Sin tiempo para morir

Daniel Craig loses no opportunity to demonstrate why he has had such a salutary impact on the evolution of James Bond. His Bond is more impulsive, sensitive and passionate than ever before.

A befittingly grand farewell party for Daniel Craig in his final outing as James Bond, No Time To Die has no time for half measures. It goes all out to give fans of the franchise the highs they are looking for and the actor who has stamped his class on the role since 2006's Casino Royale gets the send-off he deserves.

Best bond film after casino royale. The action sequence are breathtaking the score by Hans Zimmer is awesome but the best part about this film is cinematography by Linus Sandgrenhe he has outdone himself.

I alway liked Daniel Craig but in this film Rami Malek and Léa Seydoux stole the show but as they say great villan makes a great film and no doubt this is great film Go watch it without a doubt.

Craigs films peaked with Casino Royale and have slowly been depreciating from there. However, this film nicely finishes his tenure as bond and left me slightly emotional at the end, not because of the ending but saying goodbye to the best Bond ever (in my opinion).

Few key things to mention:

• Film is 30 mins too long and they could easily cut some scenes.

• It is clear the screenplay writers kept getting to late stages in the film then realising they need to adjust earlier plot lines to accommodate the storyline. Most significantly the main antagonist has a key piece of collateral over Bond and simply gives it away for no apparent reason.

• Ana de Armas character is completely pointless, which is a shame as she is a good actor. She is simply put in as eye candy and to push forward a scene.

• The plot line and how it linked to Spectre was not well devised and fell flat, which great acting and interesting fight scenes managed to keep afloat. It felt like a shoddy mission impossible rip off with the Bond style overlaying.

• Rami Maleks character was underwhelming and a shame for how good an actor he is.

Overall, Daniel Craig deserves a lot of credit for what he's done for the franchise and was a pleasure to watch him as bond.

The fifth and final Daniel Craig Bond outing. How did we get here? Casino and Quantum perhaps should have been one film. Craig's era only really got going properly with Skyfall, three films and 6 years in. Too much time was spent rebooting and reestablishing. By then, it was also presenting him as old and past it. But Skyfall was otherwise magnificent and should probably have been the first film. Spectre followed, tying everything up, and establishing an overarching storyline. While Blofeld was only in that one film, his presence was magnified by a partially successful linking of all four films, bringing the series to a satisfactory and upbeat conclusion. After what felt like a definite end, where could they go from here?

No Time To Die is spawned from a throwaway line Madeline Swan makes in one of Spectre's duller scenes, not something I'd ever cared to explore further. The first 5 minutes is that story - her story - before normal service is resumed, and we're back to Bond and a spectacular Italian opening sequence.

As before, Madeline is sullen. She has a secret, but it's largely irrelevant to anything going on. Their relationship lacks the chemistry he had with Vesper and, more worryingly, becomes so domesticated I was expecting them to pop into Tesco. The presence of a child also feels wrong and awkward in just about every way. Bond was was always escapist, sexy, adult fantasy. What happened?

A decade after Skyfall, the film again plays on Bond's age, which the most significant new character, Noeme, mocks. Unlikeable, abrasive and charmless, Bond takes a back seat to her - literally at one point - losing his identity. He's old, retired, forgotten, has no title or sex appeal.

Series regulars, Moneypenny and Felix, are sidelined and discarded. The film's best new character, Paloma, is underused. Her chapter is classic Bond, aside from her disinterest in him - his second rejection in the film, making this easily the most sexless film in the entire franchise.

One regular that would not have been missed was the ubiquitous DB5 - again! Moreover, Aston Martins are everywhere in this story, diluting their impact and specialness.

The central plot is contrived and confusing. The main villain is weak and cliched, doing one thing, then another, with no real believable motivation behind any of his actions. He doesn't have the maturity or gravity required for the role and his age is inconsistent with Madeline's. There is an enjoyable chase in Norway, but why is he there? What's the point? Is he out for revenge or conquering the world? But it gets worse. The all-powerful Spectre is comprehensively dealt with by him. The alarming ease with which this is done - almost as an aside - completely undermines Bond's four-film long journey. Why wasn't Bond dealing with Blofeld and Spectre?

The finale is weak and contrived. The long-take staircase scene has been done before (Children of Men, Atomic Blonde). Enhanced by a Hans Zimmer score, it does build into a moving ending. But it is downbeat and leaves you feeling disappointed and miserable, if not depressed. Not something I've felt with any other Bond film. It would work better as a stand alone thriller.

This film is completely unnecessary. It doesn't tie up any loose ends or take the story forward. That's not to say it isn't entertaining, it has much to recommend it, with some wonderful, big budget set pieces. But the initial disappointment I had after my first viewing has never gone. It is an awkwardly engineered bolt-on, a deconstructive, box-ticking exercise with a directionless story that serves no real purpose except to undermine what's gone before.

The Craig era should have ended with Spectre. It felt like it had. As he famously said after filming, he'd rather "slash his wrists" than do another one. "All I want to do is move on," he continued. If only he had. A Bond film used to be the go to staple for some light-heated fun and excitement. This one has no time for that.

One of my guilty pleasures as a moviegoer is watching James Bond movies and I have no intention of apologising for that. Thus, I watched as soon as I had the opportunity 'No Time to Die' directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, the latest film in the series, whose release has already been postponed several times and which finally meets the screens and its viewers this cinematic fall of the year 2021. The James Bond film series is approaching the age of 60. All Bond movies start from the same premises and have the same hero, but the way he looks and behaves and the structuring of the story have evolved over time. This says a lot about how cinematic entertainment was and is perceived and accepted in the movies of the big studios.

A lot has happened during these years. The hero evolved from the nonchalant and humorous commander in Fleming's books and played by Sean Connery to the complex and gloomy character in the last series, played by Daniel Craig. The original 007 had gone through the experience of World War II and was active during the Cold War. He was excused for his womanising as many things are excused to war heroes, and there was no room for moral doubt concerning his actions because he lived in an age when it was clear who were the good guys and who were the bad guys. Thee 21st century James Bond lives and acts in the turbulent era after the fall of communism and after the novels of John Le Carre were written. Today's enemies are not ideological, and screenwriters of such films (not just those in the Bond series) often prefer not to identify them politically, ethnically, or religiously. On the other hand, the romantic implications of the character are no longer devoid of substance. James no longer conquers but falls in love. From Bond the Don Juan we now (almost) get Bond the family man. One of the qualities of the script in 'No Time to Die' is that it manages to describe at this stage of the character's evolution a story that is acceptable by today's standards of the big studios and is somewhat credible in terms of character psychology. Craig's James Bond has been throughout this series and is in this film also a real character, not just a two-dimensional comics book figure.

What I liked about 'No Time to Die'? Daniel Craig. Action scenes, car chases and stunts that show ingenuity in a few moments (just when we thought we saw everything in this area) and use the landscapes spectacularly, especially in Italian villages. Humour and self-humour. The presence of Ralph Fiennes, an actor who can do anything on screen and I will like it. Ana de Armas, a classic Bond-girl who I hope will survive until the next series. What I liked less? Rami Malek, an actor who constantly disappoints me and who plays a mediocre bad guy here. Lea Seydoux is OK, but her relationship with Bond lacks chemistry. The dose of melodrama introduced in the script towards the end. The scientific pretext, which is thin and I could not understand what they were brewing in those pools (not that it would be important).

'No Time to Die' honorably concludes the Daniel Craig chapter of the Bond epic. It's not the best Bond I've ever seen, but it's above average. I look forward to the next reincarnation.