tomasg-69814
Strange Pierce Brosnan finale this was. A 140 m $ show that was meant to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the James Bond legacy, but failed in my opinion. Yes, it's a 007 movie all right, but runs with an unnecessary roaring V8 muscle engine. A solid, faithful 4-cylinder was all that was needed. Makes an attempt to run on champagne, when it could have been in a reclined way, with a nice cold beer instead. Nice opening scene and some fun flashbacks is not enough for this kind of event.The makers fools away the good 007 spirit with too much "make-up" and flashy, garish scenes in such speed that a good seat belt was needed when you entered the cinema chair at your local theater in 2002.The use of flashbacks to the old movies is way too obvious and silly. Diamonds and lasers was already expended stuff, and the cast of Halle Berry was strange to me even back then. A good actress that wasn't really Bond stuff to me. Acted tough and cocky in a most annoying way, just getting along to the end. (Dr. No bikini scene rip-off is spoofed many times since.) Musician lady Madonna's cameo part is just there to fill up her ego. Of course, she had to spoil the good theme song tradition too, by performing a "modern" hard core dance track that isn't Bond material at all. (The worst 007 track that was, since Duran Duran's 1985 "A View To A Kill.) Why couldn't Robbie Williams been asked at the time, to do a soft tune instead?The cast is, by the way, quite good anyway. I think Rosamund Pike is one of the best villain girls in the Bond history, an elegant beauty with the ordinary lethal skills. A woman to be close to, rather than the opposite. Head villain Toby Stephens does it good too, but lacks of some aura to make a full-filled 007 evil enemy.And the running time of 133 minutes is way too much. Some action scenes could have been cut in half - instead of hitting the brakes unnecessary - for a better flow. (The Icelandic chase scene which ends up quite silly is one example.)So, do I think this 007 flick is the most bad of them all? Some days, yes....but none of the Bond movies is an absolutely disaster. Brosnan was not sacked because of this, he was just running out of James Bond fuel, and got the leave message by rumors, I've read. (Not directly from the office of Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli.)It just was time for a change in the James Bond calendar. The basic stories of one Ian Fleming was ended long time since, and the responsible crew was to think things over. What to do for pushing the 007 legacy forward, once again?Former Bond actors Sean Connery and Roger Moore was questioned about their opinion, where to go with the MI6 agent. Connery said that he cared quite deeply about the whole Bond package, and what things that would happen to a thing that he was part of creating in the beginning. Moore was more of easy going - as always - and was hankering for a villain part in a James Bond movie. (Why did they not listen to the man? Make it happen before he's gone; he deserves it better than any other former Bond actor, coming back three times when he was already condemned, because of his respected and sometimes criticized age, last appearance 57 years old.)Timothy Dalton was professionally modest, and proclaimed that the Bond machine was to run for several ages to come, surely. I think he was the most "awake" Bond actor of them all.One-timer George Lazenby (1969) seemed not to care that much, once spoiling his chances as an immortal Bond actor because of bad decisions, and some wrong advisers at the time. Once the Brosnan era was over, plans for a continuation began to take shape... The Bond fans of the world was held on the gridiron for four long years.
bowmanblue
...considering this was the Bond film which partly forced Bond to 'reboot.' For what it's worth, I liked 'Die Another Day.' Okay, so it may never be up there with the best of the Bond movies, but it certainly doesn't deserve to be down there with the worst. I'll go as far as to say that it is a little effects-laden and the Madonna cameo just really shouldn't be in there, but it's still good fun (and isn't that what a Bond film should be?).This time Bond is captured by the North Koreans for a good year and a half near the beginning of the film (don't think that should be too much of a spoiler – as it's basically covered in the typically-weird opening credits montage) and tortured. When MI6 finally get him out, it's because he's being exchanged for a North Korean war criminal – in fact the very same war criminal he went to North Korea to assassinate.Anyway, MI6 don't really see much use for poor ol' Bondy and consign him to the scrap heap. Only Bond has other ideas and kind of 'goes rogue.' Well, slightly rogue. Not quite as 'rogue' as Licensed to Kill' but still rogue enough to be not on MI6's payroll. And those dastardly North Koreans better watch out and not try starting a war with the rest of the world.As I said, I quite liked it. It's topical (what with the North Koreans regularly scaring the world with their sabre-rattling) and rolls along reasonably well. Maybe I'm just nostalgic as I liked the old 'happy-go-lucky' Bond films (before the darker and more gritty Daniel Craig era) and this was the last of its kind. A lot of people hated it because of its awful use of 'green screen' special effects. Okay, you may expect to be able to tell the hero is up against a green screen in your average B-movie, but this is a high-budget Bond film – it really is pretty awful. And then you have the invisible car. Over the decades Bond has had more than his fair share of cool gadgets to get him out of trouble. It seemed that a car that completely disappears at will was suspending the disbelief a little too much.Overall, Die Another Day will never be a classic. There is a fair amount wrong with it. Halle Berry, although being a great actress, kind of suffered from the 'Bond girl curse' and didn't really live up to expectations (there was even talk of a spin-off film series based on her character – never going to happen now). Don't expect too much from this, but if you're still okay with the lighter side of Bond (even though this one does try to 'go dark' - or as dark as anything pre-Craig ever will) and fancy a load of dodgy special effects and Pierce Brosnan's smirk then there are worse films out there (there are also better Bond films out there, but you probably already know that).And I still like John Cleese better as 'Q' than the kid they currently have.
ironhorse_iv
I absolutely love the Bond movies, however, as a devoted fan of the series, I acknowledge that the films vary dramatically in terms of artistic quality. Die Another Day is one of the stupidest 007 movies, I have ever saw. It's the 'Moonraker' of the modern era. A over the top escapism film that try too hard to be young and hip, that it tire itself out, with its old and heavily clichéd premise. Not only did, this movie derailed the spy franchise for years to come, it also put the franchise in so much deep ice, that 2006's Casino Royale had to come and reboot it with its Jason Bourne like realistic style. While, I wouldn't say, it's the worst Bond movie, ever. I do have to say, that the movie is so bad, it's kinda good, in how entertaining bad it was. However, that doesn't make it, a good movie. Directed by Lee Tamahori, the movie tells the story of James Bond (Pierce Brosnan), being sent to South Korea to investigate the connection between a North Korean terrorist named Colonel Moon (Will Yun Lee) & a diamond mogul, Gustav Graves (Toby Stephens). It's there, that he find out, that both are funding the development of an international space weapon call Icarus that could wipe South Korea from the face of the earth using concentrated sunlight. Can Bond stop this weapon from doing that, or will the villains gain the upper-hand? Watch the movie to find out, if you want to! Without spoiling the movie, too much, I have to say, the whole kill sat plot is nothing new. This is fourth time, a Bond movie use the killer satellite plot, after 1971's Diamonds are Forever, 1979's Moonraker and just recently, 1995's GoldenEye! Honestly, in my opinion, these killer sat plots are just really ridiculous, and childish. It's almost borderline into self-parody. You would think, they would have learn, their lesson, after seeing 1999's Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, lampoon the idea, to the ground; but no, they still thought, it was a good idea. Like really, what was Moon's plan should the good guys attack during night? I ask this, because Earth's shadow extends far enough into space to eclipse the Moon! No viable orbit would be high enough to ensure that Icarus always had sunlight to reflect. I don't think the writers for this movie, Neal Purvis & Robert Wade thought of that. They're so idiotic. Not only that; but a lot of the crazy sci-fi elements, they wrote, fail to impress me. Among them is "The Vanquish" cloaking car, in which the filmmakers already forgot how it works after explaining it. It's clear by what they wrote, that if objects pass, beside the car, it would appear on the other side, making it visible. So they isn't anywhere, Bond could honestly hide, besides going in. Another sci-fi element that seem unbelievable, is the DNA restructuring sub-plot. While, the science for it, seem off the wall, impossible, because how bone marrow and voice therapy honestly works; that isn't my main problem with it. Honestly, I found the whole subplot, somewhat offensive. The reason why, is because I felt like the writers only brought this sub plot up, because the filmmakers must have, thought that the Asian actor, they hired, didn't seem very appealing or believable as a main 'Bond' villain to the mostly white English people. So they hired an English Caucasian actor to replace him in most of the film. I call it as it is, it's the filmmakers having cold feet and playing to stereotypes that Asians actors cannot act. Anyways the twist that came with this move, was very predictable, lame and not really needed. Don't get me wrong, Toby Stephens is a fine actor, but his character is one of the weaker James Bond villains, I ever saw. I found his henchman, Zao (Rick Yune), to be more appealing. However, that diamonds still sticking to Zao's skin doesn't make much sense, in the long run, if the villains are trying to change his face. Anyways, the worst sci-fi gadget, this movie adds is the virtual-reality simulator. Not only does it has nothing to do with the main plot, it felt like a 'Bobby Ewing in the Shower' cop out. Those trolling action scenes are just filler, at best. Talking about action, I have to say, it's a mixed bag for me. I kinda do like the Iceland car chase, in the middle of the film, however, the CGI parasailing surfing on a tidal wave, heart stopping sequence, ice palace melting and cyborg suit is a serious no-no for me. There were all badly done. And while we're at it, the hovercraft chase and disintegrating airplane scene had some really blatantly obvious green screen as well. It was a bit jarring to watch. But by far, the worst thing about this film is the opening torturing scenes, with the title music by Madonna. I hate the horrific auto tune and repetitive lyrics. Still, I have to say, that Pierce Brosnan in his last appearance as the character was alright for the most part, however it's clear that he can't do much, realistic stunts, as he used to. About Halle Berry being the bond girl, Jinx; she was believable in the action scenes, however her sassy acting is really bad. 100 percent line readings, pointless whining, and awkward blaxploitation one-liners like lame 'yo mamma' jokes made her, very unwatchable. Thank god, that Jinx never got her own spin-off film series. I like Rosamund Pike as bond girl, number 2, Miranda Frost in her film debut over her. She was amazing. Still, the age-gap between Pierce Brosnan and her, is somewhat alarming, and disturbing. They also don't have any chemistry together on screen. Overall: I found the movie to be subpar. The 50th anniversary of the first novel, and the 40th anniversary of the film canon, deserve better than this. Check 2012's Skyfall, instead.
