NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - Members' Reviews and Discussions (SPOILERS)

1121315171834

Comments

  • edited October 2021 Posts: 328
    peter wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    I can't ever see or imagine Dalton faux begging as a means of distraction. I think Dalton's Bond would have done something different and something that didn't compromise the nature of the character as coming off looking so weak.

    It makes sense in context because Bond is trying to behave like how would expect a normal father seeing their child threatened. No Bond actor was ever put in a situation like that, that’s why it’s a unique approach.
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    I can't ever see or imagine Dalton faux begging as a means of distraction. I think Dalton's Bond would have done something different and something that didn't compromise the nature of the character as coming off looking so weak.

    Exactly. The other jarring moment was Craig's acting when confronting Blofeld. This also seemed to step out of character.

    Yep. The exaggerated sarcasm about Blofeld's birthday and then him quietly telling Blofeld to die before raging at and choking him out and then yelling at Tanner about knowing how to interrogate an asset. It was not only out of character but sloppily handled.

    Once again, it’s all about context. This is Bond five years after leaving the service and having lost his stoicism that protected him in the past. If you don’t care for that take, fair enough. But it’s not coming out of nowhere.

    The context isn't the problem which I acknowledge. The issue is how these scenes were terribly executed.

    That’s contradicting what you said, that you couldn’t imagine Dalton’s Bond faking submission

    Perhaps I Should have been clearer. I said I can't imagine Dalton faux begging and the implication was within the same manner as Craig, repeatedly apologising. This isn't just something I can't ever see Dalton doing but the other Bond actors too. It was a sloppily handled characters comprising moment to set up a moment to cause a distraction. Terrible showing.

    To you, @Jimjambond ….your opinions are not universal truths.

    Because I clearly said they were, right? Get over yourself.

    Thank you for the educated reply @Jimjambond … Lethal negativity is not healthy for one’s soul.

    Save it. You could have avoided this had you bothered to actually read what I wrote instead of making a useless comment for the sake of trying to have something to say. "I can't see...", "I can't imagine..." clearly infers I'm speaking on behalf of the majority🙄

    @Jimjambond, just from this short and unpleasant exchange, you seem to be a very negative and frustrated individual. Certainly a very aggressive keyboard warrior. Or you’re reenacting a scene from the Timothy Dalton film running through your brain….
    Chill out my friend. It’s a movie. You didn’t like it, cool. But some really did like it. Accept those things you can’t change.

    Do you know how ridiculous you sound? I clearly stated MY opinions and you needlessly felt the need to chime in to tell me that my views were my opinion and not facts. Why? Anyone who can read can see I was clearly speaking on behalf of myself. I even had to point out to you clearly key words that demonstrate this and yet you double down on pointlessly needing to tell me not everyone shares my view. Again, answer the question, why? I've never said, nor suggested otherwise. The problem here is you. And yes, it has been an unpleasant exchange because I've called you out on your useless and pointless "contribution" of responses and your default setting is to call me the aggressive one, why? Because I'm standing up for myself and not giving you a pass on stupid comments? This is just a movie and you'd be wise to take your own advice and remember that. I have nothing further to say to you.
  • Posts: 3,280
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    I can't ever see or imagine Dalton faux begging as a means of distraction. I think Dalton's Bond would have done something different and something that didn't compromise the nature of the character as coming off looking so weak.

    It makes sense in context because Bond is trying to behave like how would expect a normal father seeing their child threatened. No Bond actor was ever put in a situation like that, that’s why it’s a unique approach.
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    I can't ever see or imagine Dalton faux begging as a means of distraction. I think Dalton's Bond would have done something different and something that didn't compromise the nature of the character as coming off looking so weak.

    Exactly. The other jarring moment was Craig's acting when confronting Blofeld. This also seemed to step out of character.

    Yep. The exaggerated sarcasm about Blofeld's birthday and then him quietly telling Blofeld to die before raging at and choking him out and then yelling at Tanner about knowing how to interrogate an asset. It was not only out of character but sloppily handled.

    Once again, it’s all about context. This is Bond five years after leaving the service and having lost his stoicism that protected him in the past. If you don’t care for that take, fair enough. But it’s not coming out of nowhere.

    The context isn't the problem which I acknowledge. The issue is how these scenes were terribly executed.

    That’s contradicting what you said, that you couldn’t imagine Dalton’s Bond faking submission

    Perhaps I Should have been clearer. I said I can't imagine Dalton faux begging and the implication was within the same manner as Craig, repeatedly apologising. This isn't just something I can't ever see Dalton doing but the other Bond actors too. It was a sloppily handled characters comprising moment to set up a moment to cause a distraction. Terrible showing.

    Yes, you are right. This moment along with Craig's acting really stood out for me as poor. It actually took me out of the scene, making me think `who is this character?' I get Bond was doing it as a distraction, but it was poorly written and poorly done, with no understanding of the Fleming character.
  • Posts: 3,280
    peter wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    I can't ever see or imagine Dalton faux begging as a means of distraction. I think Dalton's Bond would have done something different and something that didn't compromise the nature of the character as coming off looking so weak.

    It makes sense in context because Bond is trying to behave like how would expect a normal father seeing their child threatened. No Bond actor was ever put in a situation like that, that’s why it’s a unique approach.
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    I can't ever see or imagine Dalton faux begging as a means of distraction. I think Dalton's Bond would have done something different and something that didn't compromise the nature of the character as coming off looking so weak.

    Exactly. The other jarring moment was Craig's acting when confronting Blofeld. This also seemed to step out of character.

    Yep. The exaggerated sarcasm about Blofeld's birthday and then him quietly telling Blofeld to die before raging at and choking him out and then yelling at Tanner about knowing how to interrogate an asset. It was not only out of character but sloppily handled.

    Once again, it’s all about context. This is Bond five years after leaving the service and having lost his stoicism that protected him in the past. If you don’t care for that take, fair enough. But it’s not coming out of nowhere.

    The context isn't the problem which I acknowledge. The issue is how these scenes were terribly executed.

    That’s contradicting what you said, that you couldn’t imagine Dalton’s Bond faking submission

    Perhaps I Should have been clearer. I said I can't imagine Dalton faux begging and the implication was within the same manner as Craig, repeatedly apologising. This isn't just something I can't ever see Dalton doing but the other Bond actors too. It was a sloppily handled characters comprising moment to set up a moment to cause a distraction. Terrible showing.

    To you, @Jimjambond ….your opinions are not universal truths.

    Where did he say it was...?
  • Posts: 6,871
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    I can't ever see or imagine Dalton faux begging as a means of distraction. I think Dalton's Bond would have done something different and something that didn't compromise the nature of the character as coming off looking so weak.

    It makes sense in context because Bond is trying to behave like how would expect a normal father seeing their child threatened. No Bond actor was ever put in a situation like that, that’s why it’s a unique approach.
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    Jimjambond wrote: »
    I can't ever see or imagine Dalton faux begging as a means of distraction. I think Dalton's Bond would have done something different and something that didn't compromise the nature of the character as coming off looking so weak.

    Exactly. The other jarring moment was Craig's acting when confronting Blofeld. This also seemed to step out of character.

    Yep. The exaggerated sarcasm about Blofeld's birthday and then him quietly telling Blofeld to die before raging at and choking him out and then yelling at Tanner about knowing how to interrogate an asset. It was not only out of character but sloppily handled.

    Once again, it’s all about context. This is Bond five years after leaving the service and having lost his stoicism that protected him in the past. If you don’t care for that take, fair enough. But it’s not coming out of nowhere.

    The context isn't the problem which I acknowledge. The issue is how these scenes were terribly executed.

    That’s contradicting what you said, that you couldn’t imagine Dalton’s Bond faking submission

    Perhaps I Should have been clearer. I said I can't imagine Dalton faux begging and the implication was within the same manner as Craig, repeatedly apologising. This isn't just something I can't ever see Dalton doing but the other Bond actors too. It was a sloppily handled characters comprising moment to set up a moment to cause a distraction. Terrible showing.

    Yes, you are right. This moment along with Craig's acting really stood out for me as poor. It actually took me out of the scene, making me think `who is this character?' I get Bond was doing it as a distraction, but it was poorly written and poorly done, with no understanding of the Fleming character.

    I think it was just prolonged too much! Might have been better to be shorter! The scene in SF where Bond feigned disinterest in Severines death and turning the tables on his captors was how it should be done!
  • CatchingBulletsCatchingBullets facebook.com/catchingbullets
    Posts: 292
    Yes, I am printing out Mark's review. It is amazing! So many insights, explanations of symbolism, tone, references beyond references. Wonderful, brilliant review. I don't think he has posted it here yet. TONS OF SPOILERS! Please do NOT read it unless you have seen NTTD. If you have, go savor Mark's review because it is more than just a review, trust me.

    Thank you!
  • CatchingBulletsCatchingBullets facebook.com/catchingbullets
    Posts: 292
    zebrafish wrote: »
    'From double helixes to treble Felixes, Jamaican Ama girls to a Cuban Ana girl, Greek gods and strident tridents on Her Majesty's Secret and Cinematic Service, and a wholly fitting Swann song... The Sunset Bullet that is NO TIME TO DIE is a bravura, bold and brave piece of Bond cinema. Daniel Craig used his time.'
    - Mark O'Connell

    SPOILERS!

    THE SUNSET BULLET - Catching Daniel Craig's Swann song, NO TIME TO DIE


    That was a hell of a review. So many sharp observations, Tunnels as bookends - yes, that seems to be a fitting image. But the costumes citing the older films? I doubt that was intentional. If anything, it seems that Bond prefers suspenders over belts. This film is a classic already.
    Much appreciated!
  • MeanwhileMeanwhile Brooklyn
    Posts: 33
    I will say, on M’s incompetence in the story — I thought it should have eaten less time. I love the film, and don’t think too much could have been trimmed; yet on my third viewing I did notice too much dialogue is given to him defending himself and to his rising stress.

    Something is missing in his mistakes here that really worked with Mansfield M. Perhaps it’s that her general presence and even appearance was ball-busting and gruff, as though the bulldog statue even resembles her. Her storyline in Skyfall carries more weight in her misguided attempts to “get the job done”. We don’t get that from Mallory as much despite his great entrance in Skyfall and good-enough storyline in Spectre.

    Still think Feinnes is great casting for a new era Masservy-type M but wish we could have had him emerge a stronger leader in NTTD.

    I do love that Bond reverts to addressing him by his surname to drive a point home, though. He’s done with the “Sir” crap, contributing to the raising stakes of the threat.
  • Posts: 526
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Also, with the third screening, even more so than before I feel that the gun play in the final act should have been substantially trimmed. It is mind-numbing.

    Film would have been better if edited down to 2 1/2 hours. I like your recommendations about the cuts. And also agree the pts should have been split. Too long.
  • Posts: 526
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Yes, just about every scene could have been trimmed (none eliminated).
    Agree. Yes. They were a tad bloated. Especially the Bond and Madeline dialogue scenes.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    It's interesting what we would choose to trim, if at all. I have very few quibbles with this film. I'd trim a bit of Valdo, though, to give me more time in Matera.
  • Posts: 3,164
    if anything I felt it was trimmed to the bone! Very zippily paced and not much connective tissue
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Yes, I wanted more. Matera and Jamaica, even if just a little more.
  • DCisaredDCisared Liverpool
    Posts: 1,329
    antovolk wrote: »
    if anything I felt it was trimmed to the bone! Very zippily paced and not much connective tissue

    Tempus Fugit indeed.
  • Posts: 7,506
    antovolk wrote: »
    if anything I felt it was trimmed to the bone! Very zippily paced and not much connective tissue

    I agree. What I missed was more time to delve into some of the excellent characters I thought had to little screentime.

    I honestly think it is strange that we talk about trimming No Time To Die, while at the same time holding some of the classic films as faultless masterpieces. It doesn't really make sense to me. As much as I love FRWL (my favorite in fact) it could definitley be slicker. And don't get me started on Goldfinger or Thunderball...
  • The Jamaica and Matera stuff felt so classically Bond to me, with a real sense of being in an actual location and having a bit of downtime in them to soak up the atmosphere. I’d have loved more time there, especially Jamaica.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,007
    Yea I would’ve trimmed the opening in Norway slightly to have more breathing room in Matera. Also definitely definitely more Jamaica, particularly at James’ house, fishing, eating etc
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    The Jamaica and Matera stuff felt so classically Bond to me, with a real sense of being in an actual location and having a bit of downtime in them to soak up the atmosphere. I’d have loved more time there, especially Jamaica.

    +1

    Modern Bond films (since TLD basically...) have lacked this.
  • Posts: 1,314
    Two things would have made NTTD better immediately.

    1. Seeing bonds naval uniform in the garage
    2. having bond name check a Dom perignon or bollinger
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 6,677
    AceHole wrote: »
    The Jamaica and Matera stuff felt so classically Bond to me, with a real sense of being in an actual location and having a bit of downtime in them to soak up the atmosphere. I’d have loved more time there, especially Jamaica.

    +1
    Modern Bond films (since TLD basically...) have lacked this.
    +2

    I just wish the entire film was contained in 🇮🇹 and 🇯🇲 .
  • Finally saw the film. My reaction? Very disappointed. Maybe more so because this was supposed to remove the bitter aftertaste of SP. Instead it just wallowed more in what made the previous film a mess. Yes the action scenes were more impressive and had more energy but the melodrama, combined with the sacrificial savior of the world (something out of Star Wars or Marvel I guess) really bring the film down to “follow the latest trend” drivel. It has a feeling of “written by committee” all over it - let’s include some Bondian touches but let’s not forget that this is Bond of the Marvel era so we have to follow those trends or people won’t watch us. Never mind Fleming or what came before, going back to 1962. At the end of the day it feels like a sell-out of the franchise. No passion that involves being faithful to the character and the franchise. But more about making a buck! Yes, we can kill Bond and then slap on the end that “Bond will return”. How? Why? Make sense? Doesn’t matter. Nothing has to make sense anymore. We do it because we can and the audience is too stupid to ask such questions. Makes a buck, right? Follows the trends, right? Well then that’s all that matters. We can just reboot again. Will worry about that when we get there. But here in the now we need to give people something shocking so here goes. We killed M, we killed Felix, we turned Blofeld into a brother, so why not kill Bond too? There are no rules except those we make up ourselves. Death sells and beloved characters getting knocked off is cool so that’s what we go with.

    The film is too long and nothing that happens at the poison garden or the factory at the end is interesting. In fact nothing with Rami Malek or his half-baked scheme is interesting. Why is he doing what he is doing? None of that is explained. We’re supposed to just accept that he’s a crazy who fancies himself as a “savior” of mankind. But even in his warped mind what he’s doing is supposed to make some kind of sense, right? He babbles something about people wanting to be led and told what to do. Ok, that’s fine but what does that have to do with you trying to wipe out large segments of the population with your smart DNA virus? How does that make you a savior? Again, what’s the scheme here? It’s never explained to us. Is this supposed to be some kind of population control scheme a la Bill Gates? If so that’s never clarified. So we have a boring mumbling villain with a scheme which we don’t know what it is. That’s great. And then the secondary villain - Brother Blofeld. Another fail. Bringing back someone who didn’t work in the previous film and putting him in a Hannibal Lector cage for more of the same boring nonsense - “I’m the author of all your pain and can really get under your skin”. Blah.

    Madeline is back (yawn) and now Bond has a child with her. Great. Need I say anything else about this? What’s the point? And of course Bond can’t be a daddy so that’s yet another reason to kill him. And speaking of killing Bond, I just can’t fathom this. Isn’t that precisely why Danny Boyle was fired? Because he wanted to kill Bond. So they bring Fukunaga on board and go ahead and do the same exact thing anyway? How does that make sense? Baffling.

    So what did I like? Only 4 scenes. That’s it. The snowy opening in Norway, the scenes in Matera, loved Bond at his home in Jamaica and his bathing waterfall outside (that stuff feels right out of Fleming, could be Fleming’s home where he wrote the novels), and my favorite is the stuff in the forest in Norway. Everything from the Land Rover chases to the suspense in the forest is extremely well executed and shot. We’ve never really had a scene like this in Bond and this was a welcome addition for sure. The closest we ever came to forest action would be Corinne being chased by dogs in MR and the twins stalking 009 in OP. Both had some eerie horror film overtones without going into actual horror, both very well done. This one fits the same bill as well except done on a grander scale. And that’s pretty much all that I liked about the film. I did not like the Cuba scenes (the SPECTRE meeting was ridiculously bad with Blofeld talking to them through some cheesy eyeball) and the whole shootout that followed left me completely disengaged. None of it felt tense or exciting. Just a bunch of people firing machine guns. I don’t get what people enjoy in that entire sequence. Even the praise for Ana de Armas from all the critics is strange. I just don’t get it. Her giddy school girl routine was annoying. Good looking she is for sure but that’s it.

    Black female 007? Woke, anyone? No thanks. So I guess 007 is just a number that anyone can carry. Not only that but now apparently even James Bond is a code name too that anyone can carry. Because this Bond is dead. So we’ll have another agent who will be James Bond next. Oh man, it just gets more and more painful.

    So because of the few exciting scenes I guess I’ll place it just above QOS and SP but it’s nowhere near SF and CR. Not even close. And I don’t even consider those 2 masterpieces. What’s really interesting is that I have zero interest in seeing the film again. Even QOS and SP I wanted to see again in the theater, even after being disappointed on first viewing. I mean it’s Bond after all, right? But with this one I just don’t care anymore.
  • Posts: 4,602
    Now things are calming down, I do think a pattern is starting to appear. Obviously, just a pattern, everyone has their own opinions but, my take on the patterns re the downsides:
    • People love the first half
    • Nanobots?
    • Nomi's contribution re pushing the plot
    • Blofeld's ending
    • Safin's plot
    • Bond "begging"
    • Child bites finger?!
    • Use of the garden

    I know there is much division within the fandom but IMHO, there are times when the script does struggle. They tend to stand out because there is so much to like about the movie and so many other areas are really strong. Frustrating as these things are so easily fixed and the script must have been reviewed over and over again
  • Posts: 3,280
    patb wrote: »
    Now things are calming down, I do think a pattern is starting to appear. Obviously, just a pattern, everyone has their own opinions but, my take on the patterns re the downsides:
    • People love the first half
    • Nanobots?
    • Nomi's contribution re pushing the plot
    • Blofeld's ending
    • Safin's plot
    • Bond "begging"
    • Child bites finger?!
    • Use of the garden

    I know there is much division within the fandom but IMHO, there are times when the script does struggle. They tend to stand out because there is so much to like about the movie and so many other areas are really strong. Frustrating as these things are so easily fixed and the script must have been reviewed over and over again

    You missed the biggest one of all.

    [*} Bond dying
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 4,602
    No, I dont see a concensus re that issue, its an ongoing discussion with many fans having no issue or happy to "take it on the chin". I think there is concensus or a clear area of critique re the issues I listed.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,280
    patb wrote: »
    No, I dont see a concensus re that issue, its an ongoing discussion with many fans having no issue or happy to "take it on the chin". I think there is concensus or a clear area of critique re the issues I listed.

    Most people I spoke to, I would say the general consensus has been with the ones who didn't hate the movie - they liked the film until the very end (killing off Bond), and Bond's death also seems to be the biggest gripe of all with fans who are not happy with NTTD.

    Just my take on it, for what its worth.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    My circle of friends and parents hadn't any issue with Bond's fate. Surprised, yes, but it didn't ruined the film even for the most shocked ones.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    Univex wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    The Jamaica and Matera stuff felt so classically Bond to me, with a real sense of being in an actual location and having a bit of downtime in them to soak up the atmosphere. I’d have loved more time there, especially Jamaica.

    +1
    Modern Bond films (since TLD basically...) have lacked this.
    +2

    I just wish the entire film was contained in 🇮🇹 and 🇯🇲 .

    I concur.
    The most engrossing films in the franchise have tended to allow the story to develop in 2 or max. 3 locations, thus allowing Bond to settle, explore and build the narrative without skipping to a new setting.

    DN - FRWL - TB - OHMSS - CR, to a point (Montenegro)
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    Finally saw the film. My reaction? Very disappointed. Maybe more so because this was supposed to remove the bitter aftertaste of SP. Instead it just wallowed more in what made the previous film a mess. Yes the action scenes were more impressive and had more energy but the melodrama, combined with the sacrificial savior of the world (something out of Star Wars or Marvel I guess) really bring the film down to “follow the latest trend” drivel. It has a feeling of “written by committee” all over it - let’s include some Bondian touches but let’s not forget that this is Bond of the Marvel era so we have to follow those trends or people won’t watch us. Never mind Fleming or what came before, going back to 1962. At the end of the day it feels like a sell-out of the franchise. No passion that involves being faithful to the character and the franchise. But more about making a buck! Yes, we can kill Bond and then slap on the end that “Bond will return”. How? Why? Make sense? Doesn’t matter. Nothing has to make sense anymore. We do it because we can and the audience is too stupid to ask such questions. Makes a buck, right? Follows the trends, right? Well then that’s all that matters. We can just reboot again. Will worry about that when we get there. But here in the now we need to give people something shocking so here goes. We killed M, we killed Felix, we turned Blofeld into a brother, so why not kill Bond too? There are no rules except those we make up ourselves. Death sells and beloved characters getting knocked off is cool so that’s what we go with.

    The film is too long and nothing that happens at the poison garden or the factory at the end is interesting. In fact nothing with Rami Malek or his half-baked scheme is interesting. Why is he doing what he is doing? None of that is explained. We’re supposed to just accept that he’s a crazy who fancies himself as a “savior” of mankind. But even in his warped mind what he’s doing is supposed to make some kind of sense, right? He babbles something about people wanting to be led and told what to do. Ok, that’s fine but what does that have to do with you trying to wipe out large segments of the population with your smart DNA virus? How does that make you a savior? Again, what’s the scheme here? It’s never explained to us. Is this supposed to be some kind of population control scheme a la Bill Gates? If so that’s never clarified. So we have a boring mumbling villain with a scheme which we don’t know what it is. That’s great. And then the secondary villain - Brother Blofeld. Another fail. Bringing back someone who didn’t work in the previous film and putting him in a Hannibal Lector cage for more of the same boring nonsense - “I’m the author of all your pain and can really get under your skin”. Blah.

    Madeline is back (yawn) and now Bond has a child with her. Great. Need I say anything else about this? What’s the point? And of course Bond can’t be a daddy so that’s yet another reason to kill him. And speaking of killing Bond, I just can’t fathom this. Isn’t that precisely why Danny Boyle was fired? Because he wanted to kill Bond. So they bring Fukunaga on board and go ahead and do the same exact thing anyway? How does that make sense? Baffling.

    So what did I like? Only 4 scenes. That’s it. The snowy opening in Norway, the scenes in Matera, loved Bond at his home in Jamaica and his bathing waterfall outside (that stuff feels right out of Fleming, could be Fleming’s home where he wrote the novels), and my favorite is the stuff in the forest in Norway. Everything from the Land Rover chases to the suspense in the forest is extremely well executed and shot. We’ve never really had a scene like this in Bond and this was a welcome addition for sure. The closest we ever came to forest action would be Corinne being chased by dogs in MR and the twins stalking 009 in OP. Both had some eerie horror film overtones without going into actual horror, both very well done. This one fits the same bill as well except done on a grander scale. And that’s pretty much all that I liked about the film. I did not like the Cuba scenes (the SPECTRE meeting was ridiculously bad with Blofeld talking to them through some cheesy eyeball) and the whole shootout that followed left me completely disengaged. None of it felt tense or exciting. Just a bunch of people firing machine guns. I don’t get what people enjoy in that entire sequence. Even the praise for Ana de Armas from all the critics is strange. I just don’t get it. Her giddy school girl routine was annoying. Good looking she is for sure but that’s it.

    Black female 007? Woke, anyone? No thanks. So I guess 007 is just a number that anyone can carry. Not only that but now apparently even James Bond is a code name too that anyone can carry. Because this Bond is dead. So we’ll have another agent who will be James Bond next. Oh man, it just gets more and more painful.

    So because of the few exciting scenes I guess I’ll place it just above QOS and SP but it’s nowhere near SF and CR. Not even close. And I don’t even consider those 2 masterpieces. What’s really interesting is that I have zero interest in seeing the film again. Even QOS and SP I wanted to see again in the theater, even after being disappointed on first viewing. I mean it’s Bond after all, right? But with this one I just don’t care anymore.

    Although I'm not quite as down on NTTD I do understand many of your points. Maddy Swann is a boring character who has ZERO chemistry with DC's Bond and Malek and his plot are criminally underdeveloped.
    Woke-ness is shoved down the viewers' throat, rather than just letting it subtly interweave with the narrative (no need for all of Nomi's posturing and passive aggressiveness towards Bond...)
  • patb wrote: »
    No, I dont see a concensus re that issue, its an ongoing discussion with many fans having no issue or happy to "take it on the chin". I think there is concensus or a clear area of critique re the issues I listed.

    Most people I spoke to, I would say the general consensus has been with the ones who didn't hate the movie - they liked the film until the very end (killing off Bond), and Bond's death also seems to be the biggest gripe of all with fans who are not happy with NTTD.

    Just my take on it, for what its worth.
    This!!!

    And if anyone watched Calvin Dyson’s review of the film that is the one thing that he HATED the most. In his opinion it’s the single worst idea in the entire franchise. I think that says something. For me until now it was “Brother-gate” from SP as the single worst thing in the entire series (I haaaaaated this with a passion and still do) but now it may be Bond’s death. It’s a tough call between those two. And I’m actually shocked that I don’t hate Bond being a daddy as much as I probably should. Seems sacrilegious for us fans. But the death of 007, with missiles raining down on him and blowing him to kingdom come, just leaves knots in your stomach. In the worst way.
  • Posts: 3,280
    patb wrote: »
    No, I dont see a concensus re that issue, its an ongoing discussion with many fans having no issue or happy to "take it on the chin". I think there is concensus or a clear area of critique re the issues I listed.

    Most people I spoke to, I would say the general consensus has been with the ones who didn't hate the movie - they liked the film until the very end (killing off Bond), and Bond's death also seems to be the biggest gripe of all with fans who are not happy with NTTD.

    Just my take on it, for what its worth.
    This!!!

    And if anyone watched Calvin Dyson’s review of the film that is the one thing that he HATED the most. In his opinion it’s the single worst idea in the entire franchise. I think that says something. For me until now it was “Brother-gate” from SP as the single worst thing in the entire series (I haaaaaated this with a passion and still do) but now it may be Bond’s death. It’s a tough call between those two. And I’m actually shocked that I don’t hate Bond being a daddy as much as I probably should. Seems sacrilegious for us fans. But the death of 007, with missiles raining down on him and blowing him to kingdom come, just leaves knots in your stomach. In the worst way.

    The fact that Bond doesn't even try to escape. He just stands there, commits suicide. You end up feeling sorry for Bond, and that's not something I want to get from a Bond movie.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    I felt sorry for Bond many times reading the books and even watching the films (OHMSS).
Sign In or Register to comment.