Is 'Tomorrow Never Dies' the most formulaic Bond film?

edited May 2016 in Bond Movies Posts: 4,246
It's been a while since I wrote one of these but they have typically gone down well on these forums so I thought I'd share some of my recent thought on MR in essay form.

Here's some of my past efforts if people want to check it out:
http://thelektordevice.blogspot.co.uk/


The Formula:

TND-Premiere-London-12-09-1997-19.jpg

'Tomorrow Never Dies' must be the most satisfying encounter for Bond purists wishing for little deviation or invention in the series' output. The film proudly rolls out all the routine tropes that audiences have grown accustomed to over the series' then 35 year history. In fact if you look closely you can practically see the filmmakers slowly ticking off the many requisite elements. Inevitably we greeted with the typical array of gadgets, exotic locations, violence, girls, villains, etc. Unfortunately the film never quite veers too far from the established formula to really distinguish it from other Bond escapades, as well as most other generic 90's action fare.

It's somewhat disappointing that after the creative risks taken on 'GoldenEye' that the follow-up makes no real attempt to play with the classic elements in a subversive or interesting way. Instead the typical Bond format is practically copy-&-pasted into 'Tomorrow Never Dies', with mid-90's paranoia replacing Cold War hijinks.

TND is a very paint-by-numbers affair, with the story rarely making much attempt to surprise, instead many of the big beats and reveals are rather blandly signposted very early on. This isn't to say the film isn't a pacy and mostly entertaining ride, but it's clear that the whole enterprise was creatively bereft and the film is tired and practically wheezing under its cultural baggage. Unfortunately what we are left with is nothing more than a decidedly below-average Bond film. Even if it is a mostly solid entry into the most venerable film series in history.

It's apparent that 18 films down the line that whatever edge 007 once had has been sanded off. It's unfortunate that such a pedestrian and uninspired film had to follow 'Goldeneye' and part of the new era of Bond. Everything about 'Tomorrow Never Dies' feels shallow - even the nonsensical title of the film seems like something that has been focussed-grouped into existence.

The film was rushed into being after new MGM exec Kirk Kerkorian needed a flagship film out by December 1997 to coincide with the public stock offering of the company. Funnily enough there was also rumours of the production ushering in seven writers to sit around a table to fix the nonexistent script. The writing was clearly on the wall for a while for the 18th Bond film, so it's unsurprising that 'Tomorrow Never Dies' feels very much like a corporate venture that has been made entirely by committee with no real distinct point of view.

Despite the transparent and cynical framework upon which the film has been constructed, it's hard to deny that TND isn't a solidly executed distraction. The action is often engaging, the acting is surprisingly strong and some of the ideas explored aren't as empty-headed as many would anticipate.

The Villain:

TND-Premiere-London-12-09-1997-05.jpg

The most successful element of the film comes with the inclusion of the Elliot Carver character. The entire decision to design the character in the mould of a Rupert Murdoch-esque figure is inspired and a pertinent reminder to the real villains of the day.

It's a savvy move to allow the film to tackle such a figure and in turn gives 'Tomorrow Never Dies' a rather satirical bent. The undue influence that particular media barons can exert and the influence they are able to impose upon the masses is frightening. Often these figures have their own private business empires and in turn can manipulate the news agenda to sync with their own interests. This is never more clear today with figures like Murdoch hushing up and practically ignoring certain concerns in a bid to protect their own ventures. For example, it may be no surprise to learn that Mr. Murdoch has stakes in oil and shale oil companies, whilst he uses his vast media empire to deny the severity of man-made global warming.

It makes worrying amounts of sense for a figure such as this to use their own media empire to distract and distort information especially considering the international sway they possess. There are hints that Carver is equally as connected with references made to his close personal ties to the British PM. Often many elected political figures benefit heavily after allying themselves with the likes of Mr. Murdoch.

The character is deliciously compelling and played to the absolute hilt by Jonathan Pryce. Bruce Feirstein's rather plodding draft sparks to life whenever Carver appears and Pryce isn't afraid to get hammy with the material (at points almost distractingly so). In particular I loved the conceit of Carver instigating global events prior to them occurring in order to get the 'exclusives'. It's such a mischievous and flamboyant idea and the perfect encapsulation of modern Bond villainy. There's enough of a hint of evil albeit with a trace of irony and wit in play. Even as the value of print media has diminished since the release of 'Tomorrow Never Dies' there is still a certain relevancy to the plot to consider especially in a post-Leveson world.

The Girls:

michelle_yeoh_1997_12_16.jpg

Surprisingly, there are two great roles for the Bond girls this time out. Unsurprisingly, there full potential is never quite tapped into.

Apparently, the Paris Carver character was incorporated into the film at the behest of Pierce Brosnan, who wished to unravel the character of Bond by presenting him with someone he had genuine feelings for. Paris is a figure from 007's past and someone he possibly found himself slowly falling for. However, Bond ran away opposed to pursue his romantic inclinations towards her and possibly become attached.

In some senses this was likely due to Bond refusing himself to grow close to one woman as he understands that he can't guarantee them a normal or safe life - something Paris ultimately learns rather gruesomely. However, it's likely that a natural womaniser and chauvinist like Bond would run a mile when provoked with the possibility of settling down. He's a misogynist after all with a large sexual appetite; someone solely interested in empty and meaningless relationships. The threat of something more meaningful was likely the reason Bond walked away. It's curious that when 007 is forced to reencounter Paris that he is seemingly full of lust and jealousy - possibly even regretful for his decision not to act on his initial impulses.

Teri Hatcher threatens at certain moments to be rather wooden but in the end delivers a solid performance. In fact, the scenes she shares with Brosnan are by far the best in the film. Unfortunately, the script sees Paris as nothing more than a cipher to move the plot forward and she serves little function beyond the first act.

This of course leaves the door open for Michelle Yeoh to steal the show. Yeoh is the bright-spot of this film and after being underutilized early on, her later arrival gives the film the spark it was previously lacking. Whenever her character is on-screen the film suddenly perks up and your attention is reignited. Her character is fully capable and complete equal to Bond - something the franchise had long threatened to deliver. What makes it more fun is the evident sexual tension between her and 007, which is complemented with a pleasant one-upmanship.

This all comes together perfectly in the motorcycle chase, which is a brilliantly devised sequence that compels our two leads together. It's the most nifty and engaging action sequence of the film and marvellously played by Brosnan and Yeoh.

The pair share fantastic chemistry together and its clear that they bring out the best in each other. It's something of a shame that the Wai Lin character sits out so much of the first hour of the film as 'Tomorrow Never Dies' works most effectively when she is paired with Bond. In fact it's a slight sin that Wai Lin didn't get her mooted spin-off or the chance to appear in a future Brosnan film.

The Bond:

tumblr_n9vd92Jbn91snp4blo6_1280.jpg

Brosnan is very handsome and does a fine job with the rather unfortunate material he is given. It's clear to me that his Bond is always the most suave and urbane interpretation of the character. (I also feel compelled to mention how terrific his hair is). Brosnan's great skill is in his ability to be humorous whilst still being able to work well during the more sombre moments. The Bond character is a tricky one to crack and Brosnan is capable of playing the part straight but also delivering the more ironic aspects of the character with a sly-knowing wink.

However, there is something slightly unctuous and glib about his portrayal at times. This means that on occasions he appears nothing more than smug and a tad unlikable. Additionally, Pierce doesn't seem all that competent during the hand-to-hand combat scenes, instead he seems a little too comfortable in the moments requiring him to pose and pout.

The Action:

a379cf192b16fd68107d485f81a8635c.jpg

The action in 'Tomorrow Never Dies' is mostly quite impressive but never quite feels spectacular enough when compared to the competing standards of the time. Instead it's all very solidly executed but there is nothing in the film to truly distinguish itself. The movie is opened and closed with large bullet melees that seems to lack any coherent rhythm. There sadly isn't much story going on here beyond the chaos and carnage of the numerous bullets being sprayed across the screen along with large scale explosions.

However, I must also give props to the decision to show Bond slightly defeated and bloody during the final battle sequence. It's always nice to see this supposedly unflappable character tested physically.

The most compelling action beats are of course the car chase, HALO jump/wreckage sequence and bike chase. The car chase is a nice spin on the old tricked-out Aston Martin DB5, even if the brand-synergy on display in TND can make you a little nauseous (It's a BMW controlled by a Sony Ericsson! Yikes.)

The production values are of the high standards you've come to expect from 007. Robert Elswit's photography is strong especially those opening shots of Carver plotting the sinking of the Devonshire. Additionally, Elswit makes good use of screens and reflective surfaces. The photography attempts to make the most out of the banal Hambug location but the more lush Vietnam portion of the film is more visually exciting. Allan Cameron's sets are also mighty impressive and have a great neon glow. In regards to the music it must be remembered how terrific David Arnold's score is, even the overuse of the Bond theme isn't entirely unwelcome.

However, the real hero of the whole affair is Daniel Kleinman whose title sequence is truly enthralling. The sequence cracks through the screen and takes us on a stylised trip down a fiber-optic cable. Finally, the X-Ray images are stunningly rendered over Sheryl Crowe's smokey and seductive tune (I think the song is criminally underrated and is far superior to the K.D Lang option over the end titles).

In terms of supporting performances, Desmond Llewelyn is on show-stealing form and Vincent Schiavelli serves up a memorable cameo. Samantha Bond finally gets to give Moneypenny a great line and Judi Dench is mostly wasted.

Summary:

'Tomorrow Never Dies' undeniably feels like a movie made under pressure. As a result the filmmakers went with the most obvious and risk-averse decisions in play. Subsequently, we are left with a solid if uninspired and forgettably average entry.
«1345

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited May 2016 Posts: 16,202
    Forgettable?? Most of your review is spot on, but Brosnan & Yeoh combined with the rather solid Spottiswoode direction make this film like a cool vanilla milkshake on a hot summer's day- nothing amazing or unexpected, yet totally satisfying.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,397
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Forgettable?? Most of your review is spot on, but Brosnan & Yeoh combined with the rather solid Spottiswoode direction make this film like a cool vanilla milkshake on a hot summer's day- nothing amazing or unexpected, yet totally satisfying.

    i recently rewatched TND, and i agree... it's doesn't really do anything great - but it does a lot of things good, or well enough to make it an enjoyable experience... it's one of those middling Bond films that you pop on, and you just sit back and enjoy the ride - it doesn't try to be anything more than it is, and i find it a far more satisfying watch than either of the two films that proceed it in Broz's run.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited May 2016 Posts: 4,116
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Forgettable?? Most of your review is spot on, but Brosnan & Yeoh combined with the rather solid Spottiswoode direction make this film like a cool vanilla milkshake on a hot summer's day- nothing amazing or unexpected, yet totally satisfying.

    I think we needed a vanilla milkshake then. With the exception of GE we hadn't had ice cream in quite some time.

    Besides the new producers were finally on their own and IMO getting to drive the series for the first time.

    TWINE was a test for them and kinda a yucky flavor of ice cream. Whereas DAD seemed like something dreamed up by Ben and Jerry's after a bad trip if you get my drift.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    edited May 2016 Posts: 1,104
    Didn't think about before but yes i guess its the most formulatic and the most action oriented to the point of leaving the plot in the background, never before a Bond flick had been that action oriented.

    I guess this is the best film to show to Bond newbees who don't want to think much since it has the most straight forward to plot and the easiest to understand:
    People right from the beginning understand Bond has to stop Eliot Carver to start WW3 as easy as that.

    Non of the Bond flicks has such an easy plot so fast peaced.
    Its the way to introduce your 15 year old cousin or 25 year old friend.

    Personally I enjoyed this flick very much, id say its one of the most fun to watch and the cats in general was great.

    Really there is a Bond flick for everyone.


    Reading your review and analyzing it, i realized I started with the wrong foot with my bff to show her Bond. She doesn't like to think much while watching a film and silly me started with Die another day that even its more style( but great style) than substance the plot is still slightly difficult to follow then the next day i proceeded with Goldeneye and still it was miss from my part she thought it required too much thinking and a little slow peaced.


    Damn it I should have started with tomorrow never dies.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 5,919
    I think Brosnan is fine with regards hand to hand combat - however post-GE many of his scraps were badly choreographed and/or played with an undercurrent of slapstick. If you look at the brawl he has with Trevelyan in GE (one of the finest fights of the series) and compare it with him fighting the goons at Carver's party in Hamburg it's like two different men. And then his fight with Renard on the submarine which completely lacks any energy - and having the two men engage in conversation whilst grabbing each other's throats was an incredibly bad idea.

    It's amazing what a difference a bit of extra thought regarding choreography can make to a fight.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited May 2016 Posts: 16,202
    The fight with the goons at Carver's party was played for laughs mostly- his fight with Stamper was classic Bond vs. greater odds, much like in SP's train fight, which BOTH owe all to Bond vs. Grant so long ago...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Even though it did give me some thrills in the theatre in 1997 (especially the pretitles), I recall walking out of TND with some disappointment in Brosnan and with EON's direction after the superb GE. It was a similar feeling to what I had when leaving the theatre after QoS in 2008. Ok certainly, but quite a let down compared to its exceptional predecessor.

    Interestingly, I think the film TND reminds me the most of is SP. Both purely 'box ticker' exercises, but strangely, SP's release has made TND seem much better nowadays for me. The same goes for DAD. I at least know I'll have a very enjoyable 2 odd hrs watching both of them, and will forget both as soon as I turn the blu ray player off. Both Bond films for the Fast & the Furious crowd, if you will. So yes, I suppose one could make the case that it's the most 'formulaic'.
  • Close between it and SP I think.
  • Posts: 3,879
    Szonana wrote: »

    I guess this is the best film to show to Bond newbees who don't want to think much since it has the most straight forward to plot and the easiest to understand:
    People right from the beginning understand Bond has to stop Eliot Carver to start WW3 as easy as that.

    Non of the Bond flicks has such an easy plot so fast peaced.

    There are a few other Bond movies that follow the same idea - Bond must stop WW3 or some evil force taking over the world / destroying the world.
  • Posts: 1,052
    A great Bond film for me and I have said many times in the past, the last of the straightforward no nonsense missions. From TWINE onwards there was a bit too much M and the trust issues etc.
    I suppose it is very tick box but those boxes are there for a reason, it's what made Bond succesful in the first place!
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 5,919
    chrisisall wrote: »
    The fight with the goons at Carver's party was played for laughs mostly- his fight with Stamper was classic Bond vs. greater odds, much like in SP's train fight, which BOTH owe all to Bond vs. Grant so long ago...

    Forgot about Bond vs. Stamper. That was quite good.

    I like TND quite a bit. As the Craig era has gone on I've grown to love it more and more for its straightforwardness. It still has some of the best action scenes of the series.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Defender of Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby & Éric Serra!
    Posts: 5,046
    I like TND because it is straightforward, but because of that it's not one of my favourites either.

    It's the most middle of the road of them all. Never terrible, never exceptional.

    While most Bond films around the 15th/16th spot have both good and bad moments, TND never does anything completely wrong but it hardly ever excels.

    The biggest plusses are Brosnan's performance and Arnold's music I'd say.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy N.Ireland
    Posts: 11,470
    I too really enjoy TND., :)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2016 Posts: 15,534
    I absolutely love TND. Wall-to-wall action from start to finish, super badass performance from Brosnan and a superb soundtrack Arnold. Just talking about it makes me want to watch it again.
  • Posts: 4,246
    I think many of the comments here have proven my point.

    TND is pure fan-service. It ticks the requisite boxes and does little more.

    When Bond first started it was renown for it's edginess and ability to provoke. 35 years down the road the formula had been so well-established that EON had practically lost their edge and instead were churning out unexceptional but agreeable material.

    TND solely exists to satisfy shareholders and to generate revenue for it's oodles of product placement.

    I know all Bond films are to some extend commercial beings - you don't get to make $100+ films without having some bankability. But the real trick of a good director (opposed to an adequate one; eg, Spottiswoode) is someone who can tell a story that feel compelling and necessary and not make it feel so transparently an extension of the brand.

    There is a lot of lazy filmmaking on show in TND, the film leans heavily on GE, it steals major plot points and character moments from the likes of YOLT, TSWLM and FYEO.

    Furthermore, Bond has zero agency throughout the film. Say what you like about the 'it's personal' storylines of the franchise but they prove emotionally engaging entries in the series.

    It's an entertaining and fun yawn, but a middling one.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm with you @Pierce2Daniel. Pure fan service indeed. However, despite being very reminiscent of prior Bond films, it didn't really bring much to the table nor did it do anything at all better than its predecessors which it so readily aped. In that respect, I find it very similar to SP.

    Having said that, I do enjoy the film for what it is - which is wall to wall action. It never lets up in that regard. So it's a Bond film for a certain mood. The 'leave brain at home and let's a have a good time' mood.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,115
    The first hour is good, with Brosnan's performance, the script and the score. As soon as the action 'lands' in the far east the film goes down hill. The Villain is one of the most limp wristed hammy performances of the franchise, Wade is a pathetic stand in for Felix Leiter and the finale 'looks like' it was filmed on a film set (a poor mans TSWLM).
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,104
    vzok wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »

    I guess this is the best film to show to Bond newbees who don't want to think much since it has the most straight forward to plot and the easiest to understand:
    People right from the beginning understand Bond has to stop Eliot Carver to start WW3 as easy as that.

    Non of the Bond flicks has such an easy plot so fast peaced.

    There are a few other Bond movies that follow the same idea - Bond must stop WW3 or some evil force taking over the world / destroying the world.

    Well yes but not in such a fast peace of the film, the other ones as great as they are : the spy who loved me, you only live twice or even Goldfinger require more attention.
    Tomorrow never dies is a film for pure relax and enjoy.

    Its very easy to follow and its a fine film for people who want to see a bond flick but have a short span attention thing, Wall to wall action without much need for attention.
    Its a flick even a 10 year old kid right now could enjoy, with all the other ones as much as love them ask for a little more from the audience.

    Tomorrow never dies is easy, fun and fast peaced.

  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Defender of Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby & Éric Serra!
    edited May 2016 Posts: 5,046
    Szonana wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »

    I guess this is the best film to show to Bond newbees who don't want to think much since it has the most straight forward to plot and the easiest to understand:
    People right from the beginning understand Bond has to stop Eliot Carver to start WW3 as easy as that.

    Non of the Bond flicks has such an easy plot so fast peaced.

    There are a few other Bond movies that follow the same idea - Bond must stop WW3 or some evil force taking over the world / destroying the world.

    Well yes but not in such a fast peace of the film, the other ones as great as they are : the spy who loved me, you only live twice or even Goldfinger require more attention.
    Tomorrow never dies is a film for pure relax and enjoy.

    Its very easy to follow and its a fine film for people who want to see a bond flick but have a short span attention thing, Wall to wall action without much need for attention.
    Its a flick even a 10 year old kid right now could enjoy, with all the other ones as much as love them ask for a little more from the audience.

    Tomorrow never dies is easy, fun and fast peaced.

    I agree with you on TND not requiring much from its audience, but there are many Bond films that don't ask a lot from their audience. Diamonds Are Forever, Moonraker, Octopussy, Die Another Day and Spectre are all very easy to digest as well.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,534
    TSWLM is very straight-forward too. Bond searches for the microfilm for the first half, all leads point to Stromberg so he meets him, Stromberg tries to kill Bond so he then goes on to attack the Liparus and Atlantis, everything blows up and he gets the girl.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy N.Ireland
    Posts: 11,470
    I remember leaving the cinema feeling great after TND. It reminded
    me of the feeling I had after seeing The Temple of Doom, first time.
    Great music, action sequences, great entertainment.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,104
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »

    I guess this is the best film to show to Bond newbees who don't want to think much since it has the most straight forward to plot and the easiest to understand:
    People right from the beginning understand Bond has to stop Eliot Carver to start WW3 as easy as that.

    Non of the Bond flicks has such an easy plot so fast peaced.

    There are a few other Bond movies that follow the same idea - Bond must stop WW3 or some evil force taking over the world / destroying the world.

    Well yes but not in such a fast peace of the film, the other ones as great as they are : the spy who loved me, you only live twice or even Goldfinger require more attention.
    Tomorrow never dies is a film for pure relax and enjoy.

    Its very easy to follow and its a fine film for people who want to see a bond flick but have a short span attention thing, Wall to wall action without much need for attention.
    Its a flick even a 10 year old kid right now could enjoy, with all the other ones as much as love them ask for a little more from the audience.

    Tomorrow never dies is easy, fun and fast peaced.

    I agree with you on TND not requiring much from its audience, but there are many Bond films that don't ask a lot from their audience. Diamonds Are Forever, Moonraker, Octopussy, Die Another Day and Spectre are all very easy to digest as well.

    Agreed with the Diamonds are forever, Monnraker and Spectre the other two are a little more complicated, i watched Octopussy just a year ago and can't remember the plot as well as i do with other Bond flicks and Die another day was a little complicated with the identity change, looking for the guy who betrayed Bond in North Corea and Miranda's character being a double agent.

    TND as much as I enjoy its practically Bond for dumbies

  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,060
    I think many of the comments here have proven my point.

    TND is pure fan-service. It ticks the requisite boxes and does little more.

    When Bond first started it was renown for it's edginess and ability to provoke. 35 years down the road the formula had been so well-established that EON had practically lost their edge and instead were churning out unexceptional but agreeable material.

    TND solely exists to satisfy shareholders and to generate revenue for it's oodles of product placement.

    I know all Bond films are to some extend commercial beings - you don't get to make $100+ films without having some bankability. But the real trick of a good director (opposed to an adequate one; eg, Spottiswoode) is someone who can tell a story that feel compelling and necessary and not make it feel so transparently an extension of the brand.

    There is a lot of lazy filmmaking on show in TND, the film leans heavily on GE, it steals major plot points and character moments from the likes of YOLT, TSWLM and FYEO.

    Furthermore, Bond has zero agency throughout the film. Say what you like about the 'it's personal' storylines of the franchise but they prove emotionally engaging entries in the series.

    It's an entertaining and fun yawn, but a middling one.

    100% agreed although I'm a little less forgiving of the film. I rate entries such as MOONRAKER and TMWTGG that contain some pretty questionable stuff but are exceptional in other areas (such as MR's score, sets and cinematography and TMWTGG's superlative villain and strong first half respectively) than a film like TND that plays it safe and is uninspiring and dull (I'm referring to the mindless action in the second half) as a result.
  • Posts: 1,385
    I have never gone to see a Bond film with the expectation of originality. If I did, I don't think I would like very many Bond films.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    TND would have been a much better film with better cinematography. Gilbert nailed that aspect in his films, and Spottiswoode was going for that kind of film with this one, but didn't really focus on the grand majestic splendour that accompanied Gilbert's best efforts.

    Moreover, it was sorely lacking (imho) in the romance dept. Like I said, it really had more of a Fast & The Furious feel due to the predominant action orientation. GE was much more balanced.

    If those two aspects had been better, I would rank this film much higher, despite its derivative nature.
  • Posts: 3,879
    josiah wrote: »
    I have never gone to see a Bond film with the expectation of originality. If I did, I don't think I would like very many Bond films.

    I agree. I think this is one factor where people can end up disappointed in Bond movies. I think when a series has lasted this long it is a lot to ask for innovation with each new film.

    The Bond formula is something I enjoy. I don't mind if it gets reworked some of the time.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm with you @Pierce2Daniel. Pure fan service indeed. However, despite being very reminiscent of prior Bond films, it didn't really bring much to the table nor did it do anything at all better than its predecessors which it so readily aped. In that respect, I find it very similar to SP.

    Having said that, I do enjoy the film for what it is - which is wall to wall action. It never lets up in that regard. So it's a Bond film for a certain mood. The 'leave brain at home and let's a have a good time' mood.

    I think TND succeeds at that.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,397
    bondjames wrote: »
    TND would have been a much better film with better cinematography. Gilbert nailed that aspect in his films, and Spottiswoode was going for that kind of film with this one, but didn't really focus on the grand majestic splendour that accompanied Gilbert's best efforts.

    i also found the locations very bland as well - couldn't they have picked any of the more interesting parts of Germany for Carver's HQ, but instead we get a pan over some industrial dockyards at evening time..... could they not come up with a better locale than that??

    Saigon - with the helicopter/motorcycle chase was 'ok'... a little more interesting than boringville Germany..

    but nothing really stands out..

    ..... but i guess such is the same for the majority of Bond movies from 1995 onwards.. but, since we are talking about TND, i thought i would bring up the blandness i felt from a location scouting standpoint.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,202
    bondjames wrote: »
    it was sorely lacking (imho) in the romance dept.
    I *LOVED* the chemistry between Brosnan & Yeoh- it was like extreme mutual respect with just enough sexual attraction to justify a post-mission release of tension.
    :))
    I bet they still email each other with funny stuff.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,035
    JB700: Hey Wai-Lin, you won't believe what happened to me.

    WLSaigon: Oh? What happened?

    JB700: Get this, I surfed a glacier! LOL

    WLSaigon: Oh James. LOL!
Sign In or Register to comment.