Why the double standards on Die Another Day?

Blood_Stone

Its okay to hate on Brosnan's last film, but most of Roger Moore's films (most of which are just as bad if not worse) get a free pass?

Ironically, Moore fans should be proud of DAD as its basically one giant tribute film to him. It fits right in!

Napoleon Plural

Yeah, but Brozzer's films were sold as more serious, and crucially they're less fun. They ask to be taken seriously, and be silly rubbish.

Yeah, I could better buy Moore in DAD actually.

Jarvio

Well IMO all 7 Moore films are all better than DAD. But I can see what you mean regarding it fitting in with the Moore films. It has that 'silliness' about it.

However, the silliness of DAD isn't the reason I rank it bottom..... the (main) reason is that terrible CGI. I just can't get passed that.

Golrush007

Jarvio wrote:

However, the silliness of DAD isn't the reason I rank it bottom..... the (main) reason is that terrible CGI. I just can't get passed that.

I agree with you, Jarvio. That is one of my main reasons for ranking DAD last. That stuff just had no business being in a Bond film.

Moore Than

Blood_Stone wrote:

Its okay to hate on Brosnan's last film, but most of Roger Moore's films (most of which are just as bad if not worse) get a free pass?

Ironically, Moore fans should be proud of DAD as its basically one giant tribute film to him. It fits right in!

Most of Roger Moore's films getting a free pass? Where have you been hiding? None of them get a free pass. In fact, none of the Bond films get a completely free pass. Believe it or not, even From Russia With Love and Goldfinger have their critics.

Roger himself is not only criticised for the films he appeared in but numerous others that he did not, including Die Another Day. 8-)

minigeff

What I don't get is that it's now nearly TEN YEARS since it came out and there's not a week goes by where someone doesn't knock DAD.

Yes I know it wasn't great etc etc etc blah blah bloody blah.

But do we really need to keep turning over the same old crap?

Le Samourai

I certainly don't give Moore's films a pass. I only like three of them.

As for DAD… I hated the fact that the first half or so had real potential to be a great, dark, serious Bond film and then it just went off the rails. To engage in a bit of hyperbole, it's as if FRWL turned into MR midway through. The inconsistency in tone was just too much for me, and it irked me that some interesting concepts and premises were introduced and then ignored.

chrisisall

Le Samourai wrote:

I certainly don't give Moore's films a pass. I only like three of them.

As for DAD… I hated the fact that the first half or so had real potential to be a great, dark, serious Bond film and then it just went off the rails. To engage in a bit of hyperbole, it's as if FRWL turned into MR midway through. The inconsistency in tone was just too much for me, and it irked me that some interesting concepts and premises were introduced and then ignored.

What I was going to say, you already did, and better. -{

minigeff

chrisisall wrote:

Le Samourai wrote:

I certainly don't give Moore's films a pass. I only like three of them.

As for DAD… I hated the fact that the first half or so had real potential to be a great, dark, serious Bond film and then it just went off the rails. To engage in a bit of hyperbole, it's as if FRWL turned into MR midway through. The inconsistency in tone was just too much for me, and it irked me that some interesting concepts and premises were introduced and then ignored.

What I was going to say, you already did, and better. -{

And it was already said by countless others, countless times day after day after day...

chrisisall

minigeff wrote:

And it was already said by countless others, countless times day after day after day...

Sorry, this ain't old to me, but then, I here am new... )

minigeff

chrisisall wrote:

minigeff wrote:

And it was already said by countless others, countless times day after day after day...

Sorry, this ain't old to me, but then, I here am new... )

It's ok, I understand. It just gets a bit fricking tedious for me. It's like having your fat nephew tugging at your shirt tail saying 'why?' to everything you say. You hope one day he'll grow out of it but also know that you've got at least another 5 years to go.

chrisisall

Blood_Stone wrote:

Its okay to hate on Brosnan's last film, but most of Roger Moore's films (most of which are just as bad if not worse) get a free pass?

Actually, MOST of Moore's films are better because they are mostly consistent within themselves. They attempt, for the most part, to be comic book-like adventure as opposed to hard-edged spy melodrama.
And remember, this comes from someone who only likes 3 of Moore's movies. B-)

James Suzuki

Le Samourai wrote:

I certainly don't give Moore's films a pass. I only like three of them.

As for DAD… I hated the fact that the first half or so had real potential to be a great, dark, serious Bond film and then it just went off the rails. To engage in a bit of hyperbole, it's as if FRWL turned into MR midway through. The inconsistency in tone was just too much for me, and it irked me that some interesting concepts and premises were introduced and then ignored.

You're right... DAD when i first saw it i was thinking "this is going to be great!" i loved the start of the film ad i loved the swordfight but when we see that invisible car i cringed ad from then on i was banging my head against the wall. But Brosnan is great in it ad its worthy enough to be a Bond film, thats FINAL plz

Napoleon Plural

Brozzer's last film was the end of an era, so we hark back to it, esp as it was so rubbish.

Had Brozzer done another film 2 years after to nullify it, DAD wouldn't be referenced so much.

thesecretagent

Let's put this one to bed. Nothing enlightening is going to come from this thread. Half the film was ok, the other was a turdfest and that's that. It's old news.

BIG TAM

I read where the template was DR. NO - the first half a relatively serious spy film, the second more fantastical adventure.

chrisisall

BIG TAM wrote:

I read where the template was DR. NO - the first half a relatively serious spy film, the second more fantastical adventure.

That seems to be right.

Revolver66

Interesting old thread! Thought I'd add my two cents.

I make no bones about disliking Die Another Day. For me it is without a doubt the worst in the series and it is the only one that I dislike. Now I get the arguments of the defenders, saying that you can't bash DAD and praise Moore era films like Moonraker, and I see where you're coming from. Moonraker (and i'm using this one just as an example) is a film that i consider in the bottom 6 of the series, however I still think that it is a far sight better than Die Another Day. The reason? The execution. Moonraker is ridiculous, ludicrous, and slapstick (which i think is the major fault of the film), but the performances and characters are all solid, the cinematography is great, and the sets and production design are brilliant. Also, when they go into space, the effects are fantastic and serve to heighten the reality of the setting and the story rather than hinder them.

Die Another Day is also a ridiculous and ludicrous story (as many Bonds are) but it possesses no interesting new characters (Rosamund Pike aside), has weak cinematography that gives it a tacky, b movie look, weak sets (ice palace), and damn awful special effects, that looked dated and amateurish from its day of release. Bond plots are always implausible but are still solid because of the writing, which usually brims with witty dialogue and intriguing characters. However the dialogue writing in DAD is deplorable. The scene at the Cuban beach bar with Bond and Jinx is a shocker, actually most of what Jinx says is shocking."Yo mamma"?????? Spare me. Gustav Graves also has some truly terrible dialogue, as do most of the characters, which only serves to make the other faults of the film more pronounced. The film is just tacky tacky, and truly awful. It makes the previous 2 Bonds before it, (also flawed outings that don't get a lot of love), look like Bond masterpieces in comparison. I don't hold with the argument that the first half of the film is great and it only loses its way at the ice palace. That is giving it too much credit. It's a dodgy Bond parody from the get go, with the direction, effects and model work poor, and the writing amatuerish, making it mostly awful throughout. I don't care if it's relatively grounded in Bond terms for the first 50 minutes, the execution of it is diabolical. Pierce and Rosamund and Judi are the only redeeming features for me. The 2 moments i genuinely enjoy are parts of the pre-titles and the moment where Bond uses the Q ring to shatter the glass floor. That aside and its junk. The fencing scene, which seems to garner a bit of praise on here, I feel is hokey and outdated. They even speed up the film on shots of Brosnan, which is embarrassing for a film made in 2002. I feel like I could keep going but I won't. But yes, that is why I don't think it's a double standard to praise other outlanish Bond films and diss Die another Day, because at least those other Bond flicks are executed well and with style as well as with good writing. Whereas Die Another Day is completely devoid on all three of those fronts. It is for these reasons that I don't feel that the film will gain a resurgence as the years go on. I feel certain that it will forever be looked at with disdain. Rant over ) -{ PS no disrespect at all to those that like this film. I understand and respect your opinions. I just feel very strongly about this one.

walther p99

I don't give Moore's films a pass, I hate all of them.

Matt S

walther p99 wrote:

I don't give Moore's films a pass, I hate all of them.

I thought you were a Bond fan? ?:)

walther p99

Matt S wrote:

walther p99 wrote:

I don't give Moore's films a pass, I hate all of them.

I thought you were a Bond fan? ?:)

I am, I just cant stand Moore as Bond. I like the man, but hate his portrayal.

hehadlotsofguts

walther p99 wrote:

Matt S wrote:

walther p99 wrote:

I don't give Moore's films a pass, I hate all of them.

I thought you were a Bond fan? ?:)

I am, I just cant stand Moore as Bond. I like the man, but hate his portrayal.

How come? Is it his interactions with women, or is it because he's too much of a clown?

Revolver66

walther p99 wrote:

I don't give Moore's films a pass, I hate all of them.

How do you feel about Die Another Day Walther p99?

Gassy Man

I never found DAD to be significantly more awful than any of Brosnan's films. The first half is pretty much the same as any of them, and I find some sequences -- the pre-title and fencing ones, for instance -- to be pretty good. The second half is more disappointing for several reasons. For starters, it becomes too much an action film. Yes, Bond films feature action, but while the plot gets convoluted, the script is pretty thin, replacing dialogue and suspense with slam-bam action sequences and hyped editing. But it also goes off the rails. While an invisible car may be theoretically possible, it's just too much for a Bond film -- even more than lasers and space shuttles in Moonraker because at least there's some precedent for that in the series. John Cleese's R is a big twit. The hammy villain -- a strange case of "white face," I suppose -- is more smug than threatening. Brosnan, meanwhile, is no Roger Moore, who could somehow walk through the silliness and yet somehow seem like Bond. Brosnan becomes a pretty generic action hero post-Bond; in other words, he has stereotypical Bond qualities but seems to kind of disappear as the character while in the midst of the all the action, which gets increasingly sillier. The CGI amplifies the lack of presence by Bond in so much of the rest of the film. Bond almost seems an afterthought, and while putting Halle Berry in the film may have seemed like a good idea, she seems to want to compete with Brosnan for attention rather than complement him. Brosnan, who never played Bond with the right combination of light humor and fun-loving that Brosnan is so good at, seems to disappear in his own movie. The attempt to bring Bond into the "modern age" was a big mis-step because it just took Bond further away from being Bond.

welshboy78

Madonna (thats all im gonna say)

walther p99

hehadlotsofguts wrote:

walther p99 wrote:

Matt S wrote:

I thought you were a Bond fan? ?:)

I am, I just cant stand Moore as Bond. I like the man, but hate his portrayal.

How come? Is it his interactions with women, or is it because he's too much of a clown?

The latter, I have to be able to believe that the lead actor can do all those things that Bond does to some degree to convince me that they're a tough, deadly and athletic assassin and Moore never convinced me, especially in his later films.

walther p99

Revolver66 wrote:

walther p99 wrote:

I don't give Moore's films a pass, I hate all of them.

How do you feel about Die Another Day Walther p99?

First half isn't bad, starts off well with an original idea of having Bond in jail and the hovercraft chase is great. Its only once the film reaches Iceland that it begins to really fall apart.

Mr_Osato

DAD is the only Bond film I genuinely dislike and have only watched maybe 4-5 times. The thing I dislike the most is the fact they really messed up a film that had so much potential. Because it is not completely flawed:

The pro's:

- the beginning: Bond being captured and held in custody for 14 months was a great idea and never done before.
- the locations are pretty cool. Like the Ice palace, the sword fight location was great and also the fake Cuba looked really good.

The negatives:

- the script. For an example, go to the introduction of Jinx and the conversation that followed. Every single sentence had a double meaning and a pun. Made no sense at all and was cringe worthy all the way.
- The CGI: F-ing awefull!!
- Jinx: God she was rubbish and annoying. And that comes from someone who really likes Halle Berry.
- Gustav Graves: really hated the performance
- The invisible car. Really? an invisible car? And it was hardly used.

The first half of the film was actually quite enjoyable. But the second half of the movie was so rubbish, it completely ruined the whole experience for me.

I feel bad for Piers. I still think he had the potential to be a great Bond. Just look at his movies like November Man, Tailor of Panama. The guy can act and he can be a bad ass. But the material he had to work with most of the time was sub-par, although I still enjoy GE, TND and TWINE. But DAD is utter garbage, which was really the director to blame. Just watch interviews with Piers BEFORE the production started: he was full of enthusiasm, really thought they were going to make a character piece. The end result was however absolutely crap. Such a shame.

Matt S

Mr_Osato wrote:

I feel bad for Piers. I still think he had the potential to be a great Bond. Just look at his movies like November Man, Tailor of Panama. The guy can act and he can be a bad ass. But the material he had to work with most of the time was sub-par, although I still enjoy GE, TND and TWINE. But DAD is utter garbage, which was really the director to blame. Just watch interviews with Piers BEFORE the production started: he was full of enthusiasm, really thought they were going to make a character piece. The end result was however absolutely crap. Such a shame.

Morgan? Anthony? Sellers?

Mr_Osato

I never feel bad for Piers Morgan

Now excuse me, while I proceed to slap my wrist for that F up.

welshguy34

I would generally place Brosnan as a better Bond than Roger, but Pierce did not make a Bond film as good as The Spy Who Loved Me. Apart from DAF & NSNA I like pretty much every Bond film in it's own way, even if some are a bit weak, they can still entertain me for about 2 hours.