134 replies to this topic

[Brian Flagg]

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

Sure he does. It's a cold, black decayed heart, but a heart nonetheless.

[Loomis]

A heart of stone.

ETA: Dang, Brian Flagg! You beat me to it!

[YOLT]

At cinema when I first saw TW?NE it was a dissapointment for me. But after 5 years and after DAD I can say that it rose in my ratings and list. It has great moments. I accept that it is too much dramatic, but I am now appreciating it more.

[Qwerty]

A heart of stone.

ETA: Dang, Brian Flagg! You beat me to it!

Still a heart.

[Bondian]

'TWINE' is a pathetic attempt by EON to resurrect 'FRWL'.

Bearing in mind that this is Brosnans third 'outing' as Bond, he tries too hard to be serious and basically reduces any chance of making this film worthy of Bond 19.

Good thing about Connery and Moore is that they kept a kind of 'even keel' with all their movies, and it's just that that made them so good along with first rate screenwriters and directors.

In 100 years time, Connery and Moore will still be the definitive James Bonds. Brosnan and Lazenby will be the meek ones, but Dalton will be the one who tried, but was let go.

Cheers,


Ian

[Qwerty]

In 100 years time, Connery and Moore will still be the definitive James Bonds. Brosnan and Lazenby will be the meek ones, but Dalton will be the one who tried, but was let go.

I believe Moore once said he and Connery would be forgotton once everyone saw Brosnan as Bond.

[Tarl_Cabot]

"In 100 years time, Connery and Moore will still be the definitive James Bonds."

You of course mean Connery and Dalton right? I love Roger but he's James Bond Lite. 85 calories gets the job done but the taste is a little weak...

[Bondian]

In 100 years time, Connery and Moore will still be the definitive James Bonds. Brosnan and Lazenby will be the meek ones, but Dalton will be the one who tried, but was let go.

I believe Moore once said he and Connery would be forgotton once everyone saw Brosnan as Bond.

He was surely mistaken!.

[Bondian]

You of course mean Connery and Dalton right? I love Roger but he's James Bond Lite. 85 calories gets the job done but the taste is a little weak...

Ah, I should have said "Connery, Moore and Dalton"!,

[Loomis]

In 100 years time, Connery and Moore will still be the definitive James Bonds. Brosnan and Lazenby will be the meek ones, but Dalton will be the one who tried, but was let go.

I believe Moore once said he and Connery would be forgotton once everyone saw Brosnan as Bond.

He was wrong. And don't forget that he made that remark while visiting the set of GOLDENEYE, so he was in a situation where he had to be nice to Brosnan.

For all I know, Moore does like Brosnan as Bond, but it was nonetheless the "politically correct" thing for him to say at the time.

I suspect that Bondian may be right when he states: "In 100 years time, Connery and Moore will still be the definitive James Bonds." Today, I reckon there are more people around the world who know the names Sean Connery and Roger Moore than there are who know the name Pierce Brosnan.

I've heard quite a few people in the UK referring to the most recent Bond actor as "that guy who plays James Bond, what's his name?", "Pierce whatsit", "Pierce Bronson", etc.

[Brian Flagg]

Interesting remark concerning Connery and Moore's Bond legacy. Even their "worst" films like DAF(or NSNA, if you please) and AVTAK have legions of devoted fans who consider those films their personal favorites. They defend those entries at every turn. Will there be such devotion to TWINE? If the "Best Brosnan Film" Bond poll is any indication, there will be. As of today, TWINE has 42 votes as Brosnan's best film. So I believe that TWINE will endure among the fans much like DAF and AVTAK have.

Edited by Brian Flagg, 18 November 2004 - 02:41 PM.

[Loomis]

I believe that TWINE will endure among the fans much like DAF and AVTAK have.

I'm sure that TWINE has its fans and will continue to have its fans, but I don't think Brosnan (or, for that matter, Dalton) will ever be a Connery/Moore-type icon.

[Brian Flagg]

You're right, Loomis. I can't think of any singular standout moment in his films, or anything Pierce has brought to the role. However, do we credit him with bringing 007 back from the dead? Is that his legacy? Was Brosnan the reason that Bond makes money again?

[Turn]

After all this TWINE talk the past few days I decided to dust off the DVD (doesn't get much use) and pop it into the player for some 5-year perspective.

My opinion on it is pretty much the same. I didn't watch the whole film, just flipped around parts of it. I still like the opening and it would have won some points to have finished the precredits after Bond escapes the banker's office. It would have been simple and effective -- kind of like TLD. Then the later action wouldn't have seemed so flat maybe, but they shot their wad by including the boat chase.

One of the things that struck me was how TWINE's intention was to depart from the formula but strains so hard to keep the formula at the same time. It's like Purvis and Wade were told to add things that worked in the past.

-We've got to get in a skiing scene even if there is no real reason for Bond and Elektra to be up in the mountains.
-We've got to have a casino scene to put Bond in a tux and to get a casino into the story. It seems like a really convuluted way to reintroduce Zukovsky and work his nephew in and all that.
-We've got to get the car with the gadgets in there. Even though all it basically does is is shoot rockets and get chopped apart. That leads me to the bad joke when R talks about the "6 beverage cup holders." Well and good, but what does a 2-seat sports car need 6 beverage cup holders for anyway? There had to be a better joke in there somewhere.

Another thing I noticed was Purvis and Wade like to hammer things home in their dialogue, make things too obvious. In DAD they did it with the "I got the thrust" and all that. In TWINE, it was about being dead and such. There's a pattern that makes me appreciate Tom Mankiewicz's work all the more. I'd rather be mystified and wanting to learn from a line like "As LaRouchefeld (spelling) once observed humility is the worst form of conceit" from DAF than be pummelled with the obvious several times over.

[Loomis]

do we credit him with bringing 007 back from the dead? Is that his legacy? Was Brosnan the reason that Bond makes money again?

No. 007 was brought back from the dead because MGM and Eon made GOLDENEYE, a pretty good film that showed there was still potential in the franchise. Brosnan did not finance, produce, write, direct, etc. GOLDENEYE - he merely played James Bond. He did a good job, but there's no reason to believe that another actor couldn't have done just as good a job.

Brosnan did not make GOLDENEYE a good movie (the producers, writers, director, etc. did), he did not make GOLDENEYE a hit (it was marketed well, and after six-and-a-half Bond-free years there was more public appetite for 007 than had been the case in the late '80s), and he did not resurrect James Bond (MGM and Eon resurrected Bond when they decided to move forward with GOLDENEYE).

[Atticus17F]

Another thing I noticed was Purvis and Wade like to hammer things home in their dialogue, make things too obvious. In DAD they did it with the "I got the thrust" and all that. In TWINE, it was about being dead and such. There's a pattern that makes me appreciate Tom Mankiewicz's work all the more.

I agree, the last few Bonds have suffered some of the most excruciatingly bad dialogue to appear in any film, but I still can't bring myself to lay the blame on P & W. Their work on 'Let Him Have It' and 'Return to Sender' is actually pretty good stuff and I think that's probably due to minimal interference from producers and the director's wife.

There's a terrific interview with Christopher Wood over at Dr. Shatterhand's Botanical Garden in which he says, "After a script has been written and greenlighted ... it is not unusual for the producers to try and 'improve' the script rather than leave it languishing in a drawer. Actors and directors can also make their 'input' a condition of employment. It would be naive - if flattering - to imagine that the writer on a Bond film has total control over the script."

Based on some of their other work, I think P & W could come up with a terrific Bond script if left to their own devices. It's a pity that's not likely to happen.

[YOLT]

Connery is the starter, Moore is the serial, and Brosnan is the recreater.

[Dmitri Mishkin]

TWINE was my first Bond experience, and I remember being wholly upset and disenchanted with the film. These days, I can still only watch and enjoy the pre-titles (still a kick-butt opening to the movie, filmed and cut with energy). But the rest of the film digresses into painful introspection after that. The Stockholm Syndrome scene is far too much melodrama, moodiness and dreariness for a Bond film. Scene after scene seems to remind you of the lack of energy in this film, the lack of flair, which at the very least, you could say Tamahori managed to achieve. DAD was much more vibrant and lively than this.

TWINE as a whole reminds me of the first-half expositiion of GE, Severnaya being destroyed, EMP, etc. A slow deliberate pacing. There is nothing wrong with setting up a story and its plot points, etc, but the difference is GE perks up and gathers energy. TWINE does not. (Off topic: For fans of Bourne I and II, I think TWINE is the closest a Bond film will get in mood and feel to that series.)

Jim and others argued that the film is "schizophrenic" and "incoherent". Freemo's counterpoint was yes, but all Bond films have been like that to an extent. I would agree. But TWINE, when the moments come, seem to contrast the two extremes - lightheartedness and melodrama - to such an extent, we can't help but feel jarred while watching it.

Dialogue-wise, I still believe P&W -did- play a role in the quality of the script. There may be many influences and pressures on the writers, absolutely, but does that completely absolve them of blame?

What's good about the film? The best parts still remain in the pre-titles. First in the scene in Bilbao, LeChaise IS a Bond villain and there is feeling of "Bond" in all the proceedings; the dialogue, score by Arnold, jokes, setting, sniper/espionage, dispensing of the goons, and the final stunt of course. Then, the Thames chase exudes energy, is well-cut, has some creativity and FUN (cruising on the streets of London) and concludes with that awesome rendition of the Bond theme. It's all perfect. Even the Cigar Girl leaves an impression, with only a handful of lines. The precredits redeem the movie from permanent DVD purgatory.

[Genrewriter]

I'd also add in the caviar factory sequence, it gets close to the level the pretitle sequence gets to.

[Dmitri Mishkin]

I dont know Genrewriter. That scene, to me, just doesn't particularly offer that much. To its credit, however, it has energy again, fun again, which was missed in the hour or so before that. It has something to do with the original idea, the set-up leading to it, and the score (which is a fine version of the theme by Arnold but otherwise, overdone and actually cheesy in places). So overall, maybe that's what it is to me - there are ideas there, but nothing particularly new. But if you're talking about energy and fun, definitely, the Caviar Factory at least comes close to the pre-titles.

[Loomis]

I'd also add in the caviar factory sequence, it gets close to the level the pretitle sequence gets to.

Not too bad a sequence, but I loathe the bit where the car gets cut neatly in half and Bond quips: "Q's not going to like this."

I'm not saying I don't like humour with my Bonds, but this moment really falls flat, and sticks out like a sore thumb. It's a jarring bit of supposedly "audience-pleasing" comedy that takes you right out of a reasonably gripping action scene, and is so phoney that it's the equivalent of a "laughter" sign flashing its order. You think: so, Bond's in the middle of a life-or-death situation, but he's nonetheless highly amused by the thought of Q's anger over what's just happened to his car, yeah, I'll buy that.... not.

As has been pointed out many times, it's the mishmash of "serious Bond" and "comedy Bond" that causes TWINE to be all tangled up like, well, a ball of twine.

[[dark]]

I'd also add in the caviar factory sequence, it gets close to the level the pretitle sequence gets to.

Not too bad a sequence, but I loathe the bit where the car gets cut neatly in half and Bond quips: "Q's not going to like this."

Really? I love that line. Of course, it ain't Fleming, but I can easily imagine Moore's Bond - maybe even later Connery's Bond - saying something similar.

Always makes me laugh; particularly when the car alarm gives one last sickly beep as the BMW collapses. I think, if anything, moments like these serve as a bit of relief - as it is, the caviar factory sequence is nothing more than a fun setpiece - from the dramatic scenes.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

I also quite like that particular bit, aside from the fact that it's a pretty obvious wax figure of Bond when the car collapses in half. You can tell, as it's arm is outstretched and it "wobbles" when the BMW falls apart.

Check it out. It's hard to ignore it once you realize it.

And no, I am not talking about Brosnan's performance in general throughout the film.

[Icephoenix]

I'm also one of those who loves that line, what I do hate is the poor editing throughout the sequence. One part that makes me wince every time, is from when Bond pops out from the trap-door, to when he shoots and jumps down from the catwalk. Ugh.

[Loomis]

,19 November 2004 - 23:50]

I'd also add in the caviar factory sequence, it gets close to the level the pretitle sequence gets to.

Not too bad a sequence, but I loathe the bit where the car gets cut neatly in half and Bond quips: "Q's not going to like this."

Really? I love that line. Of course, it ain't Fleming, but I can easily imagine Moore's Bond - maybe even later Connery's Bond - saying something similar.

Well, that's my point, really: it's a "glimmer" of "fun-for-all-the-family Bond" that doesn't seem to belong in a film in which the main Bond girl mutilates herself (albeit offscreen) by cutting off part of her ear. The line seems horribly out of character for the Bond who, earlier in the movie, is seen getting mediaeval on Renard ("Cold-blooded murder is a filthy business....").

Of course, TWINE isn't the only Bond flick to be inconsistent in tone; for instance, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN is both the film in which a tough, mean Roger Moore (yes, really) belittles and slaps Maud Adams, and the film in which a comedy whistle sound effect accompanies a car doing a corkscrew jump.

Why, then, get mediaeval on TWINE? Because, as has been said before, TWINE's serious bits are so serious (as "dark" as anything in LICENCE TO KILL, really) that the lighthearted bits are seriously jarring.

If there's one Bond film that seems to have been a very big influence on the makers of TWINE, it's THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. I wouldn't be surprised if Michael Apted, reacquainting himself with the Bonds on video in the period leading up to the start of shooting on TWINE, saw TLD and said: "Yeah, this one's pretty good, this is more or less the sort of thing I'd be after." A pity that all the TLD-type bits in TWINE are undercut by goofy so-called comedy more appropriate to the silliest parts of OCTOPUSSY.

[Turn]

I enjoy the Q line in the caviar factory sequence although I dislike the rest of the sequence.

It's like they needed another action sequence to wake up the audience from the other drama and threw this together. It's another case of the bad guys who couldn't shoot straight as 20 assasains and 5 helicopters with roto blades can't kill one man, even when he slides down a line.

Then there's the forced humor with Robbie Coltrane flailing in caviar. This is another aspect of the inconsistent tone Loomis speaks of. You could sort of see Zukovsky as a somewhat powerful gangster in GE, but somebody thought it would be more amusing to make fun of him. It reminds me of when they turned the Marcus Brody character into a buffoon in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Did they really miss a Jack Wade type that much they needed to do this?

[Janus Assassin]

I just realized something. Today is five years since I saw my first Bond movie which was GoldenEye on NBC. I remember seeing it November 20,1999. What a coincidence

[Turn]

This time of year is pretty significant to the last 10 years of Bond films. GoldenEye opened in the U.S. Nov. 17, TWINE Nov. 19 and DAD Nov. 22.

[Dmitri Mishkin]

Then there's the forced humor with Robbie Coltrane flailing in caviar. This is another aspect of the inconsistent tone Loomis speaks of. You could sort of see Zukovsky as a somewhat powerful gangster in GE, but somebody thought it would be more amusing to make fun of him. It reminds me of when they turned the Marcus Brody character into a buffoon in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Did they really miss a Jack Wade type that much they needed to do this?

Yes, Zukovsky in TWINE isn't the Zukovsky of GE. It's a much watered down version, with him becoming almost strictly comic relief. The Zukovsky I liked did not have a goatee (he appeared more dangerous without it), but more importantly, resembled the kind of shady, ex-KGB character that could be a powerful gangster. The Zukovsky of TWINE seems too polished. Yes, he is now a "legitimate businessman", but he no longer seems dangerous. He is tamed, and hardly bitter and cynical as he was before (I liked the character in GE, and I liked the staging of the first meeting between the two). He and Bond retain their sort of I help you-you help me, reluctant partnership, but he is a little too affectionate toward Bond for my liking. It may be something in Robbie Coltrane's performance. I'm not sure. But the character didn't seem the same when I watched TWINE, and that was part of the disappointment.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I'd also add in the caviar factory sequence, it gets close to the level the pretitle sequence gets to.

Not too bad a sequence, but I loathe the bit where the car gets cut neatly in half and Bond quips: "Q's not going to like this."

I'm not saying I don't like humour with my Bonds, but this moment really falls flat, and sticks out like a sore thumb. It's a jarring bit of supposedly "audience-pleasing" comedy that takes you right out of a reasonably gripping action scene, and is so phoney that it's the equivalent of a "laughter" sign flashing its order. You think: so, Bond's in the middle of a life-or-death situation, but he's nonetheless highly amused by the thought of Q's anger over what's just happened to his car, yeah, I'll buy that.... not.

I'll take the Timothy Dalton economy of humour anyday over stupid cracks like that. Are stupid lines like that be the writer's attempt to make Brosnan "fun" to watch? Also, how about keeping Bond in character? He never gave a damn about Q's feelings..