It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Now the big elephant in the room. I know many fans are not happy with Bond getting killed and those feelings are 100% justified. We all grew up with Bond in different decades. He was our hero so seeing our hero die is hard for some. When I heard the rumors that Bond was gonna die in NTTD I was ok with it as long as it made sense in the story. To me it made sense. He has to go back to open the blast doors, he got shot doing so, and was not going to make it out in time. Him getting infected with the disease knowing he would of killed Madeline and his daughter if he came back to them justified his decision to stay and die. We all know Craigs Bond movies are meant to be one big separate story from all the previous movies.
Bond dying is not far fetch because they are gonna reboot the series again. Hopefully when they do they go back to more stand alone movies for the series. I think thats what is needed and whats missed from the Bond franchise. The Craig arc was fun but we need to go back to the traditional stand alone films.
So overall great movie. So far it ranks 3 out of the 5 Craig films with SF and CR ranking higher at the moment. Need to see it again to see if it moves up in my rankings. Gonna make a pros and cons list of this movie once I see it again. But just wanted to give my first reaction to the film.
Lots of tears among the crowd at the ending, and the general buzz seemed great upon leaving the cinema.
I agree. I think I was somewhat distracted the first time around taking in the film as a whole, but this time it all hit me. Absolutely brilliant.
The pre-title sequence returns Madeleine to the horrific experience of her youth, with the gun under the sink with the bleach. We learn from the villain he's delivering reciprocity, for the death visited upon his family when he was a child. And there is Bond's own loss of parents early in his life. These things temper and forge a person for what they become and are capable of. Good and bad.
As individuals, losing a parent or loved one early in life is devastating and hard to resolve. Still many people weather this circumstance. In a different context, I recall one of the most stirring scenes in cinema for me: The Seven Samurai, during the bandits' raid. The angry and quirky character Kikuchiyo selflessly rushes into a burning farmhouse to rescue who he can. He emerges holding a baby in his arms, the only survivor, and cries out: "This happened to me! The same thing happened to me!" Our insight into his character expands to understand why he knows the motivations and faults of the peasants so completely. And the cycle through generations is on display.
So I was fascinated by the Mathilde character. Like many story elements floated since 1995 really, it would not be my choice to include a child character in a Bond film, for fear of hysterics and yelling and chasing and action nonsense. That was not the case here. She was calm and straightforward. By nature, as connected to Mr. White and Madeleine and Bond. Or nurture, how psychologist Swann raised her to survive the dangers that likely awaited her. Or both. A child in a Bond film, masterfully handled on screen. I'm left to wonder what is she capable of. Is the cycle broken, or will she be drawn into adventures of her own.
Same for me. Went in spoiled and still cried. Second viewing, wept.
@mattjoes I second that. Do you have a photographic memory lol? The detail there is incredible. The unthinkable.... you captured it perfectly. Nicely done!
My favourite moment is when he reaches the bottom of the stairs and a grenade lands at his feet. With some impeccable timing he throws the grenade back where it comes from, killing the guy. And then, almost magically, a dozen more grenades land at his feet. It's just before (or is it the beginning of?) the long tracking shot in the stairs. It emphasizes for a few seconds that such a situation is just impossible. Bond should be overpowered by the sheer number of ennemies. But he isn't. And it's exhilarating.
I think you hit the nail on the head. My mother kept asking me, “why would they do that?” She’s a fan of all the Bonds minus Brosnan-no offense to any PB fans. I said, “I don’t have the answer. That really a behind the scenes creative decision.” We can speculate until there’s no tomorrow, but I tend to agree it was to give DC a farewell for the ages. It took some....”guts”...to stick with the Spectre storyline after the critical, fan and box office take was not so great. I’ve never had one person tell me that Spectre is their favorite Bond, if it is, I applaud you! But, as a finale, it works fine with me (especially with NTTD coming after. But to build off of Spectre for a grand finale...whew. That is not appealing. If you’re a Trek fan, it would be like building off of Star Trek: The Motion Picture and skipping The Wrath of Khan as they try to find Vger in the sequel. No. If you’re not a Trek fan, I apologize for the analogy.
*Sorry for the double post.
Yes, and The Final Problem is still awesome. Although it might be argued by NTTDetractors that is was Conan Doyle himself who killed Holmes (even thought I believe Fleming wanted to kill Bond a few times).
EDIT: Also I think Conan Doyle retroactively had Holmes survive that.
In sum, I think NTTD is a solid film overall and a great finale for Daniel Craig. The direction of Fukunaga was stellar, particularly the driving and combat action sequences. On a side note, I'm sure others know better than me, but I'm guessing that NTTD has the highest Bond (man-to-man) body count yet.
NTTD was very ambitious in how much the writers tried to cram into the film: Felix death, the end of Blofeld, Vesper Lynd closure, Bond's child, Swann relationship, new 007/rivalry subplot, Bond death, and a lot of exposition...along with the usual "save the world from the villain" main plot, exotic locations,car chases, fight scenes, MI6/Q/M/Moneypenny scenes etc. I think a lot of criticisms stem from this. Even with the record 2 hour 43 min run time the film couldn't possibly give adequate attention to all of the above. It will be really interesting to see which scenes didn't make the cut after the home media release.
Like most, I did not like that Bond was killed at the end, especially since it runs directly counter to the Bond meta (specifically his invulnerability), and the incredible resilience and staying power of the film series itself.
That said, the tragic end was only mildly surprising, and actually understandable when viewed in the context of the serial nature of the Craig films - a structure that has always annoyed me unlike many other fans. The Daniel Craig films are a long-running self-contained story that started at the literal beginning of James Bond 007 so logically would end with his death or retirement, as well as the death of his nemesis Blofeld (and unfortunately Felix). Basically there are two (EON) James Bonds: the one played by Connery, Lazenby, Dalton, and Brosnan (each in their own style) and Daniel Craig's.
It will be very interesting to see how the ending affects the series and how Craig-Bond's death handled moving forward, but I'm 99% certain that EON would have already more-or-less figured that out before deciding on such a drastic ending. It may turn out that the Craig "reboot" (or more accurately "reinterpretation") will be a repeating pattern for future Bond actors (a la the live-action Batman and Spiderman films), with the entire continuity from the previous actor ignored. Given the extraordinarily decisive and emphatic way that Bond was killed on-screen there is almost certainly no chance that the producers go the "unlikely survival" route.
During that whole sequence I was reminded of John Woo, who did the same kind of thing almost thirty years ago (in HARD-BOILED) with more style and skill.
Nice job getting that username, I'd have thought it would have been taken by now!
Like Dexter, Bond might have ended up offscreen as a lumberjack.
And it's okay. He sleeps all night and he works all day.
My "boss" so to speak interviewed Daniel and Daniel happened to mention offhand that they only filmed two takes of the stairwell, there's definitely at least one hidden cut (as Primo's body swings past the camera) so both are in the film, though if I haven't caught any other cuts that just means there's a bit of alternation between the two.
This is a good point. While I initially liked the idea of giving Craig's Bond more emotional weight, they took it way too far, giving him more and more internal problems to overcome with each new film. Storytelling took a back seat to "exploring" Bond's character and his relationships to various allies and villains. It was boring. Bond is interesting because of what he does, not how he feels.
I loved the subtle nod to 9/11 in DAD when M says the world changed while Bond was away. He curtly replies, "Not for me." Later in the movie, Graves tries to psyche Bond by saying his swagger is a defense mechanism for his sense of inadequacy, to which Bond replies, "My defense mechanism is right here" while holding his gun. Bond spends much of the movie telling off everyone who doubts him, including M.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but in retrospect I actually think DAD got Bond right more than the last 3 Craig films did. Brosnan's Bond may be effeminate on the outside, but on the inside he's pretty stone cold and unflappable. Very masculine, actually. Craig is the inverse. He's rugged and masculine on the outside but feminine on the inside, compromised by emotions and self-doubt. A result of the Craig era's obsession with "deconstructing" Bond. Too bad they forgot to reconstruct him (except for the last minute of CR, which was promptly ignored in the sequels) and just kept him as a broken mess.
I sort of understand what you’re getting at, but the only real culprit in terms of “rebreaking” him is QoS in my opinion.
The finale of CR is meant to simply show that this was how the Bond we know was fully formed.
How lucky is your “boss”? That would be so cool.
Simply put, it’s an instant classic. The film is filled to the brim with memorable moments that stand out both in the film and the franchise as a whole. Daniel Craig gives his best Bond performance that easily matches Connery at his best. I needed to let this one sink in as watching Bond die left me in a very strange mood the first time around, but the story is fantastic and the film could very well be a top 5 for me. And the ending, as truly shocking as it is, is executed brilliantly.
The fact that this film is so divisive only makes me like it more. Love to shake things up.
Right on the money!