It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Do you know how ridiculous you sound? I clearly stated MY opinions and you needlessly felt the need to chime in to tell me that my views were my opinion and not facts. Why? Anyone who can read can see I was clearly speaking on behalf of myself. I even had to point out to you clearly key words that demonstrate this and yet you double down on pointlessly needing to tell me not everyone shares my view. Again, answer the question, why? I've never said, nor suggested otherwise. The problem here is you. And yes, it has been an unpleasant exchange because I've called you out on your useless and pointless "contribution" of responses and your default setting is to call me the aggressive one, why? Because I'm standing up for myself and not giving you a pass on stupid comments? This is just a movie and you'd be wise to take your own advice and remember that. I have nothing further to say to you.
Yes, you are right. This moment along with Craig's acting really stood out for me as poor. It actually took me out of the scene, making me think `who is this character?' I get Bond was doing it as a distraction, but it was poorly written and poorly done, with no understanding of the Fleming character.
Where did he say it was...?
I think it was just prolonged too much! Might have been better to be shorter! The scene in SF where Bond feigned disinterest in Severines death and turning the tables on his captors was how it should be done!
Thank you!
Something is missing in his mistakes here that really worked with Mansfield M. Perhaps it’s that her general presence and even appearance was ball-busting and gruff, as though the bulldog statue even resembles her. Her storyline in Skyfall carries more weight in her misguided attempts to “get the job done”. We don’t get that from Mallory as much despite his great entrance in Skyfall and good-enough storyline in Spectre.
Still think Feinnes is great casting for a new era Masservy-type M but wish we could have had him emerge a stronger leader in NTTD.
I do love that Bond reverts to addressing him by his surname to drive a point home, though. He’s done with the “Sir” crap, contributing to the raising stakes of the threat.
Film would have been better if edited down to 2 1/2 hours. I like your recommendations about the cuts. And also agree the pts should have been split. Too long.
Tempus Fugit indeed.
I agree. What I missed was more time to delve into some of the excellent characters I thought had to little screentime.
I honestly think it is strange that we talk about trimming No Time To Die, while at the same time holding some of the classic films as faultless masterpieces. It doesn't really make sense to me. As much as I love FRWL (my favorite in fact) it could definitley be slicker. And don't get me started on Goldfinger or Thunderball...
+1
Modern Bond films (since TLD basically...) have lacked this.
1. Seeing bonds naval uniform in the garage
2. having bond name check a Dom perignon or bollinger
I just wish the entire film was contained in 🇮🇹 and 🇯🇲 .
The film is too long and nothing that happens at the poison garden or the factory at the end is interesting. In fact nothing with Rami Malek or his half-baked scheme is interesting. Why is he doing what he is doing? None of that is explained. We’re supposed to just accept that he’s a crazy who fancies himself as a “savior” of mankind. But even in his warped mind what he’s doing is supposed to make some kind of sense, right? He babbles something about people wanting to be led and told what to do. Ok, that’s fine but what does that have to do with you trying to wipe out large segments of the population with your smart DNA virus? How does that make you a savior? Again, what’s the scheme here? It’s never explained to us. Is this supposed to be some kind of population control scheme a la Bill Gates? If so that’s never clarified. So we have a boring mumbling villain with a scheme which we don’t know what it is. That’s great. And then the secondary villain - Brother Blofeld. Another fail. Bringing back someone who didn’t work in the previous film and putting him in a Hannibal Lector cage for more of the same boring nonsense - “I’m the author of all your pain and can really get under your skin”. Blah.
Madeline is back (yawn) and now Bond has a child with her. Great. Need I say anything else about this? What’s the point? And of course Bond can’t be a daddy so that’s yet another reason to kill him. And speaking of killing Bond, I just can’t fathom this. Isn’t that precisely why Danny Boyle was fired? Because he wanted to kill Bond. So they bring Fukunaga on board and go ahead and do the same exact thing anyway? How does that make sense? Baffling.
So what did I like? Only 4 scenes. That’s it. The snowy opening in Norway, the scenes in Matera, loved Bond at his home in Jamaica and his bathing waterfall outside (that stuff feels right out of Fleming, could be Fleming’s home where he wrote the novels), and my favorite is the stuff in the forest in Norway. Everything from the Land Rover chases to the suspense in the forest is extremely well executed and shot. We’ve never really had a scene like this in Bond and this was a welcome addition for sure. The closest we ever came to forest action would be Corinne being chased by dogs in MR and the twins stalking 009 in OP. Both had some eerie horror film overtones without going into actual horror, both very well done. This one fits the same bill as well except done on a grander scale. And that’s pretty much all that I liked about the film. I did not like the Cuba scenes (the SPECTRE meeting was ridiculously bad with Blofeld talking to them through some cheesy eyeball) and the whole shootout that followed left me completely disengaged. None of it felt tense or exciting. Just a bunch of people firing machine guns. I don’t get what people enjoy in that entire sequence. Even the praise for Ana de Armas from all the critics is strange. I just don’t get it. Her giddy school girl routine was annoying. Good looking she is for sure but that’s it.
Black female 007? Woke, anyone? No thanks. So I guess 007 is just a number that anyone can carry. Not only that but now apparently even James Bond is a code name too that anyone can carry. Because this Bond is dead. So we’ll have another agent who will be James Bond next. Oh man, it just gets more and more painful.
So because of the few exciting scenes I guess I’ll place it just above QOS and SP but it’s nowhere near SF and CR. Not even close. And I don’t even consider those 2 masterpieces. What’s really interesting is that I have zero interest in seeing the film again. Even QOS and SP I wanted to see again in the theater, even after being disappointed on first viewing. I mean it’s Bond after all, right? But with this one I just don’t care anymore.
I know there is much division within the fandom but IMHO, there are times when the script does struggle. They tend to stand out because there is so much to like about the movie and so many other areas are really strong. Frustrating as these things are so easily fixed and the script must have been reviewed over and over again
You missed the biggest one of all.
[*} Bond dying
Most people I spoke to, I would say the general consensus has been with the ones who didn't hate the movie - they liked the film until the very end (killing off Bond), and Bond's death also seems to be the biggest gripe of all with fans who are not happy with NTTD.
Just my take on it, for what its worth.
I concur.
The most engrossing films in the franchise have tended to allow the story to develop in 2 or max. 3 locations, thus allowing Bond to settle, explore and build the narrative without skipping to a new setting.
DN - FRWL - TB - OHMSS - CR, to a point (Montenegro)
Although I'm not quite as down on NTTD I do understand many of your points. Maddy Swann is a boring character who has ZERO chemistry with DC's Bond and Malek and his plot are criminally underdeveloped.
Woke-ness is shoved down the viewers' throat, rather than just letting it subtly interweave with the narrative (no need for all of Nomi's posturing and passive aggressiveness towards Bond...)
And if anyone watched Calvin Dyson’s review of the film that is the one thing that he HATED the most. In his opinion it’s the single worst idea in the entire franchise. I think that says something. For me until now it was “Brother-gate” from SP as the single worst thing in the entire series (I haaaaaated this with a passion and still do) but now it may be Bond’s death. It’s a tough call between those two. And I’m actually shocked that I don’t hate Bond being a daddy as much as I probably should. Seems sacrilegious for us fans. But the death of 007, with missiles raining down on him and blowing him to kingdom come, just leaves knots in your stomach. In the worst way.
The fact that Bond doesn't even try to escape. He just stands there, commits suicide. You end up feeling sorry for Bond, and that's not something I want to get from a Bond movie.