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

1225226228230231294

Comments

  • I don’t have a CRT set, but I still buy DVDs, unless they are those dual format releases. People can turn their noses up at DVDs, but I am not going to get conned/waste money by replacing my DVDs with Blu Ray, then all the Blu Ray with 4K, then 4K with inevitable 8k and so on.

    I still watch DVDs on my pc....I got a Director's Cut of The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, brand new, for 99 cents. Plus heaps of other good deals on Ebay, like a boxed set of the first 7 SAW movies for ten bucks, first 7 Seasons of Suits for pennies as well....we don't feel the need to replace or buy EVERYTHING in 4K....
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 22,005
    B25 falls into the same category as QoS and SP, mixed to favourable reviews upon release that quickly sinks into obscurity within six months, after which a band of Craig fans continue to fight its corner as an "underappreciated classic". I never see any general youtube critic or movie fan reference QoS or SP anymore, the movies are distant memories for the casual cinemagoers, and yet mad max fury Road, the recent mission impossible films, and even john wick are regularly mentioned, showing they have staying power in the collective consciousness. From the Craig era, people only remember CR and SF, those films have stuck, the others haven't. And B25 won't stick either, because besides Bond being killed off, nothing much else of note happens in the movie. Felix Lieter and Blofeld dying doesn't have any lasting impact for the general audience. I only saw the film for the first time less than a week ago, and I am already starting to forget stuff that happened. There was lots of stuff I liked in the movie but in a "oh, that's neat" kinda way, nothing that will stick with me for years to come like many Bond films of the past have done. I like lea seydoux performance in these films very much, but the Bond/Madeline relationship just seems so perfunctory, and only exists to give Bond something to keep fighting for (because he doesn't care about completing a mission for its own sake anymore). We've had the same reheated premise 3 times in a row now. M and Silva having a secret history and connection, then Bond and Blofeld, and now Safin and Swann. For heavens sake, think of something original please! I hope the next movie (when they finally get around to it) will be a complete breathe of fresh air after we've been served up the same stuff the past decade. They can finally go back to the drawing board and work from the ground up, and we might actually get something that feels as contemporary as CR did way back in the day. Because B25 feels very dated even upon release, and not just because the footage has been sat on a shelf since 2019.

    @Mendes4Lyfe
    Why are you talking about "B25"? The film has a name. What is your deal here?
  • Posts: 5,863
    I'm dying to know as well!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,289
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    B25 falls into the same category as QoS and SP, mixed to favourable reviews upon release that quickly sinks into obscurity within six months, after which a band of Craig fans continue to fight its corner as an "underappreciated classic". I never see any general youtube critic or movie fan reference QoS or SP anymore, the movies are distant memories for the casual cinemagoers, and yet mad max fury Road, the recent mission impossible films, and even john wick are regularly mentioned, showing they have staying power in the collective consciousness. From the Craig era, people only remember CR and SF, those films have stuck, the others haven't. And B25 won't stick either, because besides Bond being killed off, nothing much else of note happens in the movie. Felix Lieter and Blofeld dying doesn't have any lasting impact for the general audience. I only saw the film for the first time less than a week ago, and I am already starting to forget stuff that happened. There was lots of stuff I liked in the movie but in a "oh, that's neat" kinda way, nothing that will stick with me for years to come like many Bond films of the past have done. I like lea seydoux performance in these films very much, but the Bond/Madeline relationship just seems so perfunctory, and only exists to give Bond something to keep fighting for (because he doesn't care about completing a mission for its own sake anymore). We've had the same reheated premise 3 times in a row now. M and Silva having a secret history and connection, then Bond and Blofeld, and now Safin and Swann. For heavens sake, think of something original please! I hope the next movie (when they finally get around to it) will be a complete breathe of fresh air after we've been served up the same stuff the past decade. They can finally go back to the drawing board and work from the ground up, and we might actually get something that feels as contemporary as CR did way back in the day. Because B25 feels very dated even upon release, and not just because the footage has been sat on a shelf since 2019.

    @Mendes4Lyfe
    Why are you talking about "B25"? The film has a name. What is your deal here?

    Maybe because the actual title No Time To Die has no meaning at all without the proper punctuation mark: No! Time To Die.
    And all these years I thought no Bond movie could piss me off more than Moonraker....
  • Just another puerile attempt to pour scorn on the film....

    Haters gonna hate....
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 22,005
    chrisisall wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    B25 falls into the same category as QoS and SP, mixed to favourable reviews upon release that quickly sinks into obscurity within six months, after which a band of Craig fans continue to fight its corner as an "underappreciated classic". I never see any general youtube critic or movie fan reference QoS or SP anymore, the movies are distant memories for the casual cinemagoers, and yet mad max fury Road, the recent mission impossible films, and even john wick are regularly mentioned, showing they have staying power in the collective consciousness. From the Craig era, people only remember CR and SF, those films have stuck, the others haven't. And B25 won't stick either, because besides Bond being killed off, nothing much else of note happens in the movie. Felix Lieter and Blofeld dying doesn't have any lasting impact for the general audience. I only saw the film for the first time less than a week ago, and I am already starting to forget stuff that happened. There was lots of stuff I liked in the movie but in a "oh, that's neat" kinda way, nothing that will stick with me for years to come like many Bond films of the past have done. I like lea seydoux performance in these films very much, but the Bond/Madeline relationship just seems so perfunctory, and only exists to give Bond something to keep fighting for (because he doesn't care about completing a mission for its own sake anymore). We've had the same reheated premise 3 times in a row now. M and Silva having a secret history and connection, then Bond and Blofeld, and now Safin and Swann. For heavens sake, think of something original please! I hope the next movie (when they finally get around to it) will be a complete breathe of fresh air after we've been served up the same stuff the past decade. They can finally go back to the drawing board and work from the ground up, and we might actually get something that feels as contemporary as CR did way back in the day. Because B25 feels very dated even upon release, and not just because the footage has been sat on a shelf since 2019.

    @Mendes4Lyfe
    Why are you talking about "B25"? The film has a name. What is your deal here?

    Maybe because the actual title No Time To Die has no meaning at all without the proper punctuation mark: No! Time To Die.
    And all these years I thought no Bond movie could piss me off more than Moonraker....

    One hater has been debating the film without actually having seen it. Another one struggles with the title--too many syllables to commit to memory? A curious lot, I must say. 😉

    As for MR: epic film. Terrible Bond film, but a magnificent piece of work in every regard.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 523
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Back to NTTD:
    So, for like 15 years Bond has been working towards his death
    This is what annoys me most. We've had 15 years of world building and character reboots only for them to blow it all up in NTTD. In 2006, I thought the point of CR was to show how Bond became who he is, instead the Craig era became its own separate thing, some kind of alternate Bond, and it ended with everyone being bumped off. It was one giant narrative cul-de-sac. A big waste of time.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,846
    chrisisall wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    B25 falls into the same category as QoS and SP, mixed to favourable reviews upon release that quickly sinks into obscurity within six months, after which a band of Craig fans continue to fight its corner as an "underappreciated classic". I never see any general youtube critic or movie fan reference QoS or SP anymore, the movies are distant memories for the casual cinemagoers, and yet mad max fury Road, the recent mission impossible films, and even john wick are regularly mentioned, showing they have staying power in the collective consciousness. From the Craig era, people only remember CR and SF, those films have stuck, the others haven't. And B25 won't stick either, because besides Bond being killed off, nothing much else of note happens in the movie. Felix Lieter and Blofeld dying doesn't have any lasting impact for the general audience. I only saw the film for the first time less than a week ago, and I am already starting to forget stuff that happened. There was lots of stuff I liked in the movie but in a "oh, that's neat" kinda way, nothing that will stick with me for years to come like many Bond films of the past have done. I like lea seydoux performance in these films very much, but the Bond/Madeline relationship just seems so perfunctory, and only exists to give Bond something to keep fighting for (because he doesn't care about completing a mission for its own sake anymore). We've had the same reheated premise 3 times in a row now. M and Silva having a secret history and connection, then Bond and Blofeld, and now Safin and Swann. For heavens sake, think of something original please! I hope the next movie (when they finally get around to it) will be a complete breathe of fresh air after we've been served up the same stuff the past decade. They can finally go back to the drawing board and work from the ground up, and we might actually get something that feels as contemporary as CR did way back in the day. Because B25 feels very dated even upon release, and not just because the footage has been sat on a shelf since 2019.

    @Mendes4Lyfe
    Why are you talking about "B25"? The film has a name. What is your deal here?

    Maybe because the actual title No Time To Die has no meaning at all without the proper punctuation mark: No! Time To Die.
    And all these years I thought no Bond movie could piss me off more than Moonraker....

    Maybe it’s best if you just step away from NTTD for a long while. Go put on TND or something. It’s not worth dwelling on a film you don’t like.

    TWINE is my least favorite, but I haven’t watched it in almost a decade now. I’ve seen it enough times, I’ve exhausted all of the opinions I have on it.

    I actually LIKE NTTD, but even I am starting to feel it’s time to move on from that. I got the 4K disc, but I’ll probably not watch it start to finish until sometime later because it’s still fresh in my head. I’ve only revisited these title threads out of pure habit at this point.

    Bring on BOND 26!!
  • slide_99 wrote: »
    In 2006, I thought the point of CR was to show how Bond became who he is, instead the Craig era became its own separate thing, some kind of alternate Bond, and it ended with everyone being bumped off. It was one giant narrative cul-de-sac. A big waste of time.

    At least it ended the rubbish from its predecessor....I'm so thankful for that. New Bond gets to start afresh. If it wasted your time, stick to which ever other Bond floats your boat and avoid the Craig films, simple as that.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,289
    DarthDimi wrote: »

    As for MR: epic film. Terrible Bond film,
    Basically, don't epic & terrible nullify each other? Like pasta & anti-pasta?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 22,005
    chrisisall wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »

    As for MR: epic film. Terrible Bond film,
    Basically, don't epic & terrible nullify each other? Like pasta & anti-pasta?

    Yeah, well, in a "good, bad, ugly" sort of way, MR is the ugly Bond film in the sense that it doesn't quite belong, but it's not bad. I think it's a fun film full of technical marvels. But what on earth (or in space) is 007 doing in it? Chasing the dragon? Sure, they were going after SW money. I'm glad they weren't going after ET money in '83. ;-)
  • DarthDimi wrote: »
    But what on earth (or in space) is 007 doing in it? Chasing the dragon?

    I'm pretty sure that's Forever and a Day you're thinking of. ;)
  • Posts: 14,806
    Watched NO TIME TO DIE with my Dad tonight. He missed it during it's theatrical run due to feeling apprehensive about going to the cinema. So this was his first time seeing it.
    He really liked it. I think the fun scenes with Paloma, the witty banter with Nomi and Q overshadowed the dark themes and dare I say death of Bond. We were kind of joking that Heracles being a fictitious poison, the writers could easily figure a way to cure Bond for future installments......in spite of the fact he was blown to smithereens.
    My Dad certainly enjoyed NTTD more than SPECTRE .
    However, I'd say his number one favorite Bond movie remains GOLDFINGER.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited December 2021 Posts: 4,510
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Back to NTTD:
    So, for like 15 years Bond has been working towards his death, but he needs to have a kid first, so he can leave her fatherless... but it's okay because he's saving the world from programmable nanobots that can be like smart RNA (Someone has watched too many episodes of Star Trek or Stargate)... and his cuckoo sort-of-brother has been driving him TO this all along, and the new love of his life can be dismissed over flimsy circumstantial evidence even though he has a history of having been played by creeps in the shadows before, but, okay.
    A long time ago I felt TWINE was a bit contrived. Now it seems like a rather simple, straightforward plot.... ;)

    No. Let me explain it to you.

    For fifteen years, Bond had been having an existential crisis, which is likely a byproduct of the job. That crisis is between who he is and who he wants to be. It's also a Jungian conflict: the duality of man and his inner fight between himself and his shadow self. This us why "choice" and "fate" are such a deep themes in DC's films.

    When Bond fell in love with Vesper, he believed he had resolved these conflicts within himself. That is why he resigns from MI6 and is happy (seemingly). This is also why Vesper's betrayal was so significant and left such an impression.

    He ended up re-living that betrayal with Madeleine.

    But all of it resolves itself with the presence of Mathilde. Bond makes the only decision he can make: sacrificing himself for the future happiness of both Madeleine and Mathilde. Mathilde will grow up thinking of her father as a hero, not the "murderer" that Madeleine resisted knowing her father to be.

    And I'm just scratching the surface.


  • Posts: 7,424
    TripAces wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Back to NTTD:
    So, for like 15 years Bond has been working towards his death, but he needs to have a kid first, so he can leave her fatherless... but it's okay because he's saving the world from programmable nanobots that can be like smart RNA (Someone has watched too many episodes of Star Trek or Stargate)... and his cuckoo sort-of-brother has been driving him TO this all along, and the new love of his life can be dismissed over flimsy circumstantial evidence even though he has a history of having been played by creeps in the shadows before, but, okay.
    A long time ago I felt TWINE was a bit contrived. Now it seems like a rather simple, straightforward plot.... ;)

    No. Let me explain it to you.

    For fifteen years, Bond had been having an existential crisis, which is likely a byproduct of the job. That crisis is between who he is and who he wants to be. It's also a Jungian conflict: the duality of man and his inner fight between himself and his shadow self. This us why "choice" and "fate" are such a deep themes in DC's films.

    When Bond fell in love with Vesper, he believed he had resolved these conflicts within himself. That is why he resigns from MI6 and is happy (seemingly). This is also why Vesper's betrayal was so significant and left such an impression.

    He ended up re-living that betrayal with Madeleine.

    But all of it resolves itself with the presence of Mathilde. Bond makes the only decision he can make: sacrificing himself for the future happiness of both Madeleine and Mathilde. Mathilde will grow up thinking of her father as a hero, not the "murderer" that Madeleine resisted knowing her father to be.

    And I'm just scratching the surface.



    Great post! 👏
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 22,005
    TripAces wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Back to NTTD:
    So, for like 15 years Bond has been working towards his death, but he needs to have a kid first, so he can leave her fatherless... but it's okay because he's saving the world from programmable nanobots that can be like smart RNA (Someone has watched too many episodes of Star Trek or Stargate)... and his cuckoo sort-of-brother has been driving him TO this all along, and the new love of his life can be dismissed over flimsy circumstantial evidence even though he has a history of having been played by creeps in the shadows before, but, okay.
    A long time ago I felt TWINE was a bit contrived. Now it seems like a rather simple, straightforward plot.... ;)

    No. Let me explain it to you.

    For fifteen years, Bond had been having an existential crisis, which is likely a byproduct of the job. That crisis is between who he is and who he wants to be. It's also a Jungian conflict: the duality of man and his inner fight between himself and his shadow self. This us why "choice" and "fate" are such a deep themes in DC's films.

    When Bond fell in love with Vesper, he believed he had resolved these conflicts within himself. That is why he resigns from MI6 and is happy (seemingly). This is also why Vesper's betrayal was so significant and left such an impression.

    He ended up re-living that betrayal with Madeleine.

    But all of it resolves itself with the presence of Mathilde. Bond makes the only decision he can make: sacrificing himself for the future happiness of both Madeleine and Mathilde. Mathilde will grow up thinking of her father as a hero, not the "murderer" that Madeleine resisted knowing her father to be.

    And I'm just scratching the surface.

    This is an excellent post, @TripAces.
  • TripAces wrote: »
    [
    For fifteen years, Bond had been having an existential crisis, which is likely a byproduct of the job. That crisis is between who he is and who he wants to be. It's also a Jungian conflict: the duality of man and his inner fight between himself and his shadow self. This us why "choice" and "fate" are such a deep themes in DC's films.

    Jesus. I do hope the next screen Bond leaves all that behind.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 1,706
    It’s a bit of a reach. It’s more like Craig making a few contractual demands that were met, script choices follow suit.
  • Posts: 7,424
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It’s a bit of a reach. It’s more like Craig making a few contractual demands that were met, script choices follow suit.

    Whether it was planned ahead is not the important thing as long as it makes sense. NTTD does tie up the themes they started to explore in CR very well, and deliberately so.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,846
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It’s a bit of a reach. It’s more like Craig making a few contractual demands that were met, script choices follow suit.

    Does that really matter?
  • Posts: 2,898
    TripAces wrote: »
    [
    For fifteen years, Bond had been having an existential crisis, which is likely a byproduct of the job. That crisis is between who he is and who he wants to be. It's also a Jungian conflict: the duality of man and his inner fight between himself and his shadow self. This us why "choice" and "fate" are such a deep themes in DC's films.

    Jesus. I do hope the next screen Bond leaves all that behind.

    That was my thoughts exactly when I read that post.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,205
    TripAces wrote: »
    [
    For fifteen years, Bond had been having an existential crisis, which is likely a byproduct of the job. That crisis is between who he is and who he wants to be. It's also a Jungian conflict: the duality of man and his inner fight between himself and his shadow self. This us why "choice" and "fate" are such a deep themes in DC's films.

    Jesus. I do hope the next screen Bond leaves all that behind.

    Hey, I love 1987, but it ain't coming back.
  • Posts: 2,898
    echo wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    [
    For fifteen years, Bond had been having an existential crisis, which is likely a byproduct of the job. That crisis is between who he is and who he wants to be. It's also a Jungian conflict: the duality of man and his inner fight between himself and his shadow self. This us why "choice" and "fate" are such a deep themes in DC's films.

    Jesus. I do hope the next screen Bond leaves all that behind.

    Hey, I love 1987, but it ain't coming back.

    Let's hope the 2021 Bond ain't coming back either. I'd settle for the Bond of 2005 right now.
  • I liked the idea of them exploring Bond's beginnings, and we got a fine movie out of that. I'd personally rather them have stopped at the end of Skyfall when Bond was back as Bond. I'd rather see him getting back to work "with pleasure" than ending his 'existential crisis' by being blown to f*ck.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited December 2021 Posts: 4,510
    TripAces wrote: »
    [
    For fifteen years, Bond had been having an existential crisis, which is likely a byproduct of the job. That crisis is between who he is and who he wants to be. It's also a Jungian conflict: the duality of man and his inner fight between himself and his shadow self. This us why "choice" and "fate" are such a deep themes in DC's films.

    Jesus. I do hope the next screen Bond leaves all that behind.

    All of that, however, is very much rooted in Fleming. DC read the books extensively and worked with BB and MGW on getting back to Fleming, but with little winks and nods to the previous films. It wasn't perfect, as we all can pretty much agree that the foster brother angle didn't work at all. But everything else across these five films was brilliant.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 22,005
    TripAces wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    [
    For fifteen years, Bond had been having an existential crisis, which is likely a byproduct of the job. That crisis is between who he is and who he wants to be. It's also a Jungian conflict: the duality of man and his inner fight between himself and his shadow self. This us why "choice" and "fate" are such a deep themes in DC's films.

    Jesus. I do hope the next screen Bond leaves all that behind.

    All of that, however, is very much rooted in Fleming. DC read the books extensively and worked with BB and MGW on getting back to Fleming, but with little winks and nods to the previous films. It wasn't perfect, as we all can pretty much agree that the foster brother angle didn't work at all. But everything else across these five films was brilliant.

    Once again, well put, @TripAces. I'm not saying that's how the films should be, but I, for one, appreciate the effort very much.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 2,898
    TripAces wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    [
    For fifteen years, Bond had been having an existential crisis, which is likely a byproduct of the job. That crisis is between who he is and who he wants to be. It's also a Jungian conflict: the duality of man and his inner fight between himself and his shadow self. This us why "choice" and "fate" are such a deep themes in DC's films.

    Jesus. I do hope the next screen Bond leaves all that behind.

    All of that, however, is very much rooted in Fleming. DC read the books extensively and worked with BB and MGW on getting back to Fleming, but with little winks and nods to the previous films. It wasn't perfect, as we all can pretty much agree that the foster brother angle didn't work at all. But everything else across these five films was brilliant.

    I'd say they got it spot on with CR, which seems to be the modern day GF template for the next Bond. This combined accurate Fleming adaptation with modern day Bond films.

    SF had its decent moments, but had its weaknesses too, as did all the other films in Craig's tenure, and I found them drifting further away from Fleming after CR. To say everything was brilliant across all his films, and they were deep rooted in Fleming is a stretch, IMO.

    I'd say TLD, LTK and CR were perfect examples of films deep rooted in Fleming (excluding the 60's classics).
  • TripAces wrote: »
    All of that, however, is very much rooted in Fleming. DC read the books extensively and worked with BB and MGW on getting back to Fleming, but with little winks and nods to the previous films. It wasn't perfect, as we all can pretty much agree that the foster brother angle didn't work at all. But everything else across these five films was brilliant.

    I liked the Fleming nods in the Craig films, from the proper martini recipe to the Hildebrand reference, and all the others. But I think they'd have shown even more respect for the literary Bond if they hadn't took major liberties with the lives of Mathis, Felix and Bond. (I wouldn't include M as we haven't seen Fleming's M since the Dalton years. Though I hoped Mallory would fill that void).
    It seems on here, every time time someone disagrees with something, the 'it's not Fleming' card is played, (I'm guilty myself). Or if someone wants to praise an aspect, then it's 'this is very Fleming'.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited December 2021 Posts: 357
    As others have said this is an interesting, thought provoking post, but...
    TripAces wrote: »
    No. Let me explain it to you.
    For fifteen years, Bond had been having an existential crisis, which is likely a byproduct of the job. That crisis is between who he is and who he wants to be. It's also a Jungian conflict: the duality of man and his inner fight between himself and his shadow self. This us why "choice" and "fate" are such a deep themes in DC's films.

    The thing is, I've read a couple of autobiographies by actual hitmen, and they are not the kind of people who suffer from "existential crises" or are subject to "Jungian conflict".

    Professional killers either make no distinction between violence towards another human being and painting a book shelf, or believe that some ideal or cause they support is more important than human life. Either way they are not conflicted, because if they were they would soon be dead.

    Bond presumably falls into the latter category.

    However I acknowledge that Fleming's James Bond is not a typical assassin either. Fleming is like any of us trying to put himself in the place of a person for whom killing strangers is part of a chosen profession and understand how they might feel about things, but not really getting it.

    The year before he became James Bond, Daniel Craig played another professional assassin in "Munich" and had this to say about his character in that film

    “Steve is a character, who, on face value, seems to be very strong and very in control of his destiny. Like all the guys, he believes in this job because he believes in Israel. He believes some action has to be taken because of this terrible act at Munich. Steve is someone who has always dealt with life like a bull in a china shop. He just dives in headfirst and deals with the consequences later. Steve is very gung ho, but as the movie goes on, he suffers because of the terrible acts that they commit. That’s what interested me so much about doing the film. Steve is a flawed character, and he doesn’t expect to feel the emotional turmoil he starts feeling.”

    However in the same article, the reporter said that they had spoken with the real life "Steve" and other members of that assassination team and none of them acknowledged feeling any conflict or remorse about the killings they had undertaken.

    Now I'm not judging them, just pointing out the difference between what actors and writers (or you and I) might imagine such people feel about what they do and what they actually feel.
    TripAces wrote: »
    ... Bond makes the only decision he can make: sacrificing himself for the future happiness of both Madeleine and Mathilde...

    I really dislike this whole Shakespearian tragedy angle.

    Fate, karma... bah humbug to that!

    I prefer to think that "while there's life, there's hope" and that James Bond does too

Sign In or Register to comment.