MovieChat Forums > No Time to Die (2021) Discussion > Just saw it (spoiler alert)

Just saw it (spoiler alert)

posted 3 years ago by strangenstein (683)
18 replies | jump to latest

My wife and I just took in the 2:50pm matinee of No Time to Die. The opening is absolutely amazing. We gave that segment **** out of ****. After that, unfortunately, the movie begins to sputter. It’s far too long and, like many Bond films, has an overly convoluted plot. After the opening scenes the movie settles into a **1/2 out of **** stretch. The ending is powerful and partially redeems all that came before. No Time to Die isn’t the best Bond movie, but it’s certainly not the worst.

Your mileage may vary.

[–] WhereIsRent (1092) 3 years ago

Yes the opening was fantastic, really thought we were gonna be in for the next Skyfall based on that.

It’s certainly better than Spectre and better paced even with the longer running time.

Out of all the Bond movies from the past 25 years I’d probably rank it fourth after Casino Royale, Skyfall and Goldeneye.

[–] Ripkens25 (2066) 3 years ago

I think people remember Goldeneye with rose colored glasses. IMO, it's way overrated. I think maybe people like the IDEA of Goldeneye.....they WANT to like it. It was Brosnan's first foray....it was a fresh start. But it lost its luster for me pretty quickly. Prettyboy Brosnan, prancing around in his little tuxedos, with all his little puns, not a hair out of place. Anya Onatop....with her pasty make-up, way too much kool-aid red lipstick, and ridiculous Boris & Natasha accent. And don't even get me started on Alan Cumming and Joe Don Baker.

I don't think I'd put it in the top 15.

BTW...I thought NTTD was pretty fantastic. Daniel Craig brought so much depth and pure acting chops to the role of Bond. A very nice tenure.

[–] WhereIsRent (1092) 3 years ago

Goldeneye was the first Bond movie I ever saw when I was a kid and one of the first action movies I ever watched. Being born in the early 90s Brosnan is basically the Bond I grew up watching. For me whatever problems the film has it more than makes up for with the action scenes and the score from Eric Serra but I understand why people think it's overrated.

I find OHMSS overrated whereas it gets so much praise and many consider it underrated. IMO the movie doesn't pick up until the third act and really drags until then. When he escapes Blofield's lair from then on it is great and is one of the strongest third acts of any Bond movie but up until then it is average at best for me.

I think it's one of the most interesting aspects of Bond movies is that everyone seems to want something different from the franchise. Some people prefer the daftness of Roger Moore whereas others want the depth and grittiness of Daniel Craig. Craig for me has had the strongest run of films though alongside Connery.

[–] pjl69 (2647) 3 years ago

"I find OHMSS overrated whereas it gets so much praise and many consider it underrated. IMO the movie doesn't pick up until the third act and really drags until then. When he escapes Blofield's lair from then on it is great and is one of the strongest third acts of any Bond movie but up until then it is average at best for me."

I think the drama parts of OHMSS work well even today, but action and rear projection cinematography has aged badly. The third act especially shows its age. John Barry's score is among the best of the series, altough I don't like it when they lazily just reuse the original James Bond theme in the action scenes in the end.

"I think it's one of the most interesting aspects of Bond movies is that everyone seems to want something different from the franchise. Some people prefer the daftness of Roger Moore whereas others want the depth and grittiness of Daniel Craig."

Not everyone. I have my favourites from all major Bond eras (FRWL and Thunderball from Connery, Moonraker and SWLM from Moore and Casino Royale and QOS from Craig, oh yes, and Goldeneye from Brosnan). You can make great Bond films in different styles, its not style dependant.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

The problem with looking at old Bond movies is that they were made in a different time. OHMSS was made at a time when movies hadn't embraced the future's rapid pace editing. It was made when movies moved along at a much more leisurely pace. The only appropriate way to think of Bond movies is to ignore the things that were a product of their time and look at the quality of the acting and story... I mean if you look at the earlist Connery movies they were total shit simply because the effects were such complete shit. Bond put in peril by a deadly critter and you can clearly see the glass that is between the critter and actor. Or that dumb as gold painted that was supposed to keep skin from breathing and look like a 4 year old got their mommies bag of a craft glitter.

To me No Time to Die fails because it uses Hollywood science, in this case the made up nanobot bullshit. Give me a villain that uses something realistic the nanobot angle was a stupid as space battle in Moonraker.

[–] pjl69 (2647) 3 years ago

"The problem with looking at old Bond movies is that they were made in a different time. OHMSS was made at a time when movies hadn't embraced the future's rapid pace editing. It was made when movies moved along at a much more leisurely pace."

The funny thing about OHMSS is that the editing of fight scenes was ahead of its time. I mean Lazenby's fist fights. They sped up the footage and edited rapidly. But even that doesn't save those scenes from looking dated. I prefer watching a bit slower paced fight scenes.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I prefer realistic fight scenes, not ones where people brush off things that would have taken them out of the fight. Those type of problems have been a problem with Bond movies through the years but really seem to be in full effect in the Daniel Craig Bonds. Just rewatch the parkour sequence and how ridiculous it is, jumping from heights of 20 or 30 feet and continuing to run, blowing up an gas tanks and then people getting up as if it was just something to knock them down instead of burning them.

If you watch a bond film you really have to ignore the stupidity of most fight scenes because if you think about them for more than a second they just seem dumb.

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

I agree with most of your post, but this here...

Just rewatch the parkour sequence and how ridiculous it is, jumping from heights of 20 or 30 feet and continuing to run,

Let's me know you've never seen this scene here from District B-13, which was done without wire work, no special effects, no camera tricks, and no CGI. That was all David Belle, the original progenitor of today's mainstream parkour culture:
https://youtu.be/VHSoPTJNfPE

Yep, he cleared about 30 feet and kept on running, lol

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I watched it, and it has no wire work but it does have camera tricks and other things to keep him from getting hurt. What appears to be one of the greatest vertical drops is done with 2 camera shots so you never see him making the full fall you see him leaping off the one railing but when he lands you see that from a camera shot above. Most likely its because the full drop was too high and he landed on something to cushion the fall then lep from a shorter height with a camera overhead, edit together and you don't see the cushion but it looks much more impressive.

Or if you look at the final big jump, once again they have clearly piled on a thick amount of cushion for him to land on, can't tell exactly what it is, probably rubber. But you know it isn't real because no roof would ever had that amount of a loose substance on top of it.

In the end it looks impressive, and more plausible than the Bond version. But the Bond one has too many which are just flat out impossible. The leap from crane tops alone where Bond hits the steel frame of the crane and nearly falls, that would have caused some injury to Bond and kept him from being able to stay up with the bad guy... and just as in the clip you linked to there is a shot where you can tell they put material on top of a roof to help cushion the jump.

[–] moviefanatic505 (6356) 3 years ago

Then link us to some realistic action sequences smart guy.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Oh boy the little stalker cunt is popping up everywhere. Do the world a favor and move out of your mama's basement and get a job.

[–] moviefanatic505 (6356) 3 years ago

Have a job and live on my own. Want to make more assumptions?

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

And I'm an astronaut... see we can both lie.

[–] moviefanatic505 (6356) 3 years ago

And you live off welfare and are on drugs... I can make up lies as well.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

That's all you've been doing, you really should change your name to Pinocchio ya filthy cunt.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Moviefanatic505 isn’t worth your time, he is a filthy racist and he called Candace Owens an “Uncle Tom” he’s a very sick person and we should pity him

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I know. The stupid bastard has been stalking me lately.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Oh he’s done the same thing to me but I guess he got tired of me owning his ass. He is utterly pathetic and should have been banned a long time ago. People as miserable as him should just be put out of their misery.