Bored. James Bored.

Rating: 4/10 (10 November 2015)

Damn, I so wished this film was good enough for me to put "Respect" in the title of this review (anagram of "Spectre" for those of you who are too lazy to work it out), just to show off what a smartass I am. But I'm hard-pressed to find anything worthy of respecting in the latest installment of 007's adventures, where the entire film crew seems to be deliberately wanting to bury Bond franchise as deep as possible.
Rebooted Bond has done the full circle by now. Starting off in 2006., taking the "Nolan" path of rethinking the concept, determined to distance itself from camp-fest that was "Die Another Day", Craig's Bond was a dark and cynical refreshment of both the franchise and the genre. Now one only wants the cheese back! This year has shown what to do with spy films, and "Mission Impossible 5", with its outlandish hi-tech action, and "U.N.C.L.E.", with its slick throwback to Cold War era, blow "Spectre" easily out of the water (not to mention that the next "Bourne" is around the corner). Hell, this film pales in comparison even with others of its own franchise, but even on its own - it's not a good film.
The thanks goes primarily to Sam Mendes, Daniel Craig and whoever wrote the script. Sam Mendes shouldn't even be in the same room where Bond is discussed, let alone direct it, with his fartsy ambitions, snail pace and lack of touch when it comes to directing action scenes. Daniel Craig clearly wants to just get it over with and his somnambulistic and sexless appearance drags everything even further down. He should really stop bitching about and see the irony in the fact that a six year older Tom Cruise could give him lessons in vigor and intensity - just as could a fifteen years younger Henry Cavill teach him a thing or two about suaveness. The screenplay crew consists of unbelievably skilled veterans with rich blockbuster references, yet all they could come up with is half-baked, easily predictable, hole-riddled story on problems of hyper-surveillance and conspiracy theory on using terrorism to increase control over populace. The screenplay also features some of the worst lines of dialogue I've heard in decades.
Everything else seems to disappoint in "Spectre" as well, and Bond girls are no exception. Monica Bellucci is not only the oldest Bond girl ever - she even looks old. There's no chemistry between her and Craig (who, by the way, also looks old) and the way and speed their characters hook up is unbelievable. Léa Seydoux on, the other hand, is young enough, but looks too plain and washed up. Again, no chemistry between Craig and her and, again, how the hell do they get together so out of the blue? Of other characters, although it was nice to see "Moneypenny" having a bigger role than ever thus far, it's still a far cry from the two minute footage of her in the Sony cellphone commercial. "M" and "Q" are underused and, frankly, miscast, but hey, I guess we're stuck with Ralph Fiennes and Ben Whishaw for the time being. The biggest disappointment for me personally must be Cristoph Waltz. A man who once stole the show in "Inglourious Basterds" now gave one of the palest and most benign Bond villains ever. One trick pony, I suppose. Not that the script helped, though. Instead of giving the character proper lines and development, the screenwriters gave him a surprise and unconvincing connection with Bond's past and a torture scene that surpasses ball-busting from "Casino Royale" in ridiculousness and stupidity. I prefer Bond villains of old, with a penchant for world domination, not these little sadistic twats that are a bit scary but completely lacking significance.
So, what's next for 007 franchise? New principal actor, for sure. Fresh ideas, of course, and not necessarily along the lines of contemporary relevance. Because, one thing is clear by now: just as Great Britain isn't a major player in the world's politics anymore, neither is "James Bond" the leading name of spy-action genre. The competition is stiffer than ever and the producers will have to think long and hard about the next step. Going for dark and serious is not it. And "artsy" is a definite "no-no".