No Time to Bond

 

Hey readers. 

It has been a long enough time since I've been to the movies, as in, been to one of those places, you know, those things. I think they're called cinemas. The last time I sat in one of those, I saw the movie Tenet, which I recall was about palindromes or something. This time, I saw the latest and last-est of the Daniel Craig Bond films: No Time To Die. I'll share some spoiler-free ramblings with you.

Although I don't consider myself a Bond fan by any stretch, I am quite familiar with the James Bond franchise as a whole, as I would imagine is the case for much of the general public. The ubiquity of James Bond in western - and indeed global - culture and media is all the more evident when there's a new movie hitting the theaters.

The Craig-era films - Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall and Spectre - have shifted the concept of what a Bond-movie is in such a significant way that it makes earlier iterations look rather campy and naïve, even off-putting, in comparison. I do admit that my first impression of Casino Royale was that this new shift in style is some kind of gimmick, trying to capitalise on a dark and gritty reimagining of a cartoony original; emulating what Christopher Nolan did to Batman, for example. In time, I grew to appreciate that there was more to this reimagining, more grounding, more depth and nuance of character and relationships that served to elevate these new films ever so slightly above mere blockbuster-action rollercoaster rides that Bond-films traditionally are. I mean they still are that, don't get me wrong. But just the fact that the same underlying story continues and develops over several films adds fresh interest and depth.

To the film itself then. As I said, no spoilers. No Time To Die picks up after the events of Spectre. Bond has left the secret service, for good, but of course, a threat emerges that necessitates his return. Bond's relationship with Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux) provides the backbone for the plot. Spectre, the organisation headed by Blofeld (Christopher Waltz) and a new threat, the villain Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek), serve as the main antagonists. You get what you pay for, there's no deception here: Big-budget set-pieces, guns, grenades, cars, explosions, gadgets, scantily clad ladies and piles of dead henchmen. The title sequence - which is an event in itself, an iconic Bond-staple second only to the theme song - leaves nothing to be desired with its sleek motion graphics and morphing visual acrobatics.

But wait. Wasn't this supposed to be the new Bond? The new, more refined, more mature Bond? Well, it sort of is, I guess. Part of what set Daniel Craig's Bond apart from the pack was a new sense of vulnerability and - dare I say - realism, both emotional and physical. This has been played up in different ways: Getting shot and bruised really hurt and took time to recover from; death wasn't something you could just shake off. The liquor isn't an accessory, it's a crutch. Some of this tone carries over into this newest film, but inconsistently. At times Bond is wearing plot-armor thicker than Q could ever devise, absolutely impenetrable to bullets and grenades alike; all danger evaporating as he executes hoards of henchmen with inhuman ease and precision. It's as if superhero-mode becomes activated when it is convenient. At other times he's still the aging old dog trying to keep up, trying to scrape by.

The villains in the film are a marked letdown. Blofeld, who is supposed to be Bond's Moriarty, his age-old nemesis, is relegated to a rather minor role, disarmed and unthreatening. The main villain Lyutsifer Safin on the other hand remains distant and vague as a character. His motivations and goals are not clearly conveyed and his whole persona feels underdeveloped and hollow: He is a placeholder villain. I feel that Malek's acting potential is left untapped in this role. This ties in with my second major contention with the film, which is the pacing. 

The second half of the film shifts focus towards Safin and it is for me the weaker half of the film. The first half manages to coast on the energy and fun of what is appealing about Bond-films: cool locations, fast-paced action, setting up the stakes for the story. The second half is supposed to bring things to a head and deliver a satisfying conclusion. However, too much of it feels like a production running by the numbers. The setup is tired and uninspired, unnecessarily drawn out. The film is not a failure by any means, but it doesn't stick the landing. 

Considering the 2hr 43min runtime, much of the film feels rushed, ever eager to get to the next bit of action. And yet, at times it feels like it's dragging on. The story is not strong enough to warrant the length. Perhaps the desire to get as much mileage out of Daniel Craig in his final Bond role overrode the desire to keep the story tight. Who knows.

Overall, I enjoyed the film a decent bit. There is typically a touch of silly and over-the-top fun in the style of action in Bond films that I can easily get into. The major emotional beats of the story were a bit on the nose, but serviceable. It was also refreshing to be back in the cinema. No Time To Die certainly benefits from the big screen and cinematic surround-sound as an experience. 

Would I recommend it? To anyone at all invested in the storyline of the new Bond films, yes. To people who aren't? Nah, take it or leave it. It's not essential viewing. But chances are good that you'll eventually see it anyway, and it'll be fine, just fine.