So I've now seen SPECTRE four times all the way through, and rewatched several sequences of it a few times, and I think I finally have a fully-tuned opinion.
Short Version:
SPECTRE isn't awful.
But it's very unsatisfying.
Long Version:
First, it must be said that I was bitterly disappointed by SP when I saw it in the cinema on opening night. It wasn't the film I wanted it to be. But upon rewatching it, accepting it for what it is, and especially in the comfort of home media, there is a lot to appreciate. However, that doesn't mean my initial impression on opening night was wrong; just prejudiced.
THE GOOD STUFF
- Daniel Craig is great. He goes for a Connery vibe in SP, and nails it. He is firmly my favourite Bond now. He already was my personal favourite, but now that we can directly compare his performance to his predecessors, I'm happy to place him as my number 1. Connery will always be definitive, but Craig is the best.
- The PTS is absolutely amazing. Yes, it goes on a bit too long and the CGI is dodgy. However, every minute is spectacular. It's tense, driven and exhilarating. Those helicopter stunts, Craig's steely determination, the scale of it and the sheer dazzle of the Day of the Dead cannot be underpraised.
- Daniel Kleinman's opening titles are once again stunning. Those erotic tentacles are wonderful. I like how he recreates the colours of Hoyte van Hoytema's cinematography, too. He manages to bring meaning to Sam Smith's rather rote lyrics as well. Although, as with SF, it's arguable that he uses too much of the film's imagery and story in the sequence.
- The action sequences are undeniably huge. The explosion in Morocco, the car spewing fire in Rome, the plane vs jeep chase... All gratutiously huge.
- The cast is incredible.
- "Christoph Waltz is Blofeld". I'll never stop smiling when I say that 
- Lucia Sciarra and Madeleine Swann are excellent characters. Possibly the best Bond girls we've had since Vesper. I really like them.
- Mr Hinx is cool.
- Jesper Christensen returns as Mr White! Unlike other fans on this forum, I think the film used him well. The film develops his character a lot, even after his death. As henchmen go, he will cast a long shadow.
- I actually like the plot. Sure, Bond still isn't doing much espionage, but I like the adventure he goes on, at least for the first 90 minutes. I like how each clue leads him to somewhere or to someone unexpected. I especially like how Bond unintentionally helps the villains in their scheme. Unfortunately this part is not made very clear.
- Furthermore, it's the most tightly plotted Bond film for a long while. Everything is set up and accounted for. Even Bond's black plane is waiting outside the clinic, and the rings are nicely explained by the meteorite. Although I only know that thanks to the thread on this forum!
- I love the idea of Bond's foster brother being the villain.
- I like that SP finally ties Craig's tenure together. The way it's done, however, is frustrating.
- I love the mouse scene.
- "That's brothers for you, we always know which buttons to press." My second favourite line in the film.
- "Now we know what C stands for."
THE BAD STUFF
- Craig's Bond is too superhuman.
- Hoytema's grading is too heavy. Beautiful sets (the Spectre meeting) and locations (the Day of the Dead) are sapped of life and colour by ridiculously heavy and yellow grading. Combined with Thomas Newman's ambient score, the film's atmosphere is hazy often snooze-inducing.
I don't blame Hoytema or Newman for this; it's typical of Mendes' filmography. The difference is, before SF his films weren't big action movies; and for the first time in his career Mendes doesn't have The Greatest American Cinematographer or The Greatest Living Cinematographer to make his work look beautiful.
- Oberhauser as the villain is brilliant. But they waste the opportunity to have Bond facing his brother. The relationship between Trevelyan and Bond was much, much more complex, tense and provocative. And they were just colleagues!
It doesn't help that neither Bond nor Blofeld seem to care at all about each other. Except they do...but they don't. They're both too nonchalant.
- Oberhauser is also Blofeld? I'm not sure. It doesn't bother me as much as it bothers many people on this forum, but if it weren't Christoph Waltz playing him, I'd be less happy. I'd have preferred Lucia Sciarra to wander into the torture scene, pick up the Persian and reveal herself (as Blofeld). Now that would have been a twist.
- Speaking of Blofeld, he doesn't satisfactorily explain how and why the other films are his work. He effectively shrugs and says. "They were me." It's been discussed in more detail elsewhere on these forums, but the scene in Blofeld's lair needed much more, especially when tying the films together.
- Keeping Waltz's identity a secret until the third act is a mistake. The film's mystery is "Who is he and what does he want, and why?". That's a weak mystery; we need at least one of those questions answered early on to make the other questions worth answering.
For example, in SF we knew what the villain wanted from the beginning (i.e. revenge on M), but we didn't know who he was or why he wanted revenge. Then we found out halfway through, and the remainder of the film was a classic action thriller.
We should already know what the villain wants, and therefore why Bond should stop him. Or we should know who he is, and be wondering what he wants. SP wants us guessing about the villain's identity and motive for far too long.
It doesn't help that we can guess he's Blofeld and that he's behind Nine Eyes from the start. But by pretending it's a mystery, a big twist and maintaining it as the thrust of the narrative, SP sets us up for a big letdown.
- Also, the threat of Nine Eyes is never properly established. Sure, it's topical. But is it a real threat? At least Captain America: The Winter Soldier had the wisdom to threaten millions of lives... Furthermore, Bond doesn't seem to care about Nine Eyes, so why should we?
- The scenes with Denbigh are repetitive and keep killing the momentum of Bond's adventure with Madeleine. The last three scenes with Denbigh (M's speech about "licence not to kill", the vote where the South Africans change their minds, the scene where M says Bond is on his own) could all have been combined into one. A slightly longer version of the scene in C's office (and I really mean it, just a minute longer) would have given time for all that to happen.
- Monica Bellucci/Lucia Sciarra is criminally underused. She has more chemistry than Seydoux with Craig.
- Madeleine Swann's character arc is fumbled. She's so interesting up until the torture scene. And then she unconvincingly declares love. And then she waits until the last possible moment to reject Bond's life. Worse still, we all know that last part is a plot device.
- The entire last, fourth act is a big mistake. It's tacked on and unintentionally funny in places. Symbolism be damned.
Setting it at night is boring (see above comment about Hoytema's cinematography). The 'intimacy' of the confrontation is boring without sparkling dialogue or proper tension.
It's structured in a stuttered fashion. Bond and MI6 pals are on the move - then they're stopped. Bond moves through the MI6 building - then stops. Bond races to find Madeleine and escape - then the scene stops while MI6 pals look on. Bond pursues the helicopter on a boat - then stops on the bridge.
Mendes even manages to fudge the tension of the classic bomb countdown! There is no suspense there. We needed to see Madeleine tied up before Bond did; we needed to know there was real danger. Cutting away to the MI6 crew doesn't help (see above comment about Denbigh scenes and momentum).
- There's a similar problem with the other action scenes. Bond's phone call to Moneypenny during the Rome chase, and cutting away to Q on his laptop after Hinx has kidnapped Madeleine - Mendes is telling us that these things are more important than the danger our heroes are in! It's a huge blunder in an action movie.
And Bond's escape from Blofeld's lair is far too easy. What a waste of Cinema's Biggest Explosion: it's essentially a punchline.
- The entire Rome chase is tonally off. It's too light-hearted to have tension, and sits uncomfortably next to the sinister Spectre meeting. On third viewing, it seems painfully uncharacteristic of Craig's Bond as well. It recalls Dalton's visible discomfort with the awkward comedy of TLD.
THE NEUTRAL STUFF
- The Writing's On The Wall. I don't hate it. It's third in my ranking of Craig Bond songs, but leagues ahead of Another Way To Die.
- The torture scene. I like it. But I don't love it.
- The Blofeld reveal. I think it's nicely handled. But it's unnecessary, as I've said above.
Summary:
Even with the problems I listed above, I genuinely enjoy SP for the first 100 minutes. Then I quite like it for the duration of the sequence in Blofeld's lair.
The problem is this all goes nowhere. The last act is the biggest anticlimax and the most boring finale in any Bond film, ever. Prior to this, the entire film has been building up to... the most obvious 'revelations' in any film of recent memory.
Please, Mr Craig, make one more. Make a proper, honest-to-God thriller. Send yourself off in style - with firm bang, not a whimper.
EON, hire a good thriller director. Not a drama auteur who has to prove he's clever.
And please, bring back Waltz as Blofeld. Otherwise you'll have wasted him. This story needs finishing.
SPECTRE: 3 out of 5
Edited by RMc2, 29 February 2016 - 12:25 AM.
However, 6 years is a long time between era's and I think Brosnan and the GoldenEye team had a lot of pressure riding on them to secure the continuation of the series. 
