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

16263656768298

Comments

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    AgentM72 wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Re the ending, if you take all hope from the character, you also take it from the audience. Is the correct interpretation of the ending that Bond is a broken man and has given up fighting? given up hope? My interpretation could be wrong and I'm missing something. I was trying to think of iconic movie deaths where you can see the character still trying up to their last gasp (is this not the defintion of tense drama?) - Khan ("For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee") and, ironically, Malone ("what are you prepared to do?")

    The moment Bond is shot in the side, it's clear he's a dead man. Then he's poisoned, so even if he gets out, he can never touch Madeleine or his daughter ever again. So the scene is about Bond facing his death at the end, and I found that personally very emotional and powerful. Craig's performance here is superb. A man who wants to live, wants a future with a wife and a child, but he will never have that in the end. He's given his all for duty and country. So it's tragic and, in that way, very poignant.

    100%. Great summary, @ColonelSun.

    And if I'm understanding it correctly (need to see the film again), there is a major element of a conscious, heroic sacrifice in it as well.

    Because Bond is essentially carrying a new "variant" of the virus that targets Madeleine and Mathilde. So obviously, he can't touch them. But also, anyone else in the world he touches gets infected - so if he leaves that island, and comes into contact with any other humans, ever, he's running the risk the "Madeleine variant" gets out in the wild and eventually finds its way back to his family.

    When Madeleine says, "there's no one left to hurt us," the tragic realization on Daniel's (brilliantly acted) face, is that he is the last one who can hurt them. He sacrifices himself consciously to protect them, not just now (from himself) but in the future (from the variant if it ever left that island). He's the only carrier. He stops it in its tracks there.

    Sure, he could probably radio Q, dive into the sea, hope for a medical transport to deal with the gunshot wounds, etc. - but he knows it will never end, they'll always be in danger if he leaves that island.

    And as @ColonelSun pointed out, he's already mortally wounded by Safin's gunshots. Those weren't just for shock/show. He's a dead man walking and knows it. But his last act is to consciously sacrifice himself to protect his family instead of continuing to fight in futility. The heroic act isn't living to fight another day. It's stopping fighting, so they can live another day.

    He's a killer. Cursed with bringing death to everything he touches. His final "kill" is himself, for the noblest and most heroic reasons possible.

    If one is committed to the thought experiment of James Bond dying, and he has to, then I can't honestly think of a better way to do it. That's why this film is special to me and joins the upper ranks in the franchise.

    Thank you, @AgentM72 as well as ColonelSun - this seems to me to be spot on, the best worded interpretation of the ending. And I've felt that way about it since first viewing.
  • Posts: 1,394
    This just occurred to me..

    2017- Roger Moore dies.
    2020- Sean Connery dies.
    2021- James Bond dies.
  • Is it another Easter egg in the film that there is a character called Logan and we get a Logan style ending?
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    JB770721 wrote: »
    There IS a cultural trend at work here: unearned, rushed, mawkish hero deaths in haste, onscreen, thereby one by one toppling the kind of escapist symbols that punctuated life's mundanities via vicarious fix of escapism

    It's the modern social media 'buzz' trend is what all movies are after. People will go to see him die. I remember the people who weren't massive marvel fans rushing to the cinema because they heard Iron Man dies at the end. In fact the past two Bond films have felt almost like they have tried to mimic Avengers, bring more of 'team' into action sequences M (even fighting in Spectre), Moneypenny etc, the deaths of major characters, the arcing story etc.

    I hate Bond in a team concept structure (like the last 30 mins of Spectre). Is it like that in NTTD? God I miss the days of Casino Royale.

    You'd be forgiven for thinking MI6 operations were made up of just 6 people....
  • My 3 favourite portions of NTTD:

    - the DB5 scene at the square in Matera: the tension bulding up and then the release! Pure Bond, and probably the biggest crowd pleaser part of the entire movie.
    - the entire sequence with Paloma: my favourite action sequence of the film, Paloma is such a great character and I love the chemistry between her and Bond.
    - the very last scene of the movie: the music, the cinematography and the final words. Love the ending, and for me this scene is more emotional than Bond's death itself.

    3 least favourite portions of NTTD:

    - main title sequence: starts so promisingly with the Dr No dots, then turns into a colorless blob. Might be the least inspired Kleinman title sequence yet. I think he has run out of ideas and I hope he won't return for the next one
    - the MI6 scenes in the middle of the movie, including meeting Q: not the great Blofeld scene, but the rest. It just doesn't work for me. Fiennes plays a completely different M to the one he played in Skyfall, and both Moneypenny and Tanner seem shoehorned in.
    - the finale action sequence: Bond shooting dozens of people with a machine gun for several minutes is just not very exciting. Loved the gunbarrel shot though!
  • TheQueensPeaceTheQueensPeace That's Classified
    Posts: 74
    what did i mean by 'unearned'? My point is this. When you give Bond a kid and make him a dad etc: THAT is an earned end in itself. Not necessarily happily ever after but a MASSIVE development which needed to breathe. maybe kill him in the NEXT film. There was room and time to do that and yes especially POST PANDEMIC which frankly yes, they could also have factored in.
    Bond can generate sentiment in fans. His destiny is to defend the civilian right toward being vulnerable and real. Like real world military personnel in fact. Except he is not 'real' but a personification OF fortitude.
    So killing him in a Marvel /dr who sentimental way: yes, unearned, tonally blurred, forced and at odds with the character and lore. Not the 'what'. The HOW, is my objection and gutpunch feeling..
  • bondywondy wrote: »
    Okay, maybe Bond is dead.

    If Bond is dead.... every fan will have to decide if they want to continue supporting the franchise. I can't see a valid reason to see Bond 26 if Eon destroyed the magic of Bond, his heroic status etc. You'll be giving Eon and Amazon money they don't deserve.

    Let me guess....you hate the Star Wars sequel trilogy and think that Kathleen Kennedy should be fired as well?
    I am baffled by all the negative reviews on IMDb, there were loads of Fleming references and great Bond moments in this film though many reviews claim the opposite.

    Also complaints of being long and boring, personally I thought the pacing was good and despite its run time the film flew by.

    (Adopts old woman loosing her teeth voice as she thoughtfully rubs her chin)

    It's one thing I have learned in all my years on the internet. Is that you need to learn to dismiss and ignore certain comments. Many of the negative comments are coming from beta males who just see Bond as a personal stand in, and represent a time when the hero wins without any or little effort. These are often the kind of people who have no purpose and thrust in life and think that the only way that they can succeed is that everyone else looses. And they become resentful and angry if anyone outshines them.

    So, anyone who dares to criticise this film or are negative of it are "beta males who just see Bond as a personal stand in and represent a time when the hero wins without any or little effort. These are often the kind of people who have no purpose and thrust in life and think that the only way that they can succeed is that everyone else looses. And they become resentful and angry if anyone outshines the them." I am gobsmacked. Here's me thinking I was a rounded individual, family, friends, enjoy cinema, play sport, have a couple of beers at the weekend etc etc - when in fact I am a beta male with no purpose and thrust in life. And why, because I didn't rate NTTD.

    I am away to break the sad news to my missus..

    I must be getting too old what the hell is a beta male, I know what an alpha is but WTF, anyway I think it sounds a lot like having a go at those who didn't enjoy NTTD. Which I'm reliably informed is a no-no, so watch yourself @vittoriacolona.
  • TheQueensPeaceTheQueensPeace That's Classified
    Posts: 74
    I wonder if the pervasive nature of death, even pre covid, impacted this film? Michael G Wilson does not look in best of health? Daniel lost his Dad recently. And two james bonds dying probably all pierced (!) the notion, even fictionally, of 007 as avatar for immortality. Maybe. And that KIND of darkness CAN be cathartic both for filmmakers and audiences.

    Temple of Doom and Empire Strikes Back come to mind. Except those had a scheduled sequel comeback. BOND 26 does not exist yet and yes, dammit, though am posting on a James Bond fan message board?

    My appetite for the series and its lore diminished, overnight. The movies are not 'life'. They are not the books. They have certain project template expectations which can be bent but not broken. This feels a needless risk, too far, for the sake of an 'arc' which by its nature is at odds with the serial thrills of this innately superficial and vicarious escapism character brand??
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    It’s a pity many of you aren’t open to the idea of giving Bond a death scene. Guess that’s how it is.

    Only if it was true to something written by its original creator Ian Fleming, and not something dreamt up by the indulgence of a lead actor, a female producer who is ashamed of anything Fleming wrote, and instead listens to the latest team of tick-boxing, PC correct, snowflake trendy writers, brought up on cheap Netflix dramas.

    Ian Fleming died in 1964, has written a dozen of Bond novels and a number of short stories. He is not a messiah. If they only used his novels and short stories, we would never have gotten 25 movies. None of the Brosnan Bonds have anything to do with the Fleming Bond (apart from the name "Goldeneye") and the novels. And other films in the past also strayed away from the Fleming canon, as we all know, as several films used the Fleming titles, not the Fleming plots. And James Bond is a fictional character for crying out loud. The YOLT ending would have been a cliffhanger, but then we would have a new Bond recovering from amnesia? How should that work? Some people take the end of NTTD as somehow a personal insult. Relax, guys, it is JUST a movie.
  • Posts: 2,400
    Is it another Easter egg in the film that there is a character called Logan and we get a Logan style ending?

    Not necessarily, but it might be a Logan easter egg that the character named Logan has a vehicle fall on him in the woods :)) :))
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    Zarozzor wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »

    At least with DAD I can have a laugh at how over the top and ridiculous it is. I’d take that any day over feeling angry and disappointed.

    You can laugh about it? Well, I felt angry and not in the slightest amused. So that mirrors our feelings towards DAD and NTTD.
  • Posts: 7,500
    It’s a pity many of you aren’t open to the idea of giving Bond a death scene. Guess that’s how it is.

    Only if it was true to something written by its original creator Ian Fleming, and not something dreamt up by the indulgence of a lead actor, a female producer who is ashamed of anything Fleming wrote, and instead listens to the latest team of tick-boxing, PC correct, snowflake trendy writers, brought up on cheap Netflix dramas.

    Ian Fleming died in 1964, has written a dozen of Bond novels and a number of short stories. He is not a messiah. If they only used his novels and short stories, we would never have gotten 25 movies. None of the Brosnan Bonds have anything to do with the Fleming Bond (apart from the name "Goldeneye") and the novels. And other films in the past also strayed away from the Fleming canon, as we all know, as several films used the Fleming titles, not the Fleming plots. And James Bond is a fictional character for crying out loud. The YOLT ending would have been a cliffhanger, but then we would have a new Bond recovering from amnesia? How should that work? Some people take the end of NTTD as somehow a personal insult. Relax, guys, it is JUST a movie.

    It is honestly absurd to accuse NTTD of lacking Fleming influence.
  • Posts: 2,400
    Loved the gunbarrel shot though!

    I adore the fact that the very last regular mook Bond ever kills (with the exception of the stairwell) is in a gunbarrel-like scenario.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,544
    I have just returned from my virgin viewing of the film. Off to bed now. Bit I can say this: I echo @4EverBonded's thoughts completely. Count me in as a fan.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Now the dust has settled, and I have had a second viewing, I feel I can accurately get down my thoughts on probably the most divisive Bond film of all time. Apologies in advance if this turns into an essay, which it probably will.

    Where to start?.
    Daniel Craig's performance is a good a place as any. Much has been said about him, good and bad. I freely admit that he has been far from my favourite Bond, but he absolutely knocks it out if the park here. Phenomenal in the melodramatic scenes, he sells every line, and his physical performance is great too, you can literally feel the weight of the world on his shoulders at the climax. I can't forget, also, that during the Jamaica/Cuba scenes, his Bond for the first time, really looks like he's enjoying himself. This is probably the first time that Craig has been given the insouciant material so prevalent in the other Bond performance's, and he was really bloody good. Why on earth it took EON five films to give him this, one will never know.

    One downside to Craig's performance, and it's perhaps a bit harsh, as it's not really his fault-he has 0 chemistry with Lea Seydoux. No matter how many times the script tries to smash us over the head as them having an epic romance, I just didn't buy it. A bit of a problem as that is so pivotal to the plot. Indeed, Ana De Armas' scenes, actually even Lashana Lynch's (more on those two later) with Dan had far more crackle.


    I thought Cary Fukanaga's direction was mostly excellent, and I didn't even mind the 'trendy' way he directed a couple of the fight scenes. It added some visceral energy, without ever becoming a distraction, as it did in QOS. That being said, yet another muted colour pallet, the third in a row, I could do without.

    As for the 'Scooby gang', they really don't have much to do here, maybe M aside, which is probably for the best. Speaking of M, Ralph Fiennes is as great as ever, but his M basically has become a bit of a tosser. Apart from the scene where they discuss the villain's plans in comparison to those past, I don't care for the dialogue between he and Bond at all.

    Lea Seydoux's Madeline had the heavy lifting, amongst the ladies, and for me,she let the side down Her performance goes from cold, to minus 50c. She needed more warmth, and despite Craig giving a career best performance alongside her, even he couldn't coax it out. Ana De Armas' was a complete delight, and I dearly wish she had been Bond's love interest, not just an extended cameo. Lashana Lynch did fairly well in a cool, but underwritten part. The anti-woke brigade (or should I say plain old racists) that seemed so concerned about her character can sleep safely at night, as she ended up being no more than a secondary sidekick. I actually half expected her to end up being a villain, as she took so long to catch up to Bond in Norway, but it was just plain old poor writing, instead of foreshadowing.

    There was so many contradictions at play in the film. You have the tone in Jamaica and Cuba (which was a part of the film I loved) very fun and playful, remeniscent of the second act of Thunderball or TSWLM, and then a barrage of melodrama and seriousness towards the climax. The contradiction's permeate the movie. Lashana Lynch's Nomi is as hard nosed towards Bond as can be, but a few minutes later, deferred the 007 moniker back to him. Blofeld orchestrates a madcap scheme from behind bars, but later we see that even though it happened, it should be impossible (his antics wouldn't have even raised a question in a regular Bond film, but when presenting one that is striving for realism, it stands out). Even down to the performance's. Rami Malek's Saffin manages to be passive and understated, to the point of virtually being asleep and simultaneously chewing the scenery. All very strange.

    I rather liked the idea of the Nanobots and targeted virus as a maguffin, even if it was probably a bit far fetched for the rest of the movie. Am I alone in not having any idea of why Saffin wanted to use them once he had effectively ended Spectre? What was his end game?

    Speaking of Saffin, he really was a weak villain. I truly cannot understand the logic of bringing Spectre and Blofeld back, and not making them the true big bad. Particularly as the climax leans heavily on the YOLT novel. Even more so when you think that Blofeld was retro fitted to be the 'author of all Bond's pain' right back to CR. Saffin should have simply been 'Number 2' in Spectre and killed off in the third act, leaving the finale to Bond and Blofeld. Bond even wrings Blofeld's neck and repeats the sentence from Twice, while he does it, for god's sake!

    I actually did rather like the film, until the climax. I suppose it was the obvious culmination to all the continuity knots EON have tied themselves up in recent years, but it really has added a bitter taste to Craig's run. Killing Felix? Ok. Killing Blofeld? Fair Enough. Killing Bond? it just flattened me, and the whole cinema.
    I understand why EON did it, in a way. This gives them an excuse to truly start anew for Bond 26, free of any of the mountains of baggage Craig's run has carried. There's still a huge problem with this. The casual movie going audience don't understand that Craig's story is a contained one. They don't know about Star Trek or Marvel concepts like Prime Universes. They won't get that in 2023, when Henry Cavill/Aiden Turner/whoever walks across the screen and shoots the gun barrel for the first time, that they have simply gone back to the 'Prime' Bond that Connery up to Brosnan portrayed. To them, Bond as a character, is dead.

    I can't really sum up anymore than that. It's impossible to separate what was mostly a good Bond film with that horrendous ending. For that reason No Time To Die is an enormous thumbs down. Please EON, go back to what brought your Father and his friend to the dance 60 years ago.

    Roll on Bond 26...
  • TheQueensPeaceTheQueensPeace That's Classified
    Posts: 74
    I also think we would all accept it better IF we had known in advance. I chose for the first time ever to avoid spoilers! I HAD NO IDEA! Had this been canon in the books? It would a: have happened already in the film series. And b: not been repeated as a definitive 'event' in the same film series, if there were one at all post death (remembering that we did not always have the concept of reboots /commercial going concern franchises etc)..
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,512
    I might be in the minority here but I didn't really buy the love story between Bond and Madeline. It didn't seem as special as it was with Tracy or Vesper if I'm honest

    I got more chemistry between Bond and Paloma in 10 minutes, especially when Paloma gently touched his face to put the earpiece in. It was a sweet and tender moment
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I have just returned from my virgin viewing of the film. Off to bed now. Bit I can say this: I echo @4EverBonded's thoughts completely. Count me in as a fan.

    This put such a smile on my face. Sleep well, Dimi.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    imranbecks wrote: »
    By the way how beautiful was Matera? I've never heard of this place till they started filming there. Such a beautiful city. One city I'm adding to my bucket list of places to go to!

    This: Matera was European Capital of Culture 2019. You're welcome.
  • DCisaredDCisared Liverpool
    Posts: 1,329
    imranbecks wrote: »
    By the way how beautiful was Matera? I've never heard of this place till they started filming there. Such a beautiful city. One city I'm adding to my bucket list of places to go to!

    This: Matera was European Capital of Culture 2019. You're welcome.

    Almost as beautiful as European Capital of Culture 2008 B-)
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I'd really like to her people's thoughts on Madeleine and Mathilde as a mother and daughter, because I was personally extremely convinced by it. Seydoux, and even the child actress, really sold the close relationship they had.

    Seydoux was night and day to SPECTRE, goes to show if the director and the writing is on point a character can be believable and relatable.

    Yes a more convincing set up in SP would have helped but LS gave an infinitely better performance and her chemistry with DC was much more natural. Her interactions with her screen daughter were believable and the young girl that plays Malthide was also excellent.

    I also noticed that Madeleine subtlety signalled her condition on the train as it pulled away.

    I disagree that the ending wasn't effective and how it was sold didn't work, I was weepy the first time but the 2nd time I just let the tears flow. DC's I know line was devastating.

    He totally earned this ending, the man has been amazing in the role, he's given his all like no other actor in the role has.

    The idea of continuing the story after CR was not lazy, it was an attempt to do something different with the character.

    Instead of coming up with a plot and a scheme and injecting James Bond into that, the decision was taken to make the films about Bond, dig into his psyche and show he is a living breathing character and not bullet proof super man.

    They may well go back to that kind of thing but this era tried something new. The character has very gradually evolved over the original 20 films. Although the writing was on the wall and there was no way the 21st Century Bond could continue down that avenue.

    Yes now we've seen a different reiteration of the character it might well have provoked enough influence to make it gravitate back to the old school Bond.

    Although whoever agrees to sign up and I'll bet the mortgage on this, won't be taking on the role because they were influenced by the way the character was played prior to Daniel Craig.

    It will because that actor showed that Bond can be much more than just a cypher to hang a plot around.

    I'll eat my hat if it isn't the case but the next actor will want the role to play Bond like a living breathing character, that bleeds and is affected by his job.

    I loved NTTD and I acknowledge it wasn't perfect but despite the emotional ringer it put me through and it starts earlier than that moment, I'll take that journey again and I imagine I'll shed even more tears over the years.

    Who'd have thought that some of us would find a Bond film do this to us.

    Also @bondywondy stop embarrassing yourself, its pathetic, face facts please.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    BondStu wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    should we be discussing and appreciating the contributions of Harris, Fiennes and Wishaw as I'm struggling to see how they will return.

    I don't think they will. Would be a mind trip if its still them with a new Bond actor to replace Craig 2 or 3 years from now. After that moment they had drinking for Bond in M's office after his death, I just can't imagine seeing them all again with a Bond that isn't Craig.

    Back to original continuity with an all new cast. Have it follow on from Die Another Day. No more reboots PLEASE.

    NOT another DAD-style movie, that sucked and was an insult to moviegoers. How the producers backed Tamahori and his raving madness, is a mystery to me. But then they bought Madonna's crap "song".
  • Posts: 12,267
    It's put my mind at peace more about the ending that Fleming did himself originally sort of plan on killing Bond, or at least give himself an out, with the FRWL novel. It of course doesn't last, as DN writes him alive and everything, but knowing the intention was in his mind helps me feel better about the decision in NTTD. Seeing it in two days - here's hoping it exceeds expectations!
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Since the MI6 team witnessed Bond passing away I expect a full recast.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    @FoxRox it truly exceeded my expectations. I hope you enjoy it. A very beautiful, expertly crafted Bond film.

  • Posts: 12,267
    @FoxRox it truly exceeded my expectations. I hope you enjoy it. A very beautiful, expertly crafted Bond film.

    Glad to hear that - I've enjoyed reading the thoughts of those who did and did not care for it, love to see lots of perspectives from passionate Bond fans. I'm going to go in with as open a mind as possible, even though learning of the shock ending was tough for me at first and I have a couple misgivings.
  • Posts: 6,677
    matt_u wrote: »
    Since the MI6 team witnessed Bond passing away I expect a full recast.
    Oh, that's true, you're right.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 574
    I think the only person I will be sad losing is Ben Whishaw's Q. The rest I can take or leave... And MI6 Karl Pilkington (Tanner) has to be the first to go.
  • Posts: 12,267
    Whishaw is such an excellent Q - a real highlight of SP for me.
  • PJJPJJ Formby
    Posts: 6
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Now the dust has settled, and I have had a second viewing, I feel I can accurately get down my thoughts on probably the most divisive Bond film of all time. Apologies in advance if this turns into an essay, which it probably will.

    Where to start?.
    Daniel Craig's performance is a good a place as any. Much has been said about him, good and bad. I freely admit that he has been far from my favourite Bond, but he absolutely knocks it out if the park here. Phenomenal in the melodramatic scenes, he sells every line, and his physical performance is great too, you can literally feel the weight of the world on his shoulders at the climax. I can't forget, also, that during the Jamaica/Cuba scenes, his Bond for the first time, really looks like he's enjoying himself. This is probably the first time that Craig has been given the insouciant material so prevalent in the other Bond performance's, and he was really bloody good. Why on earth it took EON five films to give him this, one will never know.

    One downside to Craig's performance, and it's perhaps a bit harsh, as it's not really his fault-he has 0 chemistry with Lea Seydoux. No matter how many times the script tries to smash us over the head as them having an epic romance, I just didn't buy it. A bit of a problem as that is so pivotal to the plot. Indeed, Ana De Armas' scenes, actually even Lashana Lynch's (more on those two later) with Dan had far more crackle.


    I thought Cary Fukanaga's direction was mostly excellent, and I didn't even mind the 'trendy' way he directed a couple of the fight scenes. It added some visceral energy, without ever becoming a distraction, as it did in QOS. That being said, yet another muted colour pallet, the third in a row, I could do without.

    As for the 'Scooby gang', they really don't have much to do here, maybe M aside, which is probably for the best. Speaking of M, Ralph Fiennes is as great as ever, but his M basically has become a bit of a tosser. Apart from the scene where they discuss the villain's plans in comparison to those past, I don't care for the dialogue between he and Bond at all.

    Lea Seydoux's Madeline had the heavy lifting, amongst the ladies, and for me,she let the side down Her performance goes from cold, to minus 50c. She needed more warmth, and despite Craig giving a career best performance alongside her, even he couldn't coax it out. Ana De Armas' was a complete delight, and I dearly wish she had been Bond's love interest, not just an extended cameo. Lashana Lynch did fairly well in a cool, but underwritten part. The anti-woke brigade (or should I say plain old racists) that seemed so concerned about her character can sleep safely at night, as she ended up being no more than a secondary sidekick. I actually half expected her to end up being a villain, as she took so long to catch up to Bond in Norway, but it was just plain old poor writing, instead of foreshadowing.

    There was so many contradictions at play in the film. You have the tone in Jamaica and Cuba (which was a part of the film I loved) very fun and playful, remeniscent of the second act of Thunderball or TSWLM, and then a barrage of melodrama and seriousness towards the climax. The contradiction's permeate the movie. Lashana Lynch's Nomi is as hard nosed towards Bond as can be, but a few minutes later, deferred the 007 moniker back to him. Blofeld orchestrates a madcap scheme from behind bars, but later we see that even though it happened, it should be impossible (his antics wouldn't have even raised a question in a regular Bond film, but when presenting one that is striving for realism, it stands out). Even down to the performance's. Rami Malek's Saffin manages to be passive and understated, to the point of virtually being asleep and simultaneously chewing the scenery. All very strange.

    I rather liked the idea of the Nanobots and targeted virus as a maguffin, even if it was probably a bit far fetched for the rest of the movie. Am I alone in not having any idea of why Saffin wanted to use them once he had effectively ended Spectre? What was his end game?

    Speaking of Saffin, he really was a weak villain. I truly cannot understand the logic of bringing Spectre and Blofeld back, and not making them the true big bad. Particularly as the climax leans heavily on the YOLT novel. Even more so when you think that Blofeld was retro fitted to be the 'author of all Bond's pain' right back to CR. Saffin should have simply been 'Number 2' in Spectre and killed off in the third act, leaving the finale to Bond and Blofeld. Bond even wrings Blofeld's neck and repeats the sentence from Twice, while he does it, for god's sake!

    I actually did rather like the film, until the climax. I suppose it was the obvious culmination to all the continuity knots EON have tied themselves up in recent years, but it really has added a bitter taste to Craig's run. Killing Felix? Ok. Killing Blofeld? Fair Enough. Killing Bond? it just flattened me, and the whole cinema.
    I understand why EON did it, in a way. This gives them an excuse to truly start anew for Bond 26, free of any of the mountains of baggage Craig's run has carried. There's still a huge problem with this. The casual movie going audience don't understand that Craig's story is a contained one. They don't know about Star Trek or Marvel concepts like Prime Universes. They won't get that in 2023, when Henry Cavill/Aiden Turner/whoever walks across the screen and shoots the gun barrel for the first time, that they have simply gone back to the 'Prime' Bond that Connery up to Brosnan portrayed. To them, Bond as a character, is dead.

    I can't really sum up anymore than that. It's impossible to separate what was mostly a good Bond film with that horrendous ending. For that reason No Time To Die is an enormous thumbs down. Please EON, go back to what brought your Father and his friend to the dance 60 years ago.

    Roll on Bond 26...
    Some good points here. Was back in the office today and some of my colleagues have seen this now. Most of them couldn’t understand the ending and how James Bond will return. They go to Bond films as it’s an event. It’s a franchise they understand. You don’t have to understand which heroes have which powers or how the force works or anything like that. They don’t watch marvel and don’t watch Bond films repeatedly like we do on here. I had to explain the Craig films are a separate continuity not connected to the rest of the franchise.

    Blofeld was in this because they couldn’t kill off Bond and have left him alive so they had to kill him off quickly.
Sign In or Register to comment.