No Time To Die (now contains spoilers!) Ha

I thought Eilish's was pretty good tbh.

I thought the film was good, probably my favourite of Craig's era. Not sure what they'll do next.

My only bugbear apart from the slightly hazy motivations that people have mentioned was
Didn't Malak seem a little young to be playing a guy that had threatened Madelaine when she was a child? He seems a similar age to her.

I thought Ana de Armas was the best thing in the film, her scenes were excellent and I wish her character had been in it more. Seems a shame we got her for so little time and instead got the slightly bland new 00 agent. I do wish they'd put her in a less ridiculous dress though that she could have actually done those moves without falling out of :eek:

Not surprised to see another overclockers film thread complaining about gay/black/female characters though. This place really can be a cesspool.
 
Just seen and as always another meh standard Bond film. Felt a lot slower this one though but hey ho, you always know what you are going into with these. Roll on Dune :cool:
 
Simmz said:
Just seen and as always another meh standard Bond film. Felt a lot slower this one though but hey ho, you always know what you are going into with these. Roll on Dune :cool:
Click to expand...

Dune looked terrible to be fair from the trailer, but then I must say I thought the original was absolute garbage, so I'm probably not going to be seeing the trailer with much expectation anyway :D
 
I just wanted to ask if I am the only person who thinks the following about "Bond" in general - because now I'm starting to think I'm the only one looking at it this way :)
So I've always considered "James Bond" as nothing more than a name. That the change in actor isn't just somebody else playing the same person - rather they are playing someone called "James Bond".
You couldn't have an agent in the 60's, 70's, 80's......2020's - it couldn't possibly be "the same man" but it is somebody called "James Bond" who happens to be a spy, who happens to have similar mannerisms, etc.

We never see a Bond die, we never see any acknowledgement that the James Bond today isn't the James Bond that was around 30 years ago, it's just an accepted thing - that there will always be a spy called "James Bond" just not necessarily the same one. They will come and go.....

I obviously wrongly assumed this was a thing......... :)
 
I consider each bond actor to be a full reboot of the franchise and has nothing to do with the previous films except the IP (which is typically how it’s else elsewhere like marvel, trek etc.).

Bond films with the same lead actor all follow on from each other.

Personally for me, they need a whole new cast next time round with no no one carried forward.
 
stoofa said:
I just wanted to ask if I am the only person who thinks the following about "Bond" in general - because now I'm starting to think I'm the only one looking at it this way :)
So I've always considered "James Bond" as nothing more than a name. That the change in actor isn't just somebody else playing the same person - rather they are playing someone called "James Bond".
You couldn't have an agent in the 60's, 70's, 80's......2020's - it couldn't possibly be "the same man" but it is somebody called "James Bond" who happens to be a spy, who happens to have similar mannerisms, etc.
Click to expand...
You're not the only one, as that was a theory sort-of retconned into the later novels by authors other than Fleming (Kingsley Amis or Ray Benson, I think), to explain how come Bond was stil alive and going after so many decades... I think someone else tried it with just the name being a codename for a long standing position with several incumbents.

However, if you take either as a blanket for the continuity, it still doesn't explain how come all these different Bonds just happen to have gone through some remarkably similar and almost unique experiences growing up. Several had Scottish fathers and Swiss mothers who died in the same accident, went to Eton, were married to similar women, etc etc...

Personally I see it the same as a Shakespearean character, playable within any suitable time period, by any actor who roughly matches the literary description... which basically means Timothy Dalton was the best Bond! :D
 
I enjoyed it a lot. Lot's of 'Bond' moments with the gadgets and cars. Craig was excellent as were all the cast really. Yeah, main villain was a bit weak and under developed but can overlook that.
Ending did seem to scream re-write with I guess the original plan being

have Bond finally have everything he'd ever want and then the tragedy of never being able to touch or be near them again. I'm guessing maybe Craig asked to be killed off? Dying kinda made the having the disease a mute plot point?
Mrs, who is pretty much in love with Bond was gutted at the end. Jon Snow (Game of Thrones SPOILER INCOMING!) being stabbed in the heart sad.

Anyway - very good overall.
 
I really enjoyed the movie, it helped that I watched Spectre again the night before as I was aware of the continuation in story.

I wasn't a fan of the new 007, she was very mediocre, unlike Ana de Armas who was a total badass.

I wasn't convinced by the sudden rush to blow up the facility, they could have taken a number of different options, but I guess it makes for a heroic death for Bond.
 
ttaskmaster said:
You're not the only one, as that was a theory sort-of retconned into the later novels by authors other than Fleming (Kingsley Amis or Ray Benson, I think), to explain how come Bond was stil alive and going after so many decades... I think someone else tried it with just the name being a codename for a long standing position with several incumbents.

However, if you take either as a blanket for the continuity, it still doesn't explain how come all these different Bonds just happen to have gone through some remarkably similar and almost unique experiences growing up. Several had Scottish fathers and Swiss mothers who died in the same accident, went to Eton, were married to similar women, etc etc...

Personally I see it the same as a Shakespearean character, playable within any suitable time period, by any actor who roughly matches the literary description... which basically means Timothy Dalton was the best Bond! :D
Click to expand...

I guess I explain all that away as it being "Bond's backstory" no matter who he is. It's a different person "being Bond", but when being trained as a Spy they give him the same backstory each time - it's tried and tested, it's in place :)
It's strange, I am not a massive Bond fan. Don't get me wrong, I'll happily sit down and watch a Bond movie - but I don't count down the days until the next movie is released. But....it's one of the only franchise where I actually put that level of thought into the main character, backstory, continuity.....
 
I enjoyed it but thought Malik came across as a camp vampire rather than scary villain.

There were a few weak points that could be pointed out but in general it was a decent movie.
 
Enjoyed it apart from the Guardian trope wokeness and a organisation like Spectre can be outwitted by a bloke with bad skin and a secret base with zero resources.
 
Just got back from watching. Didn't really enjoy it to be honest. Found a lot of it slow and boring. Also does everything it can to take away what made Bond, Bond in previous iterations.

Just a dark gritty thriller nowadays instead. Not what I want from Bond. Start your own franchise if you want to change things that drastic.

Loathe to use the woke word as it seems your opinion immediately becomes invalid prior, but it does seem an inane trend across all films lately. I do find myself agreeing with most of the points the antiwoke reviewers put across.

Last film I saw in the cinema was the 2nd new star wars. After about 30 years of considering myself a die hard fan, I never even saw the last film in the trilogy.
Bond gave me similar vibes. If it gets rebooted in a new direction after Craig ill probably check out the next one but wont be getting excited.
 
This sits around 3rd in the Craig Bonds for me, after Casino Royale and Skyfall - it starts really strong, opening is great, the tonal shifts around Cuba/mid movie are a touch jarring. The villain seemed a bit wishy washy, seen better fleshed out MCU villains. Overall I did like it, just can't think too hard about it as the more thought I give it, the more things i'm finding wrong.
 
Shamikebab said:
My only bugbear apart from the slightly hazy motivations that people have mentioned was - Didn't Malak seem a little young to be playing a guy that had threatened Madelaine when she was a child? He seems a similar age to her.
Click to expand...

I thought this at first, but not really.

Madeline was born in 1986 according to some James Bond Wiki. Lets assume she was 10 in the opening so that would make it 1996

Safin could have been 18. We never actually see his face...If 'No Time to Die' is supposed to take place in 2020 then she's 34 and he could be 42. Rami Malek himself is 40.
 
Saw this a week ago and looking back, Malek was a good casting but his character was underutilized, just like Christoph Waltz in Spectre.

A few mentions of the dialogue being poor on here. I agree although the thing most jarring for me was Daniel Craig's wooden acting when saying more than a few words. I can't remember if Craig ever spoke much in previous films, but the way he got up on his soap box towards the end was b-movie stuff.

Overall it was entertaining fluff but the Bond franchise has become too big a target for modern identity politics that the producers failed to make something great. It was around Skyfall time that I realized I preferred the Mission Impossible franchise and that hasn't changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom