Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 28, 2022, 07:35:30 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Movies  |  Topic: No Time to Die (Bond 25) 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: No Time to Die (Bond 25)  (Read 5828 times)
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11714


on: December 07, 2019, 04:58:01 AM

https://youtu.be/BIhNsAtPbPI

I don't know why I still bother. But another bond film still written by Purvis and Wade who've written every awful script since whichever one came after Goldeneye.

But hey, action looks cool. Has Christopher Waltz.

Edit by Trippy: fix title
« Last Edit: December 11, 2019, 01:32:14 AM by Trippy »

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ≠assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14513


Reply #1 on: December 07, 2019, 08:52:28 PM

Who is always a good performer but it doesn't help if his role is completely stupid, as it was in the last one.
Brolan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1395


Reply #2 on: December 10, 2019, 05:57:49 PM

It looks like Jamesí balls were cut off and put in the female Bondís purse.  Iíll have to hear positive buzz before I go see this one.
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10550


Reply #3 on: December 11, 2019, 01:30:20 AM

This whole franchise has just been "Random Action Movie" for quite some time now.  Maybe even since Roger Moore.

"...maybe if you cleaned the piss out of the sunny d bottles under your desks and returned em, you could upgrade you vid cards, fucken lusers.." - Grunk
Riggswolfe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7809


Reply #4 on: December 11, 2019, 02:40:51 AM

It looks like Jamesí balls were cut off and put in the female Bondís purse.  Iíll have to hear positive buzz before I go see this one.

 rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes

"We live in a country, where John Lennon takes six bullets in the chest, Yoko Ono was standing right next to him and not one fucking bullet! Explain that to me! Explain that to me, God! Explain it to me, God!" - Denis Leary summing up my feelings about the nature of the universe.
NowhereMan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7300


Reply #5 on: December 11, 2019, 06:42:12 AM

If anything that's more true to the books, where James Bond manages to fuck up repeatedly and is often saved by the woman in the story. In the book of Thuderball, in the climactic fight
I'm sure MRA types are going to be up in arms but if anything this is a bit closer to the literary Bond who was certainly chivalrous but also portrayed as having the tactical acumen of a sledgehammer and constantly underestimated all women he came across. Bond wasn't really meant to be an admirable character, he's written as pretty much non-self reflective toxic masculinity who is slowly killing himself with booze and drugs (and quickly killing himself by being awful at spycraft). Bond movies having a strong female co-star is not really a betrayal of the character.

"Look at my car. Do you think that was bought with the earnest love of geeks?" - HaemishM
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11714


Reply #6 on: December 11, 2019, 05:22:19 PM

This is true, but.... the books are terrible.

Craig bond films are the biggest wasted opportunity in the franchise. Best lead, best supporting casts, best ideas, best directors, but such truly awful writing.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2019, 05:24:28 PM by eldaec »

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ≠assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14513


Reply #7 on: December 11, 2019, 05:35:07 PM

Yeah, the books are in fact bad--the difference between literary Bond and literary Mike Hammer or similar also-rans is surprisingly thin. Fleming was a weird dude and it's weird that this series became the big thing that it did. Connery has a lot to do with that.
NowhereMan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7300


Reply #8 on: December 13, 2019, 10:04:30 AM

The books aren't amazing and the plots are sometimes just downright bizarre but I don't think it's fair to say Fleming was one the same level as other spy pulp. He sometimes managed some actually nice prose and his main character was written somewhat more nuanced than the typical pulp hero. Bond in the books is a chivalrous thug who spends his time trying to be cynical  but can't help being sentimental. He also is a terrible spy who is frequently saved from disaster just be being very good at shooting people and that's probably deliberate. I think it's also fair to say Fleming was probably one of the more progressive writers of his generation, The Spy Who Loved Me is all told from the perspective of the Bond girl and the first half is her biography getting treated like crap by a series of men and eventually deciding to say fuck it and take off on a road trip across the US by herself.

They're not Dickens or even le Carre but they're a big step up from the standard pulp stuff.

"Look at my car. Do you think that was bought with the earnest love of geeks?" - HaemishM
Trippy
Administrator
Posts: 23333


Reply #9 on: March 04, 2020, 01:59:04 PM

Sir T
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14218


Reply #10 on: March 04, 2020, 03:04:59 PM

"The Spy who loved me" got a lot of criticism at the time it was released, I think mainly becasue it really showed Bond as being not an admirable person at all. But I think it's really the most interesting of the Bond novels, for one thing becasue the woman winds up thinking of this jackass with affection, which is really an indictment of the whole male species she has met so far. It was really a harsh bit of social commentary.

But ya, the Craig films have really been wasted potential.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2021, 04:01:58 PM by Sir T »

Hic sunt dracones.
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14513


Reply #11 on: March 04, 2020, 04:59:58 PM

Yeah, the novel version of that is interesting, actually. The movie doesn't use anything from it but the title.
Tale
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8487

sıɥʇ ǝʞıן sʞןɐʇ


Reply #12 on: September 30, 2021, 01:52:07 AM

Critic reviews averaging 83% on Rotten Tomatoes. It's quite mixed, but the majority who liked it, liked it a lot.

London's The Times seems the most impressed: "Itís better than good. Itís magnificent... a Daniel Craig Bond has finally delivered on its promise."
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11714


Reply #13 on: September 30, 2021, 06:16:26 PM

British newspapers say this about every Bond film.

British culture has a fucking weird relationship with James Bond.

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ≠assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14513


Reply #14 on: September 30, 2021, 09:12:52 PM

Like, I'm not sure ANY Bond film has been "magnificent". There's about four seriously good ones, one of which is Craig's Casino Royale. And some scenes.
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11714


Reply #15 on: October 01, 2021, 04:52:04 AM

If you had read the British press reviews you would know that each one completely revolutionised the genre.

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ≠assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
Velorath
Contributor
Posts: 8743


Reply #16 on: October 01, 2021, 01:11:32 PM

From Russia With Love and Casino Royale are probably the top tier Bonds.
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14513


Reply #17 on: October 01, 2021, 06:59:53 PM

From Russia With Love and Casino Royale are actually composed movies with a pretty coherent mood and plot execution. Casino Royale might be the only one that has genuine character development and a real action aesthetic that isn't just shaky-cam or 70s-whatever.

Goldfinger has so many great setpieces that the slight incoherency of the overall plot is forgiveable.

Dr. No has some fucking great Connery bits and one of the better "base destruction" sequences.

Spy Who Loved Me has some decent bits and is maybe the best of "meglomaniac not actually allied with SPECTRE" plots.

Lazenby's film has an actual plot! With actual consequences! And he's not terrible, if not particularly good.

Everything else comes down to "there's some watchable scenes" until you get to the vile slurry of Octopussy and License to Kill.
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11714


Reply #18 on: October 02, 2021, 12:02:41 PM

I'd agree with you about the first half of Casino Royale.

But from the moment the Aston Martin flips, it is irredeemable crap with delusions of grandeur.

I don't mind films like view to a kill, goldfinger or goldeneye because they are shlocky action comedies from start to finish.

There are few like From Russia which are genuinely good movies.

But every Bond after Goldeneye is an ambitious film made of really high quality parts stuck together with a script so awful that I cannot understand why the writers are still employed.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2021, 04:39:43 AM by eldaec »

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ≠assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14513


Reply #19 on: October 02, 2021, 03:47:13 PM

Ah, no, the post-flipping is still great, I think. Ok, I could have done without the scrotum-crushing scene, but the stuff in Venice is great. The problem is that the people piloting Craig's Bond decided that it was a 'soft reboot' of Bond's origins (which it was) and then they didn't have the guts to follow through. Meaning, what we discovered was that Bond's misogyny is a) real and b) based on a really bad experience. It's a revisitation almost of the way Bond was allowed to grow emotionally (which doesn't mean towards being better) in the Lazenby film. Having said, "Ok, we're seeing Bond before he's Connery Bond and before SPECTRE", they couldn't stick the landing in the next movies--that would have taken being more explicit about this being a reprise of Connery Bond where he's got the vulnerabilities and range of Craig. Instead they said to themselves "oh ok it's more origin stories so let's make SPECTRE personally tied to Bond and oh yeah let's make Judi Densch the M before Connery's M and oh yeah let's give Bond the SAME ORIGIN AS BATMAN, how awesome is that?

Whereas what they should have done is "ok, we've shown you some glimpses--Bond is an angry guy who is pretending to be suave upper-class, Bond does actually hate-fuck women but he also has a filial relationship to M, Bond is fucking smart but also hates taking orders, NOW what we're going to do is reinvent SPECTRE and the rest in a 21st Century geopolitics", and leave Bond some mysteries. Or they really should have had the guts to commit to the "James Bond is a code name for different men (and women) whose real identities are scrubbed entirely, and all of them learn to inhabit the Bond persona; being Bond isn't just a license to kill, it's having a target painted on you *on purpose*". That would have been a fantastic gift to the franchise--almost the equivalent of Doctor Who regenerating. But they didn't have the guts and they misunderstood what made Casino Royale a great film.
Sir T
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14218


Reply #20 on: October 02, 2021, 05:03:52 PM

Spy Who Loved Me has some decent bits and is maybe the best of "meglomaniac not actually allied with SPECTRE" plots.

TSWLM also introduced Jaws, who was fucking terrifying as a villain in that movie. Moonraker turned him into slapstick, but even then he was a guilty pleasure.

Hic sunt dracones.
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14513


Reply #21 on: October 02, 2021, 05:19:17 PM

Yeah, Jaws was not even remotely funny in most of Spy Who Loved Me. Even the slight slapstick of Bond using a magnet to beat him turned badass when Jaws just ignores the shark tank trap by biting the sharks to death. (mind you that would be pretty tough to do with a human bite radius but ok)
Sir T
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14218


Reply #22 on: October 02, 2021, 05:24:40 PM

The thing is, in the original script all that happens is that Jaws falls in to the shark tank and the cover closed over him, assumed dead. But test audiences loved Jaws so much that they went back and shot the ending where he just bites his way out.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2021, 04:34:36 AM by Sir T »

Hic sunt dracones.
Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 31852

I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.


Reply #23 on: October 05, 2021, 08:15:03 AM

Peter Sellers was great in Casino Royale.
Sir T
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14218


Reply #24 on: October 05, 2021, 10:30:37 PM

So was Woody Allen.

Hic sunt dracones.
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14513


Reply #25 on: October 31, 2021, 08:28:32 PM

Did anybody see this? I couldn't really stir myself to do it.
Phildo
Contributor
Posts: 5806


Reply #26 on: October 31, 2021, 11:20:22 PM

I did.  It was fine, but I haven't cared for any of the Craig films since Casino Royale.  My wife enjoyed this one a lot.
Goumindong
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4297


Reply #27 on: November 04, 2021, 04:37:47 PM

Ah, no, the post-flipping is still great, I think. Ok, I could have done without the scrotum-crushing scene, but the stuff in Venice is great. The problem is that the people piloting Craig's Bond decided that it was a 'soft reboot' of Bond's origins (which it was) and then they didn't have the guts to follow through. Meaning, what we discovered was that Bond's misogyny is a) real and b) based on a really bad experience. It's a revisitation almost of the way Bond was allowed to grow emotionally (which doesn't mean towards being better) in the Lazenby film. Having said, "Ok, we're seeing Bond before he's Connery Bond and before SPECTRE", they couldn't stick the landing in the next movies--that would have taken being more explicit about this being a reprise of Connery Bond where he's got the vulnerabilities and range of Craig. Instead they said to themselves "oh ok it's more origin stories so let's make SPECTRE personally tied to Bond and oh yeah let's make Judi Densch the M before Connery's M and oh yeah let's give Bond the SAME ORIGIN AS BATMAN, how awesome is that?

Whereas what they should have done is "ok, we've shown you some glimpses--Bond is an angry guy who is pretending to be suave upper-class, Bond does actually hate-fuck women but he also has a filial relationship to M, Bond is fucking smart but also hates taking orders, NOW what we're going to do is reinvent SPECTRE and the rest in a 21st Century geopolitics", and leave Bond some mysteries. Or they really should have had the guts to commit to the "James Bond is a code name for different men (and women) whose real identities are scrubbed entirely, and all of them learn to inhabit the Bond persona; being Bond isn't just a license to kill, it's having a target painted on you *on purpose*". That would have been a fantastic gift to the franchise--almost the equivalent of Doctor Who regenerating. But they didn't have the guts and they misunderstood what made Casino Royale a great film.


They tried too reinvent SPECTRE for 20th century politics but people hated it(and the writers strike killed it).

Did anybody see this? I couldn't really stir myself to do it.

I did. It was better than SPECTRE but not as good as Skyfall, and still in the overall "bad" quality. Like Skyfall and SPECTRE its very interested in making a new twists to Bond's personality by introducing more family members and giving everyone intertwined and tragic backstories. And also making sure that these things relate very little to the plot of the prior movie. If you care about plot holes these ones are big and large. The villain has a motivation but its like... not ever really explained. At least not insomuch as their plot relates to like, the rest of the world. There are lots of grand speeches about how the villain and bond are really the same and then it ends with the UK perpetrating an international incident/kind of maybe going to war because they're the UK.


Which puts it at the third or fourth best of the Craig bonds, depending on whether or not you like Quantum of Solace (which is very good if a infected by Bourne Cam)

Positives include this definitely being the last Craig Bond and them maybe setting up someone else for 007 if they have any testicles (they do not). Negatives being this doesn't wipe the Skyfall/Spectre continuity off the map and just refilm Quantum with a more modern approach to cinematography.
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14513


Reply #28 on: November 04, 2021, 04:54:43 PM

Yeah, I thought Quantum was underappreciated; it was entirely the bad shaky cam stuff that hurt it. Folks at the time were like "how ridiculous, the ultimate plot is an evil organization taking over Bolivia's water supply, stick with the realistic stuff like a space colony or an underwater habitat har har" which just showed how little they know about what's actually happened with Bolivia's water supply.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42370

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #29 on: November 04, 2021, 05:03:28 PM

I thought Quantam of Solace was mediocre, but the final battle in that weird desert hotel killed it for me. Skyfall was just bad from start to finish, and a complete waste of Javier Bardem.

Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14513


Reply #30 on: November 13, 2021, 08:36:35 AM

Eh, we watched this.

It's actually boring. Surprisingly slow-paced. Incredibly invested in the arc of this Bond's films in a bad way--you practically need footnotes at times. The whole "M has gone and authorized a dumb superweapon that poses a danger to the free world oh noes" is convoluted. Plus of all the silly things this series needs to shake off, it's the idea that the UK is a leading military and scientific power that routinely develops intelligence solutions and military technologies completely on its own that no other power in the world knows about or shares. That was funny back in the Cold War when Felix Leiter and the CIA were basically helpless without Bond but it got kinda dumb the more seriously the series took that idea.

Craig is a great actor, but after Casino Royale, the grim humorlessness of his Bond stopped working, maybe because they tried to create a grand plot arc for him.
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Movies  |  Topic: No Time to Die (Bond 25)  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC