A reason for the mixed reviews?
Bmorelli11
Posts: 197MI6 Agent
I think one of the reasons that Spectre has been met with lukewarm reviews here in the States is because how the much more serious tone of trailer(s) is not necessarily what was delivered in the final film. With Daniel’s tenure as Bond we’ve come to expect a much more “gritty” “real” “grounded” version of Bond; and I think that’s what was presented in the trailers.
I remember watching the teaser trailer for the first time and being blown away! A solitary bond on a boat in Austria, “you’re a kite dancing in a hurricane, Mr. Bond,” very dark music and the line “finally here we are,” delivered by a figure looming in the shadows; it adds up to something epic!
Certainly all of those elements are present in the movie, but so are: Bond landing on the couch, a toggle switch with 009’s music selection in the DB10, the Fiat airbag, “we don’t serve alcohol,” and I’m sure there are one or two more I’m forgetting. While I don’t mind a little humor, it shouldn’t detract from Bond being the most suave, in-control man on the planet. I have trouble imagining Largo tossing Bond a shotgun in Thunderball and Bond missing the clay pigeon (or worse yet not having the gun loaded a la the DB10’s).
The guys on the James Bond Radio podcast, which is brilliant, talk in terms of “Sean’s Bond” or “Roger’s Bond” to define each actor’s portrayal of the character. As an audience we’ve come to expect certain things from “Daniel’s Bond,” things that were reinforced in the trailers. Couple too many “jokes” with a pretty weak act three and it adds up to the mixed US reviews.
I’m a huge Bond fan just like the rest of you and I enjoyed Spectre. I enjoy Daniel as Bond, I hope he returns I just hope the tone returns to that which was established in his first three films.
First Teaser Trailer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ashLaclKCik
I remember watching the teaser trailer for the first time and being blown away! A solitary bond on a boat in Austria, “you’re a kite dancing in a hurricane, Mr. Bond,” very dark music and the line “finally here we are,” delivered by a figure looming in the shadows; it adds up to something epic!
Certainly all of those elements are present in the movie, but so are: Bond landing on the couch, a toggle switch with 009’s music selection in the DB10, the Fiat airbag, “we don’t serve alcohol,” and I’m sure there are one or two more I’m forgetting. While I don’t mind a little humor, it shouldn’t detract from Bond being the most suave, in-control man on the planet. I have trouble imagining Largo tossing Bond a shotgun in Thunderball and Bond missing the clay pigeon (or worse yet not having the gun loaded a la the DB10’s).
The guys on the James Bond Radio podcast, which is brilliant, talk in terms of “Sean’s Bond” or “Roger’s Bond” to define each actor’s portrayal of the character. As an audience we’ve come to expect certain things from “Daniel’s Bond,” things that were reinforced in the trailers. Couple too many “jokes” with a pretty weak act three and it adds up to the mixed US reviews.
I’m a huge Bond fan just like the rest of you and I enjoyed Spectre. I enjoy Daniel as Bond, I hope he returns I just hope the tone returns to that which was established in his first three films.
First Teaser Trailer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ashLaclKCik
You're that English secret agent from England | Instagram: @matchedperfectly | Web: www.matchedperfectly.us
Comments
The reason for my mixed opinion on the film is largely the overall plot and themes presented in the movie, which I felt could have been better built upon. I never got emotionally invested in any of the characters and whatever point it was trying to make with Franz/Bond's personal connection, it never resonated with me.
The principal complaints against SP, particularly among American critics, seem to be 1) That it isn't SF, and 2) that it is a James Bond film (and I'm only being half facetious). Not every film (let alone every Bond film!) is going to be the Biggest Hit in British Film HistoryTM...and a vast majority of American film critics simply don't like or appreciate the Bond franchise, looking down their collective nose at films which---at their core---merely aim to be smashing pieces of grand escapist entertainment.
I can't really speak to expectations created by the trailers, as I've been a Bond fan all my life and have my own built-in set of expectations. Like most Bonds, SP is big, fun and a bit flawed. I enjoyed it all three times I've seen it thus far!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
After CR, the Eon tried to make a regular 007 film in QoS. However, the film was not directed well as its action sequences were inspired by Bourne films. Next came Skyfall and it brought something different. SPECTRE, unlike what many like to believe, is not a regular Bond film too (yes, it has a few references to old Bond films from Sean and Roger's era but that's cosmetic). With a name like SPECTRE, many would have hoped that it would be like the traditional Bond films.
First, action and stunts take the backstage. There are hardly any memorable stunts in the film. The helicopter sequence could have come from any action film. The car chase was good but not that great. The fight sequence in the train appears to be more like the need to add something at that point to remind viewers that this is an action film as well.
Second, the background music is not that great. It does the job but when you walk out, you would not find yourself humming any of the tunes in your head. The music is more Bourne like where it is trying to create an urgency.
Third, there is extensive focus is on "telling" the story which has a few side tracks as well. I like that however it may not go down well with everyone.
Coming back to the trailer, many casual viewers were not impressed by it.
I do agree that the trailer was darker than the movie, and had I not read an interview from Craig which said that movies Live and Let Die influenced Spectre, I may have been surprised. But I can't say my mixed feelings about the movie were because of the camp (because some of my favorite Bond movies are comedic). The main objection I have with the trailer is that it made the movie sound more cryptic than it was.
"Bond, you have a secret that no one else must know". Is it that Bond and Franz are brothers? Is it that Franz is secretly Blofeld? Wow.. That wasn't too hard to figure out. No, no, EON wouldn't do that. They must have something else up their sleeve. Please, do something else. Please. -- Oh... dear lord... Bond and Blofeld are brothers.
Casino Royale has a higher Rotten Tomatoes rating than Gone With The Wind, so whatever prejudices the critics had against the Bond franchise were purged a decade ago. The problem I think the critics have with Spectre is that (1) it tries to go in two incompatible directions: the gags & gadgets of the RM/PB years and further down the "scarred childhood" backstory rabbit hole of Skyfall; and (2) it doesn't succeed at either.
CR and SF got Bond audiences - new and old - to buy into the Craig Bond who "doesn't give a damn" about how his martini is prepared and an MI6 that eschews exploding pens. So when in Spectre we see the couch and the airbag it comes across as the writers being lazy rather than as simply the newest twist on old tropes. The character's best bit of humor in SP is the mouse, which works because it's Bond letting his guard down rather than a sight gag.
The foster-brother plotline comes across as more laziness (Weren't The Empire Strikes Back, The Dark Knight Rises, Star Trek Into Darkness and Goldmember enough? And shouldn't the protagonist be fully formed by the fourth film?). The two contradictory paths collide disastrously in the torture scene.
In this respect, Spectre returns to much of the formula -- to me, in a reasonable way -- but to audiences who for the past decade have come to expect a different kind of film, ironically in a way that does not seem like a Bond film, it is a departure. So, they are going to be put off by anything that takes the films back to tradition because they have not been experiencing tradition at all.
Spectre also has the disadvantage of a weak script, an even bigger problem. Even audiences not craving a Bond film likely would have enjoyed the film more if it had had a stronger script and story, and Spectre's story is probably the least most involving of any of Craig's Bonds. What mostly keeps Spectre going are the performances. Mendes' direction is not much better here than in Skyfall, but he does try to do more, and the music is an improvement. But overall, the story is over-simplified, and the dialogue is unspectacular. As is typical of contemporary films, they skimped on having a thoughtful story.
So these are the factors, to me, that work most against it. What is strange is how much vitriol there is from American critics. They seem the most upset that this is actually a traditional Bond movie in many ways. It's like complaining that a sports movie focuses on the actual games. But there's also a herd effect going on, since so many of the comments in reviews seem to imitate each other. I suspect Spectre will age more gracefully than the current reviews suggest, especially as it comes out on video.
I too had the feeling the reveal wouldn't be so obvious. Certainly C would be Blofeld or maybe even someone we only get a glimpse of in Spectre only to be explored further in Bond 25.
With the return of Spectre and Blofeld after all this time I hoped for something more, something grand, (which I feel the trailer captured) but got something quite straight forward and honestly anticlimactic.
With SP, we have a developed Bond hitting his stride, and new audiences might be seeing it for the first time (although this is difficult to believe with TV replays of the classics)...but more probably the reviews come from---as we've both said---critics who somewhat snobbishly are offended that Eon have gone back to their bread and butter while still in Craig's run.
And, truth be told, they did in fact use a script with undeniable blemishes
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I disagree. Most critics have historically not appreciated a traditional James Bond film, and since SP is the first one of these since DAD, nothing has been 'purged.' They still don't like James Bond---it's just that the Craig Era, up to now, has taken a decided and premeditated detour.
I can't dispute SP's flaws...but aside from those, many critics (U.S. in particular) have gone back to tradition as well. And to complete this tradition, the film will be a hit and make money anyway :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
However, the film was not well cast and edited. I had no problem with the directing.
The movie was good but not great.
Fixed. B-)
Jokes aside (no offence meant) I couldn't agree more with what cheld wrote. I think the movie tries to go in two opposite directions at the same time. I have no problem with humour but (as has been discussed extensively both here and elsewhere in ajb) the more blatant attempts don't quite work. Waving at a mafioso bodyguard in the funeral is a bit too much; talking to the rat is the kind of dry humour that one would expect from Dan's Bond.
Loeff - I concur that The Critics That Be have always hated the Bond series. However, I am not so sure that the previous three DC's films have NOT been Bond ones. CR and QoS (with all its flaws in the case of the latter) are, to me, valid additions to the lore and do add valuable elements thereto. SF is, to me, the less bondian of the three (paradoxically so when what they were trying to do is lean closer to the series). And in the end, both Mendes efforts present the same problem: the "bondness" seems pasted on INSTEAD of being an integral part of the movie. In the same manner that Thomas Newman inserts the classic Barry Bond theme as a blatant attempt to remind the audience that this is a Bond film, some of Mendes's choices do not feel natural (M's classic office at the end of SF comes to mind almost immediately).
I have enjoyed both latest films (Sp more so than SF). I keep thinking that they could have been way more enjoyable had they been grown more organically instead of trying to blend the new with the old.
"The very words I live by."
You make several valid and interesting points. Your post has prompted me to consider things from the other end of the Telescope, in as much as our focus has tended towards why are the US reviews so hostile rather than why were the UK ones so favourable ( with Australia occupying the middle ground) I don't have a clear view, but think that as Skyfall was so lauded ( possibly more than merited in my view) that the UK critics were continuing that momentum. SP does function a bit like a magic trick and sweeps you along but does not stand up to clos(er) scrutiny very well. In my view it's Craig's performance that shores the thing up, more assured and relaxed with more wit and charm than we have seen before.
Exactly my thoughts.
The film is trying to do to many things. And the touches of "tradition" appear to be cosmetic to remind viewers that they are watching a Bond film
iamobsessedwithhatredfordanielcraig.com
...but the thing, IMO, is this: action films are very much like magic tricks, and one needs to approach them with a willingness to let go of certain things, such as rigid logic or strict adherence to the laws of physics. It happens in every action film. We as filmgoers will decide individually on what we forgive or don't forgive.
Now, some magicians are better than others, but don't kid yourself that the wool isn't being pulled over your eyes. Bond fans traditionally are a very forgiving lot---at least they are for the actors and films they fancy (and they will gleefully s**t on the ones they don't, haha). No one is harder on Bond's writers than me. Call it professional jealousy ;% Critics, traditionally, are paid to forgive nothing, and that's fair; It is also why some films or franchises do well regardless.
Long Live James Bond :007) ...and long may his detractors continue to stew in their own juices.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The main story is about a guy who is perfectly content to be an assassin, then comes to question this line of work, then walks away from it.
There's also a love story.
There's the "what is Spectre story."
There's also the Bond-Blofeld story.
There's also the nine eyes-C story.
At least one of those needed to be cut, probably #4. Either that or turn it into two films.
IMO, that's not an excessive amount of subplots, particularly when the first two can easily be called the same one, as can the third and fifth. I can't argue with the family connection; that's a bridge too far. My issues primarily reside in the 3rd act.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
.... Oh look something shiny !
Another reason that it might of got more favorable reviews in the UK is because critics were genuinely concerned about the welfare of British film making and that the most expensive Bond movie to date should make its money back. I guess probably not as it's all foreign investors but it is at the moment it's arguably Britain's No.1 identifiable franchise outside of Harry Potter.
I agree that Daniel holds this film together as well as he always has. He's my favourite Bond which is why I'm really disappointed by Spectre. I hope he returns for one more and that time the film is worthy of his performance.
They're built on formula - structured around a certain set of principles. Films like CASINO ROYALE & SKYFALL may stretch that (thus pleasing critics) but they shouldn't be the normal way of telling a tale within a long-running franchise. There's room for Bond to go on a simple mission to thwart some dastardly plan as much as there is to delve into his past. Craig's films have followed a nicely convoluted story arc but have also provided nice differences in tone. They've also given Craig a chance to try his hand at different acting styles. Why not see him throttling a villain to death in one film & escaping from a car by parachute a couple of films later? Was it so gut-wrenching to see Connery's Bond strangling Red Grant in one film & peeling off a wet suit to reveal a blemish-free tuxedo in the next? Such criticisms of lack of plot logic, etc themselves make no sense. These are James Bond films & thus largely reliant on hokey storytelling. They are not realistic films. The cleverness of Craig & Connery is making us not realise we're watching what is essentially nonsense.
And Brosnan did the same. I still have no idea why DIE ANOTHER DAY fosters so much hate. Okay, the invisible car is bonkers but so is an underwater car. The CGI is poor but so is much of the back projection in THUNDERBALL. But I digress.
I'm sure if one looks back in time, critics would have been equally scornful of Bonds now seen as classics of the series. I don't know if SPECTRE will be seen as a classic - only time will tell on that one. But I do know I thoroughly enjoyed its 140-odd minute running time. So stuff the critics.
{[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Yes I agree completely. Waltz as Blofeld was a bit underwhelming too. Much like you say, the energy tangibly (or should that be Tangier-bly) drained especially when they got to Blofeld's lair - which is the point you would expect more excitement!
What I loved about the film though and I gather US critics aren't so keen on, is Craig's performance as Bond. To me he is at last playing the character I know and love, not some Bourne-robot who barely speaks a word (Skyfall). He is the womanising, quip delivering super spy with a gadget or two thrown in for good measure!
It's not about comparing Spectre with the other films. It's the fact that it fails at the very basics of film making 101 that's the issue. I doubt it will ever be considered a classic because all it does is borrow credibility from the books and older films. What is there really in Spectre for it to stand on its own and for future installments in the franchise to reference?
Exactly right. When you expect more surprises, like C is Blofeld, all you get is another torture scene, a building demolition and another helicopter. I also liked Craig's take on Roger Moore's Bond. The moment he looks at Bautista from in the car chase from the Aston Martin is total Moore.
This, to me, pretty much nails it on the head. The story completely loses what momentum it has when Bond arrives in Tangiers. The scene in the L'American hotel room could have been shortened dramatically. It just seemed to drag on and on. The third act's only saving grace is the fight between Bond and Hinx. The whole scene at Blofeld's lair was half-baked. The backtracked continuity to Craig's previous films is incredibly forced. And the ease with which Bond escapes was a bit too much.
Even after two viewings, the movie left me underwhelmed. The pre-title sequence, which some critics here in the US said was the best in the series, seemed pretty flat. Skyfall's opening was far superior--as was Casino Royale's and, for that matter, Quantum of Solace's. Craig, however, delivered the goods throughout the film in spectacular fashion.
I think for Bond 25, EON would be wise to finally ditch Purvis and Wade and bring new screenwriting blood on board (I've never been a fan of their work and believe the other Craig films worked because someone revised their scripts). Also, they shouldn't be afraid to edit the next movie down to 2 hours.
Purvis & Wade were not originally on writing duties for SPECTRE...they were only brought back as the script was deemed 'not up to scratch'...looks like they are Eon's 'default setting' when they want the script 'polished'...