A Void within a Void within a Void: My Review of NTTD

No Time to Die, as undoubtedly intended, is a movie that provokes strong emotions. The question is, are those emotions the ones most appropriate to a James Bond film? NTTD elicits horror and even revulsion, and certainly a great deal of pathos, but that leaves precious little room for humor, joy and exultation, sensations traditionally associated with Bond films beginning with Dr. No and certainly present as recently as Skyfall. NTTD is, however, fully in keeping with Quantum of Solace and Spectre, two other Daniel Craig vehicles.

NTTD begins its dolorous ordeal with an extremely lengthy and bifurcated pre-titles sequence. The action begins in the wintry gloom of Norway where a bizarrely masked assassin murders a louche mother on a couch while her daughter cowers under a bed. The daughter manages to gun down the assassin only to have him revive and chase her onto a frozen lake where she falls through the ice and is rescued by the assassin.

The daughter was a young Madeleine Swann, James Bond’s latest love interest, and the first section of the PTS was her reliving the horror of her mother’s death. She breaks from her terrifying revery while swimming off a southern Italian coast. Swann, along with 007, is in Matera, Italy on a vacation of sorts. However, it turns out that Vesper Lynd, the woman in Bond’s life prior to Swann, is buried in Matera. As Bond grieves before her tomb a bomb explodes and nearly incapacitates 007. SPECTRE is back, and the malefic organization’s agents proceed to attack and chase Bond—and ultimately Swann as well—in what are probably the film’s best action sequences.

Particularly tense is the scene in which Bond and Swann, in the secret agent’s 1964 Aston-Martin, are surrounded by SPECTRE men who proceed to machine gun the car’s windows. The glass is extraordinarily resistant to the bullets, but inevitably degrades under the barrage. Just as it appears the glass is about to give way, Bond lights up the car’s forward machine guns, goes into a stationary spin, and decimates the surrounding platoon.

Bond and Swann escape, but 007, convinced Swann is implicated in the SPECTRE attack, unceremoniously places her on a train, and tells her she will never see him again. Thus ends the dour PTS, and we then move into rather diffuse and thematically incoherent title credits and a depressing song from Billie Eilish. At this point no normal person could be feeling happiness. On the contrary, foreboding and misery pervade, and it’s not easy to look forward to the rest of the film.

To say that the remainder of the picture is unrelieved darkness would not quite be fair. Ana de Armas as Paloma, an American agent with whom Bond all too briefly works on an assignment in Cuba, is the film’s ray of sunshine. She makes more of an impact in only 10 minutes of screen time than the bland, mannish and deeply unattractive Lashana Lynch does in an hour.

And there are a couple of genuinely funny lines. For instance, Bond says to M, with wonderfully heated sarcasm, “I met your new double 0 [Lynch]. She’s a disarming young woman!” And long-time Bond confidant Felix Leiter, after taking a surprise bullet in the belly from putative American agent Logan Ash--played with perfect boyish giddiness by Billy Magnussen—says to Bond, “I have a feeling in my gut he’s not on our side.” Alas, Leiter snuffs it, so the jocularity is short-lived. Then there’s Ben Whishaw as Q who always provides a bit of droll comic relief. But that’s about the extent of the pleasantry. In general, NTTD is wave upon wave of sadness crashing down upon the viewer.

As perhaps befits a film whose purpose seems to be to bludgeon the heart and brutalize the soul, NTTD’s lack of aesthetic beauty is conspicuous. Bond films, even those of marginal quality—Moonraker being the signal example—tend to be visually and aurally arresting. One may roll one’s eyes at maladroit acting from a Bond girl or the silliness of some plot device, but he will simultaneously drink up gorgeous imagery and music. None of that exists in NTTD.

Hans Zimmer’s score is typically generic action film sludge that contains scarcely a memorable note. But worse, there are simply no beautiful scenes. And the only one that is even interesting is the aerial shot of Leiter and Ash’s red-lit boat that serves as a rendezvous point with Bond and a certain Valdo Obruchev. There is a touch of Thunderball here, and it is sorely needed.

Alas, all else is concrete and clouds, and this fact only compound’s the film’s misery quotient.

Such is NTTD’s leaden atmosphere that it treads on the border of horror film territory. (Bond films, incidentally, have been moving this direction since Die Another Day.) And the film’s primary villain, Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek), is the primary node of horror. The fact that he’s named Lyutsifer—the Russian pronunciation of Lucifer—leaves no doubt about the character’s evil provenance.

And the actor was well chosen to carry out the charge. It turns out he was the masked assassin in the PTS. His face is disfigured with scars and what appear to be varicose veins. And more unsettling still, his voice and accent sound Eastern European and very much call to mind the figure of Count Dracula. Safin is small and frail, but his derangement and malignancy bulk so large that there is no doubt he is capable of perpetrating the enormous atrocity which lies at the film’s heart.

James Bond prevents the fruition of Safin’s genocidal scheme, but dies in the effort. The wisdom of killing off one of the central figures in cinematic history is obviously debatable, but this is not the place for that discussion. What must be said is that Bond’s death is rendered with tremendous effectiveness. There are supreme heroism and self-sacrifice. The emotional architecture leading up to Bond’s oblivion was appropriately excruciating for this inveterate viewer of Bond films. And the moment of death generated a negative catharsis. Combined, the result was devastating, and that is why, despite the film’s grievous tonal flaws, NTTD makes a deep and lasting impact.

As stated in the closing credits, James Bond will, somehow, someway return. But as the final frame fades to dark, the sense of loss is very real. And what was lost was not only James Bond, but also much of the spirit and beauty that traditionally animated NTTD’s predecessors. Will the future age allow those traits to return along with 007? If not, James Bond may well be a vessel of his own imposture.

While I agree that NTTD was a downer, I have to dispute your opinion of the cinematography. I thought the locations were refreshingly lush after the de-saturated dreariness of Spectre.

And although Lashana Lynch isn't my cuppa either, I wouldn't go so far as to dismiss her with so sweeping a statement as "bland, mannish and deeply unattractive". That description says more about your politics than it does about Broccoli's.

AMC Hornet wrote:

And although Lashana Lynch isn't my cuppa either, I wouldn't go so far as to dismiss her with so sweeping a statement as "bland, mannish and deeply unattractive". That description says more about your politics than it does about Broccoli's.

Nope. I wouldn't have said that about Halle Berry. However, Lynch was cast in this role precisely and solely because of Broccoli's politics. Anybody with an accurate perception of the regnant ideology, not just in Hollywood, but throughout the west's entire power structure knows this. There was no way in hell a white guy was going to be cast for the role; he would not have contributed to the cultural section of the Great Replacement project.

you can't deny the movie definitely had an impact on you and wish it did me

I just felt nothing but yawnfest but still enjoyed your write up

Exquisitely written review, PK, even if I don’t agree with some points, which I’ll naturally address. You’re the third person in three days who I’ve spoken to (two off the forum, casual fans) who were thoroughly unimpressed with Nomi, calling her bland, boring and decidedly uncharismatic. One questioned if they intended for the 007 series to continue with her in the role. They said she was so lightweight that they’d be surprised if anyone would watch her takeover. She just wasn’t interesting. And I think that stems from the idea that someone else could be 007 in the James Bond 007 series. Because as I said when it was rumoured, Bond would either have to be killed or she hands back his 00 status to him by the end-- both which occurred, so it zaps any true tension out of that dynamic; another shaky foundation added to the NTTD screenplay.

Best I can say about her is her sense of style.

PK wrote:

Safin is small and frail, but his derangement and malignancy bulk so large that there is no doubt he is capable of perpetrating the enormous atrocity which lies at the film’s heart.

The muddled nature of his motivation really undermines his intent and there were too many characters to divide up his time with for any of those dynamics to land.

AMC wrote:

While I agree that NTTD was a downer, I have to dispute your opinion of the cinematography. I thought the locations were refreshingly lush after the de-saturated dreariness of Spectre.

Agreed. I wasn’t overly impressed with the cinematography but I thought at least some of Matera photography was a step-up from SP’s piss-stained (particularly in the warmer locations) photography.

PK wrote:

Particularly tense is the scene in which Bond and Swann, in the secret agent’s 1964 Aston-Martin, are surrounded by SPECTRE men who proceed to machine gun the car’s windows.

I groaned watching this unfold. Excruciatingly reckless of Bond.

Terrific review, PK.

Like most of the Craig films, NTTD is laden with doom and gloom (Cuba aside). It's impactful, yes, but I don't find myself counting down the days to the DVD/Bluray release nor can I picture myself kicking back on a lazy Saturday and watching it.

This may be a controversial thing to say 'round 'ere, but having recently rewatched DC's catalogue, I rate CR as the most fun of Craig's films (albeit SF is probably the better movie). Though it theoretically kicked off the deep n' gritty trend, it doesn't laboriously explore Bond's childhood and splash about in a self-pitying mire of sludge (not until the final few minutes in any event). Also it might be the last Bond film where just about all the action and stunts were done for real. There's no way they'd attempt the Aston Martin flipping-ten-times trick for real now, they'd just CGI it like they did with the Jeep going over Bond's head in NTTD.

CJB wrote:

Also it might be the last Bond film where just about all the action and stunts were done for real. There's no way they'd attempt the Aston Martin flipping-ten-times trick for real now, they'd just CGI it like they did with the Jeep going over Bond's head in NTTD.

Even when they do something for real in recent films, they don't seem to remember all those past lessons about how to shoot it and edit it for maximum effect.

The 'biggest explosion in the history of movies' thing in SPECTRE is a good example. The camera is so far back that it doesn't matter. Also the explosion doesn't have much character, unlike, say, LTK's tanker stuff. And there isn't orchestration of events leading up to it, it is just presented.

Honestly, everybody working on a Bond movie oughta watch the gypsy camp scene in FRWL at least a couple times before they get back to work on a new one. There's mayhem amidst a progression of various story elements playing out, plus the fun of seeing Bond in his element, moving through this environment doing what he does. And the Barry score.

Sarai wrote:

you can't deny the movie definitely had an impact on you and wish it did me

I just felt nothing but yawnfest but still enjoyed your write up

Thanks, Sarai. I'm sure your opinion on NTTD is the dominant one on BaB. I see the film as much more of a mixed bag, hence the ambivalent review and my ranking it No. 12.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Exquisitely written review, PK, even if I don’t agree with some points, which I’ll naturally address. You’re the third person in three days who I’ve spoken to (two off the forum, casual fans) who were thoroughly unimpressed with Nomi, calling her bland, boring and decidedly uncharismatic. One questioned if they intended for the 007 series to continue with her in the role. They said she was so lightweight that they’d be surprised if anyone would watch her takeover. She just wasn’t interesting. And I think that stems from the idea that someone else could be 007 in the James Bond 007 series. Because as I said when it was rumoured, Bond would either have to be killed or she hands back his 00 status to him by the end-- both which occurred, so it zaps any true tension out of that dynamic; another shaky foundation added to the NTTD screenplay.

Best I can say about her is her sense of style.

PK wrote:

Safin is small and frail, but his derangement and malignancy bulk so large that there is no doubt he is capable of perpetrating the enormous atrocity which lies at the film’s heart.

The muddled nature of his motivation really undermines his intent and there were too many characters to divide up his time with for any of those dynamics to land.

AMC wrote:

While I agree that NTTD was a downer, I have to dispute your opinion of the cinematography. I thought the locations were refreshingly lush after the de-saturated dreariness of Spectre.

Agreed. I wasn’t overly impressed with the cinematography but I thought at least some of Matera photography was a step-up from SP’s piss-stained (particularly in the warmer locations) photography.

PK wrote:

Particularly tense is the scene in which Bond and Swann, in the secret agent’s 1964 Aston-Martin, are surrounded by SPECTRE men who proceed to machine gun the car’s windows.

I groaned watching this unfold. Excruciatingly reckless of Bond.

Thanks, KKBB.

Regarding Safin's motivations, I think they're clear as regards the revenge for SPECTRE slaughtering his family. However, I agree that it's not altogether clear why he would want to kill off humanity, or a large swathe of it, with Heracles. Interestingly, there is a shot of a map on a screen that shows Safin's intended targets and almost all of them are in western and middle Europe. Safin sound less like a Bond villain in the conventional sense, and more like an attendee of a global conference in Davos.

Re: cinematography. The problem for me isn't just cinematography, but also production. There is literally nothing--other than the boat I mentioned--that stands out in my mind. In CR there are breathtaking aerial shots in the parkour chase, a lovely shot of Solange emerging from the water next to Le Chiffre's yacht, and another gorgeous aerial shot of a train as it wends through Montenegro. In QoS the entire Tosca sequence is lovely, as is the Kazan Coda. SF's Shanghai fight sequence and the scenes in the Floating Dragon are stupendous. And in SP the Dia de los Muertos shots from the PTS, the SPECTRE meeting in Rome, and much of the work in North Africa is exceptionally fine. There's simply nothing in NTTD to touch that.

As far as recklessness goes, if we were to slate Bond for that, we would reduce him to half ballerina, half monk.

CJB wrote:

Terrific review, PK.

Like most of the Craig films, NTTD is laden with doom and gloom (Cuba aside). It's impactful, yes, but I don't find myself counting down the days to the DVD/Bluray release nor can I picture myself kicking back on a lazy Saturday and watching it.

This may be a controversial thing to say 'round 'ere, but having recently rewatched DC's catalogue, I rate CR as the most fun of Craig's films (albeit SF is probably the better movie). Though it theoretically kicked off the deep n' gritty trend, it doesn't laboriously explore Bond's childhood and splash about in a self-pitying mire of sludge (not until the final few minutes in any event). Also it might be the last Bond film where just about all the action and stunts were done for real. There's no way they'd attempt the Aston Martin flipping-ten-times trick for real now, they'd just CGI it like they did with the Jeep going over Bond's head in NTTD.

Thanks, CJB.

I agree with you on CR. In fact, I place the Craigs in two groups. Group 1 is CR and SF. Group 2 is QOS, SP and NTTD. I will say, however, that SF actually has a couple of toes, if not an entire foot in group 2. For good old fashioned Bondian thrills and entertainment, CR tops the Craigs. The one exception to that characterization is Vesper's death, with is extremely disturbing, IMO.

Bond films never really reached the point certain other films in the 90s did, where the motivation was more internalized or 'just because.' I'm thinking IN THE LINE OF FIRE and to a certain degree UNDER SIEGE happen because the traditional threat is over and these players haven't got any way to do their thing anymore, so they're just doing it to be doing it. I felt there was a 'we do this for the sake of anarchy' vibe, and actually kind of anticipated it with a spec script I modified after DIE HARD came out and blew my 'capitalist baddies masquerading as crusading terrorists' idea so that the villain is just interested in what decades later is described as 'letting the world burn.'

Kind of thought for awhile that a Bond film where the villain is just a George Saunders type who is bored to death might be interesting, because there'd be no way to provoke him (or if you did, he'd probably thank you with his dying breath ... am thinking of Geoffrey Rush saying 'I feel warm' before expiring in the first PIRATES) ... The face Safin doesn't seem to get angry is kind of a step in that direction, but maybe it means I'm wrong, as the villain perhaps needs to go off (even if it is like a Piccolo Pete, when Greene turns into a teakettle in QUANTUM.) That's some of my fave stuff in Fleming, like Drax snapping when taunted in MR.

Actually, thinking about this is kind of frightening, makes me consider Putin on his deathbed -- or Trump, if dunderheads here actually can't imprison him and wind up reelecting him -- might just decide to light up the sky with missiles in a fit of pique, a thermonuclear version of upsetting the chessboard.

Another thought: one that very much irked (and irks) me about TLD is how the baddie tries to suggest that agents liquidating each other might lead to nuclear war. I remember snickering in the theater over that one, as I'd see a greater likelihood of missiles flying if Reagan had been told by his opposite number, 'yo mama.' So sometimes the motivation being inserted isn't integral to the tale. With NTTD, where the director has admitted they shot scenes where they knew what the startpoints and endpoints were during filming but didn't have plot particulars down for the contents for many of same and therefore wrote a lot of the movie in postproduction, it's easy to think that integration was not the watchword here.

trevanian wrote:

Honestly, everybody working on a Bond movie oughta watch the gypsy camp scene in FRWL at least a couple times before they get back to work on a new one. There's mayhem amidst a progression of various story elements playing out, plus the fun of seeing Bond in his element, moving through this environment doing what he does. And the Barry score.

Well said. The level of sophistication needed to craft a sequence like that has been MIA for a long, long time.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I agree with you on CR. In fact, I place the Craigs in two groups. Group 1 is CR and SF. Group 2 is QOS, SP and NTTD. I will say, however, that SF actually has a couple of toes, if not an entire foot in group 2. For good old fashioned Bondian thrills and entertainment, CR tops the Craigs. The one exception to that characterization is Vesper's death, with is extremely disturbing, IMO.

Having watched Craig's films in rapid succession a couple months back, it really did occur to me that the powers that be took the wrong lessons from CR's success. Perhaps audiences warmed to the idea of a Bond more rough-'round-the edges than Brosnan's, but they certainly didn't sign up for perpetual moping and childhood trauma exploration.

CR is popular with Joe Public because it had a lot of great action set pieces and a solid story (despite deviations from the source), not because they wanted Bond to be a sob story.

PK wrote:

Regarding Safin's motivations, I think they're clear as regards the revenge for SPECTRE slaughtering his family. However, I agree that it's not altogether clear why he would want to kill off humanity, or a large swathe of it, with Heracles. Interestingly, there is a shot of a map on a screen that shows Safin's intended targets and almost all of them are in western and middle Europe. Safin sound less like a Bond villain in the conventional sense, and more like an attendee of a global conference in Davos.

Of course it’s clear he wanted to avenge his family by destroying SPECTRE. But he does so very early on in the film. It’s all written so clumsily.

PK wrote:

Re: cinematography. The problem for me isn't just cinematography, but also production. There is literally nothing--other than the boat I mentioned--that stands out in my mind. In CR there are breathtaking aerial shots in the parkour chase, a lovely shot of Solange emerging from the water next to Le Chiffre's yacht, and another gorgeous aerial shot of a train as it wends through Montenegro. In QoS the entire Tosca sequence is lovely, as is the Kazan Coda. SF's Shanghai fight sequence and the scenes in the Floating Dragon are stupendous. And in SP the Dia de los Muertos shots from the PTS, the SPECTRE meeting in Rome, and much of the work in North Africa is exceptionally fine. There's simply nothing in NTTD to touch that.

I can’t say I agree about the photography of CR - it all feels so obviously colour graded. But I’ll certainly give you those examples in QOS, SF and at least the opening shot of SP, despite the grading. Best I can say about NTTD - and having only watched it once - is that DB5 roaring around the Matera streets looked ok. Nothing strikingly memorable like Remy Julienne’s choreography.

[quote=“PK"]As far as recklessness goes, if we were to slate Bond for that, we would reduce him to half ballerina, half monk. wink[/quote]

C’mon Mr. Khan. A goon is inches away from a window, shooting a machine gun at someone Bond supposedly loves. That’s just as silly as the very worst the series has to offer from the 70s, except those films were tongue-in-cheek.