16 November 2015

BOND AMBITION

A reminder of how this blog's James Bond reviews work can be found right here.


SPECTRE
Directed by Sam Mendes
Written by John Logan and Neal Purvis & Robert Wade and Jez Butterworth
Premiered 26 October, 2015

Here there be spoilers. Visit my review at the Film Experience for the safe version.

PRE-TITLE SEQUENCE
The time has come to acknowledge that, notwithstanding the hellish editing in the car chase that opens Quantum of Solace, the Daniel Craig era of the James Bond franchise has been almost unfairly great at opening scenes. This one is set in Mexico City, during the Día de Muertos (because you can't go someplace in a Bond movie and have it not be a major local festival, duh), and Bond is hunting down a mysterious Italian man named Marco Sciarra (Alessandro Cremona). He does this, by the way, in the form of a long take that is, all by itself, one of the best things that has ever shown up on a Bond movie. And then there's the fistfight on a helicopter that erupts after Bond shoots all of Sciarra's associates, but not Sciarra himself, and blows up a half of a city block in the process. This helicopter, mind you, is currently performing corkscrews and frequently almost plunging into a crowd of people stuffed into the Zócalo. It's mouth-wateringly good action, and Thomas Newman's score that keeps hinting at Monty Norman's Bond theme is on hand to make it even better, just in case we somehow we were less than 100% excited.

Though if "fist fight on a helicopter doing corkscrews" doesn't make you 100% excited, you are dead, and shouldn't be watching movies.

pretitle_5
Rating: 5 Union Jack Parachutes


TITLE SONG
Looks like somebody learned all the wrong lessons from Skyfall, and Adele's Oscar-winning smash hit theme song thereof. Once again we have a slow ballad based somewhat on the structure of the Bond theme, slowed to a crawl, that erupts into big orchestral fireworks at the verses. What we do not have is a woman with a smoldering mezzo-soprano or alto voice who sounds like we caught her mere seconds into a cigarette break. Instead, "Writing's on the Wall" (the third time in the four Craig films that the theme song does not share the title of the film nor does the title appear in the lyrics) finds Sam Smith - who not merely claims to have written it in less than a half-hour, he's practically bragging about it - squeaking along with a dreadful falsetto that's an incongruous fit at best with the moody slowness of the music. And when I saw "moody slowness", I am being somewhat over-polite, when I actually mean "fuck-all boring". Tepid, watery, and a near-low for the whole franchise.

song_1half
Rating: 1.5 Shirley Basseys


TITLE SEQUENCE
So bad, or so bad it's good? And those are the only options, please note. I will concede that Daniel Kleinman, who has been responsible for some of the best title sequences in the franchise's history over the years, shows absolutely no fear and bless him for it; and one thing that nobody could claim is to be bored by the nutcase feverishness of the CGI octopodes dominating the sequence in a discomfitingly porny way (we have to ask, where the hell was Kleinman when they made Octopussy?). It is magnetically weird, even if it's kind of awful.

But - there is also the matter of the sequence's narrative. Which is a forthright attempt to summarise the three-film history of the Craig era using clips and snippets from the previous films, and a whole lot of images of Craig himself. It's ungainly, and it prefigures the very worst that Spectre has to offer: its sweaty attempt to wrap up the whole Craig era into one overstuffed package.

title_1
Rating: 1 Silhouetted Woman


THE PLOT
Aye, what is the plot? It's all over the place and nowhere at all: somehow, Spectre contrives to be the longest Bond film ever made despite having no apparent narrative. Bond's shenanigans in Mexico City have come at a terrible time for MI6: it has just been merged with MI5 under the stewardship of mad bureaucrat C (Andrew Scott), who is making noises about shutting down the 00 program altogether, while making life agony for Bond's (still, for now) boss M (Ralph Fiennes). Confident that he's on the trail of a super-secret world-spanning evil syndicate, Bond skips London with the reluctant help of M's secretary Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) and MI6 tech wizard Q (Ben Whishaw), and ends up in Rome to attend Sciarra's funeral and learn what he might from the dead man's sexy widow Lucia (Monica Bellucci).

From here... stuff happens? The plot is perfectly easy to follow, it's not convoluted or anything, but it's also terribly aimless. Bond storms through Europe gathering trivial clues and not having to work very hard at all to do so, all in the interest of not stopping any villainous plot - this is purely an exercise in uncovering the existence and structure of SPECTRE, the Special Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion, an entity that From Russia with Love was able to establish and sketch out within its first ten minutes. The real plot, meanwhile, is all happening back in London, while M learns with horror of the full scope of C's intentions to oversee the alignment of all the intelligence agencies of the West under one banner which he will be able to place in the hands of SPECTRE itself. It takes a very, very long time for this to reveal itself, despite the laws of economic screenwriting demanding from the get-go that this is where we're going to end up.

At about two-thirds of the way through, Bond finally catches up with the shadowy head of SPECTRE, Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz), with whom he has a long personal history. It is exactly at this point that the film, which has been amiable in its shagginess, suddenly goes flying off the rails. But we'll get to that later on.

plot_2
Rating: 2 Stolen Nukes


THE VILLAIN
Look, the cat-owning head of SPECTRE is the cat-owning head of SPECTRE by any name. When Oberhauser smugly announces to Bond that he's taken his mother's name and is now going by Ernst Stavro Blofeld, it's the most misjudged "yeah, duh" villain-related twist since Benedict Cumberbatch sneered the word "Khan" in Star Trek Into Darkness.

That's not really even a problem, though. The problem is that Oberhauser or Blofeld or a boy named Sue is a pretty bland incarnation of the form, with the film's new backstory - Bond and Blofeld were childhood friends, nearly even brothers - domesticating the character in a bafflingly pedestrian way. Why not let the evil mastermind be an evil mastermind? Instead, we get a plot point snagged from a goddamned parody of Bond, Austin Powers in Goldmember, where it was obviously meant to be hokey nonsense. Compounding this, our new Blofeld feels like no kind of threat - when he has Bond in a torture rig, it seems quite impossible that Bond will experience any legitimate danger - and while I am pleased that Waltz has stepped back from the fast-talking German eccentric shtick for this role, he's still too plummy and genial to be imposing in the way that the leader of a worldwide criminal organisation had ought to be.

villain_2
Rating: 2 Evil Cats


THE GIRL
Ah, now this is more like it. Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux) isn't quite one for the ages, but she's a largely satisfying foil to Bond, and she gets to drive the plot - such as it is - more than the vast majority of her forebears. Grappling with the unresolved rage she feels at her late criminal father White (Jesper Christensen, playing the character for the third time), she has a sharper tragic dimension than many a Bond woman before her, and the script's fumbling attempts to modernise the film for contemporary sensibilities allow her to be fully sexy without objectifying her or leaving the suggestion that she's only there to be sexed up by the superspy. She's capable in a fight and even more capable at pushing back against Bond, suggesting a whole movie of tensions in her own character that only happen to intersect with Spectre for a time. It helps that Seydoux is a genuinely great actress, a relative rarity for the Bond films.

And then it all goes to hell, with the filmmakers forcibly trying to convince us that Swann and Bond are some kind of soulmates, in a galling manner that's clumsy and tone-deaf even by the standards of a tone-deaf final third. Still, it's nice while it lasts. And you've got to love a character whose name is a random-as-hell Proust reference.

girl_3half
Rating: 3.5 White Bikinis


THE HENCHMAN
Ain't nothing like a giant unspeaking man-mountain, and Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista) can loom with the best of them. He has only the smallest kind of gimmick (steel-plated thumbnails, the better for poking out the eyes of hapless victims), but in the pared-down Craig films, that's colorful enough. He's a memorable physical threat and presence at a level that the current generation of Bond films has mostly spent all of its energy avoiding, and Bautista is just charismatic enough that the character's big meaty sneers play as a nice sort of campy humor in the midst of a generally unsmiling movie. His last scene is a particular highlight on that front. He's exactly what Spectre (and the franchise as a whole, at this point in its development) needs from its bad guys, and the film takes a significant step down once he leaves it.

henchman_4half
Rating: 4.5 Metal-Plated Teeth


THE SECONDARY GIRL WHO ENDS UP DEAD, PROBABLY, OR SOMETHING
For the first time in 24 films over 53 years, James Bond sleeps with a woman older than he is. With a middle-aged woman as profoundly sexy as Monica Bellucci, I can't imagine it cost him too much. The character is typical and formulaic as all hell (wife of a bad guy sleeps with James, gives him info, leaves the movie), but Bellucci invests the character with years of accumulated resentment and fear, giving a stereotypical role genuinely tragic dimensions, while also showing off flawlessly smoldering chemistry with Craig.

On the negative side of the ledger: she's barely in the film at all: two whole scenes, neither of them terribly long. And when the movie is done with her, she more or less evaporates: there's no sense of what's going to happen to her next, really, and even less of a sense that we, or Bond, or Lucia herself cares very much. A disappointingly trivial, flat treatment for a character who certainly had enough gas in the tank to be one of the highlights of the whole franchise.

secondgirl_4
Rating: 4 Golden Corpses


ACTION SEQUENCES
The downside of starting with that astonishing Mexico City opening is that there's nowhere left to go. Not a single one of Spectre's remaining action setpieces is disappointing or deficient or any such thing, nothing like that; but all of them can't help but feel a little bit anticlimactic, particularly since the big car chase is one of those "European cities have narrow windy roads that are difficult to navigate at high speeds" jobs that we've seen plenty of. It's a good version of that; just not a revelatory version of that. Same thing with the train-bound fistfight that's exciting, brutal, and clearly in no way an improvement on the one this very same franchise introduced over a half-century ago in From Russia with Love.

All that being said, Mexico City is a masterpiece, and the film includes the official record-setting biggest practical explosions ever filmed, so let's not be too hard on it.

action_4
Rating: 4 Walther PPKs


GADGETRY
An exploding watch that also tells time; a variety of poorly-marked buttons in a spy car. That's all. I understand the current wave of films is deliberately trying to scale back on all the giddy nonsense of the franchise as a whole, but they can't make me like it.

gadget_2
Rating: 2 Easily-Riled Welshmen


THE FIENDISH LAIR (and other sets)
There is a mountaintop health spa and ski lodge here, and it is all that I ever want my movie sets to be: imperious glass walls everywhere, multiple levels to be kept in frame simultaneously, perilously austere furniture. Production designer Dennis Gassner and set decorator Anna Pinnock really went to town on the spa, and no two ways about it. And the headquarters of C's new spy headquarters is, while definitely gaudy, a festive and sprawling and Guggenheim-esque kind of gaudy.

And as for the rest of the film? Eh. Fine. Boring. SPECTRE headquarters is a peculiar-looking heap out in the middle of the desert - having already played the "desert hideout" card so perfectly in Quantum of Solace, I'm surprised the producers thought they could get away with threading that needle twice during Craig's time in the role - that feels like a kludge of ideas for the backstory of the physical location that never got resolved before the time came to build it, and the super-secret observation room is archaic spy-movie boilerplate. The very good sets certainly stick out more in memory, but they are fewer in number.

lair_3
Rating: 3 Volcano Fortresses


ELEGANT LIFESTYLE PORN
The persistent reality of the Daniel Craig films - a shortcoming, I'd even say, but I'm biased - is that they're simply not very glamorous. Electing to focus on Bond as a thuggish brute representing a decaying world order in a largely realistic setting will do that. But here, at last, we start back in the direction of elegance, and it's all very grand: the suave costumes of the Mexico City sequence, the wall-to-wall Tom Ford that Craig wears better than he's ever worn clothes in a Bond picture, the withering superiority of finding himself in a health spa with no vodka martinis. It's the first time ever that Craig-Bond has come across as somebody whose life seems largely worth emulating, and I appreciated the flickers of it here and there. His apartment is a pointedly empty shell, for which many points come off.

And then there's the car.

For this movie, Aston Martin designed a brand-new concept car, the DB10, of which only ten were made, all of them for the movie shoot. Reader, it is the most beautiful car I have ever seen, with lines flowing like a rampaging river and a coiled tension in its frame like a predator on the hunt. I don't even like cars. But oh my God, this car is the car that angels would drive. And James Bond gets to drive it, and I am very jealous of him.

elegance_4half
Rating: 4.5 Vodka Martinis


APPEARANCE OF "BOND. JAMES BOND."
Whispered to Lucia, slowly, right as their scene shifts from hate-seduction to lust-seduction.
Forced or Badass? Oh, very, very badass.


BEST QUIP
MADELEINE: Why, given every other possible option, does a man choose the life of a paid assassin?
BOND: Well, it was that or the priesthood.

Best I could do - this is maybe the most un-quippy Bond film ever made


ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
If Spectre ends up not being the final Daniel Craig film, everybody is going to look a bit silly. The whole thing turns out to be such a self-conscious summing up that it's difficult to imagine it wasn't designed that way; right down to the meaningful way Bond and the girl ride off into the sunset. Certainly, the sense of all history coalescing into this one showdown between Bond and his brother-antagonist Blofeld suggests the last movement of some epic symphony of globe-trotting and superspying. I find it all a bit tedious and frankly stupid, and pretty much from the moment Bond arrives at Blofeld's desert base, the film's whirligig frenzy of crescendoes not just for its own plot but the plots of the three Bond pictures preceding it becomes a pure annoyance. The degree to which the franchise went serial-mad has never been clearer than here: everything that Spectre takes 148 minutes to establish was tossed off in dialogue as the mere background to From Russia with Love, Thunderball, and You Only Live Twice. Perhaps it's nostalgic peevishness on my part that I prefer Bond when he's handed a dossier and told "this crazy person with a colorful, thematically appropriate personality has a doomsday machine. Please go shut it down". I just find the laborious way that the four Craig films have doubled-down on being origin stories - four films now, and we're still with the origin story - to be contrary to the things Bond is great at. Casino Royale was precisely the Bond film we needed in 2006; but we did not need four Casino Royales, and that's basically what we got.

I'm grouching. The fact of the matter is, I quite enjoyed Spectre when it wasn't up its own ass with continuity, so basically the first two-thirds. On a moment-by-moment basis, there's plenty in it that's delightful on its own, not least of that being the way that Q, Moneypenny, and M get up to mischief on the homefront; it's the most action that those three characters, collectively, have ever enjoyed together, and the smooshed-together family that they form when working as a trio is easily Spectre's finest contribution to the James Bond mythos.

Meanwhile, the film's stock elements work more often than not: for large portions of the middle, this is the most that a Bond film has felt like a Bond film since Pierce Brosnan retired, and there's hardly a trace of Jason Bourne's DNA to be detected. It's a for-real globetrotting adventure of the first order, I am happy to say, with lots of beautiful location photography provided by cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema, and a breezy pace imparted by director Sam Mendes and the crisp cross-cutting he and editor Lee Smith built into the spine of the movie. That opening tracking shot sets the tone: this is a gliding, weightless James Bond film, which probably sounds meaner than I want it to. I love that it's gliding; even though Casino Royale and Skyfall are plainly better than this, their heaviness is better appreciated occasionally than as the inescapable new normal of the franchise.

And then, like a light switching off, it just collapses. The film's final movement is really no damn good at all, with the exception of a tightly-edited and claustrophobically-shot chase through a building about to explode. Oberhauser-Blofeld is a tedious villain, ominous without earning it, and the avatar of all the film's "let's give James Bond a retroactive Hero's Journey!" impulses that make it a remarkable slog towards the end; the presence of unconvincing dramatic stakes is somehow worse than the absence of stakes altogether; the entire matter of Bond and Swann after the torture chamber sequence where she realises her love for him is utterly ghastly in every way. I do have positive feelings about Spectre, all in all, for its highs are giddy indeed, including some legitimate franchise pinnacles. But dear God, it's not pleasant to watch a film crap over itself with the enthusiasm that this one does.

OVERALL SCORE
37/60

24 comments:

  1. 1) I'm sure Waltz' "I say unspeakably evil things with all the voraciousness of a Walmart greeter wishing you a pleasant day" shtick was supposed to be menacing, but it didn't work for me. Billfold is pretty much the Joker of the Bond movies, and he came off as more of the Genial Smiler. Also, his dead eye and scar make-up at the end was comically bad, and I'm rather disappointed that he didn't also have all his hair burned off in the explosion that gave it to him.

    2) I was going to make a joke about the Blofeld/Bond relationship being too much like the Smallville concept of Superman and Lex Luthor being childhood buddies, but you made a better reference with Goldmember, and I respectfully withdraw it.

    3) I know there's a spoiler warning at the top, but since I'm going to talk about the one thing you didn't,

    Spoiler Spoiler SPOILER SPOILER

    Bond quits? Which would have been more astounding if he hadn't already done that once this series, and as much as Madeleine Snow would be enough to make ME quit MI:6, she's nothing on Vesper Lynd, and we are talking about a man who's lain down with more women than Wilt Chamberlain at this point, and I just can't see what it is about her that would make her the one he'd quit for. Which brings me to

    4) There's just no way in hell that this doesn't end badly for the two of them. As the series goes Full Reboot on us it starts to get really obvious about the direction it plans to take. Just like no X-Men movie can handle Jean Grey without sliding over to a cheapskate Phoenix storyline, the combination of Blofeld + a woman Bond loves enough to give up his life for = you don't put Gwen Stacy in a Spiderman movie unless you're going to drop her off a building at some point. Which makes this movie not just the second time in five movies that Bond has given up the life for a girl, but also one half of a two-parter On Her Majesty's Secret Service remake.

    5) Is this too long? It's probably too long. But I've just got one more thing: I'm done with realistic Bond. I'm sick of plots that might be world-reaching but are far too small for the character. I'm not itching for the days of invisible cars and CGI icebergs, but if the next movie doesn't have a world-threatening space laser, I'm out. How many more plots are going to have not the fate of the world in their hands, but the fate of spying? James Bond doesn't have to justify why he's still relevant in a changing world. We have futuristic sic-fi movies that also involve a single deadly assassin working alone in the field and nobody questions whether he's appropriate for the 22nd century. Bond is Bond. his justification is that he exists, and is awesome. Point.Match.Good game, guys.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 6) I love that I thought my computer would screw me over less with autocorrects than the damn phone, and it still switched Blofeld to Billfold. Good job, Apple.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I'm Not the Only One" aside, I've always found Sam Smith to be pretty insufferable as a performer. That godawful falsetto of his! Worst song of the Craig era hands down; at least "Another Way to Die" had a memorable riff.

    I enjoyed this film about as must as you did, but honestly, how much better would it have been if they'd dropped all that continuity crap in favor of building a real connection between Bond and Madeleine Swann? Lea Seydoux is a great actor, the only thing standing between her and being on the level of Diana Rigg or Eva Green is the strength of the writing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If I might say something in favor of the final act, it showed us that Ralph Finnes is fan-fucking-tastic as M!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm surprised you didn't mention how like half the score is just re-used from Skyfall. They didn't even wait for the opening sequence to be finished before stealing tracks. Did they rush this out the door or something? Did Newman not have enough time to finish the score and they had to put in the old tracks? Did I just pay $20 to watch a workprint in theaters?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think I was a fair bit less fond of this than you, Tim. It has points in its favour - that opening sequence is pretty incontestably amazing, I thought Bautista was one of the best henchmen in Bond history, I thought Cristoph Waltz was doing the best that could be done with what he was given (he really is this decade's definitive Avuncular Sadist in the movies), and the Hoyte van Hoytema's cinematography is gorgeous throughout.

    All that aside, though, I just couldn't get past how utterly mangled the plot was, and more and more so as the film went on, a million and one little aggravations combining to nibble the film to pieces. Where did Bond get that plane in the mointaintop chase scene? Why does Monica Belluci vanish after two scenes? Why do Bond and Swann walk unarmed and unprepared into Bloberhauser's base? How did Bloberhauser survive the biggest explosion ever? ...And on and on and on. It doesn't help that the plot itself is doing nothing to distract me from its own holes. It's basically a reprise of Captain America: The Winter Soldier (hero discovers his organisation has been corrupted from within by a malignant outside agency, scheming to set up a privacy-violating surveillance system which requires the hero to go off-grid and prevent it from launching at the eleventh hour), but unlike Winter Soldier, where the threatened surveillance system was poised to immediately kill millions of people, when the surveillance system in Spectre goes online, it will... be online. Chilling. Yeah, the stakes of You Only Live Twice they ain't.

    On top of which, those really were some of the most wretchedly cursory and unconvincing gestures in the direction of continuity I can remember seeing in a franchise picture. Really, Bloberhauser, it was you pulling Silva's strings all along? Um... HOW? There was no evidence in Skyfall whatsoever that Silva answered to anyone but himself. There's a right and a wrong way to do retcons, and this is the wrong one.

    I came out telling myself I'd enjoyed it, and there are definitely patches of quality in there - I suspect I'd still watch it over Quantum of Solace. But in hindsight I have to cherry pick the bits I liked from the larger body of stuff that actively irritated or alienated me. It's a strange world we live in where Bond movies have now, twice in a row, been inferior to a Mission: Impossible film coming out within the same 12 months.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Weirder still, in this case it's a Mission: Impossible film with a markedly similar plot (spy is convinced a multinational criminal conspiracy exists, has to go on the lam to prove it, pulls in the agency's nebbishy tech guy to reluctantly help him out).

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's interesting that Craig in particular has been adamant about humor in his Bond films having to be nonexistent (or virtually nonexistent) precisely because the Austin Powers movies so mocked Bond film conventions while at the same time he & EON felt perfectly OK essentially ripping off an Austin Powers plot point for their production.

    Were they not aware that the whole "Blofeld is practically my brother business" a.) played like parody and b.) essentially made no sense on any level?

    I miss the days when Bond films were about girls, gadgets, and guns. I'm tired of the 'woe-is-me' 007. I'd sooner watch A View to a Kill than Spectre. It might be terrible, but at least I enjoyed it as goofy entertainment over the dour Spectre.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry Tim, but I gotta go with the other comments here: this one left me pretty damned cold.
    A lot of that is for reasons you've outlined; the plot is a complete shambles, the final third is a total mess, the new Blofeld doesn't work (nor, for that matter, does the new SPECTRE, which basically stops meaningfully existing after all of one scene in its direct presence), and the tedious need to keep Origin Story-ing Bond has run well past its limit. But on top of that, I also just found the movie as a whole really boring; the action scenes, even the opening bit in Mexico, all just fell completely flat for me, either running on well past their expiration date (the airplane sequence), failing to find anything especially creative or fun to do with itself (the car chase in Rome), or some combination of both (the Final Chase in London, which also culminates in an obscenely unearned "Big Choice" moment that left me seething), which means the movie's admittedly-admirable attempts to re-inject something like the old-school Bond Spirit back into things just wind up feeling like so much empty Fan Service.
    There ARE, as you say, Good Things here, but for me they come almost entirely in small bursts; the Q's-Lab scene, for example, or some of the stuff with Ralph Fiennes' enjoyably prickly M (incidentally, I realize the Best Quip has to go for Bond, but I would happily nominate "I guess now we know what 'C' stands for" as maybe the best line of the whole movie, at least before they ruin it by taking on a Just To Be Safe after-line), or even some of the dynamic between Bond and Moneypenney. But it's far too little to successfully overcome the mountain of aggravatingly misguided choices piling up all around it, and for me, it results in a movie that frustrates far more often than it entertains, for me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tim, I loved reading all your Bond reviews and the way you broke the films down. I'm a bigger fan than most as I've seen all the movies many times. Still I am not as forgiving of this film's faults. Perhaps I've just been spoiled but stunning opening shot aside, in a year of pretty good action spy films, Spectre was by far the weakest. Kingsman, Rogue Nation and Man from U.N.C.L.E. were all much more entertaining, and provided smarter commentaries on the Bond franchise than this movie managed to even with its endless blunt referencing, which meant fuck all outside of "hey remember that mountain top resort from On Her Majesty's Secret Service?" or "hey remember that train fight in From Russia with Love?" Who thought it was a good idea to constantly remind us of better films?

    Christoph Waltz is criminally wasted, underplaying a villain that demanded scenery chewing if any Bond villain does, and while Léa Seydoux is ok in her underwritten role, she fails to generate any chemistry with Craig, who fares far better with Monica Bellucci in their brief scene. When she told Bond she loved him, I actually let out an audible "what?!" as I was genuinely surprised that was what the film was going for, and my audience laughed, and that was probably the most fun I had during the middle section of this film which I found so so boring. I would really prefer to sit through Quantum many times over than endure this one again. Has there been a Bond film with quite so little action as this one? And the action that there is is over so quickly it mostly failed to register.

    I found my mind wandering considering all the implausible things that we're just suppose to accept without thinking too hard about them, like how Bond manages to sneak out that DB10 and transport it to Italy without anyone being the wiser (what lax security! did MI6 learn nothing from Skyfall?!) or how David Bautista is apparently more qualified to be a middle manager in Blofeld's criminal enterprise simply because he can gouge out the eyes of his competition, or what the hell the point of that torture chair was since it didn't seem to do anything to Bond, or how Blofeld got all those photos of the people from past films. Did he make Vesper Lynd and Silva submit headshots?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I've thoroughly enjoyed all your Bond reviews. Like most of the commenters here, I'm a bit tired of the need to remake Bond into an adventure serial. At this point a return to the old formula of having Bond foil a maniacal super-villain with a volcano lair (who, by the way, has absolutely zero past connection to Bond in any way, bedding down with the most gorgeous woman left alive by the end of the flick, and then moving on with his goddamned life because that's what secret agents do, would be kind of refreshing. As you noted in your review, I do like this current, more active configuration of M, Moneypenny and Q, and would like to see them continue in whatever turn the Bond franchise takes next. Frankly, they could probably even support their own spin-off series.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So with everyone's agreement that the franchise needs to stop taking itself so seriously, they need to hire the modern day Roger Moore... Who's it gonna be... Colin Firth? Or let's get nutty... Craig Ferguson?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maybe I'm crazy but I thought there was bit more campy humor in this one, which was refreshing. Unfortunately, it was two and half hours long, which is extremely unrefreshing. I enjoyed it overall but there were some surprising missed opportunities. Like, why set up a scene where Q is alone with a murderous henchman on a cable car and not have him off the bastard with a clever gadget? And, like you said, Bellucci just vanishes (I imagine she had a cruel death scene that was snipped out at some point) and Waltz never really does anything particularly villainous to earn our hatred. And why set up Bautista to be practically indestructible and then not have him come back for the final scene?

    ReplyDelete
  14. This was, just...what the fuck was that?

    I'm not really a Bond fan in general, Casino Royale was the last one I liked, and before that it was Goldeneye, and then Sean Connery, so I came into this film already pretty cold and unimpressed.

    I laughed out loud at this more than I did at Into Darkness. This was the worst movie I've seen this year in theatres. It's not even close. Blofield being the jealous kinda-brother pulling all the strings? And they play it straight-faced? I just want somebody to ask Sam Mendes, "What the fuck, man?"

    I barely ended up liking Skyfall, but it was infinitely better than Spectre. It really seems like a worst-case scenario. Everything that could have gone wrong - the screenplay, the song, the intro, Waltz as Blofield, the running time - immediately did so.

    I'm looking forward to Vaughn finally making a sequel with Kingsman 2. The first one was everything that was great about Bond, but awesome. None of that PG13 neutering. I'd take the unbroken church fight over anything Craig_Bond has ever done.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I've been really looking forward to the Spectre edition of your Bond Breakdown.

    The inflexibility of the Bond fan always frustrates me though, as they always seem preoccupied with what genre the film should be, despite the franchise covering everything from Hitchcock thriller to romantic drama to sci-fi epic to comicbook film and goodness knows what else. Spectre knows this and tries to serve up two different half Bond films : the kind of laid back, flippant but easy going Roger Moore adventure; and the more personal, violent tone that defines the Daniel Craig era. I got to be honest, I kind of liked both of them. Since Daniel Craig is actually in this one, I did actually prefer when the film shifted gear to the Craig style with the melancholy of the "secret room" and the explosion of violence on the train (easily the best set piece as it was immeasurably satisfying seeing Craig so physically out of his depth after Casino Royale established that as his trump card).

    The frustration is compounded by the critics' comparisons to Skyfall. Spectre is about as good as Skyfall just with opposite strengths - script may not be as witty or as smoothly flowing BUT it makes up for the presecessor's lack of action and Seydoux is good repentence for that movie's nasty streak of misogyny. I do think in terms of score - with the exception of the Tennyson speech - it's a dead heat in that Thomas Newman just does not get the brass and brashness required from a Bond film. I have never missed David Arnold so much. Weirdly, I feel like rooting for this as the little multi-million pound blockbuster that could. My theory is that although both films are strong 7/10s, the post-Olympics euphoria of which Bond was integral, the 50th anniversary, and the sadistically incompetant Quantum of Solace have all contributed to the deck being stacked wildly in Skyfall's favour and now none of that historical context is there to bolster Spectre.

    One last thing on a specific story beat. There's been widespread outcry at the profession of love moment and I never read that the way everyone else seems to. I immediately thought Swann was reacting to Bond's memories being erased and was trying to give him something lasting that would break through. Since she'd just heard of the one true love of his life, it made more sense to me that she was trying to replicate this instead. In a film where the dialogue doesn't quite nail it as often as I'd like, I thought this along with Swann calling out Bond's reckless bullshit that keeps getting women killed (answering the question posed by both 006 and Dominic Greene) were really smart bits of writing. What say you?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm not sure this one deserves so much vitriol or high praise. It kind of sits comfortably alongside Thunderball, For Your Eyes Only, and The Living Daylights as a pretty decent Bond flick that could use a good trimming.

    That Sam Smith song, on the other hand, should be tied to a chair and have its balls whipped vigorously.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Everything up through the train fight was excellent. Beautiful girls, beautiful locations, incredible action sequences (I mean, seriously, that Mexico opening!)

    Then it got really bad at the evil lair.

    Back in London was... Fine, I guess. But Christ did the momentum die a brutal death in the desert.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Brian - Yes. Precisely. Had Waltz been a little more menacing, and the plot been a little more overarching than just giving an information cartel more information... it could have been great. If you subtracted the tossed in love story that needed way more development to sell.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pedant's corner: Honor Blackman and Diana Rigg were both older than their Bonds (and I know, not the point at all, but I just had to mention it).

    Otherwise, brilliantly entertaining review of a damnably frustrating movie.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Tim, the Proust reference isn't random at all. This is a movie about memory and nostalgia, yes? I think "Madeleine Swann" fits in very nicely with all the references to the earlier films.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I saw this with my family and quite enjoyed the action sequences, but I think you could've been a bit harsher on the dialogue. Here are some direct quotes, for anyone who hasn't seen it:

    Moneypenny: You have a secret. It's something you won't tell anyone else.

    C: I guess we know what M stands for... Moron.
    M: I guess we know what C stands for... Careless.

    M: A license to kill is also a license NOT to kill.

    And then there's a moment when Blofeld puffs air onto some glass between Bond and himself and he draws a little heart in the steam with his finger. That fucking happens in this movie.

    I reserve comment on the intensely comical opening sequence because everyone needs to see the moments of James Bond tentacle porn for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hey Tim, what do you think of this rejected theme by Radiohead?

    https://soundcloud.com/radiohead/spectre

    ReplyDelete
  23. I didn't like the movie much, but one objection not many have seemed to mention: I thought that torture device was terrifying, and very believable, cutting into his brain and all! But it literally had No Effect on Bond!! Even though Blofeld told us how it worked, Bond just took it and wasn't permanently injured in any way, and the genuine fear that some of his muscle control, memory,etc would actually be affected just went out the window with no explanation whatsoever. I mean, what the hell?

    ReplyDelete

Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.

Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.