2 Likes
Sorry to hear you didn’t like NO TIME TO DIE, @MHazard.
I think there are good examples for both extremes in the canon, the adventure man in From Russia with Love and Doctor No, and the fed up, burnt out government killer wanting out in You Only Live Twice and The Living Daylights. In Goldfinger we get a little helping of both, a Bond tired of killing, and later one who can’t get out of his desk job fast enough to make contact with the enemy again.
Naturally, the films usually prefer the more glamorous, more adventurous side of Bond. But actually his end, as well as that of his creator, was there right from the start in Casino Royale:
One day, and he accepted the fact, he would be brought to his knees by love or by luck.
To me that sums up NO TIME TO DIE.
7 Likes
In the theater waiting for my third viewing to start!
NTTD moves like a John Glen movie. Great stunts, smooth segues from set piece to set piece. Vibrant colors, grounded characters.
6 Likes
Jealous! I’m planning on my second view this week.
First off: Dustin, Orion and secretagentfan, I’m sure I’d enjoy sitting down with you all and having a double bourbon or vodka martini or a vesper. Orion the passage you quoted is one of my favorites and SAF your montage is spot on, none of those folks were playing Flemings Bond either. Dustin good points as well. I think Daniel Craig is a fine actor and my quarrels are with the choices made by the writers, directors and producers after CR. I think they made a wrong turn on QOS, looked like they were headed in the right direction on Skyfall, then gave us two major disappointments. By the end Craig was playing the character they gave him, but that wasn’t the guy who chased Goldfinger, fought Red Grant or impersonated Sir Hilary Bray and never could have been. You can tell a good story about an agent who is tired of killing, retires, is lured back, and loses everything, but that’s not who Ian Fleming created. Right after the scene Orion quotes James didn’t go, “that’s it, I’m sick of killing, go find someone else to chase this Auric Goldfinger guy.” As I said before the problem with Connery was he made it look like being Bond was all fun. But I think his first four movies are recognizable adaptations of the books. YOLT was where the movies stopped being about the books, with two exceptions: OHMSS which could have been the best of them all with a good actor and CR in which Daniel Craig absolutely nails Bond. I am not mad because they killed Bond. Bond dying to save the world or just his significant other and his daughter is entirely in character. FYI I sat stunned on the theatre for 5 minutes after and almost cried. I am mad because I believe that the writers, producers and directors wasted the best actor to play Bond, who could play the guy Fleming wrote and did in CR and to a lesser extent wasted the character of Blofeld, ignored Fleming plots and elements that could have been used, settled for a mediocre soundtrack and I feel took advantage of us Bond fans. Going forward I think Bond works better as a 50’s/60’s period piece unless Stephen Moffatt wants to take a crack at updating Bond like he did with Sherlock. Anyway, it’s been a long time since I posted, it’s good to be back and talking Bond is fun!
6 Likes
Thank you for a acknowledging that. I agree that EON messed up the whole continuity thing in 1967 with YOLT. QoS I’ll forgive because there was a writer’s strike, and it’s still a decent revenge flick. Its editing bothers me more than its script.
I’m not sold on Skyfall. Fleming made no mention of it or Kincaid. Agree that EON totally screwed the pooch on Blofeld–and three times at that! But I love the way Daniel Craig pronounces “Blofeld”.
But it is what it is, and I’d rather enjoy it than not. I can’t decide how Bond movies are made. But I can decide to enjoy them.
3 Likes
My review / random thoughts:
I’ll start by saying a couple of things about how I went into this. I tried to stay spoiler free however was very interested in both Danny Boyle’s hiring and departure, so read a lot about this. I remember reading articles that both quoted Boyle as saying the producers had ‘some mad idea to kill James Bond’ and others stating killing James Bond was Boyle’s idea. So, the seed had been planted. However, call me paranoid, but I also thought that this could have been a planted red herring… After all, what director would leave the production and start giving away its secrets?! It also occurred to me, this being the first time the producers knew for certain it was the actor’s last film, that they would be more than tempted to kill him off, as this is possibly the only chance they were going to get.
I’ve read several reviews above where people knew going in Bond was going to die and they were pleasantly surprised at how well it worked, and others who had no idea and are very against the idea. Luckily for me, I think the above meant I fell somewhere in the middle.
Re the pregnancy, I had heard whispers of the film having made decisions that had caused people to call ‘woke’ and I had decided that Madeleine may be pregnant in / by the end of the film. I had not considered that we would see an already born and grown child, and this didn’t even occur to me when the ‘5 Years Later’ appeared on the screen.
Many things were subverted in the first 5 minutes. The first line is subtitled? We have a flashback? Tropes of horror direction. And then the best bit – Oh… he is saving her…
Then, a nice, effective cut to the present day.
It was obvious from the trailers that Bond and Madeleine were likely to part ways after the opening sequence. As a viewer preoccupied with writing, I had considered how this was a near-impossible sell. I thought, Madeleine won’t have actually done what Bond thinks she has done, so how can them breaking up ring true? Amazingly, I think it does. For me the reason is the two characters are in complete shock after the events of the PTS and various things sell the horror and surprise of it all. The sound editing, the acting (I love Craig’s fury in the hotel room) and the horrible way the henchman delivers the phrase, she is ‘the daughter of Spectre…!’ It’s 10% corny, 90% horrific. I was also reminded of something Desmond Llewelyn quoted (Cubby saying?), something like: ‘Move your story along fast enough so that the audience doesn’t notice its idiosyncrasies.’ So when the titles started I was more on board than I’d feared I’d be.
My favourite part of the film is Bond and M in the car as the bullets are slowly breaking the windscreen / windows. And then Seydoux’s ‘James!!’
Didn’t like the titles at all. I like the song but the imagery is just, no. I’m sick of the plot points being foreshadowed in the visuals. I’m sure it wasn’t this prevalent / obvious before the Craig era. Liked the gun DNA shot but that was largely it.
Was happy to see Felix again. I don’t think his death was as effective as it should have been.
I thought the music mix was a little quieter than it could have been. But maybe that’s because I’ve listened to the soundtrack a lot between the two showings I’ve had.
During the scene in M’s office at the end I was thinking to myself, how the hell are they going to end this on a positive note? (Because they have to.) Then we have the scene with Madeleine and Mathilde in the car. And when she said those words, Bond… James Bond… well, I was filling up. And then we see Mathilde’s face, smiling at the name, eager to hear the story, as we are all eager… looking to the future of the franchise, the next film, looking back at all the good that has come before… and I cried. And I thought: That. That’s how you end on a positive.
I also love how the final shot of the film (at least as it appears to me) is a reverse gun barrel, with the camera retreating back into the gun (tunnel). Surely Cary’s idea, and a great one.
Is it the film I wanted? Not really. Will I enjoy it nonetheless? I will. Do I hope that the next one is markedly different? I do.
6 Likes
And the film opens with Bond and Madeleine driving into the tunnel with the camera from behind. It ends with Madeleine and Mathilde driving into the tunnel with the camera in front. A lot of symmetry in this film. Madeleine’s mother telling her her father is a killer, Madeleine at the end telling her daughter about her father.
5 Likes
Very good reference to cite. In Tomorrow Never Dies, Bond damages the stealth ship, rendering it visible to radar. He’s fine with the vehicle he’s on to be blown apart by the Navy, because the mission is paramount. That’s what living life on the edge is all about.
3 Likes
There are other instances across the books and films as well when Bond seemingly accepts his death. In LALD, when Bond and Solitaire are being dragged by Mr. Big’s boat, Bond surmises he will drown Solitaire and then himself to avoid being eaten by sharks. In QoS, he was seemingly about to do the same thing (shooting, not drowning) Camille and presumably himself, so they wouldn’t burn to death.
5 Likes
Just as Moore‘s Bond or Dalton‘s or Brosnan‘s Bond weren’t that guy. Every actor is a different spin on the character. the same way that Connery was a different spin on Fleming‘s creation.
There is no need for nor any chance of implementing any real continuity. The moments in which the films dropped some hints to previous eras are just nostalgic easter eggs, nothing more.
They certainly did not force anything on Craig but tailored it to him, to his own ideas.
But I agree with you on this: it is fun to discuss all this! So, feel very welcomed to do so!
5 Likes
I don’t see the argument that potentially the best actor to ever don the tux was wasted. If anything he has an unfair advantage - he got to tackle material none of the others ever got the opportunity to. The various emotions he has to display - a big one is realising his predicament and coming to terms with self sacrifice. When I know Craig was never going to play Bond again, and his death happens in the last five minutes, in the context of a nearly three hour movie, I’m at peace with how things are.
5 Likes
Safin says, “People want death to happen to them while they are looking the other way.”
Craig’s Bond faces death head on, looking up as the missiles fall onto him, never even flinching. He was at peace with his life and sacrifice.
8 Likes
Throughout I was liking it a lot. Beautifully shot, well edited and paced (didn’t feel like 2.75 hrs), much of it had a classic feel. Action wasn’t super memorable but was still good. Drama goes deep for a Bond movie but still well done. But the ending could change my whole opinion. They broke all the rules. Blew up the ‘canon’.
I didn’t sit through the credits but I’m guessing this is the only one other than “Dr. No” that doesn’t end with “James Bond will return”?
1 Like
I almost wish they’d cut away at the last moment to preserve some ambiguity over his fate. But I guess that wasn’t the point.
Nope, It’s there. I fact, that’s the final image on the screen before the lights come back on in the theater.
6 Likes
The only canon was Craig canon. That is how in Casino Royale he became a 00 agent AFTER 24 movies.
1 Like
The credits run forever and they literally played it out until the last possible moment. The last credit crawls out and I believe there’s even a black screen for a few seconds before it comes.
My first screening was a press screening, and a good portion of the people stayed seated until the very end. Wasn’t sure wether it’s common practice at press screenings (usually one has five to ten people doing that). Then there was a big sigh of relief, even a bit of applause which made it quite clear that everyone had just been waiting to see if it would be there.
Omitting it would have turned all the attention to speculations wether this would be the last one or not. And it would certainly have produced a whole string of negative reviews based purely on the fact that they just killed James Bond. Confirmed knowledge that the series will continue makes that ending far more acceptable.
And this one well known simple sentence assures us far more effective than any shot of a bleeding hand moving under the debris of the fact that this is not the end but a new beginning.
8 Likes
At my first screening most of the folks remained seated (I know I couldn’t move) and when the words slowly faded in a guy at the other end of the theater went “yeeAAHHH!” which, honestly, was the perfect ending to the whole experience.
3 Likes
Agreed. I’d rather it be the this way than the Michael Myers ending where there is ALWAYS some tease that he survived. Even if it’s retconned in the next film, this ending works better. Giving a hint that Bond survived, cheapens his sacrifice.
2 Likes