Die Another Day. Well now. Where to begin?

Die Another Day. Hmm, this one's going to be tough.

Did I like it? Yes.

Did I dislike it? Yes.

What did I like? Everything until Iceland.

What did I dislike? Everything else.

In my review of The World Is Not Enough, I presented my thesis concerning the hybrid Bond. I stated that Brosnan had become the perfect amalgam of the various elements presented by the previous actors. Die Another Day proves that theory, then takes that hybridization a step further as not only the performance is an amalgam, but the film itself has become one.

How? Follow along.

Die Another Day is two films melded together. The first half was designed for those of us from the old school, who demand essentials such as character and plot, to simplify (probably too far), the first half is for the people who came here from the books. The second half of the film is designed for people who came from the movies and for their new audience, those raised on action and spectacle rather than plot and intrigue.

Another way to look at it is that for the first half, we are given a presentation semi-analogous to the Connery years. Tough, gritty, surprising. The second half becomes a celebration of the Moore years, all style, little substance, and fairly unsatisfying to one such as I who loved the earlier films.

So, the question becomes, how does one review an amalgam?

I faced this same dilemma with the Austin Powers film Goldmember. Funny? Yes. Awful? Completely. But the purpose was to be funny, not cohesive, so how to review it? Bad but funny? Funny, but bad?

Die Another Day presents an even worse conundrum. For half of the film I was entranced. Here was a James Bond film I was truly enjoying, thoroughly, and that hasn't happened in an extremely long time. Fun, more cinematic (and thus more interesting than any of the other Brosnan films) more challenging, with a stronger story and grittier feel than almost any Bond film since the first four (the much maligned Licence To Kill being the exception), and honestly the first completely satisfying Bond in the entire Brosnan canon. I was really loving this film. Then, with a simple change of setting, Bond goes to Iceland and the film hits an amazingly solid brick wall. It stops dead logically, emotionally, physically and becomes nearly as soulless as the worst Roger Moore effort. A stunning and stupefying change of direction.

Yet, and this is the key, I STILL enjoyed the living daylights out of it.

Having said that, let's get on with the review and we'll see where we end up.

Pre-Credits? Great. Thoroughly enjoyed it. Yes, millions of gunshots and the entire North Korean army have apparently gone on guard duty without their bifocals. Not even a scratch on our hero, but that has become a staple of the series, so onward. Hovercrafts? Fine. Works for me. Let's keep going. The scene-ending pun? Worth it.

On to the credits. The title song? Not bad, not good. Perfect for the film it opens. Kind of fun, kind of lost. Perfect. Do I need to hear it again? I can live with it. My son plays it on his Walkman. That's where it belongs. The credits themselves? Not bad. More serious than before. Don't mind that a bit.

This brings us, as usual, to the music. Great use of the Barry sound and as the score integrates different themes from the series, Arnold does a fine job of putting his own signature feel on the soundtrack. He is the man for the job and should stay there.

The next scene? Bond's reemergence from Korea? Great. Loved it. Keep going. Bond and Moon's father? Great. Loved it. Had a bit of a problem with Moon being so young that Bond seemed almost too old to deal with him. Bond goes quite well with the father, not so well with the son, but this is good character work, excellent set-up for a confrontation that for a change DOES take place later.

Bond and M? Beautifully done. Keep going. Graves? Ineffectual in a snide yuppie sort of way, but an interesting villain nonetheless. The duel? Fun and exciting and to make it even more interesting, Bond is absolutely pissed off. I loved it. And Madonna in a black corset, well, we all have our predilections, so let's move on, shall we?

(I do have to question Grave's motives and his later Robocop attire, but since that's in the second half, onward.)

If you haven't guessed by now, this "keep going" thing lasts absolutely until Bond's arrival at the Ice Palace. So, let's jump ahead, but with this thought in mind; In this film we've been taken around the world, given some pretty good characterization and for the first time Bond himself has been built as a human being who can suffer, a man who has literally been torn to bits and put back together. Does he want his freedom? Not at this horrible cost. And now that he's returned, it's not a new mission he craves, nor is it really even revenge, it's a higher form of justice learned from his previous experiences. He is literally a man on a mission.

When he is finally returned to MI6 in the underground setting, Bond has proven that not only is he capable once more, he is stronger, more resilient, and (here it comes) no longer needs the gadgetry that Q branch has provided for the past few overly technological adventures. So, now that we've been given this self-sufficient survivor as a revamping of our hero (more a return to the character's essential roots), where do we go?

Downhill.

Literally, as soon as Q has presented his latest gadgets, Bond becomes completely dependent on them, even to the point of climbing into his invisible car (yes, more on this later) in order to observe someone from a distance.

And where does this take place? The much vaunted Ice Palace of Gustav Graves. Yes, it's a nice exotic setting, but unlike, say, Stromberg's Atlantis, the ice palace is simply a useless backdrop. It leads nowhere, gives us nothing intriguing to work with, only a place for Graves to show Icarus to a group of rich people (who disappear quite suddenly for no apparent reason once gunfire begins. My personal theory is that these rich dilettantes also had invisibility-equipped limousines. Ah, logic ) Moving on.

The car chase?

THE CAR CHASE? While my son enjoyed it, and so did I on one level, on every other level I was actually bored. I don't know how long the car chase was, but it seemed to go on forever. Did it work? As I said, on one level. I loved the traction control. That worked. And, surprise of surprises, I didn't totally hate the invisibility. It worked for me in the same fashion that I'm certain audiences reacted to Goldfinger's over the top Aston Martin all those years ago.

(And who gives a damn about the CGI escape from the iceberg. It's fun, it's completely expected, and it's very nice for the toddlers in the audience. Yes, we've seen that Bond can surf in the opening sequence, therefore there's no surprise that he can surf this time. Fine. No problem.)

But I HATE, absolutely HATE action with no purpose and that, dear reader, is the perfect description of the last half of Die Another Day, from useless car chase to the ridiculous semi-drowning of Jinx to the ineffectual airplane sequence, from Iceland on, everything suddenly seemed switched to action auto-pilot and left there far too long.

Tell me. Why even have the car chase? (This argument should sound very familiar to those of you who remember my review of TWINE and the Caviar factory sequence.)

Why is it here?

Action for action's sake.

Bond manages to race away from the Ice Palace, get into some danger so we can see what Icarus is truly all about, then gets in some more danger hanging from a cliff, then gets in even more danger while being computer generated (surfing), then manages to easily procure a snowmobile (probably from the same downtrodden ATV rider who used to work for Willard Whyte back in Diamonds Are Forever) and returns to the ice palace, where for no reason other than lack of story, he gets involved in a gigantic car chase which leads all the way out onto the ice, showing us too many damn gadgets all the while giving the villains the chance to escape, so Bond and Zao can go BACK to the ice palace, for MORE car chase and a lackluster removal of a villain and the saving of the damsel in distress. After the first half where Bond survives by wits now he can't survive until afternoon tea without his supercar and every gadget known to man. Awful.

Suddenly, this film, which was running along in fairly high gear, drops into idle and while it climbs back up to a point, it remains ragged for the rest of the episode.

Instead, try this on for size. The bad guy tries to kill Bond with the Icarus. Bond barely survives, trudges back across the ice to face him down mano e mano. He barely makes it back in time to find the villains have escaped, leaving only the vengeful Zao and the damsel behind for Bond to deal with. No cars, no need for the stupidity that is thrown at us in DAD, but a chance for real character, real dialogue, possibly even some actual suspense. Instead, Aw, the hell with it, let's give him some cgi work and a car chase and that'll get the teens in the theatre.

Well, it will, and honestly, the sequence does work, but having seen such an incredibly tight first half, I simply wanted the finale to live up to that standard.

Lastly, Miranda Frost. No menace, no surprise, no character, no interest. Not the actress' fault, just nothing there. And while I could buy Bond's being able to fence as well as Graves, what luck that Jinx can defeat an Olympic gold medallist fencer at her own game. Sloppy and badly thought out.

Before we move on, one thing that hopefully someone with some clout will note. The big helicopter escape SHOULD have been something to see; instead, we had already seen another version of it in the preview for Charlies Angels 2 just before the film started! People in the audience actually commented on this at the showing we attended. Someone needs to look at these things.

So, on to the actors.

Halle Berry? Who gives a damn? Yes, she's a fine actress, when she has a part to play. This time? Out of luck. Yes, she's got charisma. Big deal. You know, charisma is fine if you use it and since that's all she's given, she uses it to the hilt. What is her motivation? Why is she at the Ice Palace? To kill Zao? Then go do it. Next?

And you want an interesting subplot? Why did she burn her file at the clinic? Interesting? Definitely, IF you use it. But they don't. It's a macguffin if it can even qualify as that. There's probably a story thread somewhere on the cutting room floor where we find out about this, a character moment that leads somewhere else, but it's not in this film. After all the hype, I expected a character, not a cutout.

John Cleese is perfect. Absolutely. But you will notice, his scenes are all in the first half. His return at the end? Give me a moment, it's my favorite part of the film, we'll get there.

M? Excellent as usual, but completely gone by the time the second half rises. Stern, powerful, in command. And the question that I enjoyed the most out of the entire film? DID M let Bond escape on purpose? What an excellent thought, and sadly, completely ignored.

Falco? Who the hell is this? Jinx' boss? And who cares? A waste of time and space and yet another example of stereotype rather than character. Unless of course this was the rumored start of a Jinx franchise, in which case I hated it even more.

Moneypenny? Ah yes, FINALLY the best scene in the film! After 40 years, she finally gets her shot at James Bond and I have to admit, I actually teared up I was so happy. Yes, I could see where it was going, but I didn't care. THIS was the best salute to the series in this fortieth anniversary effort. Then, it's over and so is the rest, over and done.

The villains? As I said before, Toby Stephens as Graves was fairly good if somehow too young to pose Bond that much of a threat, yet I liked him. I did not like the rubber bat-suit, but let it go in hopes of an interesting ending.

Zao played by Rick Yune was interesting. I enjoyed his presence, and his quiet menace. It wasn't until the car chase that his character completely folded into a comic book. At that point, it was a mercy killing for Bond to remove the poor fellow.

Once more, we're coming down to the wire and here we find the one cohesive element that makes this film more than the sum, etc. Pierce Brosnan.

Brosnan is perfect. Loved his performance, although for some reason he seems to be sticking his stomach out rather than his chest and his slightness of figure shows awkwardly during the fencing sequence. Ah, well, nitpicking. His performance is the most spot on thing in the first half and it is definitely not Mr. Brosnan who lets things slide in the second half. He trudges on, gamely into the vast snow covered wasteland that is the completely clichèd , formula ridden universe that Bond sadly stumbles into.

This is Brosnan's best Bond to date. Easily. It has been noted that he's been a bit cocky on the PR circuit, a bit more full of himself than usual. Well? Let him. He deserves a good strut. After forty years of Bond films and too many walk throughs by both secondary and primary actors, Brosnan presents a performance that shines in both timing and clarity. Admittedly the script takes Bond to places he's never been before (it's about damn time), but Brosnan is the vehicle and his take gives us a far more personal adventure than any before.

For the first time, Brosnan exudes menace, something he severely lacked before. I really cannot say enough about his performance. Subtle at times, just exceptional.

The direction? Lee Tamahori did a fine job. While some found his staccato cutting unusual, it's a convention of modern filmmaking that I have come to enjoy when done well. Remembering Peter Hunt's use of the same technique in OHMSS might help some past this visual technique, but I, for one, liked it in this film. While I liked the director of TWINE, Tamahori has a more epic feel, a more elegant approach that fits the Bonds quite well. It's been an element that I've missed for quite a while and now that it's back, I would like to keep it.

The script? Alas, we return to my main disappointment with the film. An incredible first half almost derailed by a predictable and formulaic second half. Should the writers continue? Definitely. The first half tells me what can be done with imagination; the second simply slides into what has already sufficed in the past. Next time, stick with the character and let the chips fall.

Now for this review's surprise. After all this bitching, all this scorched earth, I have to admit that in the end I liked this film more than any of the other Brosnan Bonds. Stunned? So am I. I'm in the midst of reassessing the entire series and yet as misbegotten as the second half of Die Another Day was, against my better judgment, I STILL enjoyed the hell out of it. For the first time since GoldenEye, I am definitely going back to the theatre. Quite a change.

So, once again, we're back to the initial question, where am I supposed to go with this review? Simple. I would like to lower the other Brosnan films by half a star (too late!-Ed.) thereby giving me some elbow room to raise Die Another Day to a straight 3 stars. Better than the rest, yet flawed.

Copyright © 2002 Robert Cotton