Lol HighHopes and Dan Same, glad ur inquisitive too, I thought it was just me being Thick !!! ha ha
The reason I ask is that I think I know what he might be referring to, in which case it doesn't strike me so much as a cliche as it does a perfectly natural thing to do under the circumstances.
So if anyone know, PM me. I don't care about spoilers.
IMO, it's good to have a few negative reviews. Otherwise, I have a fear that my expectations would be raised so high that they would inevitably be dashed when I actually watch the film.
BTW, I won't dismiss this review just because it is less than glowing. I agree with the critic that Chris Cornell's theme song is "shockingly bland". Also, he pointed out something that I've been worried about ever since the approach that the Bond producers planned to use for CR became clear. They were going to forgo the traditional glamorous aspect of Bond's world ("a fantasy world that we would like to escape to", to quote this critic) in favor of a gritty, back-to-basics, Bourne-like approach. I'm not saying that's a mistake. It can work, but you'd better be able to deliver a real, raw, visceral experience at least up to the Bourne level. Otherwise, you'd end up with a product that is somewhere in between, neither defiantly fantastic nor excitingly realistic. I haven't seen the film, so for all I know, the CR team may have pulled this difficult trick off. I do like the trailer, so I'll go to the theater with an optimistic mindset, and we'll see what happens.
Well I guess it had to happen, with all the positive reviews out there. I bet the critic felt he to stand out from the rest and give a negative review just so that he would get noticed.
Or is it possible that this particular critic simply didn't like the film? Why can't we just accept that he didn't like it? You can't please everyone, and the negative reviews are bound to come in along with positive reviews. Besides, if we go along with your theory, then we can also apply it from another perspective: the batch of good reviews were written by people who felt they needed to stand out from the cloud of negativity that's been looming over this film since Craig was announced as Bond in October 2005. But the reality is, this film is bound to get mixed reviews. Everyone simply has their own view of what a Bond film should be.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Well I guess it had to happen, with all the positive reviews out there. I bet the critic felt he to stand out from the rest and give a negative review just so that he would get noticed.
Or is it possible that this particular critic simply didn't like the film? Why can't we just accept that he didn't like it? You can't please everyone, and the negative reviews are bound to come in along with positive reviews. Besides, if we go along with your theory, then we can also apply it from another perspective: the batch of good reviews were written by people who felt they needed to stand out from the cloud of negativity that's been looming over this film since Craig was announced as Bond in October 2005. But the reality is, this film is bound to get mixed reviews. Everyone simply has their own view of what a Bond film should be.
Very true. Human nature will have the typical Craig/CR hater trying to shoot holes in positive reviews, and conversely Craig/CR supporters will try to shoot holes in negative ones.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited November 2006
I certainly wouldn't dispute the validity of this review, as it does ring true. The paradox is that most of what Cosmo doesn't like is exactly what I want in my Bond
In fact, my biggest concern is also something about which I'm excited: because of its faithfulness to the spirit and intent of the novel, it shares a particular structural flaw---a comparatively leisurely-paced Act 3, the romantic 'coda,' as it were...this makes it vulnerable to criticism of overall length. Running time isn't a problem for me, as I also enjoy OHMSS' epic nature. I suspect this will be similar in that regard.
Even those critics who disagree with the formula-tampering, grittiness, reboot, etc., still seem enthusastic about the performance, however---which has to be gratifying
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Don’t bother. James Bond is dead, and no new face can hide the fact that Casino Royale is the same old tosh the producers of the Bond franchise have been serving up since the glory days of the 1960s.
I take that back. Actually, we have here a new and inferior type of tosh.
I agree with some earlier posts, it sounds like this guy just doesn't really like Bond films. But on the positive side is does seem that everyone is giving Craig good reviews. Can't wait to see the film.:)
"A blunt instrument wielded by a Government department. Hard, ruthless, sardonic, fatalistic. He likes gambling, golf, fast motor cars. All his movements are relaxed and economical". Ian Fleming
Well I guess it had to happen, with all the positive reviews out there. I bet the critic felt he to stand out from the rest and give a negative review just so that he would get noticed.
Or is it possible that this particular critic simply didn't like the film? Why can't we just accept that he didn't like it? You can't please everyone, and the negative reviews are bound to come in along with positive reviews. Besides, if we go along with your theory, then we can also apply it from another perspective: the batch of good reviews were written by people who felt they needed to stand out from the cloud of negativity that's been looming over this film since Craig was announced as Bond in October 2005. But the reality is, this film is bound to get mixed reviews. Everyone simply has their own view of what a Bond film should be.
Very true. Human nature will have the typical Craig/CR hater trying to shoot holes in positive reviews, and conversely Craig/CR supporters will try to shoot holes in negative ones.
I don't think he meant all Bonds are tosh, just the recent ones, which is many a fan's opinion on this site. I think he's quoted as saying the last good Bond was in 1977.
Now bear in mind many hate Moonraker, and the creaky Moore years, then that Dalton wasn't everyone's cup of tea, and that Brosnan's underpeformed (but not commercially) and it doesn't seem such a terrible or outrageous claim...
I am amazed at the literary skill of a Times reviewer.
This is like one of those situations where the review just serves to encourage me that this film will be everything I hope it will. I am concerned about scripting issues as some of the recent films have been weak in this area. But I am prepared to wait and see on this.
What I would say is that not all bond films are the same old format and there are too few bond films that stand out from the others. OHMSS was one and it is either a favourate or hated. This film needs to be different, more back to basics, harder hitting. You can't keep churning out classic villans and with a global domination compleex and house in a volcanoe every other film. Sometimes it's actually time for a FYEO, one of the few Rodger Moore films I really liked. Each actors first film has been noteworthy in the least and brilliant at best. I look forward to Daniel making his mark wherever that is.
The problem is that the ludicrously monickered reviewer suggests he already disliked the film before even seeing it, therefore his review is too biased. The best film critics are those who try to be as objective as is humanly possible - remember that filmmaking is a mostly technical process and there are certain standards that can be judged objectively by the right people.
Still, I wouldn't worry about a review by someone called Cosmo, especially someone called Cosmo who writes for a newspaper hardly anyone reads.
Were they terrorists too, or just unfortunate darkies who happened to be in Bond’s way? We never know. Could you have a hero slaughter an entire embassy of white people? I doubt it.
Actually, it would probably be easier to get away with killing an embassy full of white people. Ever heard of the LA riots?
Sorry, Moonraker 5. I didn't mean to sound like I was quoting you. It was the Sunday Times critic I was quoting.
I thought that was a strange remark, as well. Of course, the irony is that it wasn't too long ago that an African embassy would have been full of white people. Many would consider it a measure of progress that it was not.
remember that filmmaking is a mostly technical process and there are certain standards that can be judged objectively by the right people.
That's not necessarily true. Although much of filmmaking is technical, it is still an artform which elicits a different emotional response in different people. Roger Ebert, a critic I have a love/hate relationship with , has always said that cinema is about feeling. That is not to say that all great films bring out emotion in the viewer, but rather a person's reaction to a film may vary. Also, although there are technical aspects which may be objective (the quality of the special effects in Terminator 2 for example), how these technical aspects are brought together and how they compliment other (non-technical) aspects is quite subjective. Also, considering that most reviewers utilise precedent and comparison, evaluating technical aspects may be less than objective. It is widely acknowledged that the visual effects in The Matrix was excellent, but was it superior to Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace which was released the same year?
Ultimately, cinematic analysis is subjective. Yes, a critic must always attempt to back up their arguments or explain why they dis/liked certain aspects, but unlike in mathematics, we are not dealing with a medium in which 1+1 always equals 2. In cinema 1+1 may sometimes equal 3.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Were they terrorists too, or just unfortunate darkies who happened to be in Bond’s way?
He actually used the word . . . "darkies"? If that article had been printed in the US, that man would have had every civil rights group on his tail. Jeez!
Only cos they don't have irony in the US! He's satirising the implied racism...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
The reason I ask is that I think I know what he might be referring to, in which case it doesn't strike me so much as a cliche as it does a perfectly natural thing to do under the circumstances.
So if anyone know, PM me. I don't care about spoilers.
BTW, I won't dismiss this review just because it is less than glowing. I agree with the critic that Chris Cornell's theme song is "shockingly bland". Also, he pointed out something that I've been worried about ever since the approach that the Bond producers planned to use for CR became clear. They were going to forgo the traditional glamorous aspect of Bond's world ("a fantasy world that we would like to escape to", to quote this critic) in favor of a gritty, back-to-basics, Bourne-like approach. I'm not saying that's a mistake. It can work, but you'd better be able to deliver a real, raw, visceral experience at least up to the Bourne level. Otherwise, you'd end up with a product that is somewhere in between, neither defiantly fantastic nor excitingly realistic. I haven't seen the film, so for all I know, the CR team may have pulled this difficult trick off. I do like the trailer, so I'll go to the theater with an optimistic mindset, and we'll see what happens.
Very true. Human nature will have the typical Craig/CR hater trying to shoot holes in positive reviews, and conversely Craig/CR supporters will try to shoot holes in negative ones.
In fact, my biggest concern is also something about which I'm excited: because of its faithfulness to the spirit and intent of the novel, it shares a particular structural flaw---a comparatively leisurely-paced Act 3, the romantic 'coda,' as it were...this makes it vulnerable to criticism of overall length. Running time isn't a problem for me, as I also enjoy OHMSS' epic nature. I suspect this will be similar in that regard.
Even those critics who disagree with the formula-tampering, grittiness, reboot, etc., still seem enthusastic about the performance, however---which has to be gratifying
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I agree with some earlier posts, it sounds like this guy just doesn't really like Bond films. But on the positive side is does seem that everyone is giving Craig good reviews. Can't wait to see the film.:)
Not all of them.
What? That Bond films in general are tosh....???
Now bear in mind many hate Moonraker, and the creaky Moore years, then that Dalton wasn't everyone's cup of tea, and that Brosnan's underpeformed (but not commercially) and it doesn't seem such a terrible or outrageous claim...
Though I meant the review rang true...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I am amazed at the literary skill of a Times reviewer.
This is like one of those situations where the review just serves to encourage me that this film will be everything I hope it will. I am concerned about scripting issues as some of the recent films have been weak in this area. But I am prepared to wait and see on this.
What I would say is that not all bond films are the same old format and there are too few bond films that stand out from the others. OHMSS was one and it is either a favourate or hated. This film needs to be different, more back to basics, harder hitting. You can't keep churning out classic villans and with a global domination compleex and house in a volcanoe every other film. Sometimes it's actually time for a FYEO, one of the few Rodger Moore films I really liked. Each actors first film has been noteworthy in the least and brilliant at best. I look forward to Daniel making his mark wherever that is.
Eyes
Still, I wouldn't worry about a review by someone called Cosmo, especially someone called Cosmo who writes for a newspaper hardly anyone reads.
I thought that was a strange remark, as well. Of course, the irony is that it wasn't too long ago that an African embassy would have been full of white people. Many would consider it a measure of progress that it was not.
Ultimately, cinematic analysis is subjective. Yes, a critic must always attempt to back up their arguments or explain why they dis/liked certain aspects, but unlike in mathematics, we are not dealing with a medium in which 1+1 always equals 2. In cinema 1+1 may sometimes equal 3.
Only cos they don't have irony in the US!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Well of course he is! You don't honestly think a journo in a national paper would say that and mean it?!
Why don't you post a review, then? Or at least tell us why.
Ah, my bad, thanks. I hope I don't feel the way you do after seeing it.
No irony in the US?
Certainly isn't true when I'm there... :v
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM