Greetings my friends! It has been quite a while since I last visited the neighborhood, but I just returned from an early screening of No Time to Die and just had to jump in to share my thoughts. Before I start, I want you to know that I haven’t read any other reviews, so my opinion hasn’t been influenced or swayed by anything anyone else thinks of the movie. I also want to say that I hope no one comes at me for sharing an opinion that may differ from theirs. Those of you in the group that are familiar with my contributions over the years know that I love Bond movies (obviously, since I have been a long time participant in this forum) and I am an unabashed fan of Daniel Craig’s tenure as 007. Okay, enough of the build up. I was very disappointed by Craig’s swan song as Bond. From the very uninspired pre-credits sequence to the depressing end, I felt extremely let down by this movie. The story is confusing, meandering and at times even boring. There are no particularly memorable action set pieces and the quips and attempts at humor feel flat and inappropriate. The villain doesn’t come across as particularly interesting or intimidating, and he doesn’t even have a formidable henchman to take up the slack. The “children in jeopardy” scenarios that occur at the beginning and towards the end of the movie are really off putting and I could have done without that. I was very excited about the prospect of having Felix Leiter back, but my excitement turned to fury over how his arc played out. Although I enjoyed Lashana Lynch as 007, I wish they had done with her character. Seems like she spends most of the movie taunting Bond about the fact that she has been designated as the new “007”. On the other hand, I didn’t like Ana de Armas’ character at all. She comes across as not only unnecessary, but frankly kind of ridiculous. Her attempts at comic relief don’t land very well and I feel there’s very little chemistry between her and Bond. But I don’t blame Ms. de Armas. I just think the character is very poorly written and directed. In fact, I think the direction as a whole leaves a lot to be desired. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but things just seem to be off throughout the movie. There are odd pauses and strange camera angles at times. I just didn’t like the overall pacing of the film. One thing I should probably mention is that I was very pleased to hear snippets of the soundtrack from OHMSS in this movie. It’s my favorite Bond movie soundtrack and it was a real bright spot for me hearing it again. One last thing. As I said, I have very much enjoyed Craig’s portrayal of Bond. He’s my second favorite after Connery. I think his performance in his last foray as James Bond is adequate, especially given the weak material he is working with, but I really wish his last turn in the franchise could have been more memorable. All in all, this is my least favorite of Craig’s Bond movies, and it’s a real shame that he isn’t going out on a high note. Sorry to make my comeback to the forum with such a negative assessment, but I’m sure you guys would much prefer my honest opinion to fluff. Now I’ll start reading what you guys thought of the movie.
Well, I managed to see No Time to Die, which rests squarely in the middle of the Craig films. It lacks the full cloying sentimentality of Skyfall – not that it doesn’t at times try – but is nowhere near the greatness of Casino Royale. Like Spectre, this is a little movie masquerading as a bigger one, complete with the television-like sensibility about framing and geography. It over-relies on closeups, for example, with so many moments merely being talking heads giving speeches and reacting to something out of view. Many of the full shots are people just standing or sitting.
Often, there are only one or two people in the entire scene, regardless of whether they’re in a city or some sort of headquarters. TV’s The Avengers got away with this because of budget and because they were particularly skillful at turning the emptiness into mood and atmosphere. It was creepy. With No Time to Die, it’s more like they were worried the iPhone they shot it with wouldn’t fit everyone in view. But don’t worry, they still spent the hundreds of millions.
As with the last three Bonds, everything has a super-contrasty, super-saturated look, as though each glaring blue or brown moment is a Jamesons’ magazine ad. (The part where they pretentiously close up on a half-filled tumbler made me chuckle for this reason). It’s interesting that once past Casino Royale, the color seems to have mostly drained from Craig’s Bond films, as though every day is some version of a fall early morning or early evening. I suppose this is all meant to show the depressing emptiness of Bond’s life, but long gone are the days when a Bond movie was a technicolor feast for the eyes and ears. And fun.
Director Fukunaga loves to linger a beat too long, so anything outside of action scenes becomes ponderous rather than pregnant with emotion. For a movie with so much at stake, it’s curious how flat so much of its feelings are and how flagging its pace often is. Yes, we’re affected but often less for the drama or suspense in the moment than for the knowledge this is all happening to Bond. No Time to Die doesn’t really earn much of the emotional payoffs despite the moody theatrics.
Nonetheless, there are audio and visual callbacks to any number of Bond movies – Dr. No, You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, etc., the latter of which contributes to the soundtrack. This movie even tries for a bona fide villain’s lair, though predictably No Time to Die doesn’t do much with it. It’s largely interested in punctuating rather ordinary action movie moments and making us do the work, like riffling through a graphic novel and seeing carefully rendered scenes pop out that no matter what, will always be static. Our imagination must fill in the rest. I kept hoping for some visual wit, at least, but while there are a few striking images that resonate – again, more like stills than elements of motion – I found less rather than more.
Maybe that’s what they get for hiring an American.
Even the action scenes lack a white-knuckle quality, though to be fair, Casino Royale was the last Bond movie to truly have any of it. (I will say the bit where Bond and his family are fleeing the bad guys in an SUV approaches satire of a family outing, but in this dreary rendition, even that seems wishful thinking.)
That brings us to Rami Malek. Ostensibly, he’s the villain, and while he’s certainly effete and repulsive, he offers little else. Every moment with him seems the same as the last one. I don’t know what to make of Bond villains anymore. In the 1960s movies, their motivations were clear: wealth, power, invulnerability. They decorated their lavish secret apartments with the spoils of criminality. Their villainy was rooted in something recognizable in everyday people, just magnified to megalomaniacal proportions.
After all, Goldfinger hates Bond so much because he knows that no matter how much money he has, he’ll never be the kind of man Bond is. That all makes sense. But with the contemporary Bond villains – again, after Casino Royale – one needs the DSM to even try to begin to make sense of them. What exactly is Saffin’s motivation? I mean, it need not be as silly as the adolescently arrested Blofeld’s in this universe, but it has to be more than just wanting to be the bad guy.
Does anything work in No Time to Die? Yes. More than I’m probably letting on. The first hour is pretty good. The supporting cast is near all excellent, even with some of their underwritten roles, like Nomi. All the regulars are great, of course. Poor Jeffrey Wright doesn’t get as much screen time as he deserves, but his demise is suitably moving. Christoph Waltz gets even less time, and the best thing I can say about his demise is that it’s intimate. (His situation is a visual pun for how the Craig movies have tended to treat villains, though – just keep them in a box that’s only brought out when needed.) The weakest link is Lea Seydoux, so sparkless in many scenes it’s virtually impossible to feel anything for her remotely like for Diana Rigg in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. There’s simply never been joy in the relationship between Bond and Swann and nothing approaching love.
Some of the action sequences, especially early, have imagination and a “cool factor” that, again, has largely been absent since Casino Royale. Craig allows himself a bit more range here than in the previous three films, and I just wish the script had given him honest drama or even melodrama than merely circumstance for his emotions. Hans Zimmer’s score works best when it evokes the bygone Connery/Lazenby days, worst when it sounds like a retread of Arnold and Newman. Craig wears some nice suits and has the swagger, but when he dresses like a lumberjack fisherman, it reminds us this is a movie about Bond and not a Bond movie. His haircut is less severe than in the previous two, so I guess there’s that.
And now the big question: Is there a way to bring Craig back, should he wish it? Yes, I think so. The story here, thin as it is, the trailers being a better movie overall, remixes some of Fleming’s last few novels. Presuming Bond dead when he somehow survives could be done. They did it on TV’s Sherlock and infamously Dallas, too, both with a seemingly impossible situation to escape from. The beauty of fiction (and the horror) is that it can always be rewritten. Some last minute contraption that saves Bond as the bombs rain down is not farfetched in a movie with a science fiction premise. I just don’t know that Craig would want to come back, and if he did, what exactly he’d do to the character.
The arc of his Bond movies has largely been to deconstruct the guy we thought we knew. With his blond hair, he’s a photo negative of his predecessors, and unlike their movies, his masculinity is ultimately toxic and not something to be admired. In fact, as I’ve written elsewhere, it’s rather stunning how often Bond loses in a Craig film. It’s close to a serious version of Get Smart, especially that whole bit about his mission being to protect his boss but instead getting M killed at his old house. So, knocking Bond off in what’s essentially a reversal of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service seems like the punchline, unless the next film opens with him in a new identity as a cabaret singer in a Berlin cross dressing revue.
I suspect the next Bonds will simply be reboots, much as Batman or Spiderman have done. It’ll matter, of course, what the trends are because the Bond films seem to follow rather than create them anymore. I recall how excited I was anticipating Casino Royale and then genuinely, dazzlingly amazed when I saw the actual movie. I thought the series would be tremendous with Craig and could only get better.
I can’t say that’s where the arc has really taken me. In fact, the journey reminds me of the Star Trek movies (which Craig's Bonds have also borrowed from, in addition to Nolan's Batman ones), where the second one seemed to get so much right, and then the rest just kind of lumbered along on the momentum. Here, I didn’t accept the gag early on that this isn’t your father’s Bond and that he was never going to become that guy. So, now that we’re at the end of a 15-year journey, I feel neither shaken nor stirred. No Time to Die ostensibly ends Craig’s tenure as 007. That is its only function, and that it does.
Just left the theatre and got home after viewing it on IMAX.. and still digesting it really.. going back Friday to watch it again to try and get a different perspective now, knowing how it all wraps up.... in the end.. with killing off Bond.. the continuation of the series hangs in uncertainty... 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.... My biggest fear is that EON will cave to Hollywood "wokeness" and completely upend the character to appease. I was genuinely good with the concept of Bond being a father... One massive thing Craig brought to the character was a multifaceted humanity and relatability to him. He got hurt, seriously injured, he was an emotional character... and now a father even.. those were good facets to flesh out. It will be interesting to see if the final demise of Craig's Bond.. is actually the final demise of Bond altogether. Time will tell.....
I am just returning from the theater and I have to say, what rubbish...I have never been more disappointed in a Bond movie.
"A blunt instrument wielded by a Government department. Hard, ruthless, sardonic, fatalistic. He likes gambling, golf, fast motor cars. All his movements are relaxed and economical". Ian Fleming
I’m trying to like it…. But it’s kind of the Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull of the DC Bond arc…. The one film we all end up ignoring as time passes..
Had its moments.. but the Flea Bag writer - Waller Bridge- her “dressing up the dialogue in places, was cringe worthy in places..
Just got back from watching it. I rather enjoyed it. For those that didn’t like it, I hear ya. For those that did like it, I feel ya. Going to see it again a few times over the next few days. Gotta say, I’m really looking forward to it. Thank
"History isn't kind to men who play God." - DC "I gave him the limp." - PB "Better make that two." - TD
"Keeping British end up, sir." - RM "This never happened to the other fellow." - JL "I must be dreaming." SC
"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...."
I tend to agree. It's seems the only logical way to go. Not remakes of Dr No, etc, etc, but period missions. Perhaps even 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s? We've had 'The Man From UNCLE' after all, with a certain Bond front runner in the lead.
On reflection, I see it as; there's no time to die during this mission, no time to lose as there's so much at stake, both on a personal and human race level. THIS, is certainly no time to die and fail before he's completed his destiny in saving the world. It's no time to die as he has to get to the bottom of things and keep his resolve throughout.
One could also suggest, (and it's pushing it), that Bond living out his years in retirement, drinking himself to an early grave when the world needs him! THIS is no time to just do nothing, sit and wallow and just die. (as per Skyfall)
But, given the ending, the title doesn't work for me.
I don't think they'll go with the code name theory. They stopped Lee Tamahori when he wanted to use that stupid theory and I don't see why they'd change their minds. If EON wants a non-white Bond they can do so without making James Bond a code name. I very much doubt they'll make Bond gay or trans.
"(I will say the bit where Bond and his family are fleeing the bad guys in an SUV approaches satire of a family outing, but in this dreary rendition, even that seems wishful thinking.)"
It jarred me more when Bond is in full Commando gear walking around Safin's lair, looking great in full kick-ass Bond mode, but followed by his partner and child. In the past we may have had a Bond girl wearing what was earlier a nice dress/outfit, now grubby and torn, in tow. We now have Bond followed by his partner, dressed in normal civvies, carrying their daughter. It made me think of a Bond parody in a Saturday Night Live sketch; "Hey imagine everybody if Bond was married with kids..!") It felt a bit like a sequel to a goofy spy film, where this time his wife and child are onboard.
I know Bond has to move with the times and evolve and be more reflective of modern day society. I have no issue with that. I also know some of my views when it comes to Bond are a bit old fashioned. However, I think it lacks imagination and creativity to just give Bond a daughter, have her central to the story and kill him off in an over sentimental hurrah. I think they could have created a more, thought provoking, clever ending. Just use YOLT Fleming! Madeleine being pregnant, Bond unaware he's going to be a father, have the ending left open and the audience thinking did he survive or not?
@The Red Kind as you know I agree entirely with this. Given all the talk in 2006 - 2008 about going back to Fleming you'd think the producers would have scoured the novels fir appropriate excerpts and YOLT offers many better situations and resolutions than the version we get now. Despite Blofeld and SPECTRE and numerous identifiable 'nods' I've felt the last 3 Craig's have moved further away from Fleming.
I also remember the talk back in 2006 of the films going back to Fleming's Bond. Sadly they never managed this, apart from one or two elements in Casino Royale.
I always thought Dalton's Bond was nearer to Fleming's one. And that Licensed to Kill was nearer the sort of thing Fleming would have written, despite it being a poor film.
They can’t make a film with Flemings Bond in it anymore. He just wouldn’t work in this age. NTTD was a fitting end to the franchise. I don’t hold out much hope for anything that comes afterwards now.
I am enjoying these reviews, in particular from @Blackleiter who I suppose experiences a double blow in the movie given his username!
You are the only one to use the b-word in your review, BL - namely 'boring'! Though one could argue that it's a homage to past films such as Thunderball or Quantum of Solace, indeed the 'make it up as we go along' plot line might be a tribute to the latter. 😀
The reviewer who mentioned the TV sensibility of the director - I can't find this ref now, was it you @Gassy Man ? - well, that might make it a better watch on TV all those years down the line assuming anyone wants to see this again! OHMSS it seems suffers on telly because the director wanted to go for long shots, it works better on the big screen but that in itself didn't do much for Lazenby's legacy until I suppose we all got bigger tellies.
Completely agree. To suggest that a change in one recurring actor means a reboot, would mean that every film featuring a new M, MoneyPenny, Q, Felix or even Bond himself is a reboot - so practically every film after Goldfinger. The stylistic changes started in '71, with DAF, the precursor to the lighter films of the Moore era - though not a reboot in the same way as CR.
I read the title as an unspoken answer to Swann's plea to Bond at the climax of the film when she's telling him that there's nobody left to hurt him now and that they do indeed have all the time in the world. Bond's reply, possibly cut, possibly just in his head is a direct reply - "No, (it's) time to die".
I'm trying to work out the meaning (if there is one) in the arrangement of the title words on all the publicity material - very particular spacing, never changes, always split over 3 lines with certain indented layout.
Saw it last night. Giving it an 8/10 after first viewing in IMAX. I went in spoiler free and had no idea Bond would die. It was shocking but I didn't hate it or feel like it was a decision that's ruined Bond or anything like that. Honestly, it seemed like the natural conclusion to the Craig Bond arc. And, as many have already offered, I'll treat Craig's corner of the Bond universe much like the Nolan Batman trilogy: a single story from the first film to the last, but separate from the other movies. I'm totally fine with that.
If there's one thing I really didn't like it was the idea of Bond's daughter, for the following reasons:
Adding that daughter felt like writers weren't confident enough in the emotional connection between Bond and Madeleine to make it (and it alone) the primary reason for his ultimate sacrifice.
The daughter is completely unecessary as a plot device: Safrin infecting Bond with nanobots targeted just for Madeleine would have been heartbreaking enough. Or they could have targeted the MI6 crew. Or even a mystery cocktail of targets so Bond would never know who he could kill when he comes close. If Bond's love for Madeleine was strong enough, Safrin holding only her hostage would have been sufficient to get Bond to drop his weapons (he even says he can't leave the island without her). And Madeleine had more than enough motivation to escape for herself without it having to be about protecting her daughter. And Safrin takes the daughter with him and then just lets her go? I'm usually pretty good at catching key plot points during a first viewing, but that one makes zero sense to me. I thought the daughter would end up in the poison garden and we'd have some tense moments with Bond or Madeleine trying to save her. But no, she just hides under a table.
We had no opportunity to see Bond form a real emotional connection with his daughter. I have no idea who this child is other than the fact that she's interested in mosquitos. And that greatly weakens the audience's emotional connection to Bond's sacrifice.
Last, but for me the most annoying one: Movie's need to stop making men "dads" as a plot device to show they have an emotional side. Bond had already opened up to Madeleine at her home. He shared his regrets about his past AND his plan to move past them and embrace a future with the woman he loved. He was a mature adult male in that moment, open and vulnerable but still strong and secure in his ability to determine his own fate. And it was the first time I really felt the connection he had to Madeleine and what a life with her would mean to him. For me it was an elegant piece of script writing and completely within character for Craig's Bond. It was enough.
But then they had to go and throw a kid into the mix. 🙄
So no, I am not at all upset or angry that Bond died. But I am a little pissed off that he died with the stuffed animal of a little girl who was nothing more than a weak ass plot device whose only purpose was to manipulate the audience into an unearned emotional reaction.
Yep! In fact I took my 11 year old son last night (his first Bond movie in the cinema!) so we could see it for the first time together.
I'm not sure being a father myself makes me more or less sensitive regarding my last point above. Maybe it makes me a little biased? I just don't like this trend of making action heroes absentee dads just to prove they can connect emotionally. I didn't like it when they did it with Indiana Jones either. It was done a little better with Tony Stark, but again: what exactly did the child add to the plot?
I don't like doing the whole "let's compare franchises" thing, but I will say this about the MI series: the story telling stays focused on romantic relationships between two adults and trusts the audience enough to leave it at that.
Regarding the MI series, I wouldn't be surprised to see Ethan Hunt as a father somewhere down the line, and/or when Tom Cruise is ready to stand aside as the character, he kills himself off.
Comments
I've always been confused with the title, "NTTD"! Does it mean:
a) "I've got no time to die, I'm too busy. I guess I'll DAD."
or
b) "This is no time to time, terrible timing! I guess I'll DAD."
🤔🤔🤔🤔
Greetings my friends! It has been quite a while since I last visited the neighborhood, but I just returned from an early screening of No Time to Die and just had to jump in to share my thoughts. Before I start, I want you to know that I haven’t read any other reviews, so my opinion hasn’t been influenced or swayed by anything anyone else thinks of the movie. I also want to say that I hope no one comes at me for sharing an opinion that may differ from theirs. Those of you in the group that are familiar with my contributions over the years know that I love Bond movies (obviously, since I have been a long time participant in this forum) and I am an unabashed fan of Daniel Craig’s tenure as 007. Okay, enough of the build up. I was very disappointed by Craig’s swan song as Bond. From the very uninspired pre-credits sequence to the depressing end, I felt extremely let down by this movie. The story is confusing, meandering and at times even boring. There are no particularly memorable action set pieces and the quips and attempts at humor feel flat and inappropriate. The villain doesn’t come across as particularly interesting or intimidating, and he doesn’t even have a formidable henchman to take up the slack. The “children in jeopardy” scenarios that occur at the beginning and towards the end of the movie are really off putting and I could have done without that. I was very excited about the prospect of having Felix Leiter back, but my excitement turned to fury over how his arc played out. Although I enjoyed Lashana Lynch as 007, I wish they had done with her character. Seems like she spends most of the movie taunting Bond about the fact that she has been designated as the new “007”. On the other hand, I didn’t like Ana de Armas’ character at all. She comes across as not only unnecessary, but frankly kind of ridiculous. Her attempts at comic relief don’t land very well and I feel there’s very little chemistry between her and Bond. But I don’t blame Ms. de Armas. I just think the character is very poorly written and directed. In fact, I think the direction as a whole leaves a lot to be desired. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but things just seem to be off throughout the movie. There are odd pauses and strange camera angles at times. I just didn’t like the overall pacing of the film. One thing I should probably mention is that I was very pleased to hear snippets of the soundtrack from OHMSS in this movie. It’s my favorite Bond movie soundtrack and it was a real bright spot for me hearing it again. One last thing. As I said, I have very much enjoyed Craig’s portrayal of Bond. He’s my second favorite after Connery. I think his performance in his last foray as James Bond is adequate, especially given the weak material he is working with, but I really wish his last turn in the franchise could have been more memorable. All in all, this is my least favorite of Craig’s Bond movies, and it’s a real shame that he isn’t going out on a high note. Sorry to make my comeback to the forum with such a negative assessment, but I’m sure you guys would much prefer my honest opinion to fluff. Now I’ll start reading what you guys thought of the movie.
Well, I managed to see No Time to Die, which rests squarely in the middle of the Craig films. It lacks the full cloying sentimentality of Skyfall – not that it doesn’t at times try – but is nowhere near the greatness of Casino Royale. Like Spectre, this is a little movie masquerading as a bigger one, complete with the television-like sensibility about framing and geography. It over-relies on closeups, for example, with so many moments merely being talking heads giving speeches and reacting to something out of view. Many of the full shots are people just standing or sitting.
Often, there are only one or two people in the entire scene, regardless of whether they’re in a city or some sort of headquarters. TV’s The Avengers got away with this because of budget and because they were particularly skillful at turning the emptiness into mood and atmosphere. It was creepy. With No Time to Die, it’s more like they were worried the iPhone they shot it with wouldn’t fit everyone in view. But don’t worry, they still spent the hundreds of millions.
As with the last three Bonds, everything has a super-contrasty, super-saturated look, as though each glaring blue or brown moment is a Jamesons’ magazine ad. (The part where they pretentiously close up on a half-filled tumbler made me chuckle for this reason). It’s interesting that once past Casino Royale, the color seems to have mostly drained from Craig’s Bond films, as though every day is some version of a fall early morning or early evening. I suppose this is all meant to show the depressing emptiness of Bond’s life, but long gone are the days when a Bond movie was a technicolor feast for the eyes and ears. And fun.
Director Fukunaga loves to linger a beat too long, so anything outside of action scenes becomes ponderous rather than pregnant with emotion. For a movie with so much at stake, it’s curious how flat so much of its feelings are and how flagging its pace often is. Yes, we’re affected but often less for the drama or suspense in the moment than for the knowledge this is all happening to Bond. No Time to Die doesn’t really earn much of the emotional payoffs despite the moody theatrics.
Nonetheless, there are audio and visual callbacks to any number of Bond movies – Dr. No, You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, etc., the latter of which contributes to the soundtrack. This movie even tries for a bona fide villain’s lair, though predictably No Time to Die doesn’t do much with it. It’s largely interested in punctuating rather ordinary action movie moments and making us do the work, like riffling through a graphic novel and seeing carefully rendered scenes pop out that no matter what, will always be static. Our imagination must fill in the rest. I kept hoping for some visual wit, at least, but while there are a few striking images that resonate – again, more like stills than elements of motion – I found less rather than more.
Maybe that’s what they get for hiring an American.
Even the action scenes lack a white-knuckle quality, though to be fair, Casino Royale was the last Bond movie to truly have any of it. (I will say the bit where Bond and his family are fleeing the bad guys in an SUV approaches satire of a family outing, but in this dreary rendition, even that seems wishful thinking.)
That brings us to Rami Malek. Ostensibly, he’s the villain, and while he’s certainly effete and repulsive, he offers little else. Every moment with him seems the same as the last one. I don’t know what to make of Bond villains anymore. In the 1960s movies, their motivations were clear: wealth, power, invulnerability. They decorated their lavish secret apartments with the spoils of criminality. Their villainy was rooted in something recognizable in everyday people, just magnified to megalomaniacal proportions.
After all, Goldfinger hates Bond so much because he knows that no matter how much money he has, he’ll never be the kind of man Bond is. That all makes sense. But with the contemporary Bond villains – again, after Casino Royale – one needs the DSM to even try to begin to make sense of them. What exactly is Saffin’s motivation? I mean, it need not be as silly as the adolescently arrested Blofeld’s in this universe, but it has to be more than just wanting to be the bad guy.
Does anything work in No Time to Die? Yes. More than I’m probably letting on. The first hour is pretty good. The supporting cast is near all excellent, even with some of their underwritten roles, like Nomi. All the regulars are great, of course. Poor Jeffrey Wright doesn’t get as much screen time as he deserves, but his demise is suitably moving. Christoph Waltz gets even less time, and the best thing I can say about his demise is that it’s intimate. (His situation is a visual pun for how the Craig movies have tended to treat villains, though – just keep them in a box that’s only brought out when needed.) The weakest link is Lea Seydoux, so sparkless in many scenes it’s virtually impossible to feel anything for her remotely like for Diana Rigg in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. There’s simply never been joy in the relationship between Bond and Swann and nothing approaching love.
Some of the action sequences, especially early, have imagination and a “cool factor” that, again, has largely been absent since Casino Royale. Craig allows himself a bit more range here than in the previous three films, and I just wish the script had given him honest drama or even melodrama than merely circumstance for his emotions. Hans Zimmer’s score works best when it evokes the bygone Connery/Lazenby days, worst when it sounds like a retread of Arnold and Newman. Craig wears some nice suits and has the swagger, but when he dresses like a lumberjack fisherman, it reminds us this is a movie about Bond and not a Bond movie. His haircut is less severe than in the previous two, so I guess there’s that.
And now the big question: Is there a way to bring Craig back, should he wish it? Yes, I think so. The story here, thin as it is, the trailers being a better movie overall, remixes some of Fleming’s last few novels. Presuming Bond dead when he somehow survives could be done. They did it on TV’s Sherlock and infamously Dallas, too, both with a seemingly impossible situation to escape from. The beauty of fiction (and the horror) is that it can always be rewritten. Some last minute contraption that saves Bond as the bombs rain down is not farfetched in a movie with a science fiction premise. I just don’t know that Craig would want to come back, and if he did, what exactly he’d do to the character.
The arc of his Bond movies has largely been to deconstruct the guy we thought we knew. With his blond hair, he’s a photo negative of his predecessors, and unlike their movies, his masculinity is ultimately toxic and not something to be admired. In fact, as I’ve written elsewhere, it’s rather stunning how often Bond loses in a Craig film. It’s close to a serious version of Get Smart, especially that whole bit about his mission being to protect his boss but instead getting M killed at his old house. So, knocking Bond off in what’s essentially a reversal of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service seems like the punchline, unless the next film opens with him in a new identity as a cabaret singer in a Berlin cross dressing revue.
I suspect the next Bonds will simply be reboots, much as Batman or Spiderman have done. It’ll matter, of course, what the trends are because the Bond films seem to follow rather than create them anymore. I recall how excited I was anticipating Casino Royale and then genuinely, dazzlingly amazed when I saw the actual movie. I thought the series would be tremendous with Craig and could only get better.
I can’t say that’s where the arc has really taken me. In fact, the journey reminds me of the Star Trek movies (which Craig's Bonds have also borrowed from, in addition to Nolan's Batman ones), where the second one seemed to get so much right, and then the rest just kind of lumbered along on the momentum. Here, I didn’t accept the gag early on that this isn’t your father’s Bond and that he was never going to become that guy. So, now that we’re at the end of a 15-year journey, I feel neither shaken nor stirred. No Time to Die ostensibly ends Craig’s tenure as 007. That is its only function, and that it does.
Hey, Blackleiter!
Just left the theatre and got home after viewing it on IMAX.. and still digesting it really.. going back Friday to watch it again to try and get a different perspective now, knowing how it all wraps up.... in the end.. with killing off Bond.. the continuation of the series hangs in uncertainty... 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.... My biggest fear is that EON will cave to Hollywood "wokeness" and completely upend the character to appease. I was genuinely good with the concept of Bond being a father... One massive thing Craig brought to the character was a multifaceted humanity and relatability to him. He got hurt, seriously injured, he was an emotional character... and now a father even.. those were good facets to flesh out. It will be interesting to see if the final demise of Craig's Bond.. is actually the final demise of Bond altogether. Time will tell.....
I am just returning from the theater and I have to say, what rubbish...I have never been more disappointed in a Bond movie.
I’m trying to like it…. But it’s kind of the Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull of the DC Bond arc…. The one film we all end up ignoring as time passes..
Had its moments.. but the Flea Bag writer - Waller Bridge- her “dressing up the dialogue in places, was cringe worthy in places..
Just got back from watching it. I rather enjoyed it. For those that didn’t like it, I hear ya. For those that did like it, I feel ya. Going to see it again a few times over the next few days. Gotta say, I’m really looking forward to it. Thank
"Keeping British end up, sir." - RM "This never happened to the other fellow." - JL "I must be dreaming." SC
@Blackleiter @Gassy Man thanks for sharing those great reviews
"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...."
I tend to agree. It's seems the only logical way to go. Not remakes of Dr No, etc, etc, but period missions. Perhaps even 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s? We've had 'The Man From UNCLE' after all, with a certain Bond front runner in the lead.
On reflection, I see it as; there's no time to die during this mission, no time to lose as there's so much at stake, both on a personal and human race level. THIS, is certainly no time to die and fail before he's completed his destiny in saving the world. It's no time to die as he has to get to the bottom of things and keep his resolve throughout.
One could also suggest, (and it's pushing it), that Bond living out his years in retirement, drinking himself to an early grave when the world needs him! THIS is no time to just do nothing, sit and wallow and just die. (as per Skyfall)
But, given the ending, the title doesn't work for me.
I don't think they'll go with the code name theory. They stopped Lee Tamahori when he wanted to use that stupid theory and I don't see why they'd change their minds. If EON wants a non-white Bond they can do so without making James Bond a code name. I very much doubt they'll make Bond gay or trans.
"(I will say the bit where Bond and his family are fleeing the bad guys in an SUV approaches satire of a family outing, but in this dreary rendition, even that seems wishful thinking.)"
I know what you mean @Gassy Man
It jarred me more when Bond is in full Commando gear walking around Safin's lair, looking great in full kick-ass Bond mode, but followed by his partner and child. In the past we may have had a Bond girl wearing what was earlier a nice dress/outfit, now grubby and torn, in tow. We now have Bond followed by his partner, dressed in normal civvies, carrying their daughter. It made me think of a Bond parody in a Saturday Night Live sketch; "Hey imagine everybody if Bond was married with kids..!") It felt a bit like a sequel to a goofy spy film, where this time his wife and child are onboard.
I know Bond has to move with the times and evolve and be more reflective of modern day society. I have no issue with that. I also know some of my views when it comes to Bond are a bit old fashioned. However, I think it lacks imagination and creativity to just give Bond a daughter, have her central to the story and kill him off in an over sentimental hurrah. I think they could have created a more, thought provoking, clever ending. Just use YOLT Fleming! Madeleine being pregnant, Bond unaware he's going to be a father, have the ending left open and the audience thinking did he survive or not?
@The Red Kind as you know I agree entirely with this. Given all the talk in 2006 - 2008 about going back to Fleming you'd think the producers would have scoured the novels fir appropriate excerpts and YOLT offers many better situations and resolutions than the version we get now. Despite Blofeld and SPECTRE and numerous identifiable 'nods' I've felt the last 3 Craig's have moved further away from Fleming.
Judi dench being cast as m was the biggest stylistic change in the whole Bond series.
and it worked briliantly, we aslo saw the Farrell building at voxall for the firt time as well,(bowen up in Skyfall)
there has never been a reboot (a word I don't like ) but Golden Eye is the closet there has ever been to one.
Casino royal was a prqul but set within the golden eye universe.
correction, Ferral building may have first apeard in the world is not enough
Goldeneye.
Greetings Gassy!
I also remember the talk back in 2006 of the films going back to Fleming's Bond. Sadly they never managed this, apart from one or two elements in Casino Royale.
I always thought Dalton's Bond was nearer to Fleming's one. And that Licensed to Kill was nearer the sort of thing Fleming would have written, despite it being a poor film.
Good point.
GE was maybe a soft reboot, comparable to TLD. CR is the only true reboot so far.
They can’t make a film with Flemings Bond in it anymore. He just wouldn’t work in this age. NTTD was a fitting end to the franchise. I don’t hold out much hope for anything that comes afterwards now.
I am enjoying these reviews, in particular from @Blackleiter who I suppose experiences a double blow in the movie given his username!
You are the only one to use the b-word in your review, BL - namely 'boring'! Though one could argue that it's a homage to past films such as Thunderball or Quantum of Solace, indeed the 'make it up as we go along' plot line might be a tribute to the latter. 😀
The reviewer who mentioned the TV sensibility of the director - I can't find this ref now, was it you @Gassy Man ? - well, that might make it a better watch on TV all those years down the line assuming anyone wants to see this again! OHMSS it seems suffers on telly because the director wanted to go for long shots, it works better on the big screen but that in itself didn't do much for Lazenby's legacy until I suppose we all got bigger tellies.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Completely agree. To suggest that a change in one recurring actor means a reboot, would mean that every film featuring a new M, MoneyPenny, Q, Felix or even Bond himself is a reboot - so practically every film after Goldfinger. The stylistic changes started in '71, with DAF, the precursor to the lighter films of the Moore era - though not a reboot in the same way as CR.
Hey BL! Good to have you back!
I enjoyed your review, though I think you were a little harder on the film than I am.
I read the title as an unspoken answer to Swann's plea to Bond at the climax of the film when she's telling him that there's nobody left to hurt him now and that they do indeed have all the time in the world. Bond's reply, possibly cut, possibly just in his head is a direct reply - "No, (it's) time to die".
I'm trying to work out the meaning (if there is one) in the arrangement of the title words on all the publicity material - very particular spacing, never changes, always split over 3 lines with certain indented layout.
Saw it last night. Giving it an 8/10 after first viewing in IMAX. I went in spoiler free and had no idea Bond would die. It was shocking but I didn't hate it or feel like it was a decision that's ruined Bond or anything like that. Honestly, it seemed like the natural conclusion to the Craig Bond arc. And, as many have already offered, I'll treat Craig's corner of the Bond universe much like the Nolan Batman trilogy: a single story from the first film to the last, but separate from the other movies. I'm totally fine with that.
If there's one thing I really didn't like it was the idea of Bond's daughter, for the following reasons:
But then they had to go and throw a kid into the mix. 🙄
So no, I am not at all upset or angry that Bond died. But I am a little pissed off that he died with the stuffed animal of a little girl who was nothing more than a weak ass plot device whose only purpose was to manipulate the audience into an unearned emotional reaction.
Other than that, I really liked it! 😁
Cheers!
John
Just wondering, are you a father @canoe2 ?
Interesting thoughts whatever the answer.
Yep! In fact I took my 11 year old son last night (his first Bond movie in the cinema!) so we could see it for the first time together.
I'm not sure being a father myself makes me more or less sensitive regarding my last point above. Maybe it makes me a little biased? I just don't like this trend of making action heroes absentee dads just to prove they can connect emotionally. I didn't like it when they did it with Indiana Jones either. It was done a little better with Tony Stark, but again: what exactly did the child add to the plot?
I don't like doing the whole "let's compare franchises" thing, but I will say this about the MI series: the story telling stays focused on romantic relationships between two adults and trusts the audience enough to leave it at that.
Great points John and I agree 100%.
Regarding the MI series, I wouldn't be surprised to see Ethan Hunt as a father somewhere down the line, and/or when Tom Cruise is ready to stand aside as the character, he kills himself off.