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
DAD is a technically well made movie (with the exception of that bargainbasement CGI in the Iceland segment). People complaining about the CGI ending of DAD should watch CR because they really sank that house for the movie?- Imho that is what makes CR an average movie instead of a good one. They had learned nothing of the DAD ending.
I do enjoy DAD as a 007 movie, it is lighthearted and fun. Actually that is the kind of 007 movie I prefer. I do not care about DC's hair or height, he has not been given enough decent material so far to make a real impression so far. I hope with Bond23 he finaly gets a decent whole movie. WIth him having more class and less thugish behaviour.
Having seen DAD this week I found myself enjoying it more than previous. The movie knows what it wants to be and has little pretentions, it is an actioner with a wink. And those have always been the core interest for the large audiences of the last 50 years. The dark & gritty will disapear soon enough when folks tire from such movies and want their 007 back.
In the books of Fleming I am fine with his humorless life, but for me the books and the films are a different universe as well medium.
Well, then it cant be a technically well made movie then can it? I'd add the shoddy cgi of the plane coming apart at the end as well.
Ummm..the cgi was used sparingly on the palazzo sinking and aligned with model shots. the continuity of doing a sinking palazzo aligning it with real life bystanders is tricky. Far harder then doing a airplane coming apart - I think it works well.
r.
He's had two decent movies. CR is in most peoples top five. While DAD is in most peoples bottom five.
It doesnt even get that right. It tries for charm and gets smarm. Its tries for wit and gets crassness. Purvis and Wade are mainly to blame but the main culprit is Tamahori who thought he was making a Carry on film. Actually, Carry on films may have the advantage over DAD. At least they were put together competently.
007 is already back and has been for two films. Its just that you dont like it. And dont expect the jokey Bond to be back anytime soon. Its not Craigs thing and they are going to be very lucky to find a successor who can do it.
The line between charm and crassness with the jokey Bonds is very thin line. The trick is to know when to stop. Spy and LALD got it right, MR and DAD didnt. They crossed the line into shiteness.
And yet when the films run out of inspiration they always go back to the Fleming novels. Whenever they go too far with the jokey Bonds they pull their horns in and go back to Fleming. The humourless Fleming will always be with us whether you like it or not.
Because I know quite a few folks who do not enjoy DC's version of 007 and have taken it of their will go list of cinematic-outings. And no they are not fans just folks who feel that the current 007 is not what they want to see. I even had to go and see QoS on my own because there were no taker. In hindsight I can say that they were right, that one was below xXx2.
You want to talk shoddy CGI, go and see the old 007 movies there is quite a lot of questionable special effects in most of them. That does not make a movie technical bad. MR was even nominated for its great special effects but considered by you as shittiness.
A sense of class and style is one of the foundations of 007 you mistake that with a sense of humor, which DC has very little of indeed it is painfull actually because he makes it sound crass and styleless. And the humor of the 22 EON movies is often anchored in its time so it is often mistaken by a younger audience as remarks made these days. Sean Connery, Lazenby, Roger Moore, Dalton, Brosnan are symbols of their times in their role of 007.
MR was a technically brilliant movie for its days when it competed with Star Wars & Star Trek and you know they did that very well. They actually turned out one of the more succesfull 007 movies of those times, with a budget that would not get the PTS made today.
The books have indeed been a source of inspiration, they even plundered the continuationbooks without admitting it (there is a list somewhere with stuff copied from the books with the movies they put it into). But the 007 of the movies popular with a wider audience would be the more witty movies with class and style. Yes indeed now and then we have a darker period (Dalton & Craig) which is sometimes succesfull. But the Bondbooks and Bondmovies are still a very different breed, and thank you very much for that. Even the earlier more book orientated movies added something that was not there in the books of Ian Fleming. We thank Terrence Young for the English Gentleman spy that up today is still the difference between the Bournes, Ethan Hawkes or xXx's of today.
Next time anyone throws the line 'everyones entitled to their opinion' in my face I'll just quote this; possibly the most ludicrous thing ever written.
If that really is SaintMarks opinion then I would suggest he needs to be taken into care for his own good.
Granted, the Bonds had bad excepts before but were able to right themselves before the end. DAD doesnt. Its a very bad film. Full stop.
DAD is torpedoed almost just after it leaves port by U-boat Tamahori.
And this is a thread about the good points of DAD? Its a miracle it has lasted 19 pages...
Well, St. Mark's preference in this case is an open book. His friends aren't real Bond fans anyway IMHO because a real fan sees every film, so his revelation of their fickle opinions serves do to nothing but give him fuel for his own opinion that QOS is the worst installment.
The general public says through box office- QOS and the Craig era more popular than the previous era.
Popular opinion of hardcore fans here- QOS is better than DAD
Arguing otherwise...priceless =))
Excellent and compelling arguments from Steve and Wizard =D>
- Title sequence
- Bond going rogue
- Bond walking into the Hong Kong hotel looking like a caveman but acting otherwise
- Rosamund Pike
- The fencing duel
- John Cleese
- The scene with M and Bond in the underground station
- The banter between Frost and Bond in the ice palace.
- Pierce's performance overall (clearly enjoying himself - the right tone for this film)
That's my take. The rest of it, well....
I know, it is suprising. Anyway, I used to hate DAD, but after rewatching it along with my other least favourites, I decided they weren't that bad, and that there was no such thing as a bad Bond film, just some that were worse than others. It's still at the bottom of my list but I can find things to enjoy in it.
Box office doesn't prove much though. Films have opened at the top of the box office that are terrible. Timtohy Dalton is called unpopular on here because his films didn't make too much money, but the whole cinema was cheering for parts of TLD when I went to see it. And by that logic, Transformers is more popular than Bond, Brosnan is more popular than Connery (which I know will get you riled up ;) ) I don't think the box office=popularity argument works well.
I think Brosnan and Craig are at about even popularity in the minds of the public (SF could change that).
Because I consider QoS to be QoB and then it is easy the worst of the Bourne movies? The movie is a mess according DC. The holy Campbell considers QoS a bad Bondfilm, Roger Moore disliked QoS.
xXx2 at least tried to do something that was true to the style of the 2 movies and not tried to copy something badly by a director that cannot do action and it gets done by the stuntcoordinator of Bourne movie edited together by editor of said Bourne movie. The best thing about QoB was the occasional great moment of DC and the opera sequence. That does not make a very good movie.
If there is anything I can say about the next Bondmovie is:
1- they took their time this time for a decent script
2- It cannot possible get worse;
3- I rate Mendes higher than Forster (which I still consider the most baffeling choice ever).
4- The quality of music will be better, as well as the quality of titlesong gets better.
Back to DAD.
They delivered in my opinion a very entertaining 007 movie and shortchanged PB with at least 1 movie especially after being a constant positive PR person for the Bondseries and doing extremely well at the BO 4 movies in a row.
@ TLR- I don't think anyone here would be likely to say DAD doesn't have some scenes that aren't good, but those are far and few between as an entire work and it appears you realize that as well. But the grosses for QOS speak for themselves. Such a large figure isn't compatible with a movie that bombs after opening weekend because it is that bad.
You mean popular opinion as:
- Burning women as witches?- Stoning them for being accused of adultery?
- beating up homosexuals or currently discriminating against them?
- All moslims are terrorists?
- The war in Iraq was just, there were WMD?
- Obama is a socialist?
- The Beatles are the best band ever?
- James Cameron's Titanic sucks?
So often the popular opinion is not incorrect, but wrong and spitefull. Therefor I care little about popular opinion. Because in my dvd player only my opinion counts. :D
DAD was a well made movie that seems to upset some people. QoS was a movie made when it would have been better and smarter to wait a year, it would have improved the movie 100%. QoB is a seriously flawed attempt at a 007 movie, it cannot qualify as an experiment since it feels unfinished and doneby the wrong people for the job.
DAD might have had a nutty director but as a traditional 007 movie it ticks all the boxes for sheer entertainment. And I agree they finale could have been better but that is a complaint I often have with movies. But then again that can just be me. O:-)
Too reminiscent of Bourne? Yes. Plot holes leading to the deaths of Fields and Mathis? Yes. Unfortunately, no one foresaw the effect the writer's strike would have or I'm sure they would have pressed for the script to be finished. I'm sure they did the best they could have trying to finish the script and make it work. Unfortunately, contracts were signed, locations rented, and money spent. They were committed financially and contractually to move forward. Murphy's Law in full effect. Yet DAD had that extra year Mark speaks of, and was far less compelling or entertaining.
Otherwise, I don't want a well made, "tick the boxes" Bond every time. I want a Bond movie that shows a little unpredictability and isn't afraid to alter the formula here and there. DAD is mostly cringeworthy as opposed to entertaining. Too many "tick the boxes" films wind up too cliche like the Brosnan and later Moore eras. In Moore's case, it led to declining box offices for his last 2 films and in Brosnan's case, the movies got progressively worse.
Dimi, just my opinion and all but for everything they get right in the first half, they get 2 things wrong. Bond's interrogation and rescue leads to a fake death and rolling into a hotel like he took a shower with his pajamas on. Cuba? Well filmed scenes with his contact and finding the secret clinic ruined by stupid, sophomoric flirting with Jinx (ok, Jinx ruins plenty of other things too) and "dream masks". I caught it the other day on free TV by accident (by the way, in America the Encore movie channels are having a Bondathon as we speak) and it hasn't changed my mind a bit. I find QOS' issues annoying and frustrating, but not on the level of this and Moonraker, that's for sure.
Nil points for DAD, Tamahori, the script, Madge, Berry, Pike, Graves and poor old Broz.
The ice palace and daft car chase end up being the best bits of the film, which says it all really...
Fleming's literary Bond was taken for a long time and brainwashed by the Russians, so there you go, he doesn't always find a way out. I was surprised we hadn't seen it before DAD actually.
Thanks man! I definitely agree with you, it's quite ridiculous that people always bash Die Another Day and fail to recognize the severe boredom induced from other Bond movies like Goldfinger and On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and the only reason is because DAD is current and features the "popularly hated" Brosnan. They look over GF and OHMSS because they are "classics" (laugh, scoff, mock, etc.) and feature the supposed "60s magic". Hah, yeah right.
Any one of a number of individual scenes in QOS - the rope swinging, the fight with Slate, the Opera, Mathis death, the final scene - are better on their own than the entirety of DAD not to metion the risible XXX2. Honestly a series so poor that its not even good enough to retain Vin Diesels services really should be banned by law.
I agree with your last comment though. Pierce was well and truly shafted. He was good for at least another film, probably two and his box office was still very strong so there was no tangible reason for the reboot except Babs and MGW realising they had monumentally jumped the shark with DAD. I can understand him feeling bitter because he put in probably his most polished performance whereas they made dismal choices in director, screenwriters, script, lead actress (although this was probably the studio), title song (again probably foisted on them by the studio), CGI (if youre going to do it, at least do it well rather than hiring a team who can only deliver SNES level graphics). Any justice and one of them would have had to walk, except of course they are answerable only to themselves.
Dont get me wrong the EON ownership is the reason the series has survived so long as by now the studio would have run the character into the ground with CGI overload, a Michael Bay Bond film, teen Bond, black Bond, gay bond, female Bond etc etc but some of the decisions made for DAD were unforgivable and I'm sure that any one of us here would have stood up in a script meeting and said 'actually thats bollocks' so why did the people who are in charge not notice what was happening. I'd go as far to say as they were guilty of corporate negligence.
I thought someone might bring up the brainwashing incident. It's a good point, but for me it underlines the difference between the literary and screen Bond - they are not really the same thing. Plus, in the context of such an OTT movie like DAD, this attempt at gritty realism falls even flatter. The contrast between the beginning and end of DAD could not be greater in terms of tone.
(voice of Auric Goldfinger)- "You know nothing"
(voice of George Lazenby)- "You must give me the name of your oculist"
That's for both of you by the way. These criticisms you complain about are as legit as you feel yours are legitimate. There's a difference between bashing and legitimate criticism. Stop bashing people here for their opinion unless you want people to criticize you.
DAD, as an entire work, I have pretty mixed feelings about. I wouldn't call it bad though, I've deicded no Bond film is bad.
Like I said, the box office=popularity argument doesn't work that well, because people could see the trailers, think it looks good, go and see it then decide they hated it, but too late, they already paid money. Not many people who I know that went to see it like QOS. And even if people don't like it, people might still be curious and go and see it anyway. I'm sure most people said Transformers 3 was crap but look at how much money that made.
And if you were talking about DAD, it didn't bomb after the opening weekend. It took alot of money and was the highest grossing Bond film to that date.
For the record, I think DAD and QOS are weaker Bond films (neither are bad though), but the locations, the first half and Brosnan put DAD over QOS by a tiny bit for me.
That said, I still think the sword fight in DAD is a better filmed, more exciting set piece than the majority of stuff in Quantum.
Got to love the way Brosnan catches the sword too.
"If not for [insert bad occurrence], then this scene would've been great."
The actual story, up until the whole Icarus thing, was actually very good. The first half of the movie, excluding Jinx and the Madonna tune, was very enjoyable.
It's just that things got a little out of hand toward the end of the film. It was a case of the filmmakers trying to do too much.
An attempt to make a Bond film that fans of the more serious movies could enjoy as well as fans of the more silly adventures. Which is impossible. You can't make a movie subsequently popcorn entertainment and gritty drama. The result in trying is a revenge plot bathed in loud CGI action scenes with moon lasers.
So there are good instances and bad instances in the movie. If you like more serious fare, then you like the opening sequence in North Korea. If you like fluffier entertainment, then you like Bond's superhuman escape from a hospital bed by stopping his heart.
And alas, this is the key difference that makes DAD a better film than QOS. There are at least stretches of narrative and story that one can follow and enjoy (albeit: it's not all great). Like Moonraker, the first half of DAD is fairly enjoyable and follows a comprehensible plot.
By contrast, I can't think of one single point of narrative in QOS that is remotely interesting and the least bit 'fun' to watch. Sure, there are some good bits, like the Opera Sequence, maybe the final showdown, and I suppose Craig is pretty good throughout. But these are merely moments. It really does feel like they had NO story going into QOS and that they were making it up as they went along. DAD, as bloated as it is, at least has a story you can follow and that keeps one's attention (well at least in the first half--which is more than can be said about QOS)
Didn't you say it bombed after the opening weekend? If not then sorry.
And like I said, box office doesn't equal popularity (although QOS probably is more popular than DAD).
@JBFan626 I agree. DAD's first half was really good and easily tops anything QOS does. The second half really drags the film down but that first half still gives me enough reason to rate it higher than QOS.
I found the sword fight a weird throw-back to the Errol Flynn movies of the 1930s. I'm sure Fleming's Bond could fence but should the screen Bond really be doing this? It adds to a whole list of things that for me seemed out of character during the Brosnan era. Other things were the excessive use of machine guns and his much commented upon pain face. It wasn't always Brozza's fault but I felt the character during this period was constantly being made to do things or act in a way that didn't fit Bond. Just my view.
Of course Bond would be able to fence. Even the modernised Brozza or Craig Bonds didnt go to a local comp. Bond wouldve gone to a rugger school where they also did cricket and athletics (victor ludorum naturally) and fencing would also have been on the syllabus. Bet hes shit at football though - although he is Bond so can probably ping one in the top corner from 40 yards.
Unlike a lot of people I'm not blown away by the swordfight scene. I like the fencing aspect and Brozzas kick of the foil into the camera is one of thes best moments of the film (complete luck Tamahori admits in the DVD commentary - well I didnt think it was down to you Lee). But the wanton destruction of Blades fits uneasily with me. I cant see Flemings Bond doing this and in a place like that it doesnt matter how much money you have (everyone there would be loaded) Graves would be banned for life. OK I suppose you can say Graves is a prick and Bond is defending himself but still. I think the difference here between the museum fight in MR which I like a lot more is that Bond is fighting for his life there so the vandalism is justified but here its just a bit of (albeit rather heated) sport.
I agree with you about the machine guns though. The last half hour of TND is a massive let down and Bond just strutting round the stealth ship blowing people away like Arnie is very poor. Did Connery ever brandish a machine gun? Off the top of my head the only time that springs to mind is NSNA.
Pain face theres no defence - its just poor acting.