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
so far after watching this review, and thinking upon my own problems with the film (many of which align with this same ones that reviewer discusses)... i think i am closer to understanding and discovering why i don't like the film.... i'll explain more after I watch part 2...
There sometimes can be a tendency for film-makers to only see what they want to see--putting blinders on so to speak.
Take Quantum of Solace; that free-fall sequence was fake looking, let's get that out of the way. I didn't want to admit it to myself when I first saw it in theaters, but I've come to terms since. Especially when you compare it to the thrilling pre-titles sequence of Moonraker, the free-falling in QOS looks slick and fake. (Wow, I just cited Moonraker as a positive reference.) The issue with the free-fall scene in Quantum of Solace is stuntmen never actually performed the stunt! Perhaps cutaways of a real stunt intertwined with green screen close ups would have worked better? EON has to realize they CANNOT convincingly do a near 100% CG scene. Especially in a Bond film (which are known for their real stunts), these scenes stick out like sore thumbs and just don't work.
PS: I don't understand, with the massive budgets of Bond films, why EON cannot get their hands on the best VFX company out there. Industrial Light & Magic anyone???
I can deal with the ridiculous themes in DAD, even the invisible car, but the real problem lies on those GOD AWFUL one liners... especially everything that comes out of Jinx's mouth. The scene when she first meets Bond especially makes me cringe.
The movie is much better when muted.
but after watching it, I think I finally figured out what annoys me with the film the most - and it's a similar problem I had with TMWTGG - but on a much larger scale.... first off, my problem with Golden Gun, is that I thought it an opportunity to craft a real suspenseful cat and mouse thriller between Bond being stalked by a ghost of an assassin known as Scaramanga, who could be hired by the KGB to pick off 00 agents.. and Bond must find and stop him before he himself gets done in.. and the film started off with that notion, but abandon's it - and we are treated to bored paint by the numbers water color out of a 99 cent coloring book.... Die Another Day however, had multiple chances to really take the franchise into new an interesting territories (one could make the point that it still did, but in every wrong way imaginable)... Its a film full of abandoned opportunities and chances - in order to cram in more witless dialog and explosions.... there were chance after chance to really explore Bond psychologically after being tortured for 14 months - his now burned status, which could mean we could see Bond possibly operating in some shady ways we aren't used to seeing because of his disassociation with Mi6...... but instead, they tease you with an idea, and then go back to status quo..... it represents every failed promise of the Brosnan era of Bond, and every failed promise leading up the film, that said we were going to be treated to something a little grittier, a little darker - a genuine Bond experience that will be thrilling..... but all we got was the film Batman & Robin fitted for tux.... there's a bit in this review where it shows a creepy jester like clown person, luring kids from their homes and then locking them in a truck and driving them away - and uses Bond references over the scene, to play off we as fans being enticed to come back after TWINE, and then the cruel reality of being trapped with DAD... while his analogy is over the top, it does ring a bit of truth..
there is another comment the reviewer makes, that I like, because it directly address the comment that some people make when talking about this film - that being "turn your brain off an enjoy it for what it is." ..... well....
quoting HapHazardStuff.com --- "I supposed you can just turn off your brain and accept the film's lack of logic, physics, or wit, or the presence of awful performances, appalling dialog, an abandoned plot, embarrassing special effects and enjoy it as a colorful mess of images that are goofingly trying to entertain you... but I can't."
I feel the same way - there is just too much to simply say "turn your brain off and enjoy"... if I am to turn my brain my brain to all of those things, then what exactly am I watching? - i would probably equate that to taking a hit of acid, and then playing with a psychedelic zoetrope for 2 hours.... turning my brain off, and accepting the film for what it is, would mean I would have to watch it with a pretty juvenile sense of expectation and entertainment...
my personal feelings as to way some people are praising DAD, now more than in years past.... is many of us (not all) who've seen in theaters, and were exposed to it first - walk away, and are traumatized.. so for years, we do nothing but rip it apart.. so when someone new comes along who hasn't seen it - and listens to all the negativity beforehand goes "whoa - this must be pretty F'n bad." .. then they watch it and say "It's not as bad as they say it is." ..... of course it isn't, when watching the film with very very very low expectations - so then naturally it grows on you..... i've done this myself with other films as well........ i also see this as to why a 180 is being done on MR ...... i think it's just subconscious human nature... if something gets routinely bashed, eventually people come along who watch it expecting the worst, and walk away going "it's not that bad"..... and vice versa.... same applies with stuff that is routinely praised - eventually some people come around to watch it, and expect the second coming and go, "it's not as good as they say it is."..... it's a weird and interesting cycle, that i believe has absolutely nothing to do with the films' quality - but more to do with human psychology.
honestly, no.... although it does seem like it doesn't it?...
it's just recently, i've seen people giving this film more praise than in the past (and personally more praise that i think it deserves).. so I was naturally curious, as to thoughts of this film almost 10 years later, and where it will be 10 - 20 years from now....
and just thinking about that, 10 years already........ damn..... it feels like only yesterday..... ah, the signs of getting old :-( lol
Seriously, who thinks of that.
And that's the exact problem I have with it and why it will - I think - always be last in my rankings. There's so much wrong with it, as well as the early wasted potential, I can't ignore it. It's the only Bond film, that from nearly start to finish, is painful to watch.
It's like they pulled random ideas out of a hat. Okay, what do we have here? A death laser, an ice jet car, and more surfing. Wait- here's a brilliant idea!...
Ah, Die Another Day. You are so good- especially when you're bad...
when i thought the "I thought Christmas comes only once a year." line from TWINE could not be topped, they went and unleashed "Especially when your bad." ... a line, and delivery so horrible, and so creepy - that you could feel everyone cringe in the audience.
I think DAD will always have its critics. But I figure some younger viewers will discover it as their first Bond film and defend it just as many whose first Bond film was AVTAK. MR's much better than either of them IMHO.
Well put my friend. Well put.
Haphazard makes this point very well in his excellent review. He admits he never got a grip on the character.
Interestingly he highlights one of the other flaws of the film ie how cheap it looks with the fake snow and the shabbily painted backdrops.
I am fed up with the "turn your brain off" argument. I want to engage with the film I am watching - and for me that means using my brain.
I was virtually crying at that final scene of DAD.
Your right about the low expectations stuff @haserot. When DAD was on tv recently I thought "I'll watch it, I could do with a laugh" and, unsurprisingly, I found myself enjoying it more - at least up until Iceland. I still think there are bits of the film that work - quite effectively I might add - but the potential is loss amongst the rubbish. One line I hate is Halle Berry's "switch it off...or I'm gonna be half the girl I used to be" while she is at risk of being sliced in half by the lazer. Shame she wasn't I say!
I was reading an old review of DAD from a well known UK broadsheet which said:
"There was a time during the latter days of Roger Moore's tenure when Bond was
lusting after girls young enough to be his daughters, and spouting double entendres that made him look not so much urbane as a dirty old man".
This made me laugh. He obviously missed a 49 year old Pierce leering over a 23 year old Rosamund Pike.
The best thing you can say about DAD is that it doesn't pretend to be anything it isn't and presents itself as a piece of comic entertainment. I don't hate the film like a lot of people do but it certainly contains some of the worst scenes to ever feature in a Bond film.
That Haphazard video really "nailed" a lot of points though and puts forward a strong argument. I will ALWAYS have a bit of love for old Pierce for personal reasons but that video has made me think.
I have a problem with the fact that the film establishes a gritty stark/grey tone for the PTS and the Bond torture scenes, and never follows up on what it sets up. It had a very current, real world premise from the start with the North Korea issue, and then completely goes in another direction. To me DAD wants to be serious, and then wants to be over-the-top and outrageous, wants to be Bond throwback, and then wants to be a cliche Austin Powers double entendre extravanganza. DAD is pretending to be lots of different things if you ask me, rather than sticking to one tonal thread, which would have majorly improved the movie.
That PTS to me now looks like a blueprint or test assembly for the Craig films to follow. Sad it wasn't kept for the last Brosnan.
Ok, point taken ;)
I suppose what I meant is that DAD, as a whole, isn't as po-faced as some of the others. It has the required sense of fantasy - its just that they overdo it to the extreme.
Nope, that was the Dalton era.
2002 was the Dalton era? If 2006 was Craig's era, then where does Brosnan fit in to your timeline?
I've grown to accept Pierce's singing. You can tell he's putting a lot of effort into it. I think this is more cringe inducing to be honest:
The fake singing is ok but - urgh - the scene.