So, I'm doing my regular skimming around the various forums, looking for interesting posts, and I spot something on Digital Spy that actually got me thinking.
I know, something on Digital Spy actually got me thinking, that's a first!
The poster posed a question about BBC Local Radio as a whole. Has it, as an idea, had its day? Indeed, some of the commenters there raised very valid and accurate points about the state of BBC Local Radio.
BBC Local Radio as a whole has over 8.5 million listeners every week. That's not a shabby performance, especially when you consider the nearest thing to a comparable commercial network, Heart, gets over 9.1 million listeners per week, and other than Heart, the only stations that score higher, are BBC Radios 1, 2 & 4. By those standards of measurement, surely BBC Local Radio's future as a whole is secure.
But start digging just below the surface of those numbers, and the picture looks a lot different.
Just in the last year, BBC Local Radio as a whole, has lost over 400,000 listeners. That's not so good. The overall share of listening is also down slightly.
And when you start looking at individual stations, it doesn't get much better.
Let's start with BBC Guernsey. In a market where you have two main local stations, one BBC and one commercial (Island FM), you'd think that given the way the BBC is always portrayed by commercial radio companies as being dominant that the BBC Local station would be the runaway leader here, and you'd be wrong.
In a market that has only 53,000 available listeners, BBC Guernsey scores 20,000 whilst Island FM scores 32,000. In the last year, BBC Guernsey has lost 4,000 weekly listeners, whilst Island FM has also lost listeners, just 1,000 of them though. Obviously national radio in Guernsey has gained listeners compared to the local stations.
But even with losing 1,000 listeners, Island FM has still seen its share of listening go up from 45.7% to 46.1% in the past year. Not too shabby. By comparison BBC Guernsey's share of listening has dropped, from 20.9% to 20.5%. So how does Island FM do so much better than BBC Guernsey?
Some could put it down to the fact that Island FM is a more music service, but that's too simple an explanation. If that was all it was, commercial radio as a whole would be outperforming the BBC and that simply isn't the case. BBC Radio 4 outperforms every other station and network, except for BBC Radio 2, so the amount of music clearly isn't the deciding factor here.
When you listen to the output of Island FM, one thing stands out immediately. It has a very community-based feel to it. They talk a lot about local events and promote local causes. Live local programming hours are greater than on most mainland local commercial stations, from 6am to 10pm on weekdays, 7am to 6pm on Saturdays, and 8am to Midday on Sundays, their Sunday afternoon show is voice tracked, according to their public file, although when listening in myself, I couldn't tell that it wasn't live. It's also one of the few remaining local commercial stations to feature a sports show on a Saturday afternoon.
If anything, it's a mixture of having a good mix of music, familiar enough, yet with enough variation that allows you to discover tracks you might not have heard before, combined with the community feel, and a professional imaging that doesn't make the station sound small and you have what I consider to be the perfect balance of elements to make great commercial radio.
The news on the hour doesn't feel too long, at 3 minutes, and you feel briefed, rather than feeling like you've not been told enough. Radio news itself is another whole separate issue that I could talk about in another long article, but I'll save that for another time. Suffice to say, Island FM's news feels about right.
Okay, so I can hear the next question forming in your minds. "That's in a one BBC versus one local commercial situation, but in my area, there are 2 or more local commercial stations up against one BBC local radio station. Does BBC Local Radio do any better there?"
Well, let's use BBC Radio Cornwall as an example. BBC Radio Cornwall has traditionally been one of BBC Local Radio's better performers, so if that is leading, then maybe the picture isn't quite so bad.
Well, BBC Radio Cornwall does score a decent 141,000 listeners in a market of 463,000. That's a 30% reach, that's pretty good... but that's down 12,000 listeners in the past year. It's scoring decently on share as well, a none too shabby 16.1% share of listening... down from 18.3% a year ago. Oh dear, this picture ain't looking too great to be fair. But, if it's ahead of its commercial competition, then we can still call it more successful.
Let's start with the biggest national name in local radio, Heart. Heart do report their Cornwall service separately, so we do have a direct comparison. And they score... 117,000. 24,000 less than BBC Radio Cornwall, so BBC Radio Cornwall is still more popular. However, that score is up 20,000 on the same time last year. That doesn't sound so good for BBC Radio Cornwall, who have lost 12,000 listeners in the same time.
How does share of listening compare. Well, Heart are much further back on that count, scoring only 8.5% share, but that is up on the 6.6% of a year ago. However, it's still nowhere near BBC Radio Cornwall's 16.1%.
But although they may be the biggest name in local commercial radio nationally, Heart are comparative newcomers to Cornwall, as Pirate FM were Cornwall's first local commercial radio service, launching in 1992. How do they compare to BBC Radio Cornwall?
Well, on the reach side, Pirate FM scores... 165,000. 24,000 more than BBC Radio Cornwall, and that's up 5,000 in the last year. That's not so good for BBC Local Radio. However, on the share side, Pirate FM comes in at 11.7%, quite a way back from Radio Cornwall's 16.1%, and itself, down from 12.5% a year ago.
And those figures don't show how that compares to recent entrant NJoy Radio, who broadcast on DAB, and are not currently registered with RAJAR for ratings, nor does it show how it compares to the various community stations that broadcast on FM across Cornwall, Penwith Radio, Source FM, CHBN, The Hub and RSAB. And even then, because of broadcast area, we don't know how many listeners in the Cornwall area listen to other stations that are available in the area, but are not predominantly targeted at Cornwall, such as Radio Plymouth, BBC Radio Devon and Smooth Plymouth. Also, we don't have figures for two other DAB stations that Pirate FM produce. Pirate Oldies or Escape To Cornwall.
It's not clear cut by any means, but it is fair to say that BBC Radio Cornwall is amongst the best performers in the BBC Local Radio stable. Their next door neighbour, BBC Radio Devon, has had in recent times one of the worst collapses of audience I've ever seen. In just one year, they've dropped from 212,000 weekly listeners, to just 169,000. That's a massive 43,000 listeners deserting BBC Radio Devon. The figures for share of listening are no better. One year ago, 11.4% share. Today, just 7.6% share. That's a drop of a third overall. A 33.3% fall in share of listening, just let that sink in for a second. There's a third less listening overall to BBC Radio Devon in the past year. That's a big problem. A problem that is somewhat disguised by the fact that there isn't really a direct comparison available with Heart in Devon, or with Radio Plymouth, Radio Exe and The Breeze (formerly Palm FM). Also, there are no figures for any of the community radio stations in Devon, Soundart Radio, Phonic FM, The Voice or Bay FM. So it's difficult to know exactly where the listeners are going, and how BBC Radio Devon should respond.
But even if they did know, they are hamstrung by the dictats from London which limit what BBC local radio can actually do. The BBC Local Radio formula which was devised back in the early 1990s might have seemed like a good idea then, but the audience profile has changed so significantly, that BBC Local Radio these days sounds ridiculously old fashioned and out of date, a museum piece that needs to be brought up to date.
Whilst it's admirable to commit to local journalism, nothing that BBC local radio does in journalism terms even comes close to being worthy local journalism. This is a similar problem that has been facing local NPR stations across America, and they've come up with many different applications but the basic guiding principle has been the same. Don't go for the easy stories, the ones that are important, but basically dull. Also, don't go for the standard commercial fare, high on the interest scale, but lacking any importance at all. Find stories that are both interesting and important, and find new, more interesting, more compelling ways to tell them.
Indeed, I found one such story that I brought onto my own show, which had so many angles that I needed to give the whole story a lot more time. The basic story was the local food bank was having a public fundraising appeal to help pay for the bigger premises that they had to move into, because of increased demand for the food bank's help. But the food bank wasn't the only community service that was in the new location, there were other services that were sharing that building, so it made sense to me to cover the basic story, but also to talk about each of the services that were at that location.
The story also played into the two higher tiers in the Public Radio News Director's Guide. There are four tiers of news, according to the guide.
Tier One: Commercial
Tier Two: Staged
Tier Three: Local Impact/National
Tier Four: Local Meaning.
The story was a local impact of a national trend, the growing use of food banks since 2010, so it fitted in tier three. But it also fitted in tier four. It was about something that was truly making a difference in the local community. It made perfect sense to do that story, and to give it more airtime than BBC or commercial radio would ever give it.
Unfortunately, most BBC local reporting still fits into Tier one or two on the scale. Very little comes under tier three or tier four. Also, a lot of the reporting can be summed up as worthy, but dull, and that does nothing for the appeal of BBC local radio.
Whilst it's understandable that commercial radio would stick pretty close to tier one and tier two, and indeed mostly does, there are occasions when even commercial radio will touch on tier three or tier four, and those are the times commercial radio genuinely surprises. BBC local radio on the other hand, rarely does surprise.
So, what does BBC local radio need to do?
Well, its local journalism needs to be more interesting, better presented and produced, and it needs to be less commercial, and more tier three and tier four, more relevant to the local area, more local impact and local meaning.
The music needs to be generally broader, and at times, there does need to be more music than talk. Not every hour should be more music, or more talk, or even all talk. What it needs to be is right for the time of day. Breakfast should always aim to be more informed, but that doesn't necessarily mean music has to be completely excluded. By enforcing a strict 70:30 ratio of talk to music during daytime and evening, it means that far too often, BBC local radio is just talking about stuff to fill airtime, stuff that really shouldn't be taking up that airtime, and stories that deserve more time, just aren't getting it.
Let the balance of music and talk work itself out for each station. Also, BBC local radio's reliance on phone ins to help fill the airtime doesn't help matters as often, the contributions go on way too long, and leave you begging for a producer to pull the plug on a phone call because somebody's spoken for far too long and said very little if anything of any use to the station or the listener.
What BBC local radio needs is a complete overhaul, but unfortunately, I don't see any such overhaul coming.
Sunday, 1 May 2016
Wednesday, 20 April 2016
Utah decides to make pornography a public health issue...
This is perhaps the most baffling, the most unbelievable, the most stupid reason I've ever heard for banning pornography, and the reality is, it won't change a thing.
And yes, this is a pretty thinly veiled attempt to ban porn, under the guise of declaring it a "public health crisis".
But it should come as no surprise. Back in 2009, a study showed that Utah had the highest rate of online adult site subscriptions in the US. And ever since then, the political nuts have been trying to take out the industry, no matter what.
But, no matter what those who favour censorship and restriction may try and do, they can never silence the people.
By trying to ban it, all they do, is make it more attractive. By trying to restrict it, they encourage people to watch it. By claiming it's about 'public health', they are really trying to avoid the reality that this is about the same old "we know what's best for you" attitude that conservatives have tried to force on people for years.
Internet firewalls put up by governments are regularly breached by individuals, the anti-censorship movement is as strong as ever, and the rights of people to watch anything legal in their homes, must be upheld, no matter what the pro-censorship brigade might think.
And yes, this is a pretty thinly veiled attempt to ban porn, under the guise of declaring it a "public health crisis".
But it should come as no surprise. Back in 2009, a study showed that Utah had the highest rate of online adult site subscriptions in the US. And ever since then, the political nuts have been trying to take out the industry, no matter what.
But, no matter what those who favour censorship and restriction may try and do, they can never silence the people.
By trying to ban it, all they do, is make it more attractive. By trying to restrict it, they encourage people to watch it. By claiming it's about 'public health', they are really trying to avoid the reality that this is about the same old "we know what's best for you" attitude that conservatives have tried to force on people for years.
Internet firewalls put up by governments are regularly breached by individuals, the anti-censorship movement is as strong as ever, and the rights of people to watch anything legal in their homes, must be upheld, no matter what the pro-censorship brigade might think.
Torygraph thinks BBC should forget about the internet. Quell Surprise!
As Adam Savage used to say on Mythbusters when something easily predictable happened, "What... a... shocker."
This may have been the easiest column to predict. Neil Midgley wrote that the BBC should forget about the internet, and focus on finding the next Archers, or the next Countryfile. Those two programmes have really gotten a lot of attention lately. The Archers garnered the attention recently for a powerful spousal abuse storyline, and rightly so, spousal abuse is an issue that rarely gets talked about in the media in any kind of meaningful way. Countryfile has recently had some its best viewing figures in its 28 year history. Not too shabby by any stretch, but not that important either.
However, in trying to criticise the BBC for closing the linear version of BBC Three, Midgley made one crucial mistake in his attempt at analysis.
"When Lord Hall predicts that everything will one day go on-demand – and when, in fulfilling that credo, he starts to scythe bloodily and irretrievably through the creative flesh of the BBC – he is taking one trend and mistaking it for another. Yes, more people are subscribing to on-demand services such as Netflix. Yes, they are binge-watching shows such as Game of Thrones as “box sets”. Yes, teenagers now have iPads and smartphones on which they can watch TV shows. But where Hall makes his mistake is in believing that this new ability to watch on-demand, and on different devices, is a mortal threat to traditional channels."
Sadly, Neil Midgley underestimates the impact of on-demand programming. He's not the first, and he sure won't be the last. Even those in the broadcasting industry, like Ginny Hubbard of iHeartMedia, who only discovered podcasts when Serial launched in 2014 are late to the on-demand party. Podcasts have been around since 2003.
We're already seeing that on-demand watching and listening is having a massive effect in terms of garnering attention from the public. Programmes that have traditionally been watched as part of a linear stream, now no longer need to be. The future of shows like Doctor Who, Eastenders, and The Archers, is on-demand. Because these programmes are produced weeks, even months in advance, watching them at a pre-determined time is no longer a requirement. iPlayer allows people to watch it when they want to, not at a time of somebody else's choosing.
But if Neil Midgley thinks that Lord Hall thinks that on-demand is going to end linear TV, he's wrong. There just won't be as much linear TV to go around.
In the old days, significant chunks of programming, would be aired live, as there was no other way to do it cost-effectively. Nowadays, outside of news and sports, it's only magazine programmes and topical debate shows that are aired live. The likes of This Morning, Loose Women & The Wright Stuff are the kind of shows that go live to air. But as the likes of Doctor Who and Eastenders become more widely watched on demand, and will eventually leave linear TV, maybe in 10 years, maybe in 20 years, maybe in 50 years, other programming will have to replace it, and most of this will be live. Live sports is one of the few things on the air right now that is attracting significant viewership on a regular, consistent basis. Why is this? Because live programming can't be spoiled by over-excitable PR people accidentally giving away key moments and points whilst trying to tempt you in to watch it. How effective would the reveal of Darth Vader being Luke Skywalker's father have been in 1980, if the PR guys had included that moment in any of the trailers? It would have had all the impact of a damp squib.
The future is already starting to happen, and the result of that means that there won't be nearly as many linear channels in the future as there is now. Whether channels like Sky 1, Sky Living, Sky Atlantic or Sky Arts will still be around 20 years + down the line, is hard to predict, but given the trends we are already seeing, I am guessing that at least two of those brands will not survive into the era when On-Demand will be the primary way to watch television programmes. How many of the myriad of channels out there will survive into the new era? Maybe no more than 60-100, maybe not even that many.
But the ultra-conservative Torygraph, is frankly nuts if it thinks that the BBC should completely forget about the growth market that is On-Demand, in favour of old style linear TV. No business worth it's place in the world would deliberately ignore a growing market, in favour of a market that really peaked back in the early 2000s. Without turning linear channels into channels that favour and produce almost exclusively, live programming, On-Demand would kill of linear TV. Maybe not for a long time, maybe 20 years, maybe 50 years, maybe even more than that, but eventually it would, if it could.
We have lots of history on our side regarding this. People were afraid that motion pictures were going to spell the end of live theatre. It didn't. People were afraid that television was going to spell doom for the motion picture industry. Serials and newsreels disappeared, but over 60 years on, the motion picture industry is as strong and vibrant as it ever was. Why did these things not fall by the wayside? They adapted to the situation and found a way to thrive, and linear TV will do the same, by becoming a predominantly live medium.
This may have been the easiest column to predict. Neil Midgley wrote that the BBC should forget about the internet, and focus on finding the next Archers, or the next Countryfile. Those two programmes have really gotten a lot of attention lately. The Archers garnered the attention recently for a powerful spousal abuse storyline, and rightly so, spousal abuse is an issue that rarely gets talked about in the media in any kind of meaningful way. Countryfile has recently had some its best viewing figures in its 28 year history. Not too shabby by any stretch, but not that important either.
However, in trying to criticise the BBC for closing the linear version of BBC Three, Midgley made one crucial mistake in his attempt at analysis.
"When Lord Hall predicts that everything will one day go on-demand – and when, in fulfilling that credo, he starts to scythe bloodily and irretrievably through the creative flesh of the BBC – he is taking one trend and mistaking it for another. Yes, more people are subscribing to on-demand services such as Netflix. Yes, they are binge-watching shows such as Game of Thrones as “box sets”. Yes, teenagers now have iPads and smartphones on which they can watch TV shows. But where Hall makes his mistake is in believing that this new ability to watch on-demand, and on different devices, is a mortal threat to traditional channels."
Sadly, Neil Midgley underestimates the impact of on-demand programming. He's not the first, and he sure won't be the last. Even those in the broadcasting industry, like Ginny Hubbard of iHeartMedia, who only discovered podcasts when Serial launched in 2014 are late to the on-demand party. Podcasts have been around since 2003.
We're already seeing that on-demand watching and listening is having a massive effect in terms of garnering attention from the public. Programmes that have traditionally been watched as part of a linear stream, now no longer need to be. The future of shows like Doctor Who, Eastenders, and The Archers, is on-demand. Because these programmes are produced weeks, even months in advance, watching them at a pre-determined time is no longer a requirement. iPlayer allows people to watch it when they want to, not at a time of somebody else's choosing.
But if Neil Midgley thinks that Lord Hall thinks that on-demand is going to end linear TV, he's wrong. There just won't be as much linear TV to go around.
In the old days, significant chunks of programming, would be aired live, as there was no other way to do it cost-effectively. Nowadays, outside of news and sports, it's only magazine programmes and topical debate shows that are aired live. The likes of This Morning, Loose Women & The Wright Stuff are the kind of shows that go live to air. But as the likes of Doctor Who and Eastenders become more widely watched on demand, and will eventually leave linear TV, maybe in 10 years, maybe in 20 years, maybe in 50 years, other programming will have to replace it, and most of this will be live. Live sports is one of the few things on the air right now that is attracting significant viewership on a regular, consistent basis. Why is this? Because live programming can't be spoiled by over-excitable PR people accidentally giving away key moments and points whilst trying to tempt you in to watch it. How effective would the reveal of Darth Vader being Luke Skywalker's father have been in 1980, if the PR guys had included that moment in any of the trailers? It would have had all the impact of a damp squib.
The future is already starting to happen, and the result of that means that there won't be nearly as many linear channels in the future as there is now. Whether channels like Sky 1, Sky Living, Sky Atlantic or Sky Arts will still be around 20 years + down the line, is hard to predict, but given the trends we are already seeing, I am guessing that at least two of those brands will not survive into the era when On-Demand will be the primary way to watch television programmes. How many of the myriad of channels out there will survive into the new era? Maybe no more than 60-100, maybe not even that many.
But the ultra-conservative Torygraph, is frankly nuts if it thinks that the BBC should completely forget about the growth market that is On-Demand, in favour of old style linear TV. No business worth it's place in the world would deliberately ignore a growing market, in favour of a market that really peaked back in the early 2000s. Without turning linear channels into channels that favour and produce almost exclusively, live programming, On-Demand would kill of linear TV. Maybe not for a long time, maybe 20 years, maybe 50 years, maybe even more than that, but eventually it would, if it could.
We have lots of history on our side regarding this. People were afraid that motion pictures were going to spell the end of live theatre. It didn't. People were afraid that television was going to spell doom for the motion picture industry. Serials and newsreels disappeared, but over 60 years on, the motion picture industry is as strong and vibrant as it ever was. Why did these things not fall by the wayside? They adapted to the situation and found a way to thrive, and linear TV will do the same, by becoming a predominantly live medium.
Sunday, 28 February 2016
Irish General Election 2016: Political uncertainty on the menu
Well, this is one of those situations where a story is going to run and run and run, and who knows what the outcome will be at the end of it.
We still have 13 seats unfilled at this point, and no partty has got even 50 seats. Here's the state of play.
Fine Gael - 46 - Still the largest party, but with a lot less seats this time.
Fianna Fail - 42 - Much improved performance.
Sinn Fein - 22 - Best performance ever.
Independents - 15 - The big unknown factor in this equation.
Labour - 6 - They need one more seat to hold onto their speaking privileges.
Anti-Austerity Alliance - 5 - Could be one of the keys to government for FF and FG.
Independent Alliance - 4 - Another unknown here, but definitely not to be ignored.
Social Democrats - 3 - These guys made a good start, but now they have to work as TDs
Green Party - 2 - Back in the Dail, and we'll see how that goes.
Renua Ireland was the higest profile party not to get a seat.
The Labour Party in Ireland, could be going through their own Liberal Democrat moment. Joan Burton could become like Nick Clegg. They've suffered a big loss at the polls, and Joan Burton's future as leader is hanging by the proverbial thread.
But even Fine Gael might not be in the clear yet. Dependent on how things go in coalition negotiations, the future of Enda Kenny's leadership may also be in question.
All in all, this story still has a long way to run, and expect Dublin's ISEQ to be significantly down on Monday, as markets hate uncertainty.
We still have 13 seats unfilled at this point, and no partty has got even 50 seats. Here's the state of play.
Fine Gael - 46 - Still the largest party, but with a lot less seats this time.
Fianna Fail - 42 - Much improved performance.
Sinn Fein - 22 - Best performance ever.
Independents - 15 - The big unknown factor in this equation.
Labour - 6 - They need one more seat to hold onto their speaking privileges.
Anti-Austerity Alliance - 5 - Could be one of the keys to government for FF and FG.
Independent Alliance - 4 - Another unknown here, but definitely not to be ignored.
Social Democrats - 3 - These guys made a good start, but now they have to work as TDs
Green Party - 2 - Back in the Dail, and we'll see how that goes.
Renua Ireland was the higest profile party not to get a seat.
The Labour Party in Ireland, could be going through their own Liberal Democrat moment. Joan Burton could become like Nick Clegg. They've suffered a big loss at the polls, and Joan Burton's future as leader is hanging by the proverbial thread.
But even Fine Gael might not be in the clear yet. Dependent on how things go in coalition negotiations, the future of Enda Kenny's leadership may also be in question.
All in all, this story still has a long way to run, and expect Dublin's ISEQ to be significantly down on Monday, as markets hate uncertainty.
Irish General Election 2016: Into Day 3
Day 1 was the day the votes were cast. Day 2 was when the counting began. Now we're into Day 3 of this, and we do have the first preference counts from all 40 consituencies, so now we know what the official share of the first preference vote is, and it goes like this...
Fine Gael - 25.5% - 10.6% lower than in 2011
Fianna Fail - 24.3% - 6.9% higher than in 2011
Sinn Fein - 13.8% - 3.9 higher than in 2011
Independents - 13.0% - 0.4% higher than in 2011
Labour - 6.6% - 12.8% lower than in 2011
Independent Alliance - 4.2% - New party in this election.
Anti-Austerity Alliance - 3.9% - Wasn't in this current form in 2011.
Social Democrats - 3.0% - New party in this election.
Green Party - 2.7% - 0.9% higher than in 2011
Renua Ireland - 2.2% - New party in this election.
Others - 0.7% - 2.0% lower than in 2011
So what do these figures tell us? Well, first of all, it tells us the governing parties of Fine Gael and Labour took a spanking at these elections, both losing significant share of the first preference vote. Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein do look to be the big winners, both making significant gains on their 2011 position. But ultimately Fianna Fail must be disappointed. They must have felt they had a chance to overtake Fine Gael, as the tide seemed to slowly turn against the governing parties. But they didn't quite capitalise on it.
However it must be said, they did far better than the opinion polls suggested. In fact, in the run up, the opinion polls were way off.
This table came from Wikipedia, where I found all the polling data over the last 5 years, but I focused on the last week of the campaign. Fine Gael's support was overestimated, quite significantly. Sinn Fein's support was often over-estimated too. Fianna Fail was underestimated, as were the others in this list, the Independents and the parties not listed in the polling data, including the Independent Alliance.
You can understand how disappointed Fine Gael feel, especially if they trusted this data to be accurate. In some cases, the +/- 3.0% margin of error still left a gross over-estimation of support.
So, what does that mean in terms of seats? Well seats are not filled by first preference votes alone in this election, but a number of Fianna Fail candidates did win on First preference votes alone, getting over the quota line without supplementaries. Right now as I write this, 95 of the 158 have been filled, and the state of play is this.
Fine Gael - 28
Fianna Fail - 28
Sinn Fein - 13
Independents - 10
Labour - 4
Anti-Austerity Alliance - 4
Independent Alliance - 4
Social Democrats - 3
Green Party - 1
Renua Ireland - 0
Others - 0
Doing some quick percentage maths, that means that currently, both Fine Gael and Fianna Fail are on course to win 47 seats each. Not even 50 seats. I actually expect them to make the 50 seat level but just barely. I think a few more seats could go to the minor parties, Sinn Fein and Labour, and maybe a couple more Independents, but it's difficult to know exactly how many will go to which party.
What we do know is that it's squeaky bum time. Every seat declaration today will be watched with great interest as both Enda Kenny and Micheal Martin will be trying to work out who they can do deals with to secure a majority, and ultimately, whether they could work out a deal with each other to keep Sinn Fein out of power.
Fine Gael - 25.5% - 10.6% lower than in 2011
Fianna Fail - 24.3% - 6.9% higher than in 2011
Sinn Fein - 13.8% - 3.9 higher than in 2011
Independents - 13.0% - 0.4% higher than in 2011
Labour - 6.6% - 12.8% lower than in 2011
Independent Alliance - 4.2% - New party in this election.
Anti-Austerity Alliance - 3.9% - Wasn't in this current form in 2011.
Social Democrats - 3.0% - New party in this election.
Green Party - 2.7% - 0.9% higher than in 2011
Renua Ireland - 2.2% - New party in this election.
Others - 0.7% - 2.0% lower than in 2011
So what do these figures tell us? Well, first of all, it tells us the governing parties of Fine Gael and Labour took a spanking at these elections, both losing significant share of the first preference vote. Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein do look to be the big winners, both making significant gains on their 2011 position. But ultimately Fianna Fail must be disappointed. They must have felt they had a chance to overtake Fine Gael, as the tide seemed to slowly turn against the governing parties. But they didn't quite capitalise on it.
However it must be said, they did far better than the opinion polls suggested. In fact, in the run up, the opinion polls were way off.
| Date | Source/Link | Polling Agency | FG | Lab | FF | SF | AAA -PBP | RI | SD | GP | Others |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26 February 2016 | General election | N/A | 25.5 | 6.6 | 24.3 | 13.8 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 17.9 |
| 26 February 2016 | RTÉ[p 1] | Behaviour & Attitudes | 24.8 | 7.1 | 21.1 | 16.0 | 4.7 | 2.4 | 3.7 | 3.6 | 16.6 |
| 26 February 2016 | The Irish Times[p 2] | Ipsos MRBI | 26.1 | 7.8 | 22.9 | 14.9 | 3.6 | 2.3 | 2.8 | 3.5 | 16.1 |
| 25 February 2016 | TheJournal[p 3] | DIT | 32 | 8 | 20 | 15 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 14 |
| 23 February 2016 | Paddy Power[p 4][p 5] | Red C | 30 | 7 | 20 | 15 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 16[nb 2] |
| 22 February 2016 | The Irish Times[p 6] | Ipsos MRBI | 28 | 6 | 23 | 15 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 18[nb 3] |
| 21 February 2016 | Sunday Independent[p 7][p 8] | Millward Brown | 27 | 6 | 23 | 19 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 14[nb 4] |
| 21 February 2016 | The Sunday Business Post[p 9][p 10] | Red C | 30 | 8 | 18 | 16 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 15[nb 5] |
| 21 February 2016 | The Sunday Times[p 11][p 12] | Behaviour & Attitudes | 30 | 4 | 22 | 15 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 15[nb 6] |
This table came from Wikipedia, where I found all the polling data over the last 5 years, but I focused on the last week of the campaign. Fine Gael's support was overestimated, quite significantly. Sinn Fein's support was often over-estimated too. Fianna Fail was underestimated, as were the others in this list, the Independents and the parties not listed in the polling data, including the Independent Alliance.
You can understand how disappointed Fine Gael feel, especially if they trusted this data to be accurate. In some cases, the +/- 3.0% margin of error still left a gross over-estimation of support.
So, what does that mean in terms of seats? Well seats are not filled by first preference votes alone in this election, but a number of Fianna Fail candidates did win on First preference votes alone, getting over the quota line without supplementaries. Right now as I write this, 95 of the 158 have been filled, and the state of play is this.
Fine Gael - 28
Fianna Fail - 28
Sinn Fein - 13
Independents - 10
Labour - 4
Anti-Austerity Alliance - 4
Independent Alliance - 4
Social Democrats - 3
Green Party - 1
Renua Ireland - 0
Others - 0
Doing some quick percentage maths, that means that currently, both Fine Gael and Fianna Fail are on course to win 47 seats each. Not even 50 seats. I actually expect them to make the 50 seat level but just barely. I think a few more seats could go to the minor parties, Sinn Fein and Labour, and maybe a couple more Independents, but it's difficult to know exactly how many will go to which party.
What we do know is that it's squeaky bum time. Every seat declaration today will be watched with great interest as both Enda Kenny and Micheal Martin will be trying to work out who they can do deals with to secure a majority, and ultimately, whether they could work out a deal with each other to keep Sinn Fein out of power.
Saturday, 27 February 2016
Irish General Election 2016: On the Nightbeat.
At this point in proceedings we're still missing 2 first counts out of the 40 constituencies, but a clearer picture is starting to emerge. As I write this, these are the numbers of TD's elected per party.
Fianna Fail - 18
Fine Gael - 12
Sinn Fein - 6
Social Democrats - 3
Independents - 3
Anti-Austerity Alliance - 2
Independent Alliance - 2
Labour - 1
Green Party - 1
Renua Ireland - 0
Others - 0
That's with 48 of the 158 seats filled in Dail Eireann.
By contrast, Dublin Central is on its 10th round of counting, in order to try to fill the remaining 2 available seats.
The strange thing is, that at the start of this election, there were a lot of concerns about the new party Renua. How were they going to shake things up? Turns out, they really haven't, with a mere 2.2% of first preference votes.
The big developments came from Sinn Fein, and on a more modest scale, the Social Democrats, the Anti-Austerity Alliance, and the Independent Alliance. All have made significant progress. The Green Party have returned to the Dail, though whether they will pick up any more seats at this election is at this point dubious, but not impossible.
If there is to be a coalition, it's likely to be a grand coalition of at least 3 different parties and maybe more. Both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have said they won't work with Sinn Fein, so it will depend on just how close Fianna Fail and Fine Gael get to 80 seats, the number required for a majority, but the strongest likelihood seems to be a Fianna Fail/Fine Gael coalition, if neither party is anywhere near close enough to the 80 seat mark.
Once we know the exact shape or close enough to it, to actually have a good sense of the numbers, I'll write more about this.
Meanwhile, one small point on this. The polls closed at 10pm last night. They didn't start counting, until 9am this morning. That's 11 hours that was lost. This whole process could be almost over by this point, if they had started counting last night straight after the polls close, as we do. Instead right now, we're heading into a late night, and the possibility of results not being known until Sunday evening. And even then, when the markets open Monday morning in Dublin, the ISEQ will probably go downwards as there will be little idea what kind of political future will await the Irish Republic. I do think we're in for a few days, maybe weeks of political uncertainty, at a time when Ireland's relationship with both the UK and the EU, will be under a lot of scrutiny on both sides of the Irish Sea.
Fianna Fail - 18
Fine Gael - 12
Sinn Fein - 6
Social Democrats - 3
Independents - 3
Anti-Austerity Alliance - 2
Independent Alliance - 2
Labour - 1
Green Party - 1
Renua Ireland - 0
Others - 0
That's with 48 of the 158 seats filled in Dail Eireann.
By contrast, Dublin Central is on its 10th round of counting, in order to try to fill the remaining 2 available seats.
The strange thing is, that at the start of this election, there were a lot of concerns about the new party Renua. How were they going to shake things up? Turns out, they really haven't, with a mere 2.2% of first preference votes.
The big developments came from Sinn Fein, and on a more modest scale, the Social Democrats, the Anti-Austerity Alliance, and the Independent Alliance. All have made significant progress. The Green Party have returned to the Dail, though whether they will pick up any more seats at this election is at this point dubious, but not impossible.
If there is to be a coalition, it's likely to be a grand coalition of at least 3 different parties and maybe more. Both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have said they won't work with Sinn Fein, so it will depend on just how close Fianna Fail and Fine Gael get to 80 seats, the number required for a majority, but the strongest likelihood seems to be a Fianna Fail/Fine Gael coalition, if neither party is anywhere near close enough to the 80 seat mark.
Once we know the exact shape or close enough to it, to actually have a good sense of the numbers, I'll write more about this.
Meanwhile, one small point on this. The polls closed at 10pm last night. They didn't start counting, until 9am this morning. That's 11 hours that was lost. This whole process could be almost over by this point, if they had started counting last night straight after the polls close, as we do. Instead right now, we're heading into a late night, and the possibility of results not being known until Sunday evening. And even then, when the markets open Monday morning in Dublin, the ISEQ will probably go downwards as there will be little idea what kind of political future will await the Irish Republic. I do think we're in for a few days, maybe weeks of political uncertainty, at a time when Ireland's relationship with both the UK and the EU, will be under a lot of scrutiny on both sides of the Irish Sea.
Irish General Election 2016: Saturday Evening Roundup
Okay, as I write this, this is the state of the parties right now.
Fine Gael: 3
Labour : 0
Fianna Fail: 12
Sinn Fein: 2
Social Democrats: 3
Independent Alliance: 2
Independents: 1
Turnout for this election was a paltry 65%, which to my view is pathetic. 7 out of every 20 people in Ireland didn't even do their duty by voting in this election.
We've had 28 first ballot counts in out of the 40 constituencies, but only Laois constituency has completed counting and elected all their required representatives, in their case, 3.
Sean Fleming - Fianna Fail
Brian Stanley - Sinn Fein
Charlie Flanagan - Fine Gael
The share of the first preference vote for the various parties at this time looks like this:
Fine Gael: 26.1%
Fianna Fail: 25.1%
Sinn Fein: 12.6%
Independents: 10.7%
Labour: 6.9%
Anti-Austerity Alliance: 4.5%
Independent Alliance: 4.4%
Social Democrats: 3.9%
Green Party: 2.9%
Renua Ireland: 2.1%
Others: 0.8%
We've still got a long way to go before we get even a clear indication of what is happening here, but so far, it looks like Fine Gael may have held a little more ground than we initially though, but Fianna Fail is definitely gaining ground.
At this point, the former Taniaste Joan Burton of Labour, stands a fair chance of holding her seat, she is currently third after the 3rd count, with only one seat out of the four currently filled. It depends on how the supplementary votes for the winning candidate will be dividied up in the next count.
Another update later.
Fine Gael: 3
Labour : 0
Fianna Fail: 12
Sinn Fein: 2
Social Democrats: 3
Independent Alliance: 2
Independents: 1
Turnout for this election was a paltry 65%, which to my view is pathetic. 7 out of every 20 people in Ireland didn't even do their duty by voting in this election.
We've had 28 first ballot counts in out of the 40 constituencies, but only Laois constituency has completed counting and elected all their required representatives, in their case, 3.
Sean Fleming - Fianna Fail
Brian Stanley - Sinn Fein
Charlie Flanagan - Fine Gael
The share of the first preference vote for the various parties at this time looks like this:
Fine Gael: 26.1%
Fianna Fail: 25.1%
Sinn Fein: 12.6%
Independents: 10.7%
Labour: 6.9%
Anti-Austerity Alliance: 4.5%
Independent Alliance: 4.4%
Social Democrats: 3.9%
Green Party: 2.9%
Renua Ireland: 2.1%
Others: 0.8%
We've still got a long way to go before we get even a clear indication of what is happening here, but so far, it looks like Fine Gael may have held a little more ground than we initially though, but Fianna Fail is definitely gaining ground.
At this point, the former Taniaste Joan Burton of Labour, stands a fair chance of holding her seat, she is currently third after the 3rd count, with only one seat out of the four currently filled. It depends on how the supplementary votes for the winning candidate will be dividied up in the next count.
Another update later.
Irish General Election: Saturday Afternoon Roundup
Well, we've only had one seat filled, which has gone to Fine Gael's Sean Barrett. But all indications from the tallies that we've been getting via twitter and live blogs, seem to suggest that there are some significant changes on the way in Irish Politics.
Most of the first counts are expected between about 4pm and 7pm, with either eliminated candidates, or those who pass the 'quota', that is to say the minimum number of votes required to win a seat in the constituency, which is different depending on constituency size and turnout, their 'supplementary votes', votes of the other preferences below first preference, will then be counted to help determine who else is elected from that constituency.
It is a complex and slightly esoteric system of electing a parliament, but it's that kind of quirkiness that gives it its appeal, in my eyes. The Single Transferable Vote system allows for a less predictable election result, especially in situations like this where you have multiple parties, and multiple candidates sometimes from the same party, battling over a limited number of seats.
The Single Transferable Vote would be quite workable here in the UK too, as it could be made to work in single seat constituencies. The quota just becomes a straight 50% +1 vote of the total number of votes cast, and candidates would be eliminated from the bottom upwards, until we got a candidate over that threshold.
So, the declarations will shortly actually begin, and we'll get official word on who has actually been elected. More on this later.
Most of the first counts are expected between about 4pm and 7pm, with either eliminated candidates, or those who pass the 'quota', that is to say the minimum number of votes required to win a seat in the constituency, which is different depending on constituency size and turnout, their 'supplementary votes', votes of the other preferences below first preference, will then be counted to help determine who else is elected from that constituency.
It is a complex and slightly esoteric system of electing a parliament, but it's that kind of quirkiness that gives it its appeal, in my eyes. The Single Transferable Vote system allows for a less predictable election result, especially in situations like this where you have multiple parties, and multiple candidates sometimes from the same party, battling over a limited number of seats.
The Single Transferable Vote would be quite workable here in the UK too, as it could be made to work in single seat constituencies. The quota just becomes a straight 50% +1 vote of the total number of votes cast, and candidates would be eliminated from the bottom upwards, until we got a candidate over that threshold.
So, the declarations will shortly actually begin, and we'll get official word on who has actually been elected. More on this later.
Irish General Election 2016: The Exit Poll.
Well, it's not long now until the counting actually begins in the election. Counts begin at 9am, but at 7am, on a special Saturday edition of Morning Ireland on RTE Radio 1 and RTE News Now, RTE released the result of their exit poll.
A small reminder that these are first preference votes that are asked about, as the system of voting is Single Transferable Vote, which ranks candidates by preference.
Fine Gael, who were the largest party in 2011 with 36.1, have lost almost a third of their previous vote, to now be at 24.8%. This still makes them the largest party, but with a much reduced vote. Second place goes to Fianna Fail, which has increased their vote from 17.4% in 2011, to 21.1% in this exit poll.
Sinn Fein have made a huge gain in this election, from 9.9% in 2011, to 16% in this exit poll.
Independents make up the 4th largest group this time around with 11%. Labour, who were coalition partners in 2011 with a huge 19.4% of the vote, have dropped down to 5th place this time with just 7.1% in this exit poll.
This means we could be looking at a Fine Gail/Fianna Fail coalition, which would have been unthinkable in any prior government before, with Sinn Fein being the leaders of the opposition. The equivalent in the UK, would be a Labour/Conservative coalition.
I do think there might be some resistance to the idea of a Fine Gael/Fianna Fail coalition, the idea of old enenmies working together might be too much to bear for some, but it does mean that we are in a new era for Irish politics.
And remember this poll was for first preference votes only. How this translates down the line into seats is anyone's guess, due to the fact that the preferences below first preference are what will ultimately decide who gets elected, and who does not.
We'll keep an eye on the counting, which is starting shortly, and will post updates here on the blog during the day, and probably tomorrow as well, as we finally work out just how the Irish public have voted to fill the 157 seats in 40 constituencies that will make up the new Dail Eireann.
A small reminder that these are first preference votes that are asked about, as the system of voting is Single Transferable Vote, which ranks candidates by preference.
Fine Gael, who were the largest party in 2011 with 36.1, have lost almost a third of their previous vote, to now be at 24.8%. This still makes them the largest party, but with a much reduced vote. Second place goes to Fianna Fail, which has increased their vote from 17.4% in 2011, to 21.1% in this exit poll.
Sinn Fein have made a huge gain in this election, from 9.9% in 2011, to 16% in this exit poll.
Independents make up the 4th largest group this time around with 11%. Labour, who were coalition partners in 2011 with a huge 19.4% of the vote, have dropped down to 5th place this time with just 7.1% in this exit poll.
This means we could be looking at a Fine Gail/Fianna Fail coalition, which would have been unthinkable in any prior government before, with Sinn Fein being the leaders of the opposition. The equivalent in the UK, would be a Labour/Conservative coalition.
I do think there might be some resistance to the idea of a Fine Gael/Fianna Fail coalition, the idea of old enenmies working together might be too much to bear for some, but it does mean that we are in a new era for Irish politics.
And remember this poll was for first preference votes only. How this translates down the line into seats is anyone's guess, due to the fact that the preferences below first preference are what will ultimately decide who gets elected, and who does not.
We'll keep an eye on the counting, which is starting shortly, and will post updates here on the blog during the day, and probably tomorrow as well, as we finally work out just how the Irish public have voted to fill the 157 seats in 40 constituencies that will make up the new Dail Eireann.
Wednesday, 7 October 2015
The Viewpoint Blog's Ranking of the James Bond Films. 19: Die Another Day.
As we continue the countdown of the James Bond films from worst to best, we reach number 19, and the first Pearce Brosnan entry on the list. It was also his last outing as James Bond, at least in films, as he would have one more outing in the computer games world. But his last film, was also his worst. Die Another Day.
That was the teaser trailer, and next, the full theatrical trailer.
Now, it's no secret that most Bond fans don't like this film, and it does contain the worst moment in James Bond history, but why do I rate it above Moonraker, Live & Let Die and A View To A Kill? Well, time to reveal why, as I review what was the 20th official Bond film, Die Another Day.
Before I get to the pre-title sequence, I must mention this film's gun barrel sequence, which infamously features a bullet coming down the barrel towards the audience. Some of called this cheap and tacky, and I can see where they're coming from, but actually, I don't mind it in the slightest, and have never minded it. Okay, I can already hear the boos, pipe down...
THE PRE-TITLE SEQUENCE
The plot of the pre-title sequence can be summed up pretty easily. James Bond infiltrates North Korea, kills a Colonel, Colonel Tan Sun Moon and gets captured. You don't really need to know any more than that.
Some points out of it though. The first is the fact that Bond surfs into North Korea. Surfing? Really??? This is not a criticism of the actual surfing itself, the guys performing the stunt are excellent, but I really don't think surfing into North Korea is either very realistic, or indeed, necessary. I don't think we need to see him actually surf, I think we can cut all that surfing footage out, and just have him arrive on the beach, a scene that was shot around Newquay in Cornwall. In fact, Cornwall features a fair bit in this movie in a couple of different ways. In the early going, it partially substitutes for North Korea, before switching back to Pinewood. However, there is more of Cornwall to come.
Secondly, I love the detail that they go into with the infiltration and how they pull a helicopter carrying a Mr Van Bierk off-course, so that Bond can take his place.
Thirdly, and this will crop up throughout the movie, I love the little references that get thrown in all over the place. When Bond opens the briefcase to reveal the diamonds, we get a very Roger Moore-style raised eyebrow, which I think is great.
There's also a lovely humorous moment, when Colonel Moon is beating up this bag, only for it to be revealed that there's a man inside, and Moon directs his subordinates to find him a new anger therapist. Honestly, if that's the way you treat your therapists, I think you'll have a hard time finding anybody who'll want to treat you.
Having been introduced to Colonel Moon, we are now introduced to Zao, who takes a photograph of Bond as he exits the helicopter that flew him into the compound. They do go into a lot of detail here, which does slow up this part of the sequence, but that's not totally bad thing, it just ends up evening out. The detail is good, but if it could have been done a bit quicker, a bit better, maybe the slowness of the sequence wouldn't feel quite so grating, but it's not bad.
During the Pierce Brosnan era, mostly from Tomorrow Ever Dies onwards, the pre-title sequences would feature a really big action sequence, and this film is no exception. It's a great sequence, and there's an added time pressure in that General Moon, the father of Colonel Moon, is on his way to the compound. It's a fun, exhilarating sequence, and actually gets the film off to a good start. At the end of the sequence, I love the fact that Bond is hanging onto a log that is ringing a bell, and the quip is perfect, but then Bond is captured by General Moon and taken to a facility where he is tortured, and at that point, it transitions into the title sequence, using footage of Bond in captivity, being tortured as the canvas for the titles.
THE TITLE SEQUENCE
I have to be honest her and say this, along with On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Quantum Of Solace, is a candidate for the worst title sequence in Bond history. Not everything can be brilliant, and most of the title sequences in themselves I don't have a problem with. But here, the visuals of Bond being tortured actually compromise the quality of the work that Daniel Kleinman does.
The music here is another issue, and Madonna's song, whilst not being a bad song in and of itself, just doesn't feel very suited to a James Bond film.
THE PLOT.
Bond spends 14 months in captivity, before being traded for Zao. Bond is drugged and taken to a facility where he is in essence a captive again, and is visited by M. It's here we get a lot of exposition about things that have gone on that we haven't been privy to, such as Zao blowing up a summit meeting between South Korea and China. We also get the information that Bond is to be held in an evaluation facility in the Falklands until M decides his fate. This is more like the M we first see in Goldeneye, not like the one we see in Quantum Of Solace. That film really didn't do Judi Dench any justice at all with that character. Here, she's much better and much more like the "Evil Queen Of Numbers" that we came to know.
Bond manages to escape the facility, which is based on a ship, anchored off Hong Kong. Okay, what happened to the wreck of the Queen Elizabeth? Also, this is post 1997, which is referenced later in the film, but really? Just feels strange to be honest.
Bond literally just walks into The Yacht Club in his dishevelled condition, and whilst he is given some suspicious looks by the staff, the person who we think is the hotel's manager, Mr Chang, recognises Bond and orders The Presidential Suite be opened for him. It feels a little weird, but Bond is probably well known at a lot of places, so I can go with that.
Bond cleans himself up and makes himself more presentable, when a masseuse arrives at the door, compliments of the manager. We get a classic "I'm sure you do." line from Bond, which is always good. Bond tries to seduce the masseuse and she shows some resistance. "I'm not that kind of masseuse." but Bond reaches inside the bottom of her dress to where a gun is holstered on her thigh and he takes the gun, and holds it to her head. "I'm not that kind of customer." He then grabs a nearby ashtray and throws it through a mirrored door, revealing Mr Chang and some Chinese agents, and a video camera.
This little sequence is quite good, revealing Mr Chang to be part of Chinese intelligence. Bond negotiating to help them get Zao is also good. I guess he is currently "independent" so he can ply his trade where he wants.
Mr Chang discovers that Zao is currently in Cuba, and provides Bond with some travel documents to get there.
It's a pretty good start to the film, and I don't mind it in the slightest. A slight in-congruency or two aside, I can't overly complain.
Bond in Cuba is interesting. He uses Universal Exports as a cover, but of course, he is not part of the British Secret Service. We are introduced to Raoul, who is a contact in Havana, who provides Bond with some information about a clinic being run by a Dr Alvarez. We also get some interesting references here, such as the book that gave James Bond his name, The Field Guide to Birds of the West Indies, written of course by James Bond. It's good to see this stuff, and don't get me wrong, the series very rarely references itself, despite it having plenty of good reference material, so I am quite happy to see this film reference the past of James Bond.
We see Bond driving a car, I'm not quite sure what the car is, but it's a nice looking car, and fits in with the available cars in Cuba at the time, so I don't mind this.
As Bond arrives at some beach place, we get a little bit of Bond theme played on a spanish Guitar. It's quite good actually, a little less harsh than the usual electric guitar, but just enough edge in it to build some anticipation. It's here that one of the elements that I most dislike crops up again. I mentioned it in Live & Let Die and I have to mention it again here. Bond smokes a cigar. Not a cigarette, a cigar. Yes it's a smaller cigar than the ones Roger Moore smoked in Live & Let Die and The Man With the Golden Gun, but still, that feels wrong for the character. It's the only time we see it in this film, but still, I'd prefer if it wasn't here at all.
We're also introduced here to Giacinta Johnson, better known as Jinx, played by Halle Berry. The sequence is acknowledged by the film makers to try and channel the moment where Honey Ryder came out of the water, but it's trying to hard, and the slow motion just doesn't help it. I'd actually have preferred it if the filmmakers before hand hadn't said that's what they were trying to do, and had allowed us to make that connection. There's also in this sequence a reference to From Russia With Love, referencing the lines that Daniela Bianchi and Sean Connery spoke when Tatiana Romanova first met James Bond.
Bond and Jinx get talking before we get a scene where we see them getting it on. This scene had to be trimmed in the US to get a PG-13 certificate, but in all honesty, I don't see what the problem is. It looks fine, it's not over the top. Don't be prissy about this.
Bond wakes up alone and discovers that Jinx is getting on a boat to the island where the clinic is. Bond uses a thug who is going there to get to the clinic, then dumps him rather unceremoniously. Bond finds his way into a secret part of the clinic, and whilst this is happening, Jinx is meeting with Dr Alvarez, who is rather stereotypically written. Jinx kills him. Meanwhile Bond finds Zao, and gets his attention. Not sure grabbing a bag of drip-feed is going to hurt him or get his attention, but oh well. Turns out, Jinx is also after Zao as well. There's a fight and some action, but Zao gets away. Jinx also get away from some local soldiers, and Bond managed to pick up some diamonds that were hanging in a capsule around Zao's neck. Upon closer examination they are discovered to be conflict diamonds from Sierra Leone, but they bear a laser signature from Gustav Graves, who has a diamond mine in Iceland.
We get a brief scene of M being given short shrift by her opposite number at the NSA, Damian Falco, played by Michael Madsen. This is some poor casting really here. Michael Madsen is an okay actor, project dependent, but just doesn't fit into the world of James Bond.
Bond arrives in London, drinking his usual vodka martini on route, served to him, in a cameo role, by Deborah Moore, who's father was a previous James Bond. Yes, Roger Moore. The music here is a little out of place. It's London Calling by The Clash. It's a great song, but it just doesn't belong here.
We get introduced to Gustav Graves here by him parachuting out of a plane with a Union Jack parachute. It's obviously meant to be a reference to The Spy Who Loved Me. Gustav Graves is played here by Toby Stephens, who would later go on to play James Bond in some BBC Radio productions of the Ian Fleming books. We are also introduced here to his publicist, Miranda Frost, played by Rosamund Pike. Bond witnessed Graves arrival and impromptu press conference, and we next see him at a local fencing club, where it turns out Miranda Frost is regarded by Verity, played by Madonna, but surprisingly uncredited in the film, as her protege.
Gustav Graves is also at the fencing club, and we get a sword fighting sequence between Bond and Graves. I'm usually a fan of sword fighting sequences, the ones in Lord Of The Rings and Star Wars are excellent, and the sequence is choreographed by the same person, legendary sword master Bob Anderson. Bob also has previous connections to James Bond as he was a stunt performer in From Russia With Love, and in the 1967 spoof, Casino Royale. I don't quite know what it is about this sequence that I don't like, perhaps it's the gratuitous amount of damage that Bond and Graves cause, but I think it's more than just that. I think the length of the fight has something to do with it too, it does feel too long. But even adding that in, that's not entirely the issue either.
Sometimes, no matter how hard you work on something it just doesn't come up to standard. I felt that was the case with the cable car fight in Moonraker, and I think it might be the case here. I am left to wonder though if they weren't deliberately trying to compete with the Star Wars prequel trilogy here, by having a sword fighting sequence.
Graves is impressed with Bond's sword fighting ability and invites him up to Iceland for a party he's giving to announce a science project. Miranda Frost seems somewhat less impressed. Frost by name, frosty by nature...
After Graves and Frost leave, a man comes up to Bond and refers to him as Commander Bond. He gives him an envelope that contains an old key. I like the reference to his rank here. His rank is not mentioned too much in the films, and it's good to remind people of that.
Bond goes to an old door just off Westminster Bridge, and goes down to an old abandoned underground station, where he meets M. M decides that Bond has become useful again, and we then get a scene that really is out of sorts with the rest of the film, where we see Bond, in his office, cleaning his gun, when suddenly he hears gunshots, slightly muffled gunshots. This sequence is shot in a slightly different way to the rest of the film. The camera follows Bond around, always keeping about the same distance from him, just like they do in video games. There's a reason for that, and that's because this is a virtual simulation in Q Branch, and we are introduced here to our Q for this film, played by John Cleese, who was R in the last film. Q demonstrating the gadgets is good, and I love the line when he gives Bond his new watch, "This will be your 20th I believe". Good way of referencing that this is the 20th official Bond film.
We're also introduced here to what remains the most controversial car in all of Bondom. "Aston Martin call it the Vanquish, we call it, the Vanish." Yep, the invisible car. This is something that I know a lot of Bond fans hate, and yet I'm not entirely sure why. A lot of fans that was the point when the Brosnan Bond era jumped the shark, but I have to say I think they're being unkind. The technology they were talking about in the film, definitely existed in 2002, and was used for a promotion unrelated to James Bond in 2012. The execution might not be exactly as was shown in the film, but I don't mind that in the slightest. So, why do most Bond fans hate the invisible car? I really don't know. Now, maybe because I'm a Star Trek fan as well, and used to the idea of a cloaking device from that series, the whole idea of the invisible car doesn't bug me. But I'd be interested to know.
I don't have a problem with the invisible car, and to those who do, I suggest you check out the fact that the technology to do this, in a real world sense, was actually available at the time, although as Q himself would have put it, it wasn't quite perfected yet.
Okay, back to the plot, and we get an interesting scene in M's office where she's briefing an agent. But it's not Bond, it's Miranda Frost. Ah, so Miranda Frost is also an MI6 agent. She's either not very good, or she's a double agent. We'll find out which later.
So Bond arrives in Iceland, and it's here that we get one of my main bugbears with the film rearing its ugly head for the first time. The editing. Up until this point, the editing had been fairly conventional, even in the virtual simulation sequence. But here we get sped up film for no reason, and over extravagant shots that actually add nothing to the storyline. If you're going to use a shot, it has to have a story purpose. We also see Jinx arrive, wearing a tight leather outfit that, even though it doesn't show a lot of skin, somehow seems way too inadequate for the cold conditions.
Bond is shown to his room by Miranda Frost, and she continues to be as cold as ice. I guess she's right at home in an ice palace then. Something tells me I know where this is going...
At the party, Bond meets up with Jinx and they exchange some words on a slightly cold level. "I'm a girl that just doesn't like to get tied down." Something tells me you'll be tied down later...
We then cut to a weird sequence with Zao arriving, and we get a strangely homoerotic moment between Graves and Zao. It turns out that Graves is actually Colonel Moon, not in disguise, but as a completely new person. He had gene therapy to completely change his identity. It's not perfect as he has permanent insomnia. I have odd nights of insomnia and those drive me crazy. I can't imagine what permanent insomnia would do to a person.
We get a catty moment between Jinx and Miranda, right in front of Bond. "I take it Mr Bond has been explaining his big bang theory." "Oh, yeah, I think I got the... thrust of it." Those lines make me laugh, and I notice here that Bond is looking a little uncomfortable. I like that moment, it just adds a little extra punchline to the scene.
Graves demonstrates Icarus, a satellite that can project sunlight anywhere in the world. Yeah, I'm having Batman & Robin flashbacks here, and that's not a good thing. Another thing, how are we seeing the footage from space? That's not quite explained. If the editing hasn't made this film jump the shark, then this moment certainly has. How did we go from a diamond mine to a satellite that can project sunlight?
Bond watches them take the satellite control device back into the compound, and sneaks in using his invisible car. Admittedly, it takes computer technology to make this work, but it does work. Bond is discovered and an alarm sounds. There is an in-congruenty in this sequence. We see Graves at one point with his tech geek, trying on a piece of equipment, yet no more than a minute later, in real time, he's suddenly with Zao? This is a mistake, and quite a blatant one, and I'm surprised more people haven't mentioned it.
Just before Bond is going to be caught, Miranda Frost reels him in, and starts making out with him. The guards are quite confused by this, and leave them to it. The banter between Bond and Miranda in this whole sequence is excellent. Miranda is definitely in the Fiona Volpe mould of women who won't fall for Bond, but will play him at his game.
Meanwhile, Jinx, back in her leather outfit, is investigating the compound too. A compound that looks suspiciously like The Eden Project near St Austell in Cornwall. That might be because parts of this film were actually shot at The Eden Project, and they used the biodomes idea for Graves' compound in Iceland. I don't mind that, quite happy for that idea to be used.
Miranda agrees to sleep in Bond's room for the night, and we get a nice reference to Tomorrow Never Dies, where Bond actually puts his gun, under his pillow, referencing the question Paris Carver asked Bond at the launch party for Carver's news network.
We cut back and forth a lot between James Bond and Jinx in this sequence, as Jinx is captured, tied down, oh yeah we know you don't like to be tied down, but you're a female in a Bond film, you're going to end up tied down at some point, and is about to be subjected to decapitation by laser, but through Bond's assistance, and some fun timing, Jinx manages to survive, and they manage to escape.
It's here that Bond realises that Zao isn't alone and Colonel Moon must also have survived. Bond confronts Graves/Moon. Uh-oh, here we go with the multiple identities thing again. This can get troublesome in a hurry, because you're not really sure what to call him. When the different identities have different faces, like Bruce Banner and the Hulk, or Bruce Wayne and Batman, it's easy. Here, it's not so easy. Is he Graves? Is he Moon? He is both, so which name do you use? He can't change his face back to the Korean one, so I guess he has to stay being called Graves at this point.
It's also here we get the reveal that Miranda Frost is in fact, a double agent, working for Graves primarily, rather than MI6. It's here we get a chase sequence, which starts off in Moon's compound on foot, as Bond tries to escape "death for breakfast", and continues in Graves' rocket sled, or whatever you want to call it, and ends with Bond in the rocket sled hanging precariously over an ice cliff, with an intense beam of sunlight headed straight towards him. How is he getting out of this situation???
Yep, you guessed it, the infamous para-surfing sequence. The music is about the only good thing here. David Arnold's score here is brilliant and plays the emotion of the scene well, but the scene itself is appalling. It's all done on computers, except for the close-ups of Pierce Brosnan, which were shot on green-screen. It's so bad, that it beats the Bondola from Moonraker, as the worst scene ever in James Bond history.
Meanwhile, Jinx has gotten herself trapped in Miranda Frost's room, and there's a catty little conversation between the two, before we see Bond returning to the Ice Palace, and remote controlling his invisible car. Hmm, I liked the remote control car from Tomorrow Never Dies, as that made sense, but the remote control here doesn't make sense at all. As a Mythbusters fan, I know you need a remote control to handle steering, throttle, brake, and changing gears on a car. There's no way in hell that Bond could do all that from the tiny little keyring style remote that he has.
Bond and his car are accidentally discovered by a snowmobile driver who runs his snowmobile into the back of the car, and flies right over it. He wasn't going fast enough to do that. And so begins the chase sequence between Bond's car and Zao's car.
There's no doubt that the action is great, and the driving here is amazing, it's all done on ice, and is incredibly dangerous, no two ways about it. However, just like for some people, the car flip from The Man With The Golden Gun is ruined by the slide whistle sound effect, so for me, this car chase sequence is ruined by the damn editing. Randomly sped up and slowed down shots do nothing for me. The slow motion shot that was used earlier in the fight at the clinic with Zao was useful in order to highlight Bond grabbing the diamonds that Zao had in that capsule hanging around his neck. But in this sequence the use of sped up and slow motion makes no sense and is horrible, not to mention the snowmobiles getting blown away from each other and Bond's car towards the end. I do like though how the bullets bouncing off the car cause the adaptive camouflage system to fail. The sequence ends Zao trying to ram Bond's car, but by using the adaptive camouflage, and some spikes in the tyres, Bond reverse out of the way, and Zao's car crashes into the water in the melting Ice Palace, with Bond killing him by shooting a chandelier, and having it fall on top of him. Bond then rescues Jinx, and she survives, barely.
We then cut to the US Command Post on the South Korean side of the Demilitarised Zone, where Charles Robinson, M and Falco are. Does anyone else think that having the leaders of MI6 and the NSA at the edge of a potential warzone is a bad idea?
Turns out Graves is in North Korea in the middle of an airbase, and Falco thinks they can't touch him. Bond disagrees, and volunteers to go after Graves. M agrees to send him in. Turns out the idea of the British getting all the credit doesn't sit too well with Falco and he orders Jinx to go with Bond. Typical bloody American...
Bond and Jinx go in on switchblades, which seem to be single person flying machines. They separate from the crafts and parachute in. Meanwhile the missile that was fired to shoot down Icarus gets torched by the satellite.
The final sequence of the film, begins with Bond and Jinx trying to sniper kill Graves and co, but circumstances prevent that, and they have to get on the plane, which they manage to do somehow unseen by anyone.
We get a scene which is totally weird. Graves is wearing some kind of robosuit, and totally not cool, and General Moon is brought to him. They talk in what is supposed to be a tender father son moment, but it ends up flat. I can't put this down to the actors, not entirely, and I can't put it down to the writing, not entirely, there's some other element that just isn't working right, and I'm not too sure what it is. Graves uses Icarus to explode all the mines in the demilitariesd zone. General Moon doesn't like what he sees, or maybe what he fears he will see, and turns on his son/Graves. Graves kills General Moon in a scene that is meant to be poignant, but the intolerable editing again completely undos the actors' work there, the editors and director of this project have a lot to answer for when it comes it to the editing.
We also get a Goldfinger reference in reverse, where it is Bond that fires the gun that pierces a window, that causes explosive decompression, and people are sucked out of the plane. Honestly, this whole sequence is poor here. Too much intercuting between the Bond/Graves fight, and what Jinx is doing, and too many bad edits. Also, the slow motion disintegration of the plane after going through the Icarus beam is stupid. The whole ending sequence, where Jinx stabs Miranda, and Bond electrocutes Graves before he falls into one of the plane's engines, and somehow doesn't cause it to explode, just beggars my belief. After doing so much right in the early going, they screw up the ending so badly that it leaves me cold.
Everything from the Icarus announcement onwards is so bad, that it completely not only undermines all the good work that was done earlier in the film, but also holes it below the waterline. As a movie, it sinks rather quickly. I can't blame it on the actors, I have to put the blame here on the writers and director.
And just to top off the badness, we get Miss Moneypenny having virtual sex with a virtual version of James Bond, whilst Jinx has the real one to herself.
THE VILLAINS
The villains ensemble here is really a mixed bag. Colonel Moon/Gustav Graves is really over the top, and doesn't come off well in this film.
Zao is more understated, but just like Hugo Drax, not in a good way. He comes across as quite boring and not really engaging as a character.
The only one who manages to do well, is Miranda Frost, and she is still quite two dimensional and not as well written as she could be. She does have some depth, but because she doesn't come into the movie early on, we're not really given enough time to see her character play out more. Her coldness is her main characteristic, and that's played brilliantly but other than that, there's not much more depth to play with.
THE BOND GIRL/WOMAN
I like Halle Berry here as Jinx, she is actually probably the best written character here. She has nuances and depths, she has some great lines, and some really good moments, and I think she gets a bit of a raw deal from some fans just because she is part of this movie, which is undeniably a bad movie, mostly though in the final act.
Halle Berry may have done some bad films, but I have to be fair to her and say that I haven't seen her do a bad performance, even in Catwoman, where she did well even with a bad script. Here, she is given more to work with, and does very well with it, but most of the worst things about this film just undermined her work.
THE HENCHMAN
When you have ensembles like this, henchmen don't usually add anything to a film, and that's the case here. Mr Kil looks interesting but we don't really get to see enough of him to have him be much more than that, and Vladimir Popov, the geeky guy who is meant to be Graves' personal scientist, really doesn't come across as much more than a geek who's been given lots of money and expensive toys to play with.
THE SUPPORTING CAST
I've already mentioned Michael Madsen earlier on, but to repeat, he just is not right for a James Bond film. His style just clashes so much with the Bond style that it is a total mess.
Kenneth Tsang is a highlight of this film as General Moon. His acting is superb and even though he isn't in much of the film, his whole presence just adds so much to the whole film, that I actually wish he'd been in the film more than he was.
Madonna's quick cameo as Verity is over quickly, but she plays her basic role well and doesn't detract from the film.
I should also mention Mr Chang and Raoul, who make short appearances in the film, but they are pretty memorable and help give the early part of the film some nice colour and texture. Their characters are fairly basic, but they both have a good screen presence that really helps the film.
STUNTS AND ACTION SEQUENCES.
In the first part of the film, the action sequences were quite good, and really helped move the film and the plot along.
The sword fight between Bond and Graves was the moment for me when the action sequences stopped being good in this film.
And it wasn't helped by the editing of some of these sequences which really didn't help the film at all...
THE EDITING
I really have to turn on Lee Tamahori here as well as Editors Andrew MacRitchie and Christian Wagner. Whilst Andrew had been an Assistant Editor on Tomorrow Never Dies and The World Is Not Enough, Christian had no connection to the Bond films at all. Neither would have any future connection to the Bond films, as this would be their last project for the James Bond filmmakers.
And to be honest, it's easy to see why. Too many sped up or slowed down shots that had nothing to do with emphasising key moments. The editing in places really undermined the work of other people in the film, and if you notice the editing, it's not well edited. A good edit should be pretty much unnoticeable, because you're thinking more about the story, than the editing.
THE MUSIC
I've already mentioned the Madonna song, but I should mention the score by David Arnold. It's very good and does the job it should do, which is lead the audience through the action on an emotional level. It's just a shame some of it was stuck with some really horrible scenes.
OVERALL
This film starts off as quite enjoyable and then goes south rather quickly. Even the bad bits in the early going don't compare to just how bad the worst of the worst in this film is, which is testament to how bad the last act of the film is.
It's kind of a shame that it falls apart that badly. If it had held it's early form, it could have easily been top 10, but the bad writing at the end let it down.
Next time on the list, number 18, and a film that had so much potential, but in the end didn't deliver well enough on that potential.
That was the teaser trailer, and next, the full theatrical trailer.
Now, it's no secret that most Bond fans don't like this film, and it does contain the worst moment in James Bond history, but why do I rate it above Moonraker, Live & Let Die and A View To A Kill? Well, time to reveal why, as I review what was the 20th official Bond film, Die Another Day.
Before I get to the pre-title sequence, I must mention this film's gun barrel sequence, which infamously features a bullet coming down the barrel towards the audience. Some of called this cheap and tacky, and I can see where they're coming from, but actually, I don't mind it in the slightest, and have never minded it. Okay, I can already hear the boos, pipe down...
THE PRE-TITLE SEQUENCE
The plot of the pre-title sequence can be summed up pretty easily. James Bond infiltrates North Korea, kills a Colonel, Colonel Tan Sun Moon and gets captured. You don't really need to know any more than that.
Some points out of it though. The first is the fact that Bond surfs into North Korea. Surfing? Really??? This is not a criticism of the actual surfing itself, the guys performing the stunt are excellent, but I really don't think surfing into North Korea is either very realistic, or indeed, necessary. I don't think we need to see him actually surf, I think we can cut all that surfing footage out, and just have him arrive on the beach, a scene that was shot around Newquay in Cornwall. In fact, Cornwall features a fair bit in this movie in a couple of different ways. In the early going, it partially substitutes for North Korea, before switching back to Pinewood. However, there is more of Cornwall to come.
Secondly, I love the detail that they go into with the infiltration and how they pull a helicopter carrying a Mr Van Bierk off-course, so that Bond can take his place.
Thirdly, and this will crop up throughout the movie, I love the little references that get thrown in all over the place. When Bond opens the briefcase to reveal the diamonds, we get a very Roger Moore-style raised eyebrow, which I think is great.
There's also a lovely humorous moment, when Colonel Moon is beating up this bag, only for it to be revealed that there's a man inside, and Moon directs his subordinates to find him a new anger therapist. Honestly, if that's the way you treat your therapists, I think you'll have a hard time finding anybody who'll want to treat you.
Having been introduced to Colonel Moon, we are now introduced to Zao, who takes a photograph of Bond as he exits the helicopter that flew him into the compound. They do go into a lot of detail here, which does slow up this part of the sequence, but that's not totally bad thing, it just ends up evening out. The detail is good, but if it could have been done a bit quicker, a bit better, maybe the slowness of the sequence wouldn't feel quite so grating, but it's not bad.
During the Pierce Brosnan era, mostly from Tomorrow Ever Dies onwards, the pre-title sequences would feature a really big action sequence, and this film is no exception. It's a great sequence, and there's an added time pressure in that General Moon, the father of Colonel Moon, is on his way to the compound. It's a fun, exhilarating sequence, and actually gets the film off to a good start. At the end of the sequence, I love the fact that Bond is hanging onto a log that is ringing a bell, and the quip is perfect, but then Bond is captured by General Moon and taken to a facility where he is tortured, and at that point, it transitions into the title sequence, using footage of Bond in captivity, being tortured as the canvas for the titles.
THE TITLE SEQUENCE
I have to be honest her and say this, along with On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Quantum Of Solace, is a candidate for the worst title sequence in Bond history. Not everything can be brilliant, and most of the title sequences in themselves I don't have a problem with. But here, the visuals of Bond being tortured actually compromise the quality of the work that Daniel Kleinman does.
The music here is another issue, and Madonna's song, whilst not being a bad song in and of itself, just doesn't feel very suited to a James Bond film.
THE PLOT.
Bond spends 14 months in captivity, before being traded for Zao. Bond is drugged and taken to a facility where he is in essence a captive again, and is visited by M. It's here we get a lot of exposition about things that have gone on that we haven't been privy to, such as Zao blowing up a summit meeting between South Korea and China. We also get the information that Bond is to be held in an evaluation facility in the Falklands until M decides his fate. This is more like the M we first see in Goldeneye, not like the one we see in Quantum Of Solace. That film really didn't do Judi Dench any justice at all with that character. Here, she's much better and much more like the "Evil Queen Of Numbers" that we came to know.
Bond manages to escape the facility, which is based on a ship, anchored off Hong Kong. Okay, what happened to the wreck of the Queen Elizabeth? Also, this is post 1997, which is referenced later in the film, but really? Just feels strange to be honest.
Bond literally just walks into The Yacht Club in his dishevelled condition, and whilst he is given some suspicious looks by the staff, the person who we think is the hotel's manager, Mr Chang, recognises Bond and orders The Presidential Suite be opened for him. It feels a little weird, but Bond is probably well known at a lot of places, so I can go with that.
Bond cleans himself up and makes himself more presentable, when a masseuse arrives at the door, compliments of the manager. We get a classic "I'm sure you do." line from Bond, which is always good. Bond tries to seduce the masseuse and she shows some resistance. "I'm not that kind of masseuse." but Bond reaches inside the bottom of her dress to where a gun is holstered on her thigh and he takes the gun, and holds it to her head. "I'm not that kind of customer." He then grabs a nearby ashtray and throws it through a mirrored door, revealing Mr Chang and some Chinese agents, and a video camera.
This little sequence is quite good, revealing Mr Chang to be part of Chinese intelligence. Bond negotiating to help them get Zao is also good. I guess he is currently "independent" so he can ply his trade where he wants.
Mr Chang discovers that Zao is currently in Cuba, and provides Bond with some travel documents to get there.
It's a pretty good start to the film, and I don't mind it in the slightest. A slight in-congruency or two aside, I can't overly complain.
Bond in Cuba is interesting. He uses Universal Exports as a cover, but of course, he is not part of the British Secret Service. We are introduced to Raoul, who is a contact in Havana, who provides Bond with some information about a clinic being run by a Dr Alvarez. We also get some interesting references here, such as the book that gave James Bond his name, The Field Guide to Birds of the West Indies, written of course by James Bond. It's good to see this stuff, and don't get me wrong, the series very rarely references itself, despite it having plenty of good reference material, so I am quite happy to see this film reference the past of James Bond.
We see Bond driving a car, I'm not quite sure what the car is, but it's a nice looking car, and fits in with the available cars in Cuba at the time, so I don't mind this.
As Bond arrives at some beach place, we get a little bit of Bond theme played on a spanish Guitar. It's quite good actually, a little less harsh than the usual electric guitar, but just enough edge in it to build some anticipation. It's here that one of the elements that I most dislike crops up again. I mentioned it in Live & Let Die and I have to mention it again here. Bond smokes a cigar. Not a cigarette, a cigar. Yes it's a smaller cigar than the ones Roger Moore smoked in Live & Let Die and The Man With the Golden Gun, but still, that feels wrong for the character. It's the only time we see it in this film, but still, I'd prefer if it wasn't here at all.
We're also introduced here to Giacinta Johnson, better known as Jinx, played by Halle Berry. The sequence is acknowledged by the film makers to try and channel the moment where Honey Ryder came out of the water, but it's trying to hard, and the slow motion just doesn't help it. I'd actually have preferred it if the filmmakers before hand hadn't said that's what they were trying to do, and had allowed us to make that connection. There's also in this sequence a reference to From Russia With Love, referencing the lines that Daniela Bianchi and Sean Connery spoke when Tatiana Romanova first met James Bond.
Bond and Jinx get talking before we get a scene where we see them getting it on. This scene had to be trimmed in the US to get a PG-13 certificate, but in all honesty, I don't see what the problem is. It looks fine, it's not over the top. Don't be prissy about this.
Bond wakes up alone and discovers that Jinx is getting on a boat to the island where the clinic is. Bond uses a thug who is going there to get to the clinic, then dumps him rather unceremoniously. Bond finds his way into a secret part of the clinic, and whilst this is happening, Jinx is meeting with Dr Alvarez, who is rather stereotypically written. Jinx kills him. Meanwhile Bond finds Zao, and gets his attention. Not sure grabbing a bag of drip-feed is going to hurt him or get his attention, but oh well. Turns out, Jinx is also after Zao as well. There's a fight and some action, but Zao gets away. Jinx also get away from some local soldiers, and Bond managed to pick up some diamonds that were hanging in a capsule around Zao's neck. Upon closer examination they are discovered to be conflict diamonds from Sierra Leone, but they bear a laser signature from Gustav Graves, who has a diamond mine in Iceland.
We get a brief scene of M being given short shrift by her opposite number at the NSA, Damian Falco, played by Michael Madsen. This is some poor casting really here. Michael Madsen is an okay actor, project dependent, but just doesn't fit into the world of James Bond.
Bond arrives in London, drinking his usual vodka martini on route, served to him, in a cameo role, by Deborah Moore, who's father was a previous James Bond. Yes, Roger Moore. The music here is a little out of place. It's London Calling by The Clash. It's a great song, but it just doesn't belong here.
We get introduced to Gustav Graves here by him parachuting out of a plane with a Union Jack parachute. It's obviously meant to be a reference to The Spy Who Loved Me. Gustav Graves is played here by Toby Stephens, who would later go on to play James Bond in some BBC Radio productions of the Ian Fleming books. We are also introduced here to his publicist, Miranda Frost, played by Rosamund Pike. Bond witnessed Graves arrival and impromptu press conference, and we next see him at a local fencing club, where it turns out Miranda Frost is regarded by Verity, played by Madonna, but surprisingly uncredited in the film, as her protege.
Gustav Graves is also at the fencing club, and we get a sword fighting sequence between Bond and Graves. I'm usually a fan of sword fighting sequences, the ones in Lord Of The Rings and Star Wars are excellent, and the sequence is choreographed by the same person, legendary sword master Bob Anderson. Bob also has previous connections to James Bond as he was a stunt performer in From Russia With Love, and in the 1967 spoof, Casino Royale. I don't quite know what it is about this sequence that I don't like, perhaps it's the gratuitous amount of damage that Bond and Graves cause, but I think it's more than just that. I think the length of the fight has something to do with it too, it does feel too long. But even adding that in, that's not entirely the issue either.
Sometimes, no matter how hard you work on something it just doesn't come up to standard. I felt that was the case with the cable car fight in Moonraker, and I think it might be the case here. I am left to wonder though if they weren't deliberately trying to compete with the Star Wars prequel trilogy here, by having a sword fighting sequence.
Graves is impressed with Bond's sword fighting ability and invites him up to Iceland for a party he's giving to announce a science project. Miranda Frost seems somewhat less impressed. Frost by name, frosty by nature...
After Graves and Frost leave, a man comes up to Bond and refers to him as Commander Bond. He gives him an envelope that contains an old key. I like the reference to his rank here. His rank is not mentioned too much in the films, and it's good to remind people of that.
Bond goes to an old door just off Westminster Bridge, and goes down to an old abandoned underground station, where he meets M. M decides that Bond has become useful again, and we then get a scene that really is out of sorts with the rest of the film, where we see Bond, in his office, cleaning his gun, when suddenly he hears gunshots, slightly muffled gunshots. This sequence is shot in a slightly different way to the rest of the film. The camera follows Bond around, always keeping about the same distance from him, just like they do in video games. There's a reason for that, and that's because this is a virtual simulation in Q Branch, and we are introduced here to our Q for this film, played by John Cleese, who was R in the last film. Q demonstrating the gadgets is good, and I love the line when he gives Bond his new watch, "This will be your 20th I believe". Good way of referencing that this is the 20th official Bond film.
We're also introduced here to what remains the most controversial car in all of Bondom. "Aston Martin call it the Vanquish, we call it, the Vanish." Yep, the invisible car. This is something that I know a lot of Bond fans hate, and yet I'm not entirely sure why. A lot of fans that was the point when the Brosnan Bond era jumped the shark, but I have to say I think they're being unkind. The technology they were talking about in the film, definitely existed in 2002, and was used for a promotion unrelated to James Bond in 2012. The execution might not be exactly as was shown in the film, but I don't mind that in the slightest. So, why do most Bond fans hate the invisible car? I really don't know. Now, maybe because I'm a Star Trek fan as well, and used to the idea of a cloaking device from that series, the whole idea of the invisible car doesn't bug me. But I'd be interested to know.
I don't have a problem with the invisible car, and to those who do, I suggest you check out the fact that the technology to do this, in a real world sense, was actually available at the time, although as Q himself would have put it, it wasn't quite perfected yet.
Okay, back to the plot, and we get an interesting scene in M's office where she's briefing an agent. But it's not Bond, it's Miranda Frost. Ah, so Miranda Frost is also an MI6 agent. She's either not very good, or she's a double agent. We'll find out which later.
So Bond arrives in Iceland, and it's here that we get one of my main bugbears with the film rearing its ugly head for the first time. The editing. Up until this point, the editing had been fairly conventional, even in the virtual simulation sequence. But here we get sped up film for no reason, and over extravagant shots that actually add nothing to the storyline. If you're going to use a shot, it has to have a story purpose. We also see Jinx arrive, wearing a tight leather outfit that, even though it doesn't show a lot of skin, somehow seems way too inadequate for the cold conditions.
Bond is shown to his room by Miranda Frost, and she continues to be as cold as ice. I guess she's right at home in an ice palace then. Something tells me I know where this is going...
At the party, Bond meets up with Jinx and they exchange some words on a slightly cold level. "I'm a girl that just doesn't like to get tied down." Something tells me you'll be tied down later...
We then cut to a weird sequence with Zao arriving, and we get a strangely homoerotic moment between Graves and Zao. It turns out that Graves is actually Colonel Moon, not in disguise, but as a completely new person. He had gene therapy to completely change his identity. It's not perfect as he has permanent insomnia. I have odd nights of insomnia and those drive me crazy. I can't imagine what permanent insomnia would do to a person.
We get a catty moment between Jinx and Miranda, right in front of Bond. "I take it Mr Bond has been explaining his big bang theory." "Oh, yeah, I think I got the... thrust of it." Those lines make me laugh, and I notice here that Bond is looking a little uncomfortable. I like that moment, it just adds a little extra punchline to the scene.
Graves demonstrates Icarus, a satellite that can project sunlight anywhere in the world. Yeah, I'm having Batman & Robin flashbacks here, and that's not a good thing. Another thing, how are we seeing the footage from space? That's not quite explained. If the editing hasn't made this film jump the shark, then this moment certainly has. How did we go from a diamond mine to a satellite that can project sunlight?
Bond watches them take the satellite control device back into the compound, and sneaks in using his invisible car. Admittedly, it takes computer technology to make this work, but it does work. Bond is discovered and an alarm sounds. There is an in-congruenty in this sequence. We see Graves at one point with his tech geek, trying on a piece of equipment, yet no more than a minute later, in real time, he's suddenly with Zao? This is a mistake, and quite a blatant one, and I'm surprised more people haven't mentioned it.
Just before Bond is going to be caught, Miranda Frost reels him in, and starts making out with him. The guards are quite confused by this, and leave them to it. The banter between Bond and Miranda in this whole sequence is excellent. Miranda is definitely in the Fiona Volpe mould of women who won't fall for Bond, but will play him at his game.
Meanwhile, Jinx, back in her leather outfit, is investigating the compound too. A compound that looks suspiciously like The Eden Project near St Austell in Cornwall. That might be because parts of this film were actually shot at The Eden Project, and they used the biodomes idea for Graves' compound in Iceland. I don't mind that, quite happy for that idea to be used.
Miranda agrees to sleep in Bond's room for the night, and we get a nice reference to Tomorrow Never Dies, where Bond actually puts his gun, under his pillow, referencing the question Paris Carver asked Bond at the launch party for Carver's news network.
We cut back and forth a lot between James Bond and Jinx in this sequence, as Jinx is captured, tied down, oh yeah we know you don't like to be tied down, but you're a female in a Bond film, you're going to end up tied down at some point, and is about to be subjected to decapitation by laser, but through Bond's assistance, and some fun timing, Jinx manages to survive, and they manage to escape.
It's here that Bond realises that Zao isn't alone and Colonel Moon must also have survived. Bond confronts Graves/Moon. Uh-oh, here we go with the multiple identities thing again. This can get troublesome in a hurry, because you're not really sure what to call him. When the different identities have different faces, like Bruce Banner and the Hulk, or Bruce Wayne and Batman, it's easy. Here, it's not so easy. Is he Graves? Is he Moon? He is both, so which name do you use? He can't change his face back to the Korean one, so I guess he has to stay being called Graves at this point.
It's also here we get the reveal that Miranda Frost is in fact, a double agent, working for Graves primarily, rather than MI6. It's here we get a chase sequence, which starts off in Moon's compound on foot, as Bond tries to escape "death for breakfast", and continues in Graves' rocket sled, or whatever you want to call it, and ends with Bond in the rocket sled hanging precariously over an ice cliff, with an intense beam of sunlight headed straight towards him. How is he getting out of this situation???
Yep, you guessed it, the infamous para-surfing sequence. The music is about the only good thing here. David Arnold's score here is brilliant and plays the emotion of the scene well, but the scene itself is appalling. It's all done on computers, except for the close-ups of Pierce Brosnan, which were shot on green-screen. It's so bad, that it beats the Bondola from Moonraker, as the worst scene ever in James Bond history.
Meanwhile, Jinx has gotten herself trapped in Miranda Frost's room, and there's a catty little conversation between the two, before we see Bond returning to the Ice Palace, and remote controlling his invisible car. Hmm, I liked the remote control car from Tomorrow Never Dies, as that made sense, but the remote control here doesn't make sense at all. As a Mythbusters fan, I know you need a remote control to handle steering, throttle, brake, and changing gears on a car. There's no way in hell that Bond could do all that from the tiny little keyring style remote that he has.
Bond and his car are accidentally discovered by a snowmobile driver who runs his snowmobile into the back of the car, and flies right over it. He wasn't going fast enough to do that. And so begins the chase sequence between Bond's car and Zao's car.
There's no doubt that the action is great, and the driving here is amazing, it's all done on ice, and is incredibly dangerous, no two ways about it. However, just like for some people, the car flip from The Man With The Golden Gun is ruined by the slide whistle sound effect, so for me, this car chase sequence is ruined by the damn editing. Randomly sped up and slowed down shots do nothing for me. The slow motion shot that was used earlier in the fight at the clinic with Zao was useful in order to highlight Bond grabbing the diamonds that Zao had in that capsule hanging around his neck. But in this sequence the use of sped up and slow motion makes no sense and is horrible, not to mention the snowmobiles getting blown away from each other and Bond's car towards the end. I do like though how the bullets bouncing off the car cause the adaptive camouflage system to fail. The sequence ends Zao trying to ram Bond's car, but by using the adaptive camouflage, and some spikes in the tyres, Bond reverse out of the way, and Zao's car crashes into the water in the melting Ice Palace, with Bond killing him by shooting a chandelier, and having it fall on top of him. Bond then rescues Jinx, and she survives, barely.
We then cut to the US Command Post on the South Korean side of the Demilitarised Zone, where Charles Robinson, M and Falco are. Does anyone else think that having the leaders of MI6 and the NSA at the edge of a potential warzone is a bad idea?
Turns out Graves is in North Korea in the middle of an airbase, and Falco thinks they can't touch him. Bond disagrees, and volunteers to go after Graves. M agrees to send him in. Turns out the idea of the British getting all the credit doesn't sit too well with Falco and he orders Jinx to go with Bond. Typical bloody American...
Bond and Jinx go in on switchblades, which seem to be single person flying machines. They separate from the crafts and parachute in. Meanwhile the missile that was fired to shoot down Icarus gets torched by the satellite.
The final sequence of the film, begins with Bond and Jinx trying to sniper kill Graves and co, but circumstances prevent that, and they have to get on the plane, which they manage to do somehow unseen by anyone.
We get a scene which is totally weird. Graves is wearing some kind of robosuit, and totally not cool, and General Moon is brought to him. They talk in what is supposed to be a tender father son moment, but it ends up flat. I can't put this down to the actors, not entirely, and I can't put it down to the writing, not entirely, there's some other element that just isn't working right, and I'm not too sure what it is. Graves uses Icarus to explode all the mines in the demilitariesd zone. General Moon doesn't like what he sees, or maybe what he fears he will see, and turns on his son/Graves. Graves kills General Moon in a scene that is meant to be poignant, but the intolerable editing again completely undos the actors' work there, the editors and director of this project have a lot to answer for when it comes it to the editing.
We also get a Goldfinger reference in reverse, where it is Bond that fires the gun that pierces a window, that causes explosive decompression, and people are sucked out of the plane. Honestly, this whole sequence is poor here. Too much intercuting between the Bond/Graves fight, and what Jinx is doing, and too many bad edits. Also, the slow motion disintegration of the plane after going through the Icarus beam is stupid. The whole ending sequence, where Jinx stabs Miranda, and Bond electrocutes Graves before he falls into one of the plane's engines, and somehow doesn't cause it to explode, just beggars my belief. After doing so much right in the early going, they screw up the ending so badly that it leaves me cold.
Everything from the Icarus announcement onwards is so bad, that it completely not only undermines all the good work that was done earlier in the film, but also holes it below the waterline. As a movie, it sinks rather quickly. I can't blame it on the actors, I have to put the blame here on the writers and director.
And just to top off the badness, we get Miss Moneypenny having virtual sex with a virtual version of James Bond, whilst Jinx has the real one to herself.
THE VILLAINS
The villains ensemble here is really a mixed bag. Colonel Moon/Gustav Graves is really over the top, and doesn't come off well in this film.
Zao is more understated, but just like Hugo Drax, not in a good way. He comes across as quite boring and not really engaging as a character.
The only one who manages to do well, is Miranda Frost, and she is still quite two dimensional and not as well written as she could be. She does have some depth, but because she doesn't come into the movie early on, we're not really given enough time to see her character play out more. Her coldness is her main characteristic, and that's played brilliantly but other than that, there's not much more depth to play with.
THE BOND GIRL/WOMAN
I like Halle Berry here as Jinx, she is actually probably the best written character here. She has nuances and depths, she has some great lines, and some really good moments, and I think she gets a bit of a raw deal from some fans just because she is part of this movie, which is undeniably a bad movie, mostly though in the final act.
Halle Berry may have done some bad films, but I have to be fair to her and say that I haven't seen her do a bad performance, even in Catwoman, where she did well even with a bad script. Here, she is given more to work with, and does very well with it, but most of the worst things about this film just undermined her work.
THE HENCHMAN
When you have ensembles like this, henchmen don't usually add anything to a film, and that's the case here. Mr Kil looks interesting but we don't really get to see enough of him to have him be much more than that, and Vladimir Popov, the geeky guy who is meant to be Graves' personal scientist, really doesn't come across as much more than a geek who's been given lots of money and expensive toys to play with.
THE SUPPORTING CAST
I've already mentioned Michael Madsen earlier on, but to repeat, he just is not right for a James Bond film. His style just clashes so much with the Bond style that it is a total mess.
Kenneth Tsang is a highlight of this film as General Moon. His acting is superb and even though he isn't in much of the film, his whole presence just adds so much to the whole film, that I actually wish he'd been in the film more than he was.
Madonna's quick cameo as Verity is over quickly, but she plays her basic role well and doesn't detract from the film.
I should also mention Mr Chang and Raoul, who make short appearances in the film, but they are pretty memorable and help give the early part of the film some nice colour and texture. Their characters are fairly basic, but they both have a good screen presence that really helps the film.
STUNTS AND ACTION SEQUENCES.
In the first part of the film, the action sequences were quite good, and really helped move the film and the plot along.
The sword fight between Bond and Graves was the moment for me when the action sequences stopped being good in this film.
And it wasn't helped by the editing of some of these sequences which really didn't help the film at all...
THE EDITING
I really have to turn on Lee Tamahori here as well as Editors Andrew MacRitchie and Christian Wagner. Whilst Andrew had been an Assistant Editor on Tomorrow Never Dies and The World Is Not Enough, Christian had no connection to the Bond films at all. Neither would have any future connection to the Bond films, as this would be their last project for the James Bond filmmakers.
And to be honest, it's easy to see why. Too many sped up or slowed down shots that had nothing to do with emphasising key moments. The editing in places really undermined the work of other people in the film, and if you notice the editing, it's not well edited. A good edit should be pretty much unnoticeable, because you're thinking more about the story, than the editing.
THE MUSIC
I've already mentioned the Madonna song, but I should mention the score by David Arnold. It's very good and does the job it should do, which is lead the audience through the action on an emotional level. It's just a shame some of it was stuck with some really horrible scenes.
OVERALL
This film starts off as quite enjoyable and then goes south rather quickly. Even the bad bits in the early going don't compare to just how bad the worst of the worst in this film is, which is testament to how bad the last act of the film is.
It's kind of a shame that it falls apart that badly. If it had held it's early form, it could have easily been top 10, but the bad writing at the end let it down.
Next time on the list, number 18, and a film that had so much potential, but in the end didn't deliver well enough on that potential.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)