As a Bond fan enthralled by what Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig created in 'Skyfall', I was awaiting the latest Bond movie 'SPECTRE' with bated breath. Sam Mendes had signed on to direct once again, and there were reports of Craig being injured whilst filming several of the action sequences in the movie. The perfect recipe for another exciting episode in 007's cinematic canon. Furthermore, this was the first Bond film we were watching at the cinema as a family - the Sutton family's Bond movie-going legacy was being handed down to the next generation.
Things start well with what looks to be a single-shot sequence sustained over several minutes as we follow Bond into a lift, through a hotel room and onto the rooftops of Mexico City. I was struck by the technical skill used to manoeuvre the camera beside and above Craig throughout this sequence without the trace of a single interruptive edit. This is the bravura precursor to the obligatory dramatic pre-credits sequence. And it is indeed full of excitement, action and panache.
However, by the end of the film I was aware that although I had enjoyed it, I still came away feeling dissatisfied with it. Even two weeks on from viewing the film, I am struggling to define what it is that left this sense of disappointment.
Things did not start well; after the genuine tour-de-force of the opening tracking shot, the joins then become visible. The viewer can see where green screens have been used in the opening skirmishes, and I was instantly reminded of the awful computer-generated surfing scene in which Brosnan appeared in 'Die Another Day'.
The film quickly returns to London where we are reminded of the denoueMent of 'Skyfall'. Bond's renegade actions are explained by his allegiance to a voice from his past. But this again is where the problems begin as his colleagues seem unconvincingly too ready to cooperate with his agenda, despite the trouble that this will bring from their boss.
Bond launches into a number of set-pieces, each in a different exotic location, with its own tone. The £350m is all there on the screen. Whereas this progression from location to location was a distinctive feature and mainstay of the pre-Craig era, the deliberate difference in tone in each country here reinforces the episodic characteristic of this latest venture. The 2 hours 32 minute running time (this is the longest of any Bond film) therefore feels too long - it could comfortably lose 30 minutes of flab.
For me, 'Skyfall' worked so well because the story was everything. Some of the usual Bond tropes were diminished in an effort to drive the story forwards - for instance, less camera time spent on 007's sexual dalliances. In 'SPECTRE', we are expected to believe that Bond can move quickly from a (somewhat distasteful) casual relationship with a married woman after a delicate life-changing event to one with a much younger woman that possesses the all-consuming power of that which he experienced with his one true love Vesper Lynd in 'Casino Royale'. For me, this is out of step with the character and origin story that was established in 'Casino Royale': Bond never really got over the loss of his first love, and his consequent purpose in subsequent relationships with women is always one of sexual satisfaction rather than that of establishing any emotional fulfilment.
The action IS breathtaking. But it still feels somehow well-trodden; a mountain-top hideaway is reminiscent of 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service', the plane pyrotechnics recall the opening of 'Goldeneye', the train combat echoes 'From Russia With Love', the appearance of the Aston Martin merely provides nostalgia rather than any plot function (in direct contrast to its role in 'Goldfinger' and 'Skyfall'). The originality of exploring the origin of the Bond character that is found in 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall' is lacking. Even when introduced to the villain and their part in Bond's past, the end-of-film climax to their relationship is defined by the endings of Craig's previous outings - another re-treading of earlier Bond movies. The suspense is undercut because it partly relies on the tension created previously.
I know the last 10 minutes of the film play out as they do because of the previous 23 movies of Bond lore and the specific role that the villain plays within the context of the movie series, but for me it just did not chime. Given his past actions in other outings, would Bond really have acted in the way that he does towards his enemy? And for the motivation that is implicit?
All that said, I enjoyed it. I loved the quips (Bond and M both make it clear what they think of C in ways that wholly reflect their different personality and style), the action (did I say it is breathtaking?), Andrew Scott's little gestures of contempt for M and all he represents, Ben Whishaw's Q humorously experiencing life as a field agent, and the use of the MI5 building. This London landmark has become just as much a character in Craig's journey as Q, M or Miss Moneypenny.
A good, solid effort, and one that further confirms Craig as my all-time favourite Bond, but as I watched, I was aware of the 'SPECTRE' of other Bond films.