Spectre is directed by Sam Mendes (the man behind Skyfall) and is the 24th instalment in the long-running James Bond franchise and the fourth time Daniel Craig has played the popular character. In Spectre, Bond stumbles across a message from an old friend which leads him on a journey to uncover the mystery of Spectre, a shadowy, syndicate organisation responsible for coordinating several terrorist attacks. The adventure leads to Bond discovering some deep, personal secrets concerning his past. The best way I can sum up Spectre is as follows; it doesn't even come close to the brilliance of Skyfall or Casino Royale, but it is much better than Quantum of Solace (thank god).
Overall, Spectre is a bit of a disappointment considering it fails to deliver to the high expectations delivered by recent incarnations of the character. Instead of thoroughly embracing the more sombre, realistic take on Ian Fleming's iconic character, Spectre seems to sacrifice what made Skyfall and Casino Royale so memorable and instead pays homage to the classic Bond films of the Roger Moore days.
But there's a lot to enjoy watching this film and a lot of positives to take away from it. First and foremost, Daniel Craig is excellent as Bond. His organic performance in this film definitively makes him my favourite Bond of all time, embodying everything I understand Ian Fleming's character is. He has the look, the charm, the comedic timing, the physical ruthlessness and the vulnerability the role requires. He can play this role in his sleep.
I'd love to see him continue as Bond, but considering the narrative direction this movie goes I think this is unlikely. It's a shame, but that leads me onto another thing I really appreciated in Spectre; the fact it feels like the conclusion of everything we've seen before. The tie ins to Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall do a good job at expanding the universe of this incarnation of Bond. It gives relevance to events which have preceded it and heightens the importance of events which happen in this film in a similar way.
I really enjoyed the dynamics that Bond has with returning 007 characters M, Q and Moneypenny. The chemistry between them feels organic and natural, as if these characters have a real history of working together as a team. Through these characters is a lot of the movie's humour broadcasted, and I think all of the returning actors did terrific jobs and understood their roles in the film very well.
Its an aesthetically gorgeous film as well with incredibly helmed and choreographed action sequences which really put you in the moment. The inclusion of Dave Bautista as the evil henchman was also handled brilliantly by both actor and script. They both acknowledged that while Bautista is an excellent performer, his acting isn't great. He only has 1 line in the film and I feel Spectre did well at playing to his strengths. Bautista and Bond are involved in an amazingly thrilling and brutal fight sequence on a train which was for sure one of the film's stand outs.
While it definitely misses the genius touches of Roger Deakins behind the camera (who recently shot Sicario), the movie's cinematography is still excellent. The opening shot of this film is an amazing one-take-wonder which follows Bond through the streets, up an elevator, out a window and along a roof. It was Lubezki-esque. Also, the use of focus and lighting in particular is borderline genius, particularly when it came to introducing Christophe Waltz's character Oberhauser, the film's primary antagonist.
Christophe Waltz is fantastic and steals every scene that he is in. However, this leads me onto my biggest negative about the film; the screenplay misses a lot of really big opportunities despite the fact that Sam Mendes' direction is trying to take the film down a particular path. Take Waltz's character Oberhauser as an example. The direction they take this character, the head of Spectre, should have made him the most memorable 007 of all time. But the screenplay doesn't allow him to be this. His character should have had a lot more emotional depth. He should've been stripped down to his humanity (like Le Chiffre was in Casino Royale) and his motivation should have been made much clearer.
The same things can be said for Lea Seydoux. Her performance in this film is perfectly serviceable with some glimpses of brilliance, but the screenplay missed a few things out when it came to her character. Early on you buy into her chemistry with Bond and you maybe think a romance could flourish between them. However, in the end the romance felt forced and almost awkward at times, happening way to quickly without much emotional development going on at all. She could have been a great "Bond girl" and a very strong female lead had a few minor script alterations been made.
Also the film has a couple of pacing issues. It starts off with a thrilling action sequence, sets the scene very well in the first act and comes to a satisfying conclusion. But it drags a lot in the second act mainly revolving around a sub plot involving the character of "C", an official who wants to shut down the 00 programme and replace it with a massive global surveillance initiative. The revelation surrounding that aspect of the plot wasn't surprising at all and it took the movie away from the interesting, personal journey Bond was going on elsewhere.
Ultimately, Spectre is a bit of a disappointing film considering that with 1 or 2 more re-drafts of the screenplay, it could have taken the opportunities it missed out on taking. There's no doubting that it is a fun action film with an actor who perfectly embodies what Bond is all about, but issues I had with the story, the screenplay and some of the characters makes Spectre an overall disappointment. I will still recommend you see it as it is a fun time, but know that it doesn't even come close to the quality of Skyfall or Casino Royale. Or Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation for that matter, they are basically the same film!
Rating - B-
Thanks for reading,
Matt
No comments:
Post a Comment