Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

No Time to Die **Spoilers from post #1449 onward**

14546474951

Comments



  • its underperforming in the US, looks like it will be lowest or second lowest anyway, the lowest breakeven number was around $750m and other saying it needed $900m, it hasnt been released in China yet but its not a big money maker there





  • I held off reading this thread and expected to have to wade through dozens of pages of responses. But only five page of fifty since the film. What the hell??

    I was pretty disappointed by it, not helped by a screen in the Savoy that was at an angle to the seats, and terrible sound with no bass.

    Starting with the ending, it was painfully sentimental and not entirely clear why Bond had to die. For one, why couldn’t the missiles be delayed till Bond was off the island? But, secondly, the nano robots in his blood which destroyed his will to live - why are we expected to take on Q’s word that no ‘cure’ can ever be found, and, as painful as it would be, I would much rather the love of my live were alive somewhere on Earth, with the occasional Zoom call and socially distanced meeting, than for them to go willingly to their death.

    Some bizarrely unrealistic moments, even for Bond. Multiple grenades in the confined stairwell and Bond need only duck to the side in order to avoid injury. Two other times he does bear the brunt of an explosion, but quickly shakes it off. The first car chase involved a vintage car easily out-manoeuvring modern ones and turning 180 degrees on a dime. Three or four times in the jeep chase in Norway, all Bond has to do is turn into them and they go flying. The endlessly bullet-proof Aston Martin, even with numerous close-range shots from a machine gun. The skinny CIA agent in Santiago throwing armed men around, all the while in stilettos. It’s utterly unbelievable that M would be in control of the navy and be allowed attack a foreign country’s territory without warning.

    After four instalments of presenting Craig’s Bond as a silent, reserved chap, he’s made into a sort of beta male jokester - the conversation in Cuba, the stuff in Q’s flat… And then his petulance and juvenile sarcasm, most notably in M’s office.

    What even was the point of Blofeld and Spectre? They gave us a sinister organisation in the last film and then promptly wiped them out in this. Blofeld’s death causes no consequences and nor does his psychiatrist face any for killing him.

    Gratuitious violence. The weird Russian character, who’s played for laughs, but who we’re expected to feel no sympathy for when he dies. 007 rifle-butts him in the face for the crime of talking and she pushes him into the acid for saying he could wipe her race out. I presume we’re to interpret that as unconscionably racist and therefore deserving of his death. Bond crushes the CIA guy under a jeep. Malik’s character, sprawled, with a broken leg, is shot three times in the head, despite the island about to be blown up. The violent interrogation of Blofeld, which of course results on his death.

    [spoiler]I won’t even mention the family stuff. The final scene is Madeline with her daughter. She says, Let me tell you a story about Bond, James Bond. Along with Bond being killed for the first time, that rather indicates that he is being ‘retired’. It seems scarcely believable that they would introduce a woman double-o, give her Bond’s number (which she of course requests to give back, MID FCUKING MISSION!!!) but then cast another man in the lead role. That remains to be seen, of course, but it could be the death knell for the franchise.

    Post edited by iffandonlyif on




  • I won't address every point because I agree with a lot of it but I will point out that the nano bots are contagious, so even if Bond gets off the island and stays away, he can't risk them eventually finding their way to their intended targets. I feel like it could work with better writing maybe but it was very contrived and I've no doubt other people missed that as well.

    Post edited by FunLover18 on




  • @iffandonlyif

    You need to spoiler the fuck out of your post.



  • Advertisement


  • Usually a mod will add a spoilers warning in the title after a specific amount of time as a general warning. But I wouldn't be surprised if people are still reading that haven't seen the film in order to gauge reactions before they go. They may be ok with some minor spoilers here and there, but there's there's at least one epic one in your post.

    Not trying to backseat mod or anything, just saying. 😁





  • gauge reactions before they go

    That’s completely alien to me. I considered Donald Clarke tweeting that…

    M says **** for the first time

    …a spoiler.





  • I'll add a spoiler warning to the thread now.

    **Spoilers from this post onward**





  • That was a bloody awful film. Enjoyed the first 20-25 minutes and then it went downhill rapidly and massively from then on. Probably would’ve left 45 mins before the end but I was with someone, who as it happened had similar thoughts on it. Pure muck.





  • I saw this today, thought it was an excellent Bond movie. I'm sure you can pick holes lile most Bond movies, bit this was one of the bettter ones.



  • Advertisement


  • There was lots of talk of Jinx spin off after Die Another Day, if that never materialised then any de Armas spin off won't materialise.





  • I wouldn’t be quite so sure that all things somewhat vaguely similar are in fact equal.





  • Never said they're equal, if people quickly forgot about Jinx, I expect people will be quicker to forget de armas who had less screen time, less relevance to the movie and less media impact.

    Post edited by Alberta64 on




  • Ah ok.. I mean, I don't expect it to be a fan driven thing. My interpretation was actually the other way around, that her cameo was framed as a setup for something else (like a 'backdoor pilot' the same way 'the farm' episode was in The Office). So I'm wondering if it was a studio idea to have those brief scenes with this new character in there as a way to gauge interest in a movie around a fun CIA agent. And the reaction has obviously been very positive.

    It would make sense from a studio pov, since they obviously can't jump back into the Bond side of things again too soon - that'll need a few years to breath. But they could still output product in that world, and de Armas scenes felt quite carefully crafted to do that. Felix;' "there's someone there i'd love you to meet", and her scene ending with something like "I hope I can work with you again". In about 20 mins we got a whole arc in our interpretations of her, from bumbling sidekick, to badass agent. It all just felt like a very crafted introduction, to open a door for something away from MI6 in the fallow years.





  • Could even set it before NTTD & bring back Felix as her handler. Even make a TV show out of it & bang it on Amazon.





  • Film is hitting US VOD on Tuesday.





  • Saw this tonight on VOD, entertaining but not a patch on Casino Royale or Skyfall. Not bad but just not as great an action movie that I would've expected. Looking forward to Idris or Fassbender taking over the 007 role!





  • The most glaring fault in this new thing is the complete lack of backstory for Malek's character. Why is he doing this dastardly $hit? What is the motivation? What is this guys ultimate aim, and where did it originate? We are never told any of this. His family was killed? So what?? Huge leap from that to wanting to infect the world and wiping the planet out with nano-viruses. They producers just seemed to want to create another Dr.No, which wouldn't be a problem except they have invested so much time and effort into trying to ridiculously explain the emotive back-story and motivation to Craig's version of Bond, so ergo they have to do the same sort of silly $hit with the villains or it just doesn't work.





  • [quote]

    Why is he doing this dastardly $hit? What is the motivation? What is this guys ultimate aim, and where did it originate? We are never told any of this. His family was killed? So what?? Huge leap from that to wanting to infect the world and wiping the planet out with nano-viruses. 

    [/quote]

    It's not explained very well at all, and I probably can't explain it better.

    But I think we are meant to believe that he fundamentally sees himself as a saviour of the world rather than someone 'wiping the planet'. (perhaps there's some echoes of Stromberg, maybe even Drax, genuinely believing that they are morally in the right). By controlling the virus he gets to ensure that an evil organisation like Spectre can't rise again as he can kill them off. He wants to decide who lives and dies and he is doing it for the good of the planet. That's clearly a megalomaniacal viewpoint, but it is at some level a valid motivation. He's a force for good.

    My problem was how he able to get into a position to do it - there was never an establishing scene to suggest he was a billionaire (unless I blinked and missed it there was no scene in Safin Industries like we got with Zorin, Carver, Drax etc). Instead he was a comparative nobody who piggybacked on the Russian chaps chemical expertise to wipe out a few Spectre heads, and in that ensuing vacuum was supposedly able to take over the entire remaining organisation inc their Norwegian hit-squads and their chemical island. That seemed incredibly implausible to me.



  • Advertisement


  • The villains are really been rubbish during Craig's stint as bond. Blofeld and Safin are two of the worst ever.

    Spectre, the big hidden organisation hiding in the shadows all these years are having a party in Cuba where anyone can walk in uninvited.

    Safin wants to destroy the world and kill millions of innocent people....because..em.. eh.... his family was killed???

    Madeline grabs her stomach when bond leaves her on the train, oh shes pregnant...and eh, who's been minding the kid all these years in Norway when she been off swanning around (see what i did there?!) London working her 9 to 5?? British intelligence didnt know she had a 5 year old daughter...reeeallly?

    People asking how are they gonna do James Bond now that hes dead...easy...she tells us at the end how they're gonna do ti ..."I'm going to tell you a story of a man named Bond, James Bond". All future movies will probably be these stories that Madeleine tells her kid.





  • Somewhat of a disappointing end.

    Good in parts and poor in others.

    Some of the CGI was terrible but I am going to put this down to covid but still no excuse.

    Bonds character totally changed to be more like the old cheesy bond - maybe a nod to the past but one that wasn't needed.

    Big shootout, place surrounded by men with guns but time for a quick shot of something. That kind of stupidity should be kept for anything with the Rock in.


    It was somewhat entertaining but definitely lost the grit that was so obvious in all the Craig bonds. This was just a poor bow out which was a shame 4/10

    Even the final conversation between bond and Madeline was empty. I can't meet you.... Ohhh you have been pensioned. Just felt they had skipped a few pages of the script





  • Christ that was awful shite. Even the new 007 felt way out of place in it. And giving up the 007, crock of shite.if she earned it she earned it. You don’t casually throw that away.

    Felt sorry for that actress.

    Then the love story? It never felt like it.

    Where was the evil henchman?

    The whole thing felt like they shot a whole load of scenes and then wrote a script after them.

    Definitely one of the worst Bond films in history, thank god Craig is gone now. At least in a few years they can follow some new fad maybe.





  • Watched it tonight. For 90 minutes I thought it was good but the last hour I felt it kind of fell apart. I haven't bothered watching Spectre since it came out but I remember thinking similar about that, it's all nice and stylish until towards the end when it needs to start making sense. I agree with whoever posted about Rami Malek's character's (Dr. No?) motivations, I've no idea what his problem was. As for killing off Bond, it had been heavily rumoured for a good while and even mooted as the reason Danny Boyle walked away. Whether that was 100% true or not I don't know but the ending didn't come as a massive shock to me.





  • That was indeed the reason Boyle walked away.

    Craig is maintaining that it was his idea from the outset.

    "When I started as Bond on Casino Royale, one of the early discussions I had with [producers] Barbara [Broccoli] and Michael [G Wilson] was that I would like to be killed off when I am finished," he revealed .

    I liked Craig earlier in his career but he seems to have gotten far too big for his boots, he is a hired hand he shouldn't be making creative decisions especially when they are detrimental to the character.





  • It's probably not a great starting point for a movie when you have to write a story that facilitates the protagonist's death.





  • That movie was a skunk !!!! and it was almost 3 hours long !!! 3 hours of being sprayed by a skunk !!!!





  • 2 hours in, not overly excited by it!





  • I wasted a nights alcohol consumption on it !!! And it’s wasn’t cheap wine either !!! It was the good stuff !!!



  • Advertisement


  • Well . . . I robbed it off the internet & thought it was class, really enjoyed it.

    True Detective director guy should start off the new batch



Advertisement