134 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

One funny thing I just realised was the sheer absurdity in the scene when we cut to Elektra in her room, and we hear a thunk. The camera cuts to Bond standing over Gabor, who is now unconscious. It's really quite funny when you take into account Bond is legally handicapped for the majority of the film and acts like a wuss, and the fact that the guy he took out is twice his size.

That's actually one of the few bits in the film I don't mind. That's James Bond - he can chop down anyone, and this is true regardless of whether Bond is being played by a 35-year-old Connery, a 55-year-old Moore, Brosnan with his leg in plaster, or Orlando Bloom. Bond isn't the biggest or most muscular guy on earth, but he's certainly the toughest customer. The scene where he takes out the bouncer at the casino by pinning him to the bar with his tie before coolly sipping his drink is a great example of this (although it's somewhat marred by the fact that you can clearly see a few drops of the drink being spilled). He's like the Treadstone assassin in THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, who doesn't for a moment let the fact that his hands are tied persuade him that attacking Bourne isn't a good idea. Or he's like Tintin - don't know whether anyone here is a fan of the Tintin books, but Herge's (frankly) weedy-looking boy reporter somehow has unbelievable fighting ability, and you just accept it because he's the hero and he's not scared of anyone, and, hey, you want him to be able to do the things he does.

Would have been nice, though, if we'd seen Bond flooring Gabor.

Re: FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, it's probably my least favourite Bond flick after THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. Only one reason for that, really: it's very, very, very dull indeed. Apart from that, though, it's fine ( ), and I don't loathe it nearly as much as TWINE. As Jim says, FYEO and TWINE both blend "serious" Bond and "fun-for-all-the-family" Bond inexpertly, but at least FYEO doesn't have TWINE's megalomania during its "serious" moods.

[[dark]]

Bond isn't the biggest or most muscular guy on earth, but he's certainly the toughest customer. The scene where he takes out the bouncer at the casino by pinning him to the bar with his tie before coolly sipping his drink is a great example of this (although it's somewhat marred by the fact that you can clearly see a few drops of the drink being spilled).

I've always found that a bit of a disappointment. For such a cool scene, it's a shame Bond can't even hold his drink.

[Loomis]

For such a cool scene, it's a shame Bond can't even hold his drink.

LOL!

[Icephoenix]

This scene bugged me for ages, even more so when i read "And take out the villian...all without dropping a drop of his martini" in some newspaper.

[Brian Flagg]

I didn't like TWINE at all, and I still don't. It's dreary, claustrophobic, typically bleak 1990s "intensity" and rife with the self-important "darkness" which seemed to dominate entertainment (e.g. Music: Nirvana, Comics: Spawn) back then. The bleak atmosphere in TWINE came at the expense of humor, which was previously a consistent Bond trademark. At least with the worst of Moore's Bond, there was that twinkle, the humorous touch that made watching them at least a pleasant diversion that made you still feel like living after the credits rolled. While watching the lackluster exercise that was TWINE, I couldn't decide whether it was just a cinematic misfire or that Brosnan was all wrong for Bond. It was probably both.

I feel that the spineless, apologetic political correctness has gutted the Bond franchise, and Brosnan is it's poster boy. I've said this before, but Bond should meet the audience on his own terms. Let the audience know 007's history; the sexism, the political incorrectness. For better or for worse, it's what made the franchise so memorable. The Bond films should live and die on Bond's established character traits and for better or worse, that's why audiences liked Bond to begin with, because he wasn't just another generic action hero. I don't see EON going back to what made Bond an icon and the results of that decision can be seen in TWINE.

Edited by Brian Flagg, 17 November 2004 - 02:47 PM.

[Simon]

I feel that the spineless, apologetic political correctness has gutted the Bond franchise, and Brosnan is it's poster boy.  I've said this before, but Bond should meet the audience on his own terms.  Let the audience know 007's history; the sexism, the political incorrectness. For better or for worse, it's what made the franchise so memorable. The Bond films should live and die on Bond's established character traits and for better or worse, that's why audiences liked Bond to begin with, because he wasn't just another generic action hero.  I don't see EON going back to what made Bond an icon and the results of that decision can be seen in TWINE.

Very eloquently put. Agreed.

[Loomis]

The Bond films should live and die on Bond's established character traits and for better or worse, that's why audiences liked Bond to begin with, because he wasn't just another generic action hero. 

Perhaps that's the chief problem with TWINE: in the film, Bond is just another generic action hero. I don't see any Bond at all in Brosnan's performance, neither the literary Bond nor (in any of its former incarnations) the cinematic Bond. And before anyone accuses me of being anti-Brosnan, I do see quite a bit of Bond in his work in GOLDENEYE, TOMORROW NEVER DIES and DIE ANOTHER DAY.

But TWINE.... I have no idea who the protagonist is supposed to be, or what Broccoli and Wilson, Apted and Brosnan were trying to achieve, but he is not James Bond.

Brian Flagg, where do you stand on the other Brosnan outings? I myself like GOLDENEYE (albeit not nearly as much as I did when it first came out), and the second half of TOMORROW NEVER DIES (the first half I find crude, intelligence-insulting and boring), and consider DIE ANOTHER DAY the best of the bunch. Unlike TWINE, DAD is an unpretentious piece of work that is at least great fun, and Brosnan gives his most relaxed and charismatic turn as 007. His performance in TWINE is all heavy lifting.

That was the problem with Brosnan: he wanted so desperately to be like Connery, but in reality he was much more like Moore (which is no bad thing).

[Simon]

......... and the second half of TOMORROW NEVER DIES (the first half I find crude, intelligence-insulting and boring),

I realise it is the wrong forum, but really?? I (and others) have always considered the first half to be vintage Bond, and the second half Die Hard-ish.

[Loomis]

I (and others) have always considered the first half to be vintage Bond, and the second half Die Hard-ish.

The first half vintage Bond? Not for me: it's marred by all those jokes about sexism and bits in which M and Moneypenny put men in their place, and Brosnan doing his emasculated-Bond blubbing-and-shoulder-chewing routine. Granted, there are good things in the first half, but, really, it just makes me reach for my DVDs of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. "If only I could find a real man." Indeed.

As for the second half - well, the bike chase is a great Bond action sequence, and those locations remind me of THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and better times. The chemistry between Bond and Wai Lin gets going, too. Some nice visuals, and even David Arnold's score starts to perk up. The climax is a bit of a let-down, though, I suppose - DIE HARDish is certainly an apt description.

[Brian Flagg]

I actually enjoyed parts of GOLDENEYE, and DAD was promising in it's attempt at returning to a Moore-era style 007, although the MTV-style editing and crappy score killed it for me, but that's just the way today's movies are. I prefer longer, less frenetic camerawork. I'm not in a hurry, so entertain me! What's the rush, fellas? Gotta fill the megaplex up with the next wave, I guess. And yes, when I saw the scene where Brosnan seduces Caroline, I, too realized that Brosnan was more like Roger Moore than he was Sean Connery. And I had no problem with it, as I love Roger's 007. I was hopeful for dear old Pierce until the browbeating about Bond being a "Cold War relic" and a sexist pig yadda yadda yadda. It was the apologetic pandering to political correctness, which seemed like "Well, we'll just laugh off the character trademarks that made Bond memorable so that we're not offending anyone, now let's have a nice, politically correct series of big moneymaking James Bond movies." Aren't we grown up enough to understand a character and determine for ourselves whether their behavior or attitudes or "wrong"? Let the chips fall where they may, EON will still make scads of money, because the Bond franchise sells itself. I could go on and on...

[Loomis]

Agreed, Brian Flagg. Ironic, isn't it, that the only Bond films that seem to talk down to audiences are the "modern" Brosnan ones, and not those dreadful, embarrassing old relics of the "sexist", non-PC '60s, '70s and '80s?

[Brian Flagg]

Agreed, Brian Flagg. Ironic, isn't it, that the only Bond films that seem to talk down to audiences are the "modern" Brosnan ones, and not those dreadful, embarrassing old relics of the "sexist", non-PC '60s, '70s and '80s?

Agreed. Another shining example of the wrong kind of "progress", and of change NOT being for the better.

[Brian Flagg]

In all fairness, I think if a young person or a Bond newbie discovers their love of James Bond through the Pierce era, then that's fine, too. As long as they're on board...

[Loomis]

In all fairness, I think if a young person or a Bond newbie discovers their love of James Bond through the Pierce era, then that's fine, too. As long as they're on board...

Yeah, and as long as they get into Fleming and start watching the 1960s films and get over their infatuation with Brosnan....

Recently, Bondian described the Brosnan era as a "side salad" to the franchise, which I think is pretty apt. (http://debrief.comma...opic=19468&st=0)

[Brian Flagg]

In all fairness, I think if a young person or a Bond newbie discovers their love of James Bond through the Pierce era, then that's fine, too. As long as they're on board...

Yeah, and as long as they get into Fleming and start watching the 1960s films and get over their infatuation with Brosnan....

That's what I meant, but didn't type. BTW, my wife is one of those who did not come from a "James Bond Family", as her people didn't watch the 100 proof Bond, but she did enjoy Brosnan, as she's a longtime "Remington Steele" fan, but I made sure wifey saw THUNDERBALL and YOLT, the latter now being her favorite Bond film. So yes, a little Brosnan can lead to better things.

[Loomis]

Your wife likes YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE? She has good taste. Seems a lot of hardcore Bond fans (for some unfathomable reason) dislike it.

[hrabb04]

YOLT is classic Bond. After reading this thread, I need to go back and check TWINE out again. I liked it when I saw it in theaters, but sometimes after time goes by, some movies lose their luster.

[Loomis]

YOLT is classic Bond.

One of the very best, IMO.

[LordAsriel]

QUOTE(Bon-san @ 16 November 2004 - 12:26)
It seems to get dinged primarily for two things:

1) lacking fluidity;

2) Denise Richards.

As to the former, Moonraker was reviled for years by CBN'ers and it's the most fluid of all Bond films. While Thunderball has always rated highly, yet it is ssslllooowww.




Seems to me that there are plenty of CBners who prefer MOONRAKER to THUNDERBALL

I'm going to be off-topic but I had to come here after having read that. Having watched again Moonraker last week, I really can't believe how this movie can be so much appreciated. Indeed, I found the action sequences totally unimpressive (except the battle in the Venetian glass between bond and chang) with some very very bad back-projections (in particular the car cable seqence is awfull). And the script is not very well written (for example why Drax immediately asked Chang to kill Bond with no reason but an easy pretext for the centrifuge trainer torture scene). The film is only saved by Roger Moore lightness of touch. Thunderball is way better, and to come-back somehow to the topic I even prefer TWINE to Moonraker.

[LordAsriel]

YOLT is classic Bond.

One of the very best, IMO.

Agreed.

[hrabb04]

I hold Moonraker in the same regard as a lot of you here hold TWINE.

[Turn]

Your wife likes YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE? She has good taste. Seems a lot of hardcore Bond fans (for some unfathomable reason) dislike it.

Loomis, you and I agree on a great number of unconventional Bond opionions (TWINE is bad; TMWTGG is good; FYEO and TSWLM overrated) but I will differ with you, Brian Flagg, hrabb04 and Lord Asriel on YOLT. I don't dislike it in a TWINE way, but feel it's the worst of the Connerys and has a ton of flaws I have a hard time overlooking though I try.

[Genrewriter]

My opinion of the film has dropped considerably since the first time I saw it but it's still a decent enough entry in the series with some rather serious flaws that really stand out after repeated viewings.

1. The first hour or so is pretty good with a great pretitle sequence and a good story setup. The snow chase is uninspired but it could have been at least partially saved by adding a shot or two of the parahawks shooting at Elektra. Then when she turns out to be a villain it would make her seem even more crazy, allowing herself to be shot at by her own men to keep up the illusion for Bond.

2. The underground stuff is alright until the shooting begins, then it just turns into a rather boring gunfight. Something the series usually tends to avoid.

3. I honestly don't mind Denise Richards too much except for two scenes: Her first appearance which comes off as forced and unconvincing and her line at the end on thew sub when Renard has locked himself inside the reactor. When you make William Shatner look like a speed-talker that's not a good thing.

4. The sub finale is also rather underwhelming especially since Renard is really more of a henchman than anything else. In fact, he could honestly be thought of as the film's MacGuffin in that he is basically little more than what starts the main plot ofthe film.

As for good things, the caviar factory sequence is really the last great scene in the movie. It's fun and actually directed rather well.

All in all, I give the film a 7/10. A Bond film can be as deep in character as it wants as long as it's fun and this one misses the mark for me.

[Qwerty]

Your wife likes YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE? She has good taste. Seems a lot of hardcore Bond fans (for some unfathomable reason) dislike it.

I'm not saying the statement is wrong Loomis (I'm not quite sure to be truthful), but why do you make that assertion? I've often heard some good things said about that film in particular.

I myself think it has some ups and downs making it on the whole a good film. The plot and locations easily make it outlandish and wide in scope, an example where fantasy works quite well in a Bond film. One main problem with the film is Connery, he's still Bond, just not the Bond we say in Dr. No or From Russia With Love, IMO.

[Loomis]

Your wife likes YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE? She has good taste. Seems a lot of hardcore Bond fans (for some unfathomable reason) dislike it.

I'm not saying the statement is wrong Loomis (I'm not quite sure to be truthful), but why do you make that assertion? I've often heard some good things said about that film in particular.

Perhaps "dislike" is the wrong word. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE seems to me a film that most Bond fans are utterly indifferent to, and I've no idea why.

It just doesn't seem to arouse strong feelings. If pressed, most people will say they "kind of" like it, but few people seem keen to praise it or to bury it. I'm sure we discuss the likes of THUNDERBALL, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER on CBn much more than we discuss YOLT.

But YOLT was, after all, the Bond film that introduced the iconic Blofeld character (as spoofed by the Austin Powers series) and the concept of elaborate lairs in places like volcanoes, as well as outrageous sci-fi elements and really loopy, far-out humour. For my money, YOLT was the film that finally "set" the "Bond formula", not GOLDFINGER. So I find it curious that we seem to overlook it.

Further discussion of underrated Bond flicks:

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=12340

Anyway, to get this thread back on-topic:

TWINE blows!

[Turn]

For my money, YOLT was the film that finally "set" the "Bond formula", not GOLDFINGER. So I find it curious that we seem to overlook it.

Maybe that's the reason many people overlook YOLT as much -- because it set a formula. The whole "you've seen one, you've seen them all" mentality.

[Brian Flagg]

Maybe we should start a new YOLT thread or resurrect an old one...

[Qwerty]

You might be interested in this one here then: http://debrief.comma...showtopic=12586

Apoligies to Loomis for getting off topic.

[Loomis]

Don't worry, Qwerty, this thread went off-topic before you contributed just now. In fact, I think it's gone off-topic and back on-topic and then back off-topic again a couple of times. Heck, I was probably the one who first took it off-topic!

So, to get it back on-topic again:

TW----

Nah.

[Qwerty]

Don't worry, Qwerty, this thread went off-topic before you contributed just now. In fact, I think it's gone off-topic and back on-topic and then back off-topic again a couple of times. Heck, I was probably the one who first took it off-topic!

So, to get it back on-topic again:

TW----

Nah.

You see. You do have a heart for this film.