NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions SPOILERS ALLOWED

1125126128130131220

Comments

  • edited October 15 Posts: 131
    mepal1 wrote: »
    SF won people over not so much due to Craig, but to the film having a charismatic villain in Javier Bardem's portrayal of Silva.........ps Craig's near skin head haircut for SF did him no favours!

    IDK, Silva was charismatic, but SF is the only film where I like Craig's Bond without reservation, haircut notwithstanding (I agree it could have been longer, but SF is where I find him most believable as a man of the world). His forte in all his Bond films is the balance between brutish swagger and vulnerable humanity, and SF showed it off to maximum advantage, letting us see just enough of Bond's human side without becoming too bleak or overdosing on melodrama. It helped that for all its plot weaknesses, SF was consistently fast-paced, full of twists, and provided great introductions for Fiennes and Naomie Harris, both of whom I love in their respective roles. And despite ending with M's death, IMO it had a kind of hopeful vibe.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,376
    @AstonLotus if you don't like Daniel's Bond (except for CR) and did not much enjoy the other films, it is understandable you would not like NTTD. Those who just don't like his portrayal overall would not find much to like in NTTD except for the action perhaps, and Ana. But at least you went to see it, so that's appreciated. The next Bond actor and tone of film needs to be different, so here's hoping it's one you will really get into.
  • Posts: 131
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    The more I think about this film,the more I dislike it.It’s amazing that the producers spare no expense in assembling great talent for cinematography,stunts,actors,but don’t throw a lot of thought into getting good writers to craft a coherent script.

    There is a lot to admire about this film but the ending is a real downer.It doesn’t leave you with the happy feeling a Bond film should.True,the same could be said of OHMSS ( which NTTD rips off shamelessly and needlessly) but it was the only way that particular story could end and left Bond free to carry on in subsequent adventures.

    After such a promising start in CR,the Craig era went downhill very fast in the awful QOS and it didn’t really improve from there.I hope the next era brings the fun ( and stand-alone adventures) back to the series.

    We may disagree on the details of post-CR trajectory (I think SF was a huge improvement on QOS and probably an improvement on CR itself), but I am all for bringing back the fun and for standalone adventures =D>
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 5,074
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    The more I think about this film,the more I dislike it.It’s amazing that the producers spare no expense in assembling great talent for cinematography,stunts,actors,but don’t throw a lot of thought into getting good writers to craft a coherent script.

    There is a lot to admire about this film but the ending is a real downer.It doesn’t leave you with the happy feeling a Bond film should.True,the same could be said of OHMSS ( which NTTD rips off shamelessly and needlessly) but it was the only way that particular story could end and left Bond free to carry on in subsequent adventures.

    After such a promising start in CR,the Craig era went downhill very fast in the awful QOS and it didn’t really improve from there.I hope the next era brings the fun ( and stand-alone adventures) back to the series.

    We may disagree on the details of post-CR trajectory (I think SF was a huge improvement on QOS and probably an improvement on CR itself), but I am all for bringing back the fun and for standalone adventures =D>

    Hear hear!
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 11,760
    QBranch wrote: »
    EmanuilG wrote: »
    Does someone knows what is the cigar in No time to die, Felix's cigar?
    I haven't seen the cigar in Bond's home, but if it looks the same as the one Felix smokes in the car with the black/red/gold paper band, I suspect the paper band would be a custom design made for the film. Meaning, best wait for the 4K disc to get a better look at the band.
    The foil on the cigar in Bond's home says "Delectados"
    Thanks mate. Quite sublime that DAD, a film that referenced the hell out of previous entries and loathed by the majority, now gets a nod. I like it.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited October 16 Posts: 1,117
    deleted post
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 187
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The issue here is one of custodianship. BB and MGW didn't create Bond, and neither did DC, so it's not for them to destroy him just so DC can have a big, emotional send-off for a character that he inherited from others, and is apparently going to hand off to someone else. If the filmmakers thought NTTD's ending would make it easier for yet another reboot, they're wrong. It's actually harder now, as the reason why it was always easy for them to bring a new actor into the role was because the previous actor wasn't killed on-screen. As I've said before, the Bond serious only works because of Bond's sense of immortality. Destroy that and you've fundamentally destroyed one of the primary draws of the series.

    The argument about DC's timeline being a self-contained arc doesn't hold much water since they've spent past 3 movies riding the coattails of the previous eras. They can't have it both ways. They can't say that DC's tenure is its own thing while making 50th anniversary movies. Bond isn't 6 different characters, he's one character. If you kill DC's Bond, it may not literally affect the previous Bonds, but it does affect the overall image of the character. People are angry not because they specifically killed DC's Bond but simply because they killed ANY Bond. Like someone else said, it was an unwritten rule of the Bond series that you just don't do that. There's a reason why Bond has survived all these decades, he doesn't die, not any iteration. Now that Eon has destroyed that, they've alienated fans, burned bridges, and made it harder for audiences to accept Bond returning to the screen, if he does.

    Bond is a fictional character, created by Ian Fleming, wo died 57 years ago and would be 103. And I suppose, a "happy ending" with his family would also have met the disapproval of many people, as in the Bond formula - or rather: Bible? -.says, Bond has to bang the Main Bond Lady and would be tracked down by Q and actually get caught in the act. Why? Because ever since GF and up to DAD it had been this way. And as much as I understand people being angry at Bond dying, I personaöly cannot understand how somebody can call DAD a great Bond movie, it's easily the worst of the lot. Tamahori should be dragged through London and flogged 60 times. And no producer or director has to ask the fanbase for permission to chnage bits of the formula or bring up new things.

    I don't recall anyone calling DAD a great Bond movie. It's in my bottom 5. However, I'd take its OTT goofiness over the heavy-handed, pretentious soap opera banalities of the last 3 Craig movies any day.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    edited October 16 Posts: 1,038
    Did everyone enjoy the film more upon repeat viewings?

    I've seen it three times now. I enjoyed the first (except the shock of the ending), second time I could sit back and take it in more (great watch but I had minor gripes) on my last viewing I just felt empty. The shock of watching Bond die had well and truly worn off and I just sat there empty and indifferent. Something felt wrong knowing I was watching Bond's final mission

    I'm really glad for everyone who loved NTTD, I want to love it more and get on board. It was great to see Daniel back at his best in NTTD
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 5,074
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Did everyone enjoy the film more upon repeat viewings?

    I've seen it three times now. I enjoyed the first (except the shock of the ending), second time I could sit back and take it in more (great watch but I had minor gripes) on my last viewing I just felt empty. The shock of watching Bond die had well and truly worn off and I just sat there empty and indifferent. Something felt wrong knowing I was watching Bond's final mission

    I'm really glad for everyone who loved NTTD, I want to love it more and get on board. It was great to see Daniel back at his best in NTTD

    Eh. The Craig era showed Bond's first mission, why not also include his last mission. I think it could be really upsetting if I was one of the people who bent over backwards trying to tie all the Bond films together in one timeline (not saying you'd do this), but for me, it really is just one of many Bond stories. He dies in this one, he probably won't in the next one, it goes on. I take no less enjoyment out of the films / novels, and I will be no less excited for the next Bond film.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 353
    You know what? He won't die in the next film. But in every adventure they make after NTTD, the audience will feel some concern about him (especially if the films keep on showing the inner life Craig was able to convey in his films), because there's an actual possibility he could actually die.

    Starting with You Only Live Twice (apart from a few exceptions), Bond, in the films, was basically a superhero or a demigod. He would kill the bad guy by himself, and he would get the girl. He would always win. The only suspense was about the one-liners he would say at key moments or how the gadgets provided by Q would save his life at some point in the story in an unexpected way. Everything else about his personality was on rail, on autopilot, especially after the writers had managed to come up with some kind of recipe for the current actor after a couple of entries.

    In NTTD, the DB5 can be abandoned for good (but, of course, Bond still has a spare vintage car), Felix can die, Blofeld can die almost casually in the middle of the story, and Bond himself can die. But the films also have a stronger and much more interesting take on the lead character than everything that had been released during three decades, James Bond is much less predictable, and the potential is now huge.

    Of course, they'll screw it up at some point, we'll get some subpar script by Purvis & Wade or somebody else, there will be questionable decisions, and not everything will be rightly exploited.

    But keep in mind how you'll feel when Bond 26 will be released. You won't think about whether the new guy has what it takes to come after Daniel Craig (even if the shoes to fill will still be huge), you'll think foremost that Bond is back, that his adventures start again, and you'll want to see how the new guy evolves.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited October 16 Posts: 1,117
    Given the complaints of Bond only sleeping with one woman, do you guys realize who’s the only other Bond to only sleep with one woman in a film?

    Timothy, y Cymro cryf a dewr yn The Living Daylights!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 5,165
    If you want to assume Dalton didn’t sleep with that yacht lady, sure!
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 16 Posts: 4,670
    Connery's Bond only slept with Tiffany Case in Diamonds Are Forever.

    Also, I don't think Dalton's Bond slept with Lupe Lamora, only Bouvier in Licence To Kill.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 5,165
    Oh no!

    Did Barbara Broccoli go back in time and make Connery woke??
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 4,670
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Connery's Bond only slept with Tiffany Case in Diamonds Are Forever.

    Also, I don't think Dalton's Bond slept with Lupe Lamora, only Bouvier in Licence To Kill.
    I should add I missed this whole conversation but I thought I'd throw these in, just in case people thought Craig was the only one who only bedded one girl.
  • edited October 16 Posts: 2,244
    QBranch wrote: »
    QBranch wrote: »
    EmanuilG wrote: »
    Does someone knows what is the cigar in No time to die, Felix's cigar?
    I haven't seen the cigar in Bond's home, but if it looks the same as the one Felix smokes in the car with the black/red/gold paper band, I suspect the paper band would be a custom design made for the film. Meaning, best wait for the 4K disc to get a better look at the band.
    The foil on the cigar in Bond's home says "Delectados"
    Thanks mate. Quite sublime that DAD, a film that referenced the hell out of previous entries and loathed by the majority, now gets a nod. I like it.

    It's kind of like how Endgame has a heavy set of references to Thor: The Dark World, which I think is the consensus pick for "worst MCU film." You love to see it :))
  • edited October 16 Posts: 47
    [/quote]

    Yes, Madeleine's much more of a modern woman. And this comes from someone who reveres the Tracy character.

    In SP I find Madeleine's feisty/angry scenes to be her best (not unlike Tracy)--particularly after the snow chase. And then she's great/vulnerable in L'Americain.

    If they had given her more feistiness/defiance at the Morocco base, either in the meteorite scene or when Bond is being tortured, her character would have made more of an impression in that film.

    Madeleine just seems so passive/along for the ride throughout this section (compare, say, Honey), and of course, she gets kidnapped--yawn.


    It's like the writers forgot about her character at this point. If they had kept better track of her, when she leaves Bond before the climax, it would have had more impact.[/quote]

    I have expressed my view about the arc of Madeleine/Bond. However I have always had the view that Spectre has an overarching problem from the moment they arrive at the Meteorite Base and Daniel and Lea get caught up in that.

    Lea gave an interview in French in mid 18 where she said the atmosphere was very different on set this time and has twice mentioned the change of director without being denigrating. At a modular level what goes on between them as actors is great but the plotting and direction of their development from that point on lacks real force and momentum its because that final third of the film does not have the relentless focus of the ending of the other four and especially this one. We come back to London again its vaguely camp in parts and its homage making and bringing the family in is distracting. all of that takes away from Madeleine/Bond and her jeopardy should have been played out much better.

    If I strung everything together that Chris, Lea and Daniel have said all three were unhappy with what happened in that last third and Cary who brought Chris and Lea back and Daniel wanted them back gave them a chance to put that right. Chris nails Blofeld psychopathic jealousy of Bond in NTTD. here is this supplicant having the love and admiration of his partners daughter and he ruins there chances that is riddled with power for me and Chris gets to communicate that.
  • Posts: 2,517
    TripAces wrote: »
    But what subversion? Yes, there are some elements that were turned on its head a little bit, but over the course of DC's five films, we still had...

    gun barrels
    theme songs
    martinis
    "Bond, James Bond"
    girls
    cars
    some gadgets
    some humor
    henchmen
    brilliant locales
    fight scenes
    car chases
    stunts
    mystery
    intrigue

    [...]
    EON can't keep producing carbon copies of the same film or of the same narrative. I can't fault them for wanting to break the mold a little bit, even when that fails (as in SP).

    The subversion is less about gun barrels and martinis and more about altering Bond as a character: making him Blofeld’s foster brother, a family man, a father and, ultimately, a tragic figure. Bond had his issues in pre-Craig films, but the only time he was ever tragic before was for a minute or so at the end of OHMSS. This is like filling a cake with baked beans and insisting it is still a cake because it has icing on top.
    Nice. I like it.
    =D>
  • Posts: 2,517
    mepal1 wrote: »
    SF won people over not so much due to Craig, but to the film having a charismatic villain in Javier Bardem's portrayal of Silva.........ps Craig's near skin head haircut for SF did him no favours!

    Craig's look in SF is probably the worst of any actor to play Bond.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 5,074
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The great thing about this discussion is that you can skip ahead a good 20 pages and you're right back where you were. Maybe a few of the players have changed.

    This is how I feel about the "who could/should play Bond" thread. You can come back a year later and they're still talking about the same people.
  • Posts: 2,517
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    The more I think about this film,the more I dislike it.It’s amazing that the producers spare no expense in assembling great talent for cinematography,stunts,actors,but don’t throw a lot of thought into getting good writers to craft a coherent script.

    There is a lot to admire about this film but the ending is a real downer.It doesn’t leave you with the happy feeling a Bond film should.True,the same could be said of OHMSS ( which NTTD rips off shamelessly and needlessly) but it was the only way that particular story could end and left Bond free to carry on in subsequent adventures.

    After such a promising start in CR,the Craig era went downhill very fast in the awful QOS and it didn’t really improve from there.I hope the next era brings the fun ( and stand-alone adventures) back to the series.

    This echoes my thoughts exactly. The promise showed in CR disappeared rapidly, because the producers and Craig were misguided by what they thought was the right direction.

    CR led the way because it showed Bond getting bloodied and battered. He could bleed. It showed gritty action, it had an energetic rock soundtrack, the music sounded like John Barry, and it also relied heavily on Fleming's work.

    Instead, they focused on personal angst, Vesper dying. This is what they thought made CR successful and forced a new path away from Fleming, and down a BS family and personal tragedy route instead, giving us Fleming re-imagined, which had very little to do with the books, and more indulging Babs and Craig's fantasy - which resulted in the ultimate mess that was NTTD. Dreary songs, depressing storylines, everything suddenly became personal to Bond (even `Bro-feld'). We had to kill Mathis to make Bond suffer, then M, then Felix, then tease Bond that he now has a family, only to take it away from him at the last second, just to make him suffer that little bit more...before blowing him up!

    Utter garbage! >:P
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,159
    Good thing you’ve got 20 movies made from 1962 through 2002 to tickle your fancy because I think we both know what’s both financially and critically in vogue at the moment and going forward, willy me old boy.
  • Posts: 2,517
    Minion wrote: »
    Good thing you’ve got 20 movies made from 1962 through 2002 to tickle your fancy because I think we both know what’s both financially and critically in vogue at the moment and going forward, willy me old boy.

    Correction mate. We had great movies in the 60's, then 2 decent films in the 80's (Dalton's) and then CR, which came after 2002.

    So not sure what you think tickles my fancy.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited October 16 Posts: 1,159
    You’ll continue to be upset at the state of this franchise. I’ll keep receiving and enjoying more and more James Bond movies. You’re not that difficult to figure out. If you’ve only enjoyed one movie in the last 30 years though, it leads me to wonder why you’re still here.
  • edited October 16 Posts: 2,517
    Minion wrote: »
    You’ll continue to be upset at the state of this franchise. I’ll keep receiving and enjoying more and more James Bond movies. You’re not that difficult to figure out.

    Yet I wasn't upset when CR was released (if anything I was ecstatic). And I got some enjoyment out of SF too.

    But according to you I don't like any Bond film after 2002, but I like every Bond film before then - which I clearly don't either. The 4 Brosnan films are at the bottom of my list.

    And you say you have me figured out?
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,376
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The great thing about this discussion is that you can skip ahead a good 20 pages and you're right back where you were. Maybe a few of the players have changed.

    The entire forum: same as it ever was (I feel a song coming on ... ) ;)
  • Posts: 2,517
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The great thing about this discussion is that you can skip ahead a good 20 pages and you're right back where you were. Maybe a few of the players have changed.

    The entire forum: same as it ever was (I feel a song coming on ... ) ;)

    Great song at that. B-)
  • Posts: 2,244
    Talking Heads could have done a cracking Bond theme, I think, say if they had wanted to dig into the weirdness of some of those middle Moore films rather than going down the ballad route.
  • Posts: 2,517
    Talking Heads could have done a cracking Bond theme, I think, say if they had wanted to dig into the weirdness of some of those middle Moore films rather than going down the ballad route.

    Good shout. I also think mid 90's when Oasis were at their peak, they could have done a great Bond song, in the LALD mould.
  • Posts: 2,244
    What's that instrumental Oasis song that opens Standing On the Shoulders of Giants, the one that was used in the climax of Snatch? That almost sounds like a rejected Bond theme of sorts without the lyrics.
Sign In or Register to comment.