Tomorrow Never Dies: what went wrong?

2456716

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,023
    I do think Brosnan seems to being reappraised a bit lately, just as Dalton was when Craig took over. About time imo. I know he wasn’t always best served by the scripts, but I always thought the sudden shift in fan opinion when CR came out was harsh. It was the 90s. We needed a cool, flashy action hero Bond, and Brosnan played that perfectly. We’d never have even gotten to CR if it wasn’t for him, and I think he bought more to the role than his detractors give him credit for. He was the most emotional Bond we’d
    had at the time, and TWINE in particular is basically a proto-Craig film.

    I think we’ve been quite lucky really when it comes to the actors. I don’t think the role has ever been miscast, and every new Bond has been just what the series needed at the time. I’m gutted Craig is gone, but it’ll be exciting to see whether they can keep that streak going.

    That’s because the kids that grew up with Brosnan as their Bond have grown up and naturally are more vocal now than they were in the early 2000s. It’s the same reason the Star Wars prequels has been reappraised by millennials.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited November 2021 Posts: 8,028
    I do think Brosnan seems to being reappraised a bit lately, just as Dalton was when Craig took over. About time imo. I know he wasn’t always best served by the scripts, but I always thought the sudden shift in fan opinion when CR came out was harsh. It was the 90s. We needed a cool, flashy action hero Bond, and Brosnan played that perfectly. We’d never have even gotten to CR if it wasn’t for him, and I think he bought more to the role than his detractors give him credit for. He was the most emotional Bond we’d
    had at the time, and TWINE in particular is basically a proto-Craig film.

    I think we’ve been quite lucky really when it comes to the actors. I don’t think the role has ever been miscast, and every new Bond has been just what the series needed at the time. I’m gutted Craig is gone, but it’ll be exciting to see whether they can keep that streak going.

    That’s because the kids that grew up with Brosnan as their Bond have grown up and naturally are more vocal now than they were in the early 2000s. It’s the same reason the Star Wars prequels has been reappraised by millennials.

    I'm not quite sure that's the same thing considering the Brosnan films were all released to a decent (mixed at worst) reception at the time, while the prequels were generally deservedly panned. There's more to it than simply age.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    I do think Brosnan seems to being reappraised a bit lately, just as Dalton was when Craig took over. About time imo. I know he wasn’t always best served by the scripts, but I always thought the sudden shift in fan opinion when CR came out was harsh. It was the 90s. We needed a cool, flashy action hero Bond, and Brosnan played that perfectly. We’d never have even gotten to CR if it wasn’t for him, and I think he bought more to the role than his detractors give him credit for. He was the most emotional Bond we’d
    had at the time, and TWINE in particular is basically a proto-Craig film.

    I think we’ve been quite lucky really when it comes to the actors. I don’t think the role has ever been miscast, and every new Bond has been just what the series needed at the time. I’m gutted Craig is gone, but it’ll be exciting to see whether they can keep that streak going.

    That’s because the kids that grew up with Brosnan as their Bond have grown up and naturally are more vocal now than they were in the early 2000s. It’s the same reason the Star Wars prequels has been reappraised by millennials.

    I'm not quite sure that's the same thing considering the Brosnan films were all released to a decent (mixed at worst) reception while the prequels were generally deservedly panned. There's more to it than age.

    Tomorrow Never Dies is like Goldfinger; nit pick all you like but it's still great.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,028
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I do think Brosnan seems to being reappraised a bit lately, just as Dalton was when Craig took over. About time imo. I know he wasn’t always best served by the scripts, but I always thought the sudden shift in fan opinion when CR came out was harsh. It was the 90s. We needed a cool, flashy action hero Bond, and Brosnan played that perfectly. We’d never have even gotten to CR if it wasn’t for him, and I think he bought more to the role than his detractors give him credit for. He was the most emotional Bond we’d
    had at the time, and TWINE in particular is basically a proto-Craig film.

    I think we’ve been quite lucky really when it comes to the actors. I don’t think the role has ever been miscast, and every new Bond has been just what the series needed at the time. I’m gutted Craig is gone, but it’ll be exciting to see whether they can keep that streak going.

    That’s because the kids that grew up with Brosnan as their Bond have grown up and naturally are more vocal now than they were in the early 2000s. It’s the same reason the Star Wars prequels has been reappraised by millennials.

    I'm not quite sure that's the same thing considering the Brosnan films were all released to a decent (mixed at worst) reception while the prequels were generally deservedly panned. There's more to it than age.

    Tomorrow Never Dies is like Goldfinger; nit pick all you like but it's still great.

    I wouldn't quite go that far but I do enjoy it a lot. It hovers just outside my top 10 and is in my bracket of "feel good Bond flicks that suit any occasion". It was my first Bond in the cinema and I loved it, then went off it for a while but have now come around to appreciating it for what it is: an efficient and fun 90s blockbuster. It doesn't attempt to break new ground or reinvent the wheel but it does what it does pretty well and Brosnan is every inch a leading man in the film. He was coolness personified in it.

    I think it was in the director's thread, but I mentioned that I would have loved to have seen what Mimi Leder or Philip Noyce would have done with it.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Nothing went wrong. I don't get the hate. Could it have been better? Sure, but so could most movies. And frankly these criticisms apply equally to more critically applauded and prettier looking films.

    1) Filthy habit is a great humorous introduction, with a memorable Arnold track.

    2) Yes the humour is overdone at times but doesn't detract too much from the film.

    3) Then you could say the same for Craig's films. When has 'missing a step' ever affected his abilities? Either follow through with his or don't do it at all.

    4) He looks the best here. Especially the Hamburg break in and car chase

    5) It kind of is a ridiculous plot but you could pick apart many Bond plots.

    YMMV in terms of how well the film elements blend together but many of the criticisms towards TND apply to many other Bond films as well. This one is fun at least
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    w2bond wrote: »
    Nothing went wrong. I don't get the hate. Could it have been better? Sure, but so could most movies. And frankly these criticisms apply equally to more critically applauded and prettier looking films.

    1) Filthy habit is a great humorous introduction, with a memorable Arnold track.

    2) Yes the humour is overdone at times but doesn't detract too much from the film.

    3) Then you could say the same for Craig's films. When has 'missing a step' ever affected his abilities? Either follow through with his or don't do it at all.

    4) He looks the best here. Especially the Hamburg break in and car chase

    5) It kind of is a ridiculous plot but you could pick apart many Bond plots.

    YMMV in terms of how well the film elements blend together but many of the criticisms towards TND apply to many other Bond films as well. This one is fun at least

    THANK YOU! =D>
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,023
    I do think Brosnan seems to being reappraised a bit lately, just as Dalton was when Craig took over. About time imo. I know he wasn’t always best served by the scripts, but I always thought the sudden shift in fan opinion when CR came out was harsh. It was the 90s. We needed a cool, flashy action hero Bond, and Brosnan played that perfectly. We’d never have even gotten to CR if it wasn’t for him, and I think he bought more to the role than his detractors give him credit for. He was the most emotional Bond we’d
    had at the time, and TWINE in particular is basically a proto-Craig film.

    I think we’ve been quite lucky really when it comes to the actors. I don’t think the role has ever been miscast, and every new Bond has been just what the series needed at the time. I’m gutted Craig is gone, but it’ll be exciting to see whether they can keep that streak going.

    That’s because the kids that grew up with Brosnan as their Bond have grown up and naturally are more vocal now than they were in the early 2000s. It’s the same reason the Star Wars prequels has been reappraised by millennials.

    I'm not quite sure that's the same thing considering the Brosnan films were all released to a decent (mixed at worst) reception at the time, while the prequels were generally deservedly panned. There's more to it than simply age.


    Not quite accurate. Critically speaking, Brosnan’s latter three films had reviews that were at least comparable or worse than the prequels. But that’s besides the point. I’m being more specific about a generation sharing their childhood upbringing through social media. Guys like Calvin Dyson and Nicolas Suszczyk are an example of the millennial generation of Bond fans where Brosnan holds a very special place for them, much like Star Wars millennials get hyped about Hayden Christensen and Ewan McGregor more so than the original trilogy cast.

    Another example I can think of is HOOK. Critically panned at the time of its release as one of Spielberg’s lesser films, but now largely regarded as a gem among millennials.

    To go even further back, Roger Moore’s films aren’t exactly critical darlings at the time of their release, but they certainly found critical reevaluation due to GenX sharing praises for that era (Sam Mendes and Cary Fukunaga are of that generation).
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    I do think Brosnan seems to being reappraised a bit lately, just as Dalton was when Craig took over. About time imo. I know he wasn’t always best served by the scripts, but I always thought the sudden shift in fan opinion when CR came out was harsh. It was the 90s. We needed a cool, flashy action hero Bond, and Brosnan played that perfectly. We’d never have even gotten to CR if it wasn’t for him, and I think he bought more to the role than his detractors give him credit for. He was the most emotional Bond we’d
    had at the time, and TWINE in particular is basically a proto-Craig film.

    I think we’ve been quite lucky really when it comes to the actors. I don’t think the role has ever been miscast, and every new Bond has been just what the series needed at the time. I’m gutted Craig is gone, but it’ll be exciting to see whether they can keep that streak going.

    That’s because the kids that grew up with Brosnan as their Bond have grown up and naturally are more vocal now than they were in the early 2000s. It’s the same reason the Star Wars prequels has been reappraised by millennials.

    I'm not quite sure that's the same thing considering the Brosnan films were all released to a decent (mixed at worst) reception at the time, while the prequels were generally deservedly panned. There's more to it than simply age.


    Not quite accurate. Critically speaking, Brosnan’s latter three films had reviews that were at least comparable or worse than the prequels. But that’s besides the point. I’m being more specific about a generation sharing their childhood upbringing through social media. Guys like Calvin Dyson and Nicolas Suszczyk are an example of the millennial generation of Bond fans where Brosnan holds a very special place for them, much like Star Wars millennials get hyped about Hayden Christensen and Ewan McGregor more so than the original trilogy cast.

    Another example I can think of is HOOK. Critically panned at the time of its release as one of Spielberg’s lesser films, but now largely regarded as a gem among millennials.

    To go even further back, Roger Moore’s films aren’t exactly critical darlings at the time of their release, but they certainly found critical reevaluation due to GenX sharing praises for that era (Sam Mendes and Cary Fukunaga are of that generation).

    LOL, generational reviewist mythology. I loved Hook from jump. FYEO was a critical darling. So was TSWLM. You aren't very old, are you, Makeshift? ;)
  • Posts: 47
    I thought Dr. Kaufman was a different but good assassin character.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited November 2021 Posts: 8,028
    I’m being more specific about a generation sharing their childhood upbringing through social media.

    Yeah, again, with respect...I don't believe it's about age. I've seen plenty of positivity about the Brosnan era from folks who weren't of that generation. Implying that it's only millennials driving the re-evaluation is misleading. It's an example, not a defining trait as far as I'm concerned. Most of the more interesting re-appraisals I've seen have come from the generation previous.

    I'd be part of that generation but thankfully it doesn't make me blind to any flaws in that particular era. To be fair, though, I never thought Calvin Dyson was a big Brosnan fan...

    ....so what do I know?
  • Posts: 15,801
    I find TND to be superb Bond film. Loads of fun, excitement and pure escapism.
    Brosnan is at his peak here, and plays Bond to perfection, IMO.
    Pryce is my favorite of Brosnan's main villains.
    It was one of my least favorites for awhile, but over the years it's grown to be my go to Bond film for Brosnan.
    Also helps I have a nostalgia for that period in my life when the film was released. Great memories.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 2,051
    I’m being more specific about a generation sharing their childhood upbringing through social media.

    Yeah, again, with respect...I don't believe it's about age. I've seen plenty of positivity about the Brosnan era from folks who weren't of that generation. Implying that it's only millennials driving the re-evaluation is misleading. It's an example, not a defining trait as far as I'm concerned. Most of the more interesting re-appraisals I've seen have come from the generation previous.

    I'd be part of that generation but thankfully it doesn't make me blind to any flaws in that particular era. To be fair, though, I never thought Calvin Dyson was a big Brosnan fan...

    ....so what do I know?

    Agreed that it’s not an issue of age. Brosnan was being heralded has the best Bond since Connery during his tenure, and even though his films did get mixed critical reception, Brosnan was always regarded as a highlight of those films. Even now Brosnan still has an incredibly strong fan base behind him (I’m one of those fans), who still view him as one of if not the best Bond, and while Connery is my number one, Brosnan comes at a close 2nd.

    What bugs me are the lowblows that people will make about his acting abilities. Those criticisms hold no merit to me whatsoever, and come across as rather nitpicky than anything else.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,023
    I’m being more specific about a generation sharing their childhood upbringing through social media.

    Yeah, again, with respect...I don't believe it's about age. I've seen plenty of positivity about the Brosnan era from folks who weren't of that generation. Implying that it's only millennials driving the re-evaluation is misleading. It's an example, not a defining trait as far as I'm concerned. Most of the more interesting re-appraisals I've seen have come from the generation previous.

    I'd be part of that generation but thankfully it doesn't make me blind to any flaws in that particular era. To be fair, though, I never thought Calvin Dyson was a big Brosnan fan...

    ....so what do I know?

    I’m not saying it’s ONLY millennials that like Brosnan, I’m just saying they’re more passionate of Brosnan’s run than others. That’s all.
  • Posts: 1,882
    w2bond wrote: »
    Nothing went wrong. I don't get the hate. Could it have been better? Sure, but so could most movies. And frankly these criticisms apply equally to more critically applauded and prettier looking films.

    1) Filthy habit is a great humorous introduction, with a memorable Arnold track.

    2) Yes the humour is overdone at times but doesn't detract too much from the film.

    3) Then you could say the same for Craig's films. When has 'missing a step' ever affected his abilities? Either follow through with his or don't do it at all.

    4) He looks the best here. Especially the Hamburg break in and car chase

    5) It kind of is a ridiculous plot but you could pick apart many Bond plots.

    YMMV in terms of how well the film elements blend together but many of the criticisms towards TND apply to many other Bond films as well. This one is fun at least

    Good summary. TND works for me because it just goes straight for the entertainment and being a classic Bond film without trying to stretch and contort itself into knots the way the other Brosnan era films to accommodate the this time it's personal angle. Yeah, that happens with Paris, but it results in giving us the Dr. Kaufman scene and after gets back to being about the mission and doesn't overwhelm the film or overstay its welcome.

    I also like the Wai Lin character isn't turned into a forced romance, it's more of a team thing with mutual respect for each other's skills. The machine-gunning in the finale wasn't good then and isn't now. But considering all the guns blazing in the NTTD finale, this looks toned down by comparison.

    I wouldn't call it hate necessarily as it seems like a vast majority of the comments on here are supportive of TND. It was the original poster who had the issues with it more so than anybody else. I mainly disagree with his point about the double entendres as they litter all the Brosnan films and get worse the next two films.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 538
    We’d never have even gotten to CR if it wasn’t for Brosnan.

    Truth. The franchise would've declined in sales and fail to attract younger audiences if it weren't for him.

    Goldeneye restored a mainstream appeal to the franchise that hadn't been seen since the Connery era.
  • Posts: 1,882
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    We’d never have even gotten to CR if it wasn’t for Brosnan.

    Truth. The franchise would've declined in sales and fail to attract younger audiences if it weren't for him.

    Goldeneye restored a mainstream appeal to the franchise that hadn't been seen since the Connery era.

    More like speculation. There's every chance the franchise could've just stayed in hibernation for a while and come back like so many others have done and CR would've still been obtained.

    Besides that, the GE game was also a contributing factor in attracting younger people to discover the franchise. Longtime fans flocked to the movies no matter who is in the role.

    And don't discount the popularity of the series during the Moore era. MR was one of the biggest moneymakers of all.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    edited November 2021 Posts: 538
    it seems like a vast majority of the comments on here are supportive of TND.

    The people active on this thread are a vocal minority. It has a 52/100 Metascore. A 6.5 on IMDB. And it seems like most Bond fans rate this in the bottom half or quartile of films. And to the average filmgoer, while it had a good box office, it doesn't really have longevity; it's rarely talked about aside from by hardcore Bond fan.

    The fans of this movie are mostly hardcore Bond fans and hardcore Brosnan fans. But objectively speaking, this is 1 derivative spy film in a sea of thousands of spy films.

    TND was a point where the Bond started feeling like a Bond-clone.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 538
    kenton wrote: »
    I thought Dr. Kaufman was a different but good assassin character.

    I love him. He was one of the only characters in this movie that wasn't completely derivative.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 538
    And frankly these criticisms apply equally to more critically applauded and prettier looking films.

    Yes, numerous other Bond films are formulaic. But this means there are winners and losing when every one is trying to do the same thing. There will be the ones that people regard as exceptionally well done, and ones that are worse versions of it.

    Whereas with a film that has its own identity and is creative, it's easier to forgive some of its flaws, because it's also offering something you can't get from other films.
    1) Filthy habit is a great humorous introduction

    That line is fine, but we never really get a great shot of Bond's face or Bond doing anything special at the start. And most of what we see from him is Brosnan's dizzied facial expression as he's being strangled.

    He had very little dialogue in the opening in general. And most of the action was from other characters, or CGI.

  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    The counterargument to my initial post...
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    it seems like a vast majority of the comments on here are supportive of TND.

    The people active on this thread are a vocal minority. It has a 52/100 Metascore. A 6.5 on IMDB. And it seems like most Bond fans rate this in the bottom half or quartile of films. And to the average filmgoer, while it had a good box office, it doesn't really have longevity; it's rarely talked about aside from by hardcore Bond fan.

    The fans of this movie are mostly hardcore Bond fans and hardcore Brosnan fans. But objectively speaking, this is 1 derivative spy film in a sea of thousands of spy films.

    TND was a point where the Bond started feeling like a Bond-clone.

    I don't disagree with your initial comment, the ratings and rankings prove your point. You answered your own question - the main complaint I see is that it's too formulaic and it gets out-ranked by poorer but more distinctive Bond films. And the Craig era has gone out the way to overcompensate - perhaps too much (and regardless of what I think, it's for the better).
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    And frankly these criticisms apply equally to more critically applauded and prettier looking films.

    Whereas with a film that has its own identity and is creative, it's easier to forgive some of its flaws, because it's also offering something you can't get from other films.

    That is one of the main issues with TND, it's lacking identity.
  • Posts: 1,001
    I do think Brosnan seems to being reappraised a bit lately, just as Dalton was when Craig took over. About time imo. I know he wasn’t always best served by the scripts, but I always thought the sudden shift in fan opinion when CR came out was harsh. It was the 90s. We needed a cool, flashy action hero Bond, and Brosnan played that perfectly.

    I've watched a couple of Brozza's in recent weeks, which helped because I was one of the people disappointed with what they did in NTTD. The Brosnan films are cheesier, but more fun. And I have to admit I'm in the mood for a fun Bond these days.

  • Posts: 1,394
    Nothing went wrong.In fact,given the films rushed and troubled production,it’s amazing that the film turned out to be a hugely entertaining Bond adventure.

    Watched it again recently and after the depressing state that NTTD left me in,it’s shameless intention to do nothing other than entertain was quite welcome.
  • Posts: 1,001
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Watched it again recently and after the depressing state that NTTD left me in,it’s shameless intention to do nothing other than entertain was quite welcome.

    I've got to say, I miss those times when Bond would be off on an adventure every two years. These five and six year waits, only to get served a Bond who is suffering and going rogue all the time is a bitter pill for those of us bought up in the Moore era.
  • M16_Cart wrote: »
    ...we never really get a great shot of Bond's face or Bond doing anything special at the start. And most of what we see from him is Brosnan's dizzied facial expression as he's being strangled.

    He had very little dialogue in the opening in general. And most of the action was from other characters, or CGI.

    Bond's face is purposefully hidden throughout the first half of the PTS to build anticipation and allow for the big "Bond is back" moment. The delayed intro works beautifully in my opinion, as does Arnold's playful working of the Bond theme before Bond is first glimpsed as he knocks that guy out. All the rest of the action in the PTS, the chaos of the shooting and things blowing up, is set in motion by Bond himself.

    Tomorrow-Never-Dies-0026.jpg

    Tomorrow-Never-Dies-0029.jpg

    Tomorrow-Never-Dies-0032.jpg

    Tomorrow-Never-Dies-0050.jpg
  • I do think Brosnan seems to being reappraised a bit lately, just as Dalton was when Craig took over. About time imo. I know he wasn’t always best served by the scripts, but I always thought the sudden shift in fan opinion when CR came out was harsh. It was the 90s. We needed a cool, flashy action hero Bond, and Brosnan played that perfectly. We’d never have even gotten to CR if it wasn’t for him, and I think he bought more to the role than his detractors give him credit for. He was the most emotional Bond we’d
    had at the time, and TWINE in particular is basically a proto-Craig film.

    I think we’ve been quite lucky really when it comes to the actors. I don’t think the role has ever been miscast, and every new Bond has been just what the series needed at the time. I’m gutted Craig is gone, but it’ll be exciting to see whether they can keep that streak going.

    That’s because the kids that grew up with Brosnan as their Bond have grown up and naturally are more vocal now than they were in the early 2000s. It’s the same reason the Star Wars prequels has been reappraised by millennials.

    Yeah to be fair, maybe it’s a generational thing. I’ve always been fairly forgiving of the flaws of that era, but while Brosnan wasn’t my first Bond or really “my” Bond, I did grow up with them and I have a lot of fond memories of that time. So, I can’t really deny that might colour how I see them.

    I think that’s true of every era of Bond really. I can remember some of the most hardline Brosnan hating, Craig loving Fleming enthusiasts on here defending the merits of Moore’s weaker films (that they saw as kids) in the past. Desmond Llewellyn once said that the best Bond is usually whoever it was when you were a kid, or something along those lines. And while that obviously isn’t true for everyone, I do think when a series runs for this long, nostalgia will naturally play a big role in how we see these films.

    I realised that a couple of years ago, and that’s why I struggle to rank all the films like I used to. I remember spending a lot of time on here rationalising why I thought the Dalton films were better than Craig’s first two for example, and to be honest I’ll still die on the hill of QoS being awful, but are TLD and LTK really better than CR? I have to admit I don’t know. I prefer the Dalton films personally. I get a lot more enjoyment out of them and I can explain why. But ultimately I’m a pretty biased judge, and they’re both good, so I don’t know if I can really call one definitively better than the other. Instead I just try to avoid being too declarative now, and make clear that my personal preferences are my personal preferences.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,023
    You’re right that the generational thing doesn’t always apply. There are exceptions and I’m one of them. I remember my friend was hyping about TND, as it was coming out at the time. I was 11 years old. I didn’t see it in theaters, but when it was available on demand I finally gave it a watch. Or at least half watched. I turned the movie off after the garage chase because I thought it was that boring.

    It’s a movie I tried over many years to like. But every time I watched it I was just bored out of my skull. It just does nothing for me.
  • Posts: 372
    Let me, or my master Herr Kaufmann, teach you how you missed the Citizen Kane of all Bond films. Because we are both in it.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,023
    Nah.

    I have better movies to watch.
  • You’re right that the generational thing doesn’t always apply. There are exceptions and I’m one of them. I remember my friend was hyping about TND, as it was coming out at the time. I was 11 years old. I didn’t see it in theaters, but when it was available on demand I finally gave it a watch. Or at least half watched. I turned the movie off after the garage chase because I thought it was that boring.

    It’s a movie I tried over many years to like. But every time I watched it I was just bored out of my skull. It just does nothing for me.

    Oh yeah I was talking about the Brosnan era generally, I agree on TND. I think it’s fine, but it’s painfully generic. The forgettable one of the Brosnan era for me. It’s not as good as GE, its ideas and character dynamics aren’t as interesting as the ones in TWINE, and it doesn’t have the so awful it’s hilarious entertainment value of DAD. It’s just sort of there.

    I don’t hate it, and I think it’s a fine one to stick on if I just want to zone out in front of a random Bond film and not have to think about it. But generally, if I want to see Brosnan doing his thing then I’d rather watch one of his other films, and if I want to see Michelle Yeoh kicking arse then I’d rather watch Police Story 3.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,023
    I remember in 2000 watching GE for the first time and being SHOCKED by how good it was. By that point, I had already tried both TND and TWINE and they didn’t do anything for me. If they had been as good as GE, I could then understand the praise Bond fans give Brosnan’s films. But as it is, he’s 1/4 for me.
Sign In or Register to comment.