› ›

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

1…4041434546…298

Comments

  • JeffreyJeffrey The Netherlands
    Posts: 308
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    sworddevil1 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    But Ian Fleming himself never penned a true death scene for Bond. The crew that ultimately penned this film shouldn’t have been afforded that chance.

    It is that audacity that riles me as well.

    Agreed. 68 years of tradition, and an inviolable rule breached. Who ultimately gets the blame for it? Is this the carrot that brought Craig back?

    No, because in Danny Boyles script Bond would not die. So Craig said yes to Bond 25 without the plan of killing Bond.

    Unless the wish was the script to be altered with Bond dying which resulted in Boyle leaving.
  • SimonSimon Keeping The British End Up...
    edited October 2021 Posts: 154
    matt_u wrote: »
    After he opens the doors for the second time and Q confirms there’s no way to get rid of the nanobots, he deliberately chooses to die on that island and that’s 100% clear. This is what the movie is about. If you don’t like this notion, neglecting it doesn’t make it less real.

    Using in-film plot to try justify it doesn't effect my audience experience that this was nowhere near a Bond experience.

    If the whole films notion is about Bond choosing to end life instead of having 'no life' then I still stand by my opinion that it is a poor Bond film. Decent generic film, but poor Bond film.

    Bond's 'choice' I feel is still largely irrelevant, he would have died to the missile strike regardless by that point. Did he care? Absolutely not. Is that what I want from a Bond film? No. Does anyone care what I think? Also no.

  • UnivexUnivex
    edited October 2021 Posts: 6,710
    Review moved to review thread.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,890
    Is no one going to talk about the 'magnetic brake' moment as the mercenaries and Valdo are leaving the lab? It took me out of the film for a second.
  • DoubleOhDaltonDoubleOhDalton
    Posts: 65
    And there’s the rub. Who can now watch CR ending and not think. Gee Mister Whites Daughter is in Bonds future and leads to his Death….
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 950
    BCL wrote: »
    I enjoyed the start, before the opening titles, but did anyone else find it all rather laborious and a trudge up and until the final 20 minutes or so? I get they had a lot to cram in, for right or wrong(!), but it wasn’t until the final act that there was any emotional heft, as you’d expect given what panned out. I think some film critics are going a little over board with their reviews and are thinking primarily about the ending and how significant it was. I think some people might be viewing this film in high regard at this moment in time solely due to the ending.

    Don’t get me wrong, as far as it being the only scene in which Bond has died, it was handled well and undeniably powerful. I had some tears! The two follow up scenes weren’t too great in my eyes though, other than the quote M read out, which was fitting.
    I had the opposite reaction. I was fully engaged at the start, but the more I could see them setting up the endgame, the less interested I became. I can be quite difficult to reach emotionally, and the film just lost me somewhere after the halfway point.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Simon wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    After he opens the doors for the second time and Q confirms there’s no way to get rid of the nanobots, he deliberately chooses to die on that island and that’s 100% clear. This is what the movie is about. If you don’t like this notion, neglecting it doesn’t make it less real.
    Bond’s 'choice' I feel is still largely irrelevant, he would have died to the missile strike regardless by that point.

    We both know that’s not the case. With the right motivation he would’ve survived.
  • patbpatb
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,617
    There is confusion re Bond's thought process and situation in that final crucial scene and it's infuriating given how long they had and the importance of that scene. Happy to be corrected but, he asks Q whether the nanobots can be removed. This indicates he still had hope and was looking for a way out. However, at the time he asks Q, he is walking towards the ladder onto the roof (indicating that he had given up as the escape routes were downwards (not the roof). If he knew he had ran out of time and was going to die, then the nanobots were the last of his concerns. If he could have escaped (I forgot about the available sub, a key point) and decided not to, then we are looking at the option that, effectively, he committed suicide? If there was no way to escape in time, then, from the script point of view, the writers are just torturing the character for no reason re the nanobot infection. I may have missed something? But, what a mess!!
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,714
    matt_u wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    After he opens the doors for the second time and Q confirms there’s no way to get rid of the nanobots, he deliberately chooses to die on that island and that’s 100% clear. This is what the movie is about. If you don’t like this notion, neglecting it doesn’t make it less real.
    Bond’s 'choice' I feel is still largely irrelevant, he would have died to the missile strike regardless by that point.

    We both know that’s not the case. With the right motivation he would’ve survived.

    But Matt, the situation was hopeless! How could James Bond have possibly survived?! ;)
  • SimonSimon Keeping The British End Up...
    Posts: 154
    matt_u wrote: »
    We both know that’s not the case.

    No, we don't. Please don't speak for me. Just leave it at that; we have polarising views on this film, and you appear to be just as vehemently sticking to your guns as I will mine.
  • Garth007Garth007 Missouri, USA
    Posts: 61
    Personally after seeing this and letting some time to let the film sink in a bit, I absolutely love it. I maybe in minority that loved (and cried like a man child lol) the ending. It made since to me since we were dealing with a more realistic bond and a qoute from CR kind of really foreshadows this end. Safin may not be the best villian but he is in my top 5 tho for sure. No bond film is perfect and our opinions differ very much so, but for me this is easily my second favorite behind OHMSS. I can't imagine how they will go foward unless they do spin offs from characters in NTTD which I would love but we all know that isn't going to happen and a reboot is in order.
  • Matt007Matt007
    Posts: 1,314
    Why is everyone so impressed by a film making them feel sad? I don’t have a problem with people crying but this obsession with “emotion” in everything from tv baking shows to feature films is like some type of addiction used to mask narrative faults and inability to engage an audience through other means.

    I prefer things like Raiders, Goldfinger, jaws. You know just balls out entertaining thrill rides that can exist without negative cheap shots.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,343
    Simon wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    We both know that’s not the case.

    No, we don't. Please don't speak for me. Just leave it at that; we have polarising views on this film, and you appear to be just as vehemently sticking to your guns as I will mine.
    No problem. There's too much frustration inhere.
    patb wrote: »
    There is confusion re Bond's thought process and situation in that final crucial scene and it's infuriating given how long they had and the importance of that scene. Happy to be corrected but, he asks Q whether the nanobots can be removed. This indicates he still had hope and was looking for a way out. However, at the time he asks Q, he is walking towards the ladder onto the roof (indicating that he had given up as the escape routes were downwards (not the roof). If he knew he had ran out of time and was going to die, then the nanobots were the last of his concerns. If he could have escaped (I forgot about the available sub, a key point) and decided not to, then we are looking at the option that, effectively, he committed suicide? If there was no way to escape in time, then, from the script point of view, the writers are just torturing the character for no reason re the nanobot infection. I may have missed something? But, what a mess!!

    The answer is simple: Bond already knows the nanobots are permanent so he wasn't really looking for a way out. That is established early on in the film when he was infected with the dose that killed Blofeld. After opening the doors he asks Q about it just to have a further confirmation of that, because that was such a terrible thing to accept, but in his heart he already 100% knew. That's why he doesn't immediately try to escape. He knew he was compromised, his life and his future completely doomed at that point.
  • StarkStark France
    Posts: 177
    I have a question for those who have seen it. Like Spectre, does the film have a much less interesting second part than the first ? Is the climax really impressive or disappointing ?
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    matt_u yes, a perfectly decent interpretation of that scene. However, if correct, then do we conclude that Safin won re his battle with Bond (and Madeleine)? effectively, via giving him the nanobots in the previous scene, giving Bond a life so dreadlful that he could not face? It's in keeping with the well discussed record re DC versus the villains but wow, it's bleak...very bleak
  • bondboy007bondboy007
    Posts: 267
    This has probably been posted elsewhere, but I laughed when thinking of this scene earlier.


    Anyway, I just hope we aren’t waiting too long for news on Bond 26, but I feel like it’ll be at least a year before any details. The Craig films have proven to be financially successful, I just hope whoever takes over from here isn’t interested in the same emotional, angsty story arcs that plagued Craig’s era IMO.

    You can still have fun watching a movie with emotion. I enjoy Casino for that reason. Same with Skyfall, Dench’s M’s death felt earned. But IMO, nothing about Mathis’, Blofeld’s, Leiter’s or Bond’s felt that way to me. They were simply deaths used to get an emotional reaction from the audience.

    I sincerely wish they’d opted to use Blofeld and Spectre with Bond #7 because Craig’s era wasted those immensely. Waited decades for their return and they ended up as afterthoughts.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,215
    Bond fans: “EON needs to take more risks.”
    EON: NTTD
    Bond fans: “Not like that!”
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,710
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Bond fans: “EON needs to take more risks.”
    EON: NTTD
    Bond fans: “Not like that!”

    Bond fans: "Baby needs to be taken out of the bath"
    EON: "Throws the baby out with the bathwater"
    Bond fans: "Not like that!"

    ;)
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    patb wrote: »
    matt_u yes, a perfectly decent interpretation of that scene. However, if correct, then do we conclude that Safin won re his battle with Bond (and Madeleine)? effectively, via giving him the nanobots in the previous scene, giving Bond a life so dreadlful that he could not face? It's in keeping with the well discussed record re DC versus the villains but wow, it's bleak...very bleak

    Safin won, yes. Like Blofeld won in OHMSS.
  • bondboy007bondboy007
    edited October 2021 Posts: 267
    I think the Craig era took some legit risks, some good, some not so good IMO. However, if you’re going to take risks, why then try to them placate fans by tossing in quotes from Fleming, the DB5 (again and again and again), OHMSS cues, etc.

    If you’re going to divorce the Craig timeline from everything that came before it and after it, then I wish they hadn’t tried to dump all of those references to the past everywhere.

    I just don’t think anyone involved with these films had any idea what they wanted this era to be after Casino.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 984
    Can't imagine the bashing Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson would receive if they have social media accounts.. Thankfully they don't.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    matt_u But the win in OHMSS left open the chance for revenge. A very different win that NYYD surely?
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Seeing it again tonight, hopefully it'll improve on second viewing. Forgetting the ending, I was unimpressed with the second act of the film, it felt in a rush to get to the climax

    I hate to make this comparison, but it reminded me of DAD, in that the moment we leave Cuba it fell off a cliff, like with DAD, the moment Bond has a shave it goes down hill
    The Norway stuff disappointed me a bit, I expected them to use the Atlantic Road better

    Did anyone notice Bond called Blofeld, Blofield at one point? It really pricked my ears up
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,215
    Fans: “They should make it more like the Mission: Impossible movies!”
    EON: Bond goes rogue, missions are personal, etc
    Fans: “WAIT”
  • mrlynxmrlynx Maine
    Posts: 57
    bondboy007 wrote: »
    This has probably been posted elsewhere, but I laughed when thinking of this scene earlier.


    Anyway, I just hope we aren’t waiting too long for news on Bond 26, but I feel like it’ll be at least a year before any details. The Craig films have proven to be financially successful, I just hope whoever takes over from here isn’t interested in the same emotional, angsty story arcs that plagued Craig’s era IMO.

    You can still have fun watching a movie with emotion. I enjoy Casino for that reason. Same with Skyfall, Dench’s M’s death felt earned. But IMO, nothing about Mathis’, Blofeld’s, Leiter’s or Bond’s felt that way to me. They were simply deaths used to get an emotional reaction from the audience.

    I sincerely wish they’d opted to use Blofeld and Spectre with Bond #7 because Craig’s era wasted those immensely. Waited decades for their return and they ended up as afterthoughts.

    My guess for a best possible scenario is an announcement on October 5, 1962 - the 60th anniversary. A casting choice, or at least a production announcement. Then again, given their track record, EON's desire to "let Daniel have his moment" could stretch for a good 3 or so years...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,215
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Seeing it again tonight, hopefully it'll improve on second viewing. Forgetting the ending, I was unimpressed with the second act of the film, it felt in a rush to get to the climax

    I hate to make this comparison, but it reminded me of DAD, in that the moment we leave Cuba it fell off a cliff, like with DAD, the moment Bond has a shave it goes down hill
    The Norway stuff disappointed me a bit, I expected them to use the Atlantic Road better

    Did anyone notice Bond called Blofeld, Blofield at one point? It really pricked my ears up

    It happened in SP too. Once Blofeld referred himself as Blofeld, he was never called Oberhauser ever again. Even the end credits only call him “Blofeld”. They might as well have never bothered using the name “Oberhauser”.
  • BCLBCL Norfolk
    Posts: 3
    bondboy007 wrote: »
    I think the Craig era took some legit risks, some good, some not so good IMO. However, if you’re going to take risks, why then try to them placate fans by tossing in quotes from Fleming, the DB5 (again and again and again), OHMSS cues, etc.

    If you’re going to divorce the Craig timeline from everything that came before it and after it, then I wish they hadn’t tried to dump all of those references to the past everywhere.

    I just don’t think anyone involved with these films had any idea what they wanted this era to be after Casino.

    yeh, good points.

    the over use of OHMSS references became tired and a little strange. I don't think it sits very well; i wouldn't say you can draw direct comparisons between both stories, other than by saying M.Swann is the new Tracy and either she or Bond dies in the film, like Tracy does in OHMSS. Felt a bit forced.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    edited March 2022 Posts: 2,641
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Seeing it again tonight, hopefully it'll improve on second viewing. Forgetting the ending, I was unimpressed with the second act of the film, it felt in a rush to get to the climax

    I hate to make this comparison, but it reminded me of DAD, in that the moment we leave Cuba it fell off a cliff, like with DAD, the moment Bond has a shave it goes down hill
    The Norway stuff disappointed me a bit, I expected them to use the Atlantic Road better

    Did anyone notice Bond called Blofeld, Blofield at one point? It really pricked my ears up

    It happened in SP too. Once Blofeld referred himself as Blofeld, he was never called Oberhauser ever again. Even the end credits only call him “Blofeld”. They might as well have never bothered using the name “Oberhauser”.

    Yeah I'm with you on that mate but I meant Bond got Blofeld's name wrong at one point I swear Bond called him Blofield instead of Blofeld
  • bondywondybondywondy Uk
    Posts: 364
    JohnBarry wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    I feel some people here seem to miss the point. Bond chooses to die because he didn’t want to live that life without his family. He would’ve accepted death even without those injuries caused by Safin that shot him in the back. The Jack London quote at the end is just another reminder for that.

    So he basically commits suicide because he can't be with a women he'd been separated from for five years until two days ago and a daughter he's only known for a day. This is not how I want a Bond film to end.

    I think I'm a fairly open minded Bond fan. Skyfall really shock up the Bond formula and did things I'd never expect to see in a Bond and I love it. But there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed and NTTD crosses them.

    Yes, imho the Craig era is not the cinematic James Bond. Too many liberties taken. Too many lines crossed. This is James Bond:


    The music, the vibe. The alpha male hero out to save the world and do it with style. The Cubby Broccoli/Harry Saltzman version.

    It's not about Bond with a wife (that's why Fleming killed her off after the wedding!), it's not about Bond's children, it's not about Blofeld some pseudo half brother, it's not about M and Moneypenny and Q following Bond around the world, it's not about Q gay, it's not about having the f word used, it's not about too much introspection and nihilism.

    But most of all... the next era/chapter of James Bond should bring back the glamour. Make the audience want to be Bond for two hours. Not feel sorry or empathy for him. Ideally, cast a conventionally handsome guy that sells the glamour and charm.

    We can all argue about plot and direction and action quota vs drama quota, introspection vs carefee narrative, but at the end of the day it all comes down to glamour. The sexy, dangerous world of James Bond.

    I don't think Barbara Broccoli ever got that. It's time to bring back the glamour, the aspirational quality and joy to the franchise. With the death of James Bond in No Time To Die, the need for joy and glamour to return is essential.

  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    Yes, its interesting, the references are clearly to "the good old days" the classic Bond era (any references to the PB era?) and they try to leverage off that for emotion and nostalgia and yet, that is the era that they are trying to move away from re it's core values. (just how many woman did GL bonk? try doing that DC!). They seem to want it both ways.
    PS Use of the OHMSS theme whilst Bond is talking to M on the Embankment (?) took me straight out of the movie.
Sign In or Register to comment.