No Time to Die on Blu-ray

13233343537

Comments

  • Posts: 1,075
    matt_u wrote: »
    Not even close because Bond had a choice and it was after accomplishing his mission. He doesn’t die to save the day or just protecting someone. He first saves the day and then sacrifices himself to protect someone. Standing up proudly on his feet, even tho his world collapsed in a fraction of seconds a couple of minutes before, comforting his lover with three bullets in his body and watching death in the face. Not even close, sorry.

    Made you feel it, did he?
  • Posts: 1,394
    matt_u wrote: »
    Not even close because Bond had a choice and it was after accomplishing his mission. He doesn’t die to save the day or just protecting someone. He first saves the day and then sacrifices himself to protect someone. Standing up proudly on his feet, even tho his world collapsed in a fraction of seconds a couple of minutes before, comforting his lover with three bullets in his body and watching death in the face. Not even close, sorry.

    He didn’t have a choice.Those gunshot injuries he sustained were so severe that he was screwed either way.Had the missiles not hit,he would have died soon anyway.

  • edited January 2022 Posts: 1,394
    KenAustin wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    The ending is heartbreaking and arguably the manliest death ever put on screen.

    Wolverines death is by far the greatest hero death in recent memory.With Tony Starks being a close second.

    Another one that was a crap screen death...with healing factor off the charts I somehow doubt that his character was designed to die

    That film made it clear that Logan was on borrowed time.He had grown so old that the adamantium on his skeleton had begun to break down,poisoning him.His healing factor could only do so much.It was only after taking a shot of super serum that gave him the strength to fight on one last time at the climax.

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Not even close because Bond had a choice and it was after accomplishing his mission. He doesn’t die to save the day or just protecting someone. He first saves the day and then sacrifices himself to protect someone. Standing up proudly on his feet, even tho his world collapsed in a fraction of seconds a couple of minutes before, comforting his lover with three bullets in his body and watching death in the face. Not even close, sorry.

    He didn’t have a choice.Those gunshot injuries he sustained were so severe that he was screwed either way.Had the missiles not hit,he would have died soon anyway.

    Yeah sure. Safin didn’t hit vital parts. Craig Bond survived worse situations, like the ridiculously high fall in SF. Anyway, even Cary stated that he deliberately chooses to die instead of leaving the island… because you know, that’s what makes the finale dramatic and tragic… and thematically poignant but perhaps this is too much to ask.

    “We always have a choice”.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited January 2022 Posts: 735
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Not even close because Bond had a choice and it was after accomplishing his mission. He doesn’t die to save the day or just protecting someone. He first saves the day and then sacrifices himself to protect someone. Standing up proudly on his feet, even tho his world collapsed in a fraction of seconds a couple of minutes before, comforting his lover with three bullets in his body and watching death in the face. Not even close, sorry.

    He didn’t have a choice.Those gunshot injuries he sustained were so severe that he was screwed either way.Had the missiles not hit,he would have died soon anyway.
    That's my interpretation, as well ... in great agony he barely manages to reach the top of the bunker, then collapses. There are two separate POV shots interspersed with this, each establishing how far he is from the water. With less than a minute before impact, it's difficult to see how he could have effectuated any kind of escape, whether or not he would have chosen to do so. By that time, he's really in no condition to do anything but say his goodbyes ....
  • edited January 2022 Posts: 6,844
    Feyador wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Not even close because Bond had a choice and it was after accomplishing his mission. He doesn’t die to save the day or just protecting someone. He first saves the day and then sacrifices himself to protect someone. Standing up proudly on his feet, even tho his world collapsed in a fraction of seconds a couple of minutes before, comforting his lover with three bullets in his body and watching death in the face. Not even close, sorry.

    He didn’t have a choice.Those gunshot injuries he sustained were so severe that he was screwed either way.Had the missiles not hit,he would have died soon anyway.
    That's my interpretation, as well ... in great agony he barely manages to reach the top of the bunker, then collapses. There are two separate POV shots interspersed with this, each establishing how far he is from the water. With less than a minute before impact, it's difficult to see how he could have effectuated any kind of escape, whether or not he would have chosen to do so. By that time, he's really in no condition to do anything but say his goodbyes ....

    The hazy circumstances surrounding Bond's death are one of the reasons this particular attempt at killing Bond on screen doesn't work so well for me. If Bond was fatally shot by Safin then what significance does the Heracles scratch hold? What does it matter if he can never see Madeleine or Mathilda again? He can't anyways. He's been fatally shot.

    The conversation with Q leads us as viewers to believe that Bond can make it off the island after having successfully completed the mission and that he may even be considering such until Q confirms for him that for him to see either Madeleine or Mathilda again would be the death of them. So he chooses to get taken out by the missiles—not for the sake of the mission but because it would mean a life without Madeleine or Mathilda.

    It's a kind of romantic notion—choosing death over the prospect of a life without the ones you love—but it doesn't feel true to Bond, who always* has been devoted to Queen and country. Could not Bond have thrown himself into the ocean and lived to continue serving his country without Madeleine or Mathilda? Could he not once more have become the secret agent? The man who was only a silhouette? The man whom a life of true happiness would always elude?

    The film tries to frame Bond's death as both a heroic sacrifice for the mission and a heroic sacrifice for his family without making entire sense under the veil of Zimmer's tragic music. It's another casualty of too many cooks in the kitchen, too many creatives throwing their ideas into one moment in the film and hoping to have it all. It's ultimately one of those moments in the series you're better off experiencing emotionally rather than thinking about too deeply.

    *with temporary exceptions when things have gotten personal (i.e. LTK)

    Edit: However, I will concede that Craig's Bond is a very different version of Bond as getting out of the life of a secret agent actually has been a running theme throughout his run. So maybe this was a perfect ending after all. He's so dispirited he quits the service at the end of Casino Royale before Vesper's message leads him to Mr. White. He's so dispirited after getting shot on M's orders at the start of Skyfall he becomes a ghost for three months. Then he officially quits the service after finding true love at the end of Spectre. Ostensibly, after completing this one final mission in No Time to Die, he would have quit again to be with Madeleine and Mathilda. I doubt returning to the service was ever an option for him at all.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited January 2022 Posts: 3,152
    Bond got back to the control room, re-opened the blast doors and climbed a 30ft ladder with those bullets in him. Mere flesh wounds...
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    “He would’ve died regardless” is a pointless assumption - especially since Bond escaped more impossible situation before - and what makes the ending tragic is not just Bond dying but the fact that he deliberately chooses to. He doesn’t even try to escape because he knew he would’ve doomed his family. That’s what storytelling is about. He could’ve escaped? He could’ve made it? That’s just totally irrelevant. He chooses not to escape, not because of his wounds but because Safin poisoned him. Even during his last conversation with Swann, she understands he won’t make it because of the red vial. That’s the reason why Bond dies. Not a bullet in the back.
    From Variety:

    If Bond leaves the island, he would effectively doom Madeleine and Mathilde to a gruesome death once the Heracles virus inevitably passed from him to them. Faced with an impossible choice, Bond stays and dies in the missile strike.

    Fukunaga: A bullet, like an anonymous bullet, I remember that one. But it just seemed like a conventional weapons death didn’t seem appropriate. Given how much he had been able to escape from everything else, the fact that it would just be a bullet that always had your name on it from the beginning, as a sort of the thematic element seemed, while realistic, for Bond it had to be something even beyond that — like the impossible, impossible situation.

    Craig:I think the important thing was that we all try to create a situation of tragedy. The idea that there’s an insurmountable problem, there’s a greater force at play, and there’s nothing anybody can do about it. And the greater force being Savin’s weapon. And that it [kills] the only thing that Bond wants in life, is to be with the people he loves and that he can’t be with them, and therefore, there’s nothing worth living for. And he would in fact endanger their lives, and that’s the last thing on earth he wants to do. So that element was incredibly important to sort of thread in there, because it couldn’t feel like a random act. It had to have weight — without it, it wasn’t gonna work. And if we hadn’t have got that weight, I don’t think we would’ve done it. We would’ve found another way of ending it.
  • Posts: 1,075
    Craig - the only thing that Bond wants in life, is to be with the people he loves and that he can’t be with them, and therefore, there’s nothing worth living for.

    I think it's this notion of Bond giving everything up that people feel is out of character.

    Anyway, I don't think there was ever any way of him escaping. There's a shot when he gets to the top of the ladder where you see the land stretch out in front of him. There's no way he'd have managed to get that far in the short space of time. I'm sure that shot was intentional.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited January 2022 Posts: 4,343
    That’s just a personal assumption. Nothing in the film points out that Bond is absolutely trapped and doomed because of his wounds. The only thing that matters from a narrative standpoint is that he chooses to wait for the missiles. He doesn’t reply to Q something like “I’m wounded I won’t make it” when he asks him to get off the island. The focus is only on Bond being infected and his choice to wait for his fate because he became their curse.

    Anyway, speaking about personal assumptions just for fun, I’m pretty sure he would’ve been able to make it. Why? Because he’s James Bond and because he would’ve been fueled by the most powerful motivation ever in his life.
  • KenAustinKenAustin United States
    Posts: 226
    matt_u wrote: »
    That’s just a personal assumption. Nothing in the film points out that Bond is absolutely trapped and doomed because of his wounds. The only thing that matters from a narrative standpoint is that he chooses to wait for the missiles. He doesn’t reply to Q something like “I’m wounded I won’t make it” when he asks him to get off the island. The focus is only on Bond being infected and his choice to wait for his fate because he became their curse.

    Anyway, speaking about personal assumptions just for fun, I’m pretty sure he would’ve been able to make it. Why? Because he’s James Bond and because he would’ve been fueled by the most powerful motivation ever in his life.

    Q and the medical staff I'm sure could have come up with a treatment/cure/or fix for whatever that nanotech virus nonsense was
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    That’s not what the movie established. Simple as that.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited January 2022 Posts: 3,152
    matt_u wrote: »
    Nothing in the film points out that Bond is absolutely trapped and doomed because of his wounds. The only thing that matters from a narrative standpoint is that he chooses to wait for the missiles... The focus is only on Bond being infected and his choice to wait for his fate because he became their curse.
    This. The wounds aren't fatal and Safin's vial of Hercules is harmless to him. Had Q said yes, they could nullify it, Bond would've headed out the way that he and Nomi got in. He stays because it's the only way that Madeleine and Mathilde can live. It's a choice. But he only makes that choice when it's clear that it's the only way to save their lives. It's sacrifice, not suicide: 'The boy stood on the burning deck - I've wanted to copy him since I was five.' He climbs the tower so that he goes out standing up and facing it, not cowering away inside. CraigBond has a deep core of old skool masculinity - and he dies an old skool hero's death.
  • Venutius wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Nothing in the film points out that Bond is absolutely trapped and doomed because of his wounds. The only thing that matters from a narrative standpoint is that he chooses to wait for the missiles... The focus is only on Bond being infected and his choice to wait for his fate because he became their curse.
    This. The wounds aren't fatal and Safin's vial of Hercules is harmless to him. Had Q said yes, they could nullify it, Bond would've headed out the way that he and Nomi got in. He stays because it's the only way that Madeleine and Mathilde can live. It's a choice. But he only makes that choice when it's clear that it's the only way to save their lives. It's sacrifice, not suicide: 'The boy stood on the burning deck - I've wanted to copy him since I was five.' He climbs the tower so that he goes out standing up and facing it, not cowering away inside. CraigBond has a deep core of old skool masculinity - and he dies an old skool hero's death.

    Yep, this. What's interesting too is that not only are any of his wounds not mentioned in the movie, but none of them are being referenced by any of the cast/crew when discussing the ending. They all are affirming that Bond made a specific choice. Think it was Barbara who called it the ultimate sacrifice. Craig is in an interview saying that they didn't want it to be just a random suicide.

    Also, it is set up for him to make a getaway if he had wanted to. There are two boats next to the glider. Nomi only takes one. Both are seen when Bond and Nomi arrive at the base and when Nomi leaves with Madeleine and Mathilde. He had a boat available. After he re-opens the doors and asks Q if he can remove the nanobots, he's heading towards two options - the ladder or the stairwell that he already ran down to exit the base when ordering Q to launch the missiles. He chooses the ladder when Q affirms the nanobots can't be removed.

    I love this film, and I find all of the thrilling and emotional beats of the film to still hold up every viewing including the ending. After Bond puts his family on the boat and charges off, I've got edge-of-my-seat tension built up until the moment he's shot even though I know what's coming. I am also still finding much to appreciate about the thought put into the writing. On my last viewing, I noticed that Madeleine asks Bond, "Can you forgive her....for us?" in Matera. And at the end Bond says to Madeleine, "I have to finish this....for us." Both moments when they have a past to put behind them so they can have a future yet heartbreakingly neither successful. Love this mirroring.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    I think the point is that in other circumstances that don’t involve nanobots, Bond would have been greatly motivated to make his escape in spite of the wounds. He would have gone against all the odds.

    But because he carried a weapon that would have potentially killed millions including those he loved, that was it. He was succumbing to his wounds rather than trying to brush them off like in many other instances. He’s choosing to face his own mortality.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,152
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    On my last viewing, I noticed that Madeleine asks Bond, "Can you forgive her....for us?" in Matera. And at the end Bond says to Madeleine, "I have to finish this....for us." Both moments when they have a past to put behind them so they can have a future yet heartbreakingly neither successful. Love this mirroring.
    Ah, yes, of course - I'd not caught the full-circle of that line. Excellent catch.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    Third time lucky....

    My third viewing, and my best yet. Damn this film moves fast considering it's runtime.

    Craig is fantastic and the direction ditto. This time I noticed the scars Bond gained in SF. Nice attention to detail.

    Only one duff film out of 5. Not too shabby sir...😁
  • astansillastansill London
    Posts: 34
    Let’s be honest, the ONLY reason James Bond dies is because DC wanted to kill him off and probably only agreed to doing NTTD if that was the outcome.
    Going forward I think it’s a dangerous place to be letting the actor portraying the character have so much input and giving them producer credits. By the end DC was more of a producer who also played Bond rather than the other way around.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    astansill wrote: »
    Let’s be honest, the ONLY reason James Bond dies is because DC wanted to kill him off and probably only agreed to doing NTTD if that was the outcome.
    Going forward I think it’s a dangerous place to be letting the actor portraying the character have so much input and giving them producer credits. By the end DC was more of a producer who also played Bond rather than the other way around.

    Why is that a problem?
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,779
    astansill wrote: »
    Let’s be honest, the ONLY reason James Bond dies is because DC wanted to kill him off
    That's clearly not true and you're wrong to propose it.


  • astansillastansill London
    Posts: 34
    astansill wrote: »
    Let’s be honest, the ONLY reason James Bond dies is because DC wanted to kill him off
    That's clearly not true and you're wrong to propose it.


    No - it IS true. He mentioned it on the latest Interview Variety magazine did - link here: https://feature.variety.com/mgmunitedartistsreleasing/no-time-to-die?fbclid=IwAR22m1XMR7jmRIbslj3mZR3TRVLl3EW_Hqi6AK1H7IVTrrD_3F6-qRsDpAY

    He mentioned how right back at the beginning after CR he said to Barbara Broccoli that he’d like to kill him off. She agreed to it and told Michael G Wilson the plan.
    Michael mentioned that they thought SP was Daniel’s last film and they managed to get him back by agreeing the ending.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,779
    astansill wrote: »
    astansill wrote: »
    Let’s be honest, the ONLY reason James Bond dies is because DC wanted to kill him off
    That's clearly not true and you're wrong to propose it.


    No - it IS true. He mentioned it on the latest Interview Variety magazine did - link here: https://feature.variety.com/mgmunitedartistsreleasing/no-time-to-die?fbclid=IwAR22m1XMR7jmRIbslj3mZR3TRVLl3EW_Hqi6AK1H7IVTrrD_3F6-qRsDpAY

    He mentioned how right back at the beginning after CR he said to Barbara Broccoli that he’d like to kill him off. She agreed to it and told Michael G Wilson the plan.
    Michael mentioned that they thought SP was Daniel’s last film and they managed to get him back by agreeing the ending.
    I'm clearly reacting to your hyperbolic "the ONLY reason" which makes your proposal wrong from the start. I am aware of the background details.

  • Posts: 1,075
    astansill wrote: »
    Let’s be honest, the ONLY reason James Bond dies is because DC wanted to kill him off and probably only agreed to doing NTTD if that was the outcome.
    Going forward I think it’s a dangerous place to be letting the actor portraying the character have so much input and giving them producer credits. By the end DC was more of a producer who also played Bond rather than the other way around.

    I think you might be right on the money with this astanill. I suspect there's many here who will disagree thhough.
    The Craig era is the first time the actor has become bigger than Bond, that's for sure.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited January 2022 Posts: 3,152
    True, but Craig's influence over the series is unlikely to be replicated in future. Barbara Broccoli's unlikely to ever again be as enamoured with an actor as she was with Craig, so it's hard to imagine her indulging that level of input from anyone else.
    But if Craig's condition for making NTTD was that Bond died at the end or he didn't make the film, surely that does make it the only reason it happened? Craig's not said that it was a deal-breaker as bluntly as that, but there's been several inferences. MGW had vetoed the idea before, too, so something significant had to have been at stake for him to acquiesce this time. Craig agreeing to do the film only if Bond died would certainly meet such a significance threshold.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Come on guys have you listened to the latest James King podcast about the finale?
    There was never “a plan” to kill him off back in 2006. Craig just (almost jokingly) mentioned to Barbara after the Berlin premiere that at the end of its run he would’ve loved to kill off Bond, since he was contracted to make “at least four movies”, and she told the idea to MJW and P&W.
    After that episode this thing was never ever even further discussed. P&W stated that entering work on NTTD in 2017 they even forgot about this anecdote.
    SP was the last film in Craig’s contract and his death at the end was never even mentioned.
    The notion that they “planned to kill him since 2006” is just wrong.
    It just felt fitting for this finale.
  • Posts: 1,394
    Feyador wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Not even close because Bond had a choice and it was after accomplishing his mission. He doesn’t die to save the day or just protecting someone. He first saves the day and then sacrifices himself to protect someone. Standing up proudly on his feet, even tho his world collapsed in a fraction of seconds a couple of minutes before, comforting his lover with three bullets in his body and watching death in the face. Not even close, sorry.

    He didn’t have a choice.Those gunshot injuries he sustained were so severe that he was screwed either way.Had the missiles not hit,he would have died soon anyway.
    That's my interpretation, as well ... in great agony he barely manages to reach the top of the bunker, then collapses. There are two separate POV shots interspersed with this, each establishing how far he is from the water. With less than a minute before impact, it's difficult to see how he could have effectuated any kind of escape, whether or not he would have chosen to do so. By that time, he's really in no condition to do anything but say his goodbyes ....

    Yep.He’s clearly dying already by the time he climbs to the top of that ladder.Those gunshots were very severe and he was clearly bleeding out.He can barely stand while he waits for those missiles to hit but the ‘ noble sacrifice “ just doesn’t work because it was badly executed.If they wanted him to have a noble death and sacrifice then they shouldn’t have depicted him getting badly shot.

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited January 2022 Posts: 4,343
    In a Bond film no one is “clearly dying” until he’s 100% dead.

    The whole point of the end, rooting back even into SP, is that Bond chooses his fate.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited January 2022 Posts: 735
    The hazy circumstances surrounding Bond's death are one of the reasons this particular attempt at killing Bond on screen doesn't work so well for me. If Bond was fatally shot by Safin then what significance does the Heracles scratch hold? What does it matter if he can never see Madeleine or Mathilda again? He can't anyways. He's been fatally shot.

    The conversation with Q leads us as viewers to believe that Bond can make it off the island after having successfully completed the mission and that he may even be considering such until Q confirms for him that for him to see either Madeleine or Mathilda again would be the death of them. So he chooses to get taken out by the missiles—not for the sake of the mission but because it would mean a life without Madeleine or Mathilda.

    It's a kind of romantic notion—choosing death over the prospect of a life without the ones you love—but it doesn't feel true to Bond, who always* has been devoted to Queen and country. Could not Bond have thrown himself into the ocean and lived to continue serving his country without Madeleine or Mathilda? Could he not once more have become the secret agent? The man who was only a silhouette? The man whom a life of true happiness would always elude?

    The film tries to frame Bond's death as both a heroic sacrifice for the mission and a heroic sacrifice for his family without making entire sense under the veil of Zimmer's tragic music. It's another casualty of too many cooks in the kitchen, too many creatives throwing their ideas into one moment in the film and hoping to have it all. It's ultimately one of those moments in the series you're better off experiencing emotionally rather than thinking about too deeply.

    *with temporary exceptions when things have gotten personal (i.e. LTK)

    Edit: However, I will concede that Craig's Bond is a very different version of Bond as getting out of the life of a secret agent actually has been a running theme throughout his run. So maybe this was a perfect ending after all. He's so dispirited he quits the service at the end of Casino Royale before Vesper's message leads him to Mr. White. He's so dispirited after getting shot on M's orders at the start of Skyfall he becomes a ghost for three months. Then he officially quits the service after finding true love at the end of Spectre. Ostensibly, after completing this one final mission in No Time to Die, he would have quit again to be with Madeleine and Mathilda. I doubt returning to the service was ever an option for him at all.

    1. The significance of the poisoning is that it personalizes his final sacrifice, and ultimately makes it more satisfying dramatically. Whereas the concepts of "saving the world" or doing it for "Queen & Country" are just too abstract for any great viewer involvement emotionally and may go some way to explaining why the conclusions to so many Bond films are disappointingly rote.

    2. I disagree with your assumptions behind the second paragraph above. Note that Zimmer's funereal "Final Ascent" begins as Safin explains what he has done with the targeted nanobots and just before Bond touches the scratches on his right cheek that signal his horrified awareness of its implications. It was from this moment, in first watching the film, that I felt fairly certain that Bond wasn't going to survive. And afterwards, in thinking about it all, his death does register with me as thematically consistent with the entire tragic trajectory of the previous four films. However serious it was discussed at the time, I think that it makes sense in retrospect that the principals involved might have considered this outcome as far back as 2005.

    3. I view the conversation with Q a little differently. Bond already knows the answer to the question he has asked with wearied resignation. Q confirms that for us. When he then says to Q in a subdued manner, 'Its alright ... it's alright', it suggests to me the weary acceptance of his imminent death and that the only course of action is to accept his fate.

    4. You (and others) say he chooses death. But this is highly ambiguous at best. No where do we see or hear him clearly make this choice. When Bond says to Madeleine, "I'm not going to make it," as he climbs the ladder, does the expression on his face as he says this indicate "choice?" Perhaps.
    matt_u wrote: »
    In a Bond film no one is “clearly dying” until he’s 100% dead.

    The whole point of the end, rooting back even into SP, is that Bond chooses his fate.
    Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, it's ambiguous at best ... we're not privy to his thoughts. It's a plausible inference, however; but just as plausible, and perhaps not so different, is his acceptance & resignation in the face of imminent death.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited January 2022 Posts: 735
    BTW, I don't have a problem with an ambiguous ending, it generally accords well with the reality of human experience, especially where any number of conflicting emotions & potential outcomes may be at work, which is probably the (fictional) case here.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    I think an ambiguous ending would be cowardly.

    I admire the filmmakers for showing Bond get blasted to oblivion. Bond fans should be grateful for having filmmakers make those kind of decisions.
Sign In or Register to comment.