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

1218219221223224298

Comments

  • mattjoes wrote: »
    Finally had my third viewing this past weekend at home. The 'newness' has definitely worn off at this point and I feel I had my most objective viewing of the film so far. At the moment, it's stuck in 3rd place out of Craig's five, but I think it will end up in 4th. Need to watch all five of his in a row to get the full experience, I think. ;)

    Didn't you have this as your best Bond film ever only a few weeks ago...?

    You're looking for the Dikko Henderson version.

    You mean it wasn't ShakenNotStirred but StirredNotShaken? :))

    Precisely! :D

    I'm lost. You mean I've got the wrong person?

    Sorry guys, I merely like NTTD and Mr. Stirred Loves it! ;)

    I wish there was a way to make the user names more distinct/standout on here. oh well!
  • Posts: 511
    BMB007 wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Faking a death would require an entirely different movie from the ground up because of Bond’s relationship with Madeleine alone.
    Yeah, that's the point. They modeled the movie to come to the specific conclusion they wanted.

    How do you think writing works? That's, like, the first rule of storytelling — you write to the ending, link the circle together.

    Stephen King does the exact opposite, the ending is the last thing he writes (he said that in his On Writing book). And, in my opinion, he's a much better writer than Christopher Nolan.

    I never said "you write the ending first" — I said you write to the ending. Definitionally that's how writing anything works. You resolve it based on what has come before. The original poster alluded to a fault of NTTD being that the movie was "molded...to come to the specific conclusion they wanted."

    You're arguing about semantics, but the point still stands. King doesn't decide the ending either. He doesn't know how the story will end until he actually gets there. That's what he means.

    As @TripAces said they're different mediums and I'll concede that he has a good point, though I still disagree with Nolan's approach and I prefer King's, whether it's a book or a movie script.

    I'm not arguing semantics, I never said "write the ending first". That's a very different claim than what I said. Of course you don't write the ending first — that's impossible!

    What I'm saying when I say "write to the ending" is you *always* have a color in mind, a feeling. The mood you want to evoke with a story. Is it transcendent? Is it something tragic? Silly or somber? Is it nostalgic or perhaps dystopic? The mood as a writer you want to inspire informs the emotion of the ending. Which is the real thing that matters! The literal plot points of an ending may differ wildly through drafting and creating, but the feeling remains consistent. Because the feeling is created by what came before and is embedded within it.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Kicking: Impossible
    Posts: 6,718
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Finally had my third viewing this past weekend at home. The 'newness' has definitely worn off at this point and I feel I had my most objective viewing of the film so far. At the moment, it's stuck in 3rd place out of Craig's five, but I think it will end up in 4th. Need to watch all five of his in a row to get the full experience, I think. ;)

    Didn't you have this as your best Bond film ever only a few weeks ago...?

    You're looking for the Dikko Henderson version.

    You mean it wasn't ShakenNotStirred but StirredNotShaken? :))

    Precisely! :D

    I'm lost. You mean I've got the wrong person?

    Sorry guys, I merely like NTTD and Mr. Stirred Loves it! ;)

    I wish there was a way to make the user names more distinct/standout on here. oh well!

    I don't know, if I were you guys I would try to come up with some amusing pranks. Like having one of you begin a conversation with a random user before having the other take over without saying anything. Then you could tell that random user they've been replying to the wrong person. Things like that. The possibilities are endless!
  • mattjoes wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Finally had my third viewing this past weekend at home. The 'newness' has definitely worn off at this point and I feel I had my most objective viewing of the film so far. At the moment, it's stuck in 3rd place out of Craig's five, but I think it will end up in 4th. Need to watch all five of his in a row to get the full experience, I think. ;)

    Didn't you have this as your best Bond film ever only a few weeks ago...?

    You're looking for the Dikko Henderson version.

    You mean it wasn't ShakenNotStirred but StirredNotShaken? :))

    Precisely! :D

    I'm lost. You mean I've got the wrong person?

    Sorry guys, I merely like NTTD and Mr. Stirred Loves it! ;)

    I wish there was a way to make the user names more distinct/standout on here. oh well!

    I don't know, if I were you guys I would try to come up with some amusing pranks. Like having one of you begin a conversation with a random user before having the other take over without saying anything. Then you could tell that random user they've been replying to the wrong person. Things like that. The possibilities are endless!

    Haha, it happens on its own, as I get notifications when someone replies to him but instead tags me! But I like the way you think @mattjoes :D
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,962
    The YOLT novel ending works because of the set-up from OHMSS. When Bond realises Shatterhand is Blofeld, it becomes personal. I don't think the ending would have had the same weight done with Craig. Certainly not the killing of Blofeld.
    A straight remake would have worked in 1971 with Lazenby.

    Someone said on here that one of the biggest miss-steps in the movie series was making YOLT before OHMSS. And it's right if you think about it.

    Agreed about that being the biggest misstep in the film series. Interestingly, the '70s came to be somewhat defined by revenge stories (Dirty Harry, etc.), so a faithful YOLT after OHMSS might have been exactly what those films needed.

    Although...the film series, if it maintained that deadly serious tone, may have run out of gas (ha) after a faithful TMWTGG. In a way, I think Connery, Moore, and the tonal shift saved the series.

    I wonder if Glidrose ever considered not publishing the unfinished TMWTGG and ending the book series on YOLT. Somehow I doubt it given how popular Bond was at the time.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    slide_99 wrote: »
    Bond kills Blofeld, escapes injured, loses his memory and spends the last part of the film tragically with amnesia, living as a Japanese fisherman and hooks up with some female. Then one day he sets sail off to Russia, as he believes he has connections there.

    Bond losing his memory would result in people accusing the producers of copying Bourne again, even though YOLT was written well before the first Bourne book. I think Bond faking his death and choosing to spend the rest of his days living as an anonymous fisherman on a remote island somewhere would have been a great ending for Craig. It would basically be a follow-through on his aborted retirement in Skyfall, where he gets to "stay dead" and make a clean exit from the 00 life.

    @slide_99

    That is how I envisioned it, too. But Bond's life in Jamaica already did that...right? So that whole idea was messed up.
  • mattjoes wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Finally had my third viewing this past weekend at home. The 'newness' has definitely worn off at this point and I feel I had my most objective viewing of the film so far. At the moment, it's stuck in 3rd place out of Craig's five, but I think it will end up in 4th. Need to watch all five of his in a row to get the full experience, I think. ;)

    Didn't you have this as your best Bond film ever only a few weeks ago...?

    You're looking for the Dikko Henderson version.

    You mean it wasn't ShakenNotStirred but StirredNotShaken? :))

    Precisely! :D

    I'm lost. You mean I've got the wrong person?

    Sorry guys, I merely like NTTD and Mr. Stirred Loves it! ;)

    I wish there was a way to make the user names more distinct/standout on here. oh well!

    I don't know, if I were you guys I would try to come up with some amusing pranks. Like having one of you begin a conversation with a random user before having the other take over without saying anything. Then you could tell that random user they've been replying to the wrong person. Things like that. The possibilities are endless!

    Haha, it happens on its own, as I get notifications when someone replies to him but instead tags me! But I like the way you think @mattjoes :D

    If you guys really want to mess with people you could swap avatars every other day! ;)
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    I hate to say it, but I still get confused.
  • Quite alright, us Canadians are pretty samey.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Kicking: Impossible
    Posts: 6,718
    mattjoes wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Finally had my third viewing this past weekend at home. The 'newness' has definitely worn off at this point and I feel I had my most objective viewing of the film so far. At the moment, it's stuck in 3rd place out of Craig's five, but I think it will end up in 4th. Need to watch all five of his in a row to get the full experience, I think. ;)

    Didn't you have this as your best Bond film ever only a few weeks ago...?

    You're looking for the Dikko Henderson version.

    You mean it wasn't ShakenNotStirred but StirredNotShaken? :))

    Precisely! :D

    I'm lost. You mean I've got the wrong person?

    Sorry guys, I merely like NTTD and Mr. Stirred Loves it! ;)

    I wish there was a way to make the user names more distinct/standout on here. oh well!

    I don't know, if I were you guys I would try to come up with some amusing pranks. Like having one of you begin a conversation with a random user before having the other take over without saying anything. Then you could tell that random user they've been replying to the wrong person. Things like that. The possibilities are endless!

    Haha, it happens on its own, as I get notifications when someone replies to him but instead tags me! But I like the way you think @mattjoes :D

    If you guys really want to mess with people you could swap avatars every other day! ;)

    pure evil
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 6,844
    mattjoes wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Finally had my third viewing this past weekend at home. The 'newness' has definitely worn off at this point and I feel I had my most objective viewing of the film so far. At the moment, it's stuck in 3rd place out of Craig's five, but I think it will end up in 4th. Need to watch all five of his in a row to get the full experience, I think. ;)

    Didn't you have this as your best Bond film ever only a few weeks ago...?

    You're looking for the Dikko Henderson version.

    You mean it wasn't ShakenNotStirred but StirredNotShaken? :))

    Precisely! :D

    I'm lost. You mean I've got the wrong person?

    Sorry guys, I merely like NTTD and Mr. Stirred Loves it! ;)

    I wish there was a way to make the user names more distinct/standout on here. oh well!

    I don't know, if I were you guys I would try to come up with some amusing pranks. Like having one of you begin a conversation with a random user before having the other take over without saying anything. Then you could tell that random user they've been replying to the wrong person. Things like that. The possibilities are endless!

    Haha, it happens on its own, as I get notifications when someone replies to him but instead tags me! But I like the way you think @mattjoes :D

    If you guys really want to mess with people you could swap avatars every other day! ;)

    pure evil



    :D
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited December 2021 Posts: 2,721
    So I've just seen 'No Time To Die' for a second time at the cinema. My first viewing was just five days ago and since then I rewatched the entire Craig era from CR to SP and then went back to the movie theatre, almost as excited as the first viewing so I could re-evaluate and process everything about this unique Bond film.

    On the second viewing the plot was clearer. I understood subtle things that I missed on first viewing, like seeing Logan Ash recruit Cyclops after the Cuba excursion. On first viewing I just took it as Q identifying Ash's location, this time I realised Cyclops wasn't part of Safin's plan from the beginning.

    I don't mind the title song but it does nothing for me and the titles aren't my favourite compared with Casino Royale or Skyfall. But I did like them a little more this time, especially the effect of the bullets turning into streaks that show the character's faces, reminiscent of the bursting missile streaks in the air that Bond watches just seconds before his demise.

    In many ways this is Madeline's film. It starts and ends with her, and it has to be the most lowkey entrance for Bond in the Craig era. Bond arriving in the story, seen from her perspective. I liked the scene between Madeline and Safin in the office much more this time. And this scene has my favourite performance from Seydoux. She really is the heart of the film and I like that she bookends the story.

    Considering the butchering of Blofeld in SP, they managed to create a solid villain with Safin, without being very memorable. The opening goes a long way to helping his mystique. Even though I don't buy his motivation for world destruction as a driving force. I don't think it's a big issue. I like the YOLT tie-in, but disappointed in the poison garden, it could have been more threatening or vivid. And the elephant in the room for me is the Mathilde character. I said before and I'll say again that regardless of what she represents for Bond as a character, from a scriptwriting stance, adding an innocent child in peril in the third act is fairly pedestrian. Especially when Safin just let's her go. It's a minor nitpick on the second viewing, but not very cinematic.

    The Blofeld prison scene is shot well and has a good sense of suspense from Bond and Madeline meeting in the hallway to Blofeld being wheeled out. But overall this scene doesn't do much for me. And I think Craig is hamming it up a little here. Looking back at SP the misuse of the Blofeld character is the most egregious error of Craig's era. He's written poorly and while It seems crazy to say it with a double Oscar winner in the role...it really is a shame he wasn't cast better. Someone who had real bristling chemistry with Craig.

    I think the writers and director have done an excellent job at unifying all the hanging threads of Craig's era into a fairly cohesive plot. Especially thematically, Bond triggered by a sense of betrayal, Madeline haunted by the man who murdered her mother, Safin's revenge for the killing of his family. The past being the death of us, with only Madeline being the one able to escape her past at the end. Within the confines of the Craig era it's curious how Mr White, Madeline, Vesper, Safin, Blofeld and Bond are all connected and responsible in different ways for each other's creation or death.

    I dug the cinematography and music the first time I watched it, and both continue to be highlights, but I also have to give props to Fukunaga's visual touches with blocking and pace of scenes. He does suspense, action and travelogue well. I think the first act is marvellous. Among the strongest of the Craig era or even the series. It is a joy to watch that opening 45 minutes until Felix's death. Flashback, Matera, Jamaica, Cuba. Great chain of sequences for me. And fun to see Felix and Bond smiling, sharing beers and playing games. I can imagine in years to come I'd happily put that first act on multiple times without watching the rest of the film.

    Controversial as it may be, for me, the PTS Matera sequence is the only great action sequence in the film. I like the Cuba sequence too, it's fun and has so many Bond trappings. It has good cross cutting of action, but the Matera sequence is special. Because of the loaded DB5, the location, what's at stake emotionally. It has many satisfying layers. But the Range Rover smash up, while looking good, isn't very inventive. Although Bond running around in the mist is visually striking. The end assault on the island gets very impersonal as out of focus figures drop to the sound of machine gun fire. Even though I do like the ambition of the one shot, when people wield machine guns around the corners of hallways I start checking out.

    There are things I still don't like. I don't want to see Bond cry and lose his temper too much and tell people he loves them and have a kid. And most significantly, I'm not a fan of killing off Bond. It's just not something I wanted to see. Especially seeing as it has been the trendy thing to do the last few years. I don't think it's 'brave' to kill off Bond. Not after Wolverine, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Superman and Iron Man have all been killed off in the last five years (and just like Superman, Bond will come back).
    But at the same time, I think killing off Bond works for this film especially and Craig's tenure in general. Wider than that though...It's ultimately a meaningless sacrifice as he will return. I'm really impressed with how they managed to salvage Madeline from SP. Putting her front and centre of this film is the courage everyone should be applauding.

    If I'm conflicted on anything it is the use of 'We Have All The Time In The World'. It's both nice but also a bit lazy. It shows that no one currently has the balls to attempt to write a new timeless love song for a Bond theme. Oh, we've got melancholic tunes like Writing's on the Wall and No Time To Die up the wazoo. But a pure love song? Something as magical as what John Barry, Hal David and Louis Armstrong created is beyond them. They've co-opted OHMSS to sell their own, new tragedy. I both like it and scoff at its inclusion. That song means so much to Bond fans. And now a generation will associate with NTTD rather than OHMSS.

    Overall I enjoyed NTTD even more the second time around. What an absolute joy to watch Bond in the cinema. I will never take it for granted. It was especially wonderful to view it after watching all four of Craig's other Bond films in a row. And NTTD helps with my enjoyment of SP. NTTD has the courage of its convictions at least, whereas SP seems conflicted about what it wants to do, especially tonally. And there is a lot of love and care put into NTTD. It is easily the best swan song for a long serving Bond actor. By light years actually.

    EON have not simply pumped this one out and considering false starts, directors leaving for creative differences, an indifferent reaction to the preceding film, a reluctant star and release delays - the fact that NTTD is as good as it is, is amazing.

    It has so many cool Bondian elements - gadget laden DB5, Q issued watch, Bond in a tux with a slinky dressed woman beside him entering a sinister but lavish party. Felix Leiter in Jamaica in a bar with Bond...takes me to DN, two Double-0s on a mission, a mysterious villain with an island lair full of civilisation threatening weapons.

    NTTD is not in my top five list - but I can see why it would already be making other people's top five lists. The series is so varied, a rich tapestry of styles, eras, decades, actors. It's so wonderful to see it continuing 60 years on and also continuing to surprise. I can't wait to see where the series goes next. Especially without Craig, but also I'm hoping they don't have Purvis and Wade. They are responsible for all the 'personalising' of the plots since TWINE. Now, don't get me wrong, they've done great, important work in the Craig era, but I also want to see a change and at present I believe they're even more significant than the actor.

    I'm keen to go and watch this in the cinema a third time. Maybe next week if I get the opportunity.
  • NoTimeToLiveNoTimeToLive Jamaica
    Posts: 67
    BMB007 wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Faking a death would require an entirely different movie from the ground up because of Bond’s relationship with Madeleine alone.
    Yeah, that's the point. They modeled the movie to come to the specific conclusion they wanted.

    How do you think writing works? That's, like, the first rule of storytelling — you write to the ending, link the circle together.

    Stephen King does the exact opposite, the ending is the last thing he writes (he said that in his On Writing book). And, in my opinion, he's a much better writer than Christopher Nolan.

    I never said "you write the ending first" — I said you write to the ending. Definitionally that's how writing anything works. You resolve it based on what has come before. The original poster alluded to a fault of NTTD being that the movie was "molded...to come to the specific conclusion they wanted."

    You're arguing about semantics, but the point still stands. King doesn't decide the ending either. He doesn't know how the story will end until he actually gets there. That's what he means.

    As @TripAces said they're different mediums and I'll concede that he has a good point, though I still disagree with Nolan's approach and I prefer King's, whether it's a book or a movie script.

    I'm not arguing semantics, I never said "write the ending first". That's a very different claim than what I said. Of course you don't write the ending first — that's impossible!

    What I'm saying when I say "write to the ending" is you *always* have a color in mind, a feeling. The mood you want to evoke with a story. Is it transcendent? Is it something tragic? Silly or somber? Is it nostalgic or perhaps dystopic? The mood as a writer you want to inspire informs the emotion of the ending. Which is the real thing that matters! The literal plot points of an ending may differ wildly through drafting and creating, but the feeling remains consistent. Because the feeling is created by what came before and is embedded within it.

    Yeah, and what I said is that King doesn't do that either.

    But you don't care about discussing, you only want to be right, so I'll just make you happy :) You're right, King is wrong.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    So I've just seen 'No Time To Die' for a second time at the cinema. My first viewing was just five days ago and since then I rewatched the entire Craig era from CR to SP and then went back to the movie theatre, almost as excited as the first viewing so I could re-evaluate and process everything about this unique Bond film.

    On the second viewing the plot was clearer. I understood subtle things that I missed on first viewing, like seeing Logan Ash recruit Cyclops after the Cuba excursion. On first viewing I just took it as Q identifying Ash's location, this time I realised Cyclops wasn't part of Safin's plan from the beginning.

    I don't mind the title song but it does nothing for me and the titles aren't my favourite compared with Casino Royale or Skyfall. But I did like them a little more this time, especially the effect of the bullets turning into streaks that show the character's faces, reminiscent of the bursting missile streaks in the air that Bond watches just seconds before his demise.

    In many ways this is Madeline's film. It starts and ends with her, and it has to be the most lowkey entrance for Bond in the Craig era. Bond arriving in the story, seen from her perspective. I liked the scene between Madeline and Safin in the office much more this time. And this scene has my favourite performance from Seydoux. She really is the heart of the film and I like that she bookends the story.

    Considering the butchering of Blofeld in SP, they managed to create a solid villain with Safin, without being very memorable. The opening goes a long way to helping his mystique. Even though I don't buy his motivation for world destruction as a driving force. I don't think it's a big issue. I like the YOLT tie-in, but disappointed in the poison garden, it could have been more threatening or vivid. And the elephant in the room for me is the Mathilde character. I said before and I'll say again that regardless of what she represents for Bond as a character, from a scriptwriting stance, adding an innocent child in peril in the third act is fairly pedestrian. Especially when Safin just let's her go. It's a minor nitpick on the second viewing, but not very cinematic.

    The Blofeld prison scene is shot well and has a good sense of suspense from Bond and Madeline meeting in the hallway to Blofeld being wheeled out. But overall this scene doesn't do much for me. And I think Craig is hamming it up a little here. Looking back at SP the misuse of the Blofeld character is the most egregious error of Craig's era. He's written poorly and while It seems crazy to say it with a double Oscar winner in the role...it really is a shame he wasn't cast better. Someone who had real bristling chemistry with Craig.

    I think the writers and director have done an excellent job at unifying all the hanging threads of Craig's era into a fairly cohesive plot. Especially thematically, Bond triggered by a sense of betrayal, Madeline haunted by the man who murdered her mother, Safin's revenge for the killing of his family. The past being the death of us, with only Madeline being the one able to escape her past at the end. Within the confines of the Craig era it's curious how Mr White, Madeline, Vesper, Safin, Blofeld and Bond are all connected and responsible in different ways for each other's creation or death.

    I dug the cinematography and music the first time I watched it, and both continue to be highlights, but I also have to give props to Fukunaga's visual touches with blocking and pace of scenes. He does suspense, action and travelogue well. I think the first act is marvellous. Among the strongest of the Craig era or even the series. It is a joy to watch that opening 45 minutes until Felix's death. Flashback, Matera, Jamaica, Cuba. Great chain of sequences for me. And fun to see Felix and Bond smiling, sharing beers and playing games. I can imagine in years to come I'd happily put that first act on multiple times without watching the rest of the film.

    Controversial as it may be, for me, the PTS Matera sequence is the only great action sequence in the film. I like the Cuba sequence too, it's fun and has so many Bond trappings. It has good cross cutting of action, but the Matera sequence is special. Because of the loaded DB5, the location, what's at stake emotionally. It has many satisfying layers. But the Range Rover smash up, while looking good, isn't very inventive. Although Bond running around in the mist is visually striking. The end assault on the island gets very impersonal as out of focus figures drop to the sound of machine gun fire. Even though I do like the ambition of the one shot, when people wield machine guns around the corners of hallways I start checking out.

    There are things I still don't like. I don't want to see Bond cry and lose his temper too much and tell people he loves them and have a kid. And most significantly, I'm not a fan of killing off Bond. It's just not something I wanted to see. Especially seeing as it has been the trendy thing to do the last few years. I don't think it's 'brave' to kill off Bond. Not after Wolverine, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Superman and Iron Man have all been killed off in the last five years (and just like Superman, Bond will come back).
    But at the same time, I think killing off Bond works for this film especially and Craig's tenure in general. Wider than that though...It's ultimately a meaningless sacrifice as he will return. I'm really impressed with how they managed to salvage Madeline from SP. Putting her front and centre of this film is the courage everyone should be applauding.

    If I'm conflicted on anything it is the use of 'We Have All The Time In The World'. It's both nice but also a bit lazy. It shows that no one currently has the balls to attempt to write a new timeless love song for a Bond theme. Oh, we've got melancholic tunes like Writing's on the Wall and No Time To Die up the wazoo. But a pure love song? Something as magical as what John Barry, Hal David and Louis Armstrong created is beyond them. They've co-opted OHMSS to sell their own, new tragedy. I both like it and scoff at its inclusion. That song means so much to Bond fans. And now a generation will associate with NTTD rather than OHMSS.

    Overall I enjoyed NTTD even more the second time around. What an absolute joy to watch Bond in the cinema. I will never take it for granted. It was especially wonderful to view it after watching all four of Craig's other Bond films in a row. And NTTD helps with my enjoyment of SP. NTTD has the courage of its convictions at least, whereas SP seems conflicted about what it wants to do, especially tonally. And there is a lot of love and care put into NTTD. It is easily the best swan song for a long serving Bond actor. By light years actually.

    EON have not simply pumped this one out and considering false starts, directors leaving for creative differences, an indifferent reaction to the preceding film, a reluctant star and release delays - the fact that NTTD is as good as it is, is amazing.

    It has so many cool Bondian elements - gadget laden DB5, Q issued watch, Bond in a tux with a slinky dressed woman beside him entering a sinister but lavish party. Felix Leiter in Jamaica in a bar with Bond...takes me to DN, two Double-0s on a mission, a mysterious villain with an island lair full of civilisation threatening weapons.
    NTTD is not in my top five list - but I can see why it would already be making other people's top five lists. The series is so varied, a rich tapestry of styles, eras, decades, actors. It's so wonderful to see it continuing 60 years on and also continuing to surprise. I can't wait to see where the series goes next. Especially without Craig, but also I'm hoping they don't have Purvis and Wade. They are responsible for all the 'personalising' of the plots since TWINE. Now, don't get me wrong, they've done great, important work in the Craig era, but I also want to see a change and at present I believe they're even more significant than the actor.

    I'm keen to go and watch this in the cinema a third time. Maybe next week if I get the opportunity.
    Wholeheartedly agree on almost every point and especially the conclusion. I haven't done a full run-through of my ranking since NTTD came out, but I think it is somewhere in the 6 to 13 range: Films that are personal favourites, but don't quite reach the standard of the stone-cold classics.

    (I put most of the quote in spoilers, to save people a bit of scrolling...)
  • That's a pretty spot-on review @Major_Boothroyd , I'm not reading anything I disagree with! I'm also really looking forward to the future of cinematic Bond - new head writers would be a great start.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,962
    MGW was responsible for Bro-feld, so the personal angles are not all down to P&W. It's also the trend in all action films (Taken, etc.). But fresh blood is welcome.

    I would be shocked if BB and MGW don't hire PWB to write the first draft of Bond 26. This is the Eon pattern with writers.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited December 2021 Posts: 2,721
    So I've just seen 'No Time To Die' for a second time at the cinema. My first viewing was just five days ago and since then I rewatched the entire Craig era from CR to SP and then went back to the movie theatre, almost as excited as the first viewing so I could re-evaluate and process everything about this unique Bond film.

    On the second viewing the plot was clearer. I understood subtle things that I missed on first viewing, like seeing Logan Ash recruit Cyclops after the Cuba excursion. On first viewing I just took it as Q identifying Ash's location, this time I realised Cyclops wasn't part of Safin's plan from the beginning.

    I don't mind the title song but it does nothing for me and the titles aren't my favourite compared with Casino Royale or Skyfall. But I did like them a little more this time, especially the effect of the bullets turning into streaks that show the character's faces, reminiscent of the bursting missile streaks in the air that Bond watches just seconds before his demise.

    In many ways this is Madeline's film. It starts and ends with her, and it has to be the most lowkey entrance for Bond in the Craig era. Bond arriving in the story, seen from her perspective. I liked the scene between Madeline and Safin in the office much more this time. And this scene has my favourite performance from Seydoux. She really is the heart of the film and I like that she bookends the story.

    Considering the butchering of Blofeld in SP, they managed to create a solid villain with Safin, without being very memorable. The opening goes a long way to helping his mystique. Even though I don't buy his motivation for world destruction as a driving force. I don't think it's a big issue. I like the YOLT tie-in, but disappointed in the poison garden, it could have been more threatening or vivid. And the elephant in the room for me is the Mathilde character. I said before and I'll say again that regardless of what she represents for Bond as a character, from a scriptwriting stance, adding an innocent child in peril in the third act is fairly pedestrian. Especially when Safin just let's her go. It's a minor nitpick on the second viewing, but not very cinematic.

    The Blofeld prison scene is shot well and has a good sense of suspense from Bond and Madeline meeting in the hallway to Blofeld being wheeled out. But overall this scene doesn't do much for me. And I think Craig is hamming it up a little here. Looking back at SP the misuse of the Blofeld character is the most egregious error of Craig's era. He's written poorly and while It seems crazy to say it with a double Oscar winner in the role...it really is a shame he wasn't cast better. Someone who had real bristling chemistry with Craig.

    I think the writers and director have done an excellent job at unifying all the hanging threads of Craig's era into a fairly cohesive plot. Especially thematically, Bond triggered by a sense of betrayal, Madeline haunted by the man who murdered her mother, Safin's revenge for the killing of his family. The past being the death of us, with only Madeline being the one able to escape her past at the end. Within the confines of the Craig era it's curious how Mr White, Madeline, Vesper, Safin, Blofeld and Bond are all connected and responsible in different ways for each other's creation or death.

    I dug the cinematography and music the first time I watched it, and both continue to be highlights, but I also have to give props to Fukunaga's visual touches with blocking and pace of scenes. He does suspense, action and travelogue well. I think the first act is marvellous. Among the strongest of the Craig era or even the series. It is a joy to watch that opening 45 minutes until Felix's death. Flashback, Matera, Jamaica, Cuba. Great chain of sequences for me. And fun to see Felix and Bond smiling, sharing beers and playing games. I can imagine in years to come I'd happily put that first act on multiple times without watching the rest of the film.

    Controversial as it may be, for me, the PTS Matera sequence is the only great action sequence in the film. I like the Cuba sequence too, it's fun and has so many Bond trappings. It has good cross cutting of action, but the Matera sequence is special. Because of the loaded DB5, the location, what's at stake emotionally. It has many satisfying layers. But the Range Rover smash up, while looking good, isn't very inventive. Although Bond running around in the mist is visually striking. The end assault on the island gets very impersonal as out of focus figures drop to the sound of machine gun fire. Even though I do like the ambition of the one shot, when people wield machine guns around the corners of hallways I start checking out.

    There are things I still don't like. I don't want to see Bond cry and lose his temper too much and tell people he loves them and have a kid. And most significantly, I'm not a fan of killing off Bond. It's just not something I wanted to see. Especially seeing as it has been the trendy thing to do the last few years. I don't think it's 'brave' to kill off Bond. Not after Wolverine, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Superman and Iron Man have all been killed off in the last five years (and just like Superman, Bond will come back).
    But at the same time, I think killing off Bond works for this film especially and Craig's tenure in general. Wider than that though...It's ultimately a meaningless sacrifice as he will return. I'm really impressed with how they managed to salvage Madeline from SP. Putting her front and centre of this film is the courage everyone should be applauding.

    If I'm conflicted on anything it is the use of 'We Have All The Time In The World'. It's both nice but also a bit lazy. It shows that no one currently has the balls to attempt to write a new timeless love song for a Bond theme. Oh, we've got melancholic tunes like Writing's on the Wall and No Time To Die up the wazoo. But a pure love song? Something as magical as what John Barry, Hal David and Louis Armstrong created is beyond them. They've co-opted OHMSS to sell their own, new tragedy. I both like it and scoff at its inclusion. That song means so much to Bond fans. And now a generation will associate with NTTD rather than OHMSS.

    Overall I enjoyed NTTD even more the second time around. What an absolute joy to watch Bond in the cinema. I will never take it for granted. It was especially wonderful to view it after watching all four of Craig's other Bond films in a row. And NTTD helps with my enjoyment of SP. NTTD has the courage of its convictions at least, whereas SP seems conflicted about what it wants to do, especially tonally. And there is a lot of love and care put into NTTD. It is easily the best swan song for a long serving Bond actor. By light years actually.

    EON have not simply pumped this one out and considering false starts, directors leaving for creative differences, an indifferent reaction to the preceding film, a reluctant star and release delays - the fact that NTTD is as good as it is, is amazing.

    It has so many cool Bondian elements - gadget laden DB5, Q issued watch, Bond in a tux with a slinky dressed woman beside him entering a sinister but lavish party. Felix Leiter in Jamaica in a bar with Bond...takes me to DN, two Double-0s on a mission, a mysterious villain with an island lair full of civilisation threatening weapons.
    NTTD is not in my top five list - but I can see why it would already be making other people's top five lists. The series is so varied, a rich tapestry of styles, eras, decades, actors. It's so wonderful to see it continuing 60 years on and also continuing to surprise. I can't wait to see where the series goes next. Especially without Craig, but also I'm hoping they don't have Purvis and Wade. They are responsible for all the 'personalising' of the plots since TWINE. Now, don't get me wrong, they've done great, important work in the Craig era, but I also want to see a change and at present I believe they're even more significant than the actor.

    I'm keen to go and watch this in the cinema a third time. Maybe next week if I get the opportunity.
    Wholeheartedly agree on almost every point and especially the conclusion. I haven't done a full run-through of my ranking since NTTD came out, but I think it is somewhere in the 6 to 13 range: Films that are personal favourites, but don't quite reach the standard of the stone-cold classics.

    (I put most of the quote in spoilers, to save people a bit of scrolling...)

    Thanks! I rarely think beyond my top 5 which I doubt NTTD will ever make but that's rarified air for me and not a slight on NTTD.

    I've seen a lot of rightful praise heading Craig and Fukunaga's direction, but I hope Barbara (and MGW) are getting the praise they deserve. Especially Barbara. I don't agree with everything they've done (but then again I don't agree with everything Cubby or even Fleming did!) but she clearly has a passion and is a torch bearer for the series. It is not something to be dismissed, all you need to do is look at so many other 'franchises' in cinema to see how they can go off the rails or alienate many fans. So Bond is in good hands and Barbara deserves a lot of kudos.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    Amazing, that people, who still not have watched the movie and will not watch it, still bashes the movie. But, well, there are people, and there are other people, and also...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Amazing, that people, who still not have watched the movie and will not watch it, still bashes the movie. But, well, there are people, and there are other people, and also...

    I rented the movie online for $20. I should have saved my money. By the end of the PTS I was already feeling the pangs of buyer's remorse. Some people on here who won't watch the film shouldn't; they will not like it. I felt compelled to witness the 'event'.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,021
    Killing off Bond would have never been a creative choice of mine. But it’s not my movie, so all I can do is determine whether it succeeded at what it set out to do rather than slam it for not conforming to my idea of what makes a Bond film.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Killing off Bond would have never been a creative choice of mine. But it’s not my movie, so all I can do is determine whether it succeeded at what it set out to do rather than slam it for not conforming to my idea of what makes a Bond film.

    I slam it for lazy writing. Look, many Bonds have suffered from lazy writing, but usually the sheer fun factor made them enjoyable anyway. SPECTRE was stupid, but at least it was fun.
  • FarewellBondFarewellBond Australia
    Posts: 9
    But Craig's Bond dies - it makes sense. He kind of revels in the pain and misery. The 007 who was the opposite of the classic Connery/Moore cinematic Bond. They always smoothly navigated their way through obstacles and villains - rarely rising to their bait and ended with the woman. This Bond has to go through the nine circles of hell in every movie - ends up with the main female character once. He spends his last movie finding out he has a daughter, that he's wasted the last five years of his life and then dies.
    Have been thinking about this comment in the context of how NTTD affects Craig's Bond legacy, and one tangential thought I have is does having such a pained character impact the attractiveness of Bond films for product placement? Now I know the Bond films do get criticised for this (although I tend to think it is consistent with Fleming's use of brands in the novels), but given how valuable this money is in defraying the costs of making the films, it is a potential negative for the future of the series.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited December 2021 Posts: 2,721
    But Craig's Bond dies - it makes sense. He kind of revels in the pain and misery. The 007 who was the opposite of the classic Connery/Moore cinematic Bond. They always smoothly navigated their way through obstacles and villains - rarely rising to their bait and ended with the woman. This Bond has to go through the nine circles of hell in every movie - ends up with the main female character once. He spends his last movie finding out he has a daughter, that he's wasted the last five years of his life and then dies.
    Have been thinking about this comment in the context of how NTTD affects Craig's Bond legacy, and one tangential thought I have is does having such a pained character impact the attractiveness of Bond films for product placement? Now I know the Bond films do get criticised for this (although I tend to think it is consistent with Fleming's use of brands in the novels), but given how valuable this money is in defraying the costs of making the films, it is a potential negative for the future of the series.

    I don't think so. Bond is seen as sophisticated and stylish. Also the films remain popular and in the public consciousness. So I wouldn't imagine it would have any impact. It's a fairly common modern trope for our heroes to suffer, (tortured Dark Knight, tortured Luke Skywalker, tortured Wolverine) I don't think Bond is any exception. So it's not a negative, it's just the norm.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,021
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Killing off Bond would have never been a creative choice of mine. But it’s not my movie, so all I can do is determine whether it succeeded at what it set out to do rather than slam it for not conforming to my idea of what makes a Bond film.

    I slam it for lazy writing. Look, many Bonds have suffered from lazy writing, but usually the sheer fun factor made them enjoyable anyway. SPECTRE was stupid, but at least it was fun.

    NTTD was also fun, but perhaps the killing of Bond nullifies the fun.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Killing off Bond would have never been a creative choice of mine. But it’s not my movie, so all I can do is determine whether it succeeded at what it set out to do rather than slam it for not conforming to my idea of what makes a Bond film.

    I slam it for lazy writing. Look, many Bonds have suffered from lazy writing, but usually the sheer fun factor made them enjoyable anyway. SPECTRE was stupid, but at least it was fun.

    NTTD was also fun, but perhaps the killing of Bond nullifies the fun.

    The killing of M nullified the fun of Skyfall for me as well. Well, AND the lazy writing.... ;)
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    It is funny how in the eyes of EON (and most of modern Hollywood, apparently) secret familial connections and the death of major characters are the epitome of high drama and characterization.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It is funny how in the eyes of EON (and most of modern Hollywood, apparently) secret familial connections and the death of major characters are the epitome of high drama and characterization.
    I gotta give you a virtual hug for that one, man! :)>-
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,021
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It is funny how in the eyes of EON (and most of modern Hollywood, apparently) secret familial connections and the death of major characters are the epitome of high drama and characterization.

    If audiences didn’t gladly eat it up, Hollywood wouldn’t go that route. Brave new world. ;)
  • FarewellBondFarewellBond Australia
    Posts: 9
    But Craig's Bond dies - it makes sense. He kind of revels in the pain and misery. The 007 who was the opposite of the classic Connery/Moore cinematic Bond. They always smoothly navigated their way through obstacles and villains - rarely rising to their bait and ended with the woman. This Bond has to go through the nine circles of hell in every movie - ends up with the main female character once. He spends his last movie finding out he has a daughter, that he's wasted the last five years of his life and then dies.
    Have been thinking about this comment in the context of how NTTD affects Craig's Bond legacy, and one tangential thought I have is does having such a pained character impact the attractiveness of Bond films for product placement? Now I know the Bond films do get criticised for this (although I tend to think it is consistent with Fleming's use of brands in the novels), but given how valuable this money is in defraying the costs of making the films, it is a potential negative for the future of the series.

    I don't think so. Bond is seen as sophisticated and stylish. Also the films remain popular and in the public consciousness. So I wouldn't imagine it would have any impact. It's a fairly common modern trope for our heroes to suffer, (tortured Dark Knight, tortured Luke Skywalker, tortured Wolverine) I don't think Bond is any exception. So it's not a negative, it's just the norm.

    Look , I think that is right in the short-term, but that relies, like so much of the Craig era, on the goodwill built up in the decades that preceded the Craig films. There is very little that strikes me as sophisticated or stylish about the Craig films once we get past CR, apart from a perfunctory tux scene. That the film basically tanked in the US - which remains the world's biggest consumer market - should be causing a lot more concern than it seems to on these pages.
  • Posts: 12,258
    I didn't even realize NTTD was available to buy on VUDU until today! Happily added, a couple more rewatches coming probably in the near future.
Sign In or Register to comment.