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

I (Briefly) Try a Mac

 I Bought a Mac. My first computer was an Atari 800, fully loaded with 48k of RAM. And I mean the original, beige model, not its low-slung, fancy successor. My friend went for an Apple IIe, which cost a relative fortune. Eventually, I’d step up to an Atari 1040ST, while he’d get a IIgs. And even more eventually, we both ended up with IBM PC compatibles. MSDOS was my friend, Unix an ally. It was with great reluctance that I transition from a command-line interface (CLI) to a Graphic User Interface (GUI), always on a PC platform and never a Mac. I never bought into the hype and never experienced all the horrid things that allegedly befell anyone using a PC. For me, they just worked. Yet here I am, these many decades later, typing this on a brand-new MacBook Air M4. How things change... Initially, there was little regret but a mounting list of frustrations. Adjusting to the keyboard isn’t too hard, it’s just a matter of experimentation. Learning how to scale the display wasn’t awful, ...

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...

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered....