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 wonder if it’s because Craig likes to do a lot of the action himself, but just isn’t that physically capable anymore? Not knocking the guy, I’d love to be in his shape at his age. But it does seem like the action has been downgraded increasingly as he’s gotten older and more injury prone.
But then we do get that stunt on the bridge, so clearly they’re not above letting a stuntman do something cool. Maybe the action scenes were just an afterthought, similar to the villains plan. Seems to me this time that all their attention went to how they wanted to finish Bond’s story, possibly to the detriment of the rest of the film.
I am wondering how I’ll feel when I watch it again. I thought seeing it for the first time
was on the whole a very worthwhile experience (seems wrong to call it enjoyable given the ending haha), but obviously that emotional cathartis will wear off on repeat viewings, and even now I can see it’s very flawed. Not sure how well it’ll hold up for me. I liked it as an ending to this era, and I wouldn’t say it’s a bad film, but I wouldn’t call it a great one either.
Yeah, it was quite odd. I think the reason for Saffin not treating her ruthlessly was the same reason he kidnapped her in the first place: he feels connected to her because she’s a child of the assassin/spy world, like him, like Bond, like Madeline. I thought his creepy desire to protect her worked well.
But then he just lets her go. I think he did say something like “you don’t want my protection? Fine”, so maybe it was a case of him feeling/hurt rejected, and it was just the direction or performance that let them down? Or maybe like you suggested, it was another meta moment. But that bit didn’t quite work for me. Bit convinient how she went straight back to Bond and Madeline too.
Reminds me of SP’s finale in a way. There’s no real danger from Nine Eyes, and Bond rescues Madeline ridiculously easily, because what the film is really interested in is the personal angle. But in both cases I’m not sure it really works, because they don’t actually subvert the whole evil plot thing. There still is one in both films, but that side of things is just a bit half arsed.
That makes sense to me and that is how I interpreted it, he was making good on what he said to Bond. I don't think Safin was ever meant to be a larger than life villain, something, sad and tragic about him.
Also the DC films are never really about the scheme or the plot they are about the story, Bond's story to be precise, most the previous films concerned a plot. Possibly why people get so precious about the plots not quite ringing true or being followed though.
Though most of those films are about a threat then a guy called James Bond going on a mission and saving the day, not much depth or insight into him as a character and that is fine they worked and entertained.
Although making the character continue that trajectory after PB's tenure would have signalled irrelevance, Bond fans can cry the loss of their Bond as much as they like.
Though the character and the direction needed to change and one of the biggest changes was making the films about Bond rather than the mission.
It didn't appeal to everyone but it was unique, well apart from OHMSS but DC from the get go dug even deeper than that.
That is what makes him unique and unlike some who would like it to be the case, he won't just be the next guy, he stamped his name on this series and again I'll argue, the most significant actor to play the role since Sean Connery.
After my first viewing I had a lot going through my mind. I was pretty sure going in that Bond would die (thanks again, newspaper reviewer who heavily insinuated that in his first paragraph a day before the film was released), but all throughout that sequence I was still trying to figure out how they would steer out of it at the last moment. Like watching a magic trick, trying to figure out where the rabbit went so that they could pull it out of the hat later. Only the rabbit didn't go anywhere. The rabbit got blown up. So, I think I was a) too focussed on the ways the end could have gone differently and b) just generally numbed by the idea that they actually did it. I was kind of angry, that the end is so cheesy because I am not a big believer in the romance between Madeleine and Bond and I was going through the entire plot trying to find ways to discredit it.
On second viewing, I was kind of reconciled with the idea that it was going to happen and was much more able to let the action and the emotion of the moment take over and I have to say, I did get a bit emotional. Others have already pointed this out, but some of Bond's final dialogue very much feels like Daniel Craig talking to his audience. He may leave, but we will still have a lot of Bond to look forward to (and even as a heterosexual male, the James Bond I pretty much came of age with looking me straight in the eye and telling me he loved me, too was... ...something :\"> ). Still pretty cheesy and people are already saying that this is Craig stroking his ego instead of delivering a good film, but I disagree there and like I said, it got me a bit. Also, I was much more able to enjoy the action pieces in the last minutes. The stairwell fight landed much better with me than it did on first viewing as did the final, brutal fight with Safin (I like that he is just so much not a match for Bond who basically dispatches him in seconds).
I still have a lot of problems with the pure plot and how the decisions that lead to there being no way out seem very thin to say the least, but it was emotionally affecting and on a meta-level I am not one of the people who feel betrayed but rather applaud their gumption to take the one chance they had to give us a "The Death of James Bond" storyline.
As for the rest: I really love most of the film. The first half more than the second, but even there, there are really good moments. As always, I want more from the MI6 scenes, but I totally understand that people don't come to Bond for depictions of Whitehall politics. I saw the film in the German dub first and in the original English second and while it is just overall better in the original, Fiennes' M especially lost so much in the voice over. His performance was excellent I thought (even though he might suffer even more than Malek from the plot making basically no kind of sense.) and I agree with what seems to be everyone's opinion that Q is a highlight. Really buoys that second half, I think.
Nomi is a fun character and more or less what I had wished for in the role. Maybe wanted a bit more action and consequences to her actions (someone pointed out that the most important things she does plot-wise is driving Bond around and it was hard to get that out of my head) but having her there was good overall. I will have to watch this film many more times to figure out what the film wants to say about Bond being redundant or not. On the one hand, he has to come out of retirement and save the day. On the other hand, he really doesn't have to. If he just lets Nomi bring Obruchev in, we're done after about an hour and nobody dies. That doesn't seem to occur to anyone in the film, but Bond still in the end seems to acknowledge that Nomi can take over his role and he can just go die. So a split decision for now.
Another thing to spend more time on in the future is all of the costuming and stuff. Like I said, I became an adult during Craig's tenure and I think at least subconsciously a lot of what I think about fashion and how a man should carry himself comes from him. On first viewing I didn't really have a lot of these "Oh my god, he is so cool" thoughts, like I do in basicyll all of his previous films. On second viewing that came a bit more. I am still not fully on board with things like the Matera suit or the Forest outfit with the Duster, but there were a few moments, where I really liked what he was pulling off.
Last thought: There are so many tiny, tiny callbacks that are flipped on their head that I think we will have a lot of fun finding and disecting. Bond in the liferaft, but without a girl in his arm and this time Felix will not come and pick him up. Flicking the visitor badge into the wastebin like he used to throw his hat. "Now listen carefully, Bond" while he has already figured out all the tech but this time it's during the climax and not in the beginning. The gunbarrel/tunnel shot right before the staircase.
I really wonder if this movie works better for a fan when he already knows all plot twists/surprises?
And Q is definitely once again a highlight. Wishaw was such a wonderful casting. However, he had more of funny lines to work with in SF and SP.
I would have loved to have more funny moments in general.
- I like that apparently OHMSS and the Dalton films are looked upon with fondness these days. They are my favourites and when I became a fan in the 90’s I felt like an alien for loving them. Good to see that has changed.
- I’m a petrolhead, I couldn’t help but notice a stunning Maserati Quattroporte IV (a nod to Sanchez’s car?) and an even prettier Lancia Thesis in the PTS.
- The action scenes were all great for my money. Basically Bond films are pretty much the only action films without swordplay that I watch so I’m not aware if they were better or worse than MI or John Wick. For me they worked.
- Surely there is a lot of fan service (OHMSS score, DN title sequence, TLD’s car) I like that, even though I’m not sure yet if this romance deserved THAT song. Then again, I don’t think any romance in any film does except Bond/Tracy.
- Thought the movie looked great, especially in Matera. Those scenes were exceptionally stylish.
- Great title sequence, with the sinking DB5 and imagery that reminded me of Greek mythology, which I love.
- Léa Seydoux! Loved her in SP, love her here. I’d imagine one could fall for her. I buy the romance, even though, as I said earlier, don’t quite know yet if WHATTITW is appropriate here. On another note, love she spoke a lot of French in this one. J’aime bien!
- Ana de Armas! Enough has been said, most people agree she was awesome here, so do I.
- Horror film references! PTS straight from Halloween, Blofeld conversation feels like Manhunter. I can surely appreciate that.
- Maybe a bit more controversial, I liked Safin. No top-tier villain, but not bad either.
NEUTRAL FEELINGS
- Gunbarrel. This one I didn’t mind, but pleeeasssseee give us a traditional one next time.
NEGATIVE FEELINGS
- Let’s get the big ones out of the way. I don’t mind Bond becoming a father. I don’t mind depressing endings. But chill out with all the cheesy dialogue. Watch a European film and learn. Sad endings only work when they’re handled with dignity, with elegance. Silence says more than words could ever say. You’ve got good actors here, use them, use their expressions and keep Hans in tone too. I disliked the lack of subtlety here. That is my biggest gripe with the film.
- The score. Hans Zimmer is an ok composer, but he’s a bit bombastic for me, while his music also lacks personality. I’m sure that works for some people, for me it feels like a score composed by Instagram algorithms.
- Please make Bond a bon vivant again. I want him enjoying the finer things in life, I really want a diner scene and a wine comment next time.
- More than anything I’m worried where they’ll go from now. I liked most of the film, and I don’t mind the Craig era being a bit different than what we’ve had before. On the other hand I’d love to go back to a few regular, more traditional, spy missions. I love OHMSS and LTK and they were shaking things up too, that only works though when there is something to mix up in the first place.
FINAL THOUGHTS (at the moment)
I liked NTTD, although I didn’t like how cheesy the ending was. I’m also worried what will come next.
Where to start?.
Daniel Craig's performance is a good a place as any. Much has been said about him, good and bad. I freely admit that he has been far from my favourite Bond, but he absolutely knocks it out if the park here. Phenomenal in the melodramatic scenes, he sells every line, and his physical performance is great too, you can literally feel the weight of the world on his shoulders at the climax. I can't forget, also, that during the Jamaica/Cuba scenes, his Bond for the first time, really looks like he's enjoying himself. This is probably the first time that Craig has been given the insouciant material so prevalent in the other Bond performance's, and he was really bloody good. Why on earth it took EON five films to give him this, one will never know.
One downside to Craig's performance, and it's perhaps a bit harsh, as it's not really his fault-he has 0 chemistry with Lea Seydoux. No matter how many times the script tries to smash us over the head as them having an epic romance, I just didn't buy it. A bit of a problem as that is so pivotal to the plot. Indeed, Ana De Armas' scenes, actually even Lashana Lynch's (more on those two later) with Dan had far more crackle.
I thought Cary Fukanaga's direction was mostly excellent, and I didn't even mind the 'trendy' way he directed a couple of the fight scenes. It added some visceral energy, without ever becoming a distraction, as it did in QOS. That being said, yet another muted colour pallet, the third in a row, I could do without.
As for the 'Scooby gang', they really don't have much to do here, maybe M aside, which is probably for the best. Speaking of M, Ralph Fiennes is as great as ever, but his M basically has become a bit of a tosser. Apart from the scene where they discuss the villain's plans in comparison to those past, I don't care for the dialogue between he and Bond at all.
Lea Seydoux's Madeline had the heavy lifting, amongst the ladies, and for me,she let the side down Her performance goes from cold, to minus 50c. She needed more warmth, and despite Craig giving a career best performance alongside her, even he couldn't coax it out. Ana De Armas' was a complete delight, and I dearly wish she had been Bond's love interest, not just an extended cameo. Lashana Lynch did fairly well in a cool, but underwritten part. The anti-woke brigade (or should I say plain old racists) that seemed so concerned about her character can sleep safely at night, as she ended up being no more than a secondary sidekick. I actually half expected her to end up being a villain, as she took so long to catch up to Bond in Norway, but it was just plain old poor writing, instead of foreshadowing.
There was so many contradictions at play in the film. You have the tone in Jamaica and Cuba (which was a part of the film I loved) very fun and playful, remeniscent of the second act of Thunderball or TSWLM, and then a barrage of melodrama and seriousness towards the climax. The contradiction's permeate the movie. Lashana Lynch's Nomi is as hard nosed towards Bond as can be, but a few minutes later, deferred the 007 moniker back to him. Blofeld orchestrates a madcap scheme from behind bars, but later we see that even though it happened, it should be impossible (his antics wouldn't have even raised a question in a regular Bond film, but when presenting one that is striving for realism, it stands out). Even down to the performance's. Rami Malek's Saffin manages to be passive and understated, to the point of virtually being asleep and simultaneously chewing the scenery. All very strange.
I rather liked the idea of the Nanobots and targeted virus as a maguffin, even if it was probably a bit far fetched for the rest of the movie. Am I alone in not having any idea of why Saffin wanted to use them once he had effectively ended Spectre? What was his end game?
Speaking of Saffin, he really was a weak villain. I truly cannot understand the logic of bringing Spectre and Blofeld back, and not making them the true big bad. Particularly as the climax leans heavily on the YOLT novel. Even more so when you think that Blofeld was retro fitted to be the 'author of all Bond's pain' right back to CR. Saffin should have simply been 'Number 2' in Spectre and killed off in the third act, leaving the finale to Bond and Blofeld. Bond even wrings Blofeld's neck and repeats the sentence from Twice, while he does it, for god's sake!
I actually did rather like the film, until the climax. I suppose it was the obvious culmination to all the continuity knots EON have tied themselves up in recent years, but it really has added a bitter taste to Craig's run. Killing Felix? Ok. Killing Blofeld? Fair Enough. Killing Bond? it just flattened me, and the whole cinema.
I understand why EON did it, in a way. This gives them an excuse to truly start anew for Bond 26, free of any of the mountains of baggage Craig's run has carried. There's still a huge problem with this. The casual movie going audience don't understand that Craig's story is a contained one. They don't know about Star Trek or Marvel concepts like Prime Universes. They won't get that in 2023, when Henry Cavill/Aiden Turner/whoever walks across the screen and shoots the gun barrel for the first time, that they have simply gone back to the 'Prime' Bond that Connery up to Brosnan portrayed. To them, Bond as a character, is dead.
I can't really sum up anymore than that. It's impossible to separate what was mostly a good Bond film with that horrendous ending. For that reason No Time To Die is an enormous thumbs down. Please EON, go back to what brought your Father and his friend to the dance 60 years ago.
Roll on Bond 26...
I don't believe this for a second. James Bond is not a person, it is a very particular concept ("men want to be Bond, women want to be with him") of a hero. You can start anew any time with a suitable actor, the public will go for it. And the over-the-top fans will always wait for the next one and hope this time it will be better than last time.
As for how the franchise continues and how the general public will see it, I think we will see a lot of the following two things: 1. Codename theory. This will go through the roof, once the new Bond is around. It's already starting. 2. Craig Bond is the enveloping story for all the other Bonds. I.e. Dr. No through DAD all happens in between QoS and Skyfall. It doesn't work at all, but that won't stop ScreenRant.
Although members are warned of possible spoilers in this thread it would be courteous to give some additional warnings.
Codename theory has been disproved many, many times that still doesn't stop people from bringing it up again and again.
I mean, there is the theory about Skyfall that Craig-Bond is the current "owner" of the codename, but like all previous Bonds he has been brainwashed to think that he is the only James Bond and Silva is a former James Bond, whose brainwashing has partly misfired due to the cyanide capsule and he has fractal memories of Skyfall and of M and so on and so forth. Don't underestimate nerds trying to make a fan-theory work. They (well, we :-B ) can make anything fit into a preconceived notion.
New actor. New continuity. New approach next time. Done.
And Craig's era is a self-contained story, like Bale's Batman (not Affleck or Pattinson) or any number of Spider-fellows. Or, you could argue, like Craig himself when he arrived. All of which, casual moviegovers have demonstrated exactly zero issues understanding and buying into.
What, exactly, is so controversial about this?
That actually makes more sense. Because I seriously doubt Brosnan Bond was working in the 60s, when he was only an adolescent. Connery’s Bond may never even have had a Tracy in his time, given how DAF makes no mention of her and that it starts in Japan, implying that the film is set right after YOLT.
So by the time Brosnan got the role, perhaps he became a 00 agent in the 80s and had very similar versions of the adventures we saw, but tweaked for the times. Instead of fighting Dr. No in 1962 like Connery’s, perhaps he fought him in 1984.
Doesn’t really matter to me. Just a fun bit of thought.
+1
I wish we could focus on the joy, excitement, and anticipation that we now have as a gift - a new Bond film is on the near(er) horizon. That's great! Meanwhile, I will enjoy NTTD a few more times.
Normally when walking out of a cinema, bad films leave me disappointed, good films leave me happy. I walked out of NTTD where a good film has left me disappointed.
If the character names were changed, I'd find it hard to believe too many people would watch this and say “that's just like a Bond film” – its lacking some of the Bond aura, even if you isolated the Craig era for the comparison. Yes it has a car with gadgets and some one-liners and quips that land well. However, in a post-Iron Man world, this is no longer the domain of Bond and isn't something that sets these films apart any more. I’m all for evolution of the series, but when you walk into a Bond film, there is a certain level of expectation of what you are paying to see, and I didn’t really see it here. It almost feels like an emotional action film was written, picked up by EON, and then given to some writers so sprinkle with some Bond-ness to show up in the right places.
I also have a confused take on the films attitude to the legacy that precedes it, when you consider moments such as Bond getting killed. From day one, I always interpreted it that in every film, it was the same James Bond. As an example:
Lazenby's Bond: Get's married
Connery's Bond in DAF: The opening I interpreted as his revenge-mission for Tracy's murder
Moore: Visits Tracy's grave
Dalton: Alluded to Tracy at Felix's wedding
Yes, the era and elapsed time from Dr No doesn't make sense, but that was a piece of Hollywood-ness I happily bought into. For me, they are the same man.
So when Casino Royale rocked up and did the first mission, it didn't bother me. In my head canon, DC's character could have his mobile phone and DB10, and then still be the man who takes on Goldfinger where the DB5's tracking system seemed other-worldly. Same man, be damned with the era consistency.
By killing DC's Bond, it somewhat breaks a mythos I didn't know I had built up of my own volition and experiences with the films since the day I bought my first copy of TSWLM on VHS. More so because it traced DC from his induction into the Double-O's, through to death, with a story 'arc' undeniably linking the two. You can't just say "NTTD is how he dies, but Bond 26 could happen before that". Nor would I try. That's just silly, these are just movies after all...
Now this isn't a review to somehow assign blame to anyone for "raping my childhood" like Star Wars fans did to the prequel/sequel trilogies, or to somehow say how my opinion or thoughts are correct; just to put over why I think that no matter how well a death for 007 was handled, that for me the end result could never be satisfying.
When the next 007 jumps off a dam, or onto Gibraltar, or however they introduce him, it will be business as usual for me. But I can't help shake the feeling that subverting, not just expectations, but what was for me an unwritten rule of Bond movies, NTTD and it's ending will always sit just too far out of the comfort zone for my own viewing pleasure.
Back to the film itself though, having Bond, Blofeld and Leiter getting killed off in one film seemed a bizarre route to take for me, even more so when you consider the execution. Bond dies because he has no choice, he simply could not get away. The actions that lead to his death did seem somewhat unnecessary to the films plot at the time, with it very much feeling that the film was justifying the end result of killing 007, instead of it naturally leading to it. Leiter’s death felt very lightweight, and the embrace-and-float-away at the end of it did not seem a fitting way to leave a character that has spanned just as many years as 007 himself – more Jack/Rose in Titanic than two friends, bound by the same stresses and experiences, parting after a relationship formed over years of working together. Given the overall theme of finality of the film in general, I can see why the decision was taken, however it was just another layer of sadness that the film will place on you over it's running time, and the payoff here seemed somewhat lost on me. And then there is Blofeld – this seemed like a shoe-horned afterthought, with Blofeld surviving Bond seemingly not being an option in the writers room. Blofeld is a name that has spanned the decades, the actors, and been just about the only man who Bond could defeat, but never quite outright win against. He is a nemesis; the grand villain. Yet here we are with a scene that sees Bond accidentally poison a man whilst shouting “Die Blofeld Die”. Book accurate or not, it did not work on screen, more so in the context of DC's Bond. Characters grow, but this does not feel like it could be the same man who laughed at Le Chiffre scratching his balls. Even the death itself happens off camera. I can't shake the feeling that Blofeld, not Safin, should have been the villain of the film as the only way to balance this out.
One of the other marks on the James Bond Film tick-list is also surely the plan of the villain – be it someone with megalomaniacal tendencies or just financial profit, the plan should still impose a knowing threat that the audience can relate to in order to understand the magnitude. I’m not saying it needs to be realistic (nanobot based, irremovable, DNA sniping, poison is an easy leap of faith for a Bond film), but I just didn’t get Safin’s end game. Fine; millions will die. But who? I’ve seen the film just once so maybe I missed something important, but who was the target? Thousands of names were on the files, and the projections were for millions, but was it based on ethnicity; was it a carefully curated list of people with certain political backgrounds? Damned if I know. And with that the menace of the film died a little bit. In fact, it died almost as quickly as all of Spectre did. For an organisation that in the Craig era was billed as everywhere, all the time, there really wasn't many of them about. Spectre had been built up to be an impenetrable force of nature, with someone, somewhere at hand.
And it disappears over cocktails.
Safin's plot device also can seem confused at times. We see the script tip its cap to Fleming with the poison garden on Safin's island, but its also nanobots that are the point of focus. Do the nanobots deliver a poison? Or are they somehow biological by nature, which is why Bond's EMP has no effect on them? The details are scant, and after a solitary viewing, not entirely clear.
Regarding Safin himself as the villain. Well, he is unfortunately probably the most anonymous performance of all the Bond film baddies for me. Not all action, equal skill-set threat to Bond like Alec Trevelyan, and not the mastermind, unnerving threat of Spectre’s Blofeld. Just an odd guy, blessed with Plot Convenience. Malek did do well with the little screen time he had, but oddball characters for me need more room to get into my head, and backed up with the plot issues mentioned earlier, it missed the mark. Not horrendous, but nothing to stand out from the pantheon of Bond villains past.
For a film that was on the whole well acted, lit, scored, shot and (Bond-ness aside) written, it is a bizarre feeling to feel so disappointed with it. One thing it has confirmed is that I long for the days where each film was a self contained microcosm of Bond. Going to Vesper’s grave, the OHMSS theme and pictures of Judi Dench all just seemed pasted in because a Cinematic Universe is what people do these days, and forced CU’s have already peaked with Endgame. For me, it doesn’t fit the genre for Bond, and it wasn't that well integrated over DC's 5 outings. The Bond from Casino Royale or Quantum just doesn't show up here, and nor does it feel like an evolved version of him. Madeline carrying over for one film? Fine, but I cant say Spectre ingrained a huge amount of emotional attachment to the character for me as a viewer – prior to NTTD, Bond had barely known her a few days, and hadn't taken any steps to make me think she was "the one" any more so than any other Bond girl a film ended with. Taking her and giving Swann and Bond a daughter seemed a cheap way to up the emotional stakes, despite a very long film taking a very long time to tell you how much Bond/Swann actually do love each other, so wasn't really required in my view. It didn't detract from the film in any meaningful way though.
The ‘new’ 007 was okay. Not really required for the film, but far from a waste of time either. There was so much room to have fun with the old and new 007's together. It could have been angsty, flirty, tense, or comedic, but it doesn't really develop beyond a few snaps back and forth. I held few hopes for Nomi going in, but walking out I felt she could and should have had a larger role in the film, and as a basic concept to challenge 007 in this way, I hope it can make some form of return in future movies.
And while I'm on the female characters, Paloma was an undeniable high point of the film. Somewhat under-used, but if EON can pull a Maud Adams situation and bring Ana de Armas back again in future, I for one would be very happy. Her scene sits alongside the opening car chase as a grin-inducing highlight. The chase through the woods was also a scene with well built tension, fantastic choreography of all involved, and it's possible I didn't blink from start to finish of the scene.
Final scores. As a generic film, 3.5 out of 5 – a good film, but not mind blowing. A decent Hollywood emotional, action experience, with the usual modern day doses of contrived emotion, plot holes, and padding. As a Bond film? All traces of Cubby’s Bond seems to be missing. Not evolved, not cleverly reimagined as per Casino Royale, just gone. Yes, the old films were sexist, sometimes poorly made, and often daft, but the DNA has been diluted too far for my particular Bond taste. Its in region of Die Another Day for me on the scale, sadly...
At least for now. I whole-heartedly acknowledge that the end was the primary focal point with me immediately after leaving the theatre, and a re-watch on Blu-Ray is a must to take in perhaps a more rounded view of the films finer points. Until then, I'll stand by my comments above.
If we're not going to do that, we may as well just close one of the threads?
Ignore that.. I've now seen lengthier reviews in previous pages, which I'll enjoy reading through
When he lets Bonds daughter go he’s going to meet the buyers coming in the ships.
Safin’s plan is for himself not for the world, he says a lot about making the world a better place but it won’t be directly by his hand.
I am very happy to see you didn't hate it. I was concerned... :P
Me too. Good to read.
@Birdleson : What would you "tighten up" in the PTS? I thought the PTS was totally awesome.