183 replies to this topic

[broadshoulder]

[b]

In short, DAD bore all the hallmarks of a Bond film that could have gone out of control. Unlike last time, though, the filmmakers seem to have had a pretty decent grip on the material and knew where they wanted to take it.

Yes, they wanted to take it over a cliff and listen to the splat as it hits the floor.

DAD is completely out of control. Theres no discipline there. Theres no lets step back and think again whether an invisible car would work. I keep wondering if Tamahori had too much control and his vision was at odds with what makes a good Bond film. There is a quote on YouTube where he says the Bonds are "Carry On" films. They are? I must have missed that bit. The reason the innuendo dialogue worked in the Moore era was that Rog was a superb light comedian and even he doesnt get away with the more outlandish lines.

Every other line in DAD was lousy innuendo. Everybody had to get their tongues around "I dont like cockfights" or "I think I get the thrust of it". It wasnt just the lead which had to suffer this time.

Die Another Day needed

a script editor who would tighten the script and motivation
an executive producer who would question the directors judgement
a leading actor who needed to be motivated
a producer who would say no to the disasterous cgi
a complete rewrite
A studio who says no to Madonna

If the above had come off then it might stand a chance of making the grade

[Jim]

Well, since everyone's regurgitating - the correct physical reaction - their reviews to this ragbag of ill-thought through old toss, here's mine:

http://debrief.comma...mp;#entry762764

Still unfinished. Bit like Die Another Day. One of these days I may get around to it but it will mean I have to watch my television emit DUD and I have better things to do.

[David_M]

I've gone on at length about DAD in other threads, and it's getting old, so suffice to say the film killed my interest in James Bond after 30 years as a fan (and nearly 10 of them helping run the old MKKBB fan site).

The ridiculous notion that "gene therapy" can change 30-something Asians to Caucasians, the invisible car, the lousy CG, the Icarus beam that instantly melts or blows up everything it touches EXCEPT a giant plane full of jet feul, the "trendy" MTV editing and jump-cuts, the insipid dialog, the technologically illiterate "computer simulation" scenes, the humiliating treatment of the Moneypenny character and the endless thefts from earlier, better films in the name of "homage" made this film an ordeal for me. The worst part was that it started with so much promise, and went so far south. I started looking at my watch during the Ice Palace car chase and kept checking the time every 10 minutes after that. When Bond and Jinx arrived in Korea, and it was apparent I had at least one action sequence left to go, I seriously considered asking my wife to leave with me, but instead opted to occupy my mind with picking a good place to have dinner (in this, it was at least better than TWINE, which left me with too much of a headache to eat!).

I hear a lot of comparisons of DAD to MR, I guess because both films are heavy on the fantasy elements, but for me DAD is more like AVTAK. Like Roger's last film, this one is tired and uninspired, a case of running back to the well one time too many and trotting out the old formula well past its sell-by date. Coming out of the theater, I decided that unless there was a complete turnover in the cast and creative team for the next film, I was done with Bond at last. I never imagined Eon would actually do it, much less throw out the 40-year-old formula and start from scratch. I don't consider CR a perfect film, but Eon gets a lot of respect from me for realizing the old model Bond was broken beyond the point of fixing, and Exhibit A was DAD.

[MkB]

I voted "I am a dog". Now you know this.

About Dave's reminder, yes, Brosnan's Bond was incredibly popular, and the first time I heard criticisms (really harsh ones by the way) was on Bond fan sites. Among "normal people", i.e. non-hardcore Bond fans who are the majority of Bond films audience, I think he still is a very popular James Bond.

[Pete]

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.

That's the reason I only ever think that there is only three excellent Bond movies. 4 really good movies and then the Roger Moore ones followed by DAD. I just find that most are escapism with a bit of a story line in there somewhere. For me Die Another day just wanted to outdo Bond. It became it's own Frankenstien. Luckily it's creator got it under control it before it did too much damage.

I always thought that Brosnans films had some of the best PTS's, but it's the only time when the PTS was better than the rest of the film. It had it's moments but it was always like they were trying to say "Look it's a Bond film" and to prove it we had to spot past Bond moments. It worked in OHMSS but it was just overdone in DAD.

[HH007]

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.

That's the reason I only ever think that there is only three excellent Bond movies. 4 really good movies and then the Roger Moore ones followed by DAD. I just find that most are escapism with a bit of a story line in there somewhere. For me Die Another day just wanted to outdo Bond. It became it's own Frankenstien. Luckily it's creator got it under control it before it did too much damage.

I always thought that Brosnans films had some of the best PTS's, but it's the only time when the PTS was better than the rest of the film. It had it's moments but it was always like they were trying to say "Look it's a Bond film" and to prove it we had to spot past Bond moments. It worked in OHMSS but it was just overdone in DAD.

Here's the thing. Bond has always had one foot in fantasy. In order to enjoy a Bond film, you have to suspend your disbelief to a point. But there's a fine line between "suspension of disbelief" and "oh, come on!" And sadly DAD went too far into "oh, come on!" territory.

[Santa]

I don't think I've ever read a post that has said "I don't enjoy the first 60 minutes"

Nope, I'm sorry Plank, but I can quite honestly say that I thought the first hour was just as bad as the rest. I could almost deal with it up until the stopping his own heart drivel, but after that it just went further and further downhill. And it's not because it's not serious, I love Moonraker and Octopussy, for example, but they carry it off with some charm, whereas I find DAD absolutely charmless. The only two passes I can give it are Rosamund Pike and the fencing scene.

[HH007]

I don't think I've ever read a post that has said "I don't enjoy the first 60 minutes"

Nope, I'm sorry Plank, but I can quite honestly say that I thought the first hour was just as bad as the rest. I could almost deal with it up until the stopping his own heart drivel, but after that it just went further and further downhill. And it's not because it's not serious, I love Moonraker and Octopussy, for example, but they carry it off with some charm, whereas I find DAD absolutely charmless. The only two passes I can give it are Rosamund Pike and the fencing scene.

Wow, you share my opinion of the movie down to a "T." People always say this movie got off to a good start and went down the tubes somewhere in the middle. I say it went down the tubes from the start and stayed there for the duration. And for me the only two highlights are Rosamund Pike and the fencing scene.

Edited by HH007, 10 January 2008 - 05:12 PM.

[Santa]

I don't think I've ever read a post that has said "I don't enjoy the first 60 minutes"

Nope, I'm sorry Plank, but I can quite honestly say that I thought the first hour was just as bad as the rest. I could almost deal with it up until the stopping his own heart drivel, but after that it just went further and further downhill. And it's not because it's not serious, I love Moonraker and Octopussy, for example, but they carry it off with some charm, whereas I find DAD absolutely charmless. The only two passes I can give it are Rosamund Pike and the fencing scene.

Wow, you share my opinion of the movie down to a "T." People always say this movie got off to a good start and went down the tubes somewhere in the middle. I say it went down the tubes from the start and stayed there for the duration. And for me the only two highlights are Rosamund Pike and the fencing scene.

Shhhh, if you carry on like that everyone will guess that we are, in fact, the same person.

[HH007]

Shhhh, if you carry on like that everyone will guess that we are, in fact, the same person.

Much like Clark Kent and Superman, people never seem to notice that santajosep and HH007 are never in the same place at the same time.

(Wow, I've never referred to myself in the third person before and I found it to be really creepy! )

[Harmsway]

I don't think I've ever read a post that has said "I don't enjoy the first 60 minutes"

Nope, I'm sorry Plank, but I can quite honestly say that I thought the first hour was just as bad as the rest. I could almost deal with it up until the stopping his own heart drivel, but after that it just went further and further downhill. And it's not because it's not serious, I love Moonraker and Octopussy, for example, but they carry it off with some charm, whereas I find DAD absolutely charmless. The only two passes I can give it are Rosamund Pike and the fencing scene.

I entire agree. "Charmless" is the perfect way to describe DIE ANOTHER DAY.

[tdalton]

Count me in as one who enjoyed the first half of the film. For the first half, although it is flawed, I was thinking that perhaps EON was finally moving in the right direction. Bond being captured and thrown in prison for over a year was new, Bond being abandoned by MI6 (instead of the other way around like in LTK) was new, and it appeared as though it was setting up for a interesting finish (which ultimately never happened).

I think that had they played up the Bond being betrayed angle of the plot, then there might have been more to work with. That, to me, seemed like the major plot point at the beginning of the film, but it was something that never returned to the forefront of the film past the conversation between Bond and M before he escapes the ship. If that had been the main plot point, then DAD would have been a much better film, IMO.

[Judo chop]

"Charmless" is the perfect way to describe DIE ANOTHER DAY.

And I would say "Charmless" is the perfect way to describe THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. So now, what do we make of that? Both films are wrecks, but I still submit that DAD has something valuable that TWINE does not.

[Harmsway]

"Charmless" is the perfect way to describe DIE ANOTHER DAY.

And I would say "Charmless" is the perfect way to describe THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

I hate THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH even than I do DIE ANOTHER DAY, and I've made no secret of that opinion 'round these parts. I have no mercy for that film.

Both films are wrecks, but I still submit that DAD has something valuable that TWINE does not.

I wouldn't put it quite that way. DIE ANOTHER DAY might be "better" than THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, but only in the sense that losing a finger would be better than losing a hand. Neither are truly desirable.

[Santa]

"Charmless" is the perfect way to describe DIE ANOTHER DAY.

And I would say "Charmless" is the perfect way to describe THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. So now, what do we make of that? Both films are wrecks, but I still submit that DAD has something valuable that TWINE does not.

Dunno. I still prefer TWINE - largely for what it doesn't have (Jinx, CGI surfing, Bond stopping and starting his own heart blah blah blah) rather than what it does - and I'd ten times rather pass two hours watching it than any ten minutes of DAD. But I realise that's a minority opinion .
Really, though, does saying that another film is worse make DAD any better? Or, Judo, are you trying to distract us from DAD because you know we're right and you feel shame about liking it? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

[Judo chop]

But I realise that's a minority opinion .

Don't be too quick to assume that, m'lady. That's what we're here to find out. Keep those voters rollin' in!

[Santa]

But there isn't a vote set up for that!

[HH007]

I also prefer TWINE to DAD. TWINE I thought was shaping up to be a pretty decent Bond film until Denise Richards showed up... but I've gone on about that on other threads. Still, I put TWINE as an OK Bond movie while DAD is... um... not.

[Judo chop]

But there isn't a vote set up for that!

I was just trying to be conversational!

[DaveBond21]

Just when I thought the villain was going to be a North Korean, they still somehow managed to make it a British bad guy, continuing a trend in Hollywood and also including 006 and Carver in GE and TND.

The whole gene changing thing was just silly.

[dinovelvet]

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.

Yes, Graves' initial scheme is to destroy the DMZ minefield and conquer South Korea, but then the Bond Megalomaniac in him surfaces as he says "Japan is a bug waiting to be squashed, and the west will shake with fear". I assume this means he wants to plunder Japan for its technology (as North Korea seems to be stuck in the 1950s), and just generally annoy the west and threaten them with the old Icarus treatment if any Yanks come near Korea.

Wow...its a DAD bitchfest, and a discussion of the plot broke out

[tambourineman]

You can add me to the list of people who like the first half. Not that it is without its flaws - the heart stopping, and any scene between Bond and Jinx for example - but on the whole the first half is as good as any other Brosnan movie. I especially like the Hong Kong scene in the hotel room and the fencing. But the last half didnt just go downhill, it rocketed to the ground like a bat out of hell before crashing in a poorly rendered explosion.

Edited by tambourineman, 10 January 2008 - 11:12 PM.

[DaveBond21]

You can add me to the list of people who like the first half. Not that it is without its flaws - the heart stopping, and any scene between Bond and Jinx for example - but on the whole the first half is as good as any other Brosnan movie. I especially like the Hong Kong scene in the hotel room and the fencing. But the last half didnt just go downhill, it rocketed to the ground like a bat out of hell before crashing in a poorly rendered explosion.

Agreed. I like the PTS (although there is too much music, Mr Arnold!!), and I also enjoy "Welcome to Cuba", the discussions with Raoul and the fencing battle.

[Qwerty]

For me: good then, not so good now.

[tdalton]

Reading the discussions in this thread earlier led me to watch DAD today. It's still not a particularly good entry in the series, but the potential that was missed is what makes it truly disappointing. I think that the more interesting way to go with the film would have been to drop the entire Icarus plot and focus more on Bond's betrayal in North Korea and his subsequent hunt to find the person who set him up. I think that one way to go would be to have Colonel Moon and Gustav Graves be separate people, and have Graves financing Colonel Moon's activities. While this would be going on, Bond is continuing to hunt down the person who betrayed him, but all the while he is continuously set up and made to look as though he became unstable after his imprisonment and is going on a crime spree (i.e. the incident at the clinic, which Falco pins on Bond, and a few more instances could have been added in). With this addition to the plot, I think that another interesting twist could be added in, with M sending another 00 Agent after Bond while he is investigating Graves and trying to find out who betrayed him, which would add some suspense to the second half of the film.

[The Richmond Spy]

Awesome then, OK now

I may bash DAD now, but after I saw it on DVD for the first time (I had seen it in theaters back in '02) I decided to look more into it online.....then I found this website.....then about 6 months later I joined.

So, it is very much responsible for my current interest in all things Bond.

[Trident]

Reading the discussions in this thread earlier led me to watch DAD today. It's still not a particularly good entry in the series, but the potential that was missed is what makes it truly disappointing. I think that the more interesting way to go with the film would have been to drop the entire Icarus plot and focus more on Bond's betrayal in North Korea and his subsequent hunt to find the person who set him up. I think that one way to go would be to have Colonel Moon and Gustav Graves be separate people, and have Graves financing Colonel Moon's activities. While this would be going on, Bond is continuing to hunt down the person who betrayed him, but all the while he is continuously set up and made to look as though he became unstable after his imprisonment and is going on a crime spree (i.e. the incident at the clinic, which Falco pins on Bond, and a few more instances could have been added in). With this addition to the plot, I think that another interesting twist could be added in, with M sending another 00 Agent after Bond while he is investigating Graves and trying to find out who betrayed him, which would add some suspense to the second half of the film.

A very good idea! Personally I thought that Bond's imprisonment and the traitor part by Frost weren't used enough. Also making Graves and Moon the same person not only didn't convince me but IMHO prevented the villain from developing his full potential. Making Graves a cynical investor into Moon's plot would have worked better. And I'd have preferred it had DAD shown more of Moon's immediate proposed victim South Korea trying to capture more of the atmosphere in the region. As it is the film only shows the barren DMZ that gets blown up by its own minefieds. OK, the audience knows that this won't be the end of Moon's little go on redrawing the map (if they've listened to the Japan line in the dialogue). But it's not exactly what one would call a thrilling danger. I daresay many viewers have thought 'Ok, let that creep with the fantasy uniform have the wilderness, it probably glows with radiation in the dark anyway, no big loss.' There must be some pretty sights and location in South Korea to show the audience what is at stake and make Moon's plot more threatening.

Edited by Trident, 11 January 2008 - 07:47 AM.

[plankattack]

MHarkin, you are a pot-stirrer of the highest degree! A DAD thread is always going to get plenty of mileage and attention!!!!

Alright, so I was reading the great "No Armour Left" article on the home-page and also re-reading ACE's indepth review re-posted on this thread and both got me thinking (albeit in a pompous and pretentious way!)

I'm changing my position slightly on DAD. It's not that bad a film (I'm one of those - sorry Santajo and co - who really likes the first hour before losing interest) - anything that has 50% decent quality can't be 100% bad. No, DAD isn't abad film, it's a stupid film.

Martin Campbell, I think, was the one who said that each generation or time gets the Bond it requires. Sir Rog's 70s life-is-fun Bond, DC's post 9-11/Jason Bourne/the threats are real Bond. But, this is where I get pretentious (but not consciously political), CR isn't the first post 9-11 Bond, DAD is. ACE's review mentions that P & W were conscious of that fact, with the "world has changed - not for me" conversation. A Bond film is consciously veering into real-world politics and history.

And that's part of the film's problem. It starts off in post 9-11 espionage form, with DMZs, smugglers, Chinese agents in Hong Kong, and "one man's freedom fighter is another man's revolutionary" conversations. Then all of a sudden, it's invisible cars, gigantic space lasers, and ice palaces. Now, the only people other than Bond to involve gigantic space lasers are Austin Powers/Dr Evil (yes! The Alan Parsons Project), and that Inspector Clouseau where his boss goes completely nuts and is firing lasers from his bavarian castle (Pink Panther Strikes Back, I think).

My point is, if you're consciously referencing 9-11, it's a little jarring to have an invisible car show up fifty minutes later. In fact once you get to that stage, the only thing missing is Santa Claus.

Scene - Bond lands after escaping ice wave. Behind a block of ice he spies a fat man in a red suit.

Brozza (squinting as in the cemetary in GE) - "St Nick - what are you doing here?"
Santa (played by Joe Don Baker or Robbie Coltrane depending on availability or whichever film you still have to reference) "007! I've got something in my sack from Q"
Brozza (eyeing flying sled and reindeer parked nearby and looking back at ice wave) "I could have used you two minutes ago!"

From here, insert your own P & W-style sexual innuendo-dialogue "quips" involving "it's not just his nose that's red" etc

Bonds have always nodded at their times. The Great Train Robbery reference in TB, the energy crisis in TMWGG. The latter is a great example - we have the energy crisis but we still have a secret base and giant laser beam and it's not out of place. It works within the confines of the film

But DAD doesn't - it wants to balance reference to 9-11 and Axis-of-Evil-style villains (the type of thing the audience might want to escape from at that time) with an invisible car, space laser, etc. And you end up with a schizophrenic two and a quarter hours (it feels that long too!). MR, bless it, is incredulous from the start, never making the mistake of wanting to be something it's not.

No DAD isn't bad. Just unbelievably stupid. And pretentious (like this post!!!!)

Edited by plankattack, 11 January 2008 - 04:34 PM.

[Judo chop]

Nice plank!

And you're right. It's the same diagnosis I once leveled at DAF: "Schizo". DAF is the 60's/70's version, and DAD is your modern version. It's roughly the same problem though.

The question is obviously not whether you like bad things. It's whether you can enjoy stupid things.

[Harmsway]

I don't know... I just don't really see much of value in the first hour. Yeah, we have some nice stuff in Cuba and the swordfight, but they're not that great.

I mean, for all the talk about the "gritty" opening for DIE ANOTHER DAY, it's all rather naff. Bond and company actually surf in. And then we're in desaturated film, as if to say, "Look, what's happening is gritty and bleak!" But it's nothing of the sort. It's typical Bondian hijinks, but less inspired than usual.