A reason for the mixed reviews?

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
You're that English secret agent from England | Instagram: @matchedperfectly | Web: www.matchedperfectly.us
«134

Comments

  • Julius No M.D.Julius No M.D. Posts: 110MI6 Agent
    Although the trailers were serious, it was pretty much established that they were going to incorporate some of the Connery & Moore era staples into the movie. And as far as that is concerned, I enjoyed the humor. I always wanted to know how Craig would handle the humor and I think he did a good job.

    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.
  • Bmorelli11Bmorelli11 Posts: 197MI6 Agent
    edited November 2015
    I'll agree to a point, but the whole purpose of a trailer is to begin to establish what's going to be incorporated as well as generate interest in the forthcoming film. From what was presented the casual fan had no indication of Connery or Moore humor. Again I really did enjoy the film and those are just my two cents. :)
    Although the trailers were serious, it was pretty much established that they were going to incorporate some of the Connery & Moore era staples into the movie. And as far as that is concerned, I enjoyed the humor. I always wanted to know how Craig would handle the humor and I think he did a good job.

    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.
    You're that English secret agent from England | Instagram: @matchedperfectly | Web: www.matchedperfectly.us
  • LoeffelholzLoeffelholz The United States, With LovePosts: 8,988Quartermasters
    edited November 2015
    I'd certainly agree that the third act has a lot of problem---personally, it's my biggest gripe with the picture---but I'd disagree that the humour is part of the problem, nor do I think it detracted from Bond's 'cool' factor; quite the opposite, in fact. I'm a huge fan of Craig's Bonds, and have seen the humour in all of his Bonds...IMO this picture is a logical step in the arc of his version of the character. It's pitch-perfect. Craig has earned himself a smile :007)

    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!
    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
  • am747am747 Posts: 720MI6 Agent
    I saw it today for the 4th time. Being a long time Bond fan, I am going to love whatever the series throws at me. However, I can see the reasons for mixed reviews.

    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.
  • Julius No M.D.Julius No M.D. Posts: 110MI6 Agent
    Bmorelli11 wrote:
    I'll agree to a point, but the whole purpose of a trailer is to begin to establish what's going to be incorporated as well as generate interest in the forthcoming film. From what was presented the casual fan had no indication of Connery or Moore humor.

    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.
  • Virgil37Virgil37 Posts: 1,212MI6 Agent
    SPECTRE doesn't ultimately deliver what it promises. Not just in the trailer. Seeing the movie, the first hour plus is amazing. I was thinking "wow, this is a classic". The moment they go to Tangier, the movie starts losing steam.
  • cheldcheld Posts: 300MI6 Agent
    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.

    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.
  • Gassy ManGassy Man USAPosts: 2,972MI6 Agent
    I'd certainly agree that the third act has a lot of problem---personally, it's my biggest gripe with the picture---but I'd disagree that the humour is part of the problem, nor do I think it detracted from Bond's 'cool' factor; quite the opposite, in fact. I'm a huge fan of Craig's Bonds, and have seen the humour in all of his Bonds...IMO this picture is a logical step in the arc of his version of the character. It's pitch-perfect. Craig has earned himself a smile :007)

    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!
    A big part of it is that the previous three films were largely made for people who are not Bond fans and represent a wider audience base. with less interest in the Bond movie formula. They're not an audience strongly interested in the nuances of plot, either, as they want to "feel" the film more than understand it. So, Skyfall, in particular, satisfied this, as it's a film that becomes less and less impressive the more one thinks about it, but it can certainly be experienced on a emotional level without much negative effects.

    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.
  • Bmorelli11Bmorelli11 Posts: 197MI6 Agent
    edited November 2015
    This is very well said and absolutely nails what I've been feeling since really thinking about the incongruities between the trailer and the film. It's the lack of delivery on the built up intrigue, both from the trailer and first two acts of the film, that's a let down.

    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.
    Julius No M.D.

    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.
    You're that English secret agent from England | Instagram: @matchedperfectly | Web: www.matchedperfectly.us
  • LoeffelholzLoeffelholz The United States, With LovePosts: 8,988Quartermasters
    Gassy...well said! {[] I'm not sure if Craig's first three Bond films were actually made for non-fans---or merely attracted non-fans because, in doing the reboot, the Bond narratives swerved into the mainstream because they happened at the right time (Bourne, etc)---but your point is well-made, and taken.

    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 :# But it is still a blast.
    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
  • LoeffelholzLoeffelholz The United States, With LovePosts: 8,988Quartermasters
    cheld wrote:
    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.

    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)
    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
  • OmegamanOmegaman Posts: 18MI6 Agent
    It's received mixed reviews because the film is a mess. Undeveloped characters. Unjustified motives. Forced romance. Conflicting tones. Boring plot. Spectre is not a 5 star film as the Guardian or the Telegraph would have you believe. In fact it's an insult to films that have justly deserved that accolade. They've either been bought or they're blinded by their fanboyism. At least Pierce Brosnan isn't afraid to tell it like it is, and anyone on the internet with half a brain isn't afraid to tell it like it is. You can't blame America for giving this film a bad time because the reviews are accurate.
  • Julius No M.D.Julius No M.D. Posts: 110MI6 Agent
    I appreciate Pierce's honesty, even though his films were even worse in the writing department.
  • writingsonthewallwritingsonthewall SpainPosts: 417MI6 Agent
    am747 wrote:
    After CR, the Eon tried to make a regular 007 film in QoS. However, the film was not directed well.

    However, the film was not well cast and edited. I had no problem with the directing.
    am747 wrote:
    The car chase was good but not that great.

    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.
    "Enjoy it while it lasts."
    "The very words I live by."
  • zaphod99zaphod99 Posts: 1,415MI6 Agent
    Omegaman wrote:
    It's received mixed reviews because the film is a mess. Undeveloped characters. Unjustified motives. Forced romance. Conflicting tones. Boring plot. Spectre is not a 5 star film as the Guardian or the Telegraph would have you believe. In fact it's an insult to films that have justly deserved that accolade. They've either been bought or they're blinded by their fanboyism. At least Pierce Brosnan isn't afraid to tell it like it is, and anyone on the internet with half a brain isn't afraid to tell it like it is. You can't blame America for giving this film a bad time because the reviews are accurate.

    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.
    Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
  • Virgil37Virgil37 Posts: 1,212MI6 Agent
    Bmorelli11 wrote:
    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.

    Exactly my thoughts.
  • am747am747 Posts: 720MI6 Agent
    am747 wrote:
    After CR, the Eon tried to make a regular 007 film in QoS. However, the film was not directed well.

    However, the film was not well cast and edited. I had no problem with the directing.
    am747 wrote:
    The car chase was good but not that great.

    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.

    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 :)
  • LoeffelholzLoeffelholz The United States, With LovePosts: 8,988Quartermasters
    edited November 2015
    I'll cop to *always* being at least a little bit "blinded by my fanboyism" (as I've most certainly not been bought :# )...and that's often the case with fans of anything. At the other end of the fan spectrum are the reflexive haters of elements they don't fancy: there's nothing more bitter than a jilted fan, which accounts for websites like

    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.
    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
  • Gala BrandGala Brand Posts: 1,172MI6 Agent
    There are too many story lines going on in Spectre.

    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.
  • LoeffelholzLoeffelholz The United States, With LovePosts: 8,988Quartermasters
    Gala Brand wrote:
    There are too many story lines going on in Spectre.

    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.
    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
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy Behind you !Posts: 63,792MI6 Agent
    Some people can't follow a story for long before losing ..
    .... Oh look something shiny ! :)
    "I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
  • OmegamanOmegaman Posts: 18MI6 Agent
    zaphod99 wrote:
    Omegaman wrote:
    It's received mixed reviews because the film is a mess. Undeveloped characters. Unjustified motives. Forced romance. Conflicting tones. Boring plot. Spectre is not a 5 star film as the Guardian or the Telegraph would have you believe. In fact it's an insult to films that have justly deserved that accolade. They've either been bought or they're blinded by their fanboyism. At least Pierce Brosnan isn't afraid to tell it like it is, and anyone on the internet with half a brain isn't afraid to tell it like it is. You can't blame America for giving this film a bad time because the reviews are accurate.

    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.

    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.
  • BIG TAMBIG TAM Wrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
    I'm baffled by any negative criticism to SPECTRE. To me the reviews are as disproportionate as the positive ones were for SKYFALL. Bond films are what they are & inhabit a universe all of their own.

    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.
  • LoeffelholzLoeffelholz The United States, With LovePosts: 8,988Quartermasters
    BIG TAM wrote:
    I'm baffled by any negative criticism to SPECTRE. To me the reviews are as disproportionate as the positive ones were for SKYFALL. Bond films are what they are & inhabit a universe all of their own.
    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 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.

    {[]
    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
  • Smithers500Smithers500 Spectre IslandPosts: 1,341MI6 Agent
    Virgil37 wrote:
    SPECTRE doesn't ultimately deliver what it promises. Not just in the trailer. Seeing the movie, the first hour plus is amazing. I was thinking "wow, this is a classic". The moment they go to Tangier, the movie starts losing steam.

    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!
    Japanese proverb say, "Bird never make nest in bare tree".
  • OmegamanOmegaman Posts: 18MI6 Agent
    BIG TAM wrote:
    I'm baffled by any negative criticism to SPECTRE. To me the reviews are as disproportionate as the positive ones were for SKYFALL. Bond films are what they are & inhabit a universe all of their own.

    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.

    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?
  • Julius No M.D.Julius No M.D. Posts: 110MI6 Agent
    I agree that the movie was unfocused ; They wanted to have so many locations that some of them were under-utilized. I'd say that it was divided into 5 half-hour segments. Perhaps they should have kept the desert base as the final major location in the film and fully flesh it out (like the lairs in Moonraker, OHMSS and Dr. No) rather than blowing it up so quickly and then trying to "dig into Bond's past" with the old MI6 building.
  • Virgil37Virgil37 Posts: 1,212MI6 Agent
    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!

    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.
  • Scribe74Scribe74 San FranciscoPosts: 149MI6 Agent
    Virgil37 wrote:
    SPECTRE doesn't ultimately deliver what it promises. Not just in the trailer. Seeing the movie, the first hour plus is amazing. I was thinking "wow, this is a classic". The moment they go to Tangier, the movie starts losing steam.

    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.
  • Sir MilesSir Miles The Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,417Chief of Staff
    Scribe74 wrote:
    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'...
    YNWA 97
Sign In or Register to comment.