Even going all the way back to Skyfall, I haven’t liked the Tom Ford suits. They’ve always looked about 2 sizes too small for Craig (apparently that was on purpose), the worst being the suit he wears at Blofeld’s compound where it seems that his pants were too short. His best dressed film is still, easily, Quantum of Solace. The suits fit perfectly and were honestly better looking than any of his suits in the next 3 films.
7 Likes
I do not see that. There is some carnal attraction between Bond and Swann–especially after surviving the encounter with Mr. Hinx–but there is a good deal of ambiguity as well. Each is wary of the other despite their attraction.
What in the mise en scenes would lead a viewer to this conclusion?
Bond throws away his gun to reject the programming he was subjected to in The Orphan Trilogy. He will no longer be a kite dancing in a hurricane. As a result of this renunciation, the possibility of a relationship with Madeleine is offered, but its success is not guaranteed.
Exactly. The mise en scene is silent.
For NTTD to be coherent, it must be assumed that the Swann/Bond relationship underwent an off-screen flourishing between movies. Possibility must have blossomed into reality while no one was watching.
The problem is that Seydoux doesn’t give a terrific performance. She is fine in SPECTRE since her character needs to project ambivalence and doubt, which is within her range. But the range of emotions Madeleine must demonstrate in NTTD is beyond her ken, and as a result, it is hard, if not impossible, to believe in the between-movie flowering of the Swann/Bond relationship.
3 Likes
It’s there on the screen. She tells him that she loves him post-torture. I can’t remember if he says it back, because quite frankly I can’t be bothered to watch this trainwreck of a film again. At the end of the film, he’s literally presented with a choose your own adventure ending, where he can continue being “James Bond 007” by walking towards M, Moneypenny, and the rest of the Scooby gang at one end of the bridge, or he can choose a life with Madeleine by throwing his gun away and not killing Blofeld, which he does. He’s not doing that for Mary Goodnight, Stacey Sutton, Natalya Simonova, or any of the other run-of-the-mill Bond girls. He would do it for Tracy and for Vesper, and that’s what they’re trying to accomplish with Madeleine there, hoisting her up into that pantheon of Bond girls when they’ve done nothing in the construction of the character to warrant her being up there.
Do they achieve it? On the page, no, they absolutely do not. Spectre is terribly scripted and it really accomplishes next to nothing that it sets out to accomplish, other than tainting the three films that came before it.
I’m also unsure as to how much development the Bond/Madeleine relationship is supposed to have undertaken between the films. Assuming that NTTD takes place in the present day, as all Bond films do, then it takes place in 2020. The pre-titles are set five years before the events of the main film, which would put them within the same timeframe as SP. I seriously doubt that there was any time for a flourishing of the relationship between films. It isn’t a situation of QOS picking up directly post-CR, but it’s not too terribly far off either.
EDIT: Ultimately, I think we agree on this more than I think this discussion lets on. With regards to the film, I would agree that there’s not much romance actually present in the film. We see them have that heated moment of passion after the train fight, but that’s really about it. There’s nothing there that really builds on that into anything meaningful. However, by the end of the film, even though they’ve laid absolutely no groundwork for it whatsoever, EON clearly wants us to think of this woman as someone who is a great love of Bond’s, right up there with Tracy and Vesper. For him to stand on the bridge and have a literal choice between continuing on with the Scooby gang at MI6, killing Blofeld, and continuing on being “James Bond Agent 007” or turning in the other direction, throwing his gun away, sparing Blofeld, and leaving that life to be with Madeleine and pursue something else, they’re clearly trying to force Madeleine into being a character that she is not and that they have not put in the work in the script to make her be that kind of character. The intention for them to do so was clearly there, but it’s not acted upon at all and the feeble attempt to drive that nail home in the closing moments of the film misses entirely, yet somehow serves as the basis for the next film anyway.
5 Likes
Agreed, which is why I believe that Madeleine doesn’t have enough information about Bond to tell her daughter a story about the man that will go on longer than 5 minutes.
1 Like
Is that the fault of the suit though, or just the fit?
Otherwise, I totally agree. Too small, too tight. I would not have been comfortable if I was an actor, portraying that look in permanence. Or even on set where one could imagine a moment’s exertion might rip the seat out of his derriere…
The suits are cut to accentuate the body, they are hand tailored so will fit Craig as comfortably as anything Connery , Lazenby, Moore or Brosnan ( no way Dalton’s can be included, they were plain bad ) wore. The style is just that, a style. This style arguably started by Craig in Skyfall has been the norm for a decade now. The suits in CR and QOS are a different style altogether, as was fashionable in the noughties.
2 Likes
Then let’s go with the style where you can walk casually down the street without fear of splitting your pants.
1 Like
Just a quick reminder: Daniel Craig is not the fashion emperor who dictates style trends around the world.
The cut of his suits is influenced by the current fashion.
If the Safari suit were the big thing today Bond would wear it. I know, that sounds ridiculous but maybe there will come a time when… Oh.
8 Likes
He did sell a hell of a lot of pink tuxedo jackets after the premiere…
His style is heavily influenced on a true Emperor of style Steve McQueen. From the shawl cardigan to the suede chukka boots.
5 Likes
Agreed. Our disagreement centers on the filmmakers’ intention (more on that below).
Again, agreed. Where we differ is that you perceive a failed effort to depict romance, while I see a successful effort at portraying a potential for romance. You posit that
You are correct: no groundwork was laid for the existence of a great love between Swann and Bond. The mise en scene, Craig and Seydoux’ performances, the lyrics of the theme song (among other formal elements) all point in the direction of ambiguity.
But short of a corporate Vulcan mind meld, no one can say what Eon wanted, outside of making money. With respect, you are committing the intentional fallacy. Did Eon and the team they assembled have the intention that Madeleine be Bond’s great love, but, in actuality, were so maladroit at filmmaking that they could not lay the groundwork for such a narrative? So maladroit, in fact, that instead they laid a coherent groundwork for a narrative of romantic ambiguity, where closure is elided, in direct contradiction of their intention–an intention confirmed by the fact that nowhere within the film is it manifest in any way. By that logic, one could posit that Eon’s intention was for SPECTRE to be a modern retelling of the Tristan and Iseult story, and that the film is a failure since it in no way whatsoever is a contemporary version of that tale.
Again, we are agreed. But that “something else” with Madeleine does not at all indicate/require that she is/be his great love. She offers a “great perhaps”–an alternative to life as Robot Bond. In your reading, Bond could only make such a choice if Madeleine is his great love. But I would argue that there are other reasons–found in the film itself–which could motivate his choice, e.g., being weary of living as Robot Bond, and dancing in a hurricane like a kite. In contrast to the opening scene–told in one fluid, (seemingly) uninterrupted take–where Robot Bond obediently/unquestioningly follows the orders of his dead M(um)–the scene on the bridge shows Bond exercising autonomy, and saying that he has “something better to do.” That something better is shown to be a) retrieving his old car, and b) driving off with an impassive Madeleine into an indeterminate future. There is nary an implication of great love (as we agree). Liberation from being Robot Bond is the better thing Bond has to do, with the details to be filled in later (and, absent a fifth film, an appropriate/ambiguous ending to an actor’s run as James Bond–akin to Bond being aboard a perpetually at sea cruise ship, and gazing up at the stars).
7 Likes
And to think I never thought Bond and Vesper’s love was ever earned.
1 Like
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this. In the same way you don’t see my reading on the film, I can’t really subscribe to the “Robot Bond” theory either. And, that’s okay. 
As far as I’m concerned, neither SP nor NTTD deserve this much debate anyway. 
For my money, Craig’s tenure would have been far better off had it ended with SKYFALL. A shorter tenure, yes, but the overall quality of his run would have been drastically better.
6 Likes
Agreed. And thanks for being such a fine fellow lover of the close readings of texts.
1 Like
These are humorous, and very sharply edited.
3 Likes
So we learned: producing is tight, scriptwriting is super easy, barely an inconvenience… 
1 Like
“Wow, wow, wow….wow!”
I particularly love the Die Another Day one.
Welllll…NTTD is the first in the series in a good while where I still have not formed my opinion, so I’m not entirely against debate 
But to your greater point, as we are both defenders of QoS, DC’s first three rival SC’s for consistency and quality. And I’m on the record that for me, SP is a far worse film than DAD, which alone is some sort of achievement if nothing else.
So I’m glad that DC came back for one more, and thankful that, while my opinion on NTTD is nowhere near final, one thing’s for sure, it’s not SP. If nothing else, I’m glad that his tenure didn’t end with Mendes “wanting to give him some closure just in case” (wildly paraphrasing that quote), as I fear that for me, those interminable 2 and a half hours would forever have ever-so-slightly tainted how I feel about CR thru SF.
Cuckoo indeed.
1 Like
No other obvious thread to put this in, so since they DO discuss NTTD…
8 Likes
Finally decided to put down, not so much of a review, but some thoughts on No Time To Die. Late to the party as I know this thread is now debating specific issues but I did want to share it. Apologies for the length – I do tend to go on at times. These are my views and if people see things differently that is completely fine with me. I am certainly not here to pick a fight but always enjoy civilized discussion – including those that note the shortcomings of my views.
I saw the movie once in theatre and 3 times at home. I had tickets to see a second showing in the theatre but had some symptoms (happily I never developed COVID) and gave them away. I am hoping to see it in a theatre at some point when COVID subsides.
I really made an effort to avoid spoilers. I think I only watched the first trailer and was very careful on here and social media to avoid them. As a result, everything was fresh when I saw it and I never knew where things were going to go next in the movie. The only real spoiler I tripped over was there was a new female agent and she was 007. I don’t know how I avoided the spoilers about a child but I am glad I did as I was shocked when she appeared with those blue eyes. I had read the discussions several years back on whether Bond might die. But I never took it seriously and thought that maybe that is what led to Boyle leaving. I was so unaware this could happen that I joked with my wife on the way to the movie – “so do think Bond comes out of it alive?” – because obviously they would never kill Bond off in a film.
Overall Reaction
My initial reaction after the first viewing was that this movie is just a notch below the very best/near perfect Bond movies. Those movies for me (at least today) are: FRWL, GF, and CR. I also thought that 20 minutes could probably be cut. After the second viewing I thought this moving is perfect. Today, I am back to where I started thinking it’s just a notch below those top 3 movies but I don’t think anything needs to be cut.
I have heard some say that it’s not really a Bond film. I know what people mean but we have a whole bunch of those already. I love the tropes and I like the structure of Bond films too but I think that we probably need more Bond movies that are not “Bond films”. To be clear, they don’t need to do that every time out but it does help advance the series into new ground, create new tropes, and redefine what a Bond film is.
The Plot
I think the plot holds together very well and addresses almost all of the biggest issues/plot questions. There are some unanswered questions that others have noted: What exactly is motivating Safin (other than being a sociopath) to want to kill everyone? Why does Safin wear that mask (I get the effect, just not clear why he does it)? How does Safin know Spectre is going to steal Heracles when they do? While it would nice if these were answered, none of them are big enough (for me) to take away from the enjoyment of the movie.
Some have wondered about the believability of Bond leaving Madeleine after putting her on the train. I find this entirely believable giving Bond’s history with Vesper, what happened at her tomb, his former profession, that she is Mr. White’s daughter and that they haven’t been together all that long. In a related point, one question I wish the movie had answered was how long after Spectre does NTTD begin? My assumption is that it’s about 5 months as Madeleine and Bond appear to me to be a couple that have spent months together and not simply weeks or days.
Realism
I like realism in Bond movies (I know others prefer the more fantastical version of Bond) but recognize that any action adventure movie is going to depart from reality to some extent if it’s going to be entertaining. For me, it’s about not taking things too far and being reasonably grounded. What exactly that means for those who like realism will differ significantly for each fan but I think NTTD meets that test well. Many of the unrealistic elements of the movie don’t drift that far from plausibility for me (e.g., the bionic eye, Blofeld being connected to the eye, the stealing of Heracles from a secret and secure location, and even the villain’s lair and the number of people working there). In short, they’re not coming close to hiding a fleet of space shuttles in the Amazon jungle.
M
I have really enjoyed Ralph Fiennes portrayal as M. I never saw M as a perfect and the idea that he would sanction something like Heracles to avoid collateral damage and risks to agents does not bother me. Good people make mistakes – sometimes big ones. Moreover, he owns up to it and says that if it does get out there, this is on him. Absolutely loved his “FFS” when he realizes Bond has gotten help from Moneypenny and Q. I would welcome Fiennes staying in the role for Bond 26 just as Dench did for the first three Craig movies.
Humour
While I like a serious portrayal of Bond (I love Dalton), but I think humour and fun is necessary. I recently started to warm up to LTK (I loved it for many years and then hated it for a long time). I think that film would be much better with little more humour. In my mind, NTTD strikes the perfect balance. It is definitely a serious movie and I feel for Bond at the end, but it avoids being non-stop serious and does have some fun (e.g., 007 taking her wig off and Bond’s reaction, the drink in the middle of the fight in Cuba, “your awfully thirsty” and the desk remark, the initial scene with Q, and the apple scene with Mathilde).
Call-backs
I really liked all of the call-backs in DAD and thought that was appropriate for the 20th film. But it would be mistake to be that over-the-top with any degree of regularly. I think call-backs in NTTD, and in the Craig era in general, are fantastic. The paintings of Judy Dench and Robert Brown were great. I especially liked the scene of him in the garage getting his Dalton Ashton Martin. The scene itself, along with Jack the bulldog in the background, was a nice call-back to SF. The use of All the Time in the World (the song and lines) was wonderful – for me.
Blofeld and Safin
A good number of people would have preferred Blofeld to stay in the past. Personally, I see him as the equivalent to the Joker and prior to SP we had not seen him in a very long time (i.e., 40 or 50 years). I do agree with others who have said it probably would have been better to save him for a future Bond where it could have been set up from the start instead of having to retcon Quantum but I still enjoyed him being in the last two Craig movies.
Many on here felt underwhelmed by portrayal of both Blofeld and Safin. Over-the-top villains can be absolutely wonderful but I do like understated ones too. While Christopher Waltz did say he did not nail the role, I loved him. I thought in both SP (especially the torture scene) and NTTD he came across as very creepy and sadistic. As an aside - the party in Spectre reminded me (in spirit) of how Blofeld wanted Bond’s head cut off and brought to him (on a silver platter?) in Nobody Lives Forever – though I have not read that novel since the late 80s probably – so forgive me if I have any of that wrong.
Similarly, I enjoyed Safin’s portrayal by Malek a lot. He came across as a totally sadistic sociopath right from the beginning of the movie and I loved the final scene with him. When Bond is facing him and he is holding Mathilde, it is very clear to me that Bond is terribly afraid of what he might do to her and Madeleine.
The Ending
Bond has put his life on the line numerous times. Perhaps it was time that we finally had the pay-off? To me it makes total sense as to why he would not risk leaving the island. Two things I especially liked were the killing of Safin and how Bond faces death head on.
In the novels (and some of the movies) it is noted that Bond does not like killing in cold blood. But he hates Safin for taking away his chance for a family and a normal life. It made total sense that he would kill him in that way and not even look the man in the eye as he pulled the trigger.
Once Bond knows that he is going to die, it shows how much guts he has to go up the ladder and look out to the sky and see the missiles bringing his death. In short, I thought the death scene was done perfectly. That said, I don’t think this should be done again – at least for a very, very long time.
Finally, the salute to Bond in M’s office and the reading of the London quote that Fleming himself used was wonderful. I think its great when they go back to the source material as long as they avoid the embarrassing views Fleming had particularly with regards to women and race. OHMMSS has a downer of an ending – as it should. But NTTD managed to end on an up note. I loved the final line and the smile on Mathilde’s face as they drive into the tunnel that harkens back to the gun barrell. Wonderful movie. Maybe it really should be seen to be among the very best Bond movies.
20 Likes