Only For Those Who Know Their Bond History (And Even Average Then)

Rating: 5/10 (27 February 2017)

In 2006, "Casino Royale" changed the game in James Bond movies, as it was the perfect combination of great story, cool action, and even relevant character development (something a bit new to the Bond franchise). Unfortunately, that wonderful effort was followed by two clunkers, "Quantum of Solace" & "Skyfall". "Spectre" pretty much splits the difference between the Craig original and the other two sequels, producing a thoroughly mediocre film.
For a basic plot summary, "Spectre" sees Bond (Daniel Craig) on the outs with M (Ralph Fiennes), as the 00-program is being phased out of British intelligence. As usual, Bond gets sucked into a scandal involving a shadowy figure (played by Christoph Walz) that seems to be behind the dastardly events of all three previous films via an organization called SPECTRE. With the help of Q (Ben Whishaw) and Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), Bond does some reconnaissance of his own, along the way meeting up with Dr. Swann (Lea Seydoux), who has a personal connection to SPECTRE as well.
The main selling point of "Spectre" is that, like "Casino Royale", it works pretty well as a prequel...at least for those who have seen the previously Connery/Moore flicks. I have seen them all, so (without spoiling them) I can say that there are a number of iconic moments here. The film also hits all the usual Bond cues and does them pretty well.
Unfortunately, "Spectre" is also a film riddled with problems, such as...
-Though SPECTRE and its history may be able to hold my attention, it likely will not do so for more modern fans who haven't "done their homework". I was watching the film with a sibling who has only seen the Brosnan/Craig Bonds, and he was pretty much disinterested from beginning to end. Thus, it works as a prequel...but only to an audience that is probably getting narrower as time goes by (seeing how those old Bond flicks don't really hold up all that well). -It should have been combined with "Solace" and "Skyfall" into one super-movie, where all those plots could have been examined in one whiz-bang type of film. Unfortunately, production decisions have only drawn out these recent Bonds instead of made them tighter. It's almost like after the disaster of "Solace", they tried to go back to formula with "Skyfall". Of course, then fans said "but aren't these supposed to be prequels?", so it was back to prequel-land for this one. -The whole concept of "Bond girls", which the franchise now doesn't know what to do with. Nowdays, you can't get away with Bond saving the girl and then, well, you know. That doesn't fly anymore. I'm not saying its good or bad, but I just think the Bond franchise may need to re- evaluate how they use their heroines. Right now, they are trying to have it both ways...adding a beautiful female, but then not really knowing what to do with her. Besides her looks, Swann's character added little to "Spectre", and thus her in a "sidekick to Bond" role felt strange.
All in all, then, I thought that this was a decidedly average Bond effort. As a fan who has seen all the previous installments, it was fun to see the history behind the crime organization most prevalent in them. As stated above, however, I wish that the franchise hadn't drawn out the character so far from his "Casino Royale" days. Had they been able to use Bond's love for Vesper and rage at her death (from "Solace"), his roots (from "Skyfall"), and his discovery of SPECTRE in one single film, it would have been great. Instead, for probably a number of different reasons (chiefly, we "can't give Bond too much character development", right, lest we completely drain the idea well?), that character development was spread over three average (or below) movies.
Bottom line: If you are a fan of Bond's history in the older films, "Spectre" will at least entertain you (although I can't promise much more). However, if you only know Bond from "Goldeneye" on (and I think that comprises a large number of Bond-goers these days), this will be run-of-the-mill at best and confusing/uninspiring at worst. In this case, it's all about what previous knowledge you bring into the theater with you.