SPECTRE

5

TVJerryNov 10, 2015

After the more serious focus on character and motivation in SKYFALL, director Sam Mendes again lets the movie's motivation drive the human side of James Bond (Daniel Craig). The plot is convoluted paranoia about worldwide surveillance, butAfter the more serious focus on character and motivation in SKYFALL, director Sam Mendes again lets the movie's motivation drive the human side of James Bond (Daniel Craig). The plot is convoluted paranoia about worldwide surveillance, but it's not especially threatening (neither is villain Christoph Waltz). There are international locales, but none are special. The woman aren't memorable and the love scenes are underplayed. With the proliferation of action flix these days, it's hard to make the action exciting or inventive. None of these deliver much new and some even evoke earlier Bond movies. Craig is steely serious and has almost no dialogue with the typical 007 smirk. At a running time of 1:48, the momentum winds down well before it's over. There's the typical franchise flash, but little of it ignites much fire or fun… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

5

intruder313Nov 13, 2015

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Feels like a mess of ideas smashed together rather than being edited down to a more cohesive script. The central plot is utter nonsense, the love story completely annoying and unrealistic there's far too much location hopping purely for the sake of it. Average at best and a shocking follow up to the amazing Skyfall.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

5

steelystanNov 11, 2015

While this iteration of Bond wasn't bad, it wasn't really good either. I found myself struggling to stay awake for the second half of the movie. Everything was predictable and had already been done by countless other movies. If I had toWhile this iteration of Bond wasn't bad, it wasn't really good either. I found myself struggling to stay awake for the second half of the movie. Everything was predictable and had already been done by countless other movies. If I had to describe this movie in one word it would be "boring".… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

BossukNov 10, 2015

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Spoiler alert:-
After watching this film, while I felt I had enjoyed the 2.5 hours in the cinema, I was never fully engrossed in the story I was presented. The characters themselves were well played but the overall story was just not very good. Given this was Bonds first real experience with Spectre, it never had any real tension or drama.
Pros
- DC as Bond. He is a good bond.
- Supporting cast from Q and M. A little light humour and the seriousness together.
- Opening scene in mexico.
- Blofeld - a good villian.
Negatives
- C - unfortunately, Andrew Scott played exactly the same character here as he did when he played Moriarty in Sherlock Holmes, which meant from the first line he spoke, you knew he was a bad guy. There was no surprise when it turned out he was.
- The story - The whole Spectre controlling the world at the same time as the C branch want to centralize all world intelligence agencies. We all knew what was going to happen. Because of this, there were no big revelations or surprises. Within the first 20 minutes of the film, you knew exactly what was coming. Very poorly done.
- Ending - Bond walking off with the girl. He tried to do this in Casino Royale. Make a choice between your job or the girl, and he choose the girl. Been there, done that. In 2 of the 4 films DC has done, he's chosen the girl over his job. It's old news.
- Some of the action scenes were OTT - in the scene in the desert, a small fire ended up blowing up the whole Spectre complex. WTF? why. That would never happen. This is just one that stuck in my head. Bond escaping from the spectre meeting in Switzerland. Tons of security going in, none coming out.

Overall the characters were well played. Unfortunately, they were acting out a poor story and no matter how they did it, it was always going to leave a sour taste.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

jsmith9525Nov 8, 2015

This movie is film-making at its laziest. There are many points where your reaction is "Wait... Why did that just happen?" And it is horribly predictable. Spectre is not a terrible movie--in fact, the beginning is brilliant--just not aThis movie is film-making at its laziest. There are many points where your reaction is "Wait... Why did that just happen?" And it is horribly predictable. Spectre is not a terrible movie--in fact, the beginning is brilliant--just not a very good one.… Expand

8 of 10 users found this helpful82

All this user's reviews

5

beingryanjudeFeb 18, 2016

One of the best opening sequences—and surely the most expensive—of any 007 film. Unfortunately, somewhere after the first 15 minutes, the film loses its footing and never recovers. Perhaps it’s the missing Judi Dench. Or, possibly, the lackOne of the best opening sequences—and surely the most expensive—of any 007 film. Unfortunately, somewhere after the first 15 minutes, the film loses its footing and never recovers. Perhaps it’s the missing Judi Dench. Or, possibly, the lack of screen time for a wonderful Christoph Waltz. Nevertheless, something isn’t quite right in wake of the brilliance that was SKYFALL in 2012.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

csw12Mar 22, 2016

Another James Bond film chooses to be ordinary. Just more typical car chases, slutty women, and a boring bad guy. Spectre is overlong and at times a corny, silly film.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

mcicepitNov 9, 2015

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The homage to Live and Let Die in the start is nice. The long continuous shot is something you did expect in a film like this, but works well. The fight in the chopper is cool, but did not take my breath away.
From here the film go into a slow crash dive.
The script has so many plot holes, all the mandatory things are there - maybe too many?
Why not look to OHMSS, that they have a large homage to? Don`t try to put in everything if it do not work. Make changes! That what made both OHMSS and Casino Royale great.
And in both these films we had female protagonists that could match JB in a much better degree.
The villain was a huge disappointment. You kind of think a mastermind with so big organization would be a bit more secretly, less, crazy, etc. Blofeld feels like a weak imitation of himself.
The most exciting thing that night, was to see the Star Wars trailer before the film and this is from a huge James Bond fan.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

5

srininet1Nov 22, 2015

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The critic reviews are mostly on target for this film. Thanks to the inevitable comparison with its predecessor Skyfall, this one falls well short of expectations. Lets see how it fares VS Skyfall
1. Opening Scene: Skyfall was much better, intense, and believable. Here, the shots of helicopter spinning out of control gets repetitive and boring

2. Plot: Both movies have a good plot but Skyfall edges ahead because it maintains sense of threat and danger till the very end, while here the sense of threat and danger gets diluted when Bond enters villain's headquarters in Morocco. Thereafter, its all boloney.

3. BGM: Skyfall all the way...here the music feels rehashed from Skyfall in some scenes and in others, lacks the punch to create the sense of danger/thrill

4. Cinematography: Skyfall again....watching this film makes me realize why people were praising Skyfalls cinematography to no end. Roger Deakins, you're sorely missed.

5 Title Song: Adele all the way.....Sam Smith's song sounds like a lullaby in comparison. Also, the VFX in opening credits looks creepy with octopus sliding on the screen

6.Action: Skyfall again - here the action looks kind of convenient and stupid - specially the way in which Bond gets onto a plane to rescue Lea in Austria and his plane crashes exactly where the villains were driving. Also the climax where he's able to rescue Lea and drive out of MI6 in a boat within 2 minutes, then take out the villain by shooting his helicopter!! That was laughable :D

7. Villain: The villain in this film is supposed to be the boss of all past Bond villains and in his introduction scene he exudes a sense of dread and respect out of fear. But everything changes once we hear him talk to Bond at his headquarters in Morocco. One feels this guy has lost it! Inviting your enemy to your den, showing him around like a guided tour, and then getting blown away! How moronic.....there is no sense of threat or danger to Bond from this idiot! Even in the climax, he tries to get away from the blast site in a helicopter before getting shot down by Bond. Oh come on! How silly of the BIG BOSS OF ALL CRIMINALS to do something like this!

All in all, Spectre comes as a BIG DISAPPOINTMENT because of the amateurish and cliched writing in the second half, alongwith direction to show that stupidity on screen… Expand

5 of 6 users found this helpful51

All this user's reviews

5

oDjentoDec 4, 2015

Spectre is admittedly an underwhelming and unsatisfying watch that is filmed with Bond fandom to try keep die-hard fans interested.
Still a far better watch than QoS, it is far inferior to Casino Royale and Skyfall. The opening tracking shotSpectre is admittedly an underwhelming and unsatisfying watch that is filmed with Bond fandom to try keep die-hard fans interested.
Still a far better watch than QoS, it is far inferior to Casino Royale and Skyfall. The opening tracking shot of the day of the dead Mexico setting feels like a clear but lovely hint of foreshadowment for a hopefully depressing and dark instalment of the Bond franchise, but it doesn’t lead up to anything. The action sequence here is relatively entertaining, and is shot well with a few bits of added comedy but fails in comparison to CR and Skyfall.
From here on out with have too much half assed moments. A car chase which isn’t exciting but more made for comedy, an Oberhauser (Waltz) who is horrendously under used, a menacing bad guy (Bautista) who is like the Darth Maul of Bond villains, and action set pieces which are trying to be big but don’t really excite. The plane sequence down the mountain is actually quite boring to be honest, and the train fight is pretty cool but just doesn’t end well; you can easily see what’s going to happen. The relationship between Bond and Seydoux’s character also seems rushed, forced and unbelievable, and to top things off the final sequence of the film is just such a punch below the gut, wholly unsatisfying. Even certain deaths of this film (almost all) are just underwhelming and not memorable, it’s like their deaths were written in as an after-thought in the script to get them out of the way.
Daniel Craig is still pretty charming as Bond in this film but still he can’t save the film. Also, Monica Bellucci’s character was completely dumped as soon as she was introduced, asking the question why did they promote her when they announced the cast if she has about 2 minutes of screen time.
A very unsatisfying end for Daniel Craig to go out as Bond. Hopefully he will return just one more time.
4.9/10… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

5

ozymandias79Dec 27, 2015

A lot of this film is very unintelligent and assumes the audience is too stupid to recognize it. If this was some trash movie aimed at young teens, it would be understandable but this a Bond film.Overall, its just a dumb action movie.

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

5

Jiano74Jan 25, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. An average Bond film should have been a lot better, Batista's (can't remember film name) car chase with Bond was bad should have been better. For this it is easier to refer to the characters by their real names as I can't remember character names. At first I didn't know why Christoph Waltz's character was spared at the end but then I fully understand when I realised who is character was, the white cat earlier in the film helped.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

UnurautareNov 18, 2015

This movie should be called "Jumping the shark", I didn't like or relate to any of the actors actors, bad acting, bad story, bad action scenes, boring music. Nothing new, they again try to present Bond as traumatized by losing women. I alsoThis movie should be called "Jumping the shark", I didn't like or relate to any of the actors actors, bad acting, bad story, bad action scenes, boring music. Nothing new, they again try to present Bond as traumatized by losing women. I also feel the love scene with the Bond girl was forced, since a human just died, they decide to "celebrate" it by having sex, wtf. I think the main problem was the weak villain, compared to Skyfall. They just seem to try to cash in on the success of Skyfall by trying to throw some of the same elements over and over without developing the characters, including the villains, further than in the previous movies, which is getting boring fast.… Expand

5 of 6 users found this helpful51

All this user's reviews

5

zurnzurnNov 10, 2015

The dull, hard edge of Craig's Bond doesn't fit the softer moments well, and a lot of the rest of the script shows shoddy workmanship too. Too bad, since it would have been nice to raise it to Léa Seydoux and Christoph Waltz's level. The endThe dull, hard edge of Craig's Bond doesn't fit the softer moments well, and a lot of the rest of the script shows shoddy workmanship too. Too bad, since it would have been nice to raise it to Léa Seydoux and Christoph Waltz's level. The end goes in for another sparse version of Bond as Skyfall tried, and frankly clumsily overplays the terrorist-NSA elements. If it was overdone in a smarter, or goofier way, it would have been better, but it does neither.

The opening action sequence was good though, and had an interesting setting.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

AxeTNov 8, 2015

The trailers relayed the impression this movie would be tired and uninspired. Never trust the trailers, but this time they were right. They feature exchanges such as, "Why did you come here Mr. Bond? -- I came to kill you. -- I thought youThe trailers relayed the impression this movie would be tired and uninspired. Never trust the trailers, but this time they were right. They feature exchanges such as, "Why did you come here Mr. Bond? -- I came to kill you. -- I thought you came to die. -- That's a matter of perspective." You must be joking? No, they weren't. You know the movie is going to be less than great just from the opening title sequence and song. Oh well. It's okay overall, but not near on the level of the best.
Here's my ratings for Daniel Craig's previous 007 outings:
"Casino Royale" 10 "Quantum Of Solace" 2 "Skyfall" 9.
My top five favorite Bond movies: "Moonraker", "The Spy Who Loved Me", "Goldfinger", "Casino Royale", "Skyfall". And the five worst in my book: "Die Another Day", "Quantum Of Solace", "A View To A Kill", "The World Is Not Enough", "License To Kill".… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

5

MrMovieBuffNov 6, 2015

Sorry Bond fans, I didn't want to do this but I did not enjoy this movie enough for it to be more than a 5/10 score...

...'Spectre' sees Daniel Craig in his fourth outing as the iconic British spy, James Bond and is the return for directorSorry Bond fans, I didn't want to do this but I did not enjoy this movie enough for it to be more than a 5/10 score...

...'Spectre' sees Daniel Craig in his fourth outing as the iconic British spy, James Bond and is the return for director Sam Mendes ('American Beauty' and 'Skyfall'). The screenplay is also written by the usual gang which includes John Logan ('Gladiator' and 'Hugo').

The movie opens with an impressive tracking shot with Bond in Mexico City which proves to be rewarding for some filmmakers. But just because a movie is impressively shot doesn't save its mediocrity. We then see the opening sequence which includes the Sam Smith song "Writing on the Wall" which is instantly forgettable, but we don't go to Bond films looking for a good opening song.

The story mostly involves Bond trying to protect the daughter of Mr. White (Jesper Christensen) who is played by French actress Lea Seydoux ('Inglourious Basterds' and 'Blue is the Warmest Color') who seems reluctant to trust Bond at first, but needs his protection anyway. The usual crew including M (Ralph Fiennes), Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) and Q (Ben Winshaw) return, and the chemistry between Craig and those actors are comedic which is great to see. But unfortunately, they are hardly together throughout the duration of the movie.

My biggest disappointments come from the following actors including; Monical Belucci, Dave Bautista and Christoph Waltz. They didn't have as much screen time as the trailers made it seem they have.

It just seems rather pointless to have these characters appear and they abruptly don't come back for the rest of the movie. Belucci and Bautista only have roughly 20 - 30 minutes of screen time each.

But the disappointment mainly comes from Christoph Waltz, who played such an iconic villain in 'Inglourious Basterds' (2009) and won his first Academy Award for it. So when I heard he was going to play a Bond villain, I thought he'd be perfect.

Waltz was wasted as the villain, I'm not sure if it's because of the screenplay, but he did not seem as menacing or intimidating as the ones played by Mads Mikkelsen ('Casino Royale') or Javier Bardem ('Skyfall'). We only get one scene of him torturing Bond, slightly, but that's it.

Ralph Fiennes as M has a few action scenes here and there, we see him handling a gun and defending everything he can, but this does not seem like something the M we know would do. The action should only be left to Bond only.

I am not sure if it's because 'Skyfall' (2012) had heightened my expectations, but this was just mediocre Bond fare almost made to the quality of 'Quantum of Solace' (2008). There are some scenes that happen for almost no reason, characters appear, then disappear, and other characters are wasted. It seemed like this was an unfinished product, but I wouldn't rank this as high as 'Casino Royale' (2006) or 'Skyfall' (2012), however, Daniel Craig is still convincing as Bond.

Great acting, just an underwhelming movie.… Expand

6 of 11 users found this helpful65

All this user's reviews

5

BarbudezNov 7, 2015

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. la defino con una sola palabra...ESTÚPIDA, bueno mejor dos.....MUY ESTÚPIDA.

Voy a contar esta parte Sin Spoilers, y luego aviso de los Spoilers

El problema general, es que Sam Mendes no tiene ni repajolera idea de llevar a James Bond, de una manera que no sea, la versión de Roger Moore o la de Sean Connery en sus momentos mas bajos, es decir, volvemos a los clichés mas rancios de 007 aderezado con villanos y situaciones dignas, como repito de un Roger Moore, en sus ultimos films, donde ya era un chiste y una caricatura grotesca de lo que era Bond.

Que problema tenía seguir con el estilo de Casino Royale?, se alejaba del Bond clásico, el de los gadgets, los villanos y planes rancios?, es lógico, es necesario reinventar el personaje, no podía volver otra vez a lo mismo, porque ya es anacrónico. Pero Mendes, es un señor que debe tener admiración por esa epoca ¿dorada? de Bond y cuando toma el control de Bond, volvemos a la epoca dorada, que desgraciadamente ya huele a rancio, y tenemos Skyfall ese truño de peli de Bond con villano de opereta con un tercer actor digno de Solo en Casa y plagado de guiños chorras para los fans, un desastre que tira por al borda toda las virtudes de Casino Royale.

Y nos encontramos con SPECTRE, que reconozco que la primera mitad va bien, perdonas las chorradas...pero llegan a la base del malo, y el guión entra en modo RANDOM, rozando niveles de Austin Powers, y por supuesto enlazando a las 3 anteriores como el puto culo.

Si te encantan las peliculas como Moonraker, Panorama para Matar o Muere otro Día, esta te parecerá una obra Maestra.

SPOILERS TOCHOS.

- Los titulos de inicio, es asombroso, ese homenaje al Hentai que se casca Mendes.

-La Base de SPECTRA, que explota de una manera tan absurdamente gratuita y tan RANDOM.

- El villano, Waltz que es el Hermanastro de Bond y que es Blofeld, una mezcla rancia entre el Nazi de Malditos Bastardos, un Voyeur y el Doctor maligno, .

-Enlazan espantosamente mal las 3 peliculas anteriores, TODOS LOS MALOS DE ESTE BOND, ERAN DE SPECTRA...PORQUE LLEVABAN EL MISMO ANILLO!!!....COMO? PERO....a ver si Bardem, iba muy a su puta bola....

-Batista tan desaprovechado.

-El CGI DIOS COMO CANTA POR TODOS LADOS.

-James Bond, con sus problemas de Cleptomanía.

-Folleteo gratuito tras la muerte de BATISTA (Desaprovechado de cojones)

- El plan, chorra no, lo siguiente...Dominar el mundo a traves del espionaje pero que una gran parte del presupuesto de SPECTRA, se dedique a joderle la vida a Bond.… Expand

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

All this user's reviews

5

Jess_HillNov 18, 2015

A disappointing addition to the franchise, with little to recommend it. Everything is bland, predictable, unsexy and lacklustre. There are some good stunts and action sequences, but you don't really care about the outcomes, and the pacing isA disappointing addition to the franchise, with little to recommend it. Everything is bland, predictable, unsexy and lacklustre. There are some good stunts and action sequences, but you don't really care about the outcomes, and the pacing is sluggish, meaning everything feels slow and lacking in tension. Bellucci is utterly wasted, Bautista has a single word line, and Waltz is as excellent as he can be with what he's been given. This is marginally better than Quantam of Solace, but that's hardly praise, and with the worst theme yet, it's ultimately unsatisfying. 5.37/10… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

wcrosherNov 6, 2015

Craig still fits the role incredibly well and the use of practical effects and solid camerawork are present, but Spectre misses the mark on its plot, its attempts to be more campy than its last three predecessors, and its stunning lack ofCraig still fits the role incredibly well and the use of practical effects and solid camerawork are present, but Spectre misses the mark on its plot, its attempts to be more campy than its last three predecessors, and its stunning lack of Christoph Waltz. Spectre tries to match with the amazing Bond films like Casino Royale and Skyfall, but instead reaches the points of Quantum of Solace.… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

5

StatlerWaldorfNov 7, 2015

Daniel Craig's got the right idea, whoever wrote this clearly did not. Or maybe they're just trying out some really high-concept redefinition of film convention, for I admit, as a two-and-a-half hour preview for the other three new-Bonds itDaniel Craig's got the right idea, whoever wrote this clearly did not. Or maybe they're just trying out some really high-concept redefinition of film convention, for I admit, as a two-and-a-half hour preview for the other three new-Bonds it works really well. You will leave without remembering much of what transpired, but really wanting to remember what happened in the first two movies. When you go to pirate them you will throw "Skyfall" into the mix just so you can see the intro again. Can you judge a Bond by its intro song? For "SPECTRE": yes. It warns you that they will be trying too hard to connect in the other films, it warns you that there are lazily-written love stories, and it generally does a good job of capturing the lack of oomf that defines "SPECTRE". Maybe it's better than "Quantum of Solace"? Maybe it's just hard to accept after "Skyfall". What made the Craig-Bonds work was their departure from the cartoonish form that used to define Bond. Tying this arc together with a wider nostalgia seems like a good idea, but "SPECTRE" ends up built on ill-fated nods to everything that came before it and little value of its own accord. You will have figured out the plot within the first 15 or so minutes-- it helps that it's been done before. This leaves Christoph Waltz as the main draw. The man was born to play a Bond villain, how could that not be perfect? I will tell you. Just don't give him any screen time. When he’s on screen, don’t let him say anything interesting unless he’s quoting another movie. I sort of wish they had cast Rob Brydon instead. How’s that for a nod?… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

dexshirtsNov 6, 2015

Worst Daniel Craig Bond film, and you can tell he's not really bothered about it. An 'original' story made for the cinema, which you can tell it's not a normal Bond movie. Poor storyline, predictable events and ridiculous situations. Too muchWorst Daniel Craig Bond film, and you can tell he's not really bothered about it. An 'original' story made for the cinema, which you can tell it's not a normal Bond movie. Poor storyline, predictable events and ridiculous situations. Too much linking back to the previous Bond movies. Contradictions and plot holes galore. Really frustrating movie.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

5

mace8704Nov 6, 2015

This is on par with Quantum of Solace, and that is not a compliment. The motivation of the villain is poorly developed. The romantic pacing between Craig and the two Bond girls is so hap hazard that I almost laughed in the theater becauseThis is on par with Quantum of Solace, and that is not a compliment. The motivation of the villain is poorly developed. The romantic pacing between Craig and the two Bond girls is so hap hazard that I almost laughed in the theater because Craig will go from coldly threatening them to passionately kissing them in literally seconds. The action sequences had a lot more CGI and reminded more of Brosnan era Bond than Craig's previous work. Maybe that's a good thing for you, but it's not for me.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

5

CandyVaDCNov 6, 2015

It entertained me and it was interesting to see the changes that this Bond film made to the regular Bond movie formula. Now apparently Bond has feelings and cares about a random girl enough to settle down. And all the women he beds now aren'tIt entertained me and it was interesting to see the changes that this Bond film made to the regular Bond movie formula. Now apparently Bond has feelings and cares about a random girl enough to settle down. And all the women he beds now aren't 18 year old beauty queens because now he starts the movie hooking up with a middle aged widow. I have to say that the main female lead later in the movie is less than stunning, compared to the typical Bond girls of yore, but that's probably intentional for some reason to show a different kind of beauty in this supposed evolved culture of ours where James Bond can be sexually attracted to a woman over 40 and a girl with less than supermodel looks and a rather average body. It was a bit jarring to see them so concerned with getting dressed up and changing into multiple fancy formal outfits as if they were attending the academy awards, when they were in the middle of no-where without much luggage. I guess that's how a spy packs for an emergency trip to save humanity at a moment's notice: perfectly coordinated outfits replete with matching sunglasses and accessories while they dodge bullets in immaculately tailored and freshly pressed Gucci couture. And when did Bond become so non-sexual and not take off his shirt even once? Yes, Daniel Craig is getting old, and there are shots in the movie where the lighting makes his face look like a deflated radial tire because it's so sunken in and wrinkled, but at least his chest must still look good I would imagine. Mind you, I'm glad I saw the film, and it entertained me, but it wasn't a movie that made you say, "Gee, that was the best Bond movie I've seen in a long time." Easily forgettable 15 minutes after you leave the theater.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

5

Movie-Freak-KKNov 8, 2015

I am actually surprised by how disappointing this film is. The action is redundant and dull, the pacing is often too slow., the sub-plot is boring and the villain is too weak ( Christop Waltz did great but underused ). Mission Impossible :I am actually surprised by how disappointing this film is. The action is redundant and dull, the pacing is often too slow., the sub-plot is boring and the villain is too weak ( Christop Waltz did great but underused ). Mission Impossible : Rogue Nation executed it so well, but Specre simply failed to do so.… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

5

SirFatPantsNov 14, 2015

The story is a little interesting, but there is way too much action, and not enough interesting things going on. The script, character development and technical functionalities are all really good though.

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

Jabroni316Nov 15, 2015

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. SPECTRE would be a good stand-alone movie. But since it was meant to tie with the previous 3 Bond films, then it is a poorly written one. Apart from Mr White, it is not clear as to how Vesper, Le Chiffre, Greene, Medrano and Silva are all connected to SPECTRE or Franz. This is Bond supposedly at his weakest, losing Vesper and (the previous) M and watching his former colleague (Silva) sold out MI6 information and still unable to get along with (the new) M, and the double-O program to be shut down yet when he meets Franz, there is no emotional connection at all? Here is a man, whose father once took Bond under his wings and both were supposedly dead 20 years ago, suddenly appears in front of him and Bond just runs? Bautista plays Mr Hinx, supposedly an assassin, yet the only person he kills is a "competitor"?! This is just lazy writing.

Everything went well at the beginning until the meeting scene. This is the part where they got it all wrong. Here is an organisation always in the shadows, yet exposes the main boss to Bond immediately? It should have been Franz talking all the way until he mentions Bond's name only for the latter to turn around and immediately gets knock-out cold by Mr Hinx. Sciarra's replacement need not be killed by Mr Hinx. In fact, he's got a better role to play. Then the next scene should be a torture-yet-reconciliation scene between Bond and Franz. This should be a 10-15 mins scene where Franz explains how he survive and how Le Chiffre, Greene, Medrano and Silva are all connected to him (without mentioning SPECTRE). Franz then stops Mr Hinx from kiling Bond (as it would hinder C in accomplishing the "Nine Eyes Project"). Now, instead of Bond being ahead of Mr Hinx, it is Mr Hinx always a step ahead. Mr White should not be committing suicide, it should be Mr Hinx killing him (for protecting someone / something). When Bond arrives at Altaussee, he finds White dead and searches his body only to find the old father-daughter photo. Bond then goes to the secret basement room downstairs. Snooping around, he finds a name card of a Dr Swan (not knowing she is the daughter of White). Bond leaves on the cable car, asking Q and/or Moneypenny to search on Dr Swan. He then notices someone who resembles (Sciarra's replacement) dropping by the mountain-top clinic. Bond follows him. So instead of having the interview scene, this immediately moves into the scene where Q surprises Bond with his visit and after that, the whole action scene.

Now that Dr Swan is rescued, the 3 meet at Q's hotel room to discuss the next course of action. Although Dr Swan reveals that the organisation is known as SPECTRE, she does not know its full name, its history and its members. She says her father wants her to know less about SPECTRE as it would endanger the family. She then mentions to go the L'Americain. Same scenes all the way until Bond finds the secret door. While snooping around, Mr Hinx suddenly appears and knocks Dr Swan out cold and holds her hostage and telling Bond to drop his gun. Bond is then knock-out cold. Bond wakes up finding himself in the place (where he was supposed to find). Franz greets Bond by telling him that Bond does not have to find him, because he can find Bond anytime, anywhere. Same scenes til the blow-up

The scene where Dr Swan gets kidnapped should have been where Bond, in the car with M, gets a picture of Dr Swan tied to a chair from an unknown sender. From the background, Bond deduces it is the old MI6 building. So no need for the "kidnap Bond" scene. M will just drop Bond there and head straight for C. Same scenes all the way until the bullet-proof glass. This is where the meeting with Franz via a huge monitor. Franz tells Bond that he spared his life in Rome yet Bond did this (the scars and losing one eye) to him. Franz then mentions he has Dr Swan held in the building and that there is a 3 mins time bomb to be activated. Mr Hinx appears to then push the trigger and waves goodbye. Bond runs all the way up. He looks around and hears sounds from behind a door. This is where the moment Bond opens the door, it is Mr Hinx who greets him! Mr Hinx then points Bond to the chopper that left and Bond realize that Dr Swan is in there. Both men fight all the way and with 5 secs left, both jumped off the building. Bond is then shown to leave on a speedboat chasing the chopper while Mr Hinx is then shown heading to his car. With C dead, M, Q and Moneypenny are interrogated over the hacking and stopping of the Nine Eyes Project without official approval and causing political outrage. Without Bond and/or sufficient evidence linking C to Franz or that SPECTRE exist, MI6 is now suspended and Bond is now a wanted fugitive-cum-terrorist.

No car-chase scene and no train-fight scene. This is how SPECTRE should have been. Shadowy organisation with a mysterious boss. SPECTRE 2 begins where Bond searches for Felix and Lucia to find Swan and Franz and gather info on SPECTRE and its history and activities.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

MikeWoodardJrNov 19, 2015

'Spectre' may be the most disappointing Bond film in a long time. It fails to match the drama and intensity of 'Skyfall' with horribly slow pacing, and entertaining, but ultimately useless, time-filling action sequences. The first two-thirds'Spectre' may be the most disappointing Bond film in a long time. It fails to match the drama and intensity of 'Skyfall' with horribly slow pacing, and entertaining, but ultimately useless, time-filling action sequences. The first two-thirds of the movie give you no clear indication of what threat the SPECTRE organization actually is, beyond being a secret organization, and by the time the audience is filled in, it feels too little too late. Bond's interactions with his cohorts, and attempts at humor, fall flat almost every time. Christolph Waltz is a wasted talent as the villain, almost like how Venom was jammed into the ending of Spider-Man 3. There are too many times that the movie breaks suspension of disbelief, with many characters surviving what should be clear deaths, and the plot twists near the end of the film can be seen coming a mile away. While the last act of the film had some engaging moments and interesting ideas, their value is undercut by the plodding pace of the first hour and half/two hours. It's just a shame that 'Skyfall' set such a high bar to reach, as 'Spectre' may have been a fine sequel to 'Casino Royale,' (definitely better than 'Quantum') but unfortunately the film crashes the Bond series back down to Earth. There's enough popcorn entertainment for those just sitting back to enjoy the ride, but not enough substance for those looking for real good value out of their high ticket prices.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

5

Xan_RyilNov 21, 2015

Spectre is what I call, Quantum of Solace collides Mission Impossible 5, means disappointment squared. There is a reason why Spectre would be the worst Bond movie I have ever seen. I was excited was 3 things which were never happened to thisSpectre is what I call, Quantum of Solace collides Mission Impossible 5, means disappointment squared. There is a reason why Spectre would be the worst Bond movie I have ever seen. I was excited was 3 things which were never happened to this series before. Monica Bellucci, Lea Seydoux and ofcorse Skyfall.
There have been good Bond girls but never been such a magnificent, mysterious and furious combination. Where Bellucci has a cult following for being best Italian seductress, Seydous has been famous for her untamed method and flawless aura. But what a waste, none of the ladies were given the role to justify they hype they created with the casting. Seydoux’ character was the most confused in the film, one minute she is mourning her father and next she is flirting and seducing Bond. She very much reminds you of Olga Kurylenko from Quantum of Solace.
Enough with my outrage now little business. Opening sequence as well as background score was top notch so as Daniel Craige. The missing elements were the key one. Strong and focused story and powerful direction. Spectre had a strong structure, a childhood jealousy at a global level. But did they really have to mix it with Privacy Rights and internal failure of MI6? Especially if they were not good at handling it. Bond is known for perfection and skills but Spectre’s fight sequence leave too much on chance. Except the opening sequence and barehanded fight in train none of the action were impressive.
Finally, adding Bautista to the caste was such a bad decision. It is perhaps something they learned from Fast and Furious who added Dwayne Johnson few years ago. And Sam Mendes should be over with defaced antagonists. Perhaps he will then concentrate on what should go on in their minds.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

HanshallDec 6, 2015

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If I had to sum up the film in one word, that word would be: soulless. It's baffling to really understand how Spectre went wrong, but I think I've managed to find some root causes.

On paper it has the potential to be on of the better films, and the retention of the majority of the Skyfall team should have delivered a polished, and concise movie about the introduction of Bond's greatest nemesis and cinema's original megalomaniac.

A strong opening scene ends up being extremely misleading for what is yet to come although predictably, Daniel Kleinman's title sequence is as slick as ever, even if Sam Smith's theme feels awfully out of place considering the subject matter at hand: global domination and the nature of surveillance.

Post-title sequence, the cracks begin to show. The narrative of the film is what lets the whole production down. At first it may be surprising considering the misleading credits mentions the writers as Logan, Wade and Purvis, the same writing trio as Skyfall, with Wade and Purvis being veritable veterans to Craig's stint as Bond, also writing both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. The bulk of the writing was however done by Logan and director Sam Mendes. Wade and Purvis where brought in at the last minute to touch up some of the screenplay after Craig and Mendes were dissatisfied by the finished product.

Spectre then is a cautionary tale in what happens with a lack of peer-review. Ejecting Wade and Purvis may have been a decision motivated by finance, but right now it feels like it has backfired. Logan's writing is like a mish-mash of what is "expected" from a Bond film, but not necessarily well executed.

A bland car chase through the streets of Rome (or a non-descript back alley of Rome), decides to focus on some Moore-inspired humour, as what feels like 20% of the chase focuses on an overweight gentleman in a Fiat 500, it's an attempt at humour that outstays its welcome, but don't worry, the same car chase decides its also more interested in 009's taste in music and Bond's exasperation as Q forgets to load the car with ammunition. Compare this to Quantum of Solace's rip-roaring opening car sequence, where it gets dirty, bloody and brutal. The whole scene is indicative of the film over all. There is a lack of substance to every attempt at box-ticking the Bond tropes.

The romance sub-plot is hampered by Craig and Seydoux's barren desert of chemistry. Swann bizarrely decides she doesn't want to be part of the films climax, despite assisting Bond happily up to this moment, in what is some spectacularly awful writing. "I can't do this anymore" she crones, or words to that effect, then disappears until it's her turn to be rescued by Bond, again.

It's a far cry from Green's portrayal of Vesper in Casino Royale, who is shown to have her own agendas, her own vulnerabilities. The maturity of writing between Green's Vesper and Seydoux's Swann is perfectly exemplified with the brutal stairwell fight in Casino Royale and it's aftermath, compared to the train fight. In Casino Royale, Bond is bruised, bleeding and emotion exhausted, "get Mathis" he barks at Vesper and Vesper is left visibly traumatised by the events, allowing for her and Bond's emotional guards to drop in the shower scene that follows. In Spectre, Bond barely has a hair out of place after the train fight, makes a quip and he and Swann have sex. It's awkward and emotionally shallow writing.

Blofeld is barely worth mentioning, his scenes are sparse and we are left with virtually no rapport built between him and Bond for us to be invested in seeing his demise, a waste of a character. It's almost the opposite of Skyfall's Raoul Silva, a villain that gets extensive characterisation. The principle henchman portrayed by Bautista suffers from the same treatment. He pops up to be instantly whacked back down by Bond, there is very little tension in his scenes, he never "bests" Bond in the same way that Oddjob or Jaws did. We are told he is dangerous, but what we see is incompetence.

Overall, the film feels like it's Daniel Craigs first outing as Bond, as if he does not know what type of James Bond he wants to portray. The tone sways between an attempt to ground the film in some very contemporary political commentary with the "Nine Eyes" project (a plot thread which is dropped and left completely underdeveloped) to the inane, and dare I say, childish.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

DanielGFeb 20, 2016

Get ready to fall asleep. This is easily the worst bond title to come out in a long while. Even surpassing Quantum Solace for mediocrity. Its endless scenes of boring dialogue and stiff acting. The main antagonist played by Christoph WaltzGet ready to fall asleep. This is easily the worst bond title to come out in a long while. Even surpassing Quantum Solace for mediocrity. Its endless scenes of boring dialogue and stiff acting. The main antagonist played by Christoph Waltz barely gets any screen time. Keep in mind I never found Sky Fall to be that great either. I find these Daniel Craig bond movies to be more dialogue then actual entertainment. You can tell this movie was rushed into production and it shows. Everyone in the entire film just feels so out of place and you can tell it through their acting. Anyone who gives it anything beyond a 6/10 must have been watching another film. Its bad.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Jimi360Mar 26, 2016

Spectre had the unfortunate pleasure of attempting to follow up on the huge acclaim and success of Skyfall. High hopes were put upon Spectre, including by myself, as one of the best actors in the world at the moment, Christoph Waltz, wasSpectre had the unfortunate pleasure of attempting to follow up on the huge acclaim and success of Skyfall. High hopes were put upon Spectre, including by myself, as one of the best actors in the world at the moment, Christoph Waltz, was snapped up as the villain. Despite this, Spectre never gets anywhere near the bar that Skyfall or previous Daniel Craig instalments have set.

What Spectre does well is progress the stories of some of the side characters, such as the new M (Ralph Fiennes) as he struggles with a few sub-plots within the film. Q is also an excellent character once again, adding some witty little remarks to Bond and his accomplices. Despite not speaking, aside one word, Dave Bautista is a terrifying bodyguard as Mr Hinx, and does everything he is asked.

The problem is here, there is absolutely nothing new. Spectre is just recycled plot points from Bonds of old and, though Craig and Waltz provide equally solid performances, but there is nothing to excel on the brilliance of Skyfall or Casino Royale from earlier in the franchise. There is a basic plot, with a standard villain, with standard motives, which is so disappointing considering the recent resurgence of Bond, as well as the potential of the cast.

Die-hard Bond fans may still enjoy this movie, but as someone who just wanted a good follow-up to Skyfall I was left disappointed, personally.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

LoafyApr 11, 2016

Spectre may not be the best, but rather enjoyable. The action scenes are great, Daniel Craig is the best James Bond ever. Though the new bond girl was rather annoying with unnecessary scenes with them.There is humor in the movie from time toSpectre may not be the best, but rather enjoyable. The action scenes are great, Daniel Craig is the best James Bond ever. Though the new bond girl was rather annoying with unnecessary scenes with them.There is humor in the movie from time to time that you can get a laugh at, which does get you back right to the pace of the film. What I hated the most of spectre was the villian Oberhauser. It was a very weak performance and wasn't as sinister as silva in skyfall. Overall...yes Skyfall is the better choice but Spectre is a fun and enjoyable movie to watch.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

hassallNov 27, 2016

This movie was ok, Its wasn't bad but it wasn't good.the start of the movie was good and quite exciting and after that it was boring nothing much really Happened.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

EverfieldsDec 20, 2017

Much like Daniel Craig's previous appearances as Bond, Spectre tries with little effort to invoke the feelings and atmosphere so often present in Bond films of decades past. The occasional reference is made to Bond's origins but the filmMuch like Daniel Craig's previous appearances as Bond, Spectre tries with little effort to invoke the feelings and atmosphere so often present in Bond films of decades past. The occasional reference is made to Bond's origins but the film falls short in delivering a truly exceptional experience as it seems unable to define it's own objective. The film is conflicted in it's pursuit of relevance whilst trying to tell the story of a character that was designed for the cold war era. As a result we are met with an archaic spy film existing in a contemporary culture no longer dependent upon physical espionage. A return to the classic era is badly needed to refresh this franchise and wow new audiences with the thrill of a great Bond adventure.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

4

TheQuietGamerMay 10, 2016

Watching Bond at the very beginning of the movie in Mexico City during the Day of the Dead with a beautiful woman on his arm and wearing a striking skeleton mask makes one thing very clear from the get go; that this is going to be a gorgeousWatching Bond at the very beginning of the movie in Mexico City during the Day of the Dead with a beautiful woman on his arm and wearing a striking skeleton mask makes one thing very clear from the get go; that this is going to be a gorgeous film. It even capitalizes on that with some surprising destruction that makes you think that the rest of the movie is going to be just as exciting as those opening minutes. However as soon as that surprisingly, yet appreciated, comedic ending to the scene happens it's straight to formula.

This is very much a case of been there, done that, and seen it all before. Formulaic to a T, there's almost no sense of excitement as I found myself predicting everything that would happen next. The plot tries hard to be something bigger than the average Bond affair by having a sense of connectivity to the previous Daniel Craig movies, but it follows the exact same formula the series has been using for years. Christoph Waltz plays a potentially cool villain who has some real ties to our hero. However a painful lack of screen time renders that moot.

Outside of a surprise fight between Craig and Bautista that literally comes out of nowhere the action suffers from the same problem; predictability. That's really the issue with everything in the movie. It's the same stuff we've seen over and over again in this very series making it's return once again. There are moments where it looks they wanted to add more depth to everything, but ultimately just ended up delivering the same old, same old. The perfect example of this is with the new "Bond girl."

There's a point in the movie where it becomes clear that they are setting up Léa Seydoux's character to be more meaningful to Bond than the typical one night stand. Someone he can actually end up settling down with. This however does not occur to the audience until the movie outright says it. Why? Because there's literally nothing to distinguish her from any of the more generic Bond girls that have come before her. Any chemistry between Seydoux and Craig is unnoticeable as Seydoux is playing the most generic of Bond girl stereotypes. She feels exactly as important to the plot as Monica Bellucci was earlier in the film. Basically just nothing more than a pretty face for Bond to have sex with. I was literally baffled when the movie tried to convince me there was any sort of actual connection between the two, much less love.

To be honest "SPECTRE" is a lot like the majority of Bond girls. Gorgeous to look at, but lacking any sort of originality or substance to back up those good looks. It actually ends up being worth less to the audience than a Bond girl is to Bond. At least Bond can get an afternoon of pleasure from a Bond girl before he casts her aside. The audience won't be able to even get that from this movie. It's an exercise in familiarity. A few bits of humor scattered throughout and dazzling views keep things from getting too dull, but they can't save the entire thing from being boring. I think it's time to revoke 007's license to kill.

4.5/10… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

4

namelessNov 9, 2015

I am a James Bond fan. I couldnt' wait to see this one. The first hour is great but the last 30 minutes is flat. There are thing in this movie, that many other actions movies have educated us aren't realistic to happen but in this movie theyI am a James Bond fan. I couldnt' wait to see this one. The first hour is great but the last 30 minutes is flat. There are thing in this movie, that many other actions movies have educated us aren't realistic to happen but in this movie they do.... aaarruuggh. Instead of the action speeding up it is a mix of too fast or too slow editing with illogical relationships. The director Sam Mendes has lost his touch. Something went terriblly wrong in finishing this movie. Go see Casino Royale or wait until it comes to TV (so you can fast forward), or go to another movie in the last 30 minutes so the good feeling won't be wasted. Movies live and die by the endings and you can watch this one die in the last 30 minutes with absurdities. It insults my intelligence. If this wasn't a James Bond film it would be rated lower.… Expand

5 of 8 users found this helpful53

All this user's reviews

4

crnppsclsFeb 28, 2016

The beginning of Spectre is sublime and good Bond. By which i mean the location, a little character development and damn good destruction, it is taken too far on the latter point however.

Same old rhetoric in mi5, Fiennes is good as M, BenThe beginning of Spectre is sublime and good Bond. By which i mean the location, a little character development and damn good destruction, it is taken too far on the latter point however.

Same old rhetoric in mi5, Fiennes is good as M, Ben Whishaw as Q is cool but not nearly nerdy and as intolerant, as you might expect of Bond's making light of his tech advances.

Naomie Was ok as moneypenny, whether this was because she was the only cast member bond didn't sleep with is another argument.

The plot was just abysmal however. Batista as a hench could've worked but didn't. Bond just jumped on every female that got screen time. Waltz at the antagonist just didn't work, mostly due to poor writing, he just came over like a mature emo that had issues with his childhood. Blofelt, by defenition should be idk more omnipotent.

For me the 'Bond' checklist was complete; doing anything female that moves 'Check'; expensive car chase 'check'; Mi5 in disarray 'Check"; Gaudy hench with no char development 'Check'; Saving the world 'check'. Not a bad checklist but it's just been done so much better in other movies.

This film could've been worked into the next fast and furious film and no-one would've batted an eyelid.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

geedupNov 30, 2015

Clocking in at nearly, 3 hours, this movie couldn't hold my attention. Which is a shame since the Bond series used to be very engaging-special effects, hotties, etc. Craig "called this one in" with his acting, while the story itself (althoughClocking in at nearly, 3 hours, this movie couldn't hold my attention. Which is a shame since the Bond series used to be very engaging-special effects, hotties, etc. Craig "called this one in" with his acting, while the story itself (although LONG) was not very intertwined or fresh ("james, they're gonna kick you out...you're suspended, etc). I'm glad I didn't spend two cents on this.Further, I hope the talk of a new James Bond is true, cause I can't watch more of Craig,… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

4

ReubenIsAGodNov 25, 2015

Yeah it was a film....didnt really like it all that much....it had some intresting ideas.....i loved the villian, for what little we saw of him, but as a whole this film just left a sour taste in my tounge. Just felt really hollow and clichéYeah it was a film....didnt really like it all that much....it had some intresting ideas.....i loved the villian, for what little we saw of him, but as a whole this film just left a sour taste in my tounge. Just felt really hollow and cliché as a whole. Had some really cheesy dialog as well, not in a fun way either. Had some awesome action, but what is action without a conflicting edge of your seat plot with heavy themes and an emotional journey.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

4

ArgeonNov 13, 2015

Ridiculously boring, absolutely cliche, and very uninspired Bond movie. From a terrible song to a terrible Bond girl to the terribly under-recognized villain to awful fight scenes. The only thing redeemable about this movie is the fact thatRidiculously boring, absolutely cliche, and very uninspired Bond movie. From a terrible song to a terrible Bond girl to the terribly under-recognized villain to awful fight scenes. The only thing redeemable about this movie is the fact that it has some very well shot pictures, but even then it has an awful mustiness to it.… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

4

nicholasbertDec 28, 2015

Great choice to bring the humour back, after a couple of dark episodes; but, what with the Simpsonian couch gag and the usual convenient escapes, there's really no point in trying to keep the plot dark. What I mean is, Spectre suffers fromGreat choice to bring the humour back, after a couple of dark episodes; but, what with the Simpsonian couch gag and the usual convenient escapes, there's really no point in trying to keep the plot dark. What I mean is, Spectre suffers from double personality disorder: while the action sequences and the general way in which Bond manages to slink his way out of anything just by sheer luck are light-headed and cartoonish, one feels the underlying plot of international conspiracy a bit too harsh.

On another note, I don't quite like this tendency to reveal details of Bond's past, as I feel his charm relies heavily on the mystery of it. Skyfall, for instance, was good as a one-off thing, but with Spectre delving further in, we might just now too much about Bond, now, for him to be still as intriguing as he was in the beginning.

Daniel Craig confirms himself in a role that seemed unfit for him when Casino Royale came out - now it's difficult to find anyone who doesn't agree he was one of the best Bonds ever.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

4

TheWaffleNov 26, 2016

Spectre is by far the laziest of the Craig films. They've unlearned the subtle personal touch of Skyfall and replaced it with empty spectacle. The writers tried to raise the stakes of the plot by introducing a villain claiming to haveSpectre is by far the laziest of the Craig films. They've unlearned the subtle personal touch of Skyfall and replaced it with empty spectacle. The writers tried to raise the stakes of the plot by introducing a villain claiming to have masterminded everything in the past four films, and it falls utterly flat. There was no work to build that payoff, and the attempt to reach into Bond's childhood past fails even more. Beyond the big plot failures, there are a half-dozen small things that break the film's flow: despite having been temporarily (if not permanently) debilitated Bond fights off a dozen men with incredible precision, after saying "I love you" another character decides to walk away from the relationship in the very next sequence, and finally "now we know what M stands for, 'moron'" must be the worst line in Bond history.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

misadventurerJan 1, 2016

Now for "Spectre" Mendes gets a few things right, not that "Skyfall" was all bad, it was gorgeously shot with amazing locations, "Spectre" follows suit, with vibrant locales, the first shot of the film is a 'Birdman'-esque continuous trackingNow for "Spectre" Mendes gets a few things right, not that "Skyfall" was all bad, it was gorgeously shot with amazing locations, "Spectre" follows suit, with vibrant locales, the first shot of the film is a 'Birdman'-esque continuous tracking shot with some very very subtle editing. The scale of the film and some of the other driving shots later are breathtaking and almost hard to believe are real, there's so much scenery in frame, the cars look like toys. There are a few humorous moments as well, Craig showing how in control he is in nearly every situation, which is part of the mystique of the character. We go from Mexico City, to London to Rome to Austria to Switzerland, to Morrocco to a hollowed out volcano in the middle of the desert to.... London again... Lots of flying around, and the whole movie is supposed to take place over 4 days or so... We get to see more of Ben Whishaw's Quartermaster, he's a master hacker, who only one film earlier accidentally forgot he plugged the baddie's computer into their network, which was exactly what the villain wanted and got the MI-6 building blown up, here he hacks the most complicated computer system ever, by himself, on his laptop over wifi, and also manages to decipher the DNA coding of all the bad guys from a ring Craig got off a dead guy, thats just how good he is, though his car modding skills were a bit blah. just using a label maker and putting some toggles and a small LED readout to the dash of the film's Aston Martin DB10, was a bit slapdash. However he is able to singlehandedly totally rebuild and re-spec a 1962 DB5, which the filmmakers seem to forget who owns the car... as it is classically, Sean Connery's car of choice in the 3rd film and in several subsequent movies and Craig wins it in a poker game during "Casino Royale" but in "Skyfall" it has the Connery armament, which if you ask the producers, you'll again get the "we already have your money, go away" answer again... Its somewhat nostalgia wanking and fan service, though is also somewhat a disservice, with how Craig was supposed to be a stand alone reboot of the character, even though the filmmakers return to the well of Films Past.

Christoph Waltz plays the film's heavy, though Dave Bautista's laconic henchman fills the term more accurately, he's not only physically imposing, but he's also very effective and won't give up, and earns himself a spot on the Classic Henchman Wall of Fame, but Waltz plays a figure of Craig's past and leaves the reason he doesn't like Daniel up to the birds. There's an odd civility between hero and villain, more expository dialogue than there should be, it's a two hour fourteen minute film with maybe 4 action set pieces totally 20-25? minutes of screen time... Recently Daniel Craig has stated his disdain for the character, which maybe i'm not the only one who's caught on to these cinematic sins. The movie is fun for the parts that its fun, but there's a lot of time you can go run to the rest room, or take a phone call, or write a movie review and come back in time for the another action scene and go back out to the lobby. There's not much my words can do to desway people from seeing this film when it opens in the US on November 6th, the marketing machine on it and hype alone have already all but guaranteed its success, but i just want to point out it's merely just a Spectre of what a good James Bond movie should be.

"Am I supposed to be impressed?"
-James Bond… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

ghoti666Dec 21, 2015

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A big disappointment after Skyfall.

I just can’t understand why it is so drab. Why it has gone low key. It seemed tired.

“Spectre” and “Blofeld” are shamefully under-used.
Waltz has no menace in this. He is a bit impish, mostly dispassionate. But not scary. He supposedly runs a criminal organisation that all the others are scared of, but none of this comes across.
His initial appearance at the Spectre meeting (which is held in a big public building & Bond just blags his way into…) is quite effective, whilst he is in shadow – but then he smirks up at Bond and says “cuckoo”.
Blofeld says he was behind all of Bond’s previous villains – but LeChiffre and Silva were menacing/scary. This Blofeld just isn’t.

The supporting characters are good (M, Q and Moneypenny) but Bond looks bored. His affair with Monica Bellucci is passionless and pointless.

The opening sequence in Mexico is brilliant – and the fight in the train (but it makes no sense. Why is Bond being attacked when Blofeld wants to meet him & punish him? Why is there no one else on the train?).
The escape from Blofeld’s lair is ridiculously easy. Bond just shoots a few things & everything blows up. And again, Bond rescuing the girl & Blofeld’s demise are just perfunctory.

It should have been bigger and badder, but it was as if the Director suddenly became embarrassed to be doing a Bond film and tried to make it “real”, but unfortunately just made it dull.

Skyfall seemed to establish a new Bond, building on Casino Royale – a gritty realism, but with a nod to the old Bond. That should have been enough for Spectre to build on. Who wants to see a “more real” Bond? A wasted opportunity.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

jeffnicholsNov 7, 2015

eh, meh, smeh. was totally underwhelmed by this one. would have walked out but ticket and popcorn was almost $30 figured i had to stay. daniel craig was fat old bloated in this flick and didn't seem into it. maybe he knew the script suckedeh, meh, smeh. was totally underwhelmed by this one. would have walked out but ticket and popcorn was almost $30 figured i had to stay. daniel craig was fat old bloated in this flick and didn't seem into it. maybe he knew the script sucked and was just going through the motions. very disappointed.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

4

CarewolfApr 2, 2016

Not a very good James Bond movie. It can best be compared to Moonraker in that has a non-sensical plot and is mostly just recycled ideas from other Bond movies, but compared to Moonraker, Spectre lacks the charm and humor. This sets a new lowNot a very good James Bond movie. It can best be compared to Moonraker in that has a non-sensical plot and is mostly just recycled ideas from other Bond movies, but compared to Moonraker, Spectre lacks the charm and humor. This sets a new low for the Bond franchise.

It does have occationally nice visuals, I didn't fall asleep while watching it (though two of my friends did), so I give it a few bonus points to a final score of 4.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

vigen1Nov 7, 2015

In essence this movie get's all the bond parts right, it feels like a bond movie. However the story telling is horrendously bad and every major plot point is revealed halfway through the movie. Adding to that it hints at a major twist in theIn essence this movie get's all the bond parts right, it feels like a bond movie. However the story telling is horrendously bad and every major plot point is revealed halfway through the movie. Adding to that it hints at a major twist in the Craig series and never really makes anything out it.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

4

drambuie_Nov 21, 2015

for me all 007 movies and Bond as a character are classy and chic . Until now! This was nothing like the real gentleman/agent we were used to (Expensive clothes and accessories do not make a real man).
Apart from the blah script ,i wasfor me all 007 movies and Bond as a character are classy and chic . Until now! This was nothing like the real gentleman/agent we were used to (Expensive clothes and accessories do not make a real man).
Apart from the blah script ,i was really annoyed by the goofiness that reminded me of teenage comedies .
Only good thing is that we finally get to believe in Bond as a person.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

sallieNov 9, 2015

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Daniel Craig is the best Bond. So why, why, why does he keep getting the worst scripts?

Casino Royale was great until it lost its momentum and delivered no interesting second-half set pieces. Quantum was a mess, Skyfall was pretty but hollow, and had one too many deux ex machinas.

Spectre was just...boring. The car chase was barely a chase, with zero sense of peril or urgency. Monica Bellucci may have been handed the dumbest Bond Girl role in the franchise. I know Bond is supposed to have some special allure and be a lady magnet, but what a dumb scene. Zero chemistry.

Bond's plot armor renders him impervious to torture, and his escape is a rushed, explosive snooze-fest. Why are the producers suddenly scared to put Bond through the wringer physically? There were zero stakes until the end, which I admit had some tension. but it mostly seemed like a rushed attempt to justify the cast. Andrew Scott's character was a total waste of talent. Christoph Waltz was perfectly menacing, but his motivation was laughable in a film that tried way too hard to take itself seriously.

Another critic put it best: "This isn't a Batman movie. Not everybody needs an origin story."

Bond movies, in my opinion, are supposed to be fun first. Movies like Goldeneye handle the balance of camp and believability perfectly. A movie with that sort of production value, rhythm, and tone was sorely needed here.

I was dying to like this movie. I figured with the introduction of M and Moneypenny in Skyfall, they were moving toward a more traditional Bond in this film. Nope. They've been promising that for three films now, and it's more of the same "edgy," "gritty" nonsense. It kind of worked for Casino Royale. Now it's just exhausting.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

4

KeithfmNov 10, 2015

Slickly done and good performances from the main actors. However Mendes misses the point of James Bond again and does not allow the characters to develop or shine. The whole story is just a rehash of James Bonds greatest hits and 'homages'.Slickly done and good performances from the main actors. However Mendes misses the point of James Bond again and does not allow the characters to develop or shine. The whole story is just a rehash of James Bonds greatest hits and 'homages'. Please let this be the last. I can understand that Daniel Criag's had enough.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

4

Ajeya-RajkDec 7, 2015

Not atrocious but middling.Long as hell.Uses elements from old James bond movies-Chase sequences,henchman battles,over the top villain,which is nostalgic but inconsistent with tone of Craig bond.Wasted villain in one of the best actors of hisNot atrocious but middling.Long as hell.Uses elements from old James bond movies-Chase sequences,henchman battles,over the top villain,which is nostalgic but inconsistent with tone of Craig bond.Wasted villain in one of the best actors of his generation.Predictable **** ending.Film looks aesthetically good.Amazing opening shot.Let down by poor script,pacing and boring characters.Bond has been better but has also definitely fared worse.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

DeareNDec 9, 2015

I loved Daniel Craig as James Bond, I loved Waltz as a villain in previous movies. This is the worst of the 4 James Bond movies with Daniel. Terrible

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

AngusBarbudezAug 26, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. La defino con una sola palabra...ESTÚPIDA, bueno mejor dos.....MUY ESTÚPIDA.

Voy a contar esta parte Sin Spoilers, y luego aviso de los Spoilers

El problema general, es que Sam Mendes no tiene ni repajolera idea de llevar a James Bond, de una manera que no sea, la versión de Roger Moore o la de Sean Connery en sus momentos mas bajos, es decir, volvemos a los clichés mas rancios de 007 aderezado con villanos y situaciones dignas, como repito de un Roger Moore, en sus ultimos films, donde ya era un chiste y una caricatura grotesca de lo que era Bond.

Que problema tenía seguir con el estilo de Casino Royale?, se alejaba del Bond clásico, el de los gadgets, los villanos y planes rancios?, es lógico, es necesario reinventar el personaje, no podía volver otra vez a lo mismo, porque ya es anacrónico. Pero Mendes, es un señor que debe tener admiración por esa epoca ¿dorada? de Bond y cuando toma el control de Bond, volvemos a la epoca dorada, que desgraciadamente ya huele a rancio, y tenemos Skyfall ese truño de peli de Bond con villano de opereta con un tercer actor digno de Solo en Casa y plagado de guiños chorras para los fans, un desastre que tira por al borda toda las virtudes de Casino Royale.

Y nos encontramos con SPECTRE, que reconozco que la primera mitad va bien, perdonas las chorradas...pero llegan a la base del malo, y el guión entra en modo RANDOM, rozando niveles de Austin Powers, y por supuesto enlazando a las 3 anteriores como el puto culo.

Si te encantan las peliculas como Moonraker, Panorama para Matar o Muere otro Día, esta te parecerá una obra Maestra.

SPOILERS TOCHOS.

- Los titulos de inicio, es asombroso, ese homenaje al Hentai que se casca Mendes.

-La Base de SPECTRA, que explota de una manera tan absurdamente gratuita y tan RANDOM.

- El villano, Waltz que es el Hermanastro de Bond y que es Blofeld, una mezcla rancia entre el Nazi de Malditos Bastardos, un Voyeur y el Doctor maligno, .

-Enlazan espantosamente mal las 3 peliculas anteriores, TODOS LOS MALOS DE ESTE BOND, ERAN DE SPECTRA...PORQUE LLEVABAN EL MISMO ANILLO!!!....COMO? PERO....a ver si Bardem, iba muy a su puta bola....

-Batista tan desaprovechado.

-El CGI DIOS COMO CANTA POR TODOS LADOS.

-James Bond, con sus problemas de Cleptomanía.

-Folleteo gratuito tras la muerte de BATISTA (Desaprovechado de cojones)

- El plan, chorra no, lo siguiente...Dominar el mundo a traves del espionaje pero que una gran parte del presupuesto de SPECTRA, se dedique a joderle la vida a Bond.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

BroyaxJan 7, 2017

Après les deux précédents qui étaient des purges, ce Bond nouveau est presque un soulagement : l'action y est à peu près lisible, moins parkinsonienne, moins surdécoupée et permet d'apprécier les quelques scènes spectaculaires, parfois trèsAprès les deux précédents qui étaient des purges, ce Bond nouveau est presque un soulagement : l'action y est à peu près lisible, moins parkinsonienne, moins surdécoupée et permet d'apprécier les quelques scènes spectaculaires, parfois très inventives. Bref, c'est enfin regardable...

Daniel Craig campe un 007 de belle facture, sans doute un peu plus narquois que d'habitude mais encore bien loin des facéties et des bons mots d'un Roger Moore -mais il s'agit d'une autre époque à dire vrai.

Comme d'habitude, les stars s'invitent au carnaval bondesque avec la Belluci -un peu passée- en amuse-gueule, puis le grand méchant Christopher Waltz qui semble se régaler mais dans un rôle trop petit pour lui, un méchant sans envergure, et notre Léa Seydoux nationale, ravissante mais hélas réduite au rôle de potiche plus ou moins parlante. Ralph Fiennes, pour sa part, incarne un M assez convaincant, qui remplace avantageusement le vieux hibou.

On reste interloqué par contre devant le traitement infligé à Moneypenny et Q : une jeune godiche et un jeune con, complètement geek ! James Bond, ce n'est pourtant pas Mission Impossible...

Là où le bât blesse sans cesse, c'est à propos du scénario complètement mongolo et déjà vu, encore une histoire de contrôle de l'information à la petite semaine (c'est Appeule qui a écrit cette merde ?) ; en outre, le film lambine beaucoup trop souvent et n'en finit pas, essayant maladroitement de trouver une quelconque psychologie à l'agent double zéro mais sans jamais y parvenir.

On sent globalement une envie de moderniser le vieux fossile qui devrait être à la retraite depuis des lustres et peut-être bien que le super-agent devrait prendre à tout le moins quelques vacances au lieu de se faire essorer jusqu'au trognon par le rouleau compresseur hollywoodien.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

mouseypoo13Jun 14, 2017

OK, it looks good, it has decent enough action, but the rest isn't great. Unrealistic scenes and bad writing make this a generic bond movie, or worse. Watch Casino Royale.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

WalterKovacsDec 26, 2017

If you are a fan of the old films then this is an exciting film, but most will find the film corny with over-the-top action sequences. Enjoyable for fans of the genre.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

ValBalSep 1, 2020

Action was ok, I definitely like the darker tone and the music but I just couldn't bare seeing moronic things that J. Bond does. That's not reckless, that's just dumb. Antagonist is cringe worthy. He's just basically a villain who doesAction was ok, I definitely like the darker tone and the music but I just couldn't bare seeing moronic things that J. Bond does. That's not reckless, that's just dumb. Antagonist is cringe worthy. He's just basically a villain who does whatever a villain does, no reason. Lastly, Bond's change of heart at the end of the movie felt forced. Skyfall remains the best film of Craig's era.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

Gamepro3093Aug 19, 2020

This is a huge step backward for the Craig era. It’s still gritty and hard edged like his other efforts but is marred by tossing in the cheeseball stuff from the old series like pointless monologues, unrealistic stunts and your typical trainThis is a huge step backward for the Craig era. It’s still gritty and hard edged like his other efforts but is marred by tossing in the cheeseball stuff from the old series like pointless monologues, unrealistic stunts and your typical train scene a la The Spy Who Loved Me and From Russia With Love only somehow more dull and pointless. This stuff doesn’t mesh well with what was once a gritty and more hard edged reboot with less focus on fantasy and more on realism. They even toss in Blofeld with a plot twist visible from a mile away with an even dumber one straight out of Austin Powers. Don’t know how they’re going to fix this mess with No Time To Die but based on it’s trailers it already looks much better than this slog. I’d suggest only watching this to be on board with No Time To Die. Otherwise you’re better off watching the other Daniel Craig Bond movies or the ones from the old Bond series.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

HeroicAge616Oct 26, 2021

SPECTRE feels lifeless and stale, trying to hard to seem like a smart film, but leaves audiences checking their watch more than Bond.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

DiggidyDanNov 8, 2015

This movie is laughablly bad. If a cliché had personified itself in film form, this would be it. Bad quips, cheesy in general, toxically infused with inside jokes fram the franchise that are not funny and feel like forced feeding. Just badThis movie is laughablly bad. If a cliché had personified itself in film form, this would be it. Bad quips, cheesy in general, toxically infused with inside jokes fram the franchise that are not funny and feel like forced feeding. Just bad in general.… Expand

5 of 11 users found this helpful56

All this user's reviews

3

HellionDec 27, 2015

Spectre was a major let down. Craig's acting and playing Bond is always great but this story didn't have any substance or intrigue to it hardly at all. Villain gets a yawn and the action is very run of the mill. Can we drop the "governmentSpectre was a major let down. Craig's acting and playing Bond is always great but this story didn't have any substance or intrigue to it hardly at all. Villain gets a yawn and the action is very run of the mill. Can we drop the "government spying on us/information network" plots already. Seriously, they are incredibly stupid. I understand they were going for that classic Bond style (few words, all style) but it didn't work and really needed shorter but sweeter action sequences. What I loved about Casino Royale is that Bond used his wit and charisma over pure muscle and shooting. Didn't get all the hype around the "Bond girl" Monica Belluci..she was barely in it. Really most of the credit goes to Léa Seydoux who was terrific and made an interesting Bond girl for sure. Whole picture was lacking everywhere else however and jumped to too many locations. Hopefully Daniel Craig will be back with a better Bond film to make his final mark if he indeed exit's the series.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

judahjsnNov 6, 2015

Strangely boring and tired entry to the franchise. It felt like the re-heated leftovers from every spy and super hero movie of the last 10 years. Not a single witty line. In fact, the script felt like a boilerplate place holder that someoneStrangely boring and tired entry to the franchise. It felt like the re-heated leftovers from every spy and super hero movie of the last 10 years. Not a single witty line. In fact, the script felt like a boilerplate place holder that someone was supposed to go back and replace with actual writing... only never did. My expectations were somewhat low going in because some early reviews I read said it was a dreary film. It wasn't just dreary in tone, it had no life at all. Really disappointed.… Expand

22 of 30 users found this helpful228

All this user's reviews

3

blacksunJan 14, 2016

Wait, am I watching a bad Roger Moore era remake? Are we really back to the comedic stunts and unwitty wit?
The film rambles on from one cliche to another making you feel like you're watching a Bond film you've seen before. I think they'reWait, am I watching a bad Roger Moore era remake? Are we really back to the comedic stunts and unwitty wit?
The film rambles on from one cliche to another making you feel like you're watching a Bond film you've seen before. I think they're just milking the Daniel Crag "formula" while they can. Scene after scene falls flat due to either bad acting, bad timing in direction or bad music. Sorry. Wait for the next one.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

Mazmorrero47Nov 6, 2015

SPECTRE grabs everything Casino Royale did to get 007 back on track and flushes it down the toilet. It's the Diamonds are Forever of the Daniel Craig era in the way that it's a Roger Moore era movie but with a different actor. So long for theSPECTRE grabs everything Casino Royale did to get 007 back on track and flushes it down the toilet. It's the Diamonds are Forever of the Daniel Craig era in the way that it's a Roger Moore era movie but with a different actor. So long for the days when Bond had development and complexity.
The paper-thin story is basically a poor man's Captain America: The Winter Soldier (it revolves around privacy invasion to defend security), and it keeps with the Skyfall tradition of insisting that James Bond is still super relevant in the internet era despite relying on pandering throwbacks to the previous films to drive the point home. Ironically, it makes you wonder if Bond still has a place in the contemporary world.
We're back to the old days when women are one-dimensional plot devices and sexual interests rather than actual characters with personalities and arcs. Daniel Craig and Lea Seydoux have to go through a forced and chemistry-free romantic subplot that adds nothing to the picture. All while Seydoux tries too hard to be sexy and cool, and I'm sorry, but she's no Eva Green or Honor Blackman. More like a female Jai Courtney.
Christoph Waltz is the same over-the-top cartoonish villain he plays in most of his films, and his motivations are pretty silly. How are we supposed to take him seriously when his catchphrase is "cuckoo"? Not to mention his twists are insulting to the audience's intelligence and seem taken from Austin Powers in Goldmember.
Most shockingly, it's not even an interesting movie in the visual departments. The action scenes are a snoozefest due to poor editing and low stakes, and the monochromatic cinematography makes every location look the same (except for the opening sequence in Mexico, the only one with a wide color palette).
Bring back Martin Campbell!… Expand

15 of 24 users found this helpful159

All this user's reviews

3

screenplayhouseNov 7, 2015

I've never heard anyone say how much they loved THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. I've never met one Trek fan who couldn't wait to see NEMESIS again. Two painful franchise films both rated here with 50s.

But somehow the writers of these filmsI've never heard anyone say how much they loved THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. I've never met one Trek fan who couldn't wait to see NEMESIS again. Two painful franchise films both rated here with 50s.

But somehow the writers of these films have -- impossibly -- been hired to cowrite THIS film. And it shows. And in case you haven't been paying attention -- it showed all over SKYFAIL too. Terrible TERRIBE scripts.

I don't think Craig is an idiot. I think he couldn't believe people were stupid enough to fall for SKYFAIL and when he saw this script he must have decided enough was enough.… Expand

2 of 8 users found this helpful26

All this user's reviews

3

foxgroveNov 9, 2015

Bond is back and with it comes the tried and (too) trusted formula. We have the good guy; the baddie; the girl; the car; the stunning locations; the set pieces; the stunts and the song. What could possibly go wrong? Well, on this occasion,Bond is back and with it comes the tried and (too) trusted formula. We have the good guy; the baddie; the girl; the car; the stunning locations; the set pieces; the stunts and the song. What could possibly go wrong? Well, on this occasion, actually quite a lot! Whilst up a few notches from the lamentable ‘Quantum of Solace’, it’s also noticeably well below the high standard set by Sam Mendes last directorial effort, the fabulous ‘Skyfall’.
Things get off to a flying start in Mexico City with a stunning set piece which gets the anticipatory juices flowing. However, it’s all downhill soon after and by the time the movie has hit the sixty minute mark it is in desperate trouble. Daniel Craig seems completely jaded this time out and Lea Seydoux is a weak and anaemic Bond girl. As the baddies Andrew Scott is refreshing, but I really don’t think I can be alone in stifling yawns at yet another villain from Chistoph Waltz’s seemingly limited canon.
In addition to the disappointment of the performances one also feels let down by the action. Aside from the opening and closing sequences which are very good, nearly all the other set pieces and stunts feel bland, second rate and unexciting. The whole enterprise just seems tired and even the usually welcome tongue in cheek humour is sadly absent. None of this is helped one iota by an unmanageable 2 and a half hours running time which leaves one anaesthetised by the singular lack of thrills. Even the song (which admittedly grows on you) is not up there with the greats, and one can’t help but recall an apt line from Adele’s 'Skyfall' – ‘This is the end’. Well, amen to that!… Expand

3 of 8 users found this helpful35

All this user's reviews

3

Chazd3Nov 6, 2015

I love Daniel Craig as 007. I loved Pierce Brosnan as well. If Pierce was a Formula 1 race car, Daniel would be a Top fuel dragster. Both fun to watch in different ways. Spectre took a Top fuel dragster and tried to run it in the Monaco GrandI love Daniel Craig as 007. I loved Pierce Brosnan as well. If Pierce was a Formula 1 race car, Daniel would be a Top fuel dragster. Both fun to watch in different ways. Spectre took a Top fuel dragster and tried to run it in the Monaco Grand Prix. The story was disjointed bordering on incomprehensible. The plot, if you can call it that, was slow as molasses in January. 007 was popping up all over Europe in scene after scene after scene instantly wearing dozens of wardrobes GQ magazine would envy, and all with only a duffel. At first it was campy 007 artistic license, but for me it became so obvious it became a mild distraction. There were way too many Sherlock Holmes-esque slow motion meanderings occasionally punctuated by gun fights that reminded me of Westerns from the 50's & 60's when the bad guy fired a thousand blanks and the good guy's bullets were real and unerring. The realism was squashed and the campy approach had been made inappropriate. Even the million dollar luxury sports car chase was a waste of million dollar sports cars. They didn't know the kind of movie they really wanted, and neither did I. The last 20 minutes and I was looking at my watch.… Expand

11 of 18 users found this helpful117

All this user's reviews

3

VidyaBumOct 21, 2021

Out of 25 Bond movies, I'd place Spectre at 18/25.

I watched it not 4 days ago. I can't remember a thing about it. The photography was very yellow for some reason. The story almost started being ok at some point, and then it turned to crapOut of 25 Bond movies, I'd place Spectre at 18/25.

I watched it not 4 days ago. I can't remember a thing about it.
The photography was very yellow for some reason.

The story almost started being ok at some point, and then it turned to crap the very instant I thought the movie started showing competence.

I do remember that I thought at some point "somehow it's started being just as silly as Roger Moore era Bond now".
The action took too long and a lot of characterisation wasn't properly done.

Honestly, even after rewatching bits of it, I can't even appreciate, or remember appreciating, anything about Spectre.

The only positive and reason it's so high in my list is that Sam Mendes is a good director, Craig and Seydoux play well, actually every actor does his job well. But it's so uninteresting. No lines, no scenes, no plot points, nothing reall marks. It's competent work spent on a completely forgettable and uninteresting movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

hotfromcauldronNov 6, 2015

Bond's back briefly before brainless blueprint baffles, bores and blows-up. British bomb buries Craig 's brittle bones. Bye Bye. Better bring back Connery and Bassey.

4 of 13 users found this helpful49

All this user's reviews

3

nanancayNov 6, 2015

Crazily boring, filled with all the spy tropes. No matter what Lea Seydoux says, her bond girl is no different to the other ones. The movie left me not knowing what Spectre even really was, and the villain left a LOT to be desired - he didn'tCrazily boring, filled with all the spy tropes. No matter what Lea Seydoux says, her bond girl is no different to the other ones. The movie left me not knowing what Spectre even really was, and the villain left a LOT to be desired - he didn't even seem like a villain.… Expand

9 of 16 users found this helpful97

All this user's reviews

3

Colig54Nov 7, 2015

Paid for James Bond, got Mission Impossible 4, Fast and Furious 7 and Goldmember.

Making good fiction is often about pushing the boundaries of believability and unfortunately Spectre pushes so far as to land firmly within the realms ofPaid for James Bond, got Mission Impossible 4, Fast and Furious 7 and Goldmember.

Making good fiction is often about pushing the boundaries of believability and unfortunately Spectre pushes so far as to land firmly within the realms of comedy, you will be laughing at this version of James Bond rather than laughing with him.

Perhaps Daniel Craig epitomises what a typical American audiences want a tough English spy to look like; so old he looks pensionable but with a stiff upper lip of superhero proportions firmly held in place by a bad LA botox and a face like an unhappy emoticon which occasionally changes from :{ to :| or when James Bond is feeling especially aroused in the company of a woman half his age and twice as good looking : /
Unfortunately, 'lecherous old man does tricks' is pretty much the recurrent theme throughout this movie. The film starts of in the Mexico City centre in what appears to be the most organised street party the world has ever witnesses without a single Mexican in sight, Bond has pulled a Colombian supermodel and brought her up to a hotel room for a quickie :/ but then abandons her to go and blow up a building in order to stop a terrorist threat.

The massive explosion brings down a whole building and dissipates the crowds in the streets only for them to magically reappear immediately so that Bond can hide amongst the crowd as he hunts down a super-villain cunning enough to survive the massive explosion that occurred in the room he was in only moments before. Needless to say, his white suit is a little bit dirty in places. The pursuit ends up as a fight in a helicopter where it takes the English spy assassin about 5 whole minutes to win fight with the helicopter driver who has one hand on the control stick during the whole airborne punch up. Of course, he boots him out the window in the end in text book James Bond style.

The film takes every opportunity to break the spell of believability and does so with gusto about every 30 seconds. You have to expect some of this with any action film, like the scalectrix style street race through the empty car-less streets in central Rome (yeah right!) where two supercars powerslide and jump their way through cobbled streets. You can do that occasionally in a film, but to do it for 2 hours and 30 minutes make the film feel more like a comedy as ridiculous event upon ridiculous event pile up one after another in an unceasing barrage of silliness. It is not supposed to be a comedy!

After 30 minutes I realised that the film was not actually going to even try to get down to any real serious Bond business and I found I was laughing at Bond, rather than laughing with, and looking around the cinema thinking: "all these people have been conned into watching 'generic big budget action movie' and so have I." There is nothing particularly 'Bond' about it and it seems this Bond misses the open goal completely and instead does an impression of Mission Impossible 4, Fast & Furious 7, and more accidentally - Austin Powers in Goldmember.

As a massive fan of science fiction I found this films inability to attempt to step down a fraction and engage in any level of believable fiction thoroughly disappointing. It careens along carelessly and rapidly like a featherlight, candyfloss and popcorn powered roller coaster through a barrage of nonsensical action sequences that made me wonder if the script had been written through observing two 6 year-olds playing with action figures, E.G.

"And then bond chases after the cars in his air plane, he pulls alongside and winks at the bad guy, no he gives him a salute, no he does both! Yeah! Then the plane crashes into the trees but only loses two wings! Bond keeps chasing them with the plane though. He slides it down the hill like a toboggan with propellers. Bond does a handbrake turn, then smashes his plane-toboggan straight through a garage full of chopped logs crashing into the bad guys cars on the other side and wipes them all out! Yeah!"

But maybe some people like that sort of thing.… Expand

3 of 8 users found this helpful35

All this user's reviews

3

lordlongflapNov 13, 2015

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. What can I say other than disappointing?

The first twenty minutes with the Day of The Dead 'single shot' and then the helicopter fight (which I will admit was a bit silly but c'mon it's supposed to be Bond) and then the scene with Christoph Waltz's character's introduction. These twenty minutes were the only twenty minutes that felt like a Bond film. Literally immediately after that, the plot became lame, cliche and even boring in parts. It felt like a default action film with an even more default romance, which by the way, is not believable at all.

Another problem I had with the film was Sam Mendes trying to give Bond a deep emotional side. I can see why he might want to do this, and I can kinda agree with it, I think it would genuinely be very interesting to go into the psyche of a man who lives such a fast-paced, violent life. It was the way Mendes went about it that annoyed me. They tried to introduce this Spectre storyline (which hadn't been built up to at all in any of the previous movies) which was frankly just too stupid to even consider. The previous Bond movies had been gritty, more realistic Bond films, with villains who were believably evil, and seemed to actually possess some form of logical agenda. Oberhauser (the villain in Spectre) had no agenda other than....being evil? Taking over the world? I mean really.....could you be more of a cliche? He even had a bloody white cat!

All in all, I think Christoph's acting prowess was wasted on a poorly written villain with a poorly written plot in a poorly written movie. A sad blemish on Daniel Craig's Bond record, which pre-Spectre had been fantastic (I actually liked Quantum!)… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

3

EmviciNov 27, 2015

I am a huge James Bond fan, and this is undeniably the worse bond movie ever. Firstly most the movie is filmed in low light, so you can barely see much of anything (probably to distract us from low budget background promps) secondly theI am a huge James Bond fan, and this is undeniably the worse bond movie ever. Firstly most the movie is filmed in low light, so you can barely see much of anything (probably to distract us from low budget background promps) secondly the entire movie lacks depth, no real great plot or action like we are used to, all the movie offers is lame and predictable stunts. and when I say lame, I really mean low budget lame.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

3

baykostarDec 8, 2015

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Movie started unexpectedly okay then second half lived up to the expectations with the fakest 'love' story and the worst rip-off villian ever. So predictable with james 'the slut' bond falling in 'love' and chosing to be the good guy after killing all those people cold blooded as he throws away his weapon and going to his 'love' in the most cringy way. By the way someone should stop C.Waltz. Arent we all tired of seeing the same character over and over?… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

3

wariceJan 2, 2016

With Bond movies you expect: lots of attractive women,lots of Gadgets,plenty of one liners;novel stunt ideas,a great story.I think Daniel Craig is a lovely guy;however he just doesn't have the coolness and sophistication of Roger Moore orWith Bond movies you expect: lots of attractive women,lots of Gadgets,plenty of one liners;novel stunt ideas,a great story.I think Daniel Craig is a lovely guy;however he just doesn't have the coolness and sophistication of Roger Moore or Sean Connery.The movie underdelivers on all the themes you expect in a Bond movie.Not enough twists and turns for me.I found it dull and a waste of time.We need a new bond and a lot of gadgets...… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

ComandanteCobraJun 16, 2016

An uninspired action movie that has little to offer I'm afraid. It seems to me as if i was watching a toned down Jason Bourne movie rather than a serious spy movie....too much clichéd action and too little of the "class" that made James BondAn uninspired action movie that has little to offer I'm afraid. It seems to me as if i was watching a toned down Jason Bourne movie rather than a serious spy movie....too much clichéd action and too little of the "class" that made James Bond famous.
If you are looking for a good action film watch something else like "Mission Impossible Rogue Nation" that is highly entertaining ... and if you are loking for a good Spy story retrieve another James Bond movie but one with Sean Connery in It. Monica Bellucci is still gorgeous ..she is the only good thing in this picture… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

lofu_agfyNov 11, 2020

This is the worst Bond movie ever, filled with emotionless characters that I couldn't care less about. The pace of this film after a predictably exciting start is slow and boring. Unlike his fellow actors, Ben Whishaw as Q manages to portrayThis is the worst Bond movie ever, filled with emotionless characters that I couldn't care less about. The pace of this film after a predictably exciting start is slow and boring. Unlike his fellow actors, Ben Whishaw as Q manages to portray the only believable human in this whole fake production. Why couldn't JB have been given a touch of Q's wit, humour or vulnerability? No wonder Daniel Craig wants out of this franchise - it's beneath his talent. Such a cacophony of totally forgettable dialogue, people and silly stunts is hard to imagine in a single movie and yet here it is. During one of the 'action' fights when James was being hammered by the evil assassin I noticed the person next to me had fallen asleep and was snoring. That person was an exceedingly eloquent critic.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

3

Linuski92Nov 19, 2020

Spectre has got to be one of most underwritten movies ever, it has great actors in it, but none of them are given anything to do. It's boring, long (2 hrs 27 min.) and has the worst set of villains in bond history. People really outta stopSpectre has got to be one of most underwritten movies ever, it has great actors in it, but none of them are given anything to do. It's boring, long (2 hrs 27 min.) and has the worst set of villains in bond history. People really outta stop defending this movie.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

2

emeraldstormFeb 4, 2017

Corny, tedious, lengthy, cliche, and only worth watching if you're a die-hard James Bond fan or are into the history of the franchies. I really did not enjoy it.

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

2

airaaniNov 9, 2015

The fact that I managed to be bored during a movie that claims the genre of "Action" is a bad sign. It didn't feel like a James Bond movie at all. In general it all felt pretty ineffective and clichéd (but not in a good way).

5 of 11 users found this helpful56

All this user's reviews

2

NathonasDec 6, 2015

I think I understand why Daniel Craig is sick of playing Bond.

The film just feels tired and uninspired. It's like they took a formula of what a Bond film should have, threw in a bunch of cliches, and called it a day. The plot is boring,I think I understand why Daniel Craig is sick of playing Bond.

The film just feels tired and uninspired. It's like they took a formula of what a Bond film should have, threw in a bunch of cliches, and called it a day. The plot is boring, predictable, and full of holes.
The last 30 minutes in particular are absolutely laughable and make zero sense.

There aren't even any action sequences that stand out in the film, they all feel completely bland and forgettable. By comparison, you can watch the action scenes from Casino Royale multiple times and they're still amazing.

There is NOTHING memorable about this film at all.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

2

XharlieMar 7, 2016

Spectre is a shallow action movie but, by claiming to be a Bond film, it bids too high and loses all credibility because of how badly it fails to make that bid. It is a melange of tired old tropes, nostalgia and reminiscence, without anySpectre is a shallow action movie but, by claiming to be a Bond film, it bids too high and loses all credibility because of how badly it fails to make that bid. It is a melange of tired old tropes, nostalgia and reminiscence, without any particular flavour or highlight.

James Bond, in Spectre, does not do justice to the character we have read about in books and watched for decades in previous films. In Spectre, he's impatient and lacking of all subtlety. He isn't witty or intelligent or ingenious or elegant or classy or sophisticated and, although he drives a fancy car and drinks fancy Champagne, he doesn't do it with aplomb or finess. Even his English is appaling. James Bond would *never* spout dialogue with imperfect grammar just like he'd never drink white wine with red meat.

The villain is a walking cliché. The plot required a villain so one was found and that's about as much effort as was made. He's a bad guy because the plot frames him so. He's phychologically creepy because he takes the role of tourtourer in a physchologically creepy scene that is entirely predictable and painfully drawn out. He is evil but so shallow you simply can't be invested in Bond's quest to defeat him.

Along with Bond and The Villain, Spectre also serves all the other dishes that one expects. There's a Bond Girl and a mediocre romance which is out of place and tastelessly timed when you consider the plot and reinforces the holes in Bond's character - he isn't the suave romantic you expect. There are gadgets but they either don't work or work in an entirely uninspired fashion. There's a car chase but it is slow, linear and underwhelming - the cars are nice but neither the driving nor the journey are thrilling and the way it ends is simply pathetic.

There are also a very large number of moments that challenge your suspension of disbelief. Things happen that are just a little too far fetched or just a little too convenient. James Bond is permitted to push the limits but I think Spectre pushes them too far. I had to consciously set aside incredulity on a number of occasions to survive to the end of the rather long show.

Most damningly, the plot is nought but rubbish and unintelligable unless you happen to remember the two movies previous to Spectre. I was lost entirely when Bond was instructed to, "Kill him... and don't miss the funeral." Nothing, to my knowledge, gave us any way to know who's funeral the phrase was talking about. Thankfully, my friends at the cinema enlightened me. They also helped by reminding me of the events of the previous two movies so I could follow the plot a little more or else I would have been completely lost but, even with their help, I felt that the very shallow and unoriginal plot was stuck together with nails and glue and contained an unhealthy number of holes.

My final conclusion was that this movie was merely an excuse to set up an arch-enemy for Bond to fight in future installments. It was an origin story. Sadly, for me, it misses even this mark - the arch-enemy it has set up made a poor villain in Spectre and I wasn't at all invested in his demise throughout the movie, I have no interest in seeing future films that feature his villainy.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

david-rJan 2, 2017

It is unbelievable that the "Skyfall" director, the creative Sam Mendes made this cliche Bond movie. However, "Spectre" is not too bad till its middle. But from the scene that Bond faces Blofeld -the main villain character- in SpectreIt is unbelievable that the "Skyfall" director, the creative Sam Mendes made this cliche Bond movie. However, "Spectre" is not too bad till its middle. But from the scene that Bond faces Blofeld -the main villain character- in Spectre organization, the movie is falling down and become untolerable.
Despite of a positive atmosphere before the screening (eg; Monica Bellucci as the oldest Bond girl ever, the last Mendes James Bond, etc.) it is not an special Bond movie. But if you enjoy watching the Bond life, pure action scenes and spy games, watching "Spectre" is not without pleasure.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

2

DOUGKNov 10, 2015

The worst problem with this movie is the length, it is at least one hour too long. Next, it is so unrealistic in so many ways that it spoils whatever sense of realism the film might have for anyone. All of these sort of films treat human lifeThe worst problem with this movie is the length, it is at least one hour too long. Next, it is so unrealistic in so many ways that it spoils whatever sense of realism the film might have for anyone. All of these sort of films treat human life as if it had no value at all. The evil people are not just totally evil but evil without any purpose or credibility. There really is no message or moral to the film and very little to enjoy about it. The production and special effects are, of course, professional.… Expand

2 of 8 users found this helpful26

All this user's reviews

2

shoulderoforionDec 31, 2015

The laziest most mailed in James Bond film I've ever seen & I've seen them all, if I were British I'd be terribly upset that this production team made a mess out of such a national treasure whilst at the same time filming in and aroundThe laziest most mailed in James Bond film I've ever seen & I've seen them all, if I were British I'd be terribly upset that this production team made a mess out of such a national treasure whilst at the same time filming in and around British national treasures, this movie was awful… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

2

mustang8Nov 23, 2015

Okay, so I will try to write a full review of this horrendous "Bond film" without giving any spoilers, but I doubt that you will want to watch this movie after reading this review.

First of all, the rating you will give to this film willOkay, so I will try to write a full review of this horrendous "Bond film" without giving any spoilers, but I doubt that you will want to watch this movie after reading this review.

First of all, the rating you will give to this film will change dramatically if you have seen the previous films of Sam Mendes & Daniel Craig, the perfect combination that bring the elegant, charismatic and cool yet fragile Bond to life. Spectre's Bond, however, does not display these qualities as much as the previous Bonds do.

Story: Right before I entered the cinema I read online that Pierce Brosnan, the previous Bond as you may know, says that Specte has a weak story and is too long. I sincerely hoped that he was solely jealous of Craig's brilliance on the role, but that was not the case. Not that Craig is anything short of great as James Bond, but Spectre actually does have quite a weak story and is unnecessarily long. Do not worry, I will not spoil anything but I will say this: the story is extremely shallow compared to Skyfall and Casino Royale, moreover gives absurd roles and qualities to iconic characters we are used to always see on screen with Bond. Also it leaves quite a lot, and by that I mean really a lot of plot holes behind to make you wonder if they actually deleted part of the script. Overall, story is one of the most important aspects of a Bond movie and it is mainly what makes CR and Skyfall great, while bringing Quantum of Solace and Spectre very much below the standard we expect from Sam Mendes.

Cinematography: Remember the "Take the bloody shot" sequence at the beginning of Skyfall that gave every one of goosebumps? What about the beautiful shot of Bond with colorful Chinese decoration that reminded us that films are forms of art? Yes? Well you get none of that in Spectre. Spectre is all about fast sequences with big explosions, cause who doesn't love explosions, right? I'd classify this movie as quick entertainment like "fast food", rather than a form of art.

Bond: As I said in the beginning, Spectre's Bond is like a Chinese replica: it tries to be elegant and cool but does not get it quite right. I totally agree with Brosnan in saying that Spectre is not Bond-ish, since THE factor that makes a Bond film a Bond film is James Bond himself. Bond strips himself from being a smart and wise MI6 agent who actually has reason behind his actions, while taking more of a mindless action-movie hero-role, making stupid decisions without thinking about consequences and creating dialogue that is nothing but a reason to display 2 characters together on-screen. I also mentioned that Bond was not at all invincible in previous movies, remember Casino Royale and the beginning of Skyfall. However, Spectre's Bond is a man that even Iron Man himself will be jealous of. You will see what I mean.

Supporting Cast: Supporting cast are just there to, as you may have guessed from their role, "support" Bond. Yep, that's it. They do not really have stories of their own, they are just there when need be and gone when Bond is to take the spotlight. Extremely shallow characters. We get no backstory on what happened to them, why they are doing what they are doing, and what they want from Bond.

That sums up my opinion on Spectre. I'd love to write even more but I have other stuff to do, unfortunately. I hope my review gave you another point of view, apart from all those 10/10 and 9/10 reviews which I'm sure have reasons of their own to give such high ratings.

I don't know about you, but I will reconsider twice, maybe thrice before watching the next Bond.… Expand

8 of 11 users found this helpful83

All this user's reviews

2

thevillagesFlNov 24, 2015

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I have seen every 007 movie (I am 70+ so that is a lot of 007). Sean Connery is the best 007. He is a genuine Brit so he fit the part more than anyone else. Friends who saw Spectre all said they were disappointed.
On a scale of 1 - 10, I give Spectre a 3!
Why? It is too damn loud!
Too much blasting music even when someone is talking. The volume keeps increasing until the seats shake and earplugs are required.
All three theaters in The Villages, FL have the most up-to-date Dolbe sound systems. No other movie I have watched in The Villages theaters was like Spectre.
Spectre is in all 3 theaters. Now I know why there are a lot of empty seats.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

2

CalibMcBoltsMay 30, 2016

What a big fat disappointment ''Spectre'' is, the things they would have done, the opportunities they had, the actors they had, they had double Oscar winner Christoph Waltz for christ sakes and they didnt use him AT ALL, he was just anotherWhat a big fat disappointment ''Spectre'' is, the things they would have done, the opportunities they had, the actors they had, they had double Oscar winner Christoph Waltz for christ sakes and they didnt use him AT ALL, he was just another paint by numbers stereotype Bond villain, who does bad things, because it's bad, and he likes bad.
''Spectre'' has just another cliche storyline (in combination with, that the end of this movie is practically the same as the end of MI:5, a much better spy thriller who came out earlier in 2015), a cliche bond girl, a cliche villain.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

reallyadrielAug 3, 2016

To be completely honest and straight forward. I'm not a Daniel Craig type of guy, I'm more of a Pierce Brosnan. Either way here is my honest review of Spectre.

The movie was kinda a let down. They should have upped the film rating fromTo be completely honest and straight forward. I'm not a Daniel Craig type of guy, I'm more of a Pierce Brosnan. Either way here is my honest review of Spectre.

The movie was kinda a let down. They should have upped the film rating from PG-13 to R to get more action/gory scenes in the movie that is usually limited by the PG-13 rating. I thought it had cliche moments, situations, and endings in the movie that you can probably guess what is going to happen next, even if you haven't watched the movie. In general, the movie did not feel like a James Bond film it felt more like a movie that separated itself from the series.

In sum, the movie needed more action. It did not have enough of gadgetry like how a James Bond film should have and more focused on adding 'fluff' to the storyline.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

ourtimehascomeApr 5, 2017

Spectre is the perfect example of a lack of new ideas in the Bond franchise. Its story is so ridiculous it seems it was written by at least five people all with their own different ideas. The cinematography is excellent, and the action scenesSpectre is the perfect example of a lack of new ideas in the Bond franchise. Its story is so ridiculous it seems it was written by at least five people all with their own different ideas. The cinematography is excellent, and the action scenes are worthwhile. Unfortunately, there aren't enough of them to justify this two hour bore.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

1

marco34laNov 7, 2015

this was by far the worst of the series. the word perfunctory comes to mind. why can't hollywood make a decent movie? it's obviously not about money. maybe there's just too many people who have a role in the decision making process.

11 of 23 users found this helpful1112

All this user's reviews

1

mintloDec 3, 2015

I was really disappointed by this movie. I liked the previous Bond films with Craig, but everything about this just didn't work for me.
Things that didn't work for me:
1. Helicopter fight scene - I'm just going to cause a stall with thisI was really disappointed by this movie. I liked the previous Bond films with Craig, but everything about this just didn't work for me.
Things that didn't work for me:
1. Helicopter fight scene - I'm just going to cause a stall with this helicopter and then kill the pilot, then I'm going to pilot the helicopter myself. He could've just told the pilot - land over there.
2. He just killed this woman's husband but then thinks its a reasonable idea to go over to her house and basically force himself on her.
3. M says well I need this job cause I have a mortgage and a family but OK I'll disregard my orders to help you anyway.
4. I'm going to rescue the daughter of the assassin that I just gave a gun to so that he could kill himself and then I'm going to bang her. Then she's going to express her love for me even though we just met like two days ago.
5. Let's take a train to the middle of the desert and enter the enemy's camp with no weapons, plan or backup and of course we're going to win.
6. Oh were the bad guys and we know everything because we have this big surveillance operation that we just demonstrated but we don't think to strip search James Bond and make sure he doesn't have any nifty life saving gadgets on him.
7. Hi I'm James Bond and I'm going to use a plane to chase cars and then I'm going to crash the plan and kill everyone but I don't get a single scratch on me. Oh and its been 10 minutes since something blew up so here is an explosion.
8. So the main bad guy is this brilliant man who works behind the scenes to establish this world wide terrorism conspiracy surveillance system but what really has been bothering him this whole time was jealousy of James Bond because the bad guy's father gave James Bond some attention.
9. Oh, and now that we're closing in on the end of the movie it's time for pointless explosions again.
I think this movie may have been written by a ten year old.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

1

SpankyFeb 13, 2016

I knew this was going to be a bad Bond movie as soon as I saw the pale sepia toned filter used to film all outdoor and indoor scenes. It's always used, along with the blue filter to create "mood", by bad directors in an attempt to create aI knew this was going to be a bad Bond movie as soon as I saw the pale sepia toned filter used to film all outdoor and indoor scenes. It's always used, along with the blue filter to create "mood", by bad directors in an attempt to create a certain "feeling". It's not real and it doesn't work. How about giving us a decent movie with intelligent dialog and a real and normal colored scene? When are amateur filmmakers going to get it through their head?

The script, and dialog was shockingly horrible. My jaw dropped, I was shaking my head and almost laughing at the verbal exchanges between James and an assassin's widow. It was incredibly ludicrous. Who signed off on this piece of trash?

Speaking of the script, Bond keeps showing up to confront characters without explaining why and how he got there. Boom! All of a sudden he's in Europe jumping around finding and talking to all the right people at the right time. Even the attempt at humor is forced and banal.

The action isn't as good as past films. A car chase at night in Rome with absolutely no pedestrians or cars on the street is too hokey to be believed. This is not only the worst Bond movie with Daniel Craig, it is the worst Bond movie since the ludicrous Roger Moore films.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

bmaster4616Nov 17, 2015

There comes a time in each industries life that indicates they’ve simply given up. The movie industry seems to be moving in that direction as movies this year are either sequels, adaptations or even remakes. These types of films shouldn’t beThere comes a time in each industries life that indicates they’ve simply given up. The movie industry seems to be moving in that direction as movies this year are either sequels, adaptations or even remakes. These types of films shouldn’t be considered bad but they do remind the audience that Hollywood has simply run out of ideas. Spectre is a prime example of studio “giving up”. It seems to wander like a zombie in an industry plagued by repetitiveness.

Spectre not only destroys any hope for another great bond movie, but squanders what could have been a great send off for Daniel Craig. This train wreck completely ruins everything that the Craig era of Bond movies stand for, and it seamlessly tares down all of the great moments from the past films. This leaves us with a hollow shell of a movie about one of the most iconic characters in Hollywood.

Spectre is another Daniel Craig James Bond movie. Bond has just received a tape M left for him with simple instructions. To kill someone. This someone is the leader of the secret organization called Spectre. It’s an illicit organization does crimes to somewhat keep a balance in the world (reminds me of the Syndicate from almost every media). Bond has to go on another adventure that eventually links all of his past endeavors. They all link together somehow through this organization. Bond has to find out a way to stop this terrorist group before it’s too late.

The main problem with the film is the quite silly approach this time around. Skyfall succeeded mostly on a grim take that really allowed the audience to connect with the character. Craig doesn’t want to be Bond for a while, stating that the character has grown stale over the years. This is extremely true as we see a completely different character this time around. The screenwriters have resorted in giving us a bond that’s a cliché resemblance of the past.

To think of it as a whole, the movie is a cliché of the past. Instead of giving us a great plot with interesting characters, we’re treated with hollow characters, laughable dialogue, a cliché plot, a disappointing villain and many other atrocities.

Clichés are given to us on a silver platter which we’re supposed to swallow without saying a word. Though they’re extremely laughable in mostly every scene. There’s more than one part where the villain survives what should have been a killing blow. The audience watches as small little occurrences pop up that help drive the story along. At one point Bond so happens to wake up as a mouse in sitting the middle of the bedroom. Instead of shooting it, he lets it go back into its home in the wall. This allows bond to find a secret passage.

This lazy writing is just one of the many things the screenwriters do. Some blame has to fall on the director, Sam Mendes. The blend of old school bond and new school bond doesn’t mix at all. This allows for cheesiness into the film.

Casino Royale and Skyfall seemed to take themselves seriously enough not to have elaborate action sequences. The movie throws all that out of the window with actions scenes that seem to never end. A ten minute chase scene and then a ten minute fight scene. At one point bond is chasing a helicopter, with a boat and destroys it with his gun.

The movie isn’t all that bad though. The direction of the movie is very well done and the cinematography quite good. Although the actions scenes seem long and out of place, they’re very well-choreographed. Other than Lea Seydoux, the actors do a pretty great job. The portrayal of James Bond isn’t the best, but Craig tries his best with what he’s got.

Overall, Spectre could have been an amazing Bond film that really gave Craig a sendoff he deserves. However, it’s a movie bogged down by clichés that never seem to end. Ultimately this leads a movie that simply can’t be taken seriously. The connection to the last films is an interesting story, but it’s ultimately a cliché. Spectre is for those fans wanting to live the glory days of James bond films or can look past clichés that have plagued James Bonds films in the past. However, it could have done away with what’s ultimately the worst script in the series.

2/10

20%… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

1

koconnorFeb 12, 2016

It was predictable, slow and incredibly long. It would not end, it just going on and on and on and on...for 2.5 hours. I love James Bond movies and this was by FAR the worst one yet. Anybody who rated this a 10 probably isn't independent.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

incubus664Dec 29, 2015

Not so much a Bond movie, as a self-involved, cliché-ridden, disjointed exercise in cinematic masturbation. One can imagine that if Sam Mendes had filmed himself jerking off in a helicopter, the result would be much the same.

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

1

MovingeyeNov 11, 2015

Worst Bond in years,
You can tell Mendes and Craig are just back for the money and really do not care at all about the film they are making. The accumulation of bad gags, poor CGI and terrible storyline make this film an excruciatingWorst Bond in years,
You can tell Mendes and Craig are just back for the money and really do not care at all about the film they are making. The accumulation of bad gags, poor CGI and terrible storyline make this film an excruciating experience. Such a shame after Skyfall. The only redeeming part of the film is Lea Seydoux... Hence one point. Go see Sicario instead !… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

0

emirbudJan 18, 2016

I just cannot believe this site counts 460 positive reviews for this movie. It is possibly the dumbest and least imaginative movie ever made. It is also terribly boring and a terrible waste of talent. There are some respectable actors here,I just cannot believe this site counts 460 positive reviews for this movie. It is possibly the dumbest and least imaginative movie ever made. It is also terribly boring and a terrible waste of talent. There are some respectable actors here, without a single interesting line what so ever. I hope this is a warning enough for anyone contemplating watching this abomination. Let me get back to those positive reviews. The people who wrote them should be put on trial. They are criminals, because they lead innocent people to watch this mind damaging atrocity, and they should be prosecuted. Hold them accountable I say. Unbelievable.… Expand

3 of 9 users found this helpful36

All this user's reviews

0

greenbeardNov 7, 2015

Do not waste your time in a forseeable movie like this. I am lover of 007 but was slow movie without any glimpse of what has been this serial: no argument and no engagement. Kingsman is 10 times better than this movie. ;)

7 of 28 users found this helpful721

All this user's reviews

0

LongshotsNov 22, 2015

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. as a short film writer, here is how you know someone doesnt think their script is good. they force in jokes and comedy scenes that are unnecessary. this movie has a ton of those.

but anyway. Spectre is a sequel to 2012 amazing Skyfall. in this James Bond is hunting someone called Mr. White for some unexplained reason because M told him to in a recording.....

so Bond goes out after Mr. White who is sadely not the character from Breaking Bad cooking Meth in Mexico, but instead an idiot who fills his base with explosives, has eagle vision from Assassins creed, and always apears on screen ameraging through darkness (seriously check it). anyway Mr. White likes to make Bonds life shi* or something and decides to try and steal the 3rd Bond Chick in the movie.

but lets go back a bit. the Movie starts with AN AMAZING FIRST SCENE AND FIRST SHOT, SIMPLY AMAZING, IVE NEVER SEEN SUCH A SEEN SO EXPERTLY DONE. BRAVO. too bad that was the best scene in the movie. those were the positives, now back to the negatives or unexplanable.

so back to that first scene, Bond is chasing some guy in white to get his ring. after stealing said ring we are back at HQ which has changed positions to across the street while the old HQ that was blown up in Skyfall was busy getting hit by 5 nukes (seriously not that much time has passed for it to look like it was abandoned in the sevendies). anyhow there is trouble at HQ as this new guy 'C' wants to shut down the 00 agents just like in Mission Impossible Rogue Nation. anyway so bond goes to the guy who he killed in the first scenes funeral and nails his wife who was about to be assassinated for some reason.

we skip ahead a bit and bond has already banged Bond Chick No. 2 and met Bond Chick No. 3 who said that she would never sleep with him.

just for fun my friends and i made a bet on how long from that moment they would bang. it took 10 minutes.

lets forget the story for a bit. the visuals are great, not Skyfall Great but still great. the soundtrack by Sam Smith is unfitting and actually weird... the Actors do a steller job with their terrible script.

and lets talk about the script, its bad, and i mean real bad. it makes some sense but its generally very silly and feels like it shouldnt be for a Bond Film.

back to the actors, Christoph Waltz is in this movie and he is in it too little. like 4 scenes hes in the movie and he has a terrible script in all those parts. such a disappointment. for those who dont know who he is, he played the Main Bad Guy in Inglourious Basterds.

SUCH A DISAPPOINTING MOVIE!
you want a recommendations? watch Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, it has a similar Story but does almost everything WAY BETTER.

that movie is a 810

this is more of a 510… Expand

4 of 13 users found this helpful49

All this user's reviews

SPECTRE

User Reviews