NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - Members' Reviews and Discussions (SPOILERS)

2456734

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    Are there naked ladies in the new title sequence?
  • Posts: 3,327
    Univex wrote: »

    But...I don't like what they've done to Bond. Not in this film. And not just the ending.

    Now, I would've paid good money to watch those Bond and Felix Cuban adventures, but hey, they don't go for that. We have to watch soap operas of epic proportions every single g damn time.
    Spot on pal! The PC correctness and box ticking was really felt in this one.
  • Posts: 6,710
    Univex wrote: »

    But...I don't like what they've done to Bond. Not in this film. And not just the ending.

    Now, I would've paid good money to watch those Bond and Felix Cuban adventures, but hey, they don't go for that. We have to watch soap operas of epic proportions every single g damn time.
    Spot on pal! The PC correctness and box ticking was really felt in this one.

    And apparently we can't even talk about it in the forums without someone trying to eat our head like a bloody praying mantis. Last night I was bloody straight up attacked by a new member because I mentioned the lack of sexiness and womanising in the film. The new world is a dangerous place indeed.

    We still can have a Bond girl Friday thread, but trust me, at one point, we will not be allowed to. They have people everywhere. Worse than florists, I'd say ;)

    Anyway, at least I'm glad you and I agree on these sort of things, @jetsetwilly, my friend.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 6,710
    Are there naked ladies in the new title sequence?

    This one really made me laugh. Man, were you in cryogenic state for a while? Don't you know about the brave new world order? There are no naked ladies. Not there, not everywhere. Not anymore. Not ever. We're back to victorian years. Bond was born in the sexual revolution of the 60s. It wouldn't exist in prude decades. And it's at odds with this decade as well. So, no, no naked ladies. Soon, you won't be able to use those words, even. You perv. You dirty, dirty man.

    lol ;)
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    Eh no loss for me. The titles for CR remain the highlight. :)
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Univex wrote: »

    But...I don't like what they've done to Bond. Not in this film. And not just the ending.

    Now, I would've paid good money to watch those Bond and Felix Cuban adventures, but hey, they don't go for that. We have to watch soap operas of epic proportions every single g damn time.
    Spot on pal! The PC correctness and box ticking was really felt in this one.

    Honestly don't get what you mean by box ticking? This is among the least amount of "box ticking" I could imagine in a Bond film. Or is that you point? That it is not ticking the Bond boxes but some other set of boxes that I was not aware of?
  • Posts: 3,327
    Univex wrote: »

    But...I don't like what they've done to Bond. Not in this film. And not just the ending.

    Now, I would've paid good money to watch those Bond and Felix Cuban adventures, but hey, they don't go for that. We have to watch soap operas of epic proportions every single g damn time.
    Spot on pal! The PC correctness and box ticking was really felt in this one.

    Honestly don't get what you mean by box ticking? This is among the least amount of "box ticking" I could imagine in a Bond film. Or is that you point? That it is not ticking the Bond boxes but some other set of boxes that I was not aware of?

    PC correct box ticking, and not Bond box ticking, which I would have been fine with.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Univex wrote: »

    But...I don't like what they've done to Bond. Not in this film. And not just the ending.

    Now, I would've paid good money to watch those Bond and Felix Cuban adventures, but hey, they don't go for that. We have to watch soap operas of epic proportions every single g damn time.
    Spot on pal! The PC correctness and box ticking was really felt in this one.

    Honestly don't get what you mean by box ticking? This is among the least amount of "box ticking" I could imagine in a Bond film. Or is that you point? That it is not ticking the Bond boxes but some other set of boxes that I was not aware of?

    PC correct box ticking, and not Bond box ticking, which I would have been fine with.

    Ah, right. Disagree, but I understand where you are coming from.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Univex wrote: »

    But...I don't like what they've done to Bond. Not in this film. And not just the ending.

    Now, I would've paid good money to watch those Bond and Felix Cuban adventures, but hey, they don't go for that. We have to watch soap operas of epic proportions every single g damn time.
    Spot on pal! The PC correctness and box ticking was really felt in this one.

    Honestly don't get what you mean by box ticking? This is among the least amount of "box ticking" I could imagine in a Bond film. Or is that you point? That it is not ticking the Bond boxes but some other set of boxes that I was not aware of?

    PC correct box ticking, and not Bond box ticking, which I would have been fine with.

    Ah, right. Disagree, but I understand where you are coming from.

    Strong black female equal to Bond (if anything more than equal), Q being gay, Bond being a dad (including stuffing a little toy to his belt), Bond no longer able to attract the women like he once did, etc.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    Why is Q being acknowledged gay a problem?
  • Posts: 3,327
    Why is Q being acknowledged gay a problem?

    On its own its not.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    Honestly they’re all silly quibbles.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Honestly they’re all silly quibbles.

    If these quibbles appeared in something like LTK, I would agree with you.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    Hopefully I enjoy this film more than LTK.
  • Posts: 6,710
    I didn't. All I could think of was Dalton selling a revenge scene in LTK (a film I don't particularly like, even as a huge Dalton fan) wayyyyyy better than Craig did.
  • Posts: 3,278
    Came here for reviews... but it's like many of the other threads, with one-liner opinions.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Univex wrote: »

    But...I don't like what they've done to Bond. Not in this film. And not just the ending.

    Now, I would've paid good money to watch those Bond and Felix Cuban adventures, but hey, they don't go for that. We have to watch soap operas of epic proportions every single g damn time.
    Spot on pal! The PC correctness and box ticking was really felt in this one.

    Honestly don't get what you mean by box ticking? This is among the least amount of "box ticking" I could imagine in a Bond film. Or is that you point? That it is not ticking the Bond boxes but some other set of boxes that I was not aware of?

    PC correct box ticking, and not Bond box ticking, which I would have been fine with.

    Ah, right. Disagree, but I understand where you are coming from.

    Strong black female equal to Bond (if anything more than equal), Q being gay, Bond being a dad (including stuffing a little toy to his belt), Bond no longer able to attract the women like he once did, etc.

    I disgree with the idea that they set out with a list of things they need to tick off and then built the film accordingly. I would rather think they plotted out the film and then filled things out in a way they felt would work. Instead of "Q has to be gay, how do we do that?" I think it's more like "Q will have a guest, who could that be?" or "There will be a new 007 to challenge Bond. Who could we cast to make that an insteresting pairing?"
    But there is no way to know.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    I thought the pre-title sequence was amazing. I also loved the many Fleming novel and direct quotes and OHMSS musical references in the score. Bond having a child was just about ok, as Fleming did it in his novel YOLT. But Bond was never aware in the books.

    I didn’t like the alternative 00 agent plot point, I hate the Blofeld foster brother plot point and thought the rest of the film was ok, but mediocre in the canon. Tonality wise, CR and QoS are my favourite Craig Bond films, the lighter tone of SF, SP and NTTD don’t sit well with the first two Craig films.

    So I thought it was ok, not a patch on Casino Royale and not even close to the first 4 Connery’s.

    A bit too PC as well. Entertaining, but mediocre to a Bond purist.
  • Posts: 6,710
    suavejmf wrote: »
    not even close to the first 4 Connery’s.

    A bit too PC as well. Entertaining, but mediocre to a Bond purist.

    A man after my own heart.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Hopefully I enjoy this film more than LTK.

    Difficult for me to do that, as LTK is in my top 5.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Univex wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    not even close to the first 4 Connery’s.

    A bit too PC as well. Entertaining, but mediocre to a Bond purist.

    A man after my own heart.

    And mine
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Hopefully I enjoy this film more than LTK.

    Difficult for me to do that, as LTK is in my top 5.

    LTK is far superior. Brilliant Bond film.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    After near perfect GB in SP. The producers managed to ‘cock it up’ again with a modern inferior design!!
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    edited October 2021 Posts: 2,641
    Rewatching all the Craig's again last week, something stood out to me when watching NTTD. Almost every female character in the Craig era was more compelling and interesting than Madeline Swann.

    I cared more for Camile in QOS, the moment when Bond finds her in the room paralysed in fear by the fire was compelling than anything with Madeline.

    It's as if the script writers refuse to allow the audience to see Madeline with her guard down. But that's the moment we fall in love with the character because they're human.

    I've never wanted Bond to save anyone more than Severine after her hand shook when taking a drag of that cigarette, we saw that there was more to her than what met the eye
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 207
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Rewatching all the Craig's again last week, something stood out to me when watching NTTD. Almost every female character in the Craig era was more compelling and interesting than Madeline Swann.

    I cared more for Camile in QOS, the moment when Bond finds her in the room paralysed in fear by the fire was compelling than anything with Madeline.

    It's as if the script writers refuse to allow the audience to see Madeline with her guard down. But that's the moment we fall in love with the character because they're human.

    I've never wanted Bond to save anyone more than Severine after her hand shook when taking a drag of that cigarette, we saw that there was more to her than what met the eye
    I agree. She is a good actress but I don’t believe her and Craig have any chemistry at all in these two films. Just compare it to his chemistry with Eva Green. I also thought he had good chemistry with Olga Kurylenko.
  • Posts: 6,710
    suavejmf wrote: »
    After near perfect GB in SP. The producers managed to ‘cock it up’ again with a modern inferior design!!

    Exactly what I thought at the time. What a waste!
  • Posts: 7,624
    Univex wrote: »
    I liked bits of Kleinman's title sequence, but I think that overall it was really poor and unimaginative. And the music just didn't cut it for me. Even the score was disappointing.

    Actually Kleinmans titles were the highlight for me! Thought they were a big improvenent on the overloaded ones he did for SF and SP!
  • Posts: 250
    Disappointed to hear the title sequence is lackluster. Maybe new blood needed for the next one.

    Would dispute this point - I think it's not only stunning but rather ingenious in its deployment of specific imagery, particularly Britannia. The way it leans on the Dr. No and OHMSS titles is brilliant as well.
  • BondStuBondStu Moonraker 6
    edited October 2021 Posts: 373
    suavejmf wrote: »
    I thought the pre-title sequence was amazing. I also loved the many Fleming novel and direct quotes and OHMSS musical references in the score. Bond having a child was just about ok, as Fleming did it in his novel YOLT. But Bond was never aware in the books.

    I didn’t like the alternative 00 agent plot point, I hate the Blofeld foster brother plot point and thought the rest of the film was ok, but mediocre in the canon. Tonality wise, CR and QoS are my favourite Craig Bond films, the lighter tone of SF, SP and NTTD don’t sit well with the first two Craig films.

    So I thought it was ok, not a patch on Casino Royale and not even close to the first 4 Connery’s.

    A bit too PC as well. Entertaining, but mediocre to a Bond purist.

    I always try to switch of the Bond purist in me when a new one comes out. I did my best to take NTTD purely at face value and on that basis I can't say I was disappointed.

    How do I like it as a Bond purist?

    That's a question I'll be able to answer this time next year when I watch it as part of my annual Bond blu-ray Autumn marathon

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 842
    I'll write a more full review after I've seen the film a few more times, but my initial one is a solid 8 (possibly 9) out of 10.

    I'm interested to see that my opinions apparently diverge from others' in key areas. (For example, I thought this was Kleinman's best title sequence of his entire tenure).
    • This is a classic Bond film in every sense of the word. And an absolutely packed one, at that. It's such a love letter to fans and the franchise, just via sheer list of how ambitiously they tried to include so many things, that it feels to me like Craig finally embraced the full-on "Bondness" and delivered spectacularly. You can feel the overall mentality of "referential finality" through the film, similar - a bit - to Die Another Day, except if Die Another Day were more real and emotionally authentic.
    • Daniel Craig. This is his film. And his best and most varied performance as Bond. One of his best works as an actor, period. He brings everything. He leaves nothing. And I'll be shocked if it doesn't earn him a Best Actor nomination. He deserves it.
    • The entire cast, frankly, is excellent. All seem like wonderful choices, and all bringing everything they have to their roles regardless of screentime. You can tell none of them wish they were anywhere else, and each character is brought to life in a way that isn't all that common for major blockbuster films with casts this large.
    • The action is spectacular. Acknowledging that some of the set pieces are shorter than you might expect (Matera chase, Norway), but they are startlingly well done and impactful. This area is on par with Casino Royale, IMO. Maybe even better, because he's less raw and a more classically refined James Bond. And in every scene, the story/character drives the action - not the other way around.
    • This is obviously the most emotional and impactful Bond film in the history of the franchise. I think the approach and the ending are entirely earned, and it works. It's heart wrenching and I've been a bit of a wreck all week, but they've succeeded in giving Craig his OHMSS or his Logan, depending on how you want to look at it. No easy task. I can remember watching Skyfall the first time and being surprised that it's an entirely personal story and ending (with no "Bond"-level big plot stakes) and wondering if they could ever push that even further. Did they ever find a way.
    • I was worried about the screenplay during shooting and before, just seeing so many hands on it, but this is honestly the best Bond script we've had since Casino Royale. The way it balances all the tones, but also delivers the most engaging and funny character-driven scenes we've had, maybe, ever. I know this probably isn't true, but it feels like Phoebe rewrote every single scene. That's maybe the script's greatest strength, and I give a lot of credit to Cary for that too -- there are massive and rapid tonal shifts, but always rhetorical consistency. That is so hard to do, and the talent shines through
    • Speaking of talent, Cary Fukunaga deserves a Best Direction nod here without question. Just...wow. For someone who'd never made a "commercial" film before, he storms out of the gate with arresting, energized, and hyper-intelligent direction that delivers an ode to cinema while also being a ruthlessly entertaining spy film. It couldn't be more opposite to the feeling of Spectre's direction, and I mean that in a good way (even saying that as a fan of Spectre). If I'm EON, I wouldn't even blink before offering him the clean slate of B26 to bring that same energy back to the franchise in a whole new context. In one film, he's established himself as one of my favourite Bond directors. And that's a list containing a lot of people I dearly love, so again, no easy feat.
    • Hans Zimmer. I could write a full review here and maybe will in another thread. He delivered. And then some. This is exactly the score I've dreamed of Bond getting for years, since David Arnold left -- and precisely what I was hoping Hans would deliver when he replaced Romer on the project. It's a definitively Zimmer score, but the humility and love with which he embraces the Bond/Barry sound and keeps us constantly steeped in the sonic world of Bond is just...I'm getting emotional sitting here thinking about how good it is. Historically, my favourite score in the series is OHMSS and for many nerdy reasons, I hear this score as a modern equivalent to that. Bravo, maestro.
    • Every department head deserves an individual shoutout here. It feels like every area of this film is dialed up to 11. From Suttirat Anne Larlarb's costuming to Chris Corbould's effects and Alex Witt/Lee Morrison's work on the action -- just a superb effort across the board.
    • The cinematography deserves its own shoutout. Linus Sandgren has not only captured something of a classic Bond look and feel, but elevated the franchise's visuals to someone that I'm not even sure Deakins quite reached. Very much a tossup to me between the two for best cinematographer of the Craig era. Sandgren gives us a lush, varied, and romantic colour palette that Spectre can't even touch, and takes us seamlessly from character-driven conversation to intense action and effects-driven shots without us ever feeling the seams. An incredible technical achievement, buoyed by their use of IMAX cameras to maximum effect.

    I could go on glowingly about what I like. Here's a few things I didn't, to try and demonstrate some objectivity:
    • Safin's character was startlingly underdeveloped onscreen, to me. I spent two years watching the trailer thinking, "I can't wait to find out what the details are behind all these ominous, vague lines he has!" - and it turns out, none, really. I know the backstory's there. And the motivation. But both the man (and his shockingly empty/unexplained plot) are hurt in the film by lack of extrapolation. He just needed a bit more exposition so we could identify more specifically what he was doing, and why he was doing it. I'm mostly stunned because the rest of the script is so good and intelligently written, that this seems like a major element to have fallen through the cracks.
    • The gunbarrel is getting some not-love from fans, and I think I'm with them on that. I love that they try to be different (while still retaining the basic idea), and I really love the idea of going through the iris onto the opening scene. But Craig's super-fast power walk feels like something awkward out of one of the video games, and the lack of blood coming down feels like one-iconic-element-removed-too-far. It just ended up being more weird than it was worth, I think. Even though I really appreciate the creativity in trying to mix it up a bit.
    • It's baffling to me that for all the wonderful, original score Hans came up with that they used a very slightly re-orchestrated version of Newman's gunbarrel for this. Is that supposed to be a nod to the fact that Spectre re-used Skyfall's music, and they're trolling us a bit making us worried for a moment that the same will happen again? Or did they just hear it in the temp score and think, "Yeah, that's fine. It fits." I just know I was looking forward to a definitively Hans Zimmer take on the James Bond gunbarrel music/moment, and we didn't get it. Most odd.
    • The "is Mathilde Bond's daughter or not?" idea isn't necessary, to me. She's obviously his. Bond knows she's his. I like the nuanced character choice that Madeleine resists the idea initially out of denial or anxiety -- feels like something Fukunaga would do -- but it just ends up being another layer of "intrigue" that the finale doesn't need. I understand, I think, why the choice was made -- to lend more impact to the very final moment before Bond's death when Madeleine confirms it. But again, speaking purely as a writer, I would just suggest that isn't necessary. That scene's already emotional enough. So the choice ends up just slightly muddying the emotional stakes through the whole finale, when it feels like it would have been better simply embracing the idea of "Safin has my wife and child, and I'm going to go get them."
    • In fact, and this feels interesting to me, "James Bond having a child" as a plot twist is pretty strong to carry a subversive Craig movie on its own, but it feels totally overshadowed by his death. Mathilde is critical to the film's finale, but I'm just a little surprised that the twist of him being a father isn't something I even really have time to worry about/engage with emotionally because I'm busy being devastated that he's actually died. There's not even really a criticism here. Just interesting to me how it works emotionally for an audience. EDIT: No, the more I think about it, the more I take this back. It's critical. It's part of the story's very DNA. That's the tragedy. He gets what he needs and only realizes it's what he wants as he's immediately losing it. That's powerful stuff. I should have thought about this more before I typed it the first time, haha.


    Overall:

    This is a landmark Bond film and those don't come along very often. (Independent of quality rankings), I can only name Dr. No, OHMSS, The Spy Who Loved Me, Goldeneye, and Casino Royale as being in that camp for various reasons. No Time to Die joins them. After 25 films, that is incredibly tough to do this well. Which is why I reserve a final shoutout for...

    ...the producers. Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson. It's very clear the road to bringing this film to screen was its own kind of hell. But I think the feat achieved here is worth celebrating for what it really is.

    Clearly, they began with an extremely ambitious idea (to make a classic Bond film, plus push the brand by killing Bond onscreen, and ensuring Daniel Craig had a monumental finale). That's an impossible mission ;) under the best circumstances. But to deliver a product like this through cultural upheaval, an 11th hour director loss, multiple major pivots, a rushed production, a frigging studio sale, and a global pandemic that made navigating a pre-release marketing campaign virtually impossible...

    I mean, come on. Barbara and Michael are the MVPs here. I completely understand some fans' reasons for disliking the film(s) - and it's entirely their right to react how they react - but it always breaks my heart a little to see suggestions that someone BB/MGW aren't capable or don't care or aren't managing things properly. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are so lucky to have them. We've always been.

    Wow, that did end up being a full review. Thanks for reading if you made it this far. :)

Sign In or Register to comment.