65 replies to this topic

[ChrissBond007]

I gave it a 8.5/10, I love TWINE. I think it has the best pre title (the excellent boat chase of course), I like Sophie Marceau as Elektra, the plot is very good, the action is spectaculair but a little the much, Arnold's best score (for so far), a excellent final and a great role from Robbie Coltrane. Yes, Denise Richards looks a little to young for her role, but she wasn't very irritating to me. So I would rank TWINE above Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day, a good Bondmovie.

Edited by ChrissBond007, 14 July 2008 - 06:49 PM.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Excelent Brosnan film. I prefer GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies best, but The World is not Enough is still a hell of a film.

[DR76]

Pretty good movie, except for the last twenty minutes or so. The action on the sub really bored me.

[Vanish]

Love the sequence in the banker's office in the PTS. It truly feels Connery-esque, even when Brosnan leaps out of the window with a line attached to the random baddie.

As for the rest of the film, it's generally satisfying. Sophie Marceau makes a great villainess, the story is mostly engaging, Denise Richards is a ludicrously great presence, and the torture chair scene is one of the series' coolest (and most vaguely erotic) moments.

The only things that don't work for me are the flat, obligatory action sequences, the plodding pace, and Robert Carlyle's sadly underwritten role.

7.5 / 10

[Aris007]

8/10
Preety good film. It's not the best of Brosnan, but it is very good overall. The PTS(maybe the best) the boat chase..very good!

[Mister E]

2/10

This was a piss poor Bond film. Bond is basically a wimp and M is a sentimental grandmother. You don't make characters more emotional by making them sensitive, you just make them look weak and stupid. The PTS ran WAY too long with it's boat chase that got tired after about one minute. The so called emotion in this film was no more convincing then your average, low-brow, badly acted CBS daytime soap opera. This was just a bad movie overall.

[broadshoulder]

What a clunker.

Its difficult to tell which self destructs first - director, scriptwriter or story. I can see what they are trying to do, make it more emotionally involving for Pierce but instead they made it dull. Renard, was wasted and Robert Carlyle - an excellent actor - had no menace. Made worst by his obcessive love for Sophie Marceau, and the trite "the only pain he can feel is in his heart".

But the story is all over the place. It needed time to sit down and explain it to the audience. Why did Goldie leave that bomb in the Istanbul safe house? What was his motivation? Or was it there for yet another quick explosive thrill. The action scenes are tedious, the jokes horrible, and when M gets kidnapped you know they have run out of ideas.

A ponderous, exhausted, incohorent mess...

[Jim]

Mostly feeble and, when not feeble, that worst of things - dull.

[Publius]

If Bond's wussy moments were discarded, this would be a dead average Bond movie for me. As it stands, it's currently the top rung of my "below-average Bond movies" list (that is, the least bad of those), probably surpassing only the swan songs of Connery, Moore, and Brosnan.

I also think Denise Richards is a highlight, precisely because she clashes so strongly with the film's attempts at melodrama everywhere else. She reminds me of how this could have been TND 2, and thus far better.

[Mister E]

If Bond's wussy moments were discarded,

Remember when Bond touched the image of Elektra on the computer screen ?Oh....*hic*...easy stomach...

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

I gave it a 7. I hadn't watched it in a while, but the film's starting to grow on me a little.
I think that the boat chase at the very beginning is FANTASTIC! That's the great thing about the Bonds is that, when they do a stunt, they do it for real (except DAD).
I really like Sophie Marceau's character. I think that she was a good villain.
Renard was interesting too, however, it seemed that he should have been the "henchman" instead of the secondary villain. His "can't feel the pain" was interesting, however, it never really came into play in the movie.
I think that TWINE has a "Goldfinger-ian" plot (in the sense that, by eliminating the competition, Elektra will be solely in control of the oil reserves in the Turkey area).
I like the moment at the end where Bond is forced to do his job and kill Elektra. It's a bittersweet moment because you feel bad for her, and yet Bond did have a job to do.
Christmas Jones was okay. Mind, I said the character, not Denise Richards. I think she did the best she could, but I think she's miscast in this movie.

So, overall, it's a solid movie. I really enjoy it. Arnold's score is brilliant (as it always is). I like his "Pipeline" score. But, in regards to the movie, I think that this is Brosnan's second best Bond film.

[Eric Stromberg]

I really wasn't expecting the amount of positive votes and reviews that there are. This always seemed like the one film dispised more than any other on CBn.

I'm surprised as well. This seems to be one of the most divisive films in the series. Makes for good discussion!

If I had voted based on memory of my impression opening night, I would have gone with 4. But, having recently revisited the film, I found it had many more strengths than I remembered. The negatives are still glaring but for me it is a much better chapter than I recalled. Today it rates a solid 7. Give M a smaller part and write Renard better and it could have been a contender...

Edited by Eric Stromberg, 11 December 2009 - 06:05 PM.

[The Shark]

2 from me. One for the cinematography, and the other for Robert Carlyle's performance.

Edited by The Shark, 11 December 2009 - 06:24 PM.

[AMC Hornet]

Although TWINE isn't in the top half of my favorite Bonds, I can't fathom how anyone who's seen AVTAK can like TWINE less.

I thought TWINE was a very well written, acted and directed film. Michael Apted knows how to get compelling performances from actors. Perhaps that was the problem - Apted delivered more than we've come to expect (until Martin Campbell scored with CR). Or perhaps the problem was that Vic Armstrong's action sequences and second unit direction were so much more energetic than Apted's dramatic scenes. Unlike TND, the action did not advance the plot - the narrative came to a dead halt while an action scene was inserted, then the story picked up again from where it left off. If this had been any other character, the action scenes could have been left out entirely. As it was, they seem to intrude on a very tight, dramatic story (or did the story intrude on the action fest?).

I appreciate the artistic effort that went into TWINE. I just found it an uneven balance of drama and action. I thought Renard's imperviousness to pain and his acceptance of iminent death mad him a frightening villain. And as for Denise Richards, I'd believe her as a nuclear physicist over Tanya Roberts' geologist any day.

Although TWINE isn't in the top half of my favorite Bonds, I can't fathom how anyone who's seen AVTAK can like TWINE less.

I thought TWINE was a very well written, acted and directed film. Michael Apted knows how to get compelling performances from actors. Perhaps that was the problem - Apted delivered more than we've come to expect (until Martin Campbell scored with CR). Or perhaps the problem was that Vic Armstrong's action sequences and second unit direction were so much more energetic than Apted's dramatic scenes. Unlike TND, the action did not advance the plot - the narrative came to a dead halt while an action scene was inserted, then the story picked up again from where it left off. If this had been any other character, the action scenes could have been left out entirely. As it was, they seem to intrude on a very tight, dramatic story (or did the story intrude on the action fest?).

I appreciate the artistic effort that went into TWINE. I just found it an uneven balance of drama and action. I thought Renard's imperviousness to pain and his acceptance of iminent death made him a frightening villain. And as for Denise Richards, I'd believe her as a nuclear physicist over Tanya Roberts' geologist any day.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

"Some men want to rule the world. Some women ask for the world. Some men think the world is there for the taking. But for one man... The World is Not Enough"
That claimed the trailer of the nineteenth James Bond adventure, premiered in 1999, starring Pierce Brosnan and Sophie Marceau.
The World is not Enough starts with a breathtaking and incredible long teaser starting with a gunshot at a Swiss Banker office in Bilbao and ending with a exhilarating boat chase in the Thames River, in charge of long time Bond crew member Vic Armstrong.
Ordered by M to protect an oil heiress, Elektra King (Sophie Marceau), of a Bosnian terrorist and kidnapper Victor "Renard" Zokas (Robert Carlyle), Bond travels to Azerbaidjan, Kasadjstan, Istambul and the bottom of the Bosphore providing unlimited thrills to the audience.
Pierce Brosnan does, as usual, a great performance as James Bond, perhaps a little overacted in some scenes, but very good indeed, when screenwriters Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Bruce Feirstein make the secret agent fall victim of his feelings towards the apparently innocent Elektra, a confident, self-reliant woman with many things to hide superbly played by Marceau. Robert Carlyle makes a good acting in the foe's side, but not as impressive as other villains in the series (i.e. Alec Trevelyan and Franz Sánchez). The same happens with Denise Richards playing Dr Christmas Jones, who, besides her attributes, looks like a spur of the moment placed character who's just there to end up bedded by our hero.
On the positive side, having Valentin Zukovsky from GoldenEye back is a blessing, once again played by the ever charming Robbie Coltrane, and the last appareance of our beloved Desmond Llewelyn as Q makes the Bond fans to bring a tear to their eyes.
Besides not being experienced in action films, Michael Apted sat on the director chair for The World is not Enough, making a rather good labor, though with a slightly slowed down pace in comparition with GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies (the last scene in the submarine is long and a little boring). The late Adrian Biddle's cinematography is very good, particulary the shots of Bond driving his BMW Z8 in Azerbaidjan, and Brosnan's and Richard's characters celebrating Christmas in Turkey in a balcony with fireworks in the background is second to none.
David Arnold's score is great and the main title song by Garbage is the best Bond song in the whole Brosnan era.
With The World is not Enough, James Bond bid farewell of the 21st Century with a bang. Perhaps not the best Bond film, but a very good one indeed!

9/10

[Judo chop]

It needs more invisible things. Like, half the cast.

[Agent 76]

Gave it a 7/10.

Yes, it has many flaws, it's true, but it also has some things I like.


Cinematography;
Performance by Robert Carlyle;
Locations;
Sophie Marceau;
the soundtrack;
some funny one-liners; (as you can confirm in my signature )

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

I gave it a 6. It used to be one of my favourites, but over the years I've gone off it a little. It still provides some nice thrills and spills though. The PTS is among some of the best in the series, and some of the other action set-pieces are still very enjoyable to watch. I think Renard is a very interesting villain and is played well by Robert Carlyle, but I find Elektra King fairy one-dimensional as a character. Robbie Coltrane provides the laughs as Zukovsky, and Bond's one-liners are as good as ever.

[chrisno1]

In 2008 I watched all the Bond movies and wrote a series of reviews for another site. The aim was to watch them in order in the run up to the premiere of QOS. I succeeded and the reviews were well received.
However, subsequently, I have re-read my reviews and re-watched a number of the movies (the BFI had a whole 007 season earlier this year and I saw quite a few on the big screen again!).
This is my updated review for The World Is Not Enough.

THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH
REVISED REVIEW 20/1/10

Pierce Brosnan hardly broke any acting sweat in his first two outings as 007. The screenplays didn’t call for him to do anything more strenuous than drop pithy comments. This time out writer Bruce Feirstein, along with Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, allow Brosnan to flex his theatrical muscles in a series of scenes that bring to mind some of the very best Bond portrayals.

Unfortunately, while Brosnan succeeds, those around him fail. Hackneyed dialogue, one dimensional villains and incomprehensible plotting abound. The action is laboured and the speeches metronomic. Sadly Michael Apted’s direction isn’t up to standard, as if he didn’t believe it all either.

But let’s first consider Brosnan’s Bond. For once much more than a killing machine, he shows compassion, emotion, irritation and confusion. Early on M delivers a rebuke of terrorism, so determined is she to hunt the murderers of oil baron Robert King (she sounds like the Queen or the Prime Minister) and it is Bond who questions her motives, with a caustic single line censure. Later, he stumbles on the connection between King’s daughter, Elektra, and the terrorist Renard; when confronts Elektra, his instincts are deflected by the determined and beautiful orphan. We see the conflict in Bond’s eyes. Forced to kill her, Bond displays anger, both at her obstinacy and his failure. He sighs and strokes the dead girl’s hair with a repentance that recalls the death of his wife. This is particularly apt as, unwilling to discuss his private life, Elektra cut Bond down to size with the line “Who’s afraid now?” Brosnan’s expression is wonderfully pallid. Unfeasibly Bond takes her to bed, but his excuse that he “takes pleasure is great beauty” is a trite line. It is delivered unconvincingly. Overall though, Brosnan is more than competent.

Of everyone else, the less said the better. Unaided by some terrible situations, we have Sophie Marceau’s Elektra King, a shallow chief villainess, who looks stunning in a red evening gown, and displays spurious political power while planning a devastating nuclear explosion. Her motives are as unbelievable as Renard’s, a miscast Robert Carlyle, who comes across as an unhinged euthanasia candidate. There’s nothing pleasant about his ultimate undoing and we’re rather pleased to see the end of him. Robbie Coltrane returns as Zukovsky, but the writers are merely trying to make up for past misdemeanours by expanding his role from Goldeneye. We also meet Goldie’s Mr Bullion, whose role is too small to make an impact. He at least looks like a bad guy.

Bond meets these two in a stupid scene at Zukovsky’s casino. This feels like an add-on, as if the producers insisted there must be a casino scene. This air of a piece meal construction pervades the whole film. Renard meets his co-conspirators at a fiery place called the Devil’s Breath just so he can spout some nonsense about Buddhist monks. M rushes to help Elektra King against the advice of her Chief of Staffs; highly unlikely and it isn’t surprising when she is kidnapped. M’s offices and Q Branch are both needlessly relocated to Scotland – perhaps M really is trying to be the Queen and have an autumn retreat? There is a slow and predictable snow bound escapade with four parahawk sky gliders. There is an equally predictable destruction of a caviar factory by gigantic chainsaws. Most of the exciting stuff happens in oil pipelines and a nuclear weapons depository, yet even then moments of incredulity abound before the timely grateful explosions.

The plodding, meandering story doesn’t help. There are too many ends to tie up. The only certainty is that Bond will seduce Denise Richards, the world’s most unlikely nuclear physicist, dressed as she is in wet t-shirts and mini-dresses. Cringe worthy enough, yet Ms Richards’ character is called Christmas Jones solely to provide one appalling pun at the film’s end. Bond’s seduction of an MI6 doctor is equally unromantic. Not even 007 would make love on company premises!

That the whole slip shod production holds together at all is some small miracle. It’s a big let down after a fine opening in Bilbao where Bond obtains $5m from a dubious Swiss bank. This scene sets a high standard, but the producers don’t think they’ve done enough and the teaser goes on for another ten minutes, with an admittedly well executed speed boat chase on the River Thames. This sense of one-up-man-ship and story padding may be due to the differing influences of each of the three writers, but it doesn’t help the over all result which is complex at best and tacky at its worst.

So we have a bit more nastiness and a bit more nudity, Adrian Biddle photographs the action well and you can’t fault David Arnold’s music or Peter Lamont’s production design, but it’s a scant reward for all the money spent. As good as Pierce Brosnan is, he appears to know all is not well. His bemused smile when he meets Denise Richards is matched by her question to him: “Do you want to put that in English for those of us who don’t speak spy?” You need an interpreter for this movie too.

RATING 4 from 10

[elizabeth]

i give it a 6. i love the film, but not as much as GoldenEye.

[Colossus]

I gave it a 7, maybe an 8 in the future. I have a nostalgic attachment to it since i remember my cousin making a big deal out of it at the time, then i got a VHS set and it had this one in it so it was one of the handful i'd rewatch anyway. Now it's been running a LOT on tv the past few days on one of the movie channels and i watch it again with family and i've warmed to it over these years. I admire Marceau's performance, and Brosnan is good with some funny one liners and even regular humor "slight miscalculation...", cinematography is okay, the action sequences are kind of run of the mill, although my favorite of these is the caviar factory one! Zukovsky was funny as well. Q's last scenes add depth to it which wasn't intended to at the time but they definitely have a different feel to them now which adds power. Good score too

[jamie00007]

Isnt it funny how the passage of time can make us completely change our opinions on a film. For example, I used to find Tomorrow Never Dies to be a boring and generic hollywood action movie and one of my least favorite Bond films. I see it now as an epic and exciting and very stylish Bond film. The World Is Not Enough is what I used to think of as the comeback movie after TND, a sexy and exciting thriller with great action and characters and a touch of Fleming. But re-watching it recently, I could only wonder what the hell it was that I used to see in it, and wish we could have gotten another one like TND.

The movie tried to add a little drama, which is a good thing, but they did it in the typical half-assed way that defined the Brosnan era. No actual depth to the characters, no decent acting performances to convey the drama, just badly written expositional dialog to force the point across. And the end result is like something you would see on Days of our Lives or The Young and the Restless, TV shows that every scene between Bond and Elektra immediately remind me of. And dont even get me started on the caressing of the computer monitor..

I have to give them credit for trying to do something different with the story. The Bond girl that Bond falls hard for turns out to be the main villain, and has to be killed by Bond? Genius. Theres a goldmine of potential in that sort of storyline. Too bad it was completely squandered. In the typical play-it-safe, treat-the-audience-like-morons mentality of Bond movie making in the 90's, it seems that any seriousness, depth or darkness in a Bond film would not be accepted by the audience, who supposedly just wanted gadgets, cheesy lines and lots of crap blowing up. Enter Christmas Jones. A completely two-dimensional character designed to immediately counter any kind of emotion generated by the Elektra plot. Bond has just been betrayed the woman he was falling for and had to kill her? Who cares, he's got Christmas Jones waiting in the wings to give him the happy ending the audience supposedly needs. So instead of what could have been Brosnan's OHMSS and his era's only nod to artistic integrity becomes just another bland and mediocre 90's action movie.

Speaking of action, well, the opening escape in Zurich was nice. Very typically and splendidly Bond. The following boat chase on the Thames was one of the franchises more memorable chase scenes. It could have maybe done with being shortened a little, but still very well done. But that is where memorable action in this movie ends. The rest of the action scenes in the movie were utterly bland, forgettable, unexciting, uninteresting and unoriginal. The submarine is probably one of the all time weakest Bond climaxes.
The special effects were fairly poor too, especially any of the CGI.


The cast is a mixed bag. I think this is Brosnan's worst performance as Bond. He was either trying too hard or not trying at all, I dont know, but his pouting, sulking and shallow performance was the furthest away he ever was to really capturing Bond. If he ever wanted to be in a daytime soap, TWINE would make a great audition tape.
Robert Carlyle is someone I thought would have made a fantastic Bond villain. But for some reason this just didnt pan out. His character should have been one of the more memorable Bond villains, but he was just the opposite. Not bad, not great, just forgettable.
Sophie Marceau is the real highlight of the film. Although her character was written fairly badly, and up until she is revealed as the villain she is mostly annoying and its hard to see what Bond sees in her aside from the obvious, Marceau just has such great beauty and magnetism she saves every scene she is in. Especially after she reveals her true self, you can tell that Marceau absolutely reveled in playing the bad girl.
It was also nice to see Robbie Coltrane back as Zukovsky. And the movie contained one of the better Q scenes, thankfully as it was Llewellyn's last appearance as Bond. And he could not have had a more fitting final appearance if they had planned it.
Judy Dench's M was terrible. Where was the tough-as-nails, cold-as-ice b*tch from the other other films? Shes like a completely different character in this one. More like someones kindly grandmother.

One other thing Id just like to mention is the location shooting. Or lack there of. This was, for me, a big problem during the Brosnan years as the travelogue feel is one of the things I love most about the series. With the Brosnan movies it felt like the only location shooting done was a few seconds of establishing shots with everything else filmed on stages. This is particularly bad in TWINE. The only decent exterior location shooting in the whole movie was in London! Almost the rest of the film seems to have been filmed on soundstages.

With all this negativity, I should mention that I really like the score. One of Arnolds best from the Brosnan years. I also enjoy the title song and the credits sequence.

Overall, its not a bad movie, its just not a very good one and it could have been so much more. If done right it could have been the classic movie from the Brosnan era. And they were on the right track, only to lose ticker and give us another safe, bland Bond film. I'll give it a 5/10

Edited by jamie00007, 24 January 2010 - 09:16 PM.

[Attempting Re-entry]

I give this one a "5". Lacking in almost every department, for me.

I did like Brosnan's blue shirt at the end. But that was about it.

[SecretAgentFan]

I am an unabashed TWINE lover.

You´re still reading this post? I´m glad you are since TWINE seems to be the most hated Bond film on CBn. Which IMO is underserved and unfair.

Most people seem to object to Brosnan´s portrayal of Bond in this film. I can understand why. But I do not share this opinion.

IMO, TWINE paved the way for CR. It showed Bond as a human being. He feels regret and sympathy for Elektra because she suffered as a victim of crime. She is someone Bond has sworn to protect. Yet, first "M" then he himself have failed to protect her. This makes him feel obliged to show Elektra that he can do the job.

During the story he not only finds out that Elektra has double crossed him. He can also see that deep down she still remains a victim of the circumstances she had been thrown in. Her relationship with Renard (who also is not just a villain but a man tormented by his past and unable to change) is one of the most complex in Bond film history. I would even argue that her character is more layered then Vesper.

Of course, you might argue that you don´t want your Bond film to be that multidimensional. But to disqualify TWINE as a bad film with no merits is just disregarding the facts.

Does all of this make Bond less ruthless and too melodramatically emotional? I just don´t see how one can come to that conclusion. See the film again: Bond acts totally cold-blooded whenever necessary. The way he shoots Davidoff is no less brutal then the killing of Dent in DR.NO. The way he disposes of anyone in his way even offers a hint of pleasure. During his first encounter with Renard he clearly relishes his wish to kill him.

But the film is courageous enough to question and reflect this killer instinct. When Bond tells Renard that he will "feel nothing" when he kills him, Bond even is too stubborn to realize that he is very much like Renard. What one can feel or must feel so that there is a point in living is a wonderful thematic thread running through the whole film.

In the end, it seems to me that it is Bond´s relationship towards women in TWINE which makes lots of Bond fans hate this film. Bond actually cares for them.

In fact, this is something that clearly distinguishes the Brosnan era from the previous ones.

Connery-Bond never really cared for a woman, they were just sex-toys for him.
Lazenby-Bond, IMO, did not really care for women either - only because the story demanded his falling in love with Tracy seems to make him different from Connery-Bond. Yet, I never really believed the movie-Bond of OHMSS that he is in love with Tracy.
Moore-Bond enjoyed women and paid them a bit more respect but... actually also saw them more as a sex-toy.
Dalton-Bond... well, with Kara in TLD he displays a kind of brotherly or even fatherly affection for her - but also at times finds her extremely annoying and naive. And this did not really change in LTK with Pam and Lupe.

From GE on, Brosnan-Bond still shared the "women as sex toy"-perspective, but only for the "supporting characters". The others were treated with respect for their personality and their emotions. And in TWINE this really was emphasized.

You can hate that or you can acknowledge that as an important change in Bond characterization which IMO made the films suddenly appeal to the female audience much more than ever before.

And - you can find this change cemented in the Craig-era, too. He may be rude to Vesper at first but clearly shows respect for her emotions (shower scene) to a degree that all the Bonds before Brosnan never would have done. And the respect and level of caring he shows for Camille is not displayed on a sexual basis but by protecting her and even offering to mercy-kill her before they die horribly in the flames.

I think this "emotionalization" of Bond makes him a more interesting and rounded character and I applaud EON for going that route. I also applaud Brosnan for being courageous enough to embrace this change yet never losing sight of what Bond is in the end: a killer. That´s why he shoots Elektra with no further hesitation. "I never miss" is still one of the greatest one-liners in Bond film history not only because of the double meaning but also because it encapsulates the character in three words.


Some other thoughts:

Are the action sequences the best in the series? Probably not. But they are certainly not the worst. And they are all filmed and edited with a clear perspective that does not disorient the viewer.

Is Denise Richards a bad Bond girl? IMO, not at all. She is very easy on the eye and definitely not a push-around like many other Bond girls before. Yes, lots of her dialogue supplies narrative information and she does not get a lot to do apart from assisting Bond. But how many Bond girls do?
And let´s be honest: to say that it is unbelievable for a nuclear scientist to look beautiful is rather prejudiced and dumb. Not all scientists are nerds. There are lots of female scientists who actually are stunning, guys.

I also love the title-sequence and the wonderful song with its dark and brooding melody which energizes the whole score. Why does this song get so little love?

So, try to give TWINE another chance if you like. You may be surprised.

[Turn]

IMO, TWINE paved the way for CR. It showed Bond as a human being. He feels regret and sympathy for Elektra because she suffered as a victim of crime. She is someone Bond has sworn to protect. Yet, first "M" then he himself have failed to protect her. This makes him feel obliged to show Elektra that he can do the job.

During the story he not only finds out that Elektra has double crossed him. He can also see that deep down she still remains a victim of the circumstances she had been thrown in. Her relationship with Renard (who also is not just a villain but a man tormented by his past and unable to change) is one of the most complex in Bond film history. I would even argue that her character is more layered then Vesper.

Of course, you might argue that you don´t want your Bond film to be that multidimensional. But to disqualify TWINE as a bad film with no merits is just disregarding the facts.

I don't agree at all that TWINE paved the way for CR. The two are like night and day in my view. One film is an engaging story of a relatively inexperienced Bond beginning his career, making mistakes he will pay for the rest of his life yet finding who he is told in a fresh way for a (then) 44-year-old series.

The other has an experienced, wisened Bond, who should know better, being made a sap and playing right into the enemies' hands only to save the day in the usual manner. Of course, CR has the advantage of having a Fleming story to back it up, so give TWINE some points back there.

I don't find any layers to the characters in TWINE. They try, but Renard just feels underdeveloped. Robert Carlisle was much more frightening in Trainspotting. Elektra seems intended to be in the same pantheon as Fatima Blush, Fiona Volpe or other strong women in the series. I think she just comes off like some psycho woman in a Lifetime movie. If anything, Bond's experiences in CR should have made Bond wary of a woman like Elektra, which makes it all hard to swallow.

I like multidimensional Bond films and I feel they've been done right with the last two entries. TWINE may have been a pilot for that type of film, but that doesn't necessarily make it a successful one.

There are no facts to disregard. TWINE pales in what it attempts to do, IMO and is why I rank it at the bottom of my list. It still a Bond film, so I don't find it completely meritless. I felt this way a decade ago when it was still the new film and it gets worse as each successive entry shows how much better they've gotten.

[SecretAgentFan]

I don't agree at all that TWINE paved the way for CR. The two are like night and day in my view. One film is an engaging story of a relatively inexperienced Bond beginning his career, making mistakes he will pay for the rest of his life yet finding who he is told in a fresh way for a (then) 44-year-old series.

The other has an experienced, wisened Bond, who should know better, being made a sap and playing right into the enemies' hands only to save the day in the usual manner. Of course, CR has the advantage of having a Fleming story to back it up, so give TWINE some points back there.

Maybe I was not clear enough with my line of argumentation. What I meant to say was: TWINE´s inward look at the Bond character in relation to women and feelings seems to pave the way for CR´s inward look at the Bond character in relation to women and feelings.

I don't find any layers to the characters in TWINE. They try, but Renard just feels underdeveloped. Robert Carlisle was much more frightening in Trainspotting. Elektra seems intended to be in the same pantheon as Fatima Blush, Fiona Volpe or other strong women in the series. I think she just comes off like some psycho woman in a Lifetime movie. If anything, Bond's experiences in CR should have made Bond wary of a woman like Elektra, which makes it all hard to swallow.

Renard might feel underdeveloped if one hopes for him to emerge as a potent super villain of previous Bond films. However, EON decided (wisely, IMO) to underplay Renard, letting him remain human and relatable. Renard, while a violent killer, has been violated himself and is not only slowly being killed by a bullet but also deprived of feeling anything - which IMO is the worst kind of punishment. I don´t think that he is supposed to be frightening. He is supposed to be a relatable "cracked mirror"-image of Bond.

I also strongly disagree with your opinion on Elektra. She definitely is not like Fatima Blush or Fiona Volpe. She also is a victim that has tried to cope with that by acting instead of re-acting, thereby unfortunately losing any moral perspective. "Some psycho woman in a Lifetime movie"? No. A psychologically damaged victim of violence.

I like multidimensional Bond films and I feel they've been done right with the last two entries. TWINE may have been a pilot for that type of film, but that doesn't necessarily make it a successful one.

I respect your opinion. For me it is successful. But although I love CR and QOS I don´t think that these two really went any deeper into Bond´s character. Do you think they do? I would be interested in your argumentation.

There are no facts to disregard. TWINE pales in what it attempts to do, IMO and is why I rank it at the bottom of my list. It still a Bond film, so I don't find it completely meritless. I felt this way a decade ago when it was still the new film and it gets worse as each successive entry shows how much better they've gotten.

Again, I respect your opinion. But the "facts" that I alluded to were specific scenes that stand in contrast to popular criticism of TWINE.

But I really do not try to convert anyone, Turn. I just wanted to engage in a discussion on one of the most controversial Bond films.

[Turn]

I don't agree at all that TWINE paved the way for CR. The two are like night and day in my view. One film is an engaging story of a relatively inexperienced Bond beginning his career, making mistakes he will pay for the rest of his life yet finding who he is told in a fresh way for a (then) 44-year-old series.

The other has an experienced, wisened Bond, who should know better, being made a sap and playing right into the enemies' hands only to save the day in the usual manner. Of course, CR has the advantage of having a Fleming story to back it up, so give TWINE some points back there.

Maybe I was not clear enough with my line of argumentation. What I meant to say was: TWINE´s inward look at the Bond character in relation to women and feelings seems to pave the way for CR´s inward look at the Bond character in relation to women and feelings.

I don't find any layers to the characters in TWINE. They try, but Renard just feels underdeveloped. Robert Carlisle was much more frightening in Trainspotting. Elektra seems intended to be in the same pantheon as Fatima Blush, Fiona Volpe or other strong women in the series. I think she just comes off like some psycho woman in a Lifetime movie. If anything, Bond's experiences in CR should have made Bond wary of a woman like Elektra, which makes it all hard to swallow.

Renard might feel underdeveloped if one hopes for him to emerge as a potent super villain of previous Bond films. However, EON decided (wisely, IMO) to underplay Renard, letting him remain human and relatable. Renard, while a violent killer, has been violated himself and is not only slowly being killed by a bullet but also deprived of feeling anything - which IMO is the worst kind of punishment. I don´t think that he is supposed to be frightening. He is supposed to be a relatable "cracked mirror"-image of Bond.

I also strongly disagree with your opinion on Elektra. She definitely is not like Fatima Blush or Fiona Volpe. She also is a victim that has tried to cope with that by acting instead of re-acting, thereby unfortunately losing any moral perspective. "Some psycho woman in a Lifetime movie"? No. A psychologically damaged victim of violence.

I like multidimensional Bond films and I feel they've been done right with the last two entries. TWINE may have been a pilot for that type of film, but that doesn't necessarily make it a successful one.

I respect your opinion. For me it is successful. But although I love CR and QOS I don´t think that these two really went any deeper into Bond´s character. Do you think they do? I would be interested in your argumentation.

There are no facts to disregard. TWINE pales in what it attempts to do, IMO and is why I rank it at the bottom of my list. It still a Bond film, so I don't find it completely meritless. I felt this way a decade ago when it was still the new film and it gets worse as each successive entry shows how much better they've gotten.

Again, I respect your opinion. But the "facts" that I alluded to were specific scenes that stand in contrast to popular criticism of TWINE.

But I really do not try to convert anyone, Turn. I just wanted to engage in a discussion on one of the most controversial Bond films.

I tip my hat to you, SecretAgentFan, for your defense of a film you like and your well thought out views on it. I enjoy debate on CBn, but not when it turns juvenile, which it often does. This was a prime example of a good debate.

Keep pounding away at it and maybe just one day I may begin to see TWINE in a new light. That's one of the things I love about this series, rediscovering something or being able to view something in a new way.

[SecretAgentFan]

I tip my hat to you, SecretAgentFan, for your defense of a film you like and your well thought out views on it. I enjoy debate on CBn, but not when it turns juvenile, which it often does. This was a prime example of a good debate.

Keep pounding away at it and maybe just one day I may begin to see TWINE in a new light. That's one of the things I love about this series, rediscovering something or being able to view something in a new way.

Thank you, Turn, for your kind response. I´m looking forward to discussing another film with you.

[Lachesis]

I think the pattern of Bond since GE has been to swap the focus between character and action - we have GE, TWINE, CR that have a stronger character bias and TND, DaD, QoS purer actioners..... My personal preference is character and although it might misfire in one or two areas and be somewhat slower as a result of that bias the overall film is a lot more engaging imho.

Renard is underplayed but given his fantastical nature that's to the film's credit and Robert Carlyle is always good, Elektra King is a nice twist on the traditional Villian with Sophie Marceau managing to be vulnerable, demure and downright nasty by turn all the while looking really, really good. Brosnan is challenged to portray a more conflicted Bond than usual, which I think upsets some but in the end it's his professionalism that surfaces to get the job done - (in many ways this feels like an older more cynical Bond and as an interesting contrast to his youth in CR this is perhaps Bond late in his career etc). Great PTS, but some of the action is a bit shaky after that nevertheless gets a solid 7 from me (my second favourite Brosnan and sits in my top ten Bond films).

Edited by Lachesis, 19 February 2010 - 12:43 PM.

[Major Tallon]

I think the pattern of Bond since GE has been to swap the focus between character and action - we have GE, TWINE, CR that have a stronger character bias and TND, DaD, QoS purer actioners..... My personal preference is character and although it might misfire in one or two areas and be somewhat slower as a result of that bias the overall film is a lot more engaging imho.

Renard is underplayed but given his fantastical nature that's to the film's credit and Robert Carlyle is always good, Elektra King is a nice twist on the traditional Villian with Sophie Marceau managing to be vulnerable, demure and downright nasty by turn all the while looking really, really good. Brosnan is challenged to portray a more conflicted Bond than usual, which I think upsets some but in the end it's his professionalism that surfaces to get the job done - (in many ways this feels like an older more cynical Bond and as an interesting contrast to his youth in CR this is perhaps Bond late in his career etc). Great PTS, but some of the action is a bit shaky after that nevertheless gets a solid 7 from me (my second favourite Brosnan and sits in my top ten Bond films).

I join in this assessment. I've enjoyed TWINE on multiple viewings. I've read some stinging criticisms of the film here on CBn, and I have to concede that many of them are hard to rebut. Still, I think it's Brosnan's second best outing and an enjoyable Saturday afternoon movie. And since it's Saturday afternoon, I just might slip this one on the player!