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

11718202223103

Comments

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited October 2015 Posts: 4,116
    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.

    Everybody has an opinion. @Jason not a Craig fan ..@GL is... it was obvious Jason was just focusing and seeing the negative but that's the way he sees it. Unfortunately that set some off and they let down their happy face. :(

    I really don't like the fighting though. I've tried to be a good boy and not fight :D.

  • Criticism about movies, and Bond movies in particular, is a funny thing. It seems that the older we get, the more critical we get. When I was a kid, I saw all films as untouchable. It never even occurred to me to criticize them because I just thought they were exactly how they were supposed to be and couldn’t be altered, if that makes sense. But now that I understand film and have seen thousands, I realize that pretty much no film is above criticism (okay, except for Chinatown) and all have flaws. Also, I find that any criticism that I can level against a new Bond movie is probably one I can level against many, even my favorites. Nostalgia for these movies helps cover over some flaws as well.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing South Florida
    Posts: 3,680
    Criticism about movies, and Bond movies in particular, is a funny thing. It seems that the older we get, the more critical we get. When I was a kid, I saw all films as untouchable. It never even occurred to me to criticize them because I just thought they were exactly how they were supposed to be and couldn’t be altered, if that makes sense. But now that I understand film and have seen thousands, I realize that pretty much no film is above criticism (okay, except for Chinatown) and all have flaws. Also, I find that any criticism that I can level against a new Bond movie is probably one I can level against many, even my favorites. Nostalgia for these movies helps cover over some flaws as well.

    I can say the same about DAD. I was 14 when I first saw it, loved it, couldn't get enough of it. Now, I think its a load of crap.
  • Posts: 498
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    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.

    Everybody has an opinion. @Jason not a Craig fan ..@GL is... it was obvious Jason was just focusing and seeing the negative but that's the way he sees it. Unfortunately that set some off and they let down their happy face. :(

    I really don't like the fighting though. I've tried to be a good boy and not fight :D.
    well as far as I read,
    Jason just said that Gustav missed out on a review,
    which was fair and then GermanLady lost it , it was almost funny .

  • OHMSS is as an elegant but flawed film but for me, CR utterly misses the mark. As an adaptation of Fleming and as a creation myth I find it unsatisfying. Sorry if that riles anyone's feathers.
  • Criticism about movies, and Bond movies in particular, is a funny thing. It seems that the older we get, the more critical we get. When I was a kid, I saw all films as untouchable. It never even occurred to me to criticize them because I just thought they were exactly how they were supposed to be and couldn’t be altered, if that makes sense. But now that I understand film and have seen thousands, I realize that pretty much no film is above criticism (okay, except for Chinatown) and all have flaws. Also, I find that any criticism that I can level against a new Bond movie is probably one I can level against many, even my favorites. Nostalgia for these movies helps cover over some flaws as well.

    I can say the same about DAD. I was 14 when I first saw it, loved it, couldn't get enough of it. Now, I think its a load of crap.

    I'm right there with you! I felt the same way about DAD then and now. Except I saw it when I was 18, so I had even less of an excuse to like it!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,293
    OHMSS is as an elegant but flawed film but for me, CR utterly misses the mark. As an adaptation of Fleming and as a creation myth I find it unsatisfying. Sorry if that riles anyone's feathers.

    Not at all. More people should say this =D>
  • Posts: 498
    OHMSS is as an elegant but flawed film but for me, CR utterly misses the mark. As an adaptation of Fleming and as a creation myth I find it unsatisfying. Sorry if that riles anyone's feathers.

    I don't agree with you , but i'm not gonna attack you like some over here
    for me CR is my favourite movie Bond or otherwise

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    OHMSS is as an elegant but flawed film but for me, CR utterly misses the mark. As an adaptation of Fleming and as a creation myth I find it unsatisfying. Sorry if that riles anyone's feathers.

    Everyone is entitled to an opinion. A bit more explanation, while not necessary, is always welcome however, to elucidate.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Criticism about movies, and Bond movies in particular, is a funny thing. It seems that the older we get, the more critical we get. When I was a kid, I saw all films as untouchable. It never even occurred to me to criticize them because I just thought they were exactly how they were supposed to be and couldn’t be altered, if that makes sense. But now that I understand film and have seen thousands, I realize that pretty much no film is above criticism (okay, except for Chinatown) and all have flaws. Also, I find that any criticism that I can level against a new Bond movie is probably one I can level against many, even my favorites. Nostalgia for these movies helps cover over some flaws as well.

    I can say the same about DAD. I was 14 when I first saw it, loved it, couldn't get enough of it. Now, I think its a load of crap.

    I'm right there with you! I felt the same way about DAD then and now. Except I saw it when I was 18, so I had even less of an excuse to like it!

    Well I was umm "older" and liked it but not enough not to be disappointed.

    It is what it is. Was my exwife's first Bond and see loved it. Been a fan of Bond (but not me *sigh*) since.

  • The first thing i remember about CR is, i was in the cinema about 13/14 years old and that bathroom fight scene at the beginning, i was amazed by it haha
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,117
    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...

    The film had a u-shaped curve to its box office numbers, which would suggest that word of mouth brought in more ticket buyers.

    I have contended that part of SF's enormous success was its appeal to older audiences. I knew a lot of retirees (including my father), who had not seen a Bond film in over 20 years, that went to see SF and loved it. My father saw it twice. He is not a movie goer. SF's themes, of young and old, and dealing with an aging Bond (who was feeling obsolete, like the old war ship), was incredibly appealing.


  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    Casino Royale is an amazing film.
    It's been hard to top it. It isn't a faithful adaption of Ian Flemings novel though.
    To do that I think you would have to have it set I. The 60's just to get that feeling and vibe. Making the story a present day version though was obviously pretty hard and I think they did the right job....

    Does Spectre feel like a classic film??
    I get that kind of vibe. Also how does it compare to the previous movies
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    TripAces 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...

    The film had a u-shaped curve to its box office numbers, which would suggest that word of mouth brought in more ticket buyers.

    I have contended that part of SF's enormous success was its appeal to older audiences. I knew a lot of retirees (including my father), who had not seen a Bond film in over 20 years, that went to see SF and loved it. My father saw it twice. He is not a movie goer. SF's themes, of young and old, and dealing with an aging Bond (who was feeling obsolete, like the old war ship), was incredibly appealing.


    That kinda reminded me that SF was the last Bond film I saw with my dad. I imagine he would have loved SP. I'll watch it at least twice as many times just for him :D

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    TripAces 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...

    The film had a u-shaped curve to its box office numbers, which would suggest that word of mouth brought in more ticket buyers.

    I have contended that part of SF's enormous success was its appeal to older audiences. I knew a lot of retirees (including my father), who had not seen a Bond film in over 20 years, that went to see SF and loved it. My father saw it twice. He is not a movie goer. SF's themes, of young and old, and dealing with an aging Bond (who was feeling obsolete, like the old war ship), was incredibly appealing.


    Precisely.

    My parents watched it too, and really enjoyed it.

    I believe many folks who had not seen Bond in years (who perhaps had given up on Bond actually after some of the nonsense to come out of the prior decade in particular) rediscovered Bond through SF. Here was an older Bond (like them), who wasn't quite so sure of himself any more (like them). However, he was still familiar....still not giving up....still fighting the good fight.

    It was like an old shoe, it just fit....perfectly.
  • Posts: 1,056
    My mum and dad went to see Skyfall and loved it. Kind of sweet as one of their first dates was thunderball. And they didn't see any in between.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Matt007 wrote: »
    My mum and dad went to see Skyfall and loved it. Kind of sweet as one of their first dates was thunderball. And they didn't see any in between.

    Aww that's sweet. My parent's first movie was The Pink Pather so I'm not sure what that means for me lol.

    I was named after Sean Connery though ..I had no choice but to be a Bond fan.

  • Matt007 wrote: »
    My mum and dad went to see Skyfall and loved it. Kind of sweet as one of their first dates was thunderball. And they didn't see any in between.

    My parents' first date was Goldfinger :) And they both loved Skyfall too. They're looking forward to seeing Spectre. Bond movies are the only films they go to the cinema for anymore.

  • Honestly reviews don't matter much with Bond. It's critic proof at this point. One need only look at the similar box office totals of DAD, CR, and QOS, three wildly different Bond films, for proof. SF's reviews were on the same levels as CR; so it was not critics that boosted the box office, it was the audience telling their friends it was good.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    OHMSS is as an elegant but flawed film but for me, CR utterly misses the mark. As an adaptation of Fleming and as a creation myth I find it unsatisfying. Sorry if that riles anyone's feathers.

    Not at all. More people should say this =D>

    CR is my least favourite Craig film so far, which is not to say that I don't like it. In general, I rate the Craig very highly indeed it's just that there are these little things in CR that really bother me.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 10,274
    For me personally, I have a hard time imagining CR being topped. It had everything I wanted - my (tied with Connery) favorite Bond, one of the best Bond girls, lots of great action sequences, a solid story, good villains (Le Chiffre, Mr. White, and Obanno were all good IMO), great supporting cast/characters, great music, and an exceptional PTS and final scene. I also find it highly re-watchable.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    Honestly reviews don't matter much with Bond. It's critic proof at this point. One need only look at the similar box office totals of DAD, CR, and QOS, three wildly different Bond films, for proof. SF's reviews were on the same levels as CR; so it was not critics that boosted the box office, it was the audience telling their friends it was good.

    I agree that it's bulletproof at this point, except if the reviews generally portray a stinker, which is definitely not the case here.

    Having said that, I think the reviews did in fact influence SF quite a bit. When CR came out, no one had heard of DC. Bond had been away for ages. It was a re-establishing film, designed to get folks interested in the franchise again. By the time SF came out, DC and Bond were back on the radar. I know many who did not see CR in the theatre but who saw it (and liked it very much) on dvd/blu ray in the 6 yrs before SF came out. They were more interested in seeing SF, and paid more attention to reviews for the new Bond film in comparison to when CR came out.

    So I think the only thing that can sink Bond now are generally poor reviews, which we have thankfully not had.

    What cannot be properly measured is the sustainable 'buzz factor' for this film. We will know during water cooler discussions over the next few weeks.
  • Posts: 486
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    What I'm curious to know, because it will have implications for the franchise, is the following:

    Since we have what is reportedly a more 'formulaic' entry (probably the first one in 13 years) in SP - how will it age? How will it be remembered one month from now? One year from now?

    Whatever we may say/think, there is no doubt in my mind that, starting with CR, the producers did a brave thing in stripping everything away from Bond and reestablishing it slowly over the course of the past 3 (4?) films. If SP is the culmination of that, and if it is the return of the 'Bond we all know and love', then what will that mean? Now that we have him back in all his glory (reportedly) are we going to tire of him again quickly (like some of us certainly did rapidly in the mid 90's/early 00's)?

    Will the franchise inevitably feel the need to 'reinvent' itself once again with the next entry, lest it be relegated to the heaps of 'garden-variety' movie franchises, by casual fans and critics alike (some reviews are already trending in that direction)?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,293
    Sandy wrote: »
    OHMSS is as an elegant but flawed film but for me, CR utterly misses the mark. As an adaptation of Fleming and as a creation myth I find it unsatisfying. Sorry if that riles anyone's feathers.

    Not at all. More people should say this =D>

    CR is my least favourite Craig film so far, which is not to say that I don't like it. In general, I rate the Craig very highly indeed it's just that there are these little things in CR that really bother me.

    ^:)^
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 830
    double post
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 830
    bondjames said:
    What I'm curious to know, because it will have implications for the franchise, is the following:

    Since we have what is reportedly a more 'formulaic' entry (probably the first one in 13 years) in SP - how will it age? How will it be remembered one month from now? One year from now?

    Whatever we may say/think, there is no doubt in my mind that, starting with CR, the producers did a brave thing in stripping everything away from Bond and reestablishing it slowly over the course of the past 3 (4?) films. If SP is the culmination of that, and if it is the return of the 'Bond we all know and love', then what will that mean? Now that we have him back in all his glory (reportedly) are we going to tire of him again quickly (like some of us certainly did rapidly in the mid 90's/early 00's)?

    Will the franchise inevitably feel the need to 'reinvent' itself once again with the next entry, lest it be relegated to the heaps of 'garden-variety' movie franchises, by casual fans and critics alike (some reviews are already trending in that direction)?


    The formula has worked well for half a century, why does it need to drastically change?
    Going forward each bond film should be adherent to the formula at least to some degree but not "by the numbers" hopefully. Casino Royale is Bond down to his bare essence (which I love btw, it's one of my favorite Bond films), which was appropriate for that film and the few after because of the feeling that perhaps bond was being "restrained" by the formula a bit, and I do appreciate those films which try to deviate from the formula a bit (ohmss, ltk, etc.) It was a cool thing to explore a little and should happen again perhaps a while from now, but it's not like if the Bond formula is going to be followed for the next few films that they are all going to be automatically "formulaic", or not in my mind at least. It isn't that black and white. The bond formula is actually supposed to be good and allow for different things to happen. What you are suggesting is that new things can't happen within the bond formula, I beg to differ. So no I disagree, back to the formula plz.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    bondjames said:
    What I'm curious to know, because it will have implications for the franchise, is the following:

    Since we have what is reportedly a more 'formulaic' entry (probably the first one in 13 years) in SP - how will it age? How will it be remembered one month from now? One year from now?

    Whatever we may say/think, there is no doubt in my mind that, starting with CR, the producers did a brave thing in stripping everything away from Bond and reestablishing it slowly over the course of the past 3 (4?) films. If SP is the culmination of that, and if it is the return of the 'Bond we all know and love', then what will that mean? Now that we have him back in all his glory (reportedly) are we going to tire of him again quickly (like some of us certainly did rapidly in the mid 90's/early 00's)?

    Will the franchise inevitably feel the need to 'reinvent' itself once again with the next entry, lest it be relegated to the heaps of 'garden-variety' movie franchises, by casual fans and critics alike (some reviews are already trending in that direction)?


    The formula has worked well for half a century, why does it need to drastically change?
    Going forward each bond film should be adherent to the formula at least to some degree but not "by the numbers" hopefully. Casino Royale is Bond down to his bare essence (which I love btw, it's one of my favorite Bond films), which was appropriate for that film and the few after because of the feeling that perhaps bond was being "restrained" by the formula a bit, and I do appreciate those films which try to deviate from the formula a bit (ohmss, ltk, etc.) It was a cool thing to explore a little and should happen again perhaps a while from now, but it's not like if the Bond formula is going to be followed for the next few films that they are all going to be automatically "formulaic", or not in my mind at least. It isn't that black and white. The bond formula is actually supposed to be good and allow for different things to happen. What you are suggesting is that new things can't happen within the bond formula, I beg to differ. So no I disagree, back to the formula plz.

    Good analysis and comments.

    Just to note, I was not suggesting anything. Just contemplating.

    From my point of view, the formula can work, but it must not fall into cliche, like it did, from my perspective, in the 90's. The tropes must not be crutches. They must be inserted from time to time to remind viewers that they are watching a Bond film, but not excessively.

    As an example, Bond gets a spanking new car in SP, and a new watch. Let's not see that in B25. Roger Moore's Bond, as an example, did not get a new car or watch in every film. Neither did Dalton's Bond. Neither, for that matter, did Connery's Bond.

    As another example, we don't need the M briefing in his office in B25. In LALD it was at Bond's home. Despite that, LALD was very much a formula Bond film, and from my perspective at least, a very good one.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 830
    I apologize my computer is being dumb



  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited October 2015 Posts: 4,117
    FoxRox wrote: »
    For me personally, I have a hard time imagining CR being topped. It had everything I wanted - my (tied with Connery) favorite Bond, one of the best Bond girls, lots of great action sequences, a solid story, good villains (Le Chiffre, Mr. White, and Obanno were all good IMO), great supporting cast/characters, great music, and an exceptional PTS and final scene. I also find it highly re-watchable.

    I love CR. But I also love SF. The one I like better is usually the one I saw most recently.

    My only criticism of CR is that two of its major action sequences are a bit too drawn-out and over-the-top:

    1. The chase with Mollaka, particularly in regards to the construction crane
    2. The airport sequence with Carlos (which is just laborious)

    Other than that, CR is pure perfection.
Sign In or Register to comment.