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

16566687071100

Comments

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    smitty wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Mansfield wrote: »
    @haserot You reminded me of the first time I found myself questioning the story. The acquisition of the plane in mere seconds in Austria was alarming. I'm pretty sure they showed it on the strip in the wide shot before he meets Madeleine, but it would have been impossible for him to board and fly so quickly.

    Something about the way Bond left her at the safe house was unsettling, I agree. Her motives for disengaging were within reason. So too perhaps was his reaction, except for the fact that when Blofeld's was within seconds of blowing her up, Bond suddenly decides not only to spare him, but also to put down his gun.

    I can see myself disengaging in this films defense in the future despite my interest in it. =))

    i read one review in which a comment the writer made really stuck out to me, and it's true... he compared SP, to what the Fast & Furious movies did after Fast Five - it found success, and decided to try and repeat what that film did with Fast & Furious 6 and 7, but couldn't duplicate or match it - the same can be said for SP as it pertains to SF... they stuck gold, and decided to try it again, and it may not have worked out as well as they thought it was going to.

    I think you and the reviewer couldn't be more wrong. It's not true. The reason SP worked for me is that they ignored the things in SF that I so disliked. Mendes himself said that Bond was weak in SF, that he could not save M. I hated how Bond was scripted to be old, washed up, weak and ineffective. Dench and Bardem had all the lines, and the film was all about them, and not Bond. To me it wasn't even a Bond film and I walked out of SF feeling depressed with what they had done to Bond. They made a U turn with SP and went back to basics. I walked out of SP feeling great about Bond again. I hope others on the site who have not seen the film yet are not influenced by the endless bitching and nit picking by the posters (and critics) who wanted SF2 and are miserable that they didn't get it. Some of you are beginning to read like Rex Reed complaining about the lack of cars in the NY scenes.

    I didn't want SF2. I just wanted a well written adventure.
  • TuxedoTuxedo Europe
    Posts: 259
    I'd give SPECTRE 6/10. I had tickets for Friday and Saturday. But after watching it on Friday I gave my Saturday ticket to a friend. PTS was great though.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 1,098
    Zekidk wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mendes needs to go. No two ways about it. He got away with it for SF but he was lucky (it was borderline dangerous with the DB5 etc.) because the storyline was so different for Bond. Here, he seems to have gone over the edge for many (including the general audience and critics)
    I agree that Mendes needs to go. But don't forget that most critics think highly of SP:
    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spectre_2015/reviews/?type=top_critics
    The problem with RT is, as someone mentioned earlier, the US reviews are largely consisting of one-man bands and obscure websites desperately trying to create a name for themselves, and are not respected critics at all. The decent US reviewers have nearly all given SP the thumbs up, so if these pathetic flies were swatted off RT, the rating would probably be in the 90's.

    If you read some of the negative critics, it is painfully obvious they don't know what a Bond film should be, and are also coming off as confused in what they are slating. One minute they want the Bond formula, yet they don't really know what it is, and slag it off when they see it.

    I thought the praise heaped on SF was too much, and now many of the US critics have gone too much the other way with SP.

    Bottom line, if SP had come out on the back of DAD, it would have been praised to the high heavens. As it has come off the back of the slightly pretentious SF, these obscure critics who don't understand Bond films are up in arms, and trying to attract attention.

    RT should only allow respected reviews on their sites, and not give way to these stupid, sad, sorry, attention-seeking cretins in giving them a voice.

    100% agree with you!..................RT needs to review their system!

    I also got the impression a lot of these reviewers were just downing the film, without actually knowing what they wanted out of the film!.............pathetic!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    Tuxedo wrote: »
    I'd give SPECTRE 6/10. I had tickets for Friday and Saturday. But after watching it on Friday I gave my Saturday ticket to a friend. PTS was great though.

    You gave it a 6/10 (not the worst score in the world) and didn't even want to give it a second chance? You should've! I've heard a lot of people say that it improves on the second viewing (though there are also those who didn't like it even more on the second viewing, as well, so anything's possible.)
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2015 Posts: 10,512
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Tuxedo wrote: »
    I'd give SPECTRE 6/10. I had tickets for Friday and Saturday. But after watching it on Friday I gave my Saturday ticket to a friend. PTS was great though.

    You gave it a 6/10 (not the worst score in the world) and didn't even want to give it a second chance? You should've! I've heard a lot of people say that it improves on the second viewing (though there are also those who didn't like it even more on the second viewing, as well, so anything's possible.)

    It's sacrilege on these boards to question fandom, but if you're not watching it a second time, I personally find that questionable.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 2,015
    Wow, wow, wow...

    In French, "You" can be translated as "Vous" or "Tu".

    When you translate "You" with "Tu" it means, in most contexts, that the two persons talking know each other quite well, that they're close friends, colleagues you see out of the job, or from the same family. "Vous" means they're more distant, or that the exchange is formal, and well it's kind of the default mode.

    Well, "Why did you come ? / I came here to kill you" : I've just heard a French translation on French TV where they chose "tu" (while in the teasers so far, it was "vous"). It really makes the Blofeld/Bond exchange sounds like "brothers talking". It has just been shown on French news TV. I re-rewatched it, that's the real deal : these were the voices of the dubbers. So there are two versions that exist, one with "Vous" and one with "Tu".

    I'll see later if this a glitch from a fast translation done for some purposes (but that's super weird). Otherwise, if they indeed used finally "tu", the French audience will have the "brother" angle hammered to them !



  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    HASEROT wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    @Haserot: Your comments on SP are spot-on. I really have no idea why EON/Mendes played the whole family angle. Back in March, when the teaser trailer was released, I didn't have a problem with it, because it appeared that the film was going to be a dark, psychological thriller. I bought into it. What I didn't know was that Spectre was going to be revealed as the organization pulling all of the strings. Together, those plot elements are just too much.

    i did not have a problem with SPECTRE being the real organization behind Quantum - that Quantum was really just a tentacle off the Spectre octopus.. I kind of expected that.. what I wish they would've done more, was explain the connection between the two.. because they built up Quantum for 2 films - as the new millenium version of Spectre.. but once they got the rights to Spectre back, they tossed that all aside with only a passing comment made by Q about Quantum being connected to SPECTRE....

    what I would've liked to have seen is either more explanation about how those two organizations were connected, or more on how SPECTRE absorbed Quantum - or even a 1 film transition, where Bond is tracking down someone from Quantum, only see a more sinister and shady organization emerge from shadows and take Quantum down... they got the rights to Spectre and Blofeld, and instead of really taking time to reintroduce them - they rushed them right back out.... I don't think that was the best move EON could've done..

    This is coming from the perspective of a Bond fan, but it's worth considering that no one else, excuse my french, would give two tosses. It's irrelevant in the wider narrative. How they interconnect is not important within the story.
  • Posts: 7,407
    Bloody hell, I only joined in on this site a while ago, but there's an awful lot of negativity on here. In short, compared to the depressing, each one worse than the last session of Brossa films, Sp is a masterpiece!
    There is no Bond film that is perfect, and any one of them can be torn apart with criticism, and we all have our favourites, films and actor portraying Bond. But SP, compared to a lot of movies blockbusters released this year is wonderful entertainment, with classic Bond elements. Craig has been a vital shot in the arm for the series, and I really hope he does at least one more.
    For me, coming after the admirable, but slightly underwhelming SF, SP gave me a huge lift. it only falters slightly, in the final act returning to London.
    The negativity around here isn't going to change my opinion of SP. I loved it. it hasn't knocked any of my favourites off the top, but its in my top ten, and that's good enough for me. We all want the perfect Bond film, and I still think Craig era is capable of that. Heres to Bond 25, with Daniel Craig as Bond.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,116
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Bloody hell, I only joined in on this site a while ago, but there's an awful lot of negativity on here. In short, compared to the depressing, each one worse than the last session of Brossa films, Sp is a masterpiece!
    There is no Bond film that is perfect, and any one of them can be torn apart with criticism, and we all have our favourites, films and actor portraying Bond. But SP, compared to a lot of movies blockbusters released this year is wonderful entertainment, with classic Bond elements. Craig has been a vital shot in the arm for the series, and I really hope he does at least one more.
    For me, coming after the admirable, but slightly underwhelming SF, SP gave me a huge lift. it only falters slightly, in the final act returning to London.
    The negativity around here isn't going to change my opinion of SP. I loved it. it hasn't knocked any of my favourites off the top, but its in my top ten, and that's good enough for me. We all want the perfect Bond film, and I still think Craig era is capable of that. Heres to Bond 25, with Daniel Craig as Bond.

    There will always be differences if opinion and sometimes opinions change over time. I am an avid Bond fan through the good and the bad times.

    I liked SP ...I have seen it twice and probably will again. There are several posters on here I admire even though sometimes we don't always agree.

    The negativity gets to me too when coupled with rudeness or pretense. People can get pretty rude here.

    My opinion with SP has changed since my first viewing and I'm sure it will again.

    I'm still really liking the ending in MI6 up to the helicopter though.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @haserot
    @Mansfield

    The landing strip for the airplanes are clearly shown when Bond arrives in the helicopter.
    Furthermore what was mere seconds on the screen, were probably several minutes or more in the plot.
    You see the vans clearly driving on the snowy mountain pass and then Bond appears with the plane, that could well have been several miles away from the clinic.
  • I find it interesting that people are saying it gets better with multiple viewings. I've found the opposite to happen to me with some past Bond films. I loved DAD when I first saw it, and the more I watched it, the more I saw it's flaws. Given, I was only 15 at the time....

    People were also mentioning the "formula". I actually thought the elements of the Bond formula that were thrown in were some of the strengths of the film. It was just where they took it too far, with Q, M, and Moneypenny doing way too much.
  • TuxedoTuxedo Europe
    Posts: 259
    RC7 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Tuxedo wrote: »
    I'd give SPECTRE 6/10. I had tickets for Friday and Saturday. But after watching it on Friday I gave my Saturday ticket to a friend. PTS was great though.

    You gave it a 6/10 (not the worst score in the world) and didn't even want to give it a second chance? You should've! I've heard a lot of people say that it improves on the second viewing (though there are also those who didn't like it even more on the second viewing, as well, so anything's possible.)

    It's sacrilege on these boards to question fandom, but if you're not watching it a second time, I personally find that questionable.

    Yes, IF...
  • Posts: 725
    Keep posting @Mathis 1. I agree with you. Everyone has a right to post their opinions, but the bashers are crowding out those like us that enjoyed the film and are stepping away from the site till the bashing cools down. I am reading variations of the same damn thing over and over. They are horrified that the film ain't perfect. It has flaws. Imagine that! A film with flaws. Yeah, we get it already. They are disappointed with the film and want it to fail. It's the worst Bond film ever. It has the worst lines ever. Mendes, EON, and Craig are all idiots. I disliked SF, but I still wanted it to succeed to keep the franchise healthy and strong, but I wonder about some of the posters on here. As I noted earlier, I've been reading posts from some of these guys, and I feel like I'm reading Rex Reed.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @Mathis1

    you complain about negativity and bashing about Spectre but at the same time you bash Brosnan in another thread. Nice.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Not really an outright negative comment but I do wish the Blofeld connection had been limited to the Quantum movies. SF seems included just because it was successful.

    Goldfinger was stand-alone...not that that matters ..just voicing an opinion.
  • Posts: 7,407
    Well, when Brosnan himself claims he was no good as Bond, its hard to argue. I don't hate the guy, just think he was miscast.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Well, when Brosnan himself claims he was no good as Bond, its hard to argue. I don't hate the guy, just think he was miscast.

    Brosnan didn't take himself seriously in that interview. It's a mixture between modesty and playfulness with the media. He's similar to Moore in that aspect.

    But of course if you feel he was miscast, that's your prerogative.
  • Posts: 7,407
    I don't believe that was the case. And, if Broccoli and Wilson were so happy with him, and he was solid box office for the series, why did they not do another couple of films with him?. Because they knew he was doing nothing for the roll, and the series was going nowhere, culminating in the dire in every way DAD!
    I think his problem was that he didn't put his own stamp on the role. A recent programme with Mark Gatiss described him as "Roger Connery". Sort of says it all.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    I don't believe that was the case. And, if Broccoli and Wilson were so happy with him, and he was solid box office for the series, why did they not do another couple of films with him?. Because they knew he was doing nothing for the roll, and the series was going nowhere, culminating in the dire in every way DAD!
    I think his problem was that he didn't put his own stamp on the role. A recent programme with Mark Gatiss described him as "Roger Connery". Sort of says it all.

    You obviously don't know much about the franchises history.
    Go and check out Everything Or Nothing and you'll know why BB + MGW felt it was time to go into another direction. It had nothing to do with Brosnan himself.
    Furthermore it was Brosnan that at first hindered himself of receiving another contract due to his demands for money.
  • Posts: 725
    lalala2004 wrote: »
    I find it interesting that people are saying it gets better with multiple viewings. I've found the opposite to happen to me with some past Bond films. I loved DAD when I first saw it, and the more I watched it, the more I saw it's flaws. Given, I was only 15 at the time....

    People were also mentioning the "formula". I actually thought the elements of the Bond formula that were thrown in were some of the strengths of the film. It was just where they took it too far, with Q, M, and Moneypenny doing way too much.


    Although I enjoyed SP, I was going to note some issues I had with the film like your comment I bolded above which I totally agree with. For me, it cut back on screen time that could haven better gone to Bond, Swan, Hinx and Blofeld. There's plenty of room for pros and cons about the film, but some of the stuff on here was just getting way to hostile to respond to.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 4,622
    patb wrote: »
    Is ESB the first Bond villain to be arrested?

    To be arrested and alive at the end, yes, he is.

    Silva Skyfall?
    Yes he makes 8 who were brought in by authorities as opposed to killed, at least not at that time.
    Peter Franks too #9.
    Taro
    White
    Silva
    Blofeld
    Koskov
    Nick Nack
    Jaws presumably at end of MR
    Yousef sp? QoS

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited November 2015 Posts: 6,277
    @smitty, I agree with your comments as well.

    Stick to an expanded role for at most one of the core characters. I'd argue that in SP it should have been Q. The surveillance storyline fits him best, and frankly the M scenes felt like padding.

    Why did the car chase have to keep cutting back to MP? The solution should have been to make the chase more exciting, not include her at this point. And Lucia should have been in the car with Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    lalala2004 wrote: »
    I find it interesting that people are saying it gets better with multiple viewings. I've found the opposite to happen to me with some past Bond films. I loved DAD when I first saw it, and the more I watched it, the more I saw it's flaws. Given, I was only 15 at the time....

    People were also mentioning the "formula". I actually thought the elements of the Bond formula that were thrown in were some of the strengths of the film. It was just where they took it too far, with Q, M, and Moneypenny doing way too much.
    I agree, and I will add 'C' to that list too. What a waste of space.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Yusef.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Yikes what a downer this thread turned out to be. :))

    I loved the film. It had a simply easy to follow plot. Not every Bond film needs to be "Intelligent." It was a fun romp that tied off the loose ends of Quantum of Solace and took Bond on an adventure. Sure it has it's flaws but I didn't care. I didn't watch the film to hunt for it's flaws. Bond is back, I couldn't be happier. Bring on B25 now. :-bd.
  • Posts: 725
    Murdock wrote: »
    Yikes what a downer this thread turned out to be. :))

    I loved the film. It had a simply easy to follow plot. Not every Bond film needs to be "Intelligent." It was a fun romp that tied off the loose ends of Quantum of Solace and took Bond on an adventure. Sure it has it's flaws but I didn't care. I didn't watch the film to hunt for it's flaws. Bond is back, I couldn't be happier. Bring on B25 now. :-bd.

    As my kids say, This!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    To be quite frank, I preferred the way Quantum was introduced in QoS at Tosca.

    That had a little more maturity and weight to it than the TB caricature that they did here. Having said that, it's always good to see a good old fashioned SP meet with some thug being killed for whatever reason in front of #1. Where was pussy? Oh I forgot.....it appeared later.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited November 2015 Posts: 16,351
    bondjames wrote: »
    To be quite frank, I preferred the way Quantum was introduced in QoS at Tosca.

    That had a little more maturity and weight to it than the TB caricature that they did here. Having said that, it's always good to see a good old fashioned SP meet with some thug being killed for whatever reason in front of #1. Where was pussy (oh I forgot.....it appeared later).

    Now that you bring up the Tosca scene, at least they found a better place to meet. ;)
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 4,622
    Plan on a couple more SP viewings this week.
    I really am impressed with this film. Mind you I'd prefer Guy Hamilton or Terrence Young to be directing but for a Mendes effort, it was pretty good. I think he got a lot of stuff right and still managed to indulge some post SF drama as well.
    I thought Mendes did a nice job further establishing the Mi6 crew he put together in SF.
    Craig's performance was stellar and if Bond is played right, that goes a long way IMO for making a great Bond movie. A good convincing Bond helps ground the whole film.
    I much prefer SP to SF. SF has grown on me though, but SP delivers more of a straight up Bond adventure.
    I am not going to expand now, but I do believe the story holds up just fine. It makes perfect sense that SP all along was the operation behind the first three films, especially as it concerns Silva.
    CR hinted right from the start that there was a powerful secret organization operating behind the scenes. All that QoS did was give it a name, but still its broader scope and leadership was not revealed. There was still more to be seen. SP, even though it is a retcon, does bring everything full circle.
    I am thinking Eon was trying to create SP from the start,as far back as CR, so SP the movie is not a full retcon. But post SF, Eon finally got license back to use Spectre and Blofeld again, and this film serves as the big reveal.
    If Spectre has existed to the extent that we see in this new film, there is no way Silva is running operations like his independently. Spectre as we saw, is and has been everywhere.
    Silva was operating under the Spectre umbrella, but still doing his own thing, much like DN in 1962. DN was Spectre, but quite independent too.
    He was a tentacle.
    I don't think Spectre's existence is needed toexplain Silva's activiites in SF. I think SF holds together on its own well enough. Silva had plenty of his own means. His gig was his gig, but his activities provided yet another tentacle for Spectre
    What we learn I think, is that Silva was operating with Spectre's blessings, and that he was part of the broader organization.
    But what we do learn in the new film is Blofeld is the big cheese. He's got a cult like grip on the whole operation. We saw that in Rome. He's running all the bad stuff in the world to some extent. Illuminati like even.
    As for Blofelds history with Bond, I can roll with that. It's a tad cute, but so what, it wasn't overplayed. Bond didn't seem to care. Oberhauser was Bond's mentor and temporary guardian for a short bit, just as he was in the Fleming novels.
    Bond was actually raised by his aunt after his parents died. This hasnt' changed.
    Just turns out Oberhauser had a completely derganged criminal genius son. A bad seed who has unpleasant memories of Bond taking away some of his daddy time.
    Old Hannes Oberhauser probably slept with a knife under his pillow suspecting he might be raising Damien from Omen, and he was right.
    OK so in the new reboot continuity, poor old Hannes was killed by his wacko son,and not by the greedy murderous Dexter Smythe. Whatever....
    So this new history doesn't bother me, because it's not overstated. Bond is not affected in any way. What is important I think, is that Eon has managed to skillfully introduce Blofeld and Spectre into the rebooted continuity.
    This sets up great going forward. And this Blofeld is full-on Ernst. Don't forget he faked his own death and tossed the Oberhauser name.
    What we've got is full-on Ernst Stavro Blofeld, all-powerful leader of Spectre in all his mad glory once again, with nice nods to the original film series, with the inclusion of the scar origins ,and the presence of the iconic white cat.

    I find this new film to be a very encouraging Bond film. I love the way everything has been tied together with previous stories and how we are set-up going forward.
    Its a gateway film to some extent, setting the series up potentially for decades to come.
    I would love to see Bond battling Spectre or divisions of Spectre indefinitely going forward. Blofeld must not be killed. In future films, he can be front and centre, or in the background.
    He will escape and he will come after Bond and Swann in the next film. I am sure of it, just as I was sure way back before leaks, or anything conclusive, that Waltz was being cast to play Blofeld.
    There is much good, Bond and Blofeld stuff ahead!
    I don't think Eon ever intended to kill Ernst anyway. They finally dumped him down a smokestack out of frustration with McClory and his insistence on controling the character rights, and using him in his own film, so it was goodbye Ernst, but he's back now in all his deranged glory.
Sign In or Register to comment.