In three theatrical viewings, the sound was only good in the IMAX theater; and at home it also sounded fine (though any dialogue hurdles were probably also cleared by it being a fourth viewing 😂).
Great photography, some witty dialogue, seriously good action scenes & a fine score are all wasted on this soap opera that employs a science fiction world domination nanobot plot with Stargate-level technology. And you thought the vanishing car in Die Another Day was a bit much? Or the space laser? Nah, that was nothun'.
So, this movie is all serious & stuff, but I hadda deal with nanobots? Oh, and they infect Bond so he can't stay with his new love from the previous movie, SPECTRE, or they'll kill her. Steal ideas from the TV series Dark Angel much?
Wait- it gets worse. More of the following trends s**t instead of setting them here:
Remember recent movies with Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Princess Leia, Tony Stark, Black Widow...???
Lemme quote Tiffany Case from 1971's Diamonds Are Forever, "YOU'VE JUST KILLED JAMES BOND!"
Thanks, Dan. Now you've gone to show us no one's indestructible.
Is this the Bond who never gives up trying in the face of almost certain failure?
No, this is Dan trying to give us the mythic end to the hero's journey. Facing his end bravely.
If any reading this can take it as such, I am truly envious.
A gimmick-filled movie. Gimmicks employed in place of plot and characters.
What do I mean by gimmicks? Shocks to the viewing audience that they (hopefully, in the filmmakers' eyes) weren't expecting.
Gimmick 1- Bond is no longer 007, that number has been given to another agent. Subgimmick- she's female. Subgimmick- she's of colour.
Gimmick 2- Felix Leiter, Bond's best friend and a frequent supporting character, is killed. He doesn't have an arm and a leg chewed off by a shark, allowing him to return with prostheses as in Fleming (or as implied in LTK), he's killed. This is given more weight by his absence from the preceding two movies and his being played by an actor many Bond fans have accepted and enjoyed as Felix and (I'm going out on a limb here, but I think many will agree) consider the best Felix ever so were looking forward to his return.
Gimmick 3- Blofeld is killed. This is slightly less of a gimmick, since Blofeld has been killed before and I have no doubt will be again- I only hope I'm still around to see that. For back-up to this theory, see Moriarty in Sherlock Holmes- he was killed several times (eg "Sherlock Holmes And The Secret Weapon", 1942) and returned in later films with little or no explanation.
Gimmick 4- Mathilde. After all these years (decades?) Bond finally has a child. It's sprung on him and the audience simultaneously. His world view changes. It becomes more realistic.... just like we don't watch James Bond films for. She's a gimmick.
Gimmick 5- Bond dies. The entire end portion of the film sets this up. Whether you like it, agree with it or not, I stand by my view- it's a gimmick.
The rest of the film is just connecting these points, like a dot-to-dot puzzle.
At the same time, the score (always one of the essential parts for me) takes the Bond Theme, "We Have All The Time In The World", a few notes of Vesper's Theme, an instrumental version or two of the title song, "Over And Out" from OHMSS, repeat a couple of these, do an original piece or two, then finish with Louis Armstrong's vocal WHATTITW. Just connect the dots.
In summary, I felt it mechanical rather than organic. This isn't to say that there weren't parts I enjoyed (Paloma's sequence, of course, the PTS, the interplay with M, Moneypenny, Q, Tanner) and Cary Fukunaga is a director I'd love to see on a Bond film again- but on a Bond film proper which I don't believe this is.
I enjoyed the first two-thirds and overall craftsmanship of NTTD, but "mechanical rather than organic" is a perfect summation of the film's major weakness.
NTTD may return to Imax in the New Year. I have no evidence to suggest this, except it did with Spectre, some time around February for a month or more. Might not occur this time round with the rush release of the new film on DVD, or with other films upcoming.
So we finally got the film here in Australia. I got to see No Time to Die last night and came back with mixed feelings.
The review below CONTAINS SPOILERS for those who haven't seen the film.
The opening memory sequence is quite dark for a Bond film and more akin to a horror film, but it was entertaining and i enjoyed it for what it was.
The scenes in the various Italy locations are great, with the love between Bond and Madeleine blossoming but there being some trust issues developing. The attempted killing of Bond is great, and the following chase scenes, especially with the DB5, are some of the best in the series. Bond putting Madeleine on the train and leaving her is heartbreaking, but certainly works within the context of what has been set up.
The title sequence seems like a mess, drawing from other films' title sequences, such as Goldeneye and Casino Royale, rather than having its own identity. But I don't really care about title sequences. Like the last three title songs, I don't care for this one. But it's not offensive.
The Jamaica and Cuba scenes are fantastic, and are probably my favourite scenes in the film. Paloma is an excellent character and it's a shame we don't see more of her. Nonetheless, she is fantastic in the action scenes and the ploy of Valdo to switch the nanobots to kill the SPECTRE agents is an interesting one that, unfortunately, doesn't really lead anywhere. Valdo is an interesting and fun character, especially in these scenes, but they could have done more with him. I also really enjoyed the interplay between Bond and Nomi. Felix's death is saddening and adds some weight to what is to come despite not feeling deserved.
The ensuing MI6 scenes are good, and I loved seeing the DB7 again, which is often maligned in favour of the DB5. I enjoyed seeing how MI6 had moved on from Bond and that M wants nothing to do with him. It's great to see Moneypenny and Q helping him again. M designing Heracles in secret adds some depth to this character who comes across as more despicable in the early part of the film and makes sense given what we know of him from earlier films and the state of the world. It could have given him an interesting character arc, but after it's revealed he created it this sub-plot is dropped, which is disappointing given the potential it had to lead to something more sinister and compelling.
Safin's reveal as the villain and same man who attacked and saved Madeleine is chilling, but predictable thanks to the make up and promotional material I wish I hadn't watched prior to the film.
The scene with Blofeld is okay, but a waste of the character and Christoph Waltz, and the outcome was predictable, leading to a disappointing death of an iconic villain. In his review of the film, David Zaritsky suggested Blofeld should have been the mastermind behind this plot, and I agree with this, given how disappointing of a villain Safin is.
While the scenes with Madeleine and Mathilde are nice, they feel out of place in a Bond film. I don't understand why Madeleine lies to Bond about Mathilde being his daughter, but can run with it because she's upset with him for how their relationship ended and she doesn't entirely trust him.
It's a shame the DB7 isn't used in the ensuing car chase, but the scene is great on its own. The fight and resourcefulness of Bond in the forest is excellent, if a little overly violent, and really enjoyable.
Bond and Nomi teaming up and working with Q is a great sequence. Their infiltration of Safin's complex is enjoyable, even if it is reminiscent of Bond videogames. The base itself is a fantastic location. But once Bond encounters Safin, this is where the film deteriorates for me. Safin is not a great villain, being someone who simply wants revenge. This worked for killing SPECTRE, but for killing the whole world? It seems excessive to me and without any great motive. Indeed, as much as I like how the scene between them hearkens back to Dr No, his "plan" feels shallow. This really should have been a showdown between Bond and Blofeld instead. Although I understand Bond "submitting" to him as part of his tactic to get Mathilda back, it seems out of character for Bond, especially Craig's Bond.
Safin just letting go of Mathilde after working so hard to use her against Bond and Madeleine so far seems out of character and just a way for the writers to get her back to them for the purpose of the plot.
The opening the silos sequence is excellent, and I appreciate Bond and Safin's final blows in the poison chamber, but it has no pathos. Even Safin ensuring Bond could never be with Madeleine and Mathilde, while a cool twist, feels shoehorned in to give what's to come some pathos.
Bond's sacrifice and ultimate death has no weight. The Bond I know, the Bond of the Craig era, is resourceful and would have found a way to escape. This is my major problem with the film. The one thing all Bond films have is that Bond survives, even if its only by the skin of his teeth. Bond films are about hope and goodness prevailing despite all the darkness he faces. It doesn't fit the series, especially considering the film ends with "James Bond will return" and feels shoehorned in to give audiences a shock and something different more akin to Game of Thrones (where death of lead characters was set up from the beginning). It really soured the film for me.
The whole nanobot storyline really delved into the science-fiction side of Bond. It was more believable than the space fight in Moonraker and the plane fight in Die Another Day, but the stakes weren't as high as they needed to be. To give Bond's death and this storyline more pathos, it needed to be established that other countries were after Heracles earlier on so the ticking clock mechanism had more weight and tension.
Madeleine telling Mathilde about Bond at the end is a nice way to end the film, and I wonder if Mathilde will be the next James Bond 007 in the series. The producers set up a female 007 with Nomi, and I wonder if this was an intentional way to soften audiences to a female 007. Time will tell...
The use of an instrumental version of We Have All the Time in the World works in the PTS, but feels shoehorned in at the end. As does the use of the On Her Majesty's Secret Service theme when Bond and M speak near the river. This film needed its own identity and the reuse of these cues doesn't help that. Apart from that, on the whole, Zimmer's soundtrack is excellent and suits the film.
I think the actors do a great job with the material they are given. The locations are some of the best in the series. There's some fantastic action scenes. The characters and their dilemma are interesting. But like most of Purvis and Wade's scripts, it has a lot of weaknesses. Why they keep hiring them to write Bond films when they said they were finished with the series over a decade ago is beyond me. Still, there is a lot to love about this film. But the ending really spoils it for me.
What's more, while I think its a mostly good film, it doesn't feel like a Bond film. Sure, some of the iconography is there - the Aston Martins, the vodka martinis, Blofeld, the tux - but it feels shoehorned in to an action film with science-fiction elements.
I've only seen it once so far, so my opinion may change with subsequent viewings. But from my initial viewing, it's a disappointing film that I would rank on par with or just under SPECTRE.
Thanks @IcePak did you take a pen and paper into the cinema with you? Very detailed.
Your feelings gel similarly to mine. It's a good film, but a disappointing Bond film. You also highlight some of my sticking points with the narrative. It's interesting you used the word SHOEHORNED several times and the movie does feel as if it had a decent plot which was then bastardised to allow all the extraneous character details to be crammed in. I agree most wholeheartedly with your point that Blofeld should be the villain. He really should. It isn't lazy to utilise am arch villain in a movie. It does feel lazy to introduce him and them kill him off within five minutes.
I’d been thinking about Blofeld as the villain for some time, too. To me, it would have been stronger if Saffin had stolen the nanobots (or some better macguffin because I think they’re kind of dumb) and demanded the British turn Blofeld over to him after Saffin wipes out SPECTRE conventionally. His organization is just worse, a megalodon compared to a great white shark. The island is SPECTRE’s headquarters, not his, but Saffin takes over. He kidnaps Swann and Mathilde as insurance, demanding Bond bring Blofeld to him for revenge. The British balk, but then Saffin uses the weapon to wipe out the crew of a British warship and reluctantly agree. Once released, Blofeld escapes but Bond recaptures him — fights, chases, etc. Ultimately, they end up on the island, but it turns out SPECTRE is not dead. Blofeld merely sacrificed some of his people, and those in Saffin’s organization who are double agents along with others fight Saffin for control. Blofeld kills Saffin and plans to go through with his threat, which is fire nanobots missiles into Hong Kong or Australia or wherever, He gives Bond a choice. He can try to stop Blofeld in the control room or rescue Swann and Mathilde from the bottom of a missile, but he can’t do both. If he rescues Swann and Mathilde, millions will still die from the missiles. If he detonates them, Swann and Mathilde will die. Either way, Bond will suffer, the ultimate pain. Blofeld doesn’t know that with Bond’s secret message (with a Q watch if something), Nomi rescues Swann and Mathilde. Now, Bond and Blofeld fight to the death. But the countdown can’t be stopped and Blofeld has destroyed the autodestruct. The only way to save the day is a Royal Navy missile strike and Bond to manually hold the silo doors open by staying on the lever in the control room . . .
Gimmick is a great word to use. We could argue all Bond films are manipulative, of course, and yet the best of them do so with an organic feel. The worst are formulaic, and their less organic execution makes the formula more obvious. NTTD is manipulative, of course, but the first hour or so feels organic. The pace, stunts, writing, and acting blur the seams. It’s essentially a genuine Bond experience, but then it veers into other territory. The plot feels constructed, for example (I’d argue poorly at times). The dialogue is creaky and muddled. Even the acting changes. Craig’s line delivery throughout the previous four movies has been pretty consistent in its beats, his tone. Here, he sometimes slips out of being Bond, especially during the flat and laborious domestic scenes. (interestingly, I felt the same way about Jeffrey Wright’s Leiter, who isn’t quite the cool cat we experience earlier). To me, that’s a large part of what makes them feel gimmicky,
My daughter saw NTTD before I did and her comment was 'its a good action movie its just not a Bond move'. Having seen it I totally agree with her. When I came out of the movie my wife asked me did I enjoy it and I honestly don't know. (She's more of a Mission Impossible fan and I'm beginning to see her point).
The Matera and Cuba sequences were good. Can't quite work out why Vesper was buried in an Italian town. Paloma was a good character and I would have liked to see more screen time. It was amusing watching them try to do a Spectre orgy on 12A rating.
I was really disappointed when they killed Felix (it was bad enough when they killed Mathis) but it sort of made sense at the end when they killed Bond.
After Cuba it all fell flat.
Rami Malik wasted as Safin. Another Dominic Greene. Christoph Waltz wasted again as Blofeld. He should have been the villain not Safin. Don't tell me SPECTRE didn't have the resources to break him out of Belmarsh.
Never really got Safin's motivation and the end fight between him and Bond was pathetic. Again echoes of Dominic Greene.
The end sequence with Bond running down the corridors shooting anything that moved looked more like a video game and after he had shot the 200th henchman I was getting bored and wondering if the bar was still open.
And Bond's death. Bond does not give up. Bond always finds a way out that's why he's Bond.
At least he will return so the question is - resurrection or reboot.
I've seen the comment "it's not a Bond movie" several times now. Why does NTTD fail to be a Bond movie to those people? Is it Bond's death, the child or something else?
Well, as ever I would say it all goes back to Ian Fleming. He created Bond as a wish-fulfillment figure initially for himself and then for the ever increasing international audience. Bond did things many people would like to do but were unable to, so his adventures were enjoyed vicariously. At first, people in the UK were subject to strict rationing so they enjoyed reading the luscious meals Bond would eat. They couldn’t travel to exotic places (yes, Turkey was exotic in those days and Fleming has to tell us what a doner kebab is) so enjoyed his eloquent descriptions of, say, Jamaica. Male readers enjoyed his beautiful leading ladies, and everyone got wrapped up in the larger than life villains and their outrageous plots.
The first few films transferred this to the screen, and then began to broaden their scope while still clinging to those aspects. Well into the series, Bond has an interesting meal with Kristatos or Kamal Khan and the viewer (now not the reader) sees exotic locales and meets beautiful leading ladies and outrageous villains- still Flemingesque if not his actual words.
Through it all, Bond struggles against seemingly impossible odds and unbeatable villains. We are comforted by the knowledge that no matter the situation, no matter how high the stakes are, James Bond will come through. The villains will be beaten, Bond will end up with the lovely lady.
Until the recent movies, anyway…. Now, Bond can lose the lady (not unheard of in Fleming, though rare). He can fail in his mission. He can even….. die.
We have been accustomed to Bond surviving and getting the girl at the end. That has been the message of the preceding Bond movies, more than 20 of them. This is what people mean when they say NTTD “isn’t a Bond movie”.
Bond surviving is something we've become used to, yes. But I think there are other aspects that makes up a Bond movie. You mention locations, girls and the villans. There's also, humor, adventure, action etc. If I overlook the "small detail" of Bond finding the time to die I think Bond is in many ways more Bondian than some other Bond movies such as QoS.
I think this new film may need to be compared with Craig's first four, and not the first twenty or what Fleming wrote, regardless of being billed a James Bond movie and having a gun barrel at the beginning.
I think NTTD can be compared to any of the earlier Bond movies in all other ways than his death and child and it holdes up. There too many Bond elements to mention here. I mean, other than Matilde and Bond not surviving, there's not much I miss. Perhaps a big, spectacular stunt or two.
Has anyone here seen the film more than once? I heard from online reviews that Bond's death becomes more palatable on subsequent viewings.
I know I came out of the cinema in shock, not knowing how to feel about Bond's death. It's either a bold move on the part of the producers, or chasing the trend of killing off heroes in recent TV series and films. I wonder how we will feel about it in years to come.
My problem isn't the death itself, shocking as it was, but that it feels out of character - the Bond of yore never gave up - and it's not earnt. Rather, he succumbs to the fruitlessness of his situation. If he does escape, he puts Madeleine and Mathilde at risk based on Q's knowledge of the nanobots. But surely they could always be reprogrammed or neutered as the technology evolved. I can understand how his sacrifice to let his loved ones live is meant to be heroic, but Bond gives up too easily; he's always been a character that would find a way no matter the odds. Even a Marvel-like hint that he might still be alive in some form at the end of the credits would have given viewers the hope they wanted/needed.
I have. I actually found it less palatable the second time. The problem isn't Bond dying. It's fiction. That can always be undone. At the same time, the hero sacrificing himself is an old saw. The problem for me is three-fold:
1) NTTD's writing doesn't build to the death in either a thematic or dramatic way. It merely tacks it on, almost as an afterthought in the way it's portrayed.
2) The story makes Bond a dope. He's not only shot and infected with nanobots but calls in the very strike that kills him -- the only reason they're even racing the clock is because of Bond's action. I keep saying it, but he's Maxwell Smart done seriously. (In the vastly overrated Skyfall, he should have said, "Sorry about that, M," when she got shot.)
3) Bond films have served as escapist entertainment, sometimes more serious, sometimes less so. Even when Tracy is killed in OHMSS, we know Bond will be back and order in some fashion will be restored. Films and stories that pushed back against that presented a wholly different world of espionage -- the books of LeCarre and Deighton, for example, or TV shows like Callan or the original The Equalizer series. They were the antithesis of Bond, and they built an entire cynical world to prop that up. Take LeCarre's The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, for example. The opening scene at the checkpoint, like the Kobyashi Maru in the second Star Trek movie, is a mini-version of the rest of the story. Just as the poor agent trying to sneak back into West Germany is doomed, dying mere inches from freedom, so will be Leamas. But his descent will be fraught with choice and drama. In the end, he must die, not only because it's the only way out of the dirty business, but because in returning to it for one last mission, he involves a innocent idealist that he gets killed (and not to mention Fiedler, his counterpart in being used by his organization). NTTD has none of this grounding or development.
There's a lot of sentimentality to Bond's death in NTTD, just like there was a lot of sentimentality in Skyfall to suggest Bond was more than a foil or incompetent. But a lot of people like that and respond to the emotions. It's rather like listening to a pop song that's critical of something but not really paying attention to the lyrics because the melody is upbeat and you can dance to it. So, when I watched NTTD again, I paid even closer attention to the poor construction of the story. That is, if we're to see Bond as a bona fide hero as opposed to the deconstruction he sure seems to be.
I would add that a constant feature of all the Bond novels and films up to now has been their avoidance of domesticity. This has been a large part of their fantasy appeal to adults of both sexes: neither the men nor women in Bond's world are tied down by marriage or children (until now there has never been a child character of importance). But in NTTD Bond gains a de facto wife and a daughter who he cooks breakfast for and drives around in a Range Rover, along with carrying her toys and so on. These film kills Bond as a result--it would be impossible to keep making Bond films this continuity if Bond kept a "wife" and child to look after. Never before has a Bond film ended with such a hard reset.
Much of NTTD retains recognizably Bondian elements, all the way down to the echoes of Dr. No near the end. But the film's major departures from the essence of Bond--domesticity and genuine family, Bond's death and the hard reset--are radical departures and have overshadowed the film's Bondian elements in many people's minds.
Absolutely, though even the domesticity is merely sketched. The story pays dramatic lip service to so many of the ideas it raises. I felt little chemistry with Swann and none really with Mathilde, who’s a rather affectless but otherwise ordinary little girl put in danger eventually. The effect is it’s more like we see the equivalent of photos of Bond’s domestic life than actual scenes. Even after two viewings, I don’t recall anything moving, charming, or salutary about the scenes. It’s the situation I have some sympathy for.
I’ve read some reviews that say much of the second half of the movie is really Swann’s story, not Bond’s, and there’s some truth to that since the movie is bookended by scenes with her. Bond at times does seem like a special guest star in another story. It’s interesting in this regard that so much focus is on Bond’s sacrifice and not the repetition of Swann’s childhood that Mathilde represents. She, too, loses a parent at a young age after having been exposed to great violence. Bond, an orphan, has orphaned her. It’s rather unsettling how being orphaned is a constant idea in the Craig universe. As much as domesticity is suggested in this movie, all five are really anti-family, including Blofeld’s patricide, the massacre and/or rape of Camille’s family, the assassination of Saffin’s family, and then ultimately the disruption of the Scooby gang through Bond’s demise, too. If the other Bonds merely presented a fantasy free of the shackles of domesticity, these seem to suggest it’s outright deadly to characters.
yes that makes sense: the story begins with Swann's flashback, and the plot is about the return of the monstrous character from that flashback. and as you say it ends with Swann. So its the second act, Bond's adventures in Jamaica and Cuba, that is the digression.
If Blofeld were the villain instead of Safin, the opening flashback sequence would not have had any place in the story, and a whole lot of Madeleine content would also be irrelevant, though not all. She still would be Blofeld's psychiatrist, thus the breakup scenes in Matera would still be part of the story, we'd just lose segue that links flashback to Matera, and all her dialog about "her secret" (which inspires Bond's distrust) . The scenes of Mathilde would lose much resonance because we are meant to compare Mathilde in peril to the flashback of Madeleine in peril.
I don't mind a Bond film that is told from the woman's point of view. Fleming certainly wrote a story from the woman's point of view that has not been adapted yet didn't he. I don't think we've seen an argument yet that Swann's role in this film parallels that of Vivienne Michel (because her role in the story more obviously contains aspects of Tracy and Kissy), but structurally its kinda sorta valid.
I read an essay a while back arguing the leading ladies in Bond films are more interesting when they are introduced to the viewer before Bond first sees them. Because we know them as a character independent of the hero, thus care more, rather than merely being an object perceived through the male hero's eyes. Try to think of the way female characters are introduced in the various films, and consider if that's true. Tracy and Vesper, the loves of Bonds life, are actually both introduced via Bond's gaze. So is Swann in SPECTRE, slightly complicated by the fact we first learn of her existence from her villainous father. So in SPECTRE our knowledge of Swann is filtered both by what her father says and what Bond sees, rather than her being able to introduce herself to the viewer independent of male perceptions. But in this new film we are experiencing events from her eyes, with a lengthy digression in the second act she could not possibly know about.
Comments
In three theatrical viewings, the sound was only good in the IMAX theater; and at home it also sounded fine (though any dialogue hurdles were probably also cleared by it being a fourth viewing 😂).
Here's my review:
No Time To Die.
Warning, spoiler city.
Great photography, some witty dialogue, seriously good action scenes & a fine score are all wasted on this soap opera that employs a science fiction world domination nanobot plot with Stargate-level technology. And you thought the vanishing car in Die Another Day was a bit much? Or the space laser? Nah, that was nothun'.
So, this movie is all serious & stuff, but I hadda deal with nanobots? Oh, and they infect Bond so he can't stay with his new love from the previous movie, SPECTRE, or they'll kill her. Steal ideas from the TV series Dark Angel much?
Wait- it gets worse. More of the following trends s**t instead of setting them here:
Remember recent movies with Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Princess Leia, Tony Stark, Black Widow...???
Lemme quote Tiffany Case from 1971's Diamonds Are Forever, "YOU'VE JUST KILLED JAMES BOND!"
Thanks, Dan. Now you've gone to show us no one's indestructible.
Is this the Bond who never gives up trying in the face of almost certain failure?
No, this is Dan trying to give us the mythic end to the hero's journey. Facing his end bravely.
If any reading this can take it as such, I am truly envious.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Here's mine, finally.
A gimmick-filled movie. Gimmicks employed in place of plot and characters.
What do I mean by gimmicks? Shocks to the viewing audience that they (hopefully, in the filmmakers' eyes) weren't expecting.
Gimmick 1- Bond is no longer 007, that number has been given to another agent. Subgimmick- she's female. Subgimmick- she's of colour.
Gimmick 2- Felix Leiter, Bond's best friend and a frequent supporting character, is killed. He doesn't have an arm and a leg chewed off by a shark, allowing him to return with prostheses as in Fleming (or as implied in LTK), he's killed. This is given more weight by his absence from the preceding two movies and his being played by an actor many Bond fans have accepted and enjoyed as Felix and (I'm going out on a limb here, but I think many will agree) consider the best Felix ever so were looking forward to his return.
Gimmick 3- Blofeld is killed. This is slightly less of a gimmick, since Blofeld has been killed before and I have no doubt will be again- I only hope I'm still around to see that. For back-up to this theory, see Moriarty in Sherlock Holmes- he was killed several times (eg "Sherlock Holmes And The Secret Weapon", 1942) and returned in later films with little or no explanation.
Gimmick 4- Mathilde. After all these years (decades?) Bond finally has a child. It's sprung on him and the audience simultaneously. His world view changes. It becomes more realistic.... just like we don't watch James Bond films for. She's a gimmick.
Gimmick 5- Bond dies. The entire end portion of the film sets this up. Whether you like it, agree with it or not, I stand by my view- it's a gimmick.
The rest of the film is just connecting these points, like a dot-to-dot puzzle.
At the same time, the score (always one of the essential parts for me) takes the Bond Theme, "We Have All The Time In The World", a few notes of Vesper's Theme, an instrumental version or two of the title song, "Over And Out" from OHMSS, repeat a couple of these, do an original piece or two, then finish with Louis Armstrong's vocal WHATTITW. Just connect the dots.
In summary, I felt it mechanical rather than organic. This isn't to say that there weren't parts I enjoyed (Paloma's sequence, of course, the PTS, the interplay with M, Moneypenny, Q, Tanner) and Cary Fukunaga is a director I'd love to see on a Bond film again- but on a Bond film proper which I don't believe this is.
Sadly, agreed.
And the use of WHATTITW was particularly irritating. So, new timeline, but recycled music from a more emotionally engaging movie/era? Lame.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I enjoyed the first two-thirds and overall craftsmanship of NTTD, but "mechanical rather than organic" is a perfect summation of the film's major weakness.
@Gymkata youre skipping a Marvel Cinematic Universe film?!!
has the real Gymkata been replaced by a Skrull?
Well, nanobots ARE more mechanical than organic, eh?
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Thanks @Barbel, a neat summary. Nice gimmick to the essay format BTW.
'Well if we release the film in Scotland we may not hear from them for a couple of months...'
Roger Moore 1927-2017
NTTD may return to Imax in the New Year. I have no evidence to suggest this, except it did with Spectre, some time around February for a month or more. Might not occur this time round with the rush release of the new film on DVD, or with other films upcoming.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
😀😀😀
So we finally got the film here in Australia. I got to see No Time to Die last night and came back with mixed feelings.
The review below CONTAINS SPOILERS for those who haven't seen the film.
The opening memory sequence is quite dark for a Bond film and more akin to a horror film, but it was entertaining and i enjoyed it for what it was.
The scenes in the various Italy locations are great, with the love between Bond and Madeleine blossoming but there being some trust issues developing. The attempted killing of Bond is great, and the following chase scenes, especially with the DB5, are some of the best in the series. Bond putting Madeleine on the train and leaving her is heartbreaking, but certainly works within the context of what has been set up.
The title sequence seems like a mess, drawing from other films' title sequences, such as Goldeneye and Casino Royale, rather than having its own identity. But I don't really care about title sequences. Like the last three title songs, I don't care for this one. But it's not offensive.
The Jamaica and Cuba scenes are fantastic, and are probably my favourite scenes in the film. Paloma is an excellent character and it's a shame we don't see more of her. Nonetheless, she is fantastic in the action scenes and the ploy of Valdo to switch the nanobots to kill the SPECTRE agents is an interesting one that, unfortunately, doesn't really lead anywhere. Valdo is an interesting and fun character, especially in these scenes, but they could have done more with him. I also really enjoyed the interplay between Bond and Nomi. Felix's death is saddening and adds some weight to what is to come despite not feeling deserved.
The ensuing MI6 scenes are good, and I loved seeing the DB7 again, which is often maligned in favour of the DB5. I enjoyed seeing how MI6 had moved on from Bond and that M wants nothing to do with him. It's great to see Moneypenny and Q helping him again. M designing Heracles in secret adds some depth to this character who comes across as more despicable in the early part of the film and makes sense given what we know of him from earlier films and the state of the world. It could have given him an interesting character arc, but after it's revealed he created it this sub-plot is dropped, which is disappointing given the potential it had to lead to something more sinister and compelling.
Safin's reveal as the villain and same man who attacked and saved Madeleine is chilling, but predictable thanks to the make up and promotional material I wish I hadn't watched prior to the film.
The scene with Blofeld is okay, but a waste of the character and Christoph Waltz, and the outcome was predictable, leading to a disappointing death of an iconic villain. In his review of the film, David Zaritsky suggested Blofeld should have been the mastermind behind this plot, and I agree with this, given how disappointing of a villain Safin is.
While the scenes with Madeleine and Mathilde are nice, they feel out of place in a Bond film. I don't understand why Madeleine lies to Bond about Mathilde being his daughter, but can run with it because she's upset with him for how their relationship ended and she doesn't entirely trust him.
It's a shame the DB7 isn't used in the ensuing car chase, but the scene is great on its own. The fight and resourcefulness of Bond in the forest is excellent, if a little overly violent, and really enjoyable.
Bond and Nomi teaming up and working with Q is a great sequence. Their infiltration of Safin's complex is enjoyable, even if it is reminiscent of Bond videogames. The base itself is a fantastic location. But once Bond encounters Safin, this is where the film deteriorates for me. Safin is not a great villain, being someone who simply wants revenge. This worked for killing SPECTRE, but for killing the whole world? It seems excessive to me and without any great motive. Indeed, as much as I like how the scene between them hearkens back to Dr No, his "plan" feels shallow. This really should have been a showdown between Bond and Blofeld instead. Although I understand Bond "submitting" to him as part of his tactic to get Mathilda back, it seems out of character for Bond, especially Craig's Bond.
Safin just letting go of Mathilde after working so hard to use her against Bond and Madeleine so far seems out of character and just a way for the writers to get her back to them for the purpose of the plot.
The opening the silos sequence is excellent, and I appreciate Bond and Safin's final blows in the poison chamber, but it has no pathos. Even Safin ensuring Bond could never be with Madeleine and Mathilde, while a cool twist, feels shoehorned in to give what's to come some pathos.
Bond's sacrifice and ultimate death has no weight. The Bond I know, the Bond of the Craig era, is resourceful and would have found a way to escape. This is my major problem with the film. The one thing all Bond films have is that Bond survives, even if its only by the skin of his teeth. Bond films are about hope and goodness prevailing despite all the darkness he faces. It doesn't fit the series, especially considering the film ends with "James Bond will return" and feels shoehorned in to give audiences a shock and something different more akin to Game of Thrones (where death of lead characters was set up from the beginning). It really soured the film for me.
The whole nanobot storyline really delved into the science-fiction side of Bond. It was more believable than the space fight in Moonraker and the plane fight in Die Another Day, but the stakes weren't as high as they needed to be. To give Bond's death and this storyline more pathos, it needed to be established that other countries were after Heracles earlier on so the ticking clock mechanism had more weight and tension.
Madeleine telling Mathilde about Bond at the end is a nice way to end the film, and I wonder if Mathilde will be the next James Bond 007 in the series. The producers set up a female 007 with Nomi, and I wonder if this was an intentional way to soften audiences to a female 007. Time will tell...
The use of an instrumental version of We Have All the Time in the World works in the PTS, but feels shoehorned in at the end. As does the use of the On Her Majesty's Secret Service theme when Bond and M speak near the river. This film needed its own identity and the reuse of these cues doesn't help that. Apart from that, on the whole, Zimmer's soundtrack is excellent and suits the film.
I think the actors do a great job with the material they are given. The locations are some of the best in the series. There's some fantastic action scenes. The characters and their dilemma are interesting. But like most of Purvis and Wade's scripts, it has a lot of weaknesses. Why they keep hiring them to write Bond films when they said they were finished with the series over a decade ago is beyond me. Still, there is a lot to love about this film. But the ending really spoils it for me.
What's more, while I think its a mostly good film, it doesn't feel like a Bond film. Sure, some of the iconography is there - the Aston Martins, the vodka martinis, Blofeld, the tux - but it feels shoehorned in to an action film with science-fiction elements.
I've only seen it once so far, so my opinion may change with subsequent viewings. But from my initial viewing, it's a disappointing film that I would rank on par with or just under SPECTRE.
8. TMwtGG 9. AVtaK 10. TSWLM 11. SF 12. LtK 13. TND 14. YOLT
15. NTtD 16. MR 17. LaLD 18. GF 19. SP 20. DN 21. TB
22. TWiNE 23. DAD 24. QoS 25. DaF
Thanks @IcePak did you take a pen and paper into the cinema with you? Very detailed.
Your feelings gel similarly to mine. It's a good film, but a disappointing Bond film. You also highlight some of my sticking points with the narrative. It's interesting you used the word SHOEHORNED several times and the movie does feel as if it had a decent plot which was then bastardised to allow all the extraneous character details to be crammed in. I agree most wholeheartedly with your point that Blofeld should be the villain. He really should. It isn't lazy to utilise am arch villain in a movie. It does feel lazy to introduce him and them kill him off within five minutes.
Yes, excellent write up.
I’d been thinking about Blofeld as the villain for some time, too. To me, it would have been stronger if Saffin had stolen the nanobots (or some better macguffin because I think they’re kind of dumb) and demanded the British turn Blofeld over to him after Saffin wipes out SPECTRE conventionally. His organization is just worse, a megalodon compared to a great white shark. The island is SPECTRE’s headquarters, not his, but Saffin takes over. He kidnaps Swann and Mathilde as insurance, demanding Bond bring Blofeld to him for revenge. The British balk, but then Saffin uses the weapon to wipe out the crew of a British warship and reluctantly agree. Once released, Blofeld escapes but Bond recaptures him — fights, chases, etc. Ultimately, they end up on the island, but it turns out SPECTRE is not dead. Blofeld merely sacrificed some of his people, and those in Saffin’s organization who are double agents along with others fight Saffin for control. Blofeld kills Saffin and plans to go through with his threat, which is fire nanobots missiles into Hong Kong or Australia or wherever, He gives Bond a choice. He can try to stop Blofeld in the control room or rescue Swann and Mathilde from the bottom of a missile, but he can’t do both. If he rescues Swann and Mathilde, millions will still die from the missiles. If he detonates them, Swann and Mathilde will die. Either way, Bond will suffer, the ultimate pain. Blofeld doesn’t know that with Bond’s secret message (with a Q watch if something), Nomi rescues Swann and Mathilde. Now, Bond and Blofeld fight to the death. But the countdown can’t be stopped and Blofeld has destroyed the autodestruct. The only way to save the day is a Royal Navy missile strike and Bond to manually hold the silo doors open by staying on the lever in the control room . . .
Yes, I like that plot line better than the one we got.
I appreciate them trying to do something different, but not at the expense of a character who they haven't been able to use since the early 70s.
8. TMwtGG 9. AVtaK 10. TSWLM 11. SF 12. LtK 13. TND 14. YOLT
15. NTtD 16. MR 17. LaLD 18. GF 19. SP 20. DN 21. TB
22. TWiNE 23. DAD 24. QoS 25. DaF
Gimmick is a great word to use. We could argue all Bond films are manipulative, of course, and yet the best of them do so with an organic feel. The worst are formulaic, and their less organic execution makes the formula more obvious. NTTD is manipulative, of course, but the first hour or so feels organic. The pace, stunts, writing, and acting blur the seams. It’s essentially a genuine Bond experience, but then it veers into other territory. The plot feels constructed, for example (I’d argue poorly at times). The dialogue is creaky and muddled. Even the acting changes. Craig’s line delivery throughout the previous four movies has been pretty consistent in its beats, his tone. Here, he sometimes slips out of being Bond, especially during the flat and laborious domestic scenes. (interestingly, I felt the same way about Jeffrey Wright’s Leiter, who isn’t quite the cool cat we experience earlier). To me, that’s a large part of what makes them feel gimmicky,
😎
My daughter saw NTTD before I did and her comment was 'its a good action movie its just not a Bond move'. Having seen it I totally agree with her. When I came out of the movie my wife asked me did I enjoy it and I honestly don't know. (She's more of a Mission Impossible fan and I'm beginning to see her point).
The Matera and Cuba sequences were good. Can't quite work out why Vesper was buried in an Italian town. Paloma was a good character and I would have liked to see more screen time. It was amusing watching them try to do a Spectre orgy on 12A rating.
I was really disappointed when they killed Felix (it was bad enough when they killed Mathis) but it sort of made sense at the end when they killed Bond.
After Cuba it all fell flat.
Rami Malik wasted as Safin. Another Dominic Greene. Christoph Waltz wasted again as Blofeld. He should have been the villain not Safin. Don't tell me SPECTRE didn't have the resources to break him out of Belmarsh.
Never really got Safin's motivation and the end fight between him and Bond was pathetic. Again echoes of Dominic Greene.
The end sequence with Bond running down the corridors shooting anything that moved looked more like a video game and after he had shot the 200th henchman I was getting bored and wondering if the bar was still open.
And Bond's death. Bond does not give up. Bond always finds a way out that's why he's Bond.
At least he will return so the question is - resurrection or reboot.
I've seen the comment "it's not a Bond movie" several times now. Why does NTTD fail to be a Bond movie to those people? Is it Bond's death, the child or something else?
Well, as ever I would say it all goes back to Ian Fleming. He created Bond as a wish-fulfillment figure initially for himself and then for the ever increasing international audience. Bond did things many people would like to do but were unable to, so his adventures were enjoyed vicariously. At first, people in the UK were subject to strict rationing so they enjoyed reading the luscious meals Bond would eat. They couldn’t travel to exotic places (yes, Turkey was exotic in those days and Fleming has to tell us what a doner kebab is) so enjoyed his eloquent descriptions of, say, Jamaica. Male readers enjoyed his beautiful leading ladies, and everyone got wrapped up in the larger than life villains and their outrageous plots.
The first few films transferred this to the screen, and then began to broaden their scope while still clinging to those aspects. Well into the series, Bond has an interesting meal with Kristatos or Kamal Khan and the viewer (now not the reader) sees exotic locales and meets beautiful leading ladies and outrageous villains- still Flemingesque if not his actual words.
Through it all, Bond struggles against seemingly impossible odds and unbeatable villains. We are comforted by the knowledge that no matter the situation, no matter how high the stakes are, James Bond will come through. The villains will be beaten, Bond will end up with the lovely lady.
Until the recent movies, anyway…. Now, Bond can lose the lady (not unheard of in Fleming, though rare). He can fail in his mission. He can even….. die.
We have been accustomed to Bond surviving and getting the girl at the end. That has been the message of the preceding Bond movies, more than 20 of them. This is what people mean when they say NTTD “isn’t a Bond movie”.
Bond surviving is something we've become used to, yes. But I think there are other aspects that makes up a Bond movie. You mention locations, girls and the villans. There's also, humor, adventure, action etc. If I overlook the "small detail" of Bond finding the time to die I think Bond is in many ways more Bondian than some other Bond movies such as QoS.
I think this new film may need to be compared with Craig's first four, and not the first twenty or what Fleming wrote, regardless of being billed a James Bond movie and having a gun barrel at the beginning.
? You might want to rephrase that, N24, for clarity.
Edit- You're quite right, I didn't mention humour, adventure, action, etc. I was taking them as given and didn't want to add to an already long post.
I think NTTD can be compared to any of the earlier Bond movies in all other ways than his death and child and it holdes up. There too many Bond elements to mention here. I mean, other than Matilde and Bond not surviving, there's not much I miss. Perhaps a big, spectacular stunt or two.
Has anyone here seen the film more than once? I heard from online reviews that Bond's death becomes more palatable on subsequent viewings.
I know I came out of the cinema in shock, not knowing how to feel about Bond's death. It's either a bold move on the part of the producers, or chasing the trend of killing off heroes in recent TV series and films. I wonder how we will feel about it in years to come.
My problem isn't the death itself, shocking as it was, but that it feels out of character - the Bond of yore never gave up - and it's not earnt. Rather, he succumbs to the fruitlessness of his situation. If he does escape, he puts Madeleine and Mathilde at risk based on Q's knowledge of the nanobots. But surely they could always be reprogrammed or neutered as the technology evolved. I can understand how his sacrifice to let his loved ones live is meant to be heroic, but Bond gives up too easily; he's always been a character that would find a way no matter the odds. Even a Marvel-like hint that he might still be alive in some form at the end of the credits would have given viewers the hope they wanted/needed.
8. TMwtGG 9. AVtaK 10. TSWLM 11. SF 12. LtK 13. TND 14. YOLT
15. NTtD 16. MR 17. LaLD 18. GF 19. SP 20. DN 21. TB
22. TWiNE 23. DAD 24. QoS 25. DaF
I have. I actually found it less palatable the second time. The problem isn't Bond dying. It's fiction. That can always be undone. At the same time, the hero sacrificing himself is an old saw. The problem for me is three-fold:
1) NTTD's writing doesn't build to the death in either a thematic or dramatic way. It merely tacks it on, almost as an afterthought in the way it's portrayed.
2) The story makes Bond a dope. He's not only shot and infected with nanobots but calls in the very strike that kills him -- the only reason they're even racing the clock is because of Bond's action. I keep saying it, but he's Maxwell Smart done seriously. (In the vastly overrated Skyfall, he should have said, "Sorry about that, M," when she got shot.)
3) Bond films have served as escapist entertainment, sometimes more serious, sometimes less so. Even when Tracy is killed in OHMSS, we know Bond will be back and order in some fashion will be restored. Films and stories that pushed back against that presented a wholly different world of espionage -- the books of LeCarre and Deighton, for example, or TV shows like Callan or the original The Equalizer series. They were the antithesis of Bond, and they built an entire cynical world to prop that up. Take LeCarre's The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, for example. The opening scene at the checkpoint, like the Kobyashi Maru in the second Star Trek movie, is a mini-version of the rest of the story. Just as the poor agent trying to sneak back into West Germany is doomed, dying mere inches from freedom, so will be Leamas. But his descent will be fraught with choice and drama. In the end, he must die, not only because it's the only way out of the dirty business, but because in returning to it for one last mission, he involves a innocent idealist that he gets killed (and not to mention Fiedler, his counterpart in being used by his organization). NTTD has none of this grounding or development.
There's a lot of sentimentality to Bond's death in NTTD, just like there was a lot of sentimentality in Skyfall to suggest Bond was more than a foil or incompetent. But a lot of people like that and respond to the emotions. It's rather like listening to a pop song that's critical of something but not really paying attention to the lyrics because the melody is upbeat and you can dance to it. So, when I watched NTTD again, I paid even closer attention to the poor construction of the story. That is, if we're to see Bond as a bona fide hero as opposed to the deconstruction he sure seems to be.
I would add that a constant feature of all the Bond novels and films up to now has been their avoidance of domesticity. This has been a large part of their fantasy appeal to adults of both sexes: neither the men nor women in Bond's world are tied down by marriage or children (until now there has never been a child character of importance). But in NTTD Bond gains a de facto wife and a daughter who he cooks breakfast for and drives around in a Range Rover, along with carrying her toys and so on. These film kills Bond as a result--it would be impossible to keep making Bond films this continuity if Bond kept a "wife" and child to look after. Never before has a Bond film ended with such a hard reset.
Much of NTTD retains recognizably Bondian elements, all the way down to the echoes of Dr. No near the end. But the film's major departures from the essence of Bond--domesticity and genuine family, Bond's death and the hard reset--are radical departures and have overshadowed the film's Bondian elements in many people's minds.
@Mailfist talks about a Spectre orgy on a 12A certificate - do I need to see this film again? I seem to have missed that.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Absolutely, though even the domesticity is merely sketched. The story pays dramatic lip service to so many of the ideas it raises. I felt little chemistry with Swann and none really with Mathilde, who’s a rather affectless but otherwise ordinary little girl put in danger eventually. The effect is it’s more like we see the equivalent of photos of Bond’s domestic life than actual scenes. Even after two viewings, I don’t recall anything moving, charming, or salutary about the scenes. It’s the situation I have some sympathy for.
I’ve read some reviews that say much of the second half of the movie is really Swann’s story, not Bond’s, and there’s some truth to that since the movie is bookended by scenes with her. Bond at times does seem like a special guest star in another story. It’s interesting in this regard that so much focus is on Bond’s sacrifice and not the repetition of Swann’s childhood that Mathilde represents. She, too, loses a parent at a young age after having been exposed to great violence. Bond, an orphan, has orphaned her. It’s rather unsettling how being orphaned is a constant idea in the Craig universe. As much as domesticity is suggested in this movie, all five are really anti-family, including Blofeld’s patricide, the massacre and/or rape of Camille’s family, the assassination of Saffin’s family, and then ultimately the disruption of the Scooby gang through Bond’s demise, too. If the other Bonds merely presented a fantasy free of the shackles of domesticity, these seem to suggest it’s outright deadly to characters.
yes that makes sense: the story begins with Swann's flashback, and the plot is about the return of the monstrous character from that flashback. and as you say it ends with Swann. So its the second act, Bond's adventures in Jamaica and Cuba, that is the digression.
If Blofeld were the villain instead of Safin, the opening flashback sequence would not have had any place in the story, and a whole lot of Madeleine content would also be irrelevant, though not all. She still would be Blofeld's psychiatrist, thus the breakup scenes in Matera would still be part of the story, we'd just lose segue that links flashback to Matera, and all her dialog about "her secret" (which inspires Bond's distrust) . The scenes of Mathilde would lose much resonance because we are meant to compare Mathilde in peril to the flashback of Madeleine in peril.
I don't mind a Bond film that is told from the woman's point of view. Fleming certainly wrote a story from the woman's point of view that has not been adapted yet didn't he. I don't think we've seen an argument yet that Swann's role in this film parallels that of Vivienne Michel (because her role in the story more obviously contains aspects of Tracy and Kissy), but structurally its kinda sorta valid.
I read an essay a while back arguing the leading ladies in Bond films are more interesting when they are introduced to the viewer before Bond first sees them. Because we know them as a character independent of the hero, thus care more, rather than merely being an object perceived through the male hero's eyes. Try to think of the way female characters are introduced in the various films, and consider if that's true. Tracy and Vesper, the loves of Bonds life, are actually both introduced via Bond's gaze. So is Swann in SPECTRE, slightly complicated by the fact we first learn of her existence from her villainous father. So in SPECTRE our knowledge of Swann is filtered both by what her father says and what Bond sees, rather than her being able to introduce herself to the viewer independent of male perceptions. But in this new film we are experiencing events from her eyes, with a lengthy digression in the second act she could not possibly know about.