I think Craig's lack of charisma comes entirely from the incongruence of the tone and the dialogue.
Skyfall certainly harkened back to the Connery days. They were trying Moore here, which fails quite horribly when the rest of the film is actually more serious and darker than the previous Craig entries.
It's kinda funny, though, that in Bond's franchise history, the producers have pretty consistently followed up a smash hit with an overstuffed and almost goofy sequel (Goldfinger to Thunderball, OHMSS to DAF, LALD to TMWTGG, Skyfall to this horseshit)
Both Mendes and Singer disappointed with Apocalypse and this, after delivering two of the greatest blockbusters ever made, but still managed to make solid entertaining outings with mostly forgivable issues.£
Haven't rewatched it after cinema but I enjoyed it a lot then. Very flawed but still highly entertaining and a solid Bond entry. It's a fitting end for Craig and a great time for a fresh new start for the franchise.
Panapaok wrote:Haven't rewatched it after cinema but I enjoyed it a lot then. Very flawed but still highly entertaining and a solid Bond entry. I feel it's a fitting end for Craig and a great time for a fresh new start for the franchise.
3/5 for me. Better than Quantum, which really isn't as bad as some other Bonds i've seen. Watching Spectre a second time, yeah, i saw the flaws a lot more. But i still had fun with it and it's not like it was horribly acted or shot either. It's by no means a crappy Bond film. It's no Skyfall or Casino Royale but not bad.
Now that i've seen it twice, i don't think i need to see it again though because it doesn't offer anything new to the franchise or genre. If i need to watch Craig Bond or any Bond again, i'll just stick with Casino Royale.