No Time To Die: Bond 25 - Out Now

[Triple A]

18 hours ago, Parksey said:

  Hide contents

The film is a bit uneven and tonally quite jarring at times. 

 

The comedy schtick in the lab with him from Outnumbered, with a clichéd Russian scientist ends suddenly with a break in and Outnumbered man getting shot in the head. The Russian scientist then continues this schtick throughout the entire film. Often in the middle of quite serious segments. Then continues the schtick with new 007, utters something racist and gets kicked into an acid bath. 

 

I totally agree with this bit of your feedback.  Really jarred and took me out of the film.  I get that it’s Bond and they have to try and inject a bit of levity, but this felt like poor writing.

 

I gave a pass to the rest of the stuff you mentioned, but understand where you’re coming from.

[denisb]

I’m going to see this tomorrow will it matter ive not seen spectre or the one before it?

[Gabe]

@denisbI'd say that's probably a blessing!

 

My partner hadn't seen them and she didn't struggle to follow it, for what it's worth.

[Loik V credern]

 

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/oct/01/i-eat-greasy-fried-eggs-at-least-once-a-week-daniel-craig-on-bond-being-buff-and-crying-at-british-gas-ads?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

 

Daniel Craig has done an interview where he answers questions asked by famous people. Was Blockbusters still around when Cowboys and Aliens was released?

 

Actually it was probably Tomb Raider wasn't it.

[Fireproofradiator]

It'll be Cowboys and Aliens won't it?

 

Craig seems like a decent enough chap, based on that interview and I'm glad he still likes Love is the Devil which is a great piece of work.

 

I thought the new one was boring tbh. They've decided not to compete on stunts - Mission Impossible has them sewn up - and thrown out the camp 70's baby with the dodgy sexual politics bathwater so you're left with a kind of sombre reflective goo with no purpose beyond making money and spreading a global pandemic.

 

Ana de Armas was really good though.

 

 

[teddymeow]

Saw NTTD last night.

It was brilliant. A fitting end to Craig's run as Bond as many have said.

It looked fantastic if a little soft-of-image at times. Some incredible action scenes which owed a fair bit to John Wick, Ana de Armas rivals Eva Green as just unspeakably beautiful.

There were some lovely nods to Bond films of old, some zippy one-liners and incredible performances all round.
 

I'd say it was as good as Skyfall.

So Craig's run for me goes:

Casino Royale
Skyfall / No Time To Die
Spectre
Quantum of Solace

And, I honestly do believe, he is the best James Bond.

[davidcotton]

Think the thread title need’s changing a bit!

[Gabe]

I don't think Cowboys and Indians would've have had a VHS release, @Fireproofradiator. It's probably Tomb Raider, as @Loik V credernsays.

 

Are there any good links to Craig's interviews post-Spectre where he talks about never wanting to play the role again? 

[FishyFish]

Saw it this afternoon. It was enjoyable, but not the best Bond I've seen.

 

Daniel Craig has been a good Bond, but the delays between films have let him down, and despite being in great shape for his age for NTTD, he also looks it. There was one scene in the film where he looked particularly aged...

 

Spoiler

Sat in the liferaft after the trawler sank.

 

It's a real shame they couldn't have kept to a more frequent schedule to allow hime to make more films while still a little younger. Not as bad as a very old-looking Roger Moore karate-chopping peope in A View to a Kill though.

 

The action scenes were great (although with the odd nonsensical circumstances)...

 

Spoiler

While I'm sure it added drama when the 4x4s and bikes burst out of the woods in the Norway chase sequence, how the hell did they get there? Did Safin just deploy sets of henchmen on all the sideroads in case Bond went that particular way?

 

Regarding the ending...

 

Spoiler

Are we expecting a complete re-boot with a new Bond, or are they doing away with the character? I mean, effectively every new actor in the role has been a re-boot to a large extent, but they've never gone so far as to kill the character before. Having the 007 code re-assigned to another agent is fine, but at the end of the credits it states "James Bond will return", so unless there is another person called James Bond up for the job, or Craig's Bond miraculously survived the missile strike, I'm not sure how they can continue with a "Bond" franchise without a complete reset where we are expected to assume none of the other stuff in all the other movies ever happened.

 

Funniest moment...

 

Spoiler

When Primo's bionic eye came out near the beginning of the film and them popped open with a huge spring inside, like it was some sort of joke-shop toy. All that was missing was a loud SPROINGGGGG sound.

 

[JohnC]

3 minutes ago, FishyFish said:

 

The action scenes were great (although with the odd nonsensical circumstances)...

 

  Hide contents

While I'm sure it added drama when the 4x4s and bikes burst out of the woods in the Norway chase sequence, how the hell did they get there? Did Safin just deploy sets of henchmen on all the sideroads in case Bond went that particular way?

 

Spoiler

They were all already on their way to her house which was nearby. So when the first two cars met them on the road, they would have signalled the rest of the team to divert to them.

 

[FishyFish]

2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

  Hide contents

They were all already on their way to her house which was nearby. So when the first two cars met them on the road, they would have signalled the rest of the team to divert to them.

 

Spoiler

Yeah, I get that, but they appeared within minutes out of what looked like thick woodland. It didn't look like a place which would have multiple routes that could be taken at short notice, even with aerial support from the helicopter. It didn't break the movie or anything, but it felt a bit "Skyfall" in it's convenience.

 

[Purin]

I thought this was brilliant. Really well paced and absolutely flew by and didn't feel overlong, best one since Casino Royale.

[Dr Nookie]

Just got back from this in IMax - or the cineworld version at least. I rather liked it. Lovely to hear We have all the time in the world again - the orchestral arrangement is fab. 
I do have an issue mind.  
Why does so much of the film look like it’s been filmed in portrait mode on an iPhone. The depth of field is so shallow at times, or in fact so limited to certain things I found it hugely distracting. 
 

Bond crouches down, his head is in focus - but his hand and watch which are the same distance away are blurred out. I just don’t understand it at all. There are some scenes where it looked like it was being used to hide the use of green screen maybe, but in others seems totally unnecessary. 
 

What’s it all about?

[teddymeow]

I need to see this again.

 

The ending reminded me a lot of 

Spoiler

Avengers Endgame in a way with Bond sacrificing himself to ensure "victory"

 

It's also made me want to watch Knives Out again for more Ana de Armas.

[Stopharage]

I really enjoyed this and didn’t seem to be that long or bloated, as the film flew along just before arse numbness kicked in. 
 

However the film definitely needed to borrow 

Spoiler

Basil Exposition from Austin Powers so someone could explain what Malek’s end goal was. Utter nonsense. 
 

And wasn’t a fan of Russian scientist channelling Goldeneye’s favourite wacky STEM bozo, Boris. 

But Craig was terrific, as he has been throughout his tenure. 

[Nick R]

3 hours ago, FishyFish said:

Regarding the ending...

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Are we expecting a complete re-boot with a new Bond, or are they doing away with the character? I mean, effectively every new actor in the role has been a re-boot to a large extent, but they've never gone so far as to kill the character before. Having the 007 code re-assigned to another agent is fine, but at the end of the credits it states "James Bond will return", so unless there is another person called James Bond up for the job, or Craig's Bond miraculously survived the missile strike, I'm not sure how they can continue with a "Bond" franchise without a complete reset where we are expected to assume none of the other stuff in all the other movies ever happened.

 

 

There's a few ways they could take the series from here:

 

Spoiler

* Continue the current continuity, keeping the M/Q/Moneypenny supporting cast, but focus on other 00 agents. (Doubt they'll do this! Unless Amazon wants to use it as a way of keeping a continuous stream of Bond Content...)

 

* Repeat what they did with Casino Royale, and introduce the new Bond actor with an origin story - maybe this time covering his time in the navy? (I don't really want them to do this; I don't think that repeating the Casino Royale approach should be the normal way of introducing new Bonds from now on.)

 

* Go back to how they did it before: forget about telling the main character's story from start to finish, and just present the new actor as Bond at some unspecified point in the middle of his career. (I think they should do this, although it might not be likely in this era of inter-film continuity and shared universes.)

 

* Make a big change to make it clear that this is a clean break from the Craig films. Maybe make it a period film: set it in the '50s like Fleming's novels, or '70s to try telling a story set in the era when Roger Moore made his films, but with a modern style?

 

And all of those could potentially retain the same actors as M, Q, or Moneypenny, the way that those actors have previously continued across different Bonds.

 

[Gabe]

16 hours ago, FishyFish said:

Regarding the ending...

 

  Hide contents

Are we expecting a complete re-boot with a new Bond, or are they doing away with the character? I mean, effectively every new actor in the role has been a re-boot to a large extent, but they've never gone so far as to kill the character before. Having the 007 code re-assigned to another agent is fine, but at the end of the credits it states "James Bond will return", so unless there is another person called James Bond up for the job, or Craig's Bond miraculously survived the missile strike, I'm not sure how they can continue with a "Bond" franchise without a complete reset where we are expected to assume none of the other stuff in all the other movies ever happened.

 

Spoiler

They already did the setup for this by having Nomi as the 'new' 007 and her saying "It's just a number." I thought that was quite a clever way of telling the audience that they (as in the film characters) know the 007 designation has been used by different people (and will again), whilst also telling the audience that it'll be somebody different who will still fit into this world. I can't remember it, but did Skyfall establish that he wasn't born as James Bond too?

 

Either way, there is no need to reboot everything because these characters will expect somebody new to pick up the reins.

I think what this film does is leave it very open as to how they want the next Bond film to be; given it will be a new actor, they could start from the very beginning again (a la Casino Royale) but retain the same continuity of M, Moneypenny etc. Alternatively, they could scrap everybody and start completely afresh, or somewhere in between (so keep the supporting cast but have the new Bond already part of their known world).

 

Edit: Ha, I knew I should've read @Nick R's post first 

 

Regarding Craig's age, I do wonder had both Skyfall and this film not been beset by production troubles, how many films he may have done. From his point of view, 16 years in the role for 5 Bond films - considering Connery's first 5 were done in 5/6 years - is a poor output. One of his reasons for not liking the role was the need to keep in shape and gruelling press junket stuff, but had they been closer to being released every 2 years or so, he would've only been still mid/late-40s when this came out and perhaps inclined to do some more.

[K]

I saw this last night, and thought it was fantastic. It seemed like it was trying to take the same approach as Skyfall and Spectre and treat the typical Bond story with a lot of gravitas, with the difference in No Time To Die being that the characters and relationships had enough depth and complexity to withstand this kind of treatment.

 

Bond’s relationship with Madeleine Swann and 

Spoiler

his daughter had enough emotional heft to make this approach work, and it really gave the plot a lot of drive and resonance that was lacking in Spectre. Someone deciding to become a supervillain because they were jealous of their stepbrother is hard to relate to, but the prospect of never being able to see your loved ones again is much more pressing.

I really liked the female characters. It’s probably inevitable given that Phoebe Waller-Bridge was one of the main scriptwriters and that the director has gone on record as describing Bond as a rapist, but there was none of the casual sexual assault that stank up Spectre and Skyfall. The thing is though, the film wasn’t just notable for the absence of leery, creepy behaviour, the women actually had active roles, and were given the space to have characters who were more complex than being victims or fragile ice queens with daddy issues. I really, really enjoyed the rookie Cuban agent, whose nerves and inexperience disguised the fact that she was really impressively good at her job - the urge to put the so-called strong female character in a story often results in women being treated as boringly competent, or as two-dimensional badasses who are either dominatrices or very macho, whereas Paloma was funny and cool, while also being very feminine. The new 007 was excellent as well - funny and condescending to Bond, without being obnoxious. 
 

Generally, it felt like they’d taken everything that worked from the Craig area, and put it all together in one film. Safin’s plan and background were quite hazy, but I liked that they left a lot of it unsaid. He was a present threat with an odd, intriguing mindset, and I liked that they didn’t weigh it down with too much prosaic exposition in the way that sunk Spectre. There wasn’t too much action, and what there was was slick and exciting without being preposterous. 
 

The only thing I would change is to stop them from using the word “nanobots”, which sounded clumsy and old fashioned. I’m sure they could have come up with some better terminology than that. 

[K]

Also, Ben Whishaw was great as Q, but his new look reminded me a lot of this:

 

 

Did I miss something from previous films, or did they acknowledge that Q is gay in this film? They strongly imply that he’s preparing for a date when Bond and Moneypenny turn up at his house, and I’m sure Q refers to his date as “he”. 

[papalazarou]

53 minutes ago, K said:

Also, Ben Whishaw was great as Q, but his new look reminded me a lot of this:

 

Did I miss something from previous films, or did they acknowledge that Q is gay in this film? They strongly imply that he’s preparing for a date when Bond and Moneypenny turn up at his house, and I’m sure Q refers to his date as “he”. 

Yeah he def says “he” will be here soon 

[Professor Puzzles]

The main problem with this film is that when M says he has to speak to the Prime Minister I had to imagine Johnson answering the call and how embarrassingly awful that would be...

[Gabe]

1 hour ago, K said:

Did I miss something from previous films, or did they acknowledge that Q is gay in this film? They strongly imply that he’s preparing for a date when Bond and Moneypenny turn up at his house, and I’m sure Q refers to his date as “he”. 

 

I think it's quite explicit that he's preparing to have a date with a man, and I like the fact it was introduced in a completely normal way without having to make any kind of deal of it, to the point that it doesn't even matter. Just a nice little detail in a film that had quite a few nice little details; I mentioned it my original post, but I don't think it's a spoiler to say that there were little tunes dotted throughout that had been key music in previous films.

 

I do hope they continue with the current supporting cast, partly because they've actually given them some character development. I also hope they stick with not putting loads of gadgets in, something I've appreciated a lot in the Craig run.

 

I think the overriding feeling from this film has been quite profound for me - it's made me interested in Bond again. As I say, I hated Skyfall and Spectre (despite liking Craig) so I was watching this more because it was his last, rather than because I particularly cared. Now, though, I'm definitely curious to see in what direction they take it, who they cast and how it will all be tied-together (or not.) Quite an achievement, I'd say.

[hmm]

6 hours ago, Gabe said:

Regarding Craig's age, I do wonder had both Skyfall and this film not been beset by production troubles, how many films he may have done. From his point of view, 16 years in the role for 5 Bond films - considering Connery's first 5 were done in 5/6 years - is a poor output. One of his reasons for not liking the role was the need to keep in shape and gruelling press junket stuff, but had they been closer to being released every 2 years or so, he would've only been still mid/late-40s when this came out and perhaps inclined to do some more.

 

I can't imagine the execs see the Craig era as anything other than an unqualified success given the money that the films all made (even if more films = more money) and the way that it completely revitalised a pretty unfashionable franchise. As a viewer though, it's hard not to see the overall outcome as a huge missed opportunity, especially after the way it all started off. Subsequent films were always unlikely to live up to the freshness and energy of CR but the steady decline in quality and relatively sparse output are things that could have been avoided or fixed, if they weren't too busy obsessing over the creation of some Marvel-rivalling cinematic universe with Bond's ancestral home and estranged family, sticking with favourite writers regardless of result, and giving over swathes of runtime to aspects like Bond suddenly being completely over the hill and having to tediously prove otherwise or repeatedly retiring. I'm glad to hear it's going out on a high but I wish the middle years hadn't been so fallow.

[davadvice1]

Seen this today and still trying to make up my mind on it. 

 

The Rami's age to Madeleine seemed off and I kept thinking about it. 

[smithstock]

Yeah - also...

 

Spoiler

Vesper was 23?

 

[footle]

1 hour ago, davadvice1 said:

Seen this today and still trying to make up my mind on it. 

 

The Rami's age to Madeleine seemed off and I kept thinking about it. 

yes, though I’m coming round to the idea that she’s canonically 35, and then I’m assuming that Rami was meant to be playing a bulked up 17 year old when he first met her at the age of 10 or so: so would be 44 or so. Unfortunate that he doesn’t really look five years older than he is.

[b00dles]

I thought this was just derivative pish. Every single "clever" joke was painful, the action was bordering on incoherent and none of it seemed remotely justified. 

The bit at the start with the car was dreadful, the nicking the biological weapon was idiotic, there was no reason for Hugh Dennis to go along with it at all, even slightly and then he naturally got killed, the Russian scientist deciding to only target spectre in the stupid "it was all a trap to kill bond" party was just that, stupid. 

 

I've not really been as disappointed in a long time, people chuckling along with the black female bond (that was essentially coded as a villain) about what 00 number he was, it was all just embarrassing.

 

I feel suckered in by the advertising, the friend I was with totally fell asleep after the first half hour. 

 

I mean, it works quite well as a "this whole thing doesn't really work these days, does it" but there are ways and means of still having fun and entertainment within that and it just felt all a bit pathetic instead. 

[Loik V credern]

didn't like it

 

Spoiler

This felt like Alien Covenant, you don't see how it can be worse than the previous one and yet somehow it is. Given the positive opinions since and the quality of the director i was hoping it'd at least shove in some action into its stupidly long running time. But, no, not really.

 

More than anything, i hated its tortuously po faced seriousness, the whole film is exhausting in its desperation to make you feel something emotionally deep. I've never remotely bought any of Bond's relationshipss in these films, not one, not for one second. So when this film begins with him moping about Vesper's death from a film that was released 15 years ago as a way to contrive intimacy between this hugely mismatched couple, it wasn't a compelling opening to this new film in 2021 that perhaps you might think wants to quickly engage you with its own ideas. But then it doesn't have any. 15 years ago. You wouldn't have a new film released in 2000 that wasted time on the death of a character in the 4th earlier released film from 1985, would you?

 

This continued story from one film to another is terrible, it steals from you 70% of what could be different. In all the years of production news, photos, plot details, casting, trailers, not once has any of it been remotely intriguing.

 

It's just kind of bizarre, Bond films are action films, throwaway action films, that's all they are, this attempt to do strong powerful drama is painful to endure and because it seems the producers and writers are so keen to copy this style of storytelling from actual proper dramas which are so popular now especially in tv then i doubt they're going to move on from it.

 

It's just boring, so incredibly boring. I get wanting to show more depth to Bond's character and his relationship to women but with Casino Royale it was never believable to me. And that it always got rapey shows how completely hopeless they were handling it. The guy who also wrote Crash is not someone who can do subtlety.

 

For something far better, more realistic and which i prefer (best in the series too) is in Bourne Identity you can see there's a bond growing between these two strangers but it's all shown by looks, gestures, that they want to stay together despite the danger of it. You don't need huge declarations of love. You don't need to contrive a daughter born in his absence to yet force more emotion and drama where there need not be any.

 

After Eva Green (who is superb in the role for sure) they looked for the next most beautiful actress in the world who is also a fantastic actor too good for the crap writing in these films but who nonetheless has essentially been picked because of her beauty, the age difference more galling and the whole relationship entirely forced.

 

For another example of subtlety i think, i watched Three Kings recently and i don't like David O Russell's films, nor desert wars, so it's unappealing to my in many ways, but it's brilliantly visually vibrant in a way that's so alien to modern filmmakers, an irreverence and manic energy to it. It has stupid characters, over the top characters, mad moments and it's almost surreal.

 

Anyway..point is, despite all that it manages to weave in some emotion, a strong brotherly bond bewtween two soliders, human loss, the strong urge to do the right thing and sacrifice yourself, and for a moment it pans across the characters faces and shifts tone and it's pretty effective because it earned it. It kept the characters stupid but lovable, extreme but not charactactures.

 

It's funny that the producers lost Danny Boyle because he was asking for too much creative freedom presumably asking for things they couldn't allow yet were okay with the writers killing James Bond, the one thing that has never happened and never expected to happen. The one rule you cannot ever break being 'Bond cannot die' and they do it. It took a while but the film actually at least in that moment surprised me and made me sit up. The choice to do it makes no sense but then nothing in the film does. I listened to a podcast before watching the film where they vaguely mention how the film celebrates the end of Daniel Craig as Bond and couldn't really see what they meant. The scene where they briefly mourn his death? I don't think they laid anything on thick.

 

I've never liked Daniel Craig as Bond, he's not charismatic and suave, he just isn't. Built like a WWE wrestler jumping through walls, violently strangling most bad guys he comes across...yeah not Bond to me. He has to be involved in a desperate struggle every time he takes a life so you can FEEL the HUMANITY of his portrayal of Bond. Honestly the most shocking and human moment from me of the modern Bonds remains Brosnan executing the doctor in Tomorrow Never Dies. 'I'm just a professional doing my job'...'so am I'. Far more effective than anything in Craig's Bonds films because it seems unusually ruthless given how the film is and that you knew he did it as revenge or justice. He goes to her from Sex in The City and pleads for her to leave to save her life. Then he's upset when she inevitably dies. You see he cares. It's not forced, it all just happens naturally, and is enough humanity to show.

 

I liked how Jeffrey Wright brings that idiot character from Game Night along with him and he turns out to be a baddie! What bad luck! Imagine bringing along a stranger on these important missions. He was a bit wasted wasn't he.

 

I'm genuinely baffled by any positive response this film is getting. I'd have to sit down, play the film and pause it constantly to prod and ask; so you definitely like this bit? You're engaged in this moment are you? There's a prominent letterboxd reviewer who basically if my lfe depended on it i wouldn't try to guess if he loved a film or hated it, there's no consistency at all. In what world is this incoherent boring self important mess of a film a 9? Action films are at their best when they're light, they deliver information quickly, they change things up constantly.

 

I wish i watched Die Hard with a Vengeance in the cinema tonight. Humour, quick talking, a plot that could take you anywhere, actual chemistry between the leads, a villain with insane levels of charisma, dynamic shots, surprises, stunts, explosions, crazy driving in tight areas you shouldn't drive.

 

In a way, comparable to the last Mission Impossible film, looks great but is just scenes stitched together with nonsense. If you have strong action sequences, some Hans Zimmer music, you can kind of get away with it. Not as good as the other 2, but i liked Fallout, i would agree with all who pick at its flaws.

 

I feel like i've written far too much about a film i kind of hated but have avoided actually criticising the stuff in it. There's just nothing there, there's no content. It avoids doing anything interesting so there's nothing to hang on to. It wastes everything, it wastes the villain, it wastes Bond, it wastes the action sequences, it wastes every peripheral character.

 

[Sarlaccfood]

Really enjoyed it. Much better than the last one and to my mind Craig’s third best after CR and Skyfall. 
 

Despite the varying degrees of quality in his run (it wouldn’t really be James Bond otherwise would it) Daniel Craig has absolutely owned the character. He is James Bond at the moment and he’ll be a tough act to follow. 

[Sarlaccfood]

On 09/10/2021 at 11:31, Dr Nookie said:

The depth of field is so shallow at times, or in fact so limited to certain things I found it hugely distracting. 

Yeah I noticed that at certain points. Probably being done in post to draw the eye, but it wasn’t done very subtlety.