Die Another Day is an enjoyable mix of vintage Bond films and modern action flicks, a really good time at the movies. I think the most important job of a James Bond film is to entertain the audience. Part of the fun in this movie is all the well-placed references to past Bond pictures. It won't be long until fan sites have a running list of these references, some of which are easier to spot than others. I believe I have found at least one reference of some kind to each of the previous nineteen films. Whether or not they were all intended is another matter.

Direction: Lee Tamahori does a great job moving the story along and keeping the performances in check. I imagine when an actor is in a Bond film, there would be a tendency to play the character over the top. Tamahori let the actors have fun and at the same time keep the reins in. I think it is important for the Bond films to have a director who is involved with the performers. Letting everyone do their own thing hardly works in movies. Whether he is back for the next one has pros and cons. Each of Pierce Brosnan's four Bond films has had a different director. I believe this keeps the series fresh and prevents the films from falling into a stagnant recycled pattern.

Action sequences were again directed by Vic Armstrong. These scenes blended into the story much better than the action scenes in The World is Not Enough, where they seemed tacked on in order to meet a quota. In Die Another Day they are important to the story and therefore more successful.

Pierce Brosnan: He has had this character down from the beginning. He is one major reason for the incredible box office the Bond films have been enjoying lately. Women are as eager to see the new films as men have always been. Where Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan know how to talk to men, Brosnan also knows how to talk to women. Imagine Mr. Dalton (whom I really like as Bond) saying to a woman he's kissing "put your back into it this time." Remove Brosnan from the role, and the second film of whoever replaces him is going to take a hit (the first film of Bond number six will enjoy a curiosity factor in ticket sales).

Halle Berry: I've read a few opinions that Berry is not that convincing in the role. Maybe my expectations are lower after seeing Dr. Christmas Jones, but I liked Berry a lot in this film. I think her performance here is better than in X-men. She's playing yet another "female equal of Bond" as if this is the first time that's ever happened. Her delivery of the innuendo lines were entertaining, most notably the banter between her and Miranda Frost about Bond. I think a spin-off Jinx series would make a good set of popcorn films. Modesty Blaise had her promise, but not the talents of Eon Productions.

Rosamund Pike: She was cast to play a character named Gala Brand before the name was changed to Miranda Frost. She was like Fleming's Brand in terms of her professional demeanor. Ms. Pike was fun to watch throughout the film. My favorites include her taunting nature towards the end. I think she nailed every line just about perfectly. She's pretty cute, too

Toby Stevens: I found his character to be suitably credible as yet another villain who is not all that he seems. When he had to speak another language as if it is his native tongue, I bought it. This was important to his character. Bond films, it has been said, are only as good as the villains. Toby Stevens as Sir Gustav Graves is pretty good. Not that I'm counting but I believe Mr. Stevens is the fourth U.K. actor in a row to play Bond's main adversary. Well, maybe I am counting.

Judi Dench: The chemistry between M and Bond in these new Brosnan films has been the best in the series. I liked the chemistry in Fleming's novels where M is the seasoned old sailor and Bond can never do enough to satisfy him. In the event Mr. Brosnan is succeeded as Bond, I would recommend prospective actors do a screen test with Ms. Dench as well as leading ladies.

Samantha Bond: Very limited role for Ms. Moneypenny screentime-wise, but what scenes she is in are quite memorable, to say the least.

John Cleese: The only person who could succeed Desmond Llewelyn as Q. He keeps the deadpan wit and stuffy persona alive and the banter between him and Bond is the same, yet different. That's fine. This Q is not the same character as Major Boothroyd.

Production: Twenty films in forty years by one production company is a pretty incredible milestone.

I remember reading a quote by Michael G. Wilson in Weekly Variety where he was resigned to the fact that a new Bond film would probably cost around 40 million dollars. This was in 1993. Much has changed in nine years. A lot of money was spent on this film and it all shows. Plus, the producers have re-discovered the financial merits of product placement to help offset production costs. You may have read a lot about promotional tie-ins for this film, but none of them are blatant (like they were in Moonraker) or distracting. For instance, a Norelco razor is seen in the film because Bond really needs to shave.

When theJames Bond series started, Albert R. Broccoli used his established connections in England to assemble a very talented group of actors and crew to create a film with every bit of the production values of a Hollywood movie for a fraction of the cost. Not only that, but he and co-producer Harry Saltzman were very much in charge of every aspect of production. They maintained a balanced relationship with the cast and crew to let them do their jobs, but also kept the focus sharp for everyone to create a good film.

Albert Broccoli always believed in the Bond films. He thought too much of them to sell his shares of the property when the stocks were at their peak. Since he passed the torch to his stepson Michael G. Wilson and daughter Barbara Broccoli, who learned how to produce the films from him, the stocks are again peaking.

When you look at so many other film series that have been completely depleted after three or four entries, it's hard not to appreciate the dedication and talent required to be able to continue a series of films with a main character so strongly conceived, several actors can successfully portray him. It is also important to recognize the producers' integrity by resisting to make 'R' rated or 18 certified films like many of Bond's past box office challengers.

Cinematography: Top notch for all camera departments. The exteriors on location are all first class, beautiful. The interiors have some very good lighting that looks to have taken some time to set up.

Production Design: I'm not certain but I believe the Ice Palace to be Peter Lamont's first fantasy-based design. Everything to this point by him has been realistic, although many times quite big. I think the Soviet "war room" set from Octopussy was about the limit until now. The Ken Adam fantasy aspect is one of the things that made the classic Bond films so memorable. The Ice Palace is a fun looking set and is used to great effect in the film. Between the cinematography and production design, one really feels like Bond is traveling to a wide variety of worlds.

Screenplay: To this point, very little of Ian Fleming's work was being used in the Pierce Brosnan films. I'm happy to see so much of Fleming's Moonraker in this film. The dialogue is pretty good, not overly witty and not flat. One memorable scene is when Bond saves Jinx. She asks what took him so long. It would have been easy to put in a throwaway line like "traffic was a bitch," but the screenplay allows Bond to be human. He's too overcome with joy to say anything. The characters are a good mix of various personalities.

The story is very engrossing in the first two acts. The script presents some interesting new challenges to Bond early on. The first act deals with Bond trying to discover a traitor (convinced that is the only way his cover is blown. No way could the North Koreans look to Chinese allies to identify him.). He is also keen to kill a terrorist named Zao. He seems resolute in this quest, and MI6 won't stand in his way, since they've disowned him. The outsider aspect to Bond's character in this film works much better than in Licence To Kill. The second act develops very well. The third act is not as good, but is still okay. When you really think about it, this is something the Bond films have been struggling with for a while. What Die Another Day lacks between the second and third acts is a strong turning point. A turning point is a plot change that blindsides the story and spins it in a new direction. A successful turning point sets up a third act with energy and keeps the audience involved. In Bond films, the turning point is usually a discovery of a secret location or plan. What the villain has been up to the whole time. Since the world has been threatened so many times in the Bond films, it's hard for the audience to be involved. To make up for this, lots and lots of special effects are put up on screen.

Special Effects: Many of them are sufficient and a few are pretty good. However, there are a two that do not work. Most notably, the para-snowboarding. In the old days, you'd have John Glen directing on location with Willy Bogner skiing backwards holding a camera. This new CGI method was probably more feasible, maybe even cheaper. The segment itself was a good idea on paper for a stunt, but it really didn't seem necessary to the story. I believe certain CGI effects should be reviewed on a big screen to ensure plausibility. What may look good on a computer monitor may not successfully make the transition to a 60-foot wide screen.

Main Titles: I have always admired the talent Maurice Binder had for creating the titles for the Bond films. Usually, Saul Bass is universally regarded as the industry's greatest title designer, but Maurice Binder's titles were like films within a film. So now we have Danny Kleinman, who has brought Binder's distinct visual style in line with modern technology to create stellar titles that are, without a doubt, the best in the industry today. Why are they the best? Everyone else just burns credits over the picture. If there is an attempt to be creative, such as in the film Hannibal, they still lack the entertainment value that Maurice Binder established and Danny Kleinman so ably continues.

Music: I listened to David Arnold's score before I saw the film. The score on its own sometimes seems like it's trying too hard to keep pace with an action scene. His use of electronic accompaniment is getting more bold with every film. But soundtracks are not designed to be played in the car on the way to work. They're designed to serve the story of the film. And Arnold's score does that as efficiently as ever. John Barry is still the master, but David Arnold is as good a Bond composer as Brosnan is at playing Bond. His Cuba themes are the musical highlights of the film. I liked Madonna's theme the moment I first heard it. It fits the daring style of the film. Madonna, being Madonna, was a great choice because she wouldn't fall into the trap of trying to make another new version of Goldfinger.

Editing: I think that Terry Rawlings editing of GoldenEye contributed to the series' modern editing style. The quick pace set the tone for editors who followed, but for some reason, hand-to-hand fights always seem to go on a bit longer than feels right. A lot of them can be taken out without any hindrance to the story. In the book Goldfinger, Bond professes to be able to kill a man with one punch. Drawn-out punch-trading doesn't mean anything to the story. Take the early fight between Bond and Colonel Moon, both of whom have more fighting ability than just throwing punches. It was like watching a tennis match. I know this isn't really an editing issue, but when something onscreen feels like it's going on too long, I look to the editor. Of course, an editor can only work with the coverage he or she is given. I liked the modern playback adjustments to the picture. The speed-up and slow-down of some shots were used to good effect here.

Highlights: Cuba and London locations, fencing duel at blades, Aston Martin V12 Vanquish.

Questionable: Plane flying through hazardous destructive force and, well, you'll know when you see the film.

Suggestions for future Bond film: Cut back on machine guns. There's no point in having a bunch of guys shooting machineguns and missing the target. This makes them look inept. Wouldn't Bond be more impressive as a hero if he were to outmaneuver smart, capable people? Having a bullet miss Bond just because he's Bond hurts the credibility. Gadgets have a way of being presented to Bond and later on he just so happens to need that precise device. In Thunderball, Bond will obviously be working underwater, looking for atomic bombs. Q presents him with a re-breather apparatus and Geiger counter wristwatch. Put the horse in front of the cart. Make a villain the audience can really hate. The Lethal Weapon films did this to great effect and so when they were introduced to the afterlife, the audience felt all the more satisfied. Snarling, wise-cracking, posturing megalomaniacs are September 10th. I'd encourage the filmmakers to continue looking back to the Fleming books for inspiration of characters and scenes.

We're all still waiting for the giant bulletproof shield to drop down in front of M's desk in the event of an assassination attempt. Such an attempt wouldn't necessarily have to be made by Bond, but imagine if it was....

Copyright © 2002 Joe Stachler