Movies: No Time to Die

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

My thoughts:

Only the 2nd theater movie I've seen since the beginning of the pandemic. Definitely a big screen movie, and I got my money's worth. It's good, but not without it's flaws.

There are plenty of excellent set pieces. The core cast is great. Lashanna Lynch sadly was underwhelming. Waltz hasn't settled into Blofeld. Rami Malek was expectedly underwhelming. Ana de Armas was a huge bright spot. She had excellent chemistry with Craig. If covid hadn't happened and this movie came out a few months after Knives Out as initially planned, no doubt she would be one of the biggest stars in the world. Lea Seydoux does great work, but her chemistry with Craig never gets close to the heights of him and Eva Green (or even de Armas), which is a problem since it's written as Bond's de facto romance.

My hope for the next Bond is that they drop the serialization and go back to standalone films. You definitely start to feel the weight of the history 2/3rds into this entry. It's just too much to handle from a screenwriting perspective.

I think the ending could've been handled differently. The route they went was executed as well as could've been, but I thought a different route could've yielded more profound results

This captures a lot of my thoughts too. It gets a lot of core Bond things right. The action is pretty good. Better than average assortment of allies and villains though I agree Lynch and Malik are let downs. But all the lesser characters are good and memorable. I liked the villain's island lair -- a nice throwback to Bonds of old. Great set. Fukunaga did a good job directing and brought an almost horror movie vibe to several scenes that I though was very effective. Nice little visual and aural nods to a lot of Bond history, but none of it clubs you over the head.

The big negative for me is the Achilles heel of the whole Craig run... the awkward forcing of STAKES and EMOTION on everything. Bond just isn't built to carry that weight. It can work in smaller bites. I don't mind the running brooding over Vesper for instance. So it's not that I don't want some drama. But the Craig movies, this one in particular, just pushes it too much. One notable happening is a dreadfully cheap and lazy bit of creaton.

A lot of that ties into the insistence on strict continuity with these movies which I've felt was a mistake and counter to much of the series history of predominantly stand alone stories. Now that we're at the endgame all the emotion they're striving for fell completely flat with me because the overall series will continue with new people and in a different way.

They've tried to graft gravitas and importance on a series whose nature is fairly frivolous. One of the problems there is that it will inevitably swing back to it's old, meaningless form (at least God I hope so) ... so all of that emotion is ultimately very hollow.

 

[MMC]

Did I just seriously miss something or was it not explained at all why

Spoiler

Safin wanted to kill people?

 

[Hasbro]

I get the ending---but it made me sad

Spoiler

just happy they did not take the Nolan Batman route

Some days you just can’t get rid of a bomb!

 

[Hasbro]

Really liked it. Not Casino Royale good, but still really good. Loved all the OHMSS throwbacks too

I’m a Lazenby apologist so that was a highlight to me.

 

[Hasbro]

Quantum is solid until they go to the desert compound. There's nothing compelling about desert compounds. I don't think it's a coincidence that's the same time when Spectre starts to fall apart as well.

Quantum works better on a small screen too. The action sequences were overly chaotic.

 

[Bakayoko Ono]

The action sequences were overly chaotic.

This is my big problem with QoS... and I blame the Bourne effect for it. It was the Bourne movies and their success that made the shaky-cam-with-million-cuts style of filming action sequences popular at that time.

 

[Hasbro]

This is my big problem with QoS... and I blame the Bourne effect for it. It was the Bourne movies and their success that made the shaky-cam-with-million-cuts style of filming action sequences popular at that time.

My way of Bourning it would just be Spectre's only plot being to just kill Bond. Have him on the run and subvert the whole overly elaborate death trope.

 

[Perennial]

Just finished it...

I agree with the earlier sentiment of the emotional angle pushed during the film... like, we get it, James is in love... but at times it felt like I was watching a rom-com/drama, rather than a blockbuster action film

I like my Bond stoic, not stirred

Also, the ages of the actors cast was just a distraction... Malek is 40, and Seydoux is 36, and she was a child at the beginning of the film when Safin killed her mom... so Safin was a teenager when he turned assassin?

Or, is Safin approx. 40, and Seydoux is playing a much younger character... meaning Bond - who's in his 50's at this point - is smitten with a girl in her 20s?


When Bond and his family were leaving the Blofeld home, I wondered why they weren't taking Bond's car... and, of course, I got my answer minutes later... it was because the screenwriters had an awesome off-road chase scene planned that Bond's car wouldn't have been suited for


The highlight of the film was that plane/submarine they took to get to the island... why didn't they hop in that thing when they were leaving? I'm sure the agency would've appreciated had they not left a $20 million dollar plane behind to be blown up


As for the end...

It did its job at pulling at the ol' heart strings... I mean, how could it not? We just saw the end of Daniel Craig's Bond

With that said, we had just spent the previous 10 minutes being reminded he's a character in a fictional film as he ran around being fired upon by dozens of gunmen, none of whom were able to hit their target with the hundreds of bullets they fired

See, their problem was they had been using automatic assault rifles, whereas Safin showed us that the best weapon to shoot Bond with from distance is a mere handgun


Overall, it was a decent film, but ultimately as forgettable as the rest of them...

Kinda sad, really... the highlight of Craig's time as the iconic James Bond ended up being a goddamn poker game!

 

[Baby Punisher]

I have thoroughly enjoyed Craig's run as Bond. He took the role as far as he could. I liked how they put some emotion into the series. A brooding regretful Bond is a nice diversion from Bonds of previous eras. I think an interesting way the series could go is maybe if they take it back in time and set a film in the '60s or '70s. There is plenty of Cold war material to chew on with modern filmmaking practices it could be interesting.

 

[alko]

I have thoroughly enjoyed Craig's run as Bond. He took the role as far as he could. I liked how they put some emotion into the series. A brooding regretful Bond is a nice diversion from Bonds of previous eras. I think an interesting way the series could go is maybe if they take it back in time and set a film in the '60s or '70s. There is plenty of Cold war material to chew on with modern filmmaking practices it could be interesting.

Naaah, it should reflect on the current issues. Maybe if, then something like The creation of James Bond. Like his training, time before he was agent ...

But here is still an issue. Who is actually James Bond? Is he a real life (ok real-movie life) person? Or it is only a nickname and his name is hidden.

I think, in the book is this the Option B. But in the movie (look Skyfall) it seems to be a real person.

Option B is more logical, because the dozens years, he is active.

 

[S E P H]

I don't think James Bond films have ever had some truly appalling movies except two (or three at most), but a lot of their films weren't truly groundbreaking either (and write this being a huge 007 fan). However, I do think that the Daniel Craig era will go down as one of the best as it ages with whomever the new one will be. I understand the complaints to this movie and the villain is just like every other dime-a-dozen ones, but I thought that this was a very good film. Reminded me of The Incredibles premise mixed in with 007 universe and even though the storyline might steal elements like remote islande with similar upbringing of bad guys from Pixar, it was a winning recipe for me.

 

[HanSolo]

I have thoroughly enjoyed Craig's run as Bond. He took the role as far as he could. I liked how they put some emotion into the series. A brooding regretful Bond is a nice diversion from Bonds of previous eras. I think an interesting way the series could go is maybe if they take it back in time and set a film in the '60s or '70s. There is plenty of Cold war material to chew on with modern filmmaking practices it could be interesting.

I agree. It's not going to be everyone' S opinion but as fun as the previous eras of Bond could be, it was about the time that the character and series start growing up.

It wasn't always executed flawlessly but having Bond deal with personal adversities had Craig as an actor more to do than be suave, sophisticated, witty, and hypercompetent.

It was a good era and Craig's Bond was one I enjoyed.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Naaah, it should reflect on the current issues. Maybe if, then something like The creation of James Bond. Like his training, time before he was agent ...

But here is still an issue. Who is actually James Bond? Is he a real life (ok real-movie life) person? Or it is only a nickname and his name is hidden.

I think, in the book is this the Option B. But in the movie (look Skyfall) it seems to be a real person.

Option B is more logical, because the dozens years, he is active.

It is clearly his actual name, even though being a code name makes sense for our universe of different actors and makes the Sean Connery in the rock was Bond theory work

 

[Perennial]

It is clearly his actual name, even though being a code name makes sense for our universe of different actors and makes the Sean Connery in the rock was Bond theory work

Didn't they show a grave of James' mom or dad, and it had Bond etched into it?

 

[Osprey]

I'm not a fan of the Craig films. To me, they're unentertaining, joyless, overly serious, overly long and a bit boring. Craig has no personality or charisma and doesn't demonstrate much acting talent by simply holding an expressionless face while trying to look tough and robotically saying his lines. I appreciate that they wanted a more serious, tougher character after the last few Pierce Brosnan films, but I think that they went too far and made Bond un-fun and boring. I'm personally glad that this era is finally over and hope that the next Bond is more likable and his films more fun. They don't have to go all the way back to Moonraker or Die Another Day levels of silliness, but at least bring back the sense of fun and adventure that many of us loved about Bond in the first place.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

So, saw it over the weekend. Meh. I'd put it at #3 for the Craig Bonds. Better than Quantum and Specter, but below Royale and Skyfall.

Decent chases and action...not so much for the characters. Safin was forgettable, and they never bothered to explain his plan. Okay, I get that it's nanobots programmed to take out certain families or races...but who? And why? What happens after that?

MI6 could probably do a lot more with their budget if they stopped giving their agents vintage Aston Martins to tool around in and destroy. I'm sure somewhere out there, Jeremy Clarkson was on suicide watch after they trashed the DB5.

I'd heard the theme song was terrible, but it wasn't. It was merely forgettable.

Don't like how they just ended so many characters, but fully expecting them to bring them back if enough people want to pony up money to see them again.

Did I just seriously miss something or was it not explained at all why

Spoiler

Safin wanted to kill people?

Yeah, I was unclear on that as well. They never really got around to fully fleshing out the big bad plan.

Naaah, it should reflect on the current issues. Maybe if, then something like The creation of James Bond. Like his training, time before he was agent ...

But here is still an issue. Who is actually James Bond? Is he a real life (ok real-movie life) person? Or it is only a nickname and his name is hidden.

I think, in the book is this the Option B. But in the movie (look Skyfall) it seems to be a real person.

Option B is more logical, because the dozens years, he is active.

I've subscribed to this theory for years, even though they explicitly went away from it during the Craig Bond years. I just like it. It's something that makes by far the most sense: James Bond 007 being the codename and designation in the MI6 assassination/espionage/dirty tricks department reserved for a Royal Navy Commander, preferably an advanced alcoholic with attachment issues. The headstone and family estate were just his legend.

 

[The Waffler]

I have thoroughly enjoyed Craig's run as Bond. He took the role as far as he could. I liked how they put some emotion into the series. A brooding regretful Bond is a nice diversion from Bonds of previous eras. I think an interesting way the series could go is maybe if they take it back in time and set a film in the '60s or '70s. There is plenty of Cold war material to chew on with modern filmmaking practices it could be interesting.

Pretty sure Austin Powers did that.

 

[The Mars Volchenkov]

I'm not a fan of the Craig films. To me, they're unentertaining, joyless, overly serious, overly long and a bit boring. Craig has no personality or charisma and doesn't demonstrate much acting talent by simply holding an expressionless face while trying to look tough and robotically saying his lines. I appreciate that they wanted a more serious, tougher character after the last few Pierce Brosnan films, but I think that they went too far and made Bond un-fun and boring. I'm personally glad that this era is finally over and hope that the next Bond is more likable and his films more fun. They don't have to go all the way back to Moonraker or Die Another Day levels of silliness, but at least bring back the sense of fun and adventure that many of us loved about Bond in the first place.

I think there’s been plenty of comedy in the Craig era, it just might be more subtle than before. I actually found there to be quite a lot of one liners in NTTD.

I don’t miss the cheesy Roger Moore crap.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I kind of checked out of this series after the “I’m the author of all your pain” bit with Blofeld. I just don’t think the stakes are felt as much as intended by the franchise.

Lots of people said the movie is really good though so I’ll go see it sometime soon

 

[kihei]

This captures a lot of my thoughts too. It gets a lot of core Bond things right. The action is pretty good. Better than average assortment of allies and villains though I agree Lynch and Malik are let downs. But all the lesser characters are good and memorable. I liked the villain's island lair -- a nice throwback to Bonds of old. Great set. Fukunaga did a good job directing and brought an almost horror movie vibe to several scenes that I though was very effective. Nice little visual and aural nods to a lot of Bond history, but none of it clubs you over the head.

The big negative for me is the Achilles heel of the whole Craig run... the awkward forcing of STAKES and EMOTION on everything. Bond just isn't built to carry that weight. It can work in smaller bites. I don't mind the running brooding over Vesper for instance. So it's not that I don't want some drama. But the Craig movies, this one in particular, just pushes it too much. One notable happening is a dreadfully cheap and lazy bit of creaton.

A lot of that ties into the insistence on strict continuity with these movies which I've felt was a mistake and counter to much of the series history of predominantly stand alone stories. Now that we're at the endgame all the emotion they're striving for fell completely flat with me because the overall series will continue with new people and in a different way.

They've tried to graft gravitas and importance on a series whose nature is fairly frivolous. One of the problems there is that it will inevitably swing back to it's old, meaningless form (at least God I hope so) ... so all of that emotion is ultimately very hollow.

I agree with a lot of what you say here, except I disagree with your central premise that the Craig Bond years were a mistake. Each Bond has brought something different to the table--Ive enjoyed them all, except for most of the Moore years, the epitome of "frivolous."

I thought the Craig years were uneven but it was fun watching an actor of his ability make the series his own. He provided another flavour and now, I agree, the series will go back to its lighter roots. It is a series that has always been driven by its stars, and now it will continue in yet another different direction., One that for better or perhaps worse will finally pull the series into the 21st century.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I agree with a lot of what you say here, except I disagree with your central premise that the Craig Bond years were a mistake. Each Bond has brought something different to the table--Ive enjoyed them all, except for most of the Moore years, the epitome of "frivolous."

I thought the Craig years were uneven but it was fun watching an actor of his ability make the series his own. He provided another flavour ad now, I agree, the series will go back to its lighter roots. It is a series that has always been driven by its stars, and now it will continue in yet another different direction., One that for better or perhaps worse will finally pull the series into the 21st century.

Oh I don't think they were a mistake as a whole! And I don't mind a more serious Bond. Craig's been aces. Lots to love in at least three of the five (including this one). I just push back on the decision to link them all as a serialized whole. I don't mind the emotional through line that much — the acknowledged aging, the lingering Vesper loss.

But the story side of it was always pretty sloppy to me. You get three movies of NO WAIT THIS BAD GUY IS THE REAL BAD GUY shenanigans building up to the reveal of the real bad guy in movie four which ended up a wasted effort on all fronts and then in movie five you get this out-of-nowhere nutter who in one scene renders all the threats of the previous four movies void. I fully concede it's nitpicky but I would have preferred the more traditional stand alone Bonds, at least from a plot perspective.

It's similar to how I felt about The Eternals recently. The desire of studios (and audiences) these days to make everything connected often awkwardly exposes the puppets behind the scenes more than it draws me in to the movie. The Craig movies suffer somewhat for that. The climax of the movie is more about Daniel Craig the actor than it is James Bond the character.

Just show me a good time, baby!

(And though I would welcome a step back to a lighter tone, I would never advocate going the full Moore!)

 

[beowulf]

First Bond film in a long time that I have not yet seen in theaters. Have to try this weekend if it is still playing around here.

 

[kihei]

(And though I would welcome a step back to a lighter tone, I would never advocate going the full Moore!)

A great example of less is Moore.

 

[JackSlater]

I'm not a fan of the Craig films. To me, they're unentertaining, joyless, overly serious, overly long and a bit boring. Craig has no personality or charisma and doesn't demonstrate much acting talent by simply holding an expressionless face while trying to look tough and robotically saying his lines. I appreciate that they wanted a more serious, tougher character after the last few Pierce Brosnan films, but I think that they went too far and made Bond un-fun and boring. I'm personally glad that this era is finally over and hope that the next Bond is more likable and his films more fun. They don't have to go all the way back to Moonraker or Die Another Day levels of silliness, but at least bring back the sense of fun and adventure that many of us loved about Bond in the first place.

I agree completely. Bond is my favourite series - not all of the single films are great or even good but I enjoy the series as a whole. The Craig movies more often than not felt like attempts to copy what other action movies were doing at the time, except more dour. I'd actually say that they got worse as they went on, from the solid Casino Royale down, except that this one was better than Spectre. Craig's wooden acting didn't convey anything to me other than a fairly mediocre actor trying to convey SERIOUS EMOTIONS in as understated a way as he could muster. You don't need a great actor to play Bond, only some decent synergy between the actor and the film that production is going for.

I am more than ready for the franchise to move in a new direction. A more fun, adventurous Bond would be ideal. I'm guessing that they will go in a more eyeroll inducing direction to "update Bond for modern times" but you never know. I'm hoping that they go forward with Elba even though the franchise seems strangely resistant to it.

 

[Perennial]

How long until we get a Bond vs Bourne film?

And don't even act like you wouldn't watch it!