at times Spectre is a lot of fun. other times its just... over-elaborate, even for 007

Rating: 6/10 (8 November 2015)

The opening sequence of Spectre will surely be a reason many people will want to get a copy of the movie after its theatrical run once it's on DVD and online, or even to just tune in if people know it'll be on TV. In one of those super-long (maybe too long?) tracking shots, Bond, in a skeleton mask during the Day of the Dead festival in Mexico City, goes into a building (with a girl by his side at first), then as it looks like there's about to be some lust he breaks off to get to his actual target: some sinister figures in a building next-door. Then it goes into one of those BIG action set pieces, mostly involving a helicopter that Bond has a BIG fight in, and has to do BIG maneuvers to make sure that he doesn't take out civilians. It's one of those sequences that the public goes to 007 movies for, and I'm sure Mendes knows this. One is almost tempted to say he, so to speak, blows his wad there, but this isn't to say Spectre, the 24th Bond film, is poor by any means. Just... flawed, to say the least.
This is the movie that actually, without spoiling too much, ties together the Daniel Craig Bonds that we've had so far, with the villains and the love interest in Casino Royale, Vespar Lynd, in the mix. There's really two plots which eventually converge: 007 tracking down through Rome and Austria (and eventually Tangiers) what significance a ring with an octopus insignia has and who is connected to it - semi (not really) spoiler, it means everything - and then as the new M (Ralph Fiennes) has to contend with MI6 being folded into MI5, and a new surveillance program taking shape. Oh, and MI6 may not really be what it is any more, and a whole new government program to be the "new" spy organization takes shape.
If this latter part sounds at all familiar, it should be if you've been to the movies just this year; I could've sworn I saw this very similar storyline for Mission Impossible Rogue Nation, which also dealt with the "new" taking over the "old" and the spies we know and love having to go rogue. That doesn't happen right away in Spectre, but it's certainly in the air. The other thing that will seem familiar is... well, a lot of things, mostly if you're a Bond fan by any stretch (casual watchers may miss things, not unlike people who went to, I dunno, Star Trek Into Darkness and only, maybe, knew about Khan). The real "sectret" part has to do with a Figure in the Shadows (that old, treasured cliché) who is played by Christoph Waltz. What does he have to do with 007? Do they know each other? All in good time, if you see the movies, you'll find out.
But, again, it won't be any big surprise if you've seen other movies, like Thunderball as the primary example. Once again Mendes has visual flair and capable, stylish filmmaking (and a new DP in Hoyte who is really remarkable, barely a shade less than Deakins for Skyfall), and Craig is game to play this character the best he can. But for all of the build up of the first two acts, it felt like the third let itself down, or let me down or both. It's not that it doesn't build to something elaborate - on the contrary, it's something SO elaborate it's over-elaborate, in both how this entire Spectre organization functions and the actions that Waltz's character takes from one scene to the next as he finally takes charge as a villain. The trouble is too, as much build up as he gets and as much as Waltz soaks up playing this guy, there's not enough of him. Or, maybe there is enough, but what he does is things that we've seen Bond villains do before - or, to the point that we've seen certain elements that have been *parodied* in other films. All that's missing are fish with laser beams attached to their heads.
This isn't all to say the movie is bad in any way. Spectre will deliver for fans of the franchise and just those people wanting some escape with the Martini-gun-toting-super-sex-being that is this hero. The filmmakers clearly love this world, in making characters like M and Q matter more than they might've in the past which is all well and good (Fiennes and Whishaw do well when they can), Monica Bellucci shows up and is great to see as the oldest (but, sadly, briefest) of Bond women, and the ending feels almost like the entire end to the franchise itself (not that it would be, it'd be like saying that there are no other organizations to monitor surveillance in the world oh nevermind). I may even watch it again on TV some time, but as it is plot gaps and/or set-piece over-compensation got the better of this movie.