I would have been angry but for the fact that the preceding movie was so utterly rubbish imo so what gives? Give me a gun, I'd have finished him off myself - or turned it on myself.
It really did feel like those Bonds that don't feel like a Bond film, y'know? Never Say Never Again, Die Another Day, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall I'd all put in that category. Even OHMSS frankly, because no matter what they say, it's a dead duck. I know, I know but there was naff all chemistry between Bond and Tracy, and the theme We Have All the Time in the World was misused, as if Bond and his beloved were a stiff Royal couple on their engagement interviews covered by ITV coverage.
I suppose they were reprising the Blofeld plot from that film.
It's they way you could argue that Craig was one era, and they ended it that way with him - one fan on the Reviews says he only came in with Craig, so actually the finale makes sense - but if so why trade on so much of the past legacy with the Aston and so much else? They want to have their cake and eat it, so much of the loyalty is unearned. I mean, look at this film. Still couldn't hum you the song - and the rest is Louis Armstrong all over again. No new song material, nothing really.
The daughter thing isn't unprecedented. [spoiler] At the end of the novel YOLT Kissy Suzuki is expecting Bond's child but we hear no more about it in the next one, as he deserts her not knowing he's to be a father. [/spoiler]
It seems we get heroes only returning on the proviso they get killed, sort of custodians. So with Ford returning as Solo on that basis alone (he's a cheery cove) and I wouldn't hold out much hope for Indiana Jones making it to a care home in the next one, either.
As Babs and Mickey are getting on as we all are it's possible they thought, sod this. We'll end it on our terms unless someone else decides to. Then we sell the franchise on so it becomes a Sherlock Holmes type thing, sort of a genre character not tied to time or place.
I can also see that from a female point of view the whole 'onwards and upwards as I shag around and save the world' mantra can become irksome. I was thinking of the ending of Sean Connery's Robin and Marion too, and the sense that sometimes women can just think, well, to hell with it... Perhaps it represents an end to the old patriarchy though I do also get a sense of Elektra King here, you don't really get the sense since GoldenEye that they actually like Bond all that much, he seems to suffer more than necessary. It is also perhaps poignant that the film is released after the deaths of Roger and Sean, though only just it seems. Maybe there was a bit of timing involved, who knows? It can't have escaped their attention that Connery was on his way out, so had the film been released in October last year, as planned, how timely would that have been? Just as I imagined that Skyfall and its death of M might have been anticipating the death of Her Majesty the Queen, or Thatcher (not sure of the timeline of the latter actually, Thatch died of course but the Queen is going the distance.) Had the film come out with the death of Connery, all overheard talk of the 'death of Bond' would have been interpreted to have been about him, avoiding spoilers.
Or had NTTD come out the month the Duke of Edinburgh, another commended naval officer, died, that too might have been poignant. But the Grim Reaper is no observer of box office opening weekends.
Finally, I can see another reason for delaying the opening of the film before the pandemic hit, I mean talk about depressing to go into lockdown with that hanging over the country.
Quoting: "To come back, they have to offer him somewhere Bond has never gone before."
Now there's a thought: Someone New is Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in The Afterlife is Quite Enough Cheers.
Where all the other Bonds end . . . this one begins!
Hello all. If there’s one thing you can say about NTTD is that it’s cracked the stasis chamber to free me from my Spectre funk.
As for my feelings on this, I am afraid I am in the camp that detests the ending, not necessarily because of the what, but more the why and the how.
It was lazy, MCU-inspired shock filmmaking, with a confused narrative to put the character in that position: a wasteful equivalent of 25 Aston Martin Vanishes (the International Standard Unit of Eon missteps). And if the MCU is anything to go by, Bond will be back only for him to be permanently dispatched in Bond 26.
I could have been distraught as the whiskey tumblers were chinked in MI6, but instead I was livid at the character's careless treatment.
As the credits rolled I just thought back to the kid watching his first Bond, The Spy Who Loved Me, at the glorious art deco Worthing Odeon and how he might react the super spy being so careless … Bond going down with the Liparus because that was the only way to make sure that Stromberg and Jaws couldn’t wreak more havoc. Oh dear, world saved, but heroic end ... what? There are other Bond films? Why kill him now?
As for the main agent of destruction within the film … if a nanobot can track familial DNA (ha!) by touch, and I'm spitballing here perhaps nanobots can be created to track and destroy other nanobots. Drax's nerve gas made more sense than NTTD's flabby bit of technobabble pseudo science.
Bond basically gave up and that is unforgivable.
Now in saying this, Craig's Bonds have all had inter-film story arcs, and Babs and the team seem utterly infatuated with these in recent years. James Bond will return, but I just get the feeling that this is more a clunky method to kill one of the key motifs in the whole series: the hero riding off into the sunset, vanquishing foes, ready to fight another day, for England James. Bond's USP has been his invincibility ... that's gone now, even if they do manage to retcon the character back within the current canon or reboot again - this will known as the one in which Bond dies. It’s the worst exit: cheap and mawkish, with just enough time to speak to his significant other for some last minute plot exposition that wasn't quite made clear enough earlier to everyone and revisiting the land of tired Hollywood tropes in the vein of Bay/Bruckheimer. Don't forget to turn up the OHMSS leitmotifs Hans!
I almost think that the worst aspect of this oddball storytelling is the fact that such a jarring ending was tacked onto a largely very good film. Some excellent performances, lines, locations and action sequences. It felt clever and modern and relevant. This peaked with the gun barrel callback in the lair as a wonderful bit of filmmaking.
However, don't get me started on Leiter's earlier exit either - I had distinctly Mathis levels of a character being discarded because … well … it’s time for the broom to sweep away the old guard.
Bond is Dead, Long Live Bond, but please let Purvis and Wade leave the series as well as Craig.
Daniel Craig returns as James Bond in a film like no other before.
Synopsis: Now properly dead, James Bond approaches the Pearly Gates only to find he is in limbo. Hell has been disrupted by various enemies he's dispatched along the years - okay, not that many come to think of it if it's Craig's Bond - not Mr White, not Le Chiffre, not that QoS villain nor Vesper, hmm, okay, not sure Blofeld counts either strictly speaking, maybe that Rodigruez guy, okay, anyway bear with me, he's got to wipe them out in the afterlife before he gets the chance to hook up with M and Vesper.
Cmon, that could be fun. A lot of blue screen action, just don't paste it in later.
Ha ... who's to say what was actually in that blood sample/vial that was smashed into Bond's face? Bond/vampire flick/zombie movie crossover in the future?
(Sorry, this light-heartedness is just the next stage for me ...)
Bond as Deadpool! Wisecracking his way through the next instalment: 'So I mean, it took ages to get pasted back - I took one hell of a pasting - but you really didn't think I was going to shack up with that miserable cow and her child - I mean, can you see a child seat fitting the back of an Aston? Me paying child maintenance? Last time I arranged Blofeld my mate to get me out of it by having Tracey shot but I couldn't pull that off a second time. So I thought I'd do a Reggie Perrin and disappear again, shag my way around the local bars and broads...Yep, Saffy's mad medicine has made me indestructible, for better or worse! No Babs Broccoli this time though, so it should be a lot more fun!'
On a more sober note, seeing as Bond ended in enemy territory it could pan into the opening of The Man With The Golden Gun novel, where he loses his memory and is seized by the enemy side and brainwashed, were it not for the fact that we see Bond bumped off pretty conclusively with no wiggle room, and Craig's Bond was ready to settle down anyway, so no get outs.
After all, there are other times when it seemed to M and his office that Bond has died - the finale of A View To A Kill, for instance, though for some he died the moment the The Beach Boys came on the soundtrack...
Never a better chance than to effectively make The Man with the Golden Gun, new title of course and without Scaramanga, but would be true to Fleming and a new original way to perform a reboot in one go. What better way to start again than with the last Bond Fleming wrote. 2025 would also be the 60th anniversary of it's publication and a true celebration and dedication to the man that gave us James Bond.
It's never been done, would be gritty and original, would get us fans disappointed with the ending of NTTD, back on side (not sure how much they care about that though..?)
What they do next is really easy imo, The next bond should be the same Bond universe that we last saw in 2002, Bring Back John Cleese as Q and Samantha Bond as Moneypenny
I have another solution. I don't want to see brainwashed Bond. Isn't that just more of what this thread has been complaining of? Too much drama for Bond?
Instead I want to see a Bond movie that starts with 007 saving one of the other 00-agents after being held captive for a long time. After the PTS and title sequence the saved agent meets M and tries to kill him. Moneypenny saves M by shooting the Manchurian agent. You get the start of TMWTGG without having Bond brainwashed.
I wouldn't want the majority of the next film of Bond not being James Bond 007 until the last 15 minutes, a la waiting for Luke Skywalker to be (kind of) himself in the new Star Wars films, or Bond not being the 007 we truly know and love, until after one or two films from the reintroduction of a new actor and the character. At that rate, given each actor may have an average of four films for example, we will get a more traditional Bond film with the typical ingredients and satisfying ending, every 10 years!
One ounce of comfort is that given the ending of NTTD, that shouldn't happen again for another four films at least.
We need a director to embrace the qualities the majority of cinema goers and lovers of Bond films want to see when they go to watch a Bond film, whilst also pushing the envelope, adding a few twists and turns, mixing reality with fantasy. NTTD tried this and succeeded in places but ultimately, we were served a delicious starter, satisfying main course and the dessert looked delicious, until the waiter spilt it all over our best Tom Ford white dinner jacket and didn't even apologise.
My first post in a while and it seems I am on a slightly different plane to the majority of feeling here.
Perhaps it's because I've only just experienced NTTD in iMAX around 8 hours ago. Perhaps it's because I have a young son, a little younger than Mathilda. Perhaps it's because I work in the industry and know the time and sheer effort that hundreds of people put into productions like this. I don't know what, but my impressions at the moment are that NTTD is the perfect end to Craig's Bond and a very good piece of entertainment in general.
Bond is an intelligence officer, he is not a superhero who cannot die or be allowed to die. It's his fragility, both emotionally and physically (and although not fragile in the literal sense, I mean that the lifestyle and work of the character means his continued existence is a fragile thing) that makes him the character that we love.
Since 1962, the film Bond has been sleeping his way through hundreds of women, seemingly without consequence or issue. Well this time, his bedroom action has resulted in offspring, which is long overdue. Perhaps he's had other children before, but they've been deemed too unimportant as they'll detract from action. Bond isn't ambitious to be a father, that's for sure, but you spread your oats and you'll reap the harvest eventually. So although unimportant with regard to action, having a family (which he realises toward the end of the film) is of great importance and the family also dictate his sacrifice at the climax: he could be saved from the nanobot virus quite easily, given time and Q's expertise, but what is there to carry on for? A future that includes younger 00 agents and a family that you don't really want either? What's the alternative then? A quick and painless death, whilst ensuring the safety of human-kind, including the woman you love and the daughter she'll raise, so that's why Bond chooses to end it all.
Feeling let down by the end is understandable, but anger at BB & MJW is not. It's their Bond as much as it's your Bond as much as it's Fleming's Bond and their vision of the end is just as valid. What we all love in the build up to a film release is the anticipation of what might be, but when it's committed to film, edited and released, we are sometimes let down that our ambitions are not realised. The die is cast and NTTD is there as a piece of work to be judged to the end of time now.
I feel it is a just and brave ending to the Craig tenure. I grew up with Moore - I watched TSWLM 3 times at the Odeon in Leeds as a 6 year old and I loved it then as I love it now. I also believe Craig to be the 'best' Bond by a country mile with regard to some of the way I've read and understand the literary Bond to have worked - the pain, cuts, burns and bruises that the novels describe could never have been suffered by Connery or Moore in the way they played the character.
As I said at the start of this post, I am possibly out of step with the majority of the posters here. However, I went to watch this afternoon with my wife, with my Spectre Omega on my wrist, my Barbour Beacon X to Ki jacket on, my C&J Islay boots on (I got married in those boots and we had City of Lovers playing as my to be wife walked down the aisle, so we're both pretty big Bond fans), with an open mind that was free from spoilers and press. We both loved the film in it's entirety and can forgive small issues with it's storyline details. We both waited until the end and wondered if it would say the opposite - that Bond would not return. In fact, I was secretly hoping he wouldn't. If the PC dictate says the character must be played by a black actor or a woman, then I'd rather not have a future Bond. A future 007 can be anything at all, so perhaps saying "007 will return" would have been better?
I may reflect in the future and wonder why Blofeld only lasted for 2 half-movies or why Felix had to be killed as well, or rue that Craig's Bond will prowl no more in future adventures, only to be seen in the 5 outings we're left with. But as 1/5th of the Bond film franchise, I am glad to have been able to see each one in the cinema and have enjoyed them all immensely. Thankyou Daniel, Barbara and Michael for the last 15 years of Bond and thanks to all those hard-working crew who've created the magic.
Bond's not dead. Why? Because NTTD never actually happened. Remember Fukunaga saying that he wanted the film to take place in Bond's head while he was unconscious in Blofeld's lair during SP, but Babs wouldn't go for it? Well, Fukunaga did it anyway! The events of NTTD aren't real - they're just a coma dream between Bond being coshed and him regaining consciousness in the chair.
Thanks for your comments on my thoughts - I am still quite subdued now, almost 24 hours from entering the theatre, about the ending, but am reconciled that it's job done, both from Bond's perspective and especially from Craig's too - he wants shut of Bond and expected to be over it all by now, but C-19 has delayed his moving on by 18 months. Craig's shortness of answer in his interviews is more terse than is usual, even for him.
Whether this is true or not, it matters not. Without an explanation, which may come with a director commentary on the home release, I can't accept it as anything other than another theory, but I'd actually say it was NOT a Bond coma dream as the character would never dream about having a family or offspring.
No, much as I'd like it to be true, I've never been accepting of the Bobby Ewing school of explanations. I'd think a more probable get-out would be to do with the watch reacting to the pressure wave of the explosions and forming an anti-pressure bubble, but again, far fetched and a cop out from the reality of the inevitable - Bond is obliterated in the course of his duty.
Should we be obsessed with timelines and story arcs? Did the literary Bond have an origin and arc? Would Fleming have written his death (a final death as opposed to the 'soft' death)? Possibly if Fleming himself hadn't have passed away.
It's an inevitable fact of life - all things must and do end. As per the Jack London quotation, we should not just exist (to see Bond get the girl and drive off every time, only to return and avenge etc), but we should live and not waste our time in wishing to prolong Craig's Bond any longer than need be.
"I'm going to tell you a story about a man. His name was Bond, James Bond".
Indeed, it would. It wouldn't just be jumping the shark, it'd be Bobby Ewing jumping the shark - talk about doubling down. But, hey, it was Cary's idea, not mine! Thinking about it, that old Dallas storyline also had a mysterious stranger show up who turned out to be Jock Ewing, returned in secret with plastic surgery, several years after being missing, presumed dead. Let's hope that no one at EON's been watching the re-runs, eh...
"I may reflect in the future and wonder why Blofeld only lasted for 2 half-movies or why Felix had to be killed as well, or rue that Craig's Bond will prowl no more in future adventures, only to be seen in the 5 outings we're left with."
I found a lot of things in this film, while callbacks, also felt to me like classy attempts at making more-real the generally over-the-top original version. I read a poem recently about The Huntsman from Snow White that laid out "what actually happened" from his perspective, while also admitting to the importance of the storybook version. If we apply that same thing here, consider Felix drowning at sea to be "what actually happened," rather than him being partly eaten by sharks and surviving. Some will call it a cheap bait-and-switch, but that moment in particular (I can't be the only one who thought he might, I don't know, get bitten by something, and maybe even survive,) set-up the stakes for the ending, (which was itself a call-back to the book version of Moonraker in some ways).
In that sense, it's a re-telling and re-visioning of a lot of the same moments we are familiar with. I really appreciated the film's daring to do something like this; too often, it seems half of Bond fans don't want change, and a good third of the rest are quick to call references "lazy" if not done however they think it should be done. Doing something new with it out of respect to the original canons was bold, and I'm glad the writers, director, and producers all saw the opportunity here, which goes all the way back to the reasons they made CR in the first place.
Caught a few seconds of CR on the telly tonight, it really seems like a different genre of film to the new release. That's inevitable, because Connery's fifth, YOLT, is miles away from Dr No and likewise Moore's films changed a bit - FYEO is the same kind of thing as LALD but MR isn't. The difference is, these actors tended to do standalone movies and Craig's tenure is meant to be part of a story arc.
this will be a wildly unpopular opinion regarding the ending, i wasn;t a huge fan of it tbh, but i think it symbolizes how a rugged, strong and womanizing bond is over in this new culture we live in. The forced female stuff i got passed, but idk, the previous 4 films ESPECIALLY spectre and skyfall had a polished bond feel about them, everything in the films felt it was supposed to be there. This movie, even though i enjoyed it, did not feel like a bond film, the story felt choppy, and the humor was not typical dry british humor, felt forced and the writing made bond seem like a very different person to the previous films. He said things in this film that seemed so out of character, idk maybe im nuts.
i need to watch it again, but i think the death of bond really aligns with this new hollywood. The craig era was amazing and i have a totally new appreciation for Spectre and how polished it felt compared to this.
Having said that, some of the scenes were cool, i need to re-watch but i stand by my opinion that it didnt feel like a bond film. Still fun though in alot of ways.
Never assume anything with a movie, particularly in an age where people accept car chases with Russian attack submarines, guys dressed as bats chasing guys dressed as clowns, and Shia LaBeouf.
But I don't think Craig will be back, and if he is, if he'd be willing to do anything that doesn't disturb a lot of people to bring Bond back. A possible way is if the attack was, in part, a ruse -- that not all of the missiles had warheads, and in what was really a surgical strike, Bond was spared death as part of M's plan to fake it so he could be cured of the nanobots and sent out fresh on some big mission. More or less a retcon of You Only Live Twice.
I posted a review elsewhere, but let me just say I wasn't angry at the ending of No Time to Die. I wasn't really moved at all. It was predictable, for starters, but, to me, the film didn't earn the feelings it wanted at the end. That was the biggest problem.
I'm actually watching Casino Royale right now and am struck by several things:
1) It's really the last time we see a Craig Bond film that is both colorful and energetic, in a way that harkens back to the 1960s films while also seeming modern. It clearly has their DNA, something that will soon be abandoned.
2) The promise of bigger and better was really subverted to smaller and darker. Casino Royale is the only Craig Bond film that feels balanced -- there is action, humor, imagination, and realism all mixed together. It is sad, but it's also exhilarating, suspenseful, and, in its own way, lavish. None of the Bonds that follow have these qualities or, at least, in equal measure.
3) Quantum of Solace seemed to put Bond on this darker path, and Skyfall certainly didn't help. I suspect Craig had a lot to do with turning Bond into a serious, existentialist Get Smart!, but Casino Royale obviously wasn't prepping the series for that direction.
4) The decision of where to take Bond next will be based solely on the money. Now, we could certainly argue this is always the case, but the runaway success of Casino Royale positioned the series in a way it hadn't been in years. Skyfall's billion-dollar take only worsened the situation because they knew they couldn't go lighter after such a dark, sentimental film had scored so well. But if it looks like Craig's return would score at the box office, they certainly will try in some way to bring him back. And if Craig is enticed by money or some such to be relevant, he might well do it. Chances are, though, it will be in a way to further deconstruct Bond, like making him bisexual because that seems daring, current, and progressive.
I think the overall problem with this movie is that they are trying to pick up the pieces left behind from spectre, and none of whats in that movie landed or felt legitimate or earned. I Actually like Lea Seydoux as an actress who played Madeline and was excited that she was the new bond girl in spectre, but the execution of their love story was so contrived, that in the end I really didn't care or believe it was a legitimate romance. Even the people who made that movie knows what's wrong with it. Why would they double down on it?
The writing and execution in the first quarter of the this movie was pretty good up to a point but the basis for the characters just weren't there for me, again cuz it so heavily relies on spectre. You could call this spectre 2 tbh.
The concept of Bond having a child and the fact that it's a daughter on top of it Is actually a genius move as a concept on paper, its kinda like poetic justice for him. The idea that he has to really commit and care and actually be responsible for someone more than yourself. Having that character be his daughter could have been deeply profound in that way. They could have also addressed his relationship with women through the daughter character. That would be addressing the misogyny and faults in his character. Maybe even could address the vesper Lind history that made Bond unable to commit to any real relationships with women because of how his heart was basically ripped out of his chest by Vesper. I'll give Daniel Craig this, he knocked it out of the park with this movie in terms of his acting, especially in a few key scenes. He made me really feel like he realises his life has just turned upside down the moment he saw his daughters eyes. He genuinely made me tear up couple times in the film if I'm being honest. Any scene with Bond and his daughter was elevated by Craig's acting, and almost made up for some of the lackluster writing in the film. He made me really feel Bonds urgency and angst from her safety being in jeopardy. The daughter aspect, if it was utilised more and written better, could have had the potential to make this something really special and powerful. You could potentially really disect Bond through the daughter character, break his character down, address his issues and still feel like everything organically came together, cuz there could be a central focal point for it all, his new daughter. Come to think of it, it's actually not that dissimilar to the concept of what they did for wolverine in Logan.
Ok...Ana de armas was a total smoke show in this role! Holy hell she was good. Her character was badass, playful and intrigueing and that made her even sexier. I didn't think she could get more attractive but this role definitely did it. She should have been Bonds sidekick throughout the movie and become friends with him instead, moving away from a potentially cliched romance. Maybe there could have been a throughline in the film with him becoming sort of her mentor along the way since he's pretty much the most seasoned agent and she's insecure with how good she is. You can even still have the "saying no" scene later in the movie as their partnership grows and maybe some awkwardness leading to a back and forth conversation. Maybe he tells her about Vesper. Wnatever. Something like that would have felt organic, served as character development for Bond and some more three-dimensional depth to her character. Makes the "saying no" moment maybe actually mean something in the movie rather than a throwaway comedic jab at Bonds character.
LaShawna Lynch was fine. The hate for this movie for her being 007 and ppl just assuming that this is more of her movie than James bonds or she's taking power away from Bond and she's taking over, screw feminism, PC agenda pushing bitches, etc etc... I never subscribed to any of that nonsense. It's almost like people are trained and groomed these days to react like that without ever giving anything a chance....hey wait a minute🤔. I like her as an actress, was looking forward to see her performance. Problem is I never understood her character's initial hostility with Bond, I was like why is she going undercover and manipulating him into bringing her back to his place just to stick it to him and show him up. Could of had the same conversation in a different way maybe in a conventional way, idk doesn't matter. I have a feeling that her character doesn't like Bond for his history of misogyny and filandering, but nothing about him as an agent. So the writers prolly decided they should have her characters main reason for not liking bond to actually be a general critique of men in society??? not cuz she has a grudge against him, or he always sucked at his job, or from some personal altercation with him. That's the type of shoehorning of PC agendas that sane ppl of the audience are talking about. Give her a real reason not to like Bond and you can still have her give him **** about his relationship with women. Also you'd think they would have just started out as platonic competition instead of trying to one up and literary sabotage each other's missions when they both have literally the same goal, especially when the stakes are potentially so high. You think maybe she would look up to bond a little, wouldn't the new agents and recruits look up to bond? Wouldn't they all want to secretly be like him, not as a person, but as an agent? Since when is going by the book and putting down your legendary predecessors an interesting character trait. Aren't you supposed to like her by the end of the movie? They didn't give any real scene or event that gets them to respect each other to follow through on squashing the animosity, so what was the whole point? At least Naomi Harris's character didn't have all this nonsense. No newcomer is just going to give a middle finger to the previous guy when he's freaking James Bond, he should be a legend amongst new agents. This whole thing of Bond being out of his time and too old was addressed in Skyfall and spectre so that stuff felt tired. I have no problem with the ideals that were being pushed to be PC and give Bond some me too'ing, but the execution is too forced. At least itsl not as bad as Disney's Star wars tho. There is a way to do this people, organically, where it doesn't feel like a soapbox.
Side note, felt the action was a bit underwhelming in this movie. It peaked with the scene in the first half with that goon shooting away at Madeline's window in the car and James just letting it happen while he deliberates wether to trust her or not. Great Bond moment and was narratively creative. This whole scene is totally Bond and badass. You believe Bond would be an asshole and do something like that. For the most part though this series has lost its edge especially in the action scenes, starting with some parts of Skyfall and heavily with spectre. They just came across as made to look pretty and expensive and putting more effort into the camera work trying to get everything in one one shots rather than making the action actually exciting. You guys remember the parkour scene leading to the shootout at the embassy in Casino Royale?! Those action scenes have so much edge to them, you feel the danger bond is in. Editing is one of the most important components to action scenes and these just feel like constantly unnecessary long takes. Now we even have parts where he is just walking right out in the open, firing his gun vaguely in bad guys direction, on a set that probably costed 1/4 of the movies budget. Even holding his gun from the hip at times and still casually just hitting his mark every time. All the while with the bond theme blaring in the background. Did the same thing in spectre at the desert scene. Just seemed like a total waste and honestly a bit lazy. The SUV Chase was ok I guess but it has Bond literally nudging his car into the bad guys cars just once and they go flying in to some convenient obstacle or hit a ramp that launches them into a flip. A lot of the action is like this and it comes off as just lazy even though they spend hundreds of millions of dollars making these movies.
All that being said I didn't hate the movie, if you watch it just as a spy drama it's not that bad. I didn't get bored really that much even tho it's almost 3 hrs. So take that for what it's worth. There's annoying bits of comedy and one liners that come off as awkward rather than funny. Always thought that kind of stuff didnt fit for Craig's films. Rami Malek was good, but underrutilized. His characters ultimate goal was not really clearly defined, at least to me, but I think he served his purpose in the movie. Nothing more nothing less. For me I didn't mind bond dieing, and the film for the most part earned it, was done decently enough.
It's certainly better than quantum of solace and spectre. A serviceable end to Daniel Craig's era. Although, I have noticed things about these last 3 films and they make me feel that ever since The Dark Knight came out, the people behind these films have been trying to copy Chris Nolan's aesthetics, that should stop. But that's a whole nother conversation.
I cannot see that at all, @Higgins nor you extractor.
Craig is done. It's been sold on this being his last film. And on how it turns out for Bond. To go back on that just sounds nuts, it undermines the previous film and insults all those on this site and elsewhere who think the ending was pretty damn good - and there are quite a few, they just don't bang on like we do!
Craig is too old to be Bond. I know Rog went on to 58 but they were different kinds of films.
Craig doesn't need the money. He's surely richer than any of the other actors to have done the role, save Sir Sean after he had his Hollywood second wind in the late 80s and onwards. He's also on a massive payday for two sequels to his smash success Knives Out.
Finally, I think the producers are done with it. I don't think their heart is in it anymore and nor is Craig's. That's understandable but I can't see what motivation they have for going back one more time, I mean if the film had bombed that might be different. Okay, so ABBA returned this year without any financial motivation but they had decades to rethink whereas in this case 'time is not on your side' as the song goes.
That said, I didn't think they'd do what they did in this film so who knows.
Comments
I mean they may as well have hung drawn and quartered him or tied him to a rocket and fired him into space.
I would have been angry but for the fact that the preceding movie was so utterly rubbish imo so what gives? Give me a gun, I'd have finished him off myself - or turned it on myself.
It really did feel like those Bonds that don't feel like a Bond film, y'know? Never Say Never Again, Die Another Day, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall I'd all put in that category. Even OHMSS frankly, because no matter what they say, it's a dead duck. I know, I know but there was naff all chemistry between Bond and Tracy, and the theme We Have All the Time in the World was misused, as if Bond and his beloved were a stiff Royal couple on their engagement interviews covered by ITV coverage.
I suppose they were reprising the Blofeld plot from that film.
It's they way you could argue that Craig was one era, and they ended it that way with him - one fan on the Reviews says he only came in with Craig, so actually the finale makes sense - but if so why trade on so much of the past legacy with the Aston and so much else? They want to have their cake and eat it, so much of the loyalty is unearned. I mean, look at this film. Still couldn't hum you the song - and the rest is Louis Armstrong all over again. No new song material, nothing really.
The daughter thing isn't unprecedented. [spoiler] At the end of the novel YOLT Kissy Suzuki is expecting Bond's child but we hear no more about it in the next one, as he deserts her not knowing he's to be a father. [/spoiler]
It seems we get heroes only returning on the proviso they get killed, sort of custodians. So with Ford returning as Solo on that basis alone (he's a cheery cove) and I wouldn't hold out much hope for Indiana Jones making it to a care home in the next one, either.
As Babs and Mickey are getting on as we all are it's possible they thought, sod this. We'll end it on our terms unless someone else decides to. Then we sell the franchise on so it becomes a Sherlock Holmes type thing, sort of a genre character not tied to time or place.
I can also see that from a female point of view the whole 'onwards and upwards as I shag around and save the world' mantra can become irksome. I was thinking of the ending of Sean Connery's Robin and Marion too, and the sense that sometimes women can just think, well, to hell with it... Perhaps it represents an end to the old patriarchy though I do also get a sense of Elektra King here, you don't really get the sense since GoldenEye that they actually like Bond all that much, he seems to suffer more than necessary. It is also perhaps poignant that the film is released after the deaths of Roger and Sean, though only just it seems. Maybe there was a bit of timing involved, who knows? It can't have escaped their attention that Connery was on his way out, so had the film been released in October last year, as planned, how timely would that have been? Just as I imagined that Skyfall and its death of M might have been anticipating the death of Her Majesty the Queen, or Thatcher (not sure of the timeline of the latter actually, Thatch died of course but the Queen is going the distance.) Had the film come out with the death of Connery, all overheard talk of the 'death of Bond' would have been interpreted to have been about him, avoiding spoilers.
Or had NTTD come out the month the Duke of Edinburgh, another commended naval officer, died, that too might have been poignant. But the Grim Reaper is no observer of box office opening weekends.
Finally, I can see another reason for delaying the opening of the film before the pandemic hit, I mean talk about depressing to go into lockdown with that hanging over the country.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Quoting: "To come back, they have to offer him somewhere Bond has never gone before."
Now there's a thought: Someone New is Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in The Afterlife is Quite Enough Cheers.
Where all the other Bonds end . . . this one begins!
Hello all. If there’s one thing you can say about NTTD is that it’s cracked the stasis chamber to free me from my Spectre funk.
As for my feelings on this, I am afraid I am in the camp that detests the ending, not necessarily because of the what, but more the why and the how.
It was lazy, MCU-inspired shock filmmaking, with a confused narrative to put the character in that position: a wasteful equivalent of 25 Aston Martin Vanishes (the International Standard Unit of Eon missteps). And if the MCU is anything to go by, Bond will be back only for him to be permanently dispatched in Bond 26.
I could have been distraught as the whiskey tumblers were chinked in MI6, but instead I was livid at the character's careless treatment.
As the credits rolled I just thought back to the kid watching his first Bond, The Spy Who Loved Me, at the glorious art deco Worthing Odeon and how he might react the super spy being so careless … Bond going down with the Liparus because that was the only way to make sure that Stromberg and Jaws couldn’t wreak more havoc. Oh dear, world saved, but heroic end ... what? There are other Bond films? Why kill him now?
As for the main agent of destruction within the film … if a nanobot can track familial DNA (ha!) by touch, and I'm spitballing here perhaps nanobots can be created to track and destroy other nanobots. Drax's nerve gas made more sense than NTTD's flabby bit of technobabble pseudo science.
Bond basically gave up and that is unforgivable.
Now in saying this, Craig's Bonds have all had inter-film story arcs, and Babs and the team seem utterly infatuated with these in recent years. James Bond will return, but I just get the feeling that this is more a clunky method to kill one of the key motifs in the whole series: the hero riding off into the sunset, vanquishing foes, ready to fight another day, for England James. Bond's USP has been his invincibility ... that's gone now, even if they do manage to retcon the character back within the current canon or reboot again - this will known as the one in which Bond dies. It’s the worst exit: cheap and mawkish, with just enough time to speak to his significant other for some last minute plot exposition that wasn't quite made clear enough earlier to everyone and revisiting the land of tired Hollywood tropes in the vein of Bay/Bruckheimer. Don't forget to turn up the OHMSS leitmotifs Hans!
I almost think that the worst aspect of this oddball storytelling is the fact that such a jarring ending was tacked onto a largely very good film. Some excellent performances, lines, locations and action sequences. It felt clever and modern and relevant. This peaked with the gun barrel callback in the lair as a wonderful bit of filmmaking.
However, don't get me started on Leiter's earlier exit either - I had distinctly Mathis levels of a character being discarded because … well … it’s time for the broom to sweep away the old guard.
Bond is Dead, Long Live Bond, but please let Purvis and Wade leave the series as well as Craig.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Be afraid my fellow Bond fans. Be very afraid.
From Heaven With Love
Tagline: Bond Beyond the Veil...
Daniel Craig returns as James Bond in a film like no other before.
Synopsis: Now properly dead, James Bond approaches the Pearly Gates only to find he is in limbo. Hell has been disrupted by various enemies he's dispatched along the years - okay, not that many come to think of it if it's Craig's Bond - not Mr White, not Le Chiffre, not that QoS villain nor Vesper, hmm, okay, not sure Blofeld counts either strictly speaking, maybe that Rodigruez guy, okay, anyway bear with me, he's got to wipe them out in the afterlife before he gets the chance to hook up with M and Vesper.
Cmon, that could be fun. A lot of blue screen action, just don't paste it in later.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
... who says 007 will be going up?
Just think of all the countless nameless henchmen that will be after him!
On that subject, I refer you to Imaginary Conversations - Page 53 — ajb007 Post 1581.
Ha ... who's to say what was actually in that blood sample/vial that was smashed into Bond's face? Bond/vampire flick/zombie movie crossover in the future?
(Sorry, this light-heartedness is just the next stage for me ...)
Bond as Deadpool! Wisecracking his way through the next instalment: 'So I mean, it took ages to get pasted back - I took one hell of a pasting - but you really didn't think I was going to shack up with that miserable cow and her child - I mean, can you see a child seat fitting the back of an Aston? Me paying child maintenance? Last time I arranged Blofeld my mate to get me out of it by having Tracey shot but I couldn't pull that off a second time. So I thought I'd do a Reggie Perrin and disappear again, shag my way around the local bars and broads...Yep, Saffy's mad medicine has made me indestructible, for better or worse! No Babs Broccoli this time though, so it should be a lot more fun!'
On a more sober note, seeing as Bond ended in enemy territory it could pan into the opening of The Man With The Golden Gun novel, where he loses his memory and is seized by the enemy side and brainwashed, were it not for the fact that we see Bond bumped off pretty conclusively with no wiggle room, and Craig's Bond was ready to settle down anyway, so no get outs.
After all, there are other times when it seemed to M and his office that Bond has died - the finale of A View To A Kill, for instance, though for some he died the moment the The Beach Boys came on the soundtrack...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Never a better chance than to effectively make The Man with the Golden Gun, new title of course and without Scaramanga, but would be true to Fleming and a new original way to perform a reboot in one go. What better way to start again than with the last Bond Fleming wrote. 2025 would also be the 60th anniversary of it's publication and a true celebration and dedication to the man that gave us James Bond.
It's never been done, would be gritty and original, would get us fans disappointed with the ending of NTTD, back on side (not sure how much they care about that though..?)
As per the old mantra. "Just go back to Fleming!"
Given Eon's recent tendencies, the brainwashed Bond would confront M and really assassinate him, rather than failing as he does in the book.
What they do next is really easy imo, The next bond should be the same Bond universe that we last saw in 2002, Bring Back John Cleese as Q and Samantha Bond as Moneypenny
I have another solution. I don't want to see brainwashed Bond. Isn't that just more of what this thread has been complaining of? Too much drama for Bond?
Instead I want to see a Bond movie that starts with 007 saving one of the other 00-agents after being held captive for a long time. After the PTS and title sequence the saved agent meets M and tries to kill him. Moneypenny saves M by shooting the Manchurian agent. You get the start of TMWTGG without having Bond brainwashed.
I do see your point @Number24 .
I wouldn't want the majority of the next film of Bond not being James Bond 007 until the last 15 minutes, a la waiting for Luke Skywalker to be (kind of) himself in the new Star Wars films, or Bond not being the 007 we truly know and love, until after one or two films from the reintroduction of a new actor and the character. At that rate, given each actor may have an average of four films for example, we will get a more traditional Bond film with the typical ingredients and satisfying ending, every 10 years!
One ounce of comfort is that given the ending of NTTD, that shouldn't happen again for another four films at least.
We need a director to embrace the qualities the majority of cinema goers and lovers of Bond films want to see when they go to watch a Bond film, whilst also pushing the envelope, adding a few twists and turns, mixing reality with fantasy. NTTD tried this and succeeded in places but ultimately, we were served a delicious starter, satisfying main course and the dessert looked delicious, until the waiter spilt it all over our best Tom Ford white dinner jacket and didn't even apologise.
That's a good way of looking at it, TRK.
Maybe someone should re-edit all the previous actor's swansongs, killing them all off, so NTTD doesn't stick out like a sore thumb lol
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
My first post in a while and it seems I am on a slightly different plane to the majority of feeling here.
Perhaps it's because I've only just experienced NTTD in iMAX around 8 hours ago. Perhaps it's because I have a young son, a little younger than Mathilda. Perhaps it's because I work in the industry and know the time and sheer effort that hundreds of people put into productions like this. I don't know what, but my impressions at the moment are that NTTD is the perfect end to Craig's Bond and a very good piece of entertainment in general.
Bond is an intelligence officer, he is not a superhero who cannot die or be allowed to die. It's his fragility, both emotionally and physically (and although not fragile in the literal sense, I mean that the lifestyle and work of the character means his continued existence is a fragile thing) that makes him the character that we love.
Since 1962, the film Bond has been sleeping his way through hundreds of women, seemingly without consequence or issue. Well this time, his bedroom action has resulted in offspring, which is long overdue. Perhaps he's had other children before, but they've been deemed too unimportant as they'll detract from action. Bond isn't ambitious to be a father, that's for sure, but you spread your oats and you'll reap the harvest eventually. So although unimportant with regard to action, having a family (which he realises toward the end of the film) is of great importance and the family also dictate his sacrifice at the climax: he could be saved from the nanobot virus quite easily, given time and Q's expertise, but what is there to carry on for? A future that includes younger 00 agents and a family that you don't really want either? What's the alternative then? A quick and painless death, whilst ensuring the safety of human-kind, including the woman you love and the daughter she'll raise, so that's why Bond chooses to end it all.
Feeling let down by the end is understandable, but anger at BB & MJW is not. It's their Bond as much as it's your Bond as much as it's Fleming's Bond and their vision of the end is just as valid. What we all love in the build up to a film release is the anticipation of what might be, but when it's committed to film, edited and released, we are sometimes let down that our ambitions are not realised. The die is cast and NTTD is there as a piece of work to be judged to the end of time now.
I feel it is a just and brave ending to the Craig tenure. I grew up with Moore - I watched TSWLM 3 times at the Odeon in Leeds as a 6 year old and I loved it then as I love it now. I also believe Craig to be the 'best' Bond by a country mile with regard to some of the way I've read and understand the literary Bond to have worked - the pain, cuts, burns and bruises that the novels describe could never have been suffered by Connery or Moore in the way they played the character.
As I said at the start of this post, I am possibly out of step with the majority of the posters here. However, I went to watch this afternoon with my wife, with my Spectre Omega on my wrist, my Barbour Beacon X to Ki jacket on, my C&J Islay boots on (I got married in those boots and we had City of Lovers playing as my to be wife walked down the aisle, so we're both pretty big Bond fans), with an open mind that was free from spoilers and press. We both loved the film in it's entirety and can forgive small issues with it's storyline details. We both waited until the end and wondered if it would say the opposite - that Bond would not return. In fact, I was secretly hoping he wouldn't. If the PC dictate says the character must be played by a black actor or a woman, then I'd rather not have a future Bond. A future 007 can be anything at all, so perhaps saying "007 will return" would have been better?
I may reflect in the future and wonder why Blofeld only lasted for 2 half-movies or why Felix had to be killed as well, or rue that Craig's Bond will prowl no more in future adventures, only to be seen in the 5 outings we're left with. But as 1/5th of the Bond film franchise, I am glad to have been able to see each one in the cinema and have enjoyed them all immensely. Thankyou Daniel, Barbara and Michael for the last 15 years of Bond and thanks to all those hard-working crew who've created the magic.
@The_Commander Spot on imho and echoes my feelings about this movie. I really don't get the anger and outrage tbh. This is art at the end of the day.
Great post @The_Commander
Bond's not dead. Why? Because NTTD never actually happened. Remember Fukunaga saying that he wanted the film to take place in Bond's head while he was unconscious in Blofeld's lair during SP, but Babs wouldn't go for it? Well, Fukunaga did it anyway! The events of NTTD aren't real - they're just a coma dream between Bond being coshed and him regaining consciousness in the chair.
Thanks for your comments on my thoughts - I am still quite subdued now, almost 24 hours from entering the theatre, about the ending, but am reconciled that it's job done, both from Bond's perspective and especially from Craig's too - he wants shut of Bond and expected to be over it all by now, but C-19 has delayed his moving on by 18 months. Craig's shortness of answer in his interviews is more terse than is usual, even for him.
Whether this is true or not, it matters not. Without an explanation, which may come with a director commentary on the home release, I can't accept it as anything other than another theory, but I'd actually say it was NOT a Bond coma dream as the character would never dream about having a family or offspring.
No, much as I'd like it to be true, I've never been accepting of the Bobby Ewing school of explanations. I'd think a more probable get-out would be to do with the watch reacting to the pressure wave of the explosions and forming an anti-pressure bubble, but again, far fetched and a cop out from the reality of the inevitable - Bond is obliterated in the course of his duty.
Should we be obsessed with timelines and story arcs? Did the literary Bond have an origin and arc? Would Fleming have written his death (a final death as opposed to the 'soft' death)? Possibly if Fleming himself hadn't have passed away.
It's an inevitable fact of life - all things must and do end. As per the Jack London quotation, we should not just exist (to see Bond get the girl and drive off every time, only to return and avenge etc), but we should live and not waste our time in wishing to prolong Craig's Bond any longer than need be.
"I'm going to tell you a story about a man. His name was Bond, James Bond".
Cue tears as those blue eyes smile.
This would be the Dallas/Bobby Ewing gambit for altering timelines:
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/79815/bad-dreams-when-bobby-ewing-returned-dallas
Indeed, it would. It wouldn't just be jumping the shark, it'd be Bobby Ewing jumping the shark - talk about doubling down. But, hey, it was Cary's idea, not mine! Thinking about it, that old Dallas storyline also had a mysterious stranger show up who turned out to be Jock Ewing, returned in secret with plastic surgery, several years after being missing, presumed dead. Let's hope that no one at EON's been watching the re-runs, eh...
Well put. Regarding
"I may reflect in the future and wonder why Blofeld only lasted for 2 half-movies or why Felix had to be killed as well, or rue that Craig's Bond will prowl no more in future adventures, only to be seen in the 5 outings we're left with."
I found a lot of things in this film, while callbacks, also felt to me like classy attempts at making more-real the generally over-the-top original version. I read a poem recently about The Huntsman from Snow White that laid out "what actually happened" from his perspective, while also admitting to the importance of the storybook version. If we apply that same thing here, consider Felix drowning at sea to be "what actually happened," rather than him being partly eaten by sharks and surviving. Some will call it a cheap bait-and-switch, but that moment in particular (I can't be the only one who thought he might, I don't know, get bitten by something, and maybe even survive,) set-up the stakes for the ending, (which was itself a call-back to the book version of Moonraker in some ways).
In that sense, it's a re-telling and re-visioning of a lot of the same moments we are familiar with. I really appreciated the film's daring to do something like this; too often, it seems half of Bond fans don't want change, and a good third of the rest are quick to call references "lazy" if not done however they think it should be done. Doing something new with it out of respect to the original canons was bold, and I'm glad the writers, director, and producers all saw the opportunity here, which goes all the way back to the reasons they made CR in the first place.
Caught a few seconds of CR on the telly tonight, it really seems like a different genre of film to the new release. That's inevitable, because Connery's fifth, YOLT, is miles away from Dr No and likewise Moore's films changed a bit - FYEO is the same kind of thing as LALD but MR isn't. The difference is, these actors tended to do standalone movies and Craig's tenure is meant to be part of a story arc.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
this will be a wildly unpopular opinion regarding the ending, i wasn;t a huge fan of it tbh, but i think it symbolizes how a rugged, strong and womanizing bond is over in this new culture we live in. The forced female stuff i got passed, but idk, the previous 4 films ESPECIALLY spectre and skyfall had a polished bond feel about them, everything in the films felt it was supposed to be there. This movie, even though i enjoyed it, did not feel like a bond film, the story felt choppy, and the humor was not typical dry british humor, felt forced and the writing made bond seem like a very different person to the previous films. He said things in this film that seemed so out of character, idk maybe im nuts.
i need to watch it again, but i think the death of bond really aligns with this new hollywood. The craig era was amazing and i have a totally new appreciation for Spectre and how polished it felt compared to this.
Having said that, some of the scenes were cool, i need to re-watch but i stand by my opinion that it didnt feel like a bond film. Still fun though in alot of ways.
Never assume anything with a movie, particularly in an age where people accept car chases with Russian attack submarines, guys dressed as bats chasing guys dressed as clowns, and Shia LaBeouf.
But I don't think Craig will be back, and if he is, if he'd be willing to do anything that doesn't disturb a lot of people to bring Bond back. A possible way is if the attack was, in part, a ruse -- that not all of the missiles had warheads, and in what was really a surgical strike, Bond was spared death as part of M's plan to fake it so he could be cured of the nanobots and sent out fresh on some big mission. More or less a retcon of You Only Live Twice.
I posted a review elsewhere, but let me just say I wasn't angry at the ending of No Time to Die. I wasn't really moved at all. It was predictable, for starters, but, to me, the film didn't earn the feelings it wanted at the end. That was the biggest problem.
I'm actually watching Casino Royale right now and am struck by several things:
1) It's really the last time we see a Craig Bond film that is both colorful and energetic, in a way that harkens back to the 1960s films while also seeming modern. It clearly has their DNA, something that will soon be abandoned.
2) The promise of bigger and better was really subverted to smaller and darker. Casino Royale is the only Craig Bond film that feels balanced -- there is action, humor, imagination, and realism all mixed together. It is sad, but it's also exhilarating, suspenseful, and, in its own way, lavish. None of the Bonds that follow have these qualities or, at least, in equal measure.
3) Quantum of Solace seemed to put Bond on this darker path, and Skyfall certainly didn't help. I suspect Craig had a lot to do with turning Bond into a serious, existentialist Get Smart!, but Casino Royale obviously wasn't prepping the series for that direction.
4) The decision of where to take Bond next will be based solely on the money. Now, we could certainly argue this is always the case, but the runaway success of Casino Royale positioned the series in a way it hadn't been in years. Skyfall's billion-dollar take only worsened the situation because they knew they couldn't go lighter after such a dark, sentimental film had scored so well. But if it looks like Craig's return would score at the box office, they certainly will try in some way to bring him back. And if Craig is enticed by money or some such to be relevant, he might well do it. Chances are, though, it will be in a way to further deconstruct Bond, like making him bisexual because that seems daring, current, and progressive.
~Heavy spoilers~🍿
~Long Read~📖
I think the overall problem with this movie is that they are trying to pick up the pieces left behind from spectre, and none of whats in that movie landed or felt legitimate or earned. I Actually like Lea Seydoux as an actress who played Madeline and was excited that she was the new bond girl in spectre, but the execution of their love story was so contrived, that in the end I really didn't care or believe it was a legitimate romance. Even the people who made that movie knows what's wrong with it. Why would they double down on it?
The writing and execution in the first quarter of the this movie was pretty good up to a point but the basis for the characters just weren't there for me, again cuz it so heavily relies on spectre. You could call this spectre 2 tbh.
The concept of Bond having a child and the fact that it's a daughter on top of it Is actually a genius move as a concept on paper, its kinda like poetic justice for him. The idea that he has to really commit and care and actually be responsible for someone more than yourself. Having that character be his daughter could have been deeply profound in that way. They could have also addressed his relationship with women through the daughter character. That would be addressing the misogyny and faults in his character. Maybe even could address the vesper Lind history that made Bond unable to commit to any real relationships with women because of how his heart was basically ripped out of his chest by Vesper. I'll give Daniel Craig this, he knocked it out of the park with this movie in terms of his acting, especially in a few key scenes. He made me really feel like he realises his life has just turned upside down the moment he saw his daughters eyes. He genuinely made me tear up couple times in the film if I'm being honest. Any scene with Bond and his daughter was elevated by Craig's acting, and almost made up for some of the lackluster writing in the film. He made me really feel Bonds urgency and angst from her safety being in jeopardy. The daughter aspect, if it was utilised more and written better, could have had the potential to make this something really special and powerful. You could potentially really disect Bond through the daughter character, break his character down, address his issues and still feel like everything organically came together, cuz there could be a central focal point for it all, his new daughter. Come to think of it, it's actually not that dissimilar to the concept of what they did for wolverine in Logan.
Ok...Ana de armas was a total smoke show in this role! Holy hell she was good. Her character was badass, playful and intrigueing and that made her even sexier. I didn't think she could get more attractive but this role definitely did it. She should have been Bonds sidekick throughout the movie and become friends with him instead, moving away from a potentially cliched romance. Maybe there could have been a throughline in the film with him becoming sort of her mentor along the way since he's pretty much the most seasoned agent and she's insecure with how good she is. You can even still have the "saying no" scene later in the movie as their partnership grows and maybe some awkwardness leading to a back and forth conversation. Maybe he tells her about Vesper. Wnatever. Something like that would have felt organic, served as character development for Bond and some more three-dimensional depth to her character. Makes the "saying no" moment maybe actually mean something in the movie rather than a throwaway comedic jab at Bonds character.
LaShawna Lynch was fine. The hate for this movie for her being 007 and ppl just assuming that this is more of her movie than James bonds or she's taking power away from Bond and she's taking over, screw feminism, PC agenda pushing bitches, etc etc... I never subscribed to any of that nonsense. It's almost like people are trained and groomed these days to react like that without ever giving anything a chance....hey wait a minute🤔. I like her as an actress, was looking forward to see her performance. Problem is I never understood her character's initial hostility with Bond, I was like why is she going undercover and manipulating him into bringing her back to his place just to stick it to him and show him up. Could of had the same conversation in a different way maybe in a conventional way, idk doesn't matter. I have a feeling that her character doesn't like Bond for his history of misogyny and filandering, but nothing about him as an agent. So the writers prolly decided they should have her characters main reason for not liking bond to actually be a general critique of men in society??? not cuz she has a grudge against him, or he always sucked at his job, or from some personal altercation with him. That's the type of shoehorning of PC agendas that sane ppl of the audience are talking about. Give her a real reason not to like Bond and you can still have her give him **** about his relationship with women. Also you'd think they would have just started out as platonic competition instead of trying to one up and literary sabotage each other's missions when they both have literally the same goal, especially when the stakes are potentially so high. You think maybe she would look up to bond a little, wouldn't the new agents and recruits look up to bond? Wouldn't they all want to secretly be like him, not as a person, but as an agent? Since when is going by the book and putting down your legendary predecessors an interesting character trait. Aren't you supposed to like her by the end of the movie? They didn't give any real scene or event that gets them to respect each other to follow through on squashing the animosity, so what was the whole point? At least Naomi Harris's character didn't have all this nonsense. No newcomer is just going to give a middle finger to the previous guy when he's freaking James Bond, he should be a legend amongst new agents. This whole thing of Bond being out of his time and too old was addressed in Skyfall and spectre so that stuff felt tired. I have no problem with the ideals that were being pushed to be PC and give Bond some me too'ing, but the execution is too forced. At least itsl not as bad as Disney's Star wars tho. There is a way to do this people, organically, where it doesn't feel like a soapbox.
Side note, felt the action was a bit underwhelming in this movie. It peaked with the scene in the first half with that goon shooting away at Madeline's window in the car and James just letting it happen while he deliberates wether to trust her or not. Great Bond moment and was narratively creative. This whole scene is totally Bond and badass. You believe Bond would be an asshole and do something like that. For the most part though this series has lost its edge especially in the action scenes, starting with some parts of Skyfall and heavily with spectre. They just came across as made to look pretty and expensive and putting more effort into the camera work trying to get everything in one one shots rather than making the action actually exciting. You guys remember the parkour scene leading to the shootout at the embassy in Casino Royale?! Those action scenes have so much edge to them, you feel the danger bond is in. Editing is one of the most important components to action scenes and these just feel like constantly unnecessary long takes. Now we even have parts where he is just walking right out in the open, firing his gun vaguely in bad guys direction, on a set that probably costed 1/4 of the movies budget. Even holding his gun from the hip at times and still casually just hitting his mark every time. All the while with the bond theme blaring in the background. Did the same thing in spectre at the desert scene. Just seemed like a total waste and honestly a bit lazy. The SUV Chase was ok I guess but it has Bond literally nudging his car into the bad guys cars just once and they go flying in to some convenient obstacle or hit a ramp that launches them into a flip. A lot of the action is like this and it comes off as just lazy even though they spend hundreds of millions of dollars making these movies.
All that being said I didn't hate the movie, if you watch it just as a spy drama it's not that bad. I didn't get bored really that much even tho it's almost 3 hrs. So take that for what it's worth. There's annoying bits of comedy and one liners that come off as awkward rather than funny. Always thought that kind of stuff didnt fit for Craig's films. Rami Malek was good, but underrutilized. His characters ultimate goal was not really clearly defined, at least to me, but I think he served his purpose in the movie. Nothing more nothing less. For me I didn't mind bond dieing, and the film for the most part earned it, was done decently enough.
It's certainly better than quantum of solace and spectre. A serviceable end to Daniel Craig's era. Although, I have noticed things about these last 3 films and they make me feel that ever since The Dark Knight came out, the people behind these films have been trying to copy Chris Nolan's aesthetics, that should stop. But that's a whole nother conversation.
Thanks for reading.
Yah, that‘s the Bobby Ewing path that I‘ve earlier mentioned somewhere else.
If they are really going that way, that would almost certainly mean that Craig will do another one.
Before NTTD came out, I was 100% certain, that Craig will leave.
After seeing the ending, I realized, that his odds of returning are pretty high!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I cannot see that at all, @Higgins nor you extractor.
Craig is done. It's been sold on this being his last film. And on how it turns out for Bond. To go back on that just sounds nuts, it undermines the previous film and insults all those on this site and elsewhere who think the ending was pretty damn good - and there are quite a few, they just don't bang on like we do!
Craig is too old to be Bond. I know Rog went on to 58 but they were different kinds of films.
Craig doesn't need the money. He's surely richer than any of the other actors to have done the role, save Sir Sean after he had his Hollywood second wind in the late 80s and onwards. He's also on a massive payday for two sequels to his smash success Knives Out.
Finally, I think the producers are done with it. I don't think their heart is in it anymore and nor is Craig's. That's understandable but I can't see what motivation they have for going back one more time, I mean if the film had bombed that might be different. Okay, so ABBA returned this year without any financial motivation but they had decades to rethink whereas in this case 'time is not on your side' as the song goes.
That said, I didn't think they'd do what they did in this film so who knows.
Roger Moore 1927-2017