183 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Awesome then, awesome now.

One of the best Bond outings ever, in fact.

[HH007]

Vote people, make your lack of a voice be heard!

[00Twelve]

Loved it upon release, but its legs were substantially palsy-ridden. It got old really quickly. Still comes out higher than TWINE for including the "Where are the homages?" game.

[Emma]

I voted awesome then. Okay now.

[Judo chop]

I can't quite put my finger on it, but the poll seems just a little tailored to ensure Jim's personal view emerges as the popular vote.



"Ok then, ok now" is how I vote. C'mon CBn! PROVE ME SMARTER THAN JIM!!!

<Judo ducks as a flying redbar goes whizzing overhead>

[Jim]

I can't quite put my finger on it, but the poll seems just a little tailored to ensure Jim's personal view emerges as the popular vote.



"Ok then, ok now" is how I vote. C'mon CBn! PROVE ME SMARTER THAN JIM!!!

<Judo ducks as a flying redbar goes whizzing overhead>

Well, I am looking forward to establishing the identity of anyone per-lumping for "sucked then, awesome now" and exposing them to public ridicule.

And I am a dog.

[killkenny kid]

It was just ok then, and now that we have Craig. I can live with it again, so I guess it's still ok.

[DamnCoffee]

"Awesome then, sucks now" for me.

[HH007]

"Awesome then, sucks now" for me.

Wow, I figured you for "Humanity's bleakest moment."

[Santa]

No, that was me.
I mean, I personally wasn't humanity's bleakest moment, but I voted for it. You know what I mean.

[Harmsway]

DIE ANOTHER DAY is a film I've had a roller coaster relationship with.

I left the movie theater deflated (and I'd been quite excited since it seemed a solid return to Bondian grandeur), and came back to CB.n shocked at some of the positive reactions.

On repeat viewings, I managed to like it more for what it had to offer, but these days, I can't find a whole lot of love for it. I have to say that there is very little of worth in DIE ANOTHER DAY.

[dee-bee-five]

Liked it in 2002, but didn't think it was anywhere near the best.
Still like it in 2008 and don't think it's anywhere near as bad as some will have us believe.

[Trident]

I've voted

OK then, sucks now

But it really was more like

OK the first hour, began to suck onwards


It was really with mild surprise that I found myself to dislike DAD while I first saw it in spite of it having practically everything that a Bond flick calls for (and in vast amounts). An established actor in the lead comfortably settled in his role. Two leading ladies that I really liked (In fact I'd still give my right leg for an evening with Rosamund Pike whom I simply adore. And my Mini Cooper for a meet-and-greet with Halle Berry; don't laugh!!! ). The plot was losely based on one of my favourite Fleming books MR and the villain was an estimated 6000 percent more evil, sadistic and dangerous (IMHO) than that pathetic Carver figure or the Stockholm-syndrome driven Sophie Marceau. Bond was captured and tortured for a considerable time and the effects of this really showed in Brosnan's features. Hair-raising action, ultra-close shaves, sex, violence, explosions, tailored guns and high-power cloths, invisible CGI and invincible cars (or vice versa?), daring stunts performed by the actors themselves (Brosnan actually smoking a cigar! No stunt double! Berry actually wearing that wicked bikini! Had they only hired a bikini-double would have prevented several heart failures during that scene. I've seen middle aged men leaving the cinema on strechers!).

In other words DAD was what I seemingly have waited for for more than a decade. So how come I still left the cinema with the distinct feeling of frustration? What was it that the film lacked???

To find out I went to see it again the next day. Only to feel fed up after the first 15 minutes or so. The answer was quite simple. This film didn't lack anything (in the formulaic sense) but instead it had too much of all the ingredients of a done-to-death recipe that has already failed to satisfy me and many others for quite some time. It was the Big-Mac-syndrome (no offense meant, McDonaldists!). After a certain point one simply doesn't feel satisfied anymore. And if pushed further one starts to feel considerably sick. That was the point I reached with DAD.

Suddenly Brosnan failed to convince me. No, he even failed to entertain me. Suddenly Berry, apart from her stunning physical presence, was nothing less than another pain in an expensive and embarrassing block buster that was best forgotten as soon as the lights went on again in the theater. Suddenly Pike was just a wasted talent in a multimillion dollar waste-of-time. Suddenly the car chase between Aston Martin and Jaguar turned into a Danger Mouse cartoon and Bond into Inspector Gadget. That was my DAD experience and I'm thankful that the Big-Mac-syndrome saw its end with DAD (Or at least I honestly hope so!!!). I don't own the DVD and didn't bother to rewatch it the last two times it was shown on TV.

Edited by Trident, 09 January 2008 - 08:17 PM.

[Safari Suit]

I felt ill the first time I watched it!


But that had nothing to do with the film.
OK then, OK now.

[Loomis]

Y'know, I don't mind people not liking DAD (which is very generous of me, you'll agree), but I do wonder how those who slag it off manage to cope with the other Bond flicks, most of which are stuffed full of the same kind of claptrap.

[DaveBond21]

I don't think MHarkin and some of the other young members realise just how popular Brosnan was as James Bond.

I never heard anyone criticise him until 2003.

[Licence_007]

It raped my brain.

[sharpshooter]

I don't think MHarkin and some of the other young members realise just how popular Brosnan was as James Bond.

I never heard anyone criticise him until 2003.

Brosnan was the man. On Die Another Day, I loved it when I first saw it. I still like it, although my views had been tested by some negative viewpoints over the years.

[Major Tallon]

I thought the PTS was ok. All the talk about conflict diamonds was delivered pretty quickly, making it hard to figure out just what that was all about. The hovercraft fight, though not the most impressive things the Bonds have done, was original and well staged. I started feeling some disquiet upon seeing Bond's appearance at the handover scene. The beard apart, he looked awfully well fed for a guy who's been tortured for over a year.

But after that, the film just fell apart for me. Brosnan's delivery of some of the lines "("I just come here for the birds" and "Now there's a name to die for") was so lame that he obviously didn't take them seriously. The same is true of Berry's "I think I got the (ba-da-bang) THRUST of it." Worse, I didn't belive crucial sequences: the heart-stopping scene, the Hong Kong hotel, the Blades duel (competently done, but I just never believed that such a fight would be permitted in such a setting), the Cuban clinic (though I liked the cigar factory scene), or anything much that happened in Iceland. And the final Bond-Jinx scene was simply appalling.

That said, there are still some tolerable bits for me: I was impressed by the rapid pacing of the video game sequence, even though I didn't like the concept of a holodeck-style shooting gallery. I even liked parts of Halle Berry's character, and I'm not nearly as put off as some by her one street-slang reference.

Loomis asks a fair question: why criticize DAD when other Bond films don't get bashed nearly as much? My answer is that I like a film I can take seriously as an espionage thriller on at least some level. I know that many fans like a lighter style, and I can cope with that, and even enjoy some of it, as long as the jokes don't get in my way of finding a credible James Bond thriller in there someplace. So bring on the Tarzan yells, obediently sitting tigers, slide whistles, and Union Jack hot air balloons. I can chuckle at them and still enjoy the chases and the action being shown. But too much of DAD provoked in me the feeling that what I was seeing was mere comedy, and not good comedy, starting early and pervading most of the film. I can't really find much in it that I would classify as a spy thriller.

I'm sorry to keep blazing away at DAD. I really do enjoy James Bond movies, and I'd hoped to enjoy this one. The lingering bad taste this one gives me just reflects how much I felt let down.

[DaveBond21]

I thought the PTS was ok. All the talk about conflict diamonds was delivered pretty quickly, making it hard to figure out just what that was all about. The hovercraft fight, though not the most impressive things the Bonds have done, was original and well staged. I started feeling some disquiet upon seeing Bond's appearance at the handover scene. The beard apart, he looked awfully well fed for a guy who's been tortured for over a year.

But after that, the film just fell apart for me. Brosnan's delivery of some of the lines "("I just come here for the birds" and "Now there's a name to die for") was so lame that he obviously didn't take them seriously. The same is true of Berry's "I think I got the (ba-da-bang) THRUST of it." Worse, I didn't belive crucial sequences: the heart-stopping scene, the Hong Kong hotel, the Blades duel (competently done, but I just never believed that such a fight would be permitted in such a setting), the Cuban clinic (though I liked the cigar factory scene), or anything much that happened in Iceland. And the final Bond-Jinx scene was simply appalling.

That said, there are still some tolerable bits for me: I was impressed by the rapid pacing of the video game sequence, even though I didn't like the concept of a holodeck-style shooting gallery. I even liked parts of Halle Berry's character, and I'm not nearly as put off as some by her one street-slang reference.

Loomis asks a fair question: why criticize DAD when other Bond films don't get bashed nearly as much? My answer is that I like a film I can take seriously as an espionage thriller on at least some level. I know that many fans like a lighter style, and I can cope with that, and even enjoy some of it, as long as the jokes don't get in my way of finding a credible James Bond thriller in there someplace. So bring on the Tarzan yells, obediently sitting tigers, slide whistles, and Union Jack hot air balloons. I can chuckle at them and still enjoy the chases and the action being shown. But too much of DAD provoked in me the feeling that what I was seeing was mere comedy, and not good comedy, starting early and pervading most of the film. I can't really find much in it that I would classify as a spy thriller.

I'm sorry to keep blazing away at DAD. I really do enjoy James Bond movies, and I'd hoped to enjoy this one. The lingering bad taste this one gives me just reflects how much I felt let down.

I watch it every now and then, up until the point where we see Bond driving towards the Ice Hotel in Iceland and then I turn it off.

[ACE]

ICARUS SOARS

A new Bond film has a lot that can be criticized. Some fans see that as their job. If a Bond film does its job, I am lost in the moment and become a little boy again. Sure, I can pick it apart afterwards but then no film would survive such close inspection. And what would be the point? If I didn

[Turn]

When it first came out, I ranked DAD as Brosnan's best Bond outing. It began to slip some after my second viewing a couple of months later. Maybe I was just on that high of having another Bond movie after that interminable three-year wait.

I still don't mind it, although having watched it several times on DVD and cable since has led me to see the flaws more glaringly each time. I keep it very firmly in the middle of the pack.

As Loomis said, I really don't see the way goofy moments -- the idea of a villain having a canon in the back of his convertible (!) sports car in Iceland -- are any worse than some of the other Bond films. YOLT is just as bad if not worse with its volcano bases, helicopters dropping cars into the ocean and convenient gadgets to open safes and climb around artificial volcanoes.

[Harmsway]

My problem with DIE ANOTHER DAY is that as the years go on, I find less and less to like about it.

And it's not necessarily its outrageousness that does it for me. Heck, I actually think DIE ANOTHER DAY would have been improved if it embraced its ridiculousness and been little more than the lighthearted, semi-farcical romp that MOONRAKER was. But paradoxically, DIE ANOTHER DAY takes itself too seriously to be enjoyed as a throwaway outrageous romp, and is too outrageous to be taken as a thriller.

[tambourineman]

I agree. I could overlook its faults if it was actually fun. Im all about serious, Fleming-esque Bond movies, but I'll love ANY style of Bond movie so long as its ENTERTAINING (as Rogers movies are). DAD did not entertain me. I have never been so bored in a Bond movie as I was in the last half of DAD.
A non-stop barrage of poor special effects, even poorer dialogue and completely incoherent scenes. I know you need to switch your brain off for some movies, but this was ridiculous. I lost all faith about the time the villain put on a Darth Vader suit and started shooting lightning at Bond.

To address the threads question: First off, I walked out of the cinema disappointed. But DAD has gone for me from a mild disappointment to something I cant sit through. Repeat viewings have only highlighted its many shortcomings.

[dinovelvet]

Y'know, I don't mind people not liking DAD (which is very generous of me, you'll agree), but I do wonder how those who slag it off manage to cope with the other Bond flicks, most of which are stuffed full of the same kind of claptrap.

I agree with that! DAD is for me the only Brosnan flick that offers any kind of fun. The other three are bogged down with dour locations, pretentious "peeling back the layers" nonsense and empty attempts at depth. Last time this discussion came up I compared DAD to a wild rollercoaster ride, plummetting from highs to lows and back again all over the place, but I'll take that any day over a film like TWINE that is just a dull go-through-the-motions effort.

[DaveBond21]

I agree. I could overlook its faults if it was actually fun. Im all about serious, Fleming-esque Bond movies, but I'll love ANY style of Bond movie so long as its ENTERTAINING (as Rogers movies are). DAD did not entertain me. I have never been so bored in a Bond movie as I was in the last half of DAD.
A non-stop barrage of poor special effects, even poorer dialogue and completely incoherent scenes. I know you need to switch your brain off for some movies, but this was ridiculous. I lost all faith about the time the villain put on a Darth Vader suit and started shooting lightning at Bond.

To address the threads question: First off, I walked out of the cinema disappointed. But DAD has gone for me from a mild disappointment to something I cant sit through. Repeat viewings have only highlighted its many shortcomings.

I agree. I thought I was watching Star Wars towards the end. Graves looked like the acid-trip lovechild of Darth Vader and Robocop (did I hear Vader-style heaving breathing at one point too?). All of that was Tamahori's idea. He admitted to it!!

[broadshoulder]

DAD is the first time in forty years I walked out of the cinemea thinking Bond should end. Its time had past. It was time to put him out of our misery. If the franchsie was going to continue in this vein then it would be better if it finished.

I'd sort of had small feelings about this since GE. It wasnt moving in the direction I wanted. I suppose we had been spoilt for thirty years. Cubby Broccoli knew how to deliver quality. Even in the so-called weakest films there is a scene which delivers and makes it seem worthwhile ie Scaramanga, Rio or the Golden Gate fight. But this was just an empty shell.

I'd felt this way all the way through Brosnans tenure hoping the reverse was goign to be declined. GE was a spectacular start but even then the music and storyline lacked something. TND was a terrific first part but as soon as it left Germany problems occurred. 007 running around a Stealth Boat blazing away like Rambo and Jonathan Pryce was one of the worst bits of casting ever. I felt the producers were struggling and the script and casting for TWINE confirmed this to me. The film was a directorial mess? I still cant work out the motivation for Mr Bull leaving the bomb in the Istanbul safehouse.

And then we had Die Another Day...

the prepublicity should have tipped me off with the emphasis on forty years of Bond and how Jinx was "Bonds equal" (that old cliche) and most interestingly Lee Tamahori saying on the steps of the Royal Albert Hall at the premiere.

"James Bond is the only thing the British have left.."

And I do blame him directly for this mess. Something went horribly wrong in Tamahoris hands. I dont know whether he got the job because he stressed the cgi and said it was the "future" and so were the MATRIX style editing. But it didnt work it brought the film crashing down. Same with his storytelling. I still cant work out why Graves killed his own father? What motivation did he have? Tamahori took control and made a disaster.

But then again if he hadnt we wouldnt have the excellent Casino Royale. I feel optimistic in the hands of Messr Craig and Haggis then I ever did in the Brosnan era.

[Loomis]

I still cant work out why Graves killed his own father? What motivation did he have?

Because his father was a moderate (the film is at pains to portray General Moon as a Good North Korean™, 'coz otherwise there wouldn't be any) who wanted to create good relations between his country and the West. He is killed when he refuses to support his considerably more hardline and belligerent son in his plot to start a war using Icarus. He's the voice of reason ("The Americans will send nuclear warheads!"), and Graves murders him when he realises that the old boy thinks of him as just a dangerous nutcase and not the saviour of North Korea or whatever.

What I think is less clear in the film is Graves' scheme, unless I'm forgetting some dialogue that explains it. According to James Bond: The Legacy by John Cork and Bruce Scivally, which hit shops shortly before DAD's release: Gustav Graves plans to use the Icarus satellite weapon to destroy the minefield in the Korean Demilitarized Zone, allowing for the takeover of South Korea and the uniting of Korea, Japan and China into a new, unstoppable superpower. I know that Graves has a line about Japan being "a bug waiting to be squashed", but I think his aims are spelled out less clearly in the film than in James Bond: The Legacy - for instance, there's no mention of China as part of his plans. As it stands, DAD leaves us with the idea that "all" Graves wants to do is forcibly reuinite Korea, with all of it "ruled by the North". Given the description of his scheme in James Bond: The Legacy, I wonder whether there were eleventh-hour changes to the film after Cork and Scivally had written their book.

[Loomis]

[quote name='ACE' post='819887' date='10 January 2008 - 00:41']ICARUS SOARS

A new Bond film has a lot that can be criticized. Some fans see that as their job. If a Bond film does its job, I am lost in the moment and become a little boy again. Sure, I can pick it apart afterwards but then no film would survive such close inspection. And what would be the point? If I didn

[plankattack]

It's interesting reading all the posts on DAD, but the one theme that's pretty constant in this and other threads, is that the first half is better than the second. For me, the Aston vanishes and we're in trouble; then, like DaveBond, I wait for the car to motor to the ice palace to some great David Arnold horns, and then I reach for the remote.

I think the reason DAD takes the stick that it does is not because it's a bad Bond (IMHO, TMWTGG is more consistently poor start to finish than DAD), it's because it's so schizophrenic. I don't think I've ever read a post that has said "I don't enjoy the first 60 minutes" - that first hour (yes, including all the bird-watching-let's-go-to-bed-and-feast nonsense) is easily one of the best hours in over 45 hours of EON. But then it goes south and everyone feels even more let down than they do watching TWINE (not me, baby!!!), which doesn't get hammered half as bad as DAD.

I don't like MR (mulitple reasons, including bird-references again) but I find it more enjoyable because it is what it is, start-to-finish. It's consistent.

DAD wanted to be a forty-year celebration of cinematic Bond, wanting to keep all fans happy by being everything - thriller, OTT spectacle, homage cavalcade. But making a Bond that keeps everyone happy, while a noble ambition, is a completely impossible task. Look how we all feel differently about the other 20 in the "official series" - making a Bond that everyone agrees on just can't be done. And EON's attempt to fuse two different styles of film fails because we do all agree that you can see the welding so obviouly between minute sixty and seventy-five of the running time.

By the way, I am in fact a dog, so I'm offended by seeing myself as a ranking...