when everything has washed out it would be fascinating to see how the film fared with those who are parents v those who aren't. Those who came to Bond through Fleming v those who came through the films...
I saw the film again last night one of my biggest take aways so far is how many nods there are to the previous film. In the fullness of time I would love to know if that was Cary or Daniel...but we get an exact reenactment of 5 seconds of Bond's first kill in the CR bathroom, we get the same stance on the motorbike as QoS and we also get a few seconds of the Hotel Splendide stairwell fight again - can you have a signature way of diving down the stairs whilst grappling an attacker? The last time Bond sees Madeleine she is illuminated by the sun in a similar way to the moment he falls in love with her (or at least when seems obvious to me) in L'American. For me those brief call backs and signatures made the experience all the richer and highlighted every emotion from hilarity to heartbreak.
Incidentally the 'normal' audience reaction was interesting there was *a lot* of laughter, proper belly laughs, cheers, gasps and from the moment Nomi sailed the RIB away from the island absolute silence until the end before leaving in fevered discussion. Regardless of the legacy the film ultimately has it seemed to bode well for a memorable cinematic experience.
I wasn't around when the early Bond movies came out. But I don't think they were so concerned about competition back then. Now it's like they feel they need to compete with the Bourne movies. Which I don't think are even made anymore. Nor did I personally think they were that good to begin with. I thought Bourne's secret origin was obvious from the beginning.
But anyway, the Bond series also sees competition from Mission Impossible. However, no Bond actor is going to do the level of stunts that Tom Cruise is doing. And not one of those Mission Impossible movies comes close to the best Bond movies. I guess the John Wick series might be competition.
Yet I don't understand why the Bond movies can't be their own thing? I know I've said it before. But the last big Bond movie was The Living Daylights. I'm talking the big movie with the people helping Bond at the end. Everything since is one man army Bond.
Indeed, poorly done. How to explain M? Is she the M from GoldenEye or another?
or the ejector seat in the DB5 for Skyfall, or any of the gadgets it has, now? I don’t know.
I think I’m just mad with the ending.
The more I think about the film the more the plot replays in my mind.
I dont think they played the ‘daughter reveal’ with enough gravitas.
James Bond has a daughter! That’s major. They never played on it enough.
I genuinely think Safin was terrifying. So calm, so underplayed but what he was planning, the cruelty of the weapon he was going to use. Unbelievable.
The abject cruelty of Bond’s fate. This guy who’s been broken, completely, rebuilt almost and then resigned to a fate of never seeing his love or his daughter (!) again. More or less killed by Safin, there was no recovery from the shooting.
Climbing the stairs and finding out if he lived he would never be able to see them again. It wasn’t a life worth living for him. So painful.
If James Bond is going to die, if this James Bond was going to die, I can’t think of a better way to script it. I think they done a wonderful job.
I mean we start the film at the grave of Vesper and him having to let go of this pain, allow new love into his life.
And we end the film with him being able to do that, only to die.
It’s incredible. How the hell do you get that much emotion into a fricking JAMES BOND film?
I’m no being a total fan boy for the sake of it but the more the film plays on me, the more I can’t believe how well they’ve done.
Found it interesting that the bits they used in the trailers were not the exact shoots they used in the film e.g. "History isn't kind to men who play God." for one. Maybe this is the norm? I dunno, I'm a novice.
It’s usually used to throw you off.
In the spectre trailer they even used music that wasn’t in the film!
Add to that list the paintings of previous Ms that can be spotted.
At least that settled that Robert Brown was indeed another M. Would love to have those portraits hanging somewhere, but I bet the 007Store will only sell overpriced handkerchiefs with the 007 logo to dry our tears.
Oh, he was definitely M- the unanswered question was if he was Admiral Hargreaves or Admiral Sir Miles Messervy, and as you say the painting settles that. 🙂
Yes, sorry, English is not my first language. Thanks for clarifying !
I did think it was a shame they didn’t make enough of the fact he had a daughter.
I've seen it twice now. The first time I really didn't know how to feel about his death. I did go in with an open mind. After the second time, I think I've concluded that I dislike it.
I don't necessarily have a problem with Craig's Bond dying if it was done right. But I feel his death was done in a very cruel way. He's clearly a person who's had to deal with a huge amount of emotional turmoil from the death of Vesper, the death of M, and then spending five years believing he was betrayed by Madeleine.
So instead of giving him that second chance with Madeleine after their reconciliation, after he discovers he has a daughter, and with that peaceful life away from espionage (which he initially thought was going to get with Vesper) just around the corner, they kill him off.
Both Blofeld and Safin wanted to destroy Bond's life with Madeleine in different ways, and they both succeeded. If Bond's most personal and important mission was to find happiness after Vesper's death, he was foiled by the villains of NTTD. It is an incredibly cruel end for the character and it can be a very downbeat ending for some fans, especially those who have gone on that emotional journey with the character since Casino Royale.
I think a change to the film whereby everyone else believed Bond to be dead but he is then seen with Madeleine and his daughter would have changed my overall opinion of the movie considerably and ended the movie and Craig's tenure on a high note rather than an incredibly downbeat one.
I think some Bond fans will differ on the desire to give Bond, our hero for 5 movies, this happy ending. This is one of the reasons the ending will be so divisive for fans.
Having read quite a few reviews and thoughts subsequent to posting my own opinion above, I've reflected on why I wasn’t emoted by Bond's death. I believe it's because during the movie I never had the sense of impending inevitability which pervades the very best tragedies. Look at Shakespeare and how foreshadows the problems of Macbeth or Hamlet. What draws us to these characters is that they die despite knowing full well there will be no escape clause for them. What holds our attention is the lingering suspicion they may just get away with it. However, Bond’s death is not foreshadowed in NTTD. When it occurs it is sudden, impulsive - like all his other actions - and as many times as he can say “You have all the time in the world” at the end, there’s been no philosophically emotional hook to carry the audience on his journey.
This isn't like Tracy's death in OHMSS, which the constant music cues try to remind us of, because her sudden demise effects the hero. What makes me so emotionally involved in the epilogue of OHMSS is that my hero has grown as an individual, beaten the odds and is embarking on a new life of potential happiness. He really does have all the time in the world. That it is cruelly taken from him hits like a blow to the audience's heart as well as Bond's.
There's no growth for Craig's Bond in NTTD that we haven't seen before; in fact generally he's attempting to make up for his past errors. Yet the errors and the deaths keep on coming. Five years away from espionage hasn't improved his temperment. Indeed, he's probably even more dark and brutal than before. When he stares at Mathilde in astonishment, Craig-Bond isn't displaying growth, it is astonishment: how could I have produced such a beautiful thing? Even the badly edited sentence "This is my family" [again invited at a moment of high tension, not when appropriate and noticeable] doesn't work because it is effectively played for laughs.
So, given this, I look back at Spectre and think at the emotional hooks the writers gave us: Bond falls in love, Bond chases down the over arching enemy who has pursued him from the shadows, Bond avenges [almost] another death of a loved one, he resolves his authority issues, he at last finds a semblance of freedom and - like Michael Caine at the end of Get Carter - tosses his gun aside. We know he resigns and we know he’s left with the delectable Dr Swann.
So, did we need another dose of Bond attempting to resolve his psychological issues? We’d seen it all in Spectre, and it was handled reasonably well. [It was the rest of the movie which messed it up, especially the Blofeld - Brother stuff.] Craig’s Bond was done after four films. This is an add-on which only covers ground we’ve already seen and discussed. Spectre's conclusion was, for me, a fine way to end to Craig’s tenure. I was quite happy with him departing in the DBS to the Bond Theme, but now I’m saddled with the sudden, rather sad, realisation James Bond [although not Craig-Bond] isn’t as invincible as I thought.
As a side point, there are two OOs on the island. Why doesn’t Nomi go and open the silo doors and Bond escape with his family? So much for a new way of evaluating women in the world of Bond, they are still damsels to be rescued…
Nobody has mentioned the gunbarrel so far, so I will. An inventive start, and a satisfying finish (unlike Spectre's) but as has become standard with Craig it's much too fast.
And a 23 minute pre credits sequence? Here, yes, it works.
I agree with all of that particular the last bit - sad times for sure
I never thought I'd say this but No Time to Die has convinced me that I'd happily pick up where Die Another Day left off than legitimise the events of the last two films.
Return to the pre-Craig timeline and give us regular missions again. I cannot take any more personal melodrama. I want spy films not soap operas.
@kristopherm3 I agree with your last two sentences. Craig's era has been an interesting experiment in psychoanalysing Fleming's hero and as it is now finished, I'd rather have a return also. I felt we needed it after Spectre, and, while as I've said, I enjoyed NTTD despite reservations, I do think a more straight forward film is due. I almost yearn for the days of Pierce Brosnan's carefree assignments. Things felt so much simpler then.
As stated previously, post 59. Not that Eon will notice or care, I suppose- the box office is doing just fine.
There will be a gap now and people might think it's the end. So meaning any new film is like any new film without the history of the older films?
I suspect that Michael G. Wilson will quietly retire now or soon, leaving BB as sole or senior producer. This will either speed up or slow down production (I suspect the latter, unfortunately).
That's really devastating because in some way it means Craig's Bond is supposed to be the classic Bond we grew up with for 40 years ! So if we go further, Tracy should be mentioned, and the use of the OHMSS theme is just a betrayal...
Another e.g. is that there was no Sean Bean voice for "....if we don't do this now, there'll be nothing left to save." !!!
Anyway, still devastated. I need to lie down😪
I hope there will be another version in the Blu-ray with Bond surviving. We know Fukunaga shot three alternate endings...
It's the only means to relieve my pain as a classic Bond fan. I still can't believe they killed my childhood heroe. I'm just devastated like other people here.
Amazing...if indeed the death of Bond is as sudden and tragic as you gentlemen are describing, I'm sure I will leave the theater feeling upset....I know it's just a movie and all that.... imagine the character being denied happiness, utterly and completely...no reason to live...yikes
On the other hand, Mr White's assessment that Bond is a kite in the middle of a hurricane proves to be absolutely true...
Yes, as I wrote in my review above.
Barbel - Gatiss and Moffat would do great as writers of a Bond film. With what they accomplished with Sherlock, I bet they’d do a bang up job with Bond.
Now for my general thoughts -
I haven’t seen the film. I don’t care about spoilers at all. I’ll go see it and enjoy or won’t regardless of spoilers. I have tickets to see it three time when it is released here in the States. Iconic characters such as Superman, Batman, Sherlock, etc. are constantly rebooted. I think Sherlock has been portrayed my the most actors in film and tv over any other character. These characters die as in film, novels or in graphic novels. This isn’t a new concept. As we know DC’s Bond isn’t linear with the other actor’s Bonds. Several years back when Superman died in a film people were gutted. He came back. They all do. This isn’t the first time Bond died on film. He died in Casino and Vesper brought back to life. I guess my point is they live or come back to fight another day. Our beloved Bond will as well.
Thank you, JTullock23. If Sherlock isn't the most portrayed character in films etc then it's Dracula- who dies regularly, it's part of his character (hell, he's undead to start with usually!).
I could be wrong but didn't Sherlock appear to die (he wanted to kill him off) but it was left as mystery so he was able to come back as he'd survived the fall ? 😊