Jump to content

No Time to Die


owls maniac
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Vaughan said:
  Reveal hidden contents

They killed Bond.  Where does the franchise go from there.  Genuine moment of disbelief from me when it happened.  And the fact is was his own choice rather than see his daughter at risk made it even better. Proper standout cinema , and fully justifies waiting to get this on the big screen to feed the audience emotions 


I liked it.  Didn’t feel too long , there was no filler. 
 

I agree that the villain once again crept into Austin Powers territory but Bond films have to do that.  We went from the excellent Le Chiffre torturing a naked bond with a length of rope to Blofeld having him strapped to a futuristic  surgical chair. I don’t like that the ante has to be upped every time. 
 

Casino Royale is the benchmark.  My go to Bond film. 
 

 

 

 

Did they?  Laaaaame.

 

Seriously, possibly the lamest and most predictable thing they could do.

 

To be undone as soon as they remember that these movies aren't actually in continuity with each other.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, owlinexile said:

 

Did they?  Laaaaame.

 

Seriously, possibly the lamest and most predictable thing they could do.

 

To be undone as soon as they remember that these movies aren't actually in continuity with each other.


 

Well, they have in the Daniel Craig era. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not seen the new one, but Craig has turned out a bit of a disappointment tbh.

 

The exact same record as Pierce Brosnan.  A strong start to rejuvenate the franchise, a kind of poo, forgettable one to follow it up, then one that everyone at the time thought was brilliant that was actually mediocre, followed by the absolute overindulgent poo of the one with Madonna/Spectre.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Gparrish said:

I really like Craig as Bond. This film has its moments i'd give it 3/5.

 

I'm not entirely sure Bond knows what it is these days. Its lost some of the charm, for want of a better word and moved more towards Bourne etc.

I think they’ve done a great job of updating it and keeping it relevant. You couldn’t have the kind of humour or simplistic plots like they had in the 70’s. I watched this movie and was genuinely immersed in the story throughout. The women in the cast are excellent (not to sound condescending). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BIG D said:

You’re not seriously comparing Craig as Bond to Brosnan?

 

I think the comparison was with the film arc rather than as personalities.

 

Personally speaking, I thought Brosnan had a decent first outing followed by a couple of duds and then went out with an absolute stinker. Whereas with the exception of QoS, all the Daniel Craig films have been pretty decent (haven't seen No Time to Die yet, so will reserve judgement).

 

I think Craig has been a pretty good Bond; meaner, more troubled, more steely eyed. I think after Brosnan it was a welcome reinvention.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, BIG D said:

You’re not seriously comparing Craig as Bond to Brosnan?

 

Brosnan himself is not a particularly convincing action hero.  Definitely down towards the Roger Moore end of the spectrum.  But Goldeneye absolutely stands up as one of the best Bond films, and dragged the franchise back out of the doldrums, just like Casino Royale.

 

It was a pretty straight trajectory

downhill from there, but you could say the same about the Craig ones.  Skyfall is a humourless slog, regardless of the 'Bond channels Kevin McCallister in the Highlands' final act.

 

Spectre was just as much of a massive self-indulgent turd as the Madonna/invisible car one was, and really should have been another franchise-killer.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seen it.

 

I'd give it three Timothy Daltons out of 5 George Lazenbys. Not a bad film by any stretch.

 

Really enjoyed the opening and I'd say that's one of the best intros I've seen for a Bond baddie. Was genuinely creepy and unsettling...unfortunately, said baddie is a bit crap in the end. A sort of more neurotic Dr No or something. 

 

I really like Craig as Bond even if he hasn't always been blessed with great films. Tbf, I think only Connery ever was/has.

 

It's a bit long and the ending will divide the audience, but I suppose it wraps up this iteration of the character.

 

Not entirely sure where they go from here, but then you see the thing has smashed UK box office records and you appreciate these films still have a huge audience.

 

As someone else said: the Bond films do seem to struggle somewhat these days with their identity. The Craig films have been more serious and grounded in tone for the most part...but then I'm not sure that meshes all so well when they do decide to go a bit whacky.

 

Anyway, a decent enough flick and probs worth a watch. Not a patch on Royale but I prefer it to Skyfall, Question of Sport and Spectre...though I'd rather watch most of Moore's worst efforts than the latter two.

Edited by SiJ
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, owls maniac said:

Rami Malek is quite underwhelming I’ll agree. Very one dimensional character. What is their obsession with giving the villains weird facial features? lol

Yeah, he is just a bit meh.

 

As I say, great introduction and then just falls into the usual lazy tropes. 

 

By the end, we've just got some vague wanting to rule/kill lots of the world motivation. Bit underwhelming give how good that opening 5 to 10 minutes is.

 

And yes, the whole facial scar stuff needs to stop. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to see this last night and absolutely loved it. The villain was a bit underwhelming. So much film and so little about him.

 

I really enjoyed the Daniel Craig era. It really brought the films into the modern era and quite sad to see them end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether you like the films or not, I think there is little disputing how good Craig has been as Bond.

 

He's an excellent actor and I'd put his portrayal up there with Connery tbh.

Edited by SiJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SiJ said:

Whether you like the films or not, I think there is little disputing how good Craig has been as Bond.

 

He's an excellent actor and I'd put his portrayal up there with Connery tbh.

 

He is, which is why it is especially frustrating that he has only had one really decent script (again, I've not seen the new one yet).

 

The Craig films suffer most from the issue of trying to have some form of continuity over multiple movies with multiple writers and a studio demanding they throw in a massive amount of 'fanservice' along the way.  Perhaps it would have been tighter if they had never got the rights to SPECTRE/Blofeld back half way through and therefore just stuck to the one ill-defined nefarious criminal organisation.

 

Tenner says that after several years of flame wars about continuing the series without Bond/having a woman Bond/Bond just being a code-name for a string of agents/whatever, the next one will end up being another 'back to basics' reinvention starring a white British guy in his late 30s.

 

In fact if it was me, I would make it a period piece set during the Cold War.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SiJ said:

Whether you like the films or not, I think there is little disputing how good Craig has been as Bond.

 

He's an excellent actor and I'd put his portrayal up there with Connery tbh.

Agreed

 

A brilliant actor.

 

Casino Royale and Skyfall are both excellent bond films.    The former the script, the latter the direction.

 

Like @owlinexile I would also look to the past for the next one.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, mcmigo said:

Arguably there has only been three great bond films:

 

OHMSS

Dr No

Casino Royale.

 

There are some good films in the rest but not truly great.

 

 

 

 

I'd chuck in Goldfinger too. 

 

But I agree, I think there have only been a handful of truly great Bond films. 

 

It is a shame that the early promise of Casino Royale was never really fulfilled. For me, it's the best Bond film and one of the great action films of the 2000s. 

 

Unfortunately, with sequels, there comes the inevitable go bigger and bolder, open up the universe more and I think that often sees diminishing returns. 

 

What made Casino Royale quite special is it was very grounded and a real back to basics effort. It's not like any of the Craig films went completely ridiculous like what befell poor Brosnan or what was pretty much standard during the Moore era, but I never felt they truly recaptured the grittiness of Royale. Just a really tight, very well put together film. 

 

Kinda reminds of Batman Begins, which I still think is the best of the Nolan trilogy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...