› ›

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

1…910121415…17

Comments

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Wow, so 100% Brosnan fans were responsible for this garbage Craigisn'tBond site?

    Sorry, but that is as bad as that site itself. Pure Brosnan bashing. Can't take this seriously.

    Those people on that site are delusional and certainly not Bond fans at all.

    If all Brosnan fans hadn't watched CR or QOS, the BO would have been drastically lower.
    Don't forget that DAD and GE had sold more tickets than CR or QOS!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    I'm also kind of wondering why there is no section for international critics. Box office in general, and especially Bond, is more global than ever, yet all those positive reviews from Europe that Gustav has posted will not even get onto that site. But the "Flick Filosopher" will!

    That's why I said a few days back on the box office thread that ultimately (if not initially) it is the US critics who will shape the overall narrative about this film.

    Ownership of the platform and the information that gets on there is what allows one to shape the story as desired. Like with IoS, RT is the king of the review sites and is influential.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    RT has gone up to 65% again, thank God. Maybe 64% was the bottom and now it will go up again!
  • mepal1mepal1
    Posts: 1,098
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    RT has gone up to 65% again, thank God. Maybe 64% was the bottom and now it will go up again!

    :) Bond is coming up for air......thank god!
  • smittysmitty
    Posts: 725
    RT has too much sway as it is seriously flawed in many ways. Minor critics with little to no following get equal sway with the top critics read by millions. And you're right, there are way to many US critics, particularly web critics. But the site has a lot of clout these days as it is regularly quoted all over the place. And it is going to burn SP I'm afraid.
  • Crazysoul95Crazysoul95
    Posts: 3,336
    Top critics is at 75% =)
  • dinovelvetdinovelvet
    Posts: 709
    smitty wrote: »
    RT has too much sway as it is seriously flawed in many ways. Minor critics with little to no following get equal sway with the top critics read by millions. And you're right, there are way to many US critics, particularly web critics. But the site has a lot of clout these days as it is regularly quoted all over the place. And it is going to burn SP I'm afraid.

    I honestly don't think reviews matter, at all, with Bond. DAD got 57%, CR 95, and QOS 65, and all three made pretty much the same amount at the US box office (160, 167, 168). Now its always nice when a Bond film like CR or SF does get glowing reviews, but its still meaningless. If critics had any sway, CR would have made much more money.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    I honestly don't think reviews matter, at all, with Bond. DAD got 57%, CR 95, and QOS 65, and all three made pretty much the same amount at the US box office (160, 167, 168). Now its always nice when a Bond film like CR or SF does get glowing reviews, but its still meaningless. If critics had any sway, CR would have made much more money.

    This is a very good point!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    smitty wrote: »
    RT has too much sway as it is seriously flawed in many ways. Minor critics with little to no following get equal sway with the top critics read by millions. And you're right, there are way to many US critics, particularly web critics. But the site has a lot of clout these days as it is regularly quoted all over the place. And it is going to burn SP I'm afraid.

    I honestly don't think reviews matter, at all, with Bond. DAD got 57%, CR 95, and QOS 65, and all three made pretty much the same amount at the US box office (160, 167, 168). Now its always nice when a Bond film like CR or SF does get glowing reviews, but its still meaningless. If critics had any sway, CR would have made much more money.

    Generally, yes, this is true.

    However, when one is following a Bond film that is the top grosser, and which broke out from that general funk that Bond films were stuck in for many years (almost doubling the gross from the $160m trendline) then it did bring in new fans. Those new fans may not be sticky fans, and so may be persuaded, on the margin, by reviews and general social media fan enthusiasm about whether to see the film.

    As long as the film is entertaining, we are ok (a'la JW) even if the reviews suck. If it's boring, then we have a problem.
  • mepal1mepal1
    Posts: 1,098
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    smitty wrote: »
    RT has too much sway as it is seriously flawed in many ways. Minor critics with little to no following get equal sway with the top critics read by millions. And you're right, there are way to many US critics, particularly web critics. But the site has a lot of clout these days as it is regularly quoted all over the place. And it is going to burn SP I'm afraid.

    I honestly don't think reviews matter, at all, with Bond. DAD got 57%, CR 95, and QOS 65, and all three made pretty much the same amount at the US box office (160, 167, 168). Now its always nice when a Bond film like CR or SF does get glowing reviews, but its still meaningless. If critics had any sway, CR would have made much more money.

    Yes....that's true....its also with the case of America, i don't think the public there, knew what to make of Craig, as he was an unknown quantity, and there seemed to be some hesitancy from people to go and see the film initially.......i mean the opening weekend BO for CR was actually quite a bit down from DAD, ie $40 mil vs $47 mil. But the BO did pick up for CR quite a bit afterwards...........its just that the film had a so so start. Plus for some reason the Americans thought it was a better idea instead to go see a film about Penquins! ;)

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    mepal1 wrote: »
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    smitty wrote: »
    RT has too much sway as it is seriously flawed in many ways. Minor critics with little to no following get equal sway with the top critics read by millions. And you're right, there are way to many US critics, particularly web critics. But the site has a lot of clout these days as it is regularly quoted all over the place. And it is going to burn SP I'm afraid.

    I honestly don't think reviews matter, at all, with Bond. DAD got 57%, CR 95, and QOS 65, and all three made pretty much the same amount at the US box office (160, 167, 168). Now its always nice when a Bond film like CR or SF does get glowing reviews, but its still meaningless. If critics had any sway, CR would have made much more money.

    Yes....that's true....its also with the case of America, i don't think the public there, knew what to make of Craig, as he was an unknown quantity, and there seemed to be some hesitancy from people to go and see the film initially.......i mean the opening weekend BO for CR was actually quite a bit down from DAD, ie $40 mil vs $47 mil. But the BO did pick up for CR quite a bit afterwards...........its just that the film had a so so start. Plus for some reason the Americans thought it was a better idea instead to go see a film about Penquins! ;)

    Hey hey!! Those penguins were cute and could sing. Craig didn't sing once in CR, so there..

    :P
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    mepal1 wrote: »
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    smitty wrote: »
    RT has too much sway as it is seriously flawed in many ways. Minor critics with little to no following get equal sway with the top critics read by millions. And you're right, there are way to many US critics, particularly web critics. But the site has a lot of clout these days as it is regularly quoted all over the place. And it is going to burn SP I'm afraid.

    I honestly don't think reviews matter, at all, with Bond. DAD got 57%, CR 95, and QOS 65, and all three made pretty much the same amount at the US box office (160, 167, 168). Now its always nice when a Bond film like CR or SF does get glowing reviews, but its still meaningless. If critics had any sway, CR would have made much more money.

    Yes....that's true....its also with the case of America, i don't think the public there, knew what to make of Craig, as he was an unknown quantity, and there seemed to be some hesitancy from people to go and see the film initially.......i mean the opening weekend BO for CR was actually quite a bit down from DAD, ie $40 mil vs $47 mil. But the BO did pick up for CR quite a bit afterwards...........its just that the film had a so so start. Plus for some reason the Americans thought it was a better idea instead to go see a film about Penquins! ;)
    Yes, CR really took an initial beating due to DC being new/uknown with US audiences and the 4 yr gap. It picked up steam in a big way during the Christmas holidays on the back of word of mouth and good reviews. It actually was beating the SF $ gross (even in unadjusted $) for that same period which is impressive given it was released 6 yrs earlier.
  • mepal1mepal1
    Posts: 1,098
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    smitty wrote: »
    RT has too much sway as it is seriously flawed in many ways. Minor critics with little to no following get equal sway with the top critics read by millions. And you're right, there are way to many US critics, particularly web critics. But the site has a lot of clout these days as it is regularly quoted all over the place. And it is going to burn SP I'm afraid.

    I honestly don't think reviews matter, at all, with Bond. DAD got 57%, CR 95, and QOS 65, and all three made pretty much the same amount at the US box office (160, 167, 168). Now its always nice when a Bond film like CR or SF does get glowing reviews, but its still meaningless. If critics had any sway, CR would have made much more money.

    Yes....that's true....its also with the case of America, i don't think the public there, knew what to make of Craig, as he was an unknown quantity, and there seemed to be some hesitancy from people to go and see the film initially.......i mean the opening weekend BO for CR was actually quite a bit down from DAD, ie $40 mil vs $47 mil. But the BO did pick up for CR quite a bit afterwards...........its just that the film had a so so start. Plus for some reason the Americans thought it was a better idea instead to go see a film about Penquins! ;)

    Hey hey!! Those penguins were cute and could sing. Craig didn't sing once in CR, so there..

    :P

    I just knew, one of our American members here, would respond to my comment! :)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    mepal1 wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    smitty wrote: »
    RT has too much sway as it is seriously flawed in many ways. Minor critics with little to no following get equal sway with the top critics read by millions. And you're right, there are way to many US critics, particularly web critics. But the site has a lot of clout these days as it is regularly quoted all over the place. And it is going to burn SP I'm afraid.

    I honestly don't think reviews matter, at all, with Bond. DAD got 57%, CR 95, and QOS 65, and all three made pretty much the same amount at the US box office (160, 167, 168). Now its always nice when a Bond film like CR or SF does get glowing reviews, but its still meaningless. If critics had any sway, CR would have made much more money.

    Yes....that's true....its also with the case of America, i don't think the public there, knew what to make of Craig, as he was an unknown quantity, and there seemed to be some hesitancy from people to go and see the film initially.......i mean the opening weekend BO for CR was actually quite a bit down from DAD, ie $40 mil vs $47 mil. But the BO did pick up for CR quite a bit afterwards...........its just that the film had a so so start. Plus for some reason the Americans thought it was a better idea instead to go see a film about Penquins! ;)

    Hey hey!! Those penguins were cute and could sing. Craig didn't sing once in CR, so there..

    :P

    I just knew, one of our American members here, would respond to my comment! :)

    I remember being so ticked off that those bloody birds stopped CR from hitting #1
  • smittysmitty
    Posts: 725
    I've always thought that SF's 1B BO could create real PR problems for SP. SF all but doubled the BO for CR and QOS. Now if SP doesn't make very near 1B, some press will claim the film failed, even if it climbs over CR and QOS to $800m, a figure that is a couple of hundred million over the very successful MI5. Had SF done around 700-800m, it would have given SP much more breathing room, but now SF's 1B BO is constantly brought up in almost every single SP article with the constant remarks about can SP equal SF's BO.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    mepal1 wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    smitty wrote: »
    RT has too much sway as it is seriously flawed in many ways. Minor critics with little to no following get equal sway with the top critics read by millions. And you're right, there are way to many US critics, particularly web critics. But the site has a lot of clout these days as it is regularly quoted all over the place. And it is going to burn SP I'm afraid.

    I honestly don't think reviews matter, at all, with Bond. DAD got 57%, CR 95, and QOS 65, and all three made pretty much the same amount at the US box office (160, 167, 168). Now its always nice when a Bond film like CR or SF does get glowing reviews, but its still meaningless. If critics had any sway, CR would have made much more money.

    Yes....that's true....its also with the case of America, i don't think the public there, knew what to make of Craig, as he was an unknown quantity, and there seemed to be some hesitancy from people to go and see the film initially.......i mean the opening weekend BO for CR was actually quite a bit down from DAD, ie $40 mil vs $47 mil. But the BO did pick up for CR quite a bit afterwards...........its just that the film had a so so start. Plus for some reason the Americans thought it was a better idea instead to go see a film about Penquins! ;)

    Hey hey!! Those penguins were cute and could sing. Craig didn't sing once in CR, so there..

    :P

    I just knew, one of our American members here, would respond to my comment! :)

    Sorry, we just got confused. The penguins were wearing tuxs and looked taller. :)
  • fanbond123fanbond123
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,661
    It seems American critics have an obvious dislike of the earlier Bond films. Sean Connery and Roger Moore are like those embarrassing relatives you try to avoid at weddings, funerals, and Christmas dinners. The ones you don't want to mention. "Oh no, we can't have a Bond film like those old ones with the campy Moore and the sexist Connery. Oh no, we don't mention them anymore."

    That's what some of the reviews feel like. Dismissive of James Bond's past, the legacy. Some anti-Craig Bond fans don't like his films because they don't feel they are proper Bond films. Many pro-Craig Bond fans like his films because they're a bit different to the older Bond films. Idealy, attempting a film which appeals to both camps of the fanbase makes sense! Many critics fail to realize this.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I have to admit, I'm taking the negative remarks about Moore's films in some SP reviews a bit to heart. What's wrong with Moore's films? Classic bona fide good natured romps I tell you......most of them.
  • smittysmitty
    Posts: 725
    Moore does not get enough credit for possibly saving the franchise. He was the sturdy bridge between Connery and the modern era of Bonds. His films fortified the long term success of the franchise. And he is a genuinely nice guy to boot.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Every time I go back and watch Moore's films, I like him more and more. He's most certainly one of my favorite Bonds, and he always managed to bring a lot of fun to the role.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    I have to admit, I'm taking the negative remarks about Moore's films in some SP reviews a bit to heart. What's wrong with Moore's films? Classic bona fide good natured romps I tell you......most of them.

    I know I grew up on Moore although the first Bond film I ever saw was YOLT.

    One can always argue convincingly that there are better Bonds but I have and will always have a special fondness for Moore's Bond.

  • jobojobo
    edited November 2015 Posts: 7,507
    It is like I said before. So many Spectre reviews are incredibly pretentious. Some reviewers are more interested in telling why they hate classic Bond than asessing the film as it is. Apparantly you show that you are a serious film critic by slamming the old school Bond as second rate, less intelligent film making or even vulgar. Spectre is bad per se because it followed the formula. The quality of the film making doesn't seem to factor in.

    Its pretty ridiculous. Why can't intelligent, intellectual people just sit back and be entertained? Why do every film have to be a psychological essay?
  • ZekidkZekidk
    Posts: 3,276
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    rottentomatoes.com/franchise/james-bond-007/?search=spec

    Just found this on RT. A chart of all James Bond movies.
    LTK has a higher score than TLD? WTF?!?
  • SirCLMDBCRaigSirCLMDBCRaig
    Posts: 205
    Zekidk wrote: »
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    rottentomatoes.com/franchise/james-bond-007/?search=spec

    Just found this on RT. A chart of all James Bond movies.
    LTK has a higher score than TLD? WTF?!?

    It's actually quite fascinating to see this list, in a franchise of 24 movies, only 6 of them are considered "rotten" and even then BARELY so. Even the movies we like to think of as "hated" like Moonraker (!00% with top critics), Die Another Day and Quntaum of Solace are doing quite well. The only thing I don't really agree with is Octopussy being rotten and somehow rated below DAD, TWINE and QOS.
  • ChampionAlonsoChampionAlonso
    edited November 2015 Posts: 389
    Rotten tomatoes is not a proper way to measure how good or bad is or was considered a movie filmed before late 90s. I believe that Thunderball was in some way criticized by the same reasons that SP and I am sure that LTK or OHMSS had mixed or even poor reviews.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    Just finished reading the very long and detailed Forbes review.

    First, if you haven't seen SP don't read it!

    I'm shocked about this review, while it is accurately describing the movie in many places, it almost always comes to the wrong conclusion.
    It's almost as if the reviewer just decided to dislike the movie and trying to construct arguments around that decision.

    In many ways, this is how I feel about those who dislike SF. They wanted to dislike it before ever entering the theater.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    TripAces wrote: »
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    Just finished reading the very long and detailed Forbes review.

    First, if you haven't seen SP don't read it!

    I'm shocked about this review, while it is accurately describing the movie in many places, it almost always comes to the wrong conclusion.
    It's almost as if the reviewer just decided to dislike the movie and trying to construct arguments around that decision.

    In many ways, this is how I feel about those who dislike SF. They wanted to dislike it before ever entering the theater.

    I wouldn't say that true for everyone that dislikes it.

    I'm not SF's biggest fan and I just cant understand all the excessive praise it gets. It's a decent film but many of the criticisms aimed at it are justified and many of the errors in the script could have been avoided and made to make more sense had they been a lot less careless in the writing department. Still, it's a good film but when people are calling it the best ever or hailing it with praise to high Heaven, that's just something I can't agree with nor understand.

  • MansfieldMansfield Where the hell have you been?
    Posts: 1,263
    Are there many other prominent blockbuster examples of a film that is review 15%+ greater by top critics than the rest of the dime a dozen critics? Traditionally, top critic scores are either on par with or slightly lower than average critic.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    "I'm not SF's biggest fan and I just cant understand all the excessive praise it gets."

    It resonates at an emotional level. If you don't feel that, then no worries but its not rocket science to see why it's popular. I hate 4 Weddings but I can understand it was a success. It pushes certain buttons
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Every time I go back and watch Moore's films, I like him more and more. He's most certainly one of my favorite Bonds, and he always managed to bring a lot of fun to the role.

    I feel the same. Every time I do a Bond-A-Thon I enjoy Moore's more and more. And Moore! He's great, truly, and got better as the films went on. Maybe the last couple were lower in quality overall but he was amazing.
Sign In or Register to comment.