> Not your usual Bond movie, but still a good entertainer. What I liked from a couple of last Bond movies was they were off the regular 007 style, like not overly rely on spy's special gadgets. This change has been since the day one of Daniel Craig as a famous British spy, James Bond. Anyway, he's the most fittest (muscular) Bond I've ever seen and he's celebrating 10 year anniversary with this film release. But the question is whether he to do another film or done with the franchise. The doubt after the confusing end of this film. The end was quite clear on the story perspective, so I kind of felt it was a farewell for Craig. But, later I came to know that the official source says Bond25 will be his fifth and so on till he opts out himself. 'Spectre' was a very simple Bond movie I have ever seen, but I can say the production quality was so good that you can't resist the enjoyment. The actors, they were also good, but not as I anticipated. Maybe many scenes were very ordinary for a Bond movie, that's comparable with the nowadays action movies, otherwise it was not as bad as critics expressing their disappointment. You can't believe what I was disappointed, you know when they say what the C stands for - is that the best word they come up with against the M for Moron? Anyway, James Bond movies have always had ups and downs, the last film 'Skyfall' was a mega hit and now this has not stood up to that standard. But very entertaining with all the actions and unexpected turns in the narration. As a spy movie, it was okay, but as a Bond movie is what might upset you, so its upto you how you look at it. But to be honest, I enjoyed it. 7/10

Now that Dame Judi has shaken her off her cinematic mortal coil, the new "M" (Ralph Fiennes) is facing increasing pressure from whizzkid "C" (Andrew Scott) to shut down the 007 programme and rely on an international, computer generated, system of intelligence gathering. Needless to say, "007" (Daniel Craig) has his doubts about this and after a manhunt to Rome (via Mexico) that must have cost billions, he alights on an exclusive gathering of the criminal great and good working for the eponymous organisation. Along the way, he manages to enlist "Q" (Ben Whishaw) and "Moneypenny" (Naomie Harris) in his quest to find the daughter of his old nemesis "Mr White". She - "Madeleine" (Léo Seydoux) may well know how to help him thwart the ambitions of this secretive and deadly organisation before it is all too late. There are plenty of (extended) action scenes here and the gadgets work well enough, but the story is thin and the characterisations lacking. The dynamic lacks jeopardy - we know who is likely to be behind the cunning plots right from the start and neither Fiennes nor Scott bring much to the party. Indeed the latter is really rather poor. What menace there is, is delivered via some underwhelming contributions from Dave Bautista's "Hinx" and from the appearances of Christoph Waltz, but they are all too infrequent to bolster the storyline before an ending that was, frankly, ridiculous - even by "Quantum of Solace" (2008) standards. The producers seem to be constantly trying to reinvent "Bond" without realising that the more they compromise the standards of the story and weaken the traditional characters, the less impact the franchise has when surrounded by many others of this genre that benefit from stronger writing and a more charismatic star. This is shorter than many of Daniel Craig's other outings as Ian Fleming's master spy, for which I was grateful because this is all rather mediocre from start to finish.

The word "convoluted" comes to mind, as does the word "unwatchable" By the time Spectre came out, I was honestly sick of Daniel Craig's James Bond hates being James Bond depiction. And now I've come to really despise him, I mean Moore used to be my least favorite Bond, and I like him so much more than Craig. But... the script was kind of all over the place. I think they were trying to do twists and turns, but they were stuck under steering with each turn, so all the twists they tried to throw at you never really worked. It ended up feeling like they were trying to be confusing for the sake of being confusing, and didn't know how to make it all feel confusing for the sake of being mysterious. I mean Christoph Waltz is a great actor, but even he couldn't find his footing in that mess of a story. The action was never suspenseful or even really enjoyable... ... and it all leaves you with the feeling that this is a Bond movie made by people who forgot how to tell a story. And that is kind of fitting given that is what Sony seemed to be threatening to do with Bond for a while, and it was 2015, just before the Hollywood Era of "story and characterization don't matter" It can only go down hill from here.

**Spectre has plenty of style, class, action, and spectacular moments but the film lacks the passion and zeal of Casino Royale or Skyfall.** After the incredible bombastic success of Skyfall, the return of Sam Mendes, and the announcement of Christoph Waltz as the villain, expectations skyrocketed to ridiculous heights. Unfortunately, these expectations climbed too high for Spectre to meet. While the story did a decent job of trying to tie all the Craig Bond films together and introduce a new supreme criminal mastermind, it didn't fully satisfy or carry the weight it intended. There were some exceptional action sequences, with the opening scene in Mexico City as one of the most stunning and impressive of the franchise. The train fight with Dave Bautista was incredibly entertaining as well, but much of the action felt restrained like Craig was tired of the role and didn't want to push the boundaries on some stunts. Seydoux and Bellucci each brought something new with their Bond Girl portrayals providing emotional exploration and depth unusual for a Bond film. Spectre is a great spy movie and a fun Bond flick, but unfortunately, it didn't live up to the level of hype and expectation set before it. After Casino Royale and Skyfall delivered so much more than a typical Bond film, Spectre seemed to settle for the status quo (which is still good but had all the pieces it needed to be incredible.)

Spectre has an introspect into what is wrong with modern Bond movies. Namely, that they don't work, because 007 is about action, exotic sceneries, cinematic brilliance, beautiful women, gadgets that go wrong or right, and most of all the wit and charm and atmosphere. I'm not sure when the forma should have changed from exciting to dull, probably around 1995, but it changed before that year. And it should have changed in a productive and interesting way. Instead, it changed to just total dullness with not one good aspect. The motivation of characters other than 007 is total zero in credibility. The inspiration is zero. The strategy is zero. The dialog is clumsy. This is to be expected from the changes around 1970, when the writer's guild became immensely jealous of talent and good writing, and only produced the writers with zero talent. And now those writers are the "judges" of new writers, God help this culture. The change in format should have changed long ago, about 1995, into "sons and daughters of 007", with 007 as a background figure, say fifth or sixth billing, with his sons and daughters taking center stage in this "less action, more computer" world. A lot of us said this well before 1995. It was painfully obvious, but we live in a world where Hollywood went total hack in the seventies, with those hacks endorsing the worst hacks of today. "Spectre" kind of gives us an introspective look at this with the timeline element. Bond faces the usual super enemy power, and fights the establishment which brings in the computer age. The character of 007 is the only thing that is salvaged in these new movies. It isn't Daniel Craig's fault that he is 007 for the worst writers, writers who are into the neo Nazi ideology of the seventies where women must be blond and pale, and any man who tries to save a brunette is doomed, but save a blond, and you're a success. The Hitler worship is so extreme in the modern Bond movie writing that it's impossible to deny it is there. And the directors are pathetic. Even given the ideal exotic locales, they manage to dumb down the scenery. One feels like the director actually says "How can we make this beautiful and exotic scenery look dull and depressing? Aha! I can do it!" Of course the day will come when Craig will be the beneficiary of this fame and get to do actually good films for which he'll be remembered. This movie is pretty much formula. The action is okay enough, and it isn't as contrived to be depressing as Casino Royale or A View to a Kill, but it is depressing and dull.

Words can't describe how boring this is.