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
As far as the Mathilde reveal, I took it as Bond didn't actually believe Madeleine when she told him she isn't his. I think from the moment we see her face and the light hits her blue eyes he knows that's his daughter. Just the way he looks at her you can tell he knows.
I remember very well that Boyle was supposed to have walked away because he wanted Bond to die and Eon refused. I remember it 100%.
A model example of misdirection, as it turns out.
It goes the other way, too. If you keep pushing boundaries and stretching things further and further, you invariably end up destroying what you've created.
And BTW nobody wants copies of earlier Bond movies. The Bond formula is very basic and leaves room for plenty of originality. It's one of the reasons why the Bond series has lasted up until now.
So-called traditionalists don't want copies of Bond movies, we just don't want outright subversion and sabotage.
Holy crap that was great!
This is my favorite Craig Bond film by far..............although I love the others.
Damn!!!!
Well worth the wait.
That's exactly how I saw it too. From the moment he saw her, I think he knew.
Great news! I remember how sceptical you were a couple of days ago... :P
So great to read all of this, @Creasy47 ! I am relieved you enjoyed so much of this beautiful, stunning Bond film. I am mostly glad you got the ending, though painful, to be an appropriate one for this particular Bond. It is very satisfying for me too. I hope to see it 4 times in the cinema (my cinema experience here is amazing and safe; that helps me with that decision).
This story of 007, start to finish, does not ever need to be repeated. We have it as a set story, a jewel, amongst all the other kind of Bond films we already have - and for the ones in the future, which will need a different tone. Start fresh. It opens up everything.
I greatly value Daniel's performance, Cary's direction, Linus's cinematography, the bravery of EON to do this, and the script (even with small issues I have with it). Just this particular story being told this well for this Bond - our realistic, gritty, vulnerable, yet to his last moment truly selfless, heroic Bond - is a rare gift. I appreciate the film, no matter how hard the ending hits me. And for me, this film will probably stay in my top 10. It is now in my top 5. Thank you for all your thoughtful words in your review, @Creasy47 . You make some good points.
My reading, exactly ... maybe with nine minutes left he could have gotten clear, however unlikely. But not with two minutes left after having to reopen those blast doors and carrying those wounds.
I've seen some fans suggest that his supposed (in)actions here are tantamount to suicide. And yet, while Craig-Bond may have some kind of death wish*, that doesn't accord with my own understanding of the conclusion to NTTD.
* Note the closeup on Bond's face in the DB5 when surrounded by SPECTRE assassins in Matera when Madeleine literally has to beg him to "do something".
If I'm lucky in subsequent viewings, it might even hit the top of my Top 10. If not, I couldn't be happier with an 11th or 12th place ranking. That'd be lovely.
And when Llewelyn retired (even if he hadn't died, his final shot in TWINE clearly showed he was retiring), they used instead one of the greatest British physical comedians of all times to emphasize even more the jokey nature of these scenes.
Neither Llewelyn nor Cleese would be remotely credible near a modern computer. You can imagine Cleese yelling at a computer, and that's about it.
I dislike the ending. Massively. However I’m also aware that I need to get used to it and I’m not going to let it spoil what is 80% of a fantastic film. I’m looking forward to my second viewing. I really am. Partly because the first hour is up there with the greatest of the franchise.
I hope Daniel is nominated for awards for this one. I know, I know, the genre and track record of award committees goes against that happening. But I do hope so; he deserves professional recognition for this role. He really is outstanding.
Of course. And Madeleine knows he knows. The second "she's not yours" means "you will not be her father".
Fantastic to hear you loved this!
You know I was worried that I would either love the film or hate it, but as it stands I feel my expectations were merely met, and I'm satisfied with how the film turned out. Which is a good thing, of course! :))
I saw NTTD a few days ago and am still having trouble organising my thoughts about it. It is not my cup of tea (glass of vodka martini?), but to borrow a phrase beloved by parents, I am not angry, just disappointed.
Online user reviews tend to go for extremes (best Bond film ever vs worst Bond film ever)… I rather agree with the reviewer who said NTTD was made by people who do not like Bond films. It is a fitting goodbye to Daniel Craig and an OK film, but to me, it is not really a Bond film, at any rate not a good Bond film, despite having the requisite bells and whistles. By contrast, say, Moonraker is pretty dire as a film but firmly belongs in the Bond canon.
The Bond film canon thrives on formula, and has amassed a great deal of goodwill over the years thanks to it. Where Fleming’s Bond often comes across as a borderline-psychopath loner with a tough, thankless job and a troubled personal life, the pre-Craig films have collectively been glossier and more light-hearted than Fleming’s source material, and have enjoyed broader appeal than the books.
Some attitudes and tropes have aged better than others (Live & Let Die kinda makes me groan in its entirety), in the same way as much of the “science” from 1960’s and 70’s Bonds no longer holds water, and there is nothing wrong with a thoughtful update (Judi Dench’s M being a great example); but IMO a Bond film constant is that it should be, broadly speaking, fun to watch, no matter what politics its makers or viewers stand by. It does not have to be an Oscar contender; its major selling point is a guaranteed two hours of an escapist thrill ride, offering glimpses of a dangerous-but-glamorous, devil-may-care fantasy lifestyle.
Mess with the formula too much, tip the balance too far, and the appeal fades. Strip away too much of movie!Bond’s mystique, take away his ability to cheat death and danger, and he is just a burned-out guy with issues. Too much “entertainment” results in the likes of Octopussy, too much “gritty realism”, while arguably truer to Fleming, makes the films start to lose their identity, approaching run-of-the-mill action flicks or, in NTTD’s case, dissolving into action-filled melodrama. There are plenty of good films in both categories, but it is disappointing to see Bond folding into either, or both. Casino Royale and Skyfall struck the right balance; IMO the other three Craig films did not.
(as an aside, I realise that in another film universe, the same arguments could be used against Nolan’s superb Batman films; and I do not have a good answer as to why IMO the realistic take works better there. Maybe by following Nolan chronologically, the Bond update seems derivative rather than fresh).
As someone here said, the filmmakers’ and Craig’s stated intention, starting from CR, was to subvert the genre and the character. An intriguing and initially well-executed premise that may have been needed to take the franchise into the 21st century, but one that does not seem to work as well over time. IMO they overdid it with the constant subversion reaching its peak in NTTD, deconstructing stale and successful clichés alike in a soap-opera-worthy plot seemingly written by committee (don't get me started on the child, a plot trope to end all plot tropes that is as un-Bond-like as it gets).
NTTD felt drawn-out, disjointed, ponderous and bleak most of the time despite the action. In striving to make Bond more realistic and more relevant, they only made him dour and downbeat. By amping up the emotional stakes, I think the filmmakers actually made it less engaging, especially given Craig’s all-too-evident character fatigue and the lack of chemistry between him and Lea Seydoux. The writers left so much of the viewers’ expected involvement hanging on the Bond-Madeleine family drama that it derailed the overall plot while the main villain was reduced to a cipher (no CR pun intended) and other characters (most woefully Ana de Armas’ Paloma, but also Felix Leiter, Moneypenny, even Blofeld) were left short-changed. This also applies to the “new 007”, whose character plays out more like a walking plot device than a real person, so little effort seems to have gone into her story. Compare her portrayal to Skyfall’s Moneypenny, and the difference leaps to the eye. And the multi-film storyline, a departure from the pre-Craig film canon not too bothered with continuity, was no help here, weighing the plot down with emotional baggage from previous films.
From a box-office perspective, so long as viewers buy into the first film of a “saga” (as was the case with CR), it helps keep a captive audience for the duration of the arc. Looking back at the five latest films, it seems that their overarching plot was the filmmakers’ intention starting from Casino Royale, and I suspect that the success of Nolan’s Batman films, among others, may have been an added push in that direction for later films. But where Skyfall is brilliant and gripping on its own merits, Spectre and NTTD over-rely on the overarching plot to maintain interest. And it looks like by getting to co-produce Spectre and NTTD (a position no other Bond actor got up to), Craig had a great deal of creative control over the plot and above all, over the ending to suit his vision of the character – based on his post-Spectre quotes, I am positive that he was an enthusiastic supporter, if not the main proponent, of the final twist. To most viewers it is Marmite; my experience was more of a "meh"...
Then again, the fact that the Craig films have become a standalone franchise-within-a-franchise may be a good thing after all. For DC Bond fans, they provide the character with a complete, stylistically consistent story with a closure that, like it or not, followed from the plot and character development in his five films. For those less taken with Craig’s Bond (I am clearly in the latter camp, CR and Skyfall notwithstanding), it helps set these films apart from the rest of the canon. Whether Bond 26 will start another arc or follow the more loosely-tied plot convention of the first 20 films, for better or worse, NTTD has left behind it a clean slate, albeit of the scorched-earth variety, but I actually think it may be easier post-NTTD to pick up where the earlier Bonds left off, more or less. Either that, or make films set in the 1960s, Fleming-era.
NTTD has its highlights; the Matera chapter is gripping, the all-too-short Cuban sequence (kudos to Ana de Armas, who had great chemistry and good banter with DC!) is the highlight on par with the best Bond films, and the cinematography is beautiful. But to me it looks like, in between obsessively tying up loose ends, knocking down plot clichés, and giving Daniel Craig his desired exit, while ticking the requisite number of Bond boxes, NTTD ended up smaller than the sum of its parts and forgot to be a Bond film somewhere along the way.
Awesome, glad you enjoyed it.
Very good, well thought out review @NeverSayNever
I liked the film a lot, but I agree on a lot of your points.
I’m just watching SP again. I really wish they’d driven off into the new dawn for good. Knowing they didn’t is, well, I’m sure you understand.
Excellent review, a great read and i'm glad you enjoyed. I was nodding along with a lot of what you said. I saw it for the second time last night. Although i loved it on first viewing, there was so much to take in, i actually enjoyed it even more the second time. I totally agree that Craig felt so human in this film and its certainly up there as one of his best performances (along with CR). I also loved Paloma and you are absolutely right - she was so lovable and fun. I have totally warmed to Madeleine and i also enjoyed her character a lot. Ever since i left the cinema last night, i haven't been able to stop thinking of going to see it again. Some time over the next few days.
I don’t have a problem with messing with the formula. I have more of a problem of messing with the character. I’ve said before the more bond becomes just another action hero the more he loses his unique appeal.
Campbell nailed it when he said “all other action hero’s are blue collar”. I want some sophistication beyond wearing a Tom Ford suit and driving an Aston. I want him to walk into a hotel like he owns it and order a Dom perignon 53 like it’s his last night on Earth.
That’s been sacrificed ever since the brosnan era. Shame
There's nothing wrong with Whishaw's Q being a new character. He may even be Major Boothroyd, revived, considering the DC era was a total reboot anyway. He's not THAT young and may indeed have reached the rank of Major before or when he was appointed quartermaster.
Cleese certainly was not the same person, as he followed the original Q (Major Boothroyd) when the latter retired, with both appearing in the same film. And while I am a definite Monty Python fan, I hated Cleese's performance as the new Q ("R" was only what Brosnan asked him if that was his code). He appeared like a bumbling idiot, and the humour of his role was based upon that. Not what I'd expect from a "Q" character, too dumb and irritating.
I enjoyed the film, but I wouldn't have understood it had I not seen Spectre and had read the spoilers. I even teared up when the OHMSS theme and We Have All the Time in the World played.