“If you’ve liked any of the Daniel Craig films, this is a must and sits in the middle of his oeuvre of Bond films. But for sheer entertainment value, it’s a boisterous and emotional ride.“
“But is over-analysing a Bond film a folly? I can’t deny the emotions it has shaken and stirred.”
Con Nats
3.5 /5 Martinis
It’s hard not to be sad approaching this Bond film, knowing it to be Daniel Craig’s last effort. He’s added a class and charisma noone has really captured since Sean Connery, in my humble. It was also exciting to be back in a cinema again, hoping Bond would save the world and cinema in one sitting. It’s been too long between martinis, James, and the world has been going to hell in a test tube.
This time the threats are Nano bots and genetic mapping technology which could wipe out whole races. Hard to top that for world domination, and we have two master villains, not just one. This Bond is aiming for epic.
Formulas are broken: the opening sequence begins with a love interest’s flashback, a remorseful tribute to a lost love before ending in a typically crazy car chase – and the Austin Martin DB5 is magnificent in combat. It’s half an hour before the opening credits roll, and Billie Eilish’s effort is suitably smoky, but wait: no gun barrel shot!?! Don’t worry, it comes later.
Bond has retired and is five years into a stable relationship with Madeline Swan (Léa Seydoux) from Spectre. To some this is a shock; to others it’s a character progression. (To me, I’d have been less surprised if he’d turned gay.) But you have to remember, Bond did marry in Her Majesty’s Secret Service and almost gave it all away for love in Casino Royale. The problem is their relationship doesn’t quite sizzle. (Do two murderous sociopaths really feel emotion?) But this is a Bond film, and the reality is that Bond is much older, more reflective and emotional. The Daniel Craig films have been more grit and realism than camp and one liners.
The other broken rule is that Bond is no longer a 007. The number has been given to Nomi (Lashana Lynch) who is a woman of colour. That’ll have the incels melting their keyboards and has brought tags of being ‘woke’. I’m not as concerned at her gender as her lack of charisma. She only shows flashes of cool and is mainly antagonistic before being deferential. I can’t see her character replacing James and the problem is in the script, not the acting. In fact, I feel many of the script writers’ choices were flawed.
Another key element of Bond films is how nasty the villain is and Rami Malik doesn’t quite cut it. He avoids the cliché of revealing his plan, but not the one about comparing himself to his adversary. He’s more creepy than menacing and again, there’s a character choice which is more flabbergasting than shocking. Christopher Waltz as Blofeld in his cameo shows how it’s done.
As for cameo’s, Ana de Armas as Paloma (she teamed up with Craig in Knives Out) in the Cuba sequence is electric. Badass with class and not a hair out of place is exactly what Bond films are about. She’s excellent and even gives her character range in ten minutes. You want a new Bond? Here she is.
The action scenes are another important element of these films. Director Cary Joji Fukunaga (True Detective) wasn’t known for his action film directing before he was brought on, but he does well. Fukunaga and his award winning cinematographer, Linus Sandgren (La La Land), have gone for lots of close-up, over-the-shoulder long shots instead of sharp editing and laughable over-the-top. The opening chase is great and the misty forest scene is quite eerie. It’s more realism over fantasy than older Bond films and they work, although I have to laugh at how often the villains miss at point blank range, particularly in the long final sequence. It could have been shortened.
And that’s an issue with this film. At almost three hours, it is long. But it wasn’t until the 150 minute mark before I checked my clock. It is engrossing, flaws and all. It could have done with a trim, but it has too many loose ends to tie up.
The script writing is typical Bond, with lots of prosaic statements from the villains, and witty one liners from the hero (and lots of self-referential lines). And all the favourites are still here. My main criticism is the plot and ending, and it should be pointed out that Danny Boyle left this production due to differences over a major plot point. With seven writers, it’s no wonder there are differences, but not of this magnitude. Enlisting Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Fleabag) will give the angry incels more reason to rage, as Bond is far more empathetic than in any other film. But is over-analysing a Bond film a folly? I can’t deny the emotions it has shaken and stirred.
The ending is far more poignant than any Bond film and I won’t be providing any spoilers, but it will generate loads of debate and discussion. I’m still surprised at its audacity but I still encourage any fans to see it. If you’ve liked any of the Daniel Craig films, this is a must and sits in the middle of his oeuvre of Bond films. But for sheer entertainment value, it’s a boisterous and emotional ride. Go well, Daniel Craig. I raise my cocktail glass to you.
Con Nats, On The Screen
