Mendes is scared to continue the direction set by Casino Royale

Rating: 6/10 (28 October 2015)

You reboot a franchise because it has become old, tired and boring. When the reboot is a huge success, you should continue in that direction (just look at Batman). What is the point of ignoring the changes and taking it back to what it was?
Mendes seems hell bent on doing this. Skyfall was bad enough but I allowed him this because it was the 50th anniversary of Bond, so maybe he felt obliged to reference every previous Bond movie and play out all the old clichés . Therefore, I had hoped that now he would get us back on the track set by Casino Royale, but alas no.
Firstly, he continues his nods to previous Bond movies - Live and Let Die, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Moonraker and I could keep going. Which itself becomes an unwelcome distraction as you mentally note that you've seen this before in an earlier Bond movie and bemoan the lack of originality.
Secondly, he continues the clichés of the old Bond franchise: the room of baddies around a table with the head baddie dispatching the vocal dissenter. The comedy moments in the middle of life or death situations (i.e. the Fiat 500). The signposted gadget that you're just waiting for him to use . . . oh wait he must use it here, yup thought so. The succumbing of women to just his look, no verbal jousting just taking what he wants and they let him - what decade are we living in?
If I put these to one side and assess the actual film itself, it's beautifully shot and has a good single track shot in the opening sequence. Which makes it all the more galling that the helicopter fight scene has such poor CGI. It already looks fake and will look even worse as time goes on. In fact it was as poor as the CGI in the opening sequence in Skyfall on the rooftops. How can the same director get it wrong twice?
Then we have the villain. When I first saw Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds, I felt his menace. Which made me long to see how menacing he could be in Spectre. He was about as menacing as a wet fish. In fact Mendes did to him what he managed to do with Javier Bardem. He was a silent menace in No Country For Old Men and then became a camp psycho in Skyfall with no menace at all. Again how can the same director get it wrong twice?
As for the action scenes - well Mendes managed to put a tick in the box that said "insert action scenes here", but that was all he did. The plane scene (BTW where'd he get an airplane from in the first place???) was lacklustre. The car chase - in an empty Rome (really????) just seemed to show off 2 beautiful cars. The train scene - where was everybody? The train seemed bereft of staff or passengers. As for the final scene, well by then I'd lost any interest.
Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever. He isn't pretty or particularly handsome, but he looks like he could handle himself in a fight and most men would love to be him. Which makes it such a shame he is being wasted in this box ticking exercise. I hope (no I pray - and I'm not religious) that the next Bond brings us back on the track set by Casino Royale.