Pros and Cons: Die Another Day

Absolutely_Cart

Released in 2002, featuring Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. It smashed the box office sales but was met with mixed reviews and over the years, fans have regarded it as one of the worst films in the series.

Pros
[list=*]
[*]Sci-fi and political elements take on new themes[/*]
[*]A wide wide variety of beautiful colorful atmospheres and locales[/*]
[*]Smooth, dense directing ; stays interesting[/*]
[*]Paces well ; flows from one place to another fast[/*]
[*]The fencing fight with Bond and Graves[/*]
[*]Halle Berry's Jinx is one of the best heroines in the series[/*]
[*]Some CGI effects (like the simulated fire fight) were cool[/*]
[*]Invisible Aston Martin is the gadget of gadgets.[/*]
[/list]

Cons
[list=*]
[*]Fleming is probably turning in his grave[/*]
[*]More of an action sci-fi film than a spy film[/*]
[*]Some noticeable CGI effects break viewer immersion[/*]
[*]Brosnan was chubby for a North Korean prisoner[/*]
[*]Could have done without the Moneypenny scene[/*]
[*]Some corny dialogue was forced into the script[/*]
[/list]


The Bond series cycles between silly and serious, and as the times change, we seek new things. This is one of the most absurd movies in the series, and even Roger Moore said it was too absurd for him. But at the same time, at the moment we're informed by a trend of seriousness in the film industry. Everything today is dark, gritty, realistic, violent, and gory in 1080p high definition - quite the opposite of 2002. We might find the Craig films to be laughably macho and praise the writers of DAD for being honest about it.

But truth be told, for a silly film, it takes on a number of serious themes. Unresolved tensions with North Korea. In an era where the Cold War is over, rogue commanders are a greater threat than nations, and it's good the series removed itself from Russain villains for a bit. Changing one's genetics, in a Flowers From Algernon way. The East's jealousy of the West both in the admiration of western culture and the hatred toward the hegemony it has, culminating in the face-off between Korean general Moon and his transformed son, Graves who modeled his new "disgusting" self on Bond. And using a big laser from the sky to clear out landmines in South Korea is definitely a better master plan than many of the other ones we've seen. So, it works as sci-fi. Not the escapist sci-fi of Star Wars, but one that shows us what a 21st century world saturated in new technologies could be like.

I had a blast watching the film the first time. The second time I watched it, yes, some of the shine was taken off, but the positives still outweighed the negatives. At the end of the day, it's no masterpiece, but it's not a bad movie either. Underrated and maybe we'll warm up to it eventually.

jonnybond78

Quite funny, I have just posted something similar after watching Moonraker today. Tbh I think if the franchise had stuck to the same formula of Flemings Literary idea of Bond. The franchise would have died years ago. The over the top Bond Movies have their place. The general public enjoy them. but it's allways good for a down to earth follow up. See FYEO after Monnraker and CR after DAD

readpaulb

I was just replying in the MR thread about how similar I find these movies. Pros for both would be the first halves, which I think are excellent in both movies. It's funny that jonny brings up the serious follow ups, as CR and FYEO are two of my favorites, yet I think the DADs and MRs of the world have their place too. If nothing else, DAD is entertaining, it's hard to argue that. The fencing match is one of my favorite scenes in all the movies.

Thunderpussy

As already stated, first half very good, second isn't bad but relies too
Much on ( very bad) CGI.

chrisisall

I have a blast watching it, mainly for Brosnan & Pike. And, as silly & stupid as some bits are, it never bores me. -{

Barbel

It's far from the best Bond film, but I've never understood the hatred piled upon it.

Thunderpussy

I really enjoy the pts. -{ The little move of Bond to get the
Mines to pop up and explode in the faces of his pursuers {[]
Brilliant stuff, don't know if it's possible but it looks so Cool.

Absolutely_Cart

jonnybond78 wrote:

Quite funny, I have just posted something similar after watching Moonraker today. Tbh I think if the franchise had stuck to the same formula of Flemings Literary idea of Bond. The franchise would have died years ago. The over the top Bond Movies have their place. The general public enjoy them. but it's allways good for a down to earth follow up. See FYEO after Monnraker and CR after DAD

Yeah, it's like the anecdote with a university gym coach arguing with a university scientist. The scientist says, "Why do you get paid twice as much money as I do. Science has way more merit than gym class". Then the gym coach replies, "This football team brings the school millions of dollar and is paying for your salary."

Barbel

The Bond films go in cycles, always have done. A big, splashy film (YOLT, MR, DAD) which owes little to Fleming and makes gazillions of money at the box-office is followed by a smaller scale, close to Fleming film (OHMSS, FYEO, CR). The situation is made more unclear to the general public by (often) a change in lead actor.

Thunderpussy

) There may even be a time in the future when CR gets
Ripped apart for not being over the top and full of jokes and
Gadgets. , fashions change, after all.

chrisisall

CR is naff because of a lack of funny, no Q-gear, and it's not OTT at all.


)

Thunderpussy

See how quickly time travel, kicked in. )

chrisisall

Thunderpussy wrote:

See how quickly time travel, kicked in. )

)
Okay, but seriously though, I like a little absurd in my Bond, an animal scare or a laser or something.
CR was awesome on many levels, but it was missing the special little dopey moment.
Then again, DAD was replete with them. 8-)
It's a balancing act.

Virgil37

Pros:

The story is not bad to begin with.
Halle Berry
Sword fight at the club
Madonna cameo and her line "I don't like **** fights".
Gustave Graves entrance. Spectacular, with "London Calling" blasting.
Henchmen

Cons:

John Cleese as Q
Overlong PTS
Invisible cars? please no.
The story is unbalanced. From realism goes to comic book when it moves to Iceland.
Brosnan surfing a tsunami.
Overuse of (bad) CGI.

In general, as with all Brosnan period, quite disappointing. First shows promise, but in the end the cons weight more than pros.

Absolutely_Cart

The surfing and electrocution CGI had a lot to be desired, but I thought the ice palace CGI was excellent.

chrisisall

Virgil37 wrote:

In general, as with all Brosnan period, quite disappointing.

I'm sad to see that you can't enjoy Brosnan's films. I enjoy 90% or EON's efforts on different levels, and I reserve 'disappointing' only for MR, AVTAK, & SF. Even DAF & DAD don't fall in there for me at this point.

Absolutely_Cart

With Brosnan's films, there was something to enjoy in each of them, but like I said before they were too video-gamey. Moore's film had humor and antics, but they were movie-type antics. I really think Eon wanted a life-like James Bond video game but the technology at the time wasn't there (it still isn't), so films like Die Another Day were made.

GE was significant and memorable, but had some dull moments.
TND was fun to watch, but lacked historical significance.
TWINE had lots of good elements but lacked refinement
DAD was really fun but too far off the deep end

So in the end, you got 4 movies that were all fun to watch (and none were bad), but you only got 1 real classic among them.

chrisisall

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

So in the end, you got 4 movies that were all fun to watch (and none were bad), but you only got 1 real classic among them.

I get your POV, but in 20 years will this still be the case?
In the 90's I hated most Moore films. Now I like most of them. Things change with time...
I loved YOLT as a kid. I hated it in the 80's. Now it's in my top ten.
Always in motion is the future.... )

Absolutely_Cart

To be honest, I'll give a point in your favor that right now is the absolute worst time to judge Brosnan's era because right now his successor Craig is totally killin' it and we're biased toward the elements that make the Craig movies good. It's like judging your ex while you're in a new relationship or judging George W. Bush (i know, i know, but humor me here) while Obama is president.

Like I said in another thread, Craig's form of macho man masculinity will be outdated in favor of Brosnan's more gentle masculinity, but the movies themselves were at fault not because of Brosnan's acting, but because of the writing. No doubt in my mind Die Another Day (and TWINE) will soar, but they're never gonna be classics. I'll eat my words if I'm wrong.

chrisisall

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

No doubt in my mind Die Another Day (and TWINE) will soar, but they're never gonna be classics. I'll eat my words if I'm wrong.

Oh, I don't think you'll be needing to eat your words on those two. I like 'em but I also so see their many flaws. I think TND will be seen as a 'classic' though. An OTT ride like YOLT. GE will be lumped in with Dalton's two & DN as underfunded gems.
That's my look into the future (my present) anyway. )

Absolutely_Cart

I agree GE will dip down a bit. A lot of it's acclaim was from the "Bond is finally back!" moment. It was many people's first Bond movie.

chrisisall

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I agree GE will dip down a bit. A lot of it's acclaim was from the "Bond is finally back!" moment. It was many people's first Bond movie.

Plus it had the star from the TV series Remington Steele (possibly before your time) whom we in the U.S. nearly ALL wanted as the next Bond. -{

broadshoulder

Virgil37 wrote:

Pros:

The story is not bad to begin with.
Halle Berry
Sword fight at the club
Madonna cameo and her line "I don't like **** fights".
Gustave Graves entrance. Spectacular, with "London Calling" blasting.
Henchmen

Cons:

John Cleese as Q
Overlong PTS
Invisible cars? please no.
The story is unbalanced. From realism goes to comic book when it moves to Iceland.
Brosnan surfing a tsunami.
Overuse of (bad) CGI.

In general, as with all Brosnan period, quite disappointing. First shows promise, but in the end the cons weight more than pros.

To be honest I am with you here. It should be held as a warning that a Bond film should not be kike this..

My first viewing of Die Another Day was memorable for all the wrong reasons. For a start the hype was immense. It was the fortieth anniversary and this was a good hook for numerous worldwide media . The budget was colossal and the advertising budget the size of a small country. DAD was, to be fair, an event movie. Its premiere was at the Royal Albert Hall with Madonna, Halle Berry, Pierce Brosnan and a number of ex Bonds in a attendance (my suspicions should have been aroused with Tim Daltons tight-lipped diplomatic verdict). But it was a major show business event. I saw the film in my local fleapit with my partner and we settled down to see how the new Brosnan effort measured up.

Almost from the off it made a wrong move. The Bond swivel and shot now presumed that Bond was such a good shot that he could fire down the barrel of a targets gun (a Tamahori suggestion). From there the film progressed with a surfing entry, a hovercraft chase and a bad oneliner. Not bad, we can live with this. The titles were interesting with scorpions mixed with a fire and ice motif and the much lauded “grit” of being kept in a North Korean prison seemed to work. In fact the film, although no classic, isn’t painful until Bond escapes his confinement by stopping his heart! I’ll say that again by STOPPING HIS HEART! Who is he? Superman? Suspension for the first time since the hovercraft gondola goes completely out of the window. People say about DAD that there is a moment when the dawning hits you that the film would be crud. For some it is the invisible car, for others the entrance of Jinx, some people even last as long as the iceberg cgi. But the sinking feeling, for me, started with the heart-stopping. My suspension of disbelief went out of the window.

And thats fatal with James Bond. The films are a mixture of the real and the ridiculous. Someone said with WHO you must not send it up but play it straight or it never works. Roger sent it up occasionally and to be frank – those parts didn’t always work . They distracted from the film. Brosnans problem with this isn’t so much the sending up because that doesn’t happen – the director was playing it for real. He was playing the invisible car for real. He tries to send it up with numerous puerile oneliners the way Roger did but they are so cackhandedly delivered /written they go down like a lead balloon. Almost everything doesn’t work in DAD. It’s a balls up of epic proportions and the blame lies with one man

Lee Tamahori

By this time Babs Broccoli was sort of flailing around for new stories. When this happens they tend to go back to what they haven’t used in Fleming. This time they went back to Moonraker. The character of Drax would be called Gustav Graves and the plot of a member of the British establishment wanting to destroy Britain with a rocket was revived. Purvis and Wade had a script and ideas. Then Tamahori came along. The reason he got the job was that he convinced Babs and Mickey G that Bond had to move with the times. That old fashioned stuntwork should be jettisoned for cgi, that quick editing was the way forward. He admits quoting it had to appeal to the MTV generation.

"Whoa dude, Bond is surfin', look at him shredd!!!", "whoa, that's that guy from Fast and the Furious bro!", "CGI rawks!", "Halle Berry's hott, I wanna bone her", "LOL, 'keep my tip up'! this is funny man", "look at those sweet cars bro!", "whoa, Bond is para-surfin dude" etc.

He is also on record as saying the Bonds were like Carry On films so got Purvis and Wade to do rewrites with some of the most godawful lines ever committed to a Bond film. No wonder Brosnan looks unhappy.

I hope this is a warning to the Bonds not to stray to far into OTT territory. There be dragons..

broadshoulder

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I agree GE will dip down a bit. A lot of it's acclaim was from the "Bond is finally back!" moment. It was many people's first Bond movie.

I think you have got GE down to a tee. It was many people first Bond movie and gets accolades from that. But compared with the Craigs...

Its only with CR that they knew exactly what direction they wanted. With the Brosnan era they were flailing around with different directors trying to get a grip on each Bond movie..

Virgil37

broadshoulder wrote:

Its only with CR that they knew exactly what direction they wanted. With the Brosnan era they were flailing around with different directors trying to get a grip on each Bond movie..

Bullseye. Perfect description of the Brosnan years. It's not surprising, though. They were essentially a new team and had to find their way.

Virgil37

chrisisall wrote:

Virgil37 wrote:

In general, as with all Brosnan period, quite disappointing.

I'm sad to see that you can't enjoy Brosnan's films. I enjoy 90% or EON's efforts on different levels, and I reserve 'disappointing' only for MR, AVTAK, & SF. Even DAF & DAD don't fall in there for me at this point.

I enjoy things about the Brosnan films, but in general they disappointed me. That includes my all time low of the franchise, TND. The only one I consider not disappointing is TWINE. I've been consistent with that from the day I first saw them in 1995,1997,1999 and 2002.

You reserve disappointing for films I like very much. It's just normal to have different opinions.

AlphaOmegaSin

I read a funny Review of DAD a few Years back, and the Reviewer said that 'DAD tickles your Balls and slaps your Willy' )

broadshoulder

http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2014/may/23/die-another-day-tv-film-recap

The Guardian sticks the boot in...

thegreatgalling

I have said this before, but the film has redeaming qualities. I loved the idea of Bond spending time in prison, the plot is very Bondean, and the cinematography was unique and interesting for the series.

My BIGGEST gripe was the dialogue. It is just pitifully bad. Everyone loves Bond's oneliners when sparse and well timed, but this film took it off the deep end. Not only was almost EVERY SINGLE LINE uttered from Brosnan a silly pun, but almost every other character shared in it! The entire population of the film shouldn't share Bond's sense of humor. It came off incredibly one dimensional and infantile.

I posted examples elsewhere, but watch it again with that in mind and you will see that every person, almost every line, is pun after pun, after pun. When you are using double entendre and pun as exposition, you have gone too far!

Blackleiter

Pros

The first part of the movie up until Bond leaves Cuba.

Cons

The rest of the movie!

And I must comment separately on Jinx (Halle Berry), as I see that some commentators consider her as an asset, while others view her as one of the film's worst elements:

Pros

Seeing Berry on screen. She is top of the line when it comes to the gorgeousness of Bond Girls.

Cons

Just about every time Berry opens her mouth. She has absolutely some of the worst lines and worst line readings in the entire series.

Absolutely_Cart

The good heavily outweighs the bad with Jinx. She's a strong agent rather than a bikini girl. Beautiful, but no ditz. She has real chemistry with Bond and their sex scenes are actually appealing rather than corny. Moore's sex scenes weren't believable, Connery's didn't have any real intimacy and Dalton was a prude.

On another note, I remember a guy talking about shaking Pierce Brosnan's hand and then saying to him "This is the closest my hand has ever been to Halle Berry's ass".