so, what appears to be my one and only cinema trip of a year each year has happened. for this year, look you see. although i might go again before the year is out, but with about two or so months left i am not rightly sure it will be so. i mean, anyone have any idea when this new Top Gun film is due? big screen dobly sound volleyball is, after all, rather smart.
anyway, in this instance, off i (along with William) went to see the most recent / latest James Bond film, No Time To Die. rather famously this has been a delayed release (some 18 months, due to all of that lockdown and war on plague business), and as it turns out, going on box office figures, it seems each and every person in our land has been expected to go and see it, or send an ambassador to see it on their behalf.
to start with, a vaguely spoiler free review? certainly. some elements of the press have, of course, heralded and crowned this as "the greatest Bond film ever". this it is not; nor is it even the best one ever off of Daniel Craig. but, it is very good indeed. brilliant, in some aspects, but to disclose further would mean some of them spoiler things. so scroll (or proceed) with caution.
whereas i intend, or propose, to give so very little away, do please pay attention to how there is, from here on out, one of them *** SPOILER WARNING *** things in place. you know what, such warnings used to be all over things on the internet, but i don't recall when i last saw one, other than here. am i even more out of date with this kind of qualification?
plot? kind of tricky to do with keeping spoilers to a minimum. giving it a go for you, it kicks off more or less quite close to where Spectre (the previous one) left off, with Bond apparently chilling, be it on holiday or having handed in his licence to kill. yet, of course, things go a bit f****d. via one of the most sensational action sequences in cinema, mind, let alone just Bond.
next thing we are decidedly in a world of a retired Bond, five years later. a dear old friend, however, has a favour to ask of him. reluctantly it is so that James agrees to it, and soon finds himself drawn back into a world that not only he had left behind, but had left him behind too. amicably, apparently.
in wishing to be positive, the good stuff first. one was mentioned above, but this film contains not one, perhaps not so many as three (3), but certainly two of the greatest action sequences i have ever seen in any sort of movie. for those who have watched the film and are reading this, then yes indeed of course i refer to that incredible opening sequence, and the sheer exhilarating thrill of the Cuba scene.
but what else? well, Daniel Craig's performance. it feels like pretty much since the second (or third) one he did there's been mumblings and quotes saying he was not keen on doing it. understandable, i suppose, yet somewhat off-putting for audience. even in the "weaker" moments of the less than great ones that he has done, the performances have always been first rate, and here is no exception. much is true for a great number of the support cast. just one exception (to use the word again) but undoubtedly we will get to that.
quite possibly open to (mass) debate on being a good thing or a bad thing, it is so that No Time To Die does indeed "bookend" the Daniel Craig Bond as a complete, start to finish telling of the James Bond story. or rather a variation of James Bond. bit like how they keep on reworking various super hero types from time to time, i guess. undoubtedly i will come back to this part (aspect) for a bit more musing later, but if nothing else, wherever Bond goes next they have a pure, clean canvas on which to create. maybe they shall try something all the more different, possibly they shall revert to the classic era, who knows. well, i guess them what make it have an idea.
the very worst element, or aspect, of No Time To Die? suggesting that the villain, the big bad, has even so much as one dimension is pushing it and being generous. what an extraordinary, inexplicable waste it was to cast the astonishing Rami Malek in this role. despite the complexities, intrigue and genuine interest hinted at with his (possible) story, there's just nothing on screen. essentially he only has to, or gets to, 'act' in one scene. ultimately this was, i suppose, kind of a "win win". for Rami Malek one would assume he got a nice payday, a radical departure from his previous most celebrated role and the honour of having a Bond on his credits. in return, the makers of Bond got to put "Oscar winner" on the poster and that, should such still be good marketing.
right, potentially murky waters i should not be in. some of the comments, or reviews, around this Bond film have been banding around that fancy new word i see a lot; that i am still not 100% sure i fully understand what it means, etc, and simply cannot be @rsed to look up or google. with the word being, so far as i am aware, "woke". if there was something in this film that was supposed to upset (or outrage) moi, a just south of 50 (bloody hell) white English male, then i missed it. no, i did not doze off or go for a bathroom break (p!ss), either, watched it all.
perhaps it is the thing where (you saw the spoiler warnings and that, yeah?) the secret service (or what have you) went ahead and hired a black woman, and just happened to give her the 007 number, since the previous one had retired? well, yeah, that's how the world verks, is it not? i dare say that one or two places i have called verk have, by now, recycled my old employee number? the exchange in the film around it was quite good, to be honest.
other aspects to do with what may or may not be whatever (exactly) this "woke" thing is come up, of course, but again i am reluctant to go all spoilers. which is kind of strange, seeing as it may well be that you, right now, are reading this half a dozen or a dozen years after it was written. should the internet still be a kind of thing.
some criticism and complaint has been aired about the length of the film, with it being that No Time To Die is just far too f*****g long for what story it has. this is correct. at many stages it's all a bit more human drama, perilously close to soap opera, than it is a James Bond (as we would know it) film. which again, i concede, might be all that "woke" stuff. oddly the drama stuff was quite involved, but also rather dislocating when it went back to being an as would be expected Bond film.
as mentioned earlier, No Time To Die perfectly (and i do mean that) bookends the Daniel Craig era of Bond. more overtly than any other actor change, these films kind of exist outside of the sequence of the others. which is kind of an issue. much of the joy of the other Bond films is that you could watch them in any order and it wouldn't affect anything. here, not so much, at all. other than, obviously, Casino Royale, to be able to know what the devil is going on in any Daniel Craig Bond you really do need to have seen the others. this film also troubled itself with a bit too much with heavy handed references to other non-Craig ones, On Her Majesty's Secret Service in particular. which sort of kind of gives an awful lot of what is to follow away. but big plus to one throwback, the quasi "hollowed out island base filled with ninjas", for i loved You Only Live Twice too.
had this come out when intended, early 2020, then i am not sure the reviews would have been so kind. many, i would suggest, are likely to have speculated that James Bond has run its course, let this be an end to it all. undoubtedly, unexpectedly, No Time To Die has actually benefited from a delay, the sense of expectation and frankly the excitement of being able to go and see a "big event" film is here, something we maybe let fall away and only realised how bad it was to let it slip when it was taken away. an average film with two great action sequences has, effectively, been turned into a very much above average film purely by circumstance.
my reflection on Daniel Craig as Bond? well, Sir Roger said he believed he was "the best of all of us who played the part", and i think from an acting perspective, spot on. in seeking this "modern" or harder edge Bond, though, it means he's not going to be as iconic as Sir Sean, i grew up on the Sir Roger ones so he's my favourite, Timothy Dalton was brilliant but didn't get a fair crack. move past Pierce Brosnan thanks and as for Lazenby, well, he did one. looking at all five (5) what Daniel Craig done, Spectre was a bit of a let down despite some good moments and was cursed with the single worst Bond theme ever. that said, i would argue that Skyfall is easily one of the greatest, best Bond films (and themes) ever, at least ranking top three (3) measured however you like, plot, iconic moments, what you will.
where next for James Bond? all of a sudden that's an interesting question. up to the casting of Daniel Craig that was answered with "more of the same, with a known but not exactly big box office star in the part instead". now, not so much. oh, James Bond shall be back, for there is still an awful lot of money in the films. exactly how they lure us in, beyond just saying "James Bond", to extract the coins is going to be rather interesting to see.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment