Professor Zoom wrote:
We’re not used to second-guessing James Bond, because he always wins, but he makes a very questionable one here.
Silva wants to kill M (and himself, it turns out), so Bond takes her to his old house, lets nobody on his side know where they’re going, but leaves a “trail of breadcrumbs” inviting the villain to come after them with an army. Is this really a good idea?
M doesn’t survive the showdown. Bond showing up at the end to put a knife in Silva’s back changes nothing. So what does Bond actually accomplish in this film? He blows up the house and the car and kills a bunch of hired hands, all for nothing. Bond failing in this manner might make him more “real” and compelling. It’s certainly not what one ordinarily expects from a Bond film.
And as I said earlier, a desirable spy.
"So, Mr. Bond, it seems on your last mission, you made the choice to take your boss 'off the grid' which resulted in her death... Why should we continue your employment here at MI6?"
I just saw the movie today, and didn’t want to read the 171 messages already posted in this thread, so I didn’t. Now going back and reading your earlier post, I find it’s remarkably similar to mine. It almost looks like I copied you. _____ minds think alike, I guess. I don’t know what word goes in the blank.
As to the question of his continued employment, I don’t think this case is one he’s going to highlight on his resume. Despite his failure here, his success-to-cock-up ratio is still impressive enough to warrant his continued employment at MI6.