So the Daniel Craig era as James Bond comes to a bittersweet ending. From that first thrilling parkour chase in Casino Royale it’s been clear this incarnation of Bond is not the jockular and implausible gadget wielding spy of old but a modern, smart, hard-as-nails killer.

The choice of the producers to create a new continuity from “Casino” onwards has allowed a more developed portrayal of the character. Yes, Bond continues in the misogynistic and cold style of the novels, but underneath reveals a rather messed up character. The relationship with ‘M’ (Judy Dench), the death of Vesper (Eva green) and finally his time with Madeline Swann (Léa Seydoux) creates a redemptive arc - a redemption not even considered needed in earlier incarnations. There is some similarity with the arc of Tony Stark in the Marvel MCU - perhaps in the era of #MeToo there are new boundaries on our likeable-rogues. After all art, especially film, is a reflection of (a hopefully improving) society as well as an exploration of possibilities.

As a film, it’s good. The Billie Eilish title track really comes alive with the opening credits and despite some glossed over plot-holes[1] the film provides the usual theatrics of chases, gunfights and locations. Some parts seem to be overly long meaning its “no time to pee” for 2h 43m. The retired Bond works with his 007 replacement Nomi (Lashana Lynch) to locate and destroy a biogenic weapon that psychopath Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) [2] intends to kill millions with [3]. In the process Bond admits his love for Swann and discovers he has a daughter with her - a fact that creates very personal stakes as Safin kidnaps them as insurance against Bond [4].

Jointly with Nomi, Bond prevails in rescuing Swan, his daughter and in destroying Safins lair [5][6] and the biogenic weapon but realising he has been infected accepts his fate as the base is destroyed. At the cusp of finally putting his past to rest and building a family it ends giving “No time to die” a sad poignancy.

So where do the producers go from here? Personally I’ve never been bothered by the inconsistency in timelines and an implausibly evergreen James Bond. It’s the same story retold and reimagined every generation or so for the current world. That’s a point of strength IMHO. But it was clear that the current world makes a by-the-novels Bond increasingly problematic and looking musty - the success of franchises like the Bourne Identity show the challenge of fresher approaches. And surely every original idea has been drained out of the Fleming text by now? So of course things will continue, no-one is going to abandon such a cash cow! A phrase used a few times in the film - “it’s only a number” - suggests we might see a sequence of films around other 00 agents. So a series of films around, say, 003 would allow a kind of continuity but create a different character, background and inject feasible peril to the film. It’s OK to kill them off, they can be replaced in-canon.

The precedent is already set - the film shows a replacement 007, with a black woman no less to show the possibilities. And a CIA equivalent [7]. To pivot the franchise to be about MI6 and it’s operations rather than James Bond would be bold and exciting. And possibly the producers only way forward.

[1] eg a secret bioweapon laboratory in the middle of London? There is a reason Porton Down is located on Salisbury plain.

[2] subtle bad guy naming, how close to “Lucifer” can you get?

[3] for no discernable reason than because he can.

[4] which must count as one of the dumbest moves.

[5] on an island in disputed waters between Russia and Japan - and no-one noticed?

[6] via a conveniently placed British warship, firing missiles around Russia/Japan without being hassled?

[7] who has more on-screen chemistry with Bond than his supposed true love Madeleine