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

19798100102103298

Comments

  • Posts: 526
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Honestly the fact that this is even being compared to TLJ is bad enough. And it's undeniably part of a trend in Hollywood to destroy classic action franchises by undermining their heroes and replacing them with more PC figures. They did it with Luke, John Connor, and now Bond. That's why I don't buy the arguments about how Craig's previous films were all leading up to this. They weren't. There's nothing in any previous entry which made this the inevitable conclusion. This was Eon doing what they've done for the entirety of the Craig era: following fads. With QOS it was Bourne, with SF it was Batman, with SP it was Mission Impossible, and now with NTTD it's Star Wars and Marvel.

    Sad and correct I think. I believe they do copy what’s trending. Casino R being the big exception. I would much rather have had more Qos though.
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 692
    I can't help but feel it's a bit over dramatic to say any film has "ruined" a franchise. It doesn't stop the other films, and in Bond's case, many others, from existing. I've seen that criticism before with other franchises and even music. Often you read that cover versions "ruin" a song. How? If you don't like it, don't watch/listen. It doesn't stop the originals from being what they are or from existing.

    I personally didn't like The Last Jedi, but did it ruin The Empire Strikes Back? Of course not.

    No Time To Die will no doubt continue to polarize the fandom, but I did not get any sense at all from the film that Bond was getting replaced with PC characters or any such criteria. The next film will likely just reboot again. The "James Bond Will Return" line was even still used.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Honestly the fact that this is even being compared to TLJ is bad enough. And it's undeniably part of a trend in Hollywood to destroy classic action franchises by undermining their heroes and replacing them with more PC figures. They did it with Luke, John Connor, and now Bond. That's why I don't buy the arguments about how Craig's previous films were all leading up to this. They weren't. There's nothing in any previous entry which made this the inevitable conclusion. This was Eon doing what they've done for the entirety of the Craig era: following fads. With QOS it was Bourne, with SF it was Batman, with SP it was Mission Impossible, and now with NTTD it's Star Wars and Marvel.

    Sad and correct I think. I believe they do copy what’s trending. Casino R being the big exception. I would much rather have had more Qos though.

    Uh, CR06 is very, very, very Jason Bourne. Very
  • SimonSimon Keeping The British End Up...
    edited October 2021 Posts: 154
    DC's films are not new to copying trends. TSWLM ended with 'James Bond will return in For Your Eyes Only', Star Wars went mega, and Moonraker went into production instead. Bond has copied as much as it has influenced.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    It’s currently my third favorite film of Connery’s era, a big highlight for me, but I felt it was Craig’s best performance easily. Totally blew me away.
    You mean Craig's era?

    I agree with you about Daniel's performance in NTTD. It is either tied or just under Casino Royale for me at the moment.

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    @00Heaven
    You're very kind.

    There is much to Madeleine that just gets overlooked. Two lines hit me in the gut in the film. After Bond accuses her of betraying him, won't listen to her at all, and pushes her onto a train, she desperately asks "how will I know you're okay." And then after he tells her he learned she didn't betray him, she says she understands that's who he is. After five years of heartbreak, she said that. I think she's wonderful.

    Love your post on Madeleine. And thanks for this bit because I did not catch that bit of dialog correctly. That makes sense. All of what you wrote makes sense. Thank you for the best, well considered explanation of Madeleine. I really appreciate it.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,480
    BlondeBond wrote: »
    I agree with the comments about Bond and Madeleine. While I agree that she was underwritten in Spectre, I liked her and understood what they were trying to do. Madeleine was never intended to be written as the same romance as Vesper. Just take the two train scenes in contrast. In CR, the scene is definitely charged full of chemistry and the two are full of banter and sizing each other up. Bond even admits to feeling "skewered" after she accurately but brutally "reads him" (though he was clearly enjoying himself). In Spectre, Madeleine spends the dinner scene in the train asking Bond about him, wanting to understand his perspective and choices in a world she clearly already understands. And in that scene, she never actually judges him for his answers. And Bond is leaning forward over the table as if he's captivated by her being the first one to ever stop to ask him.
    Interviews for Spectre said they wanted Madeleine to be soulful and I think they hit it out of the park with Lea though she was served better in NTTD. Madeleine is soulful, somber, mature, and incredibly sincere with the limited words she uses. Bond is older and damaged and the tender, quieter love suits him. He had awesome chemistry with Paloma, but I disagree with the comments that she should have been the female lead. It doesn't suit what Craig's Bond wants at this time in his life.
    Also, Vesper and Bond did get a "young love" style montage, but that served the storyline and needed to be given to secure the shock of Vesper dying and that she was playing him the entire time. Madeleine gets an overarching thread in two films. It's her actions that show how she feels. While it could have been definitely better handled and written, she offers her love so innocently in Spectre after he had done little to earn it, then tries to leave so she wouldn't be the one to change him. She never betrayed him the way Vesper did. She handles his rejection with complete grace, bears/loves/raises his child for five years, never stops loving him, forgives him for his mistrust with little explanation offered, and then takes him back. This is why Bond didn't want to live without her in the end. She genuinely offered him everything and more that he thought he was getting with Vesper at the time. I think Lea plays the scene in Norway when he's confessing how he feels beautifully. She is not a typical Bond girl - flashy, flirtatious, etc. She was never intended to be one. Not another Bond girl would have made the choices she made. Bond's words are very telling. He says he doesn't regret a moment of his life that led him to Madeleine. That includes Vesper's death too. All of that led him to Madeleine.

    I wish I could "pin" this to the top of a thread. I do not want people reading this forum to miss this analysis of Madeleine. It is spot on, and very helpful overall as we consider NTTD by itself as well as the film's ties to Spectre. I agree completely with this thoughtful explanation of Madeleine. I can feel the warmth, chemistry, history, and love between her and Bond in NTTD.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 693
    Uh, CR06 is very, very, very Jason Bourne. Very

    I wouldn't say "very." Apart from the African warlord character and the more physical Bond, it didn't strike me as overly Bourne-ish at the time. The story and style are totally different. It felt more like a modern-day DN or FRWL.
    Sad and correct I think. I believe they do copy what’s trending. Casino R being the big exception. I would much rather have had more Qos though.

    Agreed. Flaws aside, I liked QOS and would have preferred they continue down that path instead going all metatextual with the Mendes entries.
    Simon wrote: »
    DC's films are not new to copying trends. TSWLM ended with 'James Bond will return in For Your Eyes Only', Star Wars went mega, and Moonraker went into production instead. Bond has copied as much as it has influenced.

    Yeah but usually the Bond series would course-correct. After MR they went back to basics with FYEO and apart from some subtle influences from Indiana Jones and Miami Vice with OP and LTK, respectively, Bond did pretty much its own thing until the 2000s. SF blatantly copies a major plot point from TDK and its villain can basically be seen as Batman's Joker. And with Specter, cinemasins even quipped about it being written by an algorithm since it borrowed so heavily from other franchises.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Uh, CR06 is very, very, very Jason Bourne. Very

    I wouldn't say "very." Apart from the African warlord character and the more physical Bond, it didn't strike me as overly Bourne-ish at the time. The story and style are totally different. It felt more like a modern-day DN or FRWL.

    Well it was widely noted by contemporary critics. As for its similarities to DN and FRWL, I suppose that depends on how serious you think those films are trying to be and how deeply disturbed a character they were presenting James Bond as being.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,007

    That guy is sheer class.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Honestly the fact that this is even being compared to TLJ is bad enough. And it's undeniably part of a trend in Hollywood to destroy classic action franchises by undermining their heroes and replacing them with more PC figures.

    Bond wasn't replaced in this, he was the main character of the film.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    jobo wrote: »
    My main issue with the film is this: Too many characters

    At its heart, NTTD is a story about Bond and Madeleine's relationship, with Safin as the main, antagonizing threat. In addition to this the film gives us another key character in Mathilde, a 2nd Bond girl of sorts, and obviously we have a 3rd Bond girl in Nomi. On top of that we have an alternative villain and his organization in Blofeld and Spectre as well as two henchmen; Primo and Ash. We have two allies, Leiter as the main one and Paloma as the second. Like everyone else I liked Paloma a lot, but in truth there was no need for both her and Felix in the script. If that wasn't enough already we also have an extra villain slash comic relief character in Valdo who gets a surprisingly large chunk of screentime as well as the MI6 regulars who, deservedly so, get a considerable ammount of attention.

    So in total we are left with three Bond girls, two Villains, three henchmen (counting Valdo) and two allies. Even with almost three hours of film, these are just too many characters! And the result is that many of them are not fleshed out enough for my liking. I would have loved to see more of Paloma and Felix, but the film is in reality not big enough for both of them. I also wish Nomi, Safin and Ash had more screentime to make an even stronger impression. It is a shame as I think the casting is generaly terrific, and it is a testament to the overall quality of the acting and direction that most of the characters are still as memorable as they are. But it is a clear sign of too many rewrites and screenwriters involved, which unfortunately has been the norm in most of the modern Bond films.

    Yeah, I tend to agree with this. I think pert of it is that Eon have been trying to stick to the multiple Bond girl formula, but they also don't want to dispose of any in the somewhat mechanical box-checking manner the franchise has become famous for; consequently Paloma doesn't actually serve the usual purpose of being both a sign of Bond's virility (for want of a better term), and as a way to get both Bond and the audience emotionally involved with wanting to get revenge on the villain (now known infamously as 'fridging').

    It's difficult to make a Bond film that still has enough of the old formula to appeal, but has also obviously evolved into being more aware and less mechanical. I think it's just going to be an ongoing struggle, and sometimes they'll get the balance right, and sometimes they won't. Paloma is great though, as is Felix, but as you say, Bond's relationship with Madeline and Mathilde (and Safin) is core to this story.

    Agreed. Besides M, you can cut out any one of the other characters without losing that much.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,007
    Thank you @LeonardPine! I ended up writing a more rambling and less structured comment than I wanted, but am glad it is not an impenetrable read.

    Out of curiosity, what are the things you liked best about the film? I kind of listed mine at the end, but it is interesting to compare different takes. The great thing I noticed about this forum is people exchanging views without descending into flame wars.

    To be honest @NeverSayNever I'm still trying to digest this strange Bond film. While I enjoyed what I saw, the film is so fast paced its hard to be objective after only one viewing, so I look forward to more viewings when I get the bluray.

    Things I definitely liked:

    The action scenes

    The acting was all very good and the direction excellent.

    The climax was nerve shreddingly good and the makers certainly handled Bond’s death well. I really like the use of a Fleming quote at the end.

    But as I said, it will take more viewings to really get my head around it. I look forward to people's reactions to it further down the line.

    I loved SP when I saw it for the first time. Now I don't love it much at all...

  • Posts: 7,430
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Looking back after a few days after both viewings, I'm thinking about what I would look forward to seeing again (with SP, there was nothing, so I knew I would never warm to it). The one section that consistently pops into my mind is Bond's adventure with Paloma. The highlight of the film. Also, the stuff with Felix.

    Agree again! Would have preferred we didnt have Nomi and replace her with Paloma! Craig and Ana were wonderful together!
    And the meeting with Felix in the nightclub was superb, Craig was particularly great here!
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 942
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Looking back after a few days after both viewings, I'm thinking about what I would look forward to seeing again (with SP, there was nothing, so I knew I would never warm to it). The one section that consistently pops into my mind is Bond's adventure with Paloma. The highlight of the film. Also, the stuff with Felix.

    I actually think the bit that really sticks with me is the flashback to Madeleine's childhood and he meeting with Safin. I thought that was a pretty different way to start a (recent) Bond film, and it was tense despite the fact that obviously child Madeleine survives. It's the bit I most want to see again.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,007
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Well I saw it last night; with subsequent viewings my opinion may change but my initial reaction is , underwhelmed. While there is a lot to like, the first hour is outstanding, there is just too much that drags this film down, mainly a ponderous, patchwork script, a very poorly defined villain and an uneven performance from Craig.

    Agree with a lot of this! I stated that Craig seems at his most relaxed here, so I get what you said in your other post, that it was out of character! Still a strong performance though! But, unlike CR, theres a hell of a lot wrong with it!

    It doesn't come close to Casino Royale. One of the few Bond films that IMO is perfection.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,041
    FoxRox wrote: »
    The Last Jedi was a hit with most audiences. But the "true Star Wars fans" who hated it were younger and more vocal on social media than James Bond fans. Hence the ton of 3 hrs YouTube videos where somebody made point after point in a monotonous voice to "prove" that it wasn't a proper SW film.

    Comparatively, these people were less vocal two years later on Rise of Skywalker, which is the real unredeemable film in the whole series.

    I think the entire sequel trilogy is a bust as a whole, for whatever that's worth. Just feels like to me there's a lot more of a positive air around NTTD than when TLJ came out, but maybe it's like you say and it's the difference of how vocal and widespread the other fanbase is. The audience RT score of TLJ is rough.

    The problem is the audience score for TLJ was impacted by the fact that ANYONE could go in, make a b.s. profile, leave a rating, repeat as often as they wanted. RT changed their system in response so that people now have to verify A: that they watched the film B: that they're actually a person, so what happened to TLJ is never going to happen again with the audience score on RT.
    I realized from your post that "TLJ" stands for "The Last Jedi", but I wish that we would stop abbreviating pictures from realms that are not Bond films. I have no problems identifying EoN and even non-EoN Bond films by their abbreviations, and I could probably get along with something similar if I were on a discussion on Hitchcock movies, but I think one should not expect everyone to understand the same about totally unrelated films. I at least didn't until now, since I stopped watching the Star Wars franchise after those dismal "prequels" called Episode I through III.
  • Posts: 2,402
    I think the way I would describe my overall reaction is that I've already seen NTTD one more time than I've seen SPECTRE across the past 6 years, and the film feels incredibly secure and hasn't left my mind (and I'm seeing it at least twice next week!)

    I moved on from SPECTRE very quickly on the other hand.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 564
    matt_u wrote: »
    After all that death/rebirth speculation I was waiting for @BMB007 thoughts about the film…

    Sorry! Had to disappear for a while. Wanted to see the film before I talked more about it. Then, after it blew my mind, I had to let it all simmer. Saw is on Thursday at the earliest showing here lol.

    The film was exactly was I expected it to be. Heck, it exceeded my expectations. They went HARD into the whole "James Bond is divine" angle to this all.

    https://letterboxd.com/blindmanbaldwin/film/no-time-to-die-2021/ Here's my thoughts on the film (it was a goddamn masterpiece).

    The whole idea of the film is this conflict of immortality — one of the flesh (blofeld/safin who want Heracles [named after the son of a god] to control whether people live or die) or of the soul.

    Eyes are a window into the soul. Eyes are the soul, the closest we get to that.

    "She does have your eyes"

    Meaning — she has your soul. Meaning — Bond changed his nature, from death-god to life-god through the power of love.

    Why does he smile when he "dies"?

    Because it's the same reason the film ends with a close-up of Mathilde's eyes and then the tunnel transforms into a gun barrel.

    No Time to Die = Freedom to Live

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey#Freedom_to_Live


  • edited October 2021 Posts: 1,314
    I’m just back from my second viewing. I really disliked the ending first time out.

    However, I really don’t mind it now. Knowing it’s coming. Am I trying hard to like it? Maybe, but I feel like I get it.

    It wasn’t necessary, but then it wasn’t superfluous. I do give them credit for at least changing the record and going with something tonally akin to “majesty’s.”

    My theatre was packed.

    Love the titles
    Love paloma
    The first hour is up there with the best in the series.

    Yeah I’d give it a solid 7.5/10
    Maybe an 8/10

    Happy that I’m happier with it also
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I think a lot of us enjoyed the opening sequence of Spectre, liked most of the movie yes, but then moved on. It was fun at first - new Bond film!! Monica Belucci's in it! But it did feel ... unrewarding. It felt enjoyable, okay, and then later rather "empty" instead of "meaty" or being memorable enough to want to revisit it often. The whole "you're a kite dancing in the wind" bit with Mr. White (which I am probably not even quoting correctly) was the most memorable scene in the whole movie for me. Spectre simply fizzled out quickly for me, like a day old can of Coke left open on the shelf.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I think a lot of us enjoyed the opening sequence of Spectre, liked most of the movie yes, but then moved on. It was fun at first - new Bond film!! Monica Belucci's in it! But it did feel ... unrewarding. It felt enjoyable, okay, and then later rather "empty" instead of "meaty" or being memorable enough to want to revisit it often. The whole "you're a kite dancing in the wind" bit with Mr. White (which I am probably not even quoting correctly) was the most memorable scene in the whole movie for me. Spectre simply fizzled out quickly for me, like a day old can of Coke left open on the shelf.

    Interesting, isn t it, that Mr White has played a significant part in four of the Craig films. A recurring overshadowing presence.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,480
    And to follow up - I have seen NTTD twice and will see it again in about 5 hours. It has been on my mind a lot since my first viewing. There are many, many aspects of this film I love and appreciate and find rewarding to muse on. Being such a stunning film visually helps a lot, too. And my cinema experience here is so perfect - I am enjoying seeing it on the big screen as much as I can (and this screen is HUGE; great clarity and sound).

    Because it completes this Bond's story arc, it's going to be enjoyable for me to revisit each of Craig's films; which I will do over the next few months. I think I will continue to enjoy analyzing NTTD, finding all the nods and nuances. The last Bond film I loved, not just liked a whole lot, was Skyfall (which has not diminished over time for me). It's a great feeling for me, this wrap up of Craig's era being appropriate, heroic and fitting - and therefore, meaningful and one I will want to return to.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    BMB007 wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    After all that death/rebirth speculation I was waiting for @BMB007 thoughts about the film…

    Sorry! Had to disappear for a while. Wanted to see the film before I talked more about it. Then, after it blew my mind, I had to let it all simmer. Saw is on Thursday at the earliest showing here lol.

    The film was exactly was I expected it to be. Heck, it exceeded my expectations. They went HARD into the whole "James Bond is divine" angle to this all.

    https://letterboxd.com/blindmanbaldwin/film/no-time-to-die-2021/ Here's my thoughts on the film (it was a goddamn masterpiece).

    The whole idea of the film is this conflict of immortality — one of the flesh (blofeld/safin who want Heracles [named after the son of a god] to control whether people live or die) or of the soul.

    Eyes are a window into the soul. Eyes are the soul, the closest we get to that.

    "She does have your eyes"

    Meaning — she has your soul. Meaning — Bond changed his nature, from death-god to life-god through the power of love.

    Why does he smile when he "dies"?

    Because it's the same reason the film ends with a close-up of Mathilde's eyes and then the tunnel transforms into a gun barrel.

    No Time to Die = Freedom to Live

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey#Freedom_to_Live


    I like this.
    As I said earlier I see his death more as a metaphor. He can die in peace because he knows he'll live through Matilde. His own Journey is complete. The whole film is about family and DNA after all.

    As Safin says "The point of life is to leave something behind".
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited October 2021 Posts: 6,304
    I think a lot of us enjoyed the opening sequence of Spectre, liked most of the movie yes, but then moved on. It was fun at first - new Bond film!! Monica Belucci's in it! But it did feel ... unrewarding. It felt enjoyable, okay, and then later rather "empty" instead of "meaty" or being memorable enough to want to revisit it often. The whole "you're a kite dancing in the wind" bit with Mr. White (which I am probably not even quoting correctly) was the most memorable scene in the whole movie for me. Spectre simply fizzled out quickly for me, like a day old can of Coke left open on the shelf.

    I still think that if the chemistry between Craig and Seydoux had worked in SP, and by extension, in NTTD, the whole Craig era would be elevated.

    CR has plot inconsistencies but the chemistry between Craig and Green is undeniable and carries you through the film. (You could say the same about Lazenby and Rigg--if nothing else, Lazenby definitely has a virility to him. Additionally, OHMSS has a tighter script than CR.)

    Craig has chemistry with many, many women throughout his era including the CR desk clerk.

    As it is, I feel like the casting mistake of Seydoux from the beginning is what keeps NTTD from achieving greatness. But I need to see it again.
  • Posts: 7,430
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Well I saw it last night; with subsequent viewings my opinion may change but my initial reaction is , underwhelmed. While there is a lot to like, the first hour is outstanding, there is just too much that drags this film down, mainly a ponderous, patchwork script, a very poorly defined villain and an uneven performance from Craig.

    Agree with a lot of this! I stated that Craig seems at his most relaxed here, so I get what you said in your other post, that it was out of character! Still a strong performance though! But, unlike CR, theres a hell of a lot wrong with it!

    It doesn't come close to Casino Royale. One of the few Bond films that IMO is perfection.

    Yes, agree there mate. Watched CR recently. Still fabulous Bond movie! It and QOS are still his best!
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 572
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I’m just back from my second viewing. I really disliked the ending first time out.

    However, I really don’t mind it now. Knowing it’s coming. Am I trying hard to like it? Maybe, but I feel like I get it.

    I am almost glad I spoiled it for myself before watching the film. I came to the film expecting to be underwhelmed.

    Had the ending been a surprise for me, I definitely would've left the theater disappointed. Instead, I was able to enjoy how well executed the film was, despite some of the ideas not being my favorite (Bond death, 007 title swap, Bond having a daughter, Felix death) because I've already accepted them for what they are.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Well, like all of any film, it is subjective. We see and feel as individuals when we watch a film. We are not clones, robots, or lemmings (most of us). ;) It would have been great if the chemistry in Spectre had sizzled like firecrackers. But the whole tone of that film was too detached and casual/flippant and her role was hardly fleshed out at that point. I think there was some chemistry there between them, but NTTD is leagues above Spectre; and obviously in respect to their chemistry and relationship.

    I totally believe Madeleine and Bond's chemistry, and real love, in NTTD. I was very happy to see her fully realized and I did sense some solid chemistry there. Daniel and Lea both threw themselves wholeheartedly into their roles, they poured everything they had into these two and it elevates the film to being meaningful and real, rather than merely the tragic yet heroic end for this Bond.
  • Posts: 15,124
    I watched it today. I said to my wife over the phone that I was shaken and she immediately guessed why. I don't know what to think right now, not sure if I loved it or hated it. I was angry and frustrated when i watched DAD, this time I'm sad. There's a lot of things I loved about the film. And this might be for the controversial thread in the future, but while I don't like that they killed Bond, I also think it was the logical thing to do and the best ending they could do.

    And even if I'm sad, I loved how they used OHMSS and YOLT as source material.
  • Posts: 564
    00Agent wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    After all that death/rebirth speculation I was waiting for @BMB007 thoughts about the film…

    Sorry! Had to disappear for a while. Wanted to see the film before I talked more about it. Then, after it blew my mind, I had to let it all simmer. Saw is on Thursday at the earliest showing here lol.

    The film was exactly was I expected it to be. Heck, it exceeded my expectations. They went HARD into the whole "James Bond is divine" angle to this all.

    https://letterboxd.com/blindmanbaldwin/film/no-time-to-die-2021/ Here's my thoughts on the film (it was a goddamn masterpiece).

    The whole idea of the film is this conflict of immortality — one of the flesh (blofeld/safin who want Heracles [named after the son of a god] to control whether people live or die) or of the soul.

    Eyes are a window into the soul. Eyes are the soul, the closest we get to that.

    "She does have your eyes"

    Meaning — she has your soul. Meaning — Bond changed his nature, from death-god to life-god through the power of love.

    Why does he smile when he "dies"?

    Because it's the same reason the film ends with a close-up of Mathilde's eyes and then the tunnel transforms into a gun barrel.

    No Time to Die = Freedom to Live

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey#Freedom_to_Live


    I like this.
    As I said earlier I see his death more as a metaphor. He can die in peace because he knows he'll live through Matilde. His own Journey is complete. The whole film is about family and DNA after all.

    As Safin says "The point of life is to leave something behind".

    Yep yep yep — it's all a metaphor. The best stories are.

    Rian Johnson has a great line where he said that every character in a movie is just a facet of the one the character in a movie — the movie itself. The arguments the film makes, its ideas and emotional context.

    So what's the argument of this one? Well, the argument of many a myth and fairy tale before it — the forces of death are nothing compared to the power of unconditional, compassionate love.

    Notice how the immediate moment Bond shows up at her house, they both immediately forgive each other? And how they start talking like a married couple?

    That's the point — love is stronger than everything. Even death.

    Thus (to steal a line from our old friend Silva) — Bond changed his nature, from "death" to "life". Assassin to lover. Destroyer to creator. Loner to Father.
Sign In or Register to comment.