Spectre - Thumbnail
  • 1080p
  • 720p
  • 480p
Release Date:
26th October 2015
148 min
MPAA Rating:
Sam Mendes
John Logan, Neal Purvis
English, Spanish, Italian, German, French
Stream Quality:
1080p / 720p / 480p


A cryptic message from the past sends James Bond on a rogue mission to Mexico City and eventually Rome, where he meets Lucia, the beautiful and forbidden widow of an infamous criminal. Bond infiltrates a secret meeting and uncovers the existence of the sinister organisation known as SPECTRE. Meanwhile back in London, Max Denbigh, the new head of the Centre of National Security, questions Bond's actions and challenges the relevance of MI6 led by M. Bond covertly enlists Moneypenny and Q to help him seek out Madeleine Swann, the daughter of his old nemesis Mr White, who may hold the clue to untangling the web of SPECTRE. As the daughter of the assassin, she understands Bond in a way most others cannot. As Bond ventures towards the heart of SPECTRE, he learns a chilling connection between himself and the enemy he seeks.


Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 65%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience 62%
IMDb Rating 6.8


Christoph Waltz as Blofeld
Daniel Craig as James Bond
Lea Seydoux as Madeleine

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by Dr_Sagan 25th December, 2015

Mediocre and overbudgeted !

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 cliche 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.

Reviewed by Gurubu 13th December, 2015

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

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 **SPOILERS BELOW** -AVERT YOUR EYES!- 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) 2) WASTED TALENT. 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.

Reviewed by harril-586-26745 22nd November, 2015

A truly unexciting 'action' movie

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.

Reviewed by tjwb84 9th November, 2015

Let down by poor script, confused tone

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.

Reviewed by jjoffe 8th November, 2015

B for boring, very very boring.

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 mumbling...no 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.