Die Another Day (2002)'s comments

Do you want to let us know what you think? Just login, after which you will be redirected back here and you can leave your comments.

Osahi

Despite a strong opening sequence, this is by far the worst Bond yet. It never finds the right tone between seriousness and tongue-in-cheek it needs to make it's far fetched plot and setting work. In stead it just feels 'off' almost all the time. The action scènes lack excitement due to the idiotic gadgets that clearly jumped the shark (invisible car? What's exciting about a car I can't see? Oh yeah, so you'll have to destroy the cloaking device in like 2 seconds to make the scène work), the locations never inspire (Iceland here is just one icy white field.), Halle Berry is dreadfull as Bond babe, the twist about who's the traitor is clear ages before the reveal and the CGI is just awfull... Nah, having worked my way trough all the Bond movies in little more than a month (and truly enjoying almost all of them, with few exceptions), this is the only one I wanted to turn off before the end... Yuk

11 years 5 months ago

DisneyStitch

I'm convinced that buried beneath a lot of poor decisions and missteps, there is a decent movie in there somewhere. The premise of the film and the bad guy plan is fairly solid, and being based around North Korea it automatically feels more like a real spy film than being set in some alternate universe where James Bond resides. Rosamund Pike is a good Bond girl but ends up being underused. The invisible car, CGI, Iceland locale, and Halle Berry (to some degree) are what sinks the film ultimately. Plus the bad guy spoiler

never really works, you would think they'd have learned their lesson when Blofield changed actors every other movie back in the Lazenby/then Connery (again) era.

There's also a severe lack of chemistry between Bond and the rest of the characters. Jinx, Ms. Frost, the villain, none of them have any kind of rapport and it comes off as extremely stilted when compared with Brosnan's previous three outings.

Having a grittier Bond and him being tortured is probably the best thing that ended up being wasted. Casino Royale interestingly re-used both of those items as plot points and of course everything clicked in that film.

4 years ago

chunkylefunga

Starts well but then just falls apart.

Thank God for Casino Royale rebooting it all.

8 years 6 months ago

jgveras

This one is really bad. Dialogues are bizarre, the CGI is dreadfull and the MTV Video-like direction doesn't help at all. One of the worst of all Bond movies.

8 years 1 month ago

Cadeicus

That was hilarious! The music in this was so bad and unfitting. The CGI was awful. And the euphemisms were so cringey, especially the one at the very end.

8 years 8 months ago

Siskoid

Not the franchise's finest hour, it doesn't do anything particularly well, and does a number of things quite badly. Being the 20th Bond film, released on film Bond's 40th anniversary, it's full of tributes to the past, and perhaps that's why it has such a schizophrenic nature. The tone is all over the place, with Bond tortured for 14 months promising more of Brosnan's hand-edged 007, but delivering camp science-fiction the likes of which we hadn't seen since Moonraker. I can accept the space laser (we've had that several times before), but gene therapy that changes your DNA and appearance entirely? An invisible car? Virtual reality? A cyber-suit that delivers an electrical sting? Hard to take all of that in. Halle Berry is famously terrible as Jinx - imagine if the plans to give her an original movie had gone ahead! - but then who could be good delivering nothing but sexual innuendo? But then, every line in the film seems to be a glib pun. Newcomer Rosamund Pike is much better. I actually want to watch when she's on screen! Sure, the standard of stunts is pretty high - even if I think I'm done with this era of Bond's obsession with extreme sports; I think we've run out of strange utility vehicles now - but there's way too much cheesy CGI for anything to feel immediate. From the director's commentary track, I understand he tried to refresh the franchise with a number of new tricks, but they just don't work. The odd slow motion shots, integrating the opening credits into the actual (torture) action (and could that Madonna song actually be the worst song in the franchise?), source music...

8 years 8 months ago

Scratch47

Thank God for Casino Royale.

13 years 6 months ago

Earring72

First time watching it in at least 6 years. And still got the same issues but movie doesn't deserve the bad mouthing.

It IS a very frustrating Bond movie. The first 75 minutes are very good indeed with nice story development, some good action sequences and even some harder edge stuff from Brosnan. But the movie takes a sharp turn to the left and becomes a completely different movie when it arrivés in Iceland with way too much over the top action and stupid setpieces. The CGI and invissible car got a lot of negative response and that is is deserved because it is awful and bad.

But overall it still is a fun 007 adventure.

8 years 5 months ago

IreneAdler

I liked it. Nice action, very beautiful location shots... I found it very entertaining.

9 years 4 months ago

Ralf

The first 30-40 minutes were so solid that I was certain this would - against all odds - become my favorite Brosnan Bond movie. Even the infamous invisible car didn't bother me that much because they attempted to at least explain how it turned transparent.
As soon as the ice palace was introduced, however, it just turned into a steaming pile of shite, and by the time 007 surfed on that tidal wave I was pretty much banging my head against the table *. Halle Berry was awesome as Jinx though, especially after the horrible Dr. Christmas Jones in The World Is Not Enough.

* The CGI was inexcusably awful in that scene!

After watching the film, I went on YouTube to view the avalanche scene from xXx, a movie that also came out in 2002 just to see if CGI really was that bad back then, but the xXx sequence looks GREAT.

11 years 1 month ago