Hello, dear reader. The name is Misogynist, James Misogynist. Now that’s not my name you understand. It’s not even the name of the titular hero of the film I am about to appraise. For as we all know that’s James Bond, being played here by Daniel ‘I’m not blonde’ Craig. I use the word misogynist because, let’s face it, as a character Mr Bond does as much for the advancement of women being treated as equals as Katie Hopkins does for the race relations and weight loss. Even Mr Craig himself as gone on record as saying that Bond is a bit of a dinosaur, when it comes to the fairer sex, but if your one of those silver linings type of people, things have definitely improved over the last fifty years or so. Pussy Galore anyone? For these reasons, and others, James Bond will always have its detractors and I can’t say that I blame them to be honest. I’ve never truly considered myself a fan of the 007 franchise and until Casino Royale arrived on our screens back in 2006, I’d never even felt the urge to own one of the films either.
With regards to Casino Royale, I think the reason that it was regarded like a breath of fresh air was partly down to the fact that it was a reboot and in some ways almost an origin story. The first ten minutes of the film are shown in black and white and we witness James making his first kill. The other reason it seemed to work quite well was, at least as far as I am concerned, that it stopped feeling like you were watching a live action cartoon. In the past we’d had Peirce Brosnan driving an ‘invisible’ car. Roger Moore fighting to save the world from orbiting space station and even Sean Connery fighting female adversaries called ‘Bambi’ and ‘Thumper’. The reason for this sudden change in direction and wanting to set the James Bond squarely in the realms of a ‘plausible’ universe was down in no small part to the Bourne films that had preceded it. They were intelligent, had a central protagonist who was not only vulnerable but had to rely on others for help and had fight sequences that were original and innovative. These films were, and still are, very popular. So much so that the fifth instalment is due to hit the screens in the summer of 2016. An old style Bond film simply would not have worked in today’s climate. The general public had declared that they wanted their secret agents with a bit more reality and a lot less cheese. Thankfully Barbara Broccoli listened and the rest, as they say, is history.
Spectre marks the fourth time Mr Craig has slipped into his made to measure tux, jumped into his Aston Martin and then disposed of the ‘nasty bad people’. It’s is an odd film at times and although it’s directed by Sam Mendes, the gentleman who brought us the first Bond film to break through the billion dollar barrier, Skyfall, it does seem a little disjointed at times. Common sense and its plot, for what it’s worth, seems to be a little haphazard and as it was pointed out to me, it’s almost like they stuck pins in a map for locations they’d like to shoot at and then tried to find a way for them to join the dots and get from one to the other.
However what Spectre lacks in cohesive story it does make up for in its cast. We have Ralph The Voldemort Fiennes returning as the newly appointed ‘M’, Andrew The Moriarty Scott playing the MI5 head ‘C’ and Dave The Drax Bautista playing the evil henchman muscle ‘Hinx’. However, the real coup in Spectre is getting Christoph Waltz to play the head bad guy ‘Oberhauser’ (Spoiler Alert: That’s not his real name). For anyone who’s seen Quintin Tarantino’s Inglorious Bastards you’ll be aware that Mr Waltz can play bad and play it very well. There’s always an air of menace about him when he’s on screen. Even when he doesn’t have any dialogue his overall malevolent persona still shines through. There are a lot of things I could say about Oberhauser that would give the game away and reveal things about his character but will say this. He is the architect of everything that Daniel Craig’s, James Bond, has had to deal with in the previous three films. He has caused people Bond cares about to die and has secretly been pushing buttons behind the curtain to orchestrate the world into a place where he can maximise chaos and control governments. Another tick in the ‘well cast’ column goes to the French actress Lea Seydoux who plays ‘Madeleine Swan’. She plays the main female lead and although her part isn’t particularly well written, she is portrayed as a well-educated doctor who has absolutely no problem telling Mr Bond to Foxtrot Oscar, as and when required.
Now, I don’t want to be accused of not liking a film just because its storyline is M.I.A. Lots of movies I like are a bit thin on the ground when it comes to plot. American Beauty, The Empire Strikes Back (still don’t understanding why everyone says it’s the best one) and The Cannonball Run to name just three. There are plenty of good things to report when it comes to Spectre. Firstly it has an actress playing a Bond girl (why is it never Bond Woman?) who’s actually older than the actor playing Bond and I don’t think that’s happened since Honor Blackman and Sean Connery graced our screens in 1964’s Goldfinger. The pre-credit set piece is very well executed and has helicopters doing what helicopters shouldn’t be able to do and as for the credit sequence itself it pulls in elements from the previous three Bond films and is cleverly ties into the films overrunning theme.
I think the main problem Spectre has though is it’s the film that comes after Skyfall and that was always going to be a tough act to follow. Sam Mendes wasn’t going to direct and then he was. The budget is allegedly north of 300 million and at times you get the feeling that Columbia Pictures basically just said yes to whatever the screenwriters John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Jez Butterworth came up with. What’s also slightly odd about the film is that it’s just less than two and a half hours long but I left the cinema thinking the film needed to be longer. There are areas of the film that need more exposition and it all seemed a little rushed. A couple of other niggles I have with it are that is has a torture scene in it that uses a small drill that left me on the wrong side of uncomfortable. Also someone will need to explain to me why they hired Dave Bautista, who was one of the best things in Guardians of The Galaxy, and then only give him word of dialogue. Tragically under used in my humble opinion.
It’s been reported quite heavily in the press that Spectre will be Daniel Craig’s last outing as Bond. He’s been quoted as saying ‘that he can’t see himself making another one at the moment’. Whether that’s true or not remains to be seen. I think it will come down to artistic integrity over zeros in the bank account at the end of the day. If it is to be his last Bond then I think his report card should end up with a B+ on it. Having grown up in the Roger More era of Bond I more than happy to say that Spectre does have it comedic moments but there isn’t a raised eyebrow in sight.
So to sum up, Spectre isn’t nearly as bad of a car crash as Quantum of Solace was. It has action, Bond disobeying orders, a great car chase through Rome and enough tailored men’s wear to keep Savile Row employed for a year. I’m sure it will make enough money to keep everyone’s bank manager happy and one thing is certain, Bond will be back, regardless of who’s playing him. Film 25 will occur at some point in the not too distant future and if I was a betting man I’d have a flutter on Mr Waltz being in the credits too. He’s way too good as the villain for them not to use again. Oh, and one last thing. I happen to think the Sam Smith Bond theme ‘Writing’s On The Wall’ is actually rather good. There I said it…
Twitter Review:
Christoph comes but once a year.
#HeHasAWhiteCatDontYouKnow
Useful Links:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2379713/?ref_=nv_sr_1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTDaET-JweU
http://www.empireonline.com/movies/spectre/review/
