No Time To Die: Bond 25 - Out Now

[Gabe]

@Loik V credernIt amuses me that you moan the film is too long and has nothing interesting and you then write and post...that.

 

[Loik V credern]

40 minutes ago, Gabe said:

@Loik V credernIt amuses me that you moan the film is too long and has nothing interesting and you then write and post...that.

 

What do you mean by '...that'? What's wrong with my post? I can't ever be succinct and it doesn't matter, all my opinions on things are like that. Somehow it irritates people (especially when it's something they like) as though each word is costing them money. You aren't the first person to mention this and you won't be the last. There's no contradiction to me writing a long post while saying in that post (once) the film is stupidly long. I rarely post so just cram all my thoughts I've had into one post. 

 

What people can't make sense of for some reason is if I write a lot it does sort of mean I am invested in the possibility of the film being good, I love action films, I like films to be fun. I like deep emotional dramas too, bit usually I think they're better separated. Where these Bonds and other superhero films I won't mention get it monumentally wrong is forgetting what they are, what their unique selling point is. 

 

The recent Mission Impossible films are far better Bond films, they've embraced what they are. There's inventive gadgets, crazy ideas, brilliant set pieces, it keeps it light but injects some drama in it a little to propel it a bit but generally keeps melodrama away from it. ...said it too much then. The 3rd Mission Impossible film went for more melodrama with the kidnapped girlfriend and was worst for it. The whole opera scene in Rogue Nation is pure Bond. And the stunts, wasn't Bond renowned for stunts, what happened to that, they always strived to do things that had not been done before and now 50 year old Tom Cruise has taken on that ...mission. (oh wait he's 59??) Or Nolan has in his Batman films.

 

To the film's credit it didn't actually feel its length but I was prepared so maybe that altered it, I was checking my watch regularly but also because I was going to be tight on parking given it started way after it should have. I looked and I was amazed it wasted 40 minutes when I checked, I think it was maybe around the time Bond meets Felix or a bit after. The film doesn't feel epic, it inserts Spectre in as though it's meant to be foreboding but how can anyone not just roll their eyes like do we have to carry on with that. At least Spectre up to a point had a mystery, this doesn't have any of that. 

 

It amused me when Bond straight up directly asks a character what is going on at one point. 

 

I think other films I've found more tiring to sit through in the cinema have emphasised their epicness more, peripheral characters repeatedly stating 'there's something bad coming', like Dark Knight Rises. Or films that feel like they reach an emotional peak with a huge action set piece with still 40 minutes to go. No Time To Die doesn't have that. It saves it all for the ending. 

 

I liked the directing, the cinematography, the shootouts and fighting in the final parts are very effective, but I'd stopped caring by that point. 

[Gabe]

For the record @Loik V credern, I'm not irrated by your post in the slightest. 

 

The Mission Impossible films are a very different thing, more an action-heist type affair these days. I certainly don't consider them Bond-like (or ever did, really.) I also find they always drag out any set-piece, and your note of the opera scene is a great comparison; in QoS it is tight, snappy and to the point. In Rogue Nation we have Cruise fighting, then falling off something, a bit more fighting and, and....zzzzz

 

You're bang on about the personal relationship in this, that it doesn't quite feel earned (especially when compared to the Bourne Identity, as you say), but I don't think they were ever really fully focused on tugging the heartstrings with it, but more I suppose hoping you at least bought into Bond feeling these emotions.

 

Its not a film without problems - there is a surprising lack of action, the big bad doesn't feel like a threat nor has a presence and the plot is a bit sketchy but, for me, it did still feel like a good send-off for Craig's run, which is hitherto unknown for the character, and at least a proper ending. Will I watch it again, like I have Casino Royal and QoS (the only two of his I have rewatched)? I'm not sure and, if not, then it worked well as my goodbye to Craig, so for that I will have some affection for it. 

[Sarlaccfood]

I do like that for once the villain in a Bond film

Spoiler

just shot Bond with a gun

 when the opportunity was there.
 

Answering one of those annoying criticisms people always level at these films when they think they’re being clever. and the answer is: “because it’s a bit boring”

[Loik V credern]

2 hours ago, Sarlaccfood said:

I do like that for once the villain in a Bond film

  Hide contents

just shot Bond with a gun

 when the opportunity was there.
 

Answering one of those annoying criticisms people always level at these films when they think they’re being clever. and the answer is: “because it’s a bit boring”

 

Spoiler

Yeah I liked that, although then instead of shooting him in the head he gets close enough for Bond to grapple him, which undoes the initial shooting in the first place.

 

Though at that point you don't know the writers are going to kill Bond off, and given that they do, how much more actually shocking would it have been if Rami Malek just shot him straight away in the head instead of the chest? There's no build up, he just gets a clean shot and we see Bond from the front with the bullet wound in his forehead as the camera pauses for maximum effect and then he drops to the floor. 

 

Even when the film is pursuing bad ideas it doesn't do them well. You can't properly accept he's about to die from the missile strike because ...it's Bond, why is a helicopter not there to pick him up or why is he not diving into the water. and also you know, added distraction of it ripping off imagery from The Rock.

 

Rami Malek as a completely terrible anonymous Bond villain could have been the one to kill Bond it would have been funny and memorable and they even stole that from us. First they stole a Danny Boyle Bond from us, now this. I don't see the point in the writers or these films.

 

[Festoon]

No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to

Spoiler

.....oh, right.

 

I see.

 

Well then.

 

[Sarlaccfood]

16 minutes ago, Loik V credern said:

 

  Hide contents

Yeah I liked that, although then instead of shooting him in the head he gets close enough for Bond to grapple him, which undoes the initial shooting in the first place.

 

Though at that point you don't know the writers are going to kill Bond off, and given that they do, how much more actually shocking would it have been if Rami Malek just shot him straight away in the head instead of the chest? There's no build up, he just gets a clean shot and we see Bond from the front with the bullet wound in his forehead as the camera pauses for maximum effect and then he drops to the floor. 

 

Even when the film is pursuing bad ideas it doesn't do them well. You can't properly accept he's about to die from the missile strike because ...it's Bond, why is a helicopter not there to pick him up or why is he not diving into the water. and also you know, added distraction of it ripping off imagery from The Rock.

 

Rami Malek as a completely terrible anonymous Bond villain could have been the one to kill Bond it would have been funny and memorable and they even stole that from us. First they stole a Danny Boyle Bond from us, now this. I don't see the point in the writers or these films.

 

Spoiler

He’d given up at the end because he’ll never be able to be near his family. Which I guess is also why Rami got close instead of just finishing the job with the the gun.

 

 

[RK1D]

Really enjoyed this, it was definitely Craig's best one after Casino Royale and more of a Bond film than that, if that makes sense. 

 

Loved the little nods to previous films and using the orchestral score of We have all the time in the world was great, my wife walked down the aisle to that being played by a string quarter when we got married. 

 

Obviously this means a hard reset for the franchise, be interested to see who goes next. 

[Loik V credern]

It's kind of interesting how critics respond to these Bond films and action films in general, now and in the past. Skyfall looked beautiful and in being that was something a bit different for Bond especially with Mendes directing, and it was fun and involving even if it made little sense, like with the whole train explosion sequence. It was the 50th anniversary and with the London Olympics too there was a strong sense of national pride and being overly positive about something British. Then the acclaim for Spectre made no sense whatsoever, especially from Bradshaw but then I think he spends all his time watching serious dramas so to them Bond probably seems exciting. So I'm unsure whether it was just bias that led him to giving Spectre a 5. 

 

Watching old Roger Ebert videos he sometimes seems to hate what are now regarded as classics. I know this comes up often, but Die Hard is the biggest one. But just how critics who mostly watch serious dramas grounded in some realism then spend time with an action film that is doing something very different. Ebert just calls a lot of films dumb, like they're lowering the medium. 

 

I think Craig as Bond should have ended with Skyfall. The last two films have offered nothing Skyfall didn't. 

 

I remember when Mission Impossible Fallout came out and kerraig on here hated it because the writers choose action set pieces then work backwards to fit in a plot that makes little sense. Its kind of muscular action sequences just ended up winning people over but I can't deny the criticism is true and I'm not sure it's that bad a way of doing it...I'm looking forward to what the next Mission Impossible brings.

[RK1D]

3 minutes ago, Sarlaccfood said:

  Hide contents

He’d given up at the end because he’ll never be able to be near his family. Which I guess is also why Rami got close instead of just finishing the job with the the gun.

 

 

Spoiler

He couldn't even just avoid his family, I'm sure Q said that the nano bots would get passed on to whoever they made contact with so sooner or later they would get round to them regardless. 

 

[Sarlaccfood]

20 minutes ago, RK1D said:

  Reveal hidden contents

He couldn't even just avoid his family, I'm sure Q said that the nano bots would get passed on to whoever they made contact with so sooner or later they would get round to them regardless. 

 

 

Spoiler

Would rather die than sit apart from his family in the cinema.

 

[RK1D]

59 minutes ago, Sarlaccfood said:

 

  Hide contents

Would rather die than sit apart from his family in the cinema.

 

 

I must have missed something.... 

[Sarlaccfood]

16 minutes ago, RK1D said:

 

I must have missed something.... 

Just an example of his potential life that er…a fellow forumite engineered for himself.

[Gregory Wolfe]

Mosquitoes.

[Robo_1]

Do you remember when Daniel Craig was first announced as Bond and there was a small movement of people disgruntled at the casting choice, stating Craig was unfit for the role, no blond Bond etc.

 

Well at the time some sad sack created a website from which to channel his outrage: http://danielcraigisnotbond.com/

 

Somebody casually mentioned it in a review of the new film the other day and for a laugh I thought I'd see what was there, expecting it to be an abandoned domain or some troll one pager. To my utter astonishment, some sad bastard has spent the past 15 years, fuelled by impotent rage and red bull (?) maintaining the site, writing dozens if not a 100+ articles largely (but to be fair, not exclusively) berating the Craig era Bond films and seizing on any negative publicity about them.

 

I mean.... wow. His commitment has paid off and he's actually got a small community behind him, with their own discussion board and everything, but I was genuinely flabbergasted to see that somebody could sustain their outrage over something so trite for such a length of time. Especially because the Craig films (along with Craig himself) have been broadly well received, yet he and his cohorts remain bafflingly steadfast in their views.

 

Anyway, I know it's a bit off topic but I though it was worth sharing my bemusement.

[Loik V credern]

3 hours ago, Sarlaccfood said:

  Hide contents

He’d given up at the end because he’ll never be able to be near his family. Which I guess is also why Rami got close instead of just finishing the job with the the gun.

 

Spoiler

Oh right yeah the nanobots that transmit a virus which Q was absolute in his initial obviously world leading knows everything is never wrong assessment they can't be removed. 

 

I prefer the old Q who just turned up in his research and development gadget factory and it provided some easy imagination and humour. Bond's cavalier attitude to Q's neuroticness. Rather than this annoying Q who turns up, does nothing, offers nothing and always looks like he's stepped out of a photo shoot for a catalogue. 

 

Like Mission Impossible Fallout, the writers have reverse engineered the script, but not starting with big action set pieces but what they think might be most emotionally potent. 'We need to contrive a way for Bond and his girlfriend to depart. We could dredge up Vesper again, audiences love stuff that happened 15 years ago! Especially the 16 year olds that this film is primarily aimed at.'

 

'We could pretend that Bond still has trust issues because that makes him HUMAN and that he'd blame her for telling the baddies where he is after the explosion nearly kills him. Yeah and then he can yell at her and drag her by her arm and shove her on a train showing zero understanding or trust in her word even though we're supposed to be creating a well rounded character this time and not merely moving them around to service the nonsensical plot'.

 

'So they reunite and it can be 5 years and that's enough time for Bond's girlfriend to give birth to a baby girl! Who she completely and flippantly denies she is his for no reason! Even though he's like yeah but the eyes'.

 

Their relationship is just the best I'm really involved in their potential happiness.

 

'Yeah and we can use this child to pull in people emotionally. We need to contrive a whole stupid scenario where he can't see them ever again. Any ideas?' 

 

I don’t know what people expected from Craig's Bond after Quantum of Solace, or whatever this continuing story is supposed to be, but I doubt it was him volunteering to die because he can't see his girlfriend and daughter because he has nanobots inside him. 

 

[Sarlaccfood]

Not your cup of tea then?

[lolly]

2 hours ago, Robo_1 said:

Do you remember when Daniel Craig was first announced as Bond and there was a small movement of people disgruntled at the casting choice, stating Craig was unfit for the role, no blond Bond etc.

 

Well at the time some sad sack created a website from which to channel his outrage: http://danielcraigisnotbond.com/

 

Somebody casually mentioned it in a review of the new film the other day and for a laugh I thought I'd see what was there, expecting it to be an abandoned domain or some troll one pager. To my utter astonishment, some sad bastard has spent the past 15 years, fuelled by impotent rage and red bull (?) maintaining the site, writing dozens if not a 100+ articles largely (but to be fair, not exclusively) berating the Craig era Bond films and seizing on any negative publicity about them.

 

I mean.... wow. His commitment has paid off and he's actually got a small community behind him, with their own discussion board and everything, but I was genuinely flabbergasted to see that somebody could sustain their outrage over something so trite for such a length of time. Especially because the Craig films (along with Craig himself) have been broadly well received, yet he and his cohorts remain bafflingly steadfast in their views.

 

Anyway, I know it's a bit off topic but I though it was worth sharing my bemusement.

I bet it's actually yours Mr . _1 , and you're just trying to drive traffic to it in the twilight of it's relevance and probably, existence.

 

You're no Bond villain, that's for sure.

[Robo_1]

7 hours ago, lolly said:

I bet it's actually yours Mr . _1 , and you're just trying to drive traffic to it in the twilight of it's relevance and probably, existence.

 

You're no Bond villain, that's for sure.

 

 

 

On a more relevant note, I have seen the film and enjoyed it. It didn't feel it's length at all, so I think they nailed the pacing. My biggest gripe was how they had all this time but both the character of Nomi and the villain felt so underdeveloped. This is very much Bond's film and by that I mean his journey remained the central focus at all times, not the set pieces, the villainous plot, the settings or anybody else, this is a film about the character of James Bond and by extension, Madeline Swann. If that was their aim, they acquitted themselves very well.

I think the film retries the phrase, "Bond girl" too. To dismiss any of the supporting women characters as trinkets, in the way they were typically viewed in the earlier films simply doesn't match up to what they each brought to the film. As I said, Nomi's character was underdeveloped but at no point did I feel she'd been dropped in as mere window dressing.

 

I think this was one of my favourite pre-credit scenes too. It's got a lovely slow burn to it, the stunts and sudden vulnerability of the character worked really well, plus of course the emotional punch it packs. I'll have to listen to the theme some more, because I honestly didn't think much of it listening to it for the first time in the cinema, I'm all for the slower, darker songs but this one seemed to plod along and slip from being dark and broody to aimless and dreary, but I'm keen to listen to it again to see if it's a grower.

Like many, keen to see where they'll go next with it but I think Craig delivered 110% with this, it was his film and he didn't hold anything back.

[teddymeow]

On 11/10/2021 at 20:31, Sarlaccfood said:

 

  Hide contents

Would rather die than sit apart from his family in the cinema.

 

 

[Eighthours]

At least in the next films, there will be (ending spoilers):

 

Spoiler

A decent sense of jeopardy now that the character has been killed off once and you know it could happen again. I get what David Mitchell said in his recent Guardian column (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/10/ah-mr-bond-i-was-expecting-you-to-entertain-me), though. I haven't worked out in my own head whether I consider the decision really bold because it's never been done before, or totally free of consequence because we know there are going to be more films. Personally I just expect another reboot next, with the Craig films treated like they exist in their own cinematic universe. I do hope that the likes of Q, M and Moneypenny aren't recast, though. 

 

I really enjoyed NTTD overall, although it fell into the same trap as all the other recent Bonds in that the first half was much better than the second half.

 

[Nick R]

2 hours ago, Eighthours said:

At least in the next films, there will be (ending spoilers):

 

  Hide contents

A decent sense of jeopardy now that the character has been killed off once and you know it could happen again. I get what David Mitchell said in his recent Guardian column (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/10/ah-mr-bond-i-was-expecting-you-to-entertain-me), though. I haven't worked out in my own head whether I consider the decision really bold because it's never been done before, or totally free of consequence because we know there are going to be more films. Personally I just expect another reboot next, with the Craig films treated like they exist in their own cinematic universe. I do hope that the likes of Q, M and Moneypenny aren't recast, though. 

 

I really enjoyed NTTD overall, although it fell into the same trap as all the other recent Bonds in that the first half was much better than the second half.

 

 

From David Mitchell's column (ending spoilers):

 

Spoiler

Quote

As a result, every film, every scene, every hat landed on a hatstand, every grin at Desmond Llewelyn’s sternness, is now brutally recontextualised. When Connery wins at roulette, when Roger Moore attempts re-entry, when Pierce Brosnan merrily drives a tank through St Petersburg, they are all portraying a man destined to lie bleeding, heartbroken and alone, missing the daughter he never really knew, waiting to be blown to bits by his own country’s missiles. It’s quite the buzzkill.

 

His death recontextualises the Daniel Craig movies, yes. But I disagree with the idea that it retrospectively spoils, or affects how you view, the ones made before that.

 

That's like saying: "I saw that Ian McKellen movie 'Mr Holmes', and now I can't enjoy any old Sherlock Holmes adaptations any more, because I know the character ends up getting Alzheimer's."

 

[K]

That David Mitchell column was idiotic, I thought. Almost wilfully misunderstanding the Bond films, which have at best a pretty selective attitude to continuity.

Spoiler

It's like saying you can't enjoy Bernard Lee in Goldfinger because M gets killed off in Skyfall. Or that Dr No has been ruined because Felix Leiter dies in License to Kill, and just when you're coming to terms with that, he gets killed AGAIN in No Time to Die. The different Bond actors' films have no relation to each other, beyond the occasional in-joke. You may as well get upset that M doesn't ask why Bond has put on about two stone of muscle, dyed his hair, and started going to a better tailor between Die Another Day and Casino Royale. Or be unable to enjoy the carefree sex and murder of Goldfinger because of the looming tragedy of Bond's wife being killed by Kojak.

 

[Robo_1]

Yeah agree with all that, this is outrage looking for a justification... and failing.

[Eighthours]

I got what he was arguing about but didn't agree with it.

[Gabe]

55 minutes ago, K said:

That David Mitchell column was idiotic, I thought. Almost wilfully misunderstanding the Bond films, which have at best a pretty selective attitude to continuity.

  Hide contents

Or that Dr No has been ruined because Felix Leiter dies in License to Kill, and just when you're coming to terms with that, he gets killed AGAIN in No Time to Die. 

 

What? No he doesn't! 

[MechE]

Spoilers for License to Kill

Spoiler

I've always felt that Felix being able to walk off being eaten by a shark was a bit of a cop out - they should have committed to him dying.

 

[Alex W.]

I've had time to digest this, and...

 

Spoiler

...although it would've worked far better if there was more of an established connection to the villain, and he didn't disappear for the middle 90% of the movie, and the episodes were tied together better...

 

...it's still the most convincing Bond film since Skyfall. Each part works beautifully, and even if they don't thread together tightly (the M:I comparison was a good one) they don't clash. I'm desperate to watch the Cuba segment again.

[footle]

1 hour ago, Alex W. said:

I've had time to digest this, and...

 

  Hide contents

...although it would've worked far better if there was more of an established connection to the villain, and he didn't disappear for the middle 90% of the movie, and the episodes were tied together better...

 

...it's still the most convincing Bond film since Skyfall. Each part works beautifully, and even if they don't thread together tightly (the M:I comparison was a good one) they don't clash. I'm desperate to watch the Cuba segment again.

its more convincing than spectre?

[K]

2 hours ago, Gabe said:

What? No he doesn't! 

 

I misremembered! But he still has all his arms and legs in Casino Royale, thus ruining the Bond lore.