At the heart of it all is a man named Franz Oberhauser, played by a delightfully scenery-chewing Christoph Waltz. Oh well.Īs the film progresses, Bond uncovers a sinister plot that not only ties together recent events, but also pulls in threads from all of the previous Daniel Craig Bond films. But it never fully clarifies why surveillance is an unacceptable blow to freedom while Bond being involved in destroying a building presumably full of innocent people is acceptable losses.
The film definitely wants us to think that this heavy-handed approach to surveillance is bad, which isn't a hard sell. C, the new head of Britain's intelligence services (played by Andrew Scott), believes that secret agents are an anachronism, and what the world really needs is around-the-clock, around-the-world surveillance of everything. This becomes a big deal, as a major part of Spectre's plot concerns an attempt to shut down the "double-O" program. Though he stops a major terrorist attack, Bond is notably working without direct orders from his supervisors on this mission. While the super-spy is ostensibly there on vacation, he ends up foiling a terrorist plot - but not before being at the center of the destruction of half a city block and having an unbelievable (and beautifully shot) fight in a helicopter hovering dangerously over the crowds of people. In Spectre's first setpiece, Bond is in Mexico during a visually astounding Day of the Dead celebration. It just fails to do so in a way that is at all compelling. Spectre wants to be that it wants to embrace the series' past and open up Craig's version of Bond to some of the more over-the-top elements of Bond. As you might expect from a film meant to continue propping up a series, Skyfall's answer to that question was a resounding ‘yes,' and it ended with what can be read as a return to "normalcy" for the franchise - all the characters in their traditional places, in their traditional gender roles, preparing for another traditional action-adventure romp. The movie was great, go see it, you will like it and its a bit darker side than the previous films.This push and pull between past and present came to a head at the end of 2012's Skyfall, a film that was all about whether or not Bond was an outdated concept, a "hero" we no longer needed. Although I don't want to complain to much. Sure they try to make the movies more realistic today, but I still feel that giving him a bigger role would have brought the movie up a bit. A gun responding to fingerprints is cool, but the last time we saw Q, Bond got an invisible car with rocket launchers and a ring that could break glass. But in this movie I feel like they under-did his role a bit.
It was always fantastic to see the awesome stuff that a 007 got access to that made the spy life seem so cool. And I was really expecting the cool gadgets that we've seen in the earlier movies. Bringing the character back after a few years sure brings peoples hopes up. But I believe that the thing that i was the most disappointed about was Q. For example getting to know more about Raoul Silvas life would have given him a stronger role in the movie. There was just bits missing that would have made the film so much more better (even though it was great). Yet I was still hoping for something more, in a way. After almost two hours in, I felt that I had so many questions unanswered and I started to worry how the movie was going to answer all of them in just half an hour. (I don't think it's worth mentioning that Daniel Craigs acting was good, that has already been acknowledged). Javier Bardem played the villain fantastically, the way he spoke and acted gave you chills and made you believe that there was something beneath his facade. It was a great movie all in all, but I feel like there's something missing. I'm having a hard time expressing myself when it comes to this movie.