NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - Critical Reaction and Box Office Performance

18586889091172

Comments

  • DraxCucumberSandwichDraxCucumberSandwich United Kingdom
    Posts: 208
    I suppose I count as press (it is, after all, why I got to see the film so early), so...

    https://filmspeak.net/movie-reviews/2021/9/29/no-time-to-die-review

    There are NO spoilers or even plot details in this review. It's a very surface level appraisal of the overall film.

    Thanks for this. It’s great see such a beautifully written enthusiasm review. It’s certainly helped bolstered my hype levels

  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited September 2021 Posts: 1,705
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don’t see how anyone cares either way about any barometer measuring what other random people think about a movie.

    Absolutely. And at least for me, when it comes to franchise films with low critical prestige, I get a little worried if the critics like it too much. I mean, if a critic thinks Thunderball and Octopussy are moderately entertaining schlock (or worse), but then they love the current film, that might indicate that I'm getting a movie very different to what I'd want. Like perhaps a more cynical or meta take.
  • edited September 2021 Posts: 4,602
    Considering the love for Bond and the love for DC (here in the UK), it's tempting for the mainstream reviewers to reflect that (even at a subconcious level) , especially within the ballyhoo of the premier. Like good music, ultimately, longevity is the true test.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,705
    patb wrote: »
    Considering the love for Bond and the love for DC (here in the UK), it's tempting for the mainstream reviewers to reflect that (even at a subconcious level) , especially within the ballyhoo of the premier. Like good music, ultimately, longevity is the true test.

    Longevity is everything with these movies. I can't imagine tapping out a review at midnight Wednesday. That being said, I loved your piece, @StirredNotShaken!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,650
    Even Goldfinger has its notable detractors.

    There’s no such thing as a universally praised Bond film. Not when you’re dealing with 60 years worth of films and several generations of fans that hold very different expectations and tastes from each other.

    Yeah, and even though I love them, I don't think we've yet had a really perfect Bond movie yet- along the lines of something like Raiders, which I would say is a perfectly-hewn movie in this sort of genre.

    The closest in terms of purity and everything just working on almost every level would probably be Goldfinger; I might actually put Skyfall up there quite close although I know many would disagree- maybe Spy Who Loved Me comes close as well.
  • Posts: 4,602
    Something I learned very quickly after joining this forum is that, even though we are all Bond fans, we look for different ellements with different levels of flexibililty. I remember many fans having a go at SF re the "non-Bondian" ending and, fair enough, it's their opinion. My gut says that the mainstream audience is far more flexible re what they are happy to take in. This maybe the case with NTTD
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    Funnily, RAIDERS gets flack for how Indy is ultimately useless to the plot like Bond in GF.
  • Posts: 3,333
    I never really saw Raiders as the modern yardstick for Bond. After all, the movie was based on the old-fashioned cliffhanger serials of the 1930's/1940's. I suppose the closest Bond ever came to recalling those typical Saturday matinees was TSWLM and MR with Roger Moore, so I agree partly with your assessment. But neither of those movies are what I'd call top-tier Bond. Some might argue that Lucas and Spielberg couldn't even repeat the magic formula of the first movie themselves, with only Last Crusade coming anywhere close to capturing the lightning in the bottle of Raiders.

    Personally, I think there's a reason why CR is still considered Craig's best Bond movie to date, and that's because it incorporated a lot of Fleming whilst injecting something new at the same time. Getting the rights to CR was a stroke of good fortune after DAD, but where to go after NTTD and the self-contained, mini-universe of Craig's Bond?
  • DraxCucumberSandwichDraxCucumberSandwich United Kingdom
    Posts: 208
    Funnily, RAIDERS gets flack for how Indy is ultimately useless to the plot like Bond in GF.

    But in Raiders the plot is pertinent to Indy’s character development. At the end of the movie he’s not the same relic stealing neo imperialist that he is at the start. Not sure what Bond learns in GF? If anything he’s even more of a (magnificent) b******d in Thunderball….
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2021 Posts: 15,650
    Funnily, RAIDERS gets flack for how Indy is ultimately useless to the plot like Bond in GF.

    It does, although I think they're wrong because Indy clearly steers the course of the film! :) Bond probably only really does one really instrumental thing, which is the 'turning' of Pussy- so more by accident than any grand plan (and then killing Oddjob, although I expect the troops would have just machine gunned him! :) ).
    bondsum wrote: »
    I never really saw Raiders as the modern yardstick for Bond. After all, the movie was based on the old-fashioned cliffhanger serials of the 1930's/1940's.

    It was also based on Spielberg's desire to make a Bond film though, and they do both satisfy the same requirements in an audience, even if the superficial trappings are different. Bond films aren't spy films, they're adventure movies.
    bondsum wrote: »
    Some might argue that Lucas and Spielberg couldn't even repeat the magic formula of the first movie themselves, with only Last Crusade coming anywhere close to capturing the lightning in the bottle of Raiders.

    I wouldn't be one of those: I probably prefer the Bond series overall but I think each of those first three Indy movies is better and more cohesively-made than any one Bond movie. I would certainly say they're better-directed, maybe until you get to Mendes.
    bondsum wrote: »
    Personally, I think there's a reason why CR is still considered Craig's best Bond movie to date, and that's because it incorporated a lot of Fleming whilst injecting something new at the same time. Getting the rights to CR was a stroke of good fortune after DAD, but where to go after NTTD and the self-contained, mini-universe of Craig's Bond?

    I think CR is superbly thrilling and compelling, and yet somehow still feels a bit scrappy in places, a bit thrown-together, if that makes sense? A couple of the action scenes feel a bit bolted-on, some of the character motivations are muddied etc. Skyfall feels more of a complete, authored film to me with a smooth arc running through it, even if some of the plot doesn't quite hang together when you think about it too much. It's also got more style and polish, and that's a big part of the appeal of Bond I'd say.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,650
    patb wrote: »
    Something I learned very quickly after joining this forum is that, even though we are all Bond fans, we look for different ellements with different levels of flexibililty. I remember many fans having a go at SF re the "non-Bondian" ending and, fair enough, it's their opinion. My gut says that the mainstream audience is far more flexible re what they are happy to take in. This maybe the case with NTTD

    I think you're definitely right there: a Bond movie is pretty much whatever film they watch with Bond in it. Whereas we Bond fans get upset if the lead actor's hair is the wrong colour or they let a mad Frenchman do the music :)
  • Posts: 309
    Grace Randolph has been known to have biases like Ben Lyons. I prefer REAL professional critics that judge films as films. Not as fans, not as suck ups or grumps with agendas like the Fandom Menace. They judge the films on their own merits and move on. Of course, it’s a matter of looking out for the right ones.

    Her review was actually quite positive.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    Burgess wrote: »
    Grace Randolph has been known to have biases like Ben Lyons. I prefer REAL professional critics that judge films as films. Not as fans, not as suck ups or grumps with agendas like the Fandom Menace. They judge the films on their own merits and move on. Of course, it’s a matter of looking out for the right ones.

    Her review was actually quite positive.

    That’s nice, I still dislike her as a critic.
  • I skimmed the paragraphs that dive more into the plot of the film, but I thought this was a nicely written positive take on the film:
    https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2021-09-29/no-time-to-die-bond-review-daniel-craig
  • bondsum wrote: »
    I suppose the closest Bond ever came to recalling those typical Saturday matinees was TSWLM and MR with Roger Moore...
    MOONRAKER is -- unfortunately -- more like a Dean Martin-Matt Helm movie... only with a much bigger budget and higher production values.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    Noooo it’s much better than that sleepwalking Dino dreck
  • Posts: 1,582
    Some may think Austin Powers and, more recently, Kingsmen satiated audience appetite, but I say -- bring back Matt Helm and Derek Flint !
    Matt Helm films came from the books, which were quite different - gritty, serious, with many non-exotic locales. I think the films were much more entertaining in terms of cinematic experiences. But I could even see putting out Matt Helm films - maybe direct to streaming for them and Flint - alternating between serious and gritty Helm, with wild and crazy Helm. Maybe even two different Helm actors, or not !
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,870
    My preferred “non-Bond Bond” is most certainly Jean Dujardin’s OSS 117. Love that stuff!
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,515
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 3,022
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,237
    Wow the escapist youtube review does not pull its punches. Some of these reviews are starting to kill my enthusiasm...
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,683
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I see Austin Powers came top a few posts back. I showed a clip from GF to my Art 1 class today, giving background on Fleming, the character and the franchise. I asked if anyone had seen a Bond film, and a few hands went up (these are most Freshman). I started asking them which film(s) they had seen. I get to one kind and he says "Austin Powers, doesn't that count?" Believe me, he learned the difference.

    This began a 12 hour deep dive into just how wrong that student was, I hope.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,650
    Since62 wrote: »
    Some may think Austin Powers and, more recently, Kingsmen satiated audience appetite, but I say -- bring back Matt Helm and Derek Flint !
    Matt Helm films came from the books, which were quite different - gritty, serious, with many non-exotic locales. I think the films were much more entertaining in terms of cinematic experiences. But I could even see putting out Matt Helm films - maybe direct to streaming for them and Flint - alternating between serious and gritty Helm, with wild and crazy Helm. Maybe even two different Helm actors, or not !

    That's a fun idea! :)
    I tried to watch a Helm recently: there was a scene where his Q equivalent gave him a jacket with explosive buttons- he tossed a button and it exploded, then they discussed it. And to end the scene, they just tossed a button again- same thing happened, it exploded. And that to me showed what was wrong with the film: there was no pace to it at all- you'd already seen one explode, you didn't need to see it again. It just shows how tight the Bond movies are (maybe apart from Thunderball, but I guess you can't swim fast!).
  • Posts: 309
    Wow the escapist youtube review does not pull its punches. Some of these reviews are starting to kill my enthusiasm...

    Don’t let it. I’ve watched plenty of positive reviews. Being Stateside, I won’t see it until next Wednesday but general audience seem to really like it. NTTD seems ambitious in scope and scale. There will be people who don’t like it, of course, but this movie sounds like it packs a punch.

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    Burgess wrote: »
    Wow the escapist youtube review does not pull its punches. Some of these reviews are starting to kill my enthusiasm...

    Don’t let it. I’ve watched plenty of positive reviews. Being Stateside, I won’t see it until next Wednesday but general audience seem to really like it. NTTD seems ambitious in scope and scale. There will be people who don’t like it, of course, but this movie sounds like it packs a punch.

    I'm Wednesday as well. Can't wait!
  • Posts: 1,582
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    My preferred “non-Bond Bond” is most certainly Jean Dujardin’s OSS 117. Love that stuff!

    That title lends itself to a porn spoof pun title very easily. Change the "O" to another vowel, change 117 by subtracting 48 and, badabing, badaboom, a new movie...
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited September 2021 Posts: 6,870
    Since62 wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    My preferred “non-Bond Bond” is most certainly Jean Dujardin’s OSS 117. Love that stuff!

    That title lends itself to a porn spoof pun title very easily. Change the "O" to another vowel, change 117 by subtracting 48 and, badabing, badaboom, a new movie...

    Wow I never thought of that :))

    I was actually quite surprised when I discovered OSS 117 first appeared in a 1949 novel, predating CR with four years.
  • No Time To Die is now certified fresh on RT : 84% with 120 critic reviews.
  • No Time To Die is now certified fresh on RT : 84% with 120 critic reviews.
    Yesterday saw a little influx of rotten reviews but today's reviews are almost all positive. I think there is a good chance this manages to stay in the 80's when all reviews are in.

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    I think if it stays at 80% of all critics, that is really good, right? I don't usually pay attention to this kind of thing. But I like this film a whole lot! Saw it today. I hope it does great box office. Actors, director, cinematography very fine indeed.
Sign In or Register to comment.