Spectre (Bond 24)

flangemeistro

FunLover18 wrote: »

No, it tells us people are going to see it and that is all it tells us. It does not tell us that those who pay to see it all love it (as this thread proves) nor that it is a good film, see Avatar, Jurassic World, and F&F7 (which I enjoyed but is no Oscar winner) for proof, or Shawshank Redemption in the opposite direction which did very poorly at cinemas but is now regarded as a classic.

No it proves that people are going to see it in their droves and enjoying it so much that they then recommend it to friends and family who do the same and so on and so forth.
If what you're saying is true then why didn't any of the films you mentioned topple the 11 year record never mind nearly double it?
Because the majority of people didn't enjoy those movies so they didn't recommend them and their box office takings plummeted after the original rush because there was no ripple effect.
No matter how much you disliked the movie and try to say people with your opinion will change what really counts and that's footfall and box office takings.

flangemeistro

eeguy wrote: »

If that was true then Jurassic World and the Avengers would be the best movies ever made.

I think box office records are due more to increasing ticket prices for 3d and IMAX that actual film quality.

No one here has labeled Spectre as the best movie ever, and your point makes absolutely no sense as neither Jurassic World or Any of the avengers series touched the 11 year record that Harry Potter held yet Spectre has almost doubled it.
Look the figures speak for themselves and just because this thread has mainly negative views proves only our era's addiction to taking time out of their day to negatively comment on movies, restaurants and hotels yet they don't seem to have the same time to give positive reviews when they have a good experience.
We're a nation of moaners.

pixelburp

flangemeistro wrote: »

No it proves that people are going to see it in their droves and enjoying it so much

You can't presume that attendance === enjoyment in any case of box office takings, no matter how much you personally enjoy a film; it's reductionist and makes no sense. No sensible person prejudges something before they've watched / read / listened to it, so how else can a person form an opinion of Spectre, or any other film, without first shelling out the cash to see it in the cinema?

I've yet to see it myself, but by your own logic my attendance must equate to my eventual enjoyment. I get there's a varied opinion on the film, but I'd prefer to make up my own mind, that's how these things tend to work. It's clear you loved the movie, more power to you, so why not just enjoy it on its own merits & in the spirit of discussion, rather than assume that 'moaners' are trying to harsh on your personal buzz? It's pulling in the scheckles, but it doesn't inform anything other than that it's making money.

James Bond is a franchise that practically markets itself, it's a big ticket film with possibly one of the largest, most recognised brands in cinema. It's not without reason that aspirational & luxury commercial brands try to tie-in with the films. And with most blockbusters there tends to be a 'casual' footfall of attendees; people who simply don't read reviews or blogs or boards.ie, and just go to the cinema for something to do. And again, it can't be assumed that all those going are loving what they see. I'd be more surprised if people weren't attending a James Bond film tbh.

All that said, if those reports are true and the film cost $300+ million, it'll take some haul for the studio to call it a resounding success financially.

eeguy

flangemeistro wrote: »

No one here has labeled Spectre as the best movie ever, and your point makes absolutely no sense as neither Jurassic World or Any of the avengers series touched the 11 year record that Harry Potter held yet Spectre has almost doubled it.

My point is that Jurassic World, Avengers are the highest grossing movies in the world, not just the UK.

flangemeistro wrote: »

Look the figures speak for themselves

Well here's some more for you:
Uk box office No. 1 = Spectre 65% on Rotten Tomatoes
Uk box office No. 2 = Prisoner of Azkaban 91% on RT
Uk box office No. 3 = Mamma Mia 54% on RT

Box office list do not represent film quality. They more accurately represent marketing quality and brand appeal, which Bond has plenty of.

flangemeistro wrote: »

We're a nation of moaners.

I prefer the term "critic" :)

EDIT: Just to note that both flangemeistro and the Radio Times use the top UK opening weekend figures for films produced in Britain. The number 2 UK opening weekend for films produced worldwide is Avatar.

Nerdlingr

flangemeistro wrote: »

As I said the box office would tell all.

"Tell all"?
No it doesnt. All it tells is how many people are going to see the movie.
Nothing more.

The Shawshank Redemption, Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz, Blade Runner etc (amongst countless others) all bombed at the box office.

Does this "tell all" as well ?

FunLover18

flangemeistro wrote:

No it proves that people are going to see it in their droves and enjoying it so much that they then recommend it to friends and family who do the same and so on and so forth. If what you're saying is true then why didn't any of the films you mentioned topple the 11 year record never mind nearly double it? Because the majority of people didn't enjoy those movies so they didn't recommend them and their box office takings plummeted after the original rush because there was no ripple effect. No matter how much you disliked the movie and try to say people with your opinion will change what really counts and that's footfall and box office takings.

It proves that people are going in their droves yes but when I bought my ticket I didn't have fill out a survey about why I was buying a ticket or how I heard about the film nor did I fill out a survey when I left the cinema. The box office solely accounts for tickets sold and nothing else. You can assume if you want but it is no more than an assumption and as this thread proves your assumption that people are buying tickets because they heard about the film from people who loved it is wrong. You keep going on about the 11 year old record which Potter film is that and is it the best film? Is the Phantom Menace an amazing film?

I have no problem with you or others liking Spectre, I disagree but it's your opinion and you're entitled to it but I do have a problem with you equating every ticket sold with a five star review. People (not all people) don't like the film and no matter how much to try to twist irrelevant figures it won't change the fact that what you think is amazing others might think is mediocre or downright ****.

ButtersSuki

flangemeistro wrote: »

No one here has labeled Spectre as the best movie ever, and your point makes absolutely no sense as neither Jurassic World or Any of the avengers series touched the 11 year record that Harry Potter held yet Spectre has almost doubled it.
Look the figures speak for themselves and just because this thread has mainly negative viewsproves only our era's addiction to taking time out of their day to negatively comment on movies, restaurants and hotels yet they don't seem to have the same time to give positive reviews when they have a good experience.
We're a nation of moaners.

Way to make a generalisation there!
Read my reviews on films I liked on the aforementioned "What Have You Watched Recently" thread. Whilst I shat all over Bond, there are films I have gone out of my way to tell people about positively, esp. documentaries. And I'm not the only one. Just because you write a negative review does not make you negative. I'll go out of my way to praise films I like and urge others to see them, and I'm not the only one on boards who does this by any means. My rating for many films I've watched on that thread would be 7/10 or higher - why? because I'm selective in what I watch and tend to avoid the mainstream fodder that populates most of our cinemas.

Giruilla

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

the narrative inertia and lack of much entertainment value in the form of engaging action or nuanced screenwriting is something of a shock.

Pretty much everything Spectre has to offer amounts to something that a previous Bond movie did better. And that’s the trap of doing a Bond movie in the “generational nostalgia” sandbox.

ThisRegard

Actually, I was just reminded that during the lull after the midpoint I dozed off for a while, I think it was just before the train scene.

I'm no stranger to doing this at home, but only the second time doing so in the cinema. The other being bloody Shakespeare in Love.

OU812

Just in format. Have to say, absolutely loved it. I thought they tied the four movies together perfectly, great introduction of a worthy foe & a weakness introduced (that I'm sure will be exploited in the next one). Loved the nods to the earlier movies, this one felt like a 60s/70s 007. Barest hint of gadgets, fast car, beautiful women, exotic locations & low tech action.

My one complaint was the slightly dodgy green screen in the helicopter at the start. Would love if there was a sequel out next week

BuilderPlumber

pixelburp wrote: »

James Bond is a franchise that practically markets itself, it's a big ticket film with possibly one of the largest, most recognised brands in cinema.

Excellent point. James Bond is the most successful collection of firms ever made when it comes to longevity. I don't think there is any other set of films that have been consistently successful over a 50+ year period. 24 official ones along with 1 decent unofficial one along with the poor comedy spoof version of Casino Royale equals 26 films. In terms of longevity, only TV's Dr Who is comparable.

It has become easier these days to make a sequel or a reboot of an old idea. We have seen a lot of the top commercial films this year (some excellent, some not so great) coming from revisits to old franchises and all were successful because they market themselves to a large extent: SPECTRE, Mad Max: Fury Road, Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Terminator: Genisys, Macbeth, Pitch Perfect 2, Jurassic Word, 50 Shades of Grey, Fast and Furious 7, etc. are all films based on either old successful film series, popular plays, popular books, etc. that already had an audience.

Other recent years have given us a similar picture. We have the likes of Rambo, The A Team, Miami Vice, Indiana Jones, Bond again, Terminator again, Star Wars again, the Bourne films, Jack Reacher, Star Trek, Batman, etc. all made into films. Once more, all familiar material.

On the other hand, we will not likely get such films as Waterworld 2, Catwoman 2 or The Postman 2. These would all be considered too risky to undertake due to the poor perception most of the public have of the original films.

e_e

Giruilla wrote: »

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

Pretty much everything Spectre has to offer amounts to something that a previous Bond movie did better. And that’s the trap of doing a Bond movie in the “generational nostalgia” sandbox.

Jurassic World anyone? I'm really tired of this lazy nostalgia pandering, it's like they're admitting that they've run out of ideas and aren't even trying.

Evac101

Wife and I went to see it, neither of us left the cinema feeling like we had 'engaged' with the film at any point. There were some amazing stunts, there were some amusing nods to previous Bond films (and a couple to the original books) but neither of us felt swept away by the action or narrative at any point, which was frustrating. Packed screening, plenty of drink and treats, leg room - good conditions to watch a movie in. The other cinema goers adhered to Kermodes Rules of Conduct (by and large). What I'm saying is that nothing off screen affected our reception of the movie and yet, maybe 80 minutes in, we were both waiting for it to end rather than waiting for the next screen. Which is a pity as it seemed to me like

this signaled the intention of Craig and Mendes to make this their final outing

eviltimeban

There were two problems, firstly the JB fanboys (if there is such a thing) getting their knickers in a twist about

Blofeld

. If it were some new bad guy, a la De Silva, there would've been less of an issue. It was the weight of expectation of what his character would bring, and some people were let down.

I thought the opening parts with

Blofeld were fantastic, in the meeting in Italy, and when we got to his base

I was genuinely hooked and interested in seeing where it would go.

I actually wasn't sure if he was dead or not (I figured he wasn't) and was pleased when he returned in London. I was also pleased that Bond didn't shoot him - I thought, whatever his motivation for holding back, it was the right thing to do.

The second issue was people saying "I want a traditional Bond film!" after Skyfall. Look at the start of this thread - so many posts asking for action and gadgets and Bond girls and car chases etc. That's exactly what they got. What if Mendes had made "Skyfall 2"?

While I love Skyfall now, I didn't like it the first time I saw it. It took a few viewings on DVD to find the nuances. But let's be honest - the plot of Skyfall is ridiculous. This, from Movieplotholes.com:

"Silva’s plan makes no sense. He wanted to get caught on that depressing **** of an island to then escape to find M, so he…

1) Needed Patrice to die at the hands of MI6
2) Needed to make sure Patrice would have his Macao casino chip in his coat
3) Assumed James Bond would just go to the casino after finding the chip because where the **** do you want a better clue to the hideout of a villain than to assume the farfetched notion that assassins enjoy the thrills of gambling risks
4) Assumed James Bond would find his girl, Sévérine, and proceed to not get killed by her 3 body-guards
5) Assumed Sévérine would like James Bond and offer him to join her on that boat for some shower-sex based on her secret desire to find a man strong enough to kill Silva
6) Assumed James Bond would be wearing a tracking device to the island so MI6 could send a few choppers to arrest him
7) Assumed his guards would not search Bond for aforementioned tracking device OR assume none of his guards cared about getting caught by MI6
8) Assumed the MI6 nerds would hook-up his virulent computer to their mainframe instead of an isolated server
9) Assumed there would not be mechanical locks to his cell - even though they were in an underground WW-2 bunker

In order to succeed, Silva had to sacrifice many of his men and pray every night to the dwarf moon-god of luck to make sure all those steps happened."

It's true! So in that sense, at least Spectre had a more straight forward plot and focused on the action, which is what people wanted in the first place.

I look forward to seeing it again on DVD.

OU812

I'm considering going to it again next week in one of the isense screens, have never been to one & want to try it out before Star Wars next month.

super_furry

Saw it last night and left pretty unimpressed – it just felt silly, like one of the later Pierce Brosnan films. There was zero nuance to it and everything was so telegraphed.

After about 30 seconds of being introduced to C, I knew he was going to be a ‘baddie’. The traps that Blofeld set and the torture scene felt like just as convoluted and unnecessary as the height of camp-Bond/Austin Powers as everything is explained to him just as it looks like he’s doomed and he then somehow escapes. Not sure if it's been confirmed yet but I fully expect Mr Hinx to be back in the next film, having replaced the teeth he lost falling off that train with a big set of metal jaws.

I honestly thought that the only thing it was missing was a Russian nuclear submarine base or a trip to the moon.

Riddle101

Saw it today. I enjoyed it for what it is. It probably won't blow you away, but I was satisfied with it.

mickoneill31

Saw it last night. Great action, unbelievable story and diabolical dialogue. I'd give it a 6 out of 10

cloudatlas

Was Andrew Scott's character 'C' in Spectre supposed to be Irish? or was that a bad attempt at disguising his Clontarf (?) accent. If so an Irish director of Mi6 was the most improbable thing about the film, I would think even now it would be impossible for someone Irish to even be in a low level clerical position in the British intelligence service.

The opening sequence was poor. The parkour opening in casino royale was one of the more memorable for me.

I thought Lea Seydoux was great. Beautiful, intelligent, deadly, well timed nuanced acting, all that you would want in a modern bond girl none of this 'what's your name', ' It's Fanny Hotlips' rubbish.

The evil lair was unfabulous and the ending petered out.

e_e

What was with the grey-brown look to Spectre? Wants to be campy fun but it's as drab as a war film. Is a bit of color and visual flash really too much to ask for from an "exciting" globe-trotting spy movie?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvSHbaA4ep8

This review is fairly spot on, Spectre just gets worse the more I look back on it.

Avatar MIA

Rotten Tomatoes have ranked all the Bond movies and have Craig's Skyfall and Casino Royal in first and second place respectively, which I'd not argue with. Despite Skyfall's plot holes it was an excellent cinematic experience.

QOS was ranked 13th out of 26.

Spectre was ranked 18th!

It's overall rating is down to 62% and I suspect it'll drop further.

I thought it was a poor effort on leaving the cinema. On reflection, especially compared to CR and Skyfall I was being generous.

Riddle101

Here's a question.

What was the deal with Blofeld showing Madeleine Swann the camera footage of James Bond with her father Mr White? James was really desperate for her not to see the video, almost like he betrayed or something. But the video didn't exactly show anything she wouldn't have known already. I half thought that they altered the video to make it look like James Bond killed Mr White and use it to turn her against him, bit they didn't.

FunLover18

Riddle101 wrote:

Here's a question.

James told her that her father killed himself, he failed to mention that he gave him the gun that allowed him to do so and pretty much said "tell me what you know, kill yourself and I'll look after your daughter". She got over it fairly handy anyway so I don't know why they bothered

super_furry

Thought it was more a case of

no-one should ever see their father kill themselves. It was pretty ham-fisted though, like most of the movie.

Corholio

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Rotten Tomatoes have ranked all the Bond movies and have Craig's Skyfall and Casino Royal in first and second place respectively, which I'd not argue with. Despite Skyfall's plot holes it was an excellent cinematic experience.

QOS was ranked 13th out of 26.

Spectre was ranked 18th!

It's overall rating is down to 62% and I suspect it'll drop further.

I thought it was a poor effort on leaving the cinema. On reflection, especially compared to CR and Skyfall I was being generous.

Never got some of the love for Skyfall at all, I certainly enjoyed Casino Royale more. The Scottish hideaway ending I thought was particularly dreadful, not only in execution but in any even exaggerated movie common sense wise. I hated the 'lets use isolated places to show tension' dynamic that was in the film.

Baggy Trousers

Corholio wrote: »

Never got some of the love for Skyfall at all, I certainly enjoyed Casino Royale more. The Scottish hideaway ending I thought was particularly dreadful, not only in execution but in any even exaggerated movie common sense wise. I hated the 'lets use isolated places to show tension' dynamic that was in the film.

I absolutely agree with that. That last 20 minutes was dreadful. Ruined a good movie otherwise.

eviltimeban

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I absolutely agree with that. That last 20 minutes was dreadful. Ruined a good movie otherwise.

I disagree - the more I see that section of the movie, the more I like it. It showed Bond was resourceful and not reliant on gadgets or major fire power. (it was a bit dumb of the groundskeeper to walk around with a torch though)

super_furry

Yeah that was my reading of it. It was a plot device to strip Bond of all his gadgets, weaponary and support and show that at the heart of everything, he's a legitimate badass secret agent.

Baggy Trousers

eviltimeban wrote: »

I disagree - the more I see that section of the movie, the more I like it. It showed Bond was resourceful and not reliant on gadgets or major fire power. (it was a bit dumb of the groundskeeper to walk around with a torch though)

Jaysus No, even when watching it in the cinema I was praying for it to end. Cheese central. Very poor ending. I have seen it since and wondered how the directors/editors couldn't see how ridiculous and incredulous it all looked. Casino Royale was way better.

e_e

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6JFUWgiGwc

Really interesting reading of the movie, gonna have to reconsider my opinion now.