Review: SPECTRE

C (Andrew Scott), a representative of a new branch of British intelligence is moving towards shutting down MI6’s 00 program, and the latest exploits of 007 James Bond (Daniel Craig) in Mexico, give M (Ralph Fiennes) a particular headache. Taking leave, 007 goes on a rogue globe-trotting mission to locate a shadowy criminal organisation known as SPECTRE (Semi-relevant aside: Looks like the long-time dispute over the organisation and the story for “Thunderball” is over. Consult Google/Wikipedia for details on that little piece of history. It’s beyond ridiculous). He is aided in his search by the psychologist daughter of old enemy Mr. White (Jesper Christensen), Dr. Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux). The trail leads all the way to master criminal Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz), who also goes by a more infamous name and has a personal history with 007 that even he’s unaware of. Ben Whishaw and Naomie Harris once again play Q and Miss Moneypenny, whilst Dave Bautista (AKA Batista) turns up as muscle-bound heavy Hinx, and Monica Bellucci appears briefly as the sultry widow of a fallen Italian hitman 007 dispatched in the opening.

 

You probably know by now that I’m not a fan of Daniel Craig as 007. I feel like he’s a henchman gone begging, miscast as a super-spy. The funny thing is, after a pretty wretched start with “Casino Royale”, his films have gotten incrementally better to the point where the previous “Skyfall” was agonisingly close to getting a recommendation from me. Could this? Would this? The word on the street (i.e. the press and internet) was pretty average, so I was wary.

 

Sky Fairy be praised, because this 2015 Bond flick from director Sam Mendes (“American Beauty”, “Jarhead”, “Skyfall”) is indeed the best Daniel Craig 007 film to date and yes, worthy of a whole-hearted recommendation. In fact, for me it sits at #9 between “Goldfinger” and the slightly underrated “Die Another Day” on the Bond films list as far as I’m concerned. Although I would’ve preferred some bass on the gun barrel opener (we get the bass over the end credits, thankfully), I was nonetheless glad to see it at the beginning of the film, and we get a nice flamenco vibe to it a little later as well. In fact, the music score by Thomas Newman (“Revenge of the Nerds”, “American Beauty”, “Skyfall”) is the best of the Craig era, giving the film a real pulse over action scenes. Opening with a scene set at Mexico’s Day of the Dead festival was cool, giving off Baron Samedi in “Live and Let Die” vibes. While I’m a little bit sick of seeing Daniel Craig in rooftop action yet again, it’s otherwise the best introductory scene to any of his Bond entries thus far. It’s cool, ridiculous, and only slightly hampered by the shaky cam of Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Her”, “The Fighter”). I wish the film didn’t look so yellow/orange throughout, but the ship has sailed on that cinematographical (is that a word? It is now) front, I suppose filters/colour correction is here to stay. Thankfully, when the film heads to the Austrian Alps, the foggy mountains look stunning and not shot through a piss-stained lens. While he’s no Adele, Falsetto Boy (OK, his name’s Sam Smith) performs easily the second-best Bond theme song of the Craig era, ‘Writing’s on the Wall’. In fact, in terms of the song itself, it’s better than the rather nonsensical ‘Skyfall’ and certainly more substantive than Tom Jones’ nonsensical ‘Thunderball’. It seems to have divided people, but I’m much more of a Chris Cornell fan than a Sam Smith fan (well, OK, a Soundgarden fan at least), and yet this song leaves Cornell’s mediocre “Casino Royale” ditty eating its dust, to say the least. The title design is terrific, too, which isn’t something I’ve said since Craig took on the 007 role.

 

I think Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, and Ben Whishaw might just be the best trifecta since the Connery-era of Bond in the roles of M, Moneypenny, and Q, respectively. Harris in particular is absolutely wonderful, and although it’ll miff some purists, I liked that she’s got herself an occasional fella in this. She’s not just pining away for Bond in this PC world, and that’s just fine by me. Whishaw is growing into the part of Q rather nicely, and is quite hilarious at times. He’s different in approach to the wonderfully no-nonsense Desmond Llewellyn, without being unrecognisable. It’s Q, but a little different. I guess you could argue that Ralph Fiennes is too good an actor for such a role as this, but I don’t care. He’s still a good actor giving a good performance, and I’ll never complain about that. He also looks like he wants to kick Andrew Scott’s skull in at one point, not something the otherwise very fine Bernard Lee would ever do. He also looks like he could do it, which once again wasn’t the case with Bernard Lee. One thing the Craig era Bond films have gotten right is casting good actors in these rather stuffed-shirt, functionary roles, and Andrew Scott as the jerky ‘C’ is a welcome addition this time out too. This guy is well-monikered, and you can’t wait for someone to introduce their fist to his face.

 

There’s only two actresses I can think of who can be smouldering yet icy at the same time: Catherine Zeta-Jones and Monica Bellucci. I don’t care if she’s the oldest Bond Girl to date or not, she still gets it done here in every conceivable way. Playing a mixture of Dame Diana Rigg in “OHMSS” and Carole Bouquet in “For Your Eyes Only”, the only thing preventing her from being the best Bond Girl of the Craig era is the fact that she only has a cameo role. In fact, one of the film’s flaws overall is that it needs more Monica Bellucci…‘coz I said so, OK? Unfortunately, one of the films other flaws, and a bigger one, is overlength (it’s the longest Bond film to date) so more Bellucci probably wouldn’t have helped it in the long run because it’d make the film a freaking epic. Thankfully we also get Lea Seydoux, typically hot as hell as always, and her English is improving significantly too. Like Bellucci, her character has a touch of the Diana Rigg/Carole Bouquet about her too, but afforded more screen time she ultimately is able to impress even more than Bellucci. She certainly does Carole Bouquet better than Bouquet herself did, and due to her and Bellucci, this is easily the sexist Bond film of the Craig era too (Sensing a pattern there?).

 

As for the film’s villain, I think we all know by now who Christoph Waltz plays here, and although he himself doesn’t think he quite nailed the part, I’m inclined to disagree. When I first heard about his casting, I assumed we’d get another Col. Landa performance, thinking that Waltz’s usual schtick was made for a Bond villain. We get some of that in his final moments, but for the most part he plays things a lot drier and more seriously. And for me, it works (He even has a white Persian cat!), though I was also perfectly fine with the similar move that was pulled in “Star Trek Into Darkness”, so if you hated the idea for the villain in that, your view here may be different to mine. Toning things down for the most part proves rather menacing, actually. I’d probably give the edge to Javier Bardem’s Silva in “Skyfall” (Ha! Didn’t expect that, did you?), but Waltz isn’t far behind. He’s certainly better than Charles Gray in “Diamonds Are Forever”, and probably Telly Savalas (“OHMSS”) and Max von Sydow (“Never Say Never Again”), too. Like Silva, he’s more of a traditional Bond villain, without being too campy that it jars with everything else. He’s not in the film much, but that didn’t stop Donald Pleasence from being the best-ever Bond villain as far as I’m concerned. Besides, the film is called SPECTRE, it’s about the organisation, not any specific villain. Some seem annoyed at the film trying to tie Bond and Blofeld together, but that didn’t bother me so much as that they also try to make out that Blofeld has been pulling strings in the previous Craig 007 films too, which seems a little too unnecessarily elaborate, but a minor complaint.

 

Former WWE superstar Batista, meanwhile is probably my favourite henchman since at least the late Vincent Schiavelli’s Dr. Kaufmann in “Tomorrow Never Dies”. Although silent, he is very well-used and makes an immediate and brutish impression. Later on he has an eerily amused facial expression as though he gives no fucks. If I looked like Batista, I’d probably give no fucks and smile to myself, too. He and 007 engage in an attractively shot car chase at one point, even if he and Daniel Craig look more like Humvee kinda guys if you ask me. We also get a nice, brutal train fight between them not too far removed from the one in “From Russia With Love”, except not as claustrophobic. Special mention must be made of the reappearance of Jesper Christensen’s Mr. White, one of the more interesting villains in previous Craig era Bond films, and especially interesting here. He may also be this era’s version of Jaws, given how hard to kill he appears to be.

 

As for Daniel Craig, I still feel he’s miscast in good guy roles, but he’s surprisingly a bit looser this time out, and it works very much in his favour. He seems almost relaxed. There’s a particularly funny bit where he tries to order his usual drink…at a non-alcoholic bar. Yes, humour in a Bond film from the Daniel Craig era. Amazing, isn’t it? It’s about bloody time. Is the film predictable? Who cares? There’s a formula and 50 years’ worth of film plots, there’s bound to be some borrowing and paying homage, with this one particularly influenced by “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” and “For Your Eyes Only”. “OMSS” is one of the best Bond films (if it had starred Sean Connery, it’d be regarded as the Best Bond film ever, I reckon), so I don’t blame screenwriters Jez Butterworth (“Black Mass”), John Logan (“Hugo”, “Rango”, “Sweeney Todd”, “Skyfall”), Neal Purvis (“The World is Not Enough”, “Casino Royale”, “Skyfall”), and Robert Wade (“The World is Not Enough”, “Casino Royale”, “Skyfall”) for wanting to replicate some of that 007 magic.

 

The best of the Daniel Craig 007 films, and to be honest, it’s probably the best 007 film we’ve had since “Tomorrow Never Dies” (Small praise, perhaps). Hell, it might even be better than the latest “Mission Impossible” film, after that series had started to do 007 better than 007, in the Daniel Craig era. Craig and the film itself are a little looser, it’s sexy as hell, the villain works well enough, and its only real crime is overlength. Yeah, this one will do, it gets the Craig-era Bond somewhat closer to the action-packed, quip-laden fun that I think it should be, without going all Roger Moore stupidity on us (Others will disagree and say the Craig and Dalton 007 films are closer to what Bond should be, particularly Ian Fleming purists. I’d argue Sean Connery was closer than Craig). I don’t know why people are critical of this one, it’s pretty good.

 

Rating: B-