Surprised at reception (not a review)

mishtabond · November 2015

I just saw an early US showing and really enjoyed myself despite seeing mixed reviews beforehand. They seem to be focused on the tone. In my opinion, the "slightly campish" moments are distinctive to Bond films and are elements that I gladly welcome back. Even still, I would consider Spectre to be a more serious film than 3/4 of the other Bond films.

Loeffelholz · November 2015

As I said over in the non-spoiler review thread: people just need to see the film and make up their own minds. Bond films aren't made for film critics, and they're not going to be perfect airtight plots where everything makes complete sense. None of the 24 Bond films are perfect, nor would any of them be able to hold a thousand gallons of water, without leaking, if they were aquarium tanks instead of fantastic, escapist art -{

"You can't ever forget that it's a Bond movie, that's the deal. As far as I'm concerned, if you remember that, everything else is on the table. You can still have characters that have a reality to them and react to each other in a real way, but it's a Bond movie first and foremost." - Daniel Craig, on this morning's 'Today' TV morning show.

I will see SPECTRE projected at least three times: the second time tomorrow afternoon, and probably a 3rd time Sunday evening. And I still have another son I'd like to see it with, so a fourth is not out of the question.

Agent Lee · November 2015

Just saw it. Loeff is right. Bond films aren't made for critics...that is to say, Bond films aren't made for critics who refuse to judge a movie on its own terms, which describes most film critics unfortunately. Was intending to post my first reaction to the movie elsewhere, but this is the perfect place to do it. I too am surprised, in a way, at the mixed reviews, given the incredibly positive response from the audience I was part of tonight. On the other hand, I'm not surprised that critics, who mostly raved about Skyfall, would give this one mixed/so-so reviews. The problem is, SPECTRE is NOT Skyfall. It's SPECTRE. Seems to me that 90% or more of critics giving this movie a so-so review are rating it in direct comparison with Skyfall, not on its own terms.

Penfold Heart · November 2015

Loeffelholz wrote:

As I said over in the non-spoiler review thread: people just need to see the film and make up their own minds. Bond films aren't made for film critics, and they're not going to be perfect airtight plots where everything makes complete sense. None of the 24 Bond films are perfect, nor would any of them be able to hold a thousand gallons of water, without leaking, if they were aquarium tanks instead of fantastic, escapist art -{

"You can't ever forget that it's a Bond movie, that's the deal. As far as I'm concerned, if you remember that, everything else is on the table. You can still have characters that have a reality to them and react to each other in a real way, but it's a Bond movie first and foremost." - Daniel Craig, on this morning's 'Today' TV morning show.

I will see SPECTRE projected at least three times: the second time tomorrow afternoon, and probably a 3rd time Sunday evening. And I still have another son I'd like to see it with, so a fourth is not out of the question.

I haven't seen it yet (going on Sunday)...but this I totally agree with -{

No one else can really tell you how much you may/ may not enjoy it.

Gala Brand · November 2015

As far as I can tell the four criticisms of the movie:

1 "I don't like James Bond films" (5%)

2. "I don't like James Bond" (5%)

3. "I don't like Daniel Craig" (5%)

4. "It's not as good as Skyfall" (20%).

For the first three categories the reviewer has no business reviewing the film because their mind is made up before they go in.

Whether it's as good as Skyfall is sort of irrelevant to how good Spectre is. One reviewer made a good point in that if Spectre were Craig's first Bond film it would be getting much better reviews, but, instead, it gets slagged for not being as good as CR or SF.

mishtabond · November 2015

@Loeffelholz/Lee/Gala agreed. This will probably go down as one my favorites -{

BIG TAM · November 2015

All good points. The Bond team are damned if they do, damned if they don't. A lot of po-faced critics (who have no understanding of the Bond genre, but try kackhandedly to appear so) went into this film prepared to dislike it. A friend of mine who didn't care for Craig's first three films but loves SPECTRE said we're in the era of Denial Craig. If the film exceeds its required $650million (God, is a mere profit not good enough anymore!?) then Sony & co will be on bended knee to have him back for a fifth film. If it 'underperforms' (how I hate movie biz-speak) he'll most likely be given the boot. What a fickle business this is. It breaks my heart to be a film-buff these days.

Loeffelholz · November 2015

I predict the box office will be huge---it won't top SF, but most other films across the genres won't either...

CmdrAtticus · November 2015

I've read that marketing costs for films like this are 50% of the total budget. When they said the film cost $300 m to make, I knew that meant the production was actually around half that. Marketing just doesn't mean the media ads. It also means putting on the premieres and paying for the travel and food and first class hotels for the director and the main cast. You can go through those millions real fast at that rate. That's why the film by itself has to make more that twice it's actual budget to turn a profit (and for the investors the quicker the better). It's why there is so much pressure for high profile projects like the Bond's to do really well in the first weekend and the following two weeks in each country. Once they clear that mark of what it costs, they can start breathing again.

Absolutely_Cart · November 2015

It's the least serious Craig film but more serious than the majority of Bond films.

Surprised at reception (not a review)

Comments