theresamgill Sam Mendes returned as director for the fourth installment of the Daniel Craig James Bond series. With everything from questions of how long Craig would be doing this to what a huge budget the film had, there's lots to discuss.Arguably the best place to start, lets talk about the beginning. Production values are imminent from the opening shots. Although there is hardly a cut or a word for the first five minutes, there isn't really anything special that happens. And this ends up taking a toll when the run-time is just under 2 and 1/2 hours. There's some cool helicopter stunts (with some disbelief of reality put aside), but I still consider this action sequence only the third best. And then you also have to talk about Sam Smith's "Writing's on the Wall." His voice is fantastic and the relevance of the animation in accordance with the story is appreciated, but there's some lacking quality that doesn't seem to fit in with a 007 film. And the animation overall didn't strike me as impressive, so I still rank this theme as third best as well.Spectre attempts to tie in the previous films into this plot. I guess there's points for effort, but it doesn't really have a huge emotional connection to pull it off. And there were multiple instances where a scene could've been tidied up or even cut entirely. But no. This movie just had to make it to 2 1/2 hours. It's just really long and a little draining.I think I was still fine with the film up until a snowy mountain sequence where Bond ends up driving like this cargo plane. And as problems arise, the sequence goes into the most Pierce Brosnan-esque style of action-- so over-the-top that it's just like c'mon man.Lea Seydoux adds a nice touch, and Monica Bellucci certainly adds a bit of a surprising element for Bond Girls. Really have no issue there. And then fans of Sherlock will recognize Andrew Scott in the film. Having gained attention as Moriarty, I was intrigued to see him step into a different role... That didn't happen. Pretty sure the producers told him to act almost exactly as Moriarty had. The result is nothing surprising, which is a disappointment and also a little frustrating.But lets talk about what had the most potential overall for the film: Christoph Waltz. After having Javier Bardem kill it as the villain in the previous film, I think Waltz is an excellent choice to bring new elements. But this is easily the worst aspect of any Daniel Craig Bond film. Which pains me so much to say because there's a good deal of build-up. His introduction has great camerawork and lighting, and it creates a mystical veil around the organization and his role behind it. And this lasts for lets say 8 minutes. Then the movie basically forgets about it for a good hour. He's brought back, and it could still be very interesting despite a drop in fanfare. But what was supposed to be a tense, high-production action set-piece is set back with a surprisingly boring backstory for the villain filled with ideas that say "This is the bad guy and he's bad and he does bad things because he's bad" and unbelievably predictable action. And I guess they make it appear he's dead, but everyone knows that's not the case--even if the run-time is padded already. The climax reminds me of Mission Impossible Rogue Nation if that climax was also filled with cliches. And what I mean by that comparison is that Rogue Nation kind of has their climax setup like a heist, and you don't really feel any tension because you feel like it all is part of the good guys' plans. Spectre is similar to this, and the ignorance and stupidity that leads to the demise of the villain makes me think that the writers just couldn't think of any other logical possibility for a death.Spectre isn't all bad, like the returns of Ben Whishaw as Q and Ralph Fiennes as M were very welcome, but it's a very flawed film that certainly had potential. You can find this review and dozens of others at gillipediamoviereviews.blogspot.com

enjamber Doesn't matter whether you shake this one or stir it, it's still totally Boring, James Boring.

Oli Palmer As far as movie franchises go, nothing and no one can touch James Bond. 50+ years and 24 films so far have ensured 007's status as the seemingly immortal superpower of British cinema. If we needed further evidence of this: 2012's SKYFALL became the highest grossing James Bond film ever. In addition, it currently sits in 13th place on the list of highest grossing movies of all time. In short, SPECTRE has a lot to live up to. But if anyone's up to the task, it's Bond, James Bond.The film starts very strongly; an opening sequence that must be regarded as one of the best in the Bond's history. A single tracking shot following Daniel Craig's 007 to his intended target, eventually culminating in a fight onboard a moving helicopter is absolutely thrilling. By the time we've faded into the fantastically realised opening credits, complete with Sam Smith's haunting vocals, the stage has been well and truly set for something quite special.From this point the film makes the most of its bladder-challenging 148 minute running time, taking Bond and company from London to Rome, Tangier and snowy Austria. Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography ensures each new location is presented as something resembling an excerpt from a well-produced tourism video. This really is Bond as we've grown to know him over the past 50+ years: he travels, he fights and he's always got time for a quick shag.Daniel Craig has taken his time settling into the role of Bond. CASINO ROYALE was largely devoid of the wisecracking one-liners and suaveness that the previous entries had in bucket loads. As the Craig-era films have progressed, there's been a gradual reintroduction of the familiar character traits, to the point where SPECTRE really feels like Bond is now his old self again, or should that be new self?Another part of the gradual reintroduction of the familiars also came with the first appearances of Moneypenny (Harris) and Q (Whishaw) as well as the man who would become M (Fiennes) in SKYFALL. With the band together at last, Bond has come full circle, and SPECTRE revels in its moments of the fun Bond has with his colleagues, particularly Q.Any good Bond film of course, needs its Bond villain. The casting of Christoph Waltz as the far too mysterious Franz Oberhauser seems like inspired casting. Waltz has a natural flair for the sinister and as previous Bond's have shown; it's not always the more physically astute villains that are the most dangerous. It is a shame therefore that Oberhauser never quite comes across as the villain he could have been. He falls into that easy to step into sandpit of being villainous for the sake of it, a self-explained back-story into the reasoning's behind his villainous ways feels a little underwritten.Providing the perfect contrast to Oberhausen's small stature is his chief henchman Mr. Hinx (Bautista). While his name may sound like something you might name your cat, it's clear from his introductory scene, in which he showcases a particularly nasty way of offing a potential rival, this is one of Bond's nastiest foes yet. A later fight sequence between Hinx and Bond on a train is also very hard-hitting, even for a Bond film.Try as they might, one thing the Bond writers haven't quite mastered yet is the 21st century Bond girl. Previous instances show that an effort has been made to make the new-era Bond girl strong and not always necessarily in need of a man to save them... only to eventually need saving from Bond by the time the climatic events are taking place. SPECTRE's main girl Madeliene Swann (Seydoux) falls nicely into this category.An area where SPECTRE really excels is in some of the smart script work. The MI6 building still stands with the damage inflicted during the events of SKYFALL; a visual metaphor for the state of the British secret service and its perceived perception. This is where Andrew Scott's Max Denbigh (or as Bond affectionately nicknames him: C) comes in. He's a member of the British government intent on bringing down the 00 program as he perceives it to be 'prehistoric'. He is insistent that a global communication of privacy-invading surveillance is necessary to combat the potential threats of this world. He's also a bit of a snarky git. His interactions with M provide some of the film's best bits of dialogue, and also provide this film with its biggest laugh-out-loud moment towards the film's climaxSPECTRE feels very much like a culmination of what has come before in the Daniel Craig-era of Bond. There are many references to the previous films and even a big reveal of a major plot thread that ties all the films together. There are also a few nice knowing nods to previous Bonds (hello, pussy) just to keep the die-hards happy.There are a few familiar Bond fallings that do threaten to hamper the fun at times, but there is enough here to ensure that SPECTRE is one of the better Bond films and certainly the most complete one of the Daniel Craig era.

omendata Sean Connery and Roger Moore had savoire faire, wit , personality and was something many men of the day aspired to.Daniel Craig is like a block of wood - unemotional, poor actor despite what many might say and doesnt have any of the traits of the originals.You can stick in any special effects, CGI and amount of money - if you dont have Bond right you will never have a true bond movie. Even the Bond girls are like a poor mans Ursula Andress or Maude Adams, Honor Blackman - now they had personality and smouldered the silver screen!I would also add that although Dave Bautista was not bad there arent any really memorable henchman anymore - Odd Job , Jaws, Wint & Kidd and even Rosa Klebb with her knife-shoes all had a gimmick and a really memorable part in the movie - the makers seem to miss all these ingredients now and just settle for the standard "crash, bang, wallop what a picture" model!This was like all of the recent Bond movies over the last decades - following a boring old formula with a poor mans James Bond actor who brought nothing new or surprising to the character but actually made him seem like a boring old fart in reality with no sense of humour, no sense of style or wickedness like Connery and Moore gave us.To be honest none of the Bonds since Moore have been much good or even on a par with the real Bonds (Connery & Moore)! Even George Lazenby and David Niven were better than any that followed Moore!I give it an average mark because the magnificent Christophe Waltz does his usual superlative performance, he doesnt seem to be able to do any wrong and played the villain with aplomb.