The whole idea of the weapon in the first place was a little far fetched. M really didn't consider what could happen if it got in the wrong hands? Even despite the events that occurred in Skyfall? Really? Doesn't make sense for the character to make something like that, even less so to attempt to hide it from his team. But then comes clean afterwards and everyone's cool with it, he literally tried to cover it up you morons.
Film James Bond: No Time to Die
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Ignore the miserable naysayers, if you like the other Daniel Craig films, you'll love this one.
Absolutely...another massive plot hole. I think you can get away with one coincidence / leap of faith / suspension of disbelief but this film stacks one on top of the other at times.
Characters motivations veer from pillar to post and sometimes just make no sense at all.
I've just watched Red Notice on Netflix. An enjoyable, disposable bubblegum film with ridiculous plot holes but it doesn't take itself seriously and so gets away with it.
Red Notice is absolutely garbage, come on. Just because "it doesn't take itself seriously" doesn't excuse how much of a steaming pile of shit it is. No Time to Die, despite its flaws, is miles better than that trash.
Got it lined up for the weekend - am willing to just watch it as entertainment and sure it will be fine.
Isn't that all any Bond should be? Reading some reviews leave me bewildered, what exactly were people expecting? Bond has always been entertaining sh*t full of plot holes and nonsense.
Enjoy!!!
Ok fair enough, red notice is absolute pap. The opening 40 mins of no time to die is great, but after that the plot holes are as big as they are in any disposable action film like red notice.
I was totally engaged until certain plot points made me think of yellow chaps with a love for bananas! It totally lost it's way.
I'd love to know what Danny Boyle would have done with it...i wonder if any of his plot made it into the film?
Definitely this
I loved them all and I didn’t really like this one.
Yes, me too (or should that be #MeToo! having seen this Bond film!). I posed the question awhile back and nobody knew - or didn't get back to me: I believe (I heard it in a podcast) that the price to pay for getting Danial Craig back for one more movie was his insistence that 'his' Bond die at the end.
So was that the 'creative difference' that caused Danny Boyle to walk? Did he not want to helm the 1st Bond movie where Bond doesn't end up in a dinghy/escape capsule/gondola kissing a beautiful lady? Or was he up for that finale-twist and left for some other reason.
I'd love to know.
P.S. If anyone knows why Christopher Eccleston only did one series of Dr Who, I'd appreciate a heads up on that too!
So was that the 'creative difference' that caused Danny Boyle to walk? Did he not want to helm the 1st Bond movie where Bond doesn't end up in a dinghy/escape capsule/gondola kissing a beautiful lady? Or was he up for that finale-twist and left for some other reason.
I'd love to know.
P.S. If anyone knows why Christopher Eccleston only did one series of Dr Who, I'd appreciate a heads up on that too!
Last edited:
Saw this yesterday. I’m a huge Bond fan and thought this was a steaming bucket of monkey custard!
Christopher Eccleston couldn't stand the unprofessional atmosphere created by Russel T Davies and john barrowman. Given recent revelations about Barrowman i think we can understand why Chris decided to leave. He has said in his book he didn't want to leave the role as he loved playing the Doctor, but he couldn't stand being around russel t davies and how the beeb supported him
Oh that is interesting....
I put that bit about Christopher Eccleston leaving Dr Who on my Bond post for a bit of humour as I had heard there was an issue between him and Russel T. Davies* but I did not know about the John Barrowman stuff. That is a shame, the Empty Child/Doctor Dances which introduced Captain Jack are probably my favourite Dr Who episodes ever.
*I was a bit disappointed that Eccleston didn't appear in the 50th anniversary show (but I didn't expect it - too soon - at that time it was still shrouded in secrecy why he only did the one series) but I was hoping that after more time and also his recent work for Big Finish Audios he might have joined in whatever they do for the 60th - but now Davies is back, I guess not.
I also read Eccleston's book recently and it was very sad - about his father and his MH issues. I didn't know he was a massive Utd. fan till I read it, either.
Just watched it.
Agree 100%
I used to watch United matches with Chris Eccleston when he was living in West Hollywood. Really cool guy. Chris was friends with a director who lived down the street from me. Chris is a United season ticket holder and the director was a Crystal Palace fan, so we had a lot of fun at his expense.
Excellent post. Agree 100%.
Liked it a lot more than I expected to after Spectre. Also delighted to see its boiling so much piss for all the most predictable reasons. Good stuff
Last edited:
Just finished it, enjoyed it, excited to see where they go from here
This was an awesome movie overall but didn't enjoy the final third of the movie. First 2/3 were great! Main villain was not that scary so I'll give it to people who were not impressed. There was potential for more there.
They actually had a perfect script line setup in following Uncharted 4 of all things. Sometimes people do retire and do live happily every after, passing the torch on. Film makers need to understand that gives as much closure as killing characters and it even allows even further discourse by encouraging people to be more open minded about what happened after.
Imo opinion this film had little to do with the previous Bond films and was simply a sign off for Craig, making him appeal more humanistic.
Everything about the villian in this film was pointless and if anything, Blofeld was more of a villian than Remi.
The only thing that made him even somewhat of a villian was the fact he "killed" James Bond, but it was very much a poorly thought out film.
The plot also screamed Mission Impossible 2 including a number of scenes (such as stealing the nano-bots). Pretty piss poor writing if you ask me
One great thing though was the scene when Bond is climbing up the tower to the blast doors. The camera work on that scene was exceptional.
Imo opinion this film had little to do with the previous Bond films and was simply a sign off for Craig, making him appeal more humanistic.
Everything about the villian in this film was pointless and if anything, Blofeld was more of a villian than Remi.
The only thing that made him even somewhat of a villian was the fact he "killed" James Bond, but it was very much a poorly thought out film.
The plot also screamed Mission Impossible 2 including a number of scenes (such as stealing the nano-bots). Pretty piss poor writing if you ask me
One great thing though was the scene when Bond is climbing up the tower to the blast doors. The camera work on that scene was exceptional.
Finally watched it last night - I enjoyed it anyway just took it for what it was. A bit of a convoluted ending but it was a pretty effective image that was left with me.
Only just watched this last night.
Actually really enjoyed it up until the last half hour and still pleasantly surprised on the whole.
The supposed cruel twist at the end was immediately rendered completely pointless so I didn't get the point in that...and the whole idea of this big secret being key to figuring out what was going on was dumb. It helped in no way whatsoever and I don't understand what the point was in it even being a secret, or why it had to be in a secret room in the woman's house. She basically just took bond in there then told him what it was. Obviously you could argue the secret was the child but that wouldn't have helped figure out what was going on either.
You expect plot holes in a bond film but this sort of thing isn't a plot hole, it's just dumb writing. Still nowhere near as dumb as half of what was going on in Spectre.
Was a bit try too hard with the emphasis on strong female/equality characters but it didn't really harm the film or back a sequel into any corner. Would rather they make too hard of an attempt in that sense than just try to stubbornly avoid it. No point whining about whether it's realistic or fits the mould when James Bond can go around shooting bad guys on the moon with a moon lazer.
MI5 are the worst spy agency on earth. Everyone just goes around introducing themselves as a spy and discussing top secret information by just randomly turning up at someone's house or in the middle of a busy street in London. Plus all of the last 3 films have basically been them fighting to save the world from one of their own amazingly stupid ideas.
Actually really enjoyed it up until the last half hour and still pleasantly surprised on the whole.
The supposed cruel twist at the end was immediately rendered completely pointless so I didn't get the point in that...and the whole idea of this big secret being key to figuring out what was going on was dumb. It helped in no way whatsoever and I don't understand what the point was in it even being a secret, or why it had to be in a secret room in the woman's house. She basically just took bond in there then told him what it was. Obviously you could argue the secret was the child but that wouldn't have helped figure out what was going on either.
You expect plot holes in a bond film but this sort of thing isn't a plot hole, it's just dumb writing. Still nowhere near as dumb as half of what was going on in Spectre.
Was a bit try too hard with the emphasis on strong female/equality characters but it didn't really harm the film or back a sequel into any corner. Would rather they make too hard of an attempt in that sense than just try to stubbornly avoid it. No point whining about whether it's realistic or fits the mould when James Bond can go around shooting bad guys on the moon with a moon lazer.
MI5 are the worst spy agency on earth. Everyone just goes around introducing themselves as a spy and discussing top secret information by just randomly turning up at someone's house or in the middle of a busy street in London. Plus all of the last 3 films have basically been them fighting to save the world from one of their own amazingly stupid ideas.
Generally I didn't feel the film was too bad, albeit a lot of what you say is true, but the ending really irked me after wards because it felt like an unforced error. I mean, what has happened to the good old method of having your hero having to fight till the very last second to save someone and it being too late for him to run because the rockets are about to impact? You know, keep the reason simple for why he can't run anymore, he is out of time and not because he has fecking narnites in his blood that can't be treated. But as you say, the wanted that teary eyed goodbye speech at the end and had to use a plot device to get him to that scene, and it didn't matter to them how stupid it was.
What was your issue with this? I felt it really effectively flipped the ‘bond girl’ on its head with Ana De Armas looking like the classical ‘eye candy with nothing to offer’ but then kicking ass and taking names.
Why would anything like that appear ‘jarring’ as to warrant a highlight about it, especially if it “didn’t really harm the film”?
They just rammed the film with so many strong female characters it felt a bit forced. Mainly with the Madeleine character as it didn't even fit her character from the last film. Felt like they wanted to go miles out of their way to appease all the people calling for a female James bond, but without actually committing to having one. I mean it's still miles better than having Bond just act like a rapey weirdo because the women characters are all too useless to resist him, just could have been done better.
I literally said it wasn't an issue to me so not sure why you are picking an argument?
And have the equivalent of the "Rose had space on the door for Jack" argument for the next 25 years? No, thank you very much.
My point is that you’re saying that ‘it didn’t bother me’ - so why raise it in the first place?
How is ‘ramming’ a film with so many strong female characters (a) an issue or (b) in line with the ‘it wasn’t and issue for me’ argument.
I’m just very interested in the why if it’s all.
Because it was topical to the film. It was a very obvious feature of the film that they made an effort to emphasise the strength of the women characters. The idea of a female James Bond has also been topical for some time, as has the subject of female characters in films with male protagonists in general...so why wouldn't I be allowed to comment on it?
It could have been done better. i.e. they could have tried not illogically changing a character from the last film, or having a female 007 who then just submits to the superiority of the male 007 anyway. It had an element of feeling a bit a bit unsubtle and poorly thought out...but overall it was a positive compared to having every female character just there to cave in to Bond and let him sleep with them, and it was done in a way that showed it doesn't have to detract from a James Bond film.
I wouldn't say they "flipped the idea of a bond girl on its head"...every female character was still subordinate to James Bond. Armas's character was probably my favourite in the film. just missed a small trick having Bond direct her around rather than vice versa considering bond was literally working for the CIA and she was their operative.
I don't think there is really a controversial enough opinion here for it to require your prior approval or to be worth picking fights over, I'm afraid.
It was good up until the last twenty minutes
I was watching it wondering what kind of wage one of those henchmen is on.
when it turns into Dr Evil wanting to take over the world. Austin Powers really ruined bond.
I was watching it wondering what kind of wage one of those henchmen is on.
I still think it's a great film after a second viewing but I only have two questions...
1) Why was Safin's motivation so convoluted when the simple thing would have been to make him infatuated with Maddy? He alludes to it during the psychiatry session but then he turns into this power driven obsessive, followed by wanting to kill everyone because he thinks that's what they want?! feck it, dude, just make your story about how you love Maddie after saving her and you feel betrayed after she fell in love with Bond, so now you just want everyone to suffer thanks to your virus.
2) What was the point of Bond dying other than shock value? The build up for it is too short to make it a tragedy, and the epilogue is so brief that it does nothing but leave the film on a downer with little to no gravitas. Yes, it's a stylistic choice but I don't see the need for it.
Other than those issues I'd probably rate this the second best Craig Bond movie. Even the nano-bots rubbish is forgivable when you assume that they were changed in a rewrite because "mad guy with poison farm who makes genetically modified viruses using said poisons" would have been a bit close to the bone for conspiracy theorists in a Covid world.
1) Why was Safin's motivation so convoluted when the simple thing would have been to make him infatuated with Maddy? He alludes to it during the psychiatry session but then he turns into this power driven obsessive, followed by wanting to kill everyone because he thinks that's what they want?! feck it, dude, just make your story about how you love Maddie after saving her and you feel betrayed after she fell in love with Bond, so now you just want everyone to suffer thanks to your virus.
2) What was the point of Bond dying other than shock value? The build up for it is too short to make it a tragedy, and the epilogue is so brief that it does nothing but leave the film on a downer with little to no gravitas. Yes, it's a stylistic choice but I don't see the need for it.
Other than those issues I'd probably rate this the second best Craig Bond movie. Even the nano-bots rubbish is forgivable when you assume that they were changed in a rewrite because "mad guy with poison farm who makes genetically modified viruses using said poisons" would have been a bit close to the bone for conspiracy theorists in a Covid world.
Disagree with this - it had been built up over 5 films, I think it worked well
Fair enough, it could go either way for me but I'm still stuck in the mindset that Bond isn't allowed to die. There should've been an end credit scene where he comes stumbling out of a pub slurring "I used to be a spy!"
I may be wrong but didn't Daniel Craig push for this? Maybe he just wanted to be done with it.
EDIT: Confirmed
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowb...d-star-four-Bond-movies-asked-killed-off.html
'I said ''OK, if I make four can I kill him off at the end?'' And she paused, and she just went ''yes''.
'I had a sort of plan in my head, I don't know what the plan was, that if we got it right and if we got it to a place, then they needed to re-set.
'And to properly re-set you need to get rid of one idea of it and start another idea of it. And I just felt like 'get rid of my version and someone else can start, and they can start their version'.
Ah, that's actually a decent point. Cheers!
I certainly enjoyed it on first viewing. I think a second viewing is certainly needed.
I think point 1 is fair. I think it became a bit OTT and wasnt needed.
I had no issues with Bond dying.They sorta made it look like he would die in previous movies (but doing it in the first five mins never makes you worry for him)
That's fair enough. Upon reflection I think my problem was the very brief epilogue after his death more than anything else. A bit rushed and not nearly enough Naomie Harris on screen.I certainly enjoyed it on first viewing. I think a second viewing is certainly needed.
I think point 1 is fair. I think it became a bit OTT and wasnt needed.I
had no issues with Bond dying.They sorta made it look like he would die in previous movies (but doing it in the first five mins never makes you worry for him)
Daniel Craig wanted it. He wanted it to be the way he left before he even filmed Casino Royale and had spoken to the producers about it way back then.
Already been told that and agreed with it, big neck*. The discussion is now about Moneypenny being bloody stunning.
*Please don't rip my door down and kill me.