Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
No Time to Die - James Bond (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter AAABatteries
- Start date
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Surprised no one ever posted about this. I didn't see another thread, so I am wondering if it got discussed in the "recently viewed movie" thread or the "watching every Bond movie" thread. Anyway, I finally had a chance to watch this. It came out 4 months ago, so IMO, we should be at the point where we can discuss it with some minor spoilers. There probably are more things I don't like about this movie than I like about it, but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it. Freddie Mercury as the villain did absolutely nothing for me . . . one of the worst bad guys ever, let alone in the Bond franchise. Freddie is mousy, quiet, and doesn't have many lines. The plot borders on the absurd, and is ludicrous, insane, and totally unbelievable.
I also have an issue in movies in general over character ages and timelines. Rami Malek and Léa Seydoux are almost the same age. Yet in a flashback in NTTD, he is an adult, and her character is about 9 years old. When we jump ahead to the present, he looks exactly the same and she has to be playing someone in her 30's. That doesn't make sense to me (and she was also in the last movie with lots of time in the Bond universe having elapsed). Similarly, Madeleine's father has been a central figure either by appearing in or being talked about in all the Daniel Craig movies (15 years). In the last movie (Spectre), he was older than dirt. Plotting a timeline across several movies for Mr. White, his wife (Madeleline's mother), and Madeleine, by my math, that would make Mr. White close to a cradle robber. That's probably a me issue, but these types of things annoy me a little.
The first hour of the movie was very good and exciting. We needed a lot more Ana de Armas. She looked delectable. I didn't like how they dealt with and resolved the Spectre and Blofeld storylines. That ties into the central plot (which I already said was borderline preposterous). Spectre was the evil force behind many of the early movies and was resurrected for the Craig films. They sure fixed that problem quick. The next hour to me dragged. A lot. As one review I saw described, normally one of the main ingredients in an action move is action. There wasn't much in the middle of this one. The last half hour picks back up with edge of your seat, beat the clock action. The whole Bond being human and having feelings and emotions was a nice change, and I thought they pulled that off. By the time we get to the end, the global crisis is averted, but the way the movie actually ended seemed like a weak way to end it. That ending could have happened in a lot better and bolder ways in many of the other moves. The ending ties into and explains what happened in the beginning.
I know, I know, I am not describing a movie that sounds like it's very good. But the cinematography, the sets, the effects, the action sequences, the editing, the direction, and the production value are all top notch. You can see where they spent their $250 million production budget. Craig has a lot more range in this one, and one could argue it was his best performance of all his Bond efforts. The plot in Bond flicks often is an afterthought, and many times viewers are required to have a lot of suspension of disbelief. That certainly is the case here. It's a little bit hard to follow, and once you figure out the enormity of what is going on, the movie will be close to over.
Overall, it had quintessential Bond moments in an enjoyable but somewhat forgettable film. It's probably the 3rd best outing for Craig. I don't know how they pick things up from here moving forward. Bond fans will likely enjoy it while people that haven't seen other Bond films will likely be at a loss (you kind of need to know the backstory to all the main characters from the other films). Who knows, maybe not knowing what was going on might have made the experience better. So even outlining its major flaws, I'd still give a 3 out of 4 stars rating.
I also have an issue in movies in general over character ages and timelines. Rami Malek and Léa Seydoux are almost the same age. Yet in a flashback in NTTD, he is an adult, and her character is about 9 years old. When we jump ahead to the present, he looks exactly the same and she has to be playing someone in her 30's. That doesn't make sense to me (and she was also in the last movie with lots of time in the Bond universe having elapsed). Similarly, Madeleine's father has been a central figure either by appearing in or being talked about in all the Daniel Craig movies (15 years). In the last movie (Spectre), he was older than dirt. Plotting a timeline across several movies for Mr. White, his wife (Madeleline's mother), and Madeleine, by my math, that would make Mr. White close to a cradle robber. That's probably a me issue, but these types of things annoy me a little.
The first hour of the movie was very good and exciting. We needed a lot more Ana de Armas. She looked delectable. I didn't like how they dealt with and resolved the Spectre and Blofeld storylines. That ties into the central plot (which I already said was borderline preposterous). Spectre was the evil force behind many of the early movies and was resurrected for the Craig films. They sure fixed that problem quick. The next hour to me dragged. A lot. As one review I saw described, normally one of the main ingredients in an action move is action. There wasn't much in the middle of this one. The last half hour picks back up with edge of your seat, beat the clock action. The whole Bond being human and having feelings and emotions was a nice change, and I thought they pulled that off. By the time we get to the end, the global crisis is averted, but the way the movie actually ended seemed like a weak way to end it. That ending could have happened in a lot better and bolder ways in many of the other moves. The ending ties into and explains what happened in the beginning.
I know, I know, I am not describing a movie that sounds like it's very good. But the cinematography, the sets, the effects, the action sequences, the editing, the direction, and the production value are all top notch. You can see where they spent their $250 million production budget. Craig has a lot more range in this one, and one could argue it was his best performance of all his Bond efforts. The plot in Bond flicks often is an afterthought, and many times viewers are required to have a lot of suspension of disbelief. That certainly is the case here. It's a little bit hard to follow, and once you figure out the enormity of what is going on, the movie will be close to over.
Overall, it had quintessential Bond moments in an enjoyable but somewhat forgettable film. It's probably the 3rd best outing for Craig. I don't know how they pick things up from here moving forward. Bond fans will likely enjoy it while people that haven't seen other Bond films will likely be at a loss (you kind of need to know the backstory to all the main characters from the other films). Who knows, maybe not knowing what was going on might have made the experience better. So even outlining its major flaws, I'd still give a 3 out of 4 stars rating.
Last edited by a moderator:
James Bond
Footballguy
I fully agree with everything you said here. I had been reluctant to post (for obvious reasons) but you hit the nail on the head. As to the future, maybe a Book of Boba Fett type explanation. Or a reboot.
Eephus
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Foosball God
Foos
tri-man 47
Footballguy
They should talk to Alan Ritchson, who plays the new Reacher role. He might know someone with acting skills who could play the Bond character.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Even though Craig was a decent Bond (not counting this movie), Bond needs to be tall dark and handsome, not Blonde. Elba would be a good choice short term. Perhaps for 5 or 6 years. Plus he is British.
Last edited by a moderator:
jimmy b
Footballguy
Eephus
Footballguy
The villains' fiendish plots in the Craig movies were pretty dumb. I thought Le Chiffre running a scam with terrorist funds in Casino Royale was the best but the stakes were lower than usual for 007.
grateful zed
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
The Z Machine
Footballguy
This movie was about 45 minutes too long.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
massraider
Footballguy
I like Bond movies, I am always up for them.
Fell asleep during this one.
Fell asleep during this one.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
No Time To Die had a woman play 007, as she took over for Bond when he retired. I guess there is a non-zero chance she could just keep her role, although they would have to start calling the films 007 movies and not Bond movies. The way the movie ended, it seemed more apropos for them to just end the franchise. Not sure how you get a new actor to start playing Bond . . . unless he conveniently happens to have the same exact name.
Eephus
Footballguy
Amazon bought MGM recently and with it, a 50% share of the Bond franchise. EON Productions owns the other half but retains creative control of the franchise. They've always protected the 007 IP but there's been speculation that they may be more open to Bond spinoffs after EON's standalone film productions bombed.
jimmy b
Footballguy
Female James Bond Odds:
. Lashana Lynch -12/1
. Emilia Clarke - 66/1
. Priyanka Chopra - 150/1
. Gal Gadot - 150/1
. Jodie Comer - 200/1
. Margot Robbie - 500/1
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
