183 replies to this topic

[David_M]

I guess you missed the point that was being made. Bond films for the most part have always been outrageous and over the top, and DAD is hardly the first Bond film. I just find it laughable to read posts from people who behave like it is.

I don't mind it being over the top, my problem is it's a dreadful film.

It is interesting to note, though, that sometimes the fans are ready for OTT (as they were in '67 with YOLT and '77 with TSWLM) and sometimes they aren't. DAD, I think, represents one of those times when EON miscalculated fan tastes. A lot of us were ready for a CR in 2002, and DAD was the polar opposite.

[Emma]

I guess you missed the point that was being made. Bond films for the most part have always been outrageous and over the top, and DAD is hardly the first Bond film. I just find it laughable to read posts from people who behave like it is.

I don't mind it being over the top, my problem is it's a dreadful film.

It is interesting to note, though, that sometimes the fans are ready for OTT (as they were in '67 with YOLT and '77 with TSWLM) and sometimes they aren't. DAD, I think, represents one of those times when EON miscalculated fan tastes. A lot of us were ready for a CR in 2002, and DAD was the polar opposite.

Well I guess that it all depends on how you define 'dreadful'. I liked DAD at first, and was not that impressed on other viewings. However I would be loath to call it the worst film in history. By the way I rented YOLT some months back and I couldn't even bother to finish watching it.


My problem is, that people criticize the film for it's excesses but seem content to turn a blind eye or pretend that stuff like this has never occured in other Bond films. Some of the arguments come across as if Bond films are intellectual art films and DAD came along and ruined it. I frankly find the whole thing disengenuous as well as grossly hypocritical.

[Loomis]

My problem is, that people criticize the film for it's excesses but seem content to turn a blind eye or pretend that stuff like this has never occured in other Bond films. Some of the arguments come across as if Bond films are intellectual art films and DAD came along and ruined it. I frankly find the whole thing disengenuous as well as grossly hypocritical.

Precisely.

A lot of us were ready for a CR in 2002, and DAD was the polar opposite.

Well, personally, in 2002 I was ready for a rollicking rollercoaster ride of Bond's greatest hits that fully embraced and celebrated the outrageous, the zany and even the downright ridiculous. And that's exactly what I got, complete with a dreadful CGI glacier surfing moment that still stands as the most hilariously awful thing I've ever seen in a cinema (and I seem to remember the *cough* "special effects" looking even worse on the earliest prints; I strongly suspect that they were changed shortly after DAD hit screens - a pity). Yes, I even like the glacier surfing bit, because it's so wretched, and therefore a real scream.... although I do genuinely believe that everything else in the film is good, and much of it far better than merely good.

Now, I love CR to bits - I think it's by far the best film Eon has ever made, and I consider Craig such an excellent Bond as to make all the others seem amateurs. Still, in a way the current golden age of 007 - and I think it is a golden age - only makes me appreciate DAD even more. After all, it should be obvious that we won't get another DAD-style Bond flick for many, many years, if ever again ("Good!" I hear you cry), so perhaps it should be cherished for what it is.

[Simon]

Is it just me or does anyone else think the CGI, when Jinx dives of the cliff is actually not that bad, there has been many complaints over the years regarding this, but I really do think that the CGI in that scene is the most believable in the movie.

Didn't know there Was any CGI in this movie...

[Licence_007]

My problem is, that people criticize the film for it's excesses but seem content to turn a blind eye or pretend that stuff like this has never occured in other Bond films. Some of the arguments come across as if Bond films are intellectual art films and DAD came along and ruined it. I frankly find the whole thing disengenuous as well as grossly hypocritical.

Precisely.

Sometimes the ideas are well executed though. TSWLM would embody that notion. Other times there is poor execution and just a poor film which would be DAD.

Of course this is all subjective.

Edited by Licence_007, 15 January 2008 - 04:05 PM.

[Harmsway]

My problem is, that people criticize the film for it's excesses but seem content to turn a blind eye or pretend that stuff like this has never occured in other Bond films.

As I've said before, my criticism of DIE ANOTHER DAY has nothing against it being excessive. I love MOONRAKER and I love YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, with all of their outrageousness. But DIE ANOTHER DAY is lacking in certain essential qualities that make those films fun to watch.

After all, it should be obvious that we won't get another DAD-style Bond flick for many, many years, if ever again ("Good!" I hear you cry), so perhaps it should be cherished for what it is.

Not when I can cherish MOONRAKER and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE instead.

[David_M]

Well I guess that it all depends on how you define 'dreadful'. I liked DAD at first, and was not that impressed on other viewings.

DAD was the first and only Bond film I seriously considered walking out on. It was the only one that had me looking at my watch with 45 minutes left to go, and the only one that made me clear all the Bond books off my shelves, rather than buying more. That's "dreadful" to me, but as you say it's all subjective.

However I would be loath to call it the worst film in history.

Well, so would I. It's not even the worst film I've ever paid money to see; just my least favorite Bond film.

My problem is, that people criticize the film for it's excesses but seem content to turn a blind eye or pretend that stuff like this has never occured in other Bond films. Some of the arguments come across as if Bond films are intellectual art films and DAD came along and ruined it. I frankly find the whole thing disengenuous as well as grossly hypocritical.

Well, I can't speak for those people, but here's my take on it. The Brosnan films are, on the whole, pretentious and overly impressed with themselves. All that "peeling back the layers" stuff, with betrayals and heartbreaks, bold examinations of Bond's inner psyche and so on, all in the name of making them "films of substance," when in reality they are anything but. The recurring theme of the Brosnan era comes down to "This time it's personal. Just like last time. And odds are it will be next time, too."

The trouble with "peeling back the layers" is, you can't do Shakespeare in a jetpack. Throughout the Brosnan years, there is this odd and never successful balancing act between emotionally anguished subplots and Road Runner-grade action scenes. Bond's killing of Elektra in TWINE, for example, is a dramatic moment, but it's followed by a ludicrous fight scene wherein Bond juggles a plutonium rod with his bare hands. And in DAD, you have Bond captured, held in prison, abandoned by his service...a great set-up for real drama...and in no time, he's driving an invisible car and riding a tidal wave on an improvised surfboard.

I think the problem is that the Brosnan films...and Brosnan himself...seem to constantly yell, "Take us seriously...look how deeply we delve into Bond's psyche...look how literate and thoughtful we are...we're so much more grown-up than the old films"...only to feature some of the most ridiculous and patently impossible stunts and situations in the entire series. It's one thing if Roger Moore raises his eyebrow and flies a jet out of horse's behind...the whole movie's a romp, so it fits. But don't go on about how intelligent and nuanced your take on Bond is, only to pull out stunts even Wile E. Coyote couldn't manage.

For me, that's the whole issue with DAD, and TWINE and to some extent TND. Unlike the Moore films, which said, "Come on and let's have some fun, reality be damned," the Brosnan films often say, "Let's surf on tidal waves, skydive into falling planes and drive invisible cars...but by gum, you better take us seriously, because this is the thinking man's Bond." Yeah, right.

[Judo chop]

I think the problem is that the Brosnan films...and Brosnan himself...seem to constantly yell, "Take us seriously...look how deeply we delve into Bond's psyche...look how literate and thoughtful we are...we're so much more grown-up than the old films"...only to feature some of the most ridiculous and patently impossible stunts and situations in the entire series. It's one thing if Roger Moore raises his eyebrow and flies a jet out of horse's behind...the whole movie's a romp, so it fits. But don't go on about how intelligent and nuanced your take on Bond is, only to pull out stunts even Wile E. Coyote couldn't manage.

You

[Loomis]

The Brosnan films are, on the whole, pretentious and overly impressed with themselves. All that "peeling back the layers" stuff, with betrayals and heartbreaks, bold examinations of Bond's inner psyche and so on, all in the name of making them "films of substance," when in reality they are anything but.

I totally agree. However, I find DAD far less guilty of all that than GOLDENEYE, TND or TWINE. I mean, Bond doesn't fall in love with Miranda Frost, and we're spared cringeworthy dialogue about getting too close or toppling all those dictators. And I think DAD has an energy, and a sense of unashamed unpretentious fun, that the series hadn't seen since Moore.

After all, it should be obvious that we won't get another DAD-style Bond flick for many, many years, if ever again ("Good!" I hear you cry), so perhaps it should be cherished for what it is.

Not when I can cherish MOONRAKER and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE instead.

Well, they're better films than DAD, I grant you, but only because they have Adam sets and Barry scores. I cherish 'em all, though, but then again I like every single Bond film apart from TWINE, so I'm perhaps not the most discriminating 007 fan.

[DamnCoffee]

Die Another Day is a fun Bond movie. The only thing it is good for is passing the time on a boring saturday afternoon. But thats all it is.... Eyecandy.

[Harmsway]

After all, it should be obvious that we won't get another DAD-style Bond flick for many, many years, if ever again ("Good!" I hear you cry), so perhaps it should be cherished for what it is.

Not when I can cherish MOONRAKER and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE instead.

Well, they're better films than DAD, I grant you, but only because they have Adam sets and Barry scores. I cherish 'em all, though, but then again I like every single Bond film apart from TWINE, so I'm perhaps not the most discriminating 007 fan.

DIE ANOTHER DAY never once feels genuinely elegant, stylish, cool, or even humorous. That puts it way behind YOLT or MR in my book.

[Licence_007]

After all, it should be obvious that we won't get another DAD-style Bond flick for many, many years, if ever again ("Good!" I hear you cry), so perhaps it should be cherished for what it is.

Not when I can cherish MOONRAKER and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE instead.

Well, they're better films than DAD, I grant you, but only because they have Adam sets and Barry scores. I cherish 'em all, though, but then again I like every single Bond film apart from TWINE, so I'm perhaps not the most discriminating 007 fan.

DIE ANOTHER DAY never once feels genuinely elegant, stylish, cool, or even humorous. That puts it way behind YOLT or MR in my book.

Yeah I agree with you on that one. Like has been mentioned earlier in this topic it is competely devoid of any charm that is so abundant in most of the other entries in the Bond series.

[Loomis]

DIE ANOTHER DAY never once feels genuinely elegant, stylish, cool, or even humorous. That puts it way behind YOLT or MR in my book.

Yeah I agree with you on that one. Like has been mentioned earlier in this topic it is competely devoid of any charm that is so abundant in most of the other entries in the Bond series.

Well, I beg to differ. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, DIE ANOTHER DAY was the film that made Bond cool again (although I'll grant you that CASINO ROYALE made him even cooler), after so many years of silly comedy (late-period Moore), glumness (the Dalton era), and the strange mixture of insecurity and chest-beating that was the early Brosnan period. Brosnan was finally filling the role of 007 like an old pair of shoes, or however he used to phrase it, giving his most relaxed, charismatic and, yes, stylish performance, and the flick is surely crammed with more quintessentially Bondian elements than GOLDENEYE, TOMORROW NEVER DIES and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH put together.

Here's a prime example courtesy of Harry Knowles' review on AICN: "His entrance into Hong Kong at his regular hotel - CLASSIC. There's just something classic about how you can strip every bit of official status away from Bond, but he simply knows too much about the world, has too many connections, he's merely too cool to stop. I love how he goes from having no funds to basically using a enemy country to get the tools he needs to get the job done. When he first appears in Cuba - again, perfect. Bond isn't just about tuxedoes, James Bond is a man, perfectly perfect in each and every situation. His shirt, pants, shoes. He is a gentleman on sabbatical in Havana. It filled me with delight."

A sophisticated gentleman at home in any environment - isn't that James Bond to a T? A man who has a regular hotel in all the great cities of the world. If this sort of thing isn't Bondian stylishness and sophistication, what is? As for humour, well I personally find much to laugh at in DAD (and much to laugh with, I hasten to add).

And c'mon, it can't be that worthless a film if we're still debating it all these years later.

[DaveBond21]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='822848' date='16 January 2008 - 03:43'][quote name='David_M' post='822843' date='15 January 2008 - 10:29']I think the problem is that the Brosnan films...and Brosnan himself...seem to constantly yell, "Take us seriously...look how deeply we delve into Bond's psyche...look how literate and thoughtful we are...we're so much more grown-up than the old films"...only to feature some of the most ridiculous and patently impossible stunts and situations in the entire series. It's one thing if Roger Moore raises his eyebrow and flies a jet out of horse's behind...the whole movie's a romp, so it fits. But don't go on about how intelligent and nuanced your take on Bond is, only to pull out stunts even Wile E. Coyote couldn't manage.[/quote]
You

[MkB]

Aren't Jinx and Miranda totally sexy?)?

After the line Yo Mamma,Halle Berrys sexiness just went out of the window. And she jumps into bed two minutes after meeting 007.My mother says there is a word for someone like that and it rhymes with 'go'.

Now that's sooooo Victorian...

[Harmsway]

And c'mon, it can't be that worthless a film if we're still debating it all these years later.

Sure it can. This board's still debating THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, and we both know how worthless that is.

[tambourineman]

- Good dialogue
- Good special effects
- Good acting
- Good story
- A plot that makes sense

DAD has none of the above. A movie (any movie, not just a Bond movie) has to at least some of the above. I cant think of a movie that is devoid of any of the things that can make a movie even passable as anything other then terrible.

[Judo chop]

I feel sorry for you, Judo Chop. It must have been bad. I really enjoyed GE, TND and TWINE and really enjoyed the Brosnan era. It was great to have Bond back after the break between 1989 and 1995, and for me seeing Goldeneye in the theatre was my first since TLD (which was my first official Bond in the theatre), so every Bond movie was a treat. The first half of DAD was also great but the 2nd half awful.

I assure you, there are plenty of better reasons to feel sorry for me than this, Dave.

But, for the record, I did not always feel this way about the Brosnan era. I once loved GE as a top-5 Bond film, and TND was never too far behind. It wasn

[Licence_007]

Well, I beg to differ. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, DIE ANOTHER DAY was the film that made Bond cool again (although I'll grant you that CASINO ROYALE made him even cooler), after so many years of silly comedy (late-period Moore), glumness (the Dalton era), and the strange mixture of insecurity and chest-beating that was the early Brosnan period. Brosnan was finally filling the role of 007 like an old pair of shoes, or however he used to phrase it, giving his most relaxed, charismatic and, yes, stylish performance, and the flick is surely crammed with more quintessentially Bondian elements than GOLDENEYE, TOMORROW NEVER DIES and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH put together.

Here's a prime example courtesy of Harry Knowles' review on AICN: "His entrance into Hong Kong at his regular hotel - CLASSIC. There's just something classic about how you can strip every bit of official status away from Bond, but he simply knows too much about the world, has too many connections, he's merely too cool to stop. I love how he goes from having no funds to basically using a enemy country to get the tools he needs to get the job done. When he first appears in Cuba - again, perfect. Bond isn't just about tuxedoes, James Bond is a man, perfectly perfect in each and every situation. His shirt, pants, shoes. He is a gentleman on sabbatical in Havana. It filled me with delight."

A sophisticated gentleman at home in any environment - isn't that James Bond to a T? A man who has a regular hotel in all the great cities of the world. If this sort of thing isn't Bondian stylishness and sophistication, what is? As for humour, well I personally find much to laugh at in DAD (and much to laugh with, I hasten to add).

And c'mon, it can't be that worthless a film if we're still debating it all these years later.

You do put forward a very convincing argument. I have perhaps been too scathing so far on the film. There are some things which are good. I believe your post highlighted that the Brosnan performance and the way Bond acts and is shown in the film in a plus point and I am inclined to agree.

But with so much else going against the film in my opinion it can't totally redeem it. So whilst Brosnan puts in a good shift and the film does the Bond character well for the majority, the rest of the film is just a train wreck, with it's silly CGI, outlandish plot (I'm not a big fan of MR or YOLT either so please no huge hypocrite criticisms), forgettable characters (Graves would be totally scrubbed from my mind if I hadn't seen Toby Stephens in Severance) and poor dialogue, with what is possibly the worst innuendo and for all intents and purposes the most vulgar I have seen in a Bond film.

[Harmsway]

I don't think the innuendo is the most vulgar in the franchise... Moore has quite a few that reach the same level of vulgarity. I think the problem is that Brosnan and Halle just can't deliver it. When ol' Rog said something filthy, he still delivered it in such good humor that he never soiled his image as an elegant gentleman. It's an astounding accomplishment, really.

But when Brosnan says these lines in his smarmy fashion, or Berry in her "Look! I'm saying innuendo, so don't you miss it!" way, it just feels filthy and/or stupid.

[Judo chop]

I liked Graves a lot. He took the template megalomaniac charater of the olden days and gave it his own hyperactive, cocaine fueled spin on it.

And there's really no need to bring up the dialogue in these debates. No one, whether defender or prosecutor, will argue that the dialgoue in this film is anything but offal. It's a given.

[DaveBond21]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='823227' date='17 January 2008 - 02:33'][quote name='DaveBond21' post='823021' date='15 January 2008 - 18:00']I feel sorry for you, Judo Chop. It must have been bad. I really enjoyed GE, TND and TWINE and really enjoyed the Brosnan era. It was great to have Bond back after the break between 1989 and 1995, and for me seeing Goldeneye in the theatre was my first since TLD (which was my first official Bond in the theatre), so every Bond movie was a treat. The first half of DAD was also great but the 2nd half awful.[/quote]
I assure you, there are plenty of better reasons to feel sorry for me than this, Dave.

But, for the record, I did not always feel this way about the Brosnan era. I once loved GE as a top-5 Bond film, and TND was never too far behind. It wasn

[baerrtt]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='822848' date='15 January 2008 - 16:43'][quote name='David_M' post='822843' date='15 January 2008 - 10:29']I think the problem is that the Brosnan films...and Brosnan himself...seem to constantly yell, "Take us seriously...look how deeply we delve into Bond's psyche...look how literate and thoughtful we are...we're so much more grown-up than the old films"...only to feature some of the most ridiculous and patently impossible stunts and situations in the entire series. It's one thing if Roger Moore raises his eyebrow and flies a jet out of horse's behind...the whole movie's a romp, so it fits. But don't go on about how intelligent and nuanced your take on Bond is, only to pull out stunts even Wile E. Coyote couldn't manage.[/quote]
You

Edited by baerrtt, 17 January 2008 - 02:49 PM.

[RazorBlade]

I guess you missed the point that was being made. Bond films for the most part have always been outrageous and over the top, and DAD is hardly the first Bond film. I just find it laughable to read posts from people who behave like it is.

I don't mind it being over the top, my problem is it's a dreadful film.

It is interesting to note, though, that sometimes the fans are ready for OTT (as they were in '67 with YOLT and '77 with TSWLM) and sometimes they aren't. DAD, I think, represents one of those times when EON miscalculated fan tastes. A lot of us were ready for a CR in 2002, and DAD was the polar opposite.

I must agree.

[MkB]

Well... The results of this poll are quite interesting so far... And I'm not talking about the fact that I have at least one fellow dog on this forum!

[Judo chop]

I agree, MKB (ooh, neat little rhyme there).

And I

[Licence_007]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='823782' date='17 January 2008 - 21:47']I agree, MKB (ooh, neat little rhyme there).

And I

[DaveBond21]

[quote name='Licence_007' post='823796' date='18 January 2008 - 09:00'][quote name='Judo chop' post='823782' date='17 January 2008 - 21:47']I agree, MKB (ooh, neat little rhyme there).

And I

[Judo chop]

I'm not sure what to do with the votes of brain raping and such.

Probably best to exclude them from the analysis.

[Licence_007]

I'm not sure what to do with the votes of brain raping and such.

Probably best to exclude them from the analysis.

You are discounting my vote

Just include it in the hated then, hate now.