It was. I waited right to the very end. It was there but damn they made us wait for it!
Spoilers No Time to Die - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
I gave it an 8, which feels a trifle unfair and repeat viewings might see that upped. To be honest it was 9 or 10 most of the way through, but I thought the final act was messy and I still can't quite figure out what Saffin's plan was. I mean I know he was going to kill a whole heap of people, but who exactly, and what did he hope to gain from it? Not a great villain and that's the crying shame of Daniel Craig's era, one fantastic villain (Silva) one good villain (Le Chiffre) and three meh villains.
But damn when this film was good, it was VERY good. Fantastic action scenes and a huge improvement on Spectre. I did feel very numb when I walked out though (not from the run time which didn't remotely feel like almost three hours- a good sign)
Repeat viewings will be essential to determine quite how I feel about it, but right now I'd probably say my Daniel Craig era rankings are as follows:
1. Skyfall
2. Casino Royale
3. No Time to Die
4. Quantum of Solace
5. Spectre
NTTD is much closer to the top two than the bottom two however.
But damn when this film was good, it was VERY good. Fantastic action scenes and a huge improvement on Spectre. I did feel very numb when I walked out though (not from the run time which didn't remotely feel like almost three hours- a good sign)
Repeat viewings will be essential to determine quite how I feel about it, but right now I'd probably say my Daniel Craig era rankings are as follows:
1. Skyfall
2. Casino Royale
3. No Time to Die
4. Quantum of Solace
5. Spectre
NTTD is much closer to the top two than the bottom two however.
That approach worked well for 40 years and I don’t doubt that if they’d just had Craig take over from Brosnan, surrounded him with Dench, Colin Salmon, John Cleese and Michael Kitchen and carried on as if this was the same guy, audiences would have accepted it. Indeed, I remember being baffled at the very idea that Bond would get an origin story.
But, cinema and audiences have changed and so has the franchise. For the first time, there has been a James Bond with a beginning
and an end. A very definite end at that. M, Moneypenny, Q and Tanner all toasted him. They can’t just bring back the same supporting cast, it’s going to look very odd. I don’t think they’ll do another Bond Begins origin story but they may feel that just kicking off a new series of adventures with a new actor without some sort of explanation doesn’t work after a five-picture arc. It’s pretty much uncharted territory for the Bond series.
Call it what you like though, it will be a reboot - the new Bond will not be the same one as played by Daniel Craig, for obvious reasons and he’ll be too young to have been the Cold War veteran played by Brosnan etc.
Call it what you like though, it will be a reboot - the new Bond will not be the same one as played by Daniel Craig, for obvious reasons and he’ll be too young to have been the Cold War veteran played by Brosnan etc.
Hopefully the next Bond will already be a seasoned 00, I wonder if they'll return to more standalone films as well? Of course given they (apparently) haven't sat down to even start contemplating the future yet, Bond #26 might be some time off.
I get the feeling that it'd be disrespectful to Craig when his last film hadn't aired, but Its a shame they didn't use lockdown to start planning the post Craig era, if they had we might have only had to wait two years for the next film. As it stands I doubt we'll get one before 2024 at the earliest.
I get the feeling that it'd be disrespectful to Craig when his last film hadn't aired, but Its a shame they didn't use lockdown to start planning the post Craig era, if they had we might have only had to wait two years for the next film. As it stands I doubt we'll get one before 2024 at the earliest.
As long as they make Bond a playboy again and that he doesn’t fall in love with every bloody women he meets.
He doesn’t even sleep with any of the new Bond girls in this and that is just inexcusable.
I did like what the villain did to Bond at the end. It was very similar to what Lex did to Clark and Lana in Smallville.
He doesn’t even sleep with any of the new Bond girls in this and that is just inexcusable.
I did like what the villain did to Bond at the end. It was very similar to what Lex did to Clark and Lana in Smallville.
This is as close as to regeneration closure as we'll ever get
Funnily, Fleming’s Bond constantly fell in love with nearly every woman and was always ready to walk down the isle.
But yes, Craig was never as smitten with his ladies as Fleming’s was.
I was wondering that too. He doesn't explain who he's going to kill. Were they all criminal organizations? What exactly was he wanting or hoping to gain is never made clear.
Then you have to take the character back to the 1950s because he will no longer be able to get away with doing onscreen what he did before if you keep him in the 21st Century.
Bond can still be a playboy today. Just don’t write problematic scenes like the barn in GF or the blackmail on TB.
Exactly. Both of those examples are from the 60’s.
Both of those scenes were added for the films. They weren't in the novels.
The novels are very different things in most cases.
They weren't in the novels, but the novels still had cringe that would not fly today.
In the novel, Pussy doesn't really take a liking to Bond until the very end, right after the plane crash that had Goldfinger being blown out of the window. It really just comes out of nowhere, so much so that even Bond is surprised by her sudden turn.
Bond: "They told me you only like women."
Pussy: "I've never met a man before."
In the novel, Pussy doesn't really take a liking to Bond until the very end, right after the plane crash that had Goldfinger being blown out of the window. It really just comes out of nowhere, so much so that even Bond is surprised by her sudden turn.
Bond: "They told me you only like women."
Pussy: "I've never met a man before."
There's vague reference to him having the DNA profiles of thousands of other people beyond Spectre, presumably MI6, CIA, FSB etc but there's no real indication what he's going to do with that info. Then there are these fast boats approaching Saffin's island, I don't think it's made clear who they are but presumably they're coming to acquire the weapon? It is a shame that a film almost three hours long can't spend a minute or two making the villain's motivations a little more explicit.
I was thinking those boats are either for leaving the island or they are buyers of the weapon. I'm guessing Sony doesn't want to say it's North Korea or China so they left it ambiguous. The whole villain plot just feels like something that wasn't all that necessary. It's not really the story of the film.
I think Safin was emulating Hugo Drax and Karl Stromberg by culling the global population of "undesirables" and remaking the wrecked world according to his warped vision - those boats were perhaps not buyers from North Korea, they were more likely Safin's private transport (and it's implied he gained access to a lot of SPECTRE's resources and mooks following the Cuban incident).
Greene, Blofeld, and Safin weren't terrible antagonists on principle (and they perhaps have a bit more fire in them than the flatter MCU villains) though Greene was let down by being a middle man, Blofeld was an interesting update of a 60s/70s style villain but driven by laughable pettiness, and Safin had a murky inner life with limited screentime.
Sony is not involved in this film. Their partnership with MGM expired with SPECTRE, and Universal won a bidding war to partner as the new co-producer for just one film. After this, it's all with Amazon's backing.
About the universe debate, there was a painting of Bernard Lee, who played M from 1962 to 1979.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
