It’s quite difficult to top “Skyfall”, one of the best Bond movies ever made, but as a long time fan of the series, I thought “Spectre” was highly entertaining. Its canny blend of ingredients is sure to entertain any audience but I think Bond enthusiasts will relish it most, as it draws on our familiarity with the series’ many traditions. Tradition number one is to open a 007 film with a breathtaking action scene. This one has a pulse-pounding helicopter scene set in Mexico City that will make you grip the arms of your theater seat. We also expect to see beautiful ladies: Monica Bellucci has a brief, yet memorable appearance, and Lea Seydoux is well cast as this installment’s main Bond girl. Of course, there must be a colorful villain as well: the always watchable Christoph Waltz is quite terrific as Franz Oberhauser, a man who should be familiar to any Bond aficionado. But it wouldn’t be fair to give away the mysteries of “”Spectre”. It’s enough to admire the way director Sam Mendes truly raised the bar following the huge success of “Skyfall”. It’s enough to watch Craig’s excellent portrayal of James Bond, who is still constantly at war with his past. It’s enough to see Christoph Waltz bring chaos and menace, as he steals every scene he appears in. Go ahead, bitch about the movie not being quite as good as its predecessor. But honestly, did we expect it to be? “Spectre” is still entertainment at its best, and a fitting entry to one of the most successful franchises of all time. That’s something we don’t see often enough.
Rating: 3/4
Share this:
Categories: 3/4, action, adventure, The Twenty-First Century
Let's talk about movies 
Don’t you think that Mendes milked every possible Bond movie and thriller scenario/cliche? I’m not talking about the regular Bond movie clichés and lines, those we expect and cherish. He tried to include the most amusing aspects in a movie, and stuff them into a brief 2:30 hours:
-The ring as a ‘foreign object’
-An evil mastermind with ultimate power
-Some form of corruption and betrayal
-A ‘name’ which sets the plot mysteriously
-Direct contact between the protagonist and antagonist
-A scar on the antagonist to make him look more threatening and vengeful
The list goes on, but I can’t really recall the whole movie.
Mendes gave us a wide variety of movie techniques, yet capitalized on none
I think everyone would have liked to witness the extent of Oberhauser’s infinite power, and not just having someone move a microphone closer to him. Apart from his opening scene and one other, he’s portrayed as a regular man who simply wants James bond dead, and not the leader of an underground world order.
.
I don’t think I’ve made much sense because I find it hard explaining my opinion on movies.
I think we are asking too much from a Bond movie. Skyfall truly set the bar high that we forgot what the series was all about. I still believe that Craig’s era was successful (although Qantum sucked) but it’s time to move on.
Also he steals the “Evil brother” cliche from Austin Powers.
Dude Austin Powers was inspired by bond movies. The whole concept of Powers is based on bond.