——Die Another Day——

(A second look)

(B)

I saw this film originally in the theaters right after it came out and enjoyed it as a step up from the last two films. While the film does have some glaring problems, it still for the most part succeeds, making it the best Bond film since Goldeneye (my personal favorite).

What’s Good: Finally, a story with a little meat on its bones. The whole thing with the megalomaniac trying to take over the world is fine and everything, but it’s been done to death, and frankly it’s been done much better back in the Connery years. Everything since then has been a pale formulaic imitation that never had the same impact as the first time (your Goldfinger’s and Thunderball’s). Goldeneye played on the whole traitor in MI-6, making the story infinity more interesting. Die Another Day has its own nice twist by, for the first time, having Bond captured and tortured, and then having everyone turn their back on him so that he has to turn into a rogue agent. This part of the movie works very well (as opposed to oh, say, License to Kill) and keeps the movie alive even after the stupid conflict diamonds evil millionaire plot starts up.

Also, the series’ winking self-knowledge of itself for its 20th film has the kind of tongue in cheek aspect that’s needed to keep the series alive. Remember, Bond is a product of the Cold War, made popular by JFK. A little recognition of where he came from can go a long way in making the audience accept Bond’s adventures for the twentieth time. Plus there are all sorts of goodies and in-jokes in there for all of us Bond geeks who’ve stayed with the series through every film.

I also enjoy quite a bit of the stunts, especially the car chase on ice, even if they all aren’t perfect, which leads me to–

What’s Bad: Oh man some of the CGI in this movie is bad. The parasol surfing scene looks like it belongs in Ice Age instead of in a film known for its real life stunts. Also the plot does drift into some familiar territory, which is where the bad dialog steps in. I don’t mind the puns when dispatching a foe, but could you keep it to at least two bad puns at the most, and save them for the most gratifying moments please? Also, when are super villains finally going to realize that if you want Bond dead, you’ve got to kill him fast? Austin Powers finally brought the ridiculousness of a “slow dipping mechanism” to light; now can’t we get on to a plot where the super villain tries to kill Bond quickly and he STILL gets away? Frankly that would be a whole lot more impressive to me. This whole “let’s walk away before we actually see the body” nonsense has really got to stop. I mean the man causes so much damage, wouldn’t you want to kill him before he starts blowing shit up? You know if you just hold on to him he’s going to mess everything up. Just shoot the bitch to see what he does.

——The Quiet American——

(A-)

I find it a little difficult to begin reviewing this film, since last spring I read the Graham Greene book for my Vietnam class and the majority of the book is still quite vivid in my mind. The film follows extremely close to the book, and in that respect it makes it hard to separate my feelings for the book when viewing the film, but I will do my best. What is great about the film is how faithfully and closely it follows Graham Greene’s words. Although the book is a little fuzzy in my mind I am pretty sure everything has been followed exactly to the blueprint of the book, and quite a few lines from the film I remembered from the book.

This is where the problem in reviewing the film comes from. Am I too conscious of the book to notice the film’s idiosyncrasies, or, on the other hand, does my enjoyment of the book feed into my enjoyment of the movie? Here’s what I’ve come up with sorting out my thoughts on the film:

I quite enjoyed this film. Whether or not that has something to do with the book I’ll probably never know, but the excellent plot and pacing of the book most definitely had something to do with it. Michael Caine and Brendan Fraser were flawlessly chosen for their roles in this film. Caine effortlessly pulls off the charm and self-loathing of the ever neutral Thomas Fowler while Fraser was perfectly cast as the clueless “I’m doing this for good and I don’t know how wrong it really is” American, Alden Pyle. They both pull out all of the stops to deliver some great performances.

Something was gnawing away at me through the whole thing though, and I’m not totally sure what that was. Maybe it was the missing details from the book that didn’t make it on screen. Maybe it was Phillip Noyce’s direction, which was competent and yet sometimes ill suited for the film. It looked beautiful, but sometimes I felt like the cinematography was too bright and colorful for the tone of the film.

And yet the message of the film is still as powerful as it was back when the book was originally written, way back in the early 50’s before America became officially involved in Vietnam. The epilogue to the film (which obviously wasn’t in the book) really helps prove Greene’s point and shows how much foresight he had into the political situation in Vietnam. He predicted the entire Vietnam conflict way before anyone else, AND he also knew how it was all going to end. Pyle is hopelessly idealistic and doesn’t once see the realities in Vietnam, and Fowler sees everything and yet chooses to ignore it all. The book is a perfect allegory to what really happened, and I think that the greatest strength of the movie really comes from that of the book. I find it interesting that this movie got such a horrible reception when it came out, because it really reflects the realities of now as well as then. Think about it: if someone with power in America had actually read and understood Greene’s book the whole Vietnam conflict could have been prevented, or come out vastly different. But as it is, history just has a way of repeating itself.