@StarWarsFan

Same. I think the problem was that Casino Royale set the standard for the Bond films as far as having great setpieces, cinematography, interesting Bond girl, awesome villian and reinvented 007 for a new generation with a new formula.

Casino Royale felt like it was a more than just the typical 007 film. Then you have Skyfall that tries to joke about the things that the older Bond films did by mocking what they did and then trying to copy paste what they were mocking. I thought Skyfall was good, but not as great as people were overhyping it to be.

Spectre's problem appears to be that the opening of the movie is the best part, and you never know who Spectre is or what they do besides the most generic explanation possible. Christoph Waltz is a phenomenal actor and they give him hardly anything to work with and his motivation for him being "bad" is quite hilarious. They also apparently didn't do much with Batista's character as he was hyped out to be a badass henchman for Christoph Waltz.

Imo, a Bond film is only as good as the Bond villain, pacing, setpieces, villain's reason for wanting whatever it is they are wanting, locations, cinematography, cars, and gadgets.

TLDR this movie tried to do what OHMSS already did, tried to be too self-referential, starts strong and keeps slowing descending. Rotten Tomatoes scored this the same as Quantum of Solace, which has to be the worst bond film I have ever seen.