What Goes Up...

Rating: 1/10 (8 November 2015)

Comes down as a rubber-band ball made up entirely of those very same familiar tropes, which movie goers have come to expect and have been force fed like broccoli on a child's lunch tray. Spectre is less of an exception, as hoped, and more similar to a flag ship who's cargo won't surprise you because you have seen it all before. The ship is packed full of these goodies, which are the absolute last ones this viewer wants to open after Halloween. The average viewer will likely notice that the characters have faces that are uniquely different from one another. This is the primary difference in all of Spectre's characters, as any character development was further away from the writer's consciousness at the script's conception, than your likelihood of reading the remainder of my review. Or even truer, further from reading these first few sentences here. Simply cries of a poor fan's soul who has had witness a film, who's crew, cast, director, and especially writer, had anything nameable available in any instance, and have produced the single most disappointing and generic action movie I have ever seen. Honest, angry, sorrowful words only worthy of describing months wasted with anticipation and hope, which had been dependent the, much to my liking, successes of Craig's Skyfall and Casino Royale.
Firstly, I believe Daniel Craig has been an excellent Bond. Notably, his performance in Casino Royale, where the public tension between the antagonist and himself is political. And hands were carefully dirtied behind closed doors, undetected. This is what makes a spy movie. The wonderful character development done in that Bond film; sweet icing. I was readily awaiting Spectre's release with high hopes to pair, due to the marvelous and surprising villain in Skyfall, Silva.
Now that my position has been made known, Spectre. I am saddened that the film, to an exponential degree, obliterated my hopes for another great bond, or even base entertainment. Much like one of the many structures that crumble (and or explode) during the length of a very lengthy movie. However, I have seen this film before many times to this day, as there was not truly a single scene, not one, that was original and only Spectre's. I am dissatisfied with the villain in Spectre, not because of poor acting in the slightest. Christoph Waltz plays a very good dentist ( which is a reference to his performance in Django Unchained, as well as, his preferred method of torture in Spectre). The issue with Oberhauser is the lack of any development whatsoever. In Waltz's pushing thirty minutes of screen-time, not once did I feel intimidated, or that James Bond was in danger of him, or even, any quality at all of a bare-bones antagonist. The film did not give me a credible reason to fear him. That does not mean the writer did not try, so to speak. The writer just throws this, well, idea at the viewer. An idea which is frankly not good, and has been used many times before, primarily in sequels (Note that I am trying particularly hard not to give it the trope away, as it is the only thing that I know about the Waltz's character).
I also have issues, that carry great weight on my vote as well as the heart of this Bond fan, with both Bond's lover in Spectre (played by Seydoux) and, to highest dismay, Bond himself. Spectre is seeded with a great deal of points, actions, scenes, that every viewer has seen before. So much so, that there is no time at all in this three hour long film to learn anything of significance or even interest about James Bond. No time to fall in love with Seydoux's character who speaks many very similar lines to that of Bond's lover in Casino Royale Vesper Lynd. Some of which lines are spoken in the same setting even. This seems like another desperate attempt to avoid character development to make room for unexplained explosions (very pretty) and other Bond not likely favorites. She will perform completely as predicted in every situation she enters, because I have seen her character before in any other action movie with a "defenseless" (in quotations because the writers will attempt to convince you otherwise in one(1) scene). Watching this new character do anything in this film is painful and unsurprising.
As for Bond: I have seen Daniel Craig's ability to deliver a calm, cool, collected, suave, intellectual, James Bond. Who hides in the shadows as a mi6 agent should. He is absolutely none of these things all at once at any given second during Spectre. This statement of mine is exempting the first two minutes of the film, give or take, which I enjoyed. Instead of spy, James Bond is a lone-wolf soldier (that's unique) who is able to fire a handgun lethally and accurately at any given distance. And use said handgun to possibly cause vehicles to explode and also might be used to collapse entire buildings. This, and his invulnerability, slightly decrease my ability to fear (or feel) for the character in Spectre The film desperately clings(more like is willingly yoked) blatantly, to a common old school saying down here where I live, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!". Spectre is the crushed, smashed, and stirred, not shaken, product of scenes and ideas which have been successful in previous Bond movies (I had written a lengthy list during the movie to pass time wasted, but will keep it disclosed for the sake of any spoilers.), but are stacked like a very long exiting line of dominoes, falling on one another and with the hope that the end of the line is reached soon, if at all.