I saw SPECTRE a second time today and my opinion of it has gone up. It still has flaws, but that's true of all of the Bond films and probably any film for that matter. And it’s a very fun ride with lots of love letters to Bond fans.
I would like to react to some of the “professional” critics who claim the plot in the second half of the film is muddled. I paid particularly close attention to that today and for me the transitions seem to work well enough and I had no problem following the plot thread. I remember hearing similar things about Mission Impossible (the first one) and my reaction to the critics then, as it is now with SPECTRE, was: try to keep up it's not that difficult.
While there are some minor problems (e.g., yes, our train will continue along with you on board after a car or two were virtually destroyed when you got into a fight) they are minor and quite common in even the best action/thriller movies.
Most of the complaints I have heard seem to be very nit-picky in my opinion. I understand there are many on here who have issues with the film. I am not looking for a fight with anyone on the forum but more wanting to vent at some of the professional critics who are being a little too flippant in their criticism of Spectre I think. We can always agree to disagree.
1) The use of Blofeld. Some of the film critics have argued against the use of Blofeld (this is your dad's Bond movie). Blofeld is a wonderful character and the ultimate villain for Bond. Should he never be used again? It's been 44 years since his last substantial appearance and 34 years since there has been any appearance. My only complaint was making him something of a brother. A socio-path that Bond encountered before would have been better IMHO.
2) SPECTRE/Blofeld was behind everything. I don't really have a problem with this. It certainly works with CR and QOS and it’s not that much of a stretch to get to Skyfall IMHO. Blofeld set the events in motion (if Quantum is lurking in around CR and QOS then why not Skyfall?). Do they have to explain all of the details? If so, almost any action film is screwed. All we need to know is that Silva was involved with SPECTRE and killed M. Sociopath Blofeld wants to take credit for the death of Bond’s women and others. Perhaps he stretches the truth. The biggest complaint I have in this regard is that some reviewers have suggested that Bond is trying to replicate the Marvel Universe… Story arcs were evented long before Marvel used them and Bond certainly used them in the 1960s. I know many on here have a big problem with this. I respect that, but I disagree.
3) More screen-time for Monica Bellucci and how she is used. That would have been nice but it would have served no plot purpose. She pointed Bond in the direction he needed to go and while they don't fully explain all the details of why she needs to be killed, it is explained well enough. With regards to Bond bedding her.... perhaps some reviews might like some other characters. Bond bedding women is a big part of the Bond character. Don't like it, perhaps you should skip the Bond movies.
4) I do find the complaints about 9 eyes and how it links up with Blofeld to be a little too nit-picky. It could have been explained better but we have the essentials: Blofeld is in league with C and they are forcing out M and friends. That Blofeld would have infiltrated British Intelligence should come as no surprise as QOS made that clear.
5) The DNA on the ring. It’s a fair enough point to say that this is a stretch, is a flaw, and could have been done in better ways but does it really get in the way of things that much? Not for me.
I loved SPECTRE and I am hoping Blofeld is back in Bond 25.