5 / 10
No Time to Die is the final entry in Daniel Craig’s James Bond tenure and one of the most divisive Bond films in the franchise’s sixty-year history. Cary Joji Fukunaga directed. Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Fukunaga, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge wrote. Craig returns as Bond in his fifth and final appearance. Léa Seydoux returns as Madeleine Swann. Rami Malek plays Lyutsifer Safin. Lashana Lynch plays Nomi, the new 007. Ana de Armas plays Paloma, a Cuban CIA agent. The plot involves a nanotechnology weapon called Project Heracles, Bond’s return from retirement, the revelation that he has fathered a child with Madeleine, and his choice to remain on the island to die rather than infect his family.
The film made approximately seven hundred and seventy-four million dollars worldwide on a two hundred and fifty million dollar budget. The pandemic affected theatrical performance. The film was a commercial success below earlier Craig-era Bond returns. The reviews were mixed. The ending divided the audience permanently. The decision to kill James Bond is the most-discussed franchise decision in decades and the central reason the film appears on the Woke Disasters list.
What Made It a Woke Disaster
The film commits to three structural choices that read together as the franchise pivoting to the late-2010s replacement narrative. The first is Nomi taking the 007 codename. Bond has retired. MI6 has reassigned his number to a younger Black woman who is positioned as his successor. The film stages multiple sequences in which Bond and Nomi compete and Nomi proves equal to or better than Bond. The framing is that Bond was always replaceable and the institution has now replaced him.
The second is Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s writing pass. The producers hired Waller-Bridge specifically to “modernize” Bond for the post-#MeToo era. The result is a script that systematically depowers the Bond character. The womanizing is treated as past-tense regret. The casual sex is replaced by a love story with one woman across two films. The dangerous-male-charm engine of the franchise is dialed back. Bond’s interactions with women are softened, apologetic, and respectful in ways the 1962-2008 Bond would not have recognized. The Bond the franchise had built is incompatible with the moral framework the film is operating in.
The third is the death itself. James Bond is killed in his final scene. The character is presented as definitively dead. The franchise will continue with new casting. The decision is the most-debated creative choice in modern Bond history. The defense is that the Craig era was always treated as a self-contained continuity. The criticism is that James Bond is a franchise character whose survival is a structural assumption of the property, and that killing him in a Craig-era film does not technically end the property but does establish a precedent that future productions will have to handle. The death is the film’s permanent argument that Bond as the franchise had known him is over.
For Writers
Killing a franchise’s central character at the end of one performer’s tenure is a creative choice with permanent consequences for the property. The Craig-era Bond death creates precedent that future Bond productions will have to work around. The lesson is that legacy property decisions outlast the specific work. The next Bond film will be made in a universe where audiences know James Bond can be killed. The mortality is now part of the franchise regardless of whether subsequent films acknowledge it. Consider the long-term implications of permanent narrative choices.
The Nomi Problem
Lashana Lynch’s Nomi is introduced as the new 007. Bond has retired. MI6 has reassigned the codename. Nomi is established as a competent successor. The character then spends most of the film as Bond’s support rather than as her own protagonist. The structural decision to introduce her as the new 007 and then sideline her in favor of Bond’s return is one of the film’s central inconsistencies.
The script does not commit to either approach. If Nomi is the new 007, she should carry her own arc. If Bond is the lead, the 007-replacement plot is decorative rather than substantive. The film tries to position Nomi as a passing-of-the-torch character while also keeping Bond as the actual lead. The two functions are not fully compatible. The result is a Nomi character who is underused and a Bond return that is undercut by the suggestion that he had already been replaced.
For Writers
A successor character introduced to a franchise has to be either fully realized or not introduced. No Time to Die introduces Nomi as Bond’s replacement without giving her the screen time to function as a replacement. The character feels announced rather than developed. The lesson is that legacy-passing structures require the new character to be at least as developed as the departing one. Half-measures produce confusion rather than continuity.
Ana de Armas
The Paloma sequence in Havana is the film’s most successful individual passage. Ana de Armas plays the Cuban CIA agent with specific charisma that elevates every scene she is in. The sequence runs about twenty minutes. The audience could have watched another two hours of Paloma. The character is then gone for the rest of the film. The decision to introduce a performance this strong and dispose of the character so quickly is one of the script’s clearest structural choices that did not pay off.
The Paloma material is one of the strongest Bond Girl sequences in decades. The character is competent, funny, and specifically herself rather than being defined by her relationship to Bond. Paloma flirts with Bond, makes a joke about her short CIA training, then performs at his level through the action sequence. The character is the film’s clearest evidence that the production knew what a strong Bond film could feel like. The fact that the production then put Paloma down at the airport and moved to the Safin plot is the film’s clearest evidence of its priorities.
For Writers
A character who generates strong audience response in a brief appearance is a signal that the script should have used the character more. No Time to Die’s Paloma is the film’s most successful character and is on screen for twenty minutes. The lesson is that audience response is feedback during production as much as after. If a sequence reads as strong in editing, consider whether the rest of the film is using the character at the right level. Strong characters deserve more time, not less.
Craft Note
The Matera pre-credits sequence is the film’s most accomplished individual passage. Bond and Madeleine are ambushed by Spectre operatives at the cliffside hilltop town. The action plays out across narrow stone streets, rooftops, and the iconic Aston Martin DB5 sequence with the rotating headlight machine guns. The sequence runs about twelve minutes and demonstrates that Cary Joji Fukunaga (True Detective season 1, Beasts of No Nation 2015) could direct sustained physical action with specific geographic coherence. The Matera sequence is the film’s argument that Fukunaga was the right director for the project. The argument works in this passage and intermittently across the rest of the film.
The Verdict
5/10. A creatively ambitious Bond finale whose ideological commitments and structural choices made it the most divisive Bond film in decades. The Matera pre-credits and the Paloma sequence are the film’s clearest craft successes. The Bond death is the franchise’s permanent inheritance from this film. The Nomi character is underused. Watch it if you are watching the Craig-era continuity. As a standalone Bond film, lower priority than Casino Royale or Skyfall.
FAQ
Did James Bond really die?
Yes. The character is definitively killed in his final scene. The franchise will continue with new casting.
Is the ending really that divisive?
Yes. The Bond death is the most-debated Bond ending in the franchise’s history.
How is Ana de Armas?
Excellent. The Paloma sequence is the strongest individual passage in the film.
How is Rami Malek as the villain?
The performance is committed. The character is underdeveloped. Safin’s motivation is more announced than demonstrated.
Who is the next Bond?
Not yet cast as of 2026. Eon Productions has been deliberate about the recasting process.
How does it compare to other Craig-era Bond films?
Below Casino Royale (2006) and Skyfall (2012). Above Spectre (2015) and Quantum of Solace (2008).
Should I watch this?
If you have watched the rest of the Craig-era Bond films, you cannot skip the conclusion. As a standalone film, less essential.