Site icon The Truth About Guns

Movie Review: Spectre

Previous Post
Next Post

By BK

One of the (few) downsides of being a member of the Armed Intelligencia is that you tend to see through so many of Hollywood’s tricks and tropes. Once you begin your ride as a certified gun nut, you count rounds remaining in magazines/cylinders and wonder how long the bad guy waited for the ATF to approve his Form 4 for that suppressed SBR (spoiler alert: he didn’t). You shake your head when dozens of baddies can’t hit the broadside of barn while the White Hats are all one-shot-one-kill and you wince every time the good guys blithely muzzle each other. Perhaps most egregiously, you grind your teeth to stubby nubs when our hero unnecessarily racks his shotgun over and over. Even for the most die-hard 007 fans among us, the latest James Bond installment, Spectre, will drive you absolutely bonkers . . .

Bond’s reliance on a PPK spitting out .380 ACP pills has been questioned uncounted times, but I’m going give him a pass here. As Nutnfancy would say, there’s a second kind of cool going on with the Walther. Still, I lost count of the other ballistic absurdities. Here are those I can remember:

“I hate guns,” she protests.

“SIG 226,” Bond retorts, giving her the tour. “Trigger, hammer, rear sight, front sight. Pull the trigger and it goes bang.”

Demonstrating she’s no noob, he pops the mag and snaps out the chambered round (now he carries with one in the chamber?). Two things here: Bond thought he was introducing her to guns for the first time, pointing out features on a loaded weapon. Even if you suspect Baddie McBadderson with that double-barreled .45 is on the train with you, there’s no way you’d give your Guns 101 lecture with a loaded gat. Second, the 226 is never seen again. How much did SIG spend to have their name mentioned, only to have it sit, impotent on a table, while Dr. Swann picks up Bond’s dropped PPK? This is the only time I can remember a non-Walther firearm being called out by name in a Bond movie (I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong in the comments), and it goes absolutely nowhere.

The ballistic bits aren’t all bad: Bond has noticeably dropped the “smart gun” from Skyfall from his arsenal, the gun that sent shivers and tingles up the legs of gun grabbers from sea to shining sea. I wish I could see this as a political statement by the filmmakers, but in reality, smart gun makers probably couldn’t pony up for the product placement fee.

A drunken Bond interrogates and seriously considers shooting a mouse that sneaks into his room. “Who are you?! Who sent you?!” he demands. As someone who seriously considered clearing leather on a mouse that scurried across my kitchen floor last week, I could relate. Home carry, people. Home carry.

Here’s the thing though: who the heck cares? Bond has always been absurd and always been awesome. Even Timothy Dalton and George Lazenby oozed cool, and they’re the lame kids in the class. The deeply chiseled Daniel Craig? He could have taken out that helicopter with a Hi-Point, and I promise you most of the gun blogosphere would be reconsidering the world’s homeliest (but apparently reliable) firearms because of its newfound style and panache.

Spectre is nowhere near the modern-era Bond Classic that was Skyfall. Where that movie hit the sweet spot between sexy, silly, somber and (fan) service, the latest entry lacks zest and gets lost in the weeds. This is surprising, because when I heard Cristoph Waltz was playing the throwback main baddie, Blofeld, I giggled like [insert your favorite TTAG simile here]. What a waste that the script gives him nothing fun to do or say.

Despite breathing life into the franchise with 2006’s Casino Royale, Craig has grown tired of the role and it shows. He looks genuinely pained to be saying the sillier lines of dialogue or to pilot a wingless plane down a ski slope. Who knows what direction the series will go when his 007 is put out to pasture.

As much as I appreciated Casino Royale and Skyfall (and to a much lesser extent, Quantum of Solace) the Bond films of the Craig era are too concerned with continuity and tying all the films together in one cinematic universe. No has ever accused any of the Bond films of having overly simplistic plots, but Spectre’s makes zero sense. There is some half-hearted hand-wringing about living in a police state under constant surveillance, but no one really seems to care that much.

I also don’t need a half dozen references to Bond’s deceased lover from two movies ago, Vesper Lynd. “Did he tell you about her?” Blofeld asks Dr. Swann as he tortures Bond. What kind of question is that? Drilling into your foes brain is one thing, but bringing up his ex with his new girl in the room? That’s a serious Bro Code violation. Not cool, Blofeld. Not cool.

The high point is without a doubt that Bond Girl, Madeleine Swann, played by French actress Lea Seydoux. With those eyes, that hair, that figure and that accent? She’ll give any model linked by RF a run for her money, and she’ll do it fully clothed. Mostly. Dr. Swann may say she “hates guns,” but she knows how to handle the pistol when it counts. I’ll let you decide if that’s a euphemism.

Other guns that pop up, just in case you’re curious:

HK VP9
HK G36C
Steyr AUG A3 (never actually used)
Czech Small Arms SA vz. 58 Compact

SPECIFICATIONS:

Model: Spectre
Caliber: .380 ACP
Length: 148 minutes
Action: Not bad. Not earth shattering.
Finish: Meh
Price: $300 million (reportedly)

RATINGS (out of five bullets):

Style * * * *
It’s no Skyfall, but it’s still a pretty slick film. The opening scene at the Dia de los Muertos parade in Mexico City is very striking.

Reliabilty: * * *
Somewhat lacking. I needed a better villain and a tighter script.

Overall: * * * *
Lea Seydoux brings the average up significantly. If you’re a Bond fan, you’ll see it regardless.

Previous Post
Next Post
Exit mobile version