Skip to main content

Spectre

Completely disappointing, a failure on many levels, and easily the worst of the Daniel Craig Bond films. Indeed, it is arguably one of the worst Bond films of all time. Am I too subtle?

A message from the immediate past sends James Bond (Daniel Craig) on an assassin's errand. The fallout of that unsanctioned action sees him suspended by M (Ralph Fiennes) but with the assistance of Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) and Q (Ben Whishaw), Bond inexorably pursues leads that will bring him face to face with the architect of all his pain (Christoph Waltz). In the interim, women (Monica Bellucci and Lea Seydoux) and henchmen (David Bautista and a parade of nameless thugs) cavort.

I felt ridiculous writing that because it's a ridiculous plot. It wants to have twists and turns but really it just meanders from exotic locale to exotic locale.

The film starts with a brilliant, long tracking shot during Dia de Muertos in Mexico City. It truly is a marvel. Right after, though, you can feel things falling apart because the subsequence action set piece is a marvel of nothing so much as repetition and dullness. From here the film proceeds in fits and starts, with too many scenes just dragging on. And on.

There's not a single performance that registers above adequate. Craig, up until now, has been such a brute powerhouse of a Bond. Here, he seems more annoyed than engaged. The debates M has with his potential replacement C (Andrew Scott) are probably meant to be topical, with M speaking about the dangers of a surveillance state (while running a surveillance organization, oh the irony) but not bothering with either its limitations or how it can never, ever replace a "boots on the ground" program such as the double-0's. At best it's lazy lecturing of a point the writers presume the audience agrees with.

The biggest failure of the film is in its handling of the villain. I'm beginning to suspect that Christoph Waltz only really shines when he's in a Tarantino film. Here, he's not quite as bad as in Green Hornet, but he's not much better. A lot of this is not his fault. Spectre is a doomed attempt at unifying the four Craig films into a single plot, to create a Bond Cinematic Universe a la the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It fails and in large part this is because of the machinations they make Waltz's villain go through. "Contrived" is simply an inadequate description.

Spectre, as a title, is clearly meant to have dual meanings, because everyone is haunted by the ghosts of their past, but neither the writers nor the director had the chops to pull that off. Spectre should have been SPECTRE, the Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion. That's what every Bond fan was anticipating from the moment the title was announced. Through the first three films, Craig was being trained to finally become The James Bond. Now was the time for the massive and villainous organization to make its entrance.

Instead, we got "architect of all your pain" nonsense. What a waste.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that ...

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home. Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes . In Batman Begins , I blamed Katie Holmes . Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal , who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film,...

Dune Part 2 (2024)

I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune. Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue. Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021) . Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action. Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak. I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the n...