It's because you've got BB code toggled on. Check the option at the far right, the gear.
Film James Bond: No Time to Die
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
It's because you've got BB code toggled on. Check the option at the far right, the gear.
Wot
Going to see this tonight. Hopefully I enjoy it.
Isn't her family super-connected 0.01%ers? And you an Englishman in Paris?
On a more serious note, R.N7 is in love with her performance in you-know-what and will also try to get you deported for that comment.
Because you turned down Lea Seydoux.
Ok, my dumb jokes aside, for everyone else, she's basically the Paris Hilton of Paris, so be careful what you say.
Last edited:
The Seydoux's don't frighten me, I'll kick them in the shins.
More seriously, the fact she has a career in cinema (and will now be remembered as one of the key Bond women) is pretty dumbfounding and a testament to nepotism.
The whole 'child/daughter of Spectre' thing was pretty meta...
....Holy shit, maybe James Bond is real. Are the illuminati hiding signals in plain sight.
I'm curious now though; in France is it kind of a joke that she's in these two movies?
Great film, loved it. Up there with one of the two best Bond films I’ve seen.
Absolute borefest. Had it not been for the nice scenery and visuals, it would have been a waste of time.
It was a step up from Spectre, but that's not saying much. Overall, yeah, it's not a bad way to wrap it up. But I felt the villains were not strong on this one.
Also I realised well into the movie that I had not watched Spectre, so was slightly confusing to me. Watched Spectre the next day, and now I wish I hadn't watched it at all 
Felt it was thoroughly entertaining and absorbing whilst also being a bit of a mess at the same time.
My main criticisms
My main criticisms
- Too many characters shoe-horned in and under-developed. Waltz's part screamed 'actor who can only find 2 days in his schedule'.
- Malek's motivation for his actions wasn't really clear enough - he has the chops to have been a terrific villain if he would have been in a stand-alone movie
- The Anna De Armas character would have been entirely forgettable if she wasn't so damn perfect to look at
- Despite the run time a lot of it seemed rushed. My wife was completely lost for a lot of it. Bond films don't need to be this hard to follow, and I think this finale suffered from being a part of a series and having too many strands to wrap up
I really hated Spectre for some reason, just seemed like it was just too much and the ending part really annoyed me. To me it was just a really bad Skyfall remakeAlso I realised well into the movie that I had not watched Spectre, so was slightly confusing to me. Watched Spectre the next day, and now I wish I hadn't watched it at all
The movie had no clear vision to it. Also felt like Bond was relying way too much on luck rather than skill. That helicopter scene in the mountains was way too unrealistic.
Oh, and the actress is terrible. No one felt authentic to me.
I don't understand how with Casino Royale, which I felt was amazing (Ignoring QoS because that was bad too) how the series could go to Spectre. It's like they forgot what made Casino so good.
I hope the next Bond is a lot more simple with the plot, there have been to many loose strings in the last few that make it too confusing. Also would kind of like a bond set in the past
I really enjoyed that. I thought the way they played with:
was very fun. I liked Remi Malik as a villain just fine, Ben Whishaw had be tittering every time he appeared and the rest of the supporting cast did the business.
I could see myself in the near future watching Craig's five films back-to-back and having a bloody good time, even though Quantum is poor and Spectre is a bit weak.
the trope that the audience knows Bond will never die by whacking the ridiculously bad shooting from every single henchman to full 'stormtrooper', before actually killing Bond in the end
I could see myself in the near future watching Craig's five films back-to-back and having a bloody good time, even though Quantum is poor and Spectre is a bit weak.
Watched it yesterday, after reading the comments on this thread. Was a decent film but not much more than that.
Over 2 hours long, my son ended falling asleep!
Over 2 hours long, my son ended falling asleep!
Not sure if posted before?
I watched it last night. Was enjoyable but agree with the poster that said it's not so much about the plot but a chance to give Craig's Bond a good send off.
Skyfall is hands down the best movie out of the 5, followed by Casino Royale. I think this is better than Spectre however.
The score was lovely, Ana de Armas and Lea Seydoux were lovelier.
Skyfall is hands down the best movie out of the 5, followed by Casino Royale. I think this is better than Spectre however.
The score was lovely, Ana de Armas and Lea Seydoux were lovelier.
There’s no way Skyfall is better than Casino Royale btw. Skyfall is a decent bond film, Casino Royale is a genuinely top class stand alone film.
I preferred Skyfall. Tighter storyline, genuine high stakes, the villain actually wins, and an incredible Javier Bardem performance. That wins it for me.
Agree with this, Skyfall was good but remember it also being a bit of a mess at times? The whacky home alone ending didn’t do it any favours.
Last edited:
Also, just came to this thread to say -
how hilarious was Blofeld's conveyor belt jail cell? I know it was meant to build up his presence, but this was just silly. I kept on imagining if there was a malfunction and he's stuck halfway. I found that this series of Bond movies do well when building up a villain's entrance (think of the long walk for Bardem in Skyfall telling the rat story, or the 'board meeting' for Blofeld in Spectre, Le Chiffre in the village in Casino Royale). I think they were going for that same effect with Blofeld in this movie, but it didn't come off. Also felt that they missed it with Safin who just popped up in Madeleine's office.
I think Skyfall pretty much had it down til the conclusion, which was more "grand guignol". Also big issue with the scene where he just walks into the woman's shower, uninvited. It's still an amazing film, and Bardem is great, but I think they just slightly messed up the conclusion.
Casino Royale works well as a standalone spy thriller for me,
Casino Royale had a terrific understated villain in Mads Mikklesen and went back to Fleming; it's the best Craig by a country mile and one of the best of the series.
Casino Royale is arguably the best Bond of all time. Personally though, I loved Skyfall maybe just as much.
Casino Royale is the only Bond film I may watch every other year.
That and Skyfall for me, but CR is my favourite. Think MM is excellent, shame he got killed off half way through really.
Just got back from seeing this. I'm not a huge Bond fan in the sense that I haven't circled the date in my calendar and have 007 love-hearts in my padlocked diary, but I do enjoy the films.
I thought this was utter shit, tbh.
I thought this was utter shit, tbh.
The first third is actually pretty good. I really enjoyed the opening sequence and everything up to the end of Paloma/Ana de Armas's random arc. The film gradually became very sentimental after that point and the introduction of Bond jr. Unusually so. Tonally, I thought this film was all over the place and it also didn't feel that "fun" to watch. However, it also had the problem of feeling very "Die Another Day" in places, with some of the tech and gadgets being used. Also, nanobots WITH NO CURE. IT'S ETERNAL, JAMES, ALRIGHT.
I feel that the whole film was made for the ending. The whole film was made just so they could kill him off. I have a problem anyway when the end of a character's arc tends to fall down the "kill them off" route, because it just comes across as lazy writing to me. I thought they actually solved their own problem already in the film. He's out of action for multiple years and somebody else has his "00" title. So...couldn't they just do that at the end? Let him retire the character and ride off into the sunset, having a nice life. I'm not entirely sure what the value is with killing him off, except for short-lived shock value...especially when we know that another reboot is just around the corner. It feels very out of step with the rest of the series, but in all of the wrongs ways.
On another note: continuity across films. As in, I found it a bit silly how they've suddenly decided that Bond films should follow on from the previous one, dating back to Casino Royale. Ok, so...how does that fit with the Pierce Brosnan era, or the Timonty Dalton era? Etc, etc. It feels a little messy from my point of view.
Finally, the villain: I'm assuming that it's universally agreed that Safin was a pretty shit villain? Thought the initial introduction at the start was cool, but then he...gradually just became rather pointless throughout. I feel the reasoning (or lack of) for the whole nanobot factory farm at the end was very weak and I didn't feel that the writing was good enough, clever enough, or fun enough to justify what happened on screen. It was very flat, which is a tremendous shame for a good actor. Utter waste. Biggest disappointment of the film, by far.
Overall, it's average at best, in my opinion. For such a long run-time, I hate to say that it actually felt underdeveloped and rushed, which seems silly to say.
I feel that the whole film was made for the ending. The whole film was made just so they could kill him off. I have a problem anyway when the end of a character's arc tends to fall down the "kill them off" route, because it just comes across as lazy writing to me. I thought they actually solved their own problem already in the film. He's out of action for multiple years and somebody else has his "00" title. So...couldn't they just do that at the end? Let him retire the character and ride off into the sunset, having a nice life. I'm not entirely sure what the value is with killing him off, except for short-lived shock value...especially when we know that another reboot is just around the corner. It feels very out of step with the rest of the series, but in all of the wrongs ways.
On another note: continuity across films. As in, I found it a bit silly how they've suddenly decided that Bond films should follow on from the previous one, dating back to Casino Royale. Ok, so...how does that fit with the Pierce Brosnan era, or the Timonty Dalton era? Etc, etc. It feels a little messy from my point of view.
Finally, the villain: I'm assuming that it's universally agreed that Safin was a pretty shit villain? Thought the initial introduction at the start was cool, but then he...gradually just became rather pointless throughout. I feel the reasoning (or lack of) for the whole nanobot factory farm at the end was very weak and I didn't feel that the writing was good enough, clever enough, or fun enough to justify what happened on screen. It was very flat, which is a tremendous shame for a good actor. Utter waste. Biggest disappointment of the film, by far.
Overall, it's average at best, in my opinion. For such a long run-time, I hate to say that it actually felt underdeveloped and rushed, which seems silly to say.
Boo-urns.
Absolutely loved that.
LETTER: James Bond's No Time to Die film makes no sense!
I WRITE this merely as an observation, but isn’t it odd the amount of fuss over the release of a film?
James Bond is a fictional secret agent, who in real life would never have survived all the injuries he incurs.
I fully accept the films are escapism, and I do enjoy them. It is just about the very last thing we can call British.
But in the real world, a film release is not going to save Britain.
We have a national debt in excess of 2 trillion pounds. Food shortages. Problems of petrol supply.
£20 a week taken away from the people who need that even more now, as the cost of living is increasing.
I will however buy the DVD when it is available, as I am not willing to mix with coronavirus carrying cinema-goers.
In the meantime, who will be the next Dr. Who?
Please not Boris Johnson.
I know this letter is all over the place. But so is just about everything and anything these days.
It makes no sense.
Richard Grant
Burley
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/leisure...hRz-K6CwLNq3hjREtUpuVUiFX2NMt0qubzD4mNh8FBdns
I WRITE this merely as an observation, but isn’t it odd the amount of fuss over the release of a film?
James Bond is a fictional secret agent, who in real life would never have survived all the injuries he incurs.
I fully accept the films are escapism, and I do enjoy them. It is just about the very last thing we can call British.
But in the real world, a film release is not going to save Britain.
We have a national debt in excess of 2 trillion pounds. Food shortages. Problems of petrol supply.
£20 a week taken away from the people who need that even more now, as the cost of living is increasing.
I will however buy the DVD when it is available, as I am not willing to mix with coronavirus carrying cinema-goers.
In the meantime, who will be the next Dr. Who?
Please not Boris Johnson.
I know this letter is all over the place. But so is just about everything and anything these days.
It makes no sense.
Richard Grant
Burley
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/leisure...hRz-K6CwLNq3hjREtUpuVUiFX2NMt0qubzD4mNh8FBdns
I much preferred Bond movies when they were stand alone plots. These last few with the storyline continued haven’t gripped me at all.
Casino Royale was the only Craig film that stands on its own IMO
Casino Royale was the only Craig film that stands on its own IMO
Have watched Casino Royale 5 times and Skyfall 3 times. Enjoyed both especially CR. Interestingly enough, both were stand alone. Felt QoS and Spectre were both crap except for the action scenes. CR had everything - an explosive opening/intro, amazing build up, suspense (poker scene), chemistry (bond and vesper), plot twist (Vesper).
Except for visuals, Paloma, opening car scene and Craig's acting. At no point, did it ever keep me invested.
Madelaine must be the baking soda of Bond girls in terms of chemistry - completely bland and useless character. The story was wack and the villain's motivations made no sense. Rami Malik is a talented actor and possibly a more flamboyant, outpoken villain role like Raoul Silva, Joker etc. might have suited him better.
Both Mads Mikkelson and Javier Bardem were terrifying and their motivations were clearly built up. Christoph Waltz's role was a tough one. He had already set such a high bar with his Hans Landa performance. Unlike Bardem's diverse villain roles (Anton Chigurh, Roula Silva), CW doesn't have dimension to beat his own performance.
They should have killed off Madelaine and built a different story off Paloma who seemed to have a lot of charisma and chemistry even within those 15 min of screentime. Quirky, sultry and badass all at once.
Going by Slumdog and Trainspotting, Danny Boyle would have done a way better job. Martin Campbell would have been the best choice.
Madelaine must be the baking soda of Bond girls in terms of chemistry - completely bland and useless character. The story was wack and the villain's motivations made no sense. Rami Malik is a talented actor and possibly a more flamboyant, outpoken villain role like Raoul Silva, Joker etc. might have suited him better.
Both Mads Mikkelson and Javier Bardem were terrifying and their motivations were clearly built up. Christoph Waltz's role was a tough one. He had already set such a high bar with his Hans Landa performance. Unlike Bardem's diverse villain roles (Anton Chigurh, Roula Silva), CW doesn't have dimension to beat his own performance.
They should have killed off Madelaine and built a different story off Paloma who seemed to have a lot of charisma and chemistry even within those 15 min of screentime. Quirky, sultry and badass all at once.
Going by Slumdog and Trainspotting, Danny Boyle would have done a way better job. Martin Campbell would have been the best choice.
Last edited:
Tough crowd in here…
Was thinking the same. Admittedly I’m easily pleased….