Die another Day? yes, its as bad as I remember..
broadshoulder
Acton, London, UKPosts: 1,363MI6 Agent
I've recently taken pocession of the DAD DVD and watched it last night. The first time since I winced through it at the cinema in Nov 2002..
and yes its as painful as I remember..
Bad characterisation, lousy direction, woeful cgi and a plot that was so dreadful it was an insult to celluloid. I swear the lamentable Johnny English could do better. In fact , I swear, Purvis and Wade thought they were writing Johnny English..
"Its the future.." says Cleeses' R, "get used to it..."
So that is the future of Bond - a film so speedily directed the plot, which is **** anyway, is incomprehensible. The actors are clumsily directed (did you see Brosnan in the seduction of Miranda scene?) and the plot is such a rehash of the other 20 films I wondered why they bothered. Homage? *******s - lazy scriptwriting if you ask me. I know my stuff about 007 - I regularly contribute to the James Bond international fan club magazine and have had articles published all over the world - I consider Die Another Day to be the worse film of the twenty....
Broadshoulders top ten of DAD stinkers (hold your nose)
10. Michael Madsen as Damien Falco - obnoxious offensive character whom Fleming always sent up in his books
9. The plane cgi, never mind the tidal wave cgi, this cgi looks like someone having a go at etchastretch. Awful.
8. The Hong Kong bedroom scene, the traditional treacherous girl scene was sent into overkill by the inclusion of the Chinese PRS - it just didn't work for me.
7. Misuse of Judi Dench. I think Dame J uses the Bonds to pay her mortgage. How else did she agree to do this tripe..
6. John Cleeses R - about as funny as a trip to the vets. The props from the previous films made me nostagic for all the wrong reasons.
5. Mr Kill - surely the most awful henchman ever. The actor doesn't need to act so how comes he STILL gives a bad performance. Sounds like Tamahori got one of his talentless Kiwi mates on screen.
4. The plot? Quite frankly, if I'd have been North Korean I'd have been offended by their portrayal as Commie swines. And what is all this bilge about DNA transplants and body swaps. The worse plot in 40 years!
3. Halle Berry = chief stinker. I didn't remember her being so bad the first round but after watching her again - ye gods, can you send Oscars back? She looks so out of place and the Jinx/007 meeting scene has the clunkiest dialogue and worse acting I have seen in years. It almost, I said almost, makes me wish for Denise Richards back - nah, perhaps not..
2. The cgi, well, it was going to be number one but there is a worse crime. It destroys any belief you have in the story. How can you believe that 007 is in danger if you know the background is a cartoon? How can you believe that cliff is real? Not good..
and the winner is...
1. Toby Stephens as Gustav Graves..
Phewww...what a stinker?
The worse villain, the worse casting, the worse character....I could go on and on..
Stephens is a good actor, the fencing scenes hark back to his RSC days. There is no menace there, never once did I feel he was a threat to 007. Badly directed, I've never seen such OTT sneering since Alan Rickman. I believe the term in acting is "mugging for the camera". Also too young and just doesn't generate fear like a good Bond villain does. The worse Bond villain ever...
and yes its as painful as I remember..
Bad characterisation, lousy direction, woeful cgi and a plot that was so dreadful it was an insult to celluloid. I swear the lamentable Johnny English could do better. In fact , I swear, Purvis and Wade thought they were writing Johnny English..
"Its the future.." says Cleeses' R, "get used to it..."
So that is the future of Bond - a film so speedily directed the plot, which is **** anyway, is incomprehensible. The actors are clumsily directed (did you see Brosnan in the seduction of Miranda scene?) and the plot is such a rehash of the other 20 films I wondered why they bothered. Homage? *******s - lazy scriptwriting if you ask me. I know my stuff about 007 - I regularly contribute to the James Bond international fan club magazine and have had articles published all over the world - I consider Die Another Day to be the worse film of the twenty....
Broadshoulders top ten of DAD stinkers (hold your nose)
10. Michael Madsen as Damien Falco - obnoxious offensive character whom Fleming always sent up in his books
9. The plane cgi, never mind the tidal wave cgi, this cgi looks like someone having a go at etchastretch. Awful.
8. The Hong Kong bedroom scene, the traditional treacherous girl scene was sent into overkill by the inclusion of the Chinese PRS - it just didn't work for me.
7. Misuse of Judi Dench. I think Dame J uses the Bonds to pay her mortgage. How else did she agree to do this tripe..
6. John Cleeses R - about as funny as a trip to the vets. The props from the previous films made me nostagic for all the wrong reasons.
5. Mr Kill - surely the most awful henchman ever. The actor doesn't need to act so how comes he STILL gives a bad performance. Sounds like Tamahori got one of his talentless Kiwi mates on screen.
4. The plot? Quite frankly, if I'd have been North Korean I'd have been offended by their portrayal as Commie swines. And what is all this bilge about DNA transplants and body swaps. The worse plot in 40 years!
3. Halle Berry = chief stinker. I didn't remember her being so bad the first round but after watching her again - ye gods, can you send Oscars back? She looks so out of place and the Jinx/007 meeting scene has the clunkiest dialogue and worse acting I have seen in years. It almost, I said almost, makes me wish for Denise Richards back - nah, perhaps not..
2. The cgi, well, it was going to be number one but there is a worse crime. It destroys any belief you have in the story. How can you believe that 007 is in danger if you know the background is a cartoon? How can you believe that cliff is real? Not good..
and the winner is...
1. Toby Stephens as Gustav Graves..
Phewww...what a stinker?
The worse villain, the worse casting, the worse character....I could go on and on..
Stephens is a good actor, the fencing scenes hark back to his RSC days. There is no menace there, never once did I feel he was a threat to 007. Badly directed, I've never seen such OTT sneering since Alan Rickman. I believe the term in acting is "mugging for the camera". Also too young and just doesn't generate fear like a good Bond villain does. The worse Bond villain ever...
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
Comments
DAD's at the bottom of my list, too, and I'm in the mood to pile on. Looking at your list:
10 - I didn't mind the type of character he was, as much as I resented him being there at all -- a great opportunity to bring back Leiter was passed up, and for what?
9 - Yeah, not good. But more than the CGI, it bothered me that the plane stayed aloft for as long as it did. That scene drags on forever, when I would guess that a real plane in that situation would hit the ground fast.
8 - This scene didn't bother me, aside from the woman's god-awfully stupid name.
7 - Dame Judy is fine here, although I find M's prominence in all the Brosnan films to be a source of irritation.
6 - I disagree with you here. I love Cleese.
5 - Why do the Brosnan films need to have these secondary henchmen? Wasn't Zao enough? What a waste of money and screen time.
4 - I can't say this plot is any more ridiculous than, say, TND's.
3 - The number one offender for me. She was simply awful and wooden. However, I put most of it down to bad writing -- since when did James Bond films turn into punchline contests? Can we please have Bond exit a scene without a quip worthy of a bad Borscht Belt comedian -- can we, please??
2 - When the audience is laughing at an action scene, you know you're in trouble.
1 - Yeah, he was all wrong for this. The character simply has no credibility due to his age. A knighthood in his mid-30s -- yeah, OK.
On the plus side, I actually enjoyed most of the homages. Halle's car was cool, although completely out of place.
I quite agree with most of your post, with one exception:
I don't think Cleese's Q was meant to be funny, and rightly so. I guess some must have expected him to be amusing based on his Python/Fawlty history, but I was quite pleased with the "straight" performance. I hated his bumbling portrayal of 'R' in TWINE, and was quite concerned for the future of the character 'Q' when I found out he was Desmond Llewellyn's replacement. But he redeemed himself with DAD.
Back on topic. I agree with all of your points broadshoulder. Watching DAD is like watching DAD. Bond looked bored thoughout the entire film. And why does Bond always have to fight with the good guys. Bring back the old days with Felix when MI6 and the CIA got along.
I can only hope Bond 21 is better.
Perhaps someone can explain to me how it could be worse?
Orlando Bloom as Bond? Roseanne Barr as Jinx? Toby Stephens as Gustav Graves? Oh sorry, that nightmare already happened.
The entire thing was an unqualified mess. Directed by a Kiwi who thought he was making "The Matrix" it was an incoherent sloppy dogs dinner. Barbara Broccoli has achieved what I thought was unachievable - the demise of a credible 007
Seemed as if every one was aware of the 40th anniversary and were trying to out do each other. The old "pressure is on, to be good" gaze was out in full force. Cringe worthy lines and it showed.
Sorry DAD fans, we know you've heard all this before
it was still a BOND movie. yeah it was also a bad one, but i will watch a bad bond film over a lot of other things any day of the week. everyone on the forum should know my opinion by now... the first half of this movie was great. good action, great visuals, etc. the second half was terrible. it was like after the sword fight the movie jumped off a TSWLM size mountian only this time had no parachute. it was bad.
so it could've been worse....that would be moonraker. as bad as the CGI was in DAD, i think the "weightlessness" in moonraker was worse. i can watch most of DAD, and i can barely get past the main titles in moonraker.
Madonna could have had more than a 2 second role
Will Smith could have been Bond(no offfense to blacks)
Bond could have died
They could have taken even more things from other films.
The list could go on and on...
How to damn with faint praise?
Personally, I think it all falls apart on the direction. The blame for this mess falls at the feet of Lee Tamahori (and Barbara Broccoli). A good director is edgy, experimental and cutting edge but he keeps the audience interested in the story. A bad director loses the audience due to incoherent storytelling and once an audience can't follow a story it gives up and gives the thumbs down.
I mean how come Graves murdered his North Korean father? No explanation! Nothing! Just a scene aboard a plane which doesn't work. A director must work with the actors to tell a story. I got the impression that the actors were forgotten in a bid for more snappy camera angles and cgi.
And as for Moonraker?
Whenever a Brosnan film is damned Moonraker is trotted out. Yes, I'll admit, it has faults the size of Iguacu Falls but it is a well told story (the same story as TSWLM but I digress). I can tell bond has to go to Rio due to it being printed on the packing cases. It has cause and effect.
Something DAD doesn't even come close to doing...
This sticks out the most for me...just recalling that scene makes me physically ill (and I'm not kidding). Now that's BAD dialogue!
I agree with everything else. Honestly, everytime I first watched a Brosnan Bond film, I came out dissapointed, but on second viewing I realize that it can be enjoyable.
DAD, on the other hand, is one of those movies I dread putting in the DVD player.
Look folks, Die Another Day just isn't as bad we like to make it out to be. You want to talk about moments where you wince? Forget the CGI...the special effects in the Connery era were horrible and so OBVIOUSLY models. Some would argue, "But in the Connery era, it was okay, since they didn't have the technology we do now." So what...does that mean that James Bond films should be evaluated based on the special effects? Give it a rest. The special effects don't matter. You knew it was a plane. You knew it was a wave. It doesn't matter if it was fake. THE WHOLE MOVIE WAS FAKE. That's why it's a movie.
Bad acting? No offense folks, I'm as big of a Bond patron as the rest of us, but the acting hasn't been outstanding or anything for the whole series. Many of Connery's last films were considered wooden or forced. We've had acting problems with some of Brosnan's earlier work (Denise Richards...*shudder*)...if you want to see knock-your-socks-off acting, go see the Manchurian Candidate, or Citizen Kane, or one of the great pieces of cinema. If you want to be entertained by a story well told, a plot that keeps you glued to the screen, action, intrigue, exotic locals, delicious dialogue, dangerous villains, and (let's face it, guys) beautiful girls, go see a Bond film.
Look, my point isn't that Die Another Day is the best Bond ever. Far from it. But think for a bit about the history of Bond before just setting out to bash the movie. Die Another Day is a product of what modern James Bond has become. There were some moments when I thought, "Hmm...that's kind of edgy..." or "Kinda non-Bondian...", but I just rolled with the punches and, at the end of the film, walked out of the theatre having enjoyed the movie for being entertaining.
Can you watch the movie and be entertained...or are you going to sit there and think about all the things that are wrong with it instead of what they did right? I prefer to be optimistic, and look at the fact that the pre-title sequence was engaging, the plot was traditional Bond, and enjoy the exotic locales that they chose to explore. Try watching DAD again, and be optimistic about it. Once you relax and kick back a little, you'll have a lot more fun.
Not one of the best, but not too bad...
Although my favourite is FRWL, I wouldn't want to see it copied every time a Bond movie comes out (though if we wait too much longer, it'll be o movie per generation anyway
Admittedly, there were times when it surpassed other Bond films. I liked the fencing scene, however Bond's anger seemed a little out of character. I don't mind an occasional throwaway line, but not a scene completely comprised of them like the initial meeting between Bond and Jinx. As far as special effects go, it's a shame when FX from a seventies Bond film eclipses one made in 2002. And the villian? Well...Bond movies seem to make some "unthreatening" choices for villians before (Charles Gray's Blofeld and Jonathan Pryce's Carver don't do a lot for me) so Gustav is nothing new.
IMO the film fails on many levels, enough that they outweigh the pleasure I get from watching the film. It's not that I'm being overly critical. I'm a Bond fan and want to like a Bond movie, but the film didn't feel like Bond to me (at least not after the PTS). Taking in all of this makes me feel that the filmmakers failed at their craft.
The answer to this thread regarding "Die Another Day" seems to be put up or shut up.
OK, we are all Bond fans - we give a damn about the series. Thats why it is so jarring when a monster turd like this comes along. We expect better.
And it is a monster turd. Tamahori and Barbara Broccoli fail on so many levels. And because the original Cubby Broccoli series was so good for so many years it cannot be helped but be compared. For example Cubby believed that if you couldn't do a stunt for real don't do it. Not lets let the boffins lose with cgi and sod it if it doesn't look good.
And as for the acting. The Bond films held together with the acting. The characters were believable because of the acting and directors were in place (Terence Young, John Glen) who could get good performances from the principals and secondary cast (ie Lotte Lenya, Carole Bouquet, Maryam D'Abo). When a director is too concern with the technical aspect and simple dialogue scenes become clunky then it really shows.
All in all, DAD deserves to be criticised, its reputation deserves to be savaged so that in future the producers never make the same mistakes again.
You should not roll with the punches you should stand up to them and hit back.
Let me argue with this one. The back projection was the height of Connery-Moore era technology, and they did produce images that were exceptional AT THAT TIME. And the Liparus is one of the most awesome models ever...
However, DAD's CGI is bad even by today's standards. It's done in such an unexperienced manner that it fails with B-grade features as well. There have been good CGI modsels in the past in Bond movies (TWINE submarine), and superb ones in many other movies! This one is just simply awful. DAD tries to be like Matrix (which he souldn't have done) but if he choose that route, than do something that matches in term of quality.
I agree with broadshoulder, but there are 10 other really awful things you can mention just as bad. I mean Moon turning into Graves in 13 months and getting a knighthood in that time... Did he not even mention the invisible car? Unfathomable guff about conflict diamonds. Garish, eyestrain cinematography. The way the film gets in a rut whenever it tries to slow down with a bit of exposition - no pace to it all.
And yes, Brosnan's toe-curling, creepy chat-up line, like a serial killer's wet dream. In any normal film you'd expect to see the girl dead and strung up after a chat-up like that, see American Psycho.
Worst, you can't tell if these things are a deliberate homage to naff scenes of the past, like some awful injoke. Eg Moore's creepy seduction of Rosie Carver.
Finally, the last part of the film around the ice palace is visually repetitive and heavy at a time when the film should be flowing.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
No one is saying this is the worst tripe ever committed to celluloid (well, maybe broadshoulders is
But compared to other Bond films, this one falls short -- woefully short. For me personally, it's not the individual offenses like bad CGI, lame villains, invisible cars and clunky dialogue that are the culprits. Rather, it's the combination of all of them, and worst of all, the seemingly self-important way the film was made. Everything in DAD -- the homages, the endless quips, the goofy camera work, the noise, the actors hamming it up -- says "look at me - I'M A BOND FILM!" Movies in love with themselves...ugh.
The whole experience is, for me, like watching a smug, self-satisfied in-joke that I'm not a part of. I don't care if, say, Adam Sandler makes movies that way, but I sure as hell demand more out of Bond than that.
The plane scene was for me too much to handle.
The sword fight with graves could have been cool if it wasnt so brutal CAUSE IT WASNT THE END YET!!!
Even halle berry was not looking right and bad acting and out of possision becuase of tamahori(please make movies like johnny mnmemonic ONLY!!!!)
The CGI was driving me crazy and that action ice scene where he spend a lot of money and time was nonsense and this is what they concentrted on even in the trailer.
But what i liked a lot is what i think they even dont know they made it good is THE HOVERCRAFTSCENE
Man when i saw zao telling the villian Bond is a spy and how he exploded the helicopter man i was wow and then the hovercraft scene(it was very bond)
i didnt like that it started bond surfing togheter with others and being caught(it isnt that bad but still what where they(EON and writers)thinking!!!)
But at the same time, let's not forget Laird Hamilton - a REAL surfer and one of the very best - on REAL waves in a REAL location at Christmas, missing out on the holidays along with the rest of the crew just to get the rare wave and the right shot.
Let's not forget a REAL hovercraft chase laced with REAL stunts, carefully choreographed to deal with the very REAL considerations of such a vehicle.
Or a REAL (and really good) fencing scene.
Or a REAL carchase performed by REAL stuntmen in REAL vehicles on REAL ice (an endeavour laced with REAL issues in trying to get the shots right).
These are just off the top of my head, but it also should be noted that the explosions were not all CGI (unlike one or two other movies which seem to have recieved less criticism) and that Brosnan suffered an injury by performing action scenes himself. His performance, too, was far better than many performances in other Bond movies imo. I'd watch anything with Brosnan over anything with Dalton any day, personally.
Credit where it's due. And it is.
Thank you I will. I am new here and don't want to upset people. I'm very impressed there seem to be a interesting articulate bunch on this forum.
Never underestimate the resourcefullness of a wounded animal. Wilson and Broccoli have been stung by traditionalists like myself and they will bounce back. (revenues are doing fine)
I've noticed a great deal of arguments about the CGI...this seems to be the main qualm. Have we really been so inundated in CGI in the modern day that we expect nothing short of perfect special effects in our films? Seriously folks, I thought I said earlier, that no matter how bad you may think the CGI is, that's not what you come to a Bond movie to see. Need I recite the list of things we watch Bond movies for again?(And while on this note, I've watched Die Another Day again recently...and I really don't think the CGI is that bad. Sure, it's clear that it's CGI...but it doesn't detract from the experience. Suspend your disbelief.)
So far, the only point anyone's brought up that even acknowledges the things I said about the CGI in Die Another Day was the Cat's, pointing out that, in the Connery era, the SFX were state of the art. Alright, I'll concede that point. Maybe they are losing their touch in the SFX category of Bond movies. But you have to understand that back projection and models are much easier when compared to the subtle and complicated art of splicing CGI into actual film. It's a difficult process, and if an instance comes up when it looks fake...so what? Just try to be entertained. Ughh...I've started repeating myself.
As for broadshoulders' comment about standing up and hitting back...puh-lease. If you're really that infuriated about the desicions they made in DAD, there's probably nothing we can do or say to convince you otherwise. Personally, all I'm really asking is for the "DAD bashers" to have an open mind. I'm not asking you to love the movie, but at least accept it as part of the Bond series. It's here to stay, and it isn't going to leave if we "hit back". Just try to enjoy it for what it is and make the most of it.
Then we just say nothing?
Personally, I think the cgi is just a catalyst. The main offenders were the script, acting and direction that was so disorientating that the audience lost interest. Not much cause-and-effect in DAD. But then Tamahori wasn't interested in that was he? He thought he was making another MATRIX.
And that is the crux of it. Was it a Bond film? I say no! I say it was an exercise in techniques with a few crass Bond elements thrown in.
I'm sorry Vladek Sheybal but us DAD bashers are not going to go away. And if this is the future of the franchise then maybe its time for the franchise to stop?