A sensory splendor and emotionally impactful story, let down by ambiguous scripting

Rating: Null/10 (30 March 2018)

This might not be the best Daniel Craig Bond, but it is a great film none-the-less, a visual and auditory feast, which is let down by its script, which could have brought further clarity to what is an emotionally impactful story.
Firstly, the film is technically and artistically stunning showpiece. It continues the Bond globe-trotting experience. Each location is worthy of acclaim. From the opening Day-of-the-Dead sequence in Mexico City, to the closing credits, Spectre is striking. I'm not just talking about the static scenery either. The action is well-choreographed, suspenseful. and, given Bond's penchant for against-the-odds survival, the set-piece moments finely toe the line between 007 and over-the-top outrageous. Even in it's most frenetic, the action is visceral and not reliant on obvious cgi, so 'believability' ultimately wins out. Similarly, the music elicits a awesome and suspenseful chord. There is a constant undercurrent that builds the films tone of looming, pervasive background threat.
On that note, the villain of this film is a throwback to Bond of old but represents a greater universal fear, anxiety brought on by all-seeing-eye of the information age. MI6 too is under attack, by threat of irrelevance, by way of technological progress, and some key architects of this progress. Bond's character is shaped by this impending threat, and the villain looming in the background. HIs tragic existence as a 00 agent is brought into light here.
Bond wrestles with the demon of profound loss, his loved ones jeopardized by the life he chose to lead as an agent. As we come to learn, the film's villain is somewhat like a puppeteer, pulling the strings behind Bond's life and loss. At first glance, this does a disservice to Bond's story, alleviating his guilt by giving him a clear scapegoat for his pent up grief. But, as we come to learn, this connection is not arbitrary, but crucial to Bond's upbringing. As in Skyfall, we are given just a glimpse into Bond's past, of a time when he more human than agent. If throughout the film Bond appears traditionally disconnected, stoic, and dangerous, defined by his desire for cheap thrills of women, drink, and violence, at the expense of those he cares for, that guise in more transparent than ever, and in the cracks in his facade, we glimpse the humanity he wrestles with.
For despite his roguish actions, Bond's fondness for Money-Penny, Q, and M, as well as his reverence for country and honor, are on display as well. He brings the crew into his world by bestowing upon them trust. He allows them to help him, a rarity for a man who built his life and career upon distrust in the world and others. Though this display of trust, Bond reveals his true colors. These MI6 relationships are the backbone of the movie, heightened by excellent work from Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, and Ralph Fiennes.
Ultimately, despite all that I enjoy about this film. I can't help but feel the the script relies too heavily on cliche and ambiguity. I ask: Would it have better served this film to make the storytelling a bit more transparent to the viewer through richer dialogue and character motivations? Spectre's deeper themes may rely too heavily on visual language and extended metaphor to usurp the one dimensional traditional Bond tropes on display . On the other hand, this film is a sensory experience, and perhaps the ambiguity of the scripting and superficial gloss serves to reinforce the themes at play. As one must look beyond Bond's obvious actions to understand the man inside, the viewer must search beyond the film's veneer to uncover the emotional resonance.