NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - Critical Reaction and Box Office Performance

1166167168169170172»

Comments

  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,383
    echo wrote: »
    For me the fact that they dwell on the events of the ending very little, gives it a lot of rewatchability. It happens, small great scene with M and co, Maddie and Mathilde in the car, and that’s it. If they had made a huge thing of it with a memorial, and who knows whatever else, it would have been a lot tougher to casually revisit. I’ve rewatched it many times at this point and would easily watch it again tonight even.

    The pace is perfect. It is very well-edited.

    Also, appropo of nothing, I love the (intentionally hilarious?) moment when Safin casually deserts Mathilde. I do think at this point that she should have wandered out to the poison garden, to be saved by someone (Nomi? Bond?). That location is a bit underused.

    My audience (and I) laughed, but I could tell half didn't think they should be.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited February 2022 Posts: 7,517
    I loved Mathilde in all those scenes. Safin was trying to be this grandiose villains with all his threats and all his drama, and Mathilde was just being… a child. In both scenes, it was basically exactly how it would happen.

    “Do you like it here?” “No.”
    “If you don’t want my protection, then go.” *leaves*

    It was great. I get the feeling people subconsciously want everything that happens in a Bond film to be all cool and stuff, but in reality this sort of thing (and Valdo) give contrast to the stuff that really is supposed to be “cool”. It makes the world a bit richer and makes the stuff that is supposed to be cool stand out a bit more.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited February 2022 Posts: 7,965
    For me the fact that they dwell on the events of the ending very little, gives it a lot of rewatchability. It happens, small great scene with M and co, Maddie and Mathilde in the car, and that’s it. If they had made a huge thing of it with a memorial, and who knows whatever else, it would have been a lot tougher to casually revisit. I’ve rewatched it many times at this point and would easily watch it again tonight even.

    That’s an issue I had with BATMAN V SUPERMAN. It dwells on a sloooow montage for Superman’s funeral, characters lamenting over his loss, all in sixteen minutes from his death to the end credits, in what is essentially only his second appearance. And it all fell flat, because it doesn’t take a genius to know that Supes is coming back in the very next film resurrected. So what’s the point of all the heavy dramatics?

    He was ultimately supposed to be an inspiration for all of mankind, so it was important to see the aftermath of his demise especially after two and whatever hours of humanity casting doubt on him. You're quite right though, the execution is lacking - however I think the intent is sound.

    It's less applicable to Bond because although his death is heroic, he is not supposed to be an inspiration.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    That’s why that moment in MI6 was perfect. They were the only people that really knew Bond on a certain level. So a private moment in M’s office offering a brief toast before he says “alright, back to work” is the most appropriate and best tribute Bond could get. Bond saved the day, but the MI6 crew have jobs to do.

    As Bernard Lee’s M said in DAF:

    “We do function in your absence, commander”
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    That’s why that moment in MI6 was perfect. They were the only people that really knew Bond on a certain level. So a private moment in M’s office offering a brief toast before he says “alright, back to work” is the most appropriate and best tribute Bond could get. Bond saved the day, but the MI6 crew have jobs to do.

    As Bernard Lee’s M said in DAF:

    “We do function in your absence, commander”

    It was a rather subtle moment. Therefore I think it was good. But letting M who was at least partly repsonsible for the whole catastrophe that finally also killed Bond holding an emotional speech is quite cynical :-)
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    It’s a good thing M destroyed all the evidence.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,316
    I just hope he didn't try to put any nanobots on himself during Bond's funeral... @-)
    3ok4wlH.gif
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 2,563
    For what it’s worth, Director Francis Ford Coppola has weighed in (as part of a more general view on modern film making):
    https://variety.com/2022/film/news/francis-ford-coppola-marvel-dune-no-time-to-die-1235184810/

    Even studio films that Coppola considers good are somewhat similar, the director maintained. “The talented people — you could take ‘Dune,’ made by Denis Villeneuve, an extremely talented, gifted artist, and you could take ‘No Time to Die,’ directed by…Cary Fukunaga — extremely gifted, talented, beautiful artists, and you could take both those movies, and you and I could go and pull the same sequence out of both of them and put them together. The same sequence where the cars all crash into each other.” Coppola added. “They all have that stuff in it, and they almost have to have it, if they’re going to justify their budget. And that’s the good films, and the talented filmmakers.”
  • edited February 2022 Posts: 1,213
    Dwayne wrote: »
    For what it’s worth, Director Francis Ford Coppola has weighed in (as part of a more general view on modern film making):
    https://variety.com/2022/film/news/francis-ford-coppola-marvel-dune-no-time-to-die-1235184810/

    Even studio films that Coppola considers good are somewhat similar, the director maintained. “The talented people — you could take ‘Dune,’ made by Denis Villeneuve, an extremely talented, gifted artist, and you could take ‘No Time to Die,’ directed by…Cary Fukunaga — extremely gifted, talented, beautiful artists, and you could take both those movies, and you and I could go and pull the same sequence out of both of them and put them together. The same sequence where the cars all crash into each other.” Coppola added. “They all have that stuff in it, and they almost have to have it, if they’re going to justify their budget. And that’s the good films, and the talented filmmakers.”

    I get where he's coming from but does it have more to do with big studio filmmaking and the justification of obscene budgets or delivering on audience expectations and artistic visions? Both Bond and Dune are properties that have big spectacle in their DNA and thus have large action set pieces, but we're now in a time technologically and economically where we can deliver these huge, larger-than-life sequences to audiences and do them justice. Why not take advantage of that? Especially coupled with the fact that the average person doesn't have the disposable income to pay for a ticket to go see every beautifully crafted drama in the cinemas. They have to make the $$ worth it and at the end of the day, they know that action and spectacle are the things that make those extra dollars spent at the cinema worth it.

    I'm not saying there's not an issue with the copy and pasting of beats/set pieces in big budget blockbusters, or commercially and critically successful films that leave something to be desired as far as artistry/creativity. I'm just not seeing the parallels he's drawing between Dune and NTTD and it just feels like romanticism over the "good ol' days".
  • Posts: 487
    Dwayne wrote: »
    For what it’s worth, Director Francis Ford Coppola has weighed in (as part of a more general view on modern film making):
    https://variety.com/2022/film/news/francis-ford-coppola-marvel-dune-no-time-to-die-1235184810/

    Even studio films that Coppola considers good

    All that matters to me!

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    High complements from him, given how critical he has been of post-77 blockbusters.
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 2,563
    High complements from him, given how critical he has been of post-77 blockbusters.

    That was my impression as well.
  • slide_99 wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    This is an outstanding assessment.



    Interesting, another Bond fan who views Skyfall as where the Craig era went wrong. We are few but proud.

    I agree with what he said in the video.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited February 2022 Posts: 4,343
    It’s official NWH will best NTTD in the UK.

    That’s a shame especially since NWH benefited from a global theaters only release (aka no HD pirated copies online after roughly just 5 weeks from its UK opening like Bond suffered) with literally zero competition for two months while Bond didn’t.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    NTTD ended its UK run with a whooping £97,957,511.
    With a proper theaters only release like Spidey had it would’ve easily broke the £100M mark.
  • Posts: 1,536
    NWH stands for Not Worth Having, right ? Great for teens, I guess.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    I’m probably one of the few on this planet that refused to see it. Not interested in childish Marvel nonsense.
  • Posts: 1,536
    I did not refuse to see it. Just not interested in it. The last Spiderman I saw was when they first brought it back, with Tobey McGuire. I saw the first of his, maybe the second, and I don't recall seeing the third. After that it seems they just cranked it up again, with different actors. Uninterested. Some might ask why do I see Bond films, then ? Because they don't just remake the first three over and over.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    Since62 wrote: »
    I did not refuse to see it. Just not interested in it. The last Spiderman I saw was when they first brought it back, with Tobey McGuire. I saw the first of his, maybe the second, and I don't recall seeing the third. After that it seems they just cranked it up again, with different actors. Uninterested. Some might ask why do I see Bond films, then ? Because they don't just remake the first three over and over.

    To be fair, the only repeat they’ve done was with Andrew Garfield’s first film, and that was a huge criticism from many about how it was pointless to reboot and do the original story all over again only 10 years after Maguire’s first movie had covered that. So by the time Tom Holland got the role, they completely skipped over the origin story and featured Spider-Man already having been Spider-Man for a year.

    So hopefully EON takes notice that SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING and THE BATMAN were incredibly successful without needing to do an origin story. Everyone knows Bond’s background now, we don’t need to repeat that beat.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,188
    matt_u wrote: »
    I’m probably one of the few on this planet that refused to see it. Not interested in childish Marvel nonsense.

    Even if I ever got into the Marvel films again for whatever reason, I don't think I could stick these out due to Holland's presence dominating them.
  • Posts: 6,622
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    I’m probably one of the few on this planet that refused to see it. Not interested in childish Marvel nonsense.

    Even if I ever got into the Marvel films again for whatever reason, I don't think I could stick these out due to Holland's presence dominating them.

    Very right decision, I had the misfortune to see NWH, it is indeed awful, and Holland very annoying!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    Holland’s really at his best in NWH. I like that we see actual growth with his Peter, and look forward to his college years.
  • Posts: 328
    Since62 wrote: »
    I did not refuse to see it. Just not interested in it. The last Spiderman I saw was when they first brought it back, with Tobey McGuire. I saw the first of his, maybe the second, and I don't recall seeing the third. After that it seems they just cranked it up again, with different actors. Uninterested. Some might ask why do I see Bond films, then ? Because they don't just remake the first three over and over.

    There are a number of Bond films that are blatant re-treads practically making them remakes.
  • Posts: 1,536
    Holland’s really at his best in NWH. I like that we see actual growth with his Peter, and look forward to his college years.

    Ummm...is this an X-rated film ?
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited April 2022 Posts: 4,343
    NTTD has been able to keep the 3rd spot at the UK all time boxoffice against NWH. Spidey just closed its run and felt short of only £1.6 million.
    On the other hand, in the US Sing 2 just surpassed NTTD that is now the eight highest grossing film of 2021…
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,188
    Since62 wrote: »
    Holland’s really at his best in NWH. I like that we see actual growth with his Peter, and look forward to his college years.

    Ummm...is this an X-rated film ?

    I barked out laughter at this.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    Box office results for NTTD re-release compared to the others. Not bad! I thought because it was relatively recent that it wouldn’t have as much as a pull as seeing the older films, but there you go.



    Casino Royale - £21,441
    Skyfall - £20,361
    No Time to Die - £17,780
    GoldenEye - £16,800
    Goldfinger- £13,960
    The Spy Who Loved Me - £12,844
    On Her Majesty’s Secret Service - £11,114
    Live and Let Die - £10,767
    The Living Daylights - £10,707
    Licence to Kill - £9,667
    Quantum of Solace - £9,404
    Spectre - £8,992
    From Russia with Love - £8,806
    Moonraker- £8,494
    Dr. No - £8,349
    A View to a Kill - £8,065
    You Only Live Twice - £8,030
    The Man with the Golden Gun - £8,001
    Thunderball - £7,907
    Tomorrow Never Dies - £7,825
    For Your Eyes Only - £7,631
    The World is Not Enough - £6,933
    Diamonds Are Forever - £6,638
    Octopussy - £6,449
    Die Another Day - £6,225
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,956
    Very small sample size, but I suppose that, at least in the UK, the general audience didn't find this film as divisive as the members of this site think it is.

    General audiences enjoy what they enjoy, and there won't be any confusion for most when a new actor takes over the tux.
  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    Posts: 2,024
    peter wrote: »
    Very small sample size, but I suppose that, at least in the UK, the general audience didn't find this film as divisive as the members of this site think it is.

    General audiences enjoy what they enjoy, and there won't be any confusion for most when a new actor takes over the tux.

    498 sold seats (£20 a pop) at the BFI IMAX 3D screening at the weekend added half of that 😅
Sign In or Register to comment.