170 replies to this topic

[AMC Hornet]

For me, whatever Bond film comes out in it's year is automatically my top favorite (yes, even AVTAK). The best any other film can expect is #2 position.

Is that you, Michael G. Wilson?

 

 

Drat.

 

Busted.

[tdalton]

 

This whole "true Bond fan" stuff is nonsense.  Being a fan of something doesn't mean that you just rubber stamp everything EON does and say that it's great.  With regards to Die Another Day, there are a few redeeming qualities that the film has, but they are extremely fleeting and are overwhelmed by the rest of the film that contains some of the very worst moments in the entire franchise.  I could, rather easily I would think, come up with 25+ films from 2002 that I'd rank ahead of Die Another Day.

 

There are several Bond films that are just absymal films.  Die Another Day is one of them.  There are a handful of others that would qualify for that as well.

I´m really interested now what these 25+ films are....and in the handful of other Bond films as abysmal as DAD as well.....

 

 

In order of release (for the most part)

1. The Mothman Prophecies
2. We Were Soldiers
3. Ice Age
4. Panic Room
5. The Rookie
6. Changing Lanes
7. Frailty
8. Spider-Man
9. Unfaithful
10. Insomnia
11. The Sum of All Fears
12. The Bourne Identity
13. Minority Report
14. Road to Perdition
15. Signs
16. One Hour Photo
17. City By the Sea
18. The Ring
19. Analyze That
20. Gangs of New York
21. Catch Me If You Can
22. About Schmidt
23. Collateral Damage
24. Windtalkers
25. Confessions of a Dangerous Mind

Other terrible Bond films:

• Diamonds are Forever
• Live and Let Die
• The Man With the Golden Gun
• Never Say Never Again
• The World is Not Enough

Edited by tdalton, 27 March 2015 - 02:31 AM.

[AMC Hornet]

Other terrible Bond films:

• Diamonds are Forever
• Live and Let Die
• The Man With the Golden Gun
• Never Say Never Again
• The World is Not Enough

 

 

Includes three of my favorites.

[Call Billy Bob]

 

Other terrible Bond films:

• Live and Let Die
• The Man With the Golden Gun
• Never Say Never Again
• The World is Not Enough

 

 

Includes three of my favorites.

 

Indeed. LALD and TMWTGG are in my top 5.

[Skylla]

 

 

This whole "true Bond fan" stuff is nonsense.  Being a fan of something doesn't mean that you just rubber stamp everything EON does and say that it's great.  With regards to Die Another Day, there are a few redeeming qualities that the film has, but they are extremely fleeting and are overwhelmed by the rest of the film that contains some of the very worst moments in the entire franchise.  I could, rather easily I would think, come up with 25+ films from 2002 that I'd rank ahead of Die Another Day.

 

There are several Bond films that are just absymal films.  Die Another Day is one of them.  There are a handful of others that would qualify for that as well.

I´m really interested now what these 25+ films are....and in the handful of other Bond films as abysmal as DAD as well.....

 

 

In order of release (for the most part)

1. The Mothman Prophecies
2. We Were Soldiers
3. Ice Age
4. Panic Room
5. The Rookie
6. Changing Lanes
7. Frailty
8. Spider-Man
9. Unfaithful
10. Insomnia
11. The Sum of All Fears
12. The Bourne Identity
13. Minority Report
14. Road to Perdition
15. Signs
16. One Hour Photo
17. City By the Sea
18. The Ring
19. Analyze That
20. Gangs of New York
21. Catch Me If You Can
22. About Schmidt
23. Collateral Damage
24. Windtalkers
25. Confessions of a Dangerous Mind

Other terrible Bond films:

• Diamonds are Forever
• Live and Let Die
• The Man With the Golden Gun
• Never Say Never Again
• The World is Not Enough

 

If you rank all this Bond films lower than The Sum of all Fears, Windtalkers, Panic Room, Frailty or even Collateral Damage and Analyse That, I think we don´t have much in common as Bond fans.....numbers 2,3,5,9,12,13,14 and 25 are very good films but better than all of those Bond films? 2,5 and 13 maybe.... 

[tdalton]

I didn't say that I ranked all of those Bond films lower than every film on that list?  You asked for the 25 films of 2002 that were better than Die Another Day, which was, I had previously said, rather easy to come up with.  Those other Bond films are better than Die Another Day (then again, most films are), but are still awful in their own rite.

 

 

 I think we don´t have much in common as Bond fans.....

 

 

Couldn't agree more.

[AgentPB]

This has been touched upon in previous comments, but I think most of the DAD hate comes from viewing the film out of context.

 

1. It was extremely popular when it came out, I remember seeing it with my family when it first came out and can attest that it was a crowd pleaser (did we mention that it had some implausible bits, yes, but it is a Bond film after all)

 

2. CGI in 2002 was horrendous. If you don't believe me go back and watch one of the early LOTR films or the 2001 Spiderman, the graphics in those films doesn't stand up so well either. Filmmakers imagination were just ahead of the technology of the time.

 

3. DAD was pretty much in line with what the audience was expecting up to this point from a Bond film. CR really was the first Bond film that broke from the formula that had been used for the 40 odd years before it. People wanted one-liners, gadgets, Bond Girls, exotic locations etc. Craig is a great Bond, but if you ignore the rules of space and time and give him Brosnan's films and vice-versa, I'm pretty sure everyone would still hate DAD just because it represents the last gasp of what had become a stale franchise.

 

I myself enjoy DAD, I think it has many redeeming qualities. The only part I really dislike is the Icarus stuff, but I don't think I'm completely happy with any Bond film. I would have liked to see Brosnan get a shot at one more film, something a bit more serious and then the reboot with Craig and CR.

[Skylla]

I didn't say that I ranked all of those Bond films lower than every film on that list?  You asked for the 25 films of 2002 that were better than Die Another Day, which was, I had previously said, rather easy to come up with.  Those other Bond films are better than Die Another Day (then again, most films are), but are still awful in their own rite.

 

 

 I think we don´t have much in common as Bond fans.....

 

 

Couldn't agree more.

Oh, I see: you have a ranking for how abysmal these Bond films are too, and DAD is the worst. To each his own. Well, with your love for such classics like Changing Lanes, Windtalkers, Collateral Damage or Analyze That you´re in a very exclusive club, regarding critics and box office....

[David_M]

 

 

This has been touched upon in previous comments, but I think most of the DAD hate comes from viewing the film out of context.

 

What kind of "context" does a film need?  It should have a beginning, middle and end, and thus create its own context.  I guess you could argue seeing it in 2015 would be to take it "out of context" somehow if you consider a film a reflection, or product, of the current zeitgeist, but I saw it the weekend it came out and hated it.  Indeed, in my case, the "context" that helps today is this:  I know it was merely the last and most egregious example of a downward trend that happily ended with th very next film. But it sure didn't seem that way at the time. So where in 2002 my dislike was driven largely by "I hate where the series is going," today I can look back and say, "Well, it didn't continue in that direction for long."  So it's tolerable viewing as a "blip" in history where originally I found it intolerable as "what Bond has become."

 

 

 

1. It was extremely popular when it came out, I remember seeing it with my family when it first came out and can attest that it was a crowd pleaser (did we mention that it had some implausible bits, yes, but it is a Bond film after all)

 

Well, I hated it, and that's all I cared about.  Lots of people like Justin Timberlake, too, but I don't get that, either.

 

 

 

2. CGI in 2002 was horrendous. If you don't believe me go back and watch one of the early LOTR films or the 2001 Spiderman, the graphics in those films doesn't stand up so well either. Filmmakers imagination were just ahead of the technology of the time.

 

 

Agree totally.  CGI sucked in 2002, but in my opinion if we the audience knew it, then "professional" filmmakers should have known it, too.  It was a dumb move to place so much importance on a technology that had not proven itself, with predictable results.

 

 

 

3. DAD was pretty much in line with what the audience was expecting up to this point from a Bond film. CR really was the first Bond film that broke from the formula that had been used for the 40 odd years before it. People wanted one-liners, gadgets, Bond Girls, exotic locations etc. Craig is a great Bond, but if you ignore the rules of space and time and give him Brosnan's films and vice-versa, I'm pretty sure everyone would still hate DAD just because it represents the last gasp of what had become a stale franchise.

 

 

Again, agreed.  The Brosnan era was all about "give the people what they want."  The films weren't so much created as they were assembled from a kit. Even Brosnan himself seems to have been picked by virtue of being a living amalgam of former Bond actors and thus the "safest" choice. 

 

That said, I also agree that the problem is not so much with Brosnan -- who's an adequate performer and could have been something special with the right material -- but with the creative team who consistently let him down.  And I also agree that DAD proved just how tired the formula had become.  Looking back, it's almost like Eon said, "You want the same old, same old? Well, here it is in spades.  Bet when this is over you're ready for a change!"

[stromberg]

Looking back, it's almost like Eon said, "You want the same old, same old? Well, here it is in spades.  Bet when this is over you're ready for a change!"

 

 

 

And fully agree with everything else in your post.

Thanks for saving a grumpy old man some typing time.

[AgentPB]

 

 

 

This has been touched upon in previous comments, but I think most of the DAD hate comes from viewing the film out of context.

 

What kind of "context" does a film need?  It should have a beginning, middle and end, and thus create its own context.  I guess you could argue seeing it in 2015 would be to take it "out of context" somehow if you consider a film a reflection, or product, of the current zeitgeist, but I saw it the weekend it came out and hated it.  Indeed, in my case, the "context" that helps today is this:  I know it was merely the last and most egregious example of a downward trend that happily ended with th very next film. But it sure didn't seem that way at the time. So where in 2002 my dislike was driven largely by "I hate where the series is going," today I can look back and say, "Well, it didn't continue in that direction for long."  So it's tolerable viewing as a "blip" in history where originally I found it intolerable as "what Bond has become."

Ha I think we are mostly agreeing with one another, except for the fact that I can forgive DAD for its faults and you seem to strongly dislike it regardless  . My point being that when DAD came out no one knew what direction the franchise would go in. I doubt that Casino Royale was even a twinkle in Michael and Bab's eye at the time. I'm not saying the formula wasn't tired by that point, but really that the audience didn't know any better, in that context I think DAD is as passable a Bond flick as any other (personal preferences aside, I mean if you look hard enough you'll find a fan of every film). What really sinks DAD is that the films that followed broke so strongly from tradition, you can't put that genie back in the bottle.

[Skylla]

All very true. But I think it is unfair to compare DAD with the thrillers like FRWL, SF etc. Against the OTT films like YOLT, DAF or MR it is holding up very well. Even the much praised CR has a lot of the same, old same old....I would say everything after Goldfinger has been only slight variations of the first three films....The only thing missing in the canon is a true adaption of the Fleming books, but there is no way back to that I guess except with a miniseries on HBO with an Unknown who can act and looks like Archer....sh.t, I´m dreaming again.....    

[AMC Hornet]

 

Looking back, it's almost like Eon said, "You want the same old, same old? Well, here it is in spades.  Bet when this is over you're ready for a change!"

Right from the moment that much-despised bullet flew into the barrel of the opening logo, I understood that Barb & Mike were saying, "Yes, this is the twentieth film in a forty-year-old franchise and yes, you're in for more of the same, but we'll still be throwing you a few curves along the way."

 

It seems to me that it was the curves, rather than the sameness, that people objected to.

 

The first time I saw DAD I was just as jarred by the ramping zooms and slow-mo, but rather than cement a hate for it, I accepted that Tamahori was putting his own stamp on his film, and that it wouldn't last beyond his involvement.

 

I'd rather like a Bond film than hate it, so I'm willing to be forgiving. I even forgive CR for presenting a 38-year-old SBS commando as being too brash and impetuous to be trusted with a 00 licence (how old was Connery in Dr. No?).
 

[David_M]

 

 

Right from the moment that much-despised bullet flew into the barrel of the opening logo, I understood that Barb & Mike were saying, "Yes, this is the twentieth film in a forty-year-old franchise and yes, you're in for more of the same, but we'll still be throwing you a few curves along the way."

 

 

I don't see it as "curves" to just ramp everything up several notches.  I also wouldn't have considered it a "curve" if they added 3-D or pumped aromas into the theater. I wouldn't say I "despise" the bullet flying into the barrel, but I do consider it a cheap stunt (and thus, actually, fair warning of what's to come).  

 

Come to think of it, though, it doesn't make a lot of sense: if all Bond shoots is the other guy's gun, then where does the blood come from?

 

 

 

It seems to me that it was the curves, rather than the sameness, that people objected to.

 

For me, it's that the "curves" take us down the same road, albeit in the cartoon car from "Roger Rabbit".

 

As I said above, I loved the idea of Bond getting caught for once and NOT escaping.  I loved the sight of the once dapper Bond looking like a bearded, bedraggled bum but still cranking out the one-liners on "auto-pilot" (he seems startled out of a stupor when he gets a laugh from one wisecrack, like he's thinking, "Oh yeah, that was funny, wasn't it?") and I really liked it when he's put in front of the firing squad, looks for a that patented Bond miracle escape, finds none, and is resigned to his fate.  THOSE I consider curves.

 

Then, again as mentioned before, there's the moment where he drives off in a vintage car in Cuba with nothing but an old revolver and a book by some ornithologist guy, and it looks -- for the briefest of moments -- like we are going to get something special, like a movie where Bond survives by his wits, on his own and without a half-ton of silly gadgets.  Instead we get another tricked-out Aston Martin, another killer satellite, another foe with facial scars, another "female agent who's a match for Bond" (but isn't), deliberate homages to (or maybe just sneaky thefts from) DN, GF, TB, TSWLM, among others.  But yes, there are a few "innovations," like the bold new sport of tsunami-surfing, a death ray from space that moves at hundreds of miles an hour until Bond needs it to slow down long enough for him to convert a rocket car into a surfboard (and which blows up everything it touches except a plane full of jet fuel, luckily containing our hero).  Plus, there's the creative final battle between Luke and the Emperor.  I mean Bond and Graves. Which ends when Bond remembers the parachute trick from OP and then escapes from the plane like he saw Dalton do it in TLD.

 

I loved the old formula as much as the next fan, but DAD-era Bond was eating its own tail.

 

 

 

The first time I saw DAD I was just as jarred by the ramping zooms and slow-mo, but rather than cement a hate for it, I accepted that Tamahori was putting his own stamp on his film, and that it wouldn't last beyond his involvement.

 

That stuff I didn't mind.  Some of it I even liked, at the time, though I knew it would date as poorly as Roger's bell-bottoms.  But again, I put it in the "cute trick" category, as it adds nothing to the film other than shallow razzle-dazzle.

 

 

 

 

'd rather like a Bond film than hate it, so I'm willing to be forgiving. I even forgive CR for presenting a 38-year-old SBS commando as being too brash and impetuous to be trusted with a 00 licence (how old was Connery in Dr. No?).

 

 

I think we'd all rather like a Bond film than hate it, especially when we've paid money for it.  But we shouldn't have to lower our standards to enjoy something.

 

There's an interesting sentiment scattered throughout this thread that suggests some of us just dislike DAD because we're not "trying hard enough," or because we "have the wrong attitude."  Trust me, I don't want to dislike any film I spend 10 bucks and two hours on, and certainly not a Bond film.  And I think I am "forgiving," in the sense that I did not hold a grudge against Eon, did not write off Bond and did give the next film a chance.  I figure the occasional misfire is a small price to pay for all the hours of enjoyment I've gotten out of the franchise. Nobody hits a home run every time at bat. But if by "forgiving" you mean I'm willing to change my mind about all the things I didn't like in DAD and declare that in fact I now like them, just because it's Bond, well I guess in that case you can say I hold a grudge.  

[tdalton]

Brilliant post, David_M.  Couldn't agree more.  

[DaveBond21]

Yes, great post, David.

 

I was also enjoying it, up until Iceland, and then it all went downhill.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Skylla]

 

 

 

Right from the moment that much-despised bullet flew into the barrel of the opening logo, I understood that Barb & Mike were saying, "Yes, this is the twentieth film in a forty-year-old franchise and yes, you're in for more of the same, but we'll still be throwing you a few curves along the way."

 

 

I don't see it as "curves" to just ramp everything up several notches.  I also wouldn't have considered it a "curve" if they added 3-D or pumped aromas into the theater. I wouldn't say I "despise" the bullet flying into the barrel, but I do consider it a cheap stunt (and thus, actually, fair warning of what's to come).  

 

Come to think of it, though, it doesn't make a lot of sense: if all Bond shoots is the other guy's gun, then where does the blood come from?

 

 

 

It seems to me that it was the curves, rather than the sameness, that people objected to.

 

For me, it's that the "curves" take us down the same road, albeit in the cartoon car from "Roger Rabbit".

 

As I said above, I loved the idea of Bond getting caught for once and NOT escaping.  I loved the sight of the once dapper Bond looking like a bearded, bedraggled bum but still cranking out the one-liners on "auto-pilot" (he seems startled out of a stupor when he gets a laugh from one wisecrack, like he's thinking, "Oh yeah, that was funny, wasn't it?") and I really liked it when he's put in front of the firing squad, looks for a that patented Bond miracle escape, finds none, and is resigned to his fate.  THOSE I consider curves.

 

Then, again as mentioned before, there's the moment where he drives off in a vintage car in Cuba with nothing but an old revolver and a book by some ornithologist guy, and it looks -- for the briefest of moments -- like we are going to get something special, like a movie where Bond survives by his wits, on his own and without a half-ton of silly gadgets.  Instead we get another tricked-out Aston Martin, another killer satellite, another foe with facial scars, another "female agent who's a match for Bond" (but isn't), deliberate homages to (or maybe just sneaky thefts from) DN, GF, TB, TSWLM, among others.  But yes, there are a few "innovations," like the bold new sport of tsunami-surfing, a death ray from space that moves at hundreds of miles an hour until Bond needs it to slow down long enough for him to convert a rocket car into a surfboard (and which blows up everything it touches except a plane full of jet fuel, luckily containing our hero).  Plus, there's the creative final battle between Luke and the Emperor.  I mean Bond and Graves. Which ends when Bond remembers the parachute trick from OP and then escapes from the plane like he saw Dalton do it in TLD.

 

I loved the old formula as much as the next fan, but DAD-era Bond was eating its own tail.

 

 

 

The first time I saw DAD I was just as jarred by the ramping zooms and slow-mo, but rather than cement a hate for it, I accepted that Tamahori was putting his own stamp on his film, and that it wouldn't last beyond his involvement.

 

That stuff I didn't mind.  Some of it I even liked, at the time, though I knew it would date as poorly as Roger's bell-bottoms.  But again, I put it in the "cute trick" category, as it adds nothing to the film other than shallow razzle-dazzle.

 

 

 

 

'd rather like a Bond film than hate it, so I'm willing to be forgiving. I even forgive CR for presenting a 38-year-old SBS commando as being too brash and impetuous to be trusted with a 00 licence (how old was Connery in Dr. No?).

 

 

I think we'd all rather like a Bond film than hate it, especially when we've paid money for it.  But we shouldn't have to lower our standards to enjoy something.

 

There's an interesting sentiment scattered throughout this thread that suggests some of us just dislike DAD because we're not "trying hard enough," or because we "have the wrong attitude."  Trust me, I don't want to dislike any film I spend 10 bucks and two hours on, and certainly not a Bond film.  And I think I am "forgiving," in the sense that I did not hold a grudge against Eon, did not write off Bond and did give the next film a chance.  I figure the occasional misfire is a small price to pay for all the hours of enjoyment I've gotten out of the franchise. Nobody hits a home run every time at bat. But if by "forgiving" you mean I'm willing to change my mind about all the things I didn't like in DAD and declare that in fact I now like them, just because it's Bond, well I guess in that case you can say I hold a grudge.  

 

Yes, but everything comes down to personal favors. Bashing DAD because it´s not so whiny like SF or bashing QOS because it has to much fast cut action for your taste and so on should be left for paid critics. You always lower your standards if you really like something.

With Connery you overlook the low budget at the beginning because it what something new with great performances. At the end you forgive him his performances for the bombast they put on screen. Lazenby you forgive his performance, the kilt and the missing connection with Rigg because he´s in the film closest to Flemings novels. Roger Moore you forgive everything because he could deliver every line and he had the best action stunts. Dalton was no ladies man, couldn´t deliver an oneliner and the haircut in LTK? Brosnan had some pretty bad scripts with pushed him into overacting sometimes but he was perfect in the good parts of his films. And Craig? With this "we make it Nolan style" they took so much fun out of it, Bond is angry or miserable most of the time, but that he can deliver like no other. "

 

As a Bond fan there should be redeeming qualities in every film of the franchise because what we like most is the character Bond and he was the man in every film.....   

[David_M]

 

 

Bashing DAD because it´s not so whiny like SF or bashing QOS because it has to much fast cut action for your taste and so on should be left for paid critics. 

 

If that's the basis of their critiques, then they shouldn't be paid critics. Or at least not well-paid ones.

 

But to your larger point, I obviously disagree.  Everyone who sees a film has a right to an opinion about it.  And if you're going to allow opinions, you have to be ready for negative ones.  And if we don't talk about DAD and QoS here in 2015, who will?  Like most films, they were only interesting to critics when they were in the theater (if then) and it's a cinch they'll never come up in a film school course.  So it's up to us to discuss them; we're the only ones they matter to at all.  And we won't all of us like every one of them.

 

 

 

You always lower your standards if you really like something.

 

I think I follow your meaning, but I disagree with your phrasing.  I agree all the Bond films -- yes, every one of them -- have problems to one degree or other, but with some of them we're having so much fun we don't notice those problems til later, and even then sometimes we still don't care (which I think is your point).  On the other hand, sometimes the magic just doesn't happen, things do not click for us and then every problem just grates on us, piling one of top of the other until they're all we can see, because we're not having fun.  For me, DAD falls into the latter category, though I am more than willing to admit this is entirely subjective and others no doubt love the film, and more power to them.

 

My point is, when you really like something, you don't have to lower your standards, because your standards are met.  My standard is not, "this must be perfect," but rather, "I should be so entertained I don't care about the flaws."  Where I draw the line will not be where someone else does, and that's fine.  But I reserve the right to have an opinion.

 

Or put another way, if a (sane) man is happily married, he doesn't say, "Dear wife, you are a loyal and true friend, a wonderful mother to my children, a great lover and you always have my back...but I am deeply disappointed you don't have sexier legs."  Similarly, if a man is unhappily married, he is unlikely to say, "Wife, you are never there for me, you always put me down, you are unfaithful and I'm pretty sure you beat the kids when I'm not around.  But on the plus side, you make the world's best chicken tetrazzini."   

 

 

 

With Connery you overlook the low budget at the beginning because it what something new with great performances. At the end you forgive him his performances for the bombast they put on screen. Lazenby you forgive his performance, the kilt and the missing connection with Rigg because he´s in the film closest to Flemings novels. Roger Moore you forgive everything because he could deliver every line and he had the best action stunts. Dalton was no ladies man, couldn´t deliver an oneliner and the haircut in LTK? Brosnan had some pretty bad scripts with pushed him into overacting sometimes but he was perfect in the good parts of his films. And Craig? With this "we make it Nolan style" they took so much fun out of it, Bond is angry or miserable most of the time, but that he can deliver like no other. "

 

So basically you're saying everyone can be forgiven their flaws except Dalton and...if I'm reading it right...Craig.  Got it.

 

 

 

As a Bond fan there should be redeeming qualities in every film of the franchise because what we like most is the character Bond and he was the man in every film.....   

 

Well, I think we all agree there should be redeeming qualities in every film, yes.  We just don't all agree whether there are. (As I've said, I think there are good elements to DAD, but for me they don't redeem it).

 

Also, one of the most common complaints about any number of entries is that they are not, in fact, Bond, at least as the complainer defines Bond.  Any time fans have a problem with one film or another, they say, "That's not Bond."  Which isn't that surprising as Bond is, indeed, different things to different people, depending on how your tastes run and, often, when you jumped on the Bondwagon.  It's hard to imagine Craig in MR, or Moore in QoS, or Connery in DAD, or Brosnan in DN.  We all have our preferences, and that's as it should be. 

[tdalton]

Another brilliant post, David_M. 

[jamie00007]

DAD's redeeming qualities are.. few and far between. The movie really is like everything I hated about late 90's, early 00s action movies squeezed into one film. But anyway:

 

- Brosnan as Bond. By far his best turn as 007. He gives a breezy, relaxed and confident performance (stark contrast to TWINE) and he really took ownership of the role. I was never the biggest Brosnan fan, but DAD sold me on him and I would have been completely happy to see him continue in the role after DAD, provided the movies were better. Although I love Craig, its still kind of a shame that we couldnt have seen Brosnan in one more good film, it felt he was dumped just as he came into his own.

 

- The scenes in the Hong Kong hotel. 

 

- Everything in Cuba that doesnt feature Jinx. I particularly enjoyed Bond knocking out that obnoxious tourist and using him as a cover to get into the hospital. 

 

- The car chase on the ice. 

 

- Toby Stephens was enjoyable to watch. The villain was dumb, but Stephens was good.

 

- The fencing scene. Kind of stretching to find redeeming qualities here as I find the whole scene kind of stupid, but I will say that the fight choreography was excellent.

Edited by jamie00007, 31 March 2015 - 09:32 PM.

[tdalton]

DAD's redeeming qualities are.. few and far between. The movie really is like everything I hated about late 90's, early 00s action movies squeezed into one film. But anyway:

 

- Brosnan as Bond. By far his best turn as 007. He gives a breezy, relaxed and confident performance (stark contrast to TWINE) and he really took ownership of the role. I was never the biggest Brosnan fan, but DAD sold me on him and I would have been completely happy to see him continue in the role after DAD, provided the movies were better. Although I love Craig, its still kind of a shame that we couldnt have seen Brosnan in one more good film, it felt he was dumped just as he came into his own.

 

- The scenes in the Hong Kong hotel. 

 

- Everything in Cuba that doesnt feature Jinx. I particularly enjoyed Bond knocking out that obnoxious tourist and using him as a cover to get into the hospital. 

 

- The car chase on the ice. 

 

- Toby Stephens was enjoyable to watch. The villain was dumb, but Stephens was good.

 

- The fencing scene. Kind of stretching to find redeeming qualities here as I find the whole scene kind of stupid, but I will say that the fight choreography was excellent.

 

Some good choices there.  

 

I think, if I had to come up with a list of highlights from Die Another Day, they would be:

 

• Kenneth Tsang- He really is the highlight of the film.  There are a lot of well-known and very good actors in Die Another Day, but Tsang is the only one that consistently does good work throughout the film.
• Pierce Brosnan- As you said, a solid performance as Bond.  Shame he's let down by everything else around him.
• Cuba (minus Jinx)- The Cuba scenes that don't feature Jinx are fun, even if they lack a certain amount of depth or subtlety.
• Hong Kong- Bearded and dripping wet, Bond still owns the place.  Good fun.
• The Prisoner Exchange- Actually one of the best moments the series had had in a while at that point.  

Sadly, though, these things are swallowed up by the disaster that the rest of the film is.  The rest of the film is just one homage after the other, all strung together into something that vaguely represents a coherent story.