Screen Anarchists On: SPECTRE

Ard Vijn, Associate Editor, Features:

In my review I voiced my disappointment, for as much as I liked bits of Spectre I regretted it being a bit of a tired re-run of everything I disliked about Skyfall. For that film, I had even listed my grievances as a separate article, in which I lamented seeing a potentially fantastic film ruined by moments of utter stupidity.

Well, that happened again with Spectre, and in a big way. With Skyfall the franchise was already doing an uncomfortable split by keeping one foot on the serious side of Bond, and one foot on the silly side. With Spectre it's doing that split AND needing stilts, as the gap has become too wide to easily support both.

Part of the finale takes place in an abandoned building, set up as a mean-spirited exhibition of Bond's past adventures, and about to be blown up. It strangely resembles the film itself, with all its empty references and Bond moving to his retirement.

Speaking of blowing stuff up: boom! The explosion shown above is apparently going to enter the Guinness Book of World Records, as it is currently the largest of its kind done for a movie. But when I saw it in the film, it elicited no reaction in me whatsoever, except maybe a "Wait, what? All this from those few shots a minute ago?" Flashy, sure, but disappointingly devoid of logic or thrills.

Shelagh Rowan-Legg, Contributing Writer:

For most of its time, the James Bond films had followed a certain formula: Bond was a suave, sophisticated, clever, inventive, and yes, misogynistic spy, able to woo women and defeat villains in under two hours and save Queen and Country and possibly the world. But after the Brosnan years, it seemed the franchise had run out of steam; enemies were not so clear, the treatment of female characters under understandable and deserved scrutiny, and the narrative formula had become archaic and predictable. Not that there is anything wrong with predictable necessarily, formulas work for a reason.

But something remarkable happened when the Craig era began. While some of the formula remained, the team behind the films found a maturity that brought the Bond franchise into a new era. Much of that had to do with Craig, whom I argue is the strongest actor ever to play the role. The stories were still about evil villains trying to bring about chaos and destruction, and there were still women to be wooed and bedded. But the stories were deeper and richer; Bond was no longer a one-dimensional figurehead, but whole and real and understandable. The trio of films that fleshed out the character, and by extension, fleshed out our own continuing fascination with him and his world.

But for me, that all fell apart with Spectre. Yes, the opening scene is technically amazing; well, most of the film is. But given the budget, high production value is a given. For the first few scenes, I found the fallback onto the tropes of earlier Bond films amusing. But as the film continued, it became more obvious that the writers had put almost no thought into the story. Instead of being interesting, the female characters were wasted: seriously, in what universe would Bond choose Lea Seydoux over Monica Bellucci? If nothing else, Bellucci at least had an interesting story; Seydoux’s character could have been replaced with a lamp and it wouldn’t have made a difference. Instead of being scary, the villain was a guy with daddy issues; they finally get Blofeld back, and bait us with Christoph Waltz, but he barely does anything and turns out just to have been jealous? Maybe Silva in Skyfall was taking revenge, but he had far more reason, and Bardem was given so much more to work with. Instead of elevating Bond, they collapse him into a cliché of himself. And it’s not only bad writing, it’s lazy writing.

The subplot of M, Q and Moneypenny trying to help Bond by taking out their own mini-villain (like Bellucci, Andrew Scott was wasted) felt almost like they were trying to save the franchise itself. But too late. I’ll have to agree with my colleague Drew McWeeny’s assessment in his review on Hitfix. This is a big step backward for a franchise that had propelled the story to great heights, and I’m not sure if I have any interest in more.

Jim Tudor, Featured Critic:

No matter whether a Bond film is great, subpar, or lousy, they all ultimately end up in the same place: butted up next to every other Bond movie in a boxed set. Each time there's a new film, the entirety of James Bond will return, as well. Per the studio's forever repackaging, the separate movies are sapped of their individuality. That's why it's up to critics and fans to actively discern them, and to parse out which matter, and why.

Spectre, whatever one may think of it, very much matters. It matters to the series, and it matters to the characters. And it matters to Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes, who, with Skyfall before this one, have elevated the franchise to a higher level of artistic merit and satisfaction. Spectre, while not topping Skyfall in terms of sheer sumptuous 007 film satisfaction, is nonetheless epic in its own right. Its sweep is grand, in an organic way.

Considering the obvious amount of careful consideration applied in the making of Spectre, it's not out of line to acknowledge a true cinephile respect for it. It's not perfect, of course. But as a lifelong fan of this series, my own devotion has been (finally!) truly artistically and emotionally justified by the Daniel Craig films. Spectre brings Craig's run to a head - perhaps even to a close. It's a very satisfying capper that leaves 007 somewhere new while perhaps closing the book on this era.

Jason Gorber, Featured Critic:

We get it, Mr. Craig, you’re done.

The prevailing sense throughout Spectre is the ghosts of the past tugging at the desire for closure, a desire to wrap things up nicely using the strands of disparate elements to conform to a whole. What ties things together isn’t an organically predetermined narrative structure, or even the many iterations of Ian Fleming’s character that have appeared on screen for decades. No, this Bond film is about this Bond, saying goodbye and putting into context, in sometimes clumsy ways, the Craig years.

As such, much of Spectre feels like denouement, as if much of what transpires is busy work. You see glimpses of the past – a dash of Casino Royale, a pinch of Quantum of Solace, a slice of Skyfall. It’s all, we’re told, leading up to this grand finale, we’re promised to finally unmask the darkness at the core of everything that James has gone through.

We’re promised catharsis, and we’re left unsatisfied. I wonder, sometimes, whether the Bond girls ever feel the same when he rushes out to his next conquest.

So we’re left here with a swan song of sorts for a particular phase in the Bond franchise. Sam Mendes’ direction is still fun to watch, and a bravado opening reel is the equal to anything that’s come before. It’s not Cuarón-levels of single shot madness, but it’s pretty damn close, and even if it’s showy and silly and obnoxious and resonant of Touch of Evil it’s still thrilling, and isn’t that all we really want from these flicks?

We go to Mexico, then Italy, then Switzerland, then some desert for dessert, but it all feels by the numbers, especially as we’re treated to another in an increasingly tedious turns by Christoph Waltz. There’s a fancy car chase with fancy cars, but even that feels somewhat lackadaisical and by-the-motions. There’s no passion there, no real drive in the driving, feeling tacked on and superfluous.

So as a standalone work Spectre doesn’t work. But I admit I had fun watching much of it, simply enjoying Bond bonding, traipsing around and doing his thing. I also steadfastly believe that when we do watch these as a marathon, tying all the Craigy iterations together, we’ll have something a bit more synergistic indeed. It’s a capper, if not a particularly effective one, and tied together with its siblings I think it will nicely round off this period in the character’s history.

(Editor note: This is an abbreviated version of a great review Jason wrote over at dorkshelf.com, which you should read in full...)

Loïc Valceschini, Contributing Writer:

I might not be the biggest James Bond fan among those in the ScreenAnarchy team, but I still very much like the Daniel Craig saga. Even Quantum of Solace, albeit hardly standing on its own, still managed to complement Casino Royale in a very nervous and vengeful way. Spectre, on the other hand, just felt like a sore disappointment.

Despite the massive budget of the film (nearly 300 millions according to the Sony leaks), none of the scarce action scenes reveal to be breathtaking. Of course, the opening sequence in Mexico City is rather impressive, but its resolution with the helicopter was as messy as deceptive and the (cheated) long take stops exactly when the scene was becoming truly interesting -- that is, when narration kicks in and when Mendes stops following his protagonist and could have shown what he's capable of.

But the worst thing about Spectre remains its emptiness. Not only does the script lack any content (the film jumps from one place to another), but it basically reuses the same structure and issues of Skyfall. Again, James Bond has to act independently from the MI6 to defeat the villain, while the latter plots from within the intelligence service and suffers from Oedipal issues -- the only difference being that the maternal figure is replaced by a paternal one. If this isn't laziness or disrespect toward the audience, I don't know how else to call it.

Spectre isn't just another generic James Bond production, it's a bad film. All the characters seem to be playing James Bond characters and everything feels so uninspired. I sure wasn't expecting it to be a game-changer, but I was at least hoping to get a decent spy-esque action film. I clearly didn't.

Ernesto Zelaya Miñano, Contributing Writer:

After watching the opening scene in Mexico, all I could think was, “I need to go celebrate the Day of the Dead.” Nothing in Spectre’s admittedly bloated runtime topped the single-take virtuosity of that opening segment, but Sam Mendes and Co. were definitely trying hard.

This is pretty much your standard fun Bond adventure, with the fancy cars, the gadgets, the attractive women, 007 looking like he stepped out of a menswear catalogue in every other scene, and the megalomaniacal bad guy. If there is one actor born to play a Bond villain, it’s Christoph Waltz, and yes, after the studio tried so hard to keep it under wraps, he IS playing Blofeld. The cat was a dead giveaway. Hopefully it’s not a one-and-done deal, we need to see him and his ugly scar again.

It’s a fun time at the movies, and the reason almost everyone seems to be crapping on it is because it’s not Skyfall. I liked Skyfall, but I’m not convinced delving into Bond’s past and giving him a detailed backstory was the way to go. I’m partial to the the whole “Bond is just the name given to all 007 operatives” idea, but that’s gone now, so that means we’ll never see Idris Elba in the tux unless they decide to do another reboot. And we definitely don’t want that.

Still, Spectre was alright, with Bond being Bond for once and Craig letting himself have some fun instead of playing things morose and serious. I even liked Sam Smith’s theme song, and the opening credits, though naked Craig was a bit odd.

Who else should play a Bond villain? Please, please, give Werner Herzog a call.

Simon Cocks, Contributing Writer:

Having watched it a fortnight ago, I have to admit that Spectre hasn’t stuck with me to the same extent that Skyfall did. My overriding memories of this film seem destined to be that it’s about half an hour too long and it feels like the budget runs out part way through.

That said, this is an entertaining ride, especially with those great set-pieces like the close-quarters fight on the train or the speedy car chase through Rome, but the narrative leaps it has to make to connect it to the past few Bond films just aren’t worth it for what little the film has to offer when it comes to character insight or development.

Daniel Craig’s Bond is as dour here as he’s ever been, and it’s just not that much fun to watch. Léa Seydoux’s Madeleine Swann is sharp-witted and capable, but the story may well have been stronger if she’d had a chance to be a character in her own right rather than becoming a love interest. As for Monica Bellucci, to say she’s wasted in the briefest of parts would be an understatement.

For all that is compelling and exciting about the action at multiple points in Spectre, it is too long and the mysterious games it plays with Christoph Waltz’s character just aren’t necessary… especially when he turns out to be a much less interesting villain than the last one. On the one hand, this is all just a bit too conventional, on the other it’s straining so hard to connect the previous films together that it nearly – but not entirely – manages to damage the memory of what’s great about films like Skyfall and Casino Royale.

Kurt Halfyard, Contributing Writer:

A fitting capstone on the 21st century re-invention of James Bond, in which four films across the past decade have been pushing towards humanizing and shading the spy in the tuxedo, whilst simultaneously elevating the visual compositions on screen. There is a healthy balance in moving forward in terms of filmmaking and looking back across the 20+ entries that have been made. Despite being the more 'conventional' adventure of the four Daniel Craig entries in the the 007 franchise, Spectre benefits from its deliberate silences and quiet visual tensions.

The opening, near wordless cold-open in Mexico City on The Day of the Dead, the Eyes Wide Shut-esque villain conference with Christoph Waltz in shadows, whispering orders, and a surprisingly effective henchman in Dave Bautista, they all make use of silence and cinema language over dialogue or plotting. Less so, the rather tedious back and forth between "M" and "C" on the politics of global spy organizations and their move towards NSA style computer surveillance.

But I'd like to highlight a scene from Spectre, perhaps my favourite in the entire Craig oeuvre. Bond and his new squeeze, Madeline Swan (Léa Seydoux) have just exited a train in the middle of the Moroccan desert. There is an abandoned train station that would not look out of place in Sergio Leone's Once Upon A Time in the West. They are both dressed in sharp, but practical white clothes. Her pantsuit and his cloth woven tie are dancing in the desert wind. The vintage sunglasses are perfect. They lean in the small amount of shade offered in the middle of nowhere. One line of dialogue from Mr. Bond, "I expect we will be waiting a while." Cut to a trail of dust on the far horizon. A 1940s Rolls Royce makes its way slowly, deliberately towards them. They wait. There is no rush. There is also no CGI, trickery, or otherwise modern blockbuster cinema conventions on display. We could be watching Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark, Bernardo Bertolucci's The Sheltering Sky, or John Huston's The Treasure of Sierra Madre. In another word: Cinema.

With all the talk (hand-wringing, hate, joy, you name it) about Spectre being a return to the gadget heavy, gag-inflected Bond from Thunder Ball to Die Another Day, one would be remiss to not take pleasure in what Sam Mendes started in Skyfall with cinematographer Roger Deakins and continues here with Hoyte Van Hoytema. That is to say, the crafting of pleasurable, memorable images that are not beholden to action or plot, but to the iconography and the style that continues to make James Bond mean something when we think about going to the movies.