(This review is split into two halves. The first section is spoiler-free. Then, below, I will delve into some specifics for those who have seen the film)

SPECTRE is a continuation of the look, feel, and character-centric storytelling present in Skyfall, and on that level, it is a roaring success. Everything from the stunts to the cinematography to the editing to the set pieces are terrific, some of the very best in the series. Despite its 2 hour and 30 minute runtime (long even for a franchise that is notorious for 2-hour-plus entries), SPECTRE flies by, never feeling like it’s wasting your time.

But before we start talking in-depth about all that SPECTRE does right, the elephant in the room needs to be acknowledged: yes, SPECTRE has some narrative issues. As I’ll go into further below in my “Spoiler” section, quite a number of story elements don’t hold up to scrutiny. It’s not difficult to pick SPECTRE apart, as one plot hole or illogical plot string just leads to another, and soon the whole thing is unraveling like a ball of yarn. It can really make you wonder if the screenwriters were paying any attention to these issues at all.

But SPECTRE is a great example of the difference between the story, which is ultimately absurd, and the plot, which is quite sound. In the moment, when all that really matters is character rationality and linear plot logic, SPECTRE is perfectly functional. Aside from the beginning of the film, during which time Bond’s actions are intentionally vague, we are never confused about what is going on, or why it’s relevant, and when it comes to adventure storytelling (which the Bond franchise absolutely relies on), this is really all that matters.

It’s also worth noting how bad the Bond franchise’s past relationship with story and plot typically is. Many of the Roger Moore films, and even some of the later Connery ones, were travelogues and stunt/set piece showcases before they were actual story. The writers would then try to stitch together these various planned excursions into some kind of narrative, and the plot fabric that tied together the various set pieces were often very thin. This meant that not only were the stories something of an afterthought, but that the scene-to-scene plot functionality also suffered.

That’s not to say that SPECTRE deserves a pass because it’s easier to follow than the traditional Bond films, but it is worth noting that there is a lot more classic Bond DNA in SPECTRE’s blood than in previous Daniel Craig Bond films. It’s difficult to center your movie around a nefarious international organization of evil without a few things falling apart when you hold them up to scrutiny. There are still some issues with the story regardless of classic Bond logic (especially regarding Bond’s decision at the end), but the majority of the film is not hurt in the least by these logic gaps.

Now moving onto the things I loved about SPECTRE: Hoyte Van Hoytema’s cinematography is exceptional. I could write an entire piece about his use of symmetry alone, but for the purposes of this review, let’s just examine the first shot of the film, which is perhaps my favorite shot of 2015. Not only is it a long tracking shot (something I’m admittedly fond of altogether), but the use of costuming, camera movement, and the direction of character movement to draw the viewers gaze toward subjects, rather than relying on shallow focus or close-ups, is magnificent. The ease with which Hoytema changes subjects and trajectories, through a hotel and onto its rooftop, is mindboggling. The man has shown himself to be a master of both minimalist and showy cinematography in the past with Let the Right One In, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Her, and Interstellar, but this may be his finest work. Even following the incredible Roger Deakins, Hoytema may have delivered the prettiest Bond film yet.

Also impressive, as usual, are the stunts and set pieces. The opening sequence ends with a helicopter that performs multiple barrel rolls, something I was not even aware was physically possible before this movie. There are also a number of escape sequences, including an impressive one during a collapsing building in the film’s climax. Sam Mendes once again proves himself to be a strong action director, always aware of the geography of his scenes and presenting them to the audience in a way that is both exciting and easy to follow.

SPECTRE has more on its mind thematically than some may be giving it credit for, as well. This is very much a post-Snowden film, and the writers and producers absolutely have an opinion about the surveillance state of modern politics and espionage. While it’s true that the film doesn’t go in-depth or create a complex argument for or against the technology (it is a James Bond movie, after all), it takes an unmistakable stance simply by the way that surveillance is positioned in the film.

Finally, there’s the cast itself. Craig feels more at home as Bond than ever, continuing his portrayal of the character as a somewhat disheartened man who never considered any type of life aside from the one he has. Meanwhile, Léa Seydoux does good work with a relatively strong role, until later on in the film when her arc becomes somewhat problematic. Christoph Waltz is perfect for his part, the quintessential Bond villain, but admittedly doesn’t do much that we haven’t seem him do before in similar roles. Finally, Monica Bellucci is terrific in a very small role that gets unfortunately sidelined as soon as it is introduced.

And so, on its face, SPECTRE can be a difficult film to recommend. On paper, there are so many issues with the story (many of which Sony executives were well-aware of and worried about) that people can easily dismiss the film outright. But to do so is to ignore the wealth of things that are right about it, and the fact that these successes are far more integral to the nature of the film than the things it misses. At the end of the day, SPECTRE is an extraordinary adventure film from beginning to end, filled with interesting characters, moment-to-moment drama, and never-ceasing plot momentum.

SPOILERS BELOW

After I watched SPECTRE, many questions rushed through my mind about the narrative, including:

How did an organization like SPECTRE come to exist?
What, exactly, does SPECTRE hope to achieve?
How did Franz Oberhauser, a kid who faked his own death, become the head of SPECTRE? What were his connections?
Why did Oberhauser change his name to Blofeld?
Why is the Blofeld reveal significant when, divorced from the early films, it’s just a name?
Why does Blofeld have an evil torture chair when his plan is surveillance?
What relevance does Bond’s relationship with Oberhauser have to the actual plot?
How was SPECTRE pulling the strings behind the villains in the previous Craig films?
Didn’t they all have clear, non-organizational motivations?
Why doesn’t Bond watch Vesper’s interrogation tape?
Why does Bond leave Lucia (Monica Bellucci) to almost certain death by assassination?
Why does Madeleine so quickly go from despising Bond to wanting to jump his bones?
Do the writers realize how creepy Bond and Madeleine’s relationship is?
And why does Bond spare Blofeld, leave MI6, and run off with Madeleine at the end?

Of all these questions, the last one is by far the most significant. SPECTRE tries to make the argument at the end that Bond voluntarily chooses to leave his lifestyle behind for Madeleine, who hates assassins (because of her father, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace’s Mr. White) and is an aspiring pacifist. It’s not an impossible narrative choice; Bond essentially does the same thing in the final act of Casino Royale, and it’s earned there.

But here, the writers completely fail to make Bond’s arc register. Sure, Madeleine probes him about his life as an assassin during the film, but there is no indication in the script or in Craig’s performance that he has any interest in living a different life. If anything, Madeleine’s arc is the clearer of the two, and hers is in the opposite direction, being forced to kill people to save Bond even when it is against her personal beliefs.

I’m sure that the writers were hoping that the audience would simply roll with it, given their romantic storyline together, but their romance is so ill-constructed that it never sticks. As Madeleine repeatedly tells Bond, she wants nothing to do with assassins because of her father. She doesn’t want Bond to lay a finger on her, and she resents everything he stands for. In this way, Bond isn’t set up as a love interest, but as her surrogate father. He’s roughly the same age as her father, they share the same profession, they knew each other, and Madeleine constantly redirects her familial rage onto him.

So when she so eagerly has sex with him after the train attack, it’s in keeping with the Bond formula, but totally out of place within the more character-consistent world of the recent films. We’re incapable of truly investing in their “love,” because it’s sudden, poorly explained, and what explanation exists is extremely uncomfortable. So when Bond rides off into the sunset with her and leaves his life of violence behind, it’s completely unearned, and the biggest problem with SPECTRE as a whole.

As stated in the non-spoiler section, most of the other questions are understandable, as they’re either omitted due to plot momentum or could never make a lot of sense in the first place. The Blofeld reveal has no real meaning within the context of the film, but is fun for franchise fans (especially when the infamous Persian cat shows up right before the reveal). Monica Bellucci’s character is oddly abandoned, but the plot sort of necessitates that things keep moving. The idea that Blofeld and SPECTRE were somehow pulling the strings with all of the villainous acts in the previous three movies is totally absurd but somehow fitting with the classic Bond concept of SPECTRE. I can accept those issues.

In other areas, I actually appreciated what the screenwriters did. As stated further above, there’s a pretty strong statement regarding the security state, and it is made quite succinctly. Rather than having characters go on diatribes about the state of surveillance in the 21st century, the writers simply position the new British surveillance program an evil SPECTRE ploy. By doing so, they make the strongest, clearest argument against unwarranted surveillance that they can: it is literally the work of the most sinister, nefarious organization in cinema history. What else do they need to say?

SPECTRE was absolutely created with the intent of reclaiming some of the James Bond formula that had fallen by the wayside in the earlier Daniel Craig adventures. In doing so, they picked up some issues that had existed in the earlier era as well, but they also married the formula to the continuity of the latest series and, with the one notable exception I stated about Bond and Madeleine, were true to the characters that they had previously established. The story is far from perfect, but it’s a damn fine attempt at merging the two formulas, and I hope to see this creative team further develop the mix with their next film.