SPECTRE Review Thread

[Al_The_Strange]

And this is reflective of ‘Spectre’ as a whole: in trying to do too much, the focus becomes lost.

Sounds like the same kinds of problems that plagued Thunderball back in the day - it's an extremely long film that goes all over the place and comes off as messy. Given the pattern of Craig's films, maybe that's to be expected - Skyfall was like his Goldfinger, so now they tried to one-up everything and it comes off as convoluted.

That's my interpretation of what they're saying anyway, and if that's the case, I'll probably love the film anyway (because I love Thunderball so much).

[imsounoriginal]

Not all hope is lost: http://variety.com/2015/film/reviews...ew-1201622685/

[Geoff D]

Sony themselves were worried that this would turn out to be a bit of a cluster****, but if it does end up being an overlong Thunderball-esque spectacle then I'm fine with that.

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by lemonhead118

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/spectre-2015

Let's hope we get a 15 rated Blu-Ray release like Casino Royale

**** those 12 old kids.

[dallywhitty]

The closer to release, the more excited I get. Surprising given my initial reaction when the trailer premiered was one of indifference. I pretty much know everything that's gonna happen because of online spoilers, but never mind. Anybody read Digital Spy's description of the title sequence? It sounds quite bizarre. I've warmed somewhat to Sam Smith's theme but I still don't think it's a great song.

And yes, I'm disappointed that it's been pre-cut to achieve a lower rating. No doubt this'll be another case in which the cut version is released worldwide and the uncut version never even surfaces on home video ala Quantum of Solace.

[imsounoriginal]

A few good and not so good "reviews": http://collider.com/spectre-review-first-reactions/

My favorite is probably this:

@HelenLOHara: #Spectre is such a weird mix of Craig-era grit and Moore-era silliness that it's bewildering. Great action bits but so confused.

[Foggy]

Moore-era silliness? Am I the only one who's kinda cool with that?

[Desslok]

I think for Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Daniel Craig their third films turned out to be their defining ones.

Connery: Goldfinger
Moore: The Spy Who Loved Me
Craig: Skyfall

Each of these was tremendously successly at the box office, far exceeding their immediate predecessors. Each was then followed by a film that while keeping the same formula was bigger but not necessarily better.

Connery: Thunderball
Moore: Moonraker
Craig: Spectre

If Spectre ends up being as good as Thunderball, which while not as good as Goldfinger is still high on the list of Bond movies, then I'd say that's a win.

If it ends up being more in line with Moonraker... well... that would be disappointing.

[dgoswald]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Sony themselves were worried that this would turn out to be a bit of a cluster****, but if it does end up being an overlong Thunderball-esque spectacle then I'm fine with that.

The problem is the more the Bond film-makers are encouraged to "go big" with each Bond film due to the previous film's success, they kind of over-stretch themselves and end up with the unfocused, shallow spectacle that put paid to Brosnan.

There just isn't any restraint or sense of "Let's not lose our heads." The whole thing ends up being run into the ground, audiences get sick of it - or at least aren't as fond of the films as they previously were - and then Bond is recast and the first film of the new era is brilliant, because it's focused and taut and a huge departure from the film of the previous era. The cycle continues.

[V40LLY]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Moore-era silliness? Am I the only one who's kinda cool with that?

No. It's actually the most sensible thing you've said so far, in this thread.

[stlcards]

I'm looking forward to seeing Spectre. I haven't been reading spoilers or reviews. I have only seen trailers and tv spots.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by dgoswald

The problem is the more the Bond film-makers are encouraged to "go big" with each Bond film due to the previous film's success, they kind of over-stretch themselves and end up with the unfocused, shallow spectacle that put paid to Brosnan.

There just isn't any restraint or sense of "Let's not lose our heads." The whole thing ends up being run into the ground, audiences get sick of it - or at least aren't as fond of the films as they previously were - and then Bond is recast and the first film of the new era is brilliant, because it's focused and taut and a huge departure from the film of the previous era. The cycle continues.

They can't reinvent the franchise with every movie, at some point they're going to have to go back to making standard formula-driven Bond movies. As long as the stories are good and the villains are menacing and the girls are hot and cars are fast and Bond is Bond, that should be enough to put audiences in seats. In terms of over-the-top, they can't really go into space again or have CGI Bond surfing in Iceland, so as long as they know what NOT to do, they'll be fine.

Let's not write off Spectre as an over-the-top spectacle before seeing it. Frankly these reviews are making me more excited than before, since most seem to be agreeing that Spectre is taking the franchise back to its more formulaic roots.

[dgoswald]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Let's not write off Spectre as an over-the-top spectacle before seeing it. Frankly these reviews are making me more excited than before, since most seem to be agreeing that Spectre is taking the franchise back to its more formulaic roots.

Yeah, fair play to that. I hope I wasn't coming across as negative, it's just that Bond films have a habit of going stale before any changes are willingly made. Regardless, with Mendes behind the scenes I don't think there's much to worry about. Looking forward to Spectre

[Ultra_Violence]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Moore-era silliness? Am I the only one who's kinda cool with that?

Nope. Moore is the best Bond.

[tigertron]

Originally Posted by Desslok

I think for Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Daniel Craig their third films turned out to be their defining ones.

Connery: Goldfinger
Moore: The Spy Who Loved Me
Craig: Skyfall

Each of these was tremendously successly at the box office, far exceeding their immediate predecessors. Each was then followed by a film that while keeping the same formula was bigger but not necessarily better.

Connery: Thunderball
Moore: Moonraker
Craig: Spectre

If Spectre ends up being as good as Thunderball, which while not as good as Goldfinger is still high on the list of Bond movies, then I'd say that's a win.

If it ends up being more in line with Moonraker... well... that would be disappointing.

I would argue that Casino Royale was Daniel Craig's defining film. I don't think Skyfall added much to Craig's Bond.

[DanTheMan]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Moore-era silliness? Am I the only one who's kinda cool with that?

As much as I didn't find Moore's 007 films to be the strongest, there's no debate that his pun game was unmatched.

[StingingVelvet]

This being more of a Bond movie makes me super excited.

[Ultra_Violence]

Originally Posted by tigertron

I would argue that Casino Royale was Daniel Craig's defining film. I don't think Skyfall added much to Craig's Bond.

This. The trend has went in reverse for Daniel Craig.

[jetthead]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

This being more of a Bond movie makes me super excited.

Indeed!

[Nada]

In many ways Spectre is the purest Bond experience of the Craig era. - Adam Woodward

This is the most important thing for me, that it feels like a real Bond movie and not one embarrassed to be one.