Cool News
THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH review
I’m probably going to take some shit for this, but
frankly... I didn’t really care that much for THE
WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.
This is going to be a review with some spoilers and
plot points because... well I need to discuss them to
get right into why I didn’t care too much for the film.
First off... The opening action sequence is just
fantastic. It’s longer than usual, but it’s really
something. It does everything that a Bond action
sequence is supposed to. It goes a billion miles an
hour faster than it’s supposed to. The gimmick stuff
is cool as hell. The ridiculous, no human could do
that, stuff rocks. It’s propulsive. Kills lots of people,
wrecks lots of property, sexist remarks and it gets
your blood pumping.
It’s a shame that it never gets any better.
This is the ‘SAVING PRIVATE RYAN-Syndrome’
as a friend of mine calls it. For me, it’s
‘Rocketeer-Syndrome’. Whatever you call it, it’s that
case where the single most thrilling action bit is your
first one. In SPR, it’s that dang amazing Normandy
invasion. In Rocketeer, it’s that first time we see our
hero strapping into the rocketpack to save his biplane
clown buddy.
Remember, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK? Of
course you do, who do I think I’m writing to?
Sheesh. Well, that opening scene held the possible
danger of being... THE BEST THING IN THE
MOVIE. But... Due to the brilliance of all involved
in that movie, each action scene increased... pushed
the throttle in a little further, till you have that
brilliant ‘trucks scene’. And for the ending... well...
It’s the Wrath Of Friggin GOD!!!
Alright.... ok, I hear ya.... That’s the Indiana Jones
formula.... not BOND.
Wrong.
GOLDFINGER.... Really great opening... continual
build ups.... Gigantic FORT KNOX ending.
THUNDERBALL... Great opening.... Continual
Build Ups.... Gigantic Underwater Battle!
YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE... Bond friggin DIES in
the opening... It gets more dangerous.... and then we
have a gigantic battle in the center of a dead Volcano
with Rockets blasting off etc...
I could go on and on.... and on...
But let’s take a look at the modern BOND film.
Apparently, Bond never stays in contact with
ANYONE! Gone are all his emergency beacons in
the heel of his shoes. He never forms strategic
alliances with anyone. Now he’s just horny and
points guns and shoots and adds little quips.
Don’t get me wrong... THE WORLD IS NOT
ENOUGH is an ok action film, but for me.... In my
opinion it’s a piss poor Bond movie.
Brosnan is trying way too hard to make Bond
emotional.... He stands there shaking like a school
boy flustered by the brat. Why did Bond wait 2
seconds to just not blow Robert Carlyle away? His
mission was to protect Elektra and find Renard, and
finish the job that his prior 00-agent didn’t finish.
Renard could have the SECRETS OF THE
UNIVERSE, but Bond is supposed to kill him...
period. Those guys in the background... those are bad
guy Red Shirts.... Bond knows that. You cut off
Renard’s head, they lose their nerve.... or..... you just
fucking kill them.
Alright, convenient plot point... Movie would have
been too short at that point to kill Renard. Perhaps
his shoulder was merely spasming. Whatever...
Bond hesitating to kill a broad he banged? I’m sorry,
soon as he knew what she was up to, she’s dead
weight in his mind. Bond is ruthless. This isn’t Doc
Savage... he’s not going to perform a lobotomy on her
to ‘fix’ her. This is JAMES BOND, LICENSE TO
KILL.
Alright... Then... let’s look at Renard... He’s great. I
love his character, his back story... what he’s capable
of, his angst about living with out sensations... It’s a
great character. They didn’t turn him into a cartoon
super-villain. Michael Apted did a great job with
Robert Carlyle, who let’s face it... is just one of the
coolest actors on the planet today... BUT... He’s just
not in it enough. It would be like giving Goldfinger,
Oddjob’s screentime.
Both Sophie Marceau and Denise Richards friggin
suck the big one in this movie. Sophie’s “I’m so
fuckable and adorable no man could kill me, I’m the
most fabulous object in the universe and on top of
that I’ll cut my right earlobe off, just so I have a
zen-esque flaw to my perfect beauty” character just
made me want to retch.
Sean Connery’s Bond would have fucked her, and
killed her the second he felt she turned.... and he
never would have trusted her.
George Lazenby’s Bond would have fucked her, and
killed her by ripping out her throat while in the chair.
Roger Moore’s Bond would have fucked her, noticed
that the parachute dudes were never firing at her, then
pushed her off the cliff.... while saying something
like, “Bottoms up”
Timothy Dalton’s Bond would have slapped her silly,
fucked her and would have left her crying for more.
Where the hell did Bond develop this, sap? He ain’t
no tree! This isn’t Diana Rigg, this is some
self-important high society twit with a severe lack of
fire and adventure... the two elements that Bond is
most attracted to.
Ok... Now Denise ‘Rocket Scientist’ Richards.
First off I’m not going to make fun of her being a
Nuclear Physicist. My problem is this.... SHE IS A
TERRIBLE ACTRESS! The great Bond women of
all time were not BIMBO VACANT EYED WET
DREAMS. They were sex kittens as deadly as Bond.
Bond doesn’t need some chick to defuse a Nuclear
Bomb... He’s done this BEFORE! He’s trained for
this type of thing... and if he isn’t he sure as hell will
simply whip out his knife... be in a state of panic
whilst trying to figure out which wire to cut, and it
will... inevitably be when the counter (there’s always
a counter) reaches 0:07. Or... if it says 0:06, Bond
could always say, “Damn... Missed it,” and smile.
Another thing that really pisses me off about the
modern Bond movie is the total lack of indigenous
cultures. I miss the Bond that would get captured by
the rebels, only to realize that the rebels in this region
are actually the good guys... He’d train with them...
screw a couple of their babes... then launch the
gigantic attack at the end.
Now I know, this sounds like I’m crying for the old
formula... BUT FOLKS.... That formula hasn’t been
done right since Connery left. Right now... for the
last TWENTY YEARS... the Bond franchise has
been suffering from STAR TREK SYNDROME.
A scaling back of the action scenes... Tired
self-caricature... and actors that seem to be bored
with the work they are doing. Pierce looked a bit
bored in this Bond.
Remember in LAST CRUSADE, when Indy and the
hot Nazi babe are in the sewers... there’s the drawing
of the Ark on the wall, the little bit of dialogue there
to confirm that... yes.... This character is the same
character from the previous movies?
Well.... Other than Q, there seems to be no memory
to the franchise. Remember that scene in, I believe
it’s ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE,
where Lazenby is looking at past momentos of the
previous films and there is a touch of the themes from
each?
The Brosnan Bond has no memory, no history...
When he’s asked if he’s ever lost someone he loves...
You can tell he doesn’t remember Diana Rigg. Ok...
he’s hiding his emotions from her... let him hug her,
but let’s see his eyes and hear an echo of ‘We’ve got
alllllll.... the tiiiiiime.... in the worrrrllllld’ in the
soundtrack. Just a touch... Not a sledgehammer of it.
Just a bit.
Also, when Bond goes to all these different areas
now... there never seems to be any undercover spies
already there for him to hook up with.
When Bond realizes that the 4 other pipelines are
going to be blown up... He should split up with the
blow-up spunk toy, sending her off to contact “THE
FOLLOWING NAMES AND NUMBERS”
One: This gets rid of Denise Richards, who even in a
wet t-shirt... they manage to de-nipple-fy her.... is
just lame.
Two: Heightens the tension of whether or not the
cavalry will ever come. They will, but only at the last
possible moment.
Three: It allows Bond to not have to play wet-nurse
to a mannequin.
Also... hasn’t Bond been to Istanbul before? Bond
knows a lot of people. Couldn’t he just hook up with
some folks... Get some insulation.
Having the end fight take place in a tiny cramped
space, with nearly no extras... no impossible odds...
As for BOND having the sub dive instead of surface
when what he wanted to have happen was to be
surfacing... Excuse me... but isn’t Bond a NAVAL
type of guy? Huh?
This is an ‘OK’ Bond movie. One of those... that
works and doesn’t work. Carlyle and M and Cleese
and Q and even Brosnan are all good enough to make
it entertaining in the way the lessor Bonds are always
entertaining.
Hell... I’ll even buy the bastard on DVD when it
comes out. BUT DAMMIT!!!
These movies can be a whole helluvalot cooler than
they are being. Yeah... I know... I’m being overly
sensitive to this, but I friggin am a HUGE BOND
GEEK and both Bond and Brosnan deserve better
scenarios... direction and co-stars.
Get someone like Michelle Pfieffer to put opposite
Bond. Brosnan has stated that he wants to make an R
rated Bond... that he wants to step it up. That he
eventually wants to die on camera as Bond.
However, I get the idea that the Broccoli family and
MGM are playing it safe. Let’s face it, MGM is in a
world of shit in terms of film production. Any studio
that can cut a bad trailer with jarringly bad music for
a film that has the beautiful look that SUPERNOVA
has (I’m not arguing that it’s a good movie, only that
it has some beautiful shots in it against a terrible rock
track) some major issues to deal with.
I wish BOND was with another studio.... with
Brosnan attached. As it is, this movie was not enough
for me.
-
+ Expand All
-
Dammit, I just got back from this stinker. It was better than the last one....sort of. Man, it just sucked. I'm currently in NYC where tickets cost $9.50!! I feel like I got about 50 cents worth of movie.
That director fucking sucks. Most of the time Bond was running from Cobra from GIJoe, & they couldn't aim for shit, & really, Bond NEVER looked like he was in danger until he was in that chair at the end.
The worst part besides the end fight with the ugly Popeye villian, was him & the terrible Dennis Richards outrunning the world's slowest explosion.
This movie fucking sucked. I thought it would suck based on the trailers, but some fucking guy reviewed it here & said it was good. Thanks alot buddy!!
-
It's 1999!! SHow some damn nudity!!! We saw more skin in the 60s! Make the movie rated R!
SHow some hardcore dangerous shit like in DieHard 1 & 2! True Lies was the best Bond movie in 20 years, face it.
I hope Sleepy Hollow DESTROYS this movie!! -
Harry --
Just when I had convinced myself you had suddenly gone total Louis Hobson ass-kisser, you dig out a mean one. Attaboy!
Now, to be honest, I think you overheteroed it with all the "fuck" talk -- makes me think you're compensating for something -- but I still think it was nice to see you rip "World" a jagged new one.
Good stuff.
B. -
Okay I saw TWiNE tonight and I thought it was pretty okay. First of all, Sophie kicked some major ass as a Bond chick, except for the way she constantly covered herself with that damn blanket. Denise, as everyone has said, was a fucking joke, especially with the de-nipple-fication.
HOWEVER, I had one harsh problem with this movie, and that is the lack of cool ass gadgets. What did Bond have in this one? He had those cool specs and that jacket thingie. And the boat from the beginning was fucking cool as hell, yeah. But enough with the swinging with the watch bullshit already. How about some cool new helocopter or a jetski with some power and a bunch of other crazy Bond shit? Like the toothpaste plastic explosives and bizarre shit like that, and more of it. MI6 should have cooler shit than this, and they should have tons of it, and Bond should use that besides just his goddamn watch and gun and BMW that gets one fucking scene?? -
My buddy "Swoop" had a great suggestion. The next Bond should be rated R and be ultra violent and sex-filled and make Brosnan happy. So after is said and everyone is done, and Bond saves the day, he dies in a freak accident of some kind. Everyone at MI6 will mourn his loss and the new superagent can replace him. HOWEVER . . . to everyone's surprise, Bond returns...as part of Ethan Hunt's IMF team in Mission Impossible 3. This is ingenious, and should be put into consideration ASAP for Tim Burton, Quentin Tarantino, or maybe even Spielberg to direct. I'll go start the script.
-
Maybe the scriptwriters should trying to read some of the books to get a sense of how good the character and the films can be....or just watch the first 6 films back when they still took him seriously.
-
3 shitty bond movies in a row. All starring brosnan...... hmmmmmmmm. This is exactly why they need to make a Metal Gear Solid movie. Solid Snake would never put up with this shit.
-
in goldeneye, Bond was great, Sean Bean was just one of the most original and greatest bond villains ever.
in my opinion, htey shoulda made sean bean bond, but thats just me.
All of the ond films lately, (except goldeneye) seem to be just action fests, not even jerry Bruckhiemer is that short of good ideas. Bring back the old bond style films, where you have a good beginnning, then have your tylish spy thriller. These days it feels like your watching a die hard movie rather than a bond.
And i say kill off bond, then have him come back to life in 10 years when a better bond come alsong -
Haven't seen the new Bond, don't really plan to either. Love the character, hate the movies of late. Personally, I think bringing the character into the 90's was a terrible idea; All Bond films ought to be period pieces set in the 60's. All groovy chicks and bubble chairs. Austin Powers without the comedy (if that's what you consider "comedy").
CountZero -
Geez, the trailer showed that it was going to suck.
-
...you missed one the most anoying aspects of modern Bond: That fucking BMW car. Bond would only EVER drive British - Aston Martin, TVR, take your pick. I feel that Bond is losing his Britishness. MGM suck big time. Let's face it Bond is ruthless killer who really would fuck some foreign agent babe and then snap he neck like a twig. Read the Bond books - they're so much more entertaining than watching the films.
-
Harry, worrying over niggling trifles doesn't endear you to your audience !
So Bond doesn't seem to remember Tracey ?
If we stay chronologically true, she died in 1969, as evidenced on the gravestone Bond visited at the beginning of "For Your Eyes Only". Bond would then have been in his mid-late thirties. That would now make Bond approaching his seventies at the very least !!!!
She was also mentioned in passing in "The Spy Who Loved Me". Moore's Bond was about the right age at the time to carry this off. Pierce isn't. So we take it that the Brosnan era marks a new beginning..........otherwise, why don't you be a total prick and ask how come the world's greatest spy fails to notice that Moneypenny seems to have had a body transplant, and that The Living Daylights's villain Whittaker(Joe Don Baker), who was killed, is now working for the CIA, or how his contact in Japan, Henderson (Charles Grey) in "You Only Live Twice" actually turned out to be Blofeld two films later.
In the words of the MST3K theme song, Harry........"you should really just relax". -
I only have to read the first subject line to gain some respect for Harry! I saw this 'thing' last night and didn't care for it, but, upon waking up this morning, realized it's actually one of the worst Bonds in quite a while. Now, go back and watch TOMORROW NEVER DIES and realize how good it actually was.
-
Nov 20, 1999 10:46:27 AM CST
More ranting by me, and Harry, you forget to mention THEY HARDLY
by funmazer
Harry was right about SO many things in his review, it's hard to believe he also recommended The Mess (inger). Another big problem with TWINE was Bond was a wimp. He actually wounds his arm and has a SLING. I remember in one old Bond movie he had a sling and I thought "Oh, gimme a break!" and 2 seconds later, the sling comes off - a fake! Bond doesn't get that injured, I'm sorry, he just doesn't! He was a WIMP in this movie! Did anyone else notice, every time he fell, jumped, got punched ANYTHING he stopped to WHEEZE or GROAN or otherwise SHOW PAIN? I liked it in Tomorrow Never Dies, when he was pretty much invicible. He is anyway, so why not exploit it? I TOTALLY agree with the above poster about 'True Lies' being the best Bond film in 20 years. And it's funny, because it MADE more than any Bond, and Cameron made it to show how a spy in real life would have to deal with things. I guess Cameron actually did it in PROTEST of Bond. Well, you go Cameron! I also agree with Harry's point about how the action sequences got LAMER, not COOLER. It ends with them kicking each other in a sub. LAME! Look at True Lies. It builds up, more and more, and ends with that awesome JET SEQUENCE! And then, the bad guy doesn't just DIE, he's fired on a missle! It's buildup, it's a climax, it's the WAY A MOVIE SHOULD BE DONE. No bad guy death has yet to top "you're fired". I came back from TWINE thinking "God, would Cameron make another movie, already? I'm sick of shit!" And besides Cameron, let's face it, The Matrix raised the bar on action, and this pedestrian-paced Bond shit won't stack up. TWINE actually depressed me so much I actually thought about giving up on movies til 2001! ug... The worst part is, I'm going to see it again tonight, since I agreed to earlier this week! ug.... least I'll see Sleepy Hollow, which will have a good score if nothing else...
-
Did anybody notice that Denise Richards was dressed like Lara Croft when we first see her in the movie? Right after she takes off her lab coat. Personally, I think she was a total hottie and I found the movie to be pretty enjoyable.
-
You are right on the money with the whole trailer for Supernova. The movie itself looks really good but they have such a horrible trailer. Its not kinetic, it doesnt really show the people in it (except for the dude from Cant Hardly Wait, who incidentally plays some sort of alien) and the music is just horrible. it doesnt fit with the scenario at all. its the kind of music you expect in like a road trip comedy or something. anyway i am going to see the world is not enough tonite and i hope i like it a little better than you did, being that i m not as big a bond geek as you are (i still am one, just not as much as you) i think i might. later
-
I couln't have wrote the review better myself. My friend and I laughed throughout the whole film, mostly at every line Denise Richards said. When the climax arrived, we thought "Finally Denise is gonna get wet" only to find that what most men probably found. The opening scene is exciting as hell, on par with Tomorrow Never Dies and almost as good as Goldeneye. Then the movie just continues on a downward spiral. I couldn't wait for every other action scene to end because they all bored the hell out of me. The skiing sequence, especially, could have been so much better. Maybe Apted and the many writers should be blamed for this one. Brosnan is fine even though he got saddled with one of the worst scripts in Bond history. Denise Richards is the dictionary defintiion of bad acting. Carlyle was good but the movie never uses his superhuman power to best effect and his death at the end sucked. That kind of deat I would expect for the henchman at best. Marceau wasn't as bad as Ricahrds but she still sucked. And whats with the "James Bond will return" shit and Brosnan's shameless use of the title in one scene. Starting with the horrible Supernova (Mama Told Me Not To Come? If You Can't Stand The Heat, Get Out Of The Universe? I was rolling on the floor) and Galaxy Quest trailers and ending with the credits, it was an overall laugh-a-thon.
-
Nov 20, 1999 1:28:05 PM CST
Harry wouldn't know a good Bond film if it bit him in the ass
by windy city blue
*SPOILER ALERT* It's clear that Wade, Purvis, Fierstien, Brosnan, Apted, et al sat down at the start of production and asked "Whay makes Bond different from other action heroes?"
They answered that question in this movie, predominently by giving the characters motivations based on emotions, not on profit or politics. This, and the story they built around it, makes it one of the best Bond films ever.
Elektra is driven by hatred. Renard, by frustrated love. The whole mess is set up by M's pre-curtain decision to put "policy" ahead of personal feelings, then set in motion by her guilt over doing so. Harry quibbles with the issue of why didn't Bond kill Renard in the nuclear missile station, that's because he is hit by the Renard's throwaway remark that links him to Elektra. Again, emotions get in the way.
In the end, Bond, ironically, succeeds in his mission by being the only character capable of detaching himself from his emotions. This is the essense of the character and the source of his hedonism and emotional isolation, which Brosnan and the writers clearly understand. He is not Indiana Jones, or Superman, or Jack Ryan. He is a trained assassin who will do what others--including his own bosses--can't and really don't like to think too much about. Watch for the look on M's face when she actually understands the true nature of the man she's only briefing across a desk, never up close in the field. The true James Bond is, and has always been, "a cleaner," with more in common with Leon (The Professional) than with John McClaine or any other "hard-ass" tough good guys listend above. Even if you're working for the good guys, what does that do to one's soul?
The emotional price for Bond is Elektra, who is set up from the outset as the Bond girl. She's not a Fiona Volpe, Fatima Blush or Xenia Onatopp, who were all set up as sexy killers who Bond must deal with. Bond was never assigned to protect them (nor were his instincts ever driven to), as he is Elektra. Simply put, the Bond girl in this film is the villain--and Bond must deal with it. The audience gets to feel the same ambivilence about here as Bond. Can she be saved? Could she have been saved? Is her hatred understandable, given what people she trusted forced her to do? This is the first Bond film that really puts shades of gray into the villians. The scene between Renard and Elektra, where we learn that Renard truely can't experience the pleasure of loving Elektra is wonderfully done. Harry seems to be arguing for the two-dimensional silly comic book approach that we saw in the height of the Moore years--let's laugh at the character and the situation. I'm not saying those films weren't enteraining, but they were generic.
Furthermore, Harry is way off-base when he says the Bond filmmakers are taking the same road as Star Trek. Berman and Braga have shown time and time again that they can throw the worst dreck up on the screen or on TV, knowing people will watch anyway. They're contempt for the fans and the franchise is palpable. The Bond filmmakers are just the opposite. They know people will come, but they take chances and risks anyway. There have been goods films and bad films, but never did they aim for anything less than excellence and never did they truly disrespect the Bond character. And in the last few years, they have risen to the challenge of sustaining a unique action hero among a slew of competitors. And for this they deserve better that your vacuous screed, Harry.
-
...what in the FUCK was MGM thinkin' with that lame Supernova trailer. hell, it's already an Alan Smithee film, if you don't care about it, go straight to video! As far as Bond goes, It's unfortunate Sony didn't get the rights to do there own, though they probably wouldn't have done a much better job, at least the friggin' odds would be better. I'm still convinced they should do Bond as a period piece, set in the 60's using today's cinema technology, give Bond all these cool retro-looking gadgets, and...the origninal Aston Martin!!! Put him up against Spectre or a similar enemy, just slightly on the fantastic but with enough reality, especialy in the characters, to make it all believable. Eccentric background characters, mysterious people from his past, and an original story...wow, that's asking a lot! Especially the character and story parts...it's unfortunate that when we finally get Brosnan as Bond, he's been transformed into a mindless blithering 'action hero' type who sprays lead death upon his enemies and then realizes he's fucked up and killed possible clues to solve the 'mystery', thus another 40 minutes of the same shit to solve the already convoluted plot! Shit, I don't think I'm gonna see this film anytime soon, I'm going to get the new Goldfinger Special Edition DVD today!
-
Theres so many bad things to discuss about this movie, but lets focus on the acting. My god, Bond used to be cool. Connery is cool, Brosnan is not. Brosnan seems too soft spoken and feminine. As for Denise Richards, while she may be very pleasant eye candy, she has the acting talent of a paraplegic mime. Her voice, my god her obnoxious voice. I thought my ears were going to bleed from that whiny, childlike voice. She sounds like a pre-pubescent little boy. Richards exudes about as much sexuality and chemistry as a bowl of urine (assuming that does not turn you on). We once had Pussy Galore, now we have Dr. Christmas Jones. Thats right folks, Christmas Jones, the doctor of nuclear science. If you have ever seen Homer Simpson attempt a deep thought, you have seen the look on Denise Richards face when she is trying to be seductive. Go see anything else, this one isn't even good for a laugh.
-
I can't believe the flak the trailer is getting. I actually thought the movie looked mediocre -- like Leviathan in space -- but the soundtrack was pretty good. I guess I simply don't have to here Also Sprach Zoroastra or John Williams every time I see a movie in space.
-
I've been taking a lot of shit as well from my chums for not liking "World" or "Tomorrow." Face it, although it's somewhat radical and tradition-breaking: we need to see some boobs in Bond movies. Of course, I'm referring to Brosnan stating that he wants more sex and violence that's actually visible and not implied! "World" to me, was just...BORING. Hell, Harry, I didn't even enjoy the opening sequence as much as you. And another thing: I know nobody ever fucking talks about this sort of thing, but the cinematograpy was pretty bad. When those Hindu flames were there burning forever, it just looked cheesy, like some pyro kid had had his fun in the backyard. The ski chase actually had some good shots, but only that and the opening looked good. Here's a question I've wanted to know for a while, HEY HARRY, whatta you think about GOLDENEYE?
-
I'd say it beats the hell out of almost every Roger Moore episode (roughly ties with The Spy Who Loved Me). IMHO, the only other Bond flick since the 60's that comes close to this one is The Living Daylights. Oh, and Never Say Never Again. There's just no pleasing some people. I'm with you, Windy City! BTW, I actually like the fact that there have been so many approaches to this character (semi-sensitive, hardass, chauvenistic, camp)... It's interesting to watch, and gives you a wider selection of Bonds to choose from. Sometimes you're in the mood for beer, sometimes you want something drier, like a martini. Sometimes you want a burger, and sometimes you want filet mignon. Believe me, if we had thirty years of Goldfinger, we'd be complaining about the same old tired formula by now. It's a movie! Relax and have some fun. Sheesh.
-
Oh my Gawd, even HARRY doesn't like this movie?
-
This is really stupid. I am so sick of hearing comments like "...the filmmakers haven't gotten it right since the Connery years..."
Bullshit.
1) EVERY SINGLE CONNERY FILM EXCEPT GOLDFINGER USED SPECTRE OR AN AGENT OF SPECTRE AS THE VILLAIN.
2) GERT FROBE (Auric Goldfinger) WASN'T EXACTLY AURIC GOLDFINGER...HIS VOICE WAS DUBBED...AS WAS Adolfo Celi's (Largo) IN THUNDERBALL. Therefore, how can Goldfinger be considered pinnacle of villainy if the actor onscreen didn't say the lines? Same with Largo.
3) YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE: Garbage, utter garbage. Watch it again. Bond was never more hokey and stupid. I don't need to explain myself here...the movie does it for me. Fuck the volcano...the movie had more dubbing than your average Godzilla movie. "Darling, I give you very best duck." Barf!
4) BLOFELD CASTING BLOWS: okay, Blofeld first appears in FRWL, but is only seen from the back. And he had hair. Dark hair. Blofeld next appears in THUNDERBALL, and is seen in a chair with his face blocked. Blofeld dubbing provided in Thunderball by Joseph Wiseman (AKA Dr. No) Blofeld is next seen...fully, this time, in YOLT...short, bald, with a wimpy voice sounding nothing like the Blofeld of earlier films, and with a nifty scar. Okay. Next, Blofeld is in OHMSS...played by solidly built, husky voiced, Telly Savalas...the man whose head...and face, are smooth as a Bond babe's bottom. No scar. Next up is Diamonds are Forever. Telly's "Bronx" accent is replaced by an upper range British one belonging to Charles Gray. Gray has hair. Lots of it. And it is white. He also has no scar.
Okay, did you notice the metamorphoses? You know, less than a decade went by, and all these changes occurred in the casting and the direction of the Blofeld character. Luckily, I like the films individually, because I wasn't alive at the time they were released and therefore did not have to watch and accept them chronologically. However, if you do watch them chronologically, you may have trouble figuring out why the producers overstuffed the 60's bonds with Blofeld and SPECTRE and why they never had a consistent representation of Blofeld. Strange things never cease, however. When Roger Moore dumps a--this time WHEELCHAIR BOUND--"Blofeld" in to a chimney stack in FYEO, he pauses beforehand and rubs a semi-familiar BALD HEAD.
So, basically what i am saying is that the 60's Bonds (except maybe the first three) weren't exactly paragons of invention. Or acting (check out Connery's "line readings" in YOLT...if you can, that is, 'cause he seems to be mumbling. No joke.). And DEFINITELY not continuity. Now, someone may chime in with a response saying my criticisms (which they arent, really. I own all the fims and wax poetically over just about every one of them except YOLT and Goldenye) aren't valid because one might assume Blofeld was undergoing plastic surgery and had the technology to alter his voice. Okay, he did both. He cut off his earlobes (wait...Telly's got earlobes!!!!!) in OHMSS and used a "voice box" in DAF to impersonate Willard Whyte. But the producers never said, nor was it made clear in the films, that Blofeld was using these technologies to improve/change his appearance in order to become more aesthetically pleasing or to fool MI6. Also, consider these two points: There's quite a height difference between Donald Pleasance and Charles Gray...and I know of no technology that can alter height that drastically. Also, please note that, even though Blofeld's appearance is different in all the flims, BOND NEVER FAILS TO RECOGNIZE BLOFELD ON FIRST SIGHT. So, as one can plainly see, there is no reason to make this complicated: The 60's Bonds have their fair share of successes, AND some really stupid problems.
And one other thing...I remember reading (and posting comments myself) about another franchise movie this year, whom people defended by saying, sure, its cheesy, but so were its predecessors. You know the film I am talking about. I defended that film in the same way I am defending TWINE...by saying that its predecessors are not the Holy Grails of filmmaking. I am not under any mistaken impressions here. And, quite frankly, the hypocracy in Harry's review is pissing me off: his CRITICISM of TWINE uses the same principles that he (and others) used to PRAISE and JUSTIFY Episode One.
See you in hell, and "...let the mayhem begin." -
I seem to be one of the few to say this on the talkback, but I enjoyed the new Bond movie. I agree about the lame performance of Denise Richards, Carlyle didn't have nearly enough screen time for such an interesting villian, and it doesn't compare with the Bond movies of the past. Yet, I can understand the changes in the new Bond that Brosnan plays. There has been 20+ Bond movies (if counting the unofficial movies). In some people opinions (like MGM) there needs to be some changes of pace to add something new to give reason for another movie. Make Bond more emotional, weak, more relying on wits then technology, etc, and of course times have changed from the era of which Ian Fleming's Bond lived in. As a major Bond fan that I am, I would of course like to see the films go back to the roots. I think their trying too hard to make Bond adapted to the 90s. Despite the issues in TWiNE, there are still moments that are complete James Bond that make me grin and glad to be once again seeing 007 on the big screen.
-
This is THE best movie in the series since On Her Majesty's Secret Service. It does everything it has to and then some. The opening sequence is the best in the whole series. Yes, even better than the great Thunderball and From Russia With Love sequences. Brosnan is Bond. He is the first one since Connery that can have that said about him. Harry seems to hate the fact that Bond shows emotion...... I for one think it's nice to know that this man does have something inside that drives him. He has great moments, such as in Goldeneye where he tells Natalya that he is so cold, because "it's what keeps me alive." Tomorrow Never Dies also has the moment with Paris when she asks him if she "got too close," and Bond says "Yes." It's moments like these that make Bond human and that is what endears us to him. Now how about the villain? I think it's great that he isn't out to dominate the world, but that he is doing everything for the woman he loves. It throws a new twist on the whole Bond villain. As for Denise Richards, I am unable to see what the problem is. Sure, it's a little unbelievable that she is a nuclear scientist, but isn't that the idea? Would everybody be saying these things about her if she hadn't been in Wild Things or if she wasn't so bloody beautiful? I think not. Oh, and one last thing. Harry wants Bond to reference moments from other movies so it makes us feel as if it's the same person. I feel the same way and TWINE subtly delivers. When Electra asks Bond if he has ever lost a loved one Bond pauses for a few moments and then changes the subject. For me that is showing that he has still not come to grips with the loss of his beloved Tracy and that he is not about to discuss it with this complete stranger. That is a reference I infer from the scene. If you want a solid reference, I think this should suffice. When Electra tells Bond he could have had the world with her, Bond says, "The world is not enough." Electra then retorts to some effect and Bond says that it was "an old family motto." Now anyone who has seen On Her Majesty's Secret Service knows that this is a direct reference to Bond's coat of arms, with three besats no less, that has the motto "The World is Not Enough." What more of a reference do you need? The title of the damn movie is a blatant reference! Aside from that, I urge anyone who is a Bond fan to go and see this movie. It joins the ranks of Thunderball and On Her Majesty's Secret Service as the best Bond movies ever made.
-
The ultimate insult to a Bond movie is to call it a "dud", an action flik that is loaded with expensive firepower but never manages to ignite. To me, that totally describes TWINE. But the problems are much bigger than boring Bond babes, the wasting of Judi Dench's formidable talents and the flacid ending. The problem lies with the production studio. What is MGM thinking? I agree with Harry that the studio must be in disarray. It is as if the video game was storyboarded first and the script was then written around it. Further, MGM's healthiest corporate segment these days is it's casino division. So the studio had to get Bond into a casino for some high stakes gambling, whether it made sense to the storyline or not (which in this case it doesn't). Video game sales, BMW ads and casino promotions--that's what TWINE is all about. It's finally time for Sony or some other studio to take a crack at producing a decent Bond movie.
-
Nov 20, 1999 3:42:09 PM CST
To MGM: Na na na na na, you guys cant make a single movie worth
by l'auteur
Will someone buy out this whore house (aka MGM) and make sure they never make another movie again. Give the Bond rights to ANYONE and we'll get better bond films. Right now i;d like to direct you all to my wonderful post at the MI2 Trailer talkback entitled The Art Of Spy Is Dead. Unfortuneately, the tech boys at AICN deleted it. Too bad, it was all about Bond.
-
Hello All,
I would liek to say Harry is dead wrong. He thinks he knows Bond and what is good. The truth is what he thinks is good wouldn ot sell today. I read the review and Harry makes some good points if we were in the early 70's and early 80's. I point out that Licience to Kill and The Living Daylights was exactly like the movie Harry wanted and it bombed. The guy playing Bond got fired and life went onward. Then MGM got the bright idea that people want reality in a Bond movie. Not much just some. Enough to almost match Tom Clancy books. THis is for the older movier goer. Now the younger one wants action and fun. This movie does it all with an added bonus on a plot. In a Bond movie! How dare they! Harry wake up. Your Bond which is cool I agree is dead. The public is too smart. They see, hear or read about super guys doing super dangours work once a month. SEALs, Speacil Forces, CIA, etc. Going after the bad guy is now normal in the public eye. Not everyday normal but accpected. Another point is that the Tom Clancy type book has opened up the intel world up so people expect this in movies now. I think Bond was a great movie. So I guess Harry's title for the movie would be. "A Different Bond is not Enough." The Arm Chair Movie Maker Reporting. -
Stuck in a dead-end job? Spend hours a day on the Internet? Swear a lot? Can't spell? Haven't had a date in years? Know how to make movies better than anyone? Then, have we got a job for you! If you've ever dreamed of being a big-shot movie executive, then MGM is looking for you! That's right, now people will actually take your suggestions seriously! No casting suggestion is too bizarre! Want Bruce Campbell, Glenn Danzig, and Edward Norton to star in a movie directed by David Fincher, Terry Gilliam, and the Wachowski Brothers? It can happen! Want to make every comic book no one has ever heard of into a movie? You can do it! Got lots of neat ideas for every movie in development? If you like to lead off sentences by saying, "If I was making this movie..." and have people laugh with you rather than at you, look no further! Be a studio executive! It's easy and fun! What are you waiting for?! Send resume and photo to box 414. Sorry, no phone calls.
-
I guess that MGM didn't slip Harry a very good press toy pack.
No. All joking aside, I can't figure out why people get upset to the degree that they are. People are taking the "movie geek" concept too far. The truth of the matter is that it's impossible to make the same movies as they did back in Bond's heyday. For one thing, the series' audience has changed, and is less suave-- and even intelligent-- than it was back then. Back in the day, Bond was enjoyed by guys who were able to appreciate the "genius" of Hugh Hefner; people who could appreciate an Aston Martin, a shaken Martini, an girl with a Eastern-European accent. Is that audience still around? Of course not. Hugh Hefner is a pig, they say these days. You can't be a cool chauvinist. You like fucking, you -
I guess that MGM didn't slip Harry a very good press toy pack.
No. All joking aside, I can't figure out why people get upset to the degree that they are. People are taking the "movie geek" concept too far. The truth of the matter is that it's impossible to make the same movies as they did back in Bond's heyday. For one thing, the series' audience has changed, and is less suave-- and even intelligent-- than it was back then. Back in the day, Bond was enjoyed by guys who were able to appreciate the "genius" of Hugh Hefner; people who could appreciate an Aston Martin, a shaken Martini, an girl with a Eastern-European accent. Is that audience still around? Of course not. Hugh Hefner is a pig, they say these days. You can't be a cool chauvinist. You like fucking, you -
I guess that MGM didn't slip Harry a very good press toy pack.
No. All joking aside, I can't figure out why people get upset to the degree that they are. People are taking the "movie geek" concept too far. The truth of the matter is that it's impossible to make the same movies as they did back in Bond's heyday. For one thing, the series' audience has changed, and is less suave-- and even intelligent-- than it was back then. Back in the day, Bond was enjoyed by guys who were able to appreciate the "genius" of Hugh Hefner; people who could appreciate an Aston Martin, a shaken Martini, an girl with a Eastern-European accent. Is that audience still around? Of course not. Hugh Hefner is a pig, they say these days. You can't be a cool chauvinist. You like fucking, you -
I guess that MGM didn't slip Harry a very good press toy pack.
No. All joking aside, I can't figure out why people get upset to the degree that they are. People are taking the "movie geek" concept too far. The truth of the matter is that it's impossible to make the same movies as they did back in Bond's heyday. For one thing, the series' audience has changed, and is less suave-- and even intelligent-- than it was back then. Back in the day, Bond was enjoyed by guys who were able to appreciate the "genius" of Hugh Hefner; people who could appreciate an Aston Martin, a shaken Martini, an girl with a Eastern-European accent. Is that audience still around? Of course not. Hugh Hefner is a pig, they say these days. You can't be a cool chauvinist. You like fucking, you -
I guess that MGM didn't slip Harry a very good press toy pack.
No. All joking aside, I can't figure out why people get upset to the degree that they are. People are taking the "movie geek" concept too far. The truth of the matter is that it's impossible to make the same movies as they did back in Bond's heyday. For one thing, the series' audience has changed, and is less suave-- and even intelligent-- than it was back then. Back in the day, Bond was enjoyed by guys who were able to appreciate the "genius" of Hugh Hefner; people who could appreciate an Aston Martin, a shaken Martini, an girl with a Eastern-European accent. Is that audience still around? Of course not. Hugh Hefner is a pig, they say these days. You can't be a cool chauvinist. You like fucking, you -
I guess that MGM didn't slip Harry a very good press toy pack.
No. All joking aside, I can't figure out why people get upset to the degree that they are. People are taking the "movie geek" concept too far. The truth of the matter is that it's impossible to make the same movies as they did back in Bond's heyday. For one thing, the series' audience has changed, and is less suave-- and even intelligent-- than it was back then. Back in the day, Bond was enjoyed by guys who were able to appreciate the "genius" of Hugh Hefner; people who could appreciate an Aston Martin, a shaken Martini, an girl with a Eastern-European accent. Is that audience still around? Of course not. Hugh Hefner is a pig, they say these days. You can't be a cool chauvinist. You like fucking, you -
I don't know what movie Harry was watching, but I liked. I will give him a few points, though.
1. Denise Richards. Someone please tell me what she was doing in this movie other than to stand around and look like Denise Richards. I kept waiting for her character to do something, but she never does. Bond should have left her in the sub.
2. The beginning kicks ass. But it's too good. The rest of the action sequences never live up to it.
*********
On the other hand, I thought Sophie Marceau and Brosnan were great together. I liked it that he actually developed a relationship with a woman for a change. Sure he's a secret agent, but the man's still human. I hate the goddamn superhuman Bond crap. I'm sick of it. I like seeing him get screwed up: physically and mentally. That was my favorite part of the movie. It's about time Bond developed a personality, rather than spend his life as a cliche. The character needs new life.
I wouldn't put this at the top of my list of Bond films, but it's certainly the best of the Brosnan's. It's probably my favorite since "For Your Eyes Only".
Can't wait for the DVD. -
Okay, so this wasn't as memorable a James Bond film as "The Man with the Golden Gun", but this was the best Brosnan yet, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'd recommend it to anybody. I was glad to see the CGI naked women intro did not make any concessions at all to feminists. That was welcome. Bond was a deeper character -- I actually felt like I could connect with him -- and it was Brosnan's best acting performance as Bond. This movie did not come across as a mere 90's action film. It felt like a Bond film. And it didn't need to have a big, spectacular ending for me...I thought it was just right. I approve of this film, and I hope Brosnan's next is even better.
-
Well, this movie may not have compared with any of the Connery films, but have any of them since then? No, only a couple of come close. But it was much better than Tomorrow Never Dies, if only because of the difference in villains. Renard is much cooler than that newspaper guy.
On the other hand, I have to agree with your comments on Marceau and Denise Richards. Although they are both adorable and very, very beautiful, they both performed terribly. I can't imagine that either one of them were proud of their work here, and I was missing Michelle Yeoh by the end of the film.
Also Harry you mentioned that its been since Connery since Bond formed alliances with "bad guys" who turned out to be good guys. In The Living Daylights Bond formed an alliance with the Afghan rebels who turned out to be "good guys".
And I have to agree about the ending. If memory serves correctly, TND also ended on a sub or boat of some sort. So that ending is getting a bit tired. They could have had the bomb go off in a temple or famous building of some sort and provided a much more fantastic finish. And Bond would know Istanbul pretty well from his last visit in From Russia With Love (although that was almost 30 years ago) :) -
I thought this Bond picture was the best in awhile. I do disagree, that I thought Tommorrow, had more life to it.
I felt the character's especially 007 was real life. You could easily follow his character. I thought Denise Richard's stunk. I think it was a waste of her time, and the pictures. But I really liked John Cleese. He's going to be a fine replacement for Q.
I give it a two thumb's way up, and recommend this picture.
Matt
-
You have it backwards, Harry. In fact you couldn't have your head further up your ass. TWINE is the most satisfying and consistently entertaining Bond in many years. (and I was very disappointed in GE and TND) It's a helluva'lot of fun! Sleepy Hollow is the boring, pretentious piece of crap. The audience I was in was practically dozing off. We'll see who wins the weekend. This is second only to your dismissal of Three Kings, the best film I've seen all year, on the stupidity meter. But I guess it fits right in with your record -- Godzilla, Armageddon, The Phantom Menace -- all winners, Harry. You thought TND was the best Bond and this one is far, far superior. I have no clue what you're thinking. But if anybody is reading this who hasn't seen TWINE... Go! Harry is just sooooooo fucking wrong. Again.
-
so there is no reason for Brosnan to kill him off. The movies have turned into characters of themselves beginning with the intellectual, indestructible Bond of Roger Moore. The Fleming Bond would have pistol whipped Moore for entertainment. He was a 'Blunt Instrument', drank bourbon on the rocks and killed people. I agree that the movies should be period pieces set in the early sixties. That would be more realistic. Flemings Bond would be 77 this year had he survived A View To A Kill. To bad.
-
but it gave us some trailers for some of the worst looking movies ever. SUPERNOVA...Ha! Cant be in outer space without an alien presence or artifact, can you? And whats with the Forrest Gump soundtrack? Considering this is an MGM picture, we know it will be awful. MGM hasnt made a good movie since.......can someone please name for me the last good MGM movie? Ive seen the Rob Schnider trailer three times but I still cant remember the name....blah blah something GIGALO something. Well, it seems that Adam Sandler's asking price has gotten too high and studios need Rob Schnider for the low-budget gross-out comedies now. Im not saying Im easily offended or anyhting, but to make fun of turrets, narcalepsy, obesity, and other ailments, please use real humor and dont expect us to just laugh at people's misfortunes for the sake of laughing at people's misfortunes. I cant remember the other horrible trailer I saw, but what an awful 2 and a half hours. I was raised on Bond. I love the old Bond films. MGM has butchered the franchaise.
-
This movie sucked royally, with the exception of Sophie Marceau, who did a very good job, and John Cleese, who should be interesting in upcoming Bonds (but was grossly under-used in this one. How about John Woo to direct the next one? Remember the boat chase in Face-Off? He would make some great action sequences, not like the lack-luster opening sequence of The World is Not Enough.
-
TWINE was not a true bond film, not even close. No longer are there the cool super villians with the plots to take over the world.(I loved the cartoonish look of them, It made the story more fun to watch and you could cheer your head off when they were killed). No longer are there any new gadgets. The car was killed off to fast. Now the genrea has envolved into a more politicaly correct bond. I want the true good old sexest bond back. I hated in TWINE that he has a concense and acts dumb. What I hated the most in TWINE wast the bond girls. They are now just baywatch bimbos put on the screan with no talent and who can do nothing.
The one truely good thing with TWINE was the casting of John Cleese as R he will make a good replacement for Q. I think with him and a good script and dircetor the bond genra will be good again.
-
What's the matter with you Harry? God this is one of the best Bond Movies for a long time and Brosnan's best! Not enough action? Did you go to the bathroom all thru the movie or what? Other movies have taken the mantle of non-stop action with little character. EON has learned this and has injected some humanity in 007. I mean he actually gets hurt instead of bouncing back up with nary a sound of pain. He's not Superman. From your review, you probably hated Hitchcock as well. Obviously not someone who appreciates a good story - which TWINE is.
One of the posters pointed this out also, but I think you need it repeated to get into your head. He hesisitated because Renard said the exact thing Elektra said. He obviously figured that was not a weird coincidence.
Bond didn't kill Electra because he had fallen for her. If you had seen OHMSS, you would know she is alot like Tracey (love of skiing, emotional problems). And another thing, Sophie was great-she was complex and in the end ruthless.
He's not going to hug Elektra at that moment in the movie. He's just starting to know her. Have some sense Harry.
Bond sent the sub nose down to slow Renard down and make sure if Renard suceeded, radiation would be in the water instead of being spread over water, land and air.
The only redeeming value of your review is your hatred of Denise. Stop smoking pot and actually pay attention to the movie.
-
Harry,
Just to let you know, Bond was trying to surface the sub, and it was surfacing until the bad guys started shooting. When they shot out the controls and the level system, there was no way for the sub to continue to surface, and instead it sank. -
anyone remember live and let die?
personally i love that film, not because its the greatest bond film, but because its funny, tongue firmly in cheek and has a lot of the cld hearted bond in it too. you remember when he walks into the room and shoots that woman, THAT was the sort of bond harry wants, but he also syas he hates roger moores bond, go figure. the phrase washed up springs to mind.
I aint seen it yet, it comes out in england on thursday, but i am really looking forwardto it, for a start its direct by a legend of british cinema, not know for his action movies (probably because he has never made one) but also because i think an emotional bond is far more intriguing.
And so far Goldeneye is one of the best bond films in years, the villain is the key to how good bond is, bear that in mind -
Hey, I liked it. This Bond is not a simple cartoon, like in the '70's. Brosnan plays him straight and he has an edge that I appreciate. His Bond can make a mistake (as did Connery's), experience pain and injury, and even feel emotion. He is not a simple robotic killing/sex machine, but a complex man with a job to do. He is driven to do what he does, but can feel regret for those that get caught in the crossfire.
Yes, he is an assassin. He kills.
It is part of the job sometimes.
But he only does so when they absolutely need killing. Violence is a necessary tool to him, it is not his aim in life.
Connery was the best (loved Goldfinger), but Brosnan comes in a close second. I also like that he THINKS during the movie. Not just shoots, punches, or screws. He spots clues and figures out what the opponent is doing and tries to use his BRAIN to get in their way.
I also enjoyed Reynard, the villian. He was not a one-dimensional parody, but had dimension and emotion. While he could feel no physical pain -- he was inwardly tormented and this made his chilling violence more understandable. He was dead already, so he feared nothing. He doesn't care how many others die -- as he is already dead. Death = peace to him. He equates the loss of all feeling with death, it is as if he is death itself given a body to walk the Earth.
But he was also capable of love, though in his twisted condition, he does even greater evil to serve it.
He started out a mere terrorist, he become a human monster.
The pinup model nuke scientist was a stretch, but then so is a blond babe pilot names Pussy Galore. This "flaw" is a staple of every Bond film. Show me an ugly woman that ever played a "Bond Girl" role.
(Spoiler alert)
The turncoat female lead, Elektra, was great. She was the female version of Sean Bean's great 006 character from GE. She felt fundamentally betrayed, and this turned into all-consuming hatred. Revenge became her purpose and she used her most potent weapon -- her powerful sexuality -- to wreak havoc. She did evil, but something monstrously evil happened to her to make her that way. Her external beauty masked an ugly interior, the self-inflicted torn ear was as if she had to let some of the evil peek through.
As for Harry's crack that Bond would screw 'em and then kill 'em off -- he must have been watching different Bond movies. For instance, in the classic From Russia with Love, Bond doesn't leave the drugged female agent with the code machine on the train. After all, he has what he needs and she would be a hindrance to him.
No, he adds to his personal risk by taking her with him.
In the end, Bond does kill the malignant Elektra. But he clearly takes no joy in it. It is like shooting a rabid dog before it can bite someone. He even gives her a last chance to save herself by stopping the massive destruction she has set in motion.
She refuses and dies. She must have known, deep inside, that Bond would kill her at that point. Perhaps like Renard she also saw death as a final way to stop the internal pain. -
I am a big bond fan and I gotta say I loved this film! Sure there were somethings that I thought coulda been better but everything else was just so right. Brosnan is a wonderful bond and a great actor. IMHO, he is the best bond, and yes, better than Conery!! I love the scene where bond confronts Elektra after meeting Renard. Great acting. Harry, go see it again.
-Weequay
P.S. There sure area a lot of Harry butt kissers here. -
The World Is Not Enough was by far the best Bond is AGES!
I guess MGM didn't give Harry any freebies over this one..If they did, I'm sure he would have been "crying" over Sophie, or praising the acting ability of Ms. Richards... (Which, by the way, I though was quite alright... Bond girls aren't expected to deliver Shakespeare here)
Anyways, kudos to the Bond team on the greatest so far!
-
I have read some decent reviews on this one, and heck, torch me if you like, but I actually LIKED TND.
I'm not sure if this is an idea I picked up from someone else, but I've got, what I think, is an interesting idea to beef up the series.
Imagine that "James Bond" is actually a code-name...sort of like the 00- monikers that all the agents wear, but in this case, "James Bond" is their top agent, a designation passed down from agent to agent. It would go a long way to validifying upward of four different actors portraying the role. I can imagine Brosnin getting his dream of killing off Bond, only to havbe (Q??? M???) recrute and train a new, younger (Ewan McGregor) Bond.
Just a nutty idea...but I like it.
Outta here! -
I didn't notice anyone remarking on the bad puns in this movie. I mean, I know it's Bond, but it just gets ridiculous...even worse than Wild Wild West. Not that I'm complaining or anything, "I thought Christmas only comes once a year" was worth the price of admission alone.
-
. . .are the best Bond film in years. There is real acting, real characters and real action. Forget the CGI-generated nonsense of Mission:Impossible and The Phantom Menace. I agree completely with Windy City. Brosnan makes the best Bond since Sean Connery. And Sophie Marceau is one of the best Bond villains in years. The script is intelligent and nuanced--there are no convenient plot devices and screenwriter's revelations for our hero ("You thought you tricked me, but I knew when the parahawks all headed for me that they were really after you Elektra.") Face it, Brosnan's Bond has to think about his situation and produce evidence before he can call someone a villain. And this Bond film is one of the most intelligent and action-filled in years. The producers have gotten it right. They didn't just decide to make the same movie three times (the "Die Hard" series) or rely on the stars aging into the characters (the "Lethal Weapon" series). They didn't decide to rely on one actor for the role for years and years and not produce anything until he was available ("Indiana Jones" and the "Jack Ryan" series). And most important of all, they didn't decide to drop everything about their series that made it popular and rely on weaker and weaker spin-offs until they diluted their product completely (the execrable "Star Trek" series). The producers know their product, they know what makes it work, and they don't waste it. Like Goldfinger and the Spy Who Loved Me, the third time is a charm.
-
As Bond himself said, "Close, but no cigar." This was ok, but I've definitely seen better. I agree that Sophie Marceau and Denise Richards sucked enormously. If they had gotten better Bond girls and actually used some of the elements of the other Bond movies, it might have been more enjoyable.
-
I love James Bond, but like so many other franchises that were started in the 60's that have survived to the present we have been treated to a dumbed down Bond for the present mass market.
What the Bond franchise sorely misses is the villians that mande Bond great. Villians like Dr. No and Jaws.
I think this is a perfect scenario for a $100,000,000.00 Bond movie easy.
Bring back Sean Connery, team him up with Pierce Brosnan. The reason for Connery's return, is that he is facing a villian that hasn't been around since the 60's. A villian like a revamped Dr. No or a new SPECTER organization. Someone that is so good that Pierce Brosnan's Bond is totally overwhelmed with how to defeat them without the advice of an expert. Have him comment on the new M, and ask Q what the hell is he still doing playing in the secret agent businnes?
Explain that James Bond is just the code name given to the various agents who have been 007 in the past. Have Pierce and Sean play against off one another similiar to the way Sean and Harrison Ford played off one another in "The Last Crusade."
Hell even throw in Roger Moore for a small cameo. If any of you are familiar with the Dr. Who franchise, the idea of bringing old a new incarnations of the same character is not completely new, and has worked out wonderfully in the past.
I say after MGM does this film, let the Bond series rest for a while, and then bring it back with a new Bond in about 2010.
'Nuff said! -
Harry's review is way off target. TWINE is definitely a first rate Bond film. It's not perfect - as no Bond film has been "perfect" in my opinion since Goldfinger - but it is an excellent outing that gives Bronsan's Bond much more to do than in his previous two films. Apted is not much of an action director and the set pieces in TWINE are not as dynamic as they could've been but they're still up to snuff and the dialouge and plot are much better than they have been in years. I'd like to see an even better Bond next time but this is nowhere near the disaster that Harry's review portrays (although it does have perhaps the worst-designed title sequence of any Bond film).
-
Nov 21, 1999 5:34:34 PM CST
Not enough Carlyle, Dench was amazing, Brosnan IS Bond (along wi
by all thumbs
I enjoyed this movie. I'm a "new" Bond fan thanks to friends and went to see this movie last night with my father, who is a pretty big Bond fan. He enjoyed most of the movie. We both agreed (and he said it first) that Denise Richards did NOT belong in this movie. But I want to call Harry on something here...in a previous review where Richards was thrashed, Harry said something about the Bond girls not having to act good. WELL...now he sees the light. They don't have to be grade-A actresses, but they have to have chemistry and that is something Richards, even as a scientist, is without in this movie. She was in the movie so they could give some last throwaway sex jokes about Christmas.***About this movie, most others have given reasons why it is a pretty good Bond film, the best Brosnan has done (though I do enjoy Goldeneye), so I won't go into it. I just wanted to share an observation from the last three films as to why the next Brosnan film will be one of THE best Bonds. I noticed that the last three films experimented with different points of the Bond franchise. The first was the classic storylines. Bond in Casino, Bond with sexy villainess, the doublecross with a classic villain who once was a good guy, etc. The second film focused on gadgetry and the action. In fact, TND was all about shooting people and using cool weapons to do it. The third film, TWINE, is all about character. Elektra was a great villainess who challenged the human vs inhuman qualities of Bond. This was Bond's transition into a cold, hard killer. He didn't kill the villain because he had feelings of both infatuation (almost love mixed with pity for the kidnapping victim) and shock at betrayal. He hesitates to kill the girl because he isn't sure until the very end that she is totally evil. He thinks at first she is just a brainwashed victim, but she was the one from the very begining who has used her own captors to triumph. SHE is, until he shoots her, the one who can have sex with, kill and dominate people without feeling or remorse. She passes those skills to Bond the moment the bullet hits her.
If the next movie combines all the best parts of first three in this set of Bonds, it will have the capability of being the best Bond...possibly ever? -
...I honestly try to keep it as short as possible, and that was an edited version!*** Veidt, what you said about the title sequenceb was dead-on. What they could have done with it! They had one of the best Bond songs to work with, some intersting plot pieces, but they chose to go with oil slicks. Ew. They could have used the oil (as it is highly featured in the movie), but done it in a cleaner way. (Pun not intended)
-
BULLL F***ING SHIT!!!! You're dead wrong!
GOLDENEYE: Yes the bungee jump was good, but what about the Chase throught the Russian streets in a tank?
The World Is Not Enough: Opening sequence was OK, but no where near as good as the BMW chase through the carpark.
In my opinion, you are dead wrong, Brosnan's Bond movies have been the better ones in the series.
Have you forgotten about "A View To A Kitt"? Or How about "Diamonds Are Forever"?
Enough said. -
This movie is the best 007 movie in a long time. Harry runs a good site here, but this review of TWINE shows that he is not the guru of all film that he wants to be. The version of Bond that he writes about would be more of an cartoon than Roger Moore could have ever pulled off. I don't think we need an reference to every movie before it in every movie. It would be like every Marvel comic now, where they take the first few page to recap what just happened, every issue. The viewer of these movies can be active viewer and figure things out for themselves. Also, as for Bond not blowing another hole in Renard's head as soon as he sees him, Bond clearly wanted to. But if he did, he would not have found out what exactly was going on. What if in Goldfinger Bond had killed old Auric in cold blood on the golf course? Operation Grandslam could have been picked up by someone else. Harry, please read ALL the Ian Fleming books before you give yourself the title of "master of all Bond." Thanks
-
Okay oaky.. so we have a kind of 50/50 thing going on here about Bond 19 and that's a good thing. Some valid points have been made for and against the film but before we go to far we need to consider two things.
One is that the director who made this thing also made "Blink" and "Gorillas in the Mist". He also is responsible for several documenteries in a long running series with the latest opening soon title "42 up". Just how and why he was chosen to direct this film is beyond me. The pacing is wrong. The action shots are badly set up and how can anyone make a firefight in a warehouse look dull an uninteresting. Especially after the great opening that shows more of the inside of MI6? No gang. This thing was shot wide but it can be to easily Pan and Scaned. There is no discovery in the places we go. There is no majesty of being in other countries. Just a series of wide shots with two people looking into the camera in some scenes so it won't look so bad on the airplane or on pay cable. There are many good British directors who know action who would kill at the chance to do a Bond film and believe me that MGM could hold open auditions in the UK offices next and get a better choice if they want to get this franchise in the family of Great Britan.
Next, and my second point, is the writing. I can't believe that this is the same team that brought us "Goldeneye". The script seemed rushed and out of focus. There are deep feelings that just don't come across as powerful as they should and some of that is probably due to studio tampering. Hence the entrance of Xmas Jones. What a throw away character. One second she has the brains to figure out that Bond is an imposter and the next she is running behind him into a trap with out any real reason to be there with him in the first place. Oh wait, I forgot, she had to be there to explain what the damm rod would do for the audience in the sub scene.. twice!
Rather than beat this thing like a dead horse, as much as it has been done better by those above me, I would still urge those who like Bond to see it for themselves. It's not all bad and the chances the film does take are good ones. It just looks like that the film should have stayed in the oven a bit longer.
One last thing... I can't remember who said it but the James Bond theme was in the score a lot. David Arnold's music was one of the hight points of the film for me and it is featured on the Soundtrack Cinema from www.film.com.
Also, MGM should have had the "Thomas Crown Affair" ready for video when TWINE opened. Would have been great crosspromotion but what due expect when you are a studio who just spent the last two years in court with Wony and then had to break away from the mega powerful WB for it's own exsistance. -
You can count me in with the ones who loved it. I saw a late show on Saturday and I can't wait to see it again once I am home for Thanksgiving. Of course, I will see Toy Story 2, Sleepy Hollow, and maybe End of Days first, but I must see this one again, and I can't wait until the DVD is released in May or so. And the Garbage song is great, but the video is flat out my favorite music video of all time.
-
No one will agree with every review every critic writes. however, I find that I seem to disagree with every one Harry writes. Frankly, Harry's main problem is that he doesn't review the movie. Instead, he chooses to bore the reader with stupid comparisons to other movies. And would it hurt Harry too much to drop the profanity in his reviews? That is probably the reason he will never be taken seriously as a critic-along with the fact that he is just always off the mark by at least a mile.
I saw TWINE last night and it was definately one of the best Bond films ever. The actors were good (even Denise Richards wasn't THAT bad), and the action was all over the place. The 2+ hours just flew right by! This one is not to be missed.
But, to Harry (Mr. "I love Jar Jar Binks" Knowles, the film just wasn't very good. Oh well. Too bad he didn't have the balls to give real reviews to "Armageddon", "Godzilla", and (especially) "The Phantom Menace". I guess he was afraid he wouldn't get invited to any more advance screenings.
-
Just got off the yacht, and the weather was great. SSZero, when you're finished trolling off the stern, you can get busy scraping the barnacles off my dinghy.
-
Harry,
I normally only read you review and agree with most of your opinion but I really has to disagree this time. First of all, as you can see from the talk back, everyone seems to have his/her own expectation of what a bond movie should be like. The director really can't please everyone of you. Secondly, time has changed since the first bond movie was made. If bond does not change with time and keep sticking with the old attitude, not many people will go to see the movies anymore.....
I do agree that the bond girl Denise Richard doesn't really belong to the movie (Christmas Jones? who would come out with such a name?). Personally, I do find the movie quite enjoyable (most complex story line ever).I do find a more "emotional" James bond more believable. Of course a lot of you guys like to see a cold blooded and "can't care less" bond . Don't kid yourself, such person does not exist.
For those who criticise Brosnan is not doing his job well, can you suggest any actors who can play James Bond better than him at the moment? -
They should have made Heather Donohue and the actress in "Run, Lola, Run" Bond Girls. They should have given the project to Sam Raimi or Spike Jonze or Robert Rodriguez or even Kevin Smith! IMHO Connery and Moore made the ONLY Bond movies worth watching. I tried watching one of those crappy Dalton ones, where he drove around in a Cadillac (!!!) and Browneye really was the one of the worst scripted/acted/directed action films ever. Bond has failed to surprise us for more than two decades! Just hang it up, fellas, this movie series needs a wheelchair and a rest home.
-
...but this was just a really great Bond movie. I bought the DVD box set and we rented all of the others and watched the previous 18 over the last few weeks. After taking it all into perspective, this is easily one of the best of the series. Definitely the best Brosnan. And how could you miss his reaction to being asked if he's ever lost a loved one?!?! Ouch, cold. THE PERFECT REACTIONYou could tell it was a sore subject. Don't know how you missed it. I loved the title and the way they fit it into the movie. Great reference to OHMSS.I just can't understand how any real Bond fan would not enjoy this movie. Solid all around. MGM is taking this franchise in the right direction.
-
is that what idiot would use 'Windows' to control a nuclear device.
(spoilers)
I think this Bond movie was good. It had a bit of everything thrown in, the over-the-top technology that is only seen once in the whole movie, the bimbo with the stupid name that never quite comes over as intelligent. The opening sequence was great (I'm sure its the first time the Millenium Dome has been seen in a movie), the middle was sort of Spy Who Loved Me, and the ending is what we've come to expect of late. I felt it had a sort of an Octopussy/Moonraker thing going on.
As for Bond diving the Sub - Roger Moore was always screwing something up and following with a one liner.
I agree about that 'kin BMW though, although most 'English' car manufacturers are now owned by overseas companies anyway.
Denise Richards, bless her heart was trying too hard and getting no-where, enjoyed Wild Things though ;-) -
This movie was tired. Every set-piece was stolen and re-done for from other Bond flicks - again with the de-fusing of the silly looking nukes! I guess Bond fans could watch the same damn movie re-done over and over and over again. A helicopter with tree-trimming blades?! Whatever. Both Richards and Marceau are terrible. Judi Dench is ridiculous as M and looks like she escaped from a British sit-com. John Cleese is in this movie for 5 minutes and not funny. Nothing excited me. If you want to see something really cool, see THE LIMEY.
-
Don't get me wrong, as I an avid fan of the USA and the kind of films such as Star Wars, Die Hard, and even Godzilla and the rest...
BUT, I am getting really pissed off with 'bigger and better', 'ass kicking' and other expletives as movies.
I haven't seen TWINE yet, but I the thing that interests me is that not all films should start with a bang and lead up to a crescendo. Those early reactions to the film, seem to express a childish and shallow view of what constitutes a thriller.
Bond is traditionally a thriller, not an action movie. Should you watch the earlier movies, they have very few special effect big bangs.
There is a lot of fighting, yes; gadgets, yes; over the top baddies; yes... but apart from YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, they are relatively SFX free.
With Bond, the climax is very rarely the best bit. The best bits are the moments, the exotic places, the gadgets, the rich high life we encounter on the journey through the film.
It should never be an all action rollercoast ride.... so don't expect it should be.
The problem Bond has, is that people go to film expecting everything to be big bold and brash. They expect it to be like all their favourite bit from other Bonds of the past. It can never be.
So give the producers a chance. They have to search for something different each time to keep them interesting. This time it's the human factor - however, their casting of DR seems a mistake.
To conclude, if I were asked to direct a Bond (I am a director), the moment which would be the starting point for my interpretation of the character and the film would be that fantastic scene in DR NO, where Bond arrives in Jamaica. The scene is simply him walking across the airport lobby while the Bond theme blares from the soundtrack. He is totally cool, totally in control, an icon. He is everything you or I would like to be.
That's maybe where this film is going wrong. Bond isn't a man, he's an icon.
Give John Woo a go. -
I submit that what James Bond (the franchise and the character) needs to make it in the modern world of liberated women is NOT to lose the famous sexism but matches with women who ARE his match, who are as strong and competent as he and can give as good as they get, so we won't feel they're being taken advantage of. Pairing so tender an ingenue as Denise Richards against so formidable an old lech as James Bond and so talented an actor as Brosnan is a friggin crime -- not that I didn't appreciate the eye candy as much as the next guy, but there's no denying that every time she opened her mouth she might as well have been saying "I'm dumb as dirt" (whether or not she is in real life, that's what she projects onscreen). Worse, even though she was supposed to be a Nuclear Physicist, she was given virtually nothing to do in the climactic Nuclear Sub sequence (other than stand around with her now-famously taped-up nipples under her wet T-shirt). Yes, Bond needs to be the hero, but the heroine can provide some meaningful support, not just receive it from her artfully hidden undergarments. Yes, Sophie Marceau was a better match for Bond, but of course she's the Bad Girl, and Bond always ends up with the Good Girl, so we need a Good Girl who's his match too. Michelle Yeoh in TND is exactly what I'm talking about (Kelly Hu from MARTIAL LAW would be another good choice).
-
Welcome to Hollywood in the nineties. Harry covered the ground with a bit more venom in his pen than I will wield.
Today's MTV, .03 second attention span demands the sub-par attention given the logic of TWINE (The World is Not Enough). The passage of time since I saw my first Bond film in '65 (and still my personal fave, Thunderball) has trotted-out countless one-up-manships in technology. Our mindsets have shrunk to the point where only the most unbelievable pyrotechnics will satisfy. To hell with the notion that a healthy respect for what went before matters.
But as a long-time member of the Ian Fleming Society and as a director of TV commercials, I have to remind us all that it's all we've got. The only way to continue to prosper is to change with the times. Nostalgia may seem more important to the Bond production team one day, but right now there are no original actors or production personnel other than Desmond, who is now 85. Gone are Ken Adam, producion designer, Richard Maibaum, screen writer, Maurice Binders, titles, and so many others.
The most glaring weakness is the inability of the present team to rehire one of their most valued elders, composer John Barry. Techno Pop and Garbage may have the ear of the teensters who go to movies, but is it worth it to dump an artist who so brilliantly gave the Bond genre scores their power. Power enough to make one leave the theater in hopes of ferreting out the soundtrack. I usually have to beat down the hairs on the back of my neck when I first hear the strains of Monty Norman's theme, but even it has been watered-down to the point of unrecognizance.
Harry, I do agree with you about Richards. What a bone-headed casting choice to feature a silicone-beefed-up idiot in such an important role. She must be involved romantically with someone at MGM. At least Marceau was a bit of an actress.
Here's a vote for getting SPECTRE and Blofeld involved again. Carlyle even looked like Donald Pleasance's Blofeld from You Only Live Twice. Terrorists and Y2K warnings will date it in 2015. I know, I know, Russia is a gutless, unthreatening psuedo-menace, so who would SPECTRE play one end against the middle with? Believe me, there is enough evil out there for Blofeld and his cronies to commandeer.
The print I witnessed looked rushed. A conformer's wax pencil was obvious in a couple of frames, as well as several hot splices. But like I said in my opening statement folks, the market is driven by tertiary rights, seasonal timing (Thanksgiving this time, not summer), musical tie-ins (Garbage?!), ad nauseam. Let's look past the 65% of the film, and the state of films in general, that is tripe, and languish in the moments that remind us of genuine BONDAGE. Maybe at least one neck hair will stand at attention. -
Right first things first this is a damn fucken good bond flick. So what, our new bond has got a consious so what. It makes it more interesting. Bond was never supposed to be some brut who killed with no reason. He killed when he had to, but nobody said he should enjoy it.
I do however have a few problems with it though.
The story line was very good but did not come out as good as it should. Renard is good but you hardley see him.
Right next problem is that I swear I miss those big-ass shoot outs they used to have. Bond of the 90's seems to be a one man army. Shame!!!!!!!
So as said before a good bond, a fucken good bond flick but not as good as it should be.
As a conclussion here's food for thought. The elements for a great bond.
Kevin Spacey as the main villian
A memorable Henchman (like Jaws)
An over the hill plot that is both highly fantastic but in a sense beliveble.
A bond girl who is Bonds equal (resouceful, got a brain and is brutal enough to have license to kill)
Austin Martin NOT BMW
And last but not least a big ass shoot out between loads of bad guys and good guys.
And as for the director (definitely NOT Tarantino ,Tim Burton, Spielberg.......good directors they may be.......not good for bond) but maybe the guy who did lock, stock.... -
I agree with several of Harry's comments, and I basically formulated my opinion by watching the trailers. Cut back on the action sequences. I watched Goldfinger last night, and realized that I've REALLY missed those quiet little moments when Bond is actually being a SECRET AGENT, and not just blowing shit up. MGM is just trying too hard, and yes, they should make Bond an 'R' film. Bond is a killing machine. He really has very low personal morals, but he will do whatever is best for Queen and country because that's his job and that ALWAYS comes first. Not love, or second guessing if what you're doing is the right thing or not, that's 90s crap. I like Austin Powers, but because of it, you can't set Bond back in the 60s without making him a farce. So what must be done to save the franchise is to find Bond a new villian -- a new group of people like China, or Iraq or whatever to pit Bond against - something to replace the Cold War. MGM will have to risk being shut out in those countries if they really want to do a good job with the franchise, which of course, they won't. I also think everyone needs to lay off Denise Richards. The part is crap. It was written as crap, and she was miscast. Period. I didn't hear any of you bitching when she was making out with Neve in Wild Things, or your endless exaltations of her giant lips after Starship Troopers came out. So shut up. She may or may not be smart, but people take interviews out of context all the time, and to be honest, on several occassions it seems as though she is being sarcastic, and reporters choose to make her sound stupid instead, deliberately.
-
TWINE sucked. All my reasons have been listed somewhere above. I ended up laughing through the whole thing. It was inadvertently hilarious. The only good part about the whole picture is Elektra's bodyguard--that big black guy with the accent and the Ron O'Neal hair. Does anyone know his name? He was great.
And what's with the helicopter tree-cutting blades?
As for Denise Richards, she couldn't spell sarcastic, let alone act it. I kind of sort of feel sorry for her though. Everyone is crapping all over her right now. Sure she is a terrible actress, but have you ever been criticized for something? Multiply that by one hundred and fifty, and it's how Denise feels--ah, hell, she deserves it. I thought she was okay in WILD THINGS, which I really liked; and she didn't have much to do in the detestable STARSHIP TROOPERS. But she was at her worst here. The best was when she, playing a nuclear physicist, mispronounced atomic. However, those glazed-over looks you're talking about that she gave Bond--I don't know about those. I've never seen her face. -
The best actor in this movie was Robbie Coltrane. He kicked much more ass in TWINE than in Goldeneye, where he was on screen for only five fucking minutes. The little moustache and goatee make him look a lot better. The best line in the entire movie is: "I'm looking for a submarine. It's big and black and the driver is a very good friend of mine."
Who else is really fucking pissed off that he died? -
One particular issue here for James99th. The Bond casino scene was simply a return to a standard Bond scenario: he's always been a gambler, and he loves to dress up for the occasion. As for MGM doing this for "their casino division", they haven't been part of the same company for nearly 20 years. Kirk Kerkorian split it into two separate companies -- MGM Hotels (and casinos), and MGM/UA -- and then sold and repurchased the movie studio multiple times. (It's quite a tale.) You could say there's a synergy here, but it certainly wasn't a marketing decision to put Bond in a casino! Bond BELONGS in a casino every other movie or so.
-
I have no issues with the casting except of course for the uniquely awful Denise Richards. John Cleese is an inspired choice as R. Dame Judi Dench is wonderful as M. But the critical error of the film was turning M into a damsel in distress. All she managed to do on her own was knock a clock over with a stick (oh and connect a battery after said clock was handed to her). Bond shot the lock of her cell, almost as an afterthough while running by. M should have SAVED Bond! What a waste of a truly great actress and a squandering of the major series plot point of M's kidnapping! And an interesting concept of a villain who feels no pain, yet what does he do but hold some hot rocks and put his hand through a table top?? He should have done something truly chilling like cut off his own arm to escape Bond in a brutal fight. My friend and I were able to come up with more interesting scenarios for the film while walking from the theater to the car. This is the best script the Bond franchise was able to come up with?? Inexcusable!!
-
I really believe this is the best 007 film since the tentpole of the 70s, The Spy Who Loved Me. Not coincidentally it's the third film (just as TSWLM was Moore's, and Goldfinger was Connery's) -- there's something about the actor settling into the role. A corollary to the "all odd-numbered Star Treks bite" rule! ..........
Most criticism of the movie seems to fall under a) "too unbelievable" and b) "too believable". Believe me, Bond is a mix of both realistic and exaggerated elements. It's fun, but with a hard edge. ......... I'm ready to go see this a third time, and I know it will bear further rewatching. The best parts are Brosnan's commanding performance as a human, not superhuman, Bond. The boat chase set piece was simply superb, and the slightly comic flying-snowmobile and flying-chainsaw action sequences were in keeping with the over-the-top Bond tradition. Renard is a complex villain, even sympathetic for brief passages; you can understand why he hates the world and wants to die. There are quibbles, to be sure; the M subplot should have had more justification, and Denise Richards stretched credulity as a nuke expert. But the overall impression was a good one, and I plan to enjoy this film many times in the future. -
Fuck all that other shit, GOLDENEYE is easily the most underrated of all Bonds. People don't slam it or praise it, they just don't talk about it. It has, by far, the coolest opening stunt sequence (except maybe for The Spy Who Loved Me) of the series. The cinematography is great. The discussions with Q and M actually achieve something beyond sarcastic small talk. It's the perfect solution as how to change Bond. It's a great mix between the harsh realism of the dalton's and the corny/campy feeling of the Connery's (Xenia Onnatop anyone?). Plus, it really looks like a PROFESSIONAL film. I honestly don't see what's to hate about it. Watch it then go see The World is Not Enough, and you'll realize that they need to get an ACTION director to do these (didn't TWINE's director do the 7up documentaries? Campbell freaking did Mask of Zorro, no damn comparison there!). Ok, it comes down to this. If you people want that aforementioned campy spy feeling and shit, then these movies should be PERIOD PIECES and SET IN THE 60's. Well, obviously that's not what's happening, therefore, change is very welcome.
-
ooookay...what the hell is going on here? This thing keeps submitting posts before I can finish writing. Anyway, I'll admit to glomming SSZeros's idea of Ewan. I should have givin proper acknowledgement, but I thought it was a damn cool idea. So again, my apologies. I shan't again utilize the idea of another without paying proper homage.
-
Nov 22, 1999 10:38:26 PM CST
A Great BOND top TEN list in the Fort Worth Star Telegram...
by cronksty
http://www.justgo.com/dfw/ and click on the picture of Pierce Brosnan. This guy knows his shit.
-
Can't remember who it was now who said it, but Kevin Spacey would be a great Bond villian. But so very unlikley to happen.
What the 007 series really needs is right in most of the books: SMERSH. Granted the cold war is very over, but an underground SMERSH would work. Bond's intense hatred of SMERSH would be well introduced in a CASINO ROYALE movie. Come on MGM, read Ian Fleming.
Also, after seeing The World Is Not Enough a second time, I still think Harry's full of it. -
...that he is a fucking idiot. OK? Tell him to shove his "Saving Private Ryan Syndrome" bullshit right up his ass. I don't normally get this pissed off about stuff written on this sight, hell I haven't even talked back in God knows how long, but I'm sick of people knocking that movie. If your friend believes that Shakespeare in Love had a better dramatic depth that SPR then he truly he is a fucking idiot. But this is completely off the subject. I am still looking forward to seeing this movie and hope that I will not be disappointed the way you were.
-
I've seen the movie twice so far, and while I think it was good, I was still disappointed.
There's some spoilers ahead, so beware...
Denise Richards was a bad choice in the Britt Ekland-Tanya Roberts vein. But a worse mistake was including her character at all. It seems all she was there for was to be someone for Bond to hook up with at the end. If necessary at all, her character could have been left behind after defusing the bomb. That would have allowed for a little more Elektra -- and if the movie ends with Bond killing her and then going back to London, so be it.
But, here's why I think that didn't happen and wouldn't happen. Even with some tweaking, Eon is sticking to what people believe is the Bond formula. Examples: Having him say "Bond, James Bond." People think he does that in every movie, but Sean Connery only did it in three of his six (Dr. No, Goldfinger and Diamonds are Forever). I think Moore skipped it in Man With the Golden Gun. Bond doesn't order a martini in every movie either. But these -- and a character like Christmas Jones -- are things people apparently think should be done in a Bond movie. Given the money the past two have made (and the start TWINE is off to) maybe they're right.
As for the disappointment Bond fans feel, I don't think it's because of a sea-change in the movies. It's because of the change in ourselves. Most Bond fans saw their first few movies when they were kids, maybe up to their mid-teens. No matter what the movie was, it was probably one of the coolest things you had seen. But we've gotten older and expect different things now. I don't think the Bond films were ever going to be about swearing or nudity or gory violence. To do that would rob the next kid of watching this cool, but PG-13, spy. I had a 14-year-old sitting next to me when I saw TWINE. He cheered and said "That's cool!" several times -- because he hadn't seen this stuff before.
Would I be thrilled with a more adult Bond movie? Sure. I'd love it. But I'm not holding my breath.
As a real suggestion for Bond20: Have the story take place predominately in one recognizable place. FRWL was mostly in Istanbul; YOLT entirely in Japan; OHMSS mostly in Switzerland, etc. Having Bond jump from unrecognizable place to unrecognizable place just didn't work for me. Even in Moonraker, he went from California to Venice to Rio to, well, outer space, but I'll leave that alone. -
I don't care what any of you jackasses say. This was the best Bond film in years. Definitely Brosnan's best, and right up there in the top 5 of the series. You loser scumbags are never damn happy. No film ever meets any of your outlandish expectations, and all you do is complain about how much movies suck all the while nitpicking over stupid shit like "It isn't like the films 30 damn years ago!" whaa!! whaaaa!! Hello Mcfly, it is not the damn sixties anymore, and things change. I feel that this movie brought back alot of that Bond romantic adventure while keeping the modernized action look needed to satisfy today's audience. Get over it you losers, TWINE was great!
-
BOND IS BIG - BAD - BRITISH - AND BACK!!!!!
-
The Bond empire has unfortunately become Austin Poweresque... it needs an injection of ubercool desperately. I think Brosnan may be on to something about the 'R'rating for a future outing.
How about something with a really Sicko Bad-Ass villain? Maybe put Fincher in charge, and inject some dark distrubing themes? A wise cracking Bond kicking Tarantino-type bad guys around would finally get me to buy a ticket. -
"The World is Not Enough" was, without a shadow of a doubt, the best Bond movie since "The Spy Who Loved Me"!!! What in the world is Harry prattling about? The plot was intricate, the villain had depth, the stunts were cool and the girls were hot!
But that's not why I'm giving it such a positive review. There is a particular scene where Bond and Electra go skiing. It was a beautifully shot piece of film. It gave you time to relax, sink in the view and appreciate the fact that this is a Bond film with actual asthetic beauty, not just stunts. This scene summed up the whole film for me. Those horrible 80's Bond movies are, at last, a thing of the past. -
I have cheese on my brain. Sorry guys!
-
Your thoughts on the new Bond film as well as your review of the whole Bond series is completely right-on-the-money. Bond is lethal. He is not supposed to be cute in any way. I can't add anything else w/o repeating what you said.
My wife & I plan on being at the festival. Our enormously healthy 10 yr old went through chemo for leukemia several years ago so we owe a lot to everyone who has supported the children's causes in town(Lamplighters are saints & are a model for anyone associated w/ children's causes).
It's too cool you are doing this.
I am in Steve Mim's Austin Film Works production 2 class & we are finishing up on my short, "Comparative Austin Romance". It is on 16mm & actually looks pretty good. It has a beautiful blonde local actress, CU's of ruby red toenails, panty dropping, margaritas, migas & a goofy plot all in under 7min. It will be screened at the Dobie on Dec. 4 @ 10:00am along w/ some other Austin Filmworks student shorts. It is a tremendous amount of fun, the work is mostly very good & you are a big hero to this crowd. You would blow the place away if you showed up & I can guarantee you would be glad you came. The work that comes out of this class is better than what comes out of UT. Only in Austin.
Come check it out.
Curtis -
You know I refrain from posting on internet sites for the mere fact that disputes often seem to get out of hand on the internet. But I do have to say this. I lost the last little bit of respect I had for Harry as a movie critic after this review. We all have our own opinions and may express them. I have no problem with that. What sets Harry apart from other critics who suck is his ability to whine on and on endlessly about a movie he supposedly didn't like. This was by far the best Bronsan outing and the best Bond movie since the late 70's. If your such a great movie critic Harry, why don't you see that adding depth to the character is a plus. (Spoiler) When he kills Elektra, he doesn't hesitate. But Mr. Movie Critic didn't notice when the camera pans over to M. She is visibly shaken by this, even though Elektra tried to kill her. The End was weak and they should have killed Renard better. I thought it would have been fitting if he simply died from time running out, not by Bond's hand. So all you Harry clones who have been drinking the Haterade, go back to watching your movies or whatever you do all day. And props to you who actually watched TWINE with an open mind and appreciated it for not being the same old Bond movie. You guys know who you are. Out
-
I watched this movie expecting the big downer, Harry mentioned after the awesome opening sequence. And allthough the movie doesn't get that intense again, it is a damn site better Bond than Harry gives it credit for.
No Dennis Richards isn't very good and totally miscasted and the story does get more than a little convoluted and confusing until everything come together in the third act. But Pierce Brosnon is really 'in the zone' with this movie. This is his best most intense, work yet with Bond and it's apparent he is very comfortable in the role. I would go so far as to say that the opening sequence is among the top two or three bond action sequences of all time, and the giant 'can opener' scene with the BMW, was pleasently surprising and really ballsy for BMW, allowing one of there cars to be demolished like that(most corps protect their product with religous zeal, especially a brand new product).
Folks this isn't just a product placement. I find Harry's remarks concerning Bonds relationship with his women really confusing, remembering Harry's line I was waiting for Bond to balk or make a mistake...but he kills without hesitation, though with regret for loosing such a nice piece of ass. The bad guy/girl combo had more feeling and diminsion than a number of Bond villians combined, devious and deceptive without being over the top(like Gabriel Byrnes Satan. What was un007 about those scenes? Nothing! Classic Bond, and I mean more classic since Moore. This is really one of the better Bonds, harking back to greater Bond days. Harry, give it another screening and another review. I find your glowing review of End of Days, while calling TWINE is 'steamy piece of shiite' extremely disturbing. Although it's all opinion, there is something really non-congruent here. TWINE entertained without forcing a pint of piss down the throat, can't say the same for Days. This is a decent movie guys, worth $6.50. -
Many of the feelings I have on this film have been said. Kudos to Cigarguy, you hit most of the points. I think this is the most enjoyable "all-round" Bond since FYEO. Yes, low key ending in a cramped space a little too smug in the "story and character" dept. As for Apted, he was right for the actors except Richards, though she did'nt suck as much as I feared, like Tanya Roberts sinking "View". Only other things that bugged me...overkill on the flying buzzsaw sequence, and the head of MI6 "M" can't carry any gadgets of her own? Pretty shortsighted for the head of the agency. Like Harry, I prefer the Evil Lair and those camp-serio days of SPECTRE and SMERSH. Bring back the indestructable megalomaniac! Not Johnathan Price for god's sake. Anyhow, glad to see them get better than worse!
-
Variety had an article this week about the waning of the Bond formula and how it needs some new blood to shake things up. The secret to a good Bond film is following the formula without making it too aparent (ie: For Your Eyes Only, Goldeneye). TWINE and TMD are so unbelievably fucking slavish to the formula Gods it's only a matter of time before the "New" Bond fans (ie:today's young whipper snappers ) get tired of the whole thing and move on. At this point, shaking up the series with a Tarantino or Rodriguez would be the best thing they can do. Hey, how 'bout saving Van Damme's career by making him a henchman?
-
Ok, let me start by saying that, "of course, this movie was not as good as, say, Goldfinger, but, then again, few things are." But, to call TWINE a "piss poor Bond film" is going just a bit too far. I mean, really, must we forget the likes of Goldeneye? Now, that was a poor film, and that is why the two that followed haven't been as good. Its those damn PC thugs who think James Bond should live in the '90s where you can't go aroung slapping some girl's ass and tell her to go away. Who the hell thought we wanted to see that?! Bond is the personification of every man's fantasy--fuck the girl, kill the bad guy, fuck some other girl. Polictical correctness has pussified Bond not studios or writers, and it's about fickin' time they brought back the old ways.
As for Harry's TWINE review, let me tell you where your wrong.
Bond was sent on this mission as a bodyguard. M was smart enough to know what James did to get out in the field so she gave him an easy assignment which he mananged to parley into his typical save-the-world-for-God-and-county fair. That is why he had no locator chips in his shoes, no laser in his watch, and no class 4 exposive in his briefs. When your just a guard dog you don't need all that stuff.
And for villans, I think your forgetting that Renard had Oddjob's screen time because he was Oddjob. Renard was a henchman in all the classic forms, hard to kill and with some major defect. Oddjob couldn't talk, Jaws had carbine metal teeth, and Renard couldn't feel pain. Same thing. The only reason he was doing what he was, was because Elektra told him too. You don't really think he could come up with that all on his own, do you? It has always been the mostly normal villan has some deformed/twisted henchman to do his dirty work--same thing here.
And don't forget about the Elektra double cross. I think it was great how she got inside MI6 headquarters. The last time Bond was duped like that was in FYEO, and who totally trusted Kristatos anyway?
Harry, you do have a point about Bond's history though. What ever happened to Filix, I mean besides having his left leg eaten off by a shark. He has to have at least a desk job somewhere. He and James were friends for crying out loud, you don't ditch your buddy just because he was lunch. And if Brosnan wanted to put more emotion into the role what about more issues with Tracy's death? I know that in every other movie they only pay it lip service, but when you take your title from the movie where she was killed you have to do a little more than that. Of course, when talking history, you must mention Jaws. Bring back Richard Kiel!! He's the only henchman Bond hasn't killed, and that is a rather dubious honor.
That's about it, other than to express my views on a few things Harry brought up. Brosnan has said that he wants to die on screen as Bond. As a fan let me say, "Ain't never gonna' happen." The Bond fanactics out there won't let it happen. James Bond has survived fifty years, five diferent faces, and Never Say Never Again. There is no way anyone would want to kill off a ledgend like that. It would be like the death of Indiana Jones or Luke Skywalker, it's just not done. Also, about anyone ever making an 'R' rated Bond movie, what the hell are you thinking? Bond started as a 'PG' movie and only moved up to 'PG13' when Moore took over. That's part of what makes it so cool. Anyone can do what James does in the movies, but only James does it with style AND ambiguity. Besides, I've been watching the TBS Bond week since it started, and I don't know what I would do if I were a 12 year old boy who couldn't go see my hero on the big screen.
Gollum
-
Nov 25, 1999 2:38:46 AM CST
Why Gollum is wrong...DAMN WRONG!/Bond Directors/Cronksty is rig
by cronksty
What the hell? Ok, I'm replying to your post cause I will not sit back ANY longer and watch Goldeneye be bashed! What the fuck do you people have against it? Screw For Your Eyes Only, Goldeneye is the best Bond since the Connery days. Seriously Gollum, what makes GoldenEye BAD in your eyes? Cause it's different yet faithful? As I've said before, GE is how Bond movies should now be made: truely professional directors with a good amount of action film experience. Why must we limit 007 directors to people who couldn't sell the movie with their name alone? What's stopping John McTiernan, Michael Mann or Richard Donner (directors who could/WOULD make a Bond film) make from helming these movies? This subject was brought up earlier but once again, received the fan-boy treatment of asking directors to do these films even though it's so not right (David Fincher doing a Bond? Take your fucking pills). "Hey, tell Scorsese to screw his taste and come do James Bond!" Once again, GET REAL! Now, I agree that Spielberg would be utterly perfect but lets not forget that A.) MGM would never pay his kind of fee B.) Spielberg wouldn't do it cause it's already established as being something that's not his C.) he's already done Indy, which is the American Bond...a Spielberg 007 would only offer too many comparisons to Mr. Spielberg's Jones trilogy.
-
This lacked the real luster of what James bond always was: cool, elite, and a player. THisw recent version is a comedic farce attempt to please 15 year-olds. Denise Richards is a babe.
-
I should be studying for my law exam tomorrow but I felt compelled to submit my negative sentiments about TWiNE. Basically it is a very weak Living Daylights. I didn't enjoy it as much as TND and probably not as much as Goldeneye (which I was also disappointed with). It has taken 3 films for me to realise Brosnan is the main problem.
I never really got into his Bond. Brosnan is like Roger Moore without style. Moore was smart enough to know that he could not do a serious Bond so he added a certain charisma which was very appealing. Brosnan looks the part but can't act himself out of a paper bag. How I miss Dalton now!
Living Daylights is probably my favourite Bond which is saying something since I grew up with Connery/Moore. All the elements were wonderfully balanced in that film. The action starts off very well and just continued. Dalton's Bond was more than an action figure -he was intense. Check out the early sniper scene or the scene when Necros kills Saunders in the funpark.
Brosnan is comparison is weak as dishwater. In action scenes like the opening boatchase he is fine but any emotional, serious scenes he is in looks extremely forced. I preferred Brosnan in "Thomas Crown Affair". His character there had a certain playboy appeal which is severly lacking in TWiNE.
There are also great flaws with the last 3 Bond movies. Of the last 3 TND is my favourite as Brosnan was not required to be more than an action hero. I disliked Goldeneye initially but there were some nice touches to it - the opening car chase scene, casino encounter with Onatopp. My big problem with Goldeneye was the poor script along with the wimpy villain.
Lets compare the Brosnan Bonds with the previous:
1) Villains: Sean Bean in Goldeneye was a total wimp. If I was walking down a dark alley and I came across him I would not budge for a second. I could not say the same with Oddjob, Scaramanga and of course Jaws. Remember that Rio carnival scene in Moonraker with Jaws walking down the alley towards that Bond girl? That was scary. To beat those great villains Bond needed more than physical strength -he needed brains. Brosnan's villains have been totally lacklustre in comparison. A hero is measured by the villains he beats and this has been a huge problem with the Brosnan Bonds.
2) Music: The earlier Bond films always had a continual spyish musical theme which added to the atmosphere. This has been lacking in the last 3 films most notably in Goldeneye.
3)Brosnan's Bond is shaky not stirring. He is trying to be a Dalton Bond but cannot pull off the emotions. Also having Bond fall so easily in love with a woman that so easily dupes him is absolute BS. Goes against the whole Bond ethos. Connery/Moore/Dalton must be laughing their tits off on this one. Brosnan looks cool but cannot play cool. He lacks Connery's animal magnetism; Moore's charisma; Dalton's intensity. He looks like a God but acts like a geek. TWiNE suffers badly in this respect. Brosnan walks around as a bodyguard in puppylove with Electra. He is the bystander. In the casino he doesn't gamble -she does. When she walks into the casino Bond panics and runs to her. Bah pathetic! I'm not saying Bond should be a robot with no emotion but his duty to Queen and Country has always overridden any sexual encounters. Also Bond has acute instincts or hunches. He would have nailed Electra immediately upon detecting that she was a rotten apple. The same thing happened in Goldeneye when Bond discovers Sean Bean is still alive. He would have taken him out at once. Instead he hesitates and gets shot. Bond was also duped in that film as well.
4) With the exception of Goldeneye's prelude, the action in Brosnan's Bonds have been lacklustre. The bike scene in TND is neverending tedium. The ski scene in TWiNE is a boring joke in comparison to FYEO/aVtaK.
TWiNE prelude admittedly was good but Harry hit the nail on the head with the "Rocketeer Syndrome". Both TWiNE and Goldeneye suffer from starting with bang and ending with a whimper.
All in all the Brosnan Bonds have been the weakest in the film's history. I think Brosnan is the biggest problem. IMO he should loosen up a bit more and stop trying to turn the character into a wimp. -
Leaving aside the unbelievable misogynism and bad language of Harry's review, there are a few other problems.....
So -you found the jetski chase more exciting than two helicopters with whirling forestry blades cutting Bond's car in half? More exciting than the ride through the oil pipe? Or Bond and Jones leaping out of a missile silo just in time? Yes, it's an exciting teaser, but it's hardly the most exciting thing in the film. The audience I saw it with was gasping during the final battle in the submarine.
Which hasn't been in evidence since the very early Connery films. How is it relevant now?
Do tell. I suppose that means that we should ignore his alliance with Zhukovsky in TWINE, his work with Jack Wade in Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies, and his partnership with Wai Lin in TND?
I haven't done an actual quip count for TWINE. But I would be willing to bet that there are far fewer quips in any of the Brosnan (or Dalton) Bonds than in Roger Moore's oeuvre. And may I suggest that Brosnan lacks that hideous smirk that makes Roger Moore so easy to hate?
Uh, were we watching the same movie, Harry? Or did you miss the fact that Bond has just realized that he, and M, and all of MI6, have been fooled by an evil, amoral woman who murdered her father, compromised MI6's security and badly damaged its headquarters? Even the best trained agent is going to be stunned by something like that.
As for Brosnan making Bond too emotional, I'll take that any day over George Lazenby's attempts at acting or Roger Moore pretending that he's upset when he places flowers on Tracy Bond's grave.
< Bond hesitating to kill a broad he banged? I'm sorry, soon as he knew what she was up to, she's dead weight in his mind. Bond is ruthless. This isn't Doc Savage... he's not going to perform a lobotomy on her to -
I think the thing that is being missed in this movie. It's the phrase, "What's the point of living if you can't feel alive." Elektra said this to Bond about her capture. Then Renard says it before Bond is going to blow him away. THIS IS WHY HE DOESN'T DO IT FOLKS! Bond's not dumb. He remembers this phrase. He doen't kill Renard because he figures out that Elektra is not what she seems. This is the point of the movie. Imagine that, an action movie with a point. Sorry that some of you would much rather of Rambo movies, errrrrrrrrr, Bond movies that had no point or plot or any knd of story, just death and sex. If you want action, just make Van Damme Bond for God's Sake. 007 in Timecop.
-
I thought this movie was just Ok.I liked Sophie Marceau but Denise Richards was just horrible.I havent liked any of the movies shes done because she simply Cant Act.I think they cast her just to get the Teenage boys in the theatre.She may be good for Hetero boys to beat off while looking at her but I can think of a dozen other Actresses that would have been better. I liked Tomorrow Never Dies Much better and the villian was much more menacing plus Michelle Yeoh was in it.
Nudity wont help the next movie but a long shot, how about reinventing the character and how does Bond sleep with all these woman and never catch any diseases. You cant Tell me Renard couldnt have given Electra a few STDs? Its funny how its exceptable for Bond to sleep around but if it had been a Woman or a Gay Man doing what hes doing, it would go under fire.
Another thing Is I keep reading Brosnan wants to wait 3 years for another one because hes getting tired of doing them??? Wasnt he pissed when he was not picked originally and the role went to Dalton??How quickly he changes his mind. -
I realize it may be a bit late in the game for this, considering all the other talkbackers, but I wanted to put the warning up, anyway.
First of all, the movie was a little long, Denise Richards is eye candy, but mind-numbingly awful, but it was a Bond film, plain and simple. I went in expecting no more and no less, and I wasn't too disappointed, n'est pas?
Now the alert: Was I the only one who was upset/annoyed when they killed off Robbie Coltrane? Man, I thought he had a nice recurring character thing going there, and thery bump him off. Sucks, man. He was funny, and a good character. Am I the only one who mentioned this in the talkbacks? I tried to read them all, really I did, but my eyeballs popped out about halfway through. Yeeesh. -
This Bond is up there w/ the best of them, I would even call in the 2nd best of the bunch (w/ #1 being Bronsan's first outing in "Goldeneye")!! I enjoyed Denise Richards, I thought is was great that they killed off Robbie Coltraine, I loved the low-key villian and ending, I thought Q's exit was touching (it almost brought a tear to my eye), and I think Brosnan is the one and only Bond there is!!! The opening sequence was of course spectacular. I enjoyed the plot, yeah you could see what side Elektra was really on, but that was the fun in it. Renard was a great villian and the whole shoulder thing added to the humanness of James Bond. I am against evil lairs and multinational crime syndicates, the real world is populated w/ men like Renard and Carver. I thing Bronsnan is taking Bond in the right direction (even w/ the misstep of TND) and I cannot wait for James Bond to return.
In case anyone cares here's my top 5 Bond films.
1) Goldeneye
2) The World is Not Enough
3) Goldfinger
4) The Living Daylights
5) From Russia With Love -
This has to be the best Bond in a long time. Okay the ending was a bit weak (and I do miss the big battle finales of old), but this one is up there with 'Live and Let Die'(coolest Bond film of all time). The story was complex and involving, had great action scenes. Elektra and Renard made a great villainous double act. Indeed Bond's scenes with Elektra sparked with chemistry and style. Brosnan has brought something great into the character that has never been there before. He has Sean Connery's grit and Roger Moore's charm, and has managed to out do both of them. TWINE was Bond at his best, long may Pierce continue and here's to 2001 when James Bond will return.
-
Ellid has written a brilliant rebuttal to Harry's review. Two other comments. First, a very nice touch by the producers to hang a portrait of Bernard Lee in MI6's office--there is a history to these films and the producers respect it. Second, I agree with the talker about Robbie Coltrane, who died not one but two deaths (remember the quick shot after the bomb exploded). I thought for sure he had a vest on the second time, but no such luck. I was genuinely moved by his death and the exchange between him and Brosnan spoke volumes--"professional courtesy". I thought, "Why kill him? What a great character!" And then I remembered--he's the Obligatory Sacrificial Lamb. And the best since the estimable Pedro Armendariz of FRWL. Fleming would have approved.
-
What ever happened to suspense?
Coherent plot development? Forget
about it. The latest James Bond
movie, While a modest improvement on the dreadful Tomorrow Never Dies, is a tremendous disappointment.
Chocked full of really bad actors and lame-ass stunts recycled from
previous J.B. istallments, the
franchise in question has become
little more than an excercise
in pathetic self-parody.
And Pierce Brosnan? His suauve
take on the venerable secret agent
fucks like a man and fights like a girl. Finally a James Bond wimpier than Roger Moore.
-
I'm not going to trash this film because of Brosnan or any of the other performances. I'm going to trash it for its complete and utter disregard of any sort of reality. This is DELIBERATE BAD SCREENWRITING!
1) The opening chase: Bond's new batboat just happens to be positioned above the Thames, ready to chase the assassin??? What is this crap? Would it have hurt to have a little realism here? Even "action movie realism?" Bond could have run for the heliport on the roof of MI6 (which, incidentally, he doesn't work for... he works for the BRITISH SECRET SERVICE), commandeered a chopper, then bailed out onto a cigarette boat to chase the hot Italian assassin. Same thing, more beats, more excitement, MORE BELIEVABLE.
2) How about somebody for ONCE making a stink to Bond about all the completely unnecessary property damage in the same opening scene? In real life, Bond would be brought up on charges, big time, license to kill or no.
3) M would NEVER under any circumstances go into the field for precisely the reasons depicted in the film--she's going to get kidnapped! As soon as it happened, I groaned, "God no, they wouldn't depict M as being that stupid, would they?" Yep.
4) Alright, the bad guys kidnap her and imprison her. No one bothers to SEARCH HER? The head of the British Secret--er, MI6? Hel-LO???
4A) Bond confronts Sophie Marceau and tells her he thinks she's the bad guy. She convinces him otherwise. In the very next scene, she takes over her own comman post--gee, she really IS bad. Wouldn't it have had more impact to NOT have the scene where Bond confronts her first? Wouldn't it have been a nice, delicious twist for Sophie to suddenly start shooting her own people? Nope, the idiots who wrote this atrocity telepgraphed it a mile in advacne, eliminating the surprise. Christ.
5) Bond's swing for life out of the Russian missile silo as the WORLD'S SLOWEST FIREBALL licks at his ass... NOBODY can outrun a fireball, friends, especially when hanging from a chain moving 10 MPH.
6) Bond suffers a (conveniently sporadic) injured shoulder, yet never gets cut or burned once, despite grenades detonating nearby, incessant gunfire, etc. Which brings me to
7) The ski-chase, as parasailers pursue Bond and Sophie Marceau: this is the sungle stupidest chase scene ever put on film. These guys are dropping FLASH-BANG grenades. First of all, neither Bond nor Sophie suffer and dizziness, blindness, disorientation of any kind. OK. But worse, WHY are the bad-guys using flash-bangs??? ONE fragmentation grenade dropped anywhere near Bond would pepper him with enough shrapnel to use him as a colander. Dumb dumb dumb dumb!!!
God, there are so many stupid points... the last action film with this much idiotic action was FACE-OFF. But I grow tired, so I'll skip to the very end:
8) Bond and fake-titted obvious Lara Croft homage Denise Whatsername escape from a crippled nuclear sub that has crashed into the OCEAN FLOOR, and swim for surface. They must be a minimum of 200 feet down. In ice cold water. Do they get hypothermia? No! Do they get the bends? No! AAARGH! Would it have been so much effort to have them both have to don survival suits before escaping the sub? It would have added yet another beat of tension, as the crippled sub fills with water, and they're desperately trying to don the suits! But no, that would add REALISM, the last thing the producers want. Ian Fleming's poor, bedraggled corpse must roll over still one more time.
That's it: I am through with the Bond films. Any fans of the literary Bond, steer clear of this piece of doo-doo.
-
Back 4 or 5 years ago there was another tired cliche of American cinema of Serial Killer flicks. Someone called Fincher came along,made a movie called Seven, and totally changed the yardstick for this genre. Nobody could figure why he took it on then either....
-
Bond films have never pretended to be the best scripted or realistic films. They are supposed to be entertaining and that is exactly what this one was. Also I'm still hoping they bring back Coltrane as he died once and came back so maybe he'll miraculously survive???
-
TWINE for me, brought back the spirit of the old Bond films. The precredit sequence was top-notch, giving us full-throttle action while setting up some mystery about the story. The Q scene was really well acted, the first time there was a real sign of mutual admiration between the two characters since OHMSS. And the plot was well conceived. Without giving anything away, I thought each of the characters had interesting motives and depth to them. Plus, the ski scene really captured the "travelouge" feel of the older films. Sophie Marceau was, in addition to being very hot, great in her multi-layered role. And who cares if Denise Richards can't act? SHE'S HOT!!! Man, oh man, what a babe. I know, that's painfully shallow and that certainly a modicum of ability is welcome, but on a cold November Friday, after a long day at work, I can do without for an hour or two. Overall, this was, for me, a great entry in the series, and one that ensures that 007's license to kill will be active for some time to come.
-
Marceau was the perfect Bond girl until they made her bad. She was exotic, she was gorgeous, she was the first actress I'd call a "Bond Lady" to show up in a Brosnan Bond adventure. That said, I agree with you that things aren't great with the series, Bond is watered down etc etc. But you forget, CONNERY COULD NOT KILL WOMEN LIKE THAT. Oh, he roughed em up, he used em as shields, but he could not kill a woman point blank. Granted, by that point in the movie, they'd turned her into a spoiled rich girl and who wouldn't shoot her? But really, Bond couldn't operate that way. Harry, why didn't you praise that song?!! This is the first Brosnan flick to have a real great Bond song over the openning credits! It is! And it is superb! You should attack what sucks, but praise the good whenever you can as well, pal! If you don't, they won't appreciate what you have to say! Like they're reading.
-
I thought it was ok, but nowere near as good as the other two. The problem was that it tried to do too many little set pieces designed to make you laugh, but then when you get back to the serious plot, you just don't give a shit. Like when he kills Elektra and M tries to look shocked and saddened for him ... just didn't build up the sexual tension enough. Also the car was underused, the best bit in bond films. And Miss Richards was overused - shag and let her wonder round in her skimpies is what I say. But nevermind. Still enjoyed it, just came out disappointed after the hype.
-
Zukovsky's henchman Bull was one of the coolest looking henchmen in any Bond film.
-
In defense of Denise Richards she was not given a whole hell of a lot to do in this film. She was in this film for one reason only:
E Y E C A N D Y ! ! !
I had just as much fun watching her, as I did the movie. She was fine in the part she was in. Sophie was too. This is a type of movie you watch to escape. Not pick apart. You are thinking way to much about Bond films, and let me remind you--Kim Basinger was not that good when she started out. Denise was great. Sophie was fine. I suggest you watch this movie again, w/o going in with your mind already made up. -
To Jimboleiro
Realism in Bond movies, eh? First off, do some research: there is no 'Secret Service' in the UK, it is called SIS (secret intelligence service, commonly known as MI6. Fleming called it the Secret Service, he was wrong.
Secondly, I'm amused by your idea that Istanbul is on the ocean and Bond wouldn't get the bends leaving the submarine because he's breathing air at normal atmospheric pressure. All he has to do is keep breathing out as he surfaces and he's fine. Believe it or not people really have left submarines in this way.
The problem with this film isn't realism: while it had the best plot and characters for ages the action sequences were badly done: Reynard was wasted, and Denise Richards a waste of time.
People only complain about the realism in films when they're trying to justify an instinctive dislike. How many films have you liked where you've complained about the hero outrunning a fireball? -
We expect alot from a James Bond film....I agree this one was OK at best...but really failed to deliver what I expected.
-
It *was* a bit of a departure for a Bond flick--the bad guys were more human and had more realistic motivations then usual, instead of just "BWAHAHAHAHA! I want to rule the world!" And Denise Richards was fine in her role (and I'm not just saying this because she made me shoot off into my pants the second she appeared onscreen ^_^). Unlike some, I *don't* miss the "good old days" days of Rodger Moore. Sorry, but he turned Bond into a cartoon, kinda like what Adam West did to Batman only not as well. Still, when I came out of the theater I was bored. I think they need to vary the formula more. Remember "Enemy of the State" or "Clear and Present Danger?" Something like that is in order for the next flick. Still, overall TWINE is definately a step in the right directon.
-
I suppose the big print should give it away ... this may be tough to accept for Mr. K, but he obviously knows fuck all about both Bond movies and the critical process criticism. Picking plot flaws in a Bond film is surely the lowest form of critical life. Harry might want to try watching at least some of the other films, reading maybe one of the books, or just extracting his head from his arse before visiting the cinema.
As a burgher of Connery's home town, to whom not even the Great Man's ramblings on Scots independence can put him in the wrong, I have to say that Brosnan does a superb job. TWINE was the best Bond in years (since Moonraker if you ask me, but then we each have our own peculiar favourites which is one of the things that makes Bond unique), not least because of dear old Robbie Coltrane. Bond films INVENTED the pre-title action sequence that everyone raved about in Con Air, and TWINE didn't disappoint.
Luckily the millions rolling into the cinemas (London cinemas were booked out solid for a week after it opened) will have slightly more influence than a critic with no critical faculty.
PS: for those for whom Ms. Richards' pert chest was the main reason for seeing the film, all you need for a nipple shot is the price of a flight to the UK or any other country other than the US, where arsehole puritan censors don't airbrush them out of the final shot. Nipples a-plenty in the sub scene in the real version of the film. Bet some of you can't sleep now, huh ?
-
It has too much action, too many setpieces, why not tone it down a notch, try to build up the characters, story and sequences to something really exciting, instead of overloading with crap action, like the skiscenes. They 've been done better in all other Bond movies, just look at "For Your Eyes only" and you see what I mean. It's wrong when the opening scenes are more impressive than the ending, in fact a major letdown. The actors (well..) looked good, but it doesn't help when you wanna throw up when they speak. This was a ok time killer, but damn, I expected more from a Bond movie. Connery rules, though. The only good thing was the music!!
-
I can't agree that the film was too action packed with not enough character. If anything I thought it was the other way round. The character scenes were wonderful (Bond's pause before shooting Elektra) but the set pieces were limply directed and seemed tacked on to the film. It's as if the producers were worried that the audience would start getting twitchy if something didn't blow up every twenty minutes. Tomorrow Never Dies car sequence is -for me- the perfect example of a well directed set piece that doesn't seem like an afterthought.
TWiNE wasn't as enjoyable as the previous two films but was a long way from being the worst.
Anyone else out there think the Pierce makes the best Bond?
-
Only unique thing about this flick was the villians were a bit 3-dimensional. Mercifully, Denise Richards' lines were cut down a bit, and I believe she was edited out a bit. Sophie Marceau carried the movie. She was wonderful.
-
Did anyone also notice that the name of the movie "The World Is Not Enough" was first revealed to be the slogan on the Bond Family Crest in Her Majesty's Secret Service? I was looking for a nod to that movie, since I thought that's where the title came from (it wasn't an Ian Fleming original) but didn't see any mention at all. What a wasted opportunity!
-
I liked this one, but I must ask a question of the reviewer. Why shell out the bucks for a DVD of a movie that you "really didn't care that much for?" I dunno... Personally, because of my budget, I have a $5 "ho-hum" limit. If it's under five bucks on video, and I kinda liked it, then okay, I'll buy it. Which beg the question now, when will DVDs get cheaper? Please sir, I want some more. Sheesh. :)
-
He's been dead wrong on every review I've seen from him (especially his half-assed Crusade review from the beginning of the year). WAKE UP MORON -- this is not "high art", it's a fucking Bond film. And as Bond films go, it gave me what I wanted when I bought my ticket -- 90 to 120 minutes of a fun movie. I can't believe how nostalgic everyone waxes over Connery -- yes, he had some excellent films as Bond, but he also had some of the worst in the series. For that matter, so did Moore (and I don't even *like* him as Bond, but I thought "Live and Let Die" was one of the best in the series), and apparently so does Brosnan. I liked Goldeneye, was disappointed in TND, and I like TWiNE. Not everyone agrees with me. Fine, but just because TND wasn't one of my favorites, I'm not about to start telling MGM that they don't know how to make a film. You fanboys are starting to take yourself way too seriously.
-
Very Tired
-
Am I one of the few that catch Denise Richards expressions & body language?Did you even notice the late reaction as she runs away from the tin building splitting into two,she runs out,she watches the building fall to her left & right,then runs away!That was great,hilarious even.She is given parts because she is perfect for them,Wildthings;psyco bitch,Starship Troopers;spoilt rich girl,Tammy & the T-Rex;who can argue with that one!If she never would have went topless would you still ripp on her?I am not a Bond fan but since Brosnan took over I have seen them get much better,he was born for the part.It is always easy to say I would have changed this & that,just one thing stands in your way:it is not your movie or mine,it is someone elses blood sweat & tears that were spilled.Having myself been ripped for giving my all & then for other things that I did not even give a hoot about get much acclaim for always makes me wonder what is going on in this industry.Now if I can just get her away from Pat Muldoon...
-
The movie finally opened here Dec 24 after a premiere about 2 weeks ago. My opinion? Great opening sequence but rolls a bit downhill after the credits. WHAT THE FUCK EVER HAPPENED TO THE GRAND FINALE? Many Bond fans might have puked on Timothy Dalton but I haven't had an entertaining finale since his 2 movies in the late 80s.
Loved Elektra King. The main villain had hardly any screen time, what's with that? The stunts after the credits had some moments but nothing too excitable...I don't want this trend to continue with the next 007 movie otherwise it's just too drab. I thought the producers would be getting BETTER having taken Bond into the $100 million box-office club.
Great theme song, why the fuck hasn't anyone since Duran Duran taken Bond into the Top 10? I'm hoping everything improves next time... -
I have all the comments about bond that all you good people have written and it has occured to me that no matter if you make the worlds greatest ever bond movie, some people are going to have a problem with it.Some people thought that OHMSS was the best bend film ever, while some people think its the biggest piece of shit ever-its all a matter of preference.I think that TWINE is terrific-Im bias and think all the bond films are great.You've seen what happens when the makers try and change direction, they make Licence to Kill which wasnt very well recieved.Anyway, long may Bond continue.
-
You said Bond has no memory. OK, fine. What about this for a theory. What if James Bond is a name that comes with the 007 badge? It does make sense. Think about it. Q gets older, M gets replaced. Bond gets a new face every so often.
Anyway, Harry, sorry to disagree with you, but TWINE was, to my mind, the best Bond since Goldfinger. And Lazenby's Bond wouldn't kill a girl he'd just shagged. Neither would Moore's. The only ones who were ruthless enough to do that stuff were Connery, Dalton and Brosnan. -
Her looks couldn't bail her out this time!!She is good to look at though.She should have been the femme fatale who didn't open her mouth. Here's my review. Great opening scene,about an hour and a half of pure crap,Denise's boobs(bonus) and a crappy ending! The guy really isn't a bad Bond, it was just a sucky movie. Terrible ending. Oh where oh where can Thunderball be...the suits took it away and gave me a crappy movie...
-
What do you think of Ebert's idea to turn the Bond flicks into a director's franchise?
-
Let's all face it. No Bond movie will ever match the Connery ones. But I liked this film above the other two Brosnan ones. Kudos to David Arnold. So far, the only worthy successor to John Barry.
-
Thank God. Practically every one else I've spoken to actually liked this film. Either that or they responded with "It's not that bad." But it was. It lacked everything that makes Bond movies fun or interesting. Bond films are supposed to work on a formula, yet this was actually too formulaic. It was like the scriptwriters had made a checklist of what they felt a Bond film should consist of and were just checking them off as they went. Sadly disappointing.
-
More adults around the world prefer to watch a James Bond movie more than any other film
-
Harry I've read your review and although I agree with a couple of your points, especially pushing the franchise into the R-realm, I disagree with your overall assessment of the movie. World Is Not Enough is a thoroughly satisfying entry, containing an unusual concentration on plot and character depth; It's the character development in fact that elevates this film. Beginning with Pierce Brosnan who is starting to feel comfortable with the role and does give his Bond a compelling mixture of human frailty, underneath the ice-cold composture of a killer; Judi Dench, who did not impress me in Goldeneye,has completely won me over with an M who is both ruthless and paternally loyal to her best agent. As for the villians we get too stellar introductions in Robert Carlyle and Sophie Marceau as Renard and Electra King. Marceau is completely convincing in a role that requires her to play good and evil. The only weak element in the movie is Denise Richards, but she at least is required to know something unlike previous Bond girls. As for your complaint about Brosnan's Bond not being ruthless enough to his women, did any of the other actors ever kill his love interest in their films? Hmmm.
-
You told us it would be faster and more powerful, with better access to the internet!
It is faster over five- (General shoots Bill Gates in the head, with hilarious results.)
That was a section of the movie, South Park, Bigger Longer and Uncut. I liked that movie. Now we move onto the runt of the litter, a sad little effort from the house of the roaring lion. It's not that the film is bad. It's just that it could have been made twenty years ago, and it would have been dated back then. Next to the high power brilliance that is GoldenEye, and even the grumpy mish-mash of Tomorrow Never Dies, this film just falls short in every area. Look, Robert Carlisle can do villain VERY well, so USE him. The sweaty prodding session at the finale' smacks more of the Postman, than From Russia with Love. (A brilliant train fight with Robert Shaw, encapsulating the claustrophobia and danger that the spy genre has been lacking thesedays.) In this day and age it would be easy to resort to Bruckheimer style pyrotechnics and hide behind action set pieces, but a Bond-loving audiance will sniff you out sooner or later. So a great story, and some real nail-biting tension mixed with a witty script is in order. The trouble here is that they are taking a huge step backwards in style, opting for a more slow-burning plot than in recent years, and yet emphasising Bonds frailty over his out and out coolness. Look we don't WANT to see him clutching his shoulder and grimmacing, we want to see him shooting people point-blank, and saying a frighteningly cold but witty one-liner. We want to see him being as smooth as silk, and we want a woman who doesn't just initiate exposition like the terrifyingly shallow Richards. This film is an average Bond film, and an even more average thriller. Do yourself a favour and Watch Goldfinger, and then GodenEye. Compare the past brilliance with the present brilliance. they are both two pieces of a beautiful two-piece James Bond jigsaw. -
Having read Harry's review of TWINE and being a major Bond fan myself i also fear that the franchise is slipping into the pit of cinema death. Brosnan is an excellent Bond,(if a bit theatrical - we do want him to be more than a one dimensional character but i couldn't give a shit what his motivation for protecting a french bird is). The villians in the movies have become progressively worse over the last 3 movies. Ru Paul was harder than Pryce and Carlyle must have lost his mind down the back of the sofa when taking the part of Renard the Fox ( Renard the butt lord more like). The script writers must have their fingers broken so they never write again. In making the stories more modern and realistic they've removed the fun and suspense and replaced it with large portions of shit and drool. We want Brosnan in cool kit, exotic locations, decent villians, hot girls (with brains), and a plot that does't compare to Ernest goes to Camp. If not then i'll take my cash and waste it on re-runs of Manaquin on Directors chair nights.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- G.I. JOE: RETALIATION Delayed Nine Months...Thanks To A Force More Sinister Than Cobra!! -- 255 total posts 253 posts
- THE DARK KNIGHT RISES TV Spot Has New Footage And Dialogue! UPDATED To Add Second Spot! -- 250 total posts 250 posts
- Who Is The Voice Of Batman In WB's Animated Two Part THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS? -- 162 total posts 161 posts
- Cats Beware!! An ALF Movie May Soon Come Our Way... -- 154 total posts 153 posts
- Gary Oldman Joins The ROBOCOP Remake! -- 135 total posts 135 posts
- Remember when I said I’d kill The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day last? I lied. -- 120 total posts 120 posts
- UPDATE!! What The Hell Happened With G.I. JOE: RETALIATION?! -- 53 total posts 53 posts
- Quint has seen the brand new Jaws restoration and demands that Universal do a wide theatrical rerelease this summer! -- 52 total posts 52 posts
- TODAY IS THE LAST DAY OF SWEEPS AND THE SEASON!! Chat Here About The Finales Of REVENGE, MODERN FAMILY, MIDDLE, BITCH, IDOL, TOW, ROCKERS, SVU And SOLD!! -- 42 total posts 42 posts
- AICN COMICS REVIEWS: INCREDIBLE HULK! DANGER CLUB! CLiNT 2.1! JAMES BOND! BATMAN INC.! AND MORE!!! -- 67 total posts 41 posts