Die Another Day

mike65

I just did something I have never done before - I 'walked out' of Bond flick!

Tonights ITV screening is the first time I've caught DAD, how the fupp did they let it out of the editing room?

Everything that could be wrong was, topped off by the wretched theme, frantic editing, lousy camerawork, the worst CGI I've seen in a major production, the most cringing dialogue and wooden performaces.

I realise I'm 5 years too late with this observation but I just had to get it off my chest.

Mike.

johnny_ultimate

I am no Bond fan, but I have to agree this film was one of the worst I have ever seen. A truly awful film, and if I remember correctly (havent seen since cinema release - memories too bad) zero redeeming features. The most ridiculously OTT thing I have ever seen (well, maybe Crank or Die Hard 4, but they handle it well, and with some irony too).

Casino Royale didn't improve things much (

sinking house?

), but at least it was a baby step back in the right direction. Bourne has well and truly stolen Bond's crown.

TerrorFirmer

At least, it was better then Tomorrow Never Dies, I don't think any Bond production could beat that movie regardless of what happens, who made it, and who played bond. It was just irretrievably horrible.

Horrible film, I thought the bit where bond is being chased across the ice by a giant laser beam was atrocious. Terrible stuff. Don't even get me started on the bad guy:mad:

senordingdong

johnny_ultimate wrote:

The most ridiculously OTT thing I have ever seen (well, maybe Crank or Die Hard 4, but they handle it well, and with some irony too).

Hold up pal, Die Hard is untouchable. And Crank wasn't exactly supposed to be taken too seriously. It has Jason Statham in it for crying out loud.

johnny_ultimate wrote:

Casino Royale didn't improve things much (

sinking house?

), but at least it was a baby step back in the right direction. Bourne has well and truly stolen Bond's crown.

As for this, what have you been smoking? Casino Royale was brilliant, and kicked the **** out of Jason Bourne. As awesome as the Bourne films are they are not even coparable to Bond.

As for your 'spoiler'....the location was Venice, and you saw the bouyancy aids being shot....what's unusual about that?

Mitch Connor

HavoK wrote:

At least, it was better then Tomorrow Never Dies, I don't think any Bond production could beat that movie regardless of what happens, who made it, and who played bond. It was just irretrievably horrible.

NO NO NO!

On her magesties secret service or whatever it was called.

HORRIBLE

Ph3n0m

senordingdong wrote:

Hold up pal, Die Hard is untouchable. And Crank wasn't exactly supposed to be taken too seriously. It has Jason Statham in it for crying out loud.

He said Die Hard 4 - not Die Hard

As for Casino Royale - speaking as major, major Bond fan, I have to say, compared to the Bourne movies (so far), its a very weak flick.

It was only the first Bond movie with Daniel Craig, so I am hoping the next one will sort out all the teething issues of the first.

nice1franko

Die Another Day is fukcin atrocious. By far, the worst Bond film ever made.

senordingdong

Ph3n0m wrote:

He said Die Hard 4 - not Die Hard

Die Hard 4 only had some over the top action, all of which was well implemented. It is nothing like DAD's over the top plot, with invisible cars and space lasers.

Ph3n0m wrote:

As for Casino Royale - speaking as major, major Bond fan, I have to say, compared to the Bourne movies (so far), its a very weak flick.

It was only the first Bond movie with Daniel Craig, so I am hoping the next one will sort out all the teething issues of the first.

Why do you people keep comparing Casino Royale with the Bourne movies?

Theboinkmaster

DAD was an awful film

Casino Royale was amazing and by far on of the best bond films in the past 30 years (I really liked Goldeneye - same director)

Owen

DAD was embarrassingly ill thought out. Invisible cars? Focused sunlight from space? DNA changes? Pulease ...

humanji

Oddly enough, the invisible car thing is possible. I remember watching a program about it where some guys made a budget version of the car (3 huge lcd screens mounted on one side, but it still worked! ).

Regardless, the film still sucked. And to add insult to injury, it had Halle Berry and Madonna in it. Not even sure why I bothered watching it

Ph3n0m

senordingdong wrote:

Why do you people keep comparing Casino Royale with the Bourne movies?

I'm people? Last I checked all my personalities were under control

Nope the reason I compare Casino Royale with Bourne, is simply because Casino Royale is the most recent Bond flick.

Likewise there are Bond movies out there that I would gladly watch instead of Bourne.

Wacker

Die Another Day was truly terrible. Worst of the Bond movies? I don't know; it would have some stiff competition.
Diamonds Are Forever was really bad, with one of the worst actresses ever hired.
But Moonraker. Oh dear goodness. HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?!?

Casino Royale rocked, in my opinion. It learned lessons from Bourne (by making Bond resourceful enough not to need ludicrous gadgets, such as when he took the salt shaker) without trying to copy it. Good move.

joe_chicken

I loved this film at the time:

Invisible cars.
Ice palaces.
LASERS (very important).
Enemies with diamonds in their faces.

At the appearance of each I could hear a voice in my head (sounding like myself at about 8 years old) going "YEAH!"... and it got louder and more frequent as the movie went on.

It ticked all the James Bond boxes for me.

[tongue in cheek] I think they realised with Casino Royale that they had made the perfect James Bond movie with DAD, so they had to change things around.

Casino Royale was an excellent movie too, but there was no voice this time. (

well apart from the scene with the defibrillator... YEAH!

)

MisterAnarchy

I really enjoy listening to the people who find Casino Royale great and Die Another Day to be poor.
You do realise that they were written by the exact same writers ?
Two very mediocre Bond films in my opinion .

johnny_ultimate

senordingdong wrote:

Hold up pal, Die Hard is untouchable. And Crank wasn't exactly supposed to be taken too seriously. It has Jason Statham in it for crying out loud.

As for this, what have you been smoking? Casino Royale was brilliant, and kicked the **** out of Jason Bourne. As awesome as the Bourne films are they are not even coparable to Bond.

As for your 'spoiler'....the location was Venice, and you saw the bouyancy aids being shot....what's unusual about that?

Em.. if you read my post, I pointed out that both of those films handle it well and self-knowingly, unlike DaD which handled the OTT element horribly.

As for Casino Royale. yes that

sinking house

was ridiculous, even if it was in Venice. The whole film was one over-rated pile of hooey, in my opinion. Not as bad as Die Another Day for sure. But the fact is that it tried to be 'exciting' and 'realistic' - two traits the two Bourne films (and apparantly the third too) handled wonderfully. Comparisons are pretty inevitable when there are two major spy franchises competing with each other.

cooperguy

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I really enjoy listening to the people who find Casino Royale great and Die Another Day to be poor.
You do realise that they were written by the exact same writers ?
Two very mediocre Bond films in my opinion .

Are you saying that writers dont have it in them to write one thing good and the next thing bad, everything is always the same level of quality or the same style. Thats a pretty ridiculous statement in my opinion.

OP it took you 5 years to see DAD so that means you might'nt have seen Casino Royale. Check it out its a major major improvement!

monument

johnny_ultimate wrote:

As for Casino Royale. yes that

sinking house

was ridiculous, even if it was in Venice.

And what exactly is wrong with that? Can you confirm such could not happen?

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I really enjoy listening to the people who find Casino Royale great and Die Another Day to be poor.
You do realise that they were written by the exact same writers ?

How does that matter so much?

HavoK wrote:

At least, it was better then Tomorrow Never Dies, I don't think any Bond production could beat that movie regardless of what happens, who made it, and who played bond. It was just irretrievably horrible.

Die Another Day was the lowest point even for Bond, at least TMDs was a parody on power going to the heads for media mongrels, of course I meant moguls, and their power over politicians.

Theboinkmaster

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I really enjoy listening to the people who find Casino Royale great and Die Another Day to be poor.
You do realise that they were written by the exact same writers ?
Two very mediocre Bond films in my opinion .

Wrong - the 2 lads who wrote Die Another Day share equal writing credits for Casino Royale with Paul Haggis

His involvement (along with uncredited screenplay work by the director Martin Campbell) resulted in Casino Royale being an excellent film, and vastly superior to Die Another Day

Also the producers usually have a significant say in the development of any movie screenplay so that statement is just silly

Theboinkmaster

johnny_ultimate wrote:

Em.. if you read my post, I pointed out that both of those films handle it well and self-knowingly, unlike DaD which handled the OTT element horribly.

As for Casino Royale. yes that

sinking house

was ridiculous, even if it was in Venice. The whole film was one over-rated pile of hooey, in my opinion. Not as bad as Die Another Day for sure. But the fact is that it tried to be 'exciting' and 'realistic' - two traits the two Bourne films (and apparantly the third too) handled wonderfully. Comparisons are pretty inevitable when there are two major spy franchises competing with each other.

What?! Sinking house ridiculous how? It's happened in Venice loads of times

Karl Hungus

What's with all this Bond vs. Bourne stuff? Can people not enjoy both? Personally, I own Casino Royale, and the first 2 Bourne films on DVD, and I have watched them all numerous times. They don't need comparison at all, in my opinion.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I really enjoy listening to the people who find Casino Royale great and Die Another Day to be poor.
You do realise that they were written by the exact same writers ?
Two very mediocre Bond films in my opinion .

Actually, it was 2 of the same writers. Paul Haggis (Flags Of Our Fathers/Letters From Iwo Jima) was also a writer on Casino Royale, and he had no involvement with Die Another Day.

All in all, I don't see how the single notion of the

sinking house (Which I might add, is not something I found terrible unrealistic)

can even compare with the sheer amount of ridiculous crap in the previous Bond films.

monument

Karl Hungus wrote:

What's with all this Bond vs. Bourne stuff? Can people not enjoy both? Personally, I own Casino Royale, and the first 2 Bourne films on DVD, and I have watched them all numerous times. They don't need comparison at all, in my opinion.

Well said, was thing something along the same lines.

Off topic: Can't wait to see the new Bourne film tonight!

Declan A Walsh

I would rate "Die Another Day" as one of the more mediocre James Bond films. However, I think there were some worst efforts, particularly "The World is Not Enough" and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". "Die Another Day" is watchable but not a must-see, as far as I'm concerned. I disagree about "Tomorrow Never Dies" - I quite enjoyed it. I would agree that "Goldeneye" was brilliant - for me, the best of the Pierce Brosnan efforts.

In relation to "Casino Royale", I found its dark portrayal of James Bond interesting and the action and plot entertaining: a good film. Not the best ever, but certainly above average.

Venom

you don't really grasp how awful Die Another Day is until you watch the extras on the DVD and watch the CGI team go on about what a great job they did on the ice field and cliffs :rolleyes:

cooperguy

Venom wrote:

you don't really grasp how awful Die Another Day is until you watch the extras on the DVD and watch the CGI team go on about what a great job they did on the ice field and cliffs :rolleyes:

I would have thought they wouldnt even want their names associated with it never mind boast about it.

senordingdong

johnny_ultimate wrote:

But the fact is that it tried to be 'exciting' and 'realistic' - two traits the two Bourne films (and apparantly the third too) handled wonderfully. Comparisons are pretty inevitable when there are two major spy franchises competing with each other.

That's just ridiculous.