(Spoilers for all previous Daniel Craig films below!)
Spectre:
After the death of M and the partial destruction of the MI6 organization in Skyfall, James Bond has been on the trail of an elusive criminal organization. His only clues are a ring with an octopus emblem, and some unclear ties to the Quantum organization, Le Chiffre, and Raoul Silva. As Bond becomes entangled in an increasingly vast web of terrorist plots, as well as dealing with MI6's new merger with MI5 under the leadership of the surveillance-obsessed C, he is forced to confront his failures as a spy and as a human being, and come face-to-face with a ghost from the past.
I was hyped for this films from the word "Go." The trailers, the director, the cast, and even the title got me pumped for a Skyfall-esque adventure that would surely leave Mission:Impossible- Rouge Nation in the dust. What I got was an uneven film that wound up not even surpassing the slightly above mediocre Rogue Nation, let alone leaving it far behind.
Daniel Craig and the returning cast are all still very good, with Ben Whishaw's Q given more to do (and Naomie Harris' Moneypenney and Rory Kinnear's Tanner even less), and Craig still remaining my favorite Bond. Dave Bautista was good as the hulking enforcer Mr. Hinx (his lack of dialogue was also a nice touch and a throwback to older Bond henchmen), and Andrew Scott as the meddling C was a fantastic addition, though he is a bit typecast in these type of roles since his appearance in Sherlock. Lea Seydoux's Bond girl Dr. Swann was a definite improvement over Silva's disposable mistress in the last film, and feels like her and Bond have actual chemistry. Monica Bellucci's character was literally just there for exposition and eye candy. She's almost pointless. There are a few returning actors whose appearances I will not spoil, but it was nice to see them back, albeit briefly. I will touch upon Christoph Waltz in a bit.
The action sequences are good by Bond standards, but do not feel as innovative, raw, or well-constructed as in Skyfall or Casino Royale. The cinematography isn't as stunning as the last film either, despite being from the same cinematographer as Interstellar, Her, and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, and sharing the same director, Sam Mendes. I will give it this, the opening tracking shot was extremely impressive (the opening scene's visual palate even felt similar to Live and Let Die) and the location scouts were brilliant. This is also more of a globe-trotting adventure than either Skyfall or Casino Royale, another semi-throwback. However, this film seems to try to throwback a little too often. The entire first half, particularly in the car chase sequence in Rome, feel a little Roger Mooreesque, not only for my tastes, but for Craig's Bond. However, it never falls into the laughable territory of Moore's later films or Die Another Day.
The music by Thomas Newman is unique for a Bond film, almost Elfmanesque at times. But the music is far from the best part about the film, as evident by the opening song.
The opening song "Writing's on the Wall" by Sam Smith, was written with his producer in about 20 minutes and it shows. The vocals by Smith are exceedingly impressive, but the instruments are so mellow and muted it is hard to find a hummable tune and it ultimately comes off as forgettable. The song feels like it is trying to be Adele's "Skyfall" and doesn't try too many new things, and ultimately builds to nothing and peters out at the end, much like the film's last act. The song has grown on me the more I've listened to it, but when I first heard it when I saw the film, I was underwhelmed. I wouldn't usually critique a theme this much, but the opening song is such an integral part of the Bond formula. This song initially felt like it didn't fit but it's slowly felt more at home in the Bond music library, definitely better than Madonna or Jack White/Alicia Keys' efforts, which still, after multiple years of listening, don't feel like Bond song material. The opening credits sequence that accompanies it also feels slightly lazy, with repetitive visuals that don't feel as intriguing or as striking as those in the openings of Skyfall or Casino.
As far as story goes, this one is surprisingly lackluster. There's confusing romances (particularly a short-lived one between Bond and Bellucci's character), some occasionally awkward or ill-timed humor, and this one suspends disbelief a lot more, especially considering Craig's more gritty take on the role (people take unrealistic beatings and walk away barely scathed, there's escapes that logically make no sense, etc.). There's even a scene where a man has his eyes gouged out and it comes off oddly tame and unbelievable. I wasn't expecting a lot of gore, as this is still a PG-13 movie, and gore is sometimes less effective, but the man who was being killed seemed oddly restrained for a man having his eyes torn out. He didn't scream or anything, just kind of grunted in pain. That came off as a little silly and a scene that definitely could've been handled better. The villain also doesn't really appear until the last act, which would've been fine, only they rush his reveal, motivation, etc. all in the final act rather than building it up as they have in previous entries. There is also a torture scene in the film that sounds great on paper but is mishandled and doesn't feel as vicious or disturbing as the one in Casino Royale, which sounds laughable on paper.
The climax is my biggest story gripe. It doesn't feel as personal, unique, or spectacular as the one in Skyfall, and ultimately feels rushed and all too similar to the climax of Rogue Nation, which sucks considering both films already had similar set-ups, and I wanted to see this film do something different. The second act is very talky, as like previous Craig films, but this one never feels like the dialogue is all that investing or that the stakes are all that high, so the middle drags for quite a bit and comes off as dry. The story, at least the bare bones of it, is very similar to Skyfall in many respects (again, same director) and feels like it took everything that film did well and knocked it down several pegs. Even C's character feels like what the character Mallory could've become in the last film given a more cliche script.
I wouldn't usually compare this film so much with its' predecessors, but it forces you to. For one, this is the only direct Bond sequel aside from Quantum of Solace, and it serves as a connector between all of Craig's film, bringing his take on Bond full circle, something I enjoyed, but also felt cemented his impending retirement from the franchise. All this and I still haven't talked about the worst part of the movie: the villain.
Christoph Waltz is a great actor. Fantastic even. But here, he just isn't that good. Not that his performance is bad, but he's given so little to do, so little motivation and background to work with. The motivation given is so dumb and cliche and simplistic it's insulting, especially for a character with so much potential. The motivations of Silva and Le Chiffre in the previous film were simple, too, but original and interesting, and almost made them a tad empathetic. Here, there's nothing human about this character, and while that may work for some villains, here, it plays the opposite way: he's more cardboard cutout than person in this role. The fact that he and Seydoux are paired here again only reminds me of how much a better villain he made in Inglorious Basterds. Despite the seeming perfect casting of this character, he just feels weak compared to Silva and Le Chiffre. I'll delve even deeper into this in the semi-Spoiler talk below.
Spectre is a worthy sequel to Skyfall and neatly ties up Craig's series (and the Bond timeline in general, but more on that below). However, this connection to the other films will prevent newcomers from enjoying this film if they've never seen one of Craig's Bond films. The film isn't perfect, nowhere near, and it's more than slightly disappointing. I heard negative buzz about the film before going in, which lowered my expectations exponentially, which is great, because I feel as if I went in with my initial high expectations, I would've hated it through-and-through. This is decent conclusion to the Craig Bond series (if it is one, but it sure feels like it), but is not all it could have been. Is it the worst Bond film in 30 years, as some have speculated? Hell no. We still have Die Another Day and the later Roger Moore library of films. I really wanted to give this one a 7, but I can't lie to myself or you, the reader, about how much I enjoyed this. 6.5/10 stars.
My reviews of the other Craig Bond films:
http://mattcottermovies.blogspot.com/2012/11/daniel-craig-bond-trilogy.html
A review that elaborates upon some of my complaints, but overall a differing view than mine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbe5sJUg1KA
An entertaining reddit thread on the film (SPOILERS):
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/3qsd4d/official_discussion_spectre_uk_release_spoilers/
(Image: Wikipedia)Semi-Spoiler Segment:
I will not give away the identity of the villain, as it completely ruins the mystery of the film, but I will say the name initially given (Franz Oberhauser) is not his name by the end of the film. Given the title, if you are familiar with Bond history, you can easily guess who this is. The problem is the same as in Star Trek: Into Darkness: the reveal of the villain's true identity will mean nothing to you as an audience member if you are not an already established fan of the franchise. The other problem with this is I think what happened is the writers said "We can write a sub-par character and just attach an iconic Bond villain to it and pass this sub-par character off on icon status alone and pure name recognition". Also, to soil the name of such an iconic villain by underwriting them, giving them an abysmally overdone motivation for vengeance, and rushing their entire character arc and relationship with Bond is disgraceful to the franchise. It's funny: Skyfall's villain was using a fake name, too. But Silva was revealed to be some nobody agent named Rodriguez we'd never heard of before. As a result, the writers had to make him distinct to stand on his own, and is therefore more memorable and impactful than the supposedly iconic villain in this film. However, this villain reveal ties together the entirety of the Bond timeline. Here's my theory: It's no doubt that Casino Royale is the first Bond novel, and therefore is his first assignment ever in both literary and films worlds. Quantum of Solace is a direct sequel, so that's second in the timeline. Then the Pierce Brosnan timeline happens, as they also feature Judi Dench as M. Then Skyfall, which drops a reference to GoldenEye as well as killing off Dench's M, cementing that this takes place after the Brosnan era. Then Spectre, which is a direct sequel to Skyfall and establishes one of Bond's most recurring and elusive nemeses and re-establishes M as a man, as he was in the older films. This is the film that leads to the original series of films, at leasts the pre-Brosnan ones, and therefore Spectre solidifies the Bond timeline. It may just be my theory, but I feel its' the best one I've heard, if you want to accept that there is any sense of continuity, which Bond films have never been too concerned with.
No comments:
Post a Comment