It's time for the triannual tradition of heading out to the cinema en masse to see a franchise built on its reused tropes that has more bad entries than good. Yup, Bond is back. I love James Bond. It's a franchise with such cultural heft and adaptability that it long ago became so much more than the sum of its parts, meaning even if the previous film was a Quantum Of Solace-level disaster it's impossible to not get excited (often unreasonably) for the next. What makes Spectre even more hyped than your standard 007 flick though is that it's the follow up to Skyfall; the biggest Bond movie ever, recipient of rave reviews and an astounding box office take. All hopes were that in bringing back Sam Mendes and introducing the iconic, eponymous evil organisation that we'd wind up with another masterwork. But, after finally seeing it, I can't help but find it something of disappointment. There is, of course, plenty of things that Spectre gets really right, ensuring it's still a fun, solid Bond experience; it brings humour back to the franchise in a mostly fitting way and the world of spies and counter-intelligence has never looked more real. The problem is it doesn't all come together to be anything more than an average movie, made deflating by coming directly after the high watermark of the series. It's not just that Spectre isn't as good as Skyfall though; being so directly linked to its predecessor (this is, in many ways, a proper sequel, as opposed to just a new entry) is the main cause of why it doesn't totally work. So, jumping off from my full review, I thought I'd go into a little bit more detail about that. Here are the eight (spoiler-free) reasons why Spectre is worse than Skyfall.
