Die Another Day in review...

Wonder what the name of that buy-back program is? Crap for Classics?

Hey, meester, I give you genuine Moskvitch for dat '59 Caddy...

Who needs rocket fins, anyway?

Sharky wrote:

Moore wrote:

I remember DAD being a horrible tease. It's sort of like the girl who let's you take off all her clothes, but doesn't let you touch.

Same with DAD.

The first half is quite good, probably better the Brozzy films before it. At this point you are taking the clothes off, working some magic. You are making it happen. The lights are low, you got some smooth ass jazz playing in the background.

And then she takers her wig off, and turns out to be CJ Carpenter.

NO!

The 2nd half of DAD is more like the TWIST scene in The Crying Game!!

Well DaD got another view last night, and it's not aged too badly, though still rumbles near the bottom of Bond but as so often I find even bad Bond is pretty good.

More than anything else I feel the script is the real let down here, a few good idea's are introduced and then squandered and for all the comments about the performances some of the dialogue is so bad even Olivier in his prime would struggle to sell it, the performers have my sympathies. That said one or two of Bond's tricks were quite clever and illustrate the ingenuity Craig's Bond needs to be showing.

What I was mildly surprised with was the villains they are more fun than I recalled, Gravity mentions the homo-erotic subtext and I think he's right making Toby Stephens performance both creepy and evil in a rather unique manner but it's Rosamund Pike's Frost that really impressed cutting a convincingly cold tone and her 'baddie' voice and outfit in the climax really ... does ... it for me ^^.

10 Lessons to learn from DaD

1. If someone says they can realise a stunt but it will have to be CGI then you probably shouldn't do it.

2. If you feature a gorgeous vehicle like an Aston Martin Vanquish the worse thing you can do is make it invisible

3. If you want to emphasise a scene with slow motion, begin and end the slowmotion when the scene begins and ends don't just let it randomly cue in and out part way through peripheral scenes and don't add ghosting unless you want it to look like a technical fault.

4. If you are going to cast a physical character like Ricky Yune then make sure your hero meets him in physical combat and ensure he doesn't fall victim to 'vehicular ballet syndrome' before the end of the film.

5. If you must emphasise a sex sequence don't have your lead actors try to outdo one another in a gurning contest, an orgasm and a seizure do not elicit the same expression - in any event Halle Berry's ass and/or bosom was the right place to focus the camera in this instance.

6. Dont have your lead female consumate sex by partially masticating a piece of fruit and regurgitating it into the mouth of the hero...unless those characters are avian or dinosaurand are not of the same family of course.

7. If your lead actor is starting to show his age, don't artificially age him at the beginning of the film, that old man will haunt him the rest of his performance.

8. if someone suggests a straight line chase between a rocket car and a laser beam fire them immediately.

9. never construct an entire conversation with nothing but innuendo

10. never make a list with the idea that you are bound to come up with at least ten items.

Your precis reconfirms my belief that I need not ever watch DAD again.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I think if some of the excesses were trimmed from this film it would be regarded much more highly. For example, the Robosuit is just not necessary, nor is the wind-surfing scene, especially since it had to rely on dodgy f/x to achieve it. Having said all that....

I think the villains are quite good and maybe for the things that weren't said. It feels like there's some "sexual subtext" in this movie, as if the movie is trying to send certain signals. Examples: Verity (the only one dressed in black) appears to have some sort of crush on Miranda, telling Bond that she's "gorgeous". When Miranda removes her helmet she looks back to Verity for approval. Is Miranda in love with Verity? Later M questions Miranda about her personal life and seems somewhat dubious that Miranda has turned down repeated sexual overtures from other 00-agents. M lets Miranda's answer hang in the air without challenging it.

Graves uses Miranda for her sex, but there's no suggestion that the two were lovers. Miranda is so cold and aloof towards both Bond and even Graves that one has to wonder what her deal is. She doesn't mind being used sexually by Graves, but she seems almost disgusted at having anything to do with Bond. I remember wondering when I first saw the film if there was something between Moon and Zao. When Zao reunites with Moon in Iceland, Moon invades Zao's personal space, touching his face and feeling his skin, but then the scene ends.

There's also the part of Moon which finds Bond disgusting and is therefore used to create the Graves persona, but why does Moon/Graves find Bond so disgusting? Is he attracted to Bond? Is there something about Bond that Graves sees in himself that he wants to expunge? There was no subtlety in the sword fight and it doesn't take Freud to psychoanalyze the scene because Verity tells the audience exactly what it is: a "cock fight". Remember, she says she has no interest in watching or being a part of a "cock fight", lending further credence to the idea that Verity is probably lesbian. There's a homoerotic aspect to the fight, as Graves strips down to wield his sword and fight it out with Bond. We all know what the swords are meant to represent.

Anyone automatically wanting to dismiss some of these ideas should also remember that Tamahori was arrested for soliciting sex from an undercover male cop..........while dressed as a woman. You think Tamahori didn't work some of those issues out, or into, Die Another Day? I think he slipped in some little question marks regarding these characters.

Just got around to reading this. This analysis would fit right in among the essays in James Bond and Philosophy: Questions are Forever. You may be very right about Tamahori's influence. I remember Brosnan saying in an interview that during the bed scenes, Tamahori was "right under the sheets" with the actors.

I actually like Die Another Day and find it be an entertaining entry, but in an over the top way, like Moonraker or Octopussy.

I find it strange how so many fans can like those two movies, but think DAD is so too overdone in comparison. Sure we got a villain in a metal, electronic suit, and Bond surfing a tsunami, but is that any worse than Bond going into space, or hanging onto a flying plane, upside down without falling?

I'd rank in the middle of the pack of Bond movies, around #12 to #14 somewhere. Am I being too generous, and have missed what is so bad about this one compared to other over the top entries?

ironpony wrote:

I actually like Die Another Day and find it be an entertaining entry, but in an over the top way, like Moonraker or Octopussy.

I find it strange how so many fans can like those two movies, but think DAD is so too overdone in comparison.  Sure we got a villain in a metal, electronic suit, and Bond surfing a tsunami, but is that any worse than Bond going into space, or hanging onto a flying plane, upside down without falling?

I'd rank in the middle of the pack of Bond movies, around #12 to #14 somewhere.  Am I being too generous, and have missed what is so bad about this one compared to other over the top entries?

I also now put it somewhere in the middle, alongside TSWLM, LTK and OP from memory. A lot of problems in DAD are surface issues, i.e. the parasurfing scene lasts only a couple of minutes at most, but still shows Bond using his wits despite the execution being naff. Take the ice yacht sequence (escaping the laser, etc.) out and cut straight to the car chase and you could still understand what's going on. 

BTW, the plane stunt you reference was excellent stunt work- i.e. actually performed (minus Rog closeups) -- so I wouldn't consider this to be a flaw nor OTT. There are other OTT aspects in OP which again, is mostly cosmetic and masks one of the best Bond stories.

Oh yeah, I'm not saying the plane stunt was a flaw, I liked it, I just didn't get what people have against the over the topness of DAD, when you have that kind of stuff in OP.

Oh yeah, I'm not saying the plane stunt was a flaw, I liked it, I just didn't get what people have against the over the topness of DAD, when you have that kind of stuff in OP.

DAD has no taste. That's the main problem. It is loud, over the top, bombastic for no reason. It has no style, no grace and no charm save for what Brosnan super humanly tries to inject into it. It has more wince inducing moments than most films ever made.

In short, much like the abominations to follow it lacks class-which is what the previous three films had in abundance. It also is as if three different films that were tonally opposed were mashed together by three different entities which according to reports is exactly what happened.

I just can't seem to board that level of criticism for DAD. Sure, characters like Jinx and Zao personify obnoxiousness, but there's very little to fault Brosnan on, who elevates the film. Not to mention characters like Chang, and especially Raoul add a touch of class and help tone down the excesses of the story. The Hong Kong and Cuba scenes (minus Jinx's first scene) are great.

Problem is those positives you put up like Raoul and Chang are only so brief in the film. And nobody's faulting Brosnan, I think he actually gave his strongest performance in that film, especially after how he was misused in TWINE. Had DAD been mostly what we saw in the first hour, it would probably be better regarded enough to be second to GE. As it is, the second hour just sinks it and its reputation.

I don't think it's the worst Bond film, but I don't blame anyone for feeling that way.

I agree that it's Brosnan's best performance. I would rank this Bond movie around #12 to #14 around, for me.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Problem is those positives you put up like Raoul and Chang are only so brief in the film. And nobody's faulting Brosnan, I think he actually gave his strongest performance in that film, especially after how he was misused in TWINE. Had DAD been mostly what we saw in the first hour, it would probably be better regarded enough to be second to GE. As it is, the second hour just sinks it and its reputation.

I don't think it's the worst Bond film, but I don't blame anyone for feeling that way.

There are more positives to DAD than the ones I mentioned, including moments in the second half. Brosnan, Chang and Raoul sprang to mind when HGTB suggested DAD has no taste, grace or charm. 

Likewise, I can see why some think it's the worst Bond film. I wish they didn't and looked beyond the surface to what it really is... under the skin. 

There's really not much under the skin, really. It's a very surface level movie, as it was designed to be, and that's okay.

Makeshift Python wrote:

There's really not much under the skin, really. It's a very surface level movie, as it was designed to be, and that's okay.

I'm alluding to the good stuff (Brosnan's performance, the music, the tone of the first half especially) that's masked by the cosmetic issues such the CGI in the second half. 

There's certainly a great Bond film underneath it all. It's a damn shame Tamahori performed a rewrite* on what could have been a great 40th anniversary film. 

*I say rewrite as I'm not sure the action sequences would have been so CGI heavy were it not for Tamahori's more outlandish ideas.

Purvis & Wade have gone on record saying that a lot of the crazy ideas were Tamahori's, either being written in by himself or having the two write for him. Doesn't surprise me, after all, he did push for the "Bond is a codename" theory. I only wish EON had said no to a lot of other stuff, but I understand why they rolled with them and the CGI at the time. 2002 was a very different landscape for action films.

I didn't mean it sound that harsh. Personally I think that the film works very well until Cuba. Specifically Los Organos and the Jinx introduction. From there it starts downhill and never recovers.

Brosnan's best performance is GE by far due to the Bond in the 90's element and his darker characterization. All four performances are great and he really deserved better material.

The second half is where I always start yelling at the movie....WHY?...A YO MOMMA JOKE!?!....HOW WOULD BOND NOT RECOGNIZE THE WEIGHT OF AN EMPTY P99?....and then eventually give up and sigh heavily.

I like Falco despite him being a cliched character, I like Stephens as Graves and had the film stayed on track it would have worked well. The explosion shot of the land mines is stunning. But it seems for every good moment or idea there are 20 silly ones.


Everything aside the sound mix is fantastic. They don't mix films like this anymore-bombastic yet always engrossing. It was designed with the surround rear channels far better than TWINE which is the only Brosnan film to have an underwhelming mix. (GE and TND are still reference grade IMO and DAD isn't far off. Yep, I'm a mix geek.)

Remember seeing it in the cinema when Bond is rumbled by Moon. His near frantic look as he sizes up his options of getting out of the 38th Parallel alive and thinking, shit he's had it now.

But then I thought that when he was on the iceberg and the last you saw of him was wrestling with the canopy and the Bond theme going crazy.

Seemed when Bond returned on the 747, something else returned on that plane and from then on it, little of it was entirely good.