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

2456717

Comments

  • Posts: 6,601
    It will go up again.
    Audiences will embrace the more campy film, i am sure. And this is where the money comes from.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited October 2015 Posts: 8,410
    Germanlady wrote: »
    It will go up again.
    Audiences will embrace the more campy film, i am sure. And this is where the money comes from.

    I am having a hard to understanding whether the film IS campy or not. From reading the reviews it is hard to tell.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 1,092
    85 now with 27 reviews. It should stay around that range. I don't see anything dramatic happening with it. Having over a 7 on the rating is a very fine film. And yeah, having two very good Bond films in row... when was the last time that happened? I mean, I love QoS, but it's around 63%, barely Fresh. I think it was TLD through GE was the last time we had multiples in a row that were at least solid/good.
  • Posts: 3,336
    TLD-LTK-GE was a solid run
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited October 2015 Posts: 4,116
    I didn't like any of those.
  • Saw the review in Variety. Fairly high marks, except for the title theme, which was described as a "dreary, melody-averse theme song, thankfully the least propulsive thing here." Sorry to Sam Smith fans, but many on this website called it on the song from the get-go. Still, we such positivity coming in from many critics, the excitement is greater than ever.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 11,119
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    85 now with 27 reviews. It should stay around that range. I don't see anything dramatic happening with it. Having over a 7 on the rating is a very fine film. And yeah, having two very good Bond films in row... when was the last time that happened? I mean, I love QoS, but it's around 63%, barely Fresh. I think it was TLD and GE was the last two in row that were at least solid/good.

    I fully agree. This is another brassy Bond-flick with high marks. Fact! Now let's have a look at some figures:

    The four Brosnan-Bond films:
    --> IMDB: 7.2, RT: 82%, MetaCritic: 65% --> "GoldenEye"
    --> IMDB: 6.5, RT: 57%, MetaCritic: 56% --> "Tomorrow Never Dies"
    --> IMDB: 6.4, RT: 51%, MetaCritic: 59% --> "The World Is Not Enough"
    --> IMDB: 6.1, RT: 58%, MetaCritic: 56% --> "Die Another Day"

    The four Craig-Bond films:
    --> IMDB: 8.0, RT: 95%, MetaCritic: 81% --> "Casino Royale"
    --> IMDB: 6.7, RT: 65%, MetaCritic: 58% --> "Quantum Of Solace"
    --> IMDB: 7.8, RT: 93%, MetaCritic: 81% --> "SkyFall"
    --> IMDB: ????, RT: 86%, MetaCritic: 69% --> "SPECTRE"
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    We can pick through the minutiae of scores and ratings and people can try and suppress the positives, but the simple fact is, as the BBC headline reads, 'Five-star reviews greet new Bond movie'. Everybody, at home, at work, amongst friends is saying the same thing, 'SPECTRE is getting great reviews'. Because we're so embedded in this whole process we have a more acute outlook, but the wider consensus seems to be that this film is a resounding success.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    What do the reviews say about the plot? That's my biggest question mark about Spectre, now that we have answers on the score and GB
  • Posts: 1,092
    Here are some blurbs:

    --In many ways Spectre is the purest Bond experience of the Craig era.

    --In pure action adventure terms, Spectre delivers the goods, with plenty of revved-up supercar porn and several kinetic high-speed chase sequences on road, river and snowy mountain slope.

    --Some of the action is jaw-dropping.

    --A wealth of iconography - both incidental and integral - from the series' founding chapters is revived here, making "Spectre" a particular treat for 007 nerds, and a businesslike blast for everyone else.

    I really like this last one, since we can all agree we are Bond nerds here. :D
  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    We can pick through the minutiae of scores and ratings and people can try and suppress the positives, but the simple fact is, as the BBC headline reads, 'Five-star reviews greet new Bond movie'. Everybody, at home, at work, amongst friends is saying the same thing, 'SPECTRE is getting great reviews'. Because we're so embedded in this whole process we have a more acute outlook, but the wider consensus seems to be that this film is a resounding success.

    8-> =D>
  • Kermodes review on bbc radio 5 live at 2
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 4,617
    RT is meaningless to me compared to Kermode, he is my personal researcher. Loved his review of SF and cant wait till 2pm - this man just knows.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06j0c5q
    But they have guests from the cast and Kermode often does not do a full review when cast/director are present, we shall see
  • Posts: 582
    It's interesting how a lot of the media is comparing it to Skyfall - understandable given the money it took, but for me the Bond film that any needs to beat is Casino Royale, it's a far better Bond film than Skyfall.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 1,092
    Some more blurbs:

    -In many ways Spectre is the purest Bond experience of the Craig era.

    -For all its flaws, overreaching ambition and excessive running time, this is a prestige picture on a huge scale.

    -Digging into Bond history, returning director Sam Mendes has, against all the odds, delivered a film that at least matches, and perhaps even betters, Skyfall.

    -Spectre will go down as Craig's stab at going full-blown BOND - big, bold and a bit more like Roger Moore.

    Yep, shaping up to be his TB for sure. Very excite!
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Another summary (blurb) from Rotten Tomatoes:

    -Spectre nudges Daniel Craig's rebooted Bond closer to the glorious, action-driven spectacle of earlier entries, although it's admittedly reliant on established 007 formula.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm liking the comparisons to Roger Moore's films.

    After all these years, he is still the definitive larger than life Bond.
  • I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm liking the comparisons to Roger Moore's films.

    After all these years, he is still the definitive larger than life Bond.

    Thank God, the reviewer didn't say "more like Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore" or some here would have fits :))

    I wonder how this return to the "glorious action driven spectacle of earlier entries" (not my words) and more of Moore-like scenes will go down with the avid Craig-era fans that so despise that "glorious" past. That will be interesting to see.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.

    Sir Rog gets a bad rap around here. If you decide to go big (which they apparently have with SP), you inevitably draw comparisons to Moore, the master when it comes to these kinds of films. There's no shame in that. Moore at his best in TSWLM is brilliant. One can only hope Craig matches that in SP.
  • @bondjames
    Oh no, I don't give Sir Rog a bad rap at all, i like him as bond. Maybe it didn't come out right, i like RM doing RM, i'm not fond of the idea of DC doing RM if you sort of understand what i mean? (i might not of explained great, i apologise)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    @bondjames
    Oh no, I don't give Sir Rog a bad rap at all, i like him as bond. Maybe it didn't come out right, i like RM doing RM, i'm not fond of the idea of DC doing RM if you sort of understand what i mean? (i might not of explained great, i apologise)

    No apology needed. I understood your point. Some reviewers may be commenting on/referencing it in a negative fashion however (I've avoided reading the reviews but normally when RM's name is mentioned these days it's because the film is too comedic or slap stick). I didn't think you were deriding him though.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Metascore is still at 69% with only 11 reviews.

    Are they that slow??

    RT has already incorporated 30 reviews and is standing at 7.0 average critic rating with fresh/rotten ratio of 87%
  • Posts: 11,119
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.

    I think we need to compare the reign of Craig entirely with Sean Connery and his first 4/5 Bond films.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited October 2015 Posts: 2,138


    doubleoego wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    As they say, 'lightning doesn't strike twice', especially after 53 years and 24 films, so the simple fact that SP is getting decent and some brilliant reviews is a great sign IMO. It was always unlikely it was going to best SF; hitting the cultural zeitgeist twice in a row is the reserve of successful new trilogies, not stalwarts of cinema. If this were after QoS it would be regarded as a masterpiece no doubt. Everything is relative.

    Exactly!

    Some of these reviewers have missed the point of what Mendes wanted to achieve. He didn't want to make SF2, he wanted to make a very different movie that celebrates Bond as opposed to exploring the impact of emotional depths. Looks like Mendes etc al succeeded and now more than ever I'm convinced and still hoping some of the reviews that say it's better than SF and in par with CR hold true.

    =D> That's it. All I will say to people is don't judge, CR, QOS, Skyfall and Spectre on their own. Watch them like they are one big film, they will have a bit of everything a long running story and Spectre will connect the dots. Skyfall was necessary to lay the ground for Bond, a phoenix from the flames reborn in Spectre smarter, stronger and better. His immature ways of CR are behind him, his grief for Vesper after QOS passing he's thrown himself in to the job and is now the Bond we all know.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.

    I think we need to compare the reign of Craig entirely with Sean Connery and his first 4/5 Bond films.

    I second that
  • Posts: 11,119
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.

    I think we need to compare the reign of Craig entirely with Sean Connery and his first 4/5 Bond films.

    I second that

    Let's face it. Sean Connery does "DN", a rather gritty, but still suave and exotic spy movie. I think "CR" is like that too, although it has a nice "FRWL"esque flavour to it as well.

    Sean Connery's 2nd outing is perhaps his most gritty, violent Bond film. "FRWL" is a true Fleming-esque/Hitchcock-ian spy thriller. Devoid of lush casinos, palm trees. And we all know "QOS" is Craig's most violent Bond film.

    Craig's outing in "SF" in a way has a gripping spy story, with a FRWL-esque McGuffin (the harddrive), but it does explore the emotional debts we saw in "OHMSS", and perhaps also in Connery's "GF".

    Then Connery returned in his 4th Bond outing "TB", which was celebrated as the biggest Bond of all, but already getting some mild critiques that "FRWL" and "GF" didn't receive. But obviously Connery was at his funniest in this film. Completely devoid of angst or fear. I think we'll get that from Daniel Craig in "SP". With a "YOLT"-esque volcano.

    Off course some comparisons are a bit farfetched, and there are a lot of differences between Connery's first 4 films and Craig's first four films. "QOS" wasn't as good as we hoped for. But in return we did get better chronology and movies that are better knitted together with continuity and plot.

    But bottomline is: I really try to think that Daniel Craig kicked off an entire new timeline, that leaves the door wide open for perhaps a 5th or 6th outing with Craig. Or what about one single outing with Tom Hardy in Bond #25, and then Craig returns for one final time?
    So please no reboots anymore. Now go on with the flow. We already had some tense, gritty, Oscar-heavy Bond films. Don't try to top that. Just bring in some more 'fun', like I mentioned this topic:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13322/realistic-serious-story-ideas-for-bond-25-to-be-used-by-eon-productions-ltd#latest

    With Daniel Craig? I sincerely hope so. Without Craig? Then the next Bond-actor need to be a good follow-up of Craig. But he can't enjoy the same wishes for a big reboot molded around his wishes. He needs to be Bond in the timeline that Craig kicked off.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.

    I think we need to compare the reign of Craig entirely with Sean Connery and his first 4/5 Bond films.

    I second that

    Let's face it. Sean Connery does "DN", a rather gritty, but still suave and exotic spy movie. I think "CR" is like that too, although it has a nice "FRWL"esque flavour to it as well.

    Sean Connery's 2nd outing is perhaps his most gritty, violent Bond film. "FRWL" is a true Fleming-esque/Hitchcock-ian spy thriller. Devoid of lush casinos, palm trees. And we all know "QOS" is Craig's most violent Bond film.

    Craig's outing in "SF" in a way has a gripping spy story, with a FRWL-esque McGuffin (the harddrive), but it does explore the emotional debts we saw in "OHMSS", and perhaps also in Connery's "GF".

    Then Connery returned in his 4th Bond outing "TB", which was celebrated as the biggest Bond of all, but already getting some mild critiques that "FRWL" and "GF" didn't receive. But obviously Connery was at his funniest in this film. Completely devoid of angst or fear. I think we'll get that from Daniel Craig in "SP". With a "YOLT"-esque volcano.

    Off course some comparisons are a bit farfetched, and there are a lot of differences between Connery's first 4 films and Craig's first four films. "QOS" wasn't as good as we hoped for. But in return we did get better chronology and movies that are better knitted together with continuity and plot.

    But bottomline is: I really try to think that Daniel Craig kicked off an entire new timeline, that leaves the door wide open for perhaps a 5th or 6th outing with Craig. Or what about one single outing with Tom Hardy in Bond #25, and then Craig returns for one final time?
    So please no reboots anymore. Now go on with the flow. We already had some tense, gritty, Oscar-heavy Bond films. Don't try to top that. Just bring in some more 'fun', like I mentioned this topic:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13322/realistic-serious-story-ideas-for-bond-25-to-be-used-by-eon-productions-ltd#latest

    With Daniel Craig? I sincerely hope so. Without Craig? Then the next Bond-actor need to be a good follow-up of Craig. But he can't enjoy the same wishes for a big reboot molded around his wishes. He needs to be Bond in the timeline that Craig kicked off.

    I agree ..except I'm a bit more ambivalent to Craig returning.

    I'm a big Craig fan though.

  • Posts: 11,119
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.

    I think we need to compare the reign of Craig entirely with Sean Connery and his first 4/5 Bond films.

    I second that

    Let's face it. Sean Connery does "DN", a rather gritty, but still suave and exotic spy movie. I think "CR" is like that too, although it has a nice "FRWL"esque flavour to it as well.

    Sean Connery's 2nd outing is perhaps his most gritty, violent Bond film. "FRWL" is a true Fleming-esque/Hitchcock-ian spy thriller. Devoid of lush casinos, palm trees. And we all know "QOS" is Craig's most violent Bond film.

    Craig's outing in "SF" in a way has a gripping spy story, with a FRWL-esque McGuffin (the harddrive), but it does explore the emotional debts we saw in "OHMSS", and perhaps also in Connery's "GF".

    Then Connery returned in his 4th Bond outing "TB", which was celebrated as the biggest Bond of all, but already getting some mild critiques that "FRWL" and "GF" didn't receive. But obviously Connery was at his funniest in this film. Completely devoid of angst or fear. I think we'll get that from Daniel Craig in "SP". With a "YOLT"-esque volcano.

    Off course some comparisons are a bit farfetched, and there are a lot of differences between Connery's first 4 films and Craig's first four films. "QOS" wasn't as good as we hoped for. But in return we did get better chronology and movies that are better knitted together with continuity and plot.

    But bottomline is: I really try to think that Daniel Craig kicked off an entire new timeline, that leaves the door wide open for perhaps a 5th or 6th outing with Craig. Or what about one single outing with Tom Hardy in Bond #25, and then Craig returns for one final time?
    So please no reboots anymore. Now go on with the flow. We already had some tense, gritty, Oscar-heavy Bond films. Don't try to top that. Just bring in some more 'fun', like I mentioned this topic:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13322/realistic-serious-story-ideas-for-bond-25-to-be-used-by-eon-productions-ltd#latest

    With Daniel Craig? I sincerely hope so. Without Craig? Then the next Bond-actor need to be a good follow-up of Craig. But he can't enjoy the same wishes for a big reboot molded around his wishes. He needs to be Bond in the timeline that Craig kicked off.

    I agree ..except I'm a bit more ambivalent to Craig returning.

    I'm a big Craig fan though.

    I also want Craig to return. But.....hearing recent interviews. Also those of yesterday and today...Daniel Craig is talking with so many sigh's in his voice :-(.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    shaigh1991 wrote: »
    I'm not liking the comparisons to the Roger Moore films at all @bondjames haha. I agree @tigers99, i don't think he has topped CR or come close tbh.

    I think we need to compare the reign of Craig entirely with Sean Connery and his first 4/5 Bond films.

    I second that

    Let's face it. Sean Connery does "DN", a rather gritty, but still suave and exotic spy movie. I think "CR" is like that too, although it has a nice "FRWL"esque flavour to it as well.

    Sean Connery's 2nd outing is perhaps his most gritty, violent Bond film. "FRWL" is a true Fleming-esque/Hitchcock-ian spy thriller. Devoid of lush casinos, palm trees. And we all know "QOS" is Craig's most violent Bond film.

    Craig's outing in "SF" in a way has a gripping spy story, with a FRWL-esque McGuffin (the harddrive), but it does explore the emotional debts we saw in "OHMSS", and perhaps also in Connery's "GF".

    Then Connery returned in his 4th Bond outing "TB", which was celebrated as the biggest Bond of all, but already getting some mild critiques that "FRWL" and "GF" didn't receive. But obviously Connery was at his funniest in this film. Completely devoid of angst or fear. I think we'll get that from Daniel Craig in "SP". With a "YOLT"-esque volcano.

    Off course some comparisons are a bit farfetched, and there are a lot of differences between Connery's first 4 films and Craig's first four films. "QOS" wasn't as good as we hoped for. But in return we did get better chronology and movies that are better knitted together with continuity and plot.

    But bottomline is: I really try to think that Daniel Craig kicked off an entire new timeline, that leaves the door wide open for perhaps a 5th or 6th outing with Craig. Or what about one single outing with Tom Hardy in Bond #25, and then Craig returns for one final time?
    So please no reboots anymore. Now go on with the flow. We already had some tense, gritty, Oscar-heavy Bond films. Don't try to top that. Just bring in some more 'fun', like I mentioned this topic:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13322/realistic-serious-story-ideas-for-bond-25-to-be-used-by-eon-productions-ltd#latest

    With Daniel Craig? I sincerely hope so. Without Craig? Then the next Bond-actor need to be a good follow-up of Craig. But he can't enjoy the same wishes for a big reboot molded around his wishes. He needs to be Bond in the timeline that Craig kicked off.

    I agree ..except I'm a bit more ambivalent to Craig returning.

    I'm a big Craig fan though.

    I also want Craig to return. But.....hearing recent interviews. Also those of yesterday and today...Daniel Craig is talking with so many sigh's in his voice :-(.

    I want Craig to return to but if his heart isn't into it then no.

    I guess I'm not truly ambivalent ...just unsure.
Sign In or Register to comment.