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

1279280282284285288

Comments

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,218
    And very dedicated to the job at hand.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 464
    The only things I don't like about TWINE are the pipeline sequence and the ski chase. Everything else in the movie works for me. It's a Bond movie with a little bit more drama than usual, as opposed to a drama that just happens to have Bond in it.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 21,296
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The only things I don't like about TWINE are the pipeline sequence and the ski chase. Everything else in the movie works for me. It's a Bond movie with a little bit more drama than usual, as opposed to a drama that just happens to have Bond in it.

    TWINE is even worse; it's a drama that just happens and Bond isn't invited. QOS runs this one into the ground in terms of good Bond drama.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,283
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The only things I don't like about TWINE are the pipeline sequence and the ski chase. Everything else in the movie works for me. It's a Bond movie with a little bit more drama than usual, as opposed to a drama that just happens to have Bond in it.

    TWINE is even worse; it's a drama that just happens and Bond isn't invited. QOS runs this one into the ground in terms of good Bond drama.

    I like TWINE okay, but it's my least favourite Brosnan Bond because at the end of the day it's so full of missed opportunities and M is pretty dopey in it.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 21,296
    chrisisall wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The only things I don't like about TWINE are the pipeline sequence and the ski chase. Everything else in the movie works for me. It's a Bond movie with a little bit more drama than usual, as opposed to a drama that just happens to have Bond in it.

    TWINE is even worse; it's a drama that just happens and Bond isn't invited. QOS runs this one into the ground in terms of good Bond drama.

    I like TWINE okay, but it's my least favourite Brosnan Bond because at the end of the day it's so full of missed opportunities and M is pretty dopey in it.

    Mine too. DAD is the better film for me when it comes to these two.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 6,344
    The third 007 film from the Bond actors (who had three or more), is usually when the actor and filmmakers really nail their execution, except for TWINE:

    Connery:
    Goldfinger

    Moore:
    TSWLM

    Craig:
    SF

    TWINE was going for something multi layered and fell very short. Perhaps it was a case of trying too hard?… To me it’s flat and ugly to look at, felt cheap, dragged in too many places, and the action set pieces were long, loud and lousy.

    I can see a very good script in here that starts and finishes with Elektra King.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,283
    peter wrote: »
    TWINE was going for something multi layered and fell very short. Perhaps it was a case of trying too hard?… To me it’s flat and ugly to look at, felt cheap, dragged in too many places, and the action set pieces were long, loud and lousy.

    I can see a very good script in here that starts and finishes with Elektra King.
    The blu ray makes it look much better than the miserable VHS & DVD...
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited July 23 Posts: 7,218
    peter wrote: »
    The third 007 film from the Bond actors (who had three or more), is usually when the actor and filmmakers really nail their execution, except for TWINE:

    Connery:
    Goldfinger

    Moore:
    TSWLM

    Craig:
    SF

    I'd agree with this except I think the Craig-era nailed its execution right out the gate with CR and performance-wise, I don't think Craig ever bettered it.
  • Posts: 419
    I like most of TWINE but find that final fight so lackluster and disappointing. All they do it choke and put each other in holds when the film really needed a GE-styled end fight. I’ve always enjoyed TWINE as a kid and still do to this day. I have TWINE at 14 and NTTD at 16.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited July 23 Posts: 6,344
    peter wrote: »
    The third 007 film from the Bond actors (who had three or more), is usually when the actor and filmmakers really nail their execution, except for TWINE:

    Connery:
    Goldfinger

    Moore:
    TSWLM

    Craig:
    SF

    I'd agree with this except I think the Craig-era nailed its execution right out the gate with CR and performance-wise, I don't think Craig ever bettered it.

    Definitely don’t disagree… But…

    My opinion on Craig’s performances after watching his five films back to back (one/evening with one of my daughters), was he seemingly evolved from film to film… Craig the actor was going through radical changes and, instead of playing Bond in one consistent manner, I felt he embraced his personal evolution and layered it on top of his James Bond characterization… I could see a clear thread from the arrogant, novice agent straight through to the aged/wounded lion driven to do one last thing for his country, but more so for his family, himself and his existential legacy.

    Watching these films back to back was like watching an acquaintance slowly evolving to maturity over a fifteen year period; to me this is an amazing body of work from one actor who made a character of fiction seem like a flesh and blood individual that grew older and wiser over the years… And embraced it.

    (And of course I saw him perform live, two weeks ago (front row), where the man delivered something so bloody unique and wonderful and nothing I had ever seen him do before, which was wonderfully shocking to have been witness to; no matter what one may think of him, Daniel Craig takes his art/craft absolutely seriously).
  • mattjoesmattjoes Mitchell
    Posts: 5,760
    It was cool to see Craig's Bond evolve over the years, and to see experiences from the past informing little moments and reactions in the present.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 1,547
    The evolution of Craig's Bond was the most satisfying thing about the Craig era. Daniel played it perfectly
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 6,344
    mattjoes wrote: »
    It was cool to see Craig's Bond evolve over the years, and to see experiences from the past informing little moments and reactions in the present.

    Yes, @mattjoes lots of nice little moments scattered throughout, one of my favourites being in Skyfall (I know when a woman is afraid and trying not to be— just the matter of fact way in which he says this…)
  • Posts: 2,874
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    The third 007 film from the Bond actors (who had three or more), is usually when the actor and filmmakers really nail their execution, except for TWINE:

    Connery:
    Goldfinger

    Moore:
    TSWLM

    Craig:
    SF

    I'd agree with this except I think the Craig-era nailed its execution right out the gate with CR and performance-wise, I don't think Craig ever bettered it.

    Definitely don’t disagree… But…

    My opinion on Craig’s performances after watching his five films back to back (one/evening with one of my daughters), was he seemingly evolved from film to film… Craig the actor was going through radical changes and, instead of playing Bond in one consistent manner, I felt he embraced his personal evolution and layered it on top of his James Bond characterization… I could see a clear thread from the arrogant, novice agent straight through to the aged/wounded lion driven to do one last thing for his country, but more so for his family, himself and his existential legacy.

    Watching these films back to back was like watching an acquaintance slowly evolving to maturity over a fifteen year period; to me this is an amazing body of work from one actor who made a character of fiction seem like a flesh and blood individual that grew older and wiser over the years… And embraced it.

    (And of course I saw him perform live, two weeks ago (front row), where the man delivered something so bloody unique and wonderful and nothing I had ever seen him do before, which was wonderfully shocking to have been witness to; no matter what one may think of him, Daniel Craig takes his art/craft absolutely seriously).

    I'll agree that Craig tried to take the role seriously, and adapted a character that he thought was fitting to the role, with depth, and yes, the character evolved throughout the films as a flesh and blood human being that did grow older and wiser.

    But I will also say to me it never really felt like Craig was looking at the Fleming characterisation for his portrayal, or that he looked towards the books for inspiration on how to play the character. He took it on as his own, in the same way all previous actors had done.

    However, for a true portrayal of the literary Fleming character, I feel Dalton nailed this far better than Craig or anyone else. From the off it was obvious to anyone who had read the books that Dalton was playing the character Fleming wrote about. No one has come closer.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 21,296
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    The third 007 film from the Bond actors (who had three or more), is usually when the actor and filmmakers really nail their execution, except for TWINE:

    Connery:
    Goldfinger

    Moore:
    TSWLM

    Craig:
    SF

    I'd agree with this except I think the Craig-era nailed its execution right out the gate with CR and performance-wise, I don't think Craig ever bettered it.

    Definitely don’t disagree… But…

    My opinion on Craig’s performances after watching his five films back to back (one/evening with one of my daughters), was he seemingly evolved from film to film… Craig the actor was going through radical changes and, instead of playing Bond in one consistent manner, I felt he embraced his personal evolution and layered it on top of his James Bond characterization… I could see a clear thread from the arrogant, novice agent straight through to the aged/wounded lion driven to do one last thing for his country, but more so for his family, himself and his existential legacy.

    Watching these films back to back was like watching an acquaintance slowly evolving to maturity over a fifteen year period; to me this is an amazing body of work from one actor who made a character of fiction seem like a flesh and blood individual that grew older and wiser over the years… And embraced it.

    (And of course I saw him perform live, two weeks ago (front row), where the man delivered something so bloody unique and wonderful and nothing I had ever seen him do before, which was wonderfully shocking to have been witness to; no matter what one may think of him, Daniel Craig takes his art/craft absolutely seriously).

    I'll agree that Craig tried to take the role seriously, and adapted a character that he thought was fitting to the role, with depth, and yes, the character evolved throughout the films as a flesh and blood human being that did grow older and wiser.

    But I will also say to me it never really felt like Craig was looking at the Fleming characterisation for his portrayal, or that he looked towards the books for inspiration on how to play the character. He took it on as his own, in the same way all previous actors had done.

    However, for a true portrayal of the literary Fleming character, I feel Dalton nailed this far better than Craig or anyone else. From the off it was obvious to anyone who had read the books that Dalton was playing the character Fleming wrote about. No one has come closer.

    That I agree with. Let me first say that I don't think that the cinematic Bond has to be the Fleming Bond. Moore and Brosnan were pretty far removed from the literary character, yet both were excellent Bonds for the movies.

    Dalton had clearly studied the character on the pages of the books and went for just the right amount of heart, cynicism, anger, and heroism. Fleming never allowed a rogue Bond but might have gotten there had he lived a bit longer--we don't know.

    Craig took his fuel from the books too, at least so far as I can tell, but shifted a few gears to make his Bond somewhat more aggressive, self-confident, and playfully nonchalant via-à-vis the "rules". I think that's good; his Bond impressed me and a lot of people around the globe. I'm just a little sad we only got Dalton's two. That should've been three or four at the very least.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    edited July 23 Posts: 1,519
    I think that early Moore was as close to Fleming’s Bond as we’ve gotten. I’ve always pictured Moore from LALD and TMWTGG when reading Fleming (this could certainly be due to the fact that my interest in reading Fleming coincided with the release of those two films). Its not in the scripts, of course, but his attitude and his demeanor and his look. Cold, but a touch of humanity ever present. Fleming’s Bond was never the brute that Craig’s was, or even Connery’s. I would put Lazenby as a close second, then Dalton.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 37,395
    I love the Moore era but he's definitely his strongest for me in those first two; way more cold and unflinching and nowhere near as cheeky as he gets later on. One of my favorite scenes of his era is Bond and Andrea in her hotel room for this reason.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 1,519
    Yes. We get hints of it in FYEO and OP (confronting Orlov may be my favorite Moore Bond moment), I just wish we had much more in place of the hours wasted on goofy chases and sight gags.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 37,395
    That Orlov confrontation is gold. Like you say, there are certainly flashes of it in his other films, even if they're bogged down in goofiness and cheese. I love the showdown between Bond and Zorin at City Hall too (hell, a lot of their combative scenes together have Moore fired up and I love it).
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 464
    I feel that Craig nailed Rookie Bond of CR-QOS but couldn't pull off the more traditional Bond after that. He never made it look effortless the way the other actors did.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 21,296
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I feel that Craig nailed Rookie Bond of CR-QOS but couldn't pull off the more traditional Bond after that. He never made it look effortless the way the other actors did.

    That I disagree with. He made it look perfectly effortless to be his Bond. I can't see the inconsistencies in his tenure some have mentioned before. Was his a "traditional Bond"? No, but I doubt that was ever the intention in the first place.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,283
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I feel that Craig nailed Rookie Bond of CR-QOS but couldn't pull off the more traditional Bond after that. He never made it look effortless the way the other actors did.

    I think that was the point- he wanted the 'effort' to show.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    edited July 24 Posts: 1,519
    Though I greatly admire Craig's earlier takes on Bond, he has never felt like Fleming's Bond to me. But then again neither has my favorite, Connery (more so than Craig, though). I also enjoy Brosnan as Bond, but I agree with @DarthDimi on that one, he has never given me the Fleming vibe. It really is Lazenby, Moore and Dalton.
  • Posts: 11,258
    To be 100% real, not one of the 6 actors truly felt like Fleming Bond fully to me. I usually hear Dalton's the closest, but I still feel like he's maybe just a little too tender too often. Either him or Lazenby, ironically the ones with the least amount of films, probably did come closest anyhow. But I'm happy to say when I read all the Bond novels for the first time (I had seen all the movies beforehand many times), I envisioned an entirely different Bond.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Omaha, NE
    Posts: 6,531
    I’ve always said that Craig’s take is basically a fusion of Fleming’s cynicism and Connery’s machismo, and THAT was why Craig was so popular as Bond in a way Dalton couldn’t be with his approach.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited July 24 Posts: 4,480
    peter wrote: »
    The third 007 film from the Bond actors (who had three or more), is usually when the actor and filmmakers really nail their execution, except for TWINE:

    Connery:
    Goldfinger

    Moore:
    TSWLM

    Craig:
    SF

    TWINE was going for something multi layered and fell very short. Perhaps it was a case of trying too hard?… To me it’s flat and ugly to look at, felt cheap, dragged in too many places, and the action set pieces were long, loud and lousy.

    I can see a very good script in here that starts and finishes with Elektra King.

    A few years ago, I would agreed with this. But in the early months of COVID, I watched Broz's films several times. My opinion on TWINE has changed a lot: I now consider it his best, and by a wide margin.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    It was cool to see Craig's Bond evolve over the years, and to see experiences from the past informing little moments and reactions in the present.

    I agree. And though the five films are supposed to follow a character arc, they all feel very different, even SF and SP.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,464
    I'd also put Dalton and Moore as the closest to Fleming. Dalton is just clearly acting as the written character in virtually every scene. You see it in the way he thinks about his work, the way he is with his women and villains, and his hint at having some kind of inner life.

    Moore famously said that Fleming's Bond doesn't like killing, and he went with that. It's not a lot to inform a performance, but really, his Bond never really gets as silly as parts of his films do. He's not as unflappable as Connery and shows a fair amount of emotional engagement with his mission and with other characters. While I picture Dalton when I read the books, I'd really have no problem picturing Moore most of the time. If you've read Christopher Wood's (somewhat bizarre) novelizations of TSWLM and MR, it's very much in a Fleming mold, and it's hard not to picture Rog in the literary part.

    The others, to me, don't seem to making any special effort at all to act like Fleming's character, which to be clear, is absolutely fine. The plots of Connery's early films are from Fleming, as are about 15 minutes of Casino Royale, but the characters in those films aren't really Fleming's Bond.
  • edited July 24 Posts: 2,874
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I think that early Moore was as close to Fleming’s Bond as we’ve gotten. I’ve always pictured Moore from LALD and TMWTGG when reading Fleming (this could certainly be due to the fact that my interest in reading Fleming coincided with the release of those two films). Its not in the scripts, of course, but his attitude and his demeanor and his look. Cold, but a touch of humanity ever present. Fleming’s Bond was never the brute that Craig’s was, or even Connery’s. I would put Lazenby as a close second, then Dalton.

    LALD and TMWTGG are my favourite Moore films, but I never really had them nailed on as Flemingesque performances, but now you mention it - yes I can see that.

    Lazenby was fortunate that he starred in the one Fleming adapted novel which really showed his humanity, so he couldn't do much wrong there. I think any actor could have slotted into that role and it would be a Fleming Bond. Lazenby didn't really have to show off too many thespian skills in this one. The script did it for him.

    Whereas I still think LTK and Dalton's performance is the one where I really see Fleming's Bond jump off the pages.
  • Posts: 5,061
    It will always be Dalton for me! Re-reading the novels now, its easy to picture Tim in the part. Can see whst people were saying about Rog in his first two films, but always felt he wasnt comfortable in those scenes like the one with Andrea, or maybe its just my view of Roger Moore, that he was too likeable to be a convincing Fleming Bond!?
  • edited July 24 Posts: 821
    For what it's worth I'd say that while there are some performances (and indeed scripts) which are more Fleming-esque than others, no actor's interpretation of James Bond has ever been 100% close to the source material. There never will be such a performance either.

    Which, to be honest, is absolutely fine. I personally think the filmmakers/actor should read the novels, understand how they work as stories, and keep that influence there creatively, but film and books are always going to be different. There's no guarantee that simply adapting Fleming or injecting random elements of his books into the films will result in a great film.

    I mean, I'd argue that Craig's Bond in SF is written and acted in a more 'Fleming-esque' manner than Lazenby's in OHMSS (Lazenby's Bond certainly never convincingly had any of the cynicism, any of the jadedness that Fleming's Bond did in that story). Dalton's Bond was pretty close to the literary character in TLD, and even in LTK (although to a certain extent - I'm not sure if Fleming's Bond was quite as prone to going 'rogue' as the film version of the character has been).
Sign In or Register to comment.