Wait? Is this a 007 film or just a generic action flick clone?

Rating: 1/10 (6 November 2015)

I own all the James Bond movies ever made, and would consider myself a die-hard fan of the franchise, but this is the sole movie of the franchise I will not be buying. Due to word limit, I will list the problems: 1. If I had paid $10 with the intent to watch an action movie and was only going for the explosions and the fight scenes, I would have been satisfied. The cinematography is gorgeous and even artistic in places, (especially the excellent beginning in the Dia de Los Muertos festivities). The fight scenes, car chases, and thrilling helicopter death rolls were very well done. If 2. I came to see a Bond film. Bond films are about James Bond (not about Bond's bosses, both dead and living) defeating villains NOT BY PUNCHING THEM INTO A PULP, but through superior skill, suave maneuvering, and of course, romancing the clothes off any woman remotely related to the story line. In short, Bond films have a plot! They don't just go "hey, we can't write, so lets just throw in a lot of explosions from the start and maybe no one will notice!". Oh, and along with a plot, they also had a Bond who was strong and confident. Please please stop with the mentally damaged emotionally strung out Bond all the time. Yes, Bond has always been hinted at as being haunted by the Bond girls who have died, (hence the martinis), but no one wants that to be the entirety of his character. Focus on the positive, not completely on the negative!
2. Use of "shaky cam" to make a scene more tense was regrettably present. When will directors learn that shaky cam doesn't make a scene more tense, it just makes it look like they don't know how to film!? Especially when there is even a slight shaky cam during scenes when the characters ARE SEATED. I mean, come on, the characters aren't even running! Don't make the camera shake!
3. what the hell is with the sadistic torture thing again? Sure there were tense moments in prior Bond films, but I can't tell if the script writer is mentally unstable or if they are trying to slowly push Bond into the R rated film category? What in the world does drilling holes in a man's skull (or to return to a prior movie, using a knotted rope) got to do with writing a good story? Its embarrassing that they feel the need to waste fifteen minutes of a movie that was already too quickly paced demonstrating how twisted a mind the authors of this film have.
4. I love the new Q, (he works beautifully despite being much younger than the original character), and the new M is also great. I have even learned to appreciate Daniel Craig, despite the fact he reminds me strongly of the villain from "From Russia with Love". However, I must say the actress for Moneypenny really missed the mark several times in the movie.
5. The movie repeated plot elements from prior Bond films in an almost blatant way, (and not for nostalgia like in Skyfall, but apparently because the writers have run out of ideas). Smart blood? Didn't we just have a movie where they stuck a tracker in Bond? Yes we did. Also, its apparent from the get go that this is a lame plot device to allow us to "follow Bond" and when the device is no longer necessary, they just arbitrarily discard it by "erasing the smart blood files". Like that will work when you are up against a Spectre that is armed with most of the surveillance of the western world? But apparently it does some how.
6. The introduction of Spectre was both beautiful and pitiful at the same time. The ominous midnight meeting and subsequent blinding- means-you-get-promoted scene was great. The fact that the head of Spectre is completely mentally unstable and has a poorly developed backstory with Bond is really silly. Using a crazy person as a villain is yet another sign that you can't write. The original Blofeld was definitely working off a different moral compass than the rest of us, but he was motivated by a hunger for power, wealth, and prestige. This new Blofeld just has an unhealthy occupation with Bond personally, and appears to have little interest or drive to run an international crime syndicate. One wonders why he is even at the head of it, since he seems uninterested in managing it and worse, incompetent enough to actually get nicked in the same movie he is introduced in! There is far more of interest to write about in two unrelated characters whose goals are at odds than in some rinky dink "my father loved him more than me" crazy talk.
There's a lot more I could whine about, but lets be honest - they need a new writer. When you get a new James Bond guys, how about you get someone who actually knows and loves the James Bond franchise to write the films instead of someone who clearly read 007 for Dummies and left their attempts to understand why James Bond films have been successful for decades at the door.