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

1292293294295297

Comments

  • Posts: 3,913
    I wasn't wanting a big reveal moment, (I'd rather the character not have a kid at all), but when I watched it the first time, I was hoping for something a little . . . tidier.

    Yeah, I agree. Something like that can be done in an overdramatic and ham fisted manner, but I think what we got was a bit too vague. Like I said I don’t think it went over people’s heads more than it made them go, ‘wait, hold on.’ I don’t think Madeline saying ‘she’s not yours’ would immediately strike people as a metaphorical thing to say and it’s understandable. I know it’s not an uncommon complaint about the film and BB herself has even publicly clarified what the line is meant to mean (which I don’t think should necessarily be needed if this moment had been more well written).

    Sometimes you just have to guide the viewer or reader of the script a bit with these things. Metaphorical dialogue has been done effectively in Bond before. I mean, no one for instance gets taken out of SF when Silva tells the story about the rats. It’s purposeful enough for the audience to know exactly how it relates to the story, what it tells us about this character, and is generally engaging/easy to follow.
    echo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah I thought it was played well: I was hoping there wouldn't be a big reveal of her being his daughter because it would sort of be an insult to our intelligence- of course it's Bond daughter. When Madeline tells him she's not his I'm sure he does take that at face value initially, but, like us, it doesn't take him very long to figure out what's really going on.

    Yes, the film is subtle enough to let us infer she is his daughter (and the slinky drop, which is basically a mic drop) instead of beating us over the head with the reveal.

    Imagine instead:

    "I have a DAUGHTER? You didn't TELL me?" Then Brosnan pain face.

    I will say for all my issues with this plot point, I’m glad Craig was the lead. It’s something Brosnan wouldn’t have been able to handle.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,367
    better yt, why even have her deny it at all? what does that achieve? :-?

    I think she denied it because of the way he flipped in the PTS. He took the villain’s word over hers because of his trust issues, seemed ready to let them both die at one point, then shoved her on a train and ghosted her. It makes sense that she wouldn’t want him involved with Mathilde after that, and that he’d have to earn that trust back.

    The problem imo is they didn’t really show him doing that, because they introduced the kid too late in the game when they were already trying to do too many other things. He sacrifices himself, but I think they needed more build up to that than him making her breakfast and doing some of the usual action hero stuff.

    I agree, the problems with Bond 25 start with Madelines "betrayal" of Bond. The first 20 minutes should have been a montage-like sequence similar to OHMSS, but instead of falling in love, it's the birth of his child and the start of their family life together. Cut out the whole "break up" between bond and madeline thats ultimately pointless and only serves to make Bond a misery guts again.
  • better yt, why even have her deny it at all? what does that achieve? :-?

    I think she denied it because of the way he flipped in the PTS. He took the villain’s word over hers because of his trust issues, seemed ready to let them both die at one point, then shoved her on a train and ghosted her. It makes sense that she wouldn’t want him involved with Mathilde after that, and that he’d have to earn that trust back.

    The problem imo is they didn’t really show him doing that, because they introduced the kid too late in the game when they were already trying to do too many other things. He sacrifices himself, but I think they needed more build up to that than him making her breakfast and doing some of the usual action hero stuff.

    I agree, the problems with Bond 25 start with Madelines "betrayal" of Bond. The first 20 minutes should have been a montage-like sequence similar to OHMSS, but instead of falling in love, it's the birth of his child and the start of their family life together. Cut out the whole "break up" between bond and madeline thats ultimately pointless and only serves to make Bond a misery guts again.

    What you’re suggesting sounds like a tighter film in a way, but I dunno, the glimpse we saw in NTTD is about as much as I’d like to see of Bond playing happy families. I think he should only ever get a little taste of that sort of life before he gets reminded of who he is and what sort of film he’s in.

    I think the breakup also improves SP’s ending too, and the Bond/Madeline relationship, by showing how flimsy it was and how much of Craig Bond’s emotional baggage hadn’t actually been resolved. And I do think that’s something that needed resolving, because they’d gone too far down that road to change course in the last film.

    For me, the Bond/Madeline/Mathilde story is fine the way it is. I just wish they’d spent a bit more time on it and cut some other stuff.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,339
    Plus her own father was an assassin; she knows they don’t make good dads
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,367
    better yt, why even have her deny it at all? what does that achieve? :-?

    I think she denied it because of the way he flipped in the PTS. He took the villain’s word over hers because of his trust issues, seemed ready to let them both die at one point, then shoved her on a train and ghosted her. It makes sense that she wouldn’t want him involved with Mathilde after that, and that he’d have to earn that trust back.

    The problem imo is they didn’t really show him doing that, because they introduced the kid too late in the game when they were already trying to do too many other things. He sacrifices himself, but I think they needed more build up to that than him making her breakfast and doing some of the usual action hero stuff.

    I agree, the problems with Bond 25 start with Madelines "betrayal" of Bond. The first 20 minutes should have been a montage-like sequence similar to OHMSS, but instead of falling in love, it's the birth of his child and the start of their family life together. Cut out the whole "break up" between bond and madeline thats ultimately pointless and only serves to make Bond a misery guts again.

    What you’re suggesting sounds like a tighter film in a way, but I dunno, the glimpse we saw in NTTD is about as much as I’d like to see of Bond playing happy families. I think he should only ever get a little taste of that sort of life before he gets reminded of who he is and what sort of film he’s in.

    I think the breakup also improves SP’s ending too, and the Bond/Madeline relationship, by showing how flimsy it was and how much of Craig Bond’s emotional baggage hadn’t actually been resolved. And I do think that’s something that needed resolving, because they’d gone too far down that road to change course in the last film.

    For me, the Bond/Madeline/Mathilde story is fine the way it is. I just wish they’d spent a bit more time on it and cut some other stuff.

    I just think Bond being a misery guts and going into hiding before being stirred out of retirement has been done before, and it doesn't add anything to this story when there's already enough plate spinning going on. I think if the film started with bond witnessing childbirth, driving madeline home, placing baby in the crib, waking up in the middle of the night in a frantic panic, realising it was something mundane, stepping on a rattle etc. That would really give the impression to the audience, okay, this is really going to be a different type of Bond film, and not knowing where its going and what to expect.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,211
    echo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah I thought it was played well: I was hoping there wouldn't be a big reveal of her being his daughter because it would sort of be an insult to our intelligence- of course it's Bond daughter. When Madeline tells him she's not his I'm sure he does take that at face value initially, but, like us, it doesn't take him very long to figure out what's really going on.

    Yes, the film is subtle enough to let us infer she is his daughter (and the slinky drop, which is basically a mic drop) instead of beating us over the head with the reveal.

    Imagine instead:

    "I have a DAUGHTER? You didn't TELL me?" Then Brosnan pain face.

    Oh yikes, imagine all of the acting Pierce would have done in that film. A lot of acting.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,367
    mtm wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah I thought it was played well: I was hoping there wouldn't be a big reveal of her being his daughter because it would sort of be an insult to our intelligence- of course it's Bond daughter. When Madeline tells him she's not his I'm sure he does take that at face value initially, but, like us, it doesn't take him very long to figure out what's really going on.

    Yes, the film is subtle enough to let us infer she is his daughter (and the slinky drop, which is basically a mic drop) instead of beating us over the head with the reveal.

    Imagine instead:

    "I have a DAUGHTER? You didn't TELL me?" Then Brosnan pain face.

    Oh yikes, imagine all of the acting Pierce would have done in that film. A lot of acting.

    I mean, thats basically the character he played in mama mia.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,211
    mtm wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah I thought it was played well: I was hoping there wouldn't be a big reveal of her being his daughter because it would sort of be an insult to our intelligence- of course it's Bond daughter. When Madeline tells him she's not his I'm sure he does take that at face value initially, but, like us, it doesn't take him very long to figure out what's really going on.

    Yes, the film is subtle enough to let us infer she is his daughter (and the slinky drop, which is basically a mic drop) instead of beating us over the head with the reveal.

    Imagine instead:

    "I have a DAUGHTER? You didn't TELL me?" Then Brosnan pain face.

    Oh yikes, imagine all of the acting Pierce would have done in that film. A lot of acting.

    I mean, thats basically the character he played in mama mia.

    The bit at the end in front of the church where Streep sings a song and Pierce has to stand in the background mugging for three minutes straight is one of my all time favourite Brosmoments.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,367
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah I thought it was played well: I was hoping there wouldn't be a big reveal of her being his daughter because it would sort of be an insult to our intelligence- of course it's Bond daughter. When Madeline tells him she's not his I'm sure he does take that at face value initially, but, like us, it doesn't take him very long to figure out what's really going on.

    Yes, the film is subtle enough to let us infer she is his daughter (and the slinky drop, which is basically a mic drop) instead of beating us over the head with the reveal.

    Imagine instead:

    "I have a DAUGHTER? You didn't TELL me?" Then Brosnan pain face.

    Oh yikes, imagine all of the acting Pierce would have done in that film. A lot of acting.

    I mean, thats basically the character he played in mama mia.

    The bit at the end in front of the church where Streep sings a song and Pierce has to stand in the background mugging for three minutes straight is one of my all time favourite Brosmoments.

    I went to see that film with my mum when it came out, I appreciated how they portrayed Brosnan as the cool dad and the other two were the lame ones.
  • edited November 2023 Posts: 653
    Actually I suspected that Mathilde might be Bond’s kid but somewhere deep inside I kept wanting to believe that they wouldn’t go there. But of course they did. Same with Bond’s death. Call me old school but I always end up thinking to myself during these Craig films “oh no, they won’t go there” and sure enough they do. Nothing is sacred anymore. So I can understand folks who may have thought that Mathilde was just a red herring. To get us thinking that maybe it’s Bond’s kid but then to reveal that she is indeed someone else’s. I would have also loved a false flag at the end that basically signals that Bond will die, only at the last moment for Bond to pull a trick up his sleeve and make it out alive.

    But no, that would require some clever writing from the writers. And to remain faithful to the character of James Bond. Which of course they’re not interested in anymore. Not when Danny boy says he wants Bond to die. Or else…
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,211
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah I thought it was played well: I was hoping there wouldn't be a big reveal of her being his daughter because it would sort of be an insult to our intelligence- of course it's Bond daughter. When Madeline tells him she's not his I'm sure he does take that at face value initially, but, like us, it doesn't take him very long to figure out what's really going on.

    Yes, the film is subtle enough to let us infer she is his daughter (and the slinky drop, which is basically a mic drop) instead of beating us over the head with the reveal.

    Imagine instead:

    "I have a DAUGHTER? You didn't TELL me?" Then Brosnan pain face.

    Oh yikes, imagine all of the acting Pierce would have done in that film. A lot of acting.

    I mean, thats basically the character he played in mama mia.

    The bit at the end in front of the church where Streep sings a song and Pierce has to stand in the background mugging for three minutes straight is one of my all time favourite Brosmoments.

    I went to see that film with my mum when it came out, I appreciated how they portrayed Brosnan as the cool dad and the other two were the lame ones.

    I thought Skarsgard was the cool one! Brosnan's had a bad habit of wearing a smart shirt with jeans :)
  • Posts: 1,068
    To get us thinking that maybe it’s Bond’s kid but then to reveal that she is indeed someone else’s. I would have also loved a false flag at the end that basically signals that Bond will die, only at the last moment for Bond to pull a trick up his sleeve and make it out alive.

    The friend I watched it with didn't think Bond was dead till the credits rolled. She said "is that it?"
    I said "yes"
    She said "so he's dead, no more Bond films?"
    I explained that there would be more films, and we're meant to imagine that the next James Bond will be a different character who lives in an alternate universe. She said "well that's just silly", and I agreed, but said that lots of people who see movies these days find that completely acceptable and don't have the slightest problem with it, and we were old fashioned and 'confused' if we didn't appreciate that.
    Then she said "but James Bond always escapes, that's what James Bond does"
    "Not in this film"
    "Well, that's a bit rubbish then"

    "um, yes, it is".
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2023 Posts: 16,211
    Blimey, it's not that tricky a concept is it? David Suchet's Poirot died a few years ago and yet they're making more Poirot movies; Connery's Robin Hood died in the 70s and yet Kevin Costner popped up a few years later playing Robin with a mullet; Bale's Batman effectively died and yet we've had two new Batmans since then, in a series of films produced by the same people etc.
    Is it rubbish? Well your mileage may vary on that; I think it's a legitimate story to tell and I think it was nicely dramatic and well-told. Some didn't like it, and that's fine, but it's been two years now.
  • edited November 2023 Posts: 1,068
    Bobby in the shower wasn't a tricky concept either.

    As I keep saying, understanding the concept isn't the difficult bit. It's not thinking it's bloody daft concept that I can't manage.
    I wish they'd have knocked out a 'Bond by numbers' film like TND in the meantime, sort of like a Bond sorbet, just to clear the palate. The unpleasant taste of NTTD has lingered too long, as you say, it's been two years.
    Still, I loved With a Mind to Kill, so it's not all doom and gloom.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,134
    To get us thinking that maybe it’s Bond’s kid but then to reveal that she is indeed someone else’s. I would have also loved a false flag at the end that basically signals that Bond will die, only at the last moment for Bond to pull a trick up his sleeve and make it out alive.

    The friend I watched it with didn't think Bond was dead till the credits rolled. She said "is that it?"
    I said "yes"
    She said "so he's dead, no more Bond films?"
    I explained that there would be more films, and we're meant to imagine that the next James Bond will be a different character who lives in an alternate universe. She said "well that's just silly", and I agreed, but said that lots of people who see movies these days find that completely acceptable and don't have the slightest problem with it, and we were old fashioned and 'confused' if we didn't appreciate that.
    Then she said "but James Bond always escapes, that's what James Bond does"
    "Not in this film"
    "Well, that's a bit rubbish then"

    "um, yes, it is".

    It’s not “old fashioned”, it’s just fiction.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,109
    To get us thinking that maybe it’s Bond’s kid but then to reveal that she is indeed someone else’s. I would have also loved a false flag at the end that basically signals that Bond will die, only at the last moment for Bond to pull a trick up his sleeve and make it out alive.

    The friend I watched it with didn't think Bond was dead till the credits rolled. She said "is that it?"
    I said "yes"
    She said "so he's dead, no more Bond films?"
    I explained that there would be more films, and we're meant to imagine that the next James Bond will be a different character who lives in an alternate universe. She said "well that's just silly", and I agreed, but said that lots of people who see movies these days find that completely acceptable and don't have the slightest problem with it, and we were old fashioned and 'confused' if we didn't appreciate that.
    Then she said "but James Bond always escapes, that's what James Bond does"
    "Not in this film"
    "Well, that's a bit rubbish then"

    "um, yes, it is".

    "Alternate universe" makes zero sense since there is no "Bond universe". Apart from a minor few recurring characters and some very loose continuity at best, there is nothing that links these films together. The few ties between films in the entire series amount to less than what ties two MCU films together. You obsess over timelines and universes but those are meaningless in the Bond series. Even the Craigs, with some measurable continuity between them, are barely viewed in that manner. When people watch SP, they rarely do so as the one to follow up on SF and use elements from CR and QOS. It's just another Bond film. When people watch TLD, they don't wonder where the older, brown-haired Bond went, or why Bond isn't packing the dart-shooter he used in space for his trip to Vienna, or why Baron Samedi isn't recruited by MI6 as the immortal voodoo agent. Every next Bond film is just another Bond film to most, not James Bond with a Roman numeral. There is no timeline. There is no universe. There is an imperfect continuity at best, more often neglected than confirmed.
    When the next film hits theatres, literally no-one except a few sourpusses will wonder out loud how Bond can be dead and yet not be dead.
    If you cannot handle it, stay away from NTTD threads and pretend the film never happened. It's really easy. The more you complain, the worse it's going to get.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 8,976
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    To get us thinking that maybe it’s Bond’s kid but then to reveal that she is indeed someone else’s. I would have also loved a false flag at the end that basically signals that Bond will die, only at the last moment for Bond to pull a trick up his sleeve and make it out alive.

    The friend I watched it with didn't think Bond was dead till the credits rolled. She said "is that it?"
    I said "yes"
    She said "so he's dead, no more Bond films?"
    I explained that there would be more films, and we're meant to imagine that the next James Bond will be a different character who lives in an alternate universe. She said "well that's just silly", and I agreed, but said that lots of people who see movies these days find that completely acceptable and don't have the slightest problem with it, and we were old fashioned and 'confused' if we didn't appreciate that.
    Then she said "but James Bond always escapes, that's what James Bond does"
    "Not in this film"
    "Well, that's a bit rubbish then"

    "um, yes, it is".

    "Alternate universe" makes zero sense since there is no "Bond universe". Apart from a minor few recurring characters and some very loose continuity at best, there is nothing that links these films together. The few ties between films in the entire series amount to less than what ties two MCU films together. You obsess over timelines and universes but those are meaningless in the Bond series. Even the Craigs, with some measurable continuity between them, are barely viewed in that manner. When people watch SP, they rarely do so as the one to follow up on SF and use elements from CR and QOS. It's just another Bond film. When people watch TLD, they don't wonder where the older, brown-haired Bond went, or why Bond isn't packing the dart-shooter he used in space for his trip to Vienna, or why Baron Samedi isn't recruited by MI6 as the immortal voodoo agent. Every next Bond film is just another Bond film to most, not James Bond with a Roman numeral. There is no timeline. There is no universe. There is an imperfect continuity at best, more often neglected than confirmed.
    When the next film hits theatres, literally no-one except a few sourpusses will wonder out loud how Bond can be dead and yet not be dead.
    If you cannot handle it, stay away from NTTD threads and pretend the film never happened. It's really easy. The more you complain, the worse it's going to get.

    Right, I always like to compare the Connery-to-Craig arch to Disney stories: Scrooge McDuck is still active today, in spite of having made his first dime before he even went to Yukon territory to stake his claim, and he hasn't aged at all although he'd have to be about 150 years old - rather excessive for a duck, by the way. That being said, I think this floating-time line thing works only (and even then one has to really stretch things) until the Brosnan phase, if beyond the Connery phase at all. But considering that CR (accepted and lauded by basically everyone) started a new timeline with Craig's Bond being a rookie in 2006, one should accept that this is a new story which may as well have been finished off by this Bond's death in 2021, or whenever the movie is supposed to be set considering the delays in production.

    I love the Craig period (minus SP and QOS), but now it's over. Let's get to a fresh start. Or as it said at the end of the closing credits even in NTTD: James Bond will be back.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,167
    Some feel that NTTD veers into the realm of science fiction. The technology in many of the films has often been a step ahead of what was currently possible when they were made; NTTD was no exception. No doubt future films will continue to push the envelope
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11042835/House-intelligence-committee-speaks-new-DNA-bio-weapons-target-single-person.html
    On a very long flight, I just watched all 5-Craig films back-to-back for the first time. My major takeaway is that Skyfall is amazing haha. That, and No Time to Die didn't fare so well, surprisingly, given I've been a huge fan of it ever since viewing two.

    This is mainly down to Craig's performance. Others have said it, and I've had my nits to pick about it since viewing one, but it's even more noticeably wildly different when watching in the context of the marathon. Took away from the big finish, because I felt like I wasn't watching the same character. And I'm shocked to be saying that.

    Idk. Maybe I'm delirious. Or maybe Skyfall had the perfect ending to Craig's tenure.

    SF should have ended Craig's tenure. That would have been a nice 3 part trilogy. SF is probably Craig's best performance as Bond too (even though I prefer CR).

    NTTD has to be his worst. SP gave us a more cinematic version (which was fairly ok), but in NTTD his performance is all over the shop. The standout terrible scene is the 2 hander with Blofeld, where Craig literally feels like he is suddenly playing a different character entirely.

    I would go as far as saying that is the worst acted scene by any actor in the franchise (yes, even Lazenby wasn't that bad).

    I agree 100%; I loathe that sequence. It could have been played so much better.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 2023 Posts: 16,211
    Bobby in the shower wasn't a tricky concept either.

    As I keep saying, understanding the concept isn't the difficult bit. It's not thinking it's bloody daft concept that I can't manage.

    Those others I mentioned aren't daft though; neither is this. Characters die sometimes.
    Imagine being that reader griping about Conan Doyle killing off Sherlock Holmes. Nowadays it's one of his most memorable stories.
    And yes, they brought him back after that too.

    I wish they'd have knocked out a 'Bond by numbers' film like TND in the meantime, sort of like a Bond sorbet, just to clear the palate. The unpleasant taste of NTTD has lingered too long, as you say, it's been two years.
    Still, I loved With a Mind to Kill, so it's not all doom and gloom.

    And I'd say that wasn't a Bond-by-numbers at all. And is debatable as to whether 007 is about to die at the end too.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,109
    talos7 wrote: »
    Some feel that NTTD veers into the realm of science fiction. The technology in many of the films has often been a step ahead of what was currently possible when they were made; NTTD was no exception. No doubt future films will continue to push the envelope
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11042835/House-intelligence-committee-speaks-new-DNA-bio-weapons-target-single-person.html
    On a very long flight, I just watched all 5-Craig films back-to-back for the first time. My major takeaway is that Skyfall is amazing haha. That, and No Time to Die didn't fare so well, surprisingly, given I've been a huge fan of it ever since viewing two.

    This is mainly down to Craig's performance. Others have said it, and I've had my nits to pick about it since viewing one, but it's even more noticeably wildly different when watching in the context of the marathon. Took away from the big finish, because I felt like I wasn't watching the same character. And I'm shocked to be saying that.

    Idk. Maybe I'm delirious. Or maybe Skyfall had the perfect ending to Craig's tenure.

    SF should have ended Craig's tenure. That would have been a nice 3 part trilogy. SF is probably Craig's best performance as Bond too (even though I prefer CR).

    NTTD has to be his worst. SP gave us a more cinematic version (which was fairly ok), but in NTTD his performance is all over the shop. The standout terrible scene is the 2 hander with Blofeld, where Craig literally feels like he is suddenly playing a different character entirely.

    I would go as far as saying that is the worst acted scene by any actor in the franchise (yes, even Lazenby wasn't that bad).

    I agree 100%; I loathe that sequence. It could have been played so much better.

    He gave us his best Benoit Blanc in that scene. 😄
  • Posts: 727
    I feel the same about NTTD now as I did back in the Victorian, ancient era of 2021. A good, but flawed movie.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,785
    NTTD is the TWINE of the Craig Era, attempting to do some unique, yet risky things, but ended up as average.

    Inconsistent tone, unstable acting from the casts, plot contrivances and plot holes, I could go on and on.

    The problems of NTTD were also the same problems of TWINE, I tend to think of NTTD as the twin sister of NTTD.
  • Posts: 1,885
    For me it always comes down to what makes a Bond film memorable. What are those iconic moments? Who are those iconic characters? Which scenes do I delight in seeing again? NTTD's best scene is the one featuring Paloma. It is not a film I dislike, but it isn't a film filled with scenes I want to see again and again. Obviously I will see the film again because I watch Bond films numerous times. No question this is a well-made and polished film. By comparison the Connery films look quite dated, yet somehow manage to be more entertaining. It may be that filmmaking now is so slick, it comes off as a bit sterile. There's a bit of a rough edge to those old films that give them a charm lacking in so many contemporary films. My reaction now is the same as my reaction when I first saw NTTD. The single biggest failing of the film are the two villains. They exist to provide conflict, menace, and suspense. Neither do that well, nor do they come off Bond villains. This will always be a film I regard as a disappointing final installment in a Bond series that had the best opening film period.
  • CrabKey wrote: »
    This will always be a film I regard as a disappointing final installment in a Bond series that had the best opening film period.

    Yeah unfortunately that’s how I kind of look at it. I don’t hate NTTD, and I think it’s pretty decent for what it is. But for an era that started off so strong, it went with kind of a whimper imo. Though to be fair, I think the decline really started with SPECTRE.
  • edited November 2023 Posts: 1,068
    mtm wrote: »
    Imagine being that reader griping about Conan Doyle killing off Sherlock Holmes. Nowadays it's one of his most memorable stories.
    And yes, they brought him back after that too.

    Doyle was able to bring back Holmes in a way that made sense, which is something they can't do with the cinematic Bond.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    If you cannot handle it, stay away from NTTD threads and pretend the film never happened. It's really easy. The more you complain, the worse it's going to get.

    So the only people that should post on NTTD threads are people that like the movie?

    Jesus, some of you guys can be really snotty on here.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,211
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Some feel that NTTD veers into the realm of science fiction. The technology in many of the films has often been a step ahead of what was currently possible when they were made; NTTD was no exception. No doubt future films will continue to push the envelope
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11042835/House-intelligence-committee-speaks-new-DNA-bio-weapons-target-single-person.html
    On a very long flight, I just watched all 5-Craig films back-to-back for the first time. My major takeaway is that Skyfall is amazing haha. That, and No Time to Die didn't fare so well, surprisingly, given I've been a huge fan of it ever since viewing two.

    This is mainly down to Craig's performance. Others have said it, and I've had my nits to pick about it since viewing one, but it's even more noticeably wildly different when watching in the context of the marathon. Took away from the big finish, because I felt like I wasn't watching the same character. And I'm shocked to be saying that.

    Idk. Maybe I'm delirious. Or maybe Skyfall had the perfect ending to Craig's tenure.

    SF should have ended Craig's tenure. That would have been a nice 3 part trilogy. SF is probably Craig's best performance as Bond too (even though I prefer CR).

    NTTD has to be his worst. SP gave us a more cinematic version (which was fairly ok), but in NTTD his performance is all over the shop. The standout terrible scene is the 2 hander with Blofeld, where Craig literally feels like he is suddenly playing a different character entirely.

    I would go as far as saying that is the worst acted scene by any actor in the franchise (yes, even Lazenby wasn't that bad).

    I agree 100%; I loathe that sequence. It could have been played so much better.

    He gave us his best Benoit Blanc in that scene. 😄

    I remain puzzled about what's so bad about that scene.
    mtm wrote: »
    Imagine being that reader griping about Conan Doyle killing off Sherlock Holmes. Nowadays it's one of his most memorable stories.
    And yes, they brought him back after that too.

    Doyle was able to bring back Holmes in a way that made sense, which is something they can't do with the cinematic Bond.

    Oh gosh: they don't need to explain it. It'll be in a different continuity - you say that you understand this but then you seem to show that you don't.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited November 2023 Posts: 3,785
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    If you cannot handle it, stay away from NTTD threads and pretend the film never happened. It's really easy. The more you complain, the worse it's going to get.

    So the only people that should post on NTTD threads are people that like the movie?

    Jesus, some of you guys can be really snotty on here.

    The Bond Fandom is weird, really.

    Some of them even tend to complicate things.
  • Posts: 3,913
    All fans of anything do really to some extent. We just love to complain about something we love.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,210
    CrabKey wrote: »
    For me it always comes down to what makes a Bond film memorable. What are those iconic moments? Who are those iconic characters? Which scenes do I delight in seeing again? NTTD's best scene is the one featuring Paloma. It is not a film I dislike, but it isn't a film filled with scenes I want to see again and again. Obviously I will see the film again because I watch Bond films numerous times. No question this is a well-made and polished film. By comparison the Connery films look quite dated, yet somehow manage to be more entertaining. It may be that filmmaking now is so slick, it comes off as a bit sterile. There's a bit of a rough edge to those old films that give them a charm lacking in so many contemporary films. My reaction now is the same as my reaction when I first saw NTTD. The single biggest failing of the film are the two villains. They exist to provide conflict, menace, and suspense. Neither do that well, nor do they come off Bond villains. This will always be a film I regard as a disappointing final installment in a Bond series that had the best opening film period.

    I love all of Craig's scenes with Jeffrey Wright. A highlight of the film for me.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,785
    007HallY wrote: »
    All fans of anything do really to some extent. We just love to complain about something we love.

    It's weird, right?
Sign In or Register to comment.