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

1114115117119120298

Comments

  • BenjaminBenjamin usa
    Posts: 59
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Actually, I love Connery's Bond as much as the next guy, but his portrayals as Bond were uneven. He was great in DN, awesome in FRWL and GF, but boredom kicked in with TB and his resentment is felt everywhere in YOLT. DAF and NSNA are Connery doing Connery rather than Bond. While not a single performance can top Connery's in FRWL in my opinion--absolute brilliance right there!--Craig's performances have constantly been great. Granted, Craig had different material to work with and something to say about it himself. Perhaps both eras can't be compared no matter how hard one tries. But while Connery had higher highs than Craig, he also had lower lows IMO. There are scenes in YOLT where he barely even acted anymore; he's just going through the motions--CUT! and PRINT!--without anyone telling him to step it up. The submarine scene with Moneypenny always comes to mind. I find it poorly written and badly acted. Craig has remained electric throughout his entire run as Bond. I applaud him for that.

    Agree. Well said.
  • Posts: 6,682
    I think Craig was really good in NTTD, but dull in Skyfall. He always comes across as if he was thinking about lunch rather than the scene at hand. Too muted, not livening it up enough. Taking a page from the general opinion on Connery's performance in YOLT, I think Skyfall is Craig's YOLT.

    Craig's yolt. Haha.
  • Posts: 486
    In fairness to Craig it's probably the scripting as much as his performance in SF. I tend to enjoy SF until Silva makes an appearance as the first part looks at Bond reintegrating himself into MI6. The remainder of the film sees Bond slide into the background somewhat with all the Silva and M drama.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    I'm lucky enough that I really like all Bond actors. Everyone brought something fresh and unique to the character. Having said that, Craig is my favourite, with Connery and Dalton following.

    Tonight I'll finally see NTTD in the original language. After this fourth view, I'll update my ranking. I still don't know where to put this thing.
  • I have a much harder time ranking the actors than I do their movies/eras since I enjoy all of them for different things.
    Maybe something like this though:
    1. Connery
    2. Craig
    3. Dalton
    4. Moore
    5. Lazenby
    6. Brosnan

    It feels a bit wrong putting Moore so far down though given how much fun I find him.
  • Posts: 6,682
    Cowley wrote: »
    In fairness to Craig it's probably the scripting as much as his performance in SF. I tend to enjoy SF until Silva makes an appearance as the first part looks at Bond reintegrating himself into MI6. The remainder of the film sees Bond slide into the background somewhat with all the Silva and M drama.
    Also, the direction of the film. Skyfall has a stately quality that must have been intentional. There is a stillness to the film. It is reflected in Craig's performance.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    I have a much harder time ranking the actors than I do their movies/eras since I enjoy all of them for different things.
    Maybe something like this though:
    1. Connery
    2. Craig
    3. Dalton
    4. Moore
    5. Lazenby
    6. Brosnan

    It feels a bit wrong putting Moore so far down though given how much fun I find him.

    I guess you could say you think of him as 'least best'! :D
  • mtm wrote: »
    I have a much harder time ranking the actors than I do their movies/eras since I enjoy all of them for different things.
    Maybe something like this though:
    1. Connery
    2. Craig
    3. Dalton
    4. Moore
    5. Lazenby
    6. Brosnan

    It feels a bit wrong putting Moore so far down though given how much fun I find him.

    I guess you could say you think of him as 'least best'! :D

    That’s fair! Brosnan is actually the only one I don’t think was really right for the part (and even then I don’t totally dislike him)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    I have a much harder time ranking the actors than I do their movies/eras since I enjoy all of them for different things.
    Maybe something like this though:
    1. Connery
    2. Craig
    3. Dalton
    4. Moore
    5. Lazenby
    6. Brosnan

    It feels a bit wrong putting Moore so far down though given how much fun I find him.

    I guess you could say you think of him as 'least best'! :D

    That’s fair! Brosnan is actually the only one I don’t think was really right for the part (and even then I don’t totally dislike him)

    Yeah I watched DAD the other day and I was a lot less impressed with him than I've been previously.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    I always ranked Moore rather low, mainly because I just don't really rate most of his films, but yesterday I fired up Moonraker and however many faults there are with the film, the man is just magnetic and he just has so many good moments, you just can't deny how good a Bond he was. Even if his interpretation of the character overall isn't my favourite, he just nails certain qualities. So I guess I'm also in camp "I like them all for their own things".
  • I feel like the last lines of the movie, "let me tell you about a man named James Bond..." could be interpreted as a nod to the entire franchise. I mean, technically every novel and film about Bond is someone telling or showing us something about a man named James Bond. Including future films to come.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    edited October 2021 Posts: 972
    Craig mouthing Malek's lines in that scene with them face to face really took me away and was really jarring. Did anyone spot that? Why in the world did they leave that in??? Surprised no one has brought that up.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Craig mouthing Malek's lines in that scene with them face to face really took me away and was really jarring. Did anyone spot that? Why in the world did they leave that in??? Surprised no one has brought that up.

    What was that bit exactly? I've only seen it the once but this moment sort of sounds familiar to me.
  • Posts: 490
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Craig mouthing Malek's lines in that scene with them face to face really took me away and was really jarring. Did anyone spot that? Why in the world did they leave that in??? Surprised no one has brought that up.

    What was that bit exactly? I've only seen it the once but this moment sort of sounds familiar to me.

    I don't recall it either but perhaps James was mocking him? He seemed to have so little respect for Safin. He only hesitated with him because Safin was holding his child hostage, other than that he seemed to think he was a pathetic "angry little man". It really suited the character rather than diminished him.

    Safin was a pathetic little bugger and Malek sold it so well.

    The little twitch and sigh he does right before he explains his plans to James as if James just doesn't get it or respect/fear him like he wants.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,275
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    We all have our favorites, and for some that is Daniel Craig.

    Craig was edging closer, even for me. Thankfully NTTD was released and it put Connery firmly back in place again as number 1. I doubt anyone will ever knock Connery off his perch.

    Actually, I love Connery's Bond as much as the next guy, but his portrayals as Bond were uneven. He was great in DN, awesome in FRWL and GF, but boredom kicked in with TB and his resentment is felt everywhere in YOLT. DAF and NSNA are Connery doing Connery rather than Bond. While not a single performance can top Connery's in FRWL in my opinion--absolute brilliance right there!--Craig's performances have constantly been great. Granted, Craig had different material to work with and something to say about it himself. Perhaps both eras can't be compared no matter how hard one tries. But while Connery had higher highs than Craig, he also had lower lows IMO. There are scenes in YOLT where he barely even acted anymore; he's just going through the motions--CUT! and PRINT!--without anyone telling him to step it up. The submarine scene with Moneypenny always comes to mind. I find it poorly written and badly acted. Craig has remained electric throughout his entire run as Bond. I applaud him for that.

    Yes I agree with most of this. The performances in Dr. No and DAF are miles apart. All I will say though is Connery had natural swagger and macho charisma. He had the full package. He looked like he could batter someone one minute, and be charming the next. He could also do the comedy one-liners with ease. And still manage to pull of Fleming's character too.

    With Craig it felt like he had to really act to create these traits, whereas with Connery it came effortlessly. He was naturally self-assured, both onscreen and off screen. I know with Craig he often comes across awkward in real life when being interviewed. Nothing wrong with this, BTW. He's an actor after all.

    But with Connery he had the whole package, and it was with him constantly. He exuded the sex appeal and swagger in real life to an overwhelming degree (so we've been told by those who have ever been in a room with the guy).
  • monitorblownmonitorblown Providence, RI
    Posts: 7
    Seve wrote: »
    I believe you are over thinking it.

    Clearly, when QoS was being made Quantum was intended to be the Craig era equivalent of Spectre, but that film didn't go over so well and the evil organisation itself in particular took the blame. The villain's were criticised for being too "grey", the evil scheme to corner the market in water was not dramatic enough for a Bond movie etc

    So they were dropped entirely for the next film, while the Bond creative team considered their options

    Then they came up with the idea of reimagining Quantum as a subsidiary of Spectre after the fact (just as they retrospectively linked Silva to Spectre) in order to give the impression they they knew what they were doing all along and it had always been part of the infallible Craig-Bond masterplan story arc.

    But we all know better than that. By all means, respect the way they adapted to changing circumstances and came up with a neat solution if you will, and but there is no need rewrite the history behind it.

    Of course. Those are the real-life logistics of what happened in the writing room. I suppose I'm just having a wee bit of fun connecting my own dots within the story.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,897
    With Craig it felt like he had to really act to create these traits, whereas with Connery it came effortlessly.
    Yes, someone once said something to Rachel Weisz along the lines of 'Your husband's really hard' and she said 'No, he's not, he's just very good at pretending to be.' I'm guessing that Diane Cilento never said anything similar about Connery in the 60s.
  • Posts: 3,275
    Venutius wrote: »
    With Craig it felt like he had to really act to create these traits, whereas with Connery it came effortlessly.
    Yes, someone once said something to Rachel Weisz along the lines of 'Your husband's really hard' and she said 'No, he's not, he's just very good at pretending to be.' I'm guessing that Diane Cilento never said anything similar about Connery in the 60s.

    No, otherwise he'd give her a slap.... ;)
  • astansillastansill London
    edited October 2021 Posts: 32
    A couple of things:

    1) I still feel that the producers original intentions with Daniel Craig was to "reboot" the series, show Bond's origins and how he came to be the Bond character we all came to know and love. I feel this was still the case in SF and SP, they introduced a new M who was more reminiscent of a younger 'Bernard Lee' type of M, they recreated M's office to be the same as seen in Dr.No+ and introduced Blofeld, explained how he got the scar were all familiar with in the earlier films.

    I feel that the natural progression would have been to carry on with a new bond, who could come in, established with the characters and surroundings introduced; M, Q, Moneypenny, Blofeld etc confirming that Bond is still the same character, albeit played by a different actor. I thought the whole point of the earlier DC films were for this reason, establishing the Bond we all knew.

    Until they had the 'great' idea of killing him off as they got on so well with DC, he was made a producer, obviously had some input and felt that they needed to bid farewell to him in a special way. All of a sudden I keep hearing "mini series" and "brought an end to the craig-era" as though it was always the plan. I don't buy it and it felt rushed.
    It's a shame that this great super-villain 'Blofeld' caught in SP and then killed in prison in a rather weak way in NTTD, it just feels a real shame. The potential that the next Bond actor could have come in with a really strong established back-story which surely was the whole intention in order to understand Bond more. Killing him off makes this harder to achieve next time.


    2) Seen as the intention was to kill Bond in this film, I feel it would have been better if Blofeld, Bond's arch-enemy was the brains behind the operation. I still like Safin's character but perhaps Safin could have been working alongside Blofeld's plan. Safin could have been responsible some how for breaking Blofeld out of prison leaving a great fight scene with Safin but ultimately finding Blofeld at the secret garden for a MASSIVE psychological / physical ending which would have left Blofeld infecting Bond etc etc etc - same ending.

    I feel it would have fit more with what they were working towards and a much more suitable ending between Bloefeld & Bond would have been more interesting for Bond fans rather than just this new Safin character who was just an average Bond baddy killing him off.
  • Posts: 4,599
    It's just more baggage from SP. Blofeld is both the bigger villain re Bond legacy and "the author of all his pain" so it makes sense to have a final battle between Bond and Blofeld. Safin, in the grand scheme of things, is a newby. But where would they fit in a "prison break" scene (he's not getting out early for good behavoir). SP has so much to answer for IMHO
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    edited October 2021 Posts: 972
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Craig mouthing Malek's lines in that scene with them face to face really took me away and was really jarring. Did anyone spot that? Why in the world did they leave that in??? Surprised no one has brought that up.

    What was that bit exactly? I've only seen it the once but this moment sort of sounds familiar to me.

    @Creasy47 The camera was pointed towards Mathilde. Then it cut to Bond and then Safin was saying "I want the world to evolve. Yet you want it to stay the same.", the camera was still staying at Bond as Safin said that line, Bond can be seen exactly mouthing what Safin was saying. I've seen it twice now and it was so much more noticeable and distracting the second time around. Awkward.

    51585894195_7530b404ae_b.jpg
  • Posts: 3,275
    astansill wrote: »
    2) Seen as the intention was to kill Bond in this film, I feel it would have been better if Blofeld, Bond's arch-enemy was the brains behind the operation. I still like Safin's character but perhaps Safin could have been working alongside Blofeld's plan. Safin could have been responsible some how for breaking Blofeld out of prison leaving a great fight scene with Safin but ultimately finding Blofeld at the secret garden for a MASSIVE psychological / physical ending which would have left Blofeld infecting Bond etc etc etc - same ending.

    I feel it would have fit more with what they were working towards and a much more suitable ending between Bloefeld & Bond would have been more interesting for Bond fans rather than just this new Safin character who was just an average Bond baddy killing him off.
    I'm all for twisting Fleming's ideas into something better if they work onscreen, but for me the original YOLT novel was far better, like you outlined. There was no weight carrying the character of Safin, no background to make this personal for Bond.

    Had it been Blofeld (like in the original novel), it would have carried far more significance, even in the Craig era. There is now history between the 2 characters, even in this Craig Bond world.

    We still could have had `Die Blofeld, die!' only at the end of the film, when Bond finally finishes him off. The motives behind Safin are just not fleshed out enough, and again this perverse trait to ignore Fleming and go down a different route that doesn't improve on the original material (if anything weakens it) is pointless, and another missed opportunity. And then keep it ambiguous to Bond's death afterwards, did he escape, didn't he? Still have the obituary in London, still have the final scene with Madeline and the daughter in the Aston.

    I reckon most fans would have preferred that ending, instead of what we got.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Craig mouthing Malek's lines in that scene with them face to face really took me away and was really jarring. Did anyone spot that? Why in the world did they leave that in??? Surprised no one has brought that up.

    What was that bit exactly? I've only seen it the once but this moment sort of sounds familiar to me.

    @Creasy47 The camera was pointed towards Mathilde. Then it cut to Bond and then Safin was saying "I want the world to evolve. Yet you want it to stay the same.", the camera was still staying at Bond as Safin said that line, Bond can be seen exactly mouthing what Safin was saying. I've seen it twice now and it was so much more noticeable and distracting the second time around. Awkward.

    51585894195_7530b404ae_b.jpg

    That's rich. I wonder what the reasoning for that is.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 972
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Craig mouthing Malek's lines in that scene with them face to face really took me away and was really jarring. Did anyone spot that? Why in the world did they leave that in??? Surprised no one has brought that up.

    What was that bit exactly? I've only seen it the once but this moment sort of sounds familiar to me.

    @Creasy47 The camera was pointed towards Mathilde. Then it cut to Bond and then Safin was saying "I want the world to evolve. Yet you want it to stay the same.", the camera was still staying at Bond as Safin said that line, Bond can be seen exactly mouthing what Safin was saying. I've seen it twice now and it was so much more noticeable and distracting the second time around. Awkward.

    51585894195_7530b404ae_b.jpg

    That's rich. I wonder what the reasoning for that is.

    Something they must've missed out on during editing IMO.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Craig mouthing Malek's lines in that scene with them face to face really took me away and was really jarring. Did anyone spot that? Why in the world did they leave that in??? Surprised no one has brought that up.

    What was that bit exactly? I've only seen it the once but this moment sort of sounds familiar to me.

    @Creasy47 The camera was pointed towards Mathilde. Then it cut to Bond and then Safin was saying "I want the world to evolve. Yet you want it to stay the same.", the camera was still staying at Bond as Safin said that line, Bond can be seen exactly mouthing what Safin was saying. I've seen it twice now and it was so much more noticeable and distracting the second time around. Awkward.

    51585894195_7530b404ae_b.jpg

    I'll look for that next time; I honestly still don't know what you're referring to because I didn't notice that either time I saw NTTD.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 648
    So it's the HMS Dragon that fires off the missiles at the end, and Fleming always made references to how Bond was St. George metaphorically slaying the dragon. Bravo, Eon. Expectations subverted. They might as well have just had Craig's Bond get shot in the opening gun barrel.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 532
    slide_99 wrote: »
    They might as well have just had Craig's Bond get shot in the opening gun barrel.

    About that…😬


    (Some were theorizing that there’s no blood in the gun barrel and Bond fades to white because he’s the one who gets shot)
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited October 2021 Posts: 4,343
    Bond was looking at Mathilde while doing this. Safin was touching her hair, he was upset about this and I felt he was trying to kinda communicate with her...
  • Posts: 15,785
    Seve wrote: »
    9IW wrote: »
    9IW wrote: »
    Costuming isnt a huge deal to me, but I thought Bond looked like a hobo for half the film. Paloma’s dress made up for a lot.

    You should see some hobos.

    Lol. I’ve seen plenty and that was hyperbole. Im not near as classic Bond demanding as many on here, but I do always love that he looks cool. So, a little disappointed in a few of those a choices.

    I wonder if you really have?

    For some reason I looked it up one day and discovered this 1930s Depression related information

    A Hobo is a homeless person moving from town to town in search of work (the actor Robert Mitchum was once a hobo, before he made it in the movies)

    A Tramp is a homeless person who moves from town to town but does not seek employment

    A Bum is a homeless person who stays in one place and does not seek employment

    Not many people know that!


    nXbZWKGcgYmR6zjI1qeTNXsZLct5JkD6uZSTpvVWmO0emzM7F33lFuMs7hfRsxx6ir3AtT6GEAir5xPbJHlDEbDwDNwLUYLq0rvvRQNyIKhNNw

    ca165195e0b53894e7740fa57fc4dba4.jpg

    Appreciate this post. Very true about Mitchum. He jumped aboard moving trains and road cross country looking for work, and immersing himself in that lifestyle before making it to California.
    Bond looked nothing like a hobo in NTTD.
    Saw the film today for the second time and it didn't have quite the impact as before.
    Some audience members outright left before the ending and everyone looked disappointed. I have this hunch had NTTD been made, say in 2017, or 2018 they may have cheered. Maybe LOGAN and LAST JEDI were made too long ago now for Bond to have the same impact at the climax?
    Still I rank this one pretty high and loved Daniel Craig.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    mtm wrote: »
    The one thing I will add though is a plea to everyone here: AVOID THE 3D SHOWINGS OF NTTD LIKE THE PLAGUE. Not only do I not think it added anything to the film, the odd item suddenly popped off the screen in a distracting way, and it actually made a lot of the movement in the hand-to-hand combat sequences seem juddery.

    Were the gunbarrel and titles at least quite cool? I wouldn’t mind seeing them in 3D.

    They didn't seem to really "jump" off the screen at all.

    Also, because 3D glasses have a tint to them, the entire picture was darker. It definitely compromised the magnificent cinematography.

    Honestly, The Force Awakens is the only film I've ever seen in 3D that felt like a truly magnificent usage of the medium. Right from the moment that first Star Destroyer blocks out that planet, it completely engrossed me.

    I saw Mad Max Fury Road in 3D and it looked crap. Really murky. Avatar on the other hand looked fantastic. No way would I watch NTTD like that.
Sign In or Register to comment.