453 replies to this topic

[sharpshooter]

Not really surprised by the less positive American reviews, but am fairly shocked by how extreme some of them are. The idea SPECTRE is no better than QUANTUM OF SOLACE is pretty laughable.

Yeah, it all seems rather hyperbolic to be honest. 

[RMc2]

But yes, whatever will Eon do next?! Part of me would love a "grand finale" with Waltz, Seydoux and Craig... but I don't really trust this team to make it as good as it should be. 

 

As grateful as I am for Mendes', Logan's and P&W's work on SF and SP, I sincerely hope a new creative team is brought on board to steer Craig, Seydoux and Waltz through a grand finale. SP felt like it was struggling for ideas at times, and I feel a lot of its flaws are down to creative exhaustion (not creative bankruptcy, but lack of perspective when trying to make an 'artful' yet crowd-pleasing Bond film that measures up to SF). I'd rather risk Bond 25 on fresh, passionate blood behind the camera, than keep exhausting the same creative team.

 

Although if they bring Martin Campbell back, I'd be very happy indeed  

[Vauxhall]

Not really surprised by the less positive American reviews, but am fairly shocked by how extreme some of them are. The idea SPECTRE is no better than QUANTUM OF SOLACE is pretty laughable.

Yeah, it all seems rather hyperbolic to be honest.

Agreed. Arguably the almost entirely positive reviews for SKYFALL were hyperbolic in the opposite direction, so perhaps this is their attempt to redress the balance.

[sharpshooter]

It will be interesting to see where the franchise goes to from here. They have attracted high calibre actors and have upped their game in the cinematography department. But it seems if you go the entertainment route, the critics aren't interested. So just how concerned are the 'powers that be' about critic adulation? I can see Bond 25 being more on the 'pushing the boundaries' side, anyway. And at the end of the day, box-office is king. 

[Harmsway]

As grateful as I am for Mendes', Logan's and P&W's work on SF and SP, I sincerely hope a new creative team is brought on board to steer Craig, Seydoux and Waltz through a grand finale. SP felt like it was struggling for ideas at times, and I feel a lot of its flaws are down to creative exhaustion (not creative bankruptcy, but lack of perspective when trying to make an 'artful' yet crowd-pleasing Bond film that measures up to SF). I'd rather risk Bond 25 on fresh, passionate blood behind the camera, than keep exhausting the same creative team.

The next one would certainly benefit from some fresh blood (and a few directors have already tossed their hats into the ring, including Joe Wright and Denis Villeneuve), but whoever they bring on, let's hope they're willing to honor what came before rather than just steamroll it all in service to a new vision. If Craig does return, Bond 25 will need to be an appropriate concluding note.

 

There is another possibility, however: that, as Bond looks for a new studio, things get delayed, Craig departs, and Spectre concludes the CraigBond era. All told, that might not be so bad, though I'd be a bit bummed that they didn't allow Blofeld a second appearance.

[kneelbeforezod]

There's a criticism I keep hearing that I need some help from you guys with. I just can't get my head around it but I keep seeing it. It's where some people seem really angry at the secrecy around Waltz's character's identity. The same angry reaction happened when they tried to keep Khan a secret in the second Star Trek film, and I didn't get it then.

 

Somebody was telling me today that the character reveal makes no sense in the scene. That the name Blofeld means nothing to the characters in the scene. But what exactly is the problem here? My argument is that for huge numbers of people, the character name reveal will be a fun moment, as they recall the character from previous films. And for many people, they don't follow the development of these films as closely as we do so it will be a surprise. 

 

And within the film, it does make sense doesn't it? Waltz reveals the name he goes by, but there's no DUN DUN DUNNNN music on the soundtrack. Bond doesn't react with horror "OH MY GOD IT'S BLOFELD". The drama of the scene comes from their shared history, not the B word, so he could've revealed his name was anything and the drama of the scene would stay the same. So I just cannot for the life of me understand what the problem is.

 

I remember that when the second Star Trek film came out, geeks seemed to get SO ANGRY that the filmmakers were trying to keep this secret. It's like they felt entitled to know everything about the film beforehand. A similar thing is happening now with Spectre. 

[Harmsway]

It's not even as though the production tried very hard to keep it secret: the Blofeld iconography is pretty up-front in the advertising and in the film itself. The Blofeld name reveal is not intended to be some huge twist; mainly what's hidden is the details. It's the how and why of Blofeld that EON has avoided revealing.

 

The comparison to Star Trek Into Darkness' Khan falls apart on many levels. First off, Into Darkness' Khan was Khan-in-name-only; the film stripped away everything recognizable about the character from his previous incarnations. Second, Khan's alternate identity, John Harrison, was so arbitrarily chosen that it had no impact on anything: he had an alternate identity just to give him an alternate identity, not because it had any bearing on the story. Making matters worse was the sense in which the film tried to make us believe that the "Khan" reveal was significant, when it clearly wasn't.

 

Spectre gives us Blofeld as Blofeld, full iconography intact. It's just that he now has an origin narrative, much like Moneypenny was given an origin narrative in Skyfall (and with a similar name reveal, to boot). Some seem to object to the very idea of giving him an origin story, which is fair enough, but it's different than what they did with Khan in Into Darkness.

[plankattack]

There is another possibility, however: that, as Bond looks for a new studio, things get delayed, Craig departs, and Spectre concludes the CraigBond era. All told, that might not be so bad, though I'd be a bit bummed that they didn't allow Blofeld a second appearance.

On the surface it is an interesting sense of history repeating or deja vu if you will. But, unlike 25 years ago (good grief, it was that long ago, oh my god, I'm getting old...), the unquestioned value of the Bond franchise will no doubt make whatever deal that's to be done, be done so much quicker. And unlike TD, the promise of DC's involvement can only add to the potential value of the deal. If DC were to officially quit the franchise before the distribution deal is settled, then at that moment, a hiatus is far more likely.

[kneelbeforezod]

It's not even as though the production tried very hard to keep it secret: the Blofeld iconography is pretty up-front in the advertising and in the film itself. The Blofeld name reveal is not intended to be some huge twist; mainly what's hidden is the details. It's the how and why of Blofeld that EON has avoided revealing.

 

The comparison to Star Trek Into Darkness' Khan falls apart on many levels. First off, Into Darkness' Khan was Khan-in-name-only; the film stripped away everything recognizable about the character from his previous incarnations. Second, Khan's alternate identity, John Harrison, was so arbitrarily chosen that it had no impact on anything: he had an alternate identity just to give him an alternate identity, not because it had any bearing on the story. Making matters worse was the sense in which the film tried to make us believe that the "Khan" reveal was significant, when it clearly wasn't.

 

Spectre gives us Blofeld as Blofeld, full iconography intact. It's just that he now has an origin narrative, much like Moneypenny was given an origin narrative in Skyfall (and with a similar name reveal, to boot). Some seem to object to the very idea of giving him an origin story, which is fair enough, but it's different than what they did with Khan in Into Darkness.

Thank you, this actually helps haha. 

[Guy Haines]

Not really surprised by the less positive American reviews, but am fairly shocked by how extreme some of them are. The idea SPECTRE is no better than QUANTUM OF SOLACE is pretty laughable.

Yeah, it all seems rather hyperbolic to be honest.

Indeed. Interesting that UK's Mark Kermode - big fan of SF, no fan of QoS - was fulsome in his praise of SP. If he can see it the difference.... then again there are none so blind, as they say.

I notice one or two have latched on to "a return to the Roger Moore era" as a complaint. While in terms of style and humour that era was never quite my favourite - unlike the actor who I very much liked as Bond - it remains part of the Bond tradition. And its not as if it permeated the whole film - I'd argue there were only a very few scenes where there was even a slight nod, let alone a huge nudge in the 70s direction. I can't help wondering if minds were made up;

Spoiler

on the basis of the film's first half, which Sam Mendes said in more than one pre-releaseinterview would have more "mischief" in it than previous Craig Bond films though nowhere near enough, imho, to make this film MR revisited - the closest SP comes to emulating the Moore era is LALD - the death imagery and so on. The car chase around Rome has a very few 70s style gags around Bond's handling of the DB10, but the chase moves so fast they are over in seconds, and with the exception of the "airbag" gag are all focused on Bond's reaction to the DB10 (And yesterday when my car was in for it's annual service/MOT I was loaned a hi-tech version of the same model and was reminded of Bond's reaction as I tried to work out what was what! ;-) ) The rest of the humour and traditional elements seem to be either based around Connery's time or is actually unique to Craig himself, who proved he can deliver one liners in his own dry dour way.

[sharpshooter]

I notice one or two have latched on to "a return to the Roger Moore era" as a complaint. While in terms of style and humour that era was never quite my favourite - unlike the actor who I very much liked as Bond - it remains part of the Bond tradition. And its not as if it permeated the whole film - I'd argue there were only a very few scenes where there was even a slight nod, let alone a huge nudge in the 70s direction.

People like dealing in extremes and Roger Moore is always the whipping boy. I find it frustrating that for some people humour automatically equals cheese and shame. If it's not dark, grim and with every detail explained, it's all just ridiculous.  Almost to the point jokes and the like should be a no-go zone for the fear they’ll fall flat. Well, I think you’ve got to have some personality and colour in Bond films. CR and SF were great, don't get me wrong. But we've been building towards this 'fully formed' Bond escapade for quite some time now. It’s like SPECTRE is being unloaded upon for being that type of Bond film.

[SecretAgentFan]

Just read the review on RogerEbert.com by Matt Zoller Seitz.  

 

Seems we´re back in the good old times when critics looked down on Bond films, hating them for being "products for mass consumption", making fun of "thin characterizations" and "non-sensical plots".

 

I was harsh after my first reaction to SPECTRE - but I am backpedaling like crazy since then.  And I haven´t even had the chance to see the film for a second time yet.

 

Something about SPECTRE sticks with me, and the more I think of it the more it unravels how well it actually spins the theme of the past is haunting everyone in every scene.  

 

In the end, of course, I remain a fan.  And Seitz, as many of his fellow reviewers, is not.  He is a champion of the arthouse movie, and that´s great.  His obsession with Wes Anderson culminated in a fantastic coffee table book on Anderson´s films (which I also like very much).  But to have him review a Bond film can only end in sneering.  And no, him praising CASINO ROYALE, does not prove that he likes Bond - he only liked it - as he implies - because the movie would have been interesting for him without a main character called James Bond.

 

But the US backlash for SPECTRE should not trouble any fan.  One should rather look at it this way: Bond films never got great reviews, and we still enjoyed the films immensely.  We only were getting accustomed to good reviews for CR and SF because the zeitgeist had become interested in Craig.  Now, it´s turning its back on him again.  It was inevitable.

 

When Bond incarnation No.7 has made a few films I´m sure we will look back on SPECTRE and remember it very, very fondly.

 

And laugh at reviews, just as we laugh at those who claimed that the Moore era was a lowpoint for Bond - when it actually was so damn enjoyable and legendary.

[Guy Haines]

There is no "OMG, It's Blofeld" moment because;

 

Spoiler

Bond doesn't know him as Blofeld. To the SPECTRE minions he is ESB, but to James Bond he is Franz Oberhauser. It's a neat inversion of what used to happen with this villain - the world knows him as the Comte de Bleaville (or in the film OHMSS, de Bleauchamp) or as Dr Guntram Shatterhand in the book YOLT, or even "Willard Whyte" at the end of a telephone in DAF. To say nothing of the various aliases Blofeld adopted before he even encountered Bond. In the new era, "Blofeld" is the adopted family name from the maternal line, but the man was born Franz Oberhauser. It's the reason Christoph Waltz was dead right when he kept insisting "I am playing Oberhauser". The character mentions "Ernst Stavro Blofeld" in passing, but Bond's only deadpan reaction is "catchy name". As it would be, because at this point it means nothing to him.

[Guy Haines]

Just read the review on RogerEbert.com by Matt Zoller Seitz.  
 
Seems we´re back in the good old times when critics looked down on Bond films, hating them for being "products for mass consumption", making fun of "thin characterizations" and "non-sensical plots".
 
I was harsh after my first reaction to SPECTRE - but I am backpedaling like crazy since then.  And I haven´t even had the chance to see the film for a second time yet.
 
Something about SPECTRE sticks with me, and the more I think of it the more it unravels how well it actually spins the theme of the past is haunting everyone in every scene.  
 
In the end, of course, I remain a fan.  And Seitz, as many of his fellow reviewers, is not.  He is a champion of the arthouse movie, and that´s great.  His obsession with Wes Anderson culminated in a fantastic coffee table book on Anderson´s films (which I also like very much).  But to have him review a Bond film can only end in sneering.  And no, him praising CASINO ROYALE, does not prove that he likes Bond - he only liked it - as he implies - because the movie would have been interesting for him without a main character called James Bond.
 
But the US backlash for SPECTRE should not trouble any fan.  One should rather look at it this way: Bond films never got great reviews, and we still enjoyed the films immensely.  We only were getting accustomed to good reviews for CR and SF because the zeitgeist had become interested in Craig.  Now, it´s turning its back on him again.  It was inevitable.
 
When Bond incarnation No.7 has made a few films I´m sure we will look back on SPECTRE and remember it very, very fondly.
 
And laugh at reviews, just as we laugh at those who claimed that the Moore era was a lowpoint for Bond - when it actually was so damn enjoyable and legendary.

I don't see how a few nods - and that's all they are, a handful - in the direction of the classic Bond era of the 1960s and early 1970s should put this particular film beyond the pale for certain reviewers. Alright, there may be a bit of over-compensating for the wild praise SF (rightly) received three years ago. But it isn't as if SP is YOLT, or TMWTGG or MR revisited. The casual sexism, if that's what it was, of the Connery/Lazenby/Moore era simply isn't there. Neither is every other line an arch pun, nor every other scene an opportunity for a daft visual gag. There is, undeniably, an attempt to marry some classic elements to a Sam Mendes directed Bond film, but SP remains a film grounded in 2015, not 1965 or 1979.

As for "as bad as QoS" - QoS had its flaws, and isn't everyone's cup of tea, and I've criticised it here, but I'd still rank it ahead of many previous Bond films because of Daniel Craig and the grittiness of the movie. In fact the only QoS comparisons I can think of with SP are;

Spoiler

the villain's plot, which is a long term plan rather than a short term "ransom demand" scheme, and the destruction of the villain's desert HQ which did have echoes of the explosive end of the desert hotel in QoS

[RMc2]

 

Just read the review on RogerEbert.com by Matt Zoller Seitz.  
 
Seems we´re back in the good old times when critics looked down on Bond films, hating them for being "products for mass consumption", making fun of "thin characterizations" and "non-sensical plots".
 
I was harsh after my first reaction to SPECTRE - but I am backpedaling like crazy since then.  And I haven´t even had the chance to see the film for a second time yet.
 
Something about SPECTRE sticks with me, and the more I think of it the more it unravels how well it actually spins the theme of the past is haunting everyone in every scene.  
 
In the end, of course, I remain a fan.  And Seitz, as many of his fellow reviewers, is not.  He is a champion of the arthouse movie, and that´s great.  His obsession with Wes Anderson culminated in a fantastic coffee table book on Anderson´s films (which I also like very much).  But to have him review a Bond film can only end in sneering.  And no, him praising CASINO ROYALE, does not prove that he likes Bond - he only liked it - as he implies - because the movie would have been interesting for him without a main character called James Bond.
 
But the US backlash for SPECTRE should not trouble any fan.  One should rather look at it this way: Bond films never got great reviews, and we still enjoyed the films immensely.  We only were getting accustomed to good reviews for CR and SF because the zeitgeist had become interested in Craig.  Now, it´s turning its back on him again.  It was inevitable.
 
When Bond incarnation No.7 has made a few films I´m sure we will look back on SPECTRE and remember it very, very fondly.
 
And laugh at reviews, just as we laugh at those who claimed that the Moore era was a lowpoint for Bond - when it actually was so damn enjoyable and legendary.

I don't see how a few nods - and that's all they are, a handful - in the direction of the classic Bond era of the 1960s and early 1970s should put this particular film beyond the pale for certain reviewers. Alright, there may be a bit of over-compensating for the wild praise SF (rightly) received three years ago. But it isn't as if SP is YOLT, or TMWTGG or MR revisited. The casual sexism, if that's what it was, of the Connery/Lazenby/Moore era simply isn't there. Neither is every other line an arch pun, nor every other scene an opportunity for a daft visual gag. There is, undeniably, an attempt to marry some classic elements to a Sam Mendes directed Bond film, but SP remains a film grounded in 2015, not 1965 or 1979.

As for "as bad as QoS" - QoS had its flaws, and isn't everyone's cup of tea, and I've criticised it here, but I'd still rank it ahead of many previous Bond films because of Daniel Craig and the grittiness of the movie. In fact the only QoS comparisons I can think of with SP are;

Spoiler

the villain's plot, which is a long term plan rather than a short term "ransom demand" scheme, and the destruction of the villain's desert HQ which did have echoes of the explosive end of the desert hotel in QoS

 

 

I'd add two other similarities to QoS:

 

- the structure of the film around huge action sequences, and cutaways to a subplot with M*

- the film's inability to stand on its own feet, since its story is so reliant on its predecessor(s)

 

 

*CR and SF obviously did this too, but M's journey was also Bond's journey in those films; and their action scenes less dominant

 

 

 

Can't shake the feeling that all this criticism of 'a return to the old ways' is bandwagon shorthand for the plot's obvious 'revelations' and underwhelming villain scheme.

[seawolfnyy]

The parallels with Quantum of Solace are uncanny, when you think about them. Both films had troubled productions and script issues, both were well overhyped, both have awful title songs, and they are the franchises 2 most expensive films. But really, they are too separate things. The bar was simply set too high by CR and SF and either film would most likely have floundered under that weight. It's happened to other franchises as well: Avengers: AoU vs. Avengers, the Iron Man sequels, the Star Wars prequels. I think Spectre will live on as what it is, a Bond film. Bond fanatics will watch and rewatch it, while the casual movie goer won't and I'm perfectly fine with that.

[Hansen]

I wonder how much there is 'marketing' in those bad reviews. I guess that after the success of Skyfall, you get more visibility if you say that Spectre bad.

I saw it last week at the French premiere and it grows pretty well in me me. I am very impatient to see it again when it is released next week. It was not the case for Skyfall for instance.

[Simon]

I have lived long enough to have sat through heaps of negative press reviews for Bond films past, and, as one can see purely by the longevity of the series, that has had not one Jot of an impact to either the continued enjoyment by viewers, nor the anticipation for the next film.

 

SPECTRE has had some wonderful European reviews, but if the US want to slam it, this might actually hark back to the previous days when a negative review of a Bond film was an expectation.  And then the film still slams the BO.

 

Who really gives a sh1t?

[kneelbeforezod]

I think, understandably, members of a Bond forum are slightly defensive about bad reviews. I actually don't think critics are being snobs, as some have suggested. And I think the hyperbolic negative reviews are few and far between. Most critics are just recognising that Spectre is an intermittently fun, but deeply flawed, film. They are disappointed. I don't think audiences are leaving the film on an all time high either. I've seen a lot of people shrug and go "it was ok". It's natural that people are hoping for another Casino Royale, or even a Skyfall. The box office will be huge because people want to see it but that isn't a measure of how they feel when they walk out. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a significant tail off once word of mouth goes round, and the final box office falls considerably short of Skyfall.

 

Wow this is a depressing post, forgive me!

[Simon]

It is a little bit depressing. 

 

But thankfully I am an advocator of free speech, even when it doesn't serve the 'much deserved' celebrations...

 

[sharpshooter]

QoS isn't a critic darling and that hasn't stopped me from enjoying it. Same will be the case for SPECTRE, methinks. 

[univex]

Will elaborate on this later but I´ve seen it today and it´s bloody marvelous. A true return to form. I´ve been waiting for this film since 1997. Love all of the films from the Craig era, a lot, but THIS is Bond! Loved every single second of SPECTRE! Like I said, will elaborate, just not now cause it´s, well, 3am or something. Cheers.

 

Just a thought, Craig is a lucky sod! All of his films are good, no real turkey in there. Now, bring on YOLT, call it The Death Collector, Garden of Death, or Shatterhand, and end it with an amnesiac Bond!

 

Good job Mr. Mendes! Thank you for SPECTRE.

[thecasinoroyale]

Can't wait for our US and international comrades to see 'SPECTRE' from tomorrow!

[Vauxhall]

Will elaborate on this later but I´ve seen it today and it´s bloody marvelous. A true return to form. I´ve been waiting for this film since 1997. Love all of the films from the Craig era, a lot, but THIS is Bond! Loved every single second of SPECTRE! Like I said, will elaborate, just not now cause it´s, well, 3am or something. Cheers.
 
Just a thought, Craig is a lucky sod! All of his films are good, no real turkey in there. Now, bring on YOLT, call it The Death Collector, Garden of Death, or Shatterhand, and end it with an amnesiac Bond!
 
Good job Mr. Mendes! Thank you for SPECTRE.

Phew! Really pleased to hear it

Looking forward to your full review.

[Hockey Mask]

Finally, the day has arrived. Going to the 7pm showing tonight in the U.S.

[The Dove]

I've got the day off tomorrow from work...I'm heading to the movie theatre right after breakfast..

[RMc2]

Finally, the day has arrived. Going to the 7pm showing tonight in the U.S.

 

What did you think of it?

 

I've got the day off tomorrow from work...I'm heading to the movie theatre right after breakfast..

 

Whoop whoop! Guess you'll be having three lightly scrambled eggs, bacon, a double Espresso with cream and half a pint of orange juice?

[The Dove]

Lol!! I should have planned the Fleming breakfast, RMc.. Didn't think of that..I look forward to posting my review afterwards..

[bill007]

Thursday night showing in my town.  Just saw it.  Critics be damned, this was 2.5 hours of pure enjoyment.

 

After watching bond for 50 years, I came away from this one fulfilled.  Yes, Bond is back.  But then, he never really left.  Did he?

 

And, dog-gone it!  This one is just F-U-N!

[The Dove]

Great to hear that you enjoyed it, Bill!!