<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="1">
</h1>
About 18 months after the scheduled release date, Daniel Craig's final film as James Bond is finally here, and it's safe to say that 007: No Time to Die is worth the wait.
In Craig's 15-year 007 career, the film didn't reach the level of euphoria as 007: Casino Royale or 007: Skyfall, but clearly easily surpassed 007: Quantum of Solace and 007: Ghost Party, in the middle of Craig's five films.
But more importantly, "No Time to Die" delivers a heartfelt and complete farewell to the character played by Craig, pushing its overall character development throughout the five films to a just right moving climax.
Some of these plot settings are sure to divide die-hard fans and general audiences, but all the actors involved in it have done a fantastic job, and in the current 25 007 films, this movie is clearly in the upper middle echelon.
While it's only natural that fans should be immersed in the final days of Craig's version of 007 for a while before announcing the next 007 actor, hopefully the next 007 movie won't keep us waiting too long. Until then, let's talk about the failures of 007: No Time to Die...
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="7" >3</h1>
The biggest failure of the whole movie is the villain. No matter how you look at it, Rutherford Safine (Rami Marek) is a tedious, mediocre, boring, and old-fashioned 007 villain.
We can sense that the film's creator wanted to create a traditional 007 villain character — he was disfigured, had a stunning old lair, and preached a ridiculously arrogant plan — but unfortunately he ended up appearing on the screen for too little time, lacking enough depth and presence to get the audience's attention.
Unfortunately, Rami Marek, although talented, has no drama, and can only go through the motions.
Of course, you could argue that "No Time to Die" is more about Bond's personal journey than the typical 007 plot, but as a villain, Safin is also too rigid.
While fans complain that Dominique Green (Matthew Amalik) in 007: Quantum of Solace is boring, to be honest, Safin isn't much better than him.
For a film that takes pains to create an epic and operatic feel, Safin is basically just... A Facebook.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="14" >2</h1>
With 163 minutes, Time to Die is the longest 007 film to date. Considering that today's blockbusters seem to be getting longer and longer every year, people can't help but worry about whether there will be a 3-hour 007 movie in the future.
Judging from "No Time to Die", this concern is not unfounded.
While the film doesn't seem to make you feel difficult, it doesn't justify its epic length, and while the expansive canvas gives some scenes more room to maneuver — for example, the opening 20-minute prologue — the lax middle part is entirely sensible to make some cuts.
There are a lot of secondary plots stuffed in the middle of the film, which can easily be simplified or discarded altogether in order to better serve the narrative.
Bond's journey in this film is very personal, and continuing to follow the usual narrative mode of 007 tracking is really unnecessary, it will only feel cumbersome.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="20" >1</h1>
Without going into too many details, the plot of "No Time to Die" is quite absurd—no doubt, much more absurd than the creators are willing to admit.
Like 007: Ghost Party, the film apparently wants to please old 007 fans who miss the pompous style of Roger Moore's time, so the story wraps itself around itself with a variety of intricate, exaggerated knots, trying to appear both epic and "complex."
From the way Bloomfield (Christopher Waltz) fits into the story to Safin's plot to control the world, everything feels silly and ridiculous, completely contrary to the film's more serious and audience-grabbing target, Bond himself.
In this case, in fact, "less is more", appropriately reducing the scale, focusing on more intimate interests, can greatly reduce the conflict with Bond's inner exploration.