What made the ones up to 1989 so good visually was the wide-angle shots. It gave you a sense of place and time, and was also visually pleasing. The same with the way the villians lairs were shot. Usually from a fairly low angle so that you could see the ceilings and height of the interiors. It gave you a sense of space and depth of field. Now, the films are more like high budget TV series. Indeed, at one time there was a difference in look between TV and film, now there is none.
Enjoyed it much more 2nd time round, don’t know why, guess the expectations were gone and I could just see it for what it was. Father had same uncertainty on his 1st viewing, nephew loved it, first bond he has seen and now wants to watch them all. Actually felt more emotional at the end this time round. Stand by not needing to see it in IMAX.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,747Chief of Staff
Id just as well assume she wrote most of the one liners. That terrible cringe style that I associate with the show. Also Ash's spiel trying to get Oswald to shut up - "SHUT UP OSWALD OR YOU'LL BLOW MY COVER. DO YOU HEAR THAT FELIX, I SAY I'M A DOUBLE AGENT!" - "SHUT UP, ASH!"
"I am still a firm believer that the best thing they could do with it (and this is obviously just my personal wish) is to reboot the series back to the 60's...."
This is where I would like to see it go as well, but, I think it's a long shot. Apparently the younger audience don't like 'retro'... but, I think it would could work amazingly well. A contemporary take, without the garbage, could be very interesting.
I loved NTTD personally, and found the tone to be spot on (I need to see it again to fully adsorb the story).... It's sad, if predictable, that there are are some, who feel the need the call out 'certain' script writers, and attempt to bring it down with their hideous, antiquated, agenda... I'm glad these silly old men, who are pissed-off that Bond has had to change with the times, are revealing themselves... The World Has Changed. If you don't like it, you know where to go 🖕
The ending was exactly what I wanted from my favourite Bond actor, and I'm glad they had the courage to actually see it through. Time for a fresh start. On first viewing I'd give it an 8/10 and put it as my second favourite after CR.... But, that may change.
Once again the bond fans are the ones disappointed while the general public seems to love it.
I don't care if they kill him or if they take his 007 but it could have been done better. Felix got a smidgen more screen time than John Connor before they killed him. The action is few and far between for the run time, but good when its there. My big gripe is Bond. Craig seems to play a different version of the character each film and here I don't know what he's going with.
He's louder, has more energy, which was a problem people had with his Bond in Spectre. But he's just not Bond, something was so off about it that I cared even less than i normally would have about Felix dying and his sacrifice. Because it really wasn't the same guy we've been following these 5 films, this annoying shtick was that different, so why should I be invested.
Add that on to the contrivedness, the fact that the writers went in wanting to kill bond and were clearly writing backwards, and 163 minutes, and I am rooting for the warheads to disentegrate this asshole.
And who is the villain? Just some other asshole. He happens to know Maddeleine and just so happens to have a poison garden that doesn't do anything but will look menacing if he happens to stumble across a bio weapon one day.
Although I was generally disappointed with the film for the reasons I mentioned, I don’t see the so-called “woke” issue at all. Frankly, I don’t even understand what that means. It appears to refer to some vague notion that women and people of color may be treated with more respect and nuance than usual, or that male characters show more vulnerability, or something of the sort. I don’t know, but whatever it is I don’t think it has anything to do how well NTTD worked or not. At any rate, after reading many of the comments here, I am anxious to see it again because I have a sense that I might find more to enjoy the second time around.
They introduced Bond's replacement. It was a black woman.
In the end, the old cranky white guy saved the world (with a few women helping), he was acknowledged as superior by the new recruit (hence her request to reinstate him with 007 designation, and while he was finishing the job the new recruit hurried to safety with the women and children.
WOKE? LOL. If that was "woke" they did a TERRIBLE job.
The one thing I hardly hear mentioned is that they finally confirmed that Q was gay, though I don't think that his orientation was shocking, surprising, or came off as artificial to most anyone who has been watching the Craig films.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
I didn't get the "woke" message either. I just didn't see it. The producers and writers didn't need to do anything specifically woke as the story doesn't alert anybody to any specific injustices in society. All they did was follow modern or generic conventions and introduce a homosexual, a black woman OO and Bond not sleeping with anyone except the mother of his child. Personally, I don't get it. NTTD looked at a list of perceived injustices and ticked them off one by one and added exactly zero to the movie and zero to the argument.
Anyway, we'd already seen Moneypenny as a capable agent and Bond has been chaste before [The Living Daylights or Casino Royale anybody?], and revealing Q is gay hardly rocks the boat. In fact its hardly progressive to have a gay actor play a gay character. Didn't we all suspect he was gay anyway? and do we care? Not a jot. On a personal level, I'm way past that. I'd have been more impressed if Ben Wishaw played James Bond. Hmm, there's a thought.
I’m struggling why so many people have an issue with it.
Woke is being branded about like confetti… what? Why?
You bring in a black women to play 007 and somehow it has to be explained?? It has to have a label? Talk about misogynistic dinosaurs.
The ending…
It was perfect for this flawed Bond.
As he stated right at the beginning in CR, “OO7s have a very short life expectancy, so your mistake will be short lived.”
This film tied up all the loose ends.
He finally forgave Vesper.
He fell in love again. But still with trust issues.
He then made another mistake … he regretted it, made amends, then instead of getting them killed (a bit of a theme… just like in CR) he sacrifices himself.
Perfect ending.
Would you seriously be happy if he walked off into the sunset again?
It seems ‘fans’ are hard to please 🙄
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Lexi...I quite agree.
My review is still a day or so away; after two viewings, I'm still digesting. But I think it was masterful.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
My biggest disappointment with the film is its soundtrack, which I've been listening to most days since its release.To quote Blofeld, my expectations were considerably higher.
The inclusion of the OHMSS theme and 'We have all the time in the world' only serve to prove how much John Barry is missed; ditto David Arnold with the inclusion of the CR 'You know my name' motif in NTTD's gunbarrel sequence. Zimmer always produces such memorable scores but this one offers nothing new.
Ok…. So Ive got you all bent about what I said was a reasonable hunch.. as I’ve said already.. this is an opinion driven review thread.. I’m not apologetic to my opinion not aligning with yours.. it’s ok.. people view things differently and walk away with differing views.. you do get that at least right ?
I agree just finished watching the movie, wow what’s a movie, I will still scour the fashion industry to acquire the Bond sartorial pieces in the movie, but my thoughts on the movie were very mixed,
I’m still piecing the storyline together, why would James not think of living in one of those bubble glass container into the nanobots exited his body; the body naturally secretes toxins or unknown substances in the body, oh well. What if the best scientists in the world at his disposal?
He is a father after all and needs to live on to help grow his child; he didn’t have to be living looking over his shoulder anymore. I wish he could have gave that to Madeleine to help her.
On top of that, I thought I would go to the theater with my Rag&Bone Henley hoping to see great action, which I did, but now it’s burned in my mind it’s Bonds death shirt.
A final thought and the most important thing to state is: the movie should have been named
Good point. The public only judge a Bond film in relation to action sequences. For all they care, a Bond film is just another action film. Film reviewers seem little better.
I agree. Though I haven't seen the film, so haven't heard the score, I'm not a fan of Zimmer's film scores anyway. I think Arnold should have been retained. He had the right balance between a Barry sound and his own style. I liked George Martin's Live and Let Die score, though, and would have liked him to have done more Bond films. I wonder why he was never used again.
Bond has an EMP ON HIS WRIST. The nanobots are nothing but an electronically controlled hive. Use the watch Q gave him and set the proper settings to wipe them out. There are ways to shut them down, maybe a stronger wave that doesn’t harm him.
I’m still wrapping my mind on this nanobots story, I’m trying to accept Bonds end, but also Safins motives didn’t seem clear to me. He could’ve killed Spectre at the same time he killed the world. They didn’t seem like they knew his plan to mess it up.
Also, what are the steps to get out of denial, asking for a friend.
Although it wasn't explained very well, I don't think Safin's plot was that complicated: his family specialized in poisons and worked mainly for SPECTRE. Blofeld eliminated the family (via Mr. White) so SPECTRE would have direct control over their operation. Safin stole the nanobot tech so he could reproduce it on a massive scale and sell it as a service to the highest bidder (weren't those boats approaching the island the first buyers?). And he needed the DNA records so he could program the nanobots to target the right people.
Killing SPECTRE served multiple purposes: removed his major competition, tested the weapon and proved its effectiveness to potential buyers, and avenged his family.
As for the EMP destroying the nanobots: I thought they were a biomechanical hybrid thingy that altered your DNA. So even if you destroyed them, the damage had been done and was permanent.
Again, this is just what gleaned from one viewing and I agree it was poorly explained in the movie (especially consider the word "nanobots" was uttered at least a hundred times).
I loved every actor and their performance really, Rami has been in such great things over the years. Lea proved her acting a little more here. I even feel like Jeffrey Wright was great! None to be said of Daniel, the emotion he brings onscreen is magnifying.
@canoe2 I’ll have to watch it again to hear the specifics of the virus, but true I guess killing Spectre would make it easier for him. And Blofeld didn’t live up to be nothing more than a pawn or even a rook in this game of chess.
Movies of old that have their own universe are doing something similar.
Marvel’s big bad Thanos and the Infinity Stones are now considered to be a plaything in the new shows and veering off that.
Star Wars is changing the way we see Jedi and the galaxy by doing spin-offs and leading away from the norm we’ve accustomed to.
DC has their shows set in different universes where it’s hard to catch up on each one, although I’m excited to see some of their promising lineup.
The way of Bond cinema has changed and for me and the way they moved so far from the last Bonds is they made him so personal and so relatable it’s almost like seeing a friend do so much for me just to die in the end. As if anything past was just a plaything.
I may be looking too much into this, I’m only speaking from my thoughts after seeing the movie.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,747Chief of Staff
No, not at all…I was just trying to stop you making a fool of yourself…you can’t have a ‘reasonable hunch’ about something you’ve no idea about - you do clearly state you’ve never seen a full episode of Fleabag so you can’t have much idea about what/how Waller-Bridge writes…unless you have her altered script? Ah well, you have at it 🍸
I saw NO TIME TO DIE Friday night and it’s taken me a couple of days to compose my thoughts as well as my words. It was a lot to take in, and a lot to think about, and I can now truly say this:
I LOVED IT.
Ever since Timothy Dalton was announced as the new Bond in 1986, the producers have promised that the film they were putting out would be something “new” and “different” and would change the way we saw Bond. Frankly, they never really did it. They delivered a lot of very good, very memorable, even classic films, but they all pretty much stayed in the safe, comfortable world of 007 we all know.
This changed with NTTD. During the PTS, watching a frightened little girl being chased by a masked gunman, I found myself thinking that this doesn’t look like a Bond film. That thought came to me again as (for the first time in either the film or literary series) we see Bond in a continuing love relationship. Then we see M exposed as a petty political animal. Then we see James Bond as a concerned and loving father. And, finally, we get the end we never thought we’d see. For only the second time in the series I felt myself well up a bit by the ending of a Bond film. The first time, of course, was with OHMSS—and how appropriate that Hans Zimmer’s fine score often harkens back to “We Have All the Time in the World” and that Louis Armstrong’s song is heard over the closing credits.
The refence back to OHMSS is one of the things I enjoyed as a long-time Bond film fan. There were a lot of call-backs, not only to that film but to LALD, TSWLM, and YOLT. I especially got a double charge out of the placement of the Garden of Death from the YOLT novel into a set that resembles the volcano base from the YOLT film. What chutzpah! The references to earlier films were subtle and clever, and didn’t come across as clunky winks to the audience, as were those in DAD.
As pleased as I am as a fan of the earlier films and of Fleming’s novels, I am probably most pleased as a fan of the direction of the Daniel Craig films—his Bond Pentalogy, as it were (I almost wrote Pentateuch, but that might be a little too much). These films really and truly are separate from the rest of the series: they constitute an entire narrative with a beginning, middle, and end, and they are built upon a theme of family. Craig’s Bond has always been reaching out for a family, but his job costs him a potential wife (Vesper), a mother figure (Dench’s M), and a man Bond calls his brother (Felix)—while the job again mocks him with a grotesque parody of a brother in Blofeld. It is only in NTTD that Bond finally reaches completion with a family, though, of course, he will never be allowed to enjoy it. On their own the five films have some severe flaws, with the theme often wedged in (as happened with SPECTRE), but together the films make an impressive saga. Dare I say, one that might be taught in future film school classes?
In case y’all think I’m just gushing, there were some things that didn’t sit well with me. Safin seemed kind of undeveloped as a villain—Is he JUST, super-villain like, avenging the wrong that was done to him in his childhood, or is he perhaps the ultimate nihilist? And what was the story with that mask? Also, maybe I wasn’t paying attention, but who was it who made it so Blofeld could connect to the “eyes” of his followers and virtually attend SPECTRE meetings? Madeline? And I was a bit disappointed in Ana de Armas’s role. I’ve been a fan of hers since I first saw her in the BLADERUNNER sequel, and I was delighted to hear she’d be in NTTD. But she’s really only in one sequence and largely plays her character as a goofball—though she DOES generate some laughs and she displays some great butt-kicking moves.
So, now that the Craig era is over, let me express my hope for the future of the Bond films. It’s this: no more reboots. No more multifilm sagas. Producers, you showed you could do it with Craig, and it worked beautifully. As one of those who howled bloody murder when Craig was first cast, perhaps I may not be the best person to take advice from, but I really think lightning won’t strike twice. I’d like for the next Bond to be introduced in a quick and snappy PTS, then, after another great title song, we see him come into the anteroom, flirt with Moneypenny, and be called into M’s office where he’s alerted to a worldwide crisis.
In conclusion, thank you, Daniel Craig. Thank you, EON Productions. You made an old Bond fan very happy. And emotionally drained.
Well said, HB, and I concur with every word of that penultimate paragraph. Yes, (quoting Hardyboy) I’d like for the next Bond to be introduced in a quick and snappy PTS, then, after another great title song, we see him come into the anteroom, flirt with Moneypenny, and be called into M’s office where he’s alerted to a worldwide crisis. (end quote). I've said as much elsewhere in AJB, and I'd only add: let's have an upbeat title song, it's been too long. And please bring back David Arnold.
I’m throwing NTTD in with Spectre after my first viewing. It was worth a watch, but I’m struggling to think I of anything I’d want to go back again for.
Just make a Bond movie--pretty well the way they made a Batman movie with Ben Affleck after (possibly?) killing off Bats, and the way the current Spider-Man series has determined we all know how Spidey came into being so there's no need to again have the spider-bite and the death of Uncle Ben. We know who Bond is and what he does.
So it depends how a reboot is defined. I expect a reboot in the sense that everyone is re-cast and the plot pretends the other movies never happened. I don't think a reboot requires a origin story, but there are other opinions. To sum it up, we agree on what needs to be done.
Comments
I agree.
What made the ones up to 1989 so good visually was the wide-angle shots. It gave you a sense of place and time, and was also visually pleasing. The same with the way the villians lairs were shot. Usually from a fairly low angle so that you could see the ceilings and height of the interiors. It gave you a sense of space and depth of field. Now, the films are more like high budget TV series. Indeed, at one time there was a difference in look between TV and film, now there is none.
Enjoyed it much more 2nd time round, don’t know why, guess the expectations were gone and I could just see it for what it was. Father had same uncertainty on his 1st viewing, nephew loved it, first bond he has seen and now wants to watch them all. Actually felt more emotional at the end this time round. Stand by not needing to see it in IMAX.
You didn’t last one episode of Fleabag yet you deduce which parts she wrote? 🤨
That’s some insight you have there 🤣
As you say, Waller-Bridge was brought on board to “punch up the script” NOT rewrite it 🍸
Id just as well assume she wrote most of the one liners. That terrible cringe style that I associate with the show. Also Ash's spiel trying to get Oswald to shut up - "SHUT UP OSWALD OR YOU'LL BLOW MY COVER. DO YOU HEAR THAT FELIX, I SAY I'M A DOUBLE AGENT!" - "SHUT UP, ASH!"
"I am still a firm believer that the best thing they could do with it (and this is obviously just my personal wish) is to reboot the series back to the 60's...."
This is where I would like to see it go as well, but, I think it's a long shot. Apparently the younger audience don't like 'retro'... but, I think it would could work amazingly well. A contemporary take, without the garbage, could be very interesting.
I loved NTTD personally, and found the tone to be spot on (I need to see it again to fully adsorb the story).... It's sad, if predictable, that there are are some, who feel the need the call out 'certain' script writers, and attempt to bring it down with their hideous, antiquated, agenda... I'm glad these silly old men, who are pissed-off that Bond has had to change with the times, are revealing themselves... The World Has Changed. If you don't like it, you know where to go 🖕
The ending was exactly what I wanted from my favourite Bond actor, and I'm glad they had the courage to actually see it through. Time for a fresh start. On first viewing I'd give it an 8/10 and put it as my second favourite after CR.... But, that may change.
Thanks for the ride DC 😀
Once again the bond fans are the ones disappointed while the general public seems to love it.
I don't care if they kill him or if they take his 007 but it could have been done better. Felix got a smidgen more screen time than John Connor before they killed him. The action is few and far between for the run time, but good when its there. My big gripe is Bond. Craig seems to play a different version of the character each film and here I don't know what he's going with.
He's louder, has more energy, which was a problem people had with his Bond in Spectre. But he's just not Bond, something was so off about it that I cared even less than i normally would have about Felix dying and his sacrifice. Because it really wasn't the same guy we've been following these 5 films, this annoying shtick was that different, so why should I be invested.
Add that on to the contrivedness, the fact that the writers went in wanting to kill bond and were clearly writing backwards, and 163 minutes, and I am rooting for the warheads to disentegrate this asshole.
And who is the villain? Just some other asshole. He happens to know Maddeleine and just so happens to have a poison garden that doesn't do anything but will look menacing if he happens to stumble across a bio weapon one day.
Although I was generally disappointed with the film for the reasons I mentioned, I don’t see the so-called “woke” issue at all. Frankly, I don’t even understand what that means. It appears to refer to some vague notion that women and people of color may be treated with more respect and nuance than usual, or that male characters show more vulnerability, or something of the sort. I don’t know, but whatever it is I don’t think it has anything to do how well NTTD worked or not. At any rate, after reading many of the comments here, I am anxious to see it again because I have a sense that I might find more to enjoy the second time around.
The woke thing?
They introduced Bond's replacement. It was a black woman.
In the end, the old cranky white guy saved the world (with a few women helping), he was acknowledged as superior by the new recruit (hence her request to reinstate him with 007 designation, and while he was finishing the job the new recruit hurried to safety with the women and children.
WOKE? LOL. If that was "woke" they did a TERRIBLE job.
The one thing I hardly hear mentioned is that they finally confirmed that Q was gay, though I don't think that his orientation was shocking, surprising, or came off as artificial to most anyone who has been watching the Craig films.
Speak for yourself. I’m not disappointed. And neither are the plethora of Bond fans I’ve discussed it with. Quite the opposite in fact.
I didn't get the "woke" message either. I just didn't see it. The producers and writers didn't need to do anything specifically woke as the story doesn't alert anybody to any specific injustices in society. All they did was follow modern or generic conventions and introduce a homosexual, a black woman OO and Bond not sleeping with anyone except the mother of his child. Personally, I don't get it. NTTD looked at a list of perceived injustices and ticked them off one by one and added exactly zero to the movie and zero to the argument.
Anyway, we'd already seen Moneypenny as a capable agent and Bond has been chaste before [The Living Daylights or Casino Royale anybody?], and revealing Q is gay hardly rocks the boat. In fact its hardly progressive to have a gay actor play a gay character. Didn't we all suspect he was gay anyway? and do we care? Not a jot. On a personal level, I'm way past that. I'd have been more impressed if Ben Wishaw played James Bond. Hmm, there's a thought.
Totally agree.
I’m a Bond fan and I loved this film.
I’m struggling why so many people have an issue with it.
Woke is being branded about like confetti… what? Why?
You bring in a black women to play 007 and somehow it has to be explained?? It has to have a label? Talk about misogynistic dinosaurs.
The ending…
It was perfect for this flawed Bond.
As he stated right at the beginning in CR, “OO7s have a very short life expectancy, so your mistake will be short lived.”
This film tied up all the loose ends.
He finally forgave Vesper.
He fell in love again. But still with trust issues.
He then made another mistake … he regretted it, made amends, then instead of getting them killed (a bit of a theme… just like in CR) he sacrifices himself.
Perfect ending.
Would you seriously be happy if he walked off into the sunset again?
It seems ‘fans’ are hard to please 🙄
Lexi...I quite agree.
My review is still a day or so away; after two viewings, I'm still digesting. But I think it was masterful.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
My biggest disappointment with the film is its soundtrack, which I've been listening to most days since its release.To quote Blofeld, my expectations were considerably higher.
The inclusion of the OHMSS theme and 'We have all the time in the world' only serve to prove how much John Barry is missed; ditto David Arnold with the inclusion of the CR 'You know my name' motif in NTTD's gunbarrel sequence. Zimmer always produces such memorable scores but this one offers nothing new.
Ok…. So Ive got you all bent about what I said was a reasonable hunch.. as I’ve said already.. this is an opinion driven review thread.. I’m not apologetic to my opinion not aligning with yours.. it’s ok.. people view things differently and walk away with differing views.. you do get that at least right ?
I agree just finished watching the movie, wow what’s a movie, I will still scour the fashion industry to acquire the Bond sartorial pieces in the movie, but my thoughts on the movie were very mixed,
I’m still piecing the storyline together, why would James not think of living in one of those bubble glass container into the nanobots exited his body; the body naturally secretes toxins or unknown substances in the body, oh well. What if the best scientists in the world at his disposal?
He is a father after all and needs to live on to help grow his child; he didn’t have to be living looking over his shoulder anymore. I wish he could have gave that to Madeleine to help her.
On top of that, I thought I would go to the theater with my Rag&Bone Henley hoping to see great action, which I did, but now it’s burned in my mind it’s Bonds death shirt.
A final thought and the most important thing to state is: the movie should have been named
Time To Die.
I love and hate this movie.
actually the title is perfect, they’re just missing a comma.
No, Time to Die. 😎🍸
Good point. The public only judge a Bond film in relation to action sequences. For all they care, a Bond film is just another action film. Film reviewers seem little better.
I agree. Though I haven't seen the film, so haven't heard the score, I'm not a fan of Zimmer's film scores anyway. I think Arnold should have been retained. He had the right balance between a Barry sound and his own style. I liked George Martin's Live and Let Die score, though, and would have liked him to have done more Bond films. I wonder why he was never used again.
Here’s another quick insight:
Bond has an EMP ON HIS WRIST. The nanobots are nothing but an electronically controlled hive. Use the watch Q gave him and set the proper settings to wipe them out. There are ways to shut them down, maybe a stronger wave that doesn’t harm him.
I’m still wrapping my mind on this nanobots story, I’m trying to accept Bonds end, but also Safins motives didn’t seem clear to me. He could’ve killed Spectre at the same time he killed the world. They didn’t seem like they knew his plan to mess it up.
Also, what are the steps to get out of denial, asking for a friend.
Although it wasn't explained very well, I don't think Safin's plot was that complicated: his family specialized in poisons and worked mainly for SPECTRE. Blofeld eliminated the family (via Mr. White) so SPECTRE would have direct control over their operation. Safin stole the nanobot tech so he could reproduce it on a massive scale and sell it as a service to the highest bidder (weren't those boats approaching the island the first buyers?). And he needed the DNA records so he could program the nanobots to target the right people.
Killing SPECTRE served multiple purposes: removed his major competition, tested the weapon and proved its effectiveness to potential buyers, and avenged his family.
As for the EMP destroying the nanobots: I thought they were a biomechanical hybrid thingy that altered your DNA. So even if you destroyed them, the damage had been done and was permanent.
Again, this is just what gleaned from one viewing and I agree it was poorly explained in the movie (especially consider the word "nanobots" was uttered at least a hundred times).
I loved every actor and their performance really, Rami has been in such great things over the years. Lea proved her acting a little more here. I even feel like Jeffrey Wright was great! None to be said of Daniel, the emotion he brings onscreen is magnifying.
@canoe2 I’ll have to watch it again to hear the specifics of the virus, but true I guess killing Spectre would make it easier for him. And Blofeld didn’t live up to be nothing more than a pawn or even a rook in this game of chess.
Movies of old that have their own universe are doing something similar.
Marvel’s big bad Thanos and the Infinity Stones are now considered to be a plaything in the new shows and veering off that.
Star Wars is changing the way we see Jedi and the galaxy by doing spin-offs and leading away from the norm we’ve accustomed to.
DC has their shows set in different universes where it’s hard to catch up on each one, although I’m excited to see some of their promising lineup.
The way of Bond cinema has changed and for me and the way they moved so far from the last Bonds is they made him so personal and so relatable it’s almost like seeing a friend do so much for me just to die in the end. As if anything past was just a plaything.
I may be looking too much into this, I’m only speaking from my thoughts after seeing the movie.
No, not at all…I was just trying to stop you making a fool of yourself…you can’t have a ‘reasonable hunch’ about something you’ve no idea about - you do clearly state you’ve never seen a full episode of Fleabag so you can’t have much idea about what/how Waller-Bridge writes…unless you have her altered script? Ah well, you have at it 🍸
I saw NO TIME TO DIE Friday night and it’s taken me a couple of days to compose my thoughts as well as my words. It was a lot to take in, and a lot to think about, and I can now truly say this:
I LOVED IT.
Ever since Timothy Dalton was announced as the new Bond in 1986, the producers have promised that the film they were putting out would be something “new” and “different” and would change the way we saw Bond. Frankly, they never really did it. They delivered a lot of very good, very memorable, even classic films, but they all pretty much stayed in the safe, comfortable world of 007 we all know.
This changed with NTTD. During the PTS, watching a frightened little girl being chased by a masked gunman, I found myself thinking that this doesn’t look like a Bond film. That thought came to me again as (for the first time in either the film or literary series) we see Bond in a continuing love relationship. Then we see M exposed as a petty political animal. Then we see James Bond as a concerned and loving father. And, finally, we get the end we never thought we’d see. For only the second time in the series I felt myself well up a bit by the ending of a Bond film. The first time, of course, was with OHMSS—and how appropriate that Hans Zimmer’s fine score often harkens back to “We Have All the Time in the World” and that Louis Armstrong’s song is heard over the closing credits.
The refence back to OHMSS is one of the things I enjoyed as a long-time Bond film fan. There were a lot of call-backs, not only to that film but to LALD, TSWLM, and YOLT. I especially got a double charge out of the placement of the Garden of Death from the YOLT novel into a set that resembles the volcano base from the YOLT film. What chutzpah! The references to earlier films were subtle and clever, and didn’t come across as clunky winks to the audience, as were those in DAD.
As pleased as I am as a fan of the earlier films and of Fleming’s novels, I am probably most pleased as a fan of the direction of the Daniel Craig films—his Bond Pentalogy, as it were (I almost wrote Pentateuch, but that might be a little too much). These films really and truly are separate from the rest of the series: they constitute an entire narrative with a beginning, middle, and end, and they are built upon a theme of family. Craig’s Bond has always been reaching out for a family, but his job costs him a potential wife (Vesper), a mother figure (Dench’s M), and a man Bond calls his brother (Felix)—while the job again mocks him with a grotesque parody of a brother in Blofeld. It is only in NTTD that Bond finally reaches completion with a family, though, of course, he will never be allowed to enjoy it. On their own the five films have some severe flaws, with the theme often wedged in (as happened with SPECTRE), but together the films make an impressive saga. Dare I say, one that might be taught in future film school classes?
In case y’all think I’m just gushing, there were some things that didn’t sit well with me. Safin seemed kind of undeveloped as a villain—Is he JUST, super-villain like, avenging the wrong that was done to him in his childhood, or is he perhaps the ultimate nihilist? And what was the story with that mask? Also, maybe I wasn’t paying attention, but who was it who made it so Blofeld could connect to the “eyes” of his followers and virtually attend SPECTRE meetings? Madeline? And I was a bit disappointed in Ana de Armas’s role. I’ve been a fan of hers since I first saw her in the BLADERUNNER sequel, and I was delighted to hear she’d be in NTTD. But she’s really only in one sequence and largely plays her character as a goofball—though she DOES generate some laughs and she displays some great butt-kicking moves.
So, now that the Craig era is over, let me express my hope for the future of the Bond films. It’s this: no more reboots. No more multifilm sagas. Producers, you showed you could do it with Craig, and it worked beautifully. As one of those who howled bloody murder when Craig was first cast, perhaps I may not be the best person to take advice from, but I really think lightning won’t strike twice. I’d like for the next Bond to be introduced in a quick and snappy PTS, then, after another great title song, we see him come into the anteroom, flirt with Moneypenny, and be called into M’s office where he’s alerted to a worldwide crisis.
In conclusion, thank you, Daniel Craig. Thank you, EON Productions. You made an old Bond fan very happy. And emotionally drained.
Well said, HB, and I concur with every word of that penultimate paragraph. Yes, (quoting Hardyboy) I’d like for the next Bond to be introduced in a quick and snappy PTS, then, after another great title song, we see him come into the anteroom, flirt with Moneypenny, and be called into M’s office where he’s alerted to a worldwide crisis. (end quote). I've said as much elsewhere in AJB, and I'd only add: let's have an upbeat title song, it's been too long. And please bring back David Arnold.
Question to Hardyboy: How do you suggest the movies can continue without a second reboot in Bond26?
I enjoyed your review, BTW.
I’m throwing NTTD in with Spectre after my first viewing. It was worth a watch, but I’m struggling to think I of anything I’d want to go back again for.
Just make a Bond movie--pretty well the way they made a Batman movie with Ben Affleck after (possibly?) killing off Bats, and the way the current Spider-Man series has determined we all know how Spidey came into being so there's no need to again have the spider-bite and the death of Uncle Ben. We know who Bond is and what he does.
And thanks for the good words!
So it depends how a reboot is defined. I expect a reboot in the sense that everyone is re-cast and the plot pretends the other movies never happened. I don't think a reboot requires a origin story, but there are other opinions. To sum it up, we agree on what needs to be done.
Excellent review HB, that pretty much sums up how I feel about NTTD. Except the bit about the Pentateuch, about which I'm still scratching my head...
Nice review @Hardyboy are you certain you weren't gushing ?