(no subject)
Nov. 30th, 2002 05:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerI went to see Die Another Day last night, the new Bond movie. For some reason, this has caused me to get quite upset. I was looking forward to it an awful lot, the trailer having been fantastic. My overall review is "could have been fantastic, was merely good. Action scenes and plot ideas were largely great, but the dialogue and plot detail left a fair bit to be desired".
Basically, this movie has 3 Bonds:
James himself, battered and bruised by his capture and torture
Jinx, the American, female equivalent
Gustav Graves, Bond's enemy, remade in his image - his dark reflection, if you like.
I'd like to have seen a little character development on Bond's behalf - recognition that Graves' imitation of him highlighted bits of personality he didn't like, that Jinx's identical use of sexuality repulsed him slightly. Basically, I felt that this had lots of potential that just weren't used in the film.
The whole 'betrayal' plot didn't work for me as well as it could have done - the opening scene where the info comes back identifying Bond just meant, to me, that there was a database somewhere identifying secret agents and other assassins. It's not like Bond isn't (a) famous in the international spying scene and (b) doesn't constantly use his own name. It didn't require a mole at all.
It was never explicitly said that Zao was the man studying the diamonds at the start of the film. I assume that that's who he is, but he never so much as blames Bond in the scene where we see them together.
Awful, awful scripting. Several scenes were obviously plotted out by one person and then written by another. The three which spring to mind are:
1) Mr Kill introduces himself. Ignoring the fact that he was an unnecessary character and completely pointless in the film, he introduces himself in a scene that was obviously in the script overview as "Mr Kil introduces himself". Instead of Bond getting out his car and saying "The name is Bond, James Bond" and Kil replying "My name is Mr Kil" and ignoring him/turning away/snubbing him, Mr Kil stalks up to him, says "My name is Mr Kil", for no obvious reason, and then ignores him. What possible motivation was there for him to do this?
2) When Miranda Frost goes to taunt Jinx. This scene served no purpouse, had no cool fight in it, provided no information and there was no reason for the characters to do it. Why the hell was it there?
3) Bond working out who Graves was. He did this without having nearly enough information, promted by mention of something he had no idea about.
I would include Miranda sleeping with Bond to this (it looked like the overview had said "Bond seduces Miranda" which the scripter had decided was too hard, so she just changes her character completely and sleeps with him, despite protesting up to that point that she never would. Of course, seeing as she turns out to be a double agent, it's understandable. But then, could we not have had her taunt Bond about using his sexuality against him?
Basically, it felt like the characterisation was completely in thrall to the plot, with people doing things because the plot dictated them rather than because it's what they would have done. Frankly, Disney doesn't treat the audience that badly, I don't see why Bond should get away with it. I'd say that the director had no idea about real people and their emotions and characters if he hadn't also done Once Were Warriors. However, in this film he appeared to have the hang of directing machines and action, but not people - on several occasions actors delivered lines with entirely the wrong inflection, as if they didn't actually understand what they were supposed to be getting across. This can only be laid at the feet of the director, whose job it is to iron out those kinds of problems.
On the good side, the effects and action scenes are all great, lots of the ideas are good and some of the character scenes are good. It's largely a let down because it reached for more and then didn't make it. It wouldn't surprise me to know that this was originally a much better script/plot hacked down by studio execs and incompetent rewrites.
Basically, this movie has 3 Bonds:
James himself, battered and bruised by his capture and torture
Jinx, the American, female equivalent
Gustav Graves, Bond's enemy, remade in his image - his dark reflection, if you like.
I'd like to have seen a little character development on Bond's behalf - recognition that Graves' imitation of him highlighted bits of personality he didn't like, that Jinx's identical use of sexuality repulsed him slightly. Basically, I felt that this had lots of potential that just weren't used in the film.
The whole 'betrayal' plot didn't work for me as well as it could have done - the opening scene where the info comes back identifying Bond just meant, to me, that there was a database somewhere identifying secret agents and other assassins. It's not like Bond isn't (a) famous in the international spying scene and (b) doesn't constantly use his own name. It didn't require a mole at all.
It was never explicitly said that Zao was the man studying the diamonds at the start of the film. I assume that that's who he is, but he never so much as blames Bond in the scene where we see them together.
Awful, awful scripting. Several scenes were obviously plotted out by one person and then written by another. The three which spring to mind are:
1) Mr Kill introduces himself. Ignoring the fact that he was an unnecessary character and completely pointless in the film, he introduces himself in a scene that was obviously in the script overview as "Mr Kil introduces himself". Instead of Bond getting out his car and saying "The name is Bond, James Bond" and Kil replying "My name is Mr Kil" and ignoring him/turning away/snubbing him, Mr Kil stalks up to him, says "My name is Mr Kil", for no obvious reason, and then ignores him. What possible motivation was there for him to do this?
2) When Miranda Frost goes to taunt Jinx. This scene served no purpouse, had no cool fight in it, provided no information and there was no reason for the characters to do it. Why the hell was it there?
3) Bond working out who Graves was. He did this without having nearly enough information, promted by mention of something he had no idea about.
I would include Miranda sleeping with Bond to this (it looked like the overview had said "Bond seduces Miranda" which the scripter had decided was too hard, so she just changes her character completely and sleeps with him, despite protesting up to that point that she never would. Of course, seeing as she turns out to be a double agent, it's understandable. But then, could we not have had her taunt Bond about using his sexuality against him?
Basically, it felt like the characterisation was completely in thrall to the plot, with people doing things because the plot dictated them rather than because it's what they would have done. Frankly, Disney doesn't treat the audience that badly, I don't see why Bond should get away with it. I'd say that the director had no idea about real people and their emotions and characters if he hadn't also done Once Were Warriors. However, in this film he appeared to have the hang of directing machines and action, but not people - on several occasions actors delivered lines with entirely the wrong inflection, as if they didn't actually understand what they were supposed to be getting across. This can only be laid at the feet of the director, whose job it is to iron out those kinds of problems.
On the good side, the effects and action scenes are all great, lots of the ideas are good and some of the character scenes are good. It's largely a let down because it reached for more and then didn't make it. It wouldn't surprise me to know that this was originally a much better script/plot hacked down by studio execs and incompetent rewrites.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Unnecessary Madge-ness
Date: 2002-11-30 12:23 pm (UTC)What did you think of the more character orientated "The World is Not Enough"?
Re: Unnecessary Madge-ness
Date: 2002-11-30 12:32 pm (UTC)My fave is still Goldeneye, where you have all the incredible stunts, but you also have Sean Bean questioning Bond's loyalty and the actions of the Brits, as well as the girl questioning how long he can carry on with his lifestyle before it kills him.
Re: Unnecessary Madge-ness
Date: 2002-11-30 01:11 pm (UTC)Yeah, the direction was a bit halfhearted in TWINE. Elektra was a good (and complex) villain though, not so much for what she was planning but in the way she affected all the other characters. We've had bad guys who could physically hurt Bond for years, but it was refreshing (if that's the right word) to have one who could hurt him emotionally.
I'm glad I'm not alone
Date: 2002-12-02 05:20 am (UTC)Bah. I could go on for hours about the pain this movie put me through. Liked Miranda Frost much more than I expected to, though.