5 replies to this topic

[RE007HQ1]

After 40 years and in his 20th film, James Bond deserves a kick in the noughties. Kiwi helmer Lee Tamahori provides it.

The 90s saw the suave superspy become 007: licence to mildly entertain. In "Die Another Day", her majesty's finest regains his killer touch.

Sexy, funny and spectacular, Bond's first mission of the new millennium is one of the best of the series - not simply a great Bond movie, but a great Action movie, full stop. Yes, we were surprised too.

From the opening titles - the usual dancing girls, unusually intercut with the movie's action - Tamahori displays an admirable desire to get on with it.

In quick succession Bond is captured, tortured and sets out for revenge. He's soon facing off with Toby Stephens' sneering entrepreneur and getting jiggy with the mysterious Jinx (Berry) and Miranda Frost (Pike).

The script smartly pilfers ideas from the Bond back catalogue, mastering all the elements which make the old school outings great: sly in-jokes, preposterous action, clumsy innuendo and 'classic' (ie. very funny or outrageously cheesy) one-liners. It's a throwback which recalls the heights of both "Goldfinger" and "Live and Let Die", combining the cool of Connery with the frivolity of Moore, without ever descending into parody.

Plus, it reinstates the childish wow-factor at outrageous gadgets (an invisible car!) and terrific stunts (including an all-time great sword fight), blasting the veteran franchise into the 21st century.

If you want to pick nits, it's a set-piece too long, but let the sceptics be stilled: Bond is back and there's plenty of life in the old dog yet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...02_review.shtml

"Die Another Day" is released in UK cinemas on Wednesday 20th November 2001

[mattbowyer]

OMG THAT IS SOOO AWESOME!

I mean like its getting FIVE STARS! I can see the ads for it now, i can't recall any of Brosnan's being able to boast that.

slightly hyped

[Blue Eyes]

Reasonable review, not too much to it though.

[Evil Doctor Cheese]

This one goes outy to Mr Blue Eyes kids! (imagine that in a late night DJ voice). Just wanted to note that you're being a little (and no offense at all meant by this... just an observation) critical of these positive reviews we've been getting. It's kinda putting a slight (and it's so slight I wish I hadn't mentioned it really) damper on them... just knocking the glowing edges off them. Like with this one... on the main page you say that the review thought it was a bit of a "set piece" when the reviewer (from what I took it) said it was " a set peice too long" meaning that there was either one too many set pieces or that the film as a whole was a little too long. Just wanted to point it out. It's nothing really.

Any way I'm stoked that we are getting such positive reviews for DAD... but IMO there's gonna be a few that want a dramtic Bond back on our screens. Also have you nitced that Stevens is getting bad reviews as Graves? Hmmm. I thought it was odd when Brosnan said that Toby "had his work cut out in this film" andf that the baddies are "hard to nail" (meaning that he hadn't nailed it) anyway he looked good in the trailer!

[The Girl With The Golden Gun]

I cannot stress enough how important Die Another Day is to this xmas's film audiences - not only to Bond aficionados but also to the movie going public, especially with such competition as Harry Potter 2 and LOTR. if only peter jackson would direct Bond 21, then we might stand a chance of knocking LOTR off its no1 spot!!

With each new bond comes new expectations and if those expectations are not met, it could have serious repurcussions for the next bond outing. however, this time around things have been largely positive, which serves only to heighten audience expectations. bond fans in general i am sure do not want to see a return to the embarrassment of the Moore era (ie. FYEO, AVTAK) or a deviation from bond such as the Dalton era, but more a combination of all 4 bonds put together. putting all the hype to one side, my g*d i think he's done it.

To quote the review, "The script smartly pilfers ideas from the Bond back catalogue, mastering all the elements which make the old school outings great: sly in-jokes, preposterous action, clumsy innuendo and 'classic' (ie. very funny or outrageously cheesy) one-liners. It's a throwback which recalls the heights of both "Goldfinger" and "Live and Let Die", combining the cool of Connery with the frivolity of Moore, without ever descending into parody. " - my reference is to the last sentence. the mention of both GF and LALD is so important to the wellbeing of Bond. GF is considered to be THE trademark bond movie, the one which really put it on the Bond map, simultaneously creating and adhering to the much loved "bond formula". gadgets, girls and guns, its all there. with LALD audiences saw a new side to bond, which was more and less touch and go as Moore's films progressed. for example, LALD was good, TSWLM great, and well, lets just say that Chris Walken was the only good thing about AVTAK (in my opinion, anyway).
This ref to LALD could possibly mean we are seeing a different side to bond once again, different to that seen in brossie's previous Bonds. this time it sounds much more Fleming-esque as 007 is abandoned by both his boss and his country as he sets off around the world for revenge. note again the vendetta motif, so popular in the bond series.

DAD being bond's first post millennium outing, it needs to be good. not just your avrage bond, but GOOD. just a quick note about Toby Stephens' reviews as Graves - part of what makes the bond formula so successful is the villain. he/she has to be, like bond, believable, but also within bond, slightly larger than life. this is a difficult combination to pull off, and perhaps is only feasible within the realm of bond and his parodies (ie Austin powers trilogy). "octopussy" was perhaps let down by Louis Jordan's only mildly threatening Khamal Khan, while not enough was made of the role played by the excellent Stephen Berkoff. we saw the same in TND - it is sad that such a great British actor as Jon Pryce had so little to make of a potentially meaty villain, and so sadly Carver came off as ineffectual (it all comes down to the writing of the part, but thats beside the point) .Perhaps we can count Trevelyan and Electra King as being the only really "normal" villains in the modern(1995 to present) bond cannon (save for their odd facial disfigurements, another bond villain trademark). both were out for one thing - money, with a dash of megalomania on the side for dipping. in DAD Zao has his diamond studded face, but what does Graves posess? an alter-ego (he is really colonel moon, i think?) and an icarus complex, so there is the interesting psychological angle there. where blofeld was concerned it was ok for bond to be seen set up against someone just plain mad, but this may not fare well with today's modern audiences. as Graves, stephens poses lethal opposition to our hero and from what i've seen in the trailers and various TV and internet spots, bond has definately met his match this time around.

on a final note, current bond helmer Lee Tamahori - if we forget for the moment "along came a spider" and remember the great "once were warriors" i can say only one thing...
the boy done good.

[DLibrasnow]

Am I the only one to notice that the BBC review lists DAD as being released in Nov. 2001???? Hmmm.....maybe the BBC needs to join the 21st century