Numbers obtained from IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes on November 6, 2015.
My rating IMDb Rotten Tomatoes
Critics Audience Critics Audience
9/10 60/100 7.4/10 62% 73%
Having watched SPECTRE twice now, I believe I can write about it more objectively, given that I’m a fan of the franchise and of Daniel Craig’s, so the text may be a little biased.
In SPECTRE, James Bond (Daniel Craig) receives a message from someone from his past with a clue to find the organization behind many attacks and tragedies, including the ones from the past movies (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall). At the same time, MI-6, directed by M (Ralph Fiennes) is facing the extinction of the 00 section due to a merger with MI-5 lead by Max (Andrew Scott), also called C. The goal of the merger is to have a single intelligence agency that would also be integrated with agencies from other 8 countries and, therefore, this new organization would have complete access to surveillance and to anybody’s information.
Following the massive success of Skyfall, it is natural that SPECTRE would suffer with the comparison to its predecessor. The fact that Sam Mendes is back to direct it also adds a factor to the comparison. I’m not ready to say if it’s better or worse. It’s just different, but I enjoyed it quite a lot.
The epigraph “The Dead are Alive” already hints that this movie is going to talk about deceased people who might still influence those who remained (Bond, in this case). Cut to the opening sequence in Mexico City, precisely on the Day of the Dead, with the country’s traditional celebration in costumes. That sequence is breathtaking not only because of the amount of extras and the gorgeous costumes involved, but also because of the way it was shot. It seems to be a long take with no edits, something like Birdman.
The opening credits are always entertaining, and it also let us know that we will hear about characters from Bond’s past, as their faces appear while Sam Smith’s “Writing’s on the Wall” is playing precisely during the verses “A million shards of glass/ That haunt me from my past”. A side note about the song: is it better than Adele’s “Skyfall”? No, but it’s much better than previous Bond themes… besides, the way the credits roll are so entertaining that it’s worth it.
The movie itself is filled with references to other films from the franchise, some more subtle, others more evident. He does ask for his Martini shaken, not stirred, he says “Bond, James Bond”, he has gadgets from Q (Ben Whishaw), he drives an Aston Martin and he flirts with Moneypenny (Naomi Harris).
What I liked about this film is that M, Q and Moneypenny have more involvement with the plot, putting their jobs on the line to help Bond. The scenes between Bond and Q are priceless and I laughed in almost every interaction they had.
Another tradition in the franchise is, of course, the women. He interacts very briefly with Monica Bellucci, which made me wonder why all the fuss about her being the oldest “Bond lady” in the franchise. Léa Seydoux, on the other hand, plays a bigger role as Dr. Madeline Swann (the name is a reference to Proust’s In Search of Lost Time), daughter of Mr. White (Jesper Christensen), who many will recognize from Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. I enjoyed her relationship with Bond and I also like that she is strong and knows more than him in some regards. Just another quick side note: I notice a continuity mistake with her nail polish: in one scene it’s almost transparent, in the following scene, when she’s wearing a long dress, it’s red and right in the scene after that is back to almost transparent. So either she changed it twice on the train where they were – highly unlikely – or it’s an oversight.
Finally, the greatest tradition of all: the villain! Christoph Waltz plays Oberhauser and Bond meets him at a secret SPECTRE meeting. I could write a lot of things about his character, but that would unavoidably spoil the film. What I can say is that he’s connected to James Bond’s past, which is something that began to be explored in Skyfall. I’ve been reading a lot of reviews trashing Christoph Waltz’s performance and saying that he works better when directed by Quentin Tarantino. I find that comment insulting to his abilities as an actor! Furthermore, I think that those who have watched the movies from the 60s and the 70s will appreciate more his character.
Sam Mendes did a wonderful job again, in my opinion. The film is long, but the pacing was good. It’s always changing places, from one stunning location to another. Thomas Newman’s score bothered me a little bit, because it sounded much alike Skyfall’s at times and I was expecting something more different.
I didn’t like the ending the first time I saw it. However, after the second time it grew on me a little bit. What bothered me was that there was no explanation for the word SPECTRE. So, those who don’t know that it means Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion will not learn that while watching this movie. It’s also good to know that this organization, recurring in older films, was led by Ernst Blofeld, who always had a white cat (and satirized by Mike Myers in Austin Powers).
No one knows if Daniel Craig will be back for a 5th film (and I hope he does!) but, in case he doesn’t, SPECTRE is a nice ending to his 10-year run as 007. It solves the mysteries of his previous movies in a good way and it establishes him forever as a completely different Bond: more physical, darker, less silly and more realistic (I’ll never forget the crazy plot of Die Another Day…). I’ve realized now that I’ve written way more than I usually do! But, as James Bond says to Oberhauser, tempus fugit.
