So, Spectre. After the success of Skyfall back in 2012, which went on to become the highest-grossing Bond movie in the history of the franchise (not to mention the highest-grossing movie of all-time in the United Kingdom), the long-awaited follow-up, Spectre, has landed in cinemas. And whilst the general consensus is good, most critics have admitted that the film is not equal to the likes of Skyfall (or Casino Royale, for that matter). More like a much better and competent Quantum of Solace, in fact. Others have labelled it as a something of a "James Bond: Greatest Hits," given the way in which the film has been seemingly assembled using dozens of other Bond movie locations, characters and set-pieces for inspiration. Nothing with wrong with that, of course - only that, in the wake of Skyfall, fans of the franchise might have been expecting a little more than a repackaging. That said, the movie's true failing isn't in its standing as a Greatest Hits package, but in its utter contempt for logic. Now, nobody said that a Bond movie ever had to be realistic, but Spectre takes things way too far in the logical lapse department - rendering it guiltier than its predecessor, even. Yes, the plot issues inherent to Spectre are so noticeable and so off-putting that - having seen the movie - it's nearly impossible to disregard them. Whilst many of them are - at first - invisible and disguised by the action-propelled film, they're the kind of logical fallacies that hit you, one by one, as you leave the cinema and make your journey home. And they do, sadly, go some way to spoiling the film upon reflection. What is with Sam Mendes and these horribly convoluted, nonsensical Bond plots? New writers, please!