› ›

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

1…175176178180181…298

Comments

  • cooperman2cooperman2 Uk
    Posts: 380
    I kind of get people still being wary of the Covid but simple question. Has anyone on here caught Covid19 after attending a movie screening?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    Not to my knowledge, but I know we’ve had some prominent members lose loved ones and immediate family to COVID. From a theatre? I don’t know.
  • cooperman2cooperman2 Uk
    Posts: 380
    Yes they have and that's a terrible loss certainly. I wasn't making light of it just asking if being in an enclosed environment was leading to people catching the virus especially in country's where mask wearing is voluntary like here in the UK.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    cooperman2 wrote: »
    I kind of get people still being wary of the Covid but simple question. Has anyone on here caught Covid19 after attending a movie screening?

    The answer is no. And, has anyone ever heard about a movie theater being an hotspot of new cases? Not to my knowledge. Movie theaters are far safer than restaurants and bars.
  • StamperStamper
    Posts: 387
    Anyone has seen The Rhythm Section? It's on Amazon Prime Video. There are a few things explored in that film, that are redone in NTTD.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited November 2021 Posts: 3,152
    Yes - but why did they cut those scenes where she watched her own funeral and killed the pimp in the cafe?! They were good scenes and would've improved it, if they'd been kept.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited November 2021 Posts: 40,968
    Stamper wrote: »
    Anyone has seen The Rhythm Section? It's on Amazon Prime Video. There are a few things explored in that film, that are redone in NTTD.

    I did see it, sadly. Awful film.

    Which comparisons are you talking about? I’ve blocked out most of the film from my memory.
  • TheBondFanTheBondFan
    edited November 2021 Posts: 822
    ImpertinentGoon wrote: »
    I think you are spot-on there. Discussing this decision in such depth starts to make the seams appear more clearly and the more I think about it, the clearer I can see the writers and producers sitting around a table proposing and dismissing different scenarios.

    "He is shot to death by Safin!" "No, he can't lose to a villain."
    "He is poisoned with the nanobots!" "Same thing."
    "He is poisoned with nanobots targeted at M&M and decides to die!" "That's too defeatist and what if Q found a cure for them?" "We'll have Q say there is no possibility for a cure at all!"
    "So, he is shot and infected and we'll leave it vague which is worse, but how does he die then?"
    "How about a Royal Navy bombardment right on top of his head?" "Why would that happen?"
    "Well he calls it up to destroy the island?" "Why would he do that?"
    "I guess people are coming? I don't know, but this meeting is over now. We have some terrible hoodies to sell."

    This makes it sound pretty bad, but to me it's really well done. While seeing the film, I never felt like it was written by committee or something. It just pulled me along.

    I'm glad that you enjoyed how it played out on screen, but I find it very interesting that the way you described the writing room is exactly how I felt and what took me out of the film.
  • battleshipgreygtbattleshipgreygt
    Posts: 1,220
    Up until this point I was pretty let down by the henchmen we got in DC’s run, they were largely unmemorable but I thought Logan Ash and Primo were so fun and unique and for me it helped elevate the villainy of the film with a pretty underwhelming character in Safin.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I enjoyed Primo and Ash a lot; they were very good. Much better than Hinx for me.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,467
    4EverBonded wrote: »
    I enjoyed Primo and Ash a lot; they were very good. Much better than Hinx for me.

    I totally agree. Hinx was okay, but nothing too amazing honestly; it especially is a shame they were going for a new iconic henchman but came up well short with him. Primo and Ash are easily some of the best minor villains in Craig's movies. Obanno is an underrated one too.
  • sworddevil1sworddevil1 USA
    Posts: 526
    Did anyone feel that DC was channeling Pierce Brosnan’s Bond in NTTD? Reminded me of Brosnan through the entire film. In almost every scene.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,402
    sworddevil1 wrote: »
    Did anyone feel that DC was channeling Pierce Brosnan’s Bond in NTTD? Reminded me of Brosnan through the entire film. In almost every scene.

    I think Craig was achieving in this performance some of what Brosnan wanted to with his films, but couldn't, mostly because of the writing but also partly because Brosnan, while a good actor, is significantly below Craig's calibre. That might be why they feel so similar to you.
  • jobojobo
    edited November 2021 Posts: 7,507
    sworddevil1 wrote: »
    Did anyone feel that DC was channeling Pierce Brosnan’s Bond in NTTD? Reminded me of Brosnan through the entire film. In almost every scene.


    I honestly saw a Connery resemblance. Not sure I can pinpoint exactly why, but something about his swagger during the scenes in Jamaica and Cuba made me think of Sean.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,467
    To me, it was just DC being his Bond at his very best, which is an awfully hard Bond to top. The only time I feel he copied too much was being too Moore-ish / silly in SP. He made Bond his own mostly and excelled at it, *especially* in his finale.
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,507
    FoxRox wrote: »
    To me, it was just DC being his Bond at his very best, which is an awfully hard Bond to top. The only time I feel he copied too much was being too Moore-ish / silly in SP. He made Bond his own mostly and excelled at it, *especially* in his finale.


    Yes, I am seriously considering whether this was the best Bond performance ever. It had all the wonderful energy and edge from the CR performance, but it feels like his interpretation has also matured a lot since then. He manages to be more playful now and he seems more effortless, suave and cool. I also think his comedic timing was perfect this time around, I really can't fault it. I saw someone made a point about how working on Knives Out may have helped bringing out this more playful side to Craig, and I think it's an interesting theory.

    And, obviously, he deals with the emotional, dramatic moments incredibly well too. All in all his NTTD performance was a complete, versatile tour de force in my opinion, stellarly delivering on all the elements I want from my James Bond. A very worthy send off.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    sworddevil1 wrote: »
    Did anyone feel that DC was channeling Pierce Brosnan’s Bond in NTTD? Reminded me of Brosnan through the entire film. In almost every scene.

    No, not at all. Daniel was his own Bond all the way through for me.
  • Michelle_Johnston_55Michelle_Johnston_55 England
    Posts: 49
    One of the interesting side effects of taking 15 years to make the five movies is both within the imagined world and the real world Bond/Daniel has changed.

    When he says to Vesper I miss you and Madeleine we can not leave the past behind their is a timbre and a resonance in his voice which has so much more authority than the aggressive cocky man of Casino Royale.

    When he meets Paloma in Cuba there is almost the kind of suave sophistication of Cary Grant an older man who thinks a little more, his timing is better both in and out of character.

    I would say also that in his performance he is carrying around with him his experiences in a more tangible way than since QOS. We knew through out the latter he was angry and unresolved its just there is ten minutes of dialogue missing which complements his physical behaviour that communicates that. In this film all of Bonds past experiences are reflected somehow in his behaviour.

    In MI6 his combative disrespectful behaviour is not a repeat of CR it is an older man looking at an organisation that he belonged to getting it wrong making the wrong choices and when he is questioned about returning his ironic dismissive response trying to make light of it is perfectly judged. I have to say as someone who is retired I can relate entirely to his behaviour.

    However its the moment he realises/guesses the truth about his family in Norway to the end this is a Bond with an entirely new set of responses of responsibility of focus and certainty an absolute belief in the right course of action which takes us all the way to the final moments. Bond of any shape or description has never been portrayed that way maybe a more experienced actor than George and a different script would have given that rescue more depth more resonance.

    On a slightly separate point I have been re watching Silent Witness recently and what strikes me forcibly about the entire Bond thing is it is now operating in the knowledge that their are audiences that have been swept along by iconic characters for years building up investment in much more profound three dimensional way than ever before (24 also springs to mind).

    Going back to one of escapades where its all jolly good fun at the end, rinse and repeat would be out of step from what audiences want these days.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,299
    Michelle_Johnston_55 wrote: »
    One of the interesting side effects of taking 15 years to make the five movies is both within the imagined world and the real world Bond/Daniel has changed.

    When he says to Vesper I miss you and Madeleine we can not leave the past behind their is a timbre and a resonance in his voice which has so much more authority than the aggressive cocky man of Casino Royale.

    When he meets Paloma in Cuba there is almost the kind of suave sophistication of Cary Grant an older man who thinks a little more, his timing is better both in and out of character.

    I would say also that in his performance he is carrying around with him his experiences in a more tangible way than since QOS. We knew through out the latter he was angry and unresolved its just there is ten minutes of dialogue missing which complements his physical behaviour that communicates that. In this film all of Bonds past experiences are reflected somehow in his behaviour.

    In MI6 his combative disrespectful behaviour is not a repeat of CR it is an older man looking at an organisation that he belonged to getting it wrong making the wrong choices and when he is questioned about returning his ironic dismissive response trying to make light of it is perfectly judged. I have to say as someone who is retired I can relate entirely to his behaviour.

    However its the moment he realises/guesses the truth about his family in Norway to the end this is a Bond with an entirely new set of responses of responsibility of focus and certainty an absolute belief in the right course of action which takes us all the way to the final moments. Bond of any shape or description has never been portrayed that way maybe a more experienced actor than George and a different script would have given that rescue more depth more resonance.

    On a slightly separate point I have been re watching Silent Witness recently and what strikes me forcibly about the entire Bond thing is it is now operating in the knowledge that their are audiences that have been swept along by iconic characters for years building up investment in much more profound three dimensional way than ever before (24 also springs to mind).

    Going back to one of escapades where its all jolly good fun at the end, rinse and repeat would be out of step from what audiences want these days.

    Great post.

    After he says "I miss you" at Vesper's grave, the explosion knocks him back into his past, as he thinks/believes that Madeleine is turning out exactly like Vesper. The symmetry is lovely.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    echo wrote: »
    Michelle_Johnston_55 wrote: »
    One of the interesting side effects of taking 15 years to make the five movies is both within the imagined world and the real world Bond/Daniel has changed.

    When he says to Vesper I miss you and Madeleine we can not leave the past behind their is a timbre and a resonance in his voice which has so much more authority than the aggressive cocky man of Casino Royale.

    When he meets Paloma in Cuba there is almost the kind of suave sophistication of Cary Grant an older man who thinks a little more, his timing is better both in and out of character.

    I would say also that in his performance he is carrying around with him his experiences in a more tangible way than since QOS. We knew through out the latter he was angry and unresolved its just there is ten minutes of dialogue missing which complements his physical behaviour that communicates that. In this film all of Bonds past experiences are reflected somehow in his behaviour.

    In MI6 his combative disrespectful behaviour is not a repeat of CR it is an older man looking at an organisation that he belonged to getting it wrong making the wrong choices and when he is questioned about returning his ironic dismissive response trying to make light of it is perfectly judged. I have to say as someone who is retired I can relate entirely to his behaviour.

    However its the moment he realises/guesses the truth about his family in Norway to the end this is a Bond with an entirely new set of responses of responsibility of focus and certainty an absolute belief in the right course of action which takes us all the way to the final moments. Bond of any shape or description has never been portrayed that way maybe a more experienced actor than George and a different script would have given that rescue more depth more resonance.

    On a slightly separate point I have been re watching Silent Witness recently and what strikes me forcibly about the entire Bond thing is it is now operating in the knowledge that their are audiences that have been swept along by iconic characters for years building up investment in much more profound three dimensional way than ever before (24 also springs to mind).

    Going back to one of escapades where its all jolly good fun at the end, rinse and repeat would be out of step from what audiences want these days.

    Great post.

    After he says "I miss you" at Vesper's grave, the explosion knocks him back into his past, as he thinks/believes that Madeleine is turning out exactly like Vesper. The symmetry is lovely.

    Yeah, this is why Craig is probably my favourite Bond now, surprassing even Dalton. I struggled to adjust to this era at first but now I’ve seen the whole story, I love how his performance and his films have evolved. I don’t think Bond has ever felt as dynamic and real as he does in the Craig films. Even by the time we got to NTTD, his fifth film, the point where convention and formula has usually set in, they were still finding new sides of him to explore. And for all its faults, I thought the film did a great job of tying up all those loose ends and giving that story a fitting ending.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    Loved that scene, too. Agree to all you said - I interpreted it the same way
  • Michelle_Johnston_55Michelle_Johnston_55 England
    edited November 2021 Posts: 49
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Michelle_Johnston_55 wrote: »
    One of the interesting side effects of taking 15 years to make the five movies is both within the imagined world and the real world Bond/Daniel has changed.

    When he says to Vesper I miss you and Madeleine we can not leave the past behind their is a timbre and a resonance in his voice which has so much more authority than the aggressive cocky man of Casino Royale.

    When he meets Paloma in Cuba there is almost the kind of suave sophistication of Cary Grant an older man who thinks a little more, his timing is better both in and out of character.

    I would say also that in his performance he is carrying around with him his experiences in a more tangible way than since QOS. We knew through out the latter he was angry and unresolved its just there is ten minutes of dialogue missing which complements his physical behaviour that communicates that. In this film all of Bonds past experiences are reflected somehow in his behaviour.

    In MI6 his combative disrespectful behaviour is not a repeat of CR it is an older man looking at an organisation that he belonged to getting it wrong making the wrong choices and when he is questioned about returning his ironic dismissive response trying to make light of it is perfectly judged. I have to say as someone who is retired I can relate entirely to his behaviour.

    However its the moment he realises/guesses the truth about his family in Norway to the end this is a Bond with an entirely new set of responses of responsibility of focus and certainty an absolute belief in the right course of action which takes us all the way to the final moments. Bond of any shape or description has never been portrayed that way maybe a more experienced actor than George and a different script would have given that rescue more depth more resonance.

    On a slightly separate point I have been re watching Silent Witness recently and what strikes me forcibly about the entire Bond thing is it is now operating in the knowledge that their are audiences that have been swept along by iconic characters for years building up investment in much more profound three dimensional way than ever before (24 also springs to mind).

    Going back to one of escapades where its all jolly good fun at the end, rinse and repeat would be out of step from what audiences want these days.

    Great post.

    After he says "I miss you" at Vesper's grave, the explosion knocks him back into his past, as he thinks/believes that Madeleine is turning out exactly like Vesper. The symmetry is lovely.

    Yeah, this is why Craig is probably my favourite Bond now, surprassing even Dalton. I struggled to adjust to this era at first but now I’ve seen the whole story, I love how his performance and his films have evolved. I don’t think Bond has ever felt as dynamic and real as he does in the Craig films. Even by the time we got to NTTD, his fifth film, the point where convention and formula has usually set in, they were still finding new sides of him to explore. And for all its faults, I thought the film did a great job of tying up all those loose ends and giving that story a fitting ending.
    I began rereading Golden Gun this afternoon and what struck even shocked me a little is how well Daniel captures that withdrawn quality. Fleming somehow communicated to the reader what Bond was thinking feeling better than Bond did himself. In the case of those first fifteen pages its Moneypenny that tells the reader what is going on. In a visual medium its the body language of the player that replaces the narrator. Timothy could definitely communicate what he was thinking by his body language and actions and oddly Peter extracted that from George after multiple takes almost wearing him down in the process but Daniel with such a long journey shows it off best of all. When Vesper leaves him on the train and Daniel does a little whisteful turn of the head you know exactly what he is thinking and when Madeleine turns up on the train and says in response you should not like that its just so wonderful understated.

    As to the point about new ways if you are "all in" with Daniel then yes how wonderful to end on a high with new elements.
  • mrlynxmrlynx Maine
    Posts: 57
    I took my wife to see NTTD last night and had an interesting discussion. She is not a Bond fan at all, or even really into blockbuster movies, but she is an art historian who knows the Bible back to front as an historical text.
    She said Bond's fate is all over the place with numerous references to the New Testament. Including:
    -Vesper's Tomb - a clear Lazarus reference. Lazarus came from the tomb shortly before the crucifixion.
    -Madeline/Mathilde's escape: mirrors Mary Magdalene (madeline, get it?) catching Jesus's blood (Mathilde) before he dies
    -Safin and Bond's final fight: fighting in the water, marking bond for death is equivalent to Pontius Pilate washing his hands - even Safin's line "you made me do this."

    there was alot of more, i was floored and love the film more now. Even Matera, she thought, intentionally looked more "biblical" than a traditional european town
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Yep. Matera looks intentionally like an ancient necropolis by day and a romantic fairytale town by night.
  • ColonelAdamskiColonelAdamski UK
    Posts: 1,078
    Seems like a bit of a stretch to me, but it's good people are finding these deeper meanings if it makes them enjoy the film more.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,402
    I'm 100% on board with the Greek mythology connection; the biblical undertones seem like a bit more of a reach, but not to the realm of improbability.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 735
    Well, Craig-Bond did say something about "resurrection" being his hobby just two films earlier, haha ... and yes, there are many (less clunky) Christ-story elements & parallels running throughout the Craig films.

    I do think Matera has been used as a setting for TV & films set in the ancient period. Wasn't "Passion of the Christ" filmed there?
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 575
    I've mentioned it before but also with the nod to "ascension" being the whole point of the final bit with Bond climbing + the track being Final Ascent.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 7,547
    I remember thinking, it's weird that Madeleine doesn't point and shoot (and realize she's out of bullets) at Safin just before he kidnaps them in the Norway forest; on my last viewing, she actually does fire an empty chamber before being kidnapped; just at a henchmen, not at Safin, so she did know she was out.
    mrlynx wrote: »
    I took my wife to see NTTD last night and had an interesting discussion. She is not a Bond fan at all, or even really into blockbuster movies, but she is an art historian who knows the Bible back to front as an historical text.
    She said Bond's fate is all over the place with numerous references to the New Testament. Including:
    -Vesper's Tomb - a clear Lazarus reference. Lazarus came from the tomb shortly before the crucifixion.
    -Madeline/Mathilde's escape: mirrors Mary Magdalene (madeline, get it?) catching Jesus's blood (Mathilde) before he dies
    -Safin and Bond's final fight: fighting in the water, marking bond for death is equivalent to Pontius Pilate washing his hands - even Safin's line "you made me do this."

    there was alot of more, i was floored and love the film more now. Even Matera, she thought, intentionally looked more "biblical" than a traditional european town

    Very cool perspective!
  • AstonLotusAstonLotus
    Posts: 1,394
    sworddevil1 wrote: »
    Did anyone feel that DC was channeling Pierce Brosnan’s Bond in NTTD? Reminded me of Brosnan through the entire film. In almost every scene.

    Absolutely not.Pierce is suave,sophisticated,and good humoured in all four of his Bonds.Craig was the complete opposite in NTTD.

    ( Runs for cover ).
Sign In or Register to comment.