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

1188189191193194298

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    I dislike NTTD, but much of why has to do with my upbringing, the sensibilities I developed in my formative years, my preferences in storytelling, etc. To those who enjoy it, you SHOULD! It's an insanely well made film. We're here to share opinions, not joust.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    Benny wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe I think that was a great review, and well worth the read. Several of your points are spot on.
    I’ve seen the film twice now and I do enjoy it. But I agree with you on the films plot structure being shaky. Like they abandon it and then moving on to something new. I found the scene with Bond floating in the raft and then he’s back in London rather jarring. We don’t need to see him take the trip back, but it just felt odd for some reason.
    I think they’ve ended the Craig era in a way that hasn’t been done before. He arrived as Bond with a big impact. And leaves with a big impact. Killing Bond is a first, and a bold move. With a rebooted series it bookends Craig’s films well.
    We’ve not seen Indiana Jones die.
    Ethan Hunt is still with us.
    Jason Bourne survived.
    But James Bond has saved the world one last time and died in the process.
    Only for James Bond will return.
    I don’t mind that they have. But I hope it doesn’t become the new normal.

    Agree with you here, but I'll say it again; I loved that transition from the raft to the garage! My fourth viewing was at home (rented from Apple TV+, to hell with Bezos ;) ) and I did feel they could have hung on the black screen a moment longer before opening the garage to hammer home the drama of the transition, but either way, gives me chills.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 718
    Minion wrote: »


    Little edit I did.

    I'm sad this darling fanedit got lost in the scuffle of internet drama. Great work, @DoubleOhDalton! I always felt this song was rather good for what amounted to a practical joke by Boy George.

    What the hell, this is incredible. When did this song come out?
    Two years ago ....

    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/music-no-time-to-die-boy-george

    I like it, too ... but I prefer the song we got.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    In another few months no one will remember anything about NTTD beyond it being "the one where he dies at the end", except for diehard Craig fans who will defend it just like QoS and SP.
    The movie simply doesn't have anyway near the impact they were going for. They were so desperate for another OHMSS, that they killed off half the cast and the only death that had any weight to it was Felix. I cared more about felix dying than about Bond, how is that even possible? (And I'm not even as attached to Jeffery Wrights portrayal as most fans seem to be.)

    The story was all over the place after a certain point, like they couldn't just pick a plot and stick with it. It's one of the biggest cases of "too much s#@$ going on" I've seen in recently years. Nothing has any room to breathe or develop correctly. It's like they want to make big flashy statements, and don't care about how it's gonna impact the story, and then just forget about it and move on. The entire "Nomi is 007" feels like it was left in from an earlier draft, it doesn't DO ANYTHING in the story, and there's no resolution to it. I can think of so many examples of "rivals to allies" plotlines in other Bond films that were done so much better.

    Something I actually really enjoyed was the opening scene, because it felt a classic mystery thriller set up. But its just another pointless scene, in the end. Like, there's no reason we needed to see a flashback of Madeline as a child. They build it up like Madeline and Safin are gonna have this bond, the fact that he saved her, and his family was killed etc. But what does any of that mean for the story? Nothing, it just gets tossed aside like everything else. Madeline speaks to Safin exactly as she would if he was a complete stranger, so just like Bond and Blofeld relationship from the previous film, what was the point? I thought it would make an interesting dynamic that the Bond girl and villain have this connection, and safin keeps talking about it, even blofeld says "once you discover her secret it'll be the death of you". And then in the end, he's just another bad guy, and I like Rami Maleks performance a lot, the scene in the psych office might be my favourite scene in the movie. I just wished it went somewhere, ultimately.

    And nothing is worse than Blofelds death, I mean that was the worst moment I have seen in a cinema in 10 years at least. In almost 60 years we've never actually seen Blofeld die on screen before. Okay falling down the chimney came close, but still. And remember this is the guy who, just one film prior was the author of all of Bonds pain, everything was leading up to him, they were like brothers, bound together forev- oh, wait no, he just died offscreen whilst Bond has his back turned, moving right along I guess... like seriously, what the F was that?! Bonds arch nemesis and most iconic villain in the series dies, and its just like hes some minor stooge in a Roger Moore film or something. Pathetic really.

    Bond also acts really bizarrely out of character at a couple moments in this movie, just for plot convenience sake. Like when he randomly gets furious at blofeld and starts choking him, when the whole point of the ending to SP was finally letting go of his past. Like why would Blofeld being able to get under his skin now, it doesn't make any sense, but we need Bond to put the nanobots on him somehow, so...
    Also the moment when Bond decides to grovel at the feet of Safin and Safin doesn't realise that he's being played. Firstly, not even Bond from the books would do that, even as a ruse. The filmic Bond certainly wouldn't. And Craigs Bond absolutely, positively would not did that. Its so out of leftfield. And Safin reveals himself to be an idiot for letting the guy sitting across from him to put his hands hidden under his body without being remotely suspicious.
    It's clear from Craig performance that he no longer cares about the consistency of the character he's playing. Which is not to say he isn't putting effort in, and enjoying himself in the role. I think Craig is have a wail of the time in this film, and he gets a lot more Bondian one liners to work with (which is a massive bonus), but from CR to SF he played his Bond more or less the same and you could tell he was careful to keep it consistent across the continuity, like it was one story. Then in SP he let his hair down a bit more, and now he's just full blown going with the flow. Like the character he created at the beginning is a distant ghost at this point. The Craig from CR would never make a "cats come with hair nowadays" joke, and I think even in SF he would have questioned that line, but by now he's just on a "just give me the lines and I'll say them" type beat.

    Weird complaint to make, but all of the action in this was just average. There really wasn't much tension in a lot of the chases, tbh. Not bad, just nothing standout or spectacular. Some of the scenery is nice, but that's kinda expected with Bond and the final base assault was straight up lame. I loved that plane sub thing they flew that was classic Bond coolness, but why does every Craig film end with just one or two people running around a facility and taking out everyone one by one? Seriously they just did this in the last film and it the most boring sequence ever, why do they keep doing it??? What is so exciting and epic about Bond running around an empty cavernous room and picking off targets like a training simulator. Over the course of 5 films they have reinstated virtually every single trope in Bonds library, except for the classic ending of two sides waging battle. And this was the perfect opportunity, they had a end of world scenario set up, a big elaborate villains base on a remote island with gangways and pools of toxic water. IT WAS PERFECT!!! Did they run out of budget or something? How cool would it have been to have like 20 troops drop in and act as a distraction whilst Bond and nomi make their way to the production centre and plant the mines?

    Anyway, I only saw the movie yesterday for the first time, so I'm probably missing stuff. Performance were good all around, Craig actually manages to pull off "breezy" in some parts which is neat. Ralph and Ben are good, but don't get much especially ben which is a really disappointment considering he carried SP. Moneypenny is barely in it. Nomi is surprising tolerable, Lea knocks it out of the park considering she has to do so much of the heavy lifting for a clunky script. Safin would be seriously underrated if he character amounted to anything, but he's still menacing and creepy regardless. I wanted more of him, honestly. Paloma was a breathe of fresh air and a throwback to classic Bond girls of old, she rocked. Overall I give it 4/10.

    This is a fair and honest review.

    Craig Fans seem intolerant to the fact not every Bond fan likes his portrayal of Bond or his movies.

    Diversity of opinion and all that 😉

    Even this comment is divisive. "Craig Fans" versus, what, "Reasonable People"? Craig Bond fans such as myself can find value in negative reviews, just as people who don't like Craig's portrayal or his films could find value in positive reviews.

    We're all meant to be Bond fans, all on the same team!

    Not divisive at all - but thank you for proving my point nonetheless.

    Can you clarify your point then? I'm a Craig Bond fan, and feel quite tolerant towards the fact that not every Bond fan likes his portrayal of Bond or his movies.

    I just told Mendes that, though I disagreed with his review, I thought it was great and we fully agreed on a particular point in the film.

    Somehow, even doing this is causing a problem in this thread...

    He said awhile ago that he interprets Craig’s films as an attack on the first 20. That by simply rebooting he sees the filmmakers saying “this is how it should have always been done” as opposed to just doing something different for the sake of variety. So his views are suspect in my opinion.
  • In another few months no one will remember anything about NTTD beyond it being "the one where he dies at the end", except for diehard Craig fans who will defend it just like QoS and SP.
    The movie simply doesn't have anyway near the impact they were going for. They were so desperate for another OHMSS, that they killed off half the cast and the only death that had any weight to it was Felix. I cared more about felix dying than about Bond, how is that even possible? (And I'm not even as attached to Jeffery Wrights portrayal as most fans seem to be.)

    The story was all over the place after a certain point, like they couldn't just pick a plot and stick with it. It's one of the biggest cases of "too much s#@$ going on" I've seen in recently years. Nothing has any room to breathe or develop correctly. It's like they want to make big flashy statements, and don't care about how it's gonna impact the story, and then just forget about it and move on. The entire "Nomi is 007" feels like it was left in from an earlier draft, it doesn't DO ANYTHING in the story, and there's no resolution to it. I can think of so many examples of "rivals to allies" plotlines in other Bond films that were done so much better.

    Something I actually really enjoyed was the opening scene, because it felt a classic mystery thriller set up. But its just another pointless scene, in the end. Like, there's no reason we needed to see a flashback of Madeline as a child. They build it up like Madeline and Safin are gonna have this bond, the fact that he saved her, and his family was killed etc. But what does any of that mean for the story? Nothing, it just gets tossed aside like everything else. Madeline speaks to Safin exactly as she would if he was a complete stranger, so just like Bond and Blofeld relationship from the previous film, what was the point? I thought it would make an interesting dynamic that the Bond girl and villain have this connection, and safin keeps talking about it, even blofeld says "once you discover her secret it'll be the death of you". And then in the end, he's just another bad guy, and I like Rami Maleks performance a lot, the scene in the psych office might be my favourite scene in the movie. I just wished it went somewhere, ultimately.

    And nothing is worse than Blofelds death, I mean that was the worst moment I have seen in a cinema in 10 years at least. In almost 60 years we've never actually seen Blofeld die on screen before. Okay falling down the chimney came close, but still. And remember this is the guy who, just one film prior was the author of all of Bonds pain, everything was leading up to him, they were like brothers, bound together forev- oh, wait no, he just died offscreen whilst Bond has his back turned, moving right along I guess... like seriously, what the F was that?! Bonds arch nemesis and most iconic villain in the series dies, and its just like hes some minor stooge in a Roger Moore film or something. Pathetic really.

    Bond also acts really bizarrely out of character at a couple moments in this movie, just for plot convenience sake. Like when he randomly gets furious at blofeld and starts choking him, when the whole point of the ending to SP was finally letting go of his past. Like why would Blofeld being able to get under his skin now, it doesn't make any sense, but we need Bond to put the nanobots on him somehow, so...
    Also the moment when Bond decides to grovel at the feet of Safin and Safin doesn't realise that he's being played. Firstly, not even Bond from the books would do that, even as a ruse. The filmic Bond certainly wouldn't. And Craigs Bond absolutely, positively would not did that. Its so out of leftfield. And Safin reveals himself to be an idiot for letting the guy sitting across from him to put his hands hidden under his body without being remotely suspicious.
    It's clear from Craig performance that he no longer cares about the consistency of the character he's playing. Which is not to say he isn't putting effort in, and enjoying himself in the role. I think Craig is have a wail of the time in this film, and he gets a lot more Bondian one liners to work with (which is a massive bonus), but from CR to SF he played his Bond more or less the same and you could tell he was careful to keep it consistent across the continuity, like it was one story. Then in SP he let his hair down a bit more, and now he's just full blown going with the flow. Like the character he created at the beginning is a distant ghost at this point. The Craig from CR would never make a "cats come with hair nowadays" joke, and I think even in SF he would have questioned that line, but by now he's just on a "just give me the lines and I'll say them" type beat.

    Weird complaint to make, but all of the action in this was just average. There really wasn't much tension in a lot of the chases, tbh. Not bad, just nothing standout or spectacular. Some of the scenery is nice, but that's kinda expected with Bond and the final base assault was straight up lame. I loved that plane sub thing they flew that was classic Bond coolness, but why does every Craig film end with just one or two people running around a facility and taking out everyone one by one? Seriously they just did this in the last film and it the most boring sequence ever, why do they keep doing it??? What is so exciting and epic about Bond running around an empty cavernous room and picking off targets like a training simulator. Over the course of 5 films they have reinstated virtually every single trope in Bonds library, except for the classic ending of two sides waging battle. And this was the perfect opportunity, they had a end of world scenario set up, a big elaborate villains base on a remote island with gangways and pools of toxic water. IT WAS PERFECT!!! Did they run out of budget or something? How cool would it have been to have like 20 troops drop in and act as a distraction whilst Bond and nomi make their way to the production centre and plant the mines?

    Anyway, I only saw the movie yesterday for the first time, so I'm probably missing stuff. Performance were good all around, Craig actually manages to pull off "breezy" in some parts which is neat. Ralph and Ben are good, but don't get much especially ben which is a really disappointment considering he carried SP. Moneypenny is barely in it. Nomi is surprising tolerable, Lea knocks it out of the park considering she has to do so much of the heavy lifting for a clunky script. Safin would be seriously underrated if he character amounted to anything, but he's still menacing and creepy regardless. I wanted more of him, honestly. Paloma was a breathe of fresh air and a throwback to classic Bond girls of old, she rocked. Overall I give it 4/10.

    This is a fair and honest review.

    Craig Fans seem intolerant to the fact not every Bond fan likes his portrayal of Bond or his movies.

    Diversity of opinion and all that 😉

    Even this comment is divisive. "Craig Fans" versus, what, "Reasonable People"? Craig Bond fans such as myself can find value in negative reviews, just as people who don't like Craig's portrayal or his films could find value in positive reviews.

    We're all meant to be Bond fans, all on the same team!

    Not divisive at all - but thank you for proving my point nonetheless.

    Can you clarify your point then? I'm a Craig Bond fan, and feel quite tolerant towards the fact that not every Bond fan likes his portrayal of Bond or his movies.

    I just told Mendes that, though I disagreed with his review, I thought it was great and we fully agreed on a particular point in the film.

    Somehow, even doing this is causing a problem in this thread...

    He said awhile ago that he interprets Craig’s films as an attack on the first 20. That by simply rebooting he sees the filmmakers saying “this is how it should have always been done” as opposed to just doing something different for the sake of variety. So his views are suspect in my opinion.

    Absolute drivel and a complete failure to understand any of my points.

    You have no right to dismiss my views as suspect. Again, just more total arrogance and pretentious preening. I'm done
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited November 2021 Posts: 7,999
    Lol, wut? I have every right to acknowledge and dismiss views. It’s my free right, just as it’s yours. If you wanna be as dismissive of my views go ahead.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    In another few months no one will remember anything about NTTD beyond it being "the one where he dies at the end", except for diehard Craig fans who will defend it just like QoS and SP.
    The movie simply doesn't have anyway near the impact they were going for. They were so desperate for another OHMSS, that they killed off half the cast and the only death that had any weight to it was Felix. I cared more about felix dying than about Bond, how is that even possible? (And I'm not even as attached to Jeffery Wrights portrayal as most fans seem to be.)

    The story was all over the place after a certain point, like they couldn't just pick a plot and stick with it. It's one of the biggest cases of "too much s#@$ going on" I've seen in recently years. Nothing has any room to breathe or develop correctly. It's like they want to make big flashy statements, and don't care about how it's gonna impact the story, and then just forget about it and move on. The entire "Nomi is 007" feels like it was left in from an earlier draft, it doesn't DO ANYTHING in the story, and there's no resolution to it. I can think of so many examples of "rivals to allies" plotlines in other Bond films that were done so much better.

    Something I actually really enjoyed was the opening scene, because it felt a classic mystery thriller set up. But its just another pointless scene, in the end. Like, there's no reason we needed to see a flashback of Madeline as a child. They build it up like Madeline and Safin are gonna have this bond, the fact that he saved her, and his family was killed etc. But what does any of that mean for the story? Nothing, it just gets tossed aside like everything else. Madeline speaks to Safin exactly as she would if he was a complete stranger, so just like Bond and Blofeld relationship from the previous film, what was the point? I thought it would make an interesting dynamic that the Bond girl and villain have this connection, and safin keeps talking about it, even blofeld says "once you discover her secret it'll be the death of you". And then in the end, he's just another bad guy, and I like Rami Maleks performance a lot, the scene in the psych office might be my favourite scene in the movie. I just wished it went somewhere, ultimately.

    And nothing is worse than Blofelds death, I mean that was the worst moment I have seen in a cinema in 10 years at least. In almost 60 years we've never actually seen Blofeld die on screen before. Okay falling down the chimney came close, but still. And remember this is the guy who, just one film prior was the author of all of Bonds pain, everything was leading up to him, they were like brothers, bound together forev- oh, wait no, he just died offscreen whilst Bond has his back turned, moving right along I guess... like seriously, what the F was that?! Bonds arch nemesis and most iconic villain in the series dies, and its just like hes some minor stooge in a Roger Moore film or something. Pathetic really.

    Bond also acts really bizarrely out of character at a couple moments in this movie, just for plot convenience sake. Like when he randomly gets furious at blofeld and starts choking him, when the whole point of the ending to SP was finally letting go of his past. Like why would Blofeld being able to get under his skin now, it doesn't make any sense, but we need Bond to put the nanobots on him somehow, so...
    Also the moment when Bond decides to grovel at the feet of Safin and Safin doesn't realise that he's being played. Firstly, not even Bond from the books would do that, even as a ruse. The filmic Bond certainly wouldn't. And Craigs Bond absolutely, positively would not did that. Its so out of leftfield. And Safin reveals himself to be an idiot for letting the guy sitting across from him to put his hands hidden under his body without being remotely suspicious.
    It's clear from Craig performance that he no longer cares about the consistency of the character he's playing. Which is not to say he isn't putting effort in, and enjoying himself in the role. I think Craig is have a wail of the time in this film, and he gets a lot more Bondian one liners to work with (which is a massive bonus), but from CR to SF he played his Bond more or less the same and you could tell he was careful to keep it consistent across the continuity, like it was one story. Then in SP he let his hair down a bit more, and now he's just full blown going with the flow. Like the character he created at the beginning is a distant ghost at this point. The Craig from CR would never make a "cats come with hair nowadays" joke, and I think even in SF he would have questioned that line, but by now he's just on a "just give me the lines and I'll say them" type beat.

    Weird complaint to make, but all of the action in this was just average. There really wasn't much tension in a lot of the chases, tbh. Not bad, just nothing standout or spectacular. Some of the scenery is nice, but that's kinda expected with Bond and the final base assault was straight up lame. I loved that plane sub thing they flew that was classic Bond coolness, but why does every Craig film end with just one or two people running around a facility and taking out everyone one by one? Seriously they just did this in the last film and it the most boring sequence ever, why do they keep doing it??? What is so exciting and epic about Bond running around an empty cavernous room and picking off targets like a training simulator. Over the course of 5 films they have reinstated virtually every single trope in Bonds library, except for the classic ending of two sides waging battle. And this was the perfect opportunity, they had a end of world scenario set up, a big elaborate villains base on a remote island with gangways and pools of toxic water. IT WAS PERFECT!!! Did they run out of budget or something? How cool would it have been to have like 20 troops drop in and act as a distraction whilst Bond and nomi make their way to the production centre and plant the mines?

    Anyway, I only saw the movie yesterday for the first time, so I'm probably missing stuff. Performance were good all around, Craig actually manages to pull off "breezy" in some parts which is neat. Ralph and Ben are good, but don't get much especially ben which is a really disappointment considering he carried SP. Moneypenny is barely in it. Nomi is surprising tolerable, Lea knocks it out of the park considering she has to do so much of the heavy lifting for a clunky script. Safin would be seriously underrated if he character amounted to anything, but he's still menacing and creepy regardless. I wanted more of him, honestly. Paloma was a breathe of fresh air and a throwback to classic Bond girls of old, she rocked. Overall I give it 4/10.

    This is a fair and honest review.

    Craig Fans seem intolerant to the fact not every Bond fan likes his portrayal of Bond or his movies.

    Diversity of opinion and all that 😉

    Even this comment is divisive. "Craig Fans" versus, what, "Reasonable People"? Craig Bond fans such as myself can find value in negative reviews, just as people who don't like Craig's portrayal or his films could find value in positive reviews.

    We're all meant to be Bond fans, all on the same team!

    Not divisive at all - but thank you for proving my point nonetheless.

    Can you clarify your point then? I'm a Craig Bond fan, and feel quite tolerant towards the fact that not every Bond fan likes his portrayal of Bond or his movies.

    I just told Mendes that, though I disagreed with his review, I thought it was great and we fully agreed on a particular point in the film.

    Somehow, even doing this is causing a problem in this thread...

    He said awhile ago that he interprets Craig’s films as an attack on the first 20. That by simply rebooting he sees the filmmakers saying “this is how it should have always been done” as opposed to just doing something different for the sake of variety. So his views are suspect in my opinion.

    Absolute drivel and a complete failure to understand any of my points.

    You have no right to dismiss my views as suspect. Again, just more total arrogance and pretentious preening. I'm done

    You're dismissing another's views while claiming they have no right to do the same. You very much seem to be saying "Craig fans are just wrong", it's not hard to see in your own very arrogant posts.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited November 2021 Posts: 1,261
    SBRM doth protest too much, methinks. Maybe he is a member of the CraigNotBond thingame. And thinks DAD is a good movie.
  • Posts: 372
    Anyone noticed that Bond actually "stays with Q" when in London?

    I wonder what happened to Q date when he came on and saw Bond was there and had already drunk half his bottle of red wine.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    Stamper wrote: »
    Anyone noticed that Bond actually "stays with Q" when in London?

    I wonder what happened to Q date when he came on and saw Bond was there and had already drunk half his bottle of red wine.

    I hope Bond said “get a room!”
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    edited November 2021 Posts: 1,261
    Stamper wrote: »
    Anyone noticed that Bond actually "stays with Q" when in London?

    I wonder what happened to Q date when he came on and saw Bond was there and had already drunk half his bottle of red wine.

    I hope Bond said “get a room!”

    Maybe we shold have seen Bond and Q as "odd couple" with either Bond cleaning the flat, do the shopping, feed the cats, cook the mealsetc., or, alternativeley, messing up Q's flat with empty Heineken cans and empty takewaway boxes. But as one user took this suggestion for serious, maybe it's better without this biteen.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Okay, my last real rant- NANOBOTS!!!! In a hundred years, maybe, but in our lifetimes it's still gonna be experimental stuff. Designer viruses like in Dark Angel would have made more sense, but wouldn't have driven the narrative to make sense of Bond sacrificing himself nearly as well.
    Anyone who severely dislikes SP should REALLY dislike NTTD IMHO....
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    Why?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Why?

    Because nanobots in this Century is way stupider than Blofeld being somehow related to Bond... one is impossible, the other is merely not cool.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    Have you seen Brosnan’s films?

    ;)
  • In another few months no one will remember anything about NTTD beyond it being "the one where he dies at the end", except for diehard Craig fans who will defend it just like QoS and SP.
    The movie simply doesn't have anyway near the impact they were going for. They were so desperate for another OHMSS, that they killed off half the cast and the only death that had any weight to it was Felix. I cared more about felix dying than about Bond, how is that even possible? (And I'm not even as attached to Jeffery Wrights portrayal as most fans seem to be.)

    The story was all over the place after a certain point, like they couldn't just pick a plot and stick with it. It's one of the biggest cases of "too much s#@$ going on" I've seen in recently years. Nothing has any room to breathe or develop correctly. It's like they want to make big flashy statements, and don't care about how it's gonna impact the story, and then just forget about it and move on. The entire "Nomi is 007" feels like it was left in from an earlier draft, it doesn't DO ANYTHING in the story, and there's no resolution to it. I can think of so many examples of "rivals to allies" plotlines in other Bond films that were done so much better.

    Something I actually really enjoyed was the opening scene, because it felt a classic mystery thriller set up. But its just another pointless scene, in the end. Like, there's no reason we needed to see a flashback of Madeline as a child. They build it up like Madeline and Safin are gonna have this bond, the fact that he saved her, and his family was killed etc. But what does any of that mean for the story? Nothing, it just gets tossed aside like everything else. Madeline speaks to Safin exactly as she would if he was a complete stranger, so just like Bond and Blofeld relationship from the previous film, what was the point? I thought it would make an interesting dynamic that the Bond girl and villain have this connection, and safin keeps talking about it, even blofeld says "once you discover her secret it'll be the death of you". And then in the end, he's just another bad guy, and I like Rami Maleks performance a lot, the scene in the psych office might be my favourite scene in the movie. I just wished it went somewhere, ultimately.

    And nothing is worse than Blofelds death, I mean that was the worst moment I have seen in a cinema in 10 years at least. In almost 60 years we've never actually seen Blofeld die on screen before. Okay falling down the chimney came close, but still. And remember this is the guy who, just one film prior was the author of all of Bonds pain, everything was leading up to him, they were like brothers, bound together forev- oh, wait no, he just died offscreen whilst Bond has his back turned, moving right along I guess... like seriously, what the F was that?! Bonds arch nemesis and most iconic villain in the series dies, and its just like hes some minor stooge in a Roger Moore film or something. Pathetic really.

    Bond also acts really bizarrely out of character at a couple moments in this movie, just for plot convenience sake. Like when he randomly gets furious at blofeld and starts choking him, when the whole point of the ending to SP was finally letting go of his past. Like why would Blofeld being able to get under his skin now, it doesn't make any sense, but we need Bond to put the nanobots on him somehow, so...
    Also the moment when Bond decides to grovel at the feet of Safin and Safin doesn't realise that he's being played. Firstly, not even Bond from the books would do that, even as a ruse. The filmic Bond certainly wouldn't. And Craigs Bond absolutely, positively would not did that. Its so out of leftfield. And Safin reveals himself to be an idiot for letting the guy sitting across from him to put his hands hidden under his body without being remotely suspicious.
    It's clear from Craig performance that he no longer cares about the consistency of the character he's playing. Which is not to say he isn't putting effort in, and enjoying himself in the role. I think Craig is have a wail of the time in this film, and he gets a lot more Bondian one liners to work with (which is a massive bonus), but from CR to SF he played his Bond more or less the same and you could tell he was careful to keep it consistent across the continuity, like it was one story. Then in SP he let his hair down a bit more, and now he's just full blown going with the flow. Like the character he created at the beginning is a distant ghost at this point. The Craig from CR would never make a "cats come with hair nowadays" joke, and I think even in SF he would have questioned that line, but by now he's just on a "just give me the lines and I'll say them" type beat.

    Weird complaint to make, but all of the action in this was just average. There really wasn't much tension in a lot of the chases, tbh. Not bad, just nothing standout or spectacular. Some of the scenery is nice, but that's kinda expected with Bond and the final base assault was straight up lame. I loved that plane sub thing they flew that was classic Bond coolness, but why does every Craig film end with just one or two people running around a facility and taking out everyone one by one? Seriously they just did this in the last film and it the most boring sequence ever, why do they keep doing it??? What is so exciting and epic about Bond running around an empty cavernous room and picking off targets like a training simulator. Over the course of 5 films they have reinstated virtually every single trope in Bonds library, except for the classic ending of two sides waging battle. And this was the perfect opportunity, they had a end of world scenario set up, a big elaborate villains base on a remote island with gangways and pools of toxic water. IT WAS PERFECT!!! Did they run out of budget or something? How cool would it have been to have like 20 troops drop in and act as a distraction whilst Bond and nomi make their way to the production centre and plant the mines?

    Anyway, I only saw the movie yesterday for the first time, so I'm probably missing stuff. Performance were good all around, Craig actually manages to pull off "breezy" in some parts which is neat. Ralph and Ben are good, but don't get much especially ben which is a really disappointment considering he carried SP. Moneypenny is barely in it. Nomi is surprising tolerable, Lea knocks it out of the park considering she has to do so much of the heavy lifting for a clunky script. Safin would be seriously underrated if he character amounted to anything, but he's still menacing and creepy regardless. I wanted more of him, honestly. Paloma was a breathe of fresh air and a throwback to classic Bond girls of old, she rocked. Overall I give it 4/10.

    This is exactly how I felt about the movie coming out of it, although I was slightly more positive and gave it a 5/10. Since then I felt the movie grow on me and expected to enjoy it more in a second viewing, but reading your review brought back all
    the negative thoughts I had the first time. So it could go either way when I revisit it. There’s just so MUCH in the movie, both good and bad. The script issues are really evident because they really didn’t need to shove as many different elements in there as they did. They should have either made Blofeld the primary antagonist again, or only focused on Safin and fleshed him out more; as it stands I think most of the issues stem from trying to do service to both, but it just ends up letting them both down.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 49
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I dislike NTTD, but much of why has to do with my upbringing, the sensibilities I developed in my formative years, my preferences in storytelling, etc. To those who enjoy it, you SHOULD! It's an insanely well made film. We're here to share opinions, not joust.

    I was flicking through and noticed this. All of these on-line discussion groups have several 'elephants in the room' but this is the most simple and obvious one. If they have been making films since 1962 "points of entry" are going to vary enormously and ones reaction is inevitably coloured by that.

    As someone who is 66 and came from a working class back ground in the North when they was a woollen industry the Bond legacy has been most important in shaping and formulating my aspirations giving me role models. Honor, Diana etc etc. life experiences and places.

    However psychology, the thing that makes unusual people tick is for me the pre dominate fascination now. I also tend to agree with Fleming that if you want those searing moments of romance passion, call it what you will they are fleeting. Most relationships are over time about TCOB.

    So as a 66 yearly to see a Bond whose skin we have got underneath try and find the door to that and realise its impossible to do so is actually thematically a very simple proposition. This story is really "The Spy's who loved each other." neither could escape their past and yet for a precious few days they found Paradise. But they loved momentarily and to the full that is operatic in scope. Opera is always a very simple story dressed up, NTTD is the same. The Cuba sequence is a traditional insert which returns to the Grand theme. It is a deliberate placement of Bond Cinema values whereas the MI6 entry is a collision of subversion and real life comment.

    However if you are young/middle aged/man/woman who came in on Roger/Tim/Pierce floating continuity and bought that as your first relationship with Bond you may consider all this fiddle faddle... or not.

    In many ways our response to this film is more important than the film itself. The film is immovable done .. how do we approach it and why is fascinating because in the end it has done what Bond is about, taking risks, being different.








  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    I feel as though it's somewhat symbolic that it's MI6 that creates the weapon that ultimately deprives Bond of being able to live the life he wants, and it's a British Navy ship that ultimately fires the missiles that kill him, not any one individual villain or "bad guy" or what have you. In the Craig era of stories, Bond is constantly trying to get out of "the life" and he essentially tries in every one of this films except maybe QoS (quits by email in CR, "enjoys death" in Skyfall but is dragged back in when MI6 is attacked, retires at the end of SP). He faces villainy, treachery, adversity, but in the end it's "the life" that is his undoing. It's a good life, the best, as he tells Felix, but ultimately a shadow (or spectre?) over him, an inescapable, inevitable realty that he can never escape. Kind of heartbreaking I think.
  • Posts: 372
    Stellar post NickTwentyTwo. NTTD really sums up the Craig era.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Have you seen Brosnan’s films?

    ;)

    You know the film’s villain taking control of a DNA-targeting nanobots is a concept first pitched for TWINE by Purvis & Wade. ;)
  • I feel as though it's somewhat symbolic that it's MI6 that creates the weapon that ultimately deprives Bond of being able to live the life he wants, and it's a British Navy ship that ultimately fires the missiles that kill him, not any one individual villain or "bad guy" or what have you. In the Craig era of stories, Bond is constantly trying to get out of "the life" and he essentially tries in every one of this films except maybe QoS (quits by email in CR, "enjoys death" in Skyfall but is dragged back in when MI6 is attacked, retires at the end of SP). He faces villainy, treachery, adversity, but in the end it's "the life" that is his undoing. It's a good life, the best, as he tells Felix, but ultimately a shadow (or spectre?) over him, an inescapable, inevitable realty that he can never escape. Kind of heartbreaking I think.

    Well put.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    matt_u wrote: »
    Have you seen Brosnan’s films?

    ;)

    You know the film’s villain taking control of a DNA-targeting nanobots is a concept first pitched for TWINE by Purvis & Wade. ;)

    Full circle!
  • I feel as though it's somewhat symbolic that it's MI6 that creates the weapon that ultimately deprives Bond of being able to live the life he wants, and it's a British Navy ship that ultimately fires the missiles that kill him, not any one individual villain or "bad guy" or what have you. In the Craig era of stories, Bond is constantly trying to get out of "the life" and he essentially tries in every one of this films except maybe QoS (quits by email in CR, "enjoys death" in Skyfall but is dragged back in when MI6 is attacked, retires at the end of SP). He faces villainy, treachery, adversity, but in the end it's "the life" that is his undoing. It's a good life, the best, as he tells Felix, but ultimately a shadow (or spectre?) over him, an inescapable, inevitable realty that he can never escape. Kind of heartbreaking I think.

    Excellent post. This is why I actually really like the argumentative scene in M's office earlier on in the movie as M bears some culpability for Bond losing his family through Heracles and losing his life. It was really great to watch that scene on a repeat viewing knowing all what happens at the end.

    Jumping off what you said though, in a way, NTTD ends the same way SP does. Bond caught in the middle between MI6 and Madeleine. Except this time he can't cross the bridge to the life he wants as his past, his choices, and his curse of death prevents him.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited November 2021 Posts: 2,895
    I had no problem with the way Bond spoke to M in NTTD - he's been out of the service for five years, whatever due (but sometimes strained) deference was there before isn't required any more and, given M's actions, the professional respect that Bond had for Mallory will have been undermined too. And it's better than the scrapped version of the office scene from SP, where Bond told M he that if he really was a loose cannon, M should be scared to be alone in a room with him! That really would've jarred.
  • Posts: 12,242
    Man, I love the M-Bond office scene in NTTD. One of many highlights for me.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Man, I love the M-Bond office scene in NTTD. One of many highlights for me.

    Yes, I agree. And I was just thinking too how I love how Craig kind of "hams" up the lines when he's talking about Spectre & Blofeld, in his delivery. A couple examples, when he says:

    "No, he's in London in prison..." "...because I put him there..." to Paloma in Cuba

    and

    "Yes, he ran a meeting in Cuba from Belmarsh..." to M in London

    Etc. For some reason I just love his delivery in those moments. Really the whole meeting between Bond and M is immaculate in this film IMO.
  • I have no problem with Bond dressing down M in that scene, but I do have a big problem with that scene being necessitated by M acting completely out of character with the whole Heracles stuff. I don’t buy for a second that the same guy who was established as totally “getting it” re the importance of having guys in the field in Skyfall and Spectre is also secretly developing a wildly amoral & irresponsible that is designed to take agents OUT of the field. Just totally contradictory character writing.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 7,518
    Not a bad point. I think that's why they had that dialogue in the film with M saying "We used to be able to get into a room with the enemy, look him in the eye... now they're just floating in the ether."

    There's also that line from the trailer that was cut, "Our enemies are arming faster than ever." or something to that effect. That stuff was probably in there to explain M's about-face on the matter.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    I have no problem with Bond dressing down M in that scene, but I do have a big problem with that scene being necessitated by M acting completely out of character with the whole Heracles stuff. I don’t buy for a second that the same guy who was established as totally “getting it” re the importance of having guys in the field in Skyfall and Spectre is also secretly developing a wildly amoral & irresponsible that is designed to take agents OUT of the field. Just totally contradictory character writing.

    Heracles doesn’t get agents off the field. It just manages to avoid any collateral damage. The spy work on the field is still needed but agents just end up being in far safer position. M working on a weapon that manages to protect the life of his agents makes perfect sense to me.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    Yes, so why should they make tea without first warming the pot? They call it brandishing a cold teapot.
Sign In or Register to comment.