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
I think you're having a little joke here. Come on. . .
It’s not an avenue I would want to see Bond take. But we’ve already seen invisible cars and laser satellites, so this conceit that Bond films are “realistic” just doesn’t fly.
Obviously, and for the better.
Brosnan Bond was described as a relic of the Cold War. Unless Bond 26 is a period piece, I wouldn’t buy the conceit of the new guy being the same one we saw in the 90s.
It’s more like seven timelines. Heck, when I introduced my friend to Bond, she already assumed that each new Bond was essentially a reboot of the character to an extent. And I can’t blame her, given how the films are largely standalone.
Anyway, I’m personally glad that Craig’s era had a definitive ending and that they aren’t going to try to continue it with another actor. The idea of a 30 year old actor stepping in and supposedly being the same 50 year old Bond we saw in NTTD just doesn’t play well, especially with all that baggage. Better to just start anew with a Bond that’s already been established as a 00 agent for several years, the same way DR NO did in 1962.
But you will at least admit they're based on real world science, and they're not science fiction. I know there's a lot of improbabilities in James Bond films, and they're fantastical, but they're not sci-fi or fantasy films like The Hobbit or Spiderman.
Is it only me that doesn't see Bond movies as science fiction films? Perhaps I've been approaching them wrong all these years.
And fighting a madman in a Japanese castle, with a Garden of Death, as he walked around in an armoured suit!
Le Carre is a starting point for a more realistic spy, not James Bond.
I honestly have zero interest in the next incarnation of Bond films and I know that whatever they give us it won’t be to my liking. I don’t watch modern cinema at all (except maybe the M:I films) as there’s simply nothing out there anymore that grabs me. My TV/film viewing (whenever I find the time for it) is almost exclusively stuff from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. That’s really my sweet spot for the best of film and television.
Not at all, because they never were.
It's one I always look forward to. Waltz is certainly good in it, and I really like Craig's energy. As far as I can recall, it's easily the most awkward situation we've ever seen Bond in--recently unretired, just ran into his estranged ex who has just had a panic attack, and now he has to ask Blofeld for help, and he has virtually nothing to bargain with. He's not going to behave as he does in a casino scene.
It's okay to not like films of course, but I think it's common that people don't like a film for one reason, a distaste for a thematic choice or whatever, and concoct other reasons for disliking it as explanation, typically pointing at things that are not obviously bad, but are unique to the film. Potential reasons for disliking NTTD are pretty obvious, and Craig moving his arms too much in one scene is not among them. My favorite Bond film is Spectre, and I've grown accustomed to rolling my eyes at ludicrous complaints about the production design (!) or poor PTS (!), and it's all just kind of amusing.
I don't understand why Bond being part of the same continuity in the 1960s AND the 2020s (meaning he'd have to be at least 80 in No Time To Die!) adheres to real world rules. You still have to accept that they are in a different continuity.
Had Bond lived in NTTD and returned as a younger man in Bond 26, that would have been just as impossible. If you don't question how he keeps getting younger, why would you question how he returned back to life?
Good point.
In other words, don’t complicate things.
Just hate the film, and watch the other ones.
Whether it makes sense to you or not, Bond will be back in cinemas in a few years.
James Bond must womanize! Oh wait, James Bond can't have a child!
That brings me to the title of Bond 26...Shooting Blanks.
[/snark]
😂 😂 😂
Yeah, whether he died or not makes no difference really; this version of the character was always ending with Craig. To get caught up on the death and being confused about how he can possibly come back is to rather miss the point of many of the plots. From the moment 007 became an 'old dog' in Skyfall, eleven years ago, Bond #7 was always going to be a reboot.
Edit: I see NoTimeToLive made this point better above.
That said, I did enjoy SPECTRE more than most on here.
Hopefully wise words will be listened to @j_w_pepper …
Pretty much how I feel.
After all, didn't Blofeld DIE when dropped down a smoke stack in FYEO? But then he was back?
Quistion wil be, wil there start the movie with showing Moon or straight to the dots after MGM logo.
https://www.rtl.nl/pers/persberichten/nieuw-bij-rtl-in-november-the-jump-kopen-of-slopen-all-against-1-james-bond--sport/ZQvneBEAACAAz7SH
Seeing as I gave it a rewatch a few days ago I thought I'd do so now.
Initially when walking out the cinema I thought it was a decent if flawed Bond film. I liked the controversial decision to kill off Bond and felt it was a good end to Craig's run.
However, I don't think it stands up to repeated viewings.
I continue to love the first 20 minutes. Tense, exciting and beautifully shot. Both Craig and Seydoux are excellent, as is Rami Malek and the young actress who played child Madeline.
After the opening song however the film takes a dive and never fully recovers.
We have a low rent story about a nasty bioweapon and a cartoon scientist who I call Boris 2 (at least Alan Cumming had some funny/memorable dialogue). David Denclick also represents one of the film's main problems - the awkward shifting in tone. There are times when it wants to be a serious drama, and other times when it wants to be a cheesy comic flick.
The party action sequence felt like I was playing 007 Nightfire right down to the colours, dialogue and music cues. Not once did I feel Bond or anyone else was in danger. This style just doesn't suit Daniel Craig either. This isn't the blunt instrument we saw beating up the bloke in the bathroom in Casino Royale or even the desperate man looking for answers in this film's PTS.
The "007" gimmick also seemed really overdone upon this rewatch. How many times do they say "find 007" or "it's only a number". We get it.
There are times when the direction and performances are off - most notably involving Daniel Craig. I know I'm not the first to point this out but his acting during the Blofeld interrogation sequence is REALLY bad. It feels very mannered as if the director told him to move his hands more because the virus is on them. Not very natural at all. Blofeld's death is also poorly handled. No gasping for air like the other Spectre agents - just bang! dead. A poor end to an underwhelming Blofeld.
The last 40 minutes where we are introduced to Madeline's daughter and Bond expresses his regret are ok but nothing that special.
I do quite like the raid of the island in the last act. The Saving Private Ryan-esque moments of the sound dropping out after an explosion are very effective (it was good in the PTS too). I also enjoy the final fight with Primo and his inevitable demise.
Rami Malek also makes a very creepy Safin and you are glued to him in all his scenes. His final execution is brutal.
Bond's death scene will continue to be very divisive amongst Bond fans but I for one think it was well done. Great score by Zimmer and excellent performances from both Craig and Seydoux.
Overall though for all its plus points the film is uneven and has a messy script. I honestly don't think it will go down as one of the all time great Bond classics. It's also created something of a backlash towards Daniel Craig too. I adore him in CR and think he's great in QoS and SF but the silly humour is NOT his strong point. He also needs good direction to get the best out of him - much like Brosnan did.
Fully agree on that. But freedom of thought is important. As is freedom of taste.
Agree 100%
Yes, nobody could seriously insist, that Bond in DN is still the same charcter than NTTD Bond. He'd be well in this eoighties or nineties. And Arthur Conan Doyle was serious, when he killed off Sherlock Holmes. That he gave in after several years to the readers of the Strand Magazibne and his publisher, is a different beast. And the explanation, how Holmes could survive the fall from the Reichenbach ... Falls, and Moriarty dies, is also a bhit weird...
The next film will feature the same James Bond, who is similar to the character that Daniel Craig played, but because Craig's Bond is dead, then the next film will be a different character.
But there aren't two cinematic James Bonds, okay? There's only one, and he can move between different 'incarnations'. He's a bit more like Dr Who now.
So, the next movie will feature a new character called James Bond, who is the same person Daniel Craig played, but he's in a different timeline, and a different incarnation of the same person. But a different character.
It's all very simple really.