Sin tiempo para morir

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?

This is a very odd film, which feels far too melodramatic and miserable to be a James Bond story. It's more reminiscent of a serialised romantic drama or a tragedy, than that of a spy thriller. There are contradicting styles in the script that leave the viewer totally confused as to why certain events or decisions are made and no real depth to any of characters that make the story plausible or, well, worth emotionally investing in.

If you think back to one of the classic Bond films you'll remember a much more optimistic, simple and pleasurable experience. Every story was unique and the next adventure was a whole new mission. This suave and somewhat-blithe secret agent was solely invested in protecting national security and saving the world from unhinged megalomaniacs. Along the way there were interesting characters, exotic locations, beautiful women, stylish outfits, new gadgets and the most modern of cars (also fitted with the latest gadgets).

The five Craig-era films have spent 15 years moping about the same event which happened back in the first, without really moving on. His Bond seems more like a 'prima donna' that leaves, sulks and refuses to help more times than a French trade union. I refuse to believe than anyone with his psychological and unstable emotional profile would ever be drafted in as a 00 Agent. What is also forgotten is than Bond is a secret agent, not a frontline commando - aka John Rambo. He should use stealth, intelligence and subterfuge, with only action and violence used when absolutely necessary.

Still, having actually enjoyed Skyfall (which subsequently seems like the odd one out in the series) and having waited years since the last (thank you Covid-19), I accepted an invite to a pre-screening.

The positives:

• The 'alternative' 007 was actually a good character. She was physically imposing enough to be believable as another 00 Agent and is a good actress. Nothing worse than being told that a size-0 model can boot a 'pro-wrestler' sized henchman across the room and forced to accept it. Though, replacing the designated 'Agent 007' so soon, after going missing... I question both the realism and motive here.

• The filmography was impressive. Maybe the large screen helps amplify how good the camera-work quality really is. Some lovely shooting involved.

The negatives:

• Rami Malek's character made no sense and was effectively 'cardboard'. To have an Oscar-winning actor and effectively make him a dull two-dimensional side character is a total under use of talent.

• The plot and script writing. One of the things that is known about this film is how the script was rewritten mid/post production, and it shows. It's all over the place. What appears evident is how the first cut must have felt too gloomy in editing, so the producers brought in Waller-Bridge to lighten it up. Unfortunately, adding in random comedy lines or moments does not take away how miserable this film is.

• The odd logic and lack of people. The reshoots have clearly affected how scenes play out. For example, instead of controlling missions from a control centre (think Goldeneye), Ralph Fiennes (M) was just in his office with Rory Kinnear, seeming almost low budget. The final scene was just six people in an office with a drink - where on Earth is the rest of the intelligence service in this who film? Clearly 'social distancing' themselves from this mess.

• The romance. The chemistry between Bond and leading love interest is about as reactive as a nobel gas. Flat and painful. So, to have two films of the same thing is beyond the pale.

• The music. I can't even remember the theme tune, so not even worth my time commenting on. Clearly it was so bad that Hans Zimmer instead decided to base the soundtrack using 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' all the way. Why plagiarise a film from the 60s and use arguably one of the worse films in the franchise? Clearly, Louis Armstrong was not available to decline.

• Treatment of classic characters. It's clear that the producers want to draw a line under the franchise and start afresh - pandering to the 'woke mob' and hoping that future tokenistic nonsense will prove as successful as the original premise was. Spoiler: It won't and it never will.

The producers are clearly inept at creating anything that remotely feels as good or as likeable as it once was. This is an institution and it deserves respect, not total destruction. Classic Bond films will continue to be on TV and still fondly remembered for years to come. I don't think many will ever want to watch this film more than once. That's what will speak the loudest.

Honestly, way better than i expected. For me Bond movies are always hit or miss and this one was actually good. It's modern and entertaining action movie and that's what i want out of bond movie.

In 2006 the first Bond movie with Daniel Craig - the wonderful reboot 'Casino Royale' - was supposed to show us how Bond became who he is. But they didn't stop there. Three Bond movies followed that exploited the character, showing him as vulnerable, dealing with his past, quitting the service several times and having a hard time figuring women or life out: 'Quantum of Solace' (2008) - a fast-paced hard-to-follow shakycam thrillride, 'Skyfall' (2012) with its ludicrous plot and a villain's scheme that made no sense and the heavily graded 'Spectre' (2015) with its clumsy script.

Now, in 2021, No Time to Die, the longest Bond movie ever, is finally here after being delayed three times and oh man...this was actually great!

No Time to Die is really a real treat. It is beautifully shot (IMAX cameras were used in many scenes) and wonderful to look at. The three big setpieces work fine. But they are much, much too short. The Hans Zimmer score is the best James Bond score, since David Arnold composed 'Casino Royale', meaning bombastic and melodic, with a couple of unexpected nods to earlier Bond movies.

No Time to Die is well acted, and I have to say that Ana de Armas steals the show away from all other than Craig. Sadly her part was very small. Great chemistry between her and Bond. I hope to see her back as the half-drunk agent!

The pacing is also mostly fine, there's a fair amount of thrilling edge-of-your seat moments and the locations are varied and put to good use as they should be (especially the Italy and Norway scenes). It is also the most emotional and bold Bond movie ever attempted.

As a die-hard Bond fan, I have been pretty much disappointed with the last three, and after Terminator and Star Wars going woke I was a bit afraid that the Bond franchise would suffer the same fate. And yes...wokeness is certainly here to some extent, because in these times you can't have a suave unethical gambling self-assure single masculine womanizer roaming the silver screen. So they turned James Bond into a feminist family man who can't figure women or life out. This "alternative" take on the James Bond character may put some people off. It's not a huge issue for me though. The glamourous larger-than-life character WILL return one day. And I do miss THAT guy!

The massive team behind this last Bond movie should be very proud! Much to my surprise, and against many odds, they actually nailed it!

A great film all around, not Craig's best appearance as Bond but still an enjoyable ride. I personally didn't enjoy the ending, Malek's villain wasn't particularly eye catching either.