› ›

NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions vs. Current Reactions

1…133134136138139…298

Comments

  • JamesKJamesK Canada
    Posts: 35
    I don't disagree it will be a new start to Bond, but they've left a door open here, if they want to use it. There's too much similarity to You Only Live Twice to ignore.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,553
    JamesK wrote: »
    I don't disagree it will be a new start to Bond, but they've left a door open here, if they want to use it. There's too much similarity to You Only Live Twice to ignore.

    They have left no door open; Bond's vitals are shown to be zero on-screen.

    Not to say they couldn't reopen the door in a future film, but I'd argue that saying they've left the door open, is false.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    Technically it said “offline”. The blast could have disrupted the smart blood link to Q’s computer.

    I don’t think they will pick up with the intro to TMWTGG (though I think they could cleverly weave it into a new continuity that could fit with Craig’s if you so choose), but you could easily write yourself out of that hole.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,553
    Ah, I thought they were literally zeroes. I'll have to keep an eye out next time.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,220
    JamesK wrote: »
    I don't disagree it will be a new start to Bond, but they've left a door open here, if they want to use it. There's too much similarity to You Only Live Twice to ignore.

    A barrage of missiles rained down directly on Bond; his death is pretty unambiguous. Trying to continue this storyline with him miraculously surviving would be insulting to Craig and the audiences who would be ask to unrealistically suspend their disbelief.

  • JamesKJamesK Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 35
    talos7 wrote: »
    JamesK wrote: »
    I don't disagree it will be a new start to Bond, but they've left a door open here, if they want to use it. There's too much similarity to You Only Live Twice to ignore.

    A barrage of missiles rained down directly on Bond; his death is pretty unambiguous. Trying to continue this storyline with him miraculously surviving would be insulting to Craig and the audiences who would be ask to unrealistically suspend their disbelief.

    I don't think it would be insulting to anyone. Plus, that isn't really the point, which is that the film lines up very closely with You Only Live Twice, and in that novel, Bond ends up alive.

    And please, the unrealistic suspension of disbelief is a feature of many of the Bond films - not a feature I particularly like, but this wouldn't be the first time.

    All I'm saying is that the parallels to that novel are hard to ignore here. Why line so much of this up that way if not to use it? Just as a tribute to the book?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,220
    Well as the cliche goes, we’ll have to agree to disagree; welcome to the forums!
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,553
    It has similarities to YOLT, but YOLT it is not.

    This is a pointless argument that will go around and around, so let's just get it all out and move on.

    "Bond is dead."
    "But he could be alive."
    "But it's unlikely."
    "Suspension of disbelief."
    "But it's *very* unlikely."
    "But they could do it."
    "Yes they could but they probably won't."
    "But they could."
    "Yes, they could."
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,220
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    It has similarities to YOLT, but YOLT it is not.

    This is a pointless argument that will go around and around, so let's just get it all out and move on.

    "Bond is dead."
    "But he could be alive."
    "But it's unlikely."
    "Suspension of disbelief."
    "But it's *very* unlikely."
    "But they could do it."
    "Yes they could but they probably won't."
    "But they could."
    "Yes, they could."

    ^:)^
  • JamesKJamesK Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 35
    talos7 wrote: »
    Well as the cliche goes, we’ll have to agree to disagree; welcome to the forums!

    Fair enough, and thanks!
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    It has similarities to YOLT, but YOLT it is not.

    This is a pointless argument that will go around and around, so let's just get it all out and move on.

    "Bond is dead."
    "But he could be alive."
    "But it's unlikely."
    "Suspension of disbelief."
    "But it's *very* unlikely."
    "But they could do it."
    "Yes they could but they probably won't."
    "But they could."
    "Yes, they could."

    Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that, and I'm not really looking to argue. More of a food for thought sort of conversation.

    If they had blown him up, or killed him in some other way, without the You Only Live Twice parallels, the same discussion could take place, but perhaps more baselessly.

    In this case, it seems like they structured it intentionally very close to (part of) the ending to one particular story, which story includes a sort of rebirth of Bond, and in that way dovetails very nicely with starting a new actor. Maybe it was just to give a path to continuing some elements of the current Bond world if they decide to go that route (like, for example, Ralph Finnes continuing). Or, if they want to wipe the slate totally clean, they can do it (though they could always have done that).
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,709
    talos7 wrote: »
    SomethingThatAteHim wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    No Time To Die needs to be seen more than once..

    What an interesting experience that I've had with this film; my first viewing left me flat and I left the theater not knowing how I felt.
    Last night I had my second viewing ( IMAX) and it was a completely different experience; I loved it. It is a great way to end Craig's run as 007.

    Now, with that said, I do have some major problems with a few things and it's critics are not off the mark , specifically the sequence with Blofeld, and the muddy, underdevelopment of the main Villain, Safin. His plot and motivations are very weak and this detracts from the power of the finale.

    No Time to Die is beautifully directed: I would love to see what Cary Fukunaga could do with a clean slate.

    I haven’t seen it a second time, but I feel like this mirrors how I would feel. I was pretty mixed/negative on the film the first time (I loved it entirely up until Bond got back to London) but stewing on it in the week since I’ve seen it it’s been growing in appreciation in my mind. I still take issue with the same stuff that bothered me in the theater, like you mainly the Blofeld stuff and Safin’s underdevelopment, but I think I let that cloud my enjoyment of all the terrific stuff that runs all the way through the film. I think I’ll be much more favorable to it on a rewatch.

    I agree, Up until Bond's return to London, it was close to perfection; from that point on the weakness of Safin's overall development, including his plot, detract from a beautifully directed and photographed film

    AS of now, this sums up perfectly my views on the film. And I think it will stick. I just need to watch it again. Any news on when the blu ray will be available? (as my local cinema sucks)
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    I think if they were to somehow show Bond alive and well in the next one as some sort of weird continuation they would be really doing this movie a huge disservice... It would also make the whole build up and end kind of worthless if you know he's just gonna pop up five seconds later... And if they did do that then I think I'd be the one that gets annoyed and starts posting so on these boards :).

    Leave it alone. He's dead and that's fine :).

    (Welcome to the boards BTW. We've discussed this ad nauseum over the last three weeks so that's why people may be jumping on you a bit)
  • SomethingThatAteHimSomethingThatAteHim
    Posts: 532
    I think they tried everything possible to make it 100% clear Bond was dead (showing Bond getting directly vaporized with missiles, explaining how the nanobots can never be undone, including smart blood yet again just so they could show his vitals being dead even after showing him being consumed by a direct missile hit, have Bond already on the verge of bleeding out from being shot a bunch of times even before the missile hit) and people still think he could have survived lol. I guess even if they showed him as a jumble of charred body parts some folks would think it’s merely a flesh wound.
  • JamesKJamesK Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 35
    00Heaven wrote: »
    I think if they were to somehow show Bond alive and well in the next one as some sort of weird continuation they would be really doing this movie a huge disservice... It would also make the whole build up and end kind of worthless if you know he's just gonna pop up five seconds later... And if they did do that then I think I'd be the one that gets annoyed and starts posting so on these boards :).

    Leave it alone. He's dead and that's fine :).

    (Welcome to the boards BTW. We've discussed this ad nauseum over the last three weeks so that's why people may be jumping on you a bit)

    I appreciate that, thanks. I'm no stranger to forums generally (though generally Porsche-related) so was definitely expecting the standard reaction, particularly from the heavy-posters - par for the course. Useful for me to have gotten it out there and have the discussion and it hasn't done anything to convince me they didn't end it they way they did with some of the above in mind, but no need to beat this particular dead horse any further.

    In other news, I'm very much looking forward to seeing this one again. There was a lot to digest and it seems as though a second viewing is helpful based on the portions of this thread I've read so far. Prior to Bond and '007' arriving on the island, I thought it was one of the strongest Bonds I'd seen in quite some time. Hopefully it'll hold up on round 2.
  • ShakenNotStirredShakenNotStirred
    Posts: 1,398
    JamesK wrote: »
    This is my first post on these forums. Massive bond fan, have been all my life but never have I before felt the need to discuss one of the movies with other like minded people. Until now, whether I liked a given movie or not, I've always felt comfortable with how bond had progressed and content to keep my views to myself. I saw No Time to Die last night, without having read any spoilers, though I knew it had been well received by critics, and feel the need to discuss the ending (of course).

    My first reaction from the film was profound sadness. Until the ending, the movie was brilliant. It was leading to a wonderful finale with Bond and his budding family finally finding the peace they'd been struggling for for so long. For Bond to finally come so close to the life he didn’t realize he was looking for, only to have the rug pulled out from under him at literally the last second, was heartbreaking and frankly, unnecessary. However, I do acknowledge this was the end of Craig’s tenure and can see how the producers, director and Craig himself might want to bring a sense of finality to that.

    All of that said, however, I think the ending points to an easy way of starting the next actor but continuing the story line. Apologies, I’m sure this has been raised at some point in the thread, but I frankly don’t have time to read all 140 pages to check.

    The parallels between No Time To Die (at least the last third) and You Only Live Twice (novel) are obvious. In the book, Bond destroys Blofeld’s poison island by closing the valve which allows the naturally occurring geyser on the island to vent. He is essentially on top of the valve/door when the geyser erupts and causes a massive explosion, destroying the island. Bond is blown skywards, lands in the sea and then ultimately rescued by Suzuki, massively damaged, with no memory - this is essentially where we leave him. Back in England, Bond is presumed dead.

    Then, in the Man With the Golden Gun (novel), we start in a world where Bond is dead, obituary published, funeral held, etc. and MI6 is clearly dealing with a situation where people ‘claiming’ to be Bond are calling, whether mentally unbalanced, pranksters, etc. Finally one pops up claiming to be James Bond, clears the relevant security protocols and tries to kill M, and we learn he’d been recovered by the Russians, rehabilitated and brainwashed over many months. M and Sir James Moloney (neurologist) rehab/de-program him and send him after Scaramanga to give him the chance to redeem himself.

    It is difficult for me to look past the crystal clear parallels and obvious opportunity here. Bond was again on an island with a poison garden being run by a madman bent on mass destruction. Again, Bond enters the island (via the sea), kills him, destroys his work and then is caught in a massive explosion which Bond himself causes. No body is found. Chinese and Russian naval vessels were in the area at the time. In England Bond is presumed dead.

    How suitable would it be for a new bond actor to pick up by entering MI6 and attempting to kill M, having been captured, rehabbed and programmed by Russia or China? Damage from the explosion makes it easy to explain a new look, and similarly brain damage makes it easy to explain a lack of connection to his immediate past. All of this comes straight from the storyline Fleming came up with and I can’t believe the possible link here isn’t intentional, or that they structured these elements of No Time to Die as just a ‘nod’ to You Only Live Twice.

    I know everyone is saying ‘Bond is dead’, etc. and I get why, but I honestly don’t think its that simple. I think they’ve set this up well to continue the storyline, if they so choose, but in such a way that a new Bond makes sense, and a new set of missions unconnected to the past few films can begin.

    Am I out to lunch on this?

    Welcome to MI6! And I don't think you are out to lunch on this at all! Great observations.

    There should be an alternate ending where Craig is laughing on the front of a moving train. "the man who cannot die" . :D
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    JamesK wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    JamesK wrote: »
    I don't disagree it will be a new start to Bond, but they've left a door open here, if they want to use it. There's too much similarity to You Only Live Twice to ignore.

    A barrage of missiles rained down directly on Bond; his death is pretty unambiguous. Trying to continue this storyline with him miraculously surviving would be insulting to Craig and the audiences who would be ask to unrealistically suspend their disbelief.

    I don't think it would be insulting to anyone. Plus, that isn't really the point, which is that the film lines up very closely with You Only Live Twice, and in that novel, Bond ends up alive.

    And please, the unrealistic suspension of disbelief is a feature of many of the Bond films - not a feature I particularly like, but this wouldn't be the first time.

    All I'm saying is that the parallels to that novel are hard to ignore here. Why line so much of this up that way if not to use it? Just as a tribute to the book?

    This was my main frustration, as they were already halfway there with the ending to YOLT. They could have adapted the final chapter `Sparrows Tears', and it would have been just as tragic an ending. Instead they decided to take a different route.
  • JamesKJamesK Canada
    Posts: 35
    SomethingThatAteHim wrote: »
    I think they tried everything possible to make it 100% clear Bond was dead (showing Bond getting directly vaporized with missiles, explaining how the nanobots can never be undone, including smart blood yet again just so they could show his vitals being dead even after showing him being consumed by a direct missile hit, have Bond already on the verge of bleeding out from being shot a bunch of times even before the missile hit) and people still think he could have survived lol. I guess even if they showed him as a jumble of charred body parts some folks would think it’s merely a flesh wound.

    I hear you. Again, the very clear link to You Only Live Twice is what prompts the questions, not an assertion that missiles don't kill people or that he wasn't in rough shape. No one is arguing that it would make sense now to wipe the slate clean for the next movie and leave the Daniel Craig Bond universe in the dust. Just asking questions given the clear parallels with that particular story.

    Incidentally, I'm pretty sure the vitals were shown as 'not available' or similar but I might be wrong.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 735
    SomethingThatAteHim wrote: »
    I think they tried everything possible to make it 100% clear Bond was dead (showing Bond getting directly vaporized with missiles, explaining how the nanobots can never be undone, including smart blood yet again just so they could show his vitals being dead even after showing him being consumed by a direct missile hit, have Bond already on the verge of bleeding out from being shot a bunch of times even before the missile hit) and people still think he could have survived lol. I guess even if they showed him as a jumble of charred body parts some folks would think it’s merely a flesh wound.

    Thoughts of both Monty Python skits and the various onscreen Christopher Lee Dracula reincarnations come to mind here ...

    ... but Mr. Craig-Bond, he ain't never comin' back.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,165
    "This 007 is no more! It has ceased to be!"
    JamesK wrote: »
    Incidentally, I'm pretty sure the vitals were shown as 'not available' or similar but I might be wrong.
    I'm happy to be proven wrong once this is on video for maximum scrutiny, but I'm 99.9% sure that's correct. They left a minuscule window there to proceed with this timeline, though it would be closer to "Daniel Craig's Bond is dead... but here's what would happen if he survived," than a straight-up continuation.
  • JamesKJamesK Canada
    Posts: 35
    Feyador wrote: »
    SomethingThatAteHim wrote: »
    I think they tried everything possible to make it 100% clear Bond was dead (showing Bond getting directly vaporized with missiles, explaining how the nanobots can never be undone, including smart blood yet again just so they could show his vitals being dead even after showing him being consumed by a direct missile hit, have Bond already on the verge of bleeding out from being shot a bunch of times even before the missile hit) and people still think he could have survived lol. I guess even if they showed him as a jumble of charred body parts some folks would think it’s merely a flesh wound.

    Thoughts of both Monty Python skits and the various onscreen Christopher Lee Dracula reincarnations come to mind here ...

    ... but Mr. Craig-Bond, he ain't never comin' back!

    "'tisn't but a scratch!"
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    If you fans want, you can’t pretend the next film will ignore NTTD the way that OHMSS ignored YOLT.
  • JoeBondJoeBond
    Posts: 36
    Univex wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    SomethingThatAteHim wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    No Time To Die needs to be seen more than once..

    What an interesting experience that I've had with this film; my first viewing left me flat and I left the theater not knowing how I felt.
    Last night I had my second viewing ( IMAX) and it was a completely different experience; I loved it. It is a great way to end Craig's run as 007.

    Now, with that said, I do have some major problems with a few things and it's critics are not off the mark , specifically the sequence with Blofeld, and the muddy, underdevelopment of the main Villain, Safin. His plot and motivations are very weak and this detracts from the power of the finale.

    No Time to Die is beautifully directed: I would love to see what Cary Fukunaga could do with a clean slate.

    I haven’t seen it a second time, but I feel like this mirrors how I would feel. I was pretty mixed/negative on the film the first time (I loved it entirely up until Bond got back to London) but stewing on it in the week since I’ve seen it it’s been growing in appreciation in my mind. I still take issue with the same stuff that bothered me in the theater, like you mainly the Blofeld stuff and Safin’s underdevelopment, but I think I let that cloud my enjoyment of all the terrific stuff that runs all the way through the film. I think I’ll be much more favorable to it on a rewatch.

    I agree, Up until Bond's return to London, it was close to perfection; from that point on the weakness of Safin's overall development, including his plot, detract from a beautifully directed and photographed film

    AS of now, this sums up perfectly my views on the film. And I think it will stick. I just need to watch it again. Any news on when the blu ray will be available? (as my local cinema sucks)

    Very fair assessment:) I haven't seen any solid date yet. I guess it will depend on how long they keep it in theaters. I'm hoping by Christmas we get it but probably won't be till January 2022. There should be a digital PVOD after 45 days. Hopefully that happens.
  • SomethingThatAteHimSomethingThatAteHim
    Posts: 532
    JamesK wrote: »
    SomethingThatAteHim wrote: »
    I think they tried everything possible to make it 100% clear Bond was dead (showing Bond getting directly vaporized with missiles, explaining how the nanobots can never be undone, including smart blood yet again just so they could show his vitals being dead even after showing him being consumed by a direct missile hit, have Bond already on the verge of bleeding out from being shot a bunch of times even before the missile hit) and people still think he could have survived lol. I guess even if they showed him as a jumble of charred body parts some folks would think it’s merely a flesh wound.

    I hear you. Again, the very clear link to You Only Live Twice is what prompts the questions, not an assertion that missiles don't kill people or that he wasn't in rough shape. No one is arguing that it would make sense now to wipe the slate clean for the next movie and leave the Daniel Craig Bond universe in the dust. Just asking questions given the clear parallels with that particular story.

    Incidentally, I'm pretty sure the vitals were shown as 'not available' or similar but I might be wrong.

    That’s fair, the YOLT connection does muddy it a bit I suppose despite the legwork they put in to try and close that window of doubt.
  • JamesKJamesK Canada
    Posts: 35
    SomethingThatAteHim wrote: »
    JamesK wrote: »
    SomethingThatAteHim wrote: »
    I think they tried everything possible to make it 100% clear Bond was dead (showing Bond getting directly vaporized with missiles, explaining how the nanobots can never be undone, including smart blood yet again just so they could show his vitals being dead even after showing him being consumed by a direct missile hit, have Bond already on the verge of bleeding out from being shot a bunch of times even before the missile hit) and people still think he could have survived lol. I guess even if they showed him as a jumble of charred body parts some folks would think it’s merely a flesh wound.

    I hear you. Again, the very clear link to You Only Live Twice is what prompts the questions, not an assertion that missiles don't kill people or that he wasn't in rough shape. No one is arguing that it would make sense now to wipe the slate clean for the next movie and leave the Daniel Craig Bond universe in the dust. Just asking questions given the clear parallels with that particular story.

    Incidentally, I'm pretty sure the vitals were shown as 'not available' or similar but I might be wrong.

    That’s fair, the YOLT connection does muddy it a bit I suppose despite the legwork they put in to try and close that window of doubt.

    Yeah exactly - they put in the legwork to kill him, but also seem to have put similar legwork into linking his death with a story in which he lives. It results in a bit of a question mark, and the answer I end up arriving at is they wanted to have an option of going either way with it for the next movie - clean slate or partial link back
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    JamesK wrote: »
    SomethingThatAteHim wrote: »
    JamesK wrote: »
    SomethingThatAteHim wrote: »
    I think they tried everything possible to make it 100% clear Bond was dead (showing Bond getting directly vaporized with missiles, explaining how the nanobots can never be undone, including smart blood yet again just so they could show his vitals being dead even after showing him being consumed by a direct missile hit, have Bond already on the verge of bleeding out from being shot a bunch of times even before the missile hit) and people still think he could have survived lol. I guess even if they showed him as a jumble of charred body parts some folks would think it’s merely a flesh wound.

    I hear you. Again, the very clear link to You Only Live Twice is what prompts the questions, not an assertion that missiles don't kill people or that he wasn't in rough shape. No one is arguing that it would make sense now to wipe the slate clean for the next movie and leave the Daniel Craig Bond universe in the dust. Just asking questions given the clear parallels with that particular story.

    Incidentally, I'm pretty sure the vitals were shown as 'not available' or similar but I might be wrong.

    That’s fair, the YOLT connection does muddy it a bit I suppose despite the legwork they put in to try and close that window of doubt.

    Yeah exactly - they put in the legwork to kill him, but also seem to have put similar legwork into linking his death with a story in which he lives. It results in a bit of a question mark, and the answer I end up arriving at is they wanted to have an option of going either way with it for the next movie - clean slate or partial link back

    I couldn't have said it any better myself, @JamesK :)
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    I honestly loved it on my first viewing. Casino Royale is still Craig’s best Bond film but this one might be my second favorite of his. It’s currently in competition with Skyfall. I thought I could predict the ending and I was partially right in my guess. I had a feeling Bond was going to be infected causing him to not be around his love and his child, thus keeping him in future movies. What I didn’t see coming was a bombardment of missiles coming down on him and actually taking him out! It’s pretty fitting for Craig’s Bond though. His Bond just seemed hurt and almost lost after Vesper’s death. Hopefully the next Bond will less gloomy.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,220
    My Daughter, who is a moderate Bond fan and knew nothing about the plot or outcome, left the theater in tears and said,”I didn’t sign up for this”. Lol, but she loved it.
  • SomethingThatAteHimSomethingThatAteHim
    Posts: 532
    Some of my friends saw it who are extremely casual Bond fans and enjoyed it but were extremely confused. They only rewatched Casino Royale beforehand, got Skyfall and Quantum of Solace confused, and didn’t even know Spectre existed lol. The dangers of relying too heavily on continuity when these films release many years apart.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,709
    JoeBond wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    SomethingThatAteHim wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    No Time To Die needs to be seen more than once..

    What an interesting experience that I've had with this film; my first viewing left me flat and I left the theater not knowing how I felt.
    Last night I had my second viewing ( IMAX) and it was a completely different experience; I loved it. It is a great way to end Craig's run as 007.

    Now, with that said, I do have some major problems with a few things and it's critics are not off the mark , specifically the sequence with Blofeld, and the muddy, underdevelopment of the main Villain, Safin. His plot and motivations are very weak and this detracts from the power of the finale.

    No Time to Die is beautifully directed: I would love to see what Cary Fukunaga could do with a clean slate.

    I haven’t seen it a second time, but I feel like this mirrors how I would feel. I was pretty mixed/negative on the film the first time (I loved it entirely up until Bond got back to London) but stewing on it in the week since I’ve seen it it’s been growing in appreciation in my mind. I still take issue with the same stuff that bothered me in the theater, like you mainly the Blofeld stuff and Safin’s underdevelopment, but I think I let that cloud my enjoyment of all the terrific stuff that runs all the way through the film. I think I’ll be much more favorable to it on a rewatch.

    I agree, Up until Bond's return to London, it was close to perfection; from that point on the weakness of Safin's overall development, including his plot, detract from a beautifully directed and photographed film

    AS of now, this sums up perfectly my views on the film. And I think it will stick. I just need to watch it again. Any news on when the blu ray will be available? (as my local cinema sucks)

    Very fair assessment:) I haven't seen any solid date yet. I guess it will depend on how long they keep it in theaters. I'm hoping by Christmas we get it but probably won't be till January 2022. There should be a digital PVOD after 45 days. Hopefully that happens.

    Thank you! Let's hope for Christmas then ;)
  • JamesKJamesK Canada
    Posts: 35
    talos7 wrote: »
    My Daughter, who is a moderate Bond fan and knew nothing about the plot or outcome, left the theater in tears and said,”I didn’t sign up for this”. Lol, but she loved it.

    My wife is in the same boat, and didn't speak for a few minutes after the movie; but loved it.
Sign In or Register to comment.