Film James Bond: No Time to Die

Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
12,788
Location
Behind the right goal post as "Whiteside shoots!"
Thought ‘ok‘ (been better, better Craig ones too).

Craigs performance very good.. the usual action and flippant lines plus some extra depth.

A couple of action sequences didn’t run right for me and didn’t get the same feeling with Maleks baddie as did with previous ones. Maybe script, maybe Malek (think former).

Ending. After watching them for decades, I’d be disappointed if that ending is the end of the original/Fleming Bond, especially if it’s just a way to tick a PC box. Not 100% convinced dead… sure they could create something that reverses it despite what they said.

Yaphet Kotto, baddie in Live and let die..

Speaking in 2015 Kotto was asked about the possibility of a black actor taking over from Craig after No Time To Die. The star said: “James Bond cannot be black. Political correctness be damned, we have to stay with what is literally correct. He was established by Ian Fleming as a white character, played by white actors.”

.
 

MyOnlySolskjaer

Creator of Player Performance threads
Joined
Nov 27, 2014
Messages
21,787
Location
Player Performance Threads
Seen the film twice now (IMAX and regular screening).

Some general thoughts:
- Probably just under Casino Royale for me, with the hierarchy as Skyfall / Casino Royale / No Time To Die / Spectre / Quantum of Solace (although I do need to watch QoS again as I only ever saw it once, in the cinema, when I got a massive migraine and had to race out about 45 mins in and was found by my friends asleep on a bench outside the cinema!)
- Really a great movie to see at the cinema, a great, globe-trotting entry to the Bond franchise
- It's very much a 'Bond' film for me, with the villain / plot very much taking second-fiddle to character-based look at Bond and his place in the world

Some specific, spoilered, thoughts:
The villain / plot is a weak point for this. I've seen the film twice now and I can't remember Rami Malek's character's name! I don't get (apart from the link with Mr. White killing his family, how he (a) becomes a supervilllain and (b) wants to kill millions of people with this DNA-based super-weapon. I think this has been a weakness in the Daniel Craig series (apart from Skyfall of course), because his character has generally been so strong that they often fell to the background. Christoph Waltz, I feel, in both films he's been in, was completely wasted.

I really liked the introduction and detail with Nomi as the 'new' 007. I liked how she outsmarted Bond at the Spectre party and it took Paloma to rescue the capture of Obruchev. I'm very interested to see where they go with the series as, with Nomi now established, they could easily continue in this 'universe' with her as 007.

I though the score was absolutely tremendous! From the quiet, instrumental rendition of 'No Time To Die' to the big set-piece music, it was top draw. After Madeline and Mathilde get on the boat and he turns away to open the blast doors the music really set me off!

Daniel Craig - take a bow! I thought he was absolutely amazing in this! From the physicality with the fights, to the humour, to the facial expressions (when he told Nomi that Madeline and Mathilde were his quote, "..." then looks back aghast cracked me up both times! I also cried both times when he talks to Madeline about Mathilde and how Madeline, "created the most beautiful thing I've ever seen!" As a man going through IVF with my wife and fighting so desperately to become a parent, it stabbed me in the heart both times!

This is my one big gripe (although also at the same being quite nit-picky) - why did Safin infect Bond in the end? Bond was dying anyway, no doubt about that - the gunshot he had was, to quote Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York was a 'kill'. Bond was never getting off that island so the infection seemed, to me, as one too many hits to Bond. He new he wasn't seeing the two of them again and so the fact that he couldn't even though he wouldn't just seemed like flogging a dead horse a bit.

I think this is the most tragic Bond there's ever been, and that is a real strength of both the film and the series that Craig has made. His character suffers amazing loss, and his entire life seems to be about the 'what could have been' - the orphan origins being widely used, the relationship with M, Vesper, and now the tragedy that he could have had the ending he always wanted with Madeline and Mathilde, but only got it for a fleeting moment, is brilliant, brilliant character work. It really gave then end of his story a powerful ending, that for all the death and destructions he'd left in his wake (the guns making his DNA in the opening shots being a very nice touch) the overarching emotion of the character was love, and that he got it and was able to have a legacy beyond the '007'. I loved it!

Overall though, despite the gripes in the spoilers, I liked the stuff I liked much more than the stuff I didn't like. A solid 8 - 8.5 / 10.
Great review, agree with all points.
 

Valar Morghulis

Full Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2015
Messages
1,321
Location
Braavos
Supports
BBW
Not even the biggest fan of this genre of movie generally but still, saw it tonight and wow, what a fecking fantastic movie!
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
25,991
Thought ‘ok‘ (been better, better Craig ones too).

Craigs performance very good.. the usual action and flippant lines plus some extra depth.

A couple of action sequences didn’t run right for me and didn’t get the same feeling with Maleks baddie as did with previous ones. Maybe script, maybe Malek (think former).

Ending. After watching them for decades, I’d be disappointed if that ending is the end of the original/Fleming Bond, especially if it’s just a way to tick a PC box. Not 100% convinced dead… sure they could create something that reverses it despite what they said.

Yaphet Kotto, baddie in Live and let die..

Speaking in 2015 Kotto was asked about the possibility of a black actor taking over from Craig after No Time To Die. The star said: “James Bond cannot be black. Political correctness be damned, we have to stay with what is literally correct. He was established by Ian Fleming as a white character, played by white actors.”

.
Have no idea how it has anything to do with being PC. They killed Bond, they didn't have him undertake unconscious bias training.

They don't have to explain anything either, any more than they had to explain why the Craig Bond had to get his 00 license again at the start of Casino Royale, or hadn't been married before, or hadn't had several scraps with Blofeld, or hadn't been to space, or wasn't 76 years old, or a million other continuity changes.They'll just start again telling a different story with a different James Bond.

Also don't know why Yaphet Kotto's opinion would count for more than anyone else's. None of the key facets of the Bond character are about him being white. A man, sure. British, definitely. But skin colour has zero impact. "We have to stay with what is literally correct" is one of the single most stupid perspectives you could bring to adapting source material, as it cripples your freedom to be creative. And they haven't been literally correct up to now either given the appearance of Bond has changed over the years. "No blonde Bond", remember?
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
12,788
Location
Behind the right goal post as "Whiteside shoots!"
Have no idea how it has anything to do with being PC. They killed Bond, they didn't have him undertake unconscious bias training.

They don't have to explain anything either, any more than they had to explain why the Craig Bond had to get his 00 license again at the start of Casino Royale, or hadn't been married before, or hadn't had several scraps with Blofeld, or hadn't been to space, or wasn't 76 years old, or a million other continuity changes.They'll just start again telling a different story with a different James Bond.

Also don't know why Yaphet Kotto's opinion would count for more than anyone else's. None of the key facets of the Bond character are about him being white. A man, sure. British, definitely. But skin colour has zero impact. "We have to stay with what is literally correct" is one of the single most stupid perspectives you could bring to adapting source material, as it cripples your freedom to be creative. And they haven't been literally correct up to now either given the appearance of Bond has changed over the years. "No blonde Bond", remember?
I keep forgetting posts on the Caf have to be crystal.

T b c , he can be anything at all, just saying I hope there's a good reason (they think it'll make a better story/film - as you said, allows creativity), rather than feeling some need/pressure to go down a certain route.

Ok?
 

AaronRedDevil

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2018
Messages
6,360
That intro song was great too. Not as good as Skyfall but she did a great job. Didn't expect that from Billie Eilish.
 

Loon

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
5,477
Location
No-Mark
I keep forgetting posts on the Caf have to be crystal.

T b c , he can be anything at all, just saying I hope there's a good reason (they think it'll make a better story/film - as you said, allows creativity), rather than feeling some need/pressure to go down a certain route.

Ok?
Personally think they'll reboot ala the Batman series. The Craigverse has concluded, but as the film says at the end, James Bond will return. He'll be back with M, Moneypenny, et al. Likely different actors in those roles, but EON will never ditch Ian Fleming's character.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
12,788
Location
Behind the right goal post as "Whiteside shoots!"
Personally think they'll reboot ala the Batman series. The Craigverse has concluded, but as the film says at the end, James Bond will return. He'll be back with M, Moneypenny, et al. Likely different actors in those roles, but EON will never ditch Ian Fleming's character.
could do yeah and good point about Eon.. Bond is their main thing? It's a lot of history/back story to give up if they just completely bin it. Interesting to see what's next.
 

Loon

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
5,477
Location
No-Mark
could do yeah and good point about Eon.. Bond is their main thing? It's a lot of history/back story to give up if they just completely bin it. Interesting to see what's next.
It essentially gives them a chance to tidy up what was a continuity disaster anyway. Right back to when Blofeld did not recognise Bond in On Her Majesty's Secret Service (or had hair in From Russia With Love), up to him being his "brother" in the Craig movies. I mean, was Craig's Bond married to Tracy? The Craig movies already established their own reality anyway without stating it.

Now they have a chance to say each Bond exists in their own universe and has the shared history of Ian Fleming's character. An "infinite Earths" sort of thing if you want to see it like that, Conneryverse, Daltonverse, etc.

With the new actor they can reboot Blofeld and SPECTRE again, without having to stick to the shattered continuity of the past. Just as Robert Patterson is the new Batman, the new guy will be the new Bond, with a female Q, white Felix Leiter etc.
 

SirAF

Ageist
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Messages
35,304
Location
Just got back from this. Absolutely amazing, my only complaint is that Ana De Armas should have had more game time :drool:
 

muller

Full Member
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
8,798
I watched it on isense screen last night.

really enjoyed it, could have easily been 30-40 minutes shorter and Ana De Armas could have easily been in it for another 2 hours.

I thought the plot was a little weak, precisely the motive for wanting to wipe out the majority of the world. I just didn’t quite get it really.

Performances were all good though, but I just don’t feel that Nomie could take over in any capacity as the lead in the franchise. She was great, but not a lead for me.

I don’t know how they’d start to think about carrying on in this universe. DC has been superb though. Standard bond fresh reboot with Richard Madden.

How crazy crazy hot was Ana de Armas though.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
14,011
Just home from it. First thoughts are:

Craig was excellent. So was Lynch.

Blofeld was totally underused again. You have one of the all time great movie villains, and one of the all time great bad guy actors to play him, and over the course of 2 whole movies, you can't let him shine as a villain even once? To be honest, I felt the villains and evil plot were a bit weak in general. Remi Malek is brilliant, but him just showing up in this one, after 4 other movies, and doing for Spectre and Blofeld so easily made the whole thing feel a bit cheap and easy. A bit pointless even.

I think my biggest frustration was with the cast they had, there was an amazing story to be told over these 5 movies. Instead, we got 5 movies which felt like they were sharing a storyline, but were made by 5 different people. Because they were.

Bond falling in love so easily and helplessly twice in such quick succession, made neither of them feel as important as they should've. Villains and evil groups being built up to seem so insurmountable, only to be dismissed with so little fuss, meant it never felt like there was enough on the line. Bardem in Skyfall was probably the last time we really felt there was anything real at stake.

I feel like Vespa and Madeleine could've been combined into one character, merging the background of Mr. White and Safin, the betrayal and the daughter, leaving a more meaningful sense of their relationship and then loss at the end. Safin could've been a brilliant minor villain under Blofelds larger web, just as Bardem was before, but Blofeld and Spectre should've been the big villain of the series.

In the end we got two great movies, one ok final film, two shite ones in between and a bit of a disjointed storyline trying to thread them all together. That feels like a poor return for such a great set of characters and some incredible actors playing them.
 

choccy77

Full Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
2,876
Ana de Aramas is dating the guy who owns Tinder, like come on! :rolleyes:

Loved the film, I don't wanna say too much but a good subtle mix from Previous Bond films of the past, loved the mid opening bit.

People talking about the villain, he was actually hinted at as being someone we all know very well... again from the past.
 

BluesJr

Full Member
Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
6,076
Not a fan of the ending at all. We all knew it was going to be his last film so surely he can get a bit of happiness at the end of his run? Having him die is just needlessly dramatic and cheap imo.
 

choccy77

Full Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
2,876
Not a fan of the ending at all. We all knew it was going to be his last film so surely he can get a bit of happiness at the end of his run? Having him die is just needlessly dramatic and cheap imo.
Well the film was designed to be the reverse of OHMSS hence the setup at the beginning so I was expecting it TBH.

What gets me is, they fired Boyle for wanting to kill of Bond and then go ahead and do it anyway.

Sadly, just means from now on, we will just get reboots and no continuance going forward.
 

One Night Only

Prison Bitch #24604
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
25,452
Location
Westworld
Well the film was designed to be the reverse of OHMSS hence the setup at the beginning so I was expecting it TBH.

What gets me is, they fired Boyle for wanting to kill of Bond and then go ahead and do it anyway.

Sadly, just means from now on, we will just get reboots and no continuance going forward.
Isn't James bond just a code name? So every time bond has changed actors, it's actually been a new character James bond anyway?
 

lilcurt

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
2,773
Location
Birmingham
I'm really disappointed with the ending, moreso now I have had two days to digest than I was in first viewing.

It almost seems selfish and self-indulgent to kill Bond. He has always continued to survive through the years and actors and this feels almost disrespectful to me.

I don't know where they go from here. Now we have been teased with the serial nature of the franchise I don't want to revert to each movie being stand alone. I also don't want to see a complete reboot.

All that being said, ignoring the Bond history I do this the Daniel Craig years have been fantastic.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
25,991
Well the film was designed to be the reverse of OHMSS hence the setup at the beginning so I was expecting it TBH.

What gets me is, they fired Boyle for wanting to kill of Bond and then go ahead and do it anyway.

Sadly, just means from now on, we will just get reboots and no continuance going forward.
Tbf I've seen it reported that Boyle wanted to kill Bond but I've also seen the opposite reported too, that Craig and Broccoli were pushing for Bond to be killed and Boyle was against it. Obviously the latter would make more sense given the way the film turned out.
 

Blood Mage

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
1,123
Isn't James bond just a code name? So every time bond has changed actors, it's actually been a new character James bond anyway?
Connery, Lazenby, Moore and Dalton were definitely all playing the same character as they are linked by several pieces of continuity (sloppy continuity but it is there). Brosnan played the first rebooted incarnation of Bond and Craig's Bond was also a reboot, but the first four Bonds were the same character played by different actors.
 
Last edited:

choccy77

Full Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
2,876
Connery, Lazenby, Moore and Dalton were definitely all playing the same character as they are linked by several pieces of continuity (sloppy continuity but it is there). Brosnan played the first rebooted incarnation of Bond, and Craig's Bond was also a reboot. But the first four Bonds were the same character played by different actors.
Bronson was also part of that.

Only thing they did was change M but otherwise the continuity was there.

Daniel Craig was a full reboot.
 

Blood Mage

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
1,123
Bronson was also part of that.

Only thing they did was change M but otherwise the continuity was there.

Daniel Craig was a full reboot.
He had Desmond Llewelyn's Q yes but there wasn't anything else to link Brosnan's Bond to the others that I can recall? Like you said Craig's Bond had Judi Dench's M but that doesn't stop him from being a rebooted Bond.
 

Mr Pigeon

Hero of Galtia
Scout
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
18,548
Location
Staging a 'coo' against my enemies
I just don't believe the Madeleine romance in the slightest. After Casino Royale and Vepsa I assumed they were going for "Bond is a wee whore because he's running away from heartache" but it was nothing more than a cheap shock.

When they announced this film and Madeleine was in the trailers I genuinely forgot she had been in Spectre, because I assumed that she wasn't going to be a reappearing character. Why would I? She was your archetypal Bind girl as far as these films always imply. But now I'm expected to believe that this latest person he met five minutes ago is different from everyone else after his apparent true love went for a long swim in an elevator? Pah, bum off.

Bond has his whory moments like the older films but the main Bond girl conquests have been modernised so instead of magically pumping some random person after knowing them for five minutes he now falls head over heels for them.

The whole love story is just so disjointed throughout Craig's otherwise amazing four films (feck off Quantum) that I genuinely find more emotional depth in Sean Connery saying "take aff yor pantsh, mishy" to some random spy he met three minutes ago on a beach.
 

Oldyella

Full Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
4,103
Bronson was also part of that.

Only thing they did was change M but otherwise the continuity was there.

Daniel Craig was a full reboot.
M (Judi Dench) was in both Brosnan and Craig films so is that a full reboot? I'm not a massive Bond guy. I do hope they keep the same cast and introduce a new bond somehow though, just for the interest of seeing how they do it.
 

choccy77

Full Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
2,876
I just don't believe the Madeleine romance in the slightest. After Casino Royale and Vepsa I assumed they were going for "Bond is a wee whore because he's running away from heartache" but it was nothing more than a cheap shock.

When they announced this film and Madeleine was in the trailers I genuinely forgot she had been in Spectre, because I assumed that she wasn't going to be a reappearing character. Why would I? She was your archetypal Bind girl as far as these films always imply. But now I'm expected to believe that this latest person he met five minutes ago is different from everyone else after his apparent true love went for a long swim in an elevator? Pah, bum off.

Bond has his whory moments like the older films but the main Bond girl conquests have been modernised so instead of magically pumping some random person after knowing them for five minutes he now falls head over heels for them.

The whole love story is just so disjointed throughout Craig's otherwise amazing four films (feck off Quantum) that I genuinely find more emotional depth in Sean Connery saying "take aff yor pantsh, mishy" to some random spy he met three minutes ago on a beach.
But he drove off with her in Spectre at the end.
 

choccy77

Full Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
2,876
M (Judi Dench) was in both Brosnan and Craig films so is that a full reboot? I'm not a massive Bond guy. I do hope they keep the same cast and introduce a new bond somehow though, just for the interest of seeing how they do it.
Yes, the kept Dench as a carry over but otherwise was a full reboot which was a smart thing as they had never done the Casino Royale story before, so it gave them a great way to use an originalish Bond story whilst rebooting.

What they do next is a whole nother thing, as it would be a new bond and an original story, which they have to get right and make the fans happy also.

Could be a Bronson 2.0 period?
 

Oldyella

Full Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
4,103
Yes, the kept Dench as a carry over but otherwise was a full reboot which was a smart thing as they had never done the Casino Royale story before, so it gave them a great way to use an originalish Bond story whilst rebooting.

What they do next is a whole nother thing, as it would be a new bond and an original story, which they have to get right and make the fans happy also.

Could be a Bronson 2.0 period?
Ah ok get it, she's a carry over but given everything else was changed..

Makes sense, she was a great M.
 

Rooney in Paris

Gerrard shirt..Anfield? You'll Never Live it Down
Scout
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
31,637
Location
In an elephant sanctuary
Not a fan of the ending at all. We all knew it was going to be his last film so surely he can get a bit of happiness at the end of his run? Having him die is just needlessly dramatic and cheap imo.
I actually think the ending made sense with regards to the Daniel Craig arc, and him being built up as a tragic hero, with love from various women always eluding him (Vesper, M, now Madeleine and his daughter). It makes a lot of sense from a story perspective, and I thought they made it work really well. I was absolutely flabbergasted when it happened on screen.
I just don't believe the Madeleine romance in the slightest. After Casino Royale and Vepsa I assumed they were going for "Bond is a wee whore because he's running away from heartache" but it was nothing more than a cheap shock.

When they announced this film and Madeleine was in the trailers I genuinely forgot she had been in Spectre, because I assumed that she wasn't going to be a reappearing character. Why would I? She was your archetypal Bind girl as far as these films always imply. But now I'm expected to believe that this latest person he met five minutes ago is different from everyone else after his apparent true love went for a long swim in an elevator? Pah, bum off.

Bond has his whory moments like the older films but the main Bond girl conquests have been modernised so instead of magically pumping some random person after knowing them for five minutes he now falls head over heels for them.

The whole love story is just so disjointed throughout Craig's otherwise amazing four films (feck off Quantum) that I genuinely find more emotional depth in Sean Connery saying "take aff yor pantsh, mishy" to some random spy he met three minutes ago on a beach.
I agree that the love interest wasn't well done, especially in Spectre. He falls madly in love with her, but it's never really built up - it just happens (I believe when they're in the train bit), and they've known each other 5mns. It's a shame because it actually kinda makes sense, with regards to their childhood, general distrust of other people, etc., but it's just presented to us as a fact rather than something properly developed, and it makes the whole love story a bit difficult to buy into. Also, Léa Seydoux is a really weak actress which doesn't help. It's my major gripe with the past couple of films, it could have been done a lot better.
 

Sylar

Full Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
29,644
Really regret clicking some of those spoilers :(
You havent seen the movies, but are clicking spoilers in the thread :(
In fact, I reckon trying to discuss on a movie thats released for a week now, when you havent seen it is a bit crazy.

Isn't James bond just a code name? So every time bond has changed actors, it's actually been a new character James bond anyway?
Think this was discussed as a theory, but basically said no. It would make sense if there was some sort of continuity and mentions of previous movies, but the links are so loose.
I think with every new characters, its like its own universe.
 

Vidyoyo

Self-confessed coffee shop chat-up expert
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
9,838
Location
In the good times and golden era
You havent seen the movies, but are clicking spoilers in the thread :(
In fact, I reckon trying to discuss on a movie thats released for a week now, when you havent seen it is a bit crazy.
I was trying to figure out if the plot sounded interesting and different enough to the usual. There's lots of comments about how good the film is but so many spoilers across the past few pages that there's not much else to really take in. I could, and perhaps should, have gone to the first page instead...

However, I suppose I'm not really that bothered. Sometimes I like knowing what happens just so I can pay more attention to how it happens.
 

Sylar

Full Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
29,644
Fair enough.
This feels like the first Bond thats ever had a begining and end though. I think its bold what they did as its different and for me, it worked.
 

lilcurt

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
2,773
Location
Birmingham
I was trying to figure out if the plot sounded interesting and different enough to the usual. There's lots of comments about how good the film is but so many spoilers across the past few pages that there's not much else to really take in. I could, and perhaps should, have gone to the first page instead...

However, I suppose I'm not really that bothered. Sometimes I like knowing what happens just so I can pay more attention to how it happens.
You could have just watched a spoiler free YouTube review...
 

SirAF

Ageist
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Messages
35,304
Location
Fair enough.
This feels like the first Bond thats ever had a begining and end though. I think its bold what they did as its different and for me, it worked.
Absolutely agree. Craig’s Bond is, for me, the only one to establish some sort of emotional connection with the viewers.
 

choccy77

Full Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
2,876
Absolutely agree. Craig’s Bond is, for me, the only one to establish some sort of emotional connection with the viewers.
Probably because we saw the beginning Middle & End.

Whoever takes over now, it will be very difficult for them & future films must now rely on new stories without duplicating the past.

It's gonna be another complete reboot after what we saw & you can't really keep any of the same actors either.