Jump to content

SPOILER TALK: NO TIME TO DIE (2021, Cary Fukunaga)


Jay
 Share

Recommended Posts

I watched all the Craig films over the past week to refresh/catch-up for this film.

 

I seriously don’t understand all the criticism leveled at these movies. Spectre was good and so was this.

 

The stairwell oner that starts with the mimic of the gun barrel sequence was awesome. The “9-minutes to impact” actually being 9 real life minutes was also a nice touch. 

 

I’m sure gkgyver is having an aneurism somewhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

Spectre was good and so was this.

 

Oh, I think they're both fine. They're too well-produced and well-performed to not be. And I like that No Time to Die is really a drama about Bond and his relationship with Madelene; and I like a lot of the action.

 

But they pale in comparison to Casino Royal and Skyfall. The plotting is just too complicated: its two or even three separate movies shoved into one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An excellent article by comedian/actor/presenter David Mitchell that echoes how I feel about NTTD going where Bond hasn't before - 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/10/ah-mr-bond-i-was-expecting-you-to-entertain-me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Well, that’s cheating. It’s not the form of entertainment that was advertised. James Bond films aren’t dramas, they’re pantos. [... making a drama is] a technique that displaces boredom with anguish, not fun, and that’s not what Bond films are supposed to do.

 

This writer had misplaced anguish for catharsis; which is a far better thing for any and every movie to strive for over the trivial, frivolous, much-cutesified "relaxing escapism" that this ignorant author stupidly and simple-mindedly yearns for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

often I find that thinking escapism is stupid is its own kind of simple-mindedness.

 

I don't think its stupid. I think it has its place. But, as I often say, I think the Greeks had it right: one comedy for every three tragedies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a scale of 10 Die gets a 6. 

 

The score is atrocious. i kept waiting for Batman of the Joker to step on screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Oh, I think they're both fine. They're too well-produced and well-performed to not be. And I like that No Time to Die is really a drama about Bond and his relationship with Madelene; and I like a lot of the action.

 

But they pale in comparison to Casino Royal and Skyfall. The plotting is just too complicated: its two or even three separate movies shoved into one.

Sure I can see that. The Safin character is sort of hamfisted into the latter half. But with this being Craig’s last film, I understand trying to achieve that finality of his arc.

 

If they developed this Bond quicker instead of taking 3 films to get him to be “Bond,” I think everything would have worked much better. That being said though, the films never felt long to me despite their length. The action sequences are all outstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Koray Savas said:

I understand trying to achieve that finality of his arc.

 

I do understand, and I appreciate that aspect of the movie greatly.

 

I will say, I would have liked a less despairing death for Bond. There's a difference between something being tragic and it being despairing. Usually, you want to feel that in dying, the character had achieved something that would not otherwise be accomplished. That's not the case here: the destruction of the base and the nanobots with it was a forgone conclusion with or without Bond's death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was way too long.  I disagree Chen, Bond got a noble death standing in the face of fire. To bad the movie is so mediocre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

Bond got a noble death standing in the face of fire.

 

Its a noble death, to be sure.

 

But its still too despairing for my tastes. The sequence should have been constructed in such a way that without Bond's dying, the bombing of the base could not take place. As it is, it can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all great.

 

But there's a difference between a film being dark, even being tragic, and it being despairing. Its obviously a sliding scale, but to me the feeling at the end of No Time To Die leans a bit too much into outright despair.

 

That and the over-complicated plotting really weigh on what's otherwise a very good, very earnest action movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

This writer had misplaced anguish for catharsis; which is a far better thing for any and every movie to strive for over the trivial, frivolous, much-cutesified "relaxing escapism" that this ignorant author stupidly and simple-mindedly yearns for.


Yes, imagine a comedian not finding a Bond film light enough. How DARE he? 

FFS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I went again last night ... the irksome things ('daddy Bond' and his, Leiter's and Blofeld's deaths, the overlength (no Bond film should ever make us wait that long for the first sight of the 'main man', for example) are still so to me. The Heracles plotting seemed a bit less convoluted this time around. 

I think I quite like it overall ... but the aforementioned things to me should never be in Bond, IMHO.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Finally saw this thing (actually rented an entire movie theatre to ourselves so my friends and I could hang out safely - it was surprisingly cheap! Only $150!)

 

I HATED the decision to kill off all the main characters. It just stank of a writing team who couldn't come up with a better or more imaginative story so they decided to jump the shark instead. Lazy and frustrating. That said, the film had some terrific sequences. In particular, the game of "hide and seek" in the misty wood was very effective. The length of the film didn't bother me - the film was so exciting to watch that I didn't notice the time going by. The downside was that the film was just so damn gloomy and melodramatic all the way through. Bond has been brooding and angsty in the past, but not for the entire duration of the film. By the time he finally died at the end it just felt like the natural conclusion to the miserable sod he'd been throughout the film. 

 

I really don;t know how to rate this film. As a run of the mill action thriller it's decent enough, and I'd rate it maybe 8/10. As a Bond film it fails completely. It just isn't a Bond film. The homages to the earlier films (and there were shit loads!) just reminded me how much more fun those films were. 

 

As for the future of the franchise - it definitely said JAMES BOND will return at the end (NOT 007 will return) - so James will be back. As the producers of this film have essentially made it impossible to continue Bond's story from this point, my guess is that the next movie will completely ignore the Daniel Craig films and just be a back-to-basics fun romp. The Craig quintet will exist in their own weird parallel universe, outside of the regular series. I really hope so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2021 at 12:46 AM, Koray Savas said:

I watched all the Craig films over the past week to refresh/catch-up for this film.

 

I seriously don’t understand all the criticism leveled at these movies. Spectre was good and so was this.

 

The stairwell oner that starts with the mimic of the gun barrel sequence was awesome. The “9-minutes to impact” actually being 9 real life minutes was also a nice touch. 

 

I’m sure gkgyver is having an aneurism somewhere. 

I actually preferred Spectre to this. I never understood the hate for Spectre. It has major problems, and I don't like the personal childhood link between Bond and Blofeld (does everyone need a damn backstory and personal connection in films these days?) but as a film it was really entertaining. The scene where Bond discovers Mr White's secret room by observing the rat was really thrilling - it felt like a 60s Bond moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/21 at 11:17 AM, Chen G. said:

Drama is by definition miserable.

 

Wow. I think this post says more about you than it does about the actual definitions of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was somewhat hyperbolic statement, but it gets the message across.

 

Is the Illiad a happy story? What about Lear? Walküre? Faust?

 

No, they're all filled with misery and pain, because that's literally dramatic. Drama is literally about watching characters face adversity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this movie being distributed worldwide by Universal?

 

My OCD can't cope with all Craig Bond movies being released by Sony/Columbia Pictures except for the very last one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/11/2021 at 11:06 AM, Doctor Faust said:

The score was mixed strangely for me as well. I watched at home via streaming. The Cuba Chase is where I noticed it the most.

 

Seconded. I have a lot of thoughts about the film but just wanted to say how weird the sound mix was in my home theater. Not only is the dialogue overly bassy but Zimmer's score is treated horribly in the mix, practically buried under SFX, also muddy and indistinct. The SFX definitely takes precedence in the mix.

 

So it's another TFA situation, surprisingly. These sound mixers need to be reigned in; the bias towards SFX is obnoxious at this point. I really hope JW's score for Indy 5 isn't treated this badly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Docteur Qui said:

I don’t understand all the grumbling about the ending. It was perfectly fine having this Bond die, his story started in Casino and ended here. And what a twist of the knife having him infected with the nanobots so he couldn’t return to Madeline and Mathilde. Of course Bond can’t settle down, it could never work even if he’d not been infected and survived - he’s not a “good” man and he can’t have a happy ending. 


The death of Blofeld, Bond having a child and the prospect of a simpler life were all nods to Flemings final novel “You Only Live Twice”. If you’re going to tell the story of Bond’s end then you may as well get it from the creator.

If you think about it, the ending is similar too On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Although in that film his wife dies. Both films make it clear that Bond can't retire and live a 'normal' life. He always has to look over his shoulder. And I think that's a really interesting concept. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JNHFan2000 said:

If you think about it, the ending is similar too On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Although in that film his wife dies. Both films make it clear that Bond can't retire and live a 'normal' life. He always has to look over his shoulder. And I think that's a really interesting concept. 

 


Oh absolutely, and I think the film is very aware of that fact. The countless callbacks to OHMSS in this film (and SPECTRE for that matter) point to it, as does the explicit dialogue in early scenes with Bond and Madeline when they talk of him always looking over his shoulder. It’s a smart choice in terms of dramatic conflict for this version of Bond. He was introduced as a romantic, and it’s only fitting that his final outing has him coming to terms with the fact he will never have the life he has clearly always craved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.