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
It was one of my biggest uncertainties on first viewing, kind of like "this is fun but should it really be here? I'm not sure", it was one of those tiny things that made me hesitate to give the film a 10/10 and instead go with a "conservative" 9.5 on first watch, but both times since I have loved that moment.
IMO
I have seen online comments from people who refuse to watch this film, since they have heard that Bond is played by a transvestite in this one.
Online culture wars... something EON stands above.
Welcome back Luds. Long time no see. Nice to see folk again from KTBEU.
My reaction was exactly the same as yours. I was enjoying the movie until the end, then I suddenly became angry. Its a strange film to put out after the miserable 2 years of pandemic and lockdowns. People want to be cheered up and lifted now, and this film definitely doesn't do that. It leaves audiences depressed.
I predict a backlash once the dust has settled, but not just yet.
I didn't notice that, but now you mention it yes.
I can easily see this Bond as more of a recluse to be honest. He doesn't strike me as a people person.
True, and obviously we’re shown he’s self-sufficient, but then we see him happily going into town and to a nightclub.
Perhaps all it needed was instead of finding the cigars in his house he could have had someone he knows locally (a Quarrel-type friend if you need a Fleming reference) to tell him someone was looking for him. Some sort of sense that he’s actually in a locale with the people rather than it just being somewhere for a load of British and American people to talk.
My first impression was that they just stole that "the death of Leonidas" scene from "300".
Nice post @fjdinardo . I think on long term this is going to be beneficial for the franchise. For decades we took Bond for granted: we knew whatever danger he was I'm he'd survive. They teased us in the past about his possible death, but the joke got old fairly quickly. Now we know James Bond will return, but from now on when we enter the theatre we will say to ourselves "maybe he will not survive". And in this continuity that just ended, he lives on in Mathilde.
To each his own - but, in this case, not for me.
Paloma was fun but fantastical, and NTTD is a movie with much more than mere fun on its mind. Never thought I'd say that before Craig, but here we are, and with Paloma we have a very superficial chemistry akin to his relationship with Bond Girls of yore (minus the sex this time, of course).
Whereas with Madeleine it's a weightier, more troublesome, and hence much more grown-up relationship that we've not really seen before, not with Vesper. [Though maybe that's where things were headed with Tracy, as their time together really was so short - if we go beyond the Craig arc of films.]
That is, a relationship based on a mutual past full of painful memories, essential distrust & emotional loss, in which both Madeleine and Craig Bond (like Tracy before them) face the troublesome question of how to dispense with such baggage and move forward into a more productive & self-sustaining future. Madeleine can do it; but Bond can't. And that's his tragedy. So Craig Bond needs Madeleine far more than he needs ... Paloma, or whomever. And he knows it. And I for one felt that in Craig's performance throughout NTTD - and, yes, even in Spectre.
It was never going to be about 24×7 romantic fireworks between he and Madeleine, as in those blissful days with Vesper. Bond is in late middle age now and attempting to settle down with a kindred soul (who's still pretty hot, btw) and on his way towards reconstituting something like the family that was taken from both he & Madeleine at a young age.
But Craig Bond's fatal flaw, of course, is his inability to trust women (or maybe anyone, for that matter) ... and so he messes it up completely and then misses out on what would have been a richly satisfying five years with both Madeleine & their daughter.
You know, the funny thing is that Craig has said in at least one interview for NTTD that, and I paraphrase, "We aren't making Hamlet here." But you know, they really were kind of doing exactly that, perhaps not consciously, of course. But I sense they were reaching for something of an almost Shakespearean grandeur, however ridiculous that might sound.
And for me ... it kind of worked.
The film has far too many characters already in my opinion.
Really interesting analysis.
(But on a side note I kind of like Paloma.)
Great review. Agree with everything.
What exactly was in the water/liquid that Waldo fell in to? Was this supposed to be where the nano-bots were harvested?
Daniel Craig doesn't own Bond, he never created the character, he never bought the film rights. He is just the hired actor. He has no moral right to insist his return to the role is dependent on/conditional upon Bond dying (James Page confirmed that in the new podcast). Yes, Barbara Broccoli can agree to anything Craig wants but that doesn't make it morally right.
As I've mentioned a million times before, i genuinely don't believe Bond is dead (anyone that can't see the huge box office potential of a Bond missing presumed dead storyline... must be a bit short sighted imho) but I stand by my my previous paragraph. You cannot justify killing off Bond because the current owners of Bond were bequeathed the character and Craig is not a beneficiary nor share holder in the Ian Fleming estate. What gives him the right to demand Bond is killed?
No right whatsoever.
We now have this perverse situation where the sycophantic media - the Bond Experience, James Cordon, Jimmy Fallon, Graham Norton et al - are sucking up to the guy that got his selfish wish to kill off James Bond.
Outrageous.
If I can remember correctly it's 3 stiches. I don't think there are any stiches once we get to Primo we're just into normal coverage by there, it's lower down the stairs getting us as far as Primo.
Thank you. I don't know, I just went home after the movie was over and immediately started writing, because I didn't want to forget what had gone through my mind. I just wrote it from memory. I've had more thoughts about the film since then, of course, but I didn't write those, just what I experienced in the theater.
If you’re upset then the film did it’s job: it’s supposed to be a sad ending.
This thread has struggled back up to a point where people are making genuine observations and first reactions. If you are going to repeat yourself endlessly, can you at least find a thread where it is relevant so I can choose to ignore that instead? Much appreciated.
Conan Doyle had the foresight to tell an ambiguous ending to his hero. Its only Watson finding the walking stick and a note from Holmes. He (or someone else) didn't see Holmes actually die.
That's nothing you can say about NTTD.
It's fine to stand by your own feelings and comments. It's less okay to keep repeating yourself ad nauseum to the point where it feels like you're trolling. I agree that killing Bond off is the result of numerous creative decisions throughout this era that Craig has had a higher than usual input into in comparison with the other actors (though he's just one voice in a room of many and I don't care what James Page says about it); that's one of the reasons why it's appropriate that his Bond be the one who snuffs it - because whether you loved his time in the role or not, it's done now and the next guy can have a clean slate without the narrative baggage of the last few films. Consider it an experiment rather than a statement of ownership.
Bond's death left a sour taste in my mouth as well, for what it's worth. But I admire the risk taken and I'm excited for what comes next - maybe it'll be an era more to my liking.
Either way, you're going to just have to get over it. You'll drive yourself and/or everyone else mad, and not in the inspiring way.
That depends on what you're upset about. If you're sad because he died but feel it fits the film (and probably the film series), then the film did its job. If the choice to end the film that way makes you sad because you think it's wrong, then the film didn't work for you.
But calling it morally unjustifiable seems a bit extreme to me, to say the least.
"I didn't like the film, therefore it's selfish and unjustifiable" as opposed to it simply being a matter of taste and opinion.
Well not really: Holmes dies in The Final Problem- Doyle killed him off. He didn't intend to bring him back, but he did because he needed the money, basically.
Craig's Bond is dead, he won't be back.
I guess if the film has really upset you because it's a very sad ending, it's okay to react in a slightly OTT way and hopefully he'll cool down soon.
After all, there were lots of people a year or two ago who said that having any other character (and her race and gender definitely had nothing to do with it) known as 007 was just too much and they wouldn't accept it, and yet I haven't seen anyone saying that the film was unwatchable because of that or that they walked out when it was confirmed in the movie. People just calm down and get used to these things with time.
It's been a while since i last read it. But as far as i remember, they never found Holmes body.