As it says: the thread for the spoiler-free (!) reviews.
Personally, I think that it’s rather difficult to properly review the movie without spoiling a few major points, but for once I’m eager to see people prove me wrong.
When in doubt, please use the spoiler tag (just click on that little cogwheel on top of the reply field, the rest is self-explaining).
In case a review is regarded as too spoilerish, we may move it to the spoiler review thread.
Don’t forget to vote!
I watched the non-spoiler reviews from Bond superfine Calvin Dyson and David Zaritsky (The Bond Experience). I like hearing their opinions because they are so invested in the franchise and because they know what NOT to say to keep from spoiling the film. I’d suggest anybody look them up on YouTube if they want Bond Fan impressions of the film without being slapped with details you’d rather not hear about, which the mainstream reviews will often give.
Listening to DZ’s review, he made a good point: Some fans may be disappointed because, after having two years to let the movie stew, it may not deliver to expectations. That is, many fans may have used their imagination to fill in plot points and character moments based on viewing trailers/images, etc, and when those moments aren’t realized in the actual film, they may feel let down. It’s an interesting way to look at fandom and how our passions for a film can some times level impossible weight on what can really be delivered.
Great observation. As culture has become more individualistic, the expectation has grown among people that everything–from their local supermarket to the art they experience–be built for their convenience and to their specifications. Retailers emphasize the sublimity of their experience to engender repeat visits–the world is Disneyfied.
The older expectation–that a work out will challenge a person and take them out of themselves–is in retreat. People want to be reassured/reaffirmed–they want narratives to reflect the stories they have already formed in their minds. Look how successful J.J. Abrams was when producing Star Wars’ retreads, while Rian Johnson and his approach were unceremoniously scuppered for (among other things) being different.
Different stories/experiences do need to be expressed in all the arts, e.g., the Metropolitan Opera just premiered a work by a Black composer for the first time in its 138 years of existence. But for me, all these stories must in their expressions gesture toward a larger (dare I say transcendent?) truth–highly specific without specificity becoming an end unto itself. The problem as I perceive it is that people have become addicted/reliant on the melange of (hyper)individualism, and societies are in decay because of it–cultures are slipping into their own, particular spice trances.
The reactions are examples of this to a t.
I’ve noticed in the last few years that even that has oddly mutated into “My truth or death, irrespective of facts”
Fascism in response to art…the world is in a very strange place.
This is true. It’s amazing how staring at something for a period of time allows our own imaginations to build something that was never there in the first place. I find in life its best to approach something from the right perspective - to know what the intentions of things are. I find that’s the road to peace, even when we have quibbles about certain elements. NTTD has been sold as Craig’s farewell to the character, and we do know the series rebooted in 2006. It is what it is.
Not a review question exactly but an opinion question: Mark Tildesley’s designs seem, from the trailers and promos, very Ken Adam-ish. Does this hold up when watching the movie? Should the producers try to keep him on for future installments?
This is a spoiler-free thread. Would answering that question constitute a spoiler?
Not if you can answer it without using a spoiler.
Yes. Much like his work on High Rise, Tildesley was clearly very Adam inspired in his designs. Some are blatant with it, but saying which would lean into spoilers.
Yes, keep him on: his sets are beautiful.