› ›

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

1…116117119121122…298

Comments

  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 490
    The issue with Ana De Armas is that Benoit Blanc was in a nearly paternal relationship with Marta in Knives Out. A few months later, having the same actors as lovers would have been something of a shock.

    That said, Sophie Marceau had her start in a teenage dramedy called La Boom and its sequel, while she was a minor. Actor Claude Brasseur (who was 30-year older than her) played her father in these movies. Four years after La Boom 2, they are the leads in a David Goodis adaptation where they're husband and wife.
    It definitely didn't fly well with many people, especially as the film had some extensive nudity from her.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,165
    Stamper wrote: »
    Will James Bond Return? I'm not certain. As every fans noticed, the "James Bond Will Return" mention is usually in the credit scroll with the same font as the credits.

    The mention in NTTD is not in the scroll, it's added up at the end in a completely different font. (at least in the version I saw). I say it doesn't come from the producers and is an add-on by the distributors.

    The Bond we all have known for 60 years is gone.

    EON said goodbye with Craig. This is the end. They nuked the series.

    Wrong.

    The Bond you've known for 15 years is gone. Unless, are you saying you're letting your reaction towards the Craig era ruin your love of the five previous Bonds that are completely disconnected from that continuity? That's a bit over-the-top, wouldn't you agree?
  • ertertertert
    Posts: 490
    Minion wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    Will James Bond Return? I'm not certain. As every fans noticed, the "James Bond Will Return" mention is usually in the credit scroll with the same font as the credits.

    The mention in NTTD is not in the scroll, it's added up at the end in a completely different font. (at least in the version I saw). I say it doesn't come from the producers and is an add-on by the distributors.

    The Bond we all have known for 60 years is gone.

    EON said goodbye with Craig. This is the end. They nuked the series.

    Wrong.

    The Bond you've known for 15 years is gone. Unless, are you saying you're letting your reaction towards the Craig era ruin your love of the five previous Bonds that are completely disconnected from that continuity? That's a bit over-the-top, wouldn't you agree?

    Agreed. Bond is $$$$. It's nowhere near finished.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3,167
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    No, otherwise he'd give her a slap.... ;)
    Yeah, there is that...!
  • TR007TR007
    Posts: 1,165
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Craig mouthing Malek's lines in that scene with them face to face really took me away and was really jarring. Did anyone spot that? Why in the world did they leave that in??? Surprised no one has brought that up.
    He isn’t mouthing Safin’s lines. Watch it again. He’s trying looking at Mathilde and mouthing at her. It’s obvious he’s trying to comfort the child while Safin is in the middle of his big villain speech. It’s a touching moment.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,660
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    4EverBonded wrote: »
    We all have our favorites, and for some that is Daniel Craig.

    Craig was edging closer, even for me. Thankfully NTTD was released and it put Connery firmly back in place again as number 1. I doubt anyone will ever knock Connery off his perch.

    Actually, I love Connery's Bond as much as the next guy, but his portrayals as Bond were uneven. He was great in DN, awesome in FRWL and GF, but boredom kicked in with TB and his resentment is felt everywhere in YOLT. DAF and NSNA are Connery doing Connery rather than Bond. While not a single performance can top Connery's in FRWL in my opinion--absolute brilliance right there!--Craig's performances have constantly been great. Granted, Craig had different material to work with and something to say about it himself. Perhaps both eras can't be compared no matter how hard one tries. But while Connery had higher highs than Craig, he also had lower lows IMO. There are scenes in YOLT where he barely even acted anymore; he's just going through the motions--CUT! and PRINT!--without anyone telling him to step it up. The submarine scene with Moneypenny always comes to mind. I find it poorly written and badly acted. Craig has remained electric throughout his entire run as Bond. I applaud him for that.

    Yes I agree with most of this. The performances in Dr. No and DAF are miles apart. All I will say though is Connery had natural swagger and macho charisma. He had the full package. He looked like he could batter someone one minute, and be charming the next. He could also do the comedy one-liners with ease. And still manage to pull of Fleming's character too.

    With Craig it felt like he had to really act to create these traits, whereas with Connery it came effortlessly. He was naturally self-assured, both onscreen and off screen. I know with Craig he often comes across awkward in real life when being interviewed. Nothing wrong with this, BTW. He's an actor after all.

    But with Connery he had the whole package, and it was with him constantly. He exuded the sex appeal and swagger in real life to an overwhelming degree (so we've been told by those who have ever been in a room with the guy).

    He is though, on the other hand, perhaps the least human of all of the Bonds. He's quite cold and artificial, to the extent that a lot of fans can't imagine his portrayal in a version of OHMSS. Even Roger is warmer and has more moments of human connection which ring true.
    Connery is obviously self-evidently great, but they all have different strengths.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,660
    Minion wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Bond was looking at Mathilde while doing this. Safin was touching her hair and I felt he was trying to kinda communicate with her...

    Oh, that would make sense! Mouthing "everything is going to be okay" or something like that? Admittedly I still don't know what moment imranbecks is referring to, but I'd buy that over an editing faux pas.

    Oh yeah, he definitely does that, I'm sure I remember that. Is that what we're talking about?
    BeatlesSansEarmuffs wrote: »
    Nice to know the AntiWoke Brigade is still with us.

    Is it though? :)
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    mtm wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    4EverBonded wrote: »
    We all have our favorites, and for some that is Daniel Craig.

    Craig was edging closer, even for me. Thankfully NTTD was released and it put Connery firmly back in place again as number 1. I doubt anyone will ever knock Connery off his perch.

    Actually, I love Connery's Bond as much as the next guy, but his portrayals as Bond were uneven. He was great in DN, awesome in FRWL and GF, but boredom kicked in with TB and his resentment is felt everywhere in YOLT. DAF and NSNA are Connery doing Connery rather than Bond. While not a single performance can top Connery's in FRWL in my opinion--absolute brilliance right there!--Craig's performances have constantly been great. Granted, Craig had different material to work with and something to say about it himself. Perhaps both eras can't be compared no matter how hard one tries. But while Connery had higher highs than Craig, he also had lower lows IMO. There are scenes in YOLT where he barely even acted anymore; he's just going through the motions--CUT! and PRINT!--without anyone telling him to step it up. The submarine scene with Moneypenny always comes to mind. I find it poorly written and badly acted. Craig has remained electric throughout his entire run as Bond. I applaud him for that.

    Yes I agree with most of this. The performances in Dr. No and DAF are miles apart. All I will say though is Connery had natural swagger and macho charisma. He had the full package. He looked like he could batter someone one minute, and be charming the next. He could also do the comedy one-liners with ease. And still manage to pull of Fleming's character too.

    With Craig it felt like he had to really act to create these traits, whereas with Connery it came effortlessly. He was naturally self-assured, both onscreen and off screen. I know with Craig he often comes across awkward in real life when being interviewed. Nothing wrong with this, BTW. He's an actor after all.

    But with Connery he had the whole package, and it was with him constantly. He exuded the sex appeal and swagger in real life to an overwhelming degree (so we've been told by those who have ever been in a room with the guy).

    He is though, on the other hand, perhaps the least human of all of the Bonds. He's quite cold and artificial, to the extent that a lot of fans can't imagine his portrayal in a version of OHMSS. Even Roger is warmer and has more moments of human connection which ring true.
    Connery is obviously self-evidently great, but they all have different strengths.

    Yes, I'd agree with that too. Shame he never got to do a more human Bond like OHMSS.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    I feel as though people need to take a step back and look at the Craig era again and realize it's a self-contained story of a man named James Bond who becomes a Double Oh in his first film and dies in his last. This era, these five films and fifteen years, told their own story from start to finish, and now we can move onto a different Bond, either sharing continuity with the pre-Craig era or beginning anew. With luck, we won't get a new origin, we'll get a looser continuity, we'll still get Bond.

    Craig is simply sat in a corner by himself, enjoying his own little piece of the Bond pie, but his is not the last piece simply because his Bond died.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,480
    Yes, I look at it like that. Very glad to have his films. But I think they do not need to touch on the next one at all. If they do, it has be done right ... and I personally don't know how that would be. But I'm not concerned. It feels like a wide open field for the next Bond, and that is refreshing. I do not want a rookie 00 beginning, but others have mentioned his military background sort of being the beginning; then what? Jump to him about 3 years in as a 00? I don't know, but it is intriguing.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    edited October 2021 Posts: 2,402
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    And before someone brings up the age difference,Ana De Armas recently came out of a relationship with Ben Affleck,who is only a few years younger than Craig.There is also a 17 year age difference between Craig and Seydoux.

    This is admittedly off topic but I really despise Affleck for casting Ana de Armas aside like she's a piece of rubbish so he could restart his b.s. artificial tabloid-chasing relationship with Jennifer Lopez.
  • ShakenNotStirredShakenNotStirred
    Posts: 1,399
    Agent007391 wrote: »
    I feel as though people need to take a step back and look at the Craig era again and realize it's a self-contained story of a man named James Bond who becomes a Double Oh in his first film and dies in his last. This era, these five films and fifteen years, told their own story from start to finish, and now we can move onto a different Bond, either sharing continuity with the pre-Craig era or beginning anew. With luck, we won't get a new origin, we'll get a looser continuity, we'll still get Bond.

    Craig is simply sat in a corner by himself, enjoying his own little piece of the Bond pie, but his is not the last piece simply because his Bond died.

    Great way to put it, well done.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 704
    Stamper wrote: »
    Will James Bond Return? I'm not certain. As every fans noticed, the "James Bond Will Return" mention is usually in the credit scroll with the same font as the credits.

    The mention in NTTD is not in the scroll, it's added up at the end in a completely different font. (at least in the version I saw). I say it doesn't come from the producers and is an add-on by the distributors.

    The Bond we all have known for 60 years is gone.

    EON said goodbye with Craig. This is the end. They nuked the series.

    Agent007391 wrote: »
    I feel as though people need to take a step back and look at the Craig era again and realize it's a self-contained story of a man named James Bond who becomes a Double Oh in his first film and dies in his last. This era, these five films and fifteen years, told their own story from start to finish, and now we can move onto a different Bond, either sharing continuity with the pre-Craig era or beginning anew. With luck, we won't get a new origin, we'll get a looser continuity, we'll still get Bond.

    Craig is simply sat in a corner by himself, enjoying his own little piece of the Bond pie, but his is not the last piece simply because his Bond died.

    It would have been nice if this self-contained story hadn't spent the last decade riding the coattails of previous eras with all the references and callbacks.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Oh I politely disagree. I love the nods to former eras, the old films. I enjoy them and it does not take me out of Craig's current movie, whichever one I am watching. I'm really glad that kept them throughout.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 984
    TR007 wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Craig mouthing Malek's lines in that scene with them face to face really took me away and was really jarring. Did anyone spot that? Why in the world did they leave that in??? Surprised no one has brought that up.
    He isn’t mouthing Safin’s lines. Watch it again. He’s trying looking at Mathilde and mouthing at her. It’s obvious he’s trying to comfort the child while Safin is in the middle of his big villain speech. It’s a touching moment.
    Yes I thought so at first too. But on the 2nd viewing, its funny how I noticed it syncing with what Safin was saying. Even pausing in between and then moving the lips again when Safin continued his speech. It just looked odd.
  • StarkStark France
    Posts: 177
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Craig mouthing Malek's lines in that scene with them face to face really took me away and was really jarring. Did anyone spot that? Why in the world did they leave that in??? Surprised no one has brought that up.

    What was that bit exactly? I've only seen it the once but this moment sort of sounds familiar to me.

    @Creasy47 The camera was pointed towards Mathilde. Then it cut to Bond and then Safin was saying "I want the world to evolve. Yet you want it to stay the same.", the camera was still staying at Bond as Safin said that line, Bond can be seen exactly mouthing what Safin was saying. I've seen it twice now and it was so much more noticeable and distracting the second time around. Awkward.

    51585894195_7530b404ae_b.jpg

    I think it's an error that was deliberately kept during the editing to make us believe that Bond is whispering words to Mathilde to reassure her.
  • themadclonerthemadcloner
    Posts: 3
    Agent007391 wrote: »
    I feel as though people need to take a step back and look at the Craig era again and realize it's a self-contained story of a man named James Bond who becomes a Double Oh in his first film and dies in his last. This era, these five films and fifteen years, told their own story from start to finish, and now we can move onto a different Bond, either sharing continuity with the pre-Craig era or beginning anew. With luck, we won't get a new origin, we'll get a looser continuity, we'll still get Bond.

    Craig is simply sat in a corner by himself, enjoying his own little piece of the Bond pie, but his is not the last piece simply because his Bond died.

    The Craig movies are basically the equivalent of The Dark Knight trilogy for Bond. Self-contained and serialized with a unique story different from the rest of the franchise, but still fitting in the franchise in the sense that it shares some of the same characters, some of the same backstories, and some of the same continuity.

    Batman didn't suddenly come out of hiding in BvS after the ending of the TDKR and the movie didn't have to explain any of that. The audience goes in knowing it's a reboot and that's that.

    All that said, there's a very small chance that they piggyback off the ending of NTTD for Bond 26, but I'd be shocked if they go that route.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    Posts: 1,036
    Agent007391 wrote: »
    I feel as though people need to take a step back and look at the Craig era again and realize it's a self-contained story of a man named James Bond who becomes a Double Oh in his first film and dies in his last. This era, these five films and fifteen years, told their own story from start to finish, and now we can move onto a different Bond, either sharing continuity with the pre-Craig era or beginning anew. With luck, we won't get a new origin, we'll get a looser continuity, we'll still get Bond.

    Craig is simply sat in a corner by himself, enjoying his own little piece of the Bond pie, but his is not the last piece simply because his Bond died.

    Very well put, thank you!!
  • sworddevil1sworddevil1 USA
    Posts: 526
    I’ve considered watching the movie again, but I don’t think I will. Too heavy. I wish NTTD could have been more of a general celebration of Bond, and a more “fun” experience. Just talking to people I know, they’re reaction has been negative. “Why did they do that?” Heard that many , many times. Oh well.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,165
    I suppose it depends on who you ask. The only reception I've heard has been positive. In real life, of course. Obviously I've read dissenting remarks online.
  • sworddevil1sworddevil1 USA
    Posts: 526
    Minion wrote: »
    I suppose it depends on who you ask. The only reception I've heard has been positive. In real life, of course. Obviously I've read dissenting remarks online.
    I guess it just depends on who one talks to. The ending seems to overpower the views of those I talk to. They will say I liked this and that, but that ending...
    I’m in the states, so that could make a difference.
  • JazzyBondJazzyBond
    edited October 2021 Posts: 68
    In my opinion, especially with the Craig films, since they are more rooted in a more realistic world than other Bond movies, I value the lack of plot holes. I feel that NTTD and SP had way less plot holes than the revered SF. In fact my ranking of Craig films are CR, NTTD, SP, SF, QOS and it pains me to put QOS last but the shorter running time and weaker villain hurts it. My problem with SF is the HUGE plot holes around Silva’s plan. The whole scene with Q accidentally hacking into Silva’s computer to set him free,the fact he wanted to get caught to follow thru with his plans to what? Kill M? The empty subway car that just happened to explode right where Bond was? I could go on but it was lazy, horrible story telling and the only reason it’s not last on the list is the introduction of the MI6 gang, Severine and of course Bardem’s acting! It really is the biggest plot hole movie of the Craig era. Say what you want about SP and the foster brother angle which is indeed horrible but there are not truck size plot holes in it and neither in NTTD!
  • marcmarc Universal Exports
    Posts: 2,611
    Ryan wrote: »
    marc wrote: »
    Matt519007 wrote: »
    Now to the elephant in the room-Death. Three cornerstone characters (Blofeld, Felix and Bond) all pass in this film.
    And you didn't even mention Dou Dou. 🙂

    The true tragedy of the film. I like to think that maybe, just maybe, Mathilde later found it floating in the water somewhere.
    Absolutely, that should have been the post-credits scene for a happy ending!
    HildebrandRarity wrote: »
    Ryan wrote: »
    Excellent point. Now that would make the plot even darker. Poor old Bond thinking he's freed them from harm only to have them pick up the doll he's been in contact with after he's gone.

    Exactly. It's actually called in storytelling Chekov's doll, the finest narrative incarnation of Chekov's gun.
    Chekov would certainly be proud of the use of Dou Dou (or rather the doudou) in NTTD. I think it saved the world by escaping and causing Mathilde to bite Safin.
  • StamperStamper
    Posts: 392
    It's the last we've seen of EON's Bond.

    If he will return, it will be under a brand new production team.

    Unless Babs and Michael still want to go on and have MWTGG novel like plans. We'll see.

    Nonetheless, I expected Bond dead and the Garden Of Death in 2008 for QOS. They took a lot of time to get there.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,251
    EON has made it pretty clear they’re staying in the business of making Bond films.
  • marcmarc Universal Exports
    Posts: 2,611
    1. Dalton
    2. Connery
    3. Lazenby
    4. Moore
    5. Brosnan
    6. Craig
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 984
    sworddevil1 wrote: »
    I’ve considered watching the movie again, but I don’t think I will. Too heavy. I wish NTTD could have been more of a general celebration of Bond, and a more “fun” experience. Just talking to people I know, they’re reaction has been negative. “Why did they do that?” Heard that many , many times. Oh well.

    I've already seen it twice and I'll probably stop there till its out on bluray. And I hated the ending more the second time around. A great movie. But that ending......

    A waste of a good movie.

    To those who likes the ending and can accept it, more power to you and good for you. Just not for me.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Stamper wrote: »
    It's the last we've seen of EON's Bond.

    If he will return, it will be under a brand new production team.

    You're being more melodramatic than the last 60 years of Bond villains combined.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    IGotABrudder wrote: »
    MooseWithFleas wrote: »
    That being said, even though Judi bridged the gap, this finale makes me think Naomi Harris and Ralph Fiennes won't be back, which makes me just as sad as the events in the film. Hope I'm wrong!

    I think so too. The scene at the end in which they toast Bond feels like them saying goodbye to us as well.

    It would be hard I think for Fiennes to give Bond a mission after he has toasted the death of an earlier Bond. Not impossible, but hard.

    What a bunch. Moneypenny shot and nearly killed him. Nomi threatenes to shoot and maim him. M obliterated him with missiles in the end.

    With friends like these...
  • sworddevil1sworddevil1 USA
    Posts: 526
    imranbecks wrote: »
    sworddevil1 wrote: »
    I’ve considered watching the movie again, but I don’t think I will. Too heavy. I wish NTTD could have been more of a general celebration of Bond, and a more “fun” experience. Just talking to people I know, they’re reaction has been negative. “Why did they do that?” Heard that many , many times. Oh well.

    I've already seen it twice and I'll probably stop there till its out on bluray. And I hated the ending more the second time around. A great movie. But that ending......

    A waste of a good movie.

    To those who likes the ending and can accept it, more power to you and good for you. Just not for me.

    Agreed.
Sign In or Register to comment.