Advertisement
Boards are fundraising to help the people of Ukraine via the Red Cross at this horrific time. Please donate and share if you can, you will find the link here. Many thanks.

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

14648505152

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 363 ✭✭ Johns nephew




  • Registered Users Posts: 18,602 ✭✭✭✭ glasso


    She was "ok", wouldn't be madly gushing over her at all here and didn't like that elongated Cuban bar fight scene - parts of it degenerated into slapstick territory

    It was more Austin Powers than anything else

    www.buymeacoffee.com/glassopy



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,486 ✭✭✭✭ silverharp


    You should give the poster a better answer than that, its not a stupid question

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭ Chinese whospers


    DeArma could make a good 00 and base a film on her. But, at the risk of being sexiest, her character wouldn't be one that sleeps around as 007 does. Yeah, I know how that sounds.

    Craig's Bond was disconcerting enough as it was - seeing as in his take there was an explicit origin story as a 00 right through to... you know.

    So, for the next Reboot to happen it has to be totally different actors all round. You can't have Fiennes as Q for example. The M actor pretty much called it a day too.

    What they did with Craig was totally different to the other Bonds, the other Bonds didn't have the same complete Arc, so it was okay(ish) to keep some of the other commonalities.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Dades


    In an era when Spiderman, Batman etc get rebooted what seems like every few years, I don't see any difficulty here. New everyone, and off we go.

    It is a shame Paloma can't be part of any reboot. If she had appeared for 10 mins in a previous Craig outing, she's have been roped back in for sure.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,941 ✭✭✭ XsApollo


    I thought it was a good movie in itself, but isn’t really a bond in the bond style.

    The run time didn’t bother me, sat happily through it.

    Don’t think I’ll be interested in anything bond after it tho if they are going the way it looked.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭ Chinese whospers


    The one tracked, disfigured villain with worldwide consequences plot, a secret layer and a ton of background characters beavering away at his evil whim. It was by far the most Bond Craig movie. And in my mind the weakest of the Craig films.



  • Registered Users Posts: 269 ✭✭ Fred Astaire


    It was not the most 'Bond' of the Craig movies? Absolute jibberish.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 26,719 CMod ✭✭✭✭ johnny_ultimate


    Yeah it's absolutely the most 'traditional' of the Craig-era Bond films in some surprising ways. That's absolutely countered by some of the story and character decisions they make, but nonetheless it is full of some of the classic tropes: wisecracks, secret island lairs, overt & subtle callbacks to several of the classic films etc... For every more unusual swing they make, there's something that places it firmly in the familiar Bond canon.



  • Registered Users Posts: 269 ✭✭ Fred Astaire


    There are far too many completely anti Bond moments that the smaller instances like the villain having a lair do not counteract.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 24,980 ✭✭✭✭ ~Rebel~


    On the de Armas thing, she was working with the CIA anyway, rather than MI6, so it would be easy enough to do a spinoff movie for her that's from the American intelligence perspective with a totally clean break from the Bond universe and expectations. Could be an interesting direction to go, especially if they set the stakes much much lower, with her infiltrating some South American warlord or something. Would be a nice spy-craft placeholder until they decide to do a total Bond reboot in 6 or 7 years.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,656 ✭✭✭✭ MisterAnarchy




  • Registered Users Posts: 78 ✭✭ VanHalen


    Saw this last night - last time I was in a cinema was for Blade Runner 2049! Firstly I think the whole movie could have been done in 90 minutes and when it comes out on Blu Ray I'm gonna give myself the challenge of editing it down.

    The Cuba episode didn't really contribute much to the plot and would have had more significance if the Paloma character could have been re-introduced later in the film.

    The relationship between Bond and Nomi could have been more antagonistic with increased competition between them. They could have played this better with a relationship that starts off with them completely at odds with each other getting in each other's way and then reluctantly forming some mutual respect but it didn't play out like this. I was gob smacked when she suggested Bond be re-instated as 007 as there didn't seem (to me) to be any reason for her to suggest this.

    Rami Malek's villain character was sooo underwhelming.

    I can't take Ralph Fiennes seriously as M . Maybe it was the way he was made up but I kept thinking he was Leonard Rossiter and would break into full scale Reggie Perrin at any moment.

    Also the guy that plays Q (Ben Winshaw) kept remining me of Richard Oyoade from the IT Crowd.

    Overall a disappointment and unnecessarily long



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,486 ✭✭✭✭ silverharp


    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

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users Posts: 354 ✭✭ iffandonlyif


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,341 ✭✭✭ FunLover18


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,242 ✭✭✭✭ Tony EH


    @iffandonlyif

    You need to spoiler the fuck out of your post.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,242 ✭✭✭✭ Tony EH


    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. 😁



  • Registered Users Posts: 354 ✭✭ iffandonlyif


    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.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,424 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Sad Professor


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

    **Spoilers from this post onward**



  • Registered Users Posts: 253 ✭✭ nialler1978


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,980 ✭✭✭✭ ~Rebel~


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



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,980 ✭✭✭✭ ~Rebel~


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,866 ✭✭✭ OU812


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



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,656 ✭✭✭✭ MisterAnarchy


    Film is hitting US VOD on Tuesday.



  • Registered Users Posts: 609 ✭✭✭ Movie Maestro


    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!



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,453 ✭✭✭ buried


    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.

    "Lunar South is Solar East" - W. B. Yeats



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,086 ✭✭✭✭ ArmaniJeanss


    [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