No Time to Die - Spoiler Free Reviews

Whether it's your own or linking us to a critic's work, or simply have some thoughts of the film, please post spoiler-free reviews here. We will have a spoilerific thread, too.

So, what are they saying? What are you saying? Has No Time To Die reached the grand heights of Piz Gloria? Or has it crashed and burned like MI6 in Spectre?

Some snippets of reviews:

Sean Mulvihill wrote:

Despites its ample flaws, I mostly had fun with No Time to Die and found it to be a fitting conclusion to Craig's memorable yet uneven tenure as Bond.

Joe Lipsett wrote:

No Time To Die is a misguided, meandering slog. [Daniel Craig] deserved a far better franchise send-off than this.

Samuel Murrian wrote:

No Time to Die stumbles from too many principal characters and a disconnect in tones outlandish and highly serious (the more outlandish stuff works better). The bold ending frankly feels more telegraphed than naturally affecting.

Roger Moore wrote:

Craig, weathered, perhaps appreciative and certainly schooled by the experience of the amusing "Knives Out," finally does something he promised with the very first film. He lightens up.

Robert Daniels wrote:

For those who've taken Daniel Craig's Bond as their concerns: Their wait is worth it. His final scene is the most heartbreaking sequence in the franchise's history.

Mike Massle wrote:

The picture isn't merely overstuffed, it's detrimentally overstuffed.

Sean P Means wrote:

Craig's is a Bond who's secure enough in his manhood to let de Armas' Paloma or Lynch's Nomi shine - and strong enough to bring some emotional weight, and even tears, to 007's world-saving mission.

Roger Friedman wrote:

You will be on the edge of your seats the entire time. It ends with what may be the cliffhanger of all cliffhangers, or a finale for the ages.

Tom Beasley wrote:

In many ways, No Time to Die's infuriating inconsistency embodies the Craig era in a nutshell.

EJ Moreno wrote:

Polished and filled with life, the Daniel Craig-era of Bond has never felt better. What a way to close this chapter!

Chris Brumbray wrote:

An epic swan song for Daniel Craig as 007. Reintroduces some humor and fun into the series after too long of an absence.

Now that I think about it, I'm a bit wary if the media class like the film too much, particularly as a common theme seems to be that Bond sheds his "archaic womanising" etc. in NTTD.

I thought y' all might enjoy this snippet from Peter Bradshaw's review in The Guardian -

'And Craig’s final film as the diva of British intelligence is an epic barnstormer, with the script from Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, with Phoebe Waller-Bridge delivering pathos, action, drama, camp comedy (Bond will call M “darling” in moments of tetchiness), heartbreak, macabre horror, and outrageously silly old-fashioned action in a movie which calls to mind the world of Dr No on his island.'

CJB wrote:

Now that I think about it, I'm a bit wary if the media class like the film too much, particularly as a common theme seems to be that Bond sheds his "archaic womanising" etc. in NTTD.

Agreed.

I did a doubletake when I saw Roger Moore reviewed NTTD. Has it been so long for this film to come out that Judgement Day has passed and he returned long enough to see it?

Perilagu Khan wrote:

CJB wrote:

Now that I think about it, I'm a bit wary if the media class like the film too much, particularly as a common theme seems to be that Bond sheds his "archaic womanising" etc. in NTTD.

Agreed.

The higher the rating, all the more so. Not discounting them, just reserving skepticism. There's a sort of survey book about the Bond pics called Licence to Thrill where the author did a brief recap of contemporary reviews after discussing each film. Reading that I remember, for the most part, that the critics have always been fairly split on Bond, even back in the 60s heyday. Only with the Craig era has that expectation really changed.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

I thought y' all might enjoy this snippet from Peter Bradshaw's review in The Guardian -

'And Craig’s final film as the diva of British intelligence is an epic barnstormer, with the script from Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, with Phoebe Waller-Bridge delivering pathos, action, drama, camp comedy (Bond will call M “darling” in moments of tetchiness), heartbreak, macabre horror, and outrageously silly old-fashioned action in a movie which calls to mind the world of Dr No on his island.'

A Bond film with a foot in every genre? Perhaps that's why there are a number of reviews discussing the "disjointed" nature of the script and that the bizarre elements and emotional core don't gel. Some say it works best when it has fun, one other saying Bond's emotional journey works best and the lighter stuff falls flat.

Some more snippets. Worth noting that overnight, the tomato-meter has dropped almost 10% already.

A.O. Scott wrote:

If "No Time to Die" were 90 minutes long, it might be worth yours.

As suspected, NTTD doesn't justify the runtime.

David Sexton wrote:

No Time to Die shows signs of emerging from an over-deliberated, market-sensitised production process. Much too protracted at 163 minutes, it delivers the set-pieces without ever trying to connect them with any urgency, almost like an anthology or re-mix.

Mick Lasalle wrote:

Craig leaves the series in a mammoth, 163-minute extravaganza that audiences will be enjoying for decades. It's a lovely thing to see.

Oh. Maybe not.

Brian Tallerico wrote:

There's nothing here that's hasn't been done better in one of the other Craig movies.

Christ. That's a low bar.

Matt Cipolla wrote:

The problem is that, both thematically and structurally, it's damn near the same as Skyfall. So those risks are visible from miles away.

Rob Hunter wrote:

That it manages deep soul-searching, tangible affection, and a real punch to the gut, all while also delivering some thrilling action set-pieces, is no small thing.

Kyle Smith wrote:

At this particular historical moment, I'd say we could use a funnier, less broody Bond. Pain, we've all had our fill of. I have no idea in what direction this series is headed, but I sure hope the fun returns.

Leo Brady wrote:

What fascinated me and satisfied me the most about this James Bond film is how smooth it goes down. It's not forgetting the gadgets, the beautiful women, the swagger, the cool intro sequence, or a lounge tune to set the mood.

A lounge tune? Well that's at least one thing to look forward to.

Brent McKnight wrote:

More concerned with sending off its star in lackluster fashion than telling a compelling or intriguing story.

Jon Negroni wrote:

Craig is having more fun than ever, here, as if Logan Lucky and Knives Out propelled him to dig deeper.

Hope there's more restraint in his performance here than in those films. Though remembering how he delivers the 'Bond, James Bond' line, I shan't hold my breath.

Chris Hunneysett wrote:

dramatically impressive, wryly funny, and profoundly emotional. Craig gives it all he's got left in the tank

Matt Oakes wrote:

For a series that so often is defined by the willy antics of its antagonists, No Time to Die makes the gruesome mistake of saving the worst for last.

Richard Lawson wrote:

What follows those bursts of typically Bondian elan is ponderously weighted and thinly plotted... Leave this somber serialization to other franchises and let 007 get back to business-which should, ideally, be a pleasure.

This is what was always my biggest issue. The screenplay was built on shaky foundations and we know the scripting issues were responsible for some delays. Remember reports of Scott Burns struggling with it? And to have four credited writers? Too many cooks indeed.

So when I see reviews concerning a thin plot, disconnected sequences and action lacking urgency, I can believe it. Though from what I can tell, the action overall is an improvement on Spectre's and I fear that will be enough to pull wool over certain Bond fans' eyes.

Cole Smith wrote:

"No Time To Die" may not be perfect, or as good as Daniel Craig's other James Bond films. It nonetheless serves its purpose as a sly social cinematic barometer. Right or wrong, things change.

Rachel Wagner wrote:

An emotional, gripping end to this version of Bond

This sense of completeness, above all, reaffirms that we're finally moving on from Craig-era nonsense.

Nicholas Bell wrote:

A rousing score from Hans Zimmer, excellent editing, and a jaunty narrative mark this as a highpoint for contemporary Bond offerings and a sterling cinematic return for Fukunaga.

Brian Orndorff wrote:

A huge undertaking, and while "Die" is visually impressive, it's chained to the haphazard storytelling that's been reworked over the last 15 years, finding the effort most concerned about relationships that never meant much to begin with.

Brian! Thank you very much, sir! According to Rotten Tomatoes, he's someone who gave the film a fresh review. So I'm going to dig into his full review now. That sounds like a voice to be trusted.

Somerset wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

CJB wrote:

Now that I think about it, I'm a bit wary if the media class like the film too much, particularly as a common theme seems to be that Bond sheds his "archaic womanising" etc. in NTTD.

Agreed.

The higher the rating, all the more so. Not discounting them, just reserving skepticism. There's a sort of survey book about the Bond pics called Licence to Thrill where the author did a brief recap of contemporary reviews after discussing each film. Reading that I remember, for the most part, that the critics have always been fairly split on Bond, even back in the 60s heyday. Only with the Craig era has that expectation really changed.

Unfortunately, I suspect that from here on out Bond and the critics will be aligned. Whether the films are technically good or bad will become somewhat irrelevant insofar as they do model the regnant zeitgeist.

Well, chaps ... there's enjoyable stuff in it, certainly. But it's overlong, and there are some (to me, anyway) VERY odd story choices that didn't and don't sit right with me at all.

And no credits tribute to Sean and Roger also seemed like a pretty poor oversight.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

And no credits tribute to Sean and Roger also seemed like a pretty poor oversight.  

Now that's a shame.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Well, chaps ... there's enjoyable stuff in it, certainly. But it's overlong, and there are some (to me, anyway) VERY odd story choices that didn't and don't sit right with me at all.

And no credits tribute to Sean and Roger also seemed like a pretty poor oversight.  

The cherry pops at BAB! Feel free to set up a spoilertastic thread.

BI strikes me as one of the most balanced (or forgiving) of all members here when it comes to James Bond. And if he says:

BI wrote:

But it's overlong, and there are some (to me, anyway) VERY odd story choices that didn't and don't sit right with me at all.

then that confirms many of my suspicions.

And no Connery and Moore tribute underpins the current, disgusting mismanagement of James Bond.

I shall ... and thank you for the 'recognition of balance', as it were.

CJB wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

And no credits tribute to Sean and Roger also seemed like a pretty poor oversight.  

Now that's a shame.

It's inexcusable. And it is obviously intentional. One can only wonder why.

Cary Fuk' recently called Connery's Bond a rapist, so I suppose it's not surprising that he's been unpersoned.

If that's the case, you'd have thought that, since DAD, Babs and Mike would have learnt to rein in the control given to directors. And if not then, since QOS. It should have been included without question.

All so the beloved Daniel Craig isn't overshadowed. They've really lost touch with reality.



I assume BC has seen NTTD since she's ventured into the spoilers thread. Any spoiler-free thoughts?

Yes I have....I liked it....a lot....there were tears in my eyes.

I can see how it will divide some fans but....I can also see how the story line made it possible....

The action is great, you won't be disappointed....

The timing, maybe a tad too lengthy but I did not take a piss break.

Don't want to go into too much of anything else...including what I can nitpick about...lol

Hope it does well....given the givens.

bitchcraft wrote:

Yes I have....I liked it....a lot....there were tears in my eyes.

Gotta say, my curiosity is quite tickled. Annoying that Babs - or Bezos - won't bring the Australian release forward even though Sydney's lockdown is being lifted in a week.*

Not that long ago, the idea of avoiding spoilers for a Bond film would be absurd. Bond gets a mission, foils dastardly plot, shags a bird. Rinse, repeat.

*Shame that Bond fans in separatist Western Australia have to wait as long as the locked down eastern states... or are they only now getting the Timothy Dalton films in theatres?

I'm going back on Monday....all ladies viewing, 6-8 of us

I might have to tag along...

bitchcraft wrote:

I can see how it will divide some fans but...

Hopefully Eon's tendency to experiment this era has been satisfied and we'll return to a business-as-usual affair for Bond 26.

BC wrote:

The action is great, you won't be disappointed....

Was it what we've come to expect from Craig? That is, reckless, impulsive nonsense disguised as grittiness?

BC wrote:

The timing, maybe a tad too lengthy but I did not take a piss break.

That suggests to me it's filled with unfilled moments.

IMDB reviews are very divided. Lots of 2s, 3s and 4s and then lots of 9s and 10s.

Rotten Tomatoes is also deceiving. A number of 6/10 reviews that are seen as "fresh".

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Hopefully Eon's tendency to experiment this era has been satisfied and we'll return to a business-as-usual affair for Bond 26.

If it means returning to invisible cars and surfing on CGI tidal waves, count this girl out. I'll let the next generation carry on with that bollocks.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

bitchcraft wrote:

I can see how it will divide some fans but...

Hopefully Eon's tendency to experiment this era has been satisfied and we'll return to a business-as-usual affair for Bond 26.

With a black tranny Bond? Not bloody likely.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Was it what we've come to expect from Craig? That is, reckless, impulsive nonsense disguised as grittiness?

Let's face it...you have an in-built contempt for Craig, the Craig era, and this film so there's really no point discussing it with you as you might as well be someone from CraigisnotBond. Seems like this new film is just a formality you want out of the way with quick dispatch....which makes discussing it on this forum rather off putting. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but it's just depressing to me and something I'd rather avoid.

I'll be moving on....cheers everyone.