Discuss No Time to Die
Discuss → Movies → No Time to Die → General
Share your initial thoughts about No Time To Die *HEAVY SPOILER DISCUSSION*
posted by Russ007STAFFMOD on October 1, 2021 at 4:23 PM
I saw the film opening day at 7 minutes past midnight and I was definitely kept wide awake throughout.
That's not to say I absolutely loved the film but the pacing and story was good enough to keep me entertained and wondering where it was going to take me next. The acting in this film is fantastic. Craig and Seydoux are the highlights and in part because I finally see their chemistry, which was not apparent from SPECTRE. This is one of the biggest positives of the film and it retroactively improves the quality of the former entry. Taking time at the start to show them in their honeymoon phase as a couple was very important and I enjoyed the scene where they eventually reunite once again. And speaking of that scene can I just say that the children in this film are actually good actors? Crazy I know, but they're a part of the film the same as anyone else.
Safin was a let down if I'm honest. Malek is a great actor but I didn't find the role to be that deep. It's underwritten. His personal backstory is cool and I like how it connects to Swann and the events mentioned in SPECTRE, but his evil scheme is paper thin. I don't quite get his motivations either. Did he want to kill SPECTRE or was that Blofeld? No idea. Also, why did Safin describe himself to be a passionate man when he acts so dispassionately? It's just weird.
I don't like how Fiennes' M berates Bond once again. Can't the writers allow these two characters to be on the same side for one second? It's overplayed at this point. Although it did give way to one of my favorite lines of the film: "Sir, you must be really thirsty."
Anyways, let me talk about the ending. It's still hard to believe that James Bond is dead. Like no ambiguity dead. I didn't want to believe it until the explosions passed his body. Up until that point I thought a bit of Deus Ex Machina would happen, despite his poisoned blood. I get that his entire arc as Bond is meant to be tragic and he was always a tortured, doomed individual but it still hits hard. To think that the man in Casino Royale is now dead is just depressing. With every new film Bond is rumored to die and I never thought I would care if he did, but I was proven wrong. It hit me hard and I teared up in the cinema, at home afterwards and the day after. A hero, an icon is canonically dead. And he won't be 'alive' to save the world until the next actor takes on the role in 6 year's time.
Although I guess I can take solace in the fact that through his self-motivated sacrifice, which is ultimately what it was, he was able to save a woman he loved for the first and only time. Something he failed to do with Vesper in Casino Royale and M in Skyfall. He wanted Madeleine to live but could only do that by staying away from her. However, he knew this was impossible as his love was too strong and therefore at that point he had no more reason to live. It's also obvious that Bond couldn't live a life away from his profession. We saw this in CR and SF. He can't help himself from returning. There's something inside of him that refuses to watch the world burn and he'd rather die trying to stop it than sit back - no matter how peaceful (read: boring) life in Italy, Turkey or Jamaica is. I think this character trait is essential to what makes Bond tick and is best exemplified in M's quote at the end of the film about a man who chose to live life to the fullest instead of prolonging it needlessly.
So, what did everyone else think of the film?
Reply by RADIO1'S MR. MOVIE!-MAD AMI 🌠
on October 14, 2021 at 9:53 AM
@LisbethBond ...
Great comment..❕WANTED to post a very pertinent picture here; but the option doesn't seem to exist 😔
Reply by RADIO1'S MR. MOVIE!-MAD AMI 🌠
on October 17, 2021 at 6:42 AM
BRILLIANTLY STATED 👏 @mechajutaro
But let me ask you this... ( RHETORICAL )
"When was the last time -MISTER- JAMES BOND, AGENT 007 ( emphasis on the character as a MALE ) DIED . . . . in the EON FILM-FRANCHISE ( spoofs -DO NOT- count ) . . . .
. . . . to return AS -EXACTLY- THE SAME 👉 MALE 007❓".
FoodForThought💡
Reply by Midi-chlorian_Count
on October 17, 2021 at 8:53 AM
Yeah but George Lazenby Bond himself says "This never happened to the other fella" (after being beaten by some goons) at the start of OHMSS therefore acknowledging that Connery's Bond was another person.
Reply by Adam
on October 17, 2021 at 11:57 AM
That scene while intended to be funny should never have been filmed all the Bonds are the same person and he could've meant another 00 agent.
Reply by Midi-chlorian_Count
on October 17, 2021 at 1:05 PM
Well I'd certainly agree that it's just meant to be a funny aside, however it does exist within the film and therefore opens up the possibility within the early films cannon that Lazenby was a different Bond.
I think the intention was clearly meant to be a nod at Connery's Bond and if he'd meant another 00 agent it would only make sense if he'd said "This never happens to any of the other fellas" rather than what is said. Unless there were only two agents but then we're at least up to 007 so unlikely...
Reply by Adam
on October 17, 2021 at 2:04 PM
I did say he could have meant another 00 agent not 00 agents so he wouldn't have needed to say "fellas" I agree that it was a stupid decision to use that joke. Even so Lazenby's Bond is the same as Connery's. Writer brainfarts need to be treated as writer brainfarts and nothing symbolic.
Reply by Russ007
on October 18, 2021 at 12:26 PM
No matter what happened to Craig's Bond if he had lived or died at the end they were going to 'reboot' again. Just like with the old films how each new actor was introduced without any explanation (not counting Lazenby's meta reference) or how it transitioned from Brosnan to Craig, the same thing will happen post NTTD. It wouldn't make sense to actually reference the previous James Bonds anyways, as this would mean the name isn't their real name. Instead it would have to be assigned, which is not how it has ever worked. So even if Craig's portrayal of Bond had lived the next film was always going to ignore that story arc as it's finished. I doubt they'll even keep the MI6 team for the next one since they're too closely associated with Craig and it would confuse people.
Reply by Ask Me Anything
on October 18, 2021 at 1:40 PM
True, but that's not an excuse to piss in the formula. They've been making these movies for over 60 years and none of the Bond movies (so far) has lost money, because there are certain fundamental things people like about this franchise and this character. Tweaking the formula to keep with the times is fine, but killing him off? That was an incredibly stupid move and I can only assume it was a political choice given the "post METOO" label they tried to put on it. I know what that's code for.
Hollywood has made a pattern over the last 6 years to kill off every beloved masculine male character they can from Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, He-Man, John Connor, etc and rarely in a way that makes any sense like with Iron Man, and every time they do it there's typically a woman to take the dead male character's place. It's why I know Indiana Jones is next on the chopping block and why I knew they wouldn't re-cast Black Panther after Chadwick Boseman died since it was the perfect excuse to make his sister the main character.
Reply by thaira
on October 19, 2021 at 12:46 AM
Can tell you're an old geezer when you've included He-Man. Women are not the enemy.
So gross to even say that about Chadwick Boseman's death. "Excuse". For the record, I think Letitia Wright would be an awful Black Panther. If Indiana Jones is next, it'll be because of Harrison Ford, not the Me Too agenda you think filmmakers have.
Reply by Ask Me Anything
on October 19, 2021 at 6:59 PM
Excuse me? Did I say women were the enemy? The same people who love to destroy masculine characters also hate deceptions of feminine women as well as any real woman who speaks out against gender politics or don't bend the knee to the mob. If these same people tried to replace Buffy, Xena, Charlie's Angels etc with men I'd be against that too, but that's not part of their agenda (unless it's to strip those characters of their sexuality and make them man-hating feminists) because the goal of these people is to destroy/replace popular male/masculine characters, period.
You're right it is gross that they would use Chadwick's death as an excuse to push their message instead of just recasting the character like they've done a dozen times with Batman/Superman/Spider-Man etc. And it seems Letita hasn't been towing "the message" publicaly so even though she is a strong black woman of color she is the "wrong" type of strong woman of color so they'll get rid of her sooner or later just like they got rid of the lady from Mandalorian. These people are all in favor of elevating women's voices and providing a platform for them to speak their mind as long as they're speaking "the message".
Reply by Clubliefde
on November 12, 2021 at 2:10 PM
Ana de Armas the only redeeming feature.
Reply by Clubliefde
on November 12, 2021 at 2:10 PM
Ana de Armas the only redeeming feature.
Reply by Ask Me Anything
on November 12, 2021 at 3:38 PM
Yeah... pretty much.
Saw the movie the other night. Not as bad as I was expecting, but my god was it overly sentimental. It's hardly a Bond movie. 20 minutes of pre-credit sequence, half of which dedicated to Bond's wife that could have easily been cut out. Also Bond is such a moron in this. That he would assume his wife betrayed him because some goober hinted at it and even though they tried to kill her too. Also how did Bond not die with a bomb blown up in his face? It actually makes me question his death at the end.
Léa Seydoux is such a wooden plank of an actress. Why/how Bond is madly in love with her just doesn't make any sense to me. And the nano bots that kill based on DNA is a direct ripoff of an episode of Fringe.
Reply by Ask Me Anything
on November 12, 2021 at 4:18 PM
She kind of has inbred face to me, but to each his own. Bond could have done better is what I'm saying.
Reply by Ask Me Anything
on November 12, 2021 at 9:28 PM
The difference is when you said Eva Green looked like a transsexual I laughed and didn't get upset or feel the need to simp for a woman I'll never meet. I prefer Green, you prefer Lea, I'm willing to leave it at that.
But Casino Royale is the superior movie to this and Spectre, by far. These last two movies were bloated and boring (though Spectre at least has a good pre-title sequence).