No Time to Die
 

Yesterday I watched No Time To Die and I am bit disappointed with the story. I was expecting some blast as this is Denial Craig's last movie for the bond franchise. But it was same old story saving the world Also Remi Malek character as villain was very boring other then his makeup.
My rating for this movie is 6/10.
What is your take on this movie?

Re: 007 no time to die
 

It was boring. Would have been 4/10, but last 10 minutes upped it to 5/10. Bear in mind the movie is 2 hours and 40 minutes so majority of the time it was pointless drivel.

Re: 007 no time to die
 

i love it i give it 10/10 and the end was sad made me teary , daniel craig always a good actor as james bond

Re: 007 no time to die
 

They were punishing Bond for being Bond. Also Rami is criminally underutilized. There's just so much wrong with this movie.

I liked Ana De Armas. :)

Couldn't agree more. Was just about to do a quick write-up, I found this to be easily the worst Craig Bond, easily the worst Craig Bond Villain, and easily the worst Craig Bond script.
I honestly thought Malek was given the biggest gift of his life with that BA Oscar and I think he showed here that he is not a subtle and gifted actor. Christoph Waltzed circles around him with just one scene.
And, honestly, the movie was just no FUN at all.

Only scene in the movie I thought was even worthy to be in like Quantum Of Solace, much less the Big Finale.

Re: No Time to Die
 

Ana de armas has taken my obsession with her to another level after watching her portrayal of paloma, the obsession is getting stronger with this one

IMO this is an unfortunate semi-sluggish whale of a film, with periods of finger-drumming indifference from the viewer, separated by some impressive chase and special effects scenes. The overall tone of the story felt like an inept requiem for Daniel Craig’s Bond. The picture was overly long, with 30 minutes that could have easily been cut out without any loss to the story.

It can be said that most of the production elements were first rate, with excellent cinematography by Linus Sandgren, keen editing by Tom Cross and Elliot Graham, and a competent music score by Hans Zimmer. As usual, most of the settings were exotic and appealing.

The acting was also good, but for the glaring miscasting of Lashana Lynch as 007’s temporary replacement. Rami Malek added star power to the film, yet his Mr. Robot ogling and cheesy vitiligo face make-up were not enough to exude wanton depravity. Previous Bond villains were far more threatening. Lea Seydoux was workmanlike in her performance, but did not show the allure she exhibited in Spectre. In fact the chemistry between she and Craig was semi superficial and inferior to their attraction in the earlier film.

It was the writing that was shockingly mediocre. It’s a toss up whether it was the story or the melodramatic dialogue which was worse. The story itself wasn’t too far off in style from some of the earlier Bond films, and might have been palatable were it not for the hammy dialogue, especially in the love scenes, which bordered on camp. Some reviewers have rhapsodized about Bond’s scenes of tenderness and introspection, but in my view his occasional histrionics --although well acted-- felt phony, artificial, and self-serving to a script that was designed to build emotion for the inevitable ending.

Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Director Cary Fukunaga were credited as story writers, with Phoebe Waller-Bridge added to the screenplay, writing along with the others. Purvis and Wade have been the writers on the past six Bond films, so they ought to be a reliable team. Whether it was the input from the other two that weakened the writing, or whether it was the case of too many opinions and re-writes involved remains to be seen. Reportedly Danny Boyle was originally hired to direct and co-write but left due to creative differences. One wonders if the script and filming would have been tighter with Boyle at the helm. Evidently Fukunaga was hired quickly in order to meet contractual arrangements. He became the first American director in an Eon Productions Bond film. Sam Mendes did not want to direct a third Bond film.

Since shifting the nature of the 007 films to the more serious and determined Bond of Daniel Craig, most of the high jinx, humor and campiness of the earlier pictures were cast aside to favor more dramatic stories rising above all the razzmatazz, chases, and shoot outs. But once the stories enter the realm of drama, there is a much higher bar in terms of acceptance and believability. In the case of the Bond franchise they’re treading perilously close to being pulled away from their decades highly popular stylish format toward overly wrought boy/girl entanglements, political correctness, and melodramatic sensitivity.

Daniel Craig has been a dynamic force as 007. Yet despite his excellent physical conditioning he has gotten a little long in the tooth, so he was smart to bow out on top. There will certainly be more Bond films. We hope that they’ll right the ship and add more classic quality 007 spy action yarns to the series.

Re: No Time to Die
 

It seems that opinions are very mixed about this movie. One thing about the movie that concerns me as to whether or not I will like it is what i read in this article. It's not really a spoiler on the plot at all:

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/257...e-daniel-craig

But I am wondering, does this tampon scene happen in the movie, as described it may in the article?

I disagree. SPECTRE's script was far worse.

• Bond and Blofeld as brothers (copying Austin Powers).
• C and the Nine Eyes subplot was dull.
• The totally obvious Oberhauser = Blofeld reveal.
• The retcon hurting the plot of other films.
• Characters doing completely stupid things just to advance the plot (Bond just walks into Blofeld's lair).
• The villain googling pictures of Bond's past adversaries, printing them out and putting them on MI6 walls; that was the last straw.

I'd rate this a high 6 or a low 7. It's way better than SPECTRE, and I'm happy Craig ended on a better note than that. But compared to Casino Royale and Skyfall, it feels like a step back. Craig's defining films pushed the series forward, had modern and believeable villains. NTTD is somewhat taking a step backward.

There are a lot of things I like in NTTD. The opening, theme song, Craig's acting (one of his best Bond performances), the visuals, directing, action scenes, and the plot in the first two acts had a lot of build-up and suspense.



I'd rate this in the top ~12 Bond films, slightly above average. But There are too many flaws to even consider it top 10:
For me, the directing made the film feel shorter than its runtime. And the sad ending isn't a problem for me, because Craig was always meant to be a dark and tragic hero (i.e. everything he touches dies); the ending felt appropriate.



The 6 year gap is another problem. This may have been fine for a standalone, but not a sequel. With sequels, they need to be 1-3 years apart while viewer interest is still there. But 15 years between Casino Royale and this, you can't expect everyone to follow the series that long, especially younger people.


As a result, this is a film I'd only recommend to fans of Bond (or at least fans of Craig). But for someone who has seen few to no Bond movies, it's not a safe recommendation.

?
 

Is No time to die any good? havent managed to watch it yet. But hopefully going to watch it soon. Is it worth a watch??

Re: No Time to Die
 

Having seen it twice now, I skew towards it being bad.

Re: No Time to Die
 

I liked that they literally shot nukes at an island just to drive home the point that "yes, he is dead, really really dead, no he didn't survive, let's move one".

Re: No Time to Die
 

^And even then I know people who are like "well you don't see a body so he could come back"

Oh God, I thought it was just me...I got about 30 minutes in and couldn't keep my eyes open.

No Bond movie should be longer than two hours.

So I finally saw the movie and there are three plot points I do not understand if someone can help me.