It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Thanks for your advise. I'm capable of self-criticism. I have already learned my lesson.
I'm not going to make bold and simple statements again. That's contradictory to making posts with valid arguments. Shame on me.
I realise I'm the reason for some threads going rogue, so to speak. That's not a good thing. Shame on me again.
As for @Getafix, you are completely right. I wish I had his gloss and appeal and eloquence for that matter. (Not buttering up here, I mean it)
DAD is a horrible Bond film, but there are a few moments where you can see some strokes of a good film hiding underneath a huge pile of nonsense. But DAF seems like the entire cast and crew (save for John Barry) were smoking some very good stuff during the entire production. Case in point the finale raid on the oil rig, which has to be the cheapest looking end battle scene to any action/adventure film that I can remember watching.
Whereas MR has a Barry score, lush cinematography and great sets, DAD has very little to redeem apart from some genuinely good moments that a few and far between. Still, it's a Bond film, like you said, so I'll still watch it, even if I feel the urge to throw my remote at the TV upon Jinx's mouth moving, and if only I'm doing a Bonathon.
It falters intermittently, but falls off a cliff after the line... 'I'm Mr.Kil'
But I will say this - if I don't compare DAD with the rest of the franchise, the film is one hell of a thrill-ride.
I've always liked that scene very much, but then I have no quarrels with Jinx in DAD.
It already goes wrong during the entire PTS sequence. We have been criticising Bond's CGI-face in the PTS of "Skyfall". But IMO it's nowhere as obvious as the entire greenscreen behind Bond and his two fellow Asian agents, doubling for the North-Korean beach. David Tattersal's (cinematographer) color filter choice during that PTS was also dreadfully grey, as if we're watching "The Matrix". Then I prefer Hoyte van Hoytema's color filter choices for "SPECTRE". Way 'warmer' and 'friendlier'.
Also I hated the entire greenscreen background behind 007 doubling for Hong Kong's yaught harbour. Man, they should have filmed there on location! And I haven't even talked about the ice surfing scene or the dreadful sped-up editing style. Zao is a henchman, not a frikkin' vampire!
"Moonraker" at least had charm, as everything during that production was done for real, without CGI. "Die Another Day" however seems to be a 'step-brother' in style to "The Matrix", which basically makes it the most blatant greenscreen film ever in Bond history.
I also find it hard to hate DAD. It's so ludicrously OTT that it's not possible to take it seriously enough to hate it. I think I actually prefer it to TWINE tbh.
Shucks guys, you're making me all embarrassed. Needless to say, the feeling is entirely mutual - chatting and occasionally sparring with you guys is always a joy. I think this site is great evidence that not evey online forum needs to be a hotbed of aggression and hatred. For that we have all the great members to thank and particualrly the moderators who keep an eye on everything.
I actually really like Diamonds Are Forever and can't quite explain why. Connery is flat, but he still is Connery. My suspicion is that the story is really good in the first half, and had it had a better second half narrative, would have a lot more to like about it. When the story is following the diamonds, the pacing is well done and captivating. The character of Blofeld is entirely wasted, despite being a formidable villain in his own right. If it retained its positive elements and had a more detailed story connecting to previous events with stronger performances to match, it would be really good.
The difference between Diamonds Are Forver, Die Another Day, and Moonraker for me is how many moments do I feel detached from the movie. I feel the least detached by far from Diamonds Are Forever, even less than in You Only Live Twice in some of my rankings. Die Another Day and Moonraker have a bit more of those moments. Critically, I should rank Moonraker higher than Die Another Day when I really think about it, but as a Brosnan fan, I buy what he is selling for as long as I can stand it. He put in a formidable performance given the script. I don't really have a logical reason otherwise, since Moonraker has a Barry score, beautiful locations and cinematography.
*As a Bond fan, there are no truly bad Bond films.
*DAD is the movie most of us like the least.
*DAD is hurt more by the relative awesomeness of CR.
*Far less "suspension of disbelief" in CR, leads to more credibility by comparison.
*I love Halle Berry, but almost every line was brutal.
What I don't like about Die Another Day is it's total disregard for physics and realism.
But it's not beyond saving.
Make Jinx into Wai Lin, Have Moon get real plastic surgery and stay Asian, no Icarus or Invisible cloak for the Vanquish, And give some more scenes with General Moon and Bond when he's captured. That single scene between them was one of the best in the movie. I would have liked to have seen more. Bond was traded back too soon. That's about it really.
I remember being quite excited when they originally announced Tamahori. I hadn't seen Once Were Warriors, but I assumed that choosing this director suggested they wanted a more serious, character driven movie. How wrong could I be!
I'm still not sure whether EON intended for Tamahori to do what he did. Surely they expected him to do something quite different. If they wanted to make a Michael Bay movie, why not get Michael Bay to direct. It just seems so odd that they asked Tamahori - I can't believe they set out to make that movie the way it turned out. I think Tamahori turned out to be very different from what they expected.
As you say, there was no reason for DAD to be quite as daft as it actually was. It's essnetially the Moonraker novel plot, but they ended up remaking the MR movie instead in terms of tone.
I disagree. Every Bond beyond the 60's still had a grounded in reality approach. Sure they were over the top but they didn't suspend my disbelief as much as Die Another Day did. At least I could believe that the over the top stuff in Moonraker could be done today. We can have a space station and we can have Space soldiers. it's plausable. But Die Another Day's over the top stuff isn't realistic at all. I can't go to a gene therapy clinic and become a completely different person complete with eyes hair and voice and body type. It's impossible. Then their's icarus, which I suppose could technically be done at a much smaller scale but having it be able to have a huge solar beam able to cut through anything is impossible. The Invisible car, I can kinda buy because something similar is being built today. The VR thing is also buyable but it wouldn't look photorealistic as it did in the scene. You can only suspend your disbelief so far.
:)>-
Well said.
I agree and that is why I said before that this film was all about taking the piss out of the franchise, either intentionally (to rival/match Austin Power's incredible success at the time) or unintentionally (which would imply that EON had just totally lost the plot). I'm not sure which of these was the case, but I suspect it was the former, on account of MGM relying on Bond to pay the bills at that time (pre-Sony).
It's great fun and quite entertaining, but it's not a Bond film. It's doubtlessly a caricature of one.
We all owe this film a debt though. Why? Simply put, it is plainly the Batman and Robin of the franchise, and like that disgrace of a film, should be credited with at least forcing a long awaited rethink and a rebirth of a beloved franchise in a way that wouldn't have happened if not for it being made.
When Bond was exchanged with him, 14 months had gone by since the events in the pre-title sequence... 14 months. When Bond catches up with him in Cuba and he is half past white he still has them! Why? Was he supposed to absorb them into his organism or something?? Not a doctor, not him, nobody really ever thought of grabbing a pair of tweezers and getting the damn things off?? really???
Oh, and Graves in his ridiculous Robocop suit throwing rays like he's the Emperor, smh...
Let me guess? "Saved by the bell"