SPECTRE (2015)

Content by Tony Macklin. Originally published on November 7, 2015 @ tonymacklin.net.

SPECTRE evokes the ghost of James Bond past.

James Bond used to be the lean and cool Sean Connery. Now Jimmy Bond is an action toy.

It's not really the fault of Daniel Craig, an actor whom I admire. One of Craig's best traits is his gift for subtlety, but it's long gone. It wasn't in Skyfall (2012) and isn't in SPECTRE.

Craig has substituted a blank look. He probably was on painkillers in SPECTRE, since he injured his knee in one of the many action sequences and presently is awaiting surgery. Blankness is all amidst the chaos.

In a recent interview, Craig and director Sam Mendes appeared with the unctuous Charlie Rose. Ten minutes into the long interview, Craig's water glass was empty. He had drained it. This seems to be a suitable symbol for Craig's appearance in SPECTRE.

Craig previously had rejected making any further Bond films, but he was less negative, because time had passed after the very long shoot. Mendes and Craig seemed to agree they enjoyed making the latest film. Compared to Skyfall, Mendes said, "It was more fun. More exciting." Unfortunately, the fun they seemed to have had is nowhere exhibited on the screen.

Mendes, who directed the overrated Skyfall [it did make a billion dollars internationally] is back slamming together SPECTRE. But the two best participants in Skyfall are missing in SPECTRE. Judi Dench is no longer M - she was killed off in the previous film. Dench is the epitome of class, style, and feeling, and she is missed. With her absence, the last fragment of humanity may be gone from the franchise.

And the masterly Roger Deakins, who did the cinematography in Skyfall has been replaced by Hoyte Van Hoytema. But one welcome change is that SPECTRE is shot in 35mm film. Skyfall was in digital.

In SPECTRE, Bond is suspended after he goes haywire in Mexico City, causing an international incident. The double-o section is on the verge of being shut down.

But Bond goes in pursuit of the evil organization SPECTRE and its shadowy leader Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz). Along the way Bond is involved with a damsel (Lea Seydoux), who offers no competition to his conquests in

previous movies.

The casting in SPECTRE doesn't seem to matter. Craig endures as Bond. Waltz plays Where's Waldo as his adversary. And Seydoux is forgettable - imagine a Bond girl being forgettable.

The screenplay is by a glut of writers who create skimpy characters amidst the excessive action sequences.

The writing is lackluster. Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) says to Bond, "They say you're finished."

"What do you think?" he says.

"I say you're just getting started," she says.

Yeah, the cinematic Bond was introduced in 1962 in Dr. No. That makes him 53 in movie years. "Getting started"?

This year's Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation makes SPECTRE seem even more stale in comparison. It is 16 minutes shorter than the 148-minute SPECTRE. The signature set piece with Tom Cruise hanging onto a plane was short and sweet, where the set pieces in SPECTRE are too lengthy and squander impact.

SPECTRE has a lot of set pieces. It's like a strand of pearls. They're shiny, but they're artificial.

The strand breaks, and they roll across the screen, and Bond, et al., slip and slide.

Unlike the Mission Impossible franchise, the Bond franchise has sacrificed vitality for action.