Daniel Craig returns to the role of James Bond in SPECTRE
Warning the following review spoils the twist that pretty
much every other review does. Consider yourself adequately warned.
The Bond franchise never deserved Casino Royal. It is not as
if Casino Royal is a perfect film but it is a close as the franchise
will ever flirt with greatness. Casino Royal was the first film to push the character of James Bond into new and intriguing situations, giving him some much overdue character development and giving the franchise a much needed shot in the arm. It’s a dangerous game flirting with greatness
though as when something dares do so people begin to invest and everything that
follows must continue to hold the audience’s engagement. We all know by this
point that Casino Royal was followed by one of the worst Bond films in
franchise history Quantum of Solace but even then it was not enough to kill
momentum. As bad as Quantum of Solace was it felt more of an issue of a poor
directing choice rather than a fundamental step in the wrong direction. That
point was soon proven by its follow up Skyfall, another one of the series' best entries and another film that pushed the Bond character into stark new directions. It seemed as though after the goodwill brought by
both Casino Royal and Skyfall it would be very difficult to shake the newfound
engagement with Bond even if we got another Quantum of Solace.
Yet SPECTRE manages to pull it off. SPECTRE singlehandedly
destroyed any goodwill I had garnered for the Bond franchise. It’s a film that not
only spits on the grave of everything Casino Royal built for Daniel Craig’s 007
but turns around, pours gasoline on it, sets it on fire, and watches it burn
while laughing manically. Never again will I dare invest any drop of emotion or
investment in a Bond film, and it is all thanks to SPECTRE.
And for those that are asking yes it boils down to the one
twist. You know the one; even if you have not seen the film you know it.
Because if the trailers did not make it clear enough you, dear reader, have
surly read another review that spoils the hell out of it. So here goes nothing.
Yes the main villain played by Christoph Waltz is Blofeld.
Yes that Blofeld, the one that was the crux of a bunch of bad early Bond films
you probably do not remember the names of. All that is fine and dandy, I’m one
of the people who did not get angry at the Khan reveal in Star Trek into
Darkness after all, but it’s what happens next that is infuriating. Yes not
only is Waltz Blofeld but he is behind every event of the last three films,
EVERY LAST ONE! His reason? Because his father loved James, the son he adopted,
more then he loved poor Blofeld. That is the reason! Every mission, ever
tragedy, every piece of character building, every last second I invested into Craig’s
Bond character all happened solely because our main villain was a jealous
brother with serious daddy issues. Nothing in the last three films mattered,
none of it had any significance it was just one brother trying to get back at
the other because his father loved the other brother more. All of the great things
in the last three films have been trivialized in the name of having Blofeld in
the film. Heaven forbid you give two time academy award winner Christoph Waltz
something to do and come up with something creative instead.
But back to the bigger issue at hand. It is absolutely
infuriating to have spent three films invested in the growth of the character
of James Bond through the events that surround him only to have it thrown away all for the cheapness of one crummy twist; that in the grand scheme of
things, only about a fraction of the audience will actually pick up on. It
feels dirty, and screams cash grab. It is like the filmmakers are actively
flipping the bird at the audience saying “haha we have your money now we can do
whatever we want suckers.”
What’s worse is that in a vacuum SPECTRE is actually a competent
Bond film. Sam Mendes continues to bring a great visual sense to the franchise,
every frame he shoots is picturesque, every location jumps of the screen with
their own distinct and beautiful features. Every action sequence he directs is
creatively shot, from the opening tracking shot through Mexico, through the
frantic train fight that is a near perfect homage to the trademark sequence of
From Russia with Love. Daniel Craig continues to be perhaps the best James
Bond, one who is fundamentally broken and is unsure of the life he has chosen
for himself. Craig’s performance keeps trying to push Bond into new and fascinating
directions just through the subtle touches, facial expressions and small hints
of emotion. If only Craig continued to have the support of the rest of the
creative forces behind the film then maybe we could have seen even further
evolution of what it means to be James Bond.
But in the end none of this matters. Because, by
trivializing all the work done in the last three iterations, the filmmakers
have made it very clear that nothing in the Bond franchise matters at all. Any
investment that we as the audience make can be undone so that the filmmakers
can throw in inconsequential twists to try and appease their own wallets. That
way there is no need for them to continue and push the envelope of where Bond
as a character can go. The producers can safely go back to creating the same old
inconsequential Bond films of iterations past without people like me caring to
ask what if.
James Bond will return but at this point who cares?
Grade: D
-Frederick Cholowski
