DIE ANOTHER DAY: First 30 minutes perfect?

18911131416

Comments

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I don't want to celebrate an invisible car, John Cleese as Q, Halle Berry, Toby Stephens, Madonna or CGI that looks like it was created in 1970.

    Agreed. The first 30 mins is certainly the best part of the film. But it’s not perfect at all....it’s still very average.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    In the middle of the first 30 minutes of DAD as we speak. Madonna's song really takes away points.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,032
    Yes, 9/11.

    But still, I recognize points made above that DAD was a big success at the time. I fully expected and looked forward to EON reworking Casino Royale to fit Brosnan for Bond later in his career. [A bad idea, in retrospect. Counterproductive.]

    At the time Brosnan did some of the salary play that Roger Moore was famous for. There was also Brosnan's side action in the press mentioning Tarantino and other items. Some negatives toward the franchise itself.

    Pierce Brosnan was ready for more missions but overplayed his hand at the same time the producers finally got the rights to film Casino Royale. They would have easily moved forward with him, but at the same time events conspired against that.

    So 9/11 just piled on. And yes the franchise reacted to Bourne and Batman for the path, still that's not really what directed the course taken.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Yes, 9/11.

    But still, I recognize points made above that DAD was a big success at the time. I fully expected and looked forward to EON reworking Casino Royale to fit Brosnan for Bond later in his career. [A bad idea, in retrospect. Counterproductive.]

    At the time Brosnan did some of the salary play that Roger Moore was famous for. There was also Brosnan's side action in the press mentioning Tarantino and other items. Some negatives toward the franchise itself.

    Pierce Brosnan was ready for more missions but overplayed his hand at the same time the producers finally got the rights to film Casino Royale. They would have easily moved forward with him, but at the same time events conspired against that.

    So 9/11 just piled on. And yes the franchise reacted to Bourne and Batman for the path, still that's not really what directed the course taken.

    and moviegoers sensibilities were changing as well.. while Bond films were certainly making bank, i'm sure MGW and BB recognized that the landscape was in flux, and would another spectacle like DAD be accepted, and is that the best course of action for the franchise at the time? (and i use the term spectacle loosely lol).. because even though the movie still made money - the most of the Brosnan era films i believe - critical reception to it was pretty split down the middle.. and this was the 3rd Brosnan Bond film in a row that have split the critics.. so financially, the films were still doing well, but i think they saw it was time to creatively go in a different direction.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,032
    Agree of course, @HASEROT. All things considered.

    My experience expects critics railing against Bond films since the 60s is a part of Western Culture. As celebrated in Mad Magazine and other media.

    Casino Royale was the unexpected gamechanger.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 972
    mtm wrote: »
    Absolutely, that's where the wind was blowing.

    I'm sure when they saw Batman Begins doing well they didn't exactly regret where they were heading.

    If anything, I bet finding Craig was the biggest fly in the ointment. Because CR is clearly written for a young Bond, probably one who's in his twenties. Craig was in his late thirties so didn't actually suit what they were after, but they obviously decided he was simply too good not to use, so they just put him in the film and ignored the problem.
    :)

    The thought that Craig was a year older than I am right now when he did Casino Royale in 2006 is just mind blowing for some reason.. Lol
  • Posts: 7,500
    SaintMark wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Am guessing Brosnan didn't make it beyond DAD coz he was chosen by Cubby who was approaching his last days as Producer. Maybe if Barbara had picked Brosnan, he would have done more than 4 films.

    I think that's reading a bit much into it. I think they just disappointed themselves with how DAD turned out and decided to take it somewhere else, the box office and reviews rather proved them right on that.

    The BO was good and it was only a loud minority who cried, there was nothing in PB's performance as 007 and his BO intakes that warranted a different course with a new 007. Which makes you wonder why they decided to drop a popular actor in favor of a new one. I have never seen an answer that was without any finger-pointing, mostly done by Craig fans and the anti-Brosnan crew.
    Looking back they made a good choice but that is always easy to say when you know where we are at right now. I still think Brosnan warranted a fifth outing.

    It was a decent BO but they made way more money, and I believe a much greater percentage profit, with CR. So they decided to do it because they thought it would work, I don't think it requires much more explanation than that, does it?

    Which they did not know before it happened, so it feels a bit of a retconning to fit it in the view that Craig was a good choice. I have never heard a decent explanation besides we wanted to go a different direction and do not see Brosnan doing so, which based upon the BO's was certainly a financial risk when they decided this.

    I think it’s more of a combination of factors than just one thing that made them decide not to bring back Brosnan.

    1) Brosnan’s contract had been fulfilled (three films with a fourth option), so that put EON on a crossroads. They can continue with the successful actor they have or take a chance of starting over, feeling confident that the franchise was in good shape to move forward without a sure thing like Brosnan.

    2) The Bourne franchise was becoming big, a spy series that truly hit the zeitgeist of where we were in that period and proved you can make a very big blockbuster out of a more mature gritty spy film.

    And I think the most influential point of them all:

    3) Michael G. Wilson had the Bond Begins concept simmering in his mind ever since Cubby turned it down in 1985. When they finally retained the rights to CR in 1999, they consciously decided NOT to make it Brosnan’s fourth film likely because Wilson saw that adaptation as the perfect moment to portray a novice Bond, which meant Brosnan couldn’t work for that. Consider the first two points with this and I think you see EON feeling the time was right to start anew.

    I don’t think anyone was at fault for Brosnan’s run not continuing. I’m sure in EON’s minds they saw his run as having had a good run, and felt good about leaving it on a high note, at least in box office terms.

    Exactly
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    I know Craig read Fleming's Novels as preparation for CR.....but he must have watched DAD, even if it's wasn't the direction he was looking at, at least to see what his Bond Brother Brosnan did in his last Bond film, coz even Dalton might have seen AVTAK to know he had to make Bond Darker in TLD....coz he also read Fleming before TLD.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I know Craig read Fleming's Novels as preparation for CR.....but he must have watched DAD, even if it's wasn't the direction he was looking at, at least to see what his Bond Brother Brosnan did in his last Bond film, coz even Dalton might have seen AVTAK to know he had to make Bond Darker in TLD....coz he also read Fleming before TLD.

    It’s possible, I don’t think we’ve ever really heard much about how Craig feels about his predecessor’s films. I vaguely remember him talking about FRWL being his favorite of the old films.

    Worth noting he turned down CR initially, but when he was offered again he was given a look at the script and that’s what ultimately won him over. Perhaps he had seen DAD back when it came out, and when turning down CR the first time he probably assumed it would be like DAD?

    Hard to say.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited May 2020 Posts: 8,034
    From a Q&A Time Out article in 2008:

    Here’s one from Charlie Higson, author of the ‘Young Bond’ books: How much of Fleming’s Bond is there in Craig’s Bond?

    I hope a lot, but it’s subliminal. It’s about reading the books. What I wanted to do with “Quantum of Solace” – and what Marc wanted to do – was to draw on Fleming’s obsession with detail. He has two pages to describe making scrambled egg. Marc wanted to turn that into cinematic detail, so that just looking at the frame is sumptuous.‘Also, there’s a darkness in the book “Casino Royale”, there’s a fight in there. Here’s a man who’s incredibly reluctant to do what he does, which I think applied to Fleming too. He’d always have preferred to be at [his Jamaican villa] Goldeneye writing and taking gin fizzes at eleven o’clock in the morning. Wouldn’t we all?’

    He also strongly implies that Live And Let Die is his favourite Bond, on account of it being the first film he saw at the cinema with his dad.
  • Posts: 3,279
    SaintMark wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Am guessing Brosnan didn't make it beyond DAD coz he was chosen by Cubby who was approaching his last days as Producer. Maybe if Barbara had picked Brosnan, he would have done more than 4 films.

    I think that's reading a bit much into it. I think they just disappointed themselves with how DAD turned out and decided to take it somewhere else, the box office and reviews rather proved them right on that.

    The BO was good and it was only a loud minority who cried, there was nothing in PB's performance as 007 and his BO intakes that warranted a different course with a new 007. Which makes you wonder why they decided to drop a popular actor in favor of a new one. I have never seen an answer that was without any finger-pointing, mostly done by Craig fans and the anti-Brosnan crew.
    Looking back they made a good choice but that is always easy to say when you know where we are at right now. I still think Brosnan warranted a fifth outing.

    It was a decent BO but they made way more money, and I believe a much greater percentage profit, with CR. So they decided to do it because they thought it would work, I don't think it requires much more explanation than that, does it?

    Which they did not know before it happened, so it feels a bit of a retconning to fit it in the view that Craig was a good choice. I have never heard a decent explanation besides we wanted to go a different direction and do not see Brosnan doing so, which based upon the BO's was certainly a financial risk when they decided this.

    I think it’s more of a combination of factors than just one thing that made them decide not to bring back Brosnan.

    1) Brosnan’s contract had been fulfilled (three films with a fourth option), so that put EON on a crossroads. They can continue with the successful actor they have or take a chance of starting over, feeling confident that the franchise was in good shape to move forward without a sure thing like Brosnan.

    2) The Bourne franchise was becoming big, a spy series that truly hit the zeitgeist of where we were in that period and proved you can make a very big blockbuster out of a more mature gritty spy film.

    And I think the most influential point of them all:

    3) Michael G. Wilson had the Bond Begins concept simmering in his mind ever since Cubby turned it down in 1985. When they finally retained the rights to CR in 1999, they consciously decided NOT to make it Brosnan’s fourth film likely because Wilson saw that adaptation as the perfect moment to portray a novice Bond, which meant Brosnan couldn’t work for that. Consider the first two points with this and I think you see EON feeling the time was right to start anew.

    I don’t think anyone was at fault for Brosnan’s run not continuing. I’m sure in EON’s minds they saw his run as having had a good run, and felt good about leaving it on a high note, at least in box office terms.

    That pretty much sums it up. The only thing you missed was the 9/11 factor too, which Babs has sated on the record as another reason to change. The world suddenly became a lot more serious post 9/11, and she didn't feel comfortable continuing down the path of another Austin Powers piss-take like the DAD travesty was.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    edited May 2020 Posts: 737
    SaintMark wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Am guessing Brosnan didn't make it beyond DAD coz he was chosen by Cubby who was approaching his last days as Producer. Maybe if Barbara had picked Brosnan, he would have done more than 4 films.

    I think that's reading a bit much into it. I think they just disappointed themselves with how DAD turned out and decided to take it somewhere else, the box office and reviews rather proved them right on that.

    The BO was good and it was only a loud minority who cried, there was nothing in PB's performance as 007 and his BO intakes that warranted a different course with a new 007. Which makes you wonder why they decided to drop a popular actor in favor of a new one. I have never seen an answer that was without any finger-pointing, mostly done by Craig fans and the anti-Brosnan crew.
    Looking back they made a good choice but that is always easy to say when you know where we are at right now. I still think Brosnan warranted a fifth outing.

    It was a decent BO but they made way more money, and I believe a much greater percentage profit, with CR. So they decided to do it because they thought it would work, I don't think it requires much more explanation than that, does it?

    Which they did not know before it happened, so it feels a bit of a retconning to fit it in the view that Craig was a good choice. I have never heard a decent explanation besides we wanted to go a different direction and do not see Brosnan doing so, which based upon the BO's was certainly a financial risk when they decided this.

    I think it’s more of a combination of factors than just one thing that made them decide not to bring back Brosnan.

    1) Brosnan’s contract had been fulfilled (three films with a fourth option), so that put EON on a crossroads. They can continue with the successful actor they have or take a chance of starting over, feeling confident that the franchise was in good shape to move forward without a sure thing like Brosnan.

    2) The Bourne franchise was becoming big, a spy series that truly hit the zeitgeist of where we were in that period and proved you can make a very big blockbuster out of a more mature gritty spy film.

    And I think the most influential point of them all:

    3) Michael G. Wilson had the Bond Begins concept simmering in his mind ever since Cubby turned it down in 1985. When they finally retained the rights to CR in 1999, they consciously decided NOT to make it Brosnan’s fourth film likely because Wilson saw that adaptation as the perfect moment to portray a novice Bond, which meant Brosnan couldn’t work for that. Consider the first two points with this and I think you see EON feeling the time was right to start anew.

    I don’t think anyone was at fault for Brosnan’s run not continuing. I’m sure in EON’s minds they saw his run as having had a good run, and felt good about leaving it on a high note, at least in box office terms.

    That pretty much sums it up. The only thing you missed was the 9/11 factor too, which Babs has sated on the record as another reason to change. The world suddenly became a lot more serious post 9/11, and she didn't feel comfortable continuing down the path of another Austin Powers piss-take like the DAD travesty was.

    The 'when you were away the world changed' line (or whatever it is) was a response to 9/11, I guess? Obviously they wanted to reflect that and the ensuing 'war of terror' more directly in CR.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    Not so much Austin Powers, more xXx. It's funny to think that The Bourne Identity, xXx, and Die Another Day all came out within a few months of each other. Bond, in this instance, fell down on the wrong side of which of the other two would be more stylistically popular/influential for the next decade. This is, as others have mentioned, as much (if not more than) to do with real world events and changing tastes as much as the films themselves.

    It's also amusing to remember that Tamahori would go and direct a xXx sequel.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    Ralph Fiennes is Cool as M. But in case they want to recast M, I would like Brosnan to return as M in future, but he might be reluctant to return to the franchise especially after DAD. And with Barbara wanting Craig to stay forever, she could easily Cast Craig as M in future, since he's leaving after NTTD. But I would also like Lazenby or Dalton as the New M too, since they didn't do much Bond films. I know Connery's too old, so I wouldn't mention him....Besides, Connery left acting ages ago.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    I could see Craig, Brosnan or Dalton as a good M, but I think Fiennes should stick around.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,957
    No I really wouldn't want an ex-Bond as M. I don't think it would be fair to the new Bond either, being haunted by your predecessor in the job.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    mtm wrote: »
    No I really wouldn't want an ex-Bond as M. I don't think it would be fair to the new Bond either, being haunted by your predecessor in the job.

    That's true. It wouldn't work for the same reasons Connery wasn't chosen for the role of Kincaid.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited May 2020 Posts: 8,025
    Casting an ex-Bond as M would add fuel to the “Bond is a codename” theory, so to hell with that idea. Why bring back an ex-Bond when the job can be done just as well if not better by another distinguished actor? I do think Dalton would have made an excellent M, but he’s disqualified for any other role on principle.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,957
    Yeah Dalton is probably the best of all of them in type for M: he can be gruff and scary quite easily. But he definitely shouldn't be M.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    Yeah, it's probably not a very good idea having an Ex-Bond play M. But the way the Bond franchise evolves these days, one can't really rule out anything. Coz I was shocked when I heard about Grace Jones' attempted Cameo.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    I wouldn't want any ex-Bond actor near the films at all, never mind as M. There are plenty of good actors out there without resorting to that sort of shhhtick.
  • DrClatterhandDrClatterhand United Kingdom
    Posts: 349
    THE ROOM (2003): First 30 minutes perfect?
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    THE ROOM (2003): First 30 minutes perfect?

    *first 30 milliseconds*
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,957
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Yeah, it's probably not a very good idea having an Ex-Bond play M. But the way the Bond franchise evolves these days, one can't really rule out anything. Coz I was shocked when I heard about Grace Jones' attempted Cameo.

    Do we believe that then?
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    mtm wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Yeah, it's probably not a very good idea having an Ex-Bond play M. But the way the Bond franchise evolves these days, one can't really rule out anything. Coz I was shocked when I heard about Grace Jones' attempted Cameo.

    Do we believe that then?

    Ummmm, Well, I suppose we can't say 100%.
  • Posts: 3,279
    Agent_One wrote: »
    THE ROOM (2003): First 30 minutes perfect?

    *first 30 milliseconds*

    I enjoyed the MGM logo at the beginning. That was pretty good, I thought.
  • edited March 2021 Posts: 4,400
    B004N0QKKW_DieAnotherDay_UXMG1._V142687306_RI_.jpg

    This sounds like lunacy – genuine, gibbering cartoon lunacy – but, for a moment there, Die Another Day was my favourite James Bond film. Hand on heart, it was. I went to see it at the cinema and I was blown away when I was 12.

    Watching it now I was a little less blown away. And then bored. And then horrified. And then I stayed horrified until the end, at which point I realised that I'd actually been watching my least favourite James Bond film. Die Another Day is awful. Entire books could be written about all the mistakes and missteps and bad decisions that went into making it.

    The shame of it is that the opening 30 minutes are great. Here we see Bond sneak into North Korea to investigate a Colonel buying conflict diamonds. However, he's betrayed and placed into exile for 14 months where he is tortured. It's a marvellously subversive and provocative notion as we expect the end of the PTS to lead to a daring escape of some kind. Instead, Bond is brutalised and there is some really striking imagery on display. Brosnan gives his most compelling work here - even if the beard is a little OTT. (Are we supposed to buy into the Jesus imagery? Or is it meant to evoke Robinson Crusoe?)

    The film even goes so far to tease that this film will be a proper espionage story. Bond is exchanged in a prisoner transfer after MI6 get intel that the agent they have disavowed is now leaking secrets. So Bond is a renegade cut from his own organisation and forced to clear his name.

    That traditional Bond wit and sense of mischief is in great show during the hotel scenes in Hong Kong (where a honeypot scheme is being concocted). Soon after, Bond is activating a sleeper agent in Cuba (a place as politically contentious as North Korea). It's this material where DAD works. Had it doubled down on this tone and explored Bond's psyche and physical state post-torture, it could have been the edgy and gritty film it seemingly intended to be initially.

    James-Bond-Die-Another-Day-Invisible-Car-1.jpg?q=50&fit=crop&w=740&h=370

    It's at this point, the remaining 2/3rd of the script should have been ditched. The film soon just descends into pure fantasy nonsense. DAD is mostly forgivable during the Cuba sequences and even the Blades fight (which feels more Johnny English than 007). But once the film goes to Iceland and the terrible plot unspools, all bets are off. Lasers in space? Genetic surgery? Invisible cars? It stops being 'fun' and soon gets offensive.

    The film goes full ham and just feels like a parody. The movie that it bought to mind the most was Batman & Robin. You can't help but feel that the Bond series was totally out of ideas in the early 2000's (with the arrival of the Matrix, John Woo and comic -book films) and DAD was there attempt to keep up. But it's just an embarrassing tacky, kitsch and cringeworthy movie.

    BatmanRobin.0.jpg

    Halle Berry is dreadful in this film. It's not helped that Jinx is the most useless spy you can imagine. It's not even played for laughs how incompetent she is. We've supposed to be impressed by her. Berry's performance really boils down to the bikini scene. Which she looks great in.

    Brosnan starts well - but soon his performance just feels laboured and tired. It's no wonder Eon realised this film was essentially the end of the road for him.

    The villains are actually the strongest point of the film. Toby Stephens has a turkey of a role (he's a North Korean version of Elon Musk who has Emperor Palpatine lightning powers and dresses as Robocop, never forget that) but at least Stephens knows what film he is in. He's hamming it up to the hilt and is actually quite fun as the sneering pantomime baddie.

    c0b7817e357f949bc465966bdbf8f7353b721269.gifv

    Rosamund Pike is the strongest point of the film. She's sexy, elegant, classy and perfectly case as Frost. She's Grace Kelly gone bad. I even think Zao is pretty damn cool. I love his conceit and look - even though it looks a bit comic-booky. Also, Rick Yune is damn pretty but no actor.

    The plot mechanics also are haphazardly presented. Bond stages a daring escape from the ice palace, only to then return to save Jinx? Why? It's an odd circle to loop and so much of the big action set-pieces of the film are crammed into this segment which simply feels superfluous. Nonetheless, the real scene-stealers are the Aston Martin Vanquish and the Icelandic glaciers.

    Meanwhile, the fiery airborne climax is sufficiently protracted to prompt the feeling that this day has gone on long enough. Watching this whole scene feels like chore. The film should have ended by now, but still feels compelled to shoehorn in a needlessly long action finale. It's made more painful by the dumb father-son confrontation which is beyond risible, only made worse by David Arnold's bafflingly music beats.

    DimwittedMerryAtlanticspadefish-size_restricted.gif

    DAD is the film for you if you want to watch some dated CGI, quasi-sci-fi nonensence that feels like a betrayal of what the franchise has always been about. I'm shocked that the 12 year old me loved this film so much....what an odd child. The best thing to come from DAD are the behind-the-scenes documentaries and Greg Williams's Bond on Set book...the film itself is pure self-parody.

    Going back through the Bonds with a 2020 perspective, it’s interesting to note how many times prior to the new era, the franchise tried to “go gritty” only to gradually morph back into something lighter and sillier. Sometimes, that happened all in the space of one film, as in this entry.

    As it is, watching the paunchy Pierce Brosnan run around in an invisible Aston Martin is embarrassing. Give me a flying Ford Anglia any day.

    2/5

    61d969546184e132fd1db6d2bc0cb041.jpg
  • DrClatterhandDrClatterhand United Kingdom
    Posts: 349
    B004N0QKKW_DieAnotherDay_UXMG1._V142687306_RI_.jpg

    This sounds like lunacy – genuine, gibbering cartoon lunacy – but, for a moment there, Die Another Day was my favourite James Bond film. Hand on heart, it was. I went to see it at the cinema and I was blown away when I was 12.

    Watching it now I was a little less blown away. And then bored. And then horrified. And then I stayed horrified until the end, at which point I realised that I'd actually been watching my least favourite James Bond film. Die Another Day is awful. Entire books could be written about all the mistakes and missteps and bad decisions that went into making it.

    The shame of it is that the opening 30 minutes are great. Here we see Bond sneak into North Korea to investigate a Colonel buying conflict diamonds. However, he's betrayed and placed into exile for 14 months where he is tortured. It's a marvellously subversive and provocative notion as we expect the end of the PTS to lead to a daring escape of some kind. Instead, Bond is brutalised and there is some really striking imagery on display. Brosnan gives his most compelling work here - even if the beard is a little OTT. (Are we supposed to buy into the Jesus imagery? Or is it meant to evoke Robinson Crusoe?)

    The film even goes so far to tease that this film will be a proper espionage story. Bond is exchanged in a prisoner transfer after MI6 get intel that the agent they have disavowed is now leaking secrets. So Bond is a renegade cut from his own organisation and forced to clear his name.

    That traditional Bond wit and sense of mischief is in great show during the hotel scenes in Hong Kong (where a honeypot scheme is being concocted). Soon after, Bond is activating a sleeper agent in Cuba (a place as politically contentious as North Korea). It's this material where DAD works. Had it doubled down on this tone and explored Bond's psyche and physical state post-torture, it could have been the edgy and gritty film it seemingly intended to be initially.

    James-Bond-Die-Another-Day-Invisible-Car-1.jpg?q=50&fit=crop&w=740&h=370

    It's at this point, the remaining 2/3rd of the script should have been ditched. The film soon just descends into pure fantasy nonsense. DAD is mostly forgivable during the Cuba sequences and even the Blades fight (which feels more Johnny English than 007). But once the film goes to Iceland and the terrible plot unspools, all bets are off. Lasers in space? Genetic surgery? Invisible cars? It stops being 'fun' and soon gets offensive.

    The film goes full ham and just feels like a parody. The movie that it bought to mind the most was Batman & Robin. You can't help but feel that the Bond series was totally out of ideas in the early 2000's (with the arrival of the Matrix, John Woo and comic -book films) and DAD was there attempt to keep up. But it's just an embarrassing tacky, kitsch and cringeworthy movie.

    BatmanRobin.0.jpg

    Halle Berry is dreadful in this film. It's not helped that Jinx is the most useless spy you can imagine. It's not even played for laughs how incompetent she is. We've supposed to be impressed by her. Berry's performance really boils down to the bikini scene. Which she looks great in.

    Brosnan starts well - but soon his performance just feels laboured and tired. It's no wonder Eon realised this film was essentially the end of the road for him.

    The villains are actually the strongest point of the film. Toby Stephens has a turkey of a role (he's a North Korean version of Elon Musk who has Emperor Palpatine lightning powers and dresses as Robocop, never forget that) but at least Stephens knows what film he is in. He's hamming it up to the hilt and is actually quite fun as the sneering pantomime baddie.

    c0b7817e357f949bc465966bdbf8f7353b721269.gifv

    Rosamund Pike is the strongest point of the film. She's sexy, elegant, classy and perfectly case as Frost. She's Grace Kelly gone bad. I even think Zao is pretty damn cool. I love his conceit and look - even though it looks a bit comic-booky. Also, Rick Yune is damn pretty but no actor.

    The plot mechanics also are haphazardly presented. Bond stages a daring escape from the ice palace, only to then return to save Jinx? Why? It's an odd circle to loop and so much of the big action set-pieces of the film are crammed into this segment which simply feels superfluous. Nonetheless, the real scene-stealers are the Aston Martin Vanquish and the Icelandic glaciers.

    Meanwhile, the fiery airborne climax is sufficiently protracted to prompt the feeling that this day has gone on long enough. Watching this whole scene feels like chore. The film should have ended by now, but still feels compelled to shoehorn in a needlessly long action finale. It's made more painful by the dumb father-son confrontation which is beyond risible, only made worse by David Arnold's bafflingly music beats.

    tumblr_oyeqwxqMHk1wzvt9qo2_500.gifv

    DAD is the film for you if you want to watch some dated CGI, quasi-sci-fi nonensence that feels like a betrayal of what the franchise has always been about. I'm shocked that the 12 year old me loved this film so much....what an odd child. The best thing to come from DAD are the behind-the-scenes documentaries and Greg Williams's Bond on Set book...the film itself is pure self-parody.

    Going back through the Bonds with a 2020 perspective, it’s interesting to note how many times prior to the new era, the franchise tried to “go gritty” only to gradually morph back into something lighter and sillier. Sometimes, that happened all in the space of one film, as in this entry.

    As it is, watching the paunchy Pierce Brosnan run around in an invisible Aston Martin is embarrassing. Give me a flying Ford Anglia any day.

    2/5

    61d969546184e132fd1db6d2bc0cb041.jpg

    What a brilliantly written piece.
    It also felt like the end of an era for Vic Armstrong too. The stunts looked (when not CGI) a little old-fashioned. There was no sense of pushing boundaries. It was colour-by-numbers from someone who'd had their day.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    I totally agree, much of DAD works really well up until the sleeper agent in Cuba. Having just watched the film again recently, I also really liked the Aston Martin vs. Jaguar battle on the ice (sans all invisible car trickery). Especially the bit where the Jaguar fires the mortars and the Aston's auto-cannons take them out; it felt like two luxury cars really made for battle, and it worked for me.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    I was never a fan of Vic Armstrong’s set pieces from the first time I saw them at 11. Too stagey and way over-reliant on machine gunplay. The action in CR felt so refreshing after all that.
Sign In or Register to comment.