No Time To Die (spoilery reviews thread)

Vesper wrote:

- Call me old fashioned, but I thought some of the swearing a bit much - if only because I imagine 8-12 year olds still get taken to see these.

2 'f-bombs' (and 1 'suggested' one in LALD by Sheriff Pepper) in 59 years isn't too bad in fairness, especially when compared to other action franchises. Interesting that they've both been in the Craig era, and have both been uttered by M.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Vesper wrote:

- Call me old fashioned, but I thought some of the swearing a bit much - if only because I imagine 8-12 year olds still get taken to see these.

2 'f-bombs' (and 1 'suggested' one in LALD by Sheriff Pepper) in 59 years isn't too bad in fairness, especially when compared to other action franchises. Interesting that they've both been in the Craig era, and have both been uttered by M.    

Correct - which just made it stand out more. It's jarring - in textual terms, it breaks immersion from the accepted expectations.

Fleming does have Bond suggesting that Goldfinger go and .... himself. Obscenity laws of the time prevented him from typing the phrase in full, but Bond's meaning is clear (especially when Goldfinger's response is something along the lines of it being physically impossible).

Vesper wrote:

Unvarnished thoughts, before engaging with all of yours - I have seen it 1.5 times, once sober and once after about half a bottle of wine at an event held by the High Commission. I snuck out of that one after Cuba as it was a work night and I was pretty knackered to stick around for the rest.

- Overall, I liked it. I thought it was better than Quantum of Solace and probably even with Spectre. My first impression was better than Skyfall, but I don't think a single scene rose to Skyfall's best ones.
- The ending was terrible and really ruined it though. I don't have an issue with them killing off Bond, but it was done without a hint of ambiguity that Fleming had at least retained in YOLT. We had enough of a reason already in the script as to why he would continue on as is, without his wife or child. It felt like overkill. I also think a big part of the cinematic Bond's appeal - as opposed to the literary one - is the loose idea of a continuity but most importantly that he always survives to fight another day, whatever the cost.
- Second, the execution of the post death scenes was extraordinarily poor, and the last few lines quite cringeworthy.
- The pre-titles sequence through to Cuba, I found to be terrific.
- I thought the sequence in the forest was probably one of the best action sequences in a Bond film in several years.
- The garden of death ending I really liked - it had a perfect blend of the cinematic Bond (Dr No, Goldeneye) and the literary. I thought Saffin was a pretty sinister villain whose weirdness worked well without being over explained. I really liked the part in the climax where the workers realised how toxic the water was and fled.
- I liked the idea of the CIA and MI6 having conflicting objectives - though I am glad the film wound up released in a post-Trump world so it didn't feel as targetted a comment on current politics. I liked the idea of M trying to cover his tracks not because he was corrupt, but because in trying to do something good he created a mess.
- I thought the inclusion of 007 was a little overplayed (I bet you thought they'd retire it etc) but I thought the character herself, and Q being gay, were integrated in subtle ways that didn't really upset the brand and the world and were rather deft nods to diversity.
- I thought the relationship between Bond and Madeleine was quite well developed and didn't grate me. I also thought they handled the concept of Bond having a child about as un-irritatingly as they could and it introduced a nice bit of tension.
- Call me old fashioned, but I thought some of the swearing a bit much - if only because I imagine 8-12 year olds still get taken to see these.

Overall, I have more issues with what this sets up for the franchise than the film itself. I don't look forward to a comic book approach to continuity with explicit reboots and retellings of the same story. OTOH, maybe this opens up more creative opportunities (eg a revisit of period Bond). I thought the score was one of the worst of the Craig era - though the Billie song was good.

3.5/5

I agree with you about Safin, for reasons I'll explain if/when I write my review. But yes, his creepiness factor was off of the charts, and that is a help in Bond villains. In that respect, he is diametrically opposed to Koskov and Kristatos.

Vesper wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Vesper wrote:

- Call me old fashioned, but I thought some of the swearing a bit much - if only because I imagine 8-12 year olds still get taken to see these.

2 'f-bombs' (and 1 'suggested' one in LALD by Sheriff Pepper) in 59 years isn't too bad in fairness, especially when compared to other action franchises. Interesting that they've both been in the Craig era, and have both been uttered by M.    

Correct - which just made it stand out more. It's jarring - in textual terms, it breaks immersion from the accepted expectations.

There are other aspects of pomo Bond that exercise me more than a couple of F-bombs, but yes, on the whole, I'd prefer they not blight the Bond franchise. I hear the word enough as it is.

Salomé wrote:

A side-note, but it's not immediately clear to me what sections of the film Phoebe Waller-Bridge spruced up exactly. There was very little of the dialogue that sounded like her work.

The media promotion here suggested she was brought in by the director to polish dialogue - ideally the aim was to get material on par with Casino Royale's first act and a half - particularly the train scene, Montenegro introduction - I'm not sure it quite worked.

hegottheboot wrote:

I did a final ramble plus my closer to YOLT novel rewrite ideas.

I finally figured out what NTTD is: spoiled bad Phuyuck.

Good work, Boot. Your concept for what NTTD could've been was ridiculously better than what we had. If the film was going to have a downbeat ending, then it should've been - regrettably - at the expense of those closest to Bond, rather than Bond himself. The real tragedy of James Bond is that he endures while those he gets too close to meet tragic ends.

Vesper wrote:

Unvarnished thoughts, before engaging with all of yours - I have seen it 1.5 times, once sober and once after about half a bottle of wine at an event held by the High Commission. I snuck out of that one after Cuba as it was a work night and I was pretty knackered to stick around for the rest.

- Overall, I liked it. I thought it was better than Quantum of Solace and probably even with Spectre. My first impression was better than Skyfall, but I don't think a single scene rose to Skyfall's best ones.
- The ending was terrible and really ruined it though. I don't have an issue with them killing off Bond, but it was done without a hint of ambiguity that Fleming had at least retained in YOLT. We had enough of a reason already in the script as to why he would continue on as is, without his wife or child. It felt like overkill. I also think a big part of the cinematic Bond's appeal - as opposed to the literary one - is the loose idea of a continuity but most importantly that he always survives to fight another day, whatever the cost.
- Second, the execution of the post death scenes was extraordinarily poor, and the last few lines quite cringeworthy.
- The pre-titles sequence through to Cuba, I found to be terrific.
- I thought the sequence in the forest was probably one of the best action sequences in a Bond film in several years.
- The garden of death ending I really liked - it had a perfect blend of the cinematic Bond (Dr No, Goldeneye) and the literary. I thought Saffin was a pretty sinister villain whose weirdness worked well without being over explained. I really liked the part in the climax where the workers realised how toxic the water was and fled.
- I liked the idea of the CIA and MI6 having conflicting objectives - though I am glad the film wound up released in a post-Trump world so it didn't feel as targetted a comment on current politics. I liked the idea of M trying to cover his tracks not because he was corrupt, but because in trying to do something good he created a mess.
- I thought the inclusion of 007 was a little overplayed (I bet you thought they'd retire it etc) but I thought the character herself, and Q being gay, were integrated in subtle ways that didn't really upset the brand and the world and were rather deft nods to diversity.
- I thought the relationship between Bond and Madeleine was quite well developed and didn't grate me. I also thought they handled the concept of Bond having a child about as un-irritatingly as they could and it introduced a nice bit of tension.
- Call me old fashioned, but I thought some of the swearing a bit much - if only because I imagine 8-12 year olds still get taken to see these.

Overall, I have more issues with what this sets up for the franchise than the film itself. I don't look forward to a comic book approach to continuity with explicit reboots and retellings of the same story. OTOH, maybe this opens up more creative opportunities (eg a revisit of period Bond). I thought the score was one of the worst of the Craig era - though the Billie song was good.

3.5/5

Solid stuff, though you certainly liked it more than I did.

On the potty mouth front, it seems like they're intent on meeting a one f-bomb per film quota (and it's usually M). Out of place and, frankly, juvenile, like a kid who's just discovered South Park or whatever.

Thanks for the kind words. When examined closely if they wanted to go the YOLT route they could've gone much further and really made something with resonance that felt more Bondian.

Death is the continual theme in Bond and the deaths of those closest to him is part of the character's backbone right down to the sacrificial lamb characters. To do a silly inversion on this is pointless, unnecessary, cheap, uninspired and ultimately insulting. There needed to either be some sort of hint of survival or at the very least not staging it to look as if the man just "lost the will to live" which is EXACTLY what the film does. At least in Revenge of the Sith they had the guts to put that phrase in words.

Totally agreed on the f bombs being painfully out of place. In Fleming when Bond was up against the unbeatable and finally broke loose with a ---- you it meant something and was in context.

great breakdown of the film bot



they have no confidence in themselves or their product and that comes across the on screen the entire time
it's their motive for the odd choices as well

There's been an odd mix of subverting the fundamentals to make an "anti-Bond" film that Babs won't be embarrassed to stand behind, while at the same time a shoehorning of callbacks to the bad old unenlightened Cubby era (eg. the DB5 appearing for the millionth time, referencing OHMSS etc.) which shouldn't really be relevant if Craig's Bond is a self-contained timeline.

The Good:

- Craig Bond is dead! Good riddance. Though it wouldn't surprise me if he just upped and walked away from the naval strike. More on that below.

- Paloma. What a delight. So much charm and style. Genuinely beamed a smile watching her do her thing.

- Daniel Kleinman's title sequence. I quite like the Dr. No dots - made sense for the 25th anniversary. And everything else, as he usually does, was sublime. The colours, the Walters firing as they dance to create the DNA symbol, etc.

- M having sanctioned Heracles is the most intriguing story element in the film and a great way to incorporate M. More on this below.

- Fiennes quoting Fleming at the end. Very fitting to use if Bond died.

- Some cool shots of the DB5 in Matera.


The Bad

- The action left a lot to be desired. It was explosion (Vesper's grave) > car chase (Matera) > explosion (Lab) > shootout (Cuba) > explosion (boat) > car chase (Norway) > shootout (ending). Not much variety. And even within the action sequences, tropes are repeated. How many times did something explode right in front of Bond? 4? Which sings out to the idea that his Bond is superhuman (he got shot in the shoulder again in Matera, didn't he? Didn't seem to bother him at all swinging off the bridge). And Bond used the exact same method to dispatch three cars in Norway. Hardly inventive.

- Still too much devoted to the Scooby gang. Give Bond some agency for God's sake. How did he cope before?

- Bond was sure talkative in this one.

- The score was forgettable, except for when the Bond theme creeps in.

- I finally heard Eilish's theme song. Can't remember it, though.

The Ugly

- The script is a mess, as expected. First rule of screenwriting: never open with a flashback. What are we flashing-back from? There are too many story threads and none are satisfactorily developed. As mentioned above, M having approved Heracles is such a fascinating idea that the political ramifications would have been much more interesting to watch than the still-forced dynamic between Bond and Madeleine. And this leads to:

- Too many characters. Safin's scheme and motivations are unclear. Nomi is wasted. There was promise at the start (I like how she's teased briefly before Bond hops on her bike) but her character beats came from nowhere. I'm not even sure Paloma was necessary, even though she was a bright spot. It diluted Nomi's presence. But then the idea that she was 007 was always going to be problematic- I pinpointed all the possibilities of that dynamic well before its release and somehow they managed to squeeze them all in. I was so confused about whether Mathilde was actually Bond's or not. Why was that necessary? As mentioned, there should have been more focus on M. More should have been done with the Russian scientist. Much of his character's story happens off screen but since he's so integral to the plot, we needed to see more. Alas, he just came off as Boris-lite. In fact, that whole lab/office dynamic felt heavily inspired by Severneya, except without the impact.

- Deaths of Bond, Felix and Blofeld. Can't believe I even have to write that.

- Misappropriation of Fleming and classic Bond elements. The Poison Garden was so unremarkable and nothing was done with it. Should have been saved for a real Garden of Death. "Die Blofeld die" was NOT earned. We Have All The Time In The World popping up twice better not ruin my OHMSS viewings. And the OHMSS theme song felt so jarring in the scene between Bond and M. Why exactly was it playing then? Felix now telling Bond about the heroes and villains being mixed up. Vesper's grave blowing up-- so distasteful. Who thought that was a good idea? And as I've asked before, why exactly is her grave in Matera? She's a Brit, killed in Venice. So either England or Venice would have made sense. The Vantage cameos also didn't really ring true.

- Daniel Craig. What are people seeing that I'm clearly not? He's such an over-actor.

- Woke overtones. Placing Bond smack-bang between Nomi and Eve is such a statement. Then for Bond to say something like Safin joining a line of small angry men or something. And does it mean a woman can only be strong if she wields a weapon? Missed opportunity for Nomi to shoot the goon that Madeleine does. Would make Nomi seem more competent, considering she was supposed to be tailing Ash. Q being gay is pure tokenism. Don't these folk feel patronised, seeing this shit?

Just some preliminary thoughts. I'm sure more will come as the discussions continue. I have no desire to sit through that again.

Good write-up Fields, I nod along but then as far as this film is concerned I'm a Grinch.

I was talking to someone on FB about the film and he said, why did they put OHMSS theme in. At that it's more the Over and Out rendition which in OHMSS of course was leading up to something. The theme in NTTD suggested that the next scene would be something...and it wasn't.

As for Vesper's grave, Bond hasn't been consistent really. FYEO had Tracy's grave in England when she'd surely have been buried in Corsica or Portugal.

I need more Paloma. Hell, she could be the new 007, I'm past caring.

Regarding the OHMSS cue ...
Based on what he said in ICG magazine, Zimmer just likes to find the odd spot or semi-familiar melody to slip in homages. He says he has found a way to do this in the TOP GUN sequel too, though in a hard to notice way. I'm thinking he might go underproduced there, as the Faltermeyer melody is pretty distinctive. Has Zimmer ever delivered an 'unplugged' moment?

I find myself oddly looking forward to seeing/enduring this film once it shows up at Redbox next month. Can it be as bad as it seems?

I've been waiting for your take, MKKBB!

I'm mostly with you on 'The Good' though I'd add the "I will not waste my days..." eulogy to the pile of unearned Fleming-isms in NTTD, as much as I like the quotation itself.

On 'The Bad', yes indeed, Bond was very talkative. I seem to remember that in the Blofeld scene he was making stupid jokes and waving his hands around like Woody Allen. Oy. Made me miss the grunting strong silent type of the preceding four films.

And 'The Ugly' stuff was indeed very ugly as you have articulated very well.

The longer NTTD has festered in my subconscious like a bad dream the less I like it.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

The Good:

- Paloma. What a delight. So much charm and style. Genuinely beamed a smile watching her do her thing.

I think we all loved the Paloma/Cuba section so much because it was fun.
And it was fun because Ana de Armas was clearly having fun with the role.
Which is refreshing after all of the Bond girls who tackled their Bond film roles like they were beneath them or their insistence during press that "they weren't like the Bond girls of the past".

In fact, the only thing that muddied it a tiny bit is that DC couldn't throw himself into the joyfulness of it all to the same extent.

But after the dour seriousness of much of the DC era, I'm about ready for a new Bond who quips after he kills a villain, who slaps the Bond girl's bum and who generally behaves like he is having fun instead of carrying the weight of the world on his back (even if he is in actuality trying to save the world).

I never got into the cinematic Bond universe because it was so very serious. This is escapist entertainment to me. At its best, very well made entertainment. But if this - the DC era - had been the tone of the Bond films from the start, would they ever have been such a success?

Dalton was the last 'bum-slapper', if memory serves ... I doubt that'll return anytime soon. But yes, agreed about some sort of return to fun escapism; one only has to look at the success of most of the Marvel output to see that the audience for it is still very much there.

Salomé wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

The Good:

- Paloma. What a delight. So much charm and style. Genuinely beamed a smile watching her do her thing.

But if this - the DC era - had been the tone of the Bond films from the start, would they ever have been such a success?

That is a very good question, and I'm not sure I know the answer. And here's a corresponding question: are DN and FRWL so very different tonally from, let's say, QoS and SP? I'm not sure where I stand on that one, either.

Hilly wrote:

why did they put OHMSS theme in... The theme in NTTD suggested that the next scene would be something...and it wasn't.

Quite. Very anti-climactic and very distracting in a very pedestrian scene.

Hilly wrote:

As for Vesper's grave, Bond hasn't been consistent really. FYEO had Tracy's grave in England when she'd surely have been buried in Corsica or Portugal.

One suspects Bond had Tracy buried in England - that makes sense to me. But Vesper in Matera?

CJB wrote:

I'm mostly with you on 'The Good' though I'd add the "I will not waste my days..." eulogy to the pile of unearned Fleming-isms in NTTD, as much as I like the quotation itself.

Unearned, for sure. But since we’re probably never going to see Bond die again on screen, it was a nice touch. One of the few spoilers I managed to avoid.

CJB wrote:

On 'The Bad', yes indeed, Bond was very talkative. I seem to remember that in the Blofeld scene he was making stupid jokes and waving his hands around like Woody Allen. Oy. Made me miss the grunting strong silent type of the preceding four films.

Ha, exactly. I was squirming in my chair watching Craig try to act his way through that. And why did he suddenly want to kill Blofeld? He hadn’t seen him in 5 years. He made a conscious effort not to at the end of Spectre when his blood would truly be boiling. Bizarre scene.

Salome wrote:

I think we all loved the Paloma/Cuba section so much because it was fun.
And it was fun because Ana de Armas was clearly having fun with the role.
Which is refreshing after all of the Bond girls who tackled their Bond film roles like they were beneath them or their insistence during press that "they weren't like the Bond girls of the past”...

... But after the dour seriousness of much of the DC era, I'm about ready for a new Bond who quips after he kills a villain, who slaps the Bond girl's bum and who generally behaves like he is having fun instead of carrying the weight of the world on his back (even if he is in actuality trying to save the world).

I never got into the cinematic Bond universe because it was so very serious. This is escapist entertainment to me. At its best, very well made entertainment. But if this - the DC era - had been the tone of the Bond films from the start, would they ever have been such a success?

Agreed. Perhaps the best thing to come out of NTTD is the insight; that fans want that sense of fun and joie de vivre. So maybe Bond 26 and the direction of the next actor’s tenure will be shaped on what made the Cuban section so universally successful.

Salome wrote:

In fact, the only thing that muddied it a tiny bit is that DC couldn't throw himself into the joyfulness of it all to the same extent.

Yep. It reminds me of the conversation trevanian brought up in a different thread. Bond should look like he’s enjoying his work/life. Craig knocking back booze seemed out of necessity instead of pleasure. Contrast that to Brosnan in TWINE at the casino, where he immobilises the goon and takes his time to enjoy his martini. More of that, please.

PK wrote:

That is a very good question, and I'm not sure I know the answer. And here's a corresponding question: are DN and FRWL so very different tonally from, let's say, QoS and SP? I'm not sure where I stand on that one, either.

Yes, they are. And to touch on a point that Salome brought up about getting into the cinematic Bond for its escapist nature, Fleming’s Bond wasn’t serious either, which is why it was such a successful, enduring blueprint for cinema. They were focused, but not serious. The world around him was outrageous, even if he himself were more grounded (after all, we see the world through his lens, so he becomes our reliable narrator). Dr No himself is larger than life, the appearance of Honey Ryder, the superstitions, the Three Blind Mice, that sense of pleasure and travelogue in Kingston, e.g. Pussfellas or his gleeful stringing along of Miss Taro-- all that elevates the world DR. NO occupies into something fantastic, well above that of QOS or SP. It’s not maudlin or bleak like CR/QOS/SP/NTTD are. Similarly, FRWL, with its toad-like, lesbian villain (and a henchman who, in a novel touted as being ‘serious’, kills on a full moon), a honeytrap that Bond knows all too well about, poison-tipped shoes, threesomes with gypsies-- that entire gypsy camp sequence is James Bond personified: sex, danger, culture, joie de vivre, humour, bizarre, all rolled into one.

DN/FRWL, as focused as they are, never descend into utter seriousness. I think the distinction between 'focused' and 'serious’ needs to be explored more.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

The world around him was outrageous, even if he himself were more grounded (after all, we see the world through his lens, so he becomes our reliable narrator). Dr No himself is larger than life, the appearance of Honey Ryder, the superstitions, the Three Blind Mice, that sense of pleasure and travelogue in Kingston, e.g. Pussfellas or his gleeful stringing along of Miss Taro-- all that elevates the world DR. NO occupies into something fantastic, well above that of QOS or SP. It’s not maudlin or bleak like CR/QOS/SP/NTTD are. Similarly, FRWL, with its toad-like, lesbian villain (and a henchman who, in a novel touted as being ‘serious’, kills on a full moon), a honeytrap that Bond knows all too well about, poison-tipped shoes, threesomes with gypsies-- that entire gypsy camp sequence is James Bond personified: sex, danger, culture, joie de vivre, humour, bizarre, all rolled into one.

DN/FRWL, as focused as they are, never descend into utter seriousness. I think the distinction between 'focused' and 'serious’ needs to be explored more.

"Focused not serious" is a great way of putting it.

The T. Young Bond films were larger than life and cheeky, without descending into self-parody. The tone was fairly light but everything flowed in a deliberate and tantalising fashion. These movies knew what they were - and weren't - because they were made by men who knew what they were doing.

CJB wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

The world around him was outrageous, even if he himself were more grounded (after all, we see the world through his lens, so he becomes our reliable narrator). Dr No himself is larger than life, the appearance of Honey Ryder, the superstitions, the Three Blind Mice, that sense of pleasure and travelogue in Kingston, e.g. Pussfellas or his gleeful stringing along of Miss Taro-- all that elevates the world DR. NO occupies into something fantastic, well above that of QOS or SP. It’s not maudlin or bleak like CR/QOS/SP/NTTD are. Similarly, FRWL, with its toad-like, lesbian villain (and a henchman who, in a novel touted as being ‘serious’, kills on a full moon), a honeytrap that Bond knows all too well about, poison-tipped shoes, threesomes with gypsies-- that entire gypsy camp sequence is James Bond personified: sex, danger, culture, joie de vivre, humour, bizarre, all rolled into one.

DN/FRWL, as focused as they are, never descend into utter seriousness. I think the distinction between 'focused' and 'serious’ needs to be explored more.

"Focused not serious" is a great way of putting it.

The T. Young Bond films were larger than life and cheeky, without descending into self-parody. The tone was fairly light but everything flowed in a deliberate and tantalising fashion. These movies knew what they were - and weren't - because they were made by men who knew what they were doing.

Quite. And that’s why it endured. Had the series started off with the same self-indulgence as CR06, QOS, SP and NTTD, it wouldn’t have lasted through the years. Much consideration from every department was given to striking the right balance but it’s no longer the case.

And to appease the feminists/Eon spies who may stumble into this thread, Johanna Harwood had a hand in shaping the films, too. It’s possible to have a female involved who knows the fundamental target audience and without trying to make a social statement.

I think the 'focused not serious' notion is very apt. I'd also say that part of that focus may come from the relatively compressed time-frame the films used to be made in. I mean, they were grinding those things out almost yearly! Genuine professionals undertook the work and delivered as professionally as possible in most instances, operating under the gun but maintaining (like Bond) grace under fire.

Some people try to shoot holes in early Bonds for technical gaffes (most rear-projected stuff, hand-drawn mattes in the GF PTS and the plane in the same film, or the weirdly oscillating music when Bond looks for bugs in FRWL, or the awkward tendency to skip-print action to ill-effect in nearly all of the 60s films), but those aren't usually any more egregious than the ones that manifest in contemporary offerings, and as such should be more excusable given the time constraints and the tech limitations. And none of them are as obnoxious as the parasurfing, which made me think Bond was executing an ESCAPE FROM L.A.

Have never seen Escape From LA. General consensus seems to be it's nowhere near as much fun as its predecessor.

I'm not the biggest fan of the original, but I'd say both films fail to live up tot the promise of their premise and their theme music. Part of that is because despite my love for TOMBSTONE and ability to watch it again at any time, I really don't find Kurt Russell interesting at all.

But what differentiates LA from NY for me is that instead of ingenious low-budget (and somewhat low-rent) FX in the latter, LA has some of the worst early digital work you're likely to have to suffer through. Most of the matte paintings were rendered to read like paintings (moreso even than DICK TRACY, where that was at least intentional), and the underwater approach to the city is pure SEAQUEST DOA, just cartoonsville, made even more obnoxious by a total lack of motion blur. There's more to make fun of in Los Angeles than NY and the writers try to make the most of that.

LA also manages to squander the potential of a Bond-like finale, with airborne attackers in very nifty rocket-powered hang gliders making an assault on what is essentially (though not allowed to be) Disneyland. Chutzpah like that hasn't been written about since the original WARHEAD script with its battle scenes as helicopters attack a SPECTRE-entrenched Statue of LIberty, and you see blood leaking out of the statue's eye at one point before Bond hang glides his way inside.

I think LA does manage to top NY's ending in terms of hinting at what's to come, and the last line of the film seems to herald a new world disorder in a dark but movie-satisfying-fun way. Michelle Forbes is utterly wasted in her role. George Corraface, Timothy Dalton's replacement in CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS, tries for Raul Julia status as the baddie but comes off to me more like an ethnic George Lazenby. It's a weird movie, but I just stopped to rewatch the opening credits and setup on streaming while writing this, and I have a terrible feeling I'll be viewing little snippets of it all week, skipping the big basketball game (you read that right) and a few of the even less-choice bits, like surfing through Hollywood.

trevanian wrote:

I think the 'focused not serious' notion is very apt. I'd also say that part of that focus may come from the relatively compressed time-frame the films used to be made in. I mean, they were grinding those things out almost yearly! Genuine professionals undertook the work and delivered as professionally as possible in most instances, operating under the gun but maintaining (like Bond) grace under fire.

Some people try to shoot holes in early Bonds for technical gaffes (most rear-projected stuff, hand-drawn mattes in the GF PTS and the plane in the same film, or the weirdly oscillating music when Bond looks for bugs in FRWL, or the awkward tendency to skip-print action to ill-effect in nearly all of the 60s films), but those aren't usually any more egregious than the ones that manifest in contemporary offerings, and as such should be more excusable given the time constraints and the tech limitations. And none of them are as obnoxious as the parasurfing, which made me think Bond was executing an ESCAPE FROM L.A.

That’s an interesting take. And also, the relatively compressed running times for each film. Each scene needed to be crafted to fit in all the elements to give audiences that Bondian shot of thrill and escapism. Nowadays, it’s become self indulgent where entire scenes forget they’re in a Bond film to satisfy the politics or awards-prestige-cravings of the film makers. Case in point, some of the stuff in the opening scene of NTTD felt so generic and Americanised and completely unBondian. There’s no sense of culture, joie-de-vivre and sex precluding the danger that ultimately occurs. Compare that to a FRWL scene where Kerim Bey’s office is bombed. We’re in a secret room in a rug shop facade, a beautiful woman is coaxing her man for attention, he plays the cynic before giving in and then the danger (the bomb). All wrapped up in a minute or so instead of this mammoth sequence to justify the rest of the film (about a character we had no interest in revisiting, too!).