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

12223252728288

Comments

  • Posts: 5,735
    The entire film is has a massive watermark of today's times stamped in front of it for its entire duration.

    Most Bond films have elements of their time here and there, but this one is really a true product of its time.

    A really neo-niilist narrative, where all matters and nothing does. In the end, everyone that we were build to like
    dies
    , and we don't feel a thing. I didn't. And that bothers me immensely. But most of all, it worries me. This fearful new world frightens me.
  • Posts: 526
    DCisared wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Bond wrote: »
    I echo others here who've said that it's hard to imagine a way forward from here, given the finality of what they put to screen in NTTD.

    The only way forward that I think could really work well would be to make the next Bond actor's tenure be a period piece from the 1930s/40s/50s.

    It'll allow the writers to (mostly) keep their political agendas out, and will give us some Bond fodder from the decades preceding the first actual official Bond film in 1962.

    Also, many like to harp about how the very character of James Bond himself is outdated, a relic of older times due to his misogyny, womanizing, political incorrectness, etc. Well... if you grant they are correct, there's no way to continue a "present-day" Bond 007 series without either awkwardly maintaining that outdated persona or "updating" Bond to a modern day man, which I don't think ANYONE wants.

    Also, let's be honest... the heydays of MI6 (and Britain herself) were back in those days, not 2021.

    I'd love a period piece Bond, Those decades are my favorites in terms of style, films, fashion, music, etc

    We'd get the DB5 again and it's been done to death at this point.

    Honestly I’m tired of the DB5 too. I wish he had driven the Aston Martin version used in CR and QOS. I feel like they ran it into the ground.
  • Matt007 wrote: »
    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

    Agreed and you're 100% right about Campbell. Bond is supposed to be fantasy and to a certain degree quite aspirational but for most of the Craig era Bond's life seems like a burden. The women, glitz, glamour, drinking, fine dining, sexy danger, spycraft and getting on with the job Bond is employed to do is what we want to see. When the new MI films come out they're going to once again dunk all over Bond.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 1,547
    I loved Craig's interpretation in the action sequences, possibly the most brutal we've ever seen James Bond, but some of his dialogue felt out of place and clunky at times (trying a bit too hard)
  • Posts: 502
    @Univex very well stated. I agree that the Bond we know is dead, and isn't coming back. People are saying only "Craig's Bond" dies in the end, but I see it as the death of the 1962-2021 character as a whole.

    We are in a film era of stern lecturing and melodramatic cliches, not fun escapist entertainment. Does anyone really think the next Bond flick will be going back to the fun entries of yore?
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 158
    My confusion lies in the fact that Mr White said his wife left him in Spectre. Madeleine failed to mention her mother was killed by Safin when telling Bond the story about finding the gun under the sink. But did say mother & father went back to Le Americain every year after they divorced. Doesn’t make sense. Also unless Mr White remarried I always assumed the woman he was with at the Opera in QOS was his wife. My head is spinning. Am I missing something? It’s late and I’m probably overthinking this 😁
  • Posts: 14,263
    Bond wrote: »
    @Univex very well stated. I agree that the Bond we know is dead, and isn't coming back. People are saying only "Craig's Bond" dies in the end, but I see it as the death of the 1962-2021 character as a whole.

    We are in a film era of stern lecturing and melodramatic cliches, not fun escapist entertainment. Does anyone really think the next Bond flick will be going back to the fun entries of yore?

    My fear is if bad word of mouth and spoilers cause audiences and fans to dismiss this film, we won't get B26.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,157
    Here's hoping. I've been waiting an awfully long time for the Bond I know and love to come back with a vengeance.
  • Posts: 502
    neila83 wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    After all, you can't really do sexy anymore.

    Speak for yourself. Most normal people are still being sexy, it's only those who were weird about it who are suddenly finding things difficult.

    He's right though, you can't "do" sexy in major franchise movies, games, or TV anymore without getting hounded - it's now considered channeling the "male gaze". Well if Bond films don't get to have a male bent, what does?? No one goes around demanding that chick flicks be changed to be more gender-balanced, why should anyone demand it of 007?
  • Posts: 207
    I still don’t buy Craig’s chemistry with Seydoux. It just never felt right for me in SP and now NTTD. I thought he was terrific with Green and Kurylenko.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Omaha, NE
    Posts: 6,531
    EON has gotten more progressive in giving the male AND female gaze starting with Craig’s run. Like, if you’re into dudes, there’s Craig coming out of the water. If it’s chicks, Eva Green is right there for us to gaze like Bond did her at the poker table.

    Equal opportunities for objectifying!
  • I too am underwhelmed. Did not totally dislike the movie but a lot of elements had me rolling my eyes.

    I'm not against the idea of killing Bond. It's a bold move and I assume they'll reboot with a new actor. My problem is how they've tried to make us care about Madeleine and his daughter and I simply don't. Daniel Craig and Lea Seydoux have no chemistry, the relationship feels forced. When he said I love you to her before death it felt like nails on a chalkboard that ruined a potentially poignant moment. And I expected something more graceful to honor his death than the MI6 people just having drinks in a room.

    I also don't have a problem with making the film a serious affair and treating the lifestyle of a spy as a burden, but it clashes with such cartoony characters like the scientist, or Logan Ash, or a henchman with a prosthetic eye that falls off, or a villain literally called Lucifer. Come on now. The film feels so confused!

    The new Bond girls, Paloma and Nomi, are severely underutilized. I hate to do it, but if I compare Nomi to Ilsa Faust, there's a glaring difference in the action and standout scenes that the latter is afforded. If anything Paloma got the cool fight scene over Nomi, which is confusing. Paloma was also a lot of fun coming naturally from Ana de Armas' charm. Lynch was cool as Nomi but the screenplay didn't give her enough to do other than bicker with Bond most of the time.

    Which brings me to the action. I can't say I was impressed. When you think of the parkour chase at the start of Casino Royale, or the motorbike + train chase at the start of Skyfall, they are scenes that definitely linger on my mind and were outstanding at the time. I can't say the same for anything I saw here. The movie tries to do a similar climax to TSWLM, TND, YOLT, etc. But it just misses the mark because there's no fight scene that I can think of will stay in my mind.

    I'm also confused as to why critics went so hard on Brosnan movies like TWINE, while going to bat for this one. I accept TWINE has its fair share of flaws and it is not one of Bond's best, but Sophie Marceau and Pierce Brosnan had more chemistry than Daniel Craig and Lea Seydoux ever will, and Robert Carlyle as Renard was no worse than Rami Malek as Lucifer.

    I had my nibbles with Skyfall but wow after their two subsequent movies did not reach that level it only grows in my esteem.
  • Posts: 5,735
    EON has gotten more progressive in giving the male AND female gaze starting with Craig’s run. Like, if you’re into dudes, there’s Craig coming out of the water. If it’s chicks, Eva Green is right there for us to gaze like Bond did her at the poker table.

    Equal opportunities for objectifying!

    Both of them in CR. Both of them 15 years ago.
  • Posts: 14,263
    Birdleson wrote: »
    You’ll get Bond 26 regardless of what the box office is. In fact a bomb may make it actually come out a little quicker, because Amazon will probably wants a real moneymaker and as a result of poor box office would probably be anxious to redirect and to put out a product that was reminiscent of early Bonds; less angst, more fun.

    I hope you're right.
  • DCisaredDCisared Liverpool
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,318
    DCisared wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Bond wrote: »
    I echo others here who've said that it's hard to imagine a way forward from here, given the finality of what they put to screen in NTTD.

    The only way forward that I think could really work well would be to make the next Bond actor's tenure be a period piece from the 1930s/40s/50s.

    It'll allow the writers to (mostly) keep their political agendas out, and will give us some Bond fodder from the decades preceding the first actual official Bond film in 1962.

    Also, many like to harp about how the very character of James Bond himself is outdated, a relic of older times due to his misogyny, womanizing, political incorrectness, etc. Well... if you grant they are correct, there's no way to continue a "present-day" Bond 007 series without either awkwardly maintaining that outdated persona or "updating" Bond to a modern day man, which I don't think ANYONE wants.

    Also, let's be honest... the heydays of MI6 (and Britain herself) were back in those days, not 2021.

    I'd love a period piece Bond, Those decades are my favorites in terms of style, films, fashion, music, etc

    We'd get the DB5 again and it's been done to death at this point.

    Honestly I’m tired of the DB5 too. I wish he had driven the Aston Martin version used in CR and QOS. I feel like they ran it into the ground.

    That middle gen DBS like the DB5 is one of the most beautiful objects ever created by man. I know the 5 and to a lesser extent the V8 suit the 'old ways are the best' theme from Skyfall, and that he won it playing poker but I agree they could've used the DBS from those first two DC pictures in both Spectre and NTTD to great effect and the general audience would love it just as much as the DB5. That car was and could've been HIS signature Aston. I can live with the biggest blast of a bond theme in Skyfall being for the DB5 but to do it again just to shoehorn the gorgeous V8 in? Do us a favour.

    The ending of NTTD has just got me thinking of the negatives of DC's era and I'm just looking back more cynically at the moment. I was defensive of Cary and Hans using whattitw in matera and even more ohmss score in the film but I think they really tried using that film for emotional payoff in this one and it's frustrating me. Boyle deserves a pint if he stood his ground and never wanted to kill Bond.

    Agree @Jordo007 . Love the action but bond has ALOT to say in this film. Seems like they were constantly trying to find stuff that was profound for him to say and it was as you say clunky.

    Was it just me who would've liked bond to actually apologise to Madeline aswell for shipping her off on the train and a bit more time for her to be angry with him. I realise it's an action adventure thriller but just thought that it seemed quite off.

  • Posts: 32
    I'm genuinely amazed so many people seem to have liked or loved the film. One of the great things about the Bond series is of course that everyone has different favourites, so none of this is at all criticism of those who enjoyed NTTD, but reading comments does feel as though most people watched a different film to me. Everything (except the terrible gunbarrel sequence) from the beginning through to the end of the Cuba scenes was absolutely fantastic, especially Ana de Armas' joyful cameo. It moved at a good pace, the action was exciting, the opening scene was wonderfully different from anything in a Bond movie to date, there seemed to be a genuine will to tell a story rather than just stringing action sequences together and the characters were vividly drawn and had distinct and engaging relationships with each other. The Bond/Felix friendship hasn't been so tangible outside Licence To Kill or Live And Let Die.

    And then the movie arrives in London and hits a brick wall. The dire telenovela nonsense carried over from the previous film is shoved to the fore. Bond displays the emotional maturity of a mopey teenager. Dialogue becomes interminable exposition, delivered in static back-and-forth. The action, when it eventually resumes, becomes rote and uninteresting. Allusions to previous films - OHMSS in particular, right down to Zimmer's heavily rehashed score - only show how little everyone involved understands why those films worked, just as the nods to some of Fleming's most evocative unused material - the garden of death, Bond potentially having a child - in the latter case contradict the point Fleming was making about his character (that no matter how much Bond, consciously or not, wants a peaceful domestic life, he can never have it because destiny will always draw him back to his duty) and in the former strips it of all its flavour, tension and strangeness - not to mention it having no logical place in the plot, aside from Safin's apparent love of gardening - in favour of having Bond and Nomi ambling through a rent-a-lair shooting the occasional mook. As for Bond dying at the end, frankly, I just didn't care: it was, as with much before it (including the same 'twist' happening to Felix and Blofeld), just a twist for the sake of a twist, revealing nothing, thematically questionable and seemingly only there to give Craig a moment and make the writers feel clever for pointlessly inverting OHMSS.

    As for the characters, Felix was great and Paloma was wonderful, but Safin was a non-entity of a villain with little discernable scheme beyond wanting to kill loads of people for the sake of it (basically a reheated Avengers Endgame, with a villain with less screentime, charisma and presence), all of which was treated as an afterthought compared to the Bond/Madeleine/Safin/Blofeld soap opera that was the film's real plot. I feel sorry for Lashana Lynch, who played her character with an agreeably understated charisma but whose only impactful function was as Bond's driver. You could take Nomi out of the plot entirely and only really lose a few instances of Bond having access to transport. Even less useful was the addition of Mathilde, whose presence was precisely as welcome as every previous occasion a 'cute' moppet gets crammed into a movie to force unearned emotional stakes.

    Barring that fantastic opening scene, all the attempts at 'modernisation' and revisionism were half-measures for the sake of changing something, lacking any real narrative or thematic purpose. All these calls for the series to 'radically evolve' undermine how the series has always done exactly that - how else would it have survived almost sixty years? - and done it remarkably well, give or take a few undeniable missteps. While I liked both Nomi and Paloma in this (Madeleine less so, given she still barely registers as a character), the whole 'new type of independent Bond woman' narrative in the build-up also does a serious disservice to the fact that the women of Bond are iconic precisely because they're so varied and memorable in their own right. Yes, there are some damsels and some dimwits, but also mob bosses, scientists, fellow agents, civilians rising to the occasion, computer technicians, manipulators, warriors... there is no one type of Bond girl/woman and the fan favourites are always those who do more than look great in a bikini or slinky dress, though that is as much part of the job description as Bond has to be as sexy to women.

    Either way, I found everything in NTTD post-Cuba to be a real bore and one often as misguided or half-baked as SPECTRE. Craig's tenure hasn't been my favourite but has produced two series classics in Casino and Skyfall, so it's a shame his time ends on a note casting those two successes as exceptions rather than the rule.
  • Posts: 5,735
    Brilliant post, @Xandaca. I feel the same. Very well said, especially this:

    "I found everything in NTTD post-Cuba to be a real bore and one often as misguided or half-baked as SPECTRE. Craig's tenure hasn't been my favourite but has produced two series classics in Casino and Skyfall, so it's a shame his time ends on a note casting those two successes as exceptions rather than the rule".

    My feelings exactly!


    On another, small note, they even cut the scene where Bond enters his Jamaican home with the speargun!!!!!!! How could they cut that scene? It was soooo cool. He now arrives in his boat with the speargun and the fishes but then gets a gun out as he enters the house. Why wouldn't he do that using the thing he already had with him, the speargun?
  • Xandaca wrote: »
    Either way, I found everything in NTTD post-Cuba to be a real bore and one often as misguided or half-baked as SPECTRE. Craig's tenure hasn't been my favourite but has produced two series classics in Casino and Skyfall, so it's a shame his time ends on a note casting those two successes as exceptions rather than the rule.
    I feel the same way.

    Once again, like in Spectre, we get this huge lair with a bunch of goons and yet nothing is exciting about it. It reminds me of how TND also tried to do that and paled in comparison.

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 9
    Bond wrote: »
    neila83 wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    After all, you can't really do sexy anymore.

    Speak for yourself. Most normal people are still being sexy, it's only those who were weird about it who are suddenly finding things difficult.

    He's right though, you can't "do" sexy in major franchise movies, games, or TV anymore without getting hounded - it's now considered channeling the "male gaze". Well if Bond films don't get to have a male bent, what does?? No one goes around demanding that chick flicks be changed to be more gender-balanced, why should anyone demand it of 007?

    I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. Did you see Ana de Armas in that film? Do you see premieres? Promotion? Bond got to behave as a bit of a pest as usual. Everything is absolutely still sold on sexyness. If you feel that wasn't enough please tell us what more your 'male gaze' needs?

    Also you know 90% of films forever have been male dominated, so your annoyance about 'chick flicks' says a lot about you. Essentially, everything has to be as a heterosexual male wants it hey? I imagine you're the kind who claims people today are sensitive and yet you are the first to be upset about anything reflecting reality rather than satisfying your fantasies, while the rest of us can see a gay person and not let it ruin a film for us. I almost genuinely feel sorry for you if that can spoil a film, except those kind of views are still ruining people's lives.
  • Posts: 32
    Xandaca wrote: »
    Either way, I found everything in NTTD post-Cuba to be a real bore and one often as misguided or half-baked as SPECTRE. Craig's tenure hasn't been my favourite but has produced two series classics in Casino and Skyfall, so it's a shame his time ends on a note casting those two successes as exceptions rather than the rule.
    I feel the same way.

    Once again, like in Spectre, we get this huge lair with a bunch of goons and yet nothing is exciting about it. It reminds me of how TND also tried to do that and paled in comparison.

    That it evoked the Garden Of Death beforehand only made it more infuriating for me because that's one of my favourite chapters from Fleming's oeuvre and one I've been waiting to be adapted since reading it as a child. Instead, as you say, it's just a bland, industrial villain base for Bond and Nomi to wander around. It doesn't even make sense for Safin to have a 'poison garden' given Heracles is an exclusively technological threat: I couldn't work out what those workers in hazard suits were supposed to be doing in those pools, or why they were acidic. The 'garden' reference, and Safin's earlier reference to liking gardening, seemed solely there for the sake of a Fleming reference, even though it neither meant or contributed anything. If there isn't Bond sneaking through poisonous flora, fumaroles and piranha lakes with random Japanese businessmen walking calmly into them to their deaths, all in aim of killing a Blofeld dressed in full samurai regalia, invoking the Garden Of Death isn't kulturny.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Omaha, NE
    Posts: 6,531
    neila83 wrote: »
    Bond wrote: »
    neila83 wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    After all, you can't really do sexy anymore.

    Speak for yourself. Most normal people are still being sexy, it's only those who were weird about it who are suddenly finding things difficult.

    He's right though, you can't "do" sexy in major franchise movies, games, or TV anymore without getting hounded - it's now considered channeling the "male gaze". Well if Bond films don't get to have a male bent, what does?? No one goes around demanding that chick flicks be changed to be more gender-balanced, why should anyone demand it of 007?

    I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. Did you see Ana de Armas in that film? Do you see premieres? Promotion? Bond got to behave as a bit of a pest as usual. Everything is absolutely still sold on sexyness. If you feel that wasn't enough please tell us what more your 'male gaze' needs?

    Also you know 90% of films forever have been male dominated, so your annoyance about 'chick flicks' says a lot about you. Essentially, everything has to be as a heterosexual male wants it hey? I imagine you're the kind who claims people today are sensitive and yet are so sensitive and the first to be upset about anything reflecting reality rather than satisfying your fantasies. While the rest of us can see a gay person and not let it ruin a film for us. I almost genuinely feel sorry for.yoi of that can spoil a film, except those views are still ruining people's lives.

    Fleming once said his books were targeted for warm blooded sexual males.

    I like to think EON has gone way beyond that, recognizing there are such a thing as female and gay fans of James Bond. Bond has appeal for all demographics.
  • Posts: 158
    Also unless Mr White remarried I always assumed the woman he was with at the Opera in QOS was his wife. Continuity at it’s finest.
  • Posts: 5,735
    Well, Fleming did write for "warm-blooded heterosexuals". And so what? Can't "warm-blooded heterosexuals" have their niche film now and then? Are we to be punished for our sexuality? Of course not "everything has to be as a heterosexual male wants", but the James Bond books and films were specially created for that effect. Is that wrong, pray tell?
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    edited October 2021 Posts: 941
    What do you all think of the gunbarrel sequence? I thought it looked kinda off and the lack of blood flow down the screen after the gunshot really ruined it IMHO..

    What's wrong with just keeping it traditional instead of changing it so much.... :-?
  • Posts: 5,735
    imranbecks wrote: »
    What do you all think of the gunbarrel sequence? I thought it looked kinda off and the lack of blood flow down the screen after the gunshot really ruined it IMHO..

    I thought it was a lost opportunity to go back to form. But then again, so was the entire film after the Cuba scene.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Omaha, NE
    Posts: 6,531
    Univex wrote: »
    Well, Fleming did write for "warm-blooded heterosexuals". And so what? Can't "warm-blooded heterosexuals" have their niche film now and then? Are we to be punished for our sexuality? Of course not "everything has to be as a heterosexual male wants", but the James Bond books and films were specially created for that effect. Is that wrong, pray tell?

    Who’s saying it should be?

    All I’ve said was that it’s target has gone broader lately to please other demographics. Heterosexual males aren’t excluded.
  • Posts: 11,258
    Univex wrote: »
    Well, Fleming did write for "warm-blooded heterosexuals". And so what? Can't "warm-blooded heterosexuals" have their niche film now and then? Are we to be punished for our sexuality? Of course not "everything has to be as a heterosexual male wants", but the James Bond books and films were specially created for that effect. Is that wrong, pray tell?

    This. It’s absurd how much flak it’s had to take and all the political correctness now. How is it even sexist or evil to just have multiple partners with consent as Bond does? It’s so stupid. Now that he’s officially monogamous, who knows, the next one could be totally sex-free. I think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of this character unless the right people step in and restore it to what it should be, but unlikely thanks to stupid societal pressures.
  • Posts: 5,735
    Univex wrote: »
    Well, Fleming did write for "warm-blooded heterosexuals". And so what? Can't "warm-blooded heterosexuals" have their niche film now and then? Are we to be punished for our sexuality? Of course not "everything has to be as a heterosexual male wants", but the James Bond books and films were specially created for that effect. Is that wrong, pray tell?

    Who’s saying it should be?

    All I’ve said was that it’s target has gone broader lately to please other demographics. Heterosexual males aren’t excluded.

    Oh, my post wasn't directed at you, @MakeshiftPython. And I don't disagree with your points. Quite the contrary.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Omaha, NE
    Posts: 6,531
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Well, Fleming did write for "warm-blooded heterosexuals". And so what? Can't "warm-blooded heterosexuals" have their niche film now and then? Are we to be punished for our sexuality? Of course not "everything has to be as a heterosexual male wants", but the James Bond books and films were specially created for that effect. Is that wrong, pray tell?

    This. It’s absurd how much flak it’s had to take and all the political correctness now. How is it even sexist or evil to just have multiple partners with consent as Bond does? It’s so stupid. Now that he’s officially monogamous, who knows, the next one could be totally sex-free. I think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of this character unless the right people step in and restore it to what it should be, but unlikely thanks to stupid societal pressures.

    Oh please. People complained about the same thing with Dalton over 30 years ago, that he didn’t have as many conquests compared to Moore rogering four different birds in a single film.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 502
    neila83 wrote: »
    Bond wrote: »
    neila83 wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    After all, you can't really do sexy anymore.

    Speak for yourself. Most normal people are still being sexy, it's only those who were weird about it who are suddenly finding things difficult.

    He's right though, you can't "do" sexy in major franchise movies, games, or TV anymore without getting hounded - it's now considered channeling the "male gaze". Well if Bond films don't get to have a male bent, what does?? No one goes around demanding that chick flicks be changed to be more gender-balanced, why should anyone demand it of 007?

    I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. Did you see Ana de Armas in that film? Do you see premieres? Promotion? Bond got to behave as a bit of a pest as usual. Everything is absolutely still sold on sexyness. If you feel that wasn't enough please tell us what more your 'male gaze' needs?

    Also you know 90% of films forever have been male dominated, so your annoyance about 'chick flicks' says a lot about you. Essentially, everything has to be as a heterosexual male wants it hey? I imagine you're the kind who claims people today are sensitive and yet you are the first to be upset about anything reflecting reality rather than satisfying your fantasies, while the rest of us can see a gay person and not let it ruin a film for us. I almost genuinely feel sorry for you if that can spoil a film, except those kind of views are still ruining people's lives.

    Please, spare me the psych eval.

    Moralizing busybodies in this day and age always have to make it into something personal, you can never just criticize and debate the actual subject matter at hand.

    Puritanical Redux.
Sign In or Register to comment.