654 replies to this topic

[Lazenby880]

Ah, that's because you're not a Fleming fan. You cannot see Fleming's Bond run through Brosnan's performance like writing through rock candy!


DAD still holds up in my book. Brosnan and Berry are terrific.
And, it could be argued, CR built on what TWINE and DAD started.

Surely you are just trying to provoke a reaction for your own amusement. Surely...

I do not believe that a successful screen Bond need be the living incarnation of Fleming's Bond, however the notion that Brosnan's Bond is anything remotely like he of Fleming defies any sort of rational logic. True, there may have been moments shoved in as a reference to Fleming, but did this affect the *character*? I think there were many moments and scenes during which Brosnan performed very well as Bond (some of his performance in GoldenEye is very convincing), however in Die Another Day most of his delivery was embarrassing, doing nothing with what was, admittedly, dreadful writing. Everything is over-emoted and over-stated, whereas Halle Berry is frankly *awful* as Jinx. Again, this was a character not up to much, however a different actress may have been able to do something. Instead we have a lump of wood, a gorgeous piece of mahogany perhaps, but wood nonetheless.

And what is this nonsense about Casino Royale building on The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day? Come now ACE, Casino Royale is an entirely different bag, a completely new start and in a different league. Its themes and its study of Bond's relationship with Vesper do not build on what happened during the Brosnan era; in suggesting so I feel you do Casino Royale a great disservice. There were attempts at emotion previously, however Craig's first picture is a radically different creature.

Does Die Another Day still 'stand up'? Sorry, chap, but in my view it never stood in the first place: I certainly did not leave the picture house loving or adoring the thing. Still, to each his own.

Edited by Lazenby880, 27 November 2006 - 07:27 PM.

[stamper]

OK, I consider myself a true Bond fan, the first I saw was Spy in england in 1977 I think, I did not understand one word of it (I didn't learned a lot of english by then), but had a blast with the audience.

From then on, I saw in the theaters :

- FYEO (I missed Moonraker, thankfully), liked it

- OP hated it

- AVTAK liked the first hour, hated the rest

- LD liked it a bit, but too mild for my tast

- LTK : had a goddamn blast

- Goldeneye : hated it

- TND : liked it

- WINE hated it so much I did not go see DAD in the theaters

Then on video :

- DAD : hated it


So far, my opinions have not changed on these movies, and I owned several DVD versions of them all. The only one I changed on was SPY, I now think it's one of the better Moore, but a bad movie, time have not been kind (not as bad as MK tought).

Bond fans aren't like the wind, it's time, who determines if a movie ages fast or not, improve with age or not.

CR is the best Bond since OHMSS, period.

[ACE]

Ah, that's because you're not a Fleming fan. You cannot see Fleming's Bond run through Brosnan's performance like writing through rock candy!


DAD still holds up in my book. Brosnan and Berry are terrific.
And, it could be argued, CR built on what TWINE and DAD started.

Surely you are just trying to provoke a reaction for your own amusement. Surely...

I do not believe that a successful screen Bond need be the living incarnation of Fleming's Bond, however the notion that Brosnan's Bond is anything remotely like he of Fleming defies any sort of rational logic. True, there may have been moments shoved in as a reference to Fleming, but did this affect the *character*? I think there were many moments and scenes during which Brosnan performed very well as Bond (some of his performance in GoldenEye is very convincing), however in Die Another Day most of his delivery was embarrassing, doing nothing with what was, admittedly, dreadful writing. Everything is over-emoted and over-stated, whereas Halle Berry is frankly *awful* as Jinx. Again, this was a character not up to much, however a different actress may have been able to do something. Instead we have a lump of wood, a gorgeous piece of mahogany perhaps, but wood nonetheless.

And what is this nonsense about Casino Royale building on The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day? Come now ACE, Casino Royale is an entirely different bag, a completely new start and in a different league. Its themes and its study of Bond's relationship with Vesper do not build on what happened during the Brosnan era; in suggesting so I feel you do Casino Royale a great disservice. There were attempts at emotion previously, however Craig's first picture is a radically different creature.

Does Die Another Day still 'stand up'? Sorry, chap, but in my view it never stood in the first place: I certainly did not leave the picture house loving or adoring the thing. Still, to each his own.

Firstly, Lazenby880, I am pulling your leg about your affinity to Fleming.

Here is my argument.

Starting with TLD, the classic formula was tested. With TWINE, we had the first real tweaking of various things: the PTS ending on a downer, the female lead actually being the villain, the villain actually being the henchperson, the M-Bond relationship being tested. Bond showed an emotional vulnerability that, while not successful, was an attempt at establishing showing character and relationship. DAD built on this with an ominous ending to the PTS, experimentation with time and loyalties. While more formulaic in someways than the immediate predecessor, there were great thriller touches in at least the first half of DAD.

I know Casino Royale is a major leap and exploration in a new direction. However, it has not just been made by a completely new set of film-makers. It is my argument (and just a personal feeling at that) that the seeds of Casino Royale can be seen in the previous 6 movies. Casino Royale has not just sprung from the ether.

[Lazenby880]

Firstly, Lazenby880, I am pulling your leg about your affinity to Fleming.

Oh yes, I knew you were. And I was pulling your leg with my faux-outrage.

Starting with TLD, the classic formula was tested. With TWINE, we had the first real tweaking of various things: the PTS ending on a downer, the female lead actually being the villain, the villain actually being the henchperson, the M-Bond relationship being tested. Bond showed an emotional vulnerability that, while not successful, was an attempt at establishing showing character and relationship. DAD built on this with an ominous ending to the PTS, experimentation with time and loyalties.

I think the word 'tweaking' demonstrates why I disagree, ACE. Little changes here and there were introduced, otherwise we really would be sitting through the same film over and over again. However I query the significance of these changes and the extent to which they really affected the formula overall. It would still be my argument that the formula remained with *very* little change: I do not believe that a slight downer to the end of the PTS counts as a particularly important modification.

Casino Royale, regardless, is infinitely more than a modification: it is an entire re-start, with the formula well and truly (and thankfully) being jettisoned. I really do not think that it owes anything to developments post-1987 thematically (although to talk about 'post-1987' makes me uncomfortable: I think there is a *great* division between the Dalton and Brosnan eras quality-wise, even though Dalton cast a large shadow over his successor), and just because an attempt was made at vulnerability in the recent past does not mean that the 'team' distilled said attempt for inspiration. What we have is a very different kind of vulnerability; a far more rounded character exposes a fatal flaw in a far more believable fashion. I don't want to bang on about this [honest!], however the inner fragility combined with the raw masculinity and cold arrogance this Bond has lends him an immense credibility; a Bond who is an entirely different creature. The seeds cannot be seen in the previous six pictures, if anything the themes of betrayal and vulnerability in this picture owe more to the source material as opposed to the recent cinematic past.

Come down to the streets ACE, there is a revolution on. And all I can say is Vive la revolution!

While more formulaic in someways than the immediate predecessor, there were great thriller touches in at least the first half of DAD.

I could not disagree more. But then you know that.

I know Casino Royale is a major leap and exploration in a new direction. However, it has not just been made by a completely new set of film-makers.

Which is what makes Casino Royale all the more astonishing. This is far more than a For Your Eyes Only or The Living Daylights scaling down.

Casino Royale has not just sprung from the ether.

Again I must disagree.

At least we can agree that Casino Royale is an incredible motion picture about Bond (to call it a 'Bond film' is perhaps unfair), and that Daniel Craig is a superlative Bond.

Edited by Lazenby880, 27 November 2006 - 09:09 PM.

[Bon-san]

I rate Die Another Day more highly today than when I saw it in the cinema. To my mind it sits comfortably alongside You Only Live Twice and Moonraker in the 'spectacular, outlandish extravaganza' section of cinematic Bond-dom. K1Bond007 authored an insightful post earlier (was it in this thread?) which noted that the history of cinematic Bond movies is replete with outrageous stuff. Die Another Day is a fitting homage to it all: the good, the great and the even better.

[Lazenby880]

To my mind it sits comfortably alongside You Only Live Twice and Moonraker in the 'spectacular, outlandish extravaganza' section of cinematic Bond-dom. Die Another Day is a fitting homage to it all: the good, the great and the even better.

Hmm, I think personally that you do those films a disservice by associating them with Die Another Day. Moonraker, for instance, is entirely vacuous yet it *is* great fun. The writing is witty and sharp, the look elegant and acting spot-on. The film is made as a bit of 70s entertainment and on that basis it succeeds admirably. The reason Die Another Day is such a disappointing experiment is that the 'team' had pretensions of Brosnan's last outing being rather more than a Moonraker. It is certainly outlandish in the later sections, however an attempt was made at 'seriousness' throughout the beginning, 'seriousness' which was not handled well at all, so that the result is a thoroughly schizophrenic film with no clear direction. The delusions of grandeur are just that: delusions. The attempt at seriousness is a complete failure due to woeful writing and most laughable acting, even for the Bond series (pre-Casino Royale) in which good acting was hardly a prerequisite for success.

The history of the cinematic Bond may indeed be replete with outrageousness, and it is that element I don't really appreciate. Nevertheless, done correctly it can be hugely entertaining, as Moonraker remains to this day. The problem with Die Another Day is that it attempts to be something more substantial and satisfies neither the 'serious' nor the 'outrageous': it is, frankly, a mess.

[Roebuck]

Moonraker, for instance, is entirely vacuous yet it *is* great fun. The writing is witty and sharp, the look elegant and acting spot-on. The film is made as a bit of 70s entertainment and on that basis it succeeds admirably.

I'll stick my neck out and say I far prefer it to TSWLM. For all that it's a brilliant romp, Moonraker also has some of the best 'straight' moments from the Moore' era: Corinne Dufour's death, the two scientists in Venice, Bond's reaction after the centrifuge incident.

Nothing from DAD had that kind of dramatic impact for me.

[DaveBond21]

Like many Bond fans, I enjoyed DAD up until Iceland.

Then, it became Star Wars.

[YOLT]

For the record, I still like DAD. It's my second fav Brosnan film. Everytime I watch this movie I think, "Why do fans trash this movie so much?" (Again, see the other thread for the reasons why.)

And people can change their opinions. My opinon of DAD really hasn't changed all that much,

Yup, I really like DAD, for all it's flaws. And CR will be subject to nitpicking down the line. But as has already been pointed out on the reboot of this thread, as Bond fans it's hardly surprising we like, love, adore a Bond film upon initial release.

Personally, by any standard Die Another Day is simply not good. I

And, it could be argued, CR built on what TWINE and DAD started.

Yes its true they started with LTK contiuned with GE TWINE and DAD. CR is better than these but in my book its not better than TND.

[Gothamite]

The history of the cinematic Bond may indeed be replete with outrageousness, and it is that element I don't really appreciate. Nevertheless, done correctly it can be hugely entertaining, as Moonraker remains to this day. The problem with Die Another Day is that it attempts to be something more substantial and satisfies neither the 'serious' nor the 'outrageous': it is, frankly, a mess.

Didn't really notice this, but I tend to agree, I suppose.

I watched Die Another Day last night for the first time in a matter of years.

The last time I saw it was in the cinema when I was thirteen, and I thought it was fine. Brosnan wasn't too old, yet, the invisible Aston Martin was the only way to go further with the gadgetry and everything had to be larger than life in order for it to be a worthy twentieth film.

I was absolutely disgusted, watching it, last night. Any and every attempt at keeping Bond relevant and realistic was thrown out the window. Moneypenny's previously contemporary style, was thrown out in favour of her being absolutely smitten with Bond; the dream sequence made me cringe.

Pierce Brosnan reminded me constantly of my dad playing Bond (in fairness, though, my dad is 48 and Pierce didn't look that much older than him). He didn't do much with the crappy script and was clearly enjoying himself and didn't really seem to care that the film was so rubbish.

The worst thing is, that I actually LOVE Moonraker and rank it very highly in terms of how enjoyable it is. It has decent writing, brilliant stunts and is still recognisable as a Bond film, arguably up until you see the first laser gun. This film, stinks and has nothing going for it and it doesn't resemble a Bond film, it resembles what pop culture recognises a Bond film as, full of gadgets and puns and girls and no substance.

Another thing that annoyed me about the film was its constant desire to top its last stunt. The film couldn't go two seconds without another stunt. They weren't even stunts of course, just CGI mockery, but even still, the constant explosions and guns firing grew tiring after the pre-credits sequence.

I watched a documentary a few weeks ago called 'Bond Girls Are Forever' where Halle Berry said that the reason she enjoyed the films so much was because they were a 'two-hour escape from reality'. I definitely view the films and the novels as an escape of sorts, but not an escape from reality. The novels and films should be based in some form of reality, which should be a bit romanticised so as to entice the reader.

They should not be set in an unrecognisable, futuristic, hi-tech world of silliness and unneccessary humour. I tried with all efforts to analyse this film instead of dismissing it and simply saying that Daniel Craig is a far superior Bond and that Brosnan's films all suck, but the truth of the matter is that this film truly is rubbish and while other Brosnan films were quite entertaining, Craig is a superior Bond.

[DaveBond21]

Watched DAD again the other night, and the scenes from Iceland onwards are awful.

Also, Brosnan was starting to look old, and was really holding his stomach in. Still, it was looking pretty good during the PTS, Cuba scenes and swordfight.

[JimmyBond]

Watched DAD again the other night, and the scenes from Iceland onwards are awful.

While there is a noticable dip in quality (it's painfully obvious Brosnan is not in Iceland), I think the scenes in Iceland are just as fun as anything from the Moore era, the Aston chase is certainly fun.

[zencat]

I thought I locked this thread long ago so it couldn't be resurrected.

[Sbott]

I thought I locked this thread long ago so it couldn't be resurrected.

Not much can stop those few DAD fans

[JimmyBond]

We will never be silenced!

[K1Bond007]

I thought I locked this thread long ago so it couldn't be resurrected.

This thread is why I can't take anything you say seriously Zencat.

I kid I kid... or do I...?

[DaveBond21]

I love this thread, and I really like Zencat's enthusiasm in the first post.

[LadySylvia]

I rate Die Another Day more highly today than when I saw it in the cinema. To my mind it sits comfortably alongside You Only Live Twice and Moonraker in the 'spectacular, outlandish extravaganza' section of cinematic Bond-dom.

That is pretty much my take on DIE ANOTHER DAY. I can think of a good number of Bond films that I view as being worse than Brosnan's last film.

[zencat]

I thought I locked this thread long ago so it couldn't be resurrected.

This thread is why I can't take anything you say seriously Zencat.

I kid I kid... or do I...?

It's true. I'm an unabashed fanboy, in case you haven't figured that out.

The only Bond movies I walked out of feeling disappointment were LTK (bigtime) and TND (somewhat). Oh, and NSNA, but that doesn't count. All others I loved. LOVED! Even AVTAK. But, of course, that's now a proven classic.

[DaveBond21]

All others I loved. LOVED! Even AVTAK. But, of course, that's now a proven classic.

I love all 21. Just DAF, LALD and TMWTGG languish at the bottom of the list, with DAD, but really I can enjoy all of them.

[zencat]

All these years later I still really like DAD. I like "big" Bonds and a sci-fi element. The only thing that gives me problems now is the dialog. I just want to jump in there and FIX it all.

[MrDraco]

I didn't much care for Die Another Day after Casino Royale came out. But i love every Bond film including Never Say Never. They all have there own moments and there very own classic Bond moments.

[K1Bond007]

I thought I locked this thread long ago so it couldn't be resurrected.

This thread is why I can't take anything you say seriously Zencat.

I kid I kid... or do I...?

It's true. I'm an unabashed fanboy, in case you haven't figured that out.

The only Bond movies I walked out of feeling disappointment were LTK (bigtime) and TND (somewhat). Oh, and NSNA, but that doesn't count. All others I loved. LOVED! Even AVTAK. But, of course, that's now a proven classic.

You really get an interesting perspective when you go see a movie like Die Another Day with someone who isn't really a fan of Bond. Likes the movies, but not a fan like yourself. That's how Die Another Day went for me and I walked out, not really upset.. but embarrassed. Seriously, I was embarrassed. I thought it was terrible. It and A View to a Kill bring me great shame. Bond has had his ups and downs, but those are the only two that I really dislike. The World Is Not Enough gets a lot of hate, but I didn't think it was that bad. Not a top tier Bond movie, mind you, but it wasn't terrible IMO. Typically of all the Bond movies I've ever seen in the theater, no matter how good or bad they are, I walk out excited and entertained as if I just saw one of the best movies ever even if a couple days later I admit it wasn't so hot. Not so for Die Another Day. Of course I've only seen 5 in the theaters.

[LadySylvia]

All these years later I still really like DAD. I like "big" Bonds and a sci-fi element. The only thing that gives me problems now is the dialog.

I also have a problem with the dialogue in DAD. It is one of two Bond movies that for me, features the worst dialogue. The other is DR. NO.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Argentinean TV Channel 13 is going to emit DAD on Saturday.

[HildebrandRarity]

This is what I wrote a week after the release:

i'm with you zencat...it was HIGH TIME we had an epic bond in the thunderball/TSWLM mould

...and yet when the locations shifted to cuba and then london, i swear it had a classic feel to it that REEKED james bond.

the score was top class and (unlike GoldenEye) you knew you were watching a classic 007 adventure in the mould of 1962 - 1967

the story was intruiging and engaging and it moved like a bullit.

sure there were minor short-comings in iceland, but 97.5 percent of the movie were pure BOND MAGIC which overwhelmed the other 2.5 percent of it...not to mention 99.5 percent of all the other MOVIES of the past two and a half years...or 95 percent of the movies of the past decade.

my congratulations to Eon...to David Arnold...and to Pierce Brosnan for making the extra year worth the wait - and in spades!!!

I saw the movie 6 times...Having said that, I saw Casino Royale 7 times and TWINE 6 times on the BIG screen.

So called me a sucker for 007.

But I do believe that our Harmsway's take on the thing back then seems to echo his take on it now:

My problems with DAD are with the last half, in which there is very little character development, cartoonish action, and the plot is drowned out but spectacle after spectacle.

.....

Taking itself not seriously enough will ruin Bond, as will taking it too seriously. You have to find that middle ground, and for me, GE and TND are still the "Brosnan Bond flicks."

You don't have to agree with me, but for me this movie has been the biggest letdown since Star Wars: Episode I.

Harmsway...you seem to view things with a very sharp eye indeed. Hats off to you and keep up the good work...and as for Zencat...keep up the enthusiasm, John!

Lastly, I do miss Xenobia and Mourning Becomes Electra. Where have they gone? Anyone know?

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 13 September 2007 - 08:46 PM.

[draxingtonstanley]

Zencat,your enthusiasm has emboldened me to step out of the closet as "one who enjoyed DAD".
I saw it 4 times at the cinema and have viewed it several times on DVD(though not for a while now).
It would be true to say that for me,a bad Bond film is better than no Bond film at all,but there are still worse in the series.
I can agree with some of the criticisms levelled at DAD,(hello parasurfing),but it was FUN. And it had some great Bond moments. The invisible car? Thrown in to compete with LOTR and Harry Potter,just as the broad humour of SWLM and Moonraker was a reaction to the Pink Panther series. I have no problem with Bond moving with current trends.
I think there is a rather harsh seam to the current appraisal of Pierce Brosnan's Bond movies. PB's Bond really caught the public imagination (in a way that Timothy Dalton's,alas,did not)and paved the way for the glory that is CR. DAD is a slightly deranged end of the holiday party before everyone gets down to some serious work. For me,it stands alongside Moonraker in that regard.

I await the firing squad with the same fortitude of PB's Bond in DAD.

[HildebrandRarity]

I await the firing squad with the same fortitude of PB's Bond in DAD.

I'll take DAD over Diamonds Are Forever or A View to a Kill or TWINE any day.

[draxingtonstanley]

I agree with A View To A Kill,quite fond of the other two. I think DAD for me is comfortably ahead of TMWTGG,VTAK and LTK though.


Oh,and TND.

[Judo chop]

Very shortly I