https://cdn.europosters.eu/image/750...ie-i103403.jpg
IMDB
Letterboxd
11-page thread from upcoming sub-forum
Trailer:
[]
Printable View
Maybe it's because I skipped Spectre, but imo serializing this franchise was a mistake.
It totally would be if you haven't seen the others I'd imagine. Which of course, the audience won't know because there's no sequel implied in the title.
Yes, but it's implied in the cast. Particularly with Seydoux returning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukefrukem
How much of the mainstream audience remembers that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idioteque Stalker
No idea haha (I watched a Spectre recap beforehand), but wouldn't that support my opinion that serializing it was a mistake?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukefrukem
It was alright. Falls behind Casino Royale and Skyfall. Still felt like I could go for a scotch afterwards.
Seeing it tomorrow. It's telling that I have had zero interest in rewatching any of the Craig Bonds in preparation for this. With the exception of Quantum of Solace, which is at least brisk, I've found all of them overstuffed and self-serious.
Enjoy the 163-minute runtime!Quote:
Originally Posted by transmogrifier
….oh, you might hate this.
I haven't hated any of them so far, really. Mostly I just feel beaten into submission. Have to finish it for completionist purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scar
Yeah, it's a bit concerning, but I can force my way through it. Apparently The Eternals has a run time of 157 minutes - I'll skip that one happily. The merging of movies and short run TV series is happening before our very eyes!Quote:
Originally Posted by Idioteque Stalker
I remember loving the first half of Quantum, then the second half felt like a generic Bond flick. Still need to give Spectre another go.Quote:
Originally Posted by transmogrifier
I still stand by my theory that when an MCU movie inevitably bombs and theaters cease to exist, movies will evolve into miniseries. Because that's all anybody has the attention span for, if the internet's whining about The Irishman's runtime and this movie's box office returns this weekend are any indication.Quote:
Originally Posted by transmogrifier
Anyway, this movie feels like it's trying to justify its existence as not only a coda to Craig's time as the iconic spy, but also as a deconstruction of James Bond as a character. Sometimes it works thanks to how dramatic the stakes feel and the surprising places the story goes, but in other places, it feels derivative of other, better movies and not within Bond as a character. But there's still enough there for Bond fans and casual audiences to enjoy, from the exciting action sequences to the stylish locations to which Bond's mission takes him. The title sequence is awesome, Fukunaga's direction brings an ominous tone and inventive camerawork to the franchise, and all the actors give their all, with Ana De Armas surprisingly stealing the show as a side character that really deserved more screen time. The future may be unknown for the James Bond franchise after Craig's exit, but his tenure ends on an overlong, but solid and entertaining note.
Like, would it have killed them to have thought up a compelling villain and then hired an actor who is not always "ACTING!" with a capital A-C-T-I-N-G to play the role (seriously, I almost burst out laughing during the tedious face off over the table where Malek says something along the lines of "I like to make it a little....(pause) (pause) (still pausing) (look at me act!)(look at this pause. Look at it!)...tidier".
Malek may be my least favorite "good" actor around.
I think I really needed to have watched Spectre again to really care about any of this, but I didn't, so I didn't. Even the filmmaking is prosaic (basically all Fukunaga brings to the franchise is fewer lights - it's as gloomy as hell - and some cool car flips and bike jumps) and the sets generic (they are not even trying with that secret island lair). When they inevitably restart this, please just make it a one-and-done mission, at least to start. Not everything needs to be Marvelized multi-movie arcs.
New villain is a bust -- both the character and Rami Malek's performance -- overstuffing a film that already serves so many masters: sequel to Spectre, Craig's Bond sendoff, and tying all the past Craig films together into one overarching story. As much as Christoph Waltz's Blofeld kinda derails Spectre with providing unnecessary "mythology" for Bond, continuing him as the final big bad would probably be a better move, since his one big scene eclipses any of Malek's, and is among NTTD's non-action highlights. It would also help lessen the plot convolutions necessary to set up Malek's character and converge on his lair, which makes the mid-film section often a long exposition drag.
Still, the film starts strong and ends beautifully. The first section (up to the Cuba sequence) is stellar stuff -- a swooning romantic prelude that segues into terrific old-school action, topped off by a gorgeously sorrowful transition to credit sequence. Story bits and music motifs indebted to OHMSS, my favorite Bond film, don't hurt either, staying on the right side of a tribute employed meaningfully to strengthen a last entry rather than being just nostalgic winks. The writing isn't the strongest in combining that with positing the heart of the film on relationship between Bond and Swann, but both Craig (maybe his best outing since Casino Royale?) and Seydoux sell the hell out of it that they work for me anyway, which lends some serious emotional blow to the finale, and makes this a worthy sendoff for Craig's iteration of Bond. 7/10
This is exactly how I felt, and somehow, I still pretended like I knew who these characters were and I found myself oddly intrenched in the story. Best since Casino Royale.Quote:
Originally Posted by transmogrifier
That ending hit much harder the second time I gotta say. If I had to offer some advice for the next Bond movie it would be to make shootouts exciting and dangerous again. It was pretty ridiculous here, with Bond walking out of a building and thanks to a freak six sense style mowing down baddies thirty meters away with a single burst. Baddies who of course are always a fraction too late to react and when they do pull the trigger, hit nothing. This happened in Spectre too when they escape from the desert hideout. The Paloma segment was especially silly in this regard. It got more engaging, grittier towards the end when the environs became more confined.
As for baddies getting wasted, the most satisfying one was that []
This works better as an action drama flick than a Bond film, which is fine. I'm not happy about certain things though. I liked the new 007 yet the flick treated her like the third wheel for half the movie. Also Ana de Armas definitely earned way more screen time. I like or love all of the Craig Bonds anyways and I think they were just what the franchise needed. However the next one should probably be stand alone and campy after five really serious entries.
PS: Also most of the villains in the Craig flicks failed to be particularly memorable. The latest one was pretty awful.
Can we agree that the highlight is Paloma??
But yeah, getting into the personal life of Bond is unwanted and lame. Keep the espionage, neat inventions (that jet was cool), and get a little more creative with the action sequences. Fukunaga gets to try out a few moments with extended shots, but this was kind of disappointing. I don't want it to be Fast & Furious outrageous, but like Casino Royale which had top tier everything. Good villain, good mix of action/espionage/story, and also a good "Bond girl."
For sequels
[]
I mean the marketing made for a good news cycle back then, but it's clear from the actual film that this isn't the case? Why else would they insert a scene of her giving the 007 code back to Bond that has no consequence on the overall story, apart from stressing her thematic function as flesh blood to contrast with his potential obsolescence (Craig's Bond arc for the past three films), and having him finally accept it back in full just in time for his final mission.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezee E
I didn't even understand why she did that. Seemed like a bad call.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Schæffer
I agree serializing and Nolan-ifying this franchise was a mistake, but No Time to Die still manages to be entertaining enough to be... third best of the Craig era? The ending was surprisingly emotional.
Loved this, actually.
Was part of their orders going in. She just picked that moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grouchy