Sorry, Cat, I don't get it--was Echevarria in ST or something?
No, sorry. René Echeverria was a writer for Star Trek: The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine... He later became a co-ex of the latter series. I was just wondering why you wrote René Echeverria in you post and I assumed that you mixed the two guys by accident.
Oh, OK. . .I've watched those shows and I hadn't noticed I screwed up the names. Old age for you.
Vox clamantis in deserto
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,653MI6 Agent
Quoting broadshoulder:
I have seen Once Were Warriors, and the man has built a career on a film which is now over 20 years old.
Perhaps someone would like to enlighten me which actor in DAD, with the exception of Dame Judi, gave a good performance?
Was it Brosnan on autopilot, the facepulling and ham acting of Toby Stephens, the sleepwalking of Rosamunde Pike, or the only actress in the world who could mess up flirtaceous dialogue in Halle Berry?
Which one gave a good performance. I got the impression they were all emailed in...
This is not Hamlet, for goodness sake! Okay, I'll join the game, I think, I think...that Judy Dench is a bigger ham than William Shatner...yeah, that's it, that's it, I am now a cinammotograffee ecspert!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Man, DAD gets bashed TOO much now... It's not even fun anymore.
Wait, did I actually say that?
Okay, it's a (very) flawed picture, but it has things, (very few) things that give it a go for... I for one enjoy... the score ( ), Q, Raoul, and... Miranda Frost. I for one enjoy these (very) minor elements and it was fun to spot the hommages for the first time.
The only thing is that it shouldn't be set as THE example. That's all I ask from EON (and related companies). And hey, I can always avoid it by not watching it.
And as my mum always said... 'If you don't have anything nice to say, than don't say it.
Quoting The Cat:
Man, DAD gets bashed TOO much now... It's not even fun anymore.
Wait, did I actually say that?
Okay, it's a (very) flawed picture, but it has things, (very few) things that give it a go for... I for one enjoy... the score ( ), Q, Raoul, and... Miranda Frost. I for one enjoy these (very) minor elements and it was fun to spot the hommages for the first time.
The only thing is that it shouldn't be set as THE example. That's all I ask from EON (and related companies). And hey, I can always avoid it by not watching it.
And as my mum always said... 'If you don't have anything nice to say, than don't say it.
True, this thread does have the smell of 'beating a dead horse'. Still, some dead horse...
But since it seems to have become necessary to qualify one's remarks on Die Another Day, I'll reiterate;
Quoting Lazenby880: Quoting Red Grant:
I do believe, if history is any indication, as was with other "controversial" Bond films like OHMSS and LTK, history will be the judge. In both cases I cite above, history has the tendency of being kinder than those respective films contemporaries. We shall see with DAD....
Red, I would like to more substantively reply to your post, but please do not mention Die Another Day in the same breath as On Her Majesty's Secret Service or Licence To Kill. It's just wrong.
Having seen a portion of DAD recently, the negativity with which it was associated came to the fore once again. The dreadful one-liners, generally poor dialogue, and at times wooden acting (Ms Berry may be a fine piece of mahogony, but still wood.) But over time I've got used to those defects and stopped laughing at the 'predators' line quite so much, though I was still appalled at the 'special effects' (those icebergs and a cartoon wave especially). Just where did that huge budget go?
However, as I've noted numerous times before the movie does have its plus points (mainly revolving around Rosamund Pike) but I still think that it is ashame that it was with this pedestrian vehicle that the Brosnan era came to a close.
As far as comparisons with other Bond movies, I simply disagree with your choosing of OHMSS and LTK Red (both movies which are, in my opinion, vastly superior) on the basis that they too were controversial. Sadly, I think the reality is that with historical perspective DAD will come to be seen more as a modern-day Moonraker, both big in vision and scope but both (generally) perceived to have failed artistically.
Lazenby880, its been a while my friend. I hope your doing well and are enjoying the new year so far.
I agree that OHMSS is a superior film to DAD overall, and in several individual areas, but I dont think LTK with an inappropriate Bond performance, bland set pieces, an utterley useless moneypenny, ugly gagdtes, and a cue that seems to come more from Indiana Jones, Die Hard and Miami Vice than the legacy of 007.
Now I too have seen DAD lately and dont intend to make excuses for the things I didnt like, namely Bond never getting to deal with Frost on his own terms, or some of the Ice Palace scenes that could have been done a lot better. However, I dont think we can deny these three films share more than just controversy. All three bring something unique and distinctive to the table, Bond getting married, resigning from the service, and getting captured. They all have a different tone than their immediate predessors, and early on lost points for that.
I dont think it would be right for me to tell you what the fate of DAD will be in the fanbase, because no one knows at this point. We havent even had a new Bond film yet! Its inappropriate to determine the legacy at this point IMO. So, I go back to my previous post: The legacy of DAD will rest on whether or not fans think a clebratory approach to the 40th anniversary was correct, or a more "traditional" Bond film should have been made.
Quoting Hardyboy: Once Were Warriors is from 1994, making it a bit less than 20 years old. As for performances, it's largely a matter of taste, but I suggest that Rene Echevarria as the Cuban contact brought both dignity and humor to his role.
Yeah, but you can tell that scene got cut to jiggery and it's poorly paced. When it's not all action Tamori is at a loss. Not good planning.
I definitely agree with everyone that has said Die Another Day sucks.
Even though it has been the most successful film out of them all it is definitely not the best.
I was actually the most embarrassed I have ever been as a fan of James Bond.
When showing people on DVD and when I went to the premier I was not pleased.
It lacked:
- Strong female roles.
Unlike Elektra King in TWINE you were not totally attracted to the females even though Halle Berry is very attractive that wasn’t seen in the movie. The conflict between Jinx and Miranda seemed false.
- Strong Villian
Unlike Christopher Walken, Renard or Elliot Carver the main villains or even the henchman were weak and seemed amateur. Gustav Graves was very boring and weak along with Zao.
- Sophistication that James Bond has always had.
The movie was trying not to be what it was. The usually sophisticated scenes around the bar, MI6, casinos or you know what I mean lacked and seemed raced with the music in the background and the settings.
- Slower moving scenes
There were only a few slower scenes in DAD and these were. Jinx and James sex scene, James and Miranda’s sex scene and the meting of Gustav and his father. All of these scenes could have worked but they were distracted with action interruptions. The sex scene between Jinx and James was unrealistic they had only really just met and it seemed rushed again.
- CGI
Not so much it lacked this there was too much of it and it was badly done. Icarus was pretty good but the Ice wave was shocking the idea was good and funny in the cinema but after seeing a second time I was disappointed. The Antonov plane was excellent similar to Icarus.
- Plot / Storyline
Messy and highly unrealistic storylines. Now the cold war is over the idea is rather dated and people are forgetting it. Goldeneye got away with it because it was the first JB after the cold war. Then the next two TND and TWINE were all about what was going on in the world Media crap and Oil/Terrorists.
- Acting
The acting was poor. But this is not the actors fault it is the script. Leaving Judi Dench in a strange and unlike M sort of position. With James Bond being also in an unlike position where he seemed not to be as cleaver.
Halle Berry was boring and although not weak she seemed forced.
Merinda was really the closest to being sophisticated although she lacked believability.
Gustav Graves was not a villain he was a weird freak but unlike the other freak villains (mainly henchman) he was not very powerful and moving unlike his father who played and excellent role.
Zao and Dr Kill were not really noticed in my viewing most of the villains were unmemorable.
What the movie was good at:
- Excellent Homages
Unlike the rest of the film being too in your face the winks and nods at the previous films were well done.
- Soundtrack
Listening to this on a 5.1 surround sound system was fantastic (even though this has nothing to do with the film really)
Overall this filmed lacked what every other James Bond movie has had in the series but this may be because it is supposed to be homage but they could have done it better than that.
The film is most likely to be bad because of the director. He has only done 2 well known movies and they aren’t even that well known and they are only action movies.
I defiantly think the next movie will be better and hopefully it is because they need something to set the series straight after this one.
The James Bond makers I think know that this movie is below standard and will sort it out.
I am a New Zealander and I am not that embarrassed because that’s 1 out of 2 because Goldeneye was excellent also directed by a New Zealander.
I have never said so much bad stuff about James Bond and I don’t like saying it so hopefully this is the last.
i have to agree on the lack of sophistication. the villian came off as a petty child not as a dangerous supervillian. graves lacked a grace and style that even elliot carver portrayed.
the movie itself was far too predictable. i remember seeing it in the theatre and humming the bond theme seconds before it started playing in the film!
To pick up on something said by Lazenby 880, this IS rapidly becoming a dead-horse issue, but I feel there's still one thing left to bring up--something that's been bugging me ever since I read the original post and which has only grown since I've read many of the replies: lack of criticism.
What's this you say, Professor Hardyboy? No criticism? The entire thread is criticism!
Well, it is and it isn't. By "criticism" I mean thoughtful and thorough analysis, a true attempt to assess the merits and significance of the work at hand. With a few notable exceptions--such as Willie Garvin's and Red Grant's assessments--the comments offered against DAD are purely destructive, designed to trash, dismiss, complain, and vent. There is also a strong element of obstinance to these trashings--an unwillingness to see any merit in what is said by the "other" side. I'm convinced that, at this stage, if I were to write, "Well, at the very least you have to say that the movie was shot on good-quality film stock," someone would respond with, "No--they shot it on Krapochrome film, which is the skankiest, nastiest film stock in the industry."
This tendency to stick to one's views bothers me for a few reasons. For one, it's unnecessarily divisive. By taking the position that the film is ONE thing and ONE thing only and by Gawd you will not acknowledge that there's one single, tiny thing that the film may be doing that's contrary your viewpoint, you create an "us and them" mentality; either you hate DAD or you don't, and if you don't we have nothing to talk about. That's not thinking critically; that's thinking blindly.
Another thing I find bothersome about this position is that it smacks of fanboyism, that arrogant view that "I am the one, true authority on this subject--I know more than the creators of it, and I shall damn them for not keeping faith with the true vision of the subject, which happens to be my own." When I began my career as Hardyboy, I used to be a regular poster at Ain't It Cool News. I began to get turned off by the attitude of the other posters, too many of whom smugly and arrogantly felt that they and they alone understood the movie or TV show being discussed; as such, they believed that the producers should be listening to them and that the movie would be doomed because the fanboy wasn't listened to. You'd have people screaming, "This movie's gonna SUCK!!" a year before the movie would be released, when all they have to go on is a teaster poster.
Likewise, AICN turned me off for the extremist attitudes among the posters--any movie that comes out either "rocks" or "sucks." No middle ground. No such thing as a good movie, or an OK movie with some flaws. No interesting experiments that might not have worked. Just "rocks" and "sucks." When I see AJB members classify DAD--or ANY Bond film--as doing nothing more than biting than the big one, I don't see people who have thoughtfully analyzed the film; instead, I see people who have taken an extreme viewpoint, fueled by their own belief that they know more about Bond than the Bond producers and by their own unwillingness to be shaken from their viewpoints. Is that who were are?
Finally, I feel that these extremist positions are ultimately destructive and self-defeating. I used to think that the producers should listen more to fans, but anymore I can understand why they don't. . . Who wants to listen to people who claim to love what the producers create, but who will wind up classifying that product either as a masterwork that will "rock" or as a complete failure that will "suck?" We tell the producers they must either deliver greatness or fail, and when they fail we will kick them like dogs. Is it any wonder the producers might not care what we think, when we go into apoplectic fits and hurl nothing but abuse at the producers when the movie they give us falls short? It seems to me that we demand that the producers respect us, and they should; but at the same time we should respect them.
That said, contrary to what a lot of people think, DAD was not a big "Up Yours" to the Bond fans; if anything, it was a valentine to fans. If it were meant solely for the new generation of moviegoers who know only the Brosnan Bonds and who demand all-action all-CGI all the time, why would they bother making numerous inside references to the films that came before; to largely base the plot on the unused Moonraker novel and to make references to Fleming and to Kingsley Amis's Colonel Sun; to rework a plot element from DAF that didn't work and to (it must have been hoped) turn it into something better? The producers were, as Willie Garvin points out, trying to celebrate Bond's anniversary and to tip their hats to us. Why bother, when all they care about is making money and when they really don't give a rip about Fleming or continuity or history or anything else?
As I wrote earlier, I really don't care what your judgment on DAD is--but it does bother me that so often there is a tendency not to critique fairly, openly, or honestly. Instead, there is only the desire to trash and destroy. I don't believe that this approach will force the producers to listen; instead, they will respond as most people do to someone who screams and rants in their face: they will walk away.
I don’t think James Bond is coming to an end out all the fans are very worried when a new James Bond movie comes out.
Licence to Kill signalled what was thought to be the end of James Bond, but when Goldeneye came out Bond was back and better than ever.
This will be very tough for everyone involved (Eon) including the fans.
Before TWINE and DAD came out I was very nervous about it I was more than please with TWINE but didn’t really want to know what other people thought about DAD because I knew it would not be good.
Maybe DAD is a turning point for the James Bond series because this film has brought in A LOT of new fans and I don’t think it has lost any.
One of the reasons that the plot and story seems to go unnoticed and when you try to explain it to someone you don’t really know what to say, is because it is an homage and was probably the only way to do it.
This is how it works, DAD pulled in a lot of new fans and new fans mean a whole lot of money not only seeing the one movie but them all.
Once EON has these fans it will go back to what James Bond used to be like. The way everyone referred to used to refer it as.
I do not think James Bond will depart us soon I only think it will take a while to get going again maybe another break before a new Bond is introduced.
I think we are taking this a lot more seriously than it actually is.
And to expand, Hardyboy, as an anniversary present, DAD is about as welcome as the proverbial potato peeler for some disillusioned housewife.
While I could list Bond's walk through the tobacco factory and short meeting with the sleeper agent immediately afterwards as quite good, it's pretty slim pickings. Very shoddy stuff, like if you're an England football fan watching the friendly against Spain. All that promise - where did it all go wrong?
Further to which, they do try to "lie" to the fans each time by saying how the new film is a return to the Connery classics. So yeah, a certain venom is justified.
I'd have to agree with Hardyboy. We are all just tearing this movie up and not listing any good attributes, although few in number, there are still some.
Professor Hardyboy wanted criticism. I'm not quite sure whether my post will meet the criterias (I'm only a humble student), but here's my opinion which I wrote down by taking his advices into consideration. Also, I'd like to illustrate how much time I take before I make my 'harsh judgements'.
But first, I'd like to say that no movie is good or bad. No. All movies have certain attributes over which nobody can argue. For instance:
Pierce Brosnan plays Bond.
There's lots of CGI in the movie.
The hovercraft chase ends with Bond being captured.
There is a Q scene.
If anybody questions any of these attributes, he obviously hasn't seen the movie. Now than, we can expand the list with all the things we find important and would take into consideration: acting, music, editing... Anything that matters to one. Even this list changes with each individual, because not all of us care that much about music, or main titles or sound effects, etc.
Also we can set up preferences to fit the scale to our personality. For instance, in my case, music is very important. It's more important to me that... what kind of suit Bond wears. So know, I have the list of attributes I care about, and I have my preferences.
Now, for the rating. If you are in a hurry, you can use the primitive +/- scaling. This would be a nice indication. However, if you want to reach my level of geekness, you can rate each attribute with from A to F. This will give out the clearst pictures that can be drawn by facts and figures. All we did was rating the attributes. Than, with the help of a calculator (or our fingers), we can calculate. Movies I usually considered to be good get A or B. Mediocre movies usually recieve C or D. Bad movies are naturally what we are left with E or F. I'd also like to point out, that I very rarely give out F, as these are THOSE moments that are elementarily pose a threat to the series I love. But it's very hard to earn it...
So how does it boil down in the case of DAD? As I look through the list, there are quite a surprising number of A/Bs on it. These include the score (basically a gift, because no one rates it high), Miranda Frost, Q-scene, Raoul/Cuba... However, these are sadly outweighted. This movie contains two F moments: Jinx and the CGI surf.
Let me explain. The pure tought of Jinx having her own movie proved that at some point, EON were very fond of the character. But for me, Jinx is the latest installment of the type of women I don't want to see in the near future. I could bash her in greater details, but there's no point in that... now.
The other F moment is CGI surfing. Surprising as it may seem, this originally earned an E, but when I watched the movie with audio commentary, the comments made by Lee Tamahori (This is the future / We should do more of this... etc.) angered me so much that the moment ended up with an F. CGI, especially bad, useless CGI is not the future.
So these are the two main problem areas for me. The real problem is that DAD spans a record number of E-moments. Just to name a few:
- main title theme: I did a favour by not counting the Madonna cameo and the end titles as seperate entries. I'd rather gave one E for the whole Madonna-attitude.
- invisible car: this one is dumb and worst of all, unnecessary. The invisibility feature is practically only used, when Bond should be doing his job: spying.
- dialogue: if all the bad lines were spread across all 20 movies, nobody would notice them. However, there is an alarming frequency in this movie, especially the Ice Palace, which spans the Mr. Kil pun, the Bond-Graves dialouge, and of course the high-light: ice party discussion.
I'd stop here before I'd be charged with negative attitude again. Believe me guys, I tried to like this movie very much. DAD was the first movie with actual advertizing hype in Hungary. I told people it would be great, and taked them into to go and see it. And a lot of people went to watch it, but the reaction was rather negative. I'm still condiucting the research to find out the actual effects, but I'm rather afraid from the results.
In my ratings, I tried to be positive, and duds like Graves or Zao made it to the middle field, but I couldn't bring it up enough... And now we're back in ratings. The human mind simplifies by its very own nature. When I ask: 'How was your day, dad?', my dad will say what happened, but won't go into details. Similarly, if I'm asked how was DAD, I'd simply say DAD was a DUD. Sure it, has nice points, but bringing up that the sound mixing of the music and the explosions is nice on the rear channels would be laughable, yet it's true.
Usually, Bond movies have many high points. Such one is the Q scene mentioned earlier. Yes, it's a nice scene. But 18 other movies have it, and unless they are really bad, they ARE definately highlights. However, when there's not much else to bring up in favour of a movie, it shows that we have some problem. This would be the equivalent of saying that DAD has some good moments, like the gunbarrel sequence.
Finally, I'd like to point out my thoughts once again, which are contantly overlooked: the problem with DAD is not the movie itself. It is the message that it delivers. That financial success = success. And my problems only really started when I watched the movie with audio commentaries: the collective mantra of Mickey G. and Lee Tamahori ('This is good. This IS the future.') pushed me over the edge. I know it's a cruel business world, but back in the age of Cubby, EON always knew when to stop. I'm optimistic now, because I take the silence as a good omen. With a new actor in the lead, I can see more chance for the change than ever before.
I hope this post will reflect my thoughts, because I would like to think that this is my final word on the matter. Beating a dead-horse is not only tiring, but it stinks as well.
Quoting Hardyboy:
Well, it is and it isn't. By "criticism" I mean thoughtful and thorough analysis, a true attempt to assess the merits and significance of the work at hand. With a few notable exceptions--such as Willie Garvin's and Red Grant's assessments--the comments offered against DAD are purely destructive, designed to trash, dismiss, complain, and vent. There is also a strong element of obstinance to these trashings--an unwillingness to see any merit in what is said by the "other" side. I'm convinced that, at this stage, if I were to write, "Well, at the very least you have to say that the movie was shot on good-quality film stock," someone would respond with, "No--they shot it on Krapochrome film, which is the skankiest, nastiest film stock in the industry."
You are so damn right it's not even funny. The definition of a person is the deciding factor in any debate. My earlier comments were based on feeling, not objectivity.
If I can admit freely a movie or song is not my favorite the ones who disagree are within their rights to claim otherwise. By our debates, we both become fuller. We have moral rights to speak freely but let's also open our minds a bit and not be bull headed. To use a musician's phrase, "You can't learn your own riffs until you play someone else's" This can be metaphorical for "I am willing to learn from others at all times" Age does not matter, there will always be another's viewpoint on certain matters that are new and can broaden your horizons .
From the name of the topic itself, I wouldn't describe this as an "objective" forum. Critical analysis is not the point. The truth is -- and I emphasize "truth" -- that there are many people (myself included) that do not like DAD. We could say good things about it, and there are a few snippets about the film I do enjoy, but the purpose of this topic IMO is for us to point out the things we don't like about it. And it's interesting to see that the people tend to not like the movie for much the same reasons (dialogue, CGI, etc.) In that sense, it could be viewed as constructive criticism, as these are the things that future filmmakers could examine and say "what went wrong there? And why?"
I suppose we could make a "bashing" thread for every Bond film and let people have their way, I just choose this one. Personally DAD is the one Bond film that I have a hard time putting in the DVD player...Is that because I'm "prejudice" against it in some way? No. Why would I be? It's simply because I don't enjoy the movie and apparently I'm not alone.
As it was I who started this discussion (and I'm afraid it wasn't an objective discussion more like carthartic theraphy) I thought I had better come back and list the reasons why it doesn't work for me.
Also, I would like to apologise to Hardyboy, who comes across as a gentleman and a scholar, the intention was not to alienate anyone with over enthusiastic carpet bombing.
Why doesn't DAD work for me?
I think it is back to that old word: expectation.
Cubby Broccoli made these films for thirty years and very rarely came up with a dud (as one critic said even the bad Bonds are good). He picked a title, gave it to Maibaum, Maibaum delviered a script and UA handed over the money and he made it the best he could. Sorry, he and the memorable Harry Saltzman.
Since Cubbys demise it has fallen into the hands of Mickey G and Babs. And for me it is not working. And, yes, I will hold my hand up - I am now biased against the whole post-Dalton era. I go into each one praying that they will deliver and come away feeling a little shortchanged. Anyway, DAD?
The thing about Bonds is that they are extraordinarily delicate - one wrong move and the entire thing collapses (ie NSNA) a couple of wrong moves and the thing self-detonates (Casino Royale) No one since the eighties has got the balance right. And DAD gets the balance so wrong the entire ships keels over. Almost from initial launch.
I've listed the reasons why it fails for me so perhaps I should list the stuff I do like. OK,heregoes...
- Cuba works well, the music and the feel of Havana, and a wonderful ally in Raoul. I love that scene by the sea wall with the Cubans just hanging out. It reminds me where I lived in Brazil.
- The Ice Palace. Peter Lamont goes to town and conjures up an extravagant fantasy that looks good from a distance. I didn't get the sense of evil that I got from, say, Strombergs laborotory or Dr No's fortress but it was a good attempt to be original.
- The fencing match. Ignore Madge, she is yet another gimic, and Brosnan and Stephens give their all in this scene. Stephens, woefully miscast that he is, uses his Royal Shakespeare Company background in the sword scenes and gives Brosnan a good run for his money. Tamahori doesn't do elegance - but its a good scene anyway..
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
We cannot defend James Bond on this movie i know it hurts to say something is wrong but Hardyboys sticking up fors arent correct.
I defnitly think that someone from EON will be reading these and will know how much they blew the last one.
Lee Tamahori is an amateur "The future" that worries me but i dont think they will do this much more.
I do not rekon that this is a signal they have lost it they have made some bad decisions this is the only bad one for what? 30 years (NSNA) and that isnt even a real bond movie.
Remeber bash it all you will they will notice. I think they already have.
I thought I'd said my last on this topic, but here I go again.
First off, mad props to broadshoulder, The Cat, and a few others who posted good, thorough critiques of the film. As I said before, I don't care if you love the film or hate it; just present a substantial argument as to why you feel the way you do.
I'm making this plea for a few reasons, which I think will answer some objections that were raised both by darenhat and by heartbroken_mr_drax. To darenhat, I don't ask for "objectivity." Objectivity is impossible, especially in a forum where everyone is inclined to like James Bond. Most of us are likely to be more forgiving of some things non-fans hate and harsher toward things that non-fans aren't bothered by. I also don't suggest that people take a wishy-washy "balanced" position, coming up with one good point for every bad one. What I ask is that people do more than fit DAD or any Bond film into rigid categories (good/bad, black/white), and that they say something more substantial than "this movie is soooo kewl!!!!!" or "this movie is a steaming turd sandwich served on a plate."
The reason I ask this of people is, first and foremost, because we ARE Bond fans. We're the connoiseurs. We're the people who study the films and the novels, who obsessively collect the merchandise, and who come here every day to share our knowledge and appreciation. This may be snobbish, but I think all of us believe we're a cut above the average fan, the person who says he likes Bond movies but only sees them every now and then and who only barely knows the difference between Ian Fleming and Peggy Fleming. When any of us praises or damns a Bond film we should have our Bond authority behind us. Any schmuck can say that a movie rocks or sucks; Bond fans should have something of more substance to say.
I'm also asking for more substance in the criticisms because, like a lot of other people around here, I want my voice to be heard. The Heartbroken one stated he believes that someone from EON is reading our opinions and taking note of them. I'm not sure about that--I know from experience that their lawyers come to this site looking for violations of copyright--but in case someone in the studios is listening and does care, I believe our voices should be intelligent ones. We try to differentiate ourselves from the masses who just shell out money to see the movies and who either love them or hate them; but when we make fanboy-ish responses to the movies, we sound like anyone else. I have no doubt that if someone from EON is reading our threads, it's not the ones that say DAD was a big suck-fest or the ones that say it's the greatest movie ever made that they pay attention to--they pay attention to ones that show thought and insight.
To give everyone an analogy, let's say that you're having a dispute with a friend. The friend is someone you like and admire, and is someone who does good things and who you want to continue to do good things. Unfortunately, he does something that lets you down, hurts you, and makes you angry. You want to tell him, and you want to impress upon him that he should never do that again. So how do you tell him? Do you spit in his face, punch him in the gut, throw bricks through his windows, set the drapes on fire, call his mother a ho, kick his dog, slash his tires, and take a dump in the middle of the living room carpet? Or do you present your grievances in a calm and reasonable manner, explaining what that person did wrong and how he can change?
It seems to me that this thread is MORE than just a vehicle for DAD-bashing. . .DAD was the most recent film in the series, and there's an underlying notion in most of the criticisms here that people don't want to see Bond 21 make the same "mistakes," and that people hope their comments will make a difference. The situation is much different than it would be if, say, someone started a thread dedicated exclusively to trashing You Only Live Twice--EON isn't looking to that as their most recent success, and there's little danger of the producers trying to repeat what that film did. My contention is that if you want the people who make the Bond films pay attention to you, SHOW them that your opinion is one that really matters. I'm sure every day Mickey and Babs hear people tell them that their movies either rock or suck, and they've probably tuned those assessments out. However, if they know there's a site on the Net where people write intelligent, reasoned criticism--positive, negative, and otherwise--they may be more inclined to give weight to what we say as opposed to Joe Schmo out there.
OK, I've babbled on long enough, but that's where I'm coming from. You might say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope.
Well said, Hardyboy. I don't think anyone can argue with that.
That's the kind of fallacy that the DAD haters in this thread were falling into; DAD was getting bashed into veritable pieces, and it just isn't that simple. I seriously don't think any Bond film, even my most hated, deserve such a bashing, not even Diamonds are Forever (I do so hate Diamonds are Forever...)
Anyway, well done, Hardyboy. There's something we can all agree with.
Right on target Hardyboy. I've visited several Bond forum sites in the past three years, for the most part they really arent all that special. You have mostly one word, or one sentence posts in threads that needlessly get off message within three posts. Its not something thats encouraging to return to if you dont have friends on the site.
Then there's AJB. The great thing about it is, when it had 500 some odd members (when I joined) to when its closing on 4000 members, its the same intelligent, thoughtful atmosphere. AJB is blessed with Bond fans that not only know their subject matter, but want to ensure a high quality of disscussion;both are rare individually, and downright scarce together. This, however, is AJB's calling card, and the reason why I keep coming back.
Cant realy make a list of what is bad in this film, because quite frankly there is absolutely nothing good. This film is a complete waste of time and i sense it will get even worse with time.
Its simply a realy bad film, not a bond film. James bond just happens to be in it. Its James bond done by the team who do Absolutely fabulous its that pretensious.
Could we possibly erase this film from existance and pretned it never happend
Comments
No, sorry. René Echeverria was a writer for Star Trek: The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine... He later became a co-ex of the latter series. I was just wondering why you wrote René Echeverria in you post and I assumed that you mixed the two guys by accident.
This is not Hamlet, for goodness sake! Okay, I'll join the game, I think, I think...that Judy Dench is a bigger ham than William Shatner...yeah, that's it, that's it, I am now a cinammotograffee ecspert!
Wait, did I actually say that?
Okay, it's a (very) flawed picture, but it has things, (very few) things that give it a go for... I for one enjoy... the score (
The only thing is that it shouldn't be set as THE example. That's all I ask from EON (and related companies). And hey, I can always avoid it by not watching it.
And as my mum always said... 'If you don't have anything nice to say, than don't say it.
True, this thread does have the smell of 'beating a dead horse'. Still, some dead horse...
But since it seems to have become necessary to qualify one's remarks on Die Another Day, I'll reiterate;
Miranda Frost - Very good.
Almost everything else - Very bad.
Lazenby880, its been a while my friend. I hope your doing well and are enjoying the new year so far.
I agree that OHMSS is a superior film to DAD overall, and in several individual areas, but I dont think LTK with an inappropriate Bond performance, bland set pieces, an utterley useless moneypenny, ugly gagdtes, and a cue that seems to come more from Indiana Jones, Die Hard and Miami Vice than the legacy of 007.
Now I too have seen DAD lately and dont intend to make excuses for the things I didnt like, namely Bond never getting to deal with Frost on his own terms, or some of the Ice Palace scenes that could have been done a lot better. However, I dont think we can deny these three films share more than just controversy. All three bring something unique and distinctive to the table, Bond getting married, resigning from the service, and getting captured. They all have a different tone than their immediate predessors, and early on lost points for that.
I dont think it would be right for me to tell you what the fate of DAD will be in the fanbase, because no one knows at this point. We havent even had a new Bond film yet! Its inappropriate to determine the legacy at this point IMO. So, I go back to my previous post: The legacy of DAD will rest on whether or not fans think a clebratory approach to the 40th anniversary was correct, or a more "traditional" Bond film should have been made.
Yeah, but you can tell that scene got cut to jiggery and it's poorly paced. When it's not all action Tamori is at a loss. Not good planning.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Even though it has been the most successful film out of them all it is definitely not the best.
I was actually the most embarrassed I have ever been as a fan of James Bond.
When showing people on DVD and when I went to the premier I was not pleased.
It lacked:
- Strong female roles.
Unlike Elektra King in TWINE you were not totally attracted to the females even though Halle Berry is very attractive that wasn’t seen in the movie. The conflict between Jinx and Miranda seemed false.
- Strong Villian
Unlike Christopher Walken, Renard or Elliot Carver the main villains or even the henchman were weak and seemed amateur. Gustav Graves was very boring and weak along with Zao.
- Sophistication that James Bond has always had.
The movie was trying not to be what it was. The usually sophisticated scenes around the bar, MI6, casinos or you know what I mean lacked and seemed raced with the music in the background and the settings.
- Slower moving scenes
There were only a few slower scenes in DAD and these were. Jinx and James sex scene, James and Miranda’s sex scene and the meting of Gustav and his father. All of these scenes could have worked but they were distracted with action interruptions. The sex scene between Jinx and James was unrealistic they had only really just met and it seemed rushed again.
- CGI
Not so much it lacked this there was too much of it and it was badly done. Icarus was pretty good but the Ice wave was shocking the idea was good and funny in the cinema but after seeing a second time I was disappointed. The Antonov plane was excellent similar to Icarus.
- Plot / Storyline
Messy and highly unrealistic storylines. Now the cold war is over the idea is rather dated and people are forgetting it. Goldeneye got away with it because it was the first JB after the cold war. Then the next two TND and TWINE were all about what was going on in the world Media crap and Oil/Terrorists.
- Acting
The acting was poor. But this is not the actors fault it is the script. Leaving Judi Dench in a strange and unlike M sort of position. With James Bond being also in an unlike position where he seemed not to be as cleaver.
Halle Berry was boring and although not weak she seemed forced.
Merinda was really the closest to being sophisticated although she lacked believability.
Gustav Graves was not a villain he was a weird freak but unlike the other freak villains (mainly henchman) he was not very powerful and moving unlike his father who played and excellent role.
Zao and Dr Kill were not really noticed in my viewing most of the villains were unmemorable.
What the movie was good at:
- Excellent Homages
Unlike the rest of the film being too in your face the winks and nods at the previous films were well done.
- Soundtrack
Listening to this on a 5.1 surround sound system was fantastic (even though this has nothing to do with the film really)
Overall this filmed lacked what every other James Bond movie has had in the series but this may be because it is supposed to be homage but they could have done it better than that.
The film is most likely to be bad because of the director. He has only done 2 well known movies and they aren’t even that well known and they are only action movies.
I defiantly think the next movie will be better and hopefully it is because they need something to set the series straight after this one.
The James Bond makers I think know that this movie is below standard and will sort it out.
I am a New Zealander and I am not that embarrassed because that’s 1 out of 2 because Goldeneye was excellent also directed by a New Zealander.
I have never said so much bad stuff about James Bond and I don’t like saying it so hopefully this is the last.
I welcome your replies:
benpaul@hotmail.com
I use MSN Messenger so you can chat too.
"Better make that two."
the movie itself was far too predictable. i remember seeing it in the theatre and humming the bond theme seconds before it started playing in the film!
What's this you say, Professor Hardyboy? No criticism? The entire thread is criticism!
Well, it is and it isn't. By "criticism" I mean thoughtful and thorough analysis, a true attempt to assess the merits and significance of the work at hand. With a few notable exceptions--such as Willie Garvin's and Red Grant's assessments--the comments offered against DAD are purely destructive, designed to trash, dismiss, complain, and vent. There is also a strong element of obstinance to these trashings--an unwillingness to see any merit in what is said by the "other" side. I'm convinced that, at this stage, if I were to write, "Well, at the very least you have to say that the movie was shot on good-quality film stock," someone would respond with, "No--they shot it on Krapochrome film, which is the skankiest, nastiest film stock in the industry."
This tendency to stick to one's views bothers me for a few reasons. For one, it's unnecessarily divisive. By taking the position that the film is ONE thing and ONE thing only and by Gawd you will not acknowledge that there's one single, tiny thing that the film may be doing that's contrary your viewpoint, you create an "us and them" mentality; either you hate DAD or you don't, and if you don't we have nothing to talk about. That's not thinking critically; that's thinking blindly.
Another thing I find bothersome about this position is that it smacks of fanboyism, that arrogant view that "I am the one, true authority on this subject--I know more than the creators of it, and I shall damn them for not keeping faith with the true vision of the subject, which happens to be my own." When I began my career as Hardyboy, I used to be a regular poster at Ain't It Cool News. I began to get turned off by the attitude of the other posters, too many of whom smugly and arrogantly felt that they and they alone understood the movie or TV show being discussed; as such, they believed that the producers should be listening to them and that the movie would be doomed because the fanboy wasn't listened to. You'd have people screaming, "This movie's gonna SUCK!!" a year before the movie would be released, when all they have to go on is a teaster poster.
Likewise, AICN turned me off for the extremist attitudes among the posters--any movie that comes out either "rocks" or "sucks." No middle ground. No such thing as a good movie, or an OK movie with some flaws. No interesting experiments that might not have worked. Just "rocks" and "sucks." When I see AJB members classify DAD--or ANY Bond film--as doing nothing more than biting than the big one, I don't see people who have thoughtfully analyzed the film; instead, I see people who have taken an extreme viewpoint, fueled by their own belief that they know more about Bond than the Bond producers and by their own unwillingness to be shaken from their viewpoints. Is that who were are?
Finally, I feel that these extremist positions are ultimately destructive and self-defeating. I used to think that the producers should listen more to fans, but anymore I can understand why they don't. . . Who wants to listen to people who claim to love what the producers create, but who will wind up classifying that product either as a masterwork that will "rock" or as a complete failure that will "suck?" We tell the producers they must either deliver greatness or fail, and when they fail we will kick them like dogs. Is it any wonder the producers might not care what we think, when we go into apoplectic fits and hurl nothing but abuse at the producers when the movie they give us falls short? It seems to me that we demand that the producers respect us, and they should; but at the same time we should respect them.
That said, contrary to what a lot of people think, DAD was not a big "Up Yours" to the Bond fans; if anything, it was a valentine to fans. If it were meant solely for the new generation of moviegoers who know only the Brosnan Bonds and who demand all-action all-CGI all the time, why would they bother making numerous inside references to the films that came before; to largely base the plot on the unused Moonraker novel and to make references to Fleming and to Kingsley Amis's Colonel Sun; to rework a plot element from DAF that didn't work and to (it must have been hoped) turn it into something better? The producers were, as Willie Garvin points out, trying to celebrate Bond's anniversary and to tip their hats to us. Why bother, when all they care about is making money and when they really don't give a rip about Fleming or continuity or history or anything else?
As I wrote earlier, I really don't care what your judgment on DAD is--but it does bother me that so often there is a tendency not to critique fairly, openly, or honestly. Instead, there is only the desire to trash and destroy. I don't believe that this approach will force the producers to listen; instead, they will respond as most people do to someone who screams and rants in their face: they will walk away.
"Better make that two."
Licence to Kill signalled what was thought to be the end of James Bond, but when Goldeneye came out Bond was back and better than ever.
This will be very tough for everyone involved (Eon) including the fans.
Before TWINE and DAD came out I was very nervous about it I was more than please with TWINE but didn’t really want to know what other people thought about DAD because I knew it would not be good.
Maybe DAD is a turning point for the James Bond series because this film has brought in A LOT of new fans and I don’t think it has lost any.
One of the reasons that the plot and story seems to go unnoticed and when you try to explain it to someone you don’t really know what to say, is because it is an homage and was probably the only way to do it.
This is how it works, DAD pulled in a lot of new fans and new fans mean a whole lot of money not only seeing the one movie but them all.
Once EON has these fans it will go back to what James Bond used to be like. The way everyone referred to used to refer it as.
I do not think James Bond will depart us soon I only think it will take a while to get going again maybe another break before a new Bond is introduced.
I think we are taking this a lot more seriously than it actually is.
As Cubby Broccoli said “Doomsday”
"Better make that two."
And that's the Napster in complimentary mode.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
While I could list Bond's walk through the tobacco factory and short meeting with the sleeper agent immediately afterwards as quite good, it's pretty slim pickings. Very shoddy stuff, like if you're an England football fan watching the friendly against Spain. All that promise - where did it all go wrong?
Further to which, they do try to "lie" to the fans each time by saying how the new film is a return to the Connery classics. So yeah, a certain venom is justified.
Or course, it's only a movie.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
But first, I'd like to say that no movie is good or bad. No. All movies have certain attributes over which nobody can argue. For instance:
Pierce Brosnan plays Bond.
There's lots of CGI in the movie.
The hovercraft chase ends with Bond being captured.
There is a Q scene.
If anybody questions any of these attributes, he obviously hasn't seen the movie. Now than, we can expand the list with all the things we find important and would take into consideration: acting, music, editing... Anything that matters to one. Even this list changes with each individual, because not all of us care that much about music, or main titles or sound effects, etc.
Also we can set up preferences to fit the scale to our personality. For instance, in my case, music is very important. It's more important to me that... what kind of suit Bond wears. So know, I have the list of attributes I care about, and I have my preferences.
Now, for the rating. If you are in a hurry, you can use the primitive +/- scaling. This would be a nice indication. However, if you want to reach my level of geekness, you can rate each attribute with from A to F. This will give out the clearst pictures that can be drawn by facts and figures. All we did was rating the attributes. Than, with the help of a calculator (or our fingers), we can calculate. Movies I usually considered to be good get A or B. Mediocre movies usually recieve C or D. Bad movies are naturally what we are left with E or F. I'd also like to point out, that I very rarely give out F, as these are THOSE moments that are elementarily pose a threat to the series I love. But it's very hard to earn it...
So how does it boil down in the case of DAD? As I look through the list, there are quite a surprising number of A/Bs on it. These include the score (basically a gift, because no one rates it high), Miranda Frost, Q-scene, Raoul/Cuba... However, these are sadly outweighted. This movie contains two F moments: Jinx and the CGI surf.
Let me explain. The pure tought of Jinx having her own movie proved that at some point, EON were very fond of the character. But for me, Jinx is the latest installment of the type of women I don't want to see in the near future. I could bash her in greater details, but there's no point in that... now.
The other F moment is CGI surfing. Surprising as it may seem, this originally earned an E, but when I watched the movie with audio commentary, the comments made by Lee Tamahori (This is the future / We should do more of this... etc.) angered me so much that the moment ended up with an F. CGI, especially bad, useless CGI is not the future.
So these are the two main problem areas for me. The real problem is that DAD spans a record number of E-moments. Just to name a few:
- main title theme: I did a favour by not counting the Madonna cameo and the end titles as seperate entries. I'd rather gave one E for the whole Madonna-attitude.
- invisible car: this one is dumb and worst of all, unnecessary. The invisibility feature is practically only used, when Bond should be doing his job: spying.
- dialogue: if all the bad lines were spread across all 20 movies, nobody would notice them. However, there is an alarming frequency in this movie, especially the Ice Palace, which spans the Mr. Kil pun, the Bond-Graves dialouge, and of course the high-light: ice party discussion.
I'd stop here before I'd be charged with negative attitude again. Believe me guys, I tried to like this movie very much. DAD was the first movie with actual advertizing hype in Hungary. I told people it would be great, and taked them into to go and see it. And a lot of people went to watch it, but the reaction was rather negative. I'm still condiucting the research to find out the actual effects, but I'm rather afraid from the results.
In my ratings, I tried to be positive, and duds like Graves or Zao made it to the middle field, but I couldn't bring it up enough... And now we're back in ratings. The human mind simplifies by its very own nature. When I ask: 'How was your day, dad?', my dad will say what happened, but won't go into details. Similarly, if I'm asked how was DAD, I'd simply say DAD was a DUD. Sure it, has nice points, but bringing up that the sound mixing of the music and the explosions is nice on the rear channels would be laughable, yet it's true.
Usually, Bond movies have many high points. Such one is the Q scene mentioned earlier. Yes, it's a nice scene. But 18 other movies have it, and unless they are really bad, they ARE definately highlights. However, when there's not much else to bring up in favour of a movie, it shows that we have some problem. This would be the equivalent of saying that DAD has some good moments, like the gunbarrel sequence.
Finally, I'd like to point out my thoughts once again, which are contantly overlooked: the problem with DAD is not the movie itself. It is the message that it delivers. That financial success = success. And my problems only really started when I watched the movie with audio commentaries: the collective mantra of Mickey G. and Lee Tamahori ('This is good. This IS the future.') pushed me over the edge. I know it's a cruel business world, but back in the age of Cubby, EON always knew when to stop. I'm optimistic now, because I take the silence as a good omen. With a new actor in the lead, I can see more chance for the change than ever before.
I hope this post will reflect my thoughts, because I would like to think that this is my final word on the matter. Beating a dead-horse is not only tiring, but it stinks as well.
Thank you. Over & Out.
If I can admit freely a movie or song is not my favorite the ones who disagree are within their rights to claim otherwise. By our debates, we both become fuller. We have moral rights to speak freely but let's also open our minds a bit and not be bull headed. To use a musician's phrase, "You can't learn your own riffs until you play someone else's" This can be metaphorical for "I am willing to learn from others at all times" Age does not matter, there will always be another's viewpoint on certain matters that are new and can broaden your horizons .
I suppose we could make a "bashing" thread for every Bond film and let people have their way, I just choose this one. Personally DAD is the one Bond film that I have a hard time putting in the DVD player...Is that because I'm "prejudice" against it in some way? No. Why would I be? It's simply because I don't enjoy the movie and apparently I'm not alone.
Also, I would like to apologise to Hardyboy, who comes across as a gentleman and a scholar, the intention was not to alienate anyone with over enthusiastic carpet bombing.
Why doesn't DAD work for me?
I think it is back to that old word: expectation.
Cubby Broccoli made these films for thirty years and very rarely came up with a dud (as one critic said even the bad Bonds are good). He picked a title, gave it to Maibaum, Maibaum delviered a script and UA handed over the money and he made it the best he could. Sorry, he and the memorable Harry Saltzman.
Since Cubbys demise it has fallen into the hands of Mickey G and Babs. And for me it is not working. And, yes, I will hold my hand up - I am now biased against the whole post-Dalton era. I go into each one praying that they will deliver and come away feeling a little shortchanged. Anyway, DAD?
The thing about Bonds is that they are extraordinarily delicate - one wrong move and the entire thing collapses (ie NSNA) a couple of wrong moves and the thing self-detonates (Casino Royale) No one since the eighties has got the balance right. And DAD gets the balance so wrong the entire ships keels over. Almost from initial launch.
I've listed the reasons why it fails for me so perhaps I should list the stuff I do like. OK,heregoes...
- Cuba works well, the music and the feel of Havana, and a wonderful ally in Raoul. I love that scene by the sea wall with the Cubans just hanging out. It reminds me where I lived in Brazil.
- The Ice Palace. Peter Lamont goes to town and conjures up an extravagant fantasy that looks good from a distance. I didn't get the sense of evil that I got from, say, Strombergs laborotory or Dr No's fortress but it was a good attempt to be original.
- The fencing match. Ignore Madge, she is yet another gimic, and Brosnan and Stephens give their all in this scene. Stephens, woefully miscast that he is, uses his Royal Shakespeare Company background in the sword scenes and gives Brosnan a good run for his money. Tamahori doesn't do elegance - but its a good scene anyway..
I defnitly think that someone from EON will be reading these and will know how much they blew the last one.
Lee Tamahori is an amateur "The future" that worries me but i dont think they will do this much more.
I do not rekon that this is a signal they have lost it they have made some bad decisions this is the only bad one for what? 30 years (NSNA) and that isnt even a real bond movie.
Remeber bash it all you will they will notice. I think they already have.
"Better make that two."
First off, mad props to broadshoulder, The Cat, and a few others who posted good, thorough critiques of the film. As I said before, I don't care if you love the film or hate it; just present a substantial argument as to why you feel the way you do.
I'm making this plea for a few reasons, which I think will answer some objections that were raised both by darenhat and by heartbroken_mr_drax. To darenhat, I don't ask for "objectivity." Objectivity is impossible, especially in a forum where everyone is inclined to like James Bond. Most of us are likely to be more forgiving of some things non-fans hate and harsher toward things that non-fans aren't bothered by. I also don't suggest that people take a wishy-washy "balanced" position, coming up with one good point for every bad one. What I ask is that people do more than fit DAD or any Bond film into rigid categories (good/bad, black/white), and that they say something more substantial than "this movie is soooo kewl!!!!!" or "this movie is a steaming turd sandwich served on a plate."
The reason I ask this of people is, first and foremost, because we ARE Bond fans. We're the connoiseurs. We're the people who study the films and the novels, who obsessively collect the merchandise, and who come here every day to share our knowledge and appreciation. This may be snobbish, but I think all of us believe we're a cut above the average fan, the person who says he likes Bond movies but only sees them every now and then and who only barely knows the difference between Ian Fleming and Peggy Fleming. When any of us praises or damns a Bond film we should have our Bond authority behind us. Any schmuck can say that a movie rocks or sucks; Bond fans should have something of more substance to say.
I'm also asking for more substance in the criticisms because, like a lot of other people around here, I want my voice to be heard. The Heartbroken one stated he believes that someone from EON is reading our opinions and taking note of them. I'm not sure about that--I know from experience that their lawyers come to this site looking for violations of copyright--but in case someone in the studios is listening and does care, I believe our voices should be intelligent ones. We try to differentiate ourselves from the masses who just shell out money to see the movies and who either love them or hate them; but when we make fanboy-ish responses to the movies, we sound like anyone else. I have no doubt that if someone from EON is reading our threads, it's not the ones that say DAD was a big suck-fest or the ones that say it's the greatest movie ever made that they pay attention to--they pay attention to ones that show thought and insight.
To give everyone an analogy, let's say that you're having a dispute with a friend. The friend is someone you like and admire, and is someone who does good things and who you want to continue to do good things. Unfortunately, he does something that lets you down, hurts you, and makes you angry. You want to tell him, and you want to impress upon him that he should never do that again. So how do you tell him? Do you spit in his face, punch him in the gut, throw bricks through his windows, set the drapes on fire, call his mother a ho, kick his dog, slash his tires, and take a dump in the middle of the living room carpet? Or do you present your grievances in a calm and reasonable manner, explaining what that person did wrong and how he can change?
It seems to me that this thread is MORE than just a vehicle for DAD-bashing. . .DAD was the most recent film in the series, and there's an underlying notion in most of the criticisms here that people don't want to see Bond 21 make the same "mistakes," and that people hope their comments will make a difference. The situation is much different than it would be if, say, someone started a thread dedicated exclusively to trashing You Only Live Twice--EON isn't looking to that as their most recent success, and there's little danger of the producers trying to repeat what that film did. My contention is that if you want the people who make the Bond films pay attention to you, SHOW them that your opinion is one that really matters. I'm sure every day Mickey and Babs hear people tell them that their movies either rock or suck, and they've probably tuned those assessments out. However, if they know there's a site on the Net where people write intelligent, reasoned criticism--positive, negative, and otherwise--they may be more inclined to give weight to what we say as opposed to Joe Schmo out there.
OK, I've babbled on long enough, but that's where I'm coming from. You might say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope.
That's the kind of fallacy that the DAD haters in this thread were falling into; DAD was getting bashed into veritable pieces, and it just isn't that simple. I seriously don't think any Bond film, even my most hated, deserve such a bashing, not even Diamonds are Forever (I do so hate Diamonds are Forever...)
Anyway, well done, Hardyboy. There's something we can all agree with.
Then there's AJB. The great thing about it is, when it had 500 some odd members (when I joined) to when its closing on 4000 members, its the same intelligent, thoughtful atmosphere. AJB is blessed with Bond fans that not only know their subject matter, but want to ensure a high quality of disscussion;both are rare individually, and downright scarce together. This, however, is AJB's calling card, and the reason why I keep coming back.
Lets continue to keep that our calling card.
Have any of you guys been invited to bond & beyond?
AJB is so much better than all the rest.
I think thats enough about DAD lets try and like it now. lol
"Better make that two."
Its simply a realy bad film, not a bond film. James bond just happens to be in it. Its James bond done by the team who do Absolutely fabulous its that pretensious.
Could we possibly erase this film from existance and pretned it never happend
I say twine
"Better make that two."