NO TIME TO DIE [Bond 25] - SPOILER Talk

[Johnmgm]

This might be the first Bond movie I skip.

[Monterey Jack]

I'm reminded of the live-action Aladdin, where they cast a really handsome actor for the role of Jafar (and one, weirdly, who looked younger than the actor playing Aladdin). What, ugly people can't be evil?

This is fricking absurd.

[John Johnson]

There is even the first black 00 agent, played by Lashana Lynch

Isn't she supposed to be the current 007 before Craig shows up?

[mkaroly]

Just watched the trailer...I am looking forward to it. Lol...I love Craig as Bond, and even if they end up finding a way to completely muck it all up, I am still going to go an see it in theaters. I do agree that the trailer does make the movie look Marvel universe-ish.

[Paul MacLean]

It may well be "entertaining" and "cool" -- but will it really be a true Bond movie?

It is very clearly checking all the "trendy" boxes -- feminist-friendly, Marvel-style action sequences, a haunted, emotionally delicate James Bond, a slick, gutsy Hans Zimmer soundtrack, etc.

Early Bond films didn't latch-on to cultural concerns. 1960s Bond pictures didn't address the Vietnam war, or the rampant assassinations (Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, etc.). 1970s Bond films didn't kowtow to "women's lib" (in fact The Man With The Golden Gun is one of the most misogynistic of all Bond films!).

The closest 80s Bond movies got to acknowledging the socio-political climate was the Thatcher gag at the end of For Your Eyes Only. And yeah, in the 80s, boy bands were doing title songs and Barry was using drum machines, but it wasn't like Giorgio Moroder or Harold Faltermeyer were scoring Bond films.

[Eric Paddon]

You can see some underlying examples of topicality in the 70s and 80s Bond films. "Golden Gun" is driven partly by the whole "energy crisis" issue of 1973-74. The chummy detente relationship with the Soviets in "Spy Who Loved Me" is pure 1970s and then in "Octopussy" there is a concession to the trends of making the Soviets "bad" once again.

[Monterey Jack]

It may well be "entertaining" and "cool" -- but will it really be a true Bond movie?

We haven't had a "real" Bond movie since probably The Living Daylights. Licence To Kill is a really good film, but I agree it doesn't feel very "Bond-ish", more like a run-of-the-mill 80's revenge action movie produced by Joel Silver (right down to the tuneless, Mickey-Mousing Michael Kamen score). The Pierce Brosnan movies had their moments (GoldenEye was the best --sorry, Andy!), but those were already starting to "de-fang" the character with nods to "liberated" women and an uptick in dumb puns and noisy, anonymous demolition-derby action sequences (culminating in the worst Bond movie of all, the atrocious Die Another Day). Casino Royale restored the character's moody dignity, and that and Skyfall are amongst my favorite films in the series, but Craig is taking the character WAY too seriously by this point, with insanely bloated running times and a ponderous, leaden joylessness. I just wish for these movies to be Saturday matinee fun again, and hopefully the next actor after Craig will enjoy the sex, danger and luxe perks in service of Queen and Country instead of moping in the shadows.

[AndyDursin]

"Fun" has no place in Craig's dojo, regrettably -- and remember it's Craig who called all the shots on this movie. He picked the writer, picked the director, serves as a co-producer. But I think it actually goes hand in hand with the culture. We've become a shockingly humorless society where grievance is at the top of the list and everything is politicized. Bond has gone that direction, in coordination with Craig's politics. This movie may be more obvious than all the others in terms of that. I hope it's still entertaining but the jury is out.

I would love to see a "real" Bond movie again, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is pretty much the end of an era in terms of the formula and how it was laid out. I agree with MJ the Brosnan films were a disappointment in terms of the entire cycle. They're firmly anchored into their era and really don't come off well. We differ on which one is better than the other but I don't revisit ANY of them -- the only one I like on balance more than the others is TOMORROW NEVER DIES and even that ends with a boring final act. GOLDENEYE is "classically set up" but the score is so wretched and some of the dialogue cringe-worthy that I can't stomach revisiting that either (plus Brosnan looks constipated throughout that one also).

CASINO ROYALE is easily the best of the Craig films. SKYFALL is solid, but it's 1/2 of a great Bond film and it's "good" but I don't feel it's a classic at all, sorry. And the other two are pretty much dreadful, amongst the worst of the entire series. They're played out -- and so is Craig's humorless mug and one-dimensional "tough guy" take on Bond. Dalton comes off like a teddy bear compared to him!

What MGM should do is "Make Bond Fun Again" -- maybe even throw 007 back to a period piece. That would be enjoyable to see and would get them "off the hook" in terms of the politics and present-day plot predicaments, but that's not what they'll do. I can almost guarantee the next Bond won't actually be Bond but the name and an "actor of color" taking over the role.

[Monterey Jack]

What MGM should do is "Make Bond Fun Again" -- maybe even throw 007 back to a period piece. That would be enjoyable to see and would get them "off the hook" in terms of the politics and present-day plot predicaments, but that's not what they'll do.

Sadly, even contemporary period pieces pull their punches when it comes to depictions of racism/sexism/homophobia/what-have-you. As much as, say, Stranger Things gets right about 80's cinema, there's stuff in it that would have NEVER flown then (those kids would have throwing the word "F*g!" around like confetti and would a small-town mid-80's town like Hawkins, Indiana have been totally okay with a black boy and white girl dating?). And if a period piece depicts smoking, casual sexism or the like, it always has to be funneled through a contemporary lens, the filmmakers all but winking at the camera by saying, "See how bad things used to be...?" When was the last time 007 lit up a cigarette in a movie? That "Filthy habit...!" line Brosnan had after cold-cocking a smoking guard in Tomorrow Never Dies made me wince even in the late 90's.

By 2030, Bond won't be able to smoke, drink, kill, bone any woman he isn't married to, or have any lustful thoughts whatsoever. It's gonna be like Demolition Man where he gets a ticket every time he indulges in a base pleasure. And the villain will probably look like Henry Golding (an actor who actually has the suave charisma and sly humor to be Bond himself).

[John Johnson]

[Paul MacLean]

Count me as a fan of Licence to Kill. I think Dalton hit his stride as Bond and gave a first-rate performance, and it is a shame the series went on hiatus instead of giving us a couple more Dalton pictures.

I also honestly consider Michael Kamen's score one of the best of the series -- and certainly a super score to LALD, FYEO, Octopussy and AVTAK. I've actually been on a quite a Kamen kick recently -- acquiring some of his CDs (and catching-up on some of his films) I missed when first released. He really was a colossal talent -- in league with the greats -- and also one of the finest orchestrators who ever lived (and I mean in the history of music). Yeah, his action scores could be strident and un-melodic but they furnished the appropriate tension and adrenaline. And Licence to Kill does have some highly-melodic moments (like the music for the love scene between Bond and Pam). I like David Arnold's Bond scores but his were more of an homage to John Barry, whereas Kamen had a more unique approach -- different from Barry, but it worked. He should have scored further Bond adventures.

I never had a problem with Brosnan as Bond, but for me he is the least-interesting 007. I did enjoy Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is Not Enough (and kudos to Brosnan for bringing back the Aston Martin DB5), but his era is bookended by what I consider the two worst 007 pictures (crummy as they are, I'd rather watch Quantum of Solace or SPECTRE than Goldeneye or the stupid Madonna one -- what was it called again?).

Craig will go down as the actor who might have been one of the best Bonds -- but didn't live-up to his potential. Casino Royale gives us the Bond of Fleming's books, which is why it was both and artistic and box office success. So what does Craig do? He decides to try and veer the character in the opposite direction from what Fleming created. (Remember about a decade ago when Craig said he wanted Bond to have a sex scene with a man?)

[Eric Paddon]

I've always registered my negative view of Dalton though compared to Craig, Dalton looks much better. But I admit I enjoyed most of the Brosnan films though "Goldeneye" I still enjoy best simply because it was a return to some fun after the torture-angst fest that was LTK. Yes, the score is terrible but I still enjoy the film and Scorupco. It's also the only time I thought Dench fit into the series (don't get me started again on how I couldn't stand her in the Craig films and why having her stick around dragged those films down further for me)

This will always be my preferred way to see Craig as Bond.




And on the flip side........

[Paul MacLean]

One thing we can all agree on -- the Craig Casino Royale was better than the Niven version!

[John Johnson]

https://variety.com/2020/film/box-offic ... 234790944/

[Johnmgm]

I feel terrible for the theater owners.