With one thrilling sequence, Ana de Armas steals Bond’s spotlight in No Time To Die
The brief Knives Out reunion brings levity to an otherwise somber 007
Film Features Ana de Armas
The following post discusses plot details of No Time To Die.
Despite offering definitive closure for Daniel Craig’s tenure as 007, No Time To Die chases its final credit roll with a card that promises, “James Bond will return”—a sly callback that should delight longtime fans of the series. Of course, if the filmmakers wanted to really bring the house down, they should’ve capped things off with: “Ana de Armas will return.”
Since Cary Joji Fukunaga’s movie—the 25th official James Bond film from Eon Productions—sees the spy at his most haunted and dour, it’s de Armas’ all-too-brief turn as green CIA operative Paloma that brings a welcome spark to the largely somber affair. In barely the time it takes to shake up a martini, Paloma trades quips with Bond, kicks some SPECTRE ass, then says her goodbyes, leaving a major impression after one rollicking action sequence. Her absence is sorely felt throughout the rest of the movie.
The scenes in question find a now-retired Bond traveling to Cuba at the request of American CIA friend Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright) to infiltrate a swanky SPECTRE party in hopes of locating a missing Russian scientist with ties to biologically threatening nanobot technology. There, he has his rendezvous with Paloma and the two head inside, dressed to impress. After a round of drinks, the shit quickly hits the fan in an exhilarating sequence that includes Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) holding court via detached cybernetic eyeball, a terrifying mass face-melting via nanobot tech, a game of keep-away with the scientist when new 007 Nomi (Lashana Lynch) enters the fray, and at least two more rounds of drinks. Once out of harm’s way, Paloma basically tells Bond, “Well, looks like this is goodbye,” and it’s not until a few scenes later that you realize she actually meant it. That’s the last we see of her.
She’s on screen so briefly, it’s almost a cameo. But what a cameo! The actor plays the part with a disarming affability, balancing bright-eyed eagerness with cool nonchalance. Not unlike her breakout role as the meek caregiver Marta in Rian Johnson’s Knives Out, Paloma initially comes off as something of an ingénue, but that quality masks a fighting spirit. If there was any lingering doubt after the 2019 murder mystery that de Armas was a star, one need only watch the way she waltzes into the James Bond franchise and steals the spotlight from its hero in under 20 minutes.
When Bond first approaches Paloma, she’s sitting bar-side, sipping Coca-Cola through a straw in a stunning Michael Lo Sordo gown with a plunging neckline. In terms of “Bond Girl” glamour, she certainly fits the bill, but it’s her blithe excitement—and her admission that she’s had only three weeks of training—that undercuts the role’s presumed prestige. There’s the sense that this is a junior agent playing dress-up as the “international super-spy.” That impression is soon dispelled when we see her in action; Paloma, we’ll quickly learn, is highly skilled and knows exactly the image she’s projecting.
The character further subverts expectations of the Bond Girl trope when she pulls Bond into a secluded wine cellar and begins unbuttoning his shirt. Like clockwork, he quips about how quickly their relationship is advancing, which Paloma immediately brushes off: She’s just trying to get him dressed. She might not be entirely impervious to 007’s charms, but his appeal lies squarely in the fact that she needs him to get the job done. Paloma’s a professional, first and foremost, and de Armas demonstrates what makes her uniquely well-suited for the mission, even down to the way she handles Bond’s advances.
It’s no surprise that the pair have crackling (albeit strictly professional) chemistry, given that de Armas and Craig made such an effective sleuthing duo in Knives Out. Fukunaga was reportedly already eyeing the actress for a part in No Time To Die, so he pitched the idea to Craig, who was happy to have her on board for his fifth and final Bond. With production starting up just a few months after they wrapped on Johnson’s “whydunnit,” de Armas and Craig slipped back into their lively repartee with ease, and the result is the film’s most dynamic action set-piece with a classic 007 flair.
Craig is an ace with the winking one-liner, and there’s fun to be had across his five films as Bond. But his last feels saddled with a responsibility to end the arc of the most emotional 007 on a note of poignancy. Remember when Bond was so eager to dive into the next mission, to chase down the next lead, that M16 had trouble keeping him under its thumb? Lately it seems like he’s only “on Her Majesty’s secret service” out of weary obligation.
Thankfully, Paloma is there to give Bond, and the movie, a shot in the arm: Her arrival and the ensuing ass-kicking helps keep the otherwise weighty affair afloat, capturing that perfect blend of the grand, the gripping, and the goofy that’s made 007 a cornerstone of the box office for nearly 60 years. It’s been a thrill watching Bond evolve and meet the times in Craig’s gifted hands, but it’s de Armas’ energetic turn that points to where the franchise should go next. No longer beholden to the gritty, 15-year narrative plan kicked off in Casino Royale, the franchise would be wise to adopt Paloma’s outlook, delivering a 007 who’s looking forward instead of one constantly haunted by the past.
[pm_embed_youtube id=’PLroUsGOhJjhJB1sG1cZDDzDZOJs7rbeTd’ type=’playlist’]But what is next for James Bond? It’s worth noting that Lashana Lynch’s Nomi creates just as strong of an impression as de Armas, with much more substantial screen time. Captivating and capable, Lynch could headline a 007 movie of her own, though No Time To Die makes it clear she is definitely not “James Bond,” so one wonders what the long-term plans are for her when that end card swears “James Bond will return.” Regardless, the last few Daniel Craig films have done exceptional legwork in building out a cohesive world around Bond, investing us in his colleagues at MI6 and beyond. So whoever assumes the mantle next will have quite the support net.
Which brings us back to Paloma. We may have had to say a teary-eyed farewell to Felix Leiter, but the future James Bond has an exciting new ally in the CIA upstart, and she could easily pop in to be the best part of 007 movies for years to come. Ana de Armas plays her with just the right amount of mystery, and it’d be a blast to watch her fill in the blanks as she becomes a more confident agent, film after film. One could even argue the character deserves a spin-off movie of her own, but it’s probably best not to encourage Eon Productions to pursue the Marvel method with a whole slew of interconnected characters and films. Maybe leave the rest of Bond’s multiverse unexplored.
As for de Armas, No Time To Die pays off the promise of Knives Out: that this is a serious movie star in the making. Like many of her upcoming projects (Deep Water opposite former beau Ben Affleck, starry spy flick The Gray Man, and Andrew Dominik’s Marilyn Monroe biopic Blonde), Die hit some pandemic-related delays. But that hasn’t derailed what’s about to be a big year for the actor. Let’s just hope she leaves some room in her schedule for more James Bond. Whether Lynch reassumes the 007 title, or the series passes the buck to another fresh face, the future 007 would be lucky to have a talented scene-stealer like Ana de Armas at their side.
101 Comments
I could not believe De Armas wasn’t in more of this, and I’m glad you wrote an article that basically summarizes my feelings. I don’t so much mind a little more serialization in bond movies, but this movie has too much Spectre carryover and it really feels like a breath of fresh air to have a bright new character come through… only to have them promptly disappear.
Sort of funny that the female agent who people would like to see in a spinoff isn’t the one set up to have a spinoff.
I don’t really want a spinoff, mind you; I’m on the record as disliking the trend of mining every ounce of goodwill out of the bright spots in a piece of media. That being said, maybe 3-4 extra minutes of screentime wouldn’t have hurt.
Michelle Yeoh had talk about having a spin-off of her character (and based on her pairing with Cynthia Rothrock and films with Jackie Chan absolutely should have), same for Halle Berry (eh on this one) and nothing came of either of them. One of these Bond spin-off proposals might one day take off but to date, nothing yet.
We don’t THINK she’s being set up for the spinoff…
Her disappearance was so peculiar – she literally is not in a single frame subsequent to her ‘byeeeeee!’ – it makes me think there must have been other scenes in the script that they either shot and didn’t use or ditched before filming began. That, or it’s a terrible example of screenwriting craft from a writing team who really should know better…
I don’t see how it’s a screenwriting issue. She’s there to be a fun cameo role, she makes that sequence fun, and then she’s finished; always leave ‘em wanting more.
She was added last minute and they obviously couldn’t rewrite the entire script to include her in more. Also, cameos are not “a terrible example of screenwriting craft,” and she was CIA, so it wouldn’t make sense to make her a main character.
De Armas isn’t famous enough for her appearance to be a cameo. Also, unless you’re sticking Stan Lee in a Marvel movie, you don’t write a cameo into a script – you write a character. And, yes, to write a compelling character into your first act only to have them peace out for the whole rest of the movie IS fundamentally bad writing.
Lots of plot points seem to be forgotten or dropped in this movie. M just kind of gets away with some shady and disastrous mistakes, the little girl is just (spoiler) let go by the bad guy for no reason. The bad guy doesn’t really get into what he wants to do after his revenge.
I wish she would have been given more to do but it’s a stretch to say she “stole” the film. If anything, her part was so obviously shoehorned in that it’s almost insulting.
Yeah, I honestly remembered almost nothing about Spectre so it really felt out of place for me to have it play so prominently in the movie. I loved the scenes with her and Felix quite a bit and having an adventure with the 3 of them (and the new 007) would’ve made for an excellent movie. As good as Lea is I just didn’t buy her as Bond’s true love, they didn’t quite build that chemistry in Spectre.
Ana De Armas is a treasure.One of those actors whose fundamental physical beauty can sometimes distract from how very good they are at acting (see also, Charlize Theron, Jon Hamm, and Colin Farrell).
Anyone who saw her in Blade Runner 2049 as Gosling’s beguiling virtual girlfriend knew she was going to be a star.
Anyone who saw her in Blade Runner 2049 as Gosling’s beguiling virtual girlfriend knew she was going to be a star.
Yeah, I was knocked out as soon as she appeared in Blade Runner 2049. She just did so much with a pretty thankless role. I remember thinking, “who is this actress and why isn’t she in everything?”
Yep
A year earlier, in War Dogs, she stole every scene she was in, even though her character was a typical “wife of the protagonist” and even though she didn’t speak English and was learning her lines phonetically.
Or, you know – any of the several movies she’s done well before Blade Runner… since what, 2006?
I’m not sure why the article said Knives Out was her breakout role. Is it because BR2049 “only” made 260 million dollars?
That’s when I discovered her.
I rarely have crushes on unreachable, fetichized celebrities, but when I do, oh boy.
It surely helps that her character in Blade Runner is incredibly easy to empathize with, and her story arc fascinating.
And let’s not forget Gal Gadot. Whether it’s bad or good to be distracted from her acting is up for debate. Ana de Armas, for such an expressive face, can be incredibly subtle.
If Gal Gadot and Ana de Armas were in the next Bond together I might lose my mind. Gal as Bond girl, Ana as Paloma, whoa buddy
See Gadot falls into the category of likely not meant to be an actor if it wasn’t for her looks. I think she’s fine but nothing special (and often fairly dull and stilted in her delivery).
Gal Gadot is a textbook example of someone who’s got loads of charisma butcannotact.
Cura Te Ipsum, may I introduce you to Mr. Dwayne Johnson…?
I actually share a birthday with Mr Johnson (and David Beckham as it happens), though we’re all born on slightly different years.This has nothing to do with the point you made, please keep going.
Gal looks like a zionist pig and acts like a model stumbling through lines.
She also dialed back the hot so much in Knives Out that her performance had to stand completely on its own. I don’t think she even wore makeup (other than what was necessary for the camera). Cute, but in a very wholesome way.
What’s striking to me about De Amas is (despite her beauty) how different she looks in each movie.If I was someone not into pop culture, I feel like it would be difficult to guess that the put-upon caretaker from “Knives Out” is the glamorous agent from “No Time To Die”. (Even in that photo below from “Blade Runner 2049″ De Amas strongly resembles Felicity Jones.)BTW, I mean this all as a compliment. I think actors who look too much like themselves in each movie can often warp its suspension of disbelief because the viewer is no longer seeing the character they’re meant to play – but the movie star that person *is*. I’m talking someone like Tom Cruise or Jennifer Aniston. Or (occasionally) Will Smith or Angelina Jolie. And clearly what Johnny Depp was trying to avoid before he became a literal cliche and magnet for MRA groupies.
(Even in that photo below from “Blade Runner 2049″ De Amas strongly resembles Felicity Jones.)
I thought it was Felicity Jones!
I admit I was taken aback at how good she was in Knives Out. I had no idea she had THAT in her capabilities. She is deservedly a star now.
I tend to agree with this article’s take – thought Paloma was delightful and fun – but then there’s this from the AV Club Review: “…fleeting checklist appearance by Craig’s Knives Out costar Ana De Armas as a second-tier Bond girl so obligatorily incorporated that she could be airlifted out of the movie with the most minimal of rewrites.”
That line in the review is a big part of what inspired me to write the piece!
Ah, so it was a hearty “Fuck You!” to A.A. Dowd, then!I approve completely….
I get the impression they were laying the groundwork for her character having a larger role in a future film. Which drives me nuts. Every creative choice in these films seems measured in part by how it will synergize with or set up a sequel. Just tell a damn story. Don’t slip in some distracting subplot solely for franchise expandability.
I agree with Dowd in the sense that she’s integrated into the story in a way that feels like an afterthought, she doesn’t contribute anything essential (she’s just an extra pair of fists/heels for the fight) and then she vanishes from the story like she was never there. Whereas usually Bond’s CIA counterpart (Felix in the Craig movies, Joe Don Baker as Wade in the Brosnan movies) will contribute some piece of intel or equipment necessary to the mission. But I don’t think her fleeting nature to the plot is an inherently bad thing, especially when she’s so dynamite in her scenes. She makes the party crashing scene much more fun and memorable than it would have been without her; what she contributes is the intangible quality of charm and charisma. Which is really what the core of a Bond movie should be; the plots are very rarely the strength of a Bond movie.
I think the unnecessity of Nomi was more egregious, especially given her screentime and the fact that she was so publicized beforehand.- She meets Bond in Jamaica, but doesn’t give him the mission that pulls him out of retirement – Felix does. So her appearance here isn’t plot-necessary.- She tries to get Obruchev same time as Bond and Paloma, but fails – Bond gets him. So again, she didn’t need to be there, plot-wise.- Her mission was to track Ash, but he slips away from him and successfully leads Safin to Madeleine and Mathilde. Meaning she botched her mission, meaning she didn’t need to have one in the first place.- She goes with Bond to infiltrate Safin’s island, but does nothing that Bond couldn’t do all on his own. Again, take her out and the plot would’ve gone on on its own just fine.There’s very much a “too many rewrites” feel to the whole movie.
Maybe. But the line was constructed in a manner that indicated that De Amas’ scene, even it was unimportant to the plot, wasn’t at all exciting.That’s what I figured for the point of Scheetz’ article. To relitigate De Amas’ amazing charisma*. And I get what you’re saying: that the plot of a Bond film can be secondary to how exciting the film/scenes are. But Dowd’s comments made it seem like the sequence with De Amas was a charisma void.It’s immediately how I interpreted the line when I first read the review too – which was why I was glad to read *this* article.*I’m also a big fan of De Amas – so I’m clearly biased. 😉
‘We may have had to say a teary-eyed farewell to Felix Leiter…’. My wife said the same thing as we were on our way home. But these movie will reset with a new actor as Bond. The next Felix will be a different one than the one that died on a sinking fishing boat, just as this Felix isn’t the same one who was fed to a shark in License to Kill. There’s always been a little bit of an overlap, like Sean Connery avenging Tracy’s death in Diamonds are Forever, and then Roger Moore standing at her grave in For Your Eyes Only.The Brosnan movies seemed to try and follow the Dalton timeline somewhat by not having Leiter appear at all and replacing him with Joe Don Baker, but starting with Casino Royale, everything was reset with the exception of Judi Dench as M. And judging from the ending of this one, now they’ll do the same thing again.
Ralph Fiennes makes a great M and Rory as Tanner so I hope they stay on. Q has said he’s done after this.
this article has got me intrigued by her cameo in this, but Knives Out was shit.
You hate the thing most people love! Nice!
And can’t wait to tell everyone else about it! Extra nice!
Contrarianism in an internet forum….NEVER!
This is nothing! I had a discourse that ran for years on a movie forum about how I thought Knives Out was the worst movie I saw at the cinema in 2019 out of the 30 0r so films I saw (and I saw Dark Fate and Dark Phoenix). It was full of explanations about how those medications don’t work like that (I worked with those two exact ones for years) and that’s not how the law works either. Had footnotes and links to medical journals and everything.I might have disliked this film a bit.
Well, if anything I have to respect the amount of preparation you put into a comment thread.
I’m reminded of Agatha Christie (through a semi-self insert character) saying that she was regularly stopped by people wanting to tell her how poisons don’t work that way or something. She essentially said, “Thanks but nobody cares. That’s not why people enjoy my books.”Mystery novels, since at least Sherlock Holmes, exist in a to-the-left-of-reality world (similar to regency romance novels). If you expect real world realism, you probably should try true crime.
Well, if it’s any consolation, I also hated the characters, story and plot. The technical side of things just got me offside just that bit more from the outset. Which is a pity, I was looking forward to it and it ended up being one of those rare films I almost walked out of (Chris Evans kept me in it even if it the whodunnit element was obvious from the outset based on the structure and execution).On top of everything else, our pathology lab in the basement does regular backups of data several times a day at least. The idea that burning it down several days later would somehow lose all that information was especially funny/ridiculous (that plus you could always dig the body up and repeat the toxicology in that time frame). The TV show Dharma and Greg of all things many years previously had a scene deliberately lampooning such a concept with someone who apparently wouldn’t know better.Basically it wasn’t any one thing but for me a massive cascade of changing so many things from how they’re actually done to contrive the resulting ending. It was too much for me on top of everything else.I guess I resent it even more because I was on night shift and I thought “I gave up more sleep for this???”.
I mean, do you actually expect something based on the genre of “And Then There Were None,” to be realistic? Half the fun is the improbable setting and events. It’s why it doesn’t take much pushing of the concept to end up with “Clue” or “Murder By Death.”Like I said, I don’t think it’s to everyone’s tastes. But as someone who loved both reading and watching Agatha Christie and Sherlock Holmes and The Thin Man, it was delightful.
“I might have disliked this film a bit.”This film = Knives OutNot seen a Daniel Craig Bond film except Skyfall when on a plane.
I saw Skyfall on a plane, too! I have no idea if it was good or not, but I technically saw it, so I can’t being myself to spend time rewatching.
I don’t know about “shit”. But it sure wasn’t the amazing bit of filmmaking everyone claimed it was.
Knives Out was a mixture of Sleuth, And Then There Were None/Ten Little Indians, Clue, etc.Not a single original idea.
At the risk of doubling down on my username and hating yet another thing that is universally loved, I’ll just say it:Did not enjoy Knives Out and genuinely surprised it’s been received so well.
I’ll jump on your bandwagon and say Hamilton was lousy. I sat through the wholething with a puzzled squint wondering why everyone thought it was a big deal.
the hamilton hustle is a 2017 article that sums up why i dislike it so
It insisted upon itself. There, I said it.
this movie was all around fantastic, and Ana was an amazing callback to a sillier Bond time.
Jesus, that kid’s eye-achingly beautiful. I’m sure she steals any scene as soon as she walks into frame.
Seems like she could steal it just by standing there.
I thought she was the best part and most compelling character in Blade Runner 2049.
The performances by De Armas and Lynch make it all the more difficult to accept that Lea Seydoux’s character is the love of Bond’s life. The only other Bond film where he is properly smitten with the girl, is OHMSS with the incomparable Diana Rigg. NTTD is a great film, despite Seydoux and Malek, rather than in any way because of them.
Yeah, he has ZERO chemistry with Seydoux and it really hurts the movie. It’s a shame they decided to make this a full-on sequel to Spectre instead of retooling it to pair him with a romantic interest that he actually seems to like.
That would have taken way too much legwork in a movie that was already pushing it in terms of runtime.
Seydoux and Craig just lack chemistry together. Madeline is a pretty boring character. She’s the love of Bond’s life now?
Well, she’s his Baby Mama, that has to count for something.
I remember Eva Green WAY more vividly as his love interest and didn’t remember a thing about Seydoux when I watched NTTO…
Eva Green is so unique that she makes sense as the one woman capable of distracting Bond for more than a night. Trying to plug in the others as believable substitutes is a fool’s errand.
I was utterly gobsmacked when he declares his love for her at the end of Spectre. She felt like 30 years his junior, they barely know each other…it felt like right after that scene, Sam Mendes should have called “CUT” and everyone involved would group together in a boardroom to discuss what should be done with the footage, since it clearly wasn’t working. Instead it was released as a major motion picture lol
I was a little worried that skipping Spectre would make it harder to enjoy this film, but it might have helped. I could just imagine that there was some great romantic backstory that I hadn’t seen.
James Bond Will (Diminishing) Return . . .
Knives Out was so terrible. Ironically, De Armas, completely miscast, elevated the film.
how so?
You think De Armas was miscast in Knives out? How so? Who would you have replaced her with?
No one – she elevated the mediocre, tropey film.
. . . how is that remotely ironic?
I don’t think it’s inherently a bad thing that she shows up for one sequence, then disappears from the film. There’s something to be said for a great sequence which is more or less complete in of itself, not everything has to link properly to the rest of the film (I just watched Holy Motors again for the first time in ages, and that is basically a whole film of such sequences loosely strung together). I absolutely love De Armas, Paloma and this whole section of the movie. I hope she returns to the role, if not this still stands brilliantly by itself.Why Dowd was so down on her appearance I’ve no idea.I do wonder though, how many men approached her at that bar before her actual contact showed up and she risked outing herself (especially as she couldn’t be bothered with the sign/countersign business?). I’m guessing…lots.There’s something so endearing about Ana De Armas. She’s obviously amazingly pretty, and a great actress, but it goes beyond that. Some of her line deliveries in Knives Out are, well whatever a less patronising word for “adorable” is. I think we’re in a bit of a golden age for female actors in the 20-35 range, to be honest.
I think this is right. There’s definitely something about leaving them wanting more. She’s completely wonderful and while I’m sure the rest of the movie, slog that it is, would have benefitted from having her in more of it, I like the less-is-more approach they took. What I know for a fact is that the movie would have benefitted from less of the Spectre/Madeline Swann bullshit.
I absolutely agree on all counts!
Why is A.A. Dowd so down on her appearance?Look who you’re talking about — it’s A.A. Dowd, who hates Red Letter Media because he’s pissed Mike Stoklasa might steal “Most Contrarian Film Critic” from him!
The fact that they each go their own way after their encounter (never to meet again, as it turns out) suits the themes of the film too. Her adventure with Bond is exciting, but it doesn’t define her life or his and she is not there to be his sidekick or romantic partner.
I was marveling at it in the theater but I think this Bond film might have the most strikingly beautiful cast out of any of them. Craig, De Armas, Seydoux, Lynch, Rapace, Magnussen… its crazy
was noomi rapace in this one? i don’t remember at all
Then…there Rami Malek, who’s doing the “I just won an Oscar!” role by wearing a shit-ton of makeup so he looks all disfigured and thus evil….Rami, there are better things you can do with your life and your Oscar.
Whether or not she’d lift right out, she was the best thing about the movie, and is so far the best thing about everything I’ve seen her in.
Whatever double-sided tape was holding her dress to her chest should be up for a special effects Oscar.
Lashana Lynch did NOT make as big an impression. She started to, but then she got bogged down in, “Whose number is who?” and became tiresome. Bond used to be rewatchable. Now, they are like Schinder’s List or Dances with Wolves. See them once to say you did and never see them again.
Paloma was amazing! It would be fantastic to have her as a recurring CIA buddy for Bond.
Lines that they should have given Ana De Armas:
– “I thought you’d sound different”
– “Would I lie to you?”
Didn’t know she was in this. Just one more reason to see it (when it streams).
“the last few Daniel Craig films have done exceptional legwork in building out a cohesive world around Bond, investing us in his colleagues at MI6 and beyond. So whoever assumes the mantle next will have quite the support net.”Surely everyone is being recast after this one, since I’m led to believe that Bond dies? I can’t imagine that the next one will have Ben Whishaw saying ‘oh how funny, your predecessor was called James Bond too’, or the entire Daniel-Craig-supporting cast pretending that the events of NTTD didn’t happen and that (fingers crossed) Luke Evans is the same person.
It’s going to happen like this — imagine George Burns is M:
I agree that De Armas— as usual— was great, but I think her stunt double and the second unit team on NTTD deserve a lot of credit too. The entire Cuba sequence was excellent and while all the featured performers come off well, De Armas had the most dynamic, violent action set pieces that both contrasted and supported her character’s bubbly, excited persona.
Let’s all demand a spinoff movie for her character, just like Halle Berry’s Jinx character’s spinoff movie!
Gonna need a behind-the-scenes featurette on how the hell her dress stayed in place in the fight scene; did they use Gorilla Glue?
Morrissey should be the next James Bond. He’s got the look……and based on some of his lyrics, he can definitely deliver some quirky one liners.
Staggeringly, Morrissey is now too reactionary to play James Bond.
“Not unlike her breakout role as the meek caregiver Marta in Rian Johnson’s Knives Out,”Denis Villeneuve called, he wants you to go watch Blade Runner 2049.
“It’s worth noting that Lashana Lynch’s Nomi creates just as strong of an impression as de Armas”No she bloody doesn’t. After all the hype, I was really looking forward to Lynch’s turn as 007, and thought de Armas’ sequence would be a taster, but Lynch was a crashing disappointment. She postured and strutted, but had none of the presence, charisma or chemistry that de Armas had, and was obviously way out of her depth. I didn’t notice what de Armas was wearing apart from it being a posh frock, but I was stunned at the ugly white safari jacket they put on Lynch, and even the chunky, hideous sunglasses she sported. Someone I know suggested it would have been better to bring back Moneypenny to active duty (Naomi Harris would have kicked ass) and get rid of the character of Nomi altogether, and I agree: She wouldn’t be missed at all.
C’mon man! Even the lighting guy ‘stole’ that entire movie!