It looks like a fun movie, but I want to see more before I can really judge it.
- Tom Holland playing the new Tom Holland part
- Mark Wahlberg trying to play the new mentor part, hoping to still be cast as the lead in future Michael Bay productions
- really badly lit green screen action and computer game CGI
- everybody going through the motions, with a plot written together by AI
Pass.
Enough to make one yearn just a bit for the times when Godard, Rohmer, Truffaut, et. al. took their cameras into the street to see what they (and often Raoul Coutard) could accomplish with natural light. And let me not start about Buster Keaton.
Absolutely. I really wonder who of those involved says: yep, looks good - move on to the next shot.
And the action is so unbelievably removed from anything resembling life on earth.
Oh, what could they learn from Keaton doing the most outrageous stunts himself, with real… gravity!
I’m a huge Uncharted fan. I’m a little disappointed in certain aspects of this. Like why the hell would you cast Mark Wahlberg at all? But I’m gonna see it, hopefully it will be good…enough.
@stromberg Thank you!! This is exactly what I was thinking about.
J. Hoberman wrote that live-action films are more and more resembling animation with the increased technological tools now available, and I think he is correct.
When I watch Keaton movies, one of the pleasures is knowing that what I am watching actually happened live in front of the camera–nothing has been altered/fixed in post. This feeling connects me with the Lumiere Brothers and their movies of a train coming into a station or factory workers leaving their factory.
One reason I like DAF is that the Las Vegas presented is 1971 Las Vegas–not prettified or altered–a found movie set (and the way Ken Adams’ designs mesh with it is another pleasure). Even the oil rig is a found set, slightly modified.
Thought that just popped into my head: in DAF, the designs were matched to the existing/found sets to create a seamless visual whole–the governing principle is documentary (broadly understood).
In NTTD (and other contemporary films), existing/found sets are photographed so as to be merged seamlessly with CGI created afterward–the governing principle is digital manipulation.
Chris Corbould has an international reputation for a reason.
Though I am very aware Bond is an exception rather than the rule in this approach for blockbusters.
Thanks Orion. I am glad that the stunts were done live, but the problem is that the way they are (digitally) photographed to mesh with CGI used in other places diminishes their actuality (as it were). A consistent clean crisp image comes across as a homogenized image–similar to putting ketchup on a cut of meat–chopped chuck and prime rib taste alike when doused in it.
Where is the grain? The jumpiness? The fluctuations? The imprecision and instability of reality? Everything seems a work of animation when the messiness of life is excluded.
I think it comes down to a choice: a consistent, clear image (animation over reality) versus a grainy, inconsistent image (reality over animation).
No Time To Die is all film. Skyfall is the only Bond film shot digitally (and let’s be honest, Roger Deakins is the only cinematographer you’d trust to use it well)
Well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness, they say…B.J. and Jake should be proud!
And I think I heard " Don´t touch your ear " before, too … 
Aside from point two (swap Michale Bay for Kevin Feige) it sounds like you could be talking about any forthcoming Marvel film, (which is why I now pass on those) yet they still have a massive legion of fans, viewers and mostly escape the criticism that these type of films usually get (indeed, most offerings are celebrated and praised somehow). No reason this can’t appeal to them too, and with the video game connection thrown in could draw big numbers.
Marvel, in my view, is so successful because they deliver such a familiar, going-through-the-motions entertainment. People want exactly this from the MCU and would likely be quite upset if they got served anything else but the tried and tested.
Not unlike the comics perhaps.
I have had a stop-and-go enthusiasm for Marvel so far. But after Endgame I was relieved that this part of the narrative was over and I was… free. I still like GUARDIANS and will watch part III - and Waikiki‘s new THOR. Yeah, okay, Spiderman and Doctor Strange, for completism idiocy on my part.
But the next phases of other people who make theatrical handgestures or have endless fistfights which will not hurt them a bit - not interested anymore.
Would be weird at 52, of course. Now, I will go and look at my new James Bond books.
Oh, and talking about bad CGI making human beings behave like video game figures…
Well, at least it has Ryan Reynolds delivering some funny lines (not all of them are that funny, though).
And: spot the QOS-copying…
And it couldn’t possibly be more blatant either! It’s the exact same stunt framed and shot the exact same way.
Yes, it’s doing quite well, in all markets.
„James Bond pic No Time to Die raced past $500 million globally to finish Sunday with a total of $525.4 million, including $120 million domestically and $405.6 million internationally. The MGM and EON tentpole is being handled domestically by United Artists and by Universal overseas.“