IMDb > Spectre (2015/I) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Spectre More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 105:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 1045 reviews in total 

428 out of 631 people found the following review useful:

Let down by poor script, confused tone

Author: tjwb84 from Netherlands
9 November 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

By the third time a helicopter flew into view, I was exhausted, and dreaded the prospect of yet another interminable and unconvincingly rendered crash scene.

The plot was an unappealing mess of recycled ideas. This film brings us yet another revenge story about someone who shares history with Bond but has since turned evil. That was precisely the plot of the last movie - and rather like the last three Star Trek films, most Batman films, the Superman reboot, this year's Avengers, etc.

Like last time, the stakes are raised by nebulous and non- frightening, yet world threatening (so we are told, but never shown) computer network technology.

The film once again focuses on the question: "are spies still relevant?" I don't find that to be an interesting premise for a Bond film. Why not just assume that the answer is 'yes' and make a fun and smart action movie with a heart? Casino Royale nailed this. If you really must cover the question of whether your main character is relevant, then at least deal with it once and accept the answer! In Skyfall we learned that you still want a man in the field. In this movie, we learn that you still want a man in the field (and, in case anyone was still not getting it, poor Ralph Fiennes in his role as a flaccid M spells it out literally).

While I liked both actors involved, I didn't care for the romance - the movie desperately wants to build it up to be something more than an just another Bond girl. That is an admirable idea, but since the result pales in comparison to the stellar romance in Casino Royale, it seems totally unconvincing when Bond sacrifices his entire career for her at the end. Holy moly - Bond settles down? For THIS girl? What an ending to Craig's character arc that started with Vesper's death (so much more meaningful than anything in any of the other Craig Bond films). Bam, all his emotional problems are solved, because he met a hot blonde. "I've got something better to do than all this!" (throws gun away, gets into car with whatshername). Gee, great ending.

All the interesting plot developments from Casino Royale and (and even Quantum of Solace to some extent), such as Bond's emotional state after losing Vesper and the Quantum organization, are chucked out the window. Skyfall discarded Quantum in favor of a good idea (Bond/M son/mother relationship) and a bad one ("is MI6 still relevant?"). Now, Quantum is back... Kinda. This time, it forms no threat at all - you see, it turns out this OTHER organization that THIS movie is about is even moar powerfuller. And it was really this other, super duper evil organization all along. Muahaha!

That is a tiresome plot twist if ever I've seen one. It completely missed the mark for me; it's weak to try and make your own plot look better by retroactively stating that all villains of the previous movies were really just pawns in this guy's game of chess.

And that's not the only aspect of Bond history that is severely diminished by this film. In Skyfall, we learned about Bond's youth, spent with an old Scottish dude named McAngus. I think. And, of course, his relationship with M.

This time, however, it turns out that Bond actually grew up in the Bavarian Alps with a couple of yodeling Germans named Oberhausen. Errr? Am I the only one confused here? (Possibly.)

Bond turns out to have a sort of surrogate brother, who is very blond, very German, and very jealous. Oh and he also happens to be a supervillain, with an enormous army, who somehow managed to stay absolutely hidden for all these years. There is a powerful and compelling reason for his having all these skills and resources: it's convenient for the plot.

And so, all previous Bond movies are reduced to one large scam operation, a plan by an Alpine superhero that makes absolutely no sense, in a failed attempt to give this movie a great villain. Christoph Waltz is a joy to watch, but he is never allowed to be a real threat. The man gets little to work with, as did Javier Bardem in the last one - criminally underused, awesome actors.

The film's tone was confusing. There is one gruesomely violent scene involving eyeballs - I don't enjoy seeing such aggressive violence, although here I seem to be in a vanishingly small minority. Call me old fashioned, but I was always happy that Bond films used polite violence: gentle fist fights until one guy faints, or perhaps someone shoots a gun and somewhere else, far away, someone falls to the floor.

Putting my personal feelings aside, it was jarring to have this scene be followed up by a cartoonish fist fight on a train, after which the eye-ripping guy is yanked out of a train by a rope, but not before realizing his predicament like Wile E. Coyote hanging over the ravine and saying "shit!". Is this a corny spy movie with train fights a la Bond vs Jaws? Where Bond leisurely glides a crashing airplane around for a few minutes and then humorously lands precisely on top of the bad guy's car? Or is it a somber drama about an aging man's career in a time when nobody knows whether spies are still relevant? Or does it want to be a raw, violent gangster film like Goodfellas, reveling in the sight of bad guys proving their credentials by maiming others?

Finally, I found the camera work jarring in many action scenes - shaky cam, etc. This may have been (partly) due to my sitting in the fourth row, though.

Was the above review useful to you?

345 out of 562 people found the following review useful:

Mediocre and overbudgeted !

Author: Dr_Sagan from the Edge of the Cosmos
25 December 2015

Despite an initial action scene full of CGI that you can also experience in the trailer, this movie hasn't got too much to offer.

The main problem is the bad script and dialogs and the pretentious style which tries to keep the tradition of older Bond films incorporating some not-so-witty and cliché humor and ludicrous action sequences with nothing new to offer. Planes, helicopters, cars...Well we've seen it all before and in much better executions.

Also Blofeld (or should I say BLOWfeld), despite the fact he is the King of all previous villains, seems quite harmless.

Casino Royale (2006) is far more entertaining (I've watched it again recently) and engaging. Spectre is "Meh!" in almost every department including (unfortunately) the ladies.

Thomas Newman who serves as the composer of the film, is proved to be a bad decision too. At the beginning he tries to revive the good-old 007 theme in almost every scene and the outcome is sub-par to say the least. Later he replaces the music with the same note again and again (da-da-da-da-da-da-da). David Arnold did a great job in C.R. and should have been the composer in this too (although I doubt that he could save this movie).

And what's the deal with this lame song? Unsuitable for a Bond movie or any movie out there. Same goes for the same-o same-o intro sequence. The combination of these 2 makes it look like it was made by Liberace.

Overall: The whole movie is pale like the Pale King it mentions.

Was the above review useful to you?

328 out of 577 people found the following review useful:

A truly unexciting 'action' movie

Author: harril-586-26745 from Australia
22 November 2015

This is the worst Bond movie ever, filled with emotionless characters that I couldn't care less about. The pace of this film after a predictably exciting start is slow and boring. Unlike his fellow actors, Ben Whishaw as Q manages to portray the only believable human in this whole fake production. Why couldn't JB have been given a touch of Q's wit, humour or vulnerability? No wonder Daniel Craig wants out of this franchise - it's beneath his talent. Such a cacophony of totally forgettable dialogue, people and silly stunts is hard to imagine in a single movie and yet here it is. During one of the 'action' fights when James was being hammered by the evil assassin I noticed the person next to me had fallen asleep and was snoring. That person was an exceedingly eloquent critic.

Was the above review useful to you?

131 out of 225 people found the following review useful:

Save your money this is a rental (if you must see it)

Author: Gurubu from 25°N 71°W
13 December 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Before I unload my barrage of critique against this film I would like to first state something. Whenever I watch a movie, and I have so many issues with it, I will take a step back and ask myself for what it is, is it at least a good action movie? The answer is no, it is not.

Good things about the movie:

High production quality and some good visuals / The intro sequence before the helicopter


Problems with the movie:

1) You kill a bad guy, bad guys organization wants to kill the wife cause she's a loose end, Bond prevents the assassins, she finds out Bond killed her husband, then... she sleeps with him immediately. What? Sure she didn't love her husband but with all the stuff going down and after a powerful organization sends 2 assassins they have time to take a break and get busy? (possibly Assassins come in pairs and more arrive only after 30 minutes enough time to shag)


2a) Christoph Waltz. Such a great actor, with a horrible script. At the beginning they make him out to be a bada$$ in the shadows requiring to whisper things to underlings who then announce it to the rest of the group at a meeting. But then he randomly talks on his own because he can, and even has time to say hello to Mr. Bond in the crowd just as Bond realizes he's been caught, and manages to escape bumbling security guards. They attempted to make Waltz' character this mastermind who I was never afraid of, and he wasn't that menacing. For the leader of one of the most powerful organizations his master plans came off weak and his ruthlessness tame.

2b) Dave Bautista. They used him pretty good with his introduction and a fight scene in the movie, but the car chase scene was horrible. Bond was essentially talking to moneypenny on the phone about bad guys rap sheets while Bautista's character was chasing him down in a car (but he was more following Bond then attempting to shoot him or run him off the road). At one point during the chase scene Bautista pulls up next to bond and is looking at Bond and their eyes meet up... and nothing happens Bond pulls ahead. Is this a love story between two men or is this a bada$$ car chase scene where the bad guy is trying run him off the road/pound him into the ground?

3) This film has max level cheese that at times I could have sworn this movie was written by Bollywood writers. I don't mind a decent amount of cheese, but if you're piling it on and the expiry date shows 10 years ago there's a problem. 3a) Helicopter intro Scene 3b) save the girl or building blows up scene 3c) Bonds helicopter chasing vehicle convoy

4) Boring car chase and fight scenes (with camera tricks to make it look more epic which i'm not a fan of and its as bad as lens flares)

5) Bond falls in love with a woman he hardly knows (it didn't feel believable) but that's OK because he's ready to leave his life as a spy

6) The story felt all over the place, and at times Bond is purposely made to look weak and suddenly drinks a RedBull and tears it up 007 style. I didn't really connect with a lot of the characters either.

7) The instant you saw Bond towering over the enemy at the end you already knew he wasn't going to do anything they gave you obvious clues earlier on through M thats how it was going to play out.

I couldn't even disconnect myself from the flaws just to enjoy it as an action movie since it was overall boring. If you can't connect with the story, 2.5 hours is way too long for a few flashy scene's.

Was the above review useful to you?

338 out of 651 people found the following review useful:

B for boring, very very boring.

Author: jjoffe from United States
8 November 2015

Wonder what the refund policy is at Premier Theaters. Of course they are not responsible for this fiasco. It just went on and on and on......plot meandering went nowhere...actors suspense, just one predictable scene after another. Some of the scenes looked like they were shot on my grandpa 8mm Kodak movie camera. And to boot, the "reality" of the fight scenes would meet a standard of a 5 year old. We all know this is not a documentary, but when Bond / Craig get pummeled by the bad guy on the train and his tie stays in place and he suffers not a scratch or a black eye where is the realism...The Islander aircraft flying with its wings clipped outboard of the engines?????.Come on Broccoli team - is this the best you can do? Sean Connery is rolling his eyes and chuckling at the new low in Bond movies. Wasted evening, could have snoozed on a couch instead of a movie theater. Now, let us face it..10 lines of comments on this almost two and a half hours of boredom is a task that even Sam Mendez could not master.

Was the above review useful to you?

120 out of 223 people found the following review useful:

Big Brother Says 100% Of Viewers Loved It, Honest!

Author: ArchAngel Michael from Quis Ut Deus?
2 February 2016

Spoilers Ahead:

First, not since You Only Live Twice have I nodded off during a Bond movie. You think you have seen slow have you? Well, pony up to the bar, buddy, this is the big leagues of boring. When I read these positives, I remember that studios own all the media outlets today including papers. Forgive me IMDb, but I notice that movies that are currently in the theaters seem to have numbers much higher than after they are gone from the cinemas. In short, the reviews are bought and paid for like everything else in the global oligarchs' reality. Yes, my friends, conglomerates own papers that review the movies that are also subsidiaries of these very same multinationals. The elephant in the room, for those of you reading this in the back, after IMDb cashes that big check, is that this movie makes Lawrence Of Arabia look like Shoot Em Up. Eternal travel, here to there, there to here, on and on ad freaking infinitum. The theater I saw this in had a steady stream of grumbling about fifteen minutes into the film. This grew louder and more obscene; then, the exodus began in earnest. The plot has been used before in about a dozen recent movies (Jack Ryan) the tired old information total control. Show of hands, who thinks that the NSA isn't reading this review as I freaking type it? See, the classic Bonds, especially when they feature effeminate P's as their villains( Moonraker) have genocide as the plot, that is interesting.

Oh, no! They are going to get access to all the intelligence networks, stop the presses. Waltz is a dwarf who is about as frightening as my dirty underwear. He prattles on, as he did in Inglorious Retards, until I begin throwing food from my plate at the screen. Boring and Not Scary. See, the original Blofeld was quite kind right before he killed you( Diamonds Are Forever). Pee-Wee could only talk someone to death that is the sum of his intimidation. I see others have highlighted the bizarre fight with Bautista, this is the same all through the movie. Fights without injury, blowing one's brains out with no blood or gore; the movie's sense of reality is painful. Compare to For Your Eyes Only when that hot woman gets run over. To those of you reading the paid reviewers up front, do not believe the crap: it sucks A@@. Perhaps a handful of comic book readers think they are watching something profound, I doubt it. Don't believe me? Go look at the IMDb rating for the new crappy Star Wars that has 97% bad reviews yet an IMDb rating of 8.4? Trust me, you don't need a degree in Math to see corruption, it is right there.

I know other people who have seen this and, out of six, there was one person who barely liked it but said it was boring in parts. C has the charisma of a clam. Blofeld and C are perfect together both are not frightening but chatter on endlessly. How about the dumb ass ending? Here is a man who admits being responsible for M's, Vespers, Mathis, and plenty of others' deaths and what does our icy, sociopathic, nasty bastard Bond do? He lets him live, yes, they need him in future movies. Please, the Bond of Casino Royale would have shot him in the legs working his way slowly up to the vital areas while eating some caviar. Yes, fan-boys, that is just what this Bond would do to the villain who killed Vesper and M, let him live. This is an example of how retarded the writing is: boring, pointless, uninteresting, non-threatening and contradictory. Yes, that's right, in Quantum Bond kills anybody remotely connected with Vesper's death but here, the only two people he cared for's killer and he walks freaking away.

My friends, I signed off of IMDb after Star Wars, because I realize, like all media sites, this one is corrupt like every other one. When you read reviews in papers or on sites, remember giant corporations own the papers that review the movie companies' movies that they also own. How objective do you think they are going to be? I still will read many of your reviews but I refuse to contribute because it is so obviously corrupt. Go see it or buy it, don't say I didn't warn you. I have all the Bonds but I will not buy this one. Big Brother says it is thought-crime. Sorry. Deus Vobiscum. IMDb. Q.E.D.

"In A Time Of Universal Deceit, Telling The Truth Is A Revolutionary Act." George Orwell

Was the above review useful to you?

35 out of 54 people found the following review useful:

I understand why Daniel Craig doesn't want to do another Bond.

Author: austinicity from United States
13 February 2016

This is one of the worst Bond films. There was some good cinematography and an all star cast, but just God awful plot and story telling. I don't recommend seeing it.

I like all of Craig's Bond films, except this one. Actually, Craig is my favorite Bond actor. In the previous Craig films, they did a good job of using ancillary characters like M, Q and Moneypenny to augment his character so that that his missions seemed logically paced and not solely center on his prowess alone. They deviated from the traditional Bond by allowing him to have Blonde hair, who had a an experience worn face and body that did break down from wear and tear, who was detail oriented and mission driven.

While this film still tried to keep to it's current trend, it reverted back to just stupid unrealistic scenes, like Bond shooting SMG's with one hand from 200 yards out and saying clever one liners like "You're bluffing," I lost track of how many helicopters were used in this film. How many times was bond apprehended and somehow able to break his 'bonds' from his captors and escape the villain's carefully planned exotic methods of execution? And it was 2.5 hours long; plus the editing made no sense of how they got from point A to point B. They could've at least had the villains die in extreme and weird ways, but no, a total let down even on that point.

This is a first time I've written a review and encouraged the audience members not to see this film. It reminds me the Die Another Day film with Pierce Bronson which was terrible, but they squeezed it in because he only had one film left on his contract. Forgivable, Yes, but I hope the producers have something better for the next Bond film seeing as they are pacing these releases 2.5 years apart, which a tight deadline.

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 35 people found the following review useful:

Dressed up as a 10, but contains a 1

Author: ChelseaTea from United States
26 February 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

What I resented most about this movie was a complete lack of originality, a plot line that all-so conveniently connects everything together from the last Craig movies, making this one sound like it's clever when it's just easy to say. It's a total fake, an unoriginal, a fraud. Don't get me wrong, it's beautiful to look at, but it's empty. Absolutely empty. Where it tries to be clever, it comes up empty. Basically, they slapped the name Bond on it, said that everything was somehow conveniently connected to one another (how brilliant! sigh :/ ) and dress it up with beautiful cinematography. One of the worst films I've ever seen. Predictable and whenever they tried to make something significant, it ended up being oh so silly.

Was the above review useful to you?

134 out of 257 people found the following review useful:

Tedious and overblown.

Author: 1bilbo from England
22 November 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Skyfall was superb so this had a lot to live up to and it doesn't.

There are so many loopholes; Q was afraid of heights so how can he go in ski lift, London is very busy day and night so how can a helicopter crash into a bridge next to the houses of parliament when it is deserted, how does a car drive up a snow covered steep mountain side without skidding, why do the walls of railway carriages brake up like pieces of flimsy cardboard during a fight ? Etc.

Then there is the quite gratuitous violence ( i.e. gouging a man's eyes out.) Plus the ridiculous shoot outs where Bond fells 50 other gunmen who all seem to be very poor shots.

Which brings me to the plot - what plot ? This was so convoluted that it seems to have been made up as they went along. I had enough after the first hour but wanted to see how it ended - poorly.

This film compares very poorly to either Hit-man or Bourne; Sam Mendies seems now to be the director to avoid.

I am sure this film will make a fortune but as the saying goes "If million people like a stupid thing - it is still a stupid thing."

Was the above review useful to you?

110 out of 211 people found the following review useful:

Bond with and IQ of 2

Author: Eddie_weinbauer from United States
16 November 2015

I went into this movie blank.I had never seen any trailer, or read any of the reviews about it. But I was bored throughout the entire movie.I felt i was watching one of those 60-70's bond with the dated lines and the tiresome old clichés.And they are endless. As someone else in her put it,you feel like you're watching Austin powers instead. ************warning spoilers************spoilers*****************spoilers I mean you understand from the very beginning that his new boss is working for the enemy. And when the bad guys always find him wherever he goes,you sort'a know right away it's the tracker MI6 put in his body,that helps the bad guys. I felt I was watching a kid movie,with a plot written by a dilatant. Go watch true lies instead,much better movie,with better action. After watching this I get why Craig is tired of bond,cause this script is really bad

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 105:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history