No Time to Die (2021) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
4,136 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
A Botched Farewell
davidmvining20 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Well, that was not very good.

This is a movie that feels like it was written by committee with anything resembling a central idea having been diluted to nothing. I could be okay with that if the film, Cary Fukunaga's No Time to Die, Daniel Craig's last outing as the secret agent James Bond, operated on some basic entertaining level, but the committee-like script destroys any sense of structure to the story, creating stops and starts that never feel right while the story itself keeps feeling like its beginning at different points. The emotional connection is contrived and weak which undermines the supposedly emotional ending of the film. This is...a giant mess and one of the worst Bond films. Not the worst, but it's pretty close.

The desire to have all of the Craig films be some giant interconnected puzzle was always a half-hearted effort that started in the previous film, Spectre, and the continuation of the effort here is borderline embarrassing. After an opening showing a young French girl escaping an assassin when he takes pity on her and pulls her out of a frozen lake (taken from a line of dialogue in the previous film), we get Bond (Craig) and Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux), the girl from the last movie, enjoying time together in Italy. They are in love, and the movie spends very little time trying to convince us before Madeleine is telling Bond that they will never be happy together as long as Bond is still obsessing over Vesper Lynd. I mean...what? If we're going to treat these five movies as one long story, then we have to consider the idea that Bond's dismissal of Lynd's death at the end of Casino Royale was final, and...um...that his letting go of his rage at her death at the end of Quantum of Solace was also final. She hadn't been mentioned in Skyfall (which felt like it happened years, maybe even more than a decade, after Quantum ended) and only mentioned in a single line of dialogue in Spectre by someone else. This is the beginning of an effort to have Craig's Bond say goodbye to the franchise as a whole, and it quite simply does not work.

At Lynd's grave, Bond is attacked by Spectre, and he blames Madeleine. When they get away, he puts her on a train and promises to never see her again before we get our title sequence and a jump ahead by five years. Why this jump of five years? To give Bond a child is why. He doesn't know about it yet, though. In the meantime he's retired, and his 007 moniker has been passed on by M (Ralph Fiennes) to Nomi (Lashana Lynch). When a mysterious figure organizes a raid on a top-secret British biolab and steals a DNA-targeting weapon and defected Russian scientist (David Dencik), the uncooperative CIA and MI6 are both on the trail that starts in Santiago, Cuba. The American agent Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright) invites Bond along on the mission, and the movie missteps heavily.

With this being the Bond farewell tour, he's saying goodbye to every major figure in the franchise including Leiter. So, with whom does Bond spend most of his Cuba time with? Paloma (Ana de Armas), a new secret agent who looks great in a slinky dress, kicks some butt, and then vanishes from the movie completely. This mission should have been done with Leiter, so they could have had one final hurrah before Leiter dies. Instead, it's with a throwaway character who doesn't matter. The other problem with this scene is that it's the closing of the chapter on SPECTRE as an organization with all of members showing up to a birthday bash for Ernst Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) who is in a maximum security prison in London and observing the events through a bionic eye that he can see through...somehow. I dunno. It doesn't matter. This movie is stupid. The larger problem is that since SPECTRE is not actually the antagonist of this film, dedicating a large set piece to them after a large set piece that sets them up as the villain. This movie is just ambling from one sequence to the next without any real clear narrative drive.

Leiter is betrayed, Bond loses the scientist, and Bond goes back home to London to visit MI6 and M as a visitor. It's here where we learn that M is behind the entire project of the DNA weapon that the movie feels like it's actually beginning, more than an hour into the film. Bond must get in to talk to Blofeld to figure out what may be happening, who may be behind it all, and yet Blofeld will only talk to his therapist, Madeleine. So, our hero and his lady meet once again and they're distant and borderline antagonistic towards each other. Yeah, this is a great love story.

Madeleine, though, has been roped into the plot of Safin (Rami Malek) by using a perfume laced with the DNA nanobots designed to kill Blofeld, which Bond touches, and then infects Blofeld with in their meeting. Again...Blofeld is not the antagonist to this movie, and we get an extended sequence, almost halfway through this interminable 170 minutes, where he ends up dying while giving up the littlest bit of information that Madeleine and Safin are connected, information that Madeleine has almost told Bond herself before. This is just another entry in the farewell tour occupying screen time, and it barely makes any sense.

Madeleine flees to her mother's old house in Scandinavia with Bond in pursuit where he meets his daughter whom Madeleine insists is not his. After a quick profession of deep love between the two, they're found out and must flee. The effort is protracted and ultimately pointless when Safin captures both Madeleine and the girl, fleeing to his island base.

I think it's easy to see the weird mix that's going on here in terms of tone, in addition to all the structural and thematic issues at play. The movie is taking some of the more ridiculous elements of the franchise (bionic eyes, super cars, island hideouts) and telling them in the most mundane manner to match with the more sober assessment of Bond's ending. It's such an odd combination that when Bond uses his EMP watch to blow up the bionic eye in the head of the bad guy he's choking and he lets out a bon mot, it's just some of the most bizarre stuff in the movie. I think it's pretty obvious that Barbara Broccoli has a huge soft spot for the Moore era films, and she ultimately has to push it in whether it fits or not. Or maybe it's a Fukunaga thing, I don't know. And that points to the problem of lack of authorial intent here. The movie's all over the place.

Paloma was written in, not by the film's lead screenwriter, but by Phoebe Waller-Bridge (presumably at Craig's insistence) in order to add more kickass female whether it fit or not. It ultimately doesn't because it interrupts the overall point of the whole sequence, Bond saying goodbye to Felix. Nomi feels like a sop to some slice of the audience that wants a female James Bond, but she's ultimately pointless, contributing shockingly little to the movement of the plot or advancement of any thematic ideas despite being in about half the film. Her big moment is when she kicks a physically unimposing man into a vat of acid and has a quip that plays on the movie's title. He doesn't matter by that point in the film, and if he had simply disappeared no one would have complained. Instead, though, they give his death to Nomi. The whole subplot with SPECTRE, including Blofeld, is the sort of thing that gets resolved in a movie's first act to quickly establish the danger of the new bad guy, and instead it takes up half the film.

And then there's Safin. Malek isn't really bad as Safin, but he's largely unremarkable. I remember reading an interview with Fukunaga that said that he and Malek worked really hard to make him as bland as possible, I mean, they worked really hard to make sure he had an accent that couldn't be tied to any country. Really, it amounts to Malek whispering through pretty much all of his lines, and they're almost all pretentious nonsense. He's introduced at about the halfway mark and doesn't actually get real screentime until the final act is spooling up. His big sit down with Bond is filled with stuff about how they're two sides of the same coin, and yet no effort has been made to actually establish that in any way. It's supposedly, I have to guess here, because they both kill people, the laziest of ways to try and draw this contrast. The only time in the franchise this worked was with The Man with the Golden Gun, and the antagonist actually was an alternate version of Bond, another one on one killer. It's also so late in the film to bring up this kind of idea considering the mess of stuff that's come before that it can't really stick any landing, especially when it has nothing to do with anything that's come before.

This movie is a disaster. There's no one responsible for the narrative, and what ends up happening is that, much like in the Lethal Weapon sequels, the script becomes about pleasing different stakeholders rather than telling an interesting story. The big finale is built on this idea of emotional connection that the movie only half-heartedly tries to accomplish and fails at that. A random death for Bond would have probably worked better.

There are moments here are there that work, though. There's a cool little bit in the finale when Bond turns around quickly to shoot someone behind him that mimics that gun barrel bit from the openings. The action is generally well done, it just happens randomly and without any real impact. Ana de Armas is fun as Paloma despite the general pointlessness of her character. Jamaica looks pretty. Hans Zimmer's score is pretty vigorous. That's honestly about it, though.

I liked Craig's tenure as Bond, but this is honestly a Bond adventure I never need to see again.
238 out of 312 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Quite a mess
bobetjo30 May 2022
This Bond movie was a confusing and rather tedious mess. The were a couple of complaints about "wokeness" in the reviews, but I didn't think that was a big issue. The majority of gripes seem to agree with me in that this was not entertaining. The characters of Bond, M, Lieter, Q just didn't feel like they knew what they were doing.

I had no problem with a retired Bond encountering the new 007 who was a black woman. But she added nothing to the plot and had no charisma. Best character was Paloma, a twenty minute ally who kicked ass with humour in Havana.

I found the movie overlong and heavy going. Craig's dialogue was often ponderous.

So glad I didn't pay to see it.
118 out of 155 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Who's the audience for this movie?
pmtelefon16 October 2021
Producers will blame the poor box office of "No Time to Die" on COVID but that's not why it's bombing. The movie is failing because there is no audience for it. It certainly wasn't made for fans of the Bond films (like me). The movie looks great with terrific location photography, the title is cool and Bond girls Lea Seydoux and Ana de Armas are wildly dreamy. Other than that, this movie has little to offer. The story isn't that interesting and the villain is weak. If there wasn't a lady in the theater (AMC Westbury, NY) laughing once in a while, I wouldn't have even noticed the jokes. It's also about twenty minutes too long. "No Time to Die" bites the hand that feeds it. It is, hands down, the worst movie of Daniel Craig's not-so-hot tenure as James Bond.
764 out of 1,110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Over-extended, mopey chad
Red-Barracuda21 January 2022
When I go to see a Bond movie I'm looking for lush music, exotic locations, evil geniuses, fast cars and/or boats and a few gadgets that aren't invisible cars. I want Bond to be swedging with villains and interacting with hot babes on a regular basis. What I don't want is Bond rabbiting on about his feelings for nearly three hours. Now, you may think I am a philistine who can't appreciate believable drama with my thrills. But the thing is that all this naval gazing which is supposed to make the character so 'real' is still co-existing with totally unrealistic action and sci-fi super-weapons. It's a case of wanting your cake and eating it too. Over-the-top action and plots don't combine at all well with constant whining. The counter argument would be if when Ken Loach made his kitchen sink drama 'Up the Junction' he had decided to include exploding helicopters and robots. If that had happened, the critics would be up in arms, saying that, while they admired the gritty presentation of working class people's lives, they were disappointed with Loach's decision to include a robot laser battle at the conclusion. Well, those self-same critics are the ones who are applauding the idea that Bond can infiltrate an evil genius's secret base, while taking time out to mope around and feel a bit sad while doing it. I'm not having it. If you can't have cyborgs in a Ken Loach drama then you sure as hell can't have a Bond with mental health issues.

Despite reservations in the kitchen sink Bond angle, I have been more-or-less on board with the Daniel Craig era films up to this point, at least to a certain extent. While I do seriously doubt I would ever re-watch any of them again before Octopussy, I did nevertheless appreciate Craig playing the part like a cold killer with a personality disorder. But the attempts to humanize him by making him fall in love always seemed very forced and with this final film, they have definitely jumped the shark. This probably has to go down as the worst Bond in the entire franchise. At a near 3 hours, it is ludicrously over-long, with barely a memorable character. The early stages are admittedly fairly promising, with a good pre-credits section but as the movie progresses it loses steam rapidly. The reason that the Bond films have lasted so long is that they are essentially formula films and there is nothing wrong with that. But the Craig era has essentially thrown the formula book out the window and while it was an interesting experiment in some ways, you do have to wonder if there is anywhere the franchise can go after this.
226 out of 321 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Made by people who dont understand James Bond
harineem-209-5254883 October 2021
I am a hardcore Daniel Craig bond fan. For me "Casino Royale" is the best Bond movie ever made and I have seen multiple times. The only good part in this entire movie is the 10-15 mins Ana de Armas appears, completely lights up the screen, rest of the actresses are nothing to write about.

They force a god awful love story in a franchise which is about a secret agent and his missions. Unfortunately there is zero chemistry between the lead pair unlike the sheer magic between Vesper and Bond in Casino Royale. You cried when he cries for her in Venice but here you can't understand why is Bond indulging in stupidity for this lady. I felt more for Felix.

And the lesser said about the token black 007, the better. If you have no intention of building a wholesome character stop adding characters just for the sake of diversity.

And the dialogues, cringeworthy sermons running for minutes which make no sense or connection. Rami Malek could have been replaced by a marble statue and that would have acted better. We needed a better finale to the best Bond ever and what we got a bad memory of a great actor.
1,303 out of 1,873 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The part before the intro is good, the rest is a disaster.
fciocca5 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
After waiting for two years, finally the newest James Bond is released in theatres, and it is a mess of a film. The first 20 minutes are good, the action is adrenalinic, there are good stunts, and the tension builds up. After the Billie Eilish song, the movie crumbles completely.

The story is too convoluted and they went full science fiction, introducing a highly unbelievable mass murder weapon that does not make any sense. There are way too many characters. Why did they introduce a second 007 that does not add anything to the story? She doesn't contribute in any way to the main objective accomplishment, and the movie wouldn't be any different without her. She is basically an empty shell that is used as a filler. For sure not up to the legacy that this number has. If this is the successor of James Bond, MI6 is already doomed. Paloma, played by Ana De Armas, is a newly trained and definitely too anxious agent for the job. She appears for like 15 minutes where she kicks asses. Visually appealing scene but then, we do not get to see her anymore, so what was even the point? Q was always the genius of the group, plenty of crazy inventions up to his sleeves. In this movie they decided to give him more screen time, which is a wonderful idea, but unfortunately the actor did not manage to give any kind of depth to the character. The evil side is not better. Safir is so cliché and predictable. He cannot transmit any sense of menace. He seems more a spoiled kid that wants to destroy the world for egoistic reasons, a trope seen too many times. Rami Malek is such a talented actor, but in this case he was just disappointing. I want to believe that part of the fault is on the script, which in general was weak and poorly written. Ash, the right hand of Lyutsifer, is just another stupid character that was too easy to beat. Honestly James here played on easy mode, because bad guys are all extremely dumb.

The very first action sequence at the beginning is amazing. I saw a lot of dedication and stunts were very well coordinated. Extremely entertaining and compelling. Then, the movie became some kind of John Wick spinoff, full of explosions and shootouts. James Bond is a spy, he is supposed to investigate, infiltrate subtly in the criminal organization and dismantle it from the inside. But because in previous movies he basically blew his identity up, and everyone in and outside Spectre knows who he is, what is even the point of going stealthy? So let's blow up entire places and shoot mindlessly. Bond is just a one man army now.

The movie is almost three hours long and it is so watered down by useless dialogues that overexpose the plot. There are too many romantic scenes between the couple Bond-Madeleine. At some point, I was wondering if I was watching a spy story, or a rom com. Of course, like most mainstream movies nowadays, there is a lot of forced comedy that is not even funny. I mean, there are a few decent jokes, but nothing worth noticing. "No Time to Die" is definitely a huge downgrade to the whole franchise. Either creators stop doing the series, or they reboot it, by taking inspiration from the older movies.
434 out of 643 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
And after all that, it's just average
Leofwine_draca2 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
And so, after endless delays and endless fanfare, we finally have Daniel Craig's final Bond outing. And after all that, the end result is merely average. I enjoyed it, to a degree, but I can tell it's not one that will particularly stand up to repeat viewing. It's overlong, way overlong, with a very slim plot and a story that feels copied from earlier instalments almost scene-for-scene at times. The action is too much about the stunts and CGI and not enough about the suspense or danger, and the whole thing simply goes through the motions. Rami Malek is far too sympathetic to make a good bad guy, and the main problem lies in employing the same two screenwriters for the past 20+ years. No wonder it feels stale. How about giving somebody else a chance?
215 out of 321 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This Movie Sucked
qormi19 June 2022
Incomprehensible plot involving DNA poison targeting intended victims or millions of victims. Intended references to the other "sad" Bond movie, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, including the line, " We have all the time in the world", and the theme song to OHMSS played in the background of one scene. Both movies had similar plots... pandemic unleashed upon the world. Just so dumb.. Bond's love interest was a woman constantly on the verge of tears, who naturally is 20 years younger than him. Everything about this film was ridiculous and it made no sense whatsoever. Nobody in the film was likable and it was way too long. I struggled to stay awake. The action scenes were very phony. It was directed very weirdly; nothing seemed real.
79 out of 115 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The time to die is before watching this movie
Med-Jasta12 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I'm going to rant about this movie. The best this movie gets is okay. And that's after a half an hour when the story finally starts. And even then it's old and gives us nothing really new. The idea of a Bond family is good. But like everything in this movie, they screw up their good ideas. Bond shooting Safin in cold blood was great and satisfying after he should have done that in Spectre to Blofeld. Even though the island was going to blow up, but still cool to see it. And when he rolled the car over on the CIA guy.

The opening? Then the other opening? So long. I actually thought it was a dream scene for a while. And Safin is clearly the same age as Madeleine. And the mask? These scenes were painfully long. For the most part the movie doesn't drag like the first half an hour. Except for the Russian guys intro? What? Having Bond retired was dumb. Having him get rid of Madeleine was dumb. And were we supposed to think that wasn't his daughter for one second?

Safin. The worst bad guy. I have no idea what his deal was. And his bio/nano technology was so stupid. It wasn't explained very well and it didn't feel very threatening. Like at the end when he hits Bond's face was visually so stupid. He was so annoying and not threatening.

The other 007 wasn't funny like she was supposed to be. And that whole back and forth was dumb. And her setting up her own one liner aka the title? What was that all about? The actress was fine. It was too self aware as a Bond movie and having little references to itself. Like when he shoots at the tunnel to reflect the opening. Or when he awkwardly has to say Bond, James Bond at MI6. There were others but I can't remember them all.

Blofeld's cyborg eye thing was how he was talking to the outside world? They didn't check that? And this technology exist?

Bond's death? Like he had to die for that reason? He couldn't touch his girlfriend who he hadn't seen in 5 years or the daughter he just found out about so he didn't want to live anymore? He took himself out of their life when he could have had a normal relationship with them? This was not worthy of killing Bond. He didn't want to see if they could find a cure or whatever? That was so stupid. It's way easier to kill off somebody then to make them get through the bad stuff. You have to get creative. Killing them off is easy. Notice how they did it to three main characters? Not that it added anything, it's just dramatic.

And they relied way too much on bad CG for the action. I have no problem with CG. I only have a problem with bad CG. And this was very noticable. Distractingly. And another thing I normally don't notice but did a lot in this was when the good guys get shot at by a machine gun from two feet away and every bullet misses them. It happened a lot in this.

Cary Joji Fukunaga needs to get his head out of his ass. He thinks he's way better than he actually is. If he wasn't so pretentious he would have realized that every frame he shot wasn't precious and could be cut. And he had all this extra time to tighten up his movie but he thought he got it perfect.

This really reminded me of Dark Knight Rises. It takes place years after the last one. The main character comes out of retirement, then gets "blown up," and there's a Russian who is the only one who knows how to use this technology.

Ana de Armas was the best part. Only in it for a bit unfortunately. I wasn't sure if she'd be able to handle the action because she's so cute and dainty. But she does! She's good with the guns and the hand to hand fights. She has a killer kick!

Farewell to Daniel Craig. He did very well, just like all the Bond's. He'll always stand out because he was in the Bond reboot. Remember when people hated him because he was blonde? Well get ready because whoever gets the job next is going to get the same amount of crap until the movie comes out and then he'll be the best one ever. But Craig and this storyline deserved a much better ending.

I really fear for the future of this fantastic franchise. I hope they don't listen to the internet because it's not real and they don't know what they want. I don't know if they were setting up the "new" 007 to take over, the daughter, I have no idea. I guess we learned one thing from the Bond reboot: it's not a good idea. Ultimately giving Bond a 5 movie arc didn't pay off. Or they just did a bad job. He's not an arc character. He's a series character. He can learn things along the way.

I don't want a Spider-Man situation where we get reintroduced every few years to the beginning of the character. I really hope they just do what Dr. No did and Bond's been doing it for a while. Maybe this series will be like The Dark Knight series where these ones just exist unto their own. They seemed to take their cues from that series anyway so it only makes sense.

But like always, I can't wait to see what happens next.
258 out of 405 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
I wasn't expecting that, very entertaining, if long.
Sleepin_Dragon1 October 2021
It felt as though we were never going to get to see this, but finally it's here, the question is, was it worth the wait?

The answer, yes, really not what I was expecting, of course it's action packed, dramatic and high octane, but it actually boasts a good story, and perhaps shows us a slightly different side to the character.

Plenty of action, plenty of style, and a real twist.

I thought Daniel Craig was awesome, and here he shows what a great Bond he has been, it's fascinating now to know who'll take over.

On the downside, it was a bit long, and it did lull a little in parts, but the action was enough to halt any dozing.

Overall, very watchable, 8/10.
614 out of 1,053 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Worst Bond Movie!
dougmacdonaldburr1 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
This is by far the worst James Bond movie ever made. On the surface it might seem good to some people, but, in terms of the future for the franchise, I don't think they could have made anything worse than this.

They actually killed off James Bond at the end of the movie. You can't do that. It has never happened before, for a good reason. James Bond is never supposed to actually die. We as an audience like seeing him in dangerous situations, but, he always was able to turn things around and ultimately win. That is why we loved him. By definitively killing the character here, it will never be the same again when they now try and bring him back.

This was the worst creative decision that they could have ever made, it is like making a fun Christmas movie and then giving Santa terminal cancer at the end. It might shock the audience, but, that does not mean that it is good story telling.

Here is what I predict. The film has good reviews right now, but, I think that over time people are gradually going to start turning on it. By killing the James Bond character they have crossed a line that was never supposed to crossed, and I really don't see a way back from this.
474 out of 773 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Eon team have lost their way.
Scaramouche20043 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Bond films have always been made to a specific formula. Here it is.

A suave but ruthless British secret service agent, sent on the trail of some megalomaniacal arch villain intent on world domination usually found in a secret elaborate lair situated in some exotic location.

He must have a Walther PPK tucked under his Saville Row dinner jacket as he plays Baccaret at an upmarket casino over a few vodka martini's (shaken NOT stirred of course)

We want exciting high speed chases..we don't really give a toss whether it's a car chase, a speed boat chase, a motorcycle chase or a ski chase..just get 'em in and make 'em fast.

We want impressive gadgets for him to play with along the way and the more buttons, switches and surprise weapons they can pack into his latest car the better.

We want our Bond to be provided with a bevvy of hot beautiful women to shag (at least two a day) We want opening credit sequences with these soon to bedded beauties bouncing all over the screen in silhouette form. We want our Bond to be sticking his licenced to thrill weapon into anything with boobs and we want him to callously get up and blow them off with an off colour remark or two before they've even had chance to catch their breath!

One last thing (and we cannot stress this one enough) we want James Bond to be alive at the end of it, ready to do his bit for Queen and country all over again in the next instalment.

THATS ALL WE WANT. So why the hell are they not giving it us?

No Time to Die changes so much of the tried and tested formula. Let's face it, they've been chipping away at it for so long now (primarily to please the woke, PC, SJW lunatics) that they had practically whittled it down to nothing before this turkey even went into production.

GET THIS EON! We do not want a soppy and insipid love sick Bond. We do not want soap operas, melodramas, emotional tear jerkers or a message picture. We don't want domestic complications and we definitely don't want major cannon alterations whereby a long established arch villain is revealed to be Bonds long lost brother (I mean come on!!! Who the hell signed off on that cowpat of an idea?) We just want an exciting, action packed, edge of your seat spy caper, with big explosions, kick as$ fist fights, tongue in cheek humour, larger than life baddies and some good old fashioned male chauvinism thrown in for good measure. CAN YOU DO THAT?

It's clear from the ending of NTTD that the only way forward for the character of Bond now is a full reboot. Make it a good one and go back to the source material and the original movies to find your bearings again. Whatever you do, don't gimmick up the franchise by pandering to the woke PC diversity whingers.

As it stands today. Cubby Broccoli, Harry Saltzman, Sean Connery and Roger Moore must all be turning in their graves due to the creation of this pile of a--gravy!
281 out of 453 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
There should be no time to watch anything like this.
harrykivi4 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I have been a Bond fan since I was ten years old. My first James Bond movie was probably "Goldeneye", which I love to this day and consider it as my favorite film of the franchise. Daniel Craig era has never been one that I love. "Casino Royale" and "Skyfall" were both fantastic, but "Quantum of Solace", "Spectre" not very good at all.

To put it mildly, "No Time to Die" was my most anticipated movie of this year. It marks the final apperance of Daniel Craig as Bond and is the longest James Bond movie up to date. I saw this movie yesterday and heard it was controversial for the fans. After seeing "No Time to Die", this is certainly going to be a very divisive film.

Talking about myself: I really wanted to love this film, and at times I did. There are parts of "No Time to Die", which I think are wonderful, but there are also parts of it, which could have been executed far better.

Let's start with the good aspects first, shall we?

. The production values of this movie are fantastic. The cinematography is gorgeous and Billie Ellish's theme fits the story, while having haunting lyrics and music. The acting is pretty good all around. Daniel Craig is the most chatty he has ever been as Bond, but he's still very likable in the role. Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris and Ben Whishaw are great as usual. Lea Seydoux is so much better here than she was in "Spectre". Jeffrey Wright and Christoph Waltz are fun for what there are in. Rami Malek is creepy enough as Safin, but he is definitely not the best villain of the franchise. Ana De Armas though gives an amazing performance. She felt such a breath of fresh air in this movie, while kicking ass for only 10 minutes....

. The first hour of "No Time to Die" is compelling enough. The action scenes in Italy and Cuba, though the chase in the woods and the climax on Saffin's island are solid too, especially stand out.

. There are moments, where the humor does land and throwbacks to other Bond films like "For Your Eyes Only", where James Bond pushes a car on the henchman, were clever. The story definitely leaves an emotional impact on the audience with the choice of music and themes of family-turns out Bond and Madeline have a daughter Mathilde, which is not a bad idea, just convinient for the story :)

But let's get into my negatives, because this movie was disappointing for me. There are parts, like I said, which are fantastic, and that's what makes a couple choices of the story so frustrating for me.

. The movie is agreed unbalanced and feels too long at times. There were times, where I thought the narrative got a bit too melodramatic with the relationship problems between Swan and Bond. The deaths of Felix, but especially Blofeld's death feel crammed into the story having no impact on anyone, just like the character of Nomi, who is underdeveloped at best (even though the actress is very good).

. The humor is not always spot on and does get a bit cringe-worthy at times. One can tell that they were trying to make great ending to Daniel Craig's Bond by giving him the most dialogue and one-liners, but Craig's James Bond feels out of character for a good portion of the film.

. The biggest issue for me was indeed the last third of the film. First, the villain's plan to destroy the world feels forced and out of nowhere. I can understand why he killed all agents of Spectre, but brutally murdering an Europe full of people made no sense to me.

Second problem regards the fact that Bond dies in this movie. There are several issues with this ending. 1) Even though it fits the movie, I think it was Craig himself, who said that this movie was about family, this movie could have ended with Daniel Craig's 007, after being poisoned and escaping the island watching his family from a safe distance or like Calvin Dyson said having Q to develop an antidote for Bond. James Bond faking his own death to protect his loved ones makes more sense to me than his death. 2) This ending does not feel earned. Yes, it's a shock, but one that felt extremly rushed. I agree with Calvin Dyson that there is no need for urgency to shoot those missiles, yes the ships are coming, but that was not a very clever way to create urgency at all. This ending in my humble opinion just misses the point that it's trying to make about Bond and his family. I respect Craig and the writing team for making that bold decision, but the ending felt (after thinking about it) that it wasn't Bond, who was done with everything, it was Daniel, who just wanted to insure the audience that this was his last Bond film. The ending also raises questions of how are they going to continue the Bond franchise. Are they going to do a reboot of a reboot? That would be quite silly in my mind.

Overall, there should be no time to watch anything like this, because it left a very depressive feeling, which a James Bond film shouldn't leave. "No Time to Die" could have been a smart, fun Bond movie, but instead it was okay at best.

5/10 HK.
223 out of 367 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The worse Daniel Craig outing as Bond
namstonk12 October 2021
Directing is ok, the script is woefully bad and add in some awful acting and that sums it up. The few action scenes are washed from the memory thanks to the woke rubbish. Cubby Broccoli once said to his daughter "never let the real world change the character" sorry Cubby, this isn't Bond and they lied to you. Oh and the title track is blood awful also. 3/10 for old time sake, RIP Commander Bond.
166 out of 272 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Craig's last Bond film is also his weakest
gridoon20221 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
The first 20-25 minutes are superb (from the music to the location to the acting to the action), but then the titles fall (cool titles, bland song), and the movie never quite reaches those heights again. For such a long, bloated running time it's too talky and surprisingly short on action; in fact, there are only two other notable set-pieces, the car chase in the woods and Ana de Armas brightening up the screen as an overeager, bubbly yet skilled and deadly agent. Most of the rest of the action is uninspired, and in the climactic sequence (just a regular attack-on-the-enemy-fortress we've seen hundreds of times) often dim and murky (Tomorrow Never Dies did this sort of thing much better, and so did some of the Roger Moore Bonds). The plot is formulaic (biological weapon....again), and its treatment of several key players from previous installments disappointing. The ending is pretty silly - it leaves a mess behind that the (inevitable) next chapter will either have to work a whale of a story to get around or (more likely) will ignore altogether. Craig does succeed at embodying a very human Bond, yet I can't help but think that he never really got the chance to do a FUN James Bond living the high life: in Casino he is earning his stripes, in Quantum he is seeking vengeance, in Skyfall he is already tired and resigned, in No Time his circle comes to an end. I guess he came closest to having a good time in Spectre, which is why that film is still my favorite of the five he made. **1/2 out of 4.
523 out of 935 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I enjoyed every second of it
Gordon-111 October 2021
The story is really engaging. It didn't feel like 2.5 hours! I enjoyed every second of it. I like the bond between Daniel Craig and Lea Seydoux. The ending got me tearful. Who would have thought James Bond would make someone cry?
642 out of 1,159 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Poor storyline
chasbarter5 December 2021
Loved the scenery in Italy at the start of the movie but then the credits came up & somehow or other it seemed like another Daniel Craig let down. Lacks the humour & sexiness of early Bond movies and in the end I didn't care if the baddies won or lost! Very forgettable.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not Ian Fleming's Bond, nor mine.
a.lampert20 April 2022
Having read all of Fleming's novels of James Bond and seen all of the movies, starting with Dr No in the early 60's, I'm old enough to claim that No Time To Die, which I have just watched, should not be called a James Bond film. He really is not the character created, either by Fleming or the actors who played him previously to Daniel Craig. Sean Connery will always be the definitive screen Bond and Daniel Craig the most miscast actor for me. No Time To Die is a dreary, over long action romp, but is the worst Bond film in the franchise due to the lead being totally out of character from the one that Fleming created. The best thing about this movie is a very short, but scintillating performance by Anna De Armas who comes and goes far too quickly. Completely out of character for James Bond, this is a dreary failure in the franchise.
85 out of 136 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
We Have All The Time To Get Bond Wrong!
tonypeacock-130 September 2021
As a Bond aficionado since 1992 I was so disappointed with this film.

I have waited six years since the last James Bond film (Spectre (2015)) which in itself was a bit of a let down but was out of the film makers hands in some respects.

This film has high production values don't get me wrong but it does get Bond wrong in a few ways that left me quite angry from watching a film for the first time since 2001: A Space Odyssey!

Gone are the days of a feel good 126 minute Bond with great action sequences, girls etc. Now we have an overly long film weighing in at 163 minutes. Even the curtain raiser, the pre-credits sequence is overly long. I miss the four minutes or so complete with a breathtaking stunt sequence.

Daniel Craig as Bond makes his fifth and final appearance in the role. Whilst his performance is good I cannot resist the thought that he has been let down by a succession of poor scripts that tend to be overly complicated in terms of timelines, family ties and lack of humour.

Why can't the filmmakers produce a standalone story every two years that doesn't follow on with storyline strands like a television soap-opera.

Hans Zimmer provides the music and he does an admirable job evoking memories of John Barry from On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) the pinnacle of the series thus far?

The Daniel Craig Bond films are an arc not seperate entities. They break so many traditions of the 'old films. I still can't get my head around that.

It's a dud from me.
296 out of 524 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The worst. Just...the...worst!
skay_baltimore18 June 2022
I don't even know where to begin. So I'll just repeat the title: This is the worst. Just...the...worst! The plot is pretty straightforward, but the implementation of said plot is incoherent, inconceivable, and impossible. (As far as the impossible element...it's not the usual James Bond impossible. No. It's impossible in a way that's insulting and infuriating.) Watching this is like dying from 1,000 paper cuts. It's pure torture. Avoid at all cost!!
52 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Thank goodness it's over
joachimokeefe2 October 2021
The action scenes are very good, you can't take that away, especially as the new female agents (literally) kick a*s. That's all.

It's as if you got every previous Bond film and put them into an electric mixer. You'd end up with something that was recognisable as 'a Bond film', but any sense of an individual narrative would be lost. And there's too much stuff about the past.

Bond comes out of retirement to prevent the release of a deadly 'nanobot' DNA-targeting virus by the most boring - by a long way - villain of the series. It takes them nearly three hours to regurgitate one of the less interesting Bond plots. And nanobots? That's what pensioners call nanites, it's terribly dated terminology.

'M' and everybody back at base follow Bond on remote link, like Obama watching the live Bin Laden feed. That was new several years ago, too.

Daniel Craig, looking like the love child of Tommy Lee Jones and Norman Wisdom, stiffens his upper lip, stiffly, which is why he can't deliver any of the supposedly funny lines, and his voice is not the voice of a Royal Navy Commander, it's the voice of a particularly miserable bookie.
323 out of 572 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Don't Waste Your Time Watching This Turkey
lwmswm15 February 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Inane story. Loud music track. Mediocre acting. Bond dies at the end and no one who watched this stinker could possibly care. Hard to believe it took several people to write the screenplay.
87 out of 137 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Tiresome, Tedious & Boring, Such A Disappointment
martimusross1 October 2021
No Time To Die

I would love to say this movie was another Skyfall or Spectre but it just was not, it really was a great disappointment.

Overly long at 2 hours and 23 mins, it needed a serious edit, it was saggy and baggy and really quite tedious, it lacked style, panache and humour, I will now detail the problems as I see it:

There was a 17 year age gap between James Bond and Madeleine Swann, his love interest, this didn't work.

The touchy-feely script was miserable and tedious. I have pinpointed the moment a reasonable movie thus far sunk into turkeyville, it was the moment Mathilde was introduced in Norway, look out for this and you will see what I mean.

The scene with the "evil genetic scientist" was repeated no less than three times.

The plot was simplistic and yet it was never explained why Safin wanted to eradicate sections of populace.

Vast swathes of the movie were shot in a grey blue murky tinge it was awful!

I counted three jokes and a few sarcastic asides, when humour is a key element of our hero.

James Bond and children does not go and we all know why.

Styling and gizmos were present but dumbed down when this is a key element of Bond!

The replacement 007 couldn't act her way out of a paper bag, hammy and stiff as a stick!

At best this is a weak 6 outta 10, but nearly everyone I spoke to was putting on a brave face without highlighting a single good bit, but I thought the American agent in the black dressed, "trained for 3 weeks" was really great.
403 out of 729 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
No Time to DAD
kaefab3 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Yes at least we got some gadgets but that was about it.

Ana was in the movie maybe 10 minutes super hot The 007 got given to a women what a surprise.

Felix dies. And in all this stupidity James Bond is a father who did not know.

I really hope if bond starts over again they won't blow it up like this one..... a great deception this movie is.
210 out of 369 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
No Time To Die Review: Neither Shaken Nor Stirred
shefali-592441 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Finales are not easy. They come with the burden of closing things off in style but also not screwing it up. Even something as consistent a series as Breaking Bad played it decidedly safe, trading a fan pleasing climax that went against the grain of the show. (The Dark Knight Rises tried to do too much and imploded). All through, the James Bond movies starring Daniel Craig have treaded the thin line between him being fallible and being Bond-there is no image more telling of this update than in the first instalment, Casino Royale (2006), when he is stripped naked and tied to a chair, then have his sack of balls hit by a sublime knot of rope made by the villain played by Mads Mikkelsen; as there is no scene more classic Bond-and more erotic-than his close shave with Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) in Skyfall (2012), where he declares his preference for at least a few things old-fashioned; and nothing defined this no-nonsense middle ground better than when, asked if he likes his martini shaken or stirred, Bond said, in Casino, 'Do I look like I give a damn?' Read the full review on Film Companion.
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed