Exotic Location Set Pieces with Underdeveloped Characters and Plot (minor spoilers)

Rating: 5/10 (3 November 2015)

OVERVIEW I loved Skyfall. It was dark, menacing, well written, well acted, and the tone was perfect. The vision and drive behind the villain's plans was established, and in the end justice prevailed, but scars were left. It highlighted all that is great in all of Daniel Craig's Bond movies. Dark, action packed, with slight subtle nods to the original 007 tropes and just solid movies, besides Quantum of Solace. But even with Quantum of Solace, the tone that was set in Casino Royale was still present, as it was in Skyfall.
This is where the problem starts for me. Tone. You can't have good drama without some comedy, but too much makes the concept a parody of itself. To maintain a fresh outlook on the franchise is to have a trait that stands in all of the movies, and that is the dark, stripped down 007 with more emotional resonance. Right off the bat, movie starts with a great tracking shot following Bond moving through the streets of Mexico City during The Day of The Dead, establishing a unique, fresh atmosphere with no score and tension beginning to build. James tracks down his target, a great set piece takes place on foot and via an in-helicopter fist fight, with 007 killing his target and kicking off the movie with the curiosity of the ring the man had containing a strange Octopus symbol. The tone is established, somewhat gritty, action packed sequence that gets the ball rolling.
Except, the very next few scenes after the interesting title sequence, it is very comedic, not the decommission of Bond by Fiennes' M, but his conversations with Moneypenny and Q just seem off. It's strange when the Austin Martin DB5 that was blown up by the men who were responsible for M's death spawns a joke by Q. It deflates the conflict from the previous movie, and the dark undertone set from her departure. There were so many one-liners and cringe worthy dialogue it was unsettling. Then what we have is James Bond trying to uncover the organization of Spectre by attending the funeral of the man he killed in Rome.
This is my first point. I am happy with the Bond storyline in tracking down Spectre and eventually Franz Oberhauser, the Kingpin. However, the entire subplot of the 00 organization integrated with MI5 did not need to be in the movie. It could have completely been skipped. Focus the the entire plot around a rogue Bond and his venture to take down Spectre, it was the only parts in the movie for me that were satisfying, up until a specific point (after the scenes at Spectre's North African base).
PERFORMANCES Everybody put in a solid performance. I think the three that definitely stole the show was Daniel Craig of course as Bond, Lea Seydoux as the 'breaking the mold' Bond girl Madeleine Swann, and of course the great Christoph Waltz, who in my opinion had an extremely under developed character and not a lot of screen time, yet he still put in a solid performance. Everyone else were fine.
NOTEWORTHY MOMENTS There were several action set pieces, but in my opinion two stick in my head, one flamboyant and one simple setup. The first was the opening sequence. As I described in the beginning, the tracking shot, foot chase through the crowded streets and the helicopter scene were great. Another moment was when Bond and Swann face off against Spectre henchman Mr Hinx (Dave Bautista). Very raw, brutal fight scene, which is done extremely well, besides the silly parting line from Hinx when he is defeated ('Oh s**t').
Other than action scenes one moment in particular I found the most interesting. The scene where James stumbles across a familiar face Mr White from the previous movies, in hiding. It's a great, tense scene establishing (to a certain extent) Spectre's reach throughout the globe. One line in particular that was the best of the film: 'You are a kite, dancing in a hurricane Mr Bond.' Great scene.
FINAL VERDICT I don't mean to be harsh on this movie, I really wanted to like it. But when you have an extremely thin plot with underdeveloped characters, bizarre tonal shifts, cheesy and uninteresting dialogue, extremely long running time and crammed to the brim full of past references like a Simpsons clip episode just isn't interesting. The serious and gritty scenes of the movie were by far the best, and this film just feels like an anniversary of James Bond, instead of having its own identity.
This is what it comes down to. Tone. The Sean Connery Bond movies: slick, classy, one lines, cheeky but entertaining because it knew what it was and it was consistent. Roger Moore which I didn't like but you knew what each film would be: funny, silly, unrealistic, really cheesy dialogue and ridiculous set pieces. Timothy Dalton: action orientated, fast paced, serious. Pierce Brosnan: A combination of both Connery and Dalton, and bringing 007 into the modern era. Now Daniel Craig: strong writing, emotional, focus on Bond's past, gritty, little to no gadgets, and brutal with the feeling that Bond is scarred and suffers from the events that occur.
This movie isn't terrible, but it's just confusing. It tries to combine the tropes of several Bond setups when it should have focused on why people like Daniel Craig Bond movies in the first place, dark and emotional. This movie has some of those elements, but it is over crowded with the references and cannot be saved from the movie's other issues that I stated above. Should have been kept simple and stripped to its core. Bond goes rogue to track down and stop Spectre, fleshed out villain with an understandable motive, interesting side characters, big finish at the compound in North Africa, and that's it. Nothing else, that is the movie I wanted, and all the audience needed.