Just read the Verge's review of Spectre, and well, it does not surprise me at all. In fact, I wonder how many people who gave glowing reviews of Skyfall will go back, watch that 'movie' and rethink that it the movie is so wink-wink nod-nod to the old films that without them, there is not a real movie there if you take it all out.
I had chalked up Skyfall to a movie that you get when you reach a 50th anniversary, and you want to celebrate the franchise. Instead, we now see that this is how Mendes sees Bond - a caricature of its 60s and 70s era, and not the gritty loner that Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace laid out.
These two movies are the equivalent of the Star Trek reboots - mix in some ham-fisted references to past stories, without capturing the essence of what was special about the original.
I also hope that this review of the modern will rectify the injustice that took place when Skyfall came out, that being calling Quantum a disappointment. Quantum is a better movie than Skyfall, and I assume, better than Spectre.
I really wish they would have retired Spectre, as was the plan, with Quantum, which was the original idea. Leaving that name would have meant leaving the supervillainry of it in the past.
It is why I loved Royale and Quantum - these were not people hellbent on taking over the world per se, they were greedy businesspeople manipulating the world to make money. One doesn't need the headache of running a country, and keeping the dictator in charge, you only need to hold the item the thing to make the dictator addicted and beholden to you that they pay you, and be able to replace them with some stupid, power hungry despot whenever you need to.