56 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

In 2002, the James Bond film series celebrated its 40th anniversary with a 20th entry that stands as a dazzling "greatest hits" collection of all that's wonderful about the world of 007, as well as a fresh take on the Bond formula pointing the way forward for subsequent blockbusters.

The stakes were high. DIE ANOTHER DAY's predecessor, THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, seemed at first glance to have been made with all the right ideas and intentions, and should have worked. But it didn't: it fell flat. Very flat. The chief reason, I think, was that the filmmakers didn't really know what sort of Bond picture they wanted to make, and tried to come up with something they felt would please everyone. For the Fleming diehards, they incorporated a woman who severed part of her own ear (albeit offscreen, for which there is no other emotion than gratitude), while for those whose ideal Bond adventure is lighthearted, fun-for-all-the-family burlesque, there was the usual saucy banter with Moneypenny, and John Cleese getting his lab coat stuck in a car door.

The obligation the filmmakers evidently felt to "play to the gallery" every so often (conflicting with director Michael Apted's publicly stated aim to make a relatively "serious" and "believable" Bond outing) resulted in a movie with jarring shifts in tone, which played like several people's competing ideas of a Bond movie thrown uneasily together.

DAD could so easily have been TWINE Mark II. The same writers were on board, who had overcooked the story so horribly last time (as if to make up for which blunder, the story of DAD is as simple as they come). Once again, the producers hired a "classy" director (Lee Tamahori, best known for the acclaimed, downbeat drama ONCE WERE WARRIORS). Once more, there were multiple villains. And then there was the anniversary to deal with, which led to a conscious decision to stuff DAD with nods and winks to the past. And of course, there was as ever the question of how to top the previous film in thrills and spills (and start 007's 21st century adventures with a bang), resulting in a massively increased quotient of gadgetry, gizmos and the sort of over-the-top "sci-fi" elements not seen since MOONRAKER nearly a quarter of a century earlier. As well as all this outrageous campy hokum (out of which the piss was taken royally by AUSTIN POWERS IN GOLDMEMBER, which hit cinemas some six months before DAD), DAD also promised, for those who like their Bond movies gritty, to put a bloody, bedraggled and bearded 007 in the nastiest position 40 years of cinema had ever seen him in.

In short, DAD bore all the hallmarks of a Bond film that could have gone horribly out of control. As was not the case with TWINE, though, the filmmakers seem to have had a pretty decent grip on the material and knew where they wanted to take it.

In DAD, they created a wonderful "popcorn movie"

[Agent 76]

two words Loomis: Great Review!

Must say I enjoyed reading it , makes me look at D.A.D another way.

[[dark]]

Wonderful read, Loomis!

As a Die Another Day fan [albeit a The World Is Not Enough one, too], it's delightful - and refreshing around here - to see a well-argued positive statement about the film, with which I couldn't agree more.

Die Another Day is, in my opinion, alongside GoldenEye as the best of the Brosnan era, and it's, again, in my opinion, up there with the greats of the whole series: The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, Goldfinger. It has something for everyone.

By-the-by, I love the AICN quote. Perfectly captures the tone of that scene.

One thing I'd like your opinion of, however, is Brosnan's performance [and the others', why not] in the film, seeing as you're more than willing to see him depart the series before the next entry.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

Top stuff as usual there, Loomis.

Even though I disagree with a lot of it.

One huge problem I had with DAD was the torture for 14 months. Save for a flashback aboard the ship and a mention to Jinx in bed, this part of the film, which could have been played off of brilliantly, is just put aside and almost completely disregarded for the rest of the film. I loved the idea of him actually being captured and tortured, though.

Still, you've made a good argument there.

[Harmsway]

[quote name='Loomis' date='3 July 2004 - 17:58'] In 2002, the James Bond film series celebrated its 40th anniversary with a 20th entry that stands as a dazzling "greatest hits" collection of all that's wonderful about the world of 007, as well as a fresh take on the Bond formula pointing the way forward for subsequent blockbusters.

The stakes were high. DIE ANOTHER DAY's predecessor, THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, seemed at first glance to have been made with all the right ideas and intentions, and should have worked. But it didn't: it fell flat. Very flat. The chief reason, I think, was that the filmmakers didn't really know what sort of Bond picture they wanted to make, and tried to come up with something they felt would please everyone. For the Fleming diehards, they incorporated a woman who severed part of her own ear (albeit offscreen, for which there is no other emotion than gratitude), while for those whose ideal Bond adventure is lighthearted, fun-for-all-the-family burlesque, there was the usual saucy banter with Moneypenny, and John Cleese getting his lab coat stuck in a car door.

The obligation the filmmakers evidently felt to "play to the gallery" every so often (conflicting with director Michael Apted's publicly stated aim to make a relatively "serious" and "believable" Bond outing) resulted in a movie with jarring shifts in tone, which played like several people's competing ideas of a Bond movie thrown uneasily together. 

DAD could so easily have been TWINE Mark II. The same writers were on board, who had overcooked the story so horribly last time (as if to make up for which blunder, the story of DAD is as simple as they come). Once again, the producers hired a "classy" director (Lee Tamahori, best known for the acclaimed, downbeat drama ONCE WERE WARRIORS). Once more, there were multiple villains. And then there was the anniversary to deal with, which led to a conscious decision to stuff DAD with nods and winks to the past. And of course, there was as ever the question of how to top the previous film in thrills and spills (and start 007's 21st century adventures with a bang), resulting in a massively increased quotient of gadgetry, gizmos and the sort of over-the-top "sci-fi" elements not seen since MOONRAKER nearly a quarter of a century earlier. As well as all this outrageous campy hokum (out of which the piss was taken royally by AUSTIN POWERS IN GOLDMEMBER, which hit cinemas some six months before DAD), DAD also promised, for those who like their Bond movies gritty, to put a bloody, bedraggled and bearded 007 in the nastiest position 40 years of cinema had ever seen him in.

In short, DAD bore all the hallmarks of a Bond film that could have gone horribly out of control. As was not the case with TWINE, though, the filmmakers seem to have had a pretty decent grip on the material and knew where they wanted to take it.

In DAD, they created a wonderful "popcorn movie"

Edited by Harmsway, 04 July 2004 - 02:49 AM.

[Qwerty]

Very good review Loomis! I like the film alot, it's just sometimes easy to be harsh when pointing out some of it's flaws.

It is indeed a fun, cool, slick film, although I wouldn't say that some previous Bond films weren't also.

Always nice and refreshing to hear some good reviews on Die Another Day.

[Simon]

Good review that fella.

Inclined to agree with most of that - it certainly seemed more focused in terms of where it wanted to go than TWINE, for which it should be applauded.

[Bond_Bishop]

Great review, I also likes Die Another Day very much the first part of the film is classic, the other much of CGI crap. But let say 75 % of the movie is great. Even though I didn't liked Wagner's editing all those Slow Motion scenes and the speed up scenes are irretating hope MGM finds another one to edit Bond 22 because Wagner is back on Bond 21. Myself I give Die Another Day a 7,5 of 10

[Loomis]

,4 July 2004 - 00:51] One thing I'd like your opinion of, however, is Brosnan's performance [and the others', why not] in the film, seeing as you're more than willing to see him depart the series before the next entry.

Brosnan is great in DAD. For me, he makes ridiculously heavy weather of it TWINE, but in DAD he's more relaxed. He's at his best when being more "Moore" than "Connery" (although he'd probably far rather be spoken of in the same breath as Connery than in the same breath as Moore). While he's very good in parts of GOLDENEYE and TND, he brings more charisma to the table than ever before in DAD. Like I say, DAD makes Bond cool again, and much of the credit for that should go to Brosnan.

However, I'm ready to see a new Bond actor. DAD's a great ending for the Brosnan era. Time for someone like Jackman or Owen now.

The others:

Halle Berry - an excellent choice for Jinx, and, IMO, robbed of first billing (it ought to have read: "ALBERT R. BROCCOLI'S EON PRODUCTIONS Presents HALLE BERRY and PIERCE BROSNAN as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in...."). Not given much to work with, admittedly, but her star quality still shines through. She and Brosnan play very well together. Disappointed that the Jinx film was cancelled.

Toby Stephens - has real fun with the Graves role, and more than holds his own alongside the much older Brosnan. Definitely one of the better Bond villains.

Rosamund Pike - something of an underwritten role, but Pike acquits herself. A more memorable performance than was given by either of the leading Bond girls in TWINE.

Rick Yune - very good indeed. As has been written elsewhere, he manages to make Zao sympathetic to an extent, playing him not as a monster but as a soldier just trying to defend his country as best he can. Not bad going when you consider what Zao looks like for much of the film, to bring a little humanity forth from that.

Judi Dench - never been a fan of Dench's M, but at least she's nowhere near as annoying as in TWINE. Good work with Brosnan in the "abandoned station for abandoned agents".

John Cleese - see my original post in this thread.

Michael Madsen - a terrific actor sadly underused, but he certainly doesn't put a foot wrong in DAD.

Will Yun Lee - see above comment on Madsen. It's a real shame that Lee has so little screentime, since I reckon his take on Colonel Moon could have been something really special. Even from the pre-credits sequence, it's obvious that Lee has talent in spades and really nailed the part of the main Bond villain.

Kenneth Tsang - good actor in a good supporting role, putting a human face on the North Korean leadership without being too mawkish.

Emilio Echevarria - funnily enough, I think Raoul (or Raul, as it may be) is one of the creepiest characters in DAD (not sure whether he was actually intended as such, though - may just be my own interpretation). He's in it totally for himself (unlike anyone else), a chancer and "cowboy capitalist" who doesn't give a damn about the Revolution. Of course, he helps Bond, but really only because he has little choice, and he's not really bad, as such (as far as we know, anyway). Echevarria succeeds in creating a complex, morally ambiguous character. A nice performance.

Mikhail Gorevoy - does a Bond film really deserve supporting actors of this quality? The brilliant scientist from the former USSR/eastern Europe/Commie world who whores his skills to the highest criminal bidder has been a staple of the Bond series since THUNDERBALL (or maybe FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE or GOLDFINGER), but DAD marks the first time that an actor has brought personality to this thankless role. To put him within the context of the Brosnan era, Vlad is essentially Graves' Boris Grishenko, but Gorevoy doesn't chew the scenery like Alan (ETA: whoops, gonna have to spell this out: C-U-M-M-I-N-G). Instead, he gives a quietly likeable and human turn as a minor villain whom by rights we shouldn't even notice. Great stuff.

[Loomis]

Just one more question: what did you think of the finale?

Love it. I don't see anything wrong with it at all, and I really wonder why many Bond fans seem to think a commando assault on an indoor beach would have been an improvement. Since when have Bond and the leading lady jumped (literally) onto the world's largest plane at a military base in Pyongyang, taken part in punchups and swordfights while an outer space death ray blasts the DMZ, and then made their escape by plummeting helicopter as luxury cars fly around them? Great action and effects, and I really love the image of the sports cars embedded in the paddy field - seems a nice little comic touch particularly appropriate to a Bond film.

[Qwerty]

Just one more question: what did you think of the finale?

Love it. I don't see anything wrong with it at all, and I really wonder why many Bond fans seem to think a commando assault on an indoor beach would have been an improvement. Since when have Bond and the leading lady jumped (literally) onto the world's largest plane at a military base in Pyongyang, taken part in punchups and swordfights while an outer space death ray blasts the DMZ, and then made their escape by plummeting helicopter as luxury cars fly around them? Great action and effects, and I really love the image of the sports cars embedded in the paddy field - seems a nice little comic touch particularly appropriate to a Bond film.

A commando assault on the beach would have been an improvement because it would have opened the actual size of the finale up more. This may be a personal gripe of mine, but the very closed spaces for finales in The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day just do not do it for me, whereas there have been the monumental finales in Tomorrow Never Dies, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, etc..

I find the Antonov to be a rather bland way to finish off this, in my opinion, very good Bond film. Just kind of gets a sour note at the end. Graves little torture suit is not what I would expect from a villain, and seeing Bond with little shocks running all through him, shaking...eh, just not totally Bond.

Ah well, you've made many great points about this very good Bond film. I just wish the finale served it better.

[Harmsway]

Just one more question: what did you think of the finale?

Love it. I don't see anything wrong with it at all, and I really wonder why many Bond fans seem to think a commando assault on an indoor beach would have been an improvement. Since when have Bond and the leading lady jumped (literally) onto the world's largest plane at a military base in Pyongyang, taken part in punchups and swordfights while an outer space death ray blasts the DMZ, and then made their escape by plummeting helicopter as luxury cars fly around them? Great action and effects, and I really love the image of the sports cars embedded in the paddy field - seems a nice little comic touch particularly appropriate to a Bond film.

A commando assault on the beach would have been an improvement because it would have opened the actual size of the finale up more. This may be a personal gripe of mine, but the very closed spaces for finales in The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day just do not do it for me, whereas there have been the monumental finales in Tomorrow Never Dies, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, etc..

I find the Antonov to be a rather bland way to finish off this, in my opinion, very good Bond film. Just kind of gets a sour note at the end. Graves little torture suit is not what I would expect from a villain, and seeing Bond with little shocks running all through him, shaking...eh, just not totally Bond.

Ah well, you've made many great points about this very good Bond film. I just wish the finale served it better.

My feelings exactly. But on the whole, Loomis, it's a great article that makes some excellent points. DAD really does make Bond "cool" again, even if it's not the perfect Bond film.

[SPECTRE ASSASSIN]

A great review, Loomis!

Even though I dislike DAD, I can respect your opinion about the film.

[Qwerty]

Emilio Echevarria - funnily enough, I think Raoul (or Raul, as it may be) is one of the creepiest characters in DAD (not sure whether he was actually intended as such, though - may just be my own interpretation). He's in it totally for himself (unlike anyone else), a chancer and "cowboy capitalist" who doesn't give a damn about the Revolution. Of course, he helps Bond, but really only because he has little choice, and he's not really bad, as such (as far as we know, anyway). Echevarria succeeds in creating a complex, morally ambiguous character. A nice performance.

Just as a note of sorts on Echevarria, while he does come off as indeed a 'nice performance' as Raoul, I don't think he receieved any near amount of the screentime to make him more memorable. I just think he won't be one of the better known allies in 20 years from now.

[Seannery]

Loomis I like your epic review and agree with you essential point that DAD is a great Bond flick and very much underrated by Bond "purists". Just great fun and like you say a fine popcorn flick. I think this is Pierce's Octopussy--tremendous throw in the sink fun. And I agree Goldeneye number one and then DAD. Though his other two are slightly below those two gems I still esteem them more than you do. Bond should be about fun and larger than life first and DAD does that with panache. And I see no problem with the all out ending that others do.

Edited by Seannery, 06 July 2004 - 03:24 PM.

[Glor (009)]

A solid review. I think if you leave out the Kite Surfing scene and the Sleep Mask or whatever that pointless contraption was and the Star Wars suit, it makes for a better film. I think it would have been nice if Will Yun Lee could have had more screen time. It would have made the scene where Moon/Graves kills his father more "real". There wasn't much of a connection there as it was and the Icarus suit pretty much killed the seriousness of the film the whole time he had it on. How can you take a guy seriously when he looks like a kid in a Robocop costume?

I really like DAD, I just hated the kitesurfing scene. I really can't say that enough. It was truly the most horrible scene I've ever seen. MIB2 was more realistic. I did like the escape from the Antonov even though once it lost a wing it should have spiraled straight into the ground rather than soaring downward.

[1q2w3e4r]

Im watching this now. It's terrible. The first act is good enough, but I stand by what i've always thought, it falls desperatly apart in the second act. I actually think Halle might be doing a parady of the series. There's no way an oscar winner can be this bad unless it's deliberate.

The car chase is on now, it's pretty terrible actually all that area why did the cars have to be overly tricked out. I can't stand this adaptive camaflage either. Sorry to moan, but the first half had so most potential. Well Moonraker did.

[Qwerty]

I watched it last night, seeing it had been one I hadn't seen in a bit. If forced to choose, yes the second half is the worse of the two parts. But there really isn't anything in the second half that is that bad except for the finale.

Halle Berry seems to be okay as Jinx, I'm not crazy about her, but some of her scenes are quite good. Such as the meeting in the Ice Palace, braking into Graves biodomes, but it's things like her overdone joke infested whining during the laser fight that bring her down at times.

Ah well, it's a fun Bond flick. Gotta give it that.

[Jim]

But there really isn't anything in the second half that is that bad except for the finale.

Given that this is pretty much the second half, that's a bit of a backhanded compliment.

There's an awful lot of revisionism going on here; true, the second bit of this awful, awful film collapses and in comparison it makes the first half shine but then the first half taken by itself isn't up to par either; so many loose threads just bunged in, an utter lack of cohesion and anything approaching sense. Don't forget that the encounter between Bond and Jinx in the beachfront bar, with its unique direlogue, is in the first half.

[Qwerty]

Given that this is pretty much the second half, that's a bit of a backhanded compliment.

Hmm, I don't think so. I'd say for me at least, the finale begins with the fighting aborad the droll and bland Antonov plane. The second half has some better scenes in the Aston Martin chase, and the previous chase with Icarus. Save for CGI of course.

[Jim]

Hmm, I don't think so. I'd say for me at least, the finale begins with the fighting aborad the droll and bland Antonov plane. The second half has some better scenes in the Aston Martin chase, and the previous chase with Icarus. Save for CGI of course.

So it's the finale and the CGI surfy thingy, then? Anything else?

[Qwerty]

Hmm, I don't think so. I'd say for me at least, the finale begins with the fighting aborad the droll and bland Antonov plane. The second half has some better scenes in the Aston Martin chase, and the previous chase with Icarus. Save for CGI of course.

So it's the finale and the CGI surfy thingy, then? Anything else?

The worst part of the second half is the finale and the CGI. That's what I think.

[Janus Assassin]

I never did care much for the end of DAD, they did it quite well, its that the assault on the beach thing would have been better because I think it could have harked back to the classic films such as GF, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, TSLWM, MR, OP, and TLD. I'm glad that Tamohori wont be back for Bond 21 because he took the original plans which would have made the film better and altered them his way and the results were unsatisfactory. P&W wrote a good script, but lets say they had Martin Campbell directing, DAD would have been a better film.

[Qwerty]

I never did care much for the end of DAD, they did it quite well, its that the assault on the beach thing would have been better because I think it could have harked back to the classic films such as GF, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, TSLWM, MR, OP, and TLD. I'm glad that Tamohori wont be back for Bond 21 because he took the original plans which would have made the film better and altered them his way and the results were unsatisfactory. P&W wrote a good script, but lets say they had Martin Campbell directing, DAD would have been a better film.

I'm all for the beach scene also, Janus Assassin. Even if it doesn't sound as good as it could be, I don't think it could be worse than the Antonov. While the problems according to many varied between the director and writers. I'd say if P & W had devloped that script alot more, explaining things further, it would have been better.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Loomis, very beautifully written review but the films still sucks, IMHO! It's the worst Bond movie ever and one of the worst movies of the 21st centry!


Now, bring on Bond's newest and unfortunately superior rival:Jason Bourne.

[Qwerty]

Now, bring on Bond's newest and unfortunately superior rival:Jason Bourne.

Hardly. Seems to be a rival more fitting against the Mission Impossible "series". Not until they get more going with the Bourne films and Damon.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Bourne:Smarter, more interesting stories than Modern Bond films. I'd say it's a rival to the current regime. The public clearly wants to see realistic spy stories and I don't mean the MI garbage.

[Qwerty]

Bourne:Smarter, more interesting stories than Modern Bond films. I'd say it's a rival to the current regime. The public clearly wants to see realistic spy stories and I don't mean the MI garbage.

Well perhaps that will change around a bit, if Brosnan eventually leaves the role. (Not that I want him to), and they introduce some new ideas.

[Brix Bond]

As much as I don't want to acknowledge Die Another Day as being on of the worst Bond films on record, I'm afraid that I have to. Therefore there is a lot about your review that I don't agree with.

However, that is not to say that you don't raise some very valid points, for example the fencing scene is one of the greatest fight scenes in the series, possibly rivalling the Red Grant fight. The moody nature of Korea and the very Fleming-esque travelogue of Cuba could be interpreted as Brosnan's most successful attempt at portraying the Fleming Bond, although I feel that his take on the part will always deny him that title however hard he tries. Never-the-less your point remains vaild.

Unfortunatly I get the impression that your review is rather selective. I noticed that you chose to hype up the good parts but then shy away from the things that were really wrong with the film and you have to admit that the film does have serious flaws and it does pale in comparison to the standard of the films at the height of Bondmania. To call it Bond at his best isn't accurate because there is so much wrong with Die Another Day that I feel like I can't sit back and agree with your claim.

• The dialogue is atrociously bad
• The CGI is incredibly poor
• Halle Berry is awful despite being a good actress
• The end is both boring and ludicrous
• A simple plot is not necessarily a good thing

...and so on.

I don't mean to come across as being highly critical but I realise it may read like that. As I said, I whole-heartedly agree with quite a few of your points but I also think that the review does have a lot of bias towards a film that is seriously lacking. It isn't the worst because there are a number of plus points but it isn't Bond at his best.

[Qwerty]

And I can't understand why Eon/MGM is so ok with letting everyone else be Bond.

The trend that started with the Bond girls being called Bond women. Something mentioned during the production of Tomorrow Never Dies I believe. It's fine when it is clearly the case of a Bond girl/woman trying to be somewhat of an equal of 007 in the film and not overdoing it and becoming annoying. Something that I've always felt the character of Wai Lin accomplished, but Jinx went a little too far.