I am huge Bond fan so eagerly awaited the release of No Time to Die. The film starts off strong, the second half got a bit bloated and could have been shorter. I like how it wasn't the traditional Spectre vs MI6 but really a new villain who emerged because he was caught in the crossfire many years ago, nicely done. However my main issue here lies in the ending. As Sir Sean Connery once quipped in Goldfinger it was shocking, absolutely shocking.
Daniel Craig has been a great Bond and we all knew he didn't want to do another film. We get it. But I feel an unspoken rule was broken when Bond was killed off. A number of people point out that this was a fitting end to Craig's era and it wrapped his films which had continuity. I would correct them by saying Bond in film has almost 60 years of continuity. Bond could have been killed a million times but he wasn't because it is essentially a legacy that is passed on to new generations. Craig is not bigger than Bond, no actor was. It is a great mantle that is passed on. Also Craig had an exceptional film in Skyfall but his other films were luke warm, as received by critics. So why is there a big push to wrap up his run? A bold director could have have reinvented the character again with a new actor. It's been done before.
Some have pointed to the evolution of the character, again tied to Craig's films... He went from ruthless to giving his life away. I do appreciate adding complexity and changing things up but the question then is are we even watching a Bond film anymore? Bond has been alluring because of its escapism, intrigue and class for many years. I'm sure the actors and fans can list many elements that make it great. But this feels strange. I think the Director got confused about which series he was making. I am disappointed in Barbara Broccoli as well, I thought she respected the legacy of the franchise. I wonder what Cubby Broccoli would have thought.
Daniel Craig has been a great Bond and we all knew he didn't want to do another film. We get it. But I feel an unspoken rule was broken when Bond was killed off. A number of people point out that this was a fitting end to Craig's era and it wrapped his films which had continuity. I would correct them by saying Bond in film has almost 60 years of continuity. Bond could have been killed a million times but he wasn't because it is essentially a legacy that is passed on to new generations. Craig is not bigger than Bond, no actor was. It is a great mantle that is passed on. Also Craig had an exceptional film in Skyfall but his other films were luke warm, as received by critics. So why is there a big push to wrap up his run? A bold director could have have reinvented the character again with a new actor. It's been done before.
Some have pointed to the evolution of the character, again tied to Craig's films... He went from ruthless to giving his life away. I do appreciate adding complexity and changing things up but the question then is are we even watching a Bond film anymore? Bond has been alluring because of its escapism, intrigue and class for many years. I'm sure the actors and fans can list many elements that make it great. But this feels strange. I think the Director got confused about which series he was making. I am disappointed in Barbara Broccoli as well, I thought she respected the legacy of the franchise. I wonder what Cubby Broccoli would have thought.