The lovely Miss Carrington, haven’t seen you around here in ages.
Shame you didn’t really like it but welcome back nonetheless.
Take a look around, but be careful: Jim left the usual box of scorpions in Bryce’s room and some of them escaped… 
5 Likes
Thanks, stromberg. Good to see you too. 
Just thought I’d add my two cents even though I know it doesn’t add much of anything. Hell, I’m just here to vent, honestly.
I’ll track down the scorpions and leave them in 006’s office instead. 
4 Likes
Welcome to the show, @JoyceCarrington !
Sorry to hear NO TIME TO DIE didn’t live up to your expectations - as you can see the resonance among fans is literally all over the spectrum. You mention the Bond-Madeleine relationship and how we buy or don’t buy into that is certainly another decisive element.
I have to admit, while I like NO TIME TO DIE myself (and feel it improves on SPECTRE) I would also have liked a more convincing romance there. As is, I just tell myself some of that must have happened off screen.
1 Like
Very interesting. I do understand your point. But I’m then left with the question of: if so, is this still Bond? Can Bond be a tragedy, or is it too much of a 180 and therefore not Bond anymore?
I guess the bottom line is, what does Bond stand for, what is the concept behind? Why do we love Bond, what do we expect?
As you say, we will all have our own answer.
2 Likes
I’m sure 006 will be delighted 
To be frank, I never really bought any of the “love affairs”, not even the one with Vesper. They took a lot of effort to show their developing relationship, but it never clicked for me, so the fact that it doesn’t really work between Madeleine and Bond doesn’t bother me all that much.
The Bond movies are action movies, first and foremost, incorporating an emotional love story is difficult and always feels a bit forced. Sometimes I wish they’d return to publishing novels to go with the movies again, there’d be much more room for these things. The last one we had was DAD, which of course follows the script closely, but has those little sidelines here and there (Hong Kong, for example) that make it much better than the movie (okay, that’s not exactly difficult to achieve ).
5 Likes
From your various reviews and insightful commentaries, I am certain you will love it, notably that DC has added yet another layer to his performance in Spectre. Great spectacle and emotional heft with a lightness of touch in the right places.
2 Likes
Great to see you back, Joyce!
I’ve seen discussion elsewhere about how NTTD will impact the fandom. No doubt the ending will hit fans like a freight train, and I won’t lie: it seriously hurts. But I believe in the long term it will actually make fans love James Bond even more. It will reinforce what James Bond means to them, treasuring the content we have with all other incarnations, particularly Craig, and what comes next.
4 Likes
To be frank, I never really bought any of the “love affairs”, not even the one with Vesper. They took a lot of effort to show their developing relationship, but it never clicked for me, so the fact that it doesn’t really work between Madeleine and Bond doesn’t bother me all that much.
I agree on Vesper actually, but to me that seemed sort of the point - it was a young and naive Bond rushing into something he thought was love (but wasn’t actually). I’d hoped that I would have felt that Madeleine was the one who showed him what love really is.
1 Like
Well, I haven’t posted on here for a very long while, not since the new forums were created at least!, but think its worth adding my perspective to this
Firstly, I struggle to agree with those who say the events of NTTD are betrayal of Fleming. Fleming flirted with notions of mortality in the Bond books. He referenced the short life spans of double-0 agents frequently, and Bond’s nihilistic attitudes. Twice he flirted seriously with killing Bond off in FRWL and YOLT, but ultimately stepped back and left some ambiguity. He also considered notions of family, with both Tracy and Bond discussing family in OHMSS and the suggestion that Kissy Suzuki was pregnant with Bond’s child in YOLT. It seems to me that he was quite keen on some large character developments for Bond, but ultimately stepped back at the last moment. To some extent Fleming was probably more restricted in what he could do vs the film makers. As novels, Fleming probably felt he couldn’t kill Bond off properly in one, only for him to return in the next with no explanation of how or why, because the written Bond was the same. Film makers have the advantage of re-casting to allow such a hard reset without viewers requiring it is justified as part of longer continuity.
Secondly, those of us who are fans of the 2006 Casino Royale should really be accepting the concept of Bond dying. What I truly loved about CR following the car crash that was DAD, was that “risk” had returned. Bond was no longer a superhuman incapable of dying. When he killed in CR it was brutal and ugly, and that implied the same risks for Bond. Bond openly declared to M that double-Os have a short life expectancy, and CR was the first film to really show Bond seriously injured and having to recover for many weeks/months. Serious injury and recuperation was a frequent theme in Fleming which was new to the films back in 2006.
CR also reintroduced character development for Bond, really for the first time since OHMSS. The Bond at the end of CR was very different to that of the beginning. It was what drew such a talented actor as Daniel to the part. Perhaps there was some naivety from some of us that while we were happy to see the character develop to the point at which the other films had him at, it would then stop, and future Craig films would be presenting Bond as a fixed character unchanged by the events of the films. Craig was always going to want to push the character further in each film, and the producers were willing to let him do it
The arc of the Craig film to some extent was more of a retro-fit rather than anything pre-planned from the beginning, but I think we need to accept that an arc that began as it did in CR with such strong intentions with regards to mortality, could lead to death being a real possibility for the final film. I went into this film not knowing if they would go for it or not, but that they would come closer to it than in any other movie. It was the natural conclusion.
This is also really the first time the producers have made a movie knowing full well it was the lead actor’s last. DAF was much more about Connery being back, than Connery’s last. With AVTAK while it is clear Rog was too old at that point, it being a final hurrah was not really the idea. Tim and Pierce’s tenures were cut short by unexpected events. The producers went into this movie wanting to find a good conclusion, and with the rules set in CR meaning death was real, it was the obvious conclusion
Bond’s child was a complete surprise for me – I’d manage to avoid that particular spoiler – but I do feel it upped the emotional hit of a death. This was not Bond just dying in a mission with a girl in a bikini he’d only met earlier in that movie shedding a few tears. The longer term relationship with Madeline, the responsibilities of fatherhood, and the risk to Mathilde’s life should he not die gave serious dramatic weight to the choice he made. While I accept the criticisms that the chemistry between Seydoux and Craig was not quite what it needed to be to pull it off, from a script perspective it was smart.
I do think the producers have painted themselves into a bit of a corner though. While it’s likely a hard reset is the route out now rather than the old-style replacement that we are not supposed to notice, I feel it also restricts how they can make the future films. The old style standalone adventures with everything starting afresh for the next will seem lightweight and open to critical panning. Any actor who wants the part is also going to be expecting they can have the same opportunity to bring drama and character development that Craig had. The new Bond really is going to have to be the same vein as Craig rather than a new Roger. The death of Bond really has changed the rules here, much more than if they had re-cast after SPECTRE. Perhaps it is this that is causing some concern amongst fans. My take is that the producers really have closed the door on the idea of a Roger or Pierce series of Bond movies for the next era. And while I regard the Craig era as a real high point, I truly love the likes of TB, TSWLM, MR, GE etc… Formulaic as they were they are magnificent entertainment and an important part of my life (Octopussy was my first big-screen Bond back in 1983) and I understand those who wish for them to return.
13 Likes
Okay. I have seen it now. NTTD was the film I had been pinning my hopes on to finally get a little entertainment relief after a very stressful 2019… and then 2020 happened, with the pandemic and additional personal traumatic experiences which continued into 2021, so that my determination to not see the film until home video became part of my problem. Almost as if I wanted to be stuck in that limbo, locked down so to speak, afraid of opening myself up.
And then I read the spoiler-filled reviews in the trades Wednesday morning, and I was bitter and disappointed - mostly because I had to realize that NTTD would NOT be the movie I had wanted it to be for too many years now. In addition to that: since its release in December 2019 I have been watching the first (really fantastic) trailer again and again, and it became my go-to tonic during 2020, the light at the end of the tunnel.
How wrong this assumption was I only became aware while watching the whole film now. Because the trailer slyly misdirected or at least raised expectations in me that were very different from the end product.
I really thought NTTD would be the huge action bonanza, the most traditional and fun Bond films of the whole Craig era, a return to those adventures of the first 20 films.
Which it is not at all, nor ever was supposed to be. NTTD is the culmination of the Craig era, and this Bond cycle was all about how far can the formula be stretched, how different can these films be.
Now, when it comes to Bond, I am a traditionalist. Mainly because I use these films to reconnect with the awesome escapism of my childhood. For two hours I can still be enveloped into this fantasy world in which good conquers evil, with funny one-liners deflating delusions of grandeur and the biggest peril.
When Craig was cast I had an immediate averse reaction. He does not look like his predecessors. He does not behave like them. But he slowly won me over, and during the early 00-years (hey, just noticed that coincidence) I was open to suggestions, to keep Bond fresh and, yes, relevant. I liked QOS a lot, and with that movie I was firmly in Craig’s corner. SKYFALL cemented that and gave me the kind of entertainment high I rarely feel as an adult. SPECTRE was, at first, a let down for me… but with time I began to appreciate it more for what it tried to achieve.
And now NTTD. I definitely have to see it again, but I at least have the feeling that my first reaction will not really change this time. I like the movie, and the more I think about it the more I see how thoroughly it is composed, with echoes throughout the whole Craig era, really picking up motifs and ideas, packing it all in and bringing it to a conclusion which was always foreshadowed, from CR´s first scene onwards.
The guy who had to kill twice in order to become what he wanted to be. The awareness of his short life-expectancy. Actually dying due to digitalis poisoning, then self-reanimating, tortured and rescued by Mr.White, saved romantically by Vesper to a degree that he wants to quit the service, then realizing the lies, accepting Vesper´s act and taking revenge without killing in QOS.
From then onwards it was always CraigBond really living on the edge: waiting for Mathis to die then getting rid of the body and getting on with his job, being ready to kill Camille and himself when everything seemed to be lost. SKYFALL actually began with him almost dying, then saying to M he was “enjoying death”, having to argue with Mallory about “why not stay(ing) dead”, with the reveal of his parents´ death haunting him and then his ersatz-mother dying. And SPECTRE even began with the day of the dead-parade, showed him attending the funeral Blofeld was a guest on, with his memories of Madeleine almost being surgically removed, getting away with Madeline after making a huge leap of faith.
It was all meant to lead to this end.
Craig´s Bond was a man who escaped bullets like the previous Bonds - but in the end he really needed to be hit. Otherwise it would have been all for nothing, just another going through the motions. Why setting up this version of Bond with all the dark traits and surroundings when he finally would have celebrated by smooching in a rubber boat?
As for the actual film - my first impression is that it repeats the strategy of many previous Bond films, not only in the Craig era: the most spectacular action is front loaded, with the rest of the movie getting less interesting action scenes. The Matera sequence is very impressive (although I wonder why that marvelous motor bike jump is not part of Bond´s escape from the first attempt on his life when it would have had more urgency), and the Cuba sequence is very good (mainly due to Ana de Armas). Afterwards, the second car chase in the second part of the film is not as impressive anymore, and the action on the island is rather ego-shooter-bland, I must say (even the long take up the stairs is not that spectacular, Fukunaga had more fun with those long takes during “True Detective”).
But NTTD is more concerned with tying up all the loose ends from before, stretching the Bond formula into a more emotional area. At times, especially in the middle section, I got the feeling that the maturing of Bond is the reason for its being, not so much the usual thriller entertainment.
And while the criticism in the likes of “oh, the script is half-baked as usual” is as lazy as it is untrue (it really is very concise and cleverly structured), I do get the feeling that it was very difficult to bring all the different elements together. The one Blofeld scene is very good - as is the handling of Madeleine´s arc. But while I understand why Felix Leiter had to be part of this film I don’t think they did justice to his character. He serves a function, again foreshadowing Bond´s demise (the desire to return to his family as the hero). But his death would have cut deeper if it had occurred later on. (Personally, I would have even used him instead of Ash to double cross Bond.)
Blofeld, by the way… Waltz is fine again, enhancing his portrayal with more subtlety - but his death, while being the logical step to advance the plot, is not as well handled as it should have been. Instead of getting the sudden shock by cutting to him dying, I would have loved to see him react to his poisoning and Bond realizing that he was instrumental in that, not getting enough information out of Blofeld he could have provided.
Safin, on the other hand… I was afraid that Malek would be disappointing. In the trailers I thought he was on the brink of parody and over-acting. But in the movie he was deliciously evil, perfectly underplaying at times. Like a human cobra he seemed to hypnotize people before lethally striking. While I still consider Bardem´s Silva the best villain of the Craig era (and maybe ever) I rate Safin as Craig’s villain No.2.
As for Safin´s No.2 - Primo - he does look scary with his mechanical eye. But that gimmick is more a grotesque joke then terrifying. Mr. Hinx´s nails were at least enhancing his threat. And the way Madeleine can outwit him turns him into not much more than just another disposable guy with a machine gun. Somehow the whole Craig era was not good at inventing impressive henchmen. Sure, Mr. Hinx had one great entry and a scary mano-a-mano with Bond - but he was disposed of much too early and did not seem to be developed in between.
I am satisfied with M actually driving the plot (and the demise of Bond, inadvertently), but this time Moneypenny is totally underused, like Tanner. Q at least is well positioned and getting a more rounded portrayal.
The most enjoyable supporting character, no doubt, is Paloma. I would have loved to see her for the full film. Lashana Lynch is also very good but gets the better scenes in the first part of the film while being relegated to the side lines in the second part. Yes, this is about Bond, but why introduce her if she is mostly used as “shock” because she has taken his number? Even giving him his number back was unnecessary. It did not appear as if Bond really wanted to go back to the service anyway, only do this one last mission.
Which leads me to Phoebe Waller-Bridge´s involvement. I actually thought she would have peppered the script with much more funny lines. The ones that are in are fine but not that special. And are the lines the female characters get so much more polished because of PWB? Well, we actually cannot be sure what was altered and who wrote what, so let’s put that into the “PWB is a star right now, so she will get the applause”-bin.
The cinematography: much more colorful and vibrant than in SPECTRE. But… also kind of perfunctory, for my taste. The ambition of composition which Deakins brought to SKYFALL is unmatched. And despite the muted color scheme of SPECTRE, it still brought more elegance to the table. NTTD is very good, no doubt, but my impression is that Fukunaga is not yet on the level of someone like Mendes.
The editing is very impressive. Despite the narrative going slower in the middle, I never felt bored, and the 165 minutes rush by. That is no easy feat, and here Fukunaga is to be lauded. He brought the film in at a record length but also at a great pace. As for his staging… I am not so keen on that. The often-mentioned dialogue exchange between Bond and M at the Thames lacks ideas, just two people standing close to each other delivering expositional dialogue.
Finally (yes, even my reviews end) Daniel Craig. He seems relaxed and fully in command, so that he can easily switch to the more emotional scenes. A flawless portrayal, perfectly measured. But I think: he knows that he has given all he can give to this Bond version. It is time to leave.
All in all, I am relieved now that this era has been brought to a worthy closing. I enjoyed the film and I want to see it again. But I don’t think that I will rewatch it more than the previous ones. It really is a film of endings. And that is not what I want to see too often. NTTD closes the book on one interesting era.
But I am ready and happy to move on to a new era now. We have seen how far the formula can be stretched.
Now, let it stretch back.
19 Likes
These 2 last reviews are spot on chaps!
3 Likes
I need to ask, because maybe I just missed this bit… When Bond killed Blofeld because he had previously grabbed Swann’s wrist upon which the spray had been applied, how was he to know that it would only affect Blofeld in that instance? Surely the rule should have been no touching anyone else from that moment on?
He didn’t know. He physically lashed out at Blofeld, then calmed down at the last second, but it was too late because he already transferred the virus he didn’t know he was carrying. They find out when Bond gets tested by Q, who had already found what this was from the files Bond gave him.
2 Likes
Please don’t think I am being racist,but I wonder if DC bond dying will open the door for the next bond to be a black man,taking the name on as a code name? Or will nomi get her 007 status back?
Gotcha. That must have been the point when a person in the cinema decided to have a coughing fit then distracted my attention.
2 Likes
Personally I blame Hugh Dennis and his workplace bullying.
2 Likes
Very true!
1 Like
The guy wanted racial cleansing, dude was definitely asking to be bullied.
2 Likes
Very well said!
I quite agree with you in that having Bond die was most probably the only way of ending the Craig run. That makes complete sense. I managed to stay completely spoiler-free so it came as an utter shock, and I was actually very gloomy these last few days given what Bond means to me; but I’m slowly getting to terms with that notion.
Still, the issue I have is how they did it: it’s pretty low-key, the accompanying score is unemotional, and the “farewell drink” is outrageous. I think our Hero deserved better. Maybe not national funerals and mourning day, since indeed OOs are supposed to end badly and young. But he should have gone tall and proud, instead of that emotional wreck; he should have been “defiant to the last”, with more bravado and probably one last witticism, instead of his last few crying words.
That’s why I think they “betrayed” Bond. Not in their decision, but in the way they handled it.
1 Like
At no point the film uses the code name theory.
Nomi only takes the number that is not used because Bond is no longer working for Mi6.
In this era James Bond is dead. It seems clear that Nomi again takes the 007-number.
So, the next era will have to start fresh with a new man who is James Bond.
1 Like