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

1255256258260261298

Comments

  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    To me there's a lot of "we'll talk about and figure out what all of this is later" in those scenes they just never got to later. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but Bond arrives at the house in the evening around dusk ("She's not yours" is when they put Mathilde in bed, right?) and then Madeleine does the exposition dump about the island. He makes breakfast the next morning and then pretty immediatly gets the call that tells him Ash is on the way, right? So they flee around midday and soon after, M&M get taken, so they are together basically one evening and an extended morning? By the time Nomi picks Bond up, it's dusk again and they get to the airbase at night. By the time Bond is on the tower and saying goodbye to Madeleine, it's dusk again, so that's about 48 hours after Bond first met Mathilde.

    Madeleine might have planned on telling him whenever they'd get around to having a talk about what their relationship even is. He cut her out of his live quite severely five years prior and their entire relationship must have been pretty traumatic for her, including raising their child on her own.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    The impact of Bond having a daughter would been so much greater, had Mathilde been introduced much earlier in the film or had Madeline came right out and said "she's your daughter". The whole "she's not yours" thing felt terribly rushed and muddled.

    I also find it makes Madeline a tad unlikeable. It doesn't come across that she's a strong sole parent, as much as it feels like she's deceived Bond in keeping him from his child, that he doesn't know exists. Which is ironic because the reason he abandoned her in Matera, was her being secretive which hinted at the possibility of her working for Spectre. So to find out she's kept his daughter secret from him, doesn't put her in a favourable light.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    The reason he abandoned her in Matera was because he has trust issues. When is she being secretive? She doesn't tell him about the masked man, but given that there is no reason to believe Safin is in any way an immediate threat - she probably thinks of him because he killed her mother and she is about to become a mother - why would she? It's a massive trauma and I guess at some point she should tell him about it, but he knows the gist of it - a man came to the house and she shot him - and it's not something that is in any way connected to him as far as she knows.
    Maybe she could have shouted "I don't know, why this is happening. I'm not one of them" a bit more often, but really, what was she supposed to do during that car chase? He is convinced she's SPECTRE and I don't think there was any way to stop him from dropping her.
  • CharmianBondCharmianBond Pett Bottom, Kent
    Posts: 558
    I'd add to that the fact he's so hell bent on distrusting Madeleine to the extent that he effectively makes her relive her trauma with the bullets hitting the window makes her decide that Bond is not in any way emotionally capable of being a father, so I think it makes sense that she wants to guard Mathilde from him.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    The reason he abandoned her in Matera was because he has trust issues. When is she being secretive? She doesn't tell him about the masked man, but given that there is no reason to believe Safin is in any way an immediate threat - she probably thinks of him because he killed her mother and she is about to become a mother - why would she? It's a massive trauma and I guess at some point she should tell him about it, but he knows the gist of it - a man came to the house and she shot him - and it's not something that is in any way connected to him as far as she knows.
    Maybe she could have shouted "I don't know, why this is happening. I'm not one of them" a bit more often, but really, what was she supposed to do during that car chase? He is convinced she's SPECTRE and I don't think there was any way to stop him from dropping her.

    That's very true and I can't argue with any of that my friend. I just didn't like the "she's not yours" line, it feels very unclear and Safin's reveal of his daughter later wasn't at all impactful

    I can see it from Bond's perspective as well though, she says the night before the tomb explosion "I'll tell you all my secrets" I think that then Blofeld hinting at her being part of the plan, would trigger anyone's trust issues.

    I do think the fact that they go to Vesper's tomb and then having Bond doubt Madeline was a mistake personally.
    It would have been for Bond to have put Madeline on the train to protect her, rather than because he couldn't trust her. Have Bond leave Madeline because he knows he can never have a normal life and she would be safer without him
  • Posts: 566
    The whole last ~hour of the film is Bond earning the title of father, which by virtue of that "reclaims" his soul — the thing he lost in "Casino Royale". That's why there is so much focus on Mathilde's eyes. The eyes are the soul. Her having his eyes equates to her having his soul. Which means he is still a human. A life-creator, not just a destroyer.

    Which is why he smiles in the end.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 2,919
    I'm not sure why becoming a father would reclaim one's soul. There are plenty of gangsters, murderers, dictators, and other monsters who dearly love their children and still commit evil outside the home. Loving one's own family (especially when the kids are small and adorable) comes almost automatically to most of humankind. Loving those outside of it, less so. It's bizarre seeing a Bond film so uncritically buy into "family values." I think that if Mathilde has Bond's eyes it's a sign she'll make a terrific assassin when she grows up.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,901
    Well it's better if Bond still has a soul left to salvage after all this time.

  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    The reason he abandoned her in Matera was because he has trust issues. When is she being secretive? She doesn't tell him about the masked man, but given that there is no reason to believe Safin is in any way an immediate threat - she probably thinks of him because he killed her mother and she is about to become a mother - why would she? It's a massive trauma and I guess at some point she should tell him about it, but he knows the gist of it - a man came to the house and she shot him - and it's not something that is in any way connected to him as far as she knows.
    Maybe she could have shouted "I don't know, why this is happening. I'm not one of them" a bit more often, but really, what was she supposed to do during that car chase? He is convinced she's SPECTRE and I don't think there was any way to stop him from dropping her.

    That's very true and I can't argue with any of that my friend. I just didn't like the "she's not yours" line, it feels very unclear and Safin's reveal of his daughter later wasn't at all impactful

    I can see it from Bond's perspective as well though, she says the night before the tomb explosion "I'll tell you all my secrets" I think that then Blofeld hinting at her being part of the plan, would trigger anyone's trust issues.

    I do think the fact that they go to Vesper's tomb and then having Bond doubt Madeline was a mistake personally.
    It would have been for Bond to have put Madeline on the train to protect her, rather than because he couldn't trust her. Have Bond leave Madeline because he knows he can never have a normal life and she would be safer without him

    That line is one of the long list of things that I can make to work in my head, but I totally understand that people bump on or just dislike it. It's been said before, but through the discussions over the last months that seems to be christalizing as the early legacy of the film. All the hooks for possible explanations are in the film, but it's so (over-)stuffed with things and some are so tenuous that people just don't want to go along on the ride.
    And I am really not saying this in a "you have to be smart to understand the genius of the film". Not at all. It's more about your willingness to like it, rather than any ability to understand it.
  • Posts: 4,273
    Revelator wrote: »
    I'm not sure why becoming a father would reclaim one's soul. There are plenty of gangsters, murderers, dictators, and other monsters who dearly love their children and still commit evil outside the home. Loving one's own family (especially when the kids are small and adorable) comes almost automatically to most of humankind. Loving those outside of it, less so. It's bizarre seeing a Bond film so uncritically buy into "family values." I think that if Mathilde has Bond's eyes it's a sign she'll make a terrific assassin when she grows up.

    Sounds like something Fleming's Bond would think, haha. Yeah, I do agree and I've always thought Bond's 'redemption' in NTTD needed to be better thought out.
  • Posts: 1,085
    I suppose, after sixty years of movies about the same character, to give him a kid, and a family, and kill him off all in an hour and a half, there's no way it wouldn't feel a bit rushed.
  • Posts: 4,617
    I've been away from the forum and "off Bond" since seeing the film (3 times). After many weeks/months of consideration, it's realy sinking on what a strange film it is (I dont think I'm the only one). I'm still stuggling to work it out. One thing I will say. I can't see it being viewed with widespread affection as time moves on like some of the previous Bonds. It lacks warmth. Another thing, there seems to be little correlation between the time it takes to produce a Bond movie and the quality of the final product. Ironically, many of the script writing choices seemed rushed/bodged IMHO.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 1,085
    patb wrote: »
    One thing I will say. I can't see it being viewed with widespread affection as time moves on like some of the previous Bonds. It lacks warmth.

    It's the only Bond movie I find unpleasant. Even the CGI horrors of DAD, and the slapstick cringey Tarzan yells I can almost enjoy not liking, if that makes sense. NTTD I actually dislike so much, I can't find any affection for it at all.
    One thing I haven't seen mentioned, is Saffin threatening Matilde. Putting a cute kid in danger like that, felt very un-Bondian. It almost verged on being in bad taste in a Bond film. Talking her away from her mother, and seeing her mum in distress felt like the film was going somewhere that Bond films hadn't gone before, and I wasn't entirely comfortable with it. Did anyone else feel this, or am I being over-sensitive?
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2022 Posts: 3,800
    patb wrote: »
    One thing I will say. I can't see it being viewed with widespread affection as time moves on like some of the previous Bonds. It lacks warmth.

    It's the only Bond movie I find unpleasant. Even the CGI horrors of DAD, and the slapstick cringey Tarzan yells I can almost enjoy not liking, if that makes sense. NTTD I actually dislike so much, I can't find any affection for it at all.
    One thing I haven't seen mentioned, is Saffin threatening Matilde. Putting a cute kid in danger like that, felt very un-Bondian. It almost verged on being in bad taste in a Bond film. Talking her away from her mother, and seeing her mum in distress felt like the film was going somewhere that Bond films hadn't gone before, and I wasn't entirely comfortable with it. Did anyone else feel this, or am I being over-sensitive?

    You're not alone mate.

    I have no problem involving children in Bond films, I like those kids in DAF and in TMWTGG, what I didn't like was they're trying to make all things complicated to elevate the drama but in a messy way, like yes, Safin taking away Mathilde from Madeleine, I would have feel for that scene if we knew from that start that it was Bond's daughter, but we're curious about what's happening and does the movie thinks that we care for them? We care for Mathilde? I know she's a child but what's her role in this film?, We didn't even know if she's Bond's daughter or not, how can we feel for that scene, maybe she's Safin's daughter, so maybe he has the right? We're left a bit confused.
    We audience thinking of the plot holes in the film and kept being confused, while the film keeps on making scenes like this, of course how can we care about it, I mean what's happening? I'm confused.

    To be honest, none of the films in the Craig Era felt Bondian.
    And this film was really the culmination of it all, imagine Bond's confession in Norway when Talking to Madeleine, it doesn't feel Bond to me, I can't imagine Connery or the other Bonds doing it, and maybe even Fleming's Bond, he can't deeply confess like that to a girl, he can admit his feelings but he's still cold and keeping it in a masculine manner, especially that he suspected this woman of betraying him, so why to act like that?
    The coldness was gone to this point, Bond can be vulnerable but not to the point of this like he's already a touchy feely, he can be human but still keeping his attitude, his coldness, him being hard.
    And this film was for me, another 'This Time It's Personal' plot again.
    And I'm tired of those plots, involving Bond in a personal way.
    Why can't we have a plot where Bond was not personally involved with the villain?
    When Safin involves Madeleine and Mathilde in his plot, I said to myself "Oh, so another this time it's personal for Bond again".

    And yes, I missed the Classic Bond films.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2022 Posts: 3,800
    patb wrote: »
    I've been away from the forum and "off Bond" since seeing the film (3 times).

    Welcome back! @patb
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 4,617
    Agreed, it's lazy writing. No time for us to build a relationship with the character. No time for "Bond to bond" , why should we care?. And then, it's just like a pantomime villain thing to threaten a toddler and (unlike Assualt on Precinct 13) we know she will be fine as they just will not breach that taboo. If you are going to create a new character, then you have to know what to do with the character and how he/she effects existing loved characters. Star Trek and Star Wars provided examples of sons/daughters who were more rounded, could fight for themselves and were (kind of) mortal. We were able to cheer for them. You can't cheer for a 2 year old, they have nothing to offer IMHO Imagine Kirk running around the Enterprise with a stuffed toy? "You Klingon bastards, you've killed my son" has more impact.

  • Posts: 4,617
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    I've been away from the forum and "off Bond" since seeing the film (3 times).

    Welcome back! @patb

    cheers
  • JustJamesJustJames London
    Posts: 218
    The daughter is a reflection of Madeline herself. The film literally starts establishing how she is the daughter of a professional killer, and how that shaped her. You can even look at how Bond is essentially being like her father — absent — right up until he actually comes to the house. Bond essentially proves himself by putting her and her daughter at the top of his priorities (if it had been ‘getting the target’ he would have been better served repeating Skyfall and using them as bait to get to Safin. Which is actually possibly what Nomi was doing under orders… though at this point it is possible that the Safin/Madeline link was not known. Except the bathroom scene with the perfume sets up that being figured out) After Bond has risked himself for *both* of them, Madeline knows history is not repeating, and Mathilde becomes ‘his’ as well.

    That’s just what is on screen in the film itself, and once you look at the echoes of QoS, Skyfall, Spectre, and even CR in the story, there’s more. Bond himself ends in much the way Vesper does. He knows while he lives, the people who want to be with him are at risk. So he dies in fire. (Leiter’s death also foreshadows this.)

    I’ve literally only watched the film once and got that, and it changed my mind about the whole Craig era series.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited April 2022 Posts: 9,511
    @JustJames ... Wait until you watch all five; I was already a fan of this era, but after viewing each of the Craig films over five nights, I loved how themes introducd in CR were threaded through his run, tied into a beautiful bow by NTTD...
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    If I could craft Bond 26 now, it would be to have the mood and vibe of the Matera and Jamaica scenes from NTTD.
    That's exactly what I want from Bond, style, luxurious scenery but always a hint of doom
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    If I could craft Bond 26 now, it would be to have the mood and vibe of the Matera and Jamaica scenes from NTTD.
    That's exactly what I want from Bond, style, luxurious scenery but always a hint of doom

    I couldn't agree more.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,154
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    If I could craft Bond 26 now, it would be to have the mood and vibe of the Matera and Jamaica scenes from NTTD.
    That's exactly what I want from Bond, style, luxurious scenery but always a hint of doom

    Same. Totally. It may look idyllic, but there's something off-kilter and deadly just beneath the surface. 'You're living in a ruin - you just don't know it yet.' But you will...
  • JustJamesJustJames London
    Posts: 218
    peter wrote: »
    @JustJames ... Wait until you watch all five; I was already a fan of this era, but after viewing each of the Craig films over five nights, I loved how themes introducd in CR were threaded through his run, tied into a beautiful bow by NTTD...

    I did, I was already softening my stance largely because the production values and cinematography is really excellent, but NTTD pushed me into actually really liking the bunch. Without the others being such departures, NTTD wouldn’t be able to do what it does, and I think it does an excellent job. Especially considering how every film had some weird arse thing against it in production (Strikes, fires…) and it wasn’t planned fully. The only mis-step is borrowing from Austin Powers for Blofeld.
    I wouldn’t even be surprised if the next Bond film actually stars Craig again, with just enough ‘Doctor No’ and ‘YOLT’ in the film to get away with amnesiac Bond washing up. I think they won’t, and hope they don’t. It feels like that would be their insurance plan if audiences really railed against the death (complete with a surprise ‘just one more then’ from Craig) but I think NTTD has been just succesfuo enough they won’t need it.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 566
    Revelator wrote: »
    I'm not sure why becoming a father would reclaim one's soul. There are plenty of gangsters, murderers, dictators, and other monsters who dearly love their children and still commit evil outside the home. Loving one's own family (especially when the kids are small and adorable) comes almost automatically to most of humankind. Loving those outside of it, less so. It's bizarre seeing a Bond film so uncritically buy into "family values." I think that if Mathilde has Bond's eyes it's a sign she'll make a terrific assassin when she grows up.

    Because in the context of the story (and this is a larger mythological motif) there is an opposition between "killer" and "life-creator". Think about how in the beginning of NTTD, Madeleine thinks her dad is a doctor (healer) when her mother tells her that he's actually a killer. One saves, one destroys. Same logic why in Spectre, Madeleine was introduced as a doctor — a doctor is the opposite profession of an assassin.

    So having a kid is the most concrete "creation" one can have. Literally creating something out of nothing!

    George Lucas has a good bit here where he sums this all up
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 2,919
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Because in the context of the story (and this is a larger mythological motif) there is an opposition between "killer" and "life-creator"...So having a kid is the most concrete "creation" one can have. Literally creating something out of nothing!

    So were Saddam Hussein or Stalin also redeemed because they had kids and created life? Creating life isn't a spectacular achievement--it's an everyday thing that has filled up the world with seven billion people. You can even create life by accident, which is what Bond did. Reproducing hardly seems like a great moral achievement or signifier of redemption.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2022 Posts: 3,800
    Revelator wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Because in the context of the story (and this is a larger mythological motif) there is an opposition between "killer" and "life-creator"...So having a kid is the most concrete "creation" one can have. Literally creating something out of nothing!

    So were Saddam Hussein or Stalin also redeemed because they had kids and created life? Creating life isn't a spectacular achievement--it's an everyday thing that has filled up the world with seven billion people. You can even create life by accident, which is what Bond did. Reproducing hardly seems like a great moral achievement or signifier of redemption.

    Agreed, think of rapists and sexual assaulters, they've impregnated some of their victims, does it make them redeemable? Or I can take Mr. White as an example, he has a child which is Madeleine, but does it redeemed him because he created life?

  • JustJamesJustJames London
    Posts: 218
    (A) It’s fiction, not real life. Different rules apply. For a start, in fiction, there are really no accidents.
    (B) Yes, ironically, In the end, Whites *only* redemption of any kind comes about because he is Madelines father.
  • edited April 2022 Posts: 4,617
    I suppose it's a similar writing method as Tony Stark re trying to raise the level of sacrifice as a father etc. The difference being that Stark wanted a family and it fits better with the character we got to know through the series. Also, just enough time is given to show us the emotional connection between father and daughter. Plus his daughter knew Stark as her father so we empathised with her loss. It was clumsy with Stark but they just pulled it off. With Bond, IMHO, it just did not work.
    With OHMSS, Bond not only lost Tracy but he weeps for the loss of his future dreams/hopes of a family life with her (well written IMHO). They could have used the same tactic in NTTD with Bond/Mads openly referencing their hopes and his future life as a father. There is a well written scene in Highlander where Heather refers to her dream of having kids with Connor and they both know it wont happen.
    PS with a time jump, you can play a game with the audience. For example, Bond and Mads in a park and a kid comes running up to Bond shouting "daddy" and, for a fraction of a second, the audience thinks "what?!" but the kid runs passed Bond to a guy behind them. Sometimes it's better to give the audience the credit for having an imagination and thinking/relating to Bond's future rather than having a physical new character that does very little and actually becomes a dreadful liability as the plot unfolds.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2022 Posts: 3,800
    patb wrote: »
    PS with a time jump, you can play a game with the audience. For example, Bond and Mads in a park and a kid comes running up to Bond shouting "daddy" and, for a fraction of a second, the audience thinks "what?!" but the kid runs passed Bond to a guy behind them. Sometimes it's better to give the audience the credit for having an imagination and thinking/relating to Bond's future rather than having a physical new character that does very little and actually becomes a dreadful liability as the plot unfolds.

    Yes, I liked the idea that after Bond dumped her, she found a new man to love her and gave her the future that she really wanted.
    Now Bond realized that he lost his chance at Madeleine, because she already found a family of her own.
    Bond suddenly realized his mistakes, he regretted the decision he made in Matera before, but now there's nothing he can do about it, it's already done, he can't have a family with Madeleine now.
    There's a comment I saw in YouTube, I will find it again and post it here, I've read that and left me thinking that it would have make sense.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Trouble is, it's all connected with his death. As if his death is not a big enouth "thing", they ratchet up the emotion (or try to) with a daughter. They lose this with the above plot idea plus Bond and regret? It's all a result continuing from the previous film. I'm not convinced the best script writer in the World could have created something decent given the restrictions placed upon them.
Sign In or Register to comment.