32 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

I've been listening to a lot of Mark Kermode lately. Brilliant reviewer, he really does know his stuff. He's usually bang on with most of the stuff he says. For example, I agree with him completely on his reviews for Quantum of Solace (bar the title), Avatar, Terminator Salvation, The Dark Knight and to an extent, his thoughts on the Pirates movies. Listening to him, really has made me wonder what the critics will make of 'Skyfall'. Now, I have very little doubt that this will not be well recieved.

Here's Kermodes reviews for Casino and Quantum, by the way.






I have a feeling that 'Skyfall' will be very well recieved. Total Film, I think may give it a high 4 star rating. I'd really love it to get a 5 star. (Which no doubt The Dark Knight Rises will get. Yawn.) I'm really interested on Kermodes thoughts though. I remember when he gave Quantum of Solace a rather harsh (But well backed up) review and even though at the time, I was hoping that Quantum of Solace would be brilliant, but it turns out that I agree with Kermodes review, he was bang on about Quantum. I can accept that now. But yes, I'm very excited about what his thoughts will be on 'Skyfall'. I really hope he likes it, he makes some very interesting points. I have a feeling he might enjoy it though, I think Sam Mendes is a brilliant choice as a director, and they started shooting with a fully developed script, so I have a feeling that his review will not be as harsh as it was for Quantum. I think after most peoples thoughts on Quantum of Solace, the producers have totally taken it into consideration, and really want to do something special. Possibly everything that has been released so far has been very well recieved. So my question is this, what do you think the critics will make of it? I know it's maybe a little too early, but just take into consideration how you feel the film will turn out, and be seen by the world of critics.

Edited by Mharkin, 22 June 2012 - 12:43 AM.

[Shrublands]

I hadn't heard his review of QoS, but he’s spot on. I think, in many ways, that it might be the worst Bond movie of all. Really, I do.
(and I love Craig as Bond - which makes it even more difficult to say.)

[x007AceOfSpades]

I personally don't care for critic's opinion's on films at all. Critics lauded Prometheus and I hated it. I just go in with a standard expectation and by the end of the film it's either brought to a high or a low. I just go by myself. whether Critics receive Skyfall highly or lowly, doesn't apply to me. Hope I don't come off as a bit of an , just my opinion.

Edited by x007AceOfSpades, 22 June 2012 - 02:32 AM.

[triviachamp]

I'm sure the reviews will all feature some play on Shaken not Stirred. Either complain about it for being too formulaic or not Bondian enough or both. Complain about it being too dour or too silly or both. Complain about the over the top gadgetry or the lack thereof or both. Complain about the lame puns or the lack of lame puns or both.

[SecretAgentFan]

Unless the film does not deliver anything Bondian (unlikely) they will LOVE it.

Mendes, the high profile cast, the fact that a new Bond film hasn´t been in theatres for four years - people will just want to love this. Even if it should turn out not so great.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Quite true Secret Agent Fan. I just have a tendency to pretty much hate all critics. Especially ones that happen to nit-pick very little pieces. Can't just walk into the theater and enjoy the film anymore.

[thecasinoroyale]

Critics want the classic Bond elements in there for it to improve on previous installments and to confirm this IS James Bond.

With the addition of franchise classics (Q/DBS/One-liners) and a well known and credable cast and crew, I think they should be happier than they were with 'QOS', and I think Craig will be well recieved if he seems to be enjoy the role as much as he has said in press interviews he has during filming, that will show.

They may complain about it being too dark, but at this stage we can't act as if we know it will be dark as it probably won't be, just from what we read it seems the morals and themes are dark but I am sure it will be handled in a creative way that's not too depressing!

I think 'Skyfall' will get a good reception - improving on 'QOS' and proving that 'CR' wasn't EON's one-trick Bond pony.

A lot of them will pick it to bits in this day and age of cinema, but in the end... they don't deter my enjoyment or the other billions of fans!

[blueman]

When it comes to Bond, there seem to be three camps for critics:

1. "I hate Bond films, let me tell you why this new one sucks."

2. "I love Bond films, let me tell you why this new one sucks/doesn't suck based on how close it comes to my preconceived notions of what a perfect Bond film should be."

3. "This new Bond film is good/bad, based on whatever merits I see in it."

Problem being, with a 50 year old franchise there just aren't that many critics who fall into camp 3. But unless Mendes trips up, I expect more good reviews than bad.

[triviachamp]

I always find it bizarre that Bond is one of the few films were there are professional critics that are actively demanding formulaic entries.

[triviachamp]

Um....

Now, I have very little doubt that this will not be well recieved.

I have a feeling that 'Skyfall' will be very well recieved.

[Dustin]

Based on nothing but my gut instinct I suppose SKYFALL has a decent chance to meet with favourable critics - always provided the outcome justifies favourable critics. Since the days of CR it has become a knee-jerk reaction in certain circles to demand a more formulaic approach in Bonds, and bemoan wherever possible the absence of said formula (conveniently ignoring the fact the very same critics were giving previous entries a hard time for that very reason, a too predictable film with a too OTT storyline lacking logic and emotion). Now there are numerous names in the game that seem to hold a certain weight, even with the most distinguished professionals in the business, and I daresay this might make the usual suspects pause for a moment. They might consider if the absence of whatever they feel is missing isn't just missing, but in fact by now establishing its own formula and tradition. They might wonder if SKYFALL shouldn't just be appraised firstly as a film, instead of having to live up to the simultaneously lower/higher standards and expectations a Bond-film ™ brings to the table. I'd argue professional critics will want to see this entry with a particularly keen eye on the performance of all involved.

[The Shark]

To be a critic one should have the ability think critically and analyse. Kermode's just a jumped-up DJ, and not very funny either.

[JCRendle]

I feel Skyfall will be looked at differently than recent Bond films because of the high calibre of those involved. With several Oscar/Bafta winners/nominees in the cast and crew and the time taken to produce the film, the critics won't be as lenient, judging it as a film on it's own, rather than it being good/bad for a "Bond film".

That said, I think it stands a good chance of receiving positive reviews from what I've seen so far, with a more focused plot than QoS, beautiful cinematography, and a very good cast - Here's hoping I'm not wrong.

[Dustin]

To be a critic one should have the ability think critically and analyse. Kermode's just a jumped-up DJ, and not very funny either.

Everybody's a critic, always been this way. Today we just hear, read, listen to more opinions. To me the important thing is not thinking or analysing critically - that ought to be a given - but to couch the opinion in phrases that indicate a sensible line of reasoning. Everybody can craft a hatchet job by droning some mindless, empty phrases. The art lies in giving an opinion somebody else can actually follow without having to share or agree. Seldom seen these days, despite there being no lack of critics.

[The Shark]

To be a critic one should have the ability think critically and analyse. Kermode's just a jumped-up DJ, and not very funny either.

Everybody's a critic, always been this way.

Everyone has an opinion, just like everyone has an... you fill in the rest.

There's tonnes of reviewers out there today (whether it's amateurs on blogs or professionals on papers), but very few critics. The late Andrew Sarris was of the later.

[PPK_19]

Skyfall will be hailed as the best Bond film ever made.

[SecretAgentFan]

There's tonnes of reviewers out there today (whether it's amateurs on blogs or professionals on papers), but very few critics.

So true...

[DamnCoffee]

Um....

Now, I have very little doubt that this will not be well recieved.

I have a feeling that 'Skyfall' will be very well recieved.

Oh, forgive me. I meant 'I have very little doubt that this will be well recieved'.

[007jamesbond]

the only review I look forward to is Roger Ebert, and none of the other professional critics matter

[The Shark]

Ebert's a lousy critic. He spends most of the time doing a plot synopsis.

[Dustin]

Ebert's a lousy critic. He spends most of the time doing a plot synopsis.

Not at all, can't say that I agree. Ebert is fairly benchmark (high or low, depending if his tastes agree with your own). The plot synopsis part at least indicates he's actually seen a film and set his mind on following its plot. That's already well above par. I've seen much worse critics.

[PPK_19]

Ebert's a lousy critic. He spends most of the time doing a plot synopsis.

Not at all, can't say that I agree. Ebert is fairly benchmark (high or low, depending if his tastes agree with your own). The plot synopsis part at least indicates he's actually seen a film and set his mind on following its plot. That's already well above par. I've seen much worse critics.

But it's a lazy way of reviewing a film. It just shows he doesn't have enough to say about it. You can very easily mention the plot synopsis whilst doing the analysis at the same time.

[perdogg]

I've been listening to a lot of Mark Kermode lately. Brilliant reviewer, he really does know his stuff. He's usually bang on with most of the stuff he says. For example, I agree with him completely on his reviews for Quantum of Solace (bar the title), Avatar, Terminator Salvation, The Dark Knight and to an extent, his thoughts on the Pirates movies. Listening to him, really has made me wonder what the critics will make of 'Skyfall'. Now, I have very little doubt that this will not be well recieved.

Here's Kermodes reviews for Casino and Quantum, by the way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG6JEycOCxU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_BfEoFFNqo


I have a feeling that 'Skyfall' will be very well recieved. Total Film, I think may give it a high 4 star rating. I'd really love it to get a 5 star. (Which no doubt The Dark Knight Rises will get. Yawn.) I'm really interested on Kermodes thoughts though. I remember when he gave Quantum of Solace a rather harsh (But well backed up) review and even though at the time, I was hoping that Quantum of Solace would be brilliant, but it turns out that I agree with Kermodes review, he was bang on about Quantum. I can accept that now. But yes, I'm very excited about what his thoughts will be on 'Skyfall'. I really hope he likes it, he makes some very interesting points. I have a feeling he might enjoy it though, I think Sam Mendes is a brilliant choice as a director, and they started shooting with a fully developed script, so I have a feeling that his review will not be as harsh as it was for Quantum. I think after most peoples thoughts on Quantum of Solace, the producers have totally taken it into consideration, and really want to do something special. Possibly everything that has been released so far has been very well recieved. So my question is this, what do you think the critics will make of it? I know it's maybe a little too early, but just take into consideration how you feel the film will turn out, and be seen by the world of critics.

I have pretty much decided against seeing it. Given that Sam Mendes, apparently, is under the impression his interpretation of the Fleming Bond is correct. I am not thrilled about how Babs has destroyed all of the Bondian elements that existed in the previous films. I am not sure why they bother anymore. Apparently Bond doesn't smoke, drink hard spirits, gamble, or fornicate any more.

Babs cannot decide whether the Bond movies are political thrillers or the movie of the true Bondian genre . All we are getting with every movie is political correctness and long chases through construction sites with an actor who can barely open his mouth to utter his lines. The last Sherlock Holmes movie was probably the best Bond film in 25 years.

[Dustin]

I have pretty much decided against seeing it. Given that Sam Mendes, apparently, is under the impression his interpretation of the Fleming Bond is correct. I am not thrilled about how Babs has destroyed all of the Bondian elements that existed in the previous films. I am not sure why they bother anymore.

Which elements are you thinking of? And how come you are already convinced they - whatever they are - won't be present?

Apparently Bond doesn't smoke, drink hard spirits, gamble, or fornicate any more.

Well, during the last few films I've seen he certainly did, the sole exception being smoking. And as Bond isn't the Marlboro Man smoking isn't too important a trait of Bond, I would argue.

Babs cannot decide whether the Bond movies are political thrillers or the movie of the true Bondian genre . All we are getting with every movie is political correctness and long chases through construction sites with an actor who can barely open his mouth to utter his lines. The last Sherlock Holmes movie was probably the best Bond film in 25 years.

My impression is she is actually pretty decisive about the general direction, her decisions - always provided they are hers; nobody her can tell for sure - just don't sit well with everybody. Which is too bad, but in the end can't be helped. As for the delivery of lines - would you prefer Craig to resemble Kermit's facial range of expression? I doubt that would help, neither the role nor your general judgement on the actor. Let's just face it, if you don't like Craig you're not going to like him any better, regardless how the films with him turn out.

The last Sherlock Holmes film? I must have missed something then, probably during the hour I fell asleep...

Edited by Dustin, 23 June 2012 - 10:13 PM.

[AMC Hornet]

Ebert and the other pros at the top of the food chain will give it "two enthusiastic thumbs way, way up!" and the local guys, out to make names for themselves, will disagree.

Leonard Klady, in the Winnipeg Free Press, called FYEO "the sorriest excuse for a Bond flim ever and remember, I've seen OHMSS", then went on to describe 007 at the grave of his late wife 'Tessa' (leaving me wondering if he ever saw either film).

The only review that really counts is mine.

(I mean, the only review that should matter to you is your own.)

[Dustin]

Well said.

[DR76]

I make it a habit of not paying attention to film critics. I'd rather follow my own instincts.

[The Shark]

Wise choice.

[Zographos]

Apparently Bond doesn't smoke, drink hard spirits, gamble, or fornicate any more.

Apparently Bond fans don't watch the films they criticize anymore.

Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace had Bond drinking hard spirits and gambling in excessive amounts. They are, in fact, the only films to show 1) Bond drunk off his , and 2) multiple high-risk gambling sequences. Likewise, the sex was ramped up in the Brosnan era after the relative tameness of the 80s and I don't see a general trend toward downplaying it. This is mind-blowing to me because if there's a criticism to be made of the recent films, it's that they've overshot the moderation of Bond's vices. And yet some like perdogg have bafflingly reached the opposite conclusion. And to what end? So he can pursue this neurotic political agenda against "Babs", which is apparently in vogue now among Bond fans.

No one's out to castrate the Bond series, and these theories about the inner workings of production and about a woman none of us have ever met are tiresome.

[triviachamp]

Most of Roger Moore's movies don't feature him gambling. If I recall correctly only FYEO and OP have been him gambling. FRWL and YOLT (I think?) don't feature Bond gambling. The only gambling in GF is Bond betting over Golf, which I don't think is the sort of gambling that perdogg was refering. Don't see too many complaints about that.