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

11920222425298

Comments

  • edited September 2021 Posts: 1,314
    Well I just left the cinema.

    I’m gutted.

    I’m sick of heroes not being heroic.

    I’m sick of “emotion” being more important than entertainment.

    I actually feel for the first time ever like there is simply no where left for broccoli and Wilson to take the character.

    If you have to kill off your main character for a cheap thrill, and a massive downer then it smacks of desperation and lack of imagination. Bond represents to me a life that we all aspire to, a danger that can be escaped, ingenuity, charm, just a simple understated coolness.

    The first hour is fantastic. Like a fine wine. Cuba and matera are amazing. Paloma is amazing. And actually I can go along with the seismic shift in style and atmosphere from all Craig’s other films. This feels like a mix of YOLT / TSWLM etc.

    But that ending. You’ve got to be shitting me. It’s an empty, redundant load of crap that thinks it’s going to blow everyone’s mind. His death doesn’t even count for anything. It’s irrelevent to the plot.

    I never ever watch bond film to feel like this.

    I actually think I’ve got to the point where I will just watch the old ones. 5 of the last 7 are crap.

    Amazon buying bond might just be a massive blessing in disguise. Reboot the series as a 60s period piece and let’s get back to Fleming.
  • Posts: 485
    JohnBarry wrote: »
    timmyv123 wrote: »

    It didn’t really feel like a bond film for huge parts of it to be honest but it is a very very good action film….as a bond film, I don’t know where I rate it, will need to watch it a few times.

    I agree with this. I think once he gets back to London, it starts to feel less like a Bond movie and more like a generic aging action hero movie. But a very well made and engrossing action movie. During my first screening, when Bond was protecting Madeline and his daughter in the forest, I was thinking this could be the plot of a Harrison Ford or Liam Neeson action movie where the hero has to protect his family.

    I think this could be one of the main differences between judging the movie as the general public / movie critics versus diehard Bond fans. Aside from a few quibbles here and there, I do recognise it as an excellent piece of action entertainment. But as a Bond fan, there are definitely issues I have with it.

    I'd say it's similar to SF in that respect. The general 'human interest' story transcends a typical espionage thriller and hopefully like with SF it means it'll find a greater audience. For us fans it means we have another good film in the Bond canon rather than a good traditional Bond film. Possibly only OHMSS and CR can stand alone outside the franchise yet still feel quintessentially Bond.
  • Matt007 wrote: »
    Well I just left the cinema.

    I’m gutted.

    I’m sick of heroes not being heroic.

    I’m sick of “emotion” being more important than entertainment.

    I actually feel for the first time ever like there is simply no where left to take the character.

    If you have to kill off your main character for a cheap thrill, and a massive downer then it smacks of desperation and lack of imagination. Bond represents to me a life that we all aspire to, a danger that can be escaped, ingenuity, charm, just a simple understated coolness.

    The first hour is fantastic. Like a fine wine. Cuba and matera are amazing. Paloma is amazing. And actually I can go along with the seismic shift in style and atmosphere from all Craig’s other films. This feels like a mix of YOLT / TSWLM etc.

    But that ending. You’ve got to be shitting me. It’s an empty, redundant load of crap that thinks it’s going to blow everyone’s mind. His death doesn’t even count for anything. It’s irrelevent to the plot.

    I never ever watch bond film to feel like this.

    I actually think I’ve got to the point where I will just watch the old ones. 5 of the last 7 are crap.

    Amazon buying bond might just be a massive blessing in disguise. Reboot the series as a 60s period piece and let’s get back to Fleming.

    Your not alone friend, totally agree, this is how I felt too, just rewatching Thunderball as an antidote.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited September 2021 Posts: 13,350
    This film could have used some more spycraft and stealth sequences just like all the Craig films. I'm just gutted we will never get to see Craig play baccarat at a casino table. A missed Bond staple for me.
  • Posts: 503
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Well I just left the cinema.

    I’m gutted.

    I’m sick of heroes not being heroic.

    I’m sick of “emotion” being more important than entertainment.

    I actually feel for the first time ever like there is simply no where left for broccoli and Wilson to take the character.

    If you have to kill off your main character for a cheap thrill, and a massive downer then it smacks of desperation and lack of imagination. Bond represents to me a life that we all aspire to, a danger that can be escaped, ingenuity, charm, just a simple understated coolness.

    The first hour is fantastic. Like a fine wine. Cuba and matera are amazing. Paloma is amazing. And actually I can go along with the seismic shift in style and atmosphere from all Craig’s other films. This feels like a mix of YOLT / TSWLM etc.

    But that ending. You’ve got to be shitting me. It’s an empty, redundant load of crap that thinks it’s going to blow everyone’s mind. His death doesn’t even count for anything. It’s irrelevent to the plot.

    I never ever watch bond film to feel like this.

    I actually think I’ve got to the point where I will just watch the old ones. 5 of the last 7 are crap.

    Amazon buying bond might just be a massive blessing in disguise. Reboot the series as a 60s period piece and let’s get back to Fleming.

    Well said.

    Although I doubt Amazon's purchase will be a blessing in disguise, I can see them leaning even more into this type of trope.
  • JohnBarryJohnBarry Dublin
    Posts: 34
    Cowley wrote: »
    JohnBarry wrote: »
    timmyv123 wrote: »

    It didn’t really feel like a bond film for huge parts of it to be honest but it is a very very good action film….as a bond film, I don’t know where I rate it, will need to watch it a few times.

    I agree with this. I think once he gets back to London, it starts to feel less like a Bond movie and more like a generic aging action hero movie. But a very well made and engrossing action movie. During my first screening, when Bond was protecting Madeline and his daughter in the forest, I was thinking this could be the plot of a Harrison Ford or Liam Neeson action movie where the hero has to protect his family.

    I think this could be one of the main differences between judging the movie as the general public / movie critics versus diehard Bond fans. Aside from a few quibbles here and there, I do recognise it as an excellent piece of action entertainment. But as a Bond fan, there are definitely issues I have with it.

    I'd say it's similar to SF in that respect. The general 'human interest' story transcends a typical espionage thriller and hopefully like with SF it means it'll find a greater audience. For us fans it means we have another good film in the Bond canon rather than a good traditional Bond film. Possibly only OHMSS and CR can stand alone outside the franchise yet still feel quintessentially Bond.

    I'm very conflicted because I'm not the type of Bond fan that insists they stick to the formula. I like innovation in Bond movies, and this movie certainly makes some very bold innovative choices. But in doing so, I feel some of the core aspects of what makes a Bond movie have been lost and instead we just get a great action movie rather than a great Bond movie.
  • It really does feel like two different films spliced together. How is it possible that Felix's death is more emotional than Bond's.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Watched it last night at a midnight showing. I did enjoy it, I didn't think it was Brilliant
    For me it was well paced with some great action sequences. Although like many I did
    leave the cinema a little conflicted in my feelings. Did enjoy all the nods to older Bond
    films, OHMSS music cues even the Dr no homage at the start of the Title sequence.
    It will take a few more viewings to see where it ends up in my Bond list.
  • Posts: 485
    JohnBarry wrote: »
    I'm very conflicted because I'm not the type of Bond fan that insists they stick to the formula. I like innovation in Bond movies, and this movie certainly makes some very bold innovative choices. But in doing so, I feel some of the core aspects of what makes a Bond movie have been lost and instead we just get a great action movie rather than a great Bond movie.

    An unfortunate consequence of SF doing so well and the general audience calling it 'best Bond evah' I think. I remember some friends and work colleagues saying it was a good film but not really a Bond film. Will be interested to hear their take on NTTD.

    Always struck me as strange that QOS got slated at the time for being more like a generic Bourne\action film than a traditional Bond film and yet i find it far more Bondian than what came after it, except for the odd decent moment in SP.
  • Posts: 3,149
    fernadez wrote: »
    It really does feel like two different films spliced together. How is it possible that Felix's death is more emotional than Bond's.
    1) The score maybe . In both scenes we hear Zimmers 'Final Ascent', but at different places in the track.
    2) It packs more emotional punch if you see someone dying in the arms of a friend/loved one, than being blown up by rockets!
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,632
    fernadez wrote: »
    It really does feel like two different films spliced together. How is it possible that Felix's death is more emotional than Bond's.
    Because the films have always managed to make the viewers identify with Bond and therefore to convey emotions better via the Bond character than to cause them in the viewers themselves? I wasn't aware before tonight that Bond would die in the end, but I could understand his feelings about Felix dying. Apart from the fact that any remorse about the apparent death of Bond was sort of relativized by the final message "James Bond Will Return".
  • Posts: 4,597
    Bond's death is really strange. He's actually killed by the nanobots so he's a "dead man walking". So this undermines the heroic ending as there is no sacrifice. He's already dead. It's like Spock going down to the engine room, knowing he's only got a few mins to live anyway so "what the hell". It's hard to think of a more convoluted and complex turn of events.
    Also, am I correct that the rush to launch the missiles from the UK ship is to prevent the Chinese or Russians arriving and having a look around? (there is no countdown to a deadly launch) so we are to assume that the Chinese would steal the nanobots and do something so deadly that it's worth blowing everything up and Bond's life?
  • Posts: 485
    Zekidk wrote: »
    fernadez wrote: »
    It really does feel like two different films spliced together. How is it possible that Felix's death is more emotional than Bond's.
    1) The score maybe . In both scenes we hear Zimmers 'Final Ascent', but at different places in the track.
    2) It packs more emotional punch if you see someone dying in the arms of a friend/loved one, than being blown up by rockets!

    Plus Leiter's death being more of a shock - well not to us as it was spotted from the trailer but in the narrative of the film.

    Whereas there's an inevitability that Bond had to die. If he'd died a heroic death just by sticking around to keep the silo doors open I'd probably have hated it but the poisoning meaning he couldn't go on to live a life with Madeline and Mathilde worked for me.
  • Think it just seemed pointless. If you've cursed a man to be never able to touch his daughter or lover, killing him doesn't really matter as much. Especially as has been noted, in the most impersonal way known to man.
  • Posts: 1,314
    They have completely forgotten what the James Bond character is.

    Fleming spelled it out. He’s someone who knows he will be dead soon, lives everyday like it’s his last and so indulges his senses, passions for the finer things in life and talents, uses his ingenuity to get out of situations and kills people for a profession.

    I didn’t see any of that except the killing over and over again with a machine gun.

    No subtely. No pause to enjoy a dom perignon ‘53. The only person who has understood this is in the last 20 years is Martin Campbell
  • Posts: 3,149
    patb wrote: »
    Bond's death is really strange. He's actually killed by the nanobots so he's a "dead man walking".
    No he isn't. Q clearly explains this to him. That he can live but anyone he comes into physical contact with dies. So he sacrifices himself.
  • Posts: 2,400
    Honestly, if I maybe have one nitpick I've thought about it's that Bond doesn't repeat "WE have all the time in the world" and instead says "YOU have all the time in the world" at the end. The moment is still immensely gorgeous and emotional to me and it doesn't really detract from it in any tangible way, I think it just would've had the tiniest, tiniest, TINIEST more impact as a result. This idea that he will never leave Madeleine.
  • Zekidk wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Bond's death is really strange. He's actually killed by the nanobots so he's a "dead man walking".
    No he isn't. Q clearly explains this to him. That he can live but anyone he comes into physical contact with dies. So he sacrifices himself.

    Thought it was just in relation to Madeleine his daughter.
  • JohnBarryJohnBarry Dublin
    Posts: 34
    patb wrote: »
    Bond's death is really strange. He's actually killed by the nanobots so he's a "dead man walking". So this undermines the heroic ending as there is no sacrifice. He's already dead. It's like Spock going down to the engine room, knowing he's only got a few mins to live anyway so "what the hell". It's hard to think of a more convoluted and complex turn of events.
    Also, am I correct that the rush to launch the missiles from the UK ship is to prevent the Chinese or Russians arriving and having a look around? (there is no countdown to a deadly launch) so we are to assume that the Chinese would steal the nanobots and do something so deadly that it's worth blowing everything up and Bond's life?

    No, the nanobots just means he can never be with Madeline or his daughter. Without them in his body, he probably would have tried to escape but those bullet wounds did also seem fairly serious.

  • Posts: 1,314
    Nanobots. I mean really…
  • edited September 2021 Posts: 3,149
    fernadez wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Bond's death is really strange. He's actually killed by the nanobots so he's a "dead man walking".
    No he isn't. Q clearly explains this to him. That he can live but anyone he comes into physical contact with dies. So he sacrifices himself.

    Thought it was just in relation to Madeleine his daughter.

    Yes, that's correct. And everyone else in the database, like most from MI6 probably. That's my take.
  • Posts: 4,597
    Zekidk wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Bond's death is really strange. He's actually killed by the nanobots so he's a "dead man walking".
    No he isn't. Q clearly explains this to him. That he can live but anyone he comes into physical contact with dies. So he sacrifices himself.

    Apologies, thanks for clarification
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 573
    Zekidk wrote: »
    fernadez wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Bond's death is really strange. He's actually killed by the nanobots so he's a "dead man walking".
    No he isn't. Q clearly explains this to him. That he can live but anyone he comes into physical contact with dies. So he sacrifices himself.

    Thought it was just in relation to Madeleine his daughter.

    Yes, that's correct. And everyone else in the database, like most from MI6 probably. That's my take.

    I think this is wrong. Safin used his "insurance policy" against him. The vial that was created using Madeleine's hair.
  • Posts: 3,149
    00Heaven wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    fernadez wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Bond's death is really strange. He's actually killed by the nanobots so he's a "dead man walking".
    No he isn't. Q clearly explains this to him. That he can live but anyone he comes into physical contact with dies. So he sacrifices himself.

    Thought it was just in relation to Madeleine his daughter.

    Yes, that's correct. And everyone else in the database, like most from MI6 probably. That's my take.

    I think this is wrong. Safin used his "insurance policy" against him. The vial that was created using Madeleine's hair.

    Oh yeah, I agree. What a loser. "If i can't be with her and my daughter, I might as well die."
  • Posts: 485
    patb wrote: »
    Also, am I correct that the rush to launch the missiles from the UK ship is to prevent the Chinese or Russians arriving and having a look around? (there is no countdown to a deadly launch) so we are to assume that the Chinese would steal the nanobots and do something so deadly that it's worth blowing everything up and Bond's life?

    That would make more sense - and what would probably be the motivation if this was a real life event - but alas it did seem more of a 'save the day' moment. There was no countdown but Safin had vessels coming to take some of the stuff.

    That said M describes the situation as being on the brink of war so they needed to quickly destroy the place and not overstay their welcome with the Chinese and Russians circling.
    fernadez wrote: »
    Think it just seemed pointless. If you've cursed a man to be never able to touch his daughter or lover, killing him doesn't really matter as much. Especially as has been noted, in the most impersonal way known to man.

    That worked for me though. The moment of him being blown up wasn't the tear jerker it was what Safin had denied Bond which was the tragedy. His death being a salvation from the torment.

    I appreciate it's not really the sort of thing we really want to see with Fleming's Bond on screen but it works in the context of the film. I might be too forgiving but this is Craig's farewell. Bond himself will endure.
  • JohnBarryJohnBarry Dublin
    Posts: 34
    I do really dislike the fact that the villain succeeded in basically destroying Bond's personal life to the point that he didn't feel motivated to try to safe his own life.

    Really deflating ending.
  • Posts: 4,597
    So now are we saying that Bond could have escaped the complex in time? If Bond HAD to stay behind and sacrifice himself to ensure that the complex was destroyed, then not being able to touch Mads was irrelivant as he was going to die anyway?
  • Posts: 1,314
    Last post tonight. You know what scene I found the most emotional. The one as they drove into matera by the ocean in the Db5. With zimmers music swelling into Barry, and a lovely warm fuzzy feeling that this felt like a classic late 60s Bond film.
  • edited September 2021 Posts: 611
    I just want to mention that for all the jeering of EON's THE RHYTHM SECTION and its lackluster performance at the box office, I thought that film had superior acting, writing, and cinematography. Hell, even the one car chase had more punch than anything in NTTD.
  • JohnBarryJohnBarry Dublin
    Posts: 34
    patb wrote: »
    So now are we saying that Bond could have escaped the complex in time? If Bond HAD to stay behind and sacrifice himself to ensure that the complex was destroyed, then not being able to touch Mads was irrelivant as he was going to die anyway?

    He opened the blast doors for the second time. He could have left. He was badly wounded by the bullets but I think he would have tried to escape if it meant he could be with Madeline and his daughter.
Sign In or Register to comment.