The "s0d it, that'll do" of Bond movies

Rating: 1/10 (4 November 2015)

CONTAINS SPOILERS
I shouldn't have been surprised really. Same director as the truly atrocious and plot-hole-filled Skyfall, plus several different screenwriters, a budget and hype-machine in overdrive, and sycophantic reviews from allegedly "professional" film critics. It astounds me how movies like this garner just unabashed gushing praise from critics and moviegoers alike. Please just open your eyes and your brains, for god's sake people! Once again we are given a Bond movie that has been delivered by committee - a story by several different writers, a director with no real understanding of Bond, and Hollywood money-men clearly more interested in making sure all the vast sums of cash that've been spent is on locations, instead of sparing any at all for a decent plot and a shred of realism. Much like Skyfall, this is nothing more than some admittedly gorgeous and well shot locations being used to showcase some very mediocre and often nonsensical action scenes and plodding exposition, that serve no point other than to set up the next location/scene. The plot is toilet-paper thin and it's this that gives rise to my belief that this is the "S0d it, that'll do" Bond movie, because I'm pretty sure that's what Sam Mendes said on a daily basis shooting this piece of junk.
You can imagine a production meeting -
Production Assistant : "OK, so Bond kills a guy in Mexico at the beginning of the movie. Why does he do it?"
Sam Mendes : "OK, how about Dead M leaves him a 5 second video asking him to do it? Yes? No? S0d it, that'll do!"
It's all very reminiscent of how in Skyfall Bond needs to find the guy who shot him with the depleted uranium round - the guy who was apparently a "ghost" with no known country of origin. Pretty fortunate then that London not only knew he was going to be in Hong Kong the next day, but even what flight he was arriving on! How very handy.
I said this about Skyfall and I say it again for Spectre, but Sam Mendes is a lazy film-maker. The way Bond finds his way from one set-piece to the next has more in common with Scooby-Doo than any real espionage (or heaven forbid, a plot). But then it seems far too many cinema-goers these days just go to watch things going bang, and sadly Hollywood is more than happy to pander to this.
The other thing that really irritated me was how unrealistic it all was, despite allegedly maintaining the "grittiness" that was so expertly introduced in Casino Royale. For example, the fight with Hinx on the train resulted in Bond taking a pasting....but not a single cut or bruise afterwards. Contrast that to the superb stairwell fight in Casino Royale and the difference is immense.
Other examples of lazy and/or pathetic film making, in no particular order -
1) The pathetic "dentist chair" torture device that Blofeld uses on Bond. The first "drill" into his skull was apparently going to "disrupt his sight, hearing and balance" - no effect on Bond at all. The second "drill" was supposed to make him forget the faces of people he knows. Does it work? Nope. A second later Bond is free, still recognising everyone around him, and he can still to run, shoot and kill enemies at a distance without a care in the world. Amusing how at odds this scene was to the highly realistic (and infamous) "nut-whacking" scene in Casino Royale.
2) How did Mr White manage to build a secret room in the Tunisian L'Americain hotel with no-one noticing? And why did he do that anyway considering he apparently only went back there once a year? And how did Bond manage to break down the wall of the hotel in the middle of the night, with no-one from the hotel hearing?
3) How does Bond know where to go and how does he infiltrate Monica Bellucci's house and be ready to kill the Spectre assassins? Oh and as luck would have it she knows exactly where Spectre meet! Wow, how very fortunate!
4) How does Bond instantly find Mr White's chalet hideout, despite having no information other than Q telling him. "He was last sighted in Austria"? I mean, it's not like Austria's very big or anything! The "S0d it, that'll do" mentality in full effect.
5) The incredibly lack-lustre car chase in Rome. Gorgeous location but no sense of urgency or danger in the chase at all. Hell, Bond even has time to make a few mobile calls.
6) Why make Blofeld Bond's step-brother? Just.....why?
7) Why does Blofeld's "meteorite crater lair" completely explode after Bond shoots one simple gauge off the top of a pipe? It's apparently an information collection facility, not a fuel or high-explosives plant but it blows up after one easy shot! Lazy film-making.
The list is actually endless.
Lastly, I'm just tired of these "you're past it, Bond" story lines. It worked in Goldeneye as Bond had been away from our screens for a decade, so for M to call Brosnan's Bond "a misogynist dinosaur ; a relic of the cold war", was entirely accurate. But then the "Bond's past it" storyline reappears in Skyfall.... oh and then again in Spectre, although it's his whole department at risk this time. Time for new ideas guys!
I actually feel really sorry for Daniel Craig as I personally think Casino Royale is one of the best Bond movies ever made, and I really thought Craig's Bond could be the defining take on the character, but these last two movies represent some of the lowest points in Bond's celluloid career.
So in summary - it's marginally better than Skyfall, but it's still the 3rd worst Bond movie of all time. Not impressed at all. S0d it, that'll do.