Memories can change. And if you look at something again after some time you might notice that your opinion has changed, too. So why not apply that to our beloved Bond films?
Let´s start with “Die Another Day”.
Before:
The last in Brosnan´s tenure was the most successful of his. Everybody thought he would go on to make a fifth one. And then things changed. With the Craig era being even more successful, emulating the darker approach of Nolan´s Batman trilogy, DAD became a punching bag, the clearest example for how Bond with Craig got back on track. Often derided as Brosnan´s “Moonraker”, another example for the fourth film in a tenure going off the rails by being too much fantasy and overblown in every way, the film was hated and ridiculed, often ending up at the bottom of the list of all Bond films. Good riddance, many seemed to think, to such a silly Bond film, a creative bankruptcy. While it still was more profitable than most of the others. Which at least meant that audiences loved to pay tickets to see it.
I saw DAD twice in the cinema, and both times people responded highly enthusiastic, cheering and applauding even. The first time I absolutely loved it, the second time I was not as sold by it. And when I re-watched it at home on blu ray a few years later I also fell into the camp which stated: the first half is good, the second half is disappointing and undoes all the great work done until that hour-mark. And the CGI during that tsunami-surfing scene… horrible. Unworthy of Bond.
So I never returned to watch it. Until yesterday.
After:
The first thing I noticed re-watching DAD is how extremely fast it is moving. The editing of the story is so swift and propulsive, every scene is offering something new, there is no downtime in this movie. It never lags, it always moves the narrative forward. While that also means it does not offer a bit of breathing room to take in the scenery like the early films did, DAD at least seems to know what it has to achieve: to compete with other action films in the marketplace it is not allowed to be boring. So it takes the viewer and really flies, never letting go. And I enjoyed that immensely.
Brosnan himself is also extremely efficient here, achieving the perfect balance of seriousness, anger, amusement and charme his three previous films rarely offered all at the same time. I would argue that DAD has Brosnan at his best.
Halle Berry, while also having become a target with critics, is also very charming as Jinx, signaling she is all in on the fun (the way she ironically raises her eyebrows before she dives backwards down the cliff is perfect, also the way she gives a weary smile to the doctor in the clinic to get his hands off her by presenting a checque).
John Cleese does a fine Cleese-as-Q, Samantha Bond´s Virtual Reality Fling with Bond is fulfilling the promise of Moneypenny pining for Bond for 20 films and I enjoyed it the way audiences did (they went nuts with applause and cheering during those screenings), and Judi Dench is never pulling attention away from Bond (funny, all those four films of the Brosnan era, she and even the whole Mi6 crew stayed at the sidelines without any problems).
As for the action: the great sword fight-sequence with Bond and Graves remains thrilling, mainly because Bond can really show his anger towards Graves who returns the favor. The car chase on the ice is very entertaining, even employing the ejector seat in a creative way, and the fight on the disintegrating airplane is a captivating finale.
And the dialogue? Well, DAD does go all in on the double entendres and the silly one-liners. Introducing Mr. Kil is just about introducing this henchman and badly placed. But the final exchange between Bond and Graves is great. Would the whole film have been better if the double entendres had been scrapped? Yes. A more serious approach here, I believe, would have worked wonders. But at that time it was exactly what was expected and welcomed.
Okay, but what about the shoddy CGI? Well… when that scene came up I was prepared for the worst. And I was surprised how decent it actually looked. I have seen much worse is not the biggest compliment, but still my memory of it had distorted my opinion. Now I think it works perfectly fine with the concept of that situation. But that situation, as preposterous and absurd it might feel for some, is a typical James Bond situation at heart: all the odds are against him, but he uses what he has, improvises and comes out on top. In the next film he would climb up a construction crane, unarmed, then catch the gun thrown at him and throw it right back at his opponent. Very pared down but still kind of ridiculous. But also essentially Bond. And I love that element. This is what makes Bond Bond for me.
In conclusion:
DAD has gained a lot of ground with me after this recent re-watch. Maybe that is due to my appetite for a more fun and less serious Bond film. Maybe I was always a closeted DAD fan. Or maybe it just is a really well made film which combines everything the previous films cooked up into a stew, warming up everything with a familiar taste. It is not cuisine art, it is more like a home made meal you knew from your childhood days, adding a (at that time) contemporary flavor. Or in other words: the toy chest has been completely emptied onto the floor and you and your friends could play with every single item during a fun-filled afternoon for one more time before the adults came in during the evening.
), and the villain being knighted after less than two years of being known bothers me.