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

18687899192172

Comments

  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    edited October 2021 Posts: 2,055
    From BoxOfficeMojo:

    On its Thursday opening day in the U.K. and Ireland it grossed an estimated $6.2 to $6.8 million. This is around 13% ahead of Spectre’s Monday opening and 26% behind Skyfall’s Friday opening. While the different days of the week make it hard to compare the grosses directly, it appears that the pandemic has not hurt the film. The swan song for Daniel Craig as James Bond follows a strong international showing for Dune, which grossed a total of $77 million after its second weekend.

    https://www.boxofficemojo.com/article/ed4000384004/?ref_=bo_hm_hp
  • Posts: 36
    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.

    Yes I would say it's good especially compared to QoS/SP scores. While it's hard to compare with older films due to lower review counts I was surprised that the Brosnan Era couldn't crack the 80% threshold. I have a feeling that this one will grow on people.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,333
    mtm wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, I agree that Spielberg had a desire to make a Bond movie in the 70's and that he saw Raiders as a chance to partway fullfil that dream, but the source material (matinée serials) is quite different, as is the character. I will agree that Bond certainly had a huge influence over Raider's big production, big stunts and editing style, which can't be denied.

    I wouldn't say that Bond films aren't spy films either. They might not be John le Carré, but they most definitely fall within the espionage subgenre. After all, they are credited for creating the "spy craze" of the Sixties. I don't deny that they're also action adventure movies, but the genre is far-reaching and encompasses many different subgenres including superheroes, swashbucklers, pirates, survival films and even horror films.
    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.
    mtm wrote: »
    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.
    That's perfectly fine. We all have different tastes and see things differently. I personally prefer Martin Campbell's direction over Mendes. I also prefer Bond storywise over Indiana Jones. The common accord is that the second Indiana Jones movie wasn't as good as the first movie, inspiring a lot of less-than-flattering headlines at the time of its initial release, hence it doing a little less well than Raiders at the box office. For the record, I quite liked the movie when I first saw it in the cinema back in '84, even though I felt it borrowed a few scenes from Octopussy that came a year before it. However, Temple is a prequel and it didn't feel cohesively linear to the first movie, which is why I and many others prefer Last Crusade as it feels like a proper continuation to Raiders. Sadly, the polished continuation of Last Crusade didn't extend itself to Crystal Skull.
    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?
    mtm wrote: »
    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.
    Very few films are deemed perfect, but I think CR comes as close to it in the modern Bond era as it can get. For me, there were too many scenes in SF that didn't totally engage and satisfy me the same way CR had done, which is why I've got CR at number 1 in my Craig era ranking. I admit that I haven't seen NTTD yet, but as it's Craig's last outing (and going off some of the feedback) I doubt it'll be in pole position.
  • i haven't seen the film yet as it doesn't open here in France until next week. For those that have seen it - how busy were the screenings (and in which country). Also, has anyone seen one of the 3D showings (if available in your country).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 14,918
    BBC report on the first day totals here:

    James Bond film makes £5m in first day at UK box office
    bondsum wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, I agree that Spielberg had a desire to make a Bond movie in the 70's and that he saw Raiders as a chance to partway fullfil that dream, but the source material (matinée serials) is quite different, as is the character. I will agree that Bond certainly had a huge influence over Raider's big production, big stunts and editing style, which can't be denied.

    The character is different, but I'm talking about the style of the film. As you say, Bond and Indy sit on the same shelves quite happily and tonally they're very similar: family action/adventure films with thrills and spills and jokes. They use different flavourings but they're both sponge cakes in the end.
    bondsum wrote: »
    I wouldn't say that Bond films aren't spy films either. They might not be John le Carré, but they most definitely fall within the espionage subgenre. After all, they are credited for creating the "spy craze" of the Sixties. I don't deny that they're also action adventure movies, but the genre is far-reaching and encompasses many different subgenres including superheroes, swashbucklers, pirates, survival films and even horror films.

    They're spy films as much as Indy films are about archeology, which is to say, not very much. Fleming followed the spirit of Buchan and Sapper with his books but put his hero in the secret service because it added a bit of flavour, but they're not really about spying. He goes around the world and battles big evil villains.
    bondsum wrote: »
    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.
    mtm wrote: »
    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.
    That's perfectly fine. We all have different tastes and see things differently. I personally prefer Martin Campbell's direction over Mendes. I also prefer Bond storywise over Indiana Jones. The common accord is that the second Indiana Jones movie wasn't as good as the first movie, inspiring a lot of less-than-flattering headlines at the time of its initial release, hence it doing a little less well than Raiders at the box office. For the record, I quite liked the movie when I first saw it in the cinema back in '84, even though I felt it borrowed a few scenes from Octopussy that came a year before it. However, Temple is a prequel and it didn't feel cohesively linear to the first movie, which is why I and many others prefer Last Crusade as it feels like a proper continuation to Raiders. Sadly, the polished continuation of Last Crusade didn't extend itself to Crystal Skull.

    Well sure, but you have other folks around here saying how awful it is that the current Bond films are too cohesively-joined, so it's impossible to please everyone. I can kind of agree that Temple isn't quite up there with Raiders, but it's still a brilliant adventure film and I think more successful as a movie than most Bonds.
    Personally I like that ToD wasn't another Raiders remake and I wish they'd gone with more varied adventures along that line- I'm hoping that's what the new one does, certainly.
    bondsum wrote: »
    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?
    mtm wrote: »
    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.
    Very few films are deemed perfect, but I think CR comes as close to it in the modern Bond era as it can get. For me, there were too many scenes in SF that didn't totally engage and satisfy me the same way CR had done, which is why I've got CR at number 1 in my Craig era ranking. I admit that I haven't seen NTTD yet, but as it's Craig's last outing (and going off some of the feedback) I doubt it'll be in pole position.


    That's cool, I certainly think CR is one of the very best in the whole series. I'd put SF up there too- I don't really know which of the two is my favourite, but I think it's great that Craig has two of what I would say are the very best Bond films. I'm yet to see the new one too, sounds like it won't quite be there with those two, but that's fine.
  • SkyfallCraigSkyfallCraig Rome, Italy
    Posts: 630
    i haven't seen the film yet as it doesn't open here in France until next week. For those that have seen it - how busy were the screenings (and in which country). Also, has anyone seen one of the 3D showings (if available in your country).

    Full (Italy, Cinema are at 50% capacity though)
    No 3d seen, only Imax, even if the former is available
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    Germany, Duesseldorf: Saw it in the IMAX format (stunning!) and nearly every seat was taken. I did not experience this (obviously) for a long time.

    I liked the movie a lot (WAY better than SP, imho) and Hans Zimmer *got* it how a Bond soundtrack should sound - he referenced Barry *and* Arnold, which was just awesome.

    Do I need to digest the movie a bit? Yes! But I will do so by seeing it another time for sure. I understand some of the negative reviews and what they dislike - however it was nothing to dislike for me. Fleming purists will have a lot to enjoy ... but not only them. But it will give people a harder time who seek for the more formulaic interpretation (*nothing* wrong with that!).

    I can only recommend to go and see it *fast* and avoid all spoilers.

    In terms of the Box Office I am super-curious about the opening weekend (but I am leaning towards a positive surprise) ... but if the movie has "legs" we shall see. The only given thing is that it will polarize ... fans as well as "casual" moviegoers.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Numbers in UK and Europe will be very good, especially UK where thw film is gonna smash the boxoffice.

    I'm far less optimistic about the US, I think it's run there will be a little disappointing. Not surprising given the fact that abysmal garbage like Shang Chi, Venom 2 etc etc are making/will make huge numbers there...
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 716
    i haven't seen the film yet as it doesn't open here in France until next week. For those that have seen it - how busy were the screenings (and in which country).

    Though I've had two inoculations I'm still in the 'at risk' category, so I picked an early showing (around midday) in the hope it wouldn't be so crowded, and consequently there were about four people in the audience other than myself. It was on multiple screens in the cinema, though, so that, along with it being an earlier screening, probably accounts for the low numbers. I'm in the UK.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,568
    UK, saw it at 9am on Thursday morning. Apart from the midnight showing this was the opener. And there were about 8 -10 people there. No surprise considering the time and day.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 309

    ‘No Time To Die’ Clocks $22M Through Two Days Offshore, Sets Multiple Records – International Box Office


    https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.com/2021/10/no-time-to-die-opening-weekend-uk-international-box-office-daniel-craig-james-bond-1234847227/amp/
  • Thanks for the posts about how busy your screenings were and in what locations. Makes sense that early morning showings are not as busy as evening screenings. Seems like the film is performing well based on the latest reports.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited October 2021 Posts: 12,459
    I saw NTTD in a huge theater, tiered seats, humongous screen, perfect sound (I was afraid it would be too loud, but they adjusted it when the movie started) and the start time was 11 a.m. I see it a 2nd time tomorrow, start time 8:30 a.m. Looking forward to it!
    This is in Japan. Audiences ALWAYS quiet, respectful. And this time, people near me moved. But quiet. In the U.S., years ago, I had people cheering and clapping during the PTS and more.

    I say "near me" but the theater has an empty seat between people, and I was also on an aisle. First movie I have been to here since Spectre. Yes, that long! And I was wearing my usual TWO face masks and sanitized my seat myself. No eating or drinking.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,869
  • DCisaredDCisared Liverpool
    Posts: 1,329
    Denbigh wrote: »

    Weird I've just watched this through YouTube lol. Pleased to see he really enjoyed it. My second viewing really made the ending less hard to bare.
  • Posts: 486
    A nice positive review from Kermode but I'll never understand his passionate dislike of Quantum Of Solace.
  • Posts: 336
    mtm wrote: »
    BBC report on the first day totals here:

    James Bond film makes £5m in first day at UK box office
    bondsum wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, I agree that Spielberg had a desire to make a Bond movie in the 70's and that he saw Raiders as a chance to partway fullfil that dream, but the source material (matinée serials) is quite different, as is the character. I will agree that Bond certainly had a huge influence over Raider's big production, big stunts and editing style, which can't be denied.

    The character is different, but I'm talking about the style of the film. As you say, Bond and Indy sit on the same shelves quite happily and tonally they're very similar: family action/adventure films with thrills and spills and jokes. They use different flavourings but they're both sponge cakes in the end.
    bondsum wrote: »
    I wouldn't say that Bond films aren't spy films either. They might not be John le Carré, but they most definitely fall within the espionage subgenre. After all, they are credited for creating the "spy craze" of the Sixties. I don't deny that they're also action adventure movies, but the genre is far-reaching and encompasses many different subgenres including superheroes, swashbucklers, pirates, survival films and even horror films.

    They're spy films as much as Indy films are about archeology, which is to say, not very much. Fleming followed the spirit of Buchan and Sapper with his books but put his hero in the secret service because it added a bit of flavour, but they're not really about spying. He goes around the world and battles big evil villains.

    I’ve never seen Bond as a spy. More of a WW2 SOE style operative, a throw back to Fleming’s wartime career. As M says in DAD, Bonds job is to infiltrate the bad guys and stir things up, not to lie low and gather intelligence. I think the films started as thrillers and have evolved into action films, but modern ones are better when they go back to the thriller elements (apart of course, from a couple of jaw dropping non-CGI stunts)
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,020
    When was the last time that Bond went by an alias? CR made a gag by having Bond drop it entirely because he knew Le Chiffre would see through it. Can’t recall prior to that. St. John Smythe?
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,686
    When was the last time that Bond went by an alias? CR made a gag by having Bond drop it entirely because he knew Le Chiffre would see through it. Can’t recall prior to that. St. John Smythe?

    He had an ID as Jerzy Bondov is TLD if that counts. He was a Russian in TWINE. DAD definitely had one in the PTS.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,020
    Oooh yes that Dutch name.

    Come to thing of it he carried a calling card in QOS that had the name R Sterling, a callback to TSWLM.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,889
    In SF, Bond travelled to Shanghai under the alias of 'John Bryce', although we don't see the passport and boarding pass onscreen (they are in the envelope Q hands to him).
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,777
    Oooh yes that Dutch name.

    Mr. Van Bierk ;)
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,953
    This is a fun (funny) snd surprisingly insightful review.

  • Posts: 6,798
    Cowley wrote: »
    A nice positive review from Kermode but I'll never understand his passionate dislike of Quantum Of Solace.

    Yes, he really hated QOS, nice to see him defend SP though!
  • Posts: 2,400
    When was the last time that Bond went by an alias? CR made a gag by having Bond drop it entirely because he knew Le Chiffre would see through it. Can’t recall prior to that. St. John Smythe?

    He had an ID as Jerzy Bondov is TLD if that counts. He was a Russian in TWINE. DAD definitely had one in the PTS.

    I think Jerzy Bondov was mocked up for him by Koskov though, not MI-6.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2021 Posts: 7,526
    Troy wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    BBC report on the first day totals here:

    James Bond film makes £5m in first day at UK box office
    bondsum wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, I agree that Spielberg had a desire to make a Bond movie in the 70's and that he saw Raiders as a chance to partway fullfil that dream, but the source material (matinée serials) is quite different, as is the character. I will agree that Bond certainly had a huge influence over Raider's big production, big stunts and editing style, which can't be denied.

    The character is different, but I'm talking about the style of the film. As you say, Bond and Indy sit on the same shelves quite happily and tonally they're very similar: family action/adventure films with thrills and spills and jokes. They use different flavourings but they're both sponge cakes in the end.
    bondsum wrote: »
    I wouldn't say that Bond films aren't spy films either. They might not be John le Carré, but they most definitely fall within the espionage subgenre. After all, they are credited for creating the "spy craze" of the Sixties. I don't deny that they're also action adventure movies, but the genre is far-reaching and encompasses many different subgenres including superheroes, swashbucklers, pirates, survival films and even horror films.

    They're spy films as much as Indy films are about archeology, which is to say, not very much. Fleming followed the spirit of Buchan and Sapper with his books but put his hero in the secret service because it added a bit of flavour, but they're not really about spying. He goes around the world and battles big evil villains.

    I’ve never seen Bond as a spy. More of a WW2 SOE style operative, a throw back to Fleming’s wartime career. As M says in DAD, Bonds job is to infiltrate the bad guys and stir things up, not to lie low and gather intelligence. I think the films started as thrillers and have evolved into action films, but modern ones are better when they go back to the thriller elements (apart of course, from a couple of jaw dropping non-CGI stunts)

    To your point, he claims to give up espionage at the end of the Casino Royale novel way back in the 60s.

    “He would leave spying to the white collar dickheads, he would go after the hand that holds the whip…”
    I’m pretty sure that’s how he wrote it. ;)
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited October 2021 Posts: 8,020
    It’s funny how some try to present Bond as being modest “merely a civil servant”, just a spy, kind of ignore the part where 00s are government sanctioned killers.
  • Creasy47 wrote: »

    That's real solid business NTTD is doing, with the int'l projection for this weekend going from $90m to $114m and challenging Skyfall's opening numbers in so many markets. Still a stretch to imagine NTTD reaching $1 billion in the end, but if North America brings about $200m and $100m from China, NTTD will be on track to safely outgross CR and QOS and maybe even approach Spectre's $880m.
Sign In or Register to comment.