"Die Another Day is not bad."

"Yes it is.  Really bad."

Review by Cmdr. Rick Johnson

Review by Cmdr. Brian Cooley

And while I could write volumes about my love-affair with the cold war era epics of Broccoli-Saltzman, it is only fair that I give measured weight to the latest big screen installment of Ian Fleming's creation.

Die Another Day is not bad.

Okay, granted, I've lowered the bar somewhat but let me explain.  In comparison with the three previous Brosnan editions, DAD actually has a moderately compelling story to tell with some believable character motivations.  Or as much as you can have in a script that is designed simply to supply two hours of non-stop action and seduction. 

The opening sequence does not leave us with the usually predictable image of a triumphant British undercover operative, but, instead, an agent who has been discovered, captured, tortured, and is now considered a liability to Her Majesty's government.  While the outcome of this movie's lead character was never in doubt, the journey was something of a departure.

I believe the best line of the film was delivered during the opening.  When the Zao character reveals Bond's identity to Colonel Moon he refers to him as "a British assassin".  Not a "secret agent" which is such an overused and, in James Bond's case, completely untrue moniker.  Bond hasn't been secret since TMWTGG.  But he IS an assassin, and I appreciated the scriptwriters acknowledging that.

I thought the casting job was noticeably improved in this film.  The female characters could actually ACT!  (after three years I'm still wondering what casting couch got Denise Richards onto the Pinewood lot) The young Rosamund Pike, as Miranda Frost, is a find.  She may be one of the few Bond girls who actually goes on greater acting success in the future.

And when was the last time a Bond flick could claim not one but TWO Academy Award winning actors in its credit roll?  Halle Berry did a surprisingly adequate job in her role as a voluptuous 007 counterpart and, let's face it, no film is diminished that gives lines to Dame Judi.

There were some clever moments in the film that the screenwriting duo of Purvis and Wade threw in, such as the parachuting entrance of the Gustav Graves character (how many other people in the audience besides me cringed when they thought it was Bond making another "non-secretive" entrance?) and the deceit and betrayal by Pike's Miranda Frost.  I didn't see that coming.

And the walk through Q Branch's archive of gadgets from past adventures was just the right wink and nod to those who've followed the series for years.

Director Lee Tamahori also had the wisdom to re-direct John Cleese's interpretation of Q this time around to make it something much closer to that of the early Desmond Llewelyn performances.  In his previous appearances in Bond films Cleese's character came off as a buffoon, someone who was there more for comic relief than as a valuable part of a team.  But that's not surprising.  Over the last 20 years or so Q's character mirrored the scripting of most of the films: a downward spiraling joke.  But in DAD, Cleese delivered biting, antagonistic lines - in a believable way - that reminded us of how much contempt the Q Branch has for the irresponsibility of the Double-O section.

Brosnan has matured into the role and made it his own.  While I still wouldn't rank him as the actor who best interprets Fleming's vision of the character (and certainly not my favorite) I think he brings an on-screen quality that today's audiences appreciate.  And let's face it, James Bond has taken on a life of its own.  The character is no longer Ian Fleming's scarred and flawed civil servant.  It has become a worldwide, martini shaking icon and, for now, Brosnan fills the role as directed.

Those are reasons why DAD is not bad.

Now let me tell you why it is not good.

David Arnold's soundtrack was quite often buried in the edit and, as such, nondescript.  Madonna's theme song was extraordinarily unremarkable.

The action was over the top and the CG special effects couldn't keep up.  With the sophisticated level of computer assistance available to big budget films like this one it is inexcusable that the "sail surfing" and "helicopter-falling-out-of-a-plane" scenes were ever allowed in, considering how phony they looked.  And I appreciate that Q Branch might have given our hero a bullet proof vehicle, but is it possible for an Aston Martin (even one that made the audience in my theatre "oooooo" when it was revealed) to be completely scratch & dent proof?  Even when it's been sliding along the ice on it's roof?

How much do you think they paid Madonna for her cameo?

They're still blowing up too many things throughout the film
and using that as a substitute for creating a cleverly defined drama.  It's weak filmmaking based on a cookie-cutter approach that's worked well financially for Barbara, Michael Wilson, and MGM/UA.  But it insults the rest of us who
have a combined appreciation for Ian Fleming's Scottish peasant turned gentleman agent and films that treat an audience like they're part of a demographic other than teenaged boys.

Brosnan is bordering on the age where his role as a womanizer is in doubt.  A few too many lines starting to show on that boyish face may signal the end to his reign as the most recognized film icon in history.   But, hey, it
happens.  Just ask Roger Moore.

Unlike some of the Bond films of the past several decades,
Die Another Day is one movie I could revisit in the future simply because there are enough positives to offset the negatives.  And in the post cold war era we live in
today perhaps it is that kind of compromise that allows us to
admit that we still have that cross-generational anticipation for the release of the next 007 film.

Maybe next time they'll get it right.

It’s a busy time for the resident intolerant traditionalist here at the Commanders Club; I’ve got a lot to grouse about.

"Die Another Day” is just “Terminator 2” with English accents (even in the some of the Korean dialogue, but we won’t quibble.)

Explosions, automatic weapons, camouflage clothing and Bond running around in the mud & dirt most of the time.  Does that sound much like “Thunderball”?  Or even “On Her Majesty's Secret Service"?

Which got me to thinking.  A head to head comparison with even one of the least successful classic Bond’s might prove instructive.  So I watched OHMSS a couple of nights after the DAD premiere.  And you know what?  Even OHMSS, generally regarded as a Bond film with at least one arm tied behind its back, beat DAD silly.  Here’s why:

• Locations.  They are now plastic, sci-fi, and unreal.  Classic Bond enthused us with exquisite real world places that gained their surreality from a hidden chamber or a hidden threat.  They could be quiet, almost underwhelming, but the Bond milieu made them unforgettable.  Today’s 007 movies have extra layers of noise and plastic, almost as if to say “we have no good ideas, but our bad ones are really big."  It reminds me of the old joke about a restaurant with really bad food, “and even worse, the portions are small too.”
•  
• Dialogue.  The Brosnan Bond overdrives the cutesy double-entendres like a loser guy who knows he is not funny, but is determined to be clever anyway.  Connery, and sometimes even Moore, knew how to throw away a line so you never got the impression 007 rehearsed it in his head first.  In DAD, I can almost see Bond's lip's moving as he preps his witty repartee as Jinx walks up out of the surf.

• Action.  These movies are now largely martial arts films, resigned to the same class as Stephen Segal and Chuck Norris.  Sure, they are at the head of that class, but no longer a class apart.  The great 007’s were about a well-placed gunshot, a clever last-minute idea, or just a good clean quick fight.  Look at the press photos of early 007 openings: You’ll see older adults of some means in line, right along with the young adults.  Today its just the latter.
•  
• Style.  Aside from the DAD sequence in the Peninsula Hotel (the high point of the movie in my opinion), the modern 007 gives us no indication he has a real appetite for the exclusive world in which he moves; he seems merely nouveau riche.

• Cinematography.  There is no place in 007 films for computer generated graphics.  None.  Ted Moore’s brilliant cinematography in the classic Bond films, along with well-orchestrated action scenes by a handful of second unit directors, set against a Ken Adam set with a John Barry score was a combination that will never be surpassed.  Watching 007 'boarding in DAD, or even the mid-flight finale as Icarus runs amok, reminded me of the technology used in the A-Ha video “Take on Me” (circa 1987) and is just deflating.
•  
• Villains.  In classic 007 they are worthy of Bond’s time (even though the Blofeld of OHMSS wants to destroy the world because Britain won't recognize him as Count de Bleuchamp - Perhaps Fleming’s portrayal of Blofeld’s mind being wasted by syphilis was the plot inspiration) but the second rate MI6 mavericks, mid-tier terrorist lackeys and entrepreneurial goofballs 007 is pitted against today are the territory of a big city police department, or maybe the FBI.  But not 007.  Emilio Largo wouldn’t even take a phone call from one of these new style idiots.

• Music.  I trust David Arnold has never seen a Bond movie he didn’t work on.
•  
• The Crew.  I will admit is unfair, because they are mostly dead or retired, but the crew just isn’t there any more.  Terence Young, Ken Adam, Ted Moore, John Stears, John Glen, Peter Hunt, John Barry and Albert Broccoli had real style, I don’t think they had to think much about it.  They just made movies the way they thought they should be made, and it just turned out that a peculiar and wonderful moment in time brought them all together on Bond.

Here is how DAD improves on some past Bond's:

• Joe Don Baker.  He's gone.

Look, I know this is all about continually moving the series down a demographic or two so the audience doesn’t die off and leave the Commander without a box office.  

But couldn’t the producers at least throw a bone to people over 40?  Maybe every fifth Bond movie, make one based on the 007 we love?

007 has been sent on a journey to do battle with other Hollywood franchises. And he's getting all shot up.  I don’t care about sequential box office increases. I don’t care if MGM/UA needs this franchise to stay afloat.  Not my problem.  (I pay $9 to see a movie, and have bought multiple "special edition" 007 re-issue sets on VHS and DVD.  I've poured money into this franchise.)  I want to see the next 007 movie made on a $25 million budget so everything is re-thought.  Can't afford to waste money on unconvincing computer graphics with that budget, or to construct a tacky looking Ice Palace.  Just have to hire Charles Dance, get some passionate over-50 Bond lovers from the Director's Guild, book a few flights to real cities on this earth, and enjoy a $100 million dollar box office return, which us classic Bond lovers could readily provide. The kids will have to make do with XXX and Extreme Ops.

Real magic is rare in art, especially pop art, and it was achieved in the first half of the Bond era.   It is incumbent on those who inherited that magic to perpetuate it.

Come back to the five and dime, Jimmy Bond, Jimmy Bond.