Soldato
Is it anything like bond of old like connery or moore bonds or more like brosnen and newer ones? I never liked any of the new ones i.e 90s or later, there just too flashy i like old school stuff.
No Time To Die (now contains spoilers!) Ha
- Thread starter the shadow
- Start date
I feel its a really risky move, the movies have always been James Bond X, suddenly making the change to 007 I feel would give it a completely different spin, even if most people associate 007 with James Bond.
It's definitely not bond like. It's nothing like all the previous film. I didn't hate it as a film, that was all good. But I was quite disappointed with it as a James Bond plot.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 7,979
More like a John Wick/Jason Bourne to be honest
Just got back from it. I gave it a 7/10 in the "what you watched" thread.
I really enjoyed the first half. I'm not invested in Bond at all, in that I didn't grow up with them and to be honest I've not seen any of the old ones pre-Craig, but I think the opening sequence with the car is the kind of scene you'd want/expect in a Bond film, so that was a good start. But I felt the Rami Malek's character was just completely underdeveloped. He's introduced, forgotten about for 1/4 of the film, is built up to be this villain-above-all-other-villains character, even worse than Blofeld who fronted a super intricate terrorist supergroup, but he had so little screentime, I just didn't feel like they built him up enough to warrant the threat he supposedly posed. It was just "here's this guy intent on getting revenge, who also turns out to be a bit of a stalker, oh and he has a secret poison island, oh wait Bond killed him already and he's gone".
Also, I feel like a bit of a forced attempt at trying to tie all of Craig's films together, and I didn't really feel it that necessary. Like why is he so obsessed with Vesper Lynd? 4 movies on and he's still obssessed about her. And the way they had to almost carry on or tie up the loose ends of Spectre, not only did it take away time that could've been spent developing Safin instead, but it also left me a bit puzzled halfway through the film as to who exactly they were setting up as the villain - Blofeld again, or Safin? There was just an awkward transition trying to finish up Blofeld's story, and re-introduce Safin to have him finish up the remainder of the movie.
Also, I feel like a bit of a forced attempt at trying to tie all of Craig's films together, and I didn't really feel it that necessary. Like why is he so obsessed with Vesper Lynd? 4 movies on and he's still obssessed about her. And the way they had to almost carry on or tie up the loose ends of Spectre, not only did it take away time that could've been spent developing Safin instead, but it also left me a bit puzzled halfway through the film as to who exactly they were setting up as the villain - Blofeld again, or Safin? There was just an awkward transition trying to finish up Blofeld's story, and re-introduce Safin to have him finish up the remainder of the movie.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 7,979
Agree
It feels like they cut 20-30mins from the run time which would have developed Safin as the villain. Wonder if the original cut showed more of his family and what happened to him and his parents at the hands of Spectre, hence his drive for revenge.
Possibly too much of graphic/traumatic theme to get the age rating they wanted so elements were cut.
Possibly too much of graphic/traumatic theme to get the age rating they wanted so elements were cut.
( start another spoiler thread like reddit )
yes - Not sure violence was part of the original books - a gentleman spy(the pen is mightier than the sword), but the recent bond producers have played along with latest demographics taste, a la Bourne, only limited by keeping it in that 15 rating demographic - like Joker in UK
Probably not coincidental that casino royal and golden eye shared same director, the recent highlights .... versus specte & skyfall - Mendes
yes - Not sure violence was part of the original books - a gentleman spy(the pen is mightier than the sword), but the recent bond producers have played along with latest demographics taste, a la Bourne, only limited by keeping it in that 15 rating demographic - like Joker in UK
Probably not coincidental that casino royal and golden eye shared same director, the recent highlights .... versus specte & skyfall - Mendes
I think the film is already quite long, adding in 20/30 mins of that would mean cutting out 20-30 mins of some other part of the story.
Oh, one criticism I totally forgot to mention was that I felt the film was a bit overly long as it is, so I'm not sure I'd have liked an even longer extended cut. I think to make it a bit tighter, they maybe could've eliminated the Logan Ash subplot, the entire forest scene, and just used that time on Safin instead
Who's their favourite Bond?
Caporegime
I far prefer the rough Bourne style Craig Bond, where he's at least vaguely believable as a secret service badass, to the camp prancing and preening Brosnan-style films, where you feel he is more likely to serve you a cocktail than a beating.
I totally disagree that Craig doesn't 'do suave' very well.
Craig is the best Bond hands down and Casino Royale is my favourite Bond movie; going to try and see this film next weekend.
I totally disagree that Craig doesn't 'do suave' very well.
Craig is the best Bond hands down and Casino Royale is my favourite Bond movie; going to try and see this film next weekend.
LMAO
To address a point in your spoiler
you seriously have to ask why is he so obsessed with Vesper?
Man of Honour
The ending is still bumming me out when I think about it. Properly got to me just because I think it was so well done and I guess because I’ve known that Bond for 15 years now.
I was the same when *Avengers Endgame Spoiler*
Ironman died in Avengers. Funnily enough they both had young daughters, which makes it even sadder. I’m just a wuss basically
I was the same when *Avengers Endgame Spoiler*
Ironman died in Avengers. Funnily enough they both had young daughters, which makes it even sadder. I’m just a wuss basically
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,072
Casino Royale is a flawless film. It could have come out yesterday.
I keep saying this - but it is Martin Campbell that needs to be return for the next one
I keep saying this - but it is Martin Campbell that needs to be return for the next one
I saw it for the second time last night, and surprisingly having only been a couple of days since my first watch it nipped along quite nicely. I saw/heard new bits that added to it and was not bored at all. So I think it'll stand up in time.
I think what most people might complain about is that (without spoilers) the main plot points are based around Bond himself rather than Safin and his plan. It's a personal story, but I like that.
I think what most people might complain about is that (without spoilers) the main plot points are based around Bond himself rather than Safin and his plan. It's a personal story, but I like that.
Soldato
This might well be my favourite Bond film yet, did the job of sending Craig off well and wrapped up 'his Bond' story.
Why is (in)famous womaniser James Bond, man who can charm his way into any woman's panties and has a new floozie every film so obsessed with one woman? Yeah, I do question it a bit. Like I say, I come into these with zero knowledge of the lore and these characters as they appeared in the novels/past movies, and I understand that James' infactuation with Vesper, coupled with the betrayal in Casio Royale probably left some complicated psychological scars for James unlike other Bond girls, but to still harken back to it 4 movies later...the following 2-3 movies after Casino Royale, sure, show he's still feeling for her, but 4 movies on and literally his final swansong movie 15 years later, I just couldn't help think "wow, he's still going on about Vesper?" when I saw her grave.
Maybe another thing is that I expect with Bond films (perhaps wrongly so), is for them to be largely self-contained, whereas NTTD, moreso than the previous Craig films, felt like they were trying to actually directly refer back to the previous films to create a more continuous story. I'm not sure if any of the pre-Craig films lead on from one another at all, but my criticism in my previous post with it kind of detracting from this film by them doing this, maybe has an influence in the back of my mind about the inclusion of Vesper in this one too.
Maybe another thing is that I expect with Bond films (perhaps wrongly so), is for them to be largely self-contained, whereas NTTD, moreso than the previous Craig films, felt like they were trying to actually directly refer back to the previous films to create a more continuous story. I'm not sure if any of the pre-Craig films lead on from one another at all, but my criticism in my previous post with it kind of detracting from this film by them doing this, maybe has an influence in the back of my mind about the inclusion of Vesper in this one too.
Just back from the cinema....................7/10
Not a huge action packed opening scene, but was a good introduction.
Did not feel like Bond, but some parts it did, the DB5 scene was very cool.
007 is officially a designation.
They managed to get a female black 007 in - yawn.
The managed to shoe horn in Q is gay - yawn.
M was a complete caricature of Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes - they are meant to have conflict, but they always had the answers and the interest of the country at heart. This M was a joke.
Rami Malek - very underused and a crap death.
Bond dies? WTF?! If this was any other movie, it would be a fitting end and i suppose it was a fitting end for Daniel Craig, but it ruined the movie for me. Bond doesn't die, Bond returns. So unless they keep it as canon and the designation is handed over, it seemed they were bowing down to a dramatic ending for Daniel Craig. There's also the consideration that Bond has a Daughter and a serious love interest.
I would have preferred a more happy ending.
Did not feel like Bond, but some parts it did, the DB5 scene was very cool.
007 is officially a designation.
They managed to get a female black 007 in - yawn.
The managed to shoe horn in Q is gay - yawn.
M was a complete caricature of Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes - they are meant to have conflict, but they always had the answers and the interest of the country at heart. This M was a joke.
Rami Malek - very underused and a crap death.
Bond dies? WTF?! If this was any other movie, it would be a fitting end and i suppose it was a fitting end for Daniel Craig, but it ruined the movie for me. Bond doesn't die, Bond returns. So unless they keep it as canon and the designation is handed over, it seemed they were bowing down to a dramatic ending for Daniel Craig. There's also the consideration that Bond has a Daughter and a serious love interest.
I would have preferred a more happy ending.
Soldato
Great film this one. Saw it at the cinema...was exciting stuff and rarely dragged. 7.5/10
Didn't feel as gritty as his previous films though.
Didn't feel as gritty as his previous films though.
Sad ending...think he deserved better! Rami Malek was a bit crap. NO where near enough Ana de Armas...not even close. The female 007 was a huge let down...she has been talked up way too much in advance of this film. No chance she'll take over...zero.
Oh, and Hugh ******* Dennis? WTF. Dumb!
Oh, and Hugh ******* Dennis? WTF. Dumb!
Last edited: