SPECTRE Is Double-0 Disappointment

SPECTRE Review:

- I've gone on record as not being the world's biggest 007 fan. To me, the endless cycle of new Bond flicks is emblematic of studio filmmaking at its worst - a never-ending, self-perpetuating franchise that doesn't so much tell a story as it does create product for consumption. Worse, the Daniel Craig iteration of Bond has largely taken away a lot of what made Bond distinctive in the first place - gone (mostly) were the high-tech gadgets, campy villains, and over-the-top escapism of the classic 60's films. In their place: grittier, harder-nosed, more self-serious action that made Bond into a warmed-over Bourne wannabe. With that said, a couple of things had me excited about SPECTRE going in. One was the last Bond film, Skyfall. Skyfall was a surprise - director Sam Mendes brought visual style and flair back to the Bond franchise, turning in by far the most artful and aesthetically-pleasing, narratively-satisfying film since Craig took over the mantle. Secondly, this summer's superlative Mission: Impossible movie had me re-thinking my stance on these sorts of spy franchises. If MI:5 could give us such a fantastically-done, rip-roaring actionfest, then who's to say that the next Bond couldn't one-up it? The weird thing though is that SPECTRE invites direct comparisons to MI:5 in more ways than one. Unfortunately, the latest Bond doesn't really come out the winner in that head-to-head comparison. Playing out more like a series of barely-connected sequences than a cohesive narrative, SPECTRE starts off on a high note, but ends by eliciting eye-rolls.

But that opening sequence ... SPECTRE kicks off with an incredible action set piece in which Bond pursues his airborne prey through a crowded Day of the Dead celebration in Mexico City. Amidst a city center filled with costume-clad performers and spectators, Bond crashes a fancy party, seduces a mysterious paramour, hijacks a hostile helicopter, dukes it out mid-air, and takes out enemy shooters in a dazzling display of cinematic firepower. The single-take shooting style employed by Mendes is breathtaking, and it's a reminder that yes, this guy is good. But it's almost as if the bulk of the director's energy was expended in that sequence. The film quickly deflates, and momentum stalls.

After a somewhat baffling opening credits / musical sequence (it involves a lot of sexy Octopus imagery - fans of weird Japanese tentacle anime should be pleased), the movie dives into a very convoluted, very haphazardly-constructed plot that mirrors that of the most recent Mission: Impossible film. As it turns out, a shady organization called Spectre is the shadow-Big Bad that's had its hands in the devious acts of many of the menaces that have previously plagued Craig's Bond. Don't try to piece together how that actually works in relation to the previous Bond films' plotlines. And don't think too hard on how Spectre's psycho-evil leader - played with sinister aplomb by Christoph Waltz - is doing all of his evil deeds as part of some revenge plot against Bond. In fact, don't think too hard on Waltz's character at all. In a move that will give some flashbacks to the big reveal in Star Trek: Into Darkness, Waltz's "true" identity is revealed to the audience as if it were some major plot point, when in fact the revelation has absolutely zero bearing on the movie's plot. I was willing to somewhat forgive this narrative laziness in Into Darkness, if only because I dug so much of the rest of the film. But here, Waltz's identity and motives land with such a thud that it derails the entire movie - because none of it has any weight. It's treated with a proverbial shrug by Craig's ambivalent Bond and the rest of his comrades-in-arms. As is the very idea that Spectre has been the secret perpetrator of all of the previous film's inciting incidents. And Waltz goes from shadowy, imposing figure to raving lunatic with the flip of a switch - you almost feel bad for the actor, because as good as he typically is, he really gets the short end of the stick with the laughably silly and nonsensical material that the film hands to him.

At least the movie's got the animal that is Dave Bautista as its ace-in-the-hole. The former WWE champion was a standout in Guardians of the Galaxy, and he's excellent here as a brutal bruiser who - in one of the film's best action scenes - engages in a bone-crunching, up-close-and-personal train-car brawl with Bond.  Bautista works well as the movie's villainous heavy hitter because his character isn't bogged down with needless baggage. He's an evil mo-fo who likes to hurt people - 'nuff said.

But man, Waltz's character is really at the root of what ails this movie. Spectre - the shadowy organization that he leads - is weak, and unbelievably uninteresting given that they're supposed to be a massive conspiracy of villainy. And Bond's lack of real reaction to Spectre or to Waltz's various revelations makes us equally hesitant to care. Similarly, the movie's requisite romance feels incredibly rushed and unearned. Léa Seydoux has the makings of a solid Bond Girl (even if her youth vs the increasingly craggy Craig makes for a bit of creepiness). But instead of making her an object of mere lust, the movie insists on making her an object of love. And the result is one of the most unintentionally funny utterances of "I love you" ever seen in a movie. The problem is that the two meet (Lea's Madeleine Swann is a target of Spectre because her late father ditched them ... or something), have an antagonistic thing going, survive an attempt on their lives, get busy, and then - it's love?! Especially given Bond's history of going through gorgeous women like M&M's, it's laughable that Swann so quickly becomes "the one" that he'll drop everything for. The movie's ending only reinforces this idea, in an eye-rolling denouement that calls to mind the all-too-tidy conclusion of The Dark Knight Rises. It's a double shame too because an early encounter between Bond and the Monica Bellucci's black-widow character Lucia Sciarra has more intrigue in a few minutes than the entire rushed relationship with Swann. But Belucci is quickly ditched for a newer-model Bond girl.

The movie's second half wants to be an extended homage to the campier Bond of the classic films. But something went seriously wrong in the execution of it all. Early on, there's a decent amount of intrigue as Bond infiltrates a secret meeting of Spectre, and Ralph Fiennes' M contends with the threat of Andrew Scott's C - a young upstart looking to dismantle the double-o program and replace James Bond with drones and automated weapons. At first, there's hope that all of this will add up to something. Scott is great at playing a nefarious wildcard (see also: his excellent turn as Moriarty on the Sherlock BBC series). And the prospect of Spectre is exciting. But the way it all unravels is pretty unsatisfying, with a weird, nonsensical progression from Point A to Point B. Case in point is when Bond arrives at Waltz's hidden-away desert lair in the movie's final act. Bond strides into this fortified base without any sort of plan, essentially begging to be captured and tortured. At the same time, Waltz seems all too happy to let Bond penetrate his inner sanctum and risk having all his decades-long plans go up in flames. I won't get into all the sorta-stupid stuff that happens from there - suffice it to say, the entire final third of the movie goes very much off the rails. One other casualty of all the jumpiness in the story progression is that the supporting cast feels very cardboard-ish in this one. This is another instance where SPECTRE draws unfavorable comparisons to the recent Mission: Impossible - but M, Q, and Ms. Moneypenny are mostly just props to be called upon by Bond as needed, with very little personality of their own (contrast that to MI:5, which really got a lot out of mileage out of Simon Pegg, Ving Rhames, etc.).

For the first fifteen minutes or so of SPECTRE, I was convinced we might get a Bond to rival Skyfall. But as I sat through the head-scratcher of a climax - where Waltz becomes a 60's Batman villain, Bond seems to barely register the scope of the conspiracy he's uncovered, and Sam Mendes seems to throw his hands up in the air and basically give up trying to make sense of it all - I was back to my not-so-keen-on-Bond skepticism. Newer takes on the genre - from Fast & Furious to Bourne to Mission: Impossible to this year's exceptional spy satire, Kingsmen - have made Bond all but obsolete. Especially when the films so awkwardly try to juggle modern sensibilities with 60's-era nostalgia, as SPECTRE does. A movie can't just be a greatest-hits mix-tape. Craig is a good Bond, and Mendes a talented director. But how much do we need to wring this franchise dry until it becomes utterly and completely creatively bankrupt? Perhaps Bond will die another day, but I say it's time that pop-culture moves on.

My Grade: C

SKYFALL Is Craig's Coolest Bond Film, But Falls Short of a Bullseye

SKYFALL Review:

Another year, another James Bond movie. I'll admit, I was feeling pretty 007'ed-out after the underwhelming Quantum of Solace from a few years back, and I was once again questioning my overall position on the Bond films. I've always enjoyed Bond, to the point where I'll be mildly excited for each new entry in the series. But  ... I've never really *loved* the 007 franchise. And certainly, the things that most appealed to me about Bond were the series' more stylized elements - the over-the-top villains, the crazy gadgets, and the exotic locales. So even though I could recognize, say, Casino Royale as a well-made action film ... it ultimately felt pretty bland to me. What's the point of Bond if he's just a gritty, Bourne-esque bruiser? Luckily, SKYFALL is nothing if not stylish. Director Sam Mendes infuses the franchise with a dose of its old pop-art and pseudo-psychedelic sensibilities, making this the best-looking Bond, by-far, in decades. It's also a Bond that's a little more playful and comic-bookish than we've seen recently, embracing a sense of nostalgia for the series' 60's heyday, and introducing an uber-villain, played by Javier Bardem, who is one of the series' most flamboyant.

Skyfall opens with an awesome action sequence that shows us how Bond ends up off-the-grid, presumed dead. However, he ultimately returns to MI-6 in order to thwart the plans of a sinister agent-gone-bad. But 007 comes back older, more grizzled, and not quite in top super-agent form. And so the movie plays with a running theme of "I'm too old for this $#@&" ... introducing the old-school Bond to a new-school spy world that's hipper, higher-tech, and less forgiving of 007's roguish ways. The agent-gone-bad is Javier Bardem, playing a sexually-ambiguous, eminently-creepy terrorist named Silva. Seems he was the victim of a prematurely-aborted mission in his spying days, after which he was left with some fairly traumatic physical and mental damage. And now, dammit all, he's out for sweet, sweet payback.

Javier Bardem is definitely one of the best parts about the movie. His character isn't inherently awesome, per se, but Bardem makes him awesome by virtue of acting the hell out of him. With an Anton Sigurgh-esque voice and speech pattern, Bardem is a lot of fun in this one - and even genuinely disturbing at times. What also makes him work well as a villain is his personal vendetta against Judi Dench's M. Dench is obviously an incredible actress, and in Skyfall, she gets to stretch a bit and really grab a bit of the spotlight. Skyfall focuses in a lot on M and her stubborn crusade to hold MI-6 together in the face of chaos. And it also gives ample time to her motherly relationship with 007. Dench's heavy involvement in the plot gives the movie an injection of gravitas and drama that was missing from some previous installments. We often see Bond fighting to save a girl he's only just met, or to prevent large-scale, impersonal disasters. Rarely do we see people he's known for ages and whom he cares deeply about under threat. Point being - this isn't a save-the-world-from-nukes story - it's a very personal one. As for Daniel Craig - he brings his A-game to his third go-round as Bond - quipping effortlessly, brawling stylishly, and getting deep and serious and reflective when need be. Craig is the Bond who is in a sort of constant existential crisis - what is his place in the modern world?, must he exist?, why does he do what he does? - and Craig is well-equipped to bring that sense of man-out-of-time intensity to the role.

There are some nice supporting turns as well. Ben Whishaw brings Q into the modern age - a GQ-ready geek for 2012. Naomie Harris is coyly charismatic as Bond's MI-6 colleague Eve, and Berenice Marlohe has all the right moves as exotic femme fatale Severine. Ralph Fiennes also puts in a nice turn as M's steely MI-6 boss who finds himself at odds over her constant support of Bond.

But really, Sam Mendes is the star of the film. The director has always had a knack for evocative, almost surrealistic scenes that use color and light to mind-melting effect. But what he does with Bond is just plain badass. That opening action scene I mentioned is fantastic - a rip-roaring battle aboard a moving train that leaves you breathless. Later, there's a stunning fight scene in a neon-lit skyscraper, with shadow-brawls in silhouette over a future-shock blue backdrop. And then, in the climactic showdown with Silva, the firefight between warring combatants is a gorgeous fireworks display of gleaming explosions. There's also the trippy opening title sequence - set to a haunting theme song by Adele. It's one of the coolest in Bond history, I'd venture to day. All in all, Mendes outdoes himself here.

But despite the high praise for Mendes, I'm still reluctant to hail Skyfall as some kind of pop-art masterpiece. The movie stubbornly refuses to go to that next-level of greatness from a character and narrative perspective. Bond is tricky, because tradition states that there's minimal continuity between the films - so any major character developments tend to feel ephemeral. There are some interesting attempts to add to the Bond mythos, and give 007 a bit of an origin story. But again, it's a balancing act of telling the origin and not revealing too much so as to de-mystify the enigmatic, iconic Bond. I guess that after seeing so many Bond films, frustration tends to set in. Is there any sort of Bond cannon, or is every film just it's own thing, with winks and nods to the series' history that are, ultimately, just fan-service and nothing of real substance. And that's what makes me less enthused about Skyfall than others, at the end of the day. It's a fine example of a director playing in a toybox and making a beautiful arrangement of the pieces given to him. But when a last-act twist revealed a key character to actually be a Bond franchise staple incognito, I sort of sighed. It's all well and good to have fan-favorites pop-in, but when they tend to be such non-characters, it's hard for me to get all that excited (I did however get excited for some of the film's more over-the-top touches, like a so-crazy-it's awesome den of lethal komodo dragons).

I felt a similar sentiment about the film's use of women. Severine seemed to have a lot of potential at first, but her character proves one-note and disappears from the movie before her character arc gets a chance to fully develop. Meanwhile, Eve regresses from badass field agent to Bond sexcapade partner and MI-6 pencil-pusher. It's 2012 - can't we have some female characters in the Bond-verse who kick just as much ass as 007 and who have actual personalities?

That said, Skyfall is, overall, my favorite 007 film of the Daniel Craig era. It's easily the most purely entertaining, has the best villain, and is definitely the coolest from a visual standpoint. But this is a franchise with limitations. Even when everyone's putting their best foot forward, they run up against the wall that is the state of Bond. It's a franchise that wants to be both one-and-done pop-art, but also a serious, character-based universe in the same manner as the Bourne and Batman films. You can't necessarily have it both ways, and so Bond is stuck, currently, in that frustrating middle ground - introducing new backstory and layering on the mythos, yet also constantly hitting the reset button. No wonder Craig's version of Bond is always in the midst of existential crisis.

My Grade: B+