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

11112141617

Comments

  • RC7 wrote: »
    I'm not one for hyperbole, but I genuinely love this movie and I'm excited for other Bond fans to get from it what I did. It's far from flawless, but there's something indescribably great about. It feels like a film I will watch with my family, old and soon young, for many decades. It reminds me of the thrill of being a kid watching Bond. It's mainly down to Craig. All I'll say is, don't expect SF2, do expect Craig meets Moore and as odd as that may sound, it works.

    I didn't love it as much as you did first time, seeing again next week so who knows, maybe better 2nd time around, but I did like it better than SF, it just feels a lot more like a Bond movie.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,395
    I couldn't agree more @RC7. Flawed yes.
    Mainly on the music, which I still prefer to SF, and Blofeld's involvement with Le Chiffre et al.
    But it's a fun, rollicking ride, akin to TB, Spy and TLD.
  • Artemis81Artemis81 In Christmas Land
    edited November 2015 Posts: 543
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    USA Today review
    As much as Spectre (**½ out of four; rated PG-13; in theaters Friday nationwide) flirts with breaking from tradition, though, it leans heavily, to its detriment, on large-scale set pieces with vehicles and explosions a plenty, gorgeous women and dastardly villains that hardcore Bond fans expect.

    Yet again another American review criticizes SPECTRE for being..... A JAMES BOND FILM

    Which is funny cause others had criticize the other films as being NOT James Bond films.....silly really.

  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 742
    Yes, hopefully, RT at 67% and climbing back...

    Better still a couple of critics who mirror my taste more often than not, both liked it:
    Peter Travers at Rolling Stone and Mick LaSalle at SF Chronicle
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 35,461
    The more I hear "Craig meets Moore" to describe SP, the more excited I get.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I don't know if critics only see it once ? As I found I enjoyed it more, the
    second time.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 709
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    The more I hear "Craig meets Moore" to describe SP, the more excited I get.

    I know! Those are my two favorite Bonds! This is sounding brilliant
  • Posts: 7,341
    And just so you know: Craig is brilliant as 'Roger Moore'! He is cool as a cucumber exceeding tons of confidense, and handles all the humour with ease. It seems there's nothing the man can't do! ^:)^
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing South Florida
    Posts: 3,875
    Movin on up like the damn Jeffersons

    I've got a 2:10 showing booked on Friday with my wife. We're actually going to be on vacation and I told her we're seeing SP before we beachcomb for 3 days.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    jobo wrote: »
    And just so you know: Craig is brilliant as 'Roger Moore'! He is cool as a cucumber exceeding tons of confidense, and handles all the humour with ease. It seems there's nothing the man can't do! ^:)^

    Indeed. He's in his element.
  • Posts: 1,090
    RC7 wrote: »
    I'm not one for hyperbole, but I genuinely love this movie and I'm excited for other Bond fans to get from it what I did. It's far from flawless, but there's something indescribably great about. It feels like a film I will watch with my family, old and soon young, for many decades. It reminds me of the thrill of being a kid watching Bond. It's mainly down to Craig. All I'll say is, don't expect SF2, do expect Craig meets Moore and as odd as that may sound, it works.

    That sounds just... like the most awesome thing ever.
  • Posts: 1,098
    RC7 wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    And just so you know: Craig is brilliant as 'Roger Moore'! He is cool as a cucumber exceeding tons of confidense, and handles all the humour with ease. It seems there's nothing the man can't do! ^:)^

    Indeed. He's in his element.

    I agree...........Craig looked very confident in SP, and well at ease with the role.........he even had a better haircut, than the one he had for SF!

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited November 2015 Posts: 9,021
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    The more I hear "Craig meets Moore" to describe SP, the more excited I get.

    It is more like Craig meets Moore and Brosnan, as there is a lot of Brosnan-Style Bond movie in SP too. But of course that's too painful for many to admit.

    It nicely showcases that the Brosnan and the Moore era were good and relevant too and still are. It took EON only three movies and they went back to that eras.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    RT is at 67% with an average critic rating of 6.7 now! I'm sure it will climb up over 70% at some point. Anything less would be ridiculous, considering the rating of SF.
  • Posts: 1,090
    RT is at 67% with an average critic rating of 6.7 now! I'm sure it will climb up over 70% at some point. Anything less would be ridiculous, considering the rating of SF.

    I feel the same. As people have mentioned, Jurassic World, Age of Ultron and other blockbusters have been around this level. SP deserves nothing less.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    The more I hear "Craig meets Moore" to describe SP, the more excited I get.

    It is more like Craig meets Moore and Brosnan, as there is a lot of Brosnan-Style Bond movie in SP too. But of course that's too painful for many to admit.

    It nicely showcases that the Brosnan and the Moore era were good and relevant too and still are. It took EON only three movies and they went back to that eras.

    I was just getting my hopes up. Hopefully you mean GE Brosnan and not the latter fare.
  • Posts: 1,068
    Never really saw any Brosnan @bondjames - it's all DC and all good. There's an ease, a
    confidence and no arrogance nor taking himself too seriously. The nods are more Moore
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    andmcit wrote: »
    Never really saw any Brosnan @bondjames - it's all DC and all good. There's an ease, a
    confidence and no arrogance nor taking himself too seriously. The nods are more Moore

    Great news. I'm totally pumped for it. I know Mendes/Craig are fans, so I'm glad they're throwing a nod Roger's way, after Craig gave Sean his dues in some of the earlier films.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 266
    I've just got back from seeing SPECTRE for a 4th time and i totally agree with @RC7.

    I cant believe some of the critics, i honestly believe that some had made up their minds what they were going to rate it before they see it. they thought it is not going to be as good as SF so we cant give it too high a rating. I think both SP and SF have flaws but where the critics concentrated on the positives for the SF reviews i think some are focusing on the negatives/flaws with the reviews for SP.

    Also on Rotten Tomatoes i'm seeing 3/5 reviews that are rotten. (how does that work?). Other films have 2.5/4 and they are fresh but some reviews that are 2.5/4 or 3/5 for SP haven't been given a fresh rating. I think the top critics rating is a more accurate rating at the moment.

    I live in the UK and there were a few positive reviews that haven't even been mentioned on RT.
    I love some of the criticism too, one reviewer said if Bond can magically conjure up a plane for the snow/mountain action scenes when there isn't a runway in sight, then why stop there just have him spread his arms and fly through the sky!.......... i thought did you even watch the film? there was clearly a runway/landing strip with quite a few planes on it the other side of the clinic, and Bond arrives IN A PLANE!

  • edited November 2015 Posts: 1,068
    @sharky
    The clip showing the runway is mere seconds but it is there of you look - how in the hell did he get there by plane otherwise - parachute?
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    USA Today review
    As much as Spectre (**½ out of four; rated PG-13; in theaters Friday nationwide) flirts with breaking from tradition, though, it leans heavily, to its detriment, on large-scale set pieces with vehicles and explosions a plenty, gorgeous women and dastardly villains that hardcore Bond fans expect.

    Yet again another American review criticizes SPECTRE for being..... A JAMES BOND FILM.
    Yet instead of creating something new and different, the movie recycles bits of the past — there’s a lot of recognizable throwback stuff for Sean Connery lovers — and defaults to what’s come before by the time its end game rolls around.

    It’s an odd decision, considering how successful the prior movie was with experimenting with the norm, as well as having to compete in pop culture post-Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer. Rehashing old James Bond material 50 years later isn’t likely to shake or stir anyone nowadays.


    http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2015/11/04/spectre-james-bond-daniel-craig-review/75109090/

    It's perverse logic. It's as if these critics want Bond to be different just for difference's sake. What do they expect Bond to be - a Jason Bourne/Ethan Hunt/Jack Bauer variation?

    James Bond should be James Bond. Period. If you don't like the content of SPECTRE that's your right but it's clear many American critics (and some online American fan reviews) have a prejudiced agenda. It's a shame. I suspect they find it all a bit too British, perhaps?


    Don't worry. In 20/30 years time and around 15 films later Ethan Hunt, Jason Bourne, Eggsy, Jack Bauer, Napoleon Solo, Toretto, Batman & Jack Ryan will face similar criticism :-). James Bond is an old franchise. The Godfather of all spy-/action franchises. Obviously it's more prone to criticism....and an older 'ghost of its past' being 23 previous films.

    Mind my words. There comes a time when Tom Cruise has to step down as Ethan Hunt. Then this franchise will 'suffer' similarly to how Bond suffered post-Connery :-). Ooowh, and wait, Jason Bourne already had its own 'George Lazenby moment' when Jeremy Renner took the leading role for just one film :-).
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 389
    I look at RT to get an overall feel for a movies quality but that's it, however I've a golden rule if it's reviewed by over 75 critics & scores more that 60% then it'll be well worth a watch. So with over 100 reviews & 65%, SP is doing OK in my book.

    I think all Bond films after all these years suffer from the weight of expectation, a weight sometimes that can't be lifted & with SP that weight was always going to be very heavy.

    If you look at the next film after any very strongly received film then inveriably all the negatives are emphasized, this has been the case with DC's Bond.

    CR - 95%
    Qos - 65%
    SF - 93%
    SP - 65% (Currently)
    B25 - ?
  • Posts: 266
    @andmcit Yeah when professional reviewers who get paid to write their opinions, write nonsense it really bugs me, escpecially when most things are explained in the film if they would only pay attention.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,368
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    USA Today review
    As much as Spectre (**½ out of four; rated PG-13; in theaters Friday nationwide) flirts with breaking from tradition, though, it leans heavily, to its detriment, on large-scale set pieces with vehicles and explosions a plenty, gorgeous women and dastardly villains that hardcore Bond fans expect.

    Yet again another American review criticizes SPECTRE for being..... A JAMES BOND FILM.
    Yet instead of creating something new and different, the movie recycles bits of the past — there’s a lot of recognizable throwback stuff for Sean Connery lovers — and defaults to what’s come before by the time its end game rolls around.

    It’s an odd decision, considering how successful the prior movie was with experimenting with the norm, as well as having to compete in pop culture post-Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer. Rehashing old James Bond material 50 years later isn’t likely to shake or stir anyone nowadays.


    http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2015/11/04/spectre-james-bond-daniel-craig-review/75109090/

    It's perverse logic. It's as if these critics want Bond to be different just for difference's sake. What do they expect Bond to be - a Jason Bourne/Ethan Hunt/Jack Bauer variation?

    James Bond should be James Bond. Period. If you don't like the content of SPECTRE that's your right but it's clear many American critics (and some online American fan reviews) have a prejudiced agenda. It's a shame. I suspect they find it all a bit too British, perhaps?


    Don't worry. In 20/30 years time and around 15 films later Ethan Hunt, Jason Bourne, Eggsy, Jack Bauer, Napoleon Solo, Toretto, Batman & Jack Ryan will face similar criticism :-). James Bond is an old franchise. The Godfather of all spy-/action franchises. Obviously it's more prone to criticism....and an older 'ghost of its past' being 23 previous films.

    Mind my words. There comes a time when Tom Cruise has to step down as Ethan Hunt. Then this franchise will 'suffer' similarly to how Bond suffered post-Connery :-). Ooowh, and wait, Jason Bourne already had its own 'George Lazenby moment' when Jeremy Renner took the leading role for just one film :-).

    Sometimes initial reviews need to be revised. And this isn't just true of films. For example, if you go back to the original Rolling Stone review of Nirvana's Nevermind album, in 1991, it got 3 stars and was called mediocre. Now RS considers it one of the top 10 albums of all time.
  • TripAces wrote: »
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    USA Today review
    As much as Spectre (**½ out of four; rated PG-13; in theaters Friday nationwide) flirts with breaking from tradition, though, it leans heavily, to its detriment, on large-scale set pieces with vehicles and explosions a plenty, gorgeous women and dastardly villains that hardcore Bond fans expect.

    Yet again another American review criticizes SPECTRE for being..... A JAMES BOND FILM.
    Yet instead of creating something new and different, the movie recycles bits of the past — there’s a lot of recognizable throwback stuff for Sean Connery lovers — and defaults to what’s come before by the time its end game rolls around.

    It’s an odd decision, considering how successful the prior movie was with experimenting with the norm, as well as having to compete in pop culture post-Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer. Rehashing old James Bond material 50 years later isn’t likely to shake or stir anyone nowadays.


    http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2015/11/04/spectre-james-bond-daniel-craig-review/75109090/

    It's perverse logic. It's as if these critics want Bond to be different just for difference's sake. What do they expect Bond to be - a Jason Bourne/Ethan Hunt/Jack Bauer variation?

    James Bond should be James Bond. Period. If you don't like the content of SPECTRE that's your right but it's clear many American critics (and some online American fan reviews) have a prejudiced agenda. It's a shame. I suspect they find it all a bit too British, perhaps?


    Don't worry. In 20/30 years time and around 15 films later Ethan Hunt, Jason Bourne, Eggsy, Jack Bauer, Napoleon Solo, Toretto, Batman & Jack Ryan will face similar criticism :-). James Bond is an old franchise. The Godfather of all spy-/action franchises. Obviously it's more prone to criticism....and an older 'ghost of its past' being 23 previous films.

    Mind my words. There comes a time when Tom Cruise has to step down as Ethan Hunt. Then this franchise will 'suffer' similarly to how Bond suffered post-Connery :-). Ooowh, and wait, Jason Bourne already had its own 'George Lazenby moment' when Jeremy Renner took the leading role for just one film :-).

    Sometimes initial reviews need to be revised. And this isn't just true of films. For example, if you go back to the original Rolling Stone review of Nirvana's Nevermind album, in 1991, it got 3 stars and was called mediocre. Now RS considers it one of the top 10 albums of all time.

    Yes, but today we live in a social-media-heavy society were ratings online register this information forever :-).
  • Posts: 1,090
    I can't get over how strange the % is for SP. The Peanuts Movie has the same exact rating average, 6.6, yet is at 85%. It makes no sense for SP to be at 64. The math here is way off. This demonstrates clearly the limitations with this kind of system for movies that RT uses. A film could be 5.9 on the rating side and be at 0% while another could be 6.0 and at 100%. Totally inaccurate system to judge a film's worth, this % thing. It's a huge flaw.
  • The_Reaper wrote: »
    I can't get over how strange the % is for SP. The Peanuts Movie has the same exact rating average, 6.6, yet is at 85%. It makes no sense for SP to be at 64. The math here is way off. This demonstrates clearly the limitations with this kind of system for movies that RT uses. A film could be 5.9 on the rating side and be at 0% while another could be 6.0 and at 100%. Totally inaccurate system to judge a film's worth, this % thing. It's a huge flaw.

    In general, 64% currently for "SPECTRE" is PA-THE-TIC. Really.
  • I am not going to let the RT score ruin the film for me. I haven't seen the film yet. I think the majority of the US critics are giving the film bad reviews for all the wrong reasons. Most of the negative reviews that I have read have all mentioned DC's recent comments in the media and I think they just can't see beyond this. They have turned those comments against the film and have not given the film an honest review.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I will tell you whether I think it's fair or not tomorrow. Finally after this incredibly painful wait, I'll be able to see what all this fuss is about. Such a polarizing film apparently...
  • Posts: 484
    bondjames wrote: »
    I will tell you whether I think it's fair or not tomorrow. Finally after this incredibly painful wait, I'll be able to see what all this fuss is about. Such a polarizing film apparently...

    Polarizing as to whether you thing it's better than SF maybe. Polarizing as to whether you think it's the right direction for the Craig films to go in, possibly.

    Polarizing as to whether it's a good or bad film? Surely not. I visit plenty of non Bond forums and in their film sections the forum members mostly enjoyed the film. I don't even see it as a 50/50 split in those who hate it to those who rate it.

    Some bad reviews from the US don't make it a polarizing film.
Sign In or Register to comment.