@Mithoron Uh, I don't remember. I stopped caring

@Mithoron 68 is good. Last time I checked it was 80+, and that was mind-boggling.

@Mithoron Well, after that I rewatched Casino Royale for catharsis, and to like Craig's Bond. It worked. It's a pretty boring movie compared to that, don't you think?

And all the spinosaurus syndrome characters -- no personality, just trash talk

@Mithoron Well, for that sort of thing my mind just does an [insert threat], so suspension of disbelief isn't usually that important for me, at least not anymore. The problem is literally the only thing about the villain was "infectious nanotech". I didn't get the impression the villain is smart; things happened and we were supposed to think he planned this for years or whatever. I didn't get the impression the villain is wise or passionate, because he sounded like a Russian zombie.

The villain could have been tart man or cupcake man or whatever those funny old Batman villains are

And the part about Bond actually settling down but not really settling down, that was really half-assed too.

Suddenly he has a daughter and that changes everything and he becomes a teary-eyed Logan? Gimme a break.

@Mithoron Yeah they're mostly what keeps it afloat. One tends to think the crux of the show is a boring corporate product tailored to focus groups and to attract viewers and all that. Lowest common denominator stuff. But then there's like a couple of guys who get to insert some new jokes and stuff into every episode and they make it to the final thing, so it's not that bad

@M.A.R. Also I realize that I'm saying this mostly because of the very lame final act. No Time to Die is like a man wearing very tight jeans, and as the movie goes on the belt bursts open and the button pops off and the pants drop down. You're entranced by how the villain is introduced. You're thinking this might just work by the time the villain is surprising Blofeld, but the button starts popping off and Bond acts really lame just so we can say spinosaurus is cooler than T-rex.

It's only downhill from there.

@M.A.R. Is it really? These numbers don't inherently mean anything.

Many reviewers give max - it's easy if you, say, have only 4 stars. That means 100 which I (and probably they) wouldn't give instead (unless it was some Citizen Kane).

68 can mean some lame Bond film

Or it could mean some flawed masterpiece

Then again, there are overrated and underrated films, go figure...

BTW gonna watch Russian Doll

@Mithoron it used to mean something.

As far as inflation goes, well, dunno if some critics do do that, but as long as it's above 2 out of 4 it's fresh. Critics nowadays probably think a lot of movies are 2.5 or 3, but never 4. I would agree with that.

@Mithoron hmm, lemme check it out