› ›

NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - Critical Reaction and Box Office Performance

1…8485878990…172

Comments

  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    edited September 2021 Posts: 1,031
    So far, I think the big takeaway here is that everyone derives VERY different impressions from NTTD… in my reading of review blurbs, critics quite frequently are saying seemingly opposite things. Many comments contradict each other — “it’s too serious” vs “it’s silly” or “it’s a thrilling roller coaster” vs “it’s a slow burn” etc. It’s like whiplash. While generally good/favorable overall, there is clearly a lot to unpack with this film, and everyone appears to leave with a different take.
  • RainyRainy Skyfall
    Posts: 40
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    ‘No Time to Smile’: Swiss Audience Conflicted Over James Bond Premiere at Zurich Film Festival
    https://variety.com/2021/film/global/james-bond-zurich-film-festival-daniel-craig-1235076781/

    The headline is kinda weird, but like Junglist said above it seems most are positive on the film with a few caveats.
  • SomethingThatAteHimSomethingThatAteHim
    Posts: 532
    Makes me wonder if this movie will be evaluated quite differently years down the line, like OHMSS or Licence to Kill. Or perhaps it settles the other way.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    Posts: 1,031
    SomethingThatAteHim wrote: »
    Makes me wonder if this movie will be evaluated quite differently years down the line, like OHMSS or Licence to Kill. Or perhaps it settles the other way.

    Yea I don’t think there’s any question that it will be one of “those” Bond films where opinions change over time.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Calvin dyson has said that the movie has some of the best of the Craig Bond and also some of the worst. So basically the film is a mixed bag, but with parts that Bond fans can enjoy.

    Yawn. Why don't you just go and see it so you will know.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    We're seeing a similar pattern to SP it seems, following an initial wave of buzz people are being more critical and judging the film based on its actual merits, not hyped and dazzle factor. It'll be interesting to see how general audiences respond, but the first impressions seem quite mixed. People seem to agree, it's the middle entry for Craig in terms of quality. Not his best, but not terrible either.

    Yawn. Why don't you go and see it so you can judge for yourself.
  • SomethingThatAteHimSomethingThatAteHim
    Posts: 532
    Their stories are basically nothing more than one giant exposition dump, but they’re a fun time. Good action direction, very cool stunts, creative sequences. They don’t stick with me the way Bond films do, but I’ve found them to be a consistently good time.
  • Since62Since62
    Posts: 1,630
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Agreed. The films needn't keep increasing in budget and runtime, that's for sure. Sometimes you can do a lot more when you're more constrained.

    I don't know about that. When the producers had to slim budgets -- no choice about it -- in LALD and especially in TMWTGG, it showed. When they turned it on again in TSWLM, it showed, in a positive way, and the audiences came back. If the Bond producers "went lean and mean" there'd be many disappointed fans -- this is not a LeCarre story, with any Bond, after all. If they try to put a big story up on the big screen, and don't produce something Bond-ian, they'll suffer comparisons with the M:I films and others. You need not spend more each time than before, you can plan and keep things under control, but the Bond folks better put something BIG up on the screen ! What they need are great action set-pieces which are extended, tense, spectacular, dangerous -- as you may have noticed, the M:I films don't have the trickiest plots since the first one, but starting with the third one (first one great, second a let-down, from third on better and better) they've used this technique to great effect. Their action set-pieces are memorable, and that boosts the film itself, and the audience enjoyment, etc. What I am saying is that a Bond film should be big, but need not spend more and more and more. But some tight, tense, personal spy drama ? Nope. Not sure that's what you were suggesting, though...

    I certainly wouldn't mind something that's akin to DN - stripped back, tight, focused heavily on one locale, more spy elements, but yes, that wasn't what I was suggesting either. I think you can go big and bombastic without needing to spend more and more, certainly without having to go into the $300 million + range. SP cost that much and I rarely felt like I saw the money on screen. I do think the budget needs to be bigger than your average, everyday film, but I want it to be used more wisely.

    Yes, and please note: DN today would cost a pretty penny to produce...and say t h a t 3 times quickly ! (No, not "thatthatthat") They used an industrial site by the water to great, economical effect in DN. The film did not LOOK cheap. It looked pretty darn exotic, especially at the time. As for "at the time", by the way, ever notice the routine use of showing Bond flying somewhere in a jet ? Though commonplace now, jets still were a big deal at the time, when fewer members of the population flew anywhere, particularly not overseas, particularly not to lovely places like Jamaica, and if they had flown recently, they might have embarked and disembarked using the steps which rolled up to the plane on the tarmac, and in propellor planes. I digress...DN is a great-looking film. I think it definitely was a good idea to bring DN out before FRWL, because DN is so cinematic, and -- the islands ! Anywho -- budgets can be wrestled down, surely, but they need CREATIVITY as demonstrated in the action set-pieces in the recent M:I films. It sure looks like NTTD includes some terrific action sequences.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited September 2021 Posts: 10,591
    Not gonna lie, I’m a kind of heartbroken reading some of these negative reactions considering how much everyone involved was hyping the film up to the press.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2021 Posts: 16,382
    Since62 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Agreed. The films needn't keep increasing in budget and runtime, that's for sure. Sometimes you can do a lot more when you're more constrained.

    I don't know about that. When the producers had to slim budgets -- no choice about it -- in LALD and especially in TMWTGG, it showed. When they turned it on again in TSWLM, it showed, in a positive way, and the audiences came back. If the Bond producers "went lean and mean" there'd be many disappointed fans -- this is not a LeCarre story, with any Bond, after all. If they try to put a big story up on the big screen, and don't produce something Bond-ian, they'll suffer comparisons with the M:I films and others. You need not spend more each time than before, you can plan and keep things under control, but the Bond folks better put something BIG up on the screen ! What they need are great action set-pieces which are extended, tense, spectacular, dangerous -- as you may have noticed, the M:I films don't have the trickiest plots since the first one, but starting with the third one (first one great, second a let-down, from third on better and better) they've used this technique to great effect. Their action set-pieces are memorable, and that boosts the film itself, and the audience enjoyment, etc. What I am saying is that a Bond film should be big, but need not spend more and more and more. But some tight, tense, personal spy drama ? Nope. Not sure that's what you were suggesting, though...

    I certainly wouldn't mind something that's akin to DN - stripped back, tight, focused heavily on one locale, more spy elements, but yes, that wasn't what I was suggesting either. I think you can go big and bombastic without needing to spend more and more, certainly without having to go into the $300 million + range. SP cost that much and I rarely felt like I saw the money on screen. I do think the budget needs to be bigger than your average, everyday film, but I want it to be used more wisely.

    Yes, and please note: DN today would cost a pretty penny to produce...and say t h a t 3 times quickly ! (No, not "thatthatthat") They used an industrial site by the water to great, economical effect in DN. The film did not LOOK cheap. It looked pretty darn exotic, especially at the time. As for "at the time", by the way, ever notice the routine use of showing Bond flying somewhere in a jet ? Though commonplace now, jets still were a big deal at the time, when fewer members of the population flew anywhere, particularly not overseas, particularly not to lovely places like Jamaica, and if they had flown recently, they might have embarked and disembarked using the steps which rolled up to the plane on the tarmac, and in propellor planes. I digress...DN is a great-looking film. I think it definitely was a good idea to bring DN out before FRWL, because DN is so cinematic, and -- the islands !

    Yeah that's a really good point: FRWL looks very nice but it doesn't look as fresh and eye-catching and new as DN did- films set towards the East of Europe/Asia weren't commonplace but they weren't unique, whereas DN had that incredible combination of sunny Jamaica and the incredible sets of Dr No's lair, which really was new ground. So that would have caught the imagination of the audience right off the bat, and then FRWL showed them the series could go somewhere else entirely. Yes, very good point: making those two first was very canny.
  • TheBondFanTheBondFan
    Posts: 822
    jake24 wrote: »
    Not gonna lie, I’m a kind of heartbroken reading some of these negative reactions considering how much everyone involved was hyping the film up to the press.

    Honestly not unexpected, part of their job is to sell the film.
  • JoeBondJoeBond
    Posts: 36
    jake24 wrote: »
    Not gonna lie, I’m a kind of heartbroken reading some of these negative reactions considering how much everyone involved was hyping the film up to the press.
    Who knows maybe you'll like it despite what others say about it!
  • UnivexUnivex
    edited September 2021 Posts: 6,709
    The best cinema sites and magazines are raving about it. Empire, TotalFilm, Vanity Fair, ComingSoon,..., not to mention the BBC, TheTimes, TheGuardian, IGN, ...and the youtubers, like Jeremy Jahns, JoBlo Videos, ..., all of these praise the film...a lot.

    Just saying.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    82% with 97 reviews on RT. Ugh. I hope it stays above 80. I know it's silly to think this way but there's something far more satisfying about that number or higher when compared to 70 something. It shouldn't matter as long as I enjoy it but somehow it does. :P
  • JoeBondJoeBond
    Posts: 36
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    82% with 97 reviews on RT. Ugh. I hope it stays above 80. I know it's silly to think this way but there's something far more satisfying about that number or higher when compared to 70 something. It shouldn't matter as long as I enjoy it but somehow it does. :P
    I know the feeling. Hopefully it does but I will enjoy it either way.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
  • R1s1ngs0nR1s1ngs0n France
    Posts: 2,148
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I know it's probably supposed to be tongue in cheek, but after listening to this woman for about 30 seconds, I just gave up.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,162
    R1s1ngs0n wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I know it's probably supposed to be tongue in cheek, but after listening to this woman for about 30 seconds, I just gave up.

    LOL!
  • Garth007Garth007 Missouri, USA
    Posts: 61
    R1s1ngs0n wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I know it's probably supposed to be tongue in cheek, but after listening to this woman for about 30 seconds, I just gave up.

    To be fair she gets that way. Her reviews are hit and miss ranging from pretty great to downright questionable.
  • GatecrasherGatecrasher Classified
    Posts: 265
    I’m a simple man: I see a Grace Randolph review, I look the other way.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,402
    I suppose I count as press (it is, after all, why I got to see the film so early), so...

    https://filmspeak.net/movie-reviews/2021/9/29/no-time-to-die-review

    There are NO spoilers or even plot details in this review. It's a very surface level appraisal of the overall film.
  • ShakenNotStirredShakenNotStirred
    Posts: 1,397
    Birdleson wrote: »
    StirredNotShaken wrote: »
    I suppose I count as press (it is, after all, why I got to see the film so early), so...

    https://filmspeak.net/movie-reviews/2021/9/29/no-time-to-die-review

    There are NO spoilers or even plot details in this review. It's a very surface level appraisal of the overall film.

    Nice write up. You definitely have that end of the spectrum well covered.

    Agreed, outstanding review. Makes me very excited to see it in.. 8 days.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Grace Randolph has been known to have biases like Ben Lyons. I prefer REAL professional critics that judge films as films. Not as fans, not as suck ups or grumps with agendas like the Fandom Menace. They judge the films on their own merits and move on. Of course, it’s a matter of looking out for the right ones.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    They’re still there in print, it’s just sadly they don’t attract the same attention as vapid YouTubers that like to show off their toy collection. This parody video is pretty on point.

  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    jake24 wrote: »
    Not gonna lie, I’m a kind of heartbroken reading some of these negative reactions considering how much everyone involved was hyping the film up to the press.

    There are more positive reviews than negative at the moment, so I'm not really sure what your point is. Unless you expected a unanimous global 100% positive reaction, which I don't think any film has ever managed to do.....?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Even Goldfinger has its notable detractors.

    There’s no such thing as a universally praised Bond film. Not when you’re dealing with 60 years worth of films and several generations of fans that hold very different expectations and tastes from each other.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    StirredNotShaken wrote: »
    I suppose I count as press (it is, after all, why I got to see the film so early), so...

    https://filmspeak.net/movie-reviews/2021/9/29/no-time-to-die-review

    There are NO spoilers or even plot details in this review. It's a very surface level appraisal of the overall film.

    Wow! That is without doubt the best review I have read so far, and made me far more optimistic now going in. Coming from the words of a true Fleming Bond fan, I will take this review any day over some bimbo or spotty teenage YouTube blogger, who has never even seen Goldfinger yet.

    Fantastic! I hope I enjoy it as much as you did sir. =D>
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Wow, I just refreshed my Rotten Tomatoes page and the movie dropped 7 percentage points. It was on 90% last night. The hype from the Premiere has obviously died down now.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    edited September 2021 Posts: 3,327
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Wow, I just refreshed my Rotten Tomatoes page and the movie dropped 7 percentage points. It was on 90% last night. The hype from the Premiere has obviously died down now.

    You must be a very happy man right now. If it bounces back up again no doubt your anxiety and panic attacks will ensue. I hope for your sake and sanity that it tumbles further and further down to around 25%, then you will be a very happy person.

    I have my fingers crossed for you. Here's hoping you accomplish your dreams.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don’t see how anyone cares either way about any barometer measuring what other random people think about a movie.

    I’ve seen this with so many other franchises where people lose their minds that a certain film isn’t a total disaster that they predicted it would be and based their identity on. CAPTAIN MARVEL was supposed to bomb at the box office because the anti-woke crowd insisted audiences reject “woke” films like GHOSTBUSTERS ‘16. But because that film was so popular it destroyed the narrative they were so confident in, and hurt their identity. At least that’s how they perceived it.
Sign In or Register to comment.