SPECTRE Media Reviews Thread

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Stamper wrote:

Why don't you shut the hell up instead of dissing Craig, he doesn't own you nothing and can do whatever he please. Your comments are out of place, you should respect what he is, by all accounts, and all great going guy and excellent Bond actor.

Her comments are on a forum dedicated to James Bond. If they're "out of place" here, where exactly would they be in place?

Instead of Bitchcraft shutting the hell up, why don't you do us a favor and shut your fooking pie hole? It's YOUR comments that are out of place; you should respect Bitchcraft for who she is, by all accounts, a great going gal and an excellent forum contributor.

Thanks gravy, a lot of the Bond press these days is mentioning Craig's less-than-professional outpouring while reviewing the film...which wasn't supposed to be part of the marketing hype. I'm free to feel disgusted with his lack of tact. I wouldn't want someone with that frame of mind back in the role if that is how he deals with it.

bitchcraft wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Stamper wrote:

Why don't you shut the hell up instead of dissing Craig, he doesn't own you nothing and can do whatever he please. Your comments are out of place, you should respect what he is, by all accounts, and all great going guy and excellent Bond actor.

Her comments are on a forum dedicated to James Bond. If they're "out of place" here, where exactly would they be in place?

Instead of Bitchcraft shutting the hell up, why don't you do us a favor and shut your fooking pie hole? It's YOUR comments that are out of place; you should respect Bitchcraft for who she is, by all accounts, a great going gal and an excellent forum contributor.

Thanks gravy, a lot of the Bond press these days is mentioning Craig's less-than-professional outpouring while reviewing the film...which wasn't supposed to be part of the marketing hype. I'm free to feel disgusted with his lack of tact. I wouldn't want someone with that frame of mind back in the role if that is how he deals with it.

You're welcome. I'll always have your back.

We've got a couple of douche-bags on this forum that furiously wank themselves to sleep every night just thinking about Daniel Craig and anything remotely negative said about Craig interrupts their fantasy world. I'm gonna bring those whipper-snappers down a peg or two.

I believe Craig was being typically British with his humor...the bit about doing the next one for money was clearly a joke, but not everyone gets British humor and it loses its context by the time it gets over to the US. Besides, he's a professional; he's supposed to be able to know how to deal with the press. And yet here he's clearly annoyed with his interview, telling her to basically 'move on'.

Spectre's Rotten Tomatoes score dropping through the floor. Now down to 65%.

Compare to Skyfall, 93%. Oh, and Quantum of Helga, 65%.

Enjoy your shit film.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Spectre's Rotten Tomatoes score dropping through the floor. Now down to 65%.

Compare to Skyfall, 93%. Oh, and Quantum of Helga, 65%.

Enjoy your shit film.

Have you gone back for a 2nd go yet?

bitchcraft wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Spectre's Rotten Tomatoes score dropping through the floor. Now down to 65%.

Compare to Skyfall, 93%. Oh, and Quantum of Helga, 65%.

Enjoy your shit film.

Have you gone back for a 2nd go yet?

I'm seeing it again tomorrow at Media City. Better screen so we'll see whether that helps. I will also be very drunk, which most certainly will.

Some of today's U.S. critics who, it seems, weren't as easily bought-off as their UK counterparts:

Quote :

Spectre might pass for parody, except Mendes raised the stakes so high with Skyfall that lowbrow isn't becoming on 007

Quote :

Compositions are clean and casually geometric... furnishings and settings have the sweet grace of simplicity, elements sketched in as in a keenly focused stage production. But as they say on Broadway, you don't walk out of a musical humming the scenery.

Quote :

A listless mash-up of lazy gags and storytelling shortcuts

These three American reviews reflect my own feelings about Spectre unlike the brown-nosing shitheads in the British media:

Quote :

Has any franchise ever taken the tumble from one movie to the next that Spectre does from Skyfall? I'm hard-pressed to think of one, and depressed to report that James Bond is alive and not doing well. Watching Spectre unfold, lumbering and slumbering, on the heels of a franchise high is a shock, so much talent coasting this time.

Quote :

The movie feels dull. For a production that reportedly cost more than $300 million, it’s a stunning technical failure

Quote :

In constructing the woefully disappointing new Bond movie “Spectre,” it appears someone scribbled down words like “secret organization” and “presumed dead” and “controversial surveillance” but with an asterisk to signify, “Will figure out later how to make all that interesting.” Except people get busy and cocktail napkins get thrown out, so now we have 148 minutes (five more than 2012’s awesome, infinitely more complex “Skyfall”) during which fun exists at a low simmer and cleverness rarely appears at all.

Looks like these guys are too cynical to try to appreciate life. Either that or they know a shit film when they see one.

Erica Ambler wrote:

bitchcraft wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Spectre's Rotten Tomatoes score dropping through the floor. Now down to 65%.

Compare to Skyfall, 93%. Oh, and Quantum of Helga, 65%.

Enjoy your shit film.

Have you gone back for a 2nd go yet?

I'm seeing it again tomorrow at Media City. Better screen so we'll see whether that helps. I will also be very drunk, which most certainly will.

Sponsored by Lagavulin?

Hilly contemplated bringing a flask on his first viewing. I'm considering it, as well.

Possibly the most interesting of the U.S. reviews, from Forbes:

'Spectre' Is The Worst 007 Movie In 30 Years

Quote :

Die Another Day was zippier entertainment ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/11/03/review-spectre-is-the-worst-007-movie-in-30-years/

The running time is a concern, even for Bonds I really enjoy they remain somewhat guilty of pushing their luck and I am at an age where the odd bathroom break is increasingly important sadly ^^.

tbh Genuinely lean Bonds are few and far between although ironically QoS is probably one of these and it doesn't compensate much in terms of overall experience (though it certainly makes me enjoy it more than the allowing over-long Casino Royale).....puzzling but a bum-numbing runtime at a cramped cinema (as my locals seem to be) is seeming less and less appealing while the luxury of Blu ray and a pause button sing like sweet music to my ears.

Running time wasn't so much a bother at the time I saw Spectre other than narrowing my options to get from Mayfair to Marylebone in doublequick time. Still, isn't it the longest Bond now?

Saw this though. Spectre is more Moore than anything.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/3/9665430/james-bond-007-spectre-movie-review-daniel-craig

SPOILERS IN LINK:

This pretty much sums up my view - based on one viewing:

http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/review-spectre-manages-to-majorly-muddy-daniel-craigs-james-bond-legacy

God I can't wait to read about Lazenby's thoughts.

Kermode pretty much summed up my feelings as far as these media reviews go. It is curious that the US is much harsher on this. Not that the UK is being prideful of Bond (they could be, can't dispute that) but the international reviews have all been generally good too. For some reason the US is just not rolling with it. Such is life.

Solid review of SPECTRE on ScreenCrush:
http://screencrush.com/spectre-review/

Quote :

Trailers have been careful not to reveal the character’s identity or true motives, perhaps to maintain an air of mystery and suspense around the film.

Seeing Spectre suggests a second possibility: The filmmakers know these details, essentially a retcon of the highest and dopiest order, will make a lot of viewers roll their eyes, and they’re trying to prevent that from happening until after they’ve bought their tickets.

Quote :

But its odd fixation on Bond’s past puts it in line with so many other major franchises of 2015, and Hollywood’s increasing fixation on nostalgia. And Spectre’s use of Waltz to make it seem like all of these Daniel Craig Bonds have been part of an elaborate and intricate multipart story hints at the influence of Marvel and its cinematic universe of interlocking movies.

Quote :

The Daniel Craig Bonds have been praised for their seriousness, but Spectre finally pushes things too far. It’s so concerned with being an “important” consideration of a pop culture icon, it rarely remembers to be a satisfying adventure story, and its overeager attempts to justify its existence and build this epic mythology around its hero and his arch-nemesis feels like a symptom of a franchise with a deep sense of inadequacy, like a middle-aged man who buys an expensive sports car and sleeps with a lot of women to ward off a midlife crisis.

Another review focusing on SPECTRE's villain from io9:
http://io9.com/the-huge-problem-with-spectres-villain-1741528736

Quote :

Not everything has to be personal. Personal is not a shortcut to depth. That’s the mistake Spectre made—assuming the original Blofeld and SPECTRE lacked depth because they weren’t tied to Bond’s personal life. Depth can come thematically, instead—and it probably should have, in this case.

Agree with the last two snippets you posted. It's the Craig entries' identity crisis and trying to give SP a personal connection to Bond that ultimately weakens the film for me.

Still, seeing it tomorrow night so might change. The shock that they actually went with the bro-Blo idea is starting to wear off.

Could be worse, could have been blood related. I think they almost went there in early drafts where they always had Blofeld calling Bond "brother", which would have been, as Mr. Kidd once said, "most annoying".

Still, it is a bit of stretch.

I was reading up on Blofeld's literary backstory as the details escaped me. Aside from the Oberhauser backstory, some stuff surprisingly works. The job he had gave him access to top secret wires prior to WWII which is not dissimilar to the global surveillance scheme in SP. And the fact that some events in Quantum took place in South America, it rings true to Blofeld moving there temporarily before forming SP. Whether this is coincidental or not, I like how this happened. I wish they focused more on Blofeld being a background player in Quantum rather than SF.

I assumed that was kind of the route they would take with Blofeld's background. That he was a member of Quantum, and after the hits it got with Greene dead and Yusef giving away information, the organization was getting cornered. Blofeld would take what money and vital information he had acquired and make a run for it as the final remnants of Quantum was smashed. He would use what he had to form SPECTRE and that this film would be the rise of their organization.

However, I actually like the idea of Quantum being a branch of SPECTRE. Here is my own reading of how it all connects:

The way I see it, Blofeld never took an active interest in Bond until much later in the SP. Before that, as far as Blofeld was concerned, he had bigger fish to fry. He would run his organization accordingly as we know how SPECTRE operates, gathering intelligence, double agents, ect. After what happened in CR and QOS, he set his focus on MI6 rather than a single agent, thus M was the real target. In SF, Blofeld comes to Silva, recognizing he has a vendetta against M and decides to use him by giving him the resources to attack MI6, so that he doesn't have to do it himself. He can just watch this maniac do all the work. It's kind of like what we saw in SICARIO (I recommend checking that out). As we see in the meeting in SP, Blofeld clearly has global aspirations that are far more important than singling out Bond. In fact, when Bond is spotted in the meeting, Blofeld seems more amused than bothered. He moves on with his operations while Hinx is sent out to take care of The Pale King and Bond so that he can no longer interfere. Bond takes out Hinx and comes so far, Blofeld feels he should reward Bond by revealing what's at stake, how much his organization had an impact on his life (directly or indirectly) and then get to torture him on the side. It's only after having his face get scarred and his lair blown up that Blofeld actually takes the initiative to attack Bond directly. Then we get the usual elaborate Bond villain scenario where taunts Bond by letting him know Madeline is in a building about to blow up and either he can escape and live with the guilt or get himself killed looking for her.

This is all good stuff, good enough to work on its own without needing the Oberhauser background.

See I can buy that. If the Oberhauser stuff isn't mentioned again I can live with that.

I'd still prefer another retcon job where it's revealed Oberhauser is still just Oberhauser, and Blofeld approached him as you suggest Blofeld approached Silva. Or Blofeld had one of his goons to get work done to look like Blofeld - both scenarios to throw Bond off the scent. Which wouldn't be too out there, considering the changing faces of Blofeld in YOLT-DAF, but also the goon who was made to look like Domino's brother in TB, and of course the stuff in DAD. It also is very much in line with how Oberhauser uses psychology to taunt Bond and Madeleine, namely, trying to show Swann her dad's suicide. I thought that was a pretty effective idea, even if Craig's performance in that scene is pretty shoddy.

It would also mean Waltz's Blofeld/Oberhauser could still be in prison. Bond finds out along the way that the mission he is currently on is at the hands of the real Blofeld - perfect opportunity to discuss Oberhauser.

Eh, I think there's already enough twists that we don't need twists that undo other twists. Marvel did something similar after fans negatively reacted to how The Mandarin in IRON MAN 3 was handled, later making a short film with Ben Kingsley just to reveal that there is a real Mandarin in the Marvel Universe, even if they never end up using him ever.

I rather just have the next film acknowledge Blofeld as simply Blofeld. No mention of Oberhauser. As Blofeld said, "Franz died 20 years ago". Even during the climax in London Bond refers to Blofeld as Blofeld. There is no more Franz Oberhauser.

I don't agree with all of this, but some of this critique is spot-on:

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/spectre-how-the-multiverse-era-killed-james-bond-20151109

Some of the best parts of the review:

It's hardly surprising that Spectre — the very title of which is synonymous with serialization in the Bond mythos — bends over backwards to contort the Daniel Craig era into a coherent quadrilogy, as though these four films had always been intended to function like a discrete run of comic books that branches out from its core property. But just because something works for Marvel doesn't necessarily mean that it works for everyone. It's one thing to jump on a trend and another to rejigger your storytelling methodology altogether. And by teasing a broader mythology for no other reason than because they had to, the folks responsible for maintaining 007's legacy have now retroactively tainted the best run of Bond movies since Sean Connery's heyday.


Without warning, Spectre looks over its shoulder and begins forcing the previous three Craig episodes into conversation — at which point it becomes obvious that they have virtually nothing to say to each other.

From that point on, Spectre lurches to the finish line with the enthusiasm of a child paying off their late father's debts, the plot losing all of its considerable velocity as it's sideswiped by four films' worth of contrived exposition. And as Bond returns to London for a final showdown with "the architect of all his pain," the tail is wagging the dog so hard that the pooch seems like he might get sick.

I agree with the tail wagging the dog analogy; it's quite clear that the angle of Blofeld having a personal vendetta against Bond was not something that the filmmakers were going to let drop; it colored and informed every other decision that was made with respect to the rest of the film. It didn't work; it never worked, but they kept trying to force this to work and in the end it's an angle that feels unworthy of the series. You'd expect this sort of weak, ret-conning on an American soap opera, but not in the James Bond series. Jez Butterfinger and all the other writers tried to tie up loose ends nobody knew were dangling and gave answers to questions nobody was asking.

There is no plausible scenario in which revealing Blofeld to be a step-brother of sorts to Bond makes the story any better. Everything they ever could have wanted to accomplish with the Blofeld character could have been done without the needless attempt at making Bond and Blofeld related and familiar with each other.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

You'd expect this sort of weak, ret-conning on an American soap opera, but not in the James Bond series. Jez Butterfinger and all the other writers tried to tie up loose ends nobody knew were dangling and gave answers to questions nobody was asking.

There is no plausible scenario in which revealing Blofeld to be a step-brother of sorts to Bond makes the story any better. Everything they ever could have wanted to accomplish with the Blofeld character could have been done without the needless attempt at making Bond and Blofeld related and familiar with each other.

Do you know if Oberhauser was Bond's foster brother in early versions of the script? Is this something that EON, Mendes and Logan wanted from the beginning?

I recall that they wanted a female Blofeld, but one of the Sony execs though it'd be idiotic. After looking at the mess we were given, maybe it wouldn't have been a half-bad idea.

I don't know if they were using this as a cover name, but IIRC there was a character named Stockmann, who then turned out to be Oberhauser.

...didn't Harms say the early drafts had Blofeld as an African warlord, hence their interest in Chiwetel Ejiofor? Speaking of...where did Harms go, anyway?

Anyway, here's a piece from Entertainment Weekly with a theory about the film's ending: the third act is so absurd and nonsensical that it's actually taking place inside Bond's head as Brofeld tortures him. Obviously, I don't buy it for a second and just chalk-up Spectre's trainwreck of a finale to simply being shitty writing, but it's a fun read nonetheless.

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/11/10/spectre-ending

Some good commentary about Spectre and the franchise in there, as well. Here's my favorite, where Spectre is compared to an episode of Duck Tales...

Quote :

Nothing that happens in Spectre holds up to even minor logical scrutiny. (Bond sets off on his mission because M leaves him a video with, basically, this instruction: “Kill this random guy and go to his funeral.”) The logic stuff wouldn’t matter in a lighthearted movie, but Spectre keeps filtering in psychodrama and Snowden-era paranoia. It’s like watching an episode of DuckTales about the financial crisis.