craig's first four films. "QOS" wasn't as good as we hoped for. But in return we did get better chronology and movies that are better knitted together with continuity and plot.

    But bottomline is: I really try to think that Daniel Craig kicked off an entire new timeline, that leaves the door wide open for perhaps a 5th or 6th outing with Craig. Or what about one single outing with Tom Hardy in Bond #25, and then Craig returns for one final time?
    So please no reboots anymore. Now go on with the flow. We already had some tense, gritty, Oscar-heavy Bond films. Don't try to top that. Just bring in some more 'fun', like I mentioned this topic:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13322/realistic-serious-story-ideas-for-bond-25-to-be-used-by-eon-productions-ltd#latest

    With Daniel Craig? I sincerely hope so. Without Craig? Then the next Bond-actor need to be a good follow-up of Craig. But he can't enjoy the same wishes for a big reboot molded around his wishes. He needs to be Bond in the timeline that Craig kicked off.

    The future success on the next actor, is dependant on who that actor is. Because Daniel Craig bought in to this. He has made sure his voice was heard and had input on everything from Script, to clothes, to the cars and the casting. He has used his status to draw in Oscar winning actors and directors.

    Your right Craig was allowed a blank canvas. The next will not be giving the same, the films are successful and it has to be about continuity on this new timeline.

    The next Bond would need to deliver the same, for any actor it is a it a red herring.

    I used to say Connery 1st then Craig. But now I can't separate them, they are the golden age Bonds and for the very reason they were the first of their kinds.

    On the evidence to date (pre-SP) I don't personally feel that DC is up to the same level as SC. Not by a long shot.

    He was given an 'actor's role in an actor's film' in CR. He delivered, magnificently, because that is what he should have done. That is what he was hired for. There was enough meat on that bone for him to delve into.

    However, if one subtracts that one film and performance, I don't feel that he has been as good a Bond as Connery, or even Moore (that is, just counting his performances in QoS & SF).

    SP will be the real test for me to determine if he can play Bond convincingly in a 'pure Bond film'.

    I don't think they will have a problem replacing him if he decides to move on, especially if they are going to a more formulaic approach, which is possible. There are several good actors out there who can take this franchise forward. As long as they don't pander to the 'in thing' or 'flavour of the year' as they did with the title song artist, we should be good.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    The episode is now available. For those who are only interested in the review, it starts around 10 minutes from the end.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06j0c5q
  • Sandy wrote: »
    The episode is now available. For those who are only interested in the review, it starts around 10 minutes from the end.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06j0c5q

    Great review!! I can't be more excited for this movie!!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,609
    Had to return and say that I've seen quite a few reviews state that it's a lot of fun and not another SF, or a SF 2.0: it's a totally different beast (the Kermode interview).

    If this is true, I'm a very, very happy man.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 1,010
    SPECTRE is currently sitting at 84% on the tomato meter over at rottentomatoes

    However I get a feeling the score should be higher because there are some pretty pathetic reviews that get listed and get scored with a green splat when they actually give the film 3 stars. This "review" is just terrible. Nothing interesting at all given in the review. Yet it gets put onto rottentomatoes. Its these kind of reviews that in the end will bring the score down when in reality the score would be much higher if only the scores of established film critics were counted.

    i give this review * out of *****

    http://www.theskinny.co.uk/film/new-releases/spectre-daniel-craig
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    @nobodydoesitbetter

    All reviews should be accepted. To bash one or the other review because you don't agree is kind of wrong.
    Only to count reviews of "established" critics, whatever that means, is short of censuring opinions.

    Metascore is 69% and average critic rating on RT is 7.0 at the moment.

    People should learn to accept the reality that obviously not all critics praise Spectre.

    Furthermore those scores can very well go up once enough reviews are counted.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited October 2015 Posts: 4,116
    @nobodydoesitbetter

    All reviews should be accepted. To bash one or the other review because you don't agree is kind of wrong.
    Only to count reviews of "established" critics, whatever that means, is short of censuring opinions.

    Metascore is 69% and average critic rating on RT is 7.0 at the moment.

    People should learn to accept the reality that obviously not all critics praise Spectre.

    Furthermore those scores can very well go up once enough reviews are counted.

    But a lot are. It's kinda like is the glass half full or half empty?

    Same glass just different perspectives.



  • Posts: 11,119
    @nobodydoesitbetter

    All reviews should be accepted. To bash one or the other review because you don't agree is kind of wrong.
    Only to count reviews of "established" critics, whatever that means, is short of censuring opinions.

    Metascore is 69% and average critic rating on RT is 7.0 at the moment.

    People should learn to accept the reality that obviously not all critics praise Spectre.

    Furthermore those scores can very well go up once enough reviews are counted.

    I think....I think.......I THINKKK.......most of us haven't seen the bloody movie yet. That's what I think. We should not just blindly 'accept' stuff. But we can respect people's reviews.

    But I do think at this stage we are all so deep into defending our own arguments, our own posts. That's because we all love James Bond 007.

    And again @BondJasonBond006. Indeed, many people, including me, are accepting the current reviews. I mean, what can you do about it :-). I think you're making quite a few assumptions when you say that most people....most fans aren't 'accepting' the current reviews.

    Look, I'm a person that adapts way easily to unexpected situations -or situations that one did see coming- than some others think :-). Look, I see it like this: 7.0 average critics rating means a dead certain "Certified Fresh" stamp from RottenTomatoes. Isn't that wonderful :-D!.

    Also, look on the positive side. Try to swallow disappointments way sooner, more faster. It's what I've learnt in my life.

    @NobodyDoesItBetter: Obviously RottenTomatoes is what it is. Some 'above average' reviews are counted as 'Trash', and other 'bad' reviews are included into the list of 'Fresh' reviews. And at this stage....still anything can happen. The reviews from the USA aren't in just yet. So be patient.

    For me personally I don't mind so much. There are bad reviews, and very good reviews. One thing I did underestimate though, was the aspect of "Sequel Backlash". "Skyfall" was a phenomenon. Just like "The Dark Knight" back in 2008, and "Furious 7" earlier this year.

    So many Bond fans in here should have embraced that fact a bit more sooner....and fiercer. "Skyfall" IS a phenomenon, like "From Russia With Love", "Goldfinger", "The Spy Who Loved Me", "GoldenEye" and "Casino Royale". And once that happens, reviewing goes into a different mode. The sequel gets way more heavily scrutinized....and gets especially heavily compared with its immediate predecessor. Reviewers are getting a bit 'confused' and 'silly', and suddenly want to have some kind of "Skyfall 2.0" (which is ludicrous), or they suddenly praise the more Bond-esque elements again. It's the legacy of "Skyfall" perhaps.

    I do think that's part of the reason why "SPECTRE" gets reviewed like it is right now. Perhaps because in part it's not that much because "SPECTRE" is bad or not that good, but more because "Skyfall" was so good...so praised back in 2012.


    By the way, I do think now that because of all this...."SPECTRE" will be another insane box office success.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited October 2015 Posts: 4,116
    As more reviews come in the percentage will even out.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    @Gustav_Graves
    I think you're making quite a few assumptions when you say that most people....most fans aren't 'accepting' the current reviews.

    You are twisting my words and adding to them things I never said.
    "Most people" "Most fans"....sorry GG but you do show signs of fanboyism too every now and then. It's quite annoying how some people react to numbers and scores when they don't suit their view of things. [-(
    Well I'm back when Spectre has run its course. See ya.
  • Posts: 11,119
    @Gustav_Graves
    I think you're making quite a few assumptions when you say that most people....most fans aren't 'accepting' the current reviews.

    You are twisting my words and adding to them things I never said.
    "Most people" "Most fans"....sorry GG but you do show signs of fanboyism too every now and then. It's quite annoying how some people react to numbers and scores when they don't suit their view of things. [-(
    Well I'm back when Spectre has run its course. See ya.

    Well, let me put it like this. I'm still happy :-). Beforehand I thought "SPECTRE" could easily do a 93% score on RT. Now that won't be the case, I accept it and go on no? You see it in my posts. I adjust my figures, scale them down. But I accept it. I'm not going to bicker about it.

  • Posts: 12,231
    Always a good sign when Kermode aproves a movie! :-bd
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,020
    Kermode's enthusiasm is indeed promising, the way he talks about it being a very different beast to Skyfall is also good to hear.

    I love Skyfall but repeating the same thing again would have been lazy, hearing the words ludicrous to describe Bond is the way it should be. Bond is ludicrous in all the right ways, it's pure fantasy.

  • Posts: 11,119
    Here it is:

  • Thunderball007Thunderball007 United States
    Posts: 306
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm liking the comparisons to Roger Moore's films.

    After all these years, he is still the definitive larger than life Bond.


    Yeah! This is exciting for me! :))
  • MansfieldMansfield Where the hell have you been?
    Posts: 1,262
    That is the same Kermode @Pierce2Daniel sat behind, correct? At any rate, I thought his review was flattering and constructive in the sense that he emphasized that the characterization is well done throughout.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Mansfield wrote: »
    That is the same Kermode @Pierce2Daniel sat behind, correct? At any rate, I thought his review was flattering and constructive in the sense that he emphasized that the characterization is well done throughout.


    I think...what he basically says is this: "SPECTRE" is a masterpiece, but a very different masterpiece as compared to "Skyfall" and "Casino Royale". It's more of a masterpiece when taking into account the Bond-formula. Whereas "Casino Royale" and "Skyfall" were masterpieces outside that typical Bond formula.


    And on the whole, what "SPECTRE" does right is that it doesn't copy "Skyfall". I see many topics in here saying "it isn't as good as "Skyfall" ". But what's the fuzz about that if you do get a different film than "Skyfall" now?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    The fact is, some people want to complain for the sake of complaining; this happens to many things in life that gets reviewed. You have someone giving a movie 2/5 and someone else giving the same movie 5/5. Differing opinions are naturally and should be most welcome but the disparity in such gradings, especially when both have explained the rationale to support their marks is enough to definitely check the movie out for one's self. Had SP been SF2 the same people complaining that it's not SF2 now would have been the same ones chastising the film for being repetitive and then crying out for the days when Bond movies used to be more fun and upbeat.
  • Posts: 26
    I saw a different review in the London Evening Standard last night. This one, by David Sexton, was more extensive but spiteful write-up and gave SP a rating of 3/5!

    Another review, sorry but l can't remember which one, said that SP was Craig's TB/YOLT!
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 1,066
    duplicate
Sign In or Register to comment.