Although Die Another Day is not my favorite James Bond film I don't think it's a complete and utter disappointment.Nor is it the worst film in the series--that honor is shared by three movies: A View to a Kill,The Man With the Golden Gun and Diamonds Are Forever.With honorable mentions to You Only Live Twice and Live and Let Die.After 1969 quality has always been a problem with the Bonds in some form or other.Either due to inferior screenplays(the general culprit),or bad casting decisions or mediocre direction--although most of the directors apparently do the best they can with what they have to work with.These are formula movies,after all,not films a director makes for the critics and can easily "sign"--I'm ignoring John Glen's pigeons because they've immediately forgetable.No Kubrick or Bergman or Hawks or Welles or Scorsese or Lean need apply.Indeed,Eon was incredibly fortunate to have Terence Young and Peter Hunt to establish the overall look of the series.Their distinctive style is THE James Bond style and the best of the later directors tend to echo the Young/Hunt look as much as possible.
10)Falco. As Sir Hilly already says in an earlier post,here was a chance to bring Felix Leiter back and instead we're given a half-baked imitation.Another Jack Wade but one step removed and no more memorable.Michael Madsen's given some excellent performances throughout his career but he's wasted here.Lighting a cigarette isn't acting.Still,the impact Damian Falco makes on the movie is so slight that he's not a major deterrent to the film.
9)CGI. I don't go to James Bond movies to watch the special effects-I go for the story.The series always prided itself on it's overall qualities-primarily the stories and the stunts which in the better 007 movies are used to augment the story--not be the story.There've been many other films that feature the kind of action sequences the James Bond films used to have a monoply on.Resident Evil:Apocalypse springs to mind.Any of the Die Hard and Lethal Weapon movies.Ronin and the Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy films.CGI can be used very cleverly.But that wasn't the case in Die Another Day.As noted by others the sfx play a very small part in the movie.The climax on the airplane is ridiculous-what with Moon/Graves donning an imitation RoboCop suit of armor.And the remainder of the scene is a competently stylistic restaging of the climax of The Living Daylights,only not as well-done or as suspenseful.The smile on Jinx's face as the plane is going down is out of place under the circumstances.
8)The Hong Kong bedroom scene. This didn't bother me.The girl is pretty and the revelation that Bond knows his host is actually a Chinese agent worked.It showed that 007 had always been one step ahead of his opponents.At least while in Hong Kong.Yes,the scene's obvious and very predictable but this is true of most of the later James Bond films as well.We're not going to see much in the way of experimentation,after all.Eon has their formula and they've been using it-- with few exceptions-- since 1964's Goldfinger.
7)Dame Judi's M. I like her well enough but I'll chime in with some of the other members in saying that the increased screentime her M receives isn't necessary to the majority of the previous Bonds.It was an important part of The World Is Not Enough but isn't called for elsewhere.Indeed,if anything it's a detriment.These movies are about James Bond-not his superior.And there are many other actors who can play M with as much or more skill and authority.
6)John Cleese's Q. I think Cleese is an excellent actor and an inspired choice as the new Quartermaster.He's one of the best things about Die Another Day.So Cleese isn't Desmond Llewellyn--in all fairness,he's not trying to be.The Cleese Q isn't the Major Boothroyd character Desmond played.
5)Mr.Kil. Probably a misguided attempt to indirectly pay homage to Harold Sakata's Oddjob,but unlike Oddjob,he's not a particularly interesting or compelling secondary villain.Of course,General Zao isn't much better either.In fact they're both forgetable.No villain of any note should be overshadowed by his henchman-but these two may as well be invisible.
4)The Plot.Not a huge problem for me.A very distant but still somewhat recognizable version of the storyline in Ian Fleming's Moonraker novel--which Eon had sadly abandoned in order to instead remake The Spy Who Loved Me with interstellar action and Brazilian locales.Plus a battle in outer space clearly modeled on the climactic battle in Thunderball.
Anyway,Purvis and Wade retained the general outline of the Moonrakernovel for this film.A mysterious villain with a vast fortune appears-seemingly out of nowhere.A madman with a searing hatred for the West whose guise as a titled Englishman allows him access to the most important people in power in Great Britain.A villain who proposes a space-based weaponry system to protect and aid all of mankind--but actually designed to bring down death and destruction.A villain who comes in conflict with James Bond in the exclusive Blades club.And of course,a villain who eventually meets his fate due to 007's ingenuity.
The screenplay clearly needed another polish.Most of the dialogue is terrible-other portions are ludicrous.It's not horrible, just occasionally infantile.There's an enormous lack of sophistication and elegance--elements Richard Maibaum,Paul Dehn and Bruce Feirstein brought to their 007 films effortlessly.
That said,it's not a bad plot.The story isn't told as well as it might be-too many quip contests,one-liners and plenty of overlooked opportunities.Still it's considerably better than A View to a Kill and The Man With the Golden Gun but not the equal of The Spy Who Loved Me(like DAD another "Greatest Hits" movie).And it doesn't have lines as clever as those Sir Hugo Drax spouts in -ironically-the much less Ian Fleming influenced Moonraker movie.
I do like the many homages to 007's illustrious past scattered throughout Die Another Day.Coming out on the 20th anniversary of the James Bond series and celebrating 40 years of movies, plus the 50th anniversary of the literary James Bond's first appearance in print,it only seems fitting that there be a celebration.It was also brave of Eon to acknowledge-if only indirectly- that the James Bond series didn't begin in 1994 but in 1962.For the most part the homages are clever and unobstrusive.
3)Jinx. I sometimes like Halle Berry but not in this movie--and that's because I don't like Jinx.I've read that in the earliest drafts of the Die Another Day screenplay that she was originally intended to be Gustav Graves' henchwoman and not 007's costar.The Miranda Frost character-originally called Gala Brand(the heroine's name in Fleming's Moonraker),was meant to be the DAD heroine.Indeed,in an interview published in Playboy,Halle confirms this.And in other interviews(some online)Purvis and Wade are quoted as saying that after Halle won the Oscar, they decided to write her more lines.But to no avail-as far as I'm concerned.There's nothing compelling or original about Jinx.She's little more than Agent XXX or Wai Lin without the style.Perhaps if Jinx hadn't been posited as 007's "equal" the character would've worked.The old PC speech--"I may be a woman but I'm James Bond's equal",has grown stale over the years.It's always better to show these skills rather than rely on telling the audience.Prove it.Talk's cheap.
And additionally,it's a wooden performance.Maybe Halle thought that a James Bond film didn't require a more serious portrayal.That the film wasn't Important enough.Or maybe what we saw was the best she could do.If so,that's a shame.Rosamund Pike outshines Berry-but that's not a compliment.Neither of these Bond Girls really has the charisma of most of the women who came before them.There are moments in the movie where Jinx and Miranda look as though they are completely lost in their surroundings.
2)Action. I thought the action in this film was pretty impressive-- with the swordfight the most outstanding sequence in the film.Everything else-the car chase,the laser beam stuff and the plane crash-pales by comparison.This should have been the movie's climax.And you know a villain's really evil when he slices Gainsborough's "Blue Boy" in half without even a moment's hesitation.
1)Gustav Graves. Here was a chance for Eon to come up with a villain as colorful and memorable as Auric Goldfinger,Emilio Largo,Franz Sanchez and Alec Trevelyan.But it didn't quite happen.Gustav Graves probably sounds good on paper.And he does embody most of the traits Ian Fleming gave Graves' literary template--Sir Hugo Drax,but minus the bright red beard and hideous facial scars.According to director Lee Tamahori,the idea was to cast a younger man than Brosnan as the villain.The intention being that one of the themes of the movie would concern age-that the young often underestimate those who are older and more experienced,and usually do so to their detriment.Well,if that was the case,it was well-hidden.
Toby Stephens probably does his best,sneering and curling his lip--all but twisting his moustache(which he'd no doubt do if he'd had one).It's an angry and savage caricature of an Englishman,and very much in line with the literary Sir Hugo Drax--- and Colonel Moon as we originally saw him before his features were altered.
However,Graves is simply too young to be knighted so quickly.And to confuse the issue, the screenplay (and movie) introduce Gustav Graves as a recently arrived Argentinian who obtained British citizenship only shortly before Bond's return to the UK.Why not just make Graves one or the other nationality? Then again,how in a year's time did Colonel Moon-- in his new guise-- come into a vast fortune?That's not explained,either.In the DAD novelization Raymond Benson says that while in Argentina,Colonel Moon killed the real Graves and then took Graves' identity and fortune.A few lines of dialogue in the movie saying this wouldn't have been out of place and would have only enhanced Moon's villainy.
But all said,Die Another Day has it's share of good moments and to my mind it isn't the worst film of the series.It is the most fantastic story for Pierce Brosnan's 007--although the The Spy Who Loved Me retread Tomorrow Never Dies,with it's Rupert Murdochian bad guy--comes mighty close.Perhaps some audience members found the combination of overt fantasy and Pierce Brosnan's James Bond unforgivable.If that's so,then that's too bad,since Roger Moore played 007 in both fantastic and relatively "serious" Bond films with nary a complaint from anyone.And he and Brosnan share a similar style.
However, at the end of the day Die Another Day's only a movie, and I have every hope that Bond 21 will be less grandiose and significantly better.I actually trust Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli.I don't trust Sony however,and Sony--like MGM before them-- may wind up calling some of the shots with the future Bond films.Hopefully,Sony will be content to sit back and leave well enough alone and only contribute money to the series.
I have a theory that when Purvis and Wade get into action, they develope two full scripts. Than they blend the two full scripts together. As a separate character, Gustav Graves could have worked on the campy level of Elliott Carver: an angry, snobbish, aristocratic schoolboy, who uses his wealth to create WOP. However, as the Caucasian reincarnation of Colonel Moon, only one questions came to me: WHY? Was this really necessary? I first developed a theory that this transformation represents the globalization of other cultures, who subject them-selves to give up their own culture in order to succeed within the context of majority, but than I remembered that this is a post-Dalton movie, so I drew the conclusion that it’s just somethin’ very stupid. The pure image of seeing Gustav Graves leading the North Korean Army is the most hillarious culture clash since Roger Moore walked into the Fillet Of Soul.
moon's transformation into graves is my biggest problem with DAD. it was perfectly probable for graves and moon to be different people. graves couold even be avenging moon's death.
my main problem with jinx was how she was advertised. "the best bond girl ever," or something along those lines. even an oscar winner can be mediocre with terrible dialogue. of course, what choice did producers have? she won an oscar, she had to be hyped.
finally, speaking of hype, that, i think, is the movies main problem. a bond movie is always a big deal, and rightfully so. and this movie was hyped to death with it being the 20th, and released in the 40th aniversery of the series. thats all fine and good. but this movie did not live up to the hype, at all. to the casual fan, it is a great movie to see and get into the series, but to the diehards, it was a major diaappiontment. that is the main problem of this movie.
I think the screenplay was written in the editing room.
I don't see any point to the gene therapy: Zao apparantly is undergoing it, but I don't see the point because it appears he can't remove the diamonds from his face anyway, destroying any chance to change his identity.
BTW: I felt Jinx's killing of the "gene therapy" doctor was poorly done. It seemed rather brutal, even if we get a hint that the doctor was not a nice man. More often than not, Bond kills a man (or woman) because they're a direct threat to him or his mission. This guy was simply sitting behind a desk.
As for, Willie's comment about Purvis and Wade writing more dialogue for Jinx? I don't remember her saying anything vital to the plot...just really bad one-liners and innuendos, which really trip up the motion of the story, and is probably a reason why so many people hater her: she impedes the movie rather than helps it along.
A couple more things that just fail for me in DAD:
The downbeat ending of the PTS (definitely a bad idea...it really had me going into the movie with a unpleasant taste in my mouth. The PTS is supposed to be a visual fanfare announcing the return of The World's Greatest Spy, not The Torture of a British Infiltrator.
And Bond's escape from the hospital, by controlling his vital signs. Where did that come from? Simply out of character. You can defend it as some trick he picked up during his POW experience, but it's still lame.
And not only was the "invisible car" a stretch, it was simply used too much in the film. Bond's gadgets (even his car) played a lesser role in other films. They're fun to see. But Bond, in the end, always relies on his abilities to beat the baddie. It might come to the point where M sends the gadgets on the mission and Q issues Bond to them to carry them out in the field.
Graves was kind of annoying for me, but not so much for any of the reasons before mentioned. I think the script fell into the habit of forgetting who Graves really was. Sure, we know that he's Moon...but it's hard to buy it. One of the most annoying lines in the movie is when Brosnan is referring to Moon at the U.S. base in South Korea, and calls him Graves. Despite the fact that we -know- it's Moon and he's leading the North Korean army, we seem to forget this rather quickly, and it's just Graves again. I don't know...maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm crazy.
As for his fortune...well, I always assumed he gained the fortune from his African conflict diamonds.
Quoting darenhat:
And not only was the "invisible car" a stretch, it was simply used too much in the film. Bond's gadgets (even his car) played a lesser role in other films. They're fun to see.
Yeah, they are fun to see. I emphasize the word 'SEE' here.
Leave it to Willie Garvin to bring a much-needed balanced view to this debate. Die Another Day is pretty much a love-it-or-hate-it film; but Willie G shows that there are a good many people--and I am one of them--who fall in the middle.
But anyway, earlier I was taken to task for saying I'm tired of people saying that DAD is one of the worst movies ever put on celluloid. OK, how far off the mark am I? Have you read some of the comments directed toward the film in this thread? There's flat-out anger ("There's no damn reason. . ."), there's hyperbole (The equivalent of Batman and Robin, a film that will wreck the franchise), and there's name-calling (DAD is a "monster turd"). Does anyone really think the film is that bad, that unredeemable? Does anyone really think it deserves to be compared to excrement, and does anyone really believe it was so horrendous that there may never again be another Bond film? (Certainly this would be a surprise to MGM, which is so happy with DAD's box office take that it apparently wants Bond 21 to be just like it.) It's over-the-top assessments like this that I object to; it's one thing to be disappointed or to just not like the film, but to take the position that there's nothing good in it and that the movie deserves to be compared to dung strikes me as the worst kind of critical response.
In case anyone should ever doubt my Bond credentials, I take the series seriously and I have been following the film and literary exploits of 007 since before a lot of people on this board were even born. I consider my standards for Bond movies to be pretty high, and I've never shirked at pointing out what's wrong with any of the 20 official films and the two non-official ones. But never--not once--have I resorted to calling a Bond film that I don't care for nothing better than poop, and I've always been able to find some redeeming elements in all the films. In fact, I find it very hard to respond to any film in that manner--whether it's a Bond film or not.
To give you an example, last night I finally got around to seeing The Village. I consider myself an M. Night Shyamalan fan, and although I'd heard negative things about the film, I still popped it into the DVD player hoping I'd like it. I didn't. I found most of it dull and sluggish--hell, I even picked up a crossword puzzle during the movie--and the "big surprise" was predictable and, in retrospect, utterly illogical. As for the scares--well, they brought to mind those old "Count Floyd" bits from SCTV, where Joe Flaherty would seriously intone, "Now you're gonna see the monster. He's big. He's scary. Ooooooooooh!" So I wasn't happy with the movie, and I'd easily rank it the worst of the Shyamalan films I've seen. But did I find it to be a POS? Do I think it will kill Shyamalan's career? No. It had high production values, a good score, and a good cast. It just didn't work as a story. I don't feel angry or betrayed that a movie by a director I admire wasn't particularly good; and I'm not going to go to IMDb and make post after post about what a hack Shyamalan is and how he should never again direct a movie. Likewise, if I feel let down by a Bond film--and I felt far more let down by AVTAK and, in a way, TND than I did by DAD--I'm not going to tear it to shreds, demand the producers be fired, demand a new director, new writer, and new Bond, and I won't run around screaming that the series is over. I usually see it again to see if my expectations were perhaps too high, or if I was disappointed with it because it didn't fit my particular view of what a Bond film SHOULD be and not for being what it is. I try to figure out what works and what doesn't. If, in the end, it turns out that I still don't like it, I may have some fun with it--as I did in a thread I wrote entitled "Why oh why, Live and Let Die?"--I may make a snarky comment or two, but I move on. I hope the next film will be better.
What sorts of movies do deserve to be called turds? To me, they're the films that are exploitative, manipulative, mean, nasty, and which diminish me as a human being. One of the worst movies I saw in the last few months--and I'm sure people will rush in to defend this one--was The Punisher. What a crappy view of life: mean, violent, ugly, the only redeeeming value being harsh and brutal revenge. And we're supposed to like and admire a character who's no better--maybe even worse--than the villain? By the time The Punisher was over, I was angry at the film for promoting such an anti-social message--and without the redeeming virtues of humor, a good story, and good acting--and angry at myself for sticking with it and not just stopping the film. That, I suggest, is a real stinking turd of a movie. Show me the Bond film that's this bad. Show me the Bond film that doesn't at least ask that you have some fun with it, which doesn't at least suggest that the hero is on the side of right and should be someone to admire. Love DAD or hate it, I really don't care; but please don't confuse it with the worst of the worst.
I've really shot away most of my gun powder in my 3000th post, so I'm not going to repeat myself, go there if anybody is interested. Yes, I have a personal vendetta against it, but putting that aside, my major problem with DAD is the message it delivers: this is the way Bond should be done, it's successful (financially), do me once more. The complete lack of self-criticism from the official sources is what I miss. Just read the hilarious 'official opinion' I quoted in my 3000th post and you'll see what I mean.
Does anyone really think the film is that bad, that unredeemable?
I'm not going as far as saying that it's the worst movie ever (IMO it is the worst Bond movie to date), but if there's any ire on my part, it is directed at the filmmakers (writers, directors, producers) who put it together. I really got the sense that they didn't care about making a Bond movie. It's as if they said, let's make a movie and put Bond in it. Let's not work really hard to make it perfect, let's just put it together (who cares if the dialogue is bloated, who cares if Bond plays second fiddle to Jinx or an invisible Aston Martin, who cares if the plot doesn't make a whole lot of sense.)
In a sense, I felt a lot like Bond when Miranda Frost turned that gun on him...betrayed. I thought EON cared about Bond as much as I did.
DAD took to many gagets and hacked appart plots (IMO). For Example Jinx coming out of the water the first time you see here. Or the underwater breathing thing that they took from TB.
Quoting little nellie1:
For Example Jinx coming out of the water the first time you see here. Or the underwater breathing thing that they took from TB.
Well, those two are highlights if you ask me. Not detriments.
Quoting Bishop:
2.i dont think the film makers thought about thunderball when they made the scene where bond swims under the ice.
Oh yes they did. They really needed to use the re-breather in-joke as well. So let's have Bond swim somewhere. The filmmakers thought about every movie when they did this one.
Yes, Tamahori, I believe, has even said the rebreather was absolutely a nod to Thunderball.
I, for one, appreciated the reference. I got slightly excited to see that in the cinema and be reminded of Thunderball. I wish they would re-release cinematic versions of the old ones for tjhose of us who weren't born the first time around!!!!
Quoting Bishop:
you see re-breathers everywhere.in a movie you can either use a re breather or a big scuba gear.so they chose re-breather instead of big clunky gay scuba gear.
They have around one-hundred references, some of them are even so small that they've been discovered only recently. This was only one of them.
Yep, another rubbish thing about DAD I'd forgotten about. The swimming bit...
Never mind that the underwater breather was an unfortunate aspect of TB that couldn't work - it's a ludicrous fantasy gadget, so why revive it - it's Bond swimming through freezing icy water without getting hypothermia. I mean, at least in True Lies Arnie had a wetsuit on and loads of equipment. And how does Bond know where he's heading when he goes for his dip anyway?
You know, that's DAD. I could submit two or three significent critisisms of it each week and still be submitting a year later. Utter balls.
I enjoyed Die Another Day and rank it among one of my favorite films in the series. Pierce Brosnan, as per usual, is the standout in the film taking him down some uncharated territory. I do question the use of some of the CGI, although overall the CGI was hardly noticeable, and I respectfully disagree that its horrible for modern movie standards.
Its a celebratory Bond film, and its set pieces are colorful, unique, and entertaining. There is a rush of different locations which reminds me of the travelogue style of Ian Fleming.
Direct Fleming source material is more apparent in this film than most others in recent years. The similarties to MR are well known, but there are subtle references to the literary YOLT, TMWTGG, and even Colonel Sun. Its quality, not quantity I know, and whther creatively re-working old scenes, or adding a new spice to old ideas, DAD keeps a solid story with memroable scenes.
The films legacy is still up in the air as we havent had any new Bond films. It clearly is a polarizing film, ironically because of how much of James Bond is in the film. The best description comes from Brosnan, calling it a "leviathion of a movie." He's right, and I believe thats where the controversy comes from.
Ultimately though, these are movies, not major cultural stamps defining a time period, etc. As a result I dont really understand where the harsh judgement of DAD resonates. Its only a movie, and while I've posted its merits on many old threads, people base their opinion on how they take in the film; do they enjoy it or not?
To paraphrase Q from LTK: "dont judge it so harshly". Its only a movie.
Red makes some very good points.Die Another Day was never intended to be a traditional James Bond film--whatever that might be.Instead,Die Another Day is a James Bond movie that bases it's general storyline on Ian Fleming's unfilmed Moonrakernovel while also consciously paying tribute to the series long and illustrious history.It's the 20th film in exactly 40 years and it's year of release exactly coincides with the 50th anniversary of the literary 007's first appearance in print.Such an important triple anniversary would be hard to ignore.This is why,for example there's a Player's cigarette ad(taken directly from the Thunderballnovel) on the wall in the "closed" tube entrance to MI6 that Bond uses.
This is why 007 borrows the American ornithologist James Bond's Birds of the West Indies book.And then there are the more obvious things-Colonel Moon's name,an indirect reference to Kingsley Amis' Colonel Sun,for instance.Or the invisible shield protecting M from Bond(from The Man With the Golden Gunnovel).Plus of course there are the various Q gadgets used throughout the movie.Frankly,I liked all the references.They didn't impede the progress of the storyline nor did they dictate it.Nor--in my opinion--did they ever bring the movie to a halt.A moviegoer unfamiliar with the Bond series wouldn't have found these things distracting.Oh well,we all have different tastes and we always bring different expectations to these things.
It's too bad this film seems to have caused divisions among 007's fans, but it's only a movie after all--and nothing more.We've had five James Bonds and each of them had a different style and brought a different approach to the part.A few of these 007s-notably Sean Connery and especially Roger Moore, even appeared in some extremely fantastic Bond films-movies far more exaggerated in their content than Die Another Day,and they were made under the guidance of Cubby Broccoli.Eon is always trying to attract and please the largest audiences possible,and that includes people who could care less about Ian Fleming's novels or any of the earlier movies.
In any event,whenever Eon releases an elaborate motion picture ala' You Only Live Twice or Moonraker they always follow these fantasies with more (relatively)credible and down-to-Earth storylines.For example,You Only Live Twice lead to On Her Majesty's Secret Service,and Moonraker to For Your Eyes Only.I have little doubt that Eon will follow Die Another Day with a smaller and more character-driven film.By all accounts that's what Purvis and Wade have written and that's exactly what Eon wants to make.
Why I still dislike the movie, I think we also need some historical perspective here, which can only come by time and at least one (but more likely more) movies. I think the biggest problems is that most us fear the future. When the series' will rise again (I hope it will), DAD will be just another lousy entry in the canon and nothing else.
Quoting The Cat:
Why I still dislike the movie, I think we also need some historical perspective here, which can only come by time and at least one (but more likely more) movies. I think the biggest problems is that most us fear the future. When the series' will rise again (I hope it will), DAD will be just another lousy entry in the canon and nothing else.
That's really where all the animosity comes from,isn't it?A fear that somehow Die Another Day marked the end of the series.It's a big movie and large portions of the dialogue are sadly mediocre.Not the best Bond film or the best exit for 007.
I don't believe for an instant that Sony will allow the 007 franchise to come to a close.One of the big reasons Sony bought MGM was so that they'd have a portion of the James Bond series.I think there'll be a Bond 21 and a Bond 22 and probably more to follow.This is a series that managed to outlive it's Cold War origins,after all and florished by offering a wide variety of movies--all of them successful in varying degrees.But first a new 007 has to be signed.Once that occurs,I suspect we'll see Eon go into action as quickly as possible.If not with a film for 2006 then most definitely one for 2007.
And if by some chance Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli decide that they'd rather not be intimately involved with the making of future movies, there's really no end of the production companies who'll line up to lease the rights from Eon to make more James Bond films.DreamWorks SKG leaps to mind.
Difficult as it is,we'll all just have to be patient a while longer...
Quoting Willie Garvin:
And if by some chance Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli decide that they'd rather not be intimately involved with the making of future movies, there's really no end of the production companies who'll line up to lease the rights from Eon to make more James Bond films.DreamWorks SKG leaps to mind.
Please Mickey and Babs, listen to Willie. No offence, you did some great movies, but there are many creative people out there who just need your permission to do wonders... And perhaps you could send Bobby and Neal on a creative vacation.
Quoting Willie Garvin:
Red makes some very good points.Die Another Day was never intended to be a traditional James Bond film--whatever that might be.Instead,DAD is a James Bond movie that not only bases it's general storyline on Ian Fleming's unfilmed Moonrakernovel while also consciously paying tribute to the series long and illustrious history.It's the 20th film in exactly 40 years and it's year of release exactly coincides with the 50th anniversary of the literary 007's first appearance in print.Such an important triple anniversary would be hard to ignore.
I agree with your post holeheartedly, Willie. I brought up this section because I believe this will be the central question that will be debated about DAD: For the 40th aniversary, was it more appropriate to create a "traditional" James Bond film, or a celebratory one as DAD clearly did.
I believe this is central to the polarization DAD And for better or worse, that question doesnt have a clear answer and probably wont for a while. We also have to consider the influence this film will have on future Bonds as its the first James Bond film of the 21st century. No doubt, if the proceeding films are recieved well, the fan base may warm to DAD, who knows.
I do believe, if history is any indication, as was with other "controversial" Bond films like OHMSS and LTK, history will be the judge. In both cases I cite above, history has the tendency of being kinder than those respective films contemporaries. We shall see with DAD....
Quoting Red Grant: Quoting Willie Garvin:
Red makes some very good points.I do believe, if history is any indication, as was with other "controversial" Bond films like OHMSS and LTK, history will be the judge. In both cases I cite above, history has the tendency of being kinder than those respective films contemporaries. We shall see with DAD....
Following your train of thought then it will be another 25 years before DAD is appreciated. OHMSS was largely damned when it came out by critics and public alike. It was only when a new generation discovered it on VHS or TV in the eighties and Connery became a distant memory - that its stock began to rise.
LTK, much as I love it, is problematic. American audiences did not warm to Dalton, theme and overall film and Cubby ran for cover with a new Bond and series of films. The "revenge" gritty Fleming feel of LTK has largely been discarded in relation to big budget set pieces, hokey dialogue and pitiful cgi.
But OHMSS and LTK have at their core a good premise and story. Only the Bonds, in the publics eyes at the time, let them down. DAD has the advantage of Pierce Brosnan who is box office and does not have to introduce a new Bond or establish another one. So why does it fail?
Because it lacks what the other two have - a decent plot, villain, girl, script, director, and ooohhh, what shall I say next? How about James Bond at the core.
DAD is a film made by a Kiwi who can't direct actors and thought he was making the MATRIX.
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
Quoting Hardyboy:
Have you seen Tamahori's first film, Once Were Warriors? I can't believe that all those amazing performances in that film were an accident!
I have... It actualy amazes me how the same man could do these two films... Though there was Along Came A Spider to be a 'transition in quality'. But I wasn't prepared for DAD...
Quoting Hardyboy: Quoting broadshoulder:
DAD is a film made by a Kiwi who can't direct actors and thought he was making the MATRIX.
Have you seen Tamahori's first film, Once Were Warriors? I can't believe that all those amazing performances in that film were an accident!
I have seen Once Were Warriors, and the man has built a career on a film which is now over 20 years old.
Perhaps someone would like to enlighten me which actor in DAD, with the exception of Dame Judi, gave a good performance?
Was it Brosnan on autopilot, the facepulling and ham acting of Toby Stephens, the sleepwalking of Rosamunde Pike, or the only actress in the world who could mess up flirtaceous dialogue in Halle Berry?
Which one gave a good performance. I got the impression they were all emailed in...
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
Once Were Warriors is from 1994, making it a bit less than 20 years old. As for performances, it's largely a matter of taste, but I suggest that Rene Echevarria as the Cuban contact brought both dignity and humor to his role.
Anyway, Emilio Echeverria's Raoul is really a nice character from the Kerim Bey mould. At least there are still some shining performances from here and there... But SOME nice performances doesn't really weight out the trouble in my eyes. He just pales when I think about the movie as a whole expererience. And personally, I think his performance has much more to do with Echeverria's natural jollines and screen-presence than Tamahori.
Quoting Red Grant:
I do believe, if history is any indication, as was with other "controversial" Bond films like OHMSS and LTK, history will be the judge. In both cases I cite above, history has the tendency of being kinder than those respective films contemporaries. We shall see with DAD....
Red, I would like to more substantively reply to your post, but please do not mention Die Another Day in the same breath as On Her Majesty's Secret Service or Licence To Kill. It's just wrong.
Having seen a portion of DAD recently, the negativity with which it was associated came to the fore once again. The dreadful one-liners, generally poor dialogue, and at times wooden acting (Ms Berry may be a fine piece of mahogony, but still wood.) But over time I've got used to those defects and stopped laughing at the 'predators' line quite so much, though I was still appalled at the 'special effects' (those icebergs and a cartoon wave especially). Just where did that huge budget go?
However, as I've noted numerous times before the movie does have its plus points (mainly revolving around Rosamund Pike) but I still think that it is ashame that it was with this pedestrian vehicle that the Brosnan era came to a close.
As far as comparisons with other Bond movies, I simply disagree with your choosing of OHMSS and LTK Red (both movies which are, in my opinion, vastly superior) on the basis that they too were controversial. Sadly, I think the reality is that with historical perspective DAD will come to be seen more as a modern-day Moonraker, both big in vision and scope but both (generally) perceived to have failed artistically.
Comments
10)Falco. As Sir Hilly already says in an earlier post,here was a chance to bring Felix Leiter back and instead we're given a half-baked imitation.Another Jack Wade but one step removed and no more memorable.Michael Madsen's given some excellent performances throughout his career but he's wasted here.Lighting a cigarette isn't acting.Still,the impact Damian Falco makes on the movie is so slight that he's not a major deterrent to the film.
9)CGI. I don't go to James Bond movies to watch the special effects-I go for the story.The series always prided itself on it's overall qualities-primarily the stories and the stunts which in the better 007 movies are used to augment the story--not be the story.There've been many other films that feature the kind of action sequences the James Bond films used to have a monoply on.Resident Evil:Apocalypse springs to mind.Any of the Die Hard and Lethal Weapon movies.Ronin and the Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy films.CGI can be used very cleverly.But that wasn't the case in Die Another Day.As noted by others the sfx play a very small part in the movie.The climax on the airplane is ridiculous-what with Moon/Graves donning an imitation RoboCop suit of armor.And the remainder of the scene is a competently stylistic restaging of the climax of The Living Daylights,only not as well-done or as suspenseful.The smile on Jinx's face as the plane is going down is out of place under the circumstances.
8)The Hong Kong bedroom scene. This didn't bother me.The girl is pretty and the revelation that Bond knows his host is actually a Chinese agent worked.It showed that 007 had always been one step ahead of his opponents.At least while in Hong Kong.Yes,the scene's obvious and very predictable but this is true of most of the later James Bond films as well.We're not going to see much in the way of experimentation,after all.Eon has their formula and they've been using it-- with few exceptions-- since 1964's Goldfinger.
7)Dame Judi's M. I like her well enough but I'll chime in with some of the other members in saying that the increased screentime her M receives isn't necessary to the majority of the previous Bonds.It was an important part of The World Is Not Enough but isn't called for elsewhere.Indeed,if anything it's a detriment.These movies are about James Bond-not his superior.And there are many other actors who can play M with as much or more skill and authority.
6)John Cleese's Q. I think Cleese is an excellent actor and an inspired choice as the new Quartermaster.He's one of the best things about Die Another Day.So Cleese isn't Desmond Llewellyn--in all fairness,he's not trying to be.The Cleese Q isn't the Major Boothroyd character Desmond played.
5)Mr.Kil. Probably a misguided attempt to indirectly pay homage to Harold Sakata's Oddjob,but unlike Oddjob,he's not a particularly interesting or compelling secondary villain.Of course,General Zao isn't much better either.In fact they're both forgetable.No villain of any note should be overshadowed by his henchman-but these two may as well be invisible.
4)The Plot.Not a huge problem for me.A very distant but still somewhat recognizable version of the storyline in Ian Fleming's Moonraker novel--which Eon had sadly abandoned in order to instead remake The Spy Who Loved Me with interstellar action and Brazilian locales.Plus a battle in outer space clearly modeled on the climactic battle in Thunderball.
Anyway,Purvis and Wade retained the general outline of the Moonraker novel for this film.A mysterious villain with a vast fortune appears-seemingly out of nowhere.A madman with a searing hatred for the West whose guise as a titled Englishman allows him access to the most important people in power in Great Britain.A villain who proposes a space-based weaponry system to protect and aid all of mankind--but actually designed to bring down death and destruction.A villain who comes in conflict with James Bond in the exclusive Blades club.And of course,a villain who eventually meets his fate due to 007's ingenuity.
The screenplay clearly needed another polish.Most of the dialogue is terrible-other portions are ludicrous.It's not horrible, just occasionally infantile.There's an enormous lack of sophistication and elegance--elements Richard Maibaum,Paul Dehn and Bruce Feirstein brought to their 007 films effortlessly.
That said,it's not a bad plot.The story isn't told as well as it might be-too many quip contests,one-liners and plenty of overlooked opportunities.Still it's considerably better than A View to a Kill and The Man With the Golden Gun but not the equal of The Spy Who Loved Me(like DAD another "Greatest Hits" movie).And it doesn't have lines as clever as those Sir Hugo Drax spouts in -ironically-the much less Ian Fleming influenced Moonraker movie.
I do like the many homages to 007's illustrious past scattered throughout Die Another Day.Coming out on the 20th anniversary of the James Bond series and celebrating 40 years of movies, plus the 50th anniversary of the literary James Bond's first appearance in print,it only seems fitting that there be a celebration.It was also brave of Eon to acknowledge-if only indirectly- that the James Bond series didn't begin in 1994 but in 1962.For the most part the homages are clever and unobstrusive.
3)Jinx. I sometimes like Halle Berry but not in this movie--and that's because I don't like Jinx.I've read that in the earliest drafts of the Die Another Day screenplay that she was originally intended to be Gustav Graves' henchwoman and not 007's costar.The Miranda Frost character-originally called Gala Brand(the heroine's name in Fleming's Moonraker),was meant to be the DAD heroine.Indeed,in an interview published in Playboy,Halle confirms this.And in other interviews(some online)Purvis and Wade are quoted as saying that after Halle won the Oscar, they decided to write her more lines.But to no avail-as far as I'm concerned.There's nothing compelling or original about Jinx.She's little more than Agent XXX or Wai Lin without the style.Perhaps if Jinx hadn't been posited as 007's "equal" the character would've worked.The old PC speech--"I may be a woman but I'm James Bond's equal",has grown stale over the years.It's always better to show these skills rather than rely on telling the audience.Prove it.Talk's cheap.
And additionally,it's a wooden performance.Maybe Halle thought that a James Bond film didn't require a more serious portrayal.That the film wasn't Important enough.Or maybe what we saw was the best she could do.If so,that's a shame.Rosamund Pike outshines Berry-but that's not a compliment.Neither of these Bond Girls really has the charisma of most of the women who came before them.There are moments in the movie where Jinx and Miranda look as though they are completely lost in their surroundings.
2)Action. I thought the action in this film was pretty impressive-- with the swordfight the most outstanding sequence in the film.Everything else-the car chase,the laser beam stuff and the plane crash-pales by comparison.This should have been the movie's climax.And you know a villain's really evil when he slices Gainsborough's "Blue Boy" in half without even a moment's hesitation.
1)Gustav Graves. Here was a chance for Eon to come up with a villain as colorful and memorable as Auric Goldfinger,Emilio Largo,Franz Sanchez and Alec Trevelyan.But it didn't quite happen.Gustav Graves probably sounds good on paper.And he does embody most of the traits Ian Fleming gave Graves' literary template--Sir Hugo Drax,but minus the bright red beard and hideous facial scars.According to director Lee Tamahori,the idea was to cast a younger man than Brosnan as the villain.The intention being that one of the themes of the movie would concern age-that the young often underestimate those who are older and more experienced,and usually do so to their detriment.Well,if that was the case,it was well-hidden.
Toby Stephens probably does his best,sneering and curling his lip--all but twisting his moustache(which he'd no doubt do if he'd had one).It's an angry and savage caricature of an Englishman,and very much in line with the literary Sir Hugo Drax--- and Colonel Moon as we originally saw him before his features were altered.
However,Graves is simply too young to be knighted so quickly.And to confuse the issue, the screenplay (and movie) introduce Gustav Graves as a recently arrived Argentinian who obtained British citizenship only shortly before Bond's return to the UK.Why not just make Graves one or the other nationality? Then again,how in a year's time did Colonel Moon-- in his new guise-- come into a vast fortune?That's not explained,either.In the DAD novelization Raymond Benson says that while in Argentina,Colonel Moon killed the real Graves and then took Graves' identity and fortune.A few lines of dialogue in the movie saying this wouldn't have been out of place and would have only enhanced Moon's villainy.
But all said,Die Another Day has it's share of good moments and to my mind it isn't the worst film of the series.It is the most fantastic story for Pierce Brosnan's 007--although the The Spy Who Loved Me retread Tomorrow Never Dies,with it's Rupert Murdochian bad guy--comes mighty close.Perhaps some audience members found the combination of overt fantasy and Pierce Brosnan's James Bond unforgivable.If that's so,then that's too bad,since Roger Moore played 007 in both fantastic and relatively "serious" Bond films with nary a complaint from anyone.And he and Brosnan share a similar style.
However, at the end of the day Die Another Day's only a movie, and I have every hope that Bond 21 will be less grandiose and significantly better.I actually trust Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli.I don't trust Sony however,and Sony--like MGM before them-- may wind up calling some of the shots with the future Bond films.Hopefully,Sony will be content to sit back and leave well enough alone and only contribute money to the series.
We'll see...
I have a theory that when Purvis and Wade get into action, they develope two full scripts. Than they blend the two full scripts together. As a separate character, Gustav Graves could have worked on the campy level of Elliott Carver: an angry, snobbish, aristocratic schoolboy, who uses his wealth to create WOP. However, as the Caucasian reincarnation of Colonel Moon, only one questions came to me: WHY? Was this really necessary? I first developed a theory that this transformation represents the globalization of other cultures, who subject them-selves to give up their own culture in order to succeed within the context of majority, but than I remembered that this is a post-Dalton movie, so I drew the conclusion that it’s just somethin’ very stupid. The pure image of seeing Gustav Graves leading the North Korean Army is the most hillarious culture clash since Roger Moore walked into the Fillet Of Soul.
my main problem with jinx was how she was advertised. "the best bond girl ever," or something along those lines. even an oscar winner can be mediocre with terrible dialogue. of course, what choice did producers have? she won an oscar, she had to be hyped.
finally, speaking of hype, that, i think, is the movies main problem. a bond movie is always a big deal, and rightfully so. and this movie was hyped to death with it being the 20th, and released in the 40th aniversery of the series. thats all fine and good. but this movie did not live up to the hype, at all. to the casual fan, it is a great movie to see and get into the series, but to the diehards, it was a major diaappiontment. that is the main problem of this movie.
I don't see any point to the gene therapy: Zao apparantly is undergoing it, but I don't see the point because it appears he can't remove the diamonds from his face anyway, destroying any chance to change his identity.
BTW: I felt Jinx's killing of the "gene therapy" doctor was poorly done. It seemed rather brutal, even if we get a hint that the doctor was not a nice man. More often than not, Bond kills a man (or woman) because they're a direct threat to him or his mission. This guy was simply sitting behind a desk.
As for, Willie's comment about Purvis and Wade writing more dialogue for Jinx? I don't remember her saying anything vital to the plot...just really bad one-liners and innuendos, which really trip up the motion of the story, and is probably a reason why so many people hater her: she impedes the movie rather than helps it along.
A couple more things that just fail for me in DAD:
The downbeat ending of the PTS (definitely a bad idea...it really had me going into the movie with a unpleasant taste in my mouth. The PTS is supposed to be a visual fanfare announcing the return of The World's Greatest Spy, not The Torture of a British Infiltrator.
And Bond's escape from the hospital, by controlling his vital signs. Where did that come from? Simply out of character. You can defend it as some trick he picked up during his POW experience, but it's still lame.
And not only was the "invisible car" a stretch, it was simply used too much in the film. Bond's gadgets (even his car) played a lesser role in other films. They're fun to see. But Bond, in the end, always relies on his abilities to beat the baddie. It might come to the point where M sends the gadgets on the mission and Q issues Bond to them to carry them out in the field.
As for his fortune...well, I always assumed he gained the fortune from his African conflict diamonds.
Yeah, they are fun to see. I emphasize the word 'SEE' here.
But anyway, earlier I was taken to task for saying I'm tired of people saying that DAD is one of the worst movies ever put on celluloid. OK, how far off the mark am I? Have you read some of the comments directed toward the film in this thread? There's flat-out anger ("There's no damn reason. . ."), there's hyperbole (The equivalent of Batman and Robin, a film that will wreck the franchise), and there's name-calling (DAD is a "monster turd"). Does anyone really think the film is that bad, that unredeemable? Does anyone really think it deserves to be compared to excrement, and does anyone really believe it was so horrendous that there may never again be another Bond film? (Certainly this would be a surprise to MGM, which is so happy with DAD's box office take that it apparently wants Bond 21 to be just like it.) It's over-the-top assessments like this that I object to; it's one thing to be disappointed or to just not like the film, but to take the position that there's nothing good in it and that the movie deserves to be compared to dung strikes me as the worst kind of critical response.
In case anyone should ever doubt my Bond credentials, I take the series seriously and I have been following the film and literary exploits of 007 since before a lot of people on this board were even born. I consider my standards for Bond movies to be pretty high, and I've never shirked at pointing out what's wrong with any of the 20 official films and the two non-official ones. But never--not once--have I resorted to calling a Bond film that I don't care for nothing better than poop, and I've always been able to find some redeeming elements in all the films. In fact, I find it very hard to respond to any film in that manner--whether it's a Bond film or not.
To give you an example, last night I finally got around to seeing The Village. I consider myself an M. Night Shyamalan fan, and although I'd heard negative things about the film, I still popped it into the DVD player hoping I'd like it. I didn't. I found most of it dull and sluggish--hell, I even picked up a crossword puzzle during the movie--and the "big surprise" was predictable and, in retrospect, utterly illogical. As for the scares--well, they brought to mind those old "Count Floyd" bits from SCTV, where Joe Flaherty would seriously intone, "Now you're gonna see the monster. He's big. He's scary. Ooooooooooh!" So I wasn't happy with the movie, and I'd easily rank it the worst of the Shyamalan films I've seen. But did I find it to be a POS? Do I think it will kill Shyamalan's career? No. It had high production values, a good score, and a good cast. It just didn't work as a story. I don't feel angry or betrayed that a movie by a director I admire wasn't particularly good; and I'm not going to go to IMDb and make post after post about what a hack Shyamalan is and how he should never again direct a movie. Likewise, if I feel let down by a Bond film--and I felt far more let down by AVTAK and, in a way, TND than I did by DAD--I'm not going to tear it to shreds, demand the producers be fired, demand a new director, new writer, and new Bond, and I won't run around screaming that the series is over. I usually see it again to see if my expectations were perhaps too high, or if I was disappointed with it because it didn't fit my particular view of what a Bond film SHOULD be and not for being what it is. I try to figure out what works and what doesn't. If, in the end, it turns out that I still don't like it, I may have some fun with it--as I did in a thread I wrote entitled "Why oh why, Live and Let Die?"--I may make a snarky comment or two, but I move on. I hope the next film will be better.
What sorts of movies do deserve to be called turds? To me, they're the films that are exploitative, manipulative, mean, nasty, and which diminish me as a human being. One of the worst movies I saw in the last few months--and I'm sure people will rush in to defend this one--was The Punisher. What a crappy view of life: mean, violent, ugly, the only redeeeming value being harsh and brutal revenge. And we're supposed to like and admire a character who's no better--maybe even worse--than the villain? By the time The Punisher was over, I was angry at the film for promoting such an anti-social message--and without the redeeming virtues of humor, a good story, and good acting--and angry at myself for sticking with it and not just stopping the film. That, I suggest, is a real stinking turd of a movie. Show me the Bond film that's this bad. Show me the Bond film that doesn't at least ask that you have some fun with it, which doesn't at least suggest that the hero is on the side of right and should be someone to admire. Love DAD or hate it, I really don't care; but please don't confuse it with the worst of the worst.
I'm not going as far as saying that it's the worst movie ever (IMO it is the worst Bond movie to date), but if there's any ire on my part, it is directed at the filmmakers (writers, directors, producers) who put it together. I really got the sense that they didn't care about making a Bond movie. It's as if they said, let's make a movie and put Bond in it. Let's not work really hard to make it perfect, let's just put it together (who cares if the dialogue is bloated, who cares if Bond plays second fiddle to Jinx or an invisible Aston Martin, who cares if the plot doesn't make a whole lot of sense.)
In a sense, I felt a lot like Bond when Miranda Frost turned that gun on him...betrayed. I thought EON cared about Bond as much as I did.
Oh yes they did. They really needed to use the re-breather in-joke as well. So let's have Bond swim somewhere.
I, for one, appreciated the reference. I got slightly excited to see that in the cinema and be reminded of Thunderball. I wish they would re-release cinematic versions of the old ones for tjhose of us who weren't born the first time around!!!!
They have around one-hundred references, some of them are even so small that they've been discovered only recently. This was only one of them.
Never mind that the underwater breather was an unfortunate aspect of TB that couldn't work - it's a ludicrous fantasy gadget, so why revive it - it's Bond swimming through freezing icy water without getting hypothermia. I mean, at least in True Lies Arnie had a wetsuit on and loads of equipment. And how does Bond know where he's heading when he goes for his dip anyway?
You know, that's DAD. I could submit two or three significent critisisms of it each week and still be submitting a year later. Utter balls.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Its a celebratory Bond film, and its set pieces are colorful, unique, and entertaining. There is a rush of different locations which reminds me of the travelogue style of Ian Fleming.
Direct Fleming source material is more apparent in this film than most others in recent years. The similarties to MR are well known, but there are subtle references to the literary YOLT, TMWTGG, and even Colonel Sun. Its quality, not quantity I know, and whther creatively re-working old scenes, or adding a new spice to old ideas, DAD keeps a solid story with memroable scenes.
The films legacy is still up in the air as we havent had any new Bond films. It clearly is a polarizing film, ironically because of how much of James Bond is in the film. The best description comes from Brosnan, calling it a "leviathion of a movie." He's right, and I believe thats where the controversy comes from.
Ultimately though, these are movies, not major cultural stamps defining a time period, etc. As a result I dont really understand where the harsh judgement of DAD resonates. Its only a movie, and while I've posted its merits on many old threads, people base their opinion on how they take in the film; do they enjoy it or not?
To paraphrase Q from LTK: "dont judge it so harshly". Its only a movie.
This is why 007 borrows the American ornithologist James Bond's Birds of the West Indies book.And then there are the more obvious things-Colonel Moon's name,an indirect reference to Kingsley Amis' Colonel Sun,for instance.Or the invisible shield protecting M from Bond(from The Man With the Golden Gun novel).Plus of course there are the various Q gadgets used throughout the movie.Frankly,I liked all the references.They didn't impede the progress of the storyline nor did they dictate it.Nor--in my opinion--did they ever bring the movie to a halt.A moviegoer unfamiliar with the Bond series wouldn't have found these things distracting.Oh well,we all have different tastes and we always bring different expectations to these things.
It's too bad this film seems to have caused divisions among 007's fans, but it's only a movie after all--and nothing more.We've had five James Bonds and each of them had a different style and brought a different approach to the part.A few of these 007s-notably Sean Connery and especially Roger Moore, even appeared in some extremely fantastic Bond films-movies far more exaggerated in their content than Die Another Day,and they were made under the guidance of Cubby Broccoli.Eon is always trying to attract and please the largest audiences possible,and that includes people who could care less about Ian Fleming's novels or any of the earlier movies.
In any event,whenever Eon releases an elaborate motion picture ala' You Only Live Twice or Moonraker they always follow these fantasies with more (relatively)credible and down-to-Earth storylines.For example,You Only Live Twice lead to On Her Majesty's Secret Service,and Moonraker to For Your Eyes Only.I have little doubt that Eon will follow Die Another Day with a smaller and more character-driven film.By all accounts that's what Purvis and Wade have written and that's exactly what Eon wants to make.
Now if Sony will just get out of their way...
That's really where all the animosity comes from,isn't it?A fear that somehow Die Another Day marked the end of the series.It's a big movie and large portions of the dialogue are sadly mediocre.Not the best Bond film or the best exit for 007.
I don't believe for an instant that Sony will allow the 007 franchise to come to a close.One of the big reasons Sony bought MGM was so that they'd have a portion of the James Bond series.I think there'll be a Bond 21 and a Bond 22 and probably more to follow.This is a series that managed to outlive it's Cold War origins,after all and florished by offering a wide variety of movies--all of them successful in varying degrees.But first a new 007 has to be signed.Once that occurs,I suspect we'll see Eon go into action as quickly as possible.If not with a film for 2006 then most definitely one for 2007.
And if by some chance Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli decide that they'd rather not be intimately involved with the making of future movies, there's really no end of the production companies who'll line up to lease the rights from Eon to make more James Bond films.DreamWorks SKG leaps to mind.
Difficult as it is,we'll all just have to be patient a while longer...
Please Mickey and Babs, listen to Willie. No offence, you did some great movies, but there are many creative people out there who just need your permission to do wonders... And perhaps you could send Bobby and Neal on a creative vacation.
I agree with your post holeheartedly, Willie. I brought up this section because I believe this will be the central question that will be debated about DAD: For the 40th aniversary, was it more appropriate to create a "traditional" James Bond film, or a celebratory one as DAD clearly did.
I believe this is central to the polarization DAD And for better or worse, that question doesnt have a clear answer and probably wont for a while. We also have to consider the influence this film will have on future Bonds as its the first James Bond film of the 21st century. No doubt, if the proceeding films are recieved well, the fan base may warm to DAD, who knows.
I do believe, if history is any indication, as was with other "controversial" Bond films like OHMSS and LTK, history will be the judge. In both cases I cite above, history has the tendency of being kinder than those respective films contemporaries. We shall see with DAD....
Have you seen Tamahori's first film, Once Were Warriors? I can't believe that all those amazing performances in that film were an accident!
I have... It actualy amazes me how the same man could do these two films... Though there was Along Came A Spider to be a 'transition in quality'. But I wasn't prepared for DAD...
I have seen Once Were Warriors, and the man has built a career on a film which is now over 20 years old.
Perhaps someone would like to enlighten me which actor in DAD, with the exception of Dame Judi, gave a good performance?
Was it Brosnan on autopilot, the facepulling and ham acting of Toby Stephens, the sleepwalking of Rosamunde Pike, or the only actress in the world who could mess up flirtaceous dialogue in Halle Berry?
Which one gave a good performance. I got the impression they were all emailed in...
Anyway, Emilio Echeverria's Raoul is really a nice character from the Kerim Bey mould. At least there are still some shining performances from here and there... But SOME nice performances doesn't really weight out the trouble in my eyes. He just pales when I think about the movie as a whole expererience. And personally, I think his performance has much more to do with Echeverria's natural jollines and screen-presence than Tamahori.
Red, I would like to more substantively reply to your post, but please do not mention Die Another Day in the same breath as On Her Majesty's Secret Service or Licence To Kill. It's just wrong.
Having seen a portion of DAD recently, the negativity with which it was associated came to the fore once again. The dreadful one-liners, generally poor dialogue, and at times wooden acting (Ms Berry may be a fine piece of mahogony, but still wood.) But over time I've got used to those defects and stopped laughing at the 'predators' line quite so much, though I was still appalled at the 'special effects' (those icebergs and a cartoon wave especially). Just where did that huge budget go?
However, as I've noted numerous times before the movie does have its plus points (mainly revolving around Rosamund Pike) but I still think that it is ashame that it was with this pedestrian vehicle that the Brosnan era came to a close.
As far as comparisons with other Bond movies, I simply disagree with your choosing of OHMSS and LTK Red (both movies which are, in my opinion, vastly superior) on the basis that they too were controversial. Sadly, I think the reality is that with historical perspective DAD will come to be seen more as a modern-day Moonraker, both big in vision and scope but both (generally) perceived to have failed artistically.