It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Just pointing out that it's become a bit of a stereotypical online echo chamber in here. The same (only occasionally substantiated) claims made endlessly to a chorus of uncritical agreement.
I don't mind the criticism of SP, it's the idea (now seemingly established as an alternative fact) that the film was an unmitigated disaster.
When adjusted for inflation, Spectre comes out as the fourth most successful Bond film ever. @Getafix is quite right, commercially, to say Spectre was far from a disaster. Commercially it was very much a success.
not sure who is calling it a 'critical failure'... i know i didn't... but the fact are the facts - it just wasn't as well received by critics, as much as CR and SF were - the numbers clearly indicate that.. and if you are basing your assertion that it was a rapturously critical success, because that suits your argument - fine, but thats gerrymandering the numbers.. it currently sits at a 63% on RT, an 6.8 on IMDB, and a Metacritic score of 60/100........ it was critically mediocre..
Is that #4 in worldwide gross? If so, I didn’t realize it fared as well as that. For all its irritating flaws, Spectre is still a damn good Bond film up to the torture scene. And those flaws have not kept me from seeing the film at least 50 times over the past two years.
At the time of its release UK critics were pretty unanimously positive about it. It was the US critics who were more lukewarm to the film.
Below are some of the VERY enthusiastic UK reviews at time of the film's release
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/21/spectre-review-james-bond-is-back-stylish-camp-and-sexily-pro-snowden
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/25/spectre-review-another-stellar-outing-for-bond-mark-kermode
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/james-bond-spectre/review/
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/spectre-film-review-an-exhilarating-james-bond-spectacle-that-really-didn-t-need-to-add-depth-a6703591.html
https://www.empireonline.com/movies/spectre/review/
IMO... not an unmitigated disaster - i like it... but it had it's problems that hold it back.. it very well had the potential to be better than SF, and be considered in that top upper echelon of Bond films - it ticked a lot of the Bond boxes that i want in a Bond movie... but it felt about 15-20 minutes too long, a tacked on 2nd ending that should've been condensed into a better finale, was a thematic rehash of SF (almost step for step).. the whole i trust you, i don't trust you crap between M and Bond is getting really old.. had a completely superfluous villain (C), and a pointless plot device that only serves to weaken the main villain, than add meaningful context.
This was a bit out of the blue from Babs back in September https://www.avclub.com/bond-25-producer-barbara-broccoli-says-of-course-shed-1807473786
Well Bigelow has already turned them down once.
https://www.mi6-hq.com/news/kathryn-bigelow-was-asked-to-direct-a-james-bond-film-170803
Wise remark @Getafix :-). I wholeheartedly agree.
No. I don't parrot anyone. And I don't see any chemistry between Craig and Seydoux.
For many years, Eon screen-tested the lead actors using the FRWL scene. I have no idea if they continue to do that (or if Seydoux is of a stature where she doesn't need to screen-test), but they should. Craig has more chemistry with White than Swann! (That's perhaps unfair, as I believe Christensen is one of the best actors ever to grace the series.)
In general, I find the casting of SP uninspired, particularly the so-obvious-it's-boring choice of Waltz. The good actors were the holdovers from previous films.
SP also has serious pacing issues. CR and OHMSS, while long, had compelling stories, beginning to end. SP didn't.
I'll be disappointed if Mendes gets a third shot.
Anyone with only two cents worth of brain would have. Obviously there was no one around at EON and the production team.
BTW, the average viewer sees it as boring, boring and boring.
No it wasn't. Sure it made lots of money, but they have yet to produce a Bond flic that doesn't.
But most of all, as I have related a few times before, I have yet to meet anyone who wasn't bored by that movie. And those are the friendly comments!
DAD was commercially successful and look what happened - Devoid of any creative competence, the removal of their very popular leading man and a 4 year hiatus.
EoN aren't going to hear anything negative about SF. It was s huge critical and commercial success. SP OTOH was a messy joke. They F'd up in a very colossal and pronounced way. For all the goodwill and hard work CR re-established SO what all over it in the most careless and worse way possible. Urgh.
I watched an interview the other day where he said a similar thing after Skyfall in making Spectre. I.e. wanting to top the last one - which is what Bond personnel say with every Bond film - so you might not be able to read too much into that.
again - thats easy chemistry, because as actors and characters, they 2 previous films together in the franchise (CR, QOS).. their characters had history with one another... when it came to Bond and Swann, they were trying to cram too much into too little... again, thats writing and pacing... but, if your saying it's more than that, it's their general acting off one another, then i think we'll have to just agree to disagree.. i've seen far worse chemistry between Bond and his leading lady than Craig and Seydoux - right off the bat, 3 come straight out of the Brosnan era.
You don't have to say "Mrs. James Cameron" anymore (nor should ever have had to).
Okay, but what about the Craig era?
i haven't really seen "poor chemistry" in his era yet... i think the closest they got IMO towards poor chemistry, was with Olga in QOS - but their relationship wasn't meant to be a romantic one (sans that awkward kiss at the end), they had a more symbiotic relationship in that film... there wasn't enough time with Fields in QOS to establish any good or bad chemistry IMO, she was just "there"..
when i think of poor chemistry, i think of Broz and Halle Berry, or Broz and Denise Richards, or even Broz and Terri Hatcher.. the the acting talent between those 3 actresses couldn't fill a thimble... it was stunt casting.
"Complete failure"? This is just hyperbole that undercuts any valid points you are making.
Also regarding the previous comment the idea SP is comparable to DAD is laughable.
It just underlines what I said previously which is that valid criticism of SP has turned into an echo chamber of alternative facts where SP is amongst the worst in the series and a total failure.
Exactly.
"Also regarding the previous comment the idea SP is comparable to DAD is laughable."
It certainly is. Simply because DAD is so much better to watch. Say what you want about it( and you're probably true with much of it )but one thing it is not guilty off. It is not boring. It takes you on a ride from the first minute to the last without anyone ever getting dour in it. It also never pretends to be more than a Bond movie. Oh God, I miss these days!
Let me also add that back in 2002 I met many that made jokes about that tsunami scene, but no one said it was a bad - let alone boring - movie. Just the opposite in fact. Everybody felt greatly entertained.