No Time To Die (now contains spoilers!) Ha

Dialup said:
Holy thread revival Batman!

Only Casino Royale was really good. Spectre was decent, to be fair even QoS has aged better than No Time To Die, which I'm still angry about. The dialogue in that film was really weird, like something out of uncanny valley.
Click to expand...
To be honest, the only Craigbond film I liked was Skyfall. CR I've long since forgotten. I think the only part of that movie I remember was the Nutcracker Suite.

QoS was dire. The worst one until seeing NTTD, tonight. But this... this is another level of terrible.
 
FoxEye said:
To be honest, the only Craigbond film I liked was Skyfall. CR I've long since forgotten. I think the only part of that movie I remember was the Nutcracker Suite.

QoS was dire. The worst one until seeing NTTD, tonight. But this... this is another level of terrible.
Click to expand...

The dialogue in QoS didn't take me out of the film. There's a line in NTTD, "time to die" or something from Jane Bond and it's said so badly I'm astonished it is in the film.
 
jpaul said:
If the female 007 continues it will be interesting to see how they handle romantic/lothario aspect of the original character.
Click to expand...
If a female 007 it's going to be another awful "powerful woman defeats entire room of male combatants in hand-to-hand combat" which is one of those tropes I genuinely can't stand.

It's bad enough that male Bond has turned into a videogame/comic book, with enemies that can't shoot and exist just to be cardboard cut-outs for Bond to mow down. Honestly, Bond now shoots like Max Payne, only without the slow-mo. With some kind of 6th sense that tells him where the enemies are, and unerring accuracy to headshot them 3 at a time, even when he can't see them. It's pure video game... or if you prefer, that awful Keanu vehicle, John Wick 3.

But I guarantee you... that if it's a female Bond, they won't be able to resist having her beat up entire rooms of men. Because for some inexplicable reason that's supposed to be empowering for women/girls? Rather than just cringey.
 
FoxEye said:
Saw this for the first time tonight.

Genuinely one of the worse films I've seen in my lifetime. Equal to Prometheus in the dire stakes.

There was almost nothing good about any of it.

The action is 100% video game, now. Bond even has regenerating health, it seems.

The script was just the most mindless, boring, inexplicable, contrived, disjointed, incomprehensible, garbage.

The overall experience was horrid and I will not be watching this a second time, for any reason. Much like I won't be seeking out the Noro virus for another try. Once was sufficient.


I'm having serious doubts about that.
Click to expand...
Lot of films are like games these days.

I like the car at the start. Also the destroyer at the end .
 
OspreyO said:
Not sure bond ever did take itself seriously.
Click to expand...
The Craigbond films do, tho. The tone is very different to earlier Bond films.

Anyway, it's just lazy, really. Why bother with stacking Bond against 500 enemies that just stand and die? It's not even interesting.

Really they just seem to do it because it's a trope, and expected? And they can't (or won't) think of anything else?
 
Dialup said:
Holy thread revival Batman!

Only Casino Royale was really good. Spectre was decent, to be fair even QoS has aged better than No Time To Die, which I'm still angry about. The dialogue in that film was really weird, like something out of uncanny valley.
Click to expand...
Daniel himself said in a 2021 interview the weight of it suddenly hit him and wasn't fun, which impacted his acting the 2nd film. Essentially said too much knowledge about what people expect, thoughts on Bond as a whole, legacy, responsibility just hit him, whilst the first was honeymoon period.

It's pretty clear he didn't enjoy the experience as a whole. They get zero input on the dialogue, it's all completely planned out in such meticulous detail so far in advance that they basically get wheeled out for a few minutes of dialogue then it's waiting again.

Batista said Daniel wasn't happy in Spectre, no smiles, never seen, cast were never together, never talking or interacting with each other off camera because you're not needed as it's months or years apart for certain scenes. Whilst in Glass Onion he was the complete opposite and everyone was having fun, on and off camera.

It's not easy making these kinds of films, you get unimaginable wealth, recognition for life but you're totally limited as an actor for the best part of 15 years. You get zero creative input, everything is utterly controlled, it's a very limited character.

They need to reduce the complexity for little pay off and get these movies out every 3 years tops, it was 2 in Brosnan's era. Less by committee film making would also help.
 
 
Ali195 said:
Daniel himself said in a 2021 interview the weight of it suddenly hit him and wasn't fun, which impacted his acting the 2nd film. Essentially said too much knowledge about what people expect, thoughts on Bond as a whole, legacy, responsibility just hit him, whilst the first was honeymoon period.

It's pretty clear he didn't enjoy the experience as a whole. They get zero input on the dialogue, it's all completely planned out in such meticulous detail so far in advance that they basically get wheeled out for a few minutes of dialogue then it's waiting again.

Batista said Daniel wasn't happy in Spectre, no smiles, never seen, cast were never together, never talking or interacting with each other off camera because you're not needed as it's months or years apart for certain scenes. Whilst in Glass Onion he was the complete opposite and everyone was having fun, on and off camera.

It's not easy making these kinds of films, you get unimaginable wealth, recognition for life but you're totally limited as an actor for the best part of 15 years. You get zero creative input, everything is utterly controlled, it's a very limited character.

They need to reduce the complexity for little pay off and get these movies out every 3 years tops, it was 2 in Brosnan's era. Less by committee film making would also help.
 
Click to expand...
Well you say all this, but Daniel Craig was the one who ultimately pushed for
James Bond to finally die

Which has never been in a James Bond before.
 
FoxEye said:
It's bad enough that male Bond has turned into a videogame/comic book, with enemies that can't shoot and exist just to be cardboard cut-outs for Bond to mow down. Honestly, Bond now shoots like Max Payne, only without the slow-mo. With some kind of 6th sense that tells him where the enemies are, and unerring accuracy to headshot them 3 at a time, even when he can't see them. It's pure video game... or if you prefer, that awful Keanu vehicle, John Wick 3.
Click to expand...
He's had extensive VR training, duh!
iu
 
Last edited:
FoxEye said:
The Craigbond films do, tho. The tone is very different to earlier Bond films.
Click to expand...

Yea exactly.

This goes for any movie not just James Bond movies.

But you either have to go realistic, or wacky/not to be taken seriously.

If you go realistic it needs to be believable. Imo nothing worse than a movie that takes itself seriously then just has stupid absurd things happen, because imo in taints everything else in the movie and you start thinking the entire thing is ridiculous.

Or go wacky, if you start out going ridiculous, unashamedly, not to taken seriously and purely for entertainment factor, fine, love it, often they make better movies.

But you can't have both.
 
FoxEye said:
Saw this for the first time tonight.

Genuinely one of the worse films I've seen in my lifetime. Equal to Prometheus in the dire stakes.

There was almost nothing good about any of it.

The action is 100% video game, now. Bond even has regenerating health, it seems.

The script was just the most mindless, boring, inexplicable, contrived, disjointed, incomprehensible, garbage.

The overall experience was horrid and I will not be watching this a second time, for any reason. Much like I won't be seeking out the Noro virus for another try. Once was sufficient.


I'm having serious doubts about that.
Click to expand...
Oppemhimer is a good one to watch
 
I think a good example for a say The Shawshank Redemption and Back To The Future.

Shawshank is what I'd consider a serious movie, but it's plausible, great acting and story.

Back To The Future is almost the opposite scale.

Both very different style, both have got to be 9/10 movies for me.

But it seems more these days you are not sure if it's Shawshank or Back To The Future, some awkward mix of both and it doesn't work.

This exactly how I think of Craig's JB movies.
 
Well he was responsible for 2 of the greatest, Casino Royale and Skyfall. They're up there with Goldfinger and Spy who Loved Me in my opinion. I think the strike in the middle of his run didnt help. But at least we have him in Glass Onion now and i really hope they do a few more in that series. Theyre a lot of fun :)
 
BUDFORCE said:
Yea exactly.

This goes for any movie not just James Bond movies.

But you either have to go realistic, or wacky/not to be taken seriously.

If you go realistic it needs to be believable. Imo nothing worse than a movie that takes itself seriously then just has stupid absurd things happen, because imo in taints everything else in the movie and you start thinking the entire thing is ridiculous.

Or go wacky, if you start out going ridiculous, unashamedly, not to taken seriously and purely for entertainment factor, fine, love it, often they make better movies.

But you can't have both.
Click to expand...
I think the DC Bond era struggled a bit here. I think they saw the negative response to Die Another Day turning up the 'absurd' to 11 (and stuff like Bourne doing well) and decided to go with a serious tone. They've subsequently had some criticism it was a bit too serious and not 'Bond' enough and struggled to try and mix a bit of absurdity into the serious formula but it didn't feel right trying to take something serious and make a bit more bonkers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom