NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions vs. Current Reactions

199100102104105298

Comments

  • Posts: 486
    Funny to think back in 2015 a lot of fans here slated EON for where SP left things and praised Disney for their efforts with TFA but yet six years later I'd say the Craig era has been wrapped up nicely by EON whilst the sequel trilogy for SW ultimately proved pretty pointless and Disney didn't have the direction people thought they had.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 1,970
    Saw the movie last night. After having time to digest the movie and everything I saw, I have to say I loved this movie. From the backstory of Madeline as a child, to the plot about the nano-bots, to Bonds death it was a great movie. Daniel Craigs performance as Bond is what drives this movie. All the actors played their rolls well. The movie is character driven as apposed to action driven. Thats not to say the action wasn’t great because it was. Some of the best in the series. A lot of shocking moments in the movie good and bad. From Felix’s death, to M being one of the main reasons of the creation of this virus, to the destruction of Spectre, to Bond having a daughter!!! I also loved all these Easter eggs in this film paying tribute to the novels and past films.

    Now the big elephant in the room. I know many fans are not happy with Bond getting killed and those feelings are 100% justified. We all grew up with Bond in different decades. He was our hero so seeing our hero die is hard for some. When I heard the rumors that Bond was gonna die in NTTD I was ok with it as long as it made sense in the story. To me it made sense. He has to go back to open the blast doors, he got shot doing so, and was not going to make it out in time. Him getting infected with the disease knowing he would of killed Madeline and his daughter if he came back to them justified his decision to stay and die. We all know Craigs Bond movies are meant to be one big separate story from all the previous movies.

    Bond dying is not far fetch because they are gonna reboot the series again. Hopefully when they do they go back to more stand alone movies for the series. I think thats what is needed and whats missed from the Bond franchise. The Craig arc was fun but we need to go back to the traditional stand alone films.

    So overall great movie. So far it ranks 3 out of the 5 Craig films with SF and CR ranking higher at the moment. Need to see it again to see if it moves up in my rankings. Gonna make a pros and cons list of this movie once I see it again. But just wanted to give my first reaction to the film.
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 692
    Just returned from my second viewing. A more lively crowd this time compared to yesterday, but both had similar reactions to the same parts throughout. This time around, M dropping the F bomb probably got the biggest laugh, perhaps even more than Bond's line about the watch. I was rather amused.

    Lots of tears among the crowd at the ending, and the general buzz seemed great upon leaving the cinema.
    The emotional impact of everything hit me a bit more the second time for some reason. Taking it all in the first time I guess.

    I agree. I think I was somewhat distracted the first time around taking in the film as a whole, but this time it all hit me. Absolutely brilliant.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    I agree with the comments about Bond and Madeleine. While I agree that she was underwritten in Spectre, I liked her and understood what they were trying to do. Madeleine was never intended to be written as the same romance as Vesper. Just take the two train scenes in contrast. In CR, the scene is definitely charged full of chemistry and the two are full of banter and sizing each other up. Bond even admits to feeling "skewered" after she accurately but brutally "reads him" (though he was clearly enjoying himself). In Spectre, Madeleine spends the dinner scene in the train asking Bond about him, wanting to understand his perspective and choices in a world she clearly already understands. And in that scene, she never actually judges him for his answers. And Bond is leaning forward over the table as if he's captivated by her being the first one to ever stop to ask him.
    Interviews for Spectre said they wanted Madeleine to be soulful and I think they hit it out of the park with Lea though she was served better in NTTD. Madeleine is soulful, somber, mature, and incredibly sincere with the limited words she uses. Bond is older and damaged and the tender, quieter love suits him. He had awesome chemistry with Paloma, but I disagree with the comments that she should have been the female lead. It doesn't suit what Craig's Bond wants at this time in his life.

    Also, Vesper and Bond did get a "young love" style montage, but that served the storyline and needed to be given to secure the shock of Vesper dying and that she was playing him the entire time. Madeleine gets an overarching thread in two films. It's her actions that show how she feels. While it could have been definitely better handled and written, she offers her love so innocently in Spectre after he had done little to earn it, then tries to leave so she wouldn't be the one to change him. She never betrayed him the way Vesper did. She handles his rejection with complete grace, bears/loves/raises his child for five years, never stops loving him, forgives him for his mistrust with little explanation offered, and then takes him back. This is why Bond didn't want to live without her in the end. She genuinely offered him everything and more that he thought he was getting with Vesper at the time. I think Lea plays the scene in Norway when he's confessing how he feels beautifully. She is not a typical Bond girl - flashy, flirtatious, etc. She was never intended to be one. Not another Bond girl would have made the choices she made. Bond's words are very telling. He says he doesn't regret a moment of his life that led him to Madeleine. That includes Vesper's death too. All of that led him to Madeleine.

    I wish I could "pin" this to the top of a thread. I do not want people reading this forum to miss this analysis of Madeleine. It is spot on, and very helpful overall as we consider NTTD by itself as well as the film's ties to Spectre. I agree completely with this thoughtful explanation of Madeleine. I can feel the warmth, chemistry, history, and love between her and Bond in NTTD.
    Where Madeleine was set up to be uniquely able to understand Bond through her father's role as an assassin, I want to note another connection that plays out across the characters.

    The pre-title sequence returns Madeleine to the horrific experience of her youth, with the gun under the sink with the bleach. We learn from the villain he's delivering reciprocity, for the death visited upon his family when he was a child. And there is Bond's own loss of parents early in his life. These things temper and forge a person for what they become and are capable of. Good and bad.

    As individuals, losing a parent or loved one early in life is devastating and hard to resolve. Still many people weather this circumstance. In a different context, I recall one of the most stirring scenes in cinema for me: The Seven Samurai, during the bandits' raid. The angry and quirky character Kikuchiyo selflessly rushes into a burning farmhouse to rescue who he can. He emerges holding a baby in his arms, the only survivor, and cries out: "This happened to me! The same thing happened to me!" Our insight into his character expands to understand why he knows the motivations and faults of the peasants so completely. And the cycle through generations is on display.

    So I was fascinated by the Mathilde character. Like many story elements floated since 1995 really, it would not be my choice to include a child character in a Bond film, for fear of hysterics and yelling and chasing and action nonsense. That was not the case here. She was calm and straightforward. By nature, as connected to Mr. White and Madeleine and Bond. Or nurture, how psychologist Swann raised her to survive the dangers that likely awaited her. Or both. A child in a Bond film, masterfully handled on screen. I'm left to wonder what is she capable of. Is the cycle broken, or will she be drawn into adventures of her own.

  • The emotional impact of everything hit me a bit more the second time for some reason. Taking it all in the first time I guess.

    Same for me. Went in spoiled and still cried. Second viewing, wept.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 628
    One of the problems I have with this movie, as well as SKYFALL and SPECTRE, is that the filmmakers don't seem to understand that the stories are meant to be pulp hero stuff. They're taking a lofty approach to the silliest crap -- and I guess it works for a lot of people, because these things make a lot of money. But whatever. I just don't find it fun.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Great read @mattjoes. Very interesting to get your thoughts as you were spoiler-free!
    Dead!

    Thank you! And that word will haunt me for days, haha.

    @mattjoes I second that. Do you have a photographic memory lol? The detail there is incredible. The unthinkable.... you captured it perfectly. Nicely done!
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 482
    You mean, when they more or less highlight and embrace the absurdity of having Bond as a one-man-army (or part of one-man-and-one-woman-army) fighting his way on the island through dozens of heavily armed henchmen with barely a scratch?
    My favourite moment is when he reaches the bottom of the stairs and a grenade lands at his feet. With some impeccable timing he throws the grenade back where it comes from, killing the guy. And then, almost magically, a dozen more grenades land at his feet. It's just before (or is it the beginning of?) the long tracking shot in the stairs. It emphasizes for a few seconds that such a situation is just impossible. Bond should be overpowered by the sheer number of ennemies. But he isn't. And it's exhilarating.
  • Posts: 12
    Just a thought: Holmes also falls to his death in “The final problem”
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    I would love to eventually find out just how many shots it took to blend the staircase fight together.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    slide_99 wrote: »

    It would have been much better for the non-death fans had it concluded with Spectre. To me, that’s the end of the arc. No more viewings of NTTD. Once is a plenty. Box office underperforming in the US, badly. Qos will beat NTTD. I asked a friend going to a large theatre today if he is going to watch Bond, he always has. He said, “no way I’m wasting 3 hours to see James Bond die. We are going to watch something else.” I asked how he knew and he said “Facebook.” I asked another friend, if he was going, got a very similar response. Word is out, and this is going to hurt the franchise a lot more than some think. Casino Royale has to “earn” back fans after the disaster known as DAD...but this is far, far worse imo. Projecting $57-$60 mill box office now. Some totals were $90 to $100. Wow.

    To me the question is, who wanted this? I'm not referring to people who are fine with the ending, I mean people who actually wanted it before knowing it. Eon must have known they'd lose fans. They know that recent franchises have died because of decisions like this. TLJ is the most divisive SW movie to date and it's basically credited with killing the entire sequel trilogy (although I'd argue it was stupid and pointless from the get-go, the story ended with ROTJ) and practically nobody saw the last Terminator movie where they bumped off John Connor. I don't think NTTD will bomb, I'm just wondering... why? It seems so completely pointless, like Eon just wanted to give their current Bond actor a big, emotional send-off and didn't care how it would impact the character's image, the fans, or the rest of the series.

    I think you hit the nail on the head. My mother kept asking me, “why would they do that?” She’s a fan of all the Bonds minus Brosnan-no offense to any PB fans. I said, “I don’t have the answer. That really a behind the scenes creative decision.” We can speculate until there’s no tomorrow, but I tend to agree it was to give DC a farewell for the ages. It took some....”guts”...to stick with the Spectre storyline after the critical, fan and box office take was not so great. I’ve never had one person tell me that Spectre is their favorite Bond, if it is, I applaud you! But, as a finale, it works fine with me (especially with NTTD coming after. But to build off of Spectre for a grand finale...whew. That is not appealing. If you’re a Trek fan, it would be like building off of Star Trek: The Motion Picture and skipping The Wrath of Khan as they try to find Vger in the sequel. No. If you’re not a Trek fan, I apologize for the analogy.

    *Sorry for the double post.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 7,551
    studio wrote: »
    Just a thought: Holmes also falls to his death in “The final problem”

    Yes, and The Final Problem is still awesome. Although it might be argued by NTTDetractors that is was Conan Doyle himself who killed Holmes (even thought I believe Fleming wanted to kill Bond a few times).

    EDIT: Also I think Conan Doyle retroactively had Holmes survive that.
  • Posts: 526
    First time in DC’s tenure on opening weekend that I have not watched his Bond on a Saturday. Or Sunday. I usually go Friday-Sunday. Or see it 3 times opening weekend. Watched Qos at a midnight show, then 2 more. Casino, I took in 4 times opening weekend. Felt strange being home today!
  • Posts: 51
    I agree with nearly all of the comments here and will try to avoid repeating too much of what's been said.

    In sum, I think NTTD is a solid film overall and a great finale for Daniel Craig. The direction of Fukunaga was stellar, particularly the driving and combat action sequences. On a side note, I'm sure others know better than me, but I'm guessing that NTTD has the highest Bond (man-to-man) body count yet.

    NTTD was very ambitious in how much the writers tried to cram into the film: Felix death, the end of Blofeld, Vesper Lynd closure, Bond's child, Swann relationship, new 007/rivalry subplot, Bond death, and a lot of exposition...along with the usual "save the world from the villain" main plot, exotic locations,car chases, fight scenes, MI6/Q/M/Moneypenny scenes etc. I think a lot of criticisms stem from this. Even with the record 2 hour 43 min run time the film couldn't possibly give adequate attention to all of the above. It will be really interesting to see which scenes didn't make the cut after the home media release.

    Like most, I did not like that Bond was killed at the end, especially since it runs directly counter to the Bond meta (specifically his invulnerability), and the incredible resilience and staying power of the film series itself.

    That said, the tragic end was only mildly surprising, and actually understandable when viewed in the context of the serial nature of the Craig films - a structure that has always annoyed me unlike many other fans. The Daniel Craig films are a long-running self-contained story that started at the literal beginning of James Bond 007 so logically would end with his death or retirement, as well as the death of his nemesis Blofeld (and unfortunately Felix). Basically there are two (EON) James Bonds: the one played by Connery, Lazenby, Dalton, and Brosnan (each in their own style) and Daniel Craig's.

    It will be very interesting to see how the ending affects the series and how Craig-Bond's death handled moving forward, but I'm 99% certain that EON would have already more-or-less figured that out before deciding on such a drastic ending. It may turn out that the Craig "reboot" (or more accurately "reinterpretation") will be a repeating pattern for future Bond actors (a la the live-action Batman and Spiderman films), with the entire continuity from the previous actor ignored. Given the extraordinarily decisive and emphatic way that Bond was killed on-screen there is almost certainly no chance that the producers go the "unlikely survival" route.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 628
    You mean, when they more or less highlight and embrace the absurdity of having Bond as a one-man-army (or part of one-man-and-one-woman-army) fighting his way on the island through dozens of heavily armed henchmen with barely a scratch?
    My favourite moment is when he reaches the bottom of the stairs and a grenade lands at his feet. With some impeccable timing he throws the grenade back where it comes from, killing the guy. And then, almost magically, a dozen more grenades land at his feet. It's just before (or is it the beginning of?) the long tracking shot in the stairs. It emphasizes for a few seconds that such a situation is just impossible. Bond should be overpowered by the sheer number of ennemies. But he isn't. And it's exhilarating.

    During that whole sequence I was reminded of John Woo, who did the same kind of thing almost thirty years ago (in HARD-BOILED) with more style and skill.

  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    edited October 2021 Posts: 482
    Conan Doyle left the fate of Holmes ambiguous in the "Final Problem", but he was fed up with the character as Holmes had overshadowed his other works. However, he also faced a ton of fan letters which never stopped begging him for more Holmes adventures. So, first he wrote The Hound of the Baskerville, which was supposed to take place before the events of "The Final Problem", then he published another series of short stories that explained how Holmes had survived the events at the Reichenbach Falls. It took Conan Doyle a decade to resolve this particular hmm.... cliffhanger.
  • Posts: 526
    The stair scene was amazing. Intensity was off the charts.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,551
    SPECTRE wrote: »
    I agree with nearly all of the comments here and will try to avoid repeating too much of what's been said.

    In sum, I think NTTD is a solid film overall and a great finale for Daniel Craig. The direction of Fukunaga was stellar, particularly the driving and combat action sequences. On a side note, I'm sure others know better than me, but I'm guessing that NTTD has the highest Bond (man-to-man) body count yet.

    NTTD was very ambitious in how much the writers tried to cram into the film: Felix death, the end of Blofeld, Vesper Lynd closure, Bond's child, Swann relationship, new 007/rivalry subplot, Bond death, and a lot of exposition...along with the usual "save the world from the villain" main plot, exotic locations,car chases, fight scenes, MI6/Q/M/Moneypenny scenes etc. I think a lot of criticisms stem from this. Even with the record 2 hour 43 min run time the film couldn't possibly give adequate attention to all of the above. It will be really interesting to see which scenes didn't make the cut after the home media release.

    Like most, I did not like that Bond was killed at the end, especially since it runs directly counter to the Bond meta (specifically his invulnerability), and the incredible resilience and staying power of the film series itself.

    That said, the tragic end was only mildly surprising, and actually understandable when viewed in the context of the serial nature of the Craig films - a structure that has always annoyed me unlike many other fans. The Daniel Craig films are a long-running self-contained story that started at the literal beginning of James Bond 007 so logically would end with his death or retirement, as well as the death of his nemesis Blofeld (and unfortunately Felix). Basically there are two (EON) James Bonds: the one played by Connery, Lazenby, Dalton, and Brosnan (each in their own style) and Daniel Craig's.

    It will be very interesting to see how the ending affects the series and how Craig-Bond's death handled moving forward, but I'm 99% certain that EON would have already more-or-less figured that out before deciding on such a drastic ending. It may turn out that the Craig "reboot" (or more accurately "reinterpretation") will be a repeating pattern for future Bond actors (a la the live-action Batman and Spiderman films), with the entire continuity from the previous actor ignored. Given the extraordinarily decisive and emphatic way that Bond was killed on-screen there is almost certainly no chance that the producers go the "unlikely survival" route.

    Nice job getting that username, I'd have thought it would have been taken by now!
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I finally saw it and I came away extremely disappointed. It had its moments, for sure, but I couldn't believe how bored I was throughout most of it. As I initially had feared, they continued plot points from SP that I really didn't care to see, made the whole thing into a family drama and then Bond just gave up and died. That's just the short version. I will post a more in depth analysis later. Lots to cover. Look forward to catching up on all your thoughts as well. Daniel Craig gave a more inspired performance this time around though. I will give him credit for that, but I left wishing he had just ended with SP. I didn't need this one.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3,152
    Bond in suspenders?! That'd be beyond woke, even for Phoebe WB. Bond's British - those are 'braces'. Suspenders are something entirely different...
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    edited October 2021 Posts: 482
    Suspendies? That would be very Pythonesque.
    Like Dexter, Bond might have ended up offscreen as a lumberjack.

    And it's okay. He sleeps all night and he works all day.
  • Posts: 2,402
    I would love to eventually find out just how many shots it took to blend the staircase fight together.

    My "boss" so to speak interviewed Daniel and Daniel happened to mention offhand that they only filmed two takes of the stairwell, there's definitely at least one hidden cut (as Primo's body swings past the camera) so both are in the film, though if I haven't caught any other cuts that just means there's a bit of alternation between the two.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 693
    Qba007 wrote: »
    I consider the idea of ​​psychological development of characters in recent films to be right. However, at NTTD, this concept has come up against a brick wall. Paradoxically, by reducing the problem to absurdity, this movie admits wisdom of the makers of the older Bonds, to avoid this idea because you risk destroying the icon of James Bond character and the pure pleasure of entertainment.

    A. Broccoli once advised his successors: "Don't screw it up". This concern has fully materialized in the NTTD, I am afraid.

    This is a good point. While I initially liked the idea of giving Craig's Bond more emotional weight, they took it way too far, giving him more and more internal problems to overcome with each new film. Storytelling took a back seat to "exploring" Bond's character and his relationships to various allies and villains. It was boring. Bond is interesting because of what he does, not how he feels.

    I loved the subtle nod to 9/11 in DAD when M says the world changed while Bond was away. He curtly replies, "Not for me." Later in the movie, Graves tries to psyche Bond by saying his swagger is a defense mechanism for his sense of inadequacy, to which Bond replies, "My defense mechanism is right here" while holding his gun. Bond spends much of the movie telling off everyone who doubts him, including M.

    I can't believe I'm saying this, but in retrospect I actually think DAD got Bond right more than the last 3 Craig films did. Brosnan's Bond may be effeminate on the outside, but on the inside he's pretty stone cold and unflappable. Very masculine, actually. Craig is the inverse. He's rugged and masculine on the outside but feminine on the inside, compromised by emotions and self-doubt. A result of the Craig era's obsession with "deconstructing" Bond. Too bad they forgot to reconstruct him (except for the last minute of CR, which was promptly ignored in the sequels) and just kept him as a broken mess.
  • I don’t read him as broken in SF, SP, or NTTD. In SF he feels betrayed and others doubt his capabilities, but he himself never feels remotely broken.

    I sort of understand what you’re getting at, but the only real culprit in terms of “rebreaking” him is QoS in my opinion.

    The finale of CR is meant to simply show that this was how the Bond we know was fully formed.
  • Posts: 526
    I would love to eventually find out just how many shots it took to blend the staircase fight together.

    My "boss" so to speak interviewed Daniel and Daniel happened to mention offhand that they only filmed two takes of the stairwell, there's definitely at least one hidden cut (as Primo's body swings past the camera) so both are in the film, though if I haven't caught any other cuts that just means there's a bit of alternation between the two.

    How lucky is your “boss”? That would be so cool.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited October 2021 Posts: 10,591
    I came back from my second IMAX viewing of the film.

    Simply put, it’s an instant classic. The film is filled to the brim with memorable moments that stand out both in the film and the franchise as a whole. Daniel Craig gives his best Bond performance that easily matches Connery at his best. I needed to let this one sink in as watching Bond die left me in a very strange mood the first time around, but the story is fantastic and the film could very well be a top 5 for me. And the ending, as truly shocking as it is, is executed brilliantly.
  • Posts: 526
    I that when Bond is walking up to the top of the compound (blood dripping), as the missiles approach (his end); that this scene mirrors his beginning, when he is walking up the stairs at Mr. White’s house to give that famous line. Thoughts?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,551
    I can see the parallel.

    The fact that this film is so divisive only makes me like it more. Love to shake things up.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    I that when Bond is walking up to the top of the compound (blood dripping), as the missiles approach (his end); that this scene mirrors his beginning, when he is walking up the stairs at Mr. White’s house to give that famous line. Thoughts?
    Good spot. It really is so brilliantly handled. A truly heartbreaking moment that hit me specifically when he stares across the ocean with Mathilde’s Dou Dou strapped to his side.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 422
    slide_99 wrote: »
    ... While I initially liked the idea of giving Craig's Bond more emotional weight, they took it way too far, giving him more and more internal problems to overcome with each new film. Storytelling took a back seat to "exploring" Bond's character and his relationships to various allies and villains. It was boring. Bond is interesting because of what he does, not how he feels.

    I loved the subtle nod to 9/11 in DAD when M says the world changed while Bond was away. He curtly replies, "Not for me." Later in the movie, Graves tries to psyche Bond by saying his swagger is a defense mechanism for his sense of inadequacy, to which Bond replies, "My defense mechanism is right here" while holding his gun. Bond spends much of the movie telling off everyone who doubts him, including M.

    I can't believe I'm saying this, but in retrospect I actually think DAD got Bond right more than the last 3 Craig films did. Brosnan's Bond may be effeminate on the outside, but on the inside he's pretty stone cold and unflappable. Very masculine, actually. Craig is the inverse. He's rugged and masculine on the outside but feminine on the inside, compromised by emotions and self-doubt. A result of the Craig era's obsession with "deconstructing" Bond. Too bad they forgot to reconstruct him (except for the last minute of CR, which was promptly ignored in the sequels) and just kept him as a broken mess.

    Right on the money!

Sign In or Register to comment.