183 replies to this topic

[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.

[baerrtt]

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!!!!)

Excellent post! I agree DAD tries partially to be what, in a way even though it's a reboot, CR succeeds at doing in that by placing Bond in a world where there is no longer any straight definition of black/white, where past 'rights' in the preceding climate look wrong and his difficulty with coping with that. 9/11 created the atmosphere of ambiguity, that has leaked into all spy films/shows since (24, the Bourne movies, Spooks etc) yet despite the references DAD doesn't have the guts to dramatise this serious plot point and instead falls into a pastiche of Bond OTT standards.

As much as I detest the film, to play Devil's Advocate ultimately it was THE anniversary movie on the one hand and, if one can get a positive reading from it's messy mishmash of styles is that it was a goodbye to all the general public loved/knew about Bond and with the precious few 'serious' moments (Bond being imprisoned and tortured, the 9-11 references as detailed by plankattack) a hello to the future direction (CR and hopefully the remainder of the Craig era).

[Jim]

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.

Agreed; there seems to be some collective denial about the first hour, a first hour that contains utterly feculent dialogue, that Madonna person (twice), the expression AFRICAN CONFLICT DIAMONDS ever louder as if that's going to help, the gene therapy "plot" and figs in bed. It's only because the second half is worse (which is to be applauded as a tremendously macabre achievement) that the first hour looks good. Just watch that first hour on its own - it's still rubbish.

[Judo chop]

there seems to be some collective denial about the first hour,

There sure does. I never thought the first hour was OMG! DUDE! AW-SUM!!! I

[plankattack]

Okay, okay, I'm going to back down a little on the first hour. Let's say, there was definitely real potential there. The pacing is assured, with a good Bondian feel to how the plot might unravel, but as others have pointed out, it's still lumbered with gene-splicing and Madonna. There were some good ideas that got started but never finished. Unlike the second half that just slides painfully from inanity to cringeworthiness and back again. There are no redeeming ideas, unfinished or not, in the second half.

[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.

Agreed; there seems to be some collective denial about the first hour, a first hour that contains utterly feculent dialogue, that Madonna person (twice), the expression AFRICAN CONFLICT DIAMONDS ever louder as if that's going to help, the gene therapy "plot" and figs in bed. It's only because the second half is worse (which is to be applauded as a tremendously macabre achievement) that the first hour looks good. Just watch that first hour on its own - it's still rubbish.

Yes. And even what are cited as "good" items are in the first half (the Hong Kong hotel sequence, the conversations with Raul, the swordfight) aren't particularly compelling. They try for Bondian glamour and ambience, but then end up being nothing but "imitation Bond glamour" - enough to remind us of the real thing, but in doing so making what's actually served up seem less appealing.

[tdalton]

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.

Agreed; there seems to be some collective denial about the first hour, a first hour that contains utterly feculent dialogue, that Madonna person (twice), the expression AFRICAN CONFLICT DIAMONDS ever louder as if that's going to help, the gene therapy "plot" and figs in bed. It's only because the second half is worse (which is to be applauded as a tremendously macabre achievement) that the first hour looks good. Just watch that first hour on its own - it's still rubbish.

Yes. And even what are cited as "good" items are in the first half (the Hong Kong hotel sequence, the conversations with Raul, the swordfight) aren't particularly compelling. They try for Bondian glamour and ambience, but then end up being nothing but "imitation Bond glamour" - enough to remind us of the real thing, but in doing so making what's actually served up seem less appealing.

I somewhat agree on the first half of the film. I find it to be somewhat enjoyable, and it's certainly better than the second half by a fairly wide margin, but it's not exactly great either. There was a lot of potential there, but it wasn't capitalized upon. I think that had they continued on with the second half being similar in style to the first half of the film, that DAD could have been a solid (not necessarily great, but not amongst the worst of the films either) entry in the franchise.

[Judo chop]

Ok, so this isn't the last you've heard of me.

Harmsway, the more I read of your views of DAD, the more they sound exactly like my criticisms of YOLT; my 2nd to least favorite film of the Bond series.

Just a curiousity.

[Harmsway]

Harmsway, the more I read of your views of DAD, the more they sound exactly like my criticisms of YOLT; my 2nd to least favorite film of the Bond series.

Just a curiousity.

I rather like YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, actually. It's not up to the four that preceded it, or the film that succeeded it, but I do think it's a rather nice bit of fun.

And the reason it's better than DIE ANOTHER DAY is that it does all its outrageousness with genuine Bond glamour and ambience, as well as a touch of elegance and charm.

[Safari Suit]

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.

I don't find DAF to be particularly schizophrenic; I find it to a consistantly and unashamedly silly film.

[Santa]

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.

Naff is it. That's two perfect words we've come up with for it now: charmless and naff. And for whoever said it's alright if you like silly, I'm afraid I still disagree - MR and OP are silly and I love them. I just can't see silliness in DAD, I wish I could but it's too well hidden by the naffness.
Oh, I'm with you on YOLT too, Harms.

[coco1997]

Not too derail this topic, but I just wanted to mention that I don't think "Octopussy" is silly at all. There's some silliness concentrated in a select few particular scenes (the chase through Delhi, the jungle safari) but that's about it.

[David_M]

Re: the first hour...

I was unimpressed by the surfing double-O's, bored by the over-the-top and way-too-loud hovercraft chase (which didn't even make sense; sure hovercrafts don't touch the ground, but only because they shoot down powerful jets of air to lift the vehicle...thus creating enough force to detonate a landmine, right? So we're back to square one) and turned off by the muted colors of the PTS...a deliberate effect added in editing that only accentuated Brosnan's aging features.

But then there was the rather ingenious device of moving the plot forward 14 months by showing Bond's incarceration and torture during the credits, a section of the film that's always pretty to look at but usually represents a detour from the narrative. And then there was Brosnan trying to maintain the old Bond swagger and elan despite the scraggly beard, dirty t-shirt and general hopelessness of his situation. Brosnan persistently underwhelmed me in the role, but he shines here in a big way. When he's told to "turn around" he really looks like he believes this is the end. (I enjoyed this stuff so much I was willing to ignore the fact that Bond actually GAINED weight on 14 months of prison rations).

By the lowered expectations the previous two films had taught me to adopt, things weren't going all that bad. Then came the silly hospital scene, the even siller hotel scene and some pretty Cuban scenes (possibly the only good-looking locations in the entire Brosnan run) and the ridiculous notion that one can determine the origins of a diamond using a jeweler's loop. But at this point we had a Bond on the run, at odds with MI-6 and armed only with an old car and revolver. I dared to hope that it was all a set-up for a back-to-basics Bond, where he'd have to survive on his wits and brawn for once. That hope lasted about 5 minutes until the "gene therapy" subplot showed up.

The first hour of the film isn't great, but it does have promise. There is the sense of a decent story in there trying to get out. By the mid-point of the film, that's out the window entirely, and we won't see another original idea (good or bad) until the credits roll.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I enjoyed this stuff so much I was willing to ignore the fact that Bond actually GAINED weight on 14 months of prison rations.

A bit like Jack Bauer on 24, no?

[HH007]

By the lowered expectations the previous two films had taught me to adopt, things weren't going all that bad.

Wow, I thought I was the only one who was underwhelmed by TND. Although that film looks much better when compared to this pile.

[Santa]

By the lowered expectations the previous two films had taught me to adopt, things weren't going all that bad.

Wow, I thought I was the only one who was underwhelmed by TND. Although that film looks much better when compared to this pile.

Nope, once again we think alike. I thought TND was pants. Admittedly it was a thong in comparison to DAD's granny pants, but still pants.

[00Twelve]

By the lowered expectations the previous two films had taught me to adopt, things weren't going all that bad.

Wow, I thought I was the only one who was underwhelmed by TND. Although that film looks much better when compared to this pile.

Nope, once again we think alike. I thought TND was pants. Admittedly it was a thong in comparison to DAD's granny pants, but still pants.

Yep, me too. TND is a bit underwhelming, and the Broz tenure gradually lost steam in general over time. I still feel like GE's the best of Broz' lot.

[coco1997]

00Twelve, check out my topic on how the novelization improved the film.

[Royal Dalton]

I revel in its badness.

[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.

Naff is it. That's two perfect words we've come up with for it now: charmless and naff. And for whoever said it's alright if you like silly, I'm afraid I still disagree - MR and OP are silly and I love them. I just can't see silliness in DAD, I wish I could but it's too well hidden by the naffness.

Oh, I'm with you on YOLT too, Harms.

Glad to see we're on the same page with this one, santaj.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Oh, I'm with you on YOLT too, Harms.

Glad to see we're on the same page with this one, santaj.

Hey, don't forget me! I don't like YOLT, either; it's a ripoff of Dr. No.

[Harmsway]

Oh, I'm with you on YOLT too, Harms.

Glad to see we're on the same page with this one, santaj.

Hey, don't forget me! I don't like YOLT, either; it's a ripoff of Dr. No.

Santaj and I both like YOLT. See my above post defending it.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Oh, I'm with you on YOLT too, Harms.

Glad to see we're on the same page with this one, santaj.

Hey, don't forget me! I don't like YOLT, either; it's a ripoff of Dr. No.

Santaj and I both like YOLT. See my above post defending it.

Oh.

Well, crap, then...

[ACE]

It's not that bad a film (I'm one of those - ... - 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,...

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.

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.

plankattack, I need to just clarify something.

What I wrote was that

"Purvis and Wade have said that this was a consciously post-9-11 Bond (

[plankattack]

"Daddy, what was vinyl?"
"Daddy, what was VHS?"
"Daddy, why does this Bond film have an opening gun-barrel, colourful, stunt-filled pre-title action sequence, Q (dishing out numerous gadgets in a stand-alone scene), a Bond-Moneypenny flirtation, the James Bond theme every five minutes, witty one-liners, a dark haired, 6ft Bond?"

Great stuff ACE!

On the 9-11 stuff, I apologize for misquoting but I do feel that the spirit of my point is still valid. The second half of DAD just didn't seem to fit the time. Maybe P & W only obliquely referenced world events in the script, it's still in their thoughts as they structured and fleshed out their story. The contrast between the "this is the real world" atmosphere of the films opening act, is still knocked on it's by the total OTT unravelling of the last act.

There is a lot of discussion about the quality of the film's first hour, but there is some agreement that there is, if nothing else an attempt, whether by honest intent or by pastiche, for a traditional espionage, plot-orientated Bond story to emerge (but unfortunately those genes were spliced in the wotsit machine thingumyjig). What jars for me is that the second half is almost an irreverant (and slightly insulting) parody of the excesses of the series of which DAD was trying to celebrate. It's almost like, Austin Powers-style, they were taking the piss!

[tdalton]

What jars for me is that the second half is almost an irreverant (and slightly insulting) parody of the excesses of the series of which DAD was trying to celebrate. It's almost like, Austin Powers-style, they were taking the piss!

That's the most disappointing part of the film for me as well. Had they continued on down the path of Bond looking for who betrayed him in North Korea, then the film would have probably stayed on the more serious path and would have, more than likely, been much better. But, once the film reaches the Ice Palace and everything begins to get more and more ridiculous, the film begins to get worse and worse because of it.

[ACE]

On the 9-11 stuff, I apologize for misquoting but I do feel that the spirit of my point is still valid. The second half of DAD just didn't seem to fit the time. Maybe P & W only obliquely referenced world events in the script, it's still in their thoughts as they structured and fleshed out their story. The contrast between the "this is the real world" atmosphere of the films opening act, is still knocked on it's by the total OTT unravelling of the last act.

Yup, I accept that.

I actually dislike the Moonraker comparison. Moonraker was a HUGE chocolate fudge cake of a Bond movie. A guilty pleasure - you love a thick slice every now and again but you know it's bad for you. FYEO, by contrast, was a lovely fresh salad of a Bond film. The point being Bond has come to mean both aspects.

DAD is a small portioned, low fat, Hester Blumenthal bacon and egg ice-cream. Neither fish nor flesh.

DAD was not as lavish or a huge or as entertaining as it tried to be. If only it did have the size of a YOLT or a Moonraker: real locations, huge sets, clearly defined world domination, straight-forward, linear storytelling. It seems too crammed, too overstuffed with ideas and story, setpieces and moments. Now while Halle Berry is no better written than most of her pre-Brosnan predecessors, we had come to expect more - I think she delivered but only because of her extreme star power - I loved her.

We forgave the bad back projection in MR which was offset by stunning model work in other areas. We do not forgive the bad CGI in DAD because that parasurfing is meant to be the big cheer-out-loud sequence.

But come on: isn't Graves the best Brosnan Bond villain? Isn't the swordfight a Bond action classic? Aren't the titles refreshingly different yet Bondian? Is Madonna's witty appearance that bad (and worse than that of Maggie in FYEO)? Aren't Jinx and Miranda totally sexy? Wasn't it good to have Bond back in an Aston? Isn't the Q scene sharply written and fun? Doesn't your DAD have some redeeming features?

[HH007]

But come on: isn't Graves the best Brosnan Bond villain?

No, I'd say Sean Bean was and is Brosnan's best villain.

[Mr. Blofeld]

But come on: isn't Graves the best Brosnan Bond villain? Isn't the swordfight a Bond action classic? Aren't the titles refreshingly different yet Bondian? Is Madonna's witty appearance that bad (and worse than that of Maggie in FYEO)? Aren't Jinx and Miranda totally sexy? Wasn't it good to have Bond back in an Aston? Isn't the Q scene sharply written and fun? My DAD has some redeeming features, no?

Erm... no; no, it doesn't.

[ACE]

But come on: isn't Graves the best Brosnan Bond villain? Isn't the swordfight a Bond action classic? Aren't the titles refreshingly different yet Bondian? Is Madonna's witty appearance that bad (and worse than that of Maggie in FYEO)? Aren't Jinx and Miranda totally sexy? Wasn't it good to have Bond back in an Aston? Isn't the Q scene sharply written and fun? My DAD has some redeeming features, no?

Erm... no; no, it doesn't.

Do you own it on DVD?
If so, why?