criterionforum.org

You mean Robbie '5 Stars' Collin? This guy hands out Five star reviews for fun.

Reviews have been pretty mixed on the whole - the only real consensus is that the opening is apparently absolutely stunning.

By and large the reviews appear to be overwhelmingly positive with many absolutely loving it - even if they didn't necessarily expect to or feel that they should.

I've never watched a Bond film, but tempted by this one.

I've obviously been reading different reviews. The Financial Times's two-star dismissal is the most negative that I've seen,but a fair number of the others have said that it goes downhill pretty fast after the first few minutes.

Peter Bradshaw at the Guardian gave it a 5-star rave, but he's very kind to the franchise in general. Disappointing to hear about the mixed reviews.

Journos being buttered up at a Bond screening? I'd expect five star reviews.

Skyfall had great reviews and I thought it was terrible. I'm slightly more optimistic about this, mostly because of Christoph Waltz.

SPECTRE has been pre-cut in the UK to achieve a lower rating.

BBFC wrote:This film was originally seen for advice in an unfinished version. The company was advised it was likely to be classified 15 but that their preferred 12A could be obtained by making reductions in a scene of violence and in another scene showing the aftermath of a violent act. When the film was submitted for formal classification, acceptable reductions had been made in both scenes and the film was classified 12A.

I was gonna say that I suspect this version may well be THE cut now though and that I doubt they would cut the film for the UK and distribute an alternate version elsewhere.

...

but that wasn't the case with Casino Royale in the UK apparently.

If I understood correctly the US version of Casino Royale has material the UK version didn't, but then the UK version also has some stuff that wasn't in the US version. Obviously they do make different edits depending on the market.

Plus wasn't the head-exploding scene in Licence to Kill trimmed a bit just for the US? Or was that all over? I noticed the Blu-ray extended that moment by a second or two (apparently the previous DVD, which I never bought, did as well).

Quite a lot of the Bond films get edited to keep themselves targeted towards the wide audience of a 12A certificate. There does seem to be this new trend of the BBFC pre-assessing films now before submission to give guidance on what would be acceptable to get that category, and the Bond films seem to have been at the forefront of this trend.

The melonfarmers site has details of the BBFC vs MPAA edits to Casino Royale that Chris mentions. Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies had extensive edits (and also things done to the soundtrack such as toning down impacts of punches and so on) before eventually getting released in less edited DVD versions with more restrictive 15 ratings.

Licence To Kill is still the only 'official' 15 rated Bond in the series (as in having had that rating from the very start of its theatrical sceenings), but as Chris mentioned it still had extensive edits for many years until an uncut 2006 release.

The reviews are an interesting mix. It disappoints me that it seems like they're moving further and further away from the reinvention of the franchise in Casino Royale. What was the point of that film for the franchise as a whole if all they were going to do was gradually restore all the more tired missing elements from the old Bond films, the absence of which was so refreshing in CR.

Looking forward to it all the same.

StevenJ0001 wrote:The reviews are an interesting mix. It disappoints me that it seems like they're moving further and further away from the reinvention of the franchise in Casino Royale. What was the point of that film for the franchise as a whole if all they were going to do was gradually restore all the more tired missing elements from the old Bond films, the absence of which was so refreshing in CR.

Looking forward to it all the same.

I kind of like that, but then a Bond movie geek and I like the films for all their tropes and conventions. I thought that the first couple of Daniel Craig films took themselves way too seriously, even if I enjoyed Casino Royale but then that was mostly down to Eva Green. I find that any film or TV show is vastly improved if you add Eva Green.

For me the Bond films are almost like conceptual art. The are essentially always the same film and the difference is in the variation of the details. As a series they are best seen as a marker of their times in terms of changing styles, sensibilities, politics and aspirations. I'm far more interested in the incidentals: the locations, the gadgets, the supporting characters than in Bond himself, who I find to be rather dull man.

Lost Highway wrote:For me the Bond films are almost like conceptual art. The are essentially always the same film and the difference is in the variation of the details. As a series they are best seen as a marker of their times in terms of changing styles, sensibilities, politics and aspirations. I'm far more interested in the incidentals: the locations, the gadgets, the supporting characters than in Bond himself, who I find to be rather dull man.

I have a virtually identical attitude towards the 1970s/80s pornography on Vinegar Syndrome's Exploitation.tv channel, and for more or less the same reasons.

I suppose there's the argument to be made that James Bond is pornography by other means: the character is left purposely blank so we can vicariously imagine ourselves in his place and enjoy his lifestyle (its excitement, drugs, women, status). Although this has been somewhat undermined in the Craig era where an attempt at some form of realism means Bond no longer exists in a world without consequences.

One review (I think the Guardian) called it "sexily pro-Snowden".

flyonthewall2983 wrote:One review (I think the Guardian) called it "sexily pro-Snowden".

That was Bradshaw's. I've updated my post to include a link to his rundown of every Bond film. Again, very kind.

That has to qualify as one of the dumbest critic quips I've ever read.

The Guardian has a knack for hiring truly awful film critics. Peter Bradshaw wrote what may just be the dumbest article I've ever read by a professional critic: http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblo ... television" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

flyonthewall2983 wrote:That has to qualify as one of the dumbest critic quips I've ever read.

What about this:

Variety wrote:Spectre-cular B.O. awaits, though it remains to be seen whether the “Skyfall” is the limit.

Dreadful as that is, no one goes to Variety to read insight film criticism; The Guardian on the other hand, should know better.

You made Scott Foundas cry.

Altair wrote:Dreadful as that is, no one goes to Variety to read insight film criticism; The Guardian on the other hand, should know better.

Exactly. Shalit-esque hackery is kind of white noise at this point. The Guardian quip is also indicative of the kind of testosterone-driven reverence the character has in Britain, even among more liberal types as the quip itself points out.

Would be funny if it made it onto the DVD artwork though.

I haven't read any of the reviews but the two stars review from the FT sounds right to me. Liked the Mexico City opening well enough though the helicopter fight was shot too tightly and therefore harder to follow than it should have been. The first 45 minutes or so held my interest but once it leaves Austria, it starts to drag badly. The way it ties in with the three last Craig Bond movies is a shambles and Waltz is terrible in this. It's not infuriatingly bad like Die Another Day but it's average. I'm not even a casual Bond film but was hoping to be entertained like I was by Casino Royale, and Spectre made me feel like I'd wasted much of my time watching it. And now that I've listened to the Sam Smith song in full, I have to agree with the majority: it is appalling.

I though it was a great Bond film, which I should stress is a very different beast to a great film. Yes, the first half's superior to the second, but the latter isn't significantly weaker, it just under utilises an incredible location in favour of a much more familiar one and Mendes doesn't quite pull off the broken back, two-part climax. Still lots to enjoy: Craig's seems to more comfortable as Bond than at any other time in the past, which sells the humour (this really is the funniest Bond for years), plus he's ably abetted by Léa Seydoux who makes for an impressive (and impressively costumed) Bond girl. The action scenes are fine - I didn't have a problem with the editing of the helicopter fight scene - and Hoyte van Hoytema's cinematographer was simply superb (my favourite aspect of the film). Whatever ones thinks of Mendes' (in my mind excellent) tenure, his legacy of visually elegant films will hopefully be continued by his successors. Sam Smith's song is scarcely memorable, but haven't we gotten to the point now that it's a series cliché for the title song to be dreadful? At any rate, Thomas Newman's score, making more use of Barry-esque strings and horns, is the one area of major improvement over Skyfall (which as a film has an edge over Spectre). One could make accusations of illogicity at certain points in the film, but what would be the point? It's marvellously entertaining and if you could stick through Moonraker or even A View to a Kill, than the plotting here should slip by beautifully.

I found Spectre to be an incredibly frustrating Bond movie, its ALMOST so good, but fails over and over.

It doesn't seem to come alive, there are lots of moments which are almost pastiches of previous Bond scenes strung together where you THINK something good, thrilling or crowd pleasing is about to happen...and then it just doesn't, it just peters out, don't want to give any spoilers but ill just say cable car, base escape, video tape, M crash, M fight...hell the whole ending, you expect something, you think this is what is about to happen.....nope it doesnt...seriously the cable car was the perfect moment for some fun gadget based action but no lets use a cupboard instead.

I totally agree with the previous post in that they waste a superb location in the final third, (the location work is generally excellent, the whole film looks lovely) it even has quad bikes and guest rooms, yet they feel need to return to an over familiar setting for nothing exciting to happen.... overall there's generally no twists no audience pleasing, no surprises nothing... no 'Welcome to Scotland', no cool YES moments.

So much of it on paper is excellent, the cast, the locations, individual moments but when put together they are all wasted, none more so than Waltz and especially Bellucci...why she wasn't the main bond girl is beyond me.

Overall it lacks the strong story and believable romance of Casino Royale (Swann is a nonexistent character that Seydoux can do nothing with, what Bond and her see in each other, its a romance that just appears rather than develops), nor does it have the crowd pleasing moments, villain and wit of Skyfall (by far a funnier and more attractive visually film, it got into the locations, in Spectre they are just surface gloss tossed aside for the next one, but Mendes has really left a visual legacy on the franchise that will be hard to top...just work on script more next time).

The plot also has one of the worst examples of Western cod-psychological self help motivation, an issue that seems a recurrent theme in cinema at the moment, that buggers Fleming's creation and continuity to the nth degree, all in the name of non drama, (the identity issue is another example..why) for some reason they think that Bond has to be personally involved in everything, that its all one mans anguish...it isn't...its his JOB and he isn't in it alone!

What would the villain have done if Bond had grown up to work in a building supply company, hacked the invoice computer, hidden the toner, why can they not just want to rule the world because they are a megalomaniac billionaire nut job.

Oh the title sequence is superb (dull song...that sums up the film you think its about the kick in and start belting out but doesn't), M has one great line, there's a lovely visual joke with Waltz and some nice nods to unused elements in Fleming also Amis's underrated Colonel Sun.

That said roll on Bonds return, it is the most unique franchise in cinema