26 replies to this topic

[BryanHerbert]

Alright for like the longest time now this has always kept me wondering. Why do a lot of people think that Tomorrow Never Dies was a bad film?!?!?! Well i thought the movie was pretty darn good. It had a pretty decent plot compared to other bond films and it was like-able. The actions scene were well done, but could of been better.The women were good looking, and had something to do with the movie, instead of just being there. I hope that makes sense. Also had a lot of good chases, suspense, and action scenes, Especially the bike and the Car-park chase, which of course i will never forget!!! The finale was pretty good, the fight between Stamper and Bond for me i thought was comical but also bad-. I keep seeing bond drop the missile on his foot, punching him several times, then as the missile is about to go off, bond rips that knife right out of Stamper's chest to cut himself free!! I loved every minute of the bond music playing throughout the movie. So basically i thought the movie was good!!!

So what did you think about the movie?

Edited by BryanHerbert, 27 December 2009 - 11:24 AM.

[jamie00007]

It was ok. I used to think it was one of the worst, but its actually aged pretty well in comparison to TWINE and DAD.

I just dont like the action hero man-girls in Bond too much. I especially dislike it in movies like TND and DAD where it almost becomes a buddy movie with them. The other weak point I think was the climax, which seemed to consist of little more than 15 minutes of Bond and Wei Lin either shooting machine guns or dodging machine guns.

Other than that its a pretty solid film.

[BryanHerbert]

I actually agree with you about the "men-like-women." I think makes the movie worse. It worked with Quantum of Solace because of the plot, but even then i didn't like it. I think Tomorrow Never Dies gets better and better as time goes bye. The only major problem in TND was the same crap the tried pulling in DAD. Bond basically being a "Super hero", Like he can fight a million bad guys and other stuff that a real person usually would not stand a chance against in real life. If Pierce Brosnan's bond wasn't like that his movies and more of a Daniel Craig bond , Brosnan movies would of been a lot better than there are, but don't get me wrong, Pierce Brosnan is my favorite Bond.

Edited by BryanHerbert, 27 December 2009 - 11:39 AM.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

It used to be one of my favourites, but as I've matured, it's slipped down my rankings somewhat. However, I still enjoy it, and it has a lot to offer, particularly a wonderful villain in Carver, as well as a very threatening henchman in Stamper. The plot is original and never boring, and most of the action scenes are exciting and tense, although I do think the bike chase through Saigon is highly overrated.

[BryanHerbert]

Don't you think it's weird as we get older are feelings change for certain bond films??? I know it is because we are maturing and we know big words lol. Well its basically because we understand.

[jamie00007]

Also sometimes you dont appreciate some things until they're gone. This is the case with TND for me. When it came out, I remember being disappointed by it after GoldenEye thinking it was just a lot of action and little else. But because action movies pretty much went down the crapper for the next ten years after TND, being little more than CGI fests (which have dated terribly) TND has stood the test of time with so much of the stunts and action having been done for real. Its refreshing these days to watch an action movie like that.

Also, the movie had some great supporting characters. Carver, Stamper and Dr Kaufman were terrific villains that standout in the Bond canon, and regulars Q, Moneypenny and M were in fine form.

[DamnCoffee]

I find it quite enjoyable actually. It's a nice fun film. Nothing mindblowing, but a very good watch.

[Dell Deaton]

Tomorrow Never Dies was and remains one of my favorite James Bond films.

You don't have to be very old to remember the unfortunate media associated with Daniel Craig becoming James Bond, and Pierce Brosnan not remaining so. I think a lot of that still instructs the 007 fan base (whether or not that applies to this particular Thread or those Posting herein). As a result, "all that is Craig is good," and "all that is Brosnan is bad."

When you get out into the mainstream, however, you find a lot of folks genuinely missing Brosnan. And, for that matter, genuinely confused about the hype with which Craig is praised.

In the future, these two will come together. For now, we are stuck in the moment of time and the present, which so often keeps that larger perspective from being seen. As I've said many times before here, Moonraker was for a long-time the highest grossing 007 feature ever made. Thus "better" than From Russia, with Love, by the same standard that Quantum of Solace is "better" than every other film that came before, including Casino Royale.

One of the criticisms of the Brosnan films is the CGI. Well, if it's a poorly-executed effect on the screen, then I'll buy that. But, to be honest, am I the only one who grows tired of the "Craig does his own stunts" thing? Oh, my: Talk about Bond as superhero! The huge leaps that no one could do in real life, the fights that no human could survive. To me, they are akin to invisible cars.

And, of course, don't forget that these so-called stunts are done well-wired to a harness. This is hardly on par with what Sean Connery did by way of "stunt" in executing, brilliantly, I think, the Peter Franks / elevator fight scene in Diamonds Are Forever.

Tomorrow Never Dies is great for several key reasons that, frankly, we're not seeing lately in Bond films.

• Raised the bar on creative chases, a'la BMW in garage sequence.
• Huge, yet credible villain (okay, and I've been waiting to say this: Am I the only one who couldn't get that season of the TV show Dallas out of my mind when thinking of the "he's keeping the water from flowing onto my property" plot line in Quantum of Solace?)
• Physical, hand-to-hand in sound-proof room
• Got into Bond's head and emotions, without feeling gratuitous
• Creative and entertaining meeting with M
• Bond actually working for MI6, as opposed to, what?, the fourth or fifth time he's (not credibly) quit and gone rogue (is this Bond, or Sarah Palin?)

Thanks for listening.

[00Twelve]

I've gone back and forth on it a bit, but for the most part, I just can't get into it. The script is so, so weak that it's sad. Nearly nothing but one liners or one-line expository statements, and much of it is tepid at best. Also, and I do enjoy Jonathan Pryce in his other work, I can't stand Carver. He has got to be, without a doubt, my least favorite villain in the series. Unfunny, unintimidating, and foppish to boot. Broz begins to ham it up a little in this one, and that's not to his credit. Some folks say Brosnan looks uncomfortable in GE, but I'll take that performance all day before the rest of his movies. I liked him better when he was "uncomfortable."

That's not to say the film is a complete wash; the PTS is one of my favorites in the series, I can't help but have fun watching the BMW chase, and Broz' gag with the fake lighter in Saigon was one of his most successful action gags IMO. Unfortunately, there's not a ton else that I can speak highly about.

[Aris007]

You don't have to be very old to remember the unfortunate media associated with Daniel Craig becoming James Bond, and Pierce Brosnan not remaining so. I think a lot of that still instructs the 007 fan base (whether or not that applies to this particular Thread or those Posting herein). As a result, "all that is Craig is good," and "all that is Brosnan is bad."

When you get out into the mainstream, however, you find a lot of folks genuinely missing Brosnan. And, for that matter, genuinely confused about the hype with which Craig is praised.

In the future, these two will come together. For now, we are stuck in the moment of time and the present, which so often keeps that larger perspective from being seen. As I've said many times before here, Moonraker was for a long-time the highest grossing 007 feature ever made. Thus "better" than From Russia, with Love, by the same standard that Quantum of Solace is "better" than every other film that came before, including Casino Royale.

One of the criticisms of the Brosnan films is the CGI. Well, if it's a poorly-executed effect on the screen, then I'll buy that. But, to be honest, am I the only one who grows tired of the "Craig does his own stunts" thing? Oh, my: Talk about Bond as superhero! The huge leaps that no one could do in real life, the fights that no human could survive. To me, they are akin to invisible cars.

Not totally relevant to the thread's theme, but I agree with you!

Tomorrow Never Dies is great for several key reasons that, frankly, we're not seeing lately in Bond films.

• Raised the bar on creative chases, a'la BMW in garage sequence.
• Huge, yet credible villain (okay, and I've been waiting to say this: Am I the only one who couldn't get that season of the TV show Dallas out of my mind when thinking of the "he's keeping the water from flowing onto my property" plot line in Quantum of Solace?)
• Physical, hand-to-hand in sound-proof room
• Got into Bond's head and emotions, without feeling gratuitous
• Creative and entertaining meeting with M
• Bond actually working for MI6, as opposed to, what?, the fourth or fifth time he's (not credibly) quit and gone rogue (is this Bond, or Sarah Palin?)

Thanks for listening.

This sums up the whole film!


Generally, TND isn't a bad film. I have to admitt that it's not my favourite from Brosnan's era, but I like it overall. The action sequences look good, the lines are in the right plae, the costumes. It mixes in the perfect way the superhero Bond recipe which made the character popular in the average audience.

{[And let's be honest, all the people I know don't give a damn if the stunts are real or if the action sequences are full of CGI. Many of them also mock at the scene in which Craig runs through the wall in CR. And I'm not focusing just in Craig's terrain(I find sily for Bond fans to be in different sides) but I'm saying this in general, they are not intersted in how real the scenes are. What they're interested in, is the final result.So I don't think that CGI scenes must "eat" a film and inatantly throw it in the "SUCKS" category.]}

TND isn't only action as well. We see for another time the human side of Bond(for the second time in the row in Brosnan's era). The only spot though in which the film isn't so powerfull is villain and Bond girl. Jonathan Pryce isn't so strong for the main villain role and I'm tired of the "Bond-equal Bond girl" image we see unfortunately in Brosnan's era.

PS: The text in {[...]} is totally irrelevant to the thread.

[Dell Deaton]

Glad you took this as I intended it, Aris007.

[Cruiserweight]

It's my favorite Brosnan Bond & probably in my upper half ranking of the Bond films.It was the first Bond film i ever saw at the movies so it has a special place for me. I love the media storyline.

[O.H.M.S.S.]

Tomorrow Never Dies is ok. The plot is that of a videogame and the Bondgirls are awful. Jonathan Pryce and Pierce Brosnan are good. The BMW 750iL is a great car and excellent stuff for a chase. I like the Hamburg scenes but when they go to Asia it starts to downhill. The finale is one of the least intruiging in the franchise. Got to love how Pierce studies Danish though. 6/10 (the penultimate in my Bond film ranking, I'm afraid).

[Jim]

Easily the best of the Brosnan Bonds.

Top of the bottom five.

[zencat]

It has improved with age.

[jaguar007]

My favorite of the Brosnan films. While I think GE may be a better movie, I enjoy TND more because Brosnan seemed more surefooted, better music and top notch action scenes. The biggest problem I have with this film is that the character development is basically zilch. It is a bunch of (well done) actions sequences strung together by a good plot that is underdeveloped.

[JimmyBond]

{[And let's be honest, all the people I know don't give a damn if the stunts are real or if the action sequences are full of CGI. Many of them also mock at the scene in which Craig runs through the wall in CR. And I'm not focusing just in Craig's terrain(I find sily for Bond fans to be in different sides) but I'm saying this in general, they are not intersted in how real the scenes are.

Really? Because my experience shows the exact opposite. It heightens a scene (and action sequence) when it's done as real as possible. It takes someone out of the movie if it looks fake (or faked, with CGI). I'll be the first to admit I think the parasurfing scene is good in a silly kind of way, but in no way do I find it as thrilling as the parachute fight in Moonraker.

Look at it this way, I doubt the ski jump in The Spy Who Loved Me would have been remembered the way it is had it not been done for real.

[sharpshooter]

While I think GE may be a better movie, I enjoy TND more because Brosnan seemed more surefooted, better music and top notch action scenes.

Yes, I agree. While my opinion of TWINE and DAD has dropped over time, the same cannot be said of TND. I have it placed in my top tier, albeit at the bottom of it. I think it's a good Bond film, and Brosnan's first two are easily his best.

[Turn]

TND has long been my favorite of the Brosnan films because it seems to not try and set its sights too high and actually hits what it sets out to do -- entertain.

GE tried to drag Bond into the modern era with internal conflicts along with the familiar and the balance is uneasy; TWINE was a mess of wanting to be more about story and internal conflict,neither works well and the action doesn't serve it well; DAD tries to be the hybrid of potentially interesting story in its first half before morphing into CGI-laced over-the-top stunts in the second.

TND sometimes gets classified as an all-action film, but take into account it was the first Bond film in years to clock in at under 2 hours, making it seem more action-packed than it may have been. The action, for the most part, is creative and fun as opposed to many of the other Brosnan-era films which seem to echo past films in the series or other films of the ear, although the shoot-em-up finale seems more Rambo than Bond.

As a result of the quicker pace, TND seems to actually benefit from the countdown aspect and shorter running time. Films such as TB and YOLT seem to capture the race against time feel that a countdown to disaster is part of the story. Other films in the series with a deadline don't feel that way at all, TSWLM, for example.

I see on a lot of threads Carver being bashed as a weak villain. Not as distinguished, dangerous or over-the-top as some, he is a little more refreshing and convincing than an underdeveloped terrorist who feels no pain, a Korean military colonel who mysteriously morphs into a Caucasian in a matter of months and the vastly overrated son of Cossacks who wants revenge. Stamper, however, is the stereotypical Red Grant clone who adds nothing.

Look at TND for what it is and not what it attempted to be as the other films did and you may find more appreciation for it than you once may have.

[Bondesque]

TND is an average Bond film. Weak writing. Wimpy villian, cartoon henchman and cartoon Bond girl equal action hero. Bond is NOT an action hero! He is a suspense hero! I enjoyed the scenes in Hamburg. The first half of the film was better than average but once we get to Hong Kong it becomes a B rated Kung Foo movie. The whole Paris Carver storyline was very underdeveloped. Imagine something well written with Craig and Eva Green as Bond and Paris and Ian McShane as Carver, with a quality script and Martin Campbell direction.

[JimmyBond]

Imagine something well written with Craig and Eva Green as Bond and Paris and Ian McShane as Carver, with a quality script and Martin Campbell direction.

But that's never what the film aspired to though. Turn hit the nail on the head with his post. Brosnan was considered a great Bond by many (critics and fans alike) EON wanted to give audiences another crowd pleasing film. That's not to say a more story driven dramatic film wouldnt have worked, but at the time the producer's werent willing to take that risk. They went down the safe route and churned out another crowd pleaser.

For all the criticisms I had of TND back in the day, I now feel it is a strong film, and probably Brosnan's best.

[Skudor]

TND has aged better than Goldeneye I think. The action is solid, there are some interesting locations as well and some interesting characters (professor whatever and Paris actually). On the flip side is a very poor villain, very boring henchman and a climax that loses it's way and becomes too confusing.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

TND has long been my favorite of the Brosnan films because it seems to not try and set its sights too high and actually hits what it sets out to do -- entertain.

GE tried to drag Bond into the modern era with internal conflicts along with the familiar and the balance is uneasy; TWINE was a mess of wanting to be more about story and internal conflict,neither works well and the action doesn't serve it well; DAD tries to be the hybrid of potentially interesting story in its first half before morphing into CGI-laced over-the-top stunts in the second.

TND sometimes gets classified as an all-action film, but take into account it was the first Bond film in years to clock in at under 2 hours, making it seem more action-packed than it may have been. The action, for the most part, is creative and fun as opposed to many of the other Brosnan-era films which seem to echo past films in the series or other films of the ear, although the shoot-em-up finale seems more Rambo than Bond.

As a result of the quicker pace, TND seems to actually benefit from the countdown aspect and shorter running time. Films such as TB and YOLT seem to capture the race against time feel that a countdown to disaster is part of the story. Other films in the series with a deadline don't feel that way at all, TSWLM, for example.

I see on a lot of threads Carver being bashed as a weak villain. Not as distinguished, dangerous or over-the-top as some, he is a little more refreshing and convincing than an underdeveloped terrorist who feels no pain, a Korean military colonel who mysteriously morphs into a Caucasian in a matter of months and the vastly overrated son of Cossacks who wants revenge. Stamper, however, is the stereotypical Red Grant clone who adds nothing.

Look at TND for what it is and not what it attempted to be as the other films did and you may find more appreciation for it than you once may have.

Good post, Turn. TND is the least pretentious and fastest moving of the Brosnan films. It was the most formulaic/"tick the boxes" entry made post-AVTAK but sometimes formula can be a good thing. In 1997, with one huge box-office success with a new Bond actor after the longest hiatus yet in the series, a "give the people what they want" Bond film was what the public and the series needed at the time to remind folks and show new fans what made people fall in love with the 007 series to begin with. It's true that EON aimed no higher than to make YOLT/TSWLM again for a short-attention span audience but at least it succeeds in what it tries to do unlike TWINE which tried to be an OHMSS type epic but woefully fell short.

In retrospect, I wish that they had gone with the original plot(villain named Harmsway instead of Carver plans to level Hong Kong prior to Britain's returning it to the Red Chinese) and that Paris instead of Wai Lin had been the main girl. However, TND is the most consistently entertaining Bond film of the 1990s(the weakest decade of James Bond cinema IMHO).

[Judo chop]

I'd have a much easier time getting down to enjoy the action for what it is if there was but a few scattered moments of intelligence elsewhere.

Q: What do you call a movie with flashy colors, implausible, bombastic action and limited, unsophisticated dialogue?

A: A video game set to “Demo”.

[Turn]

I'd have a much easier time getting down to enjoy the action for what it is if there was but a few scattered moments of intelligence elsewhere.

Q: What do you call a movie with flashy colors, implausible, bombastic action and limited, unsophisticated dialogue?

A: A video game set to “Demo”.

But you could say the same thing about the film that followed TND, where there is little action to enjoy, stilted dialogue, an underdeveloped villain and high intentions that never pan out.

You call that movie TWINE, and I'd apply your question above more to DAD.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Tomorrow Never Dies is a great Bond film. I rank it a very close second in Pierce Brosnan's tenure and #6 overall of the series. It is a lot of fun, has the best PTS of the series, a terrific score by David Arnold, exciting stunts led by the carpark chase, a solid villain in Elliot Carver who has a lot of fantastic lines, an exceptional performance by Vincent Schiavelli as the disturbing Kaufman, a unique and interesting plot, and a great job by Brosnan. About my only qualm with the film is the grand finale shoot-em up which goes on a little too long and features much too much of a machine gun-toting 007. Other than that, TND is a terrific film, and one I believe that has and will age better than any of his other ones, including my favorite, GoldenEye.

[Genuine Felix Leiter]

I gotta say, I love TND. The reason is simple. It was the first I saw on the big screen and it was like a real rite of passage for me. After spending years growing up watching the movies on television and video, seeing the gunbarrel on the big screen was something else entirely. I'll never forget it, and also I think time has been great to the film. It's relentlessly paced, Brosnan is cool as a cucumber, if Goldeneye has shades of Dalton then here we have him doing a Connery and pulling it off. Michelle Yeoh is great, and we sure as hell don't see enough of Vincent Schiavelli who is wonderful. Plus, and this is the 12 year old in me talking here, the backseat driver sequence is too good for words. I love that chase sequence.