14 replies to this topic

[Pierce - Daniel]

Recently I sat and watched Tomorrow Never Dies for the first time in a while, Ive done a few of these essay type reviews for the Bond movies and they have seemed to go down well so I thought I’d spread some of my views on TND.

Lets start where the film does, the pre-title sequence, I think the scene really sets the pace for Spottiswoode’s direction, its tight and tension filled. The action is well staged and the sequence is a lot of fun, it really comes to live during the dog fight, but the tension with the missiles launch and the slow build up towards introducing Bond is extremely well paced and perfectly staged. It one of the most action-packed openers the series has had and tonally I think it really steps up the pre-title game, possibly one of the best from the recent Bond outings. The title sequence itself is also awesome, Kleinman’s motif of going behind the TV is brilliant and every visually stunning, especially the white backgrounds with the x-ray detail on the catalogue of guns, brilliant visual stuff.

Spottiswoode, I found really found really had a certain class to the film, its very glossy and slickly handled, in fact I’d describe his overall direction to be very slick and taught. He maintains many takes within long takes before breezing the camera into different directions to catch a character within focus. Its a very glossy endeavour and gives the whole adventure a touch of class and smoothness. One element I noticed about the film is that it truly adheres to the Bond formula in almost every sense, it has all those key moments people expect from Bond films, almost check listing off the key ingredients, but also slightly tweaking and manipulating a few of those elements, for instance the briefing is in a car racing through London, we have a car chase set inside a car pack, and a tragic relationship with the secondary Bond girl, who has typically been nothing but a sacrificial lamb. TND really is a classic Bond film movie in every sense, but also presenting a small glimmer into the vulnerability of 007.

The film’s sequence following the titles involving the Devonshire is truly inspired. The introduction to Cavier, and the way Spottiswoode shoots Pryce in the shadows, revealing only the reflections in his rimless glasses is fantastic. The whole opening segment is in fact the best part of the movie, its superbly framed by Spottiswoode, and Pryce is on fire. I maintain that Bond is at its best when it is at its most audacious, and Carver is a prime example. The notion of a media baron who creates his own headlines, getting his reporters not merely to report the news, but make it, is such stuff that only Bond villains can get away with.

The film does descend into the outrageous, but only really in the best possible way. A fault of the film is though, that it does lack alot of glamour, I found this was evident in the Hamburg segment, it’s far too long, and ends up feeling rather stodgy, you can’t help but feel that Thailand was underused. Having said this though some great scenes do indeed take place in the Hamburg segment, in particular the factory scene was brilliant and shows a very stripped down 007, doing some spying, not to mention some run-and-gunning. Spottiswoode I found shot the factory well, capturing the wide vistas of the white factory setting with Bond running through firing his walther. Overall Spottiswoode’s handling of the action sequences is very strong, its all very well edited, as is the whole film generally. The action is handled with a lot of cuts, but not in a distracting QOS style but in such a way which ups the adrenalin of the moments. The numerous cuts during the action are handled well, and probably owe huge debt to Spottiswoode’s time as a editor, hence why TND is such a taught endeavour with light flapping around. There’s good use of the close-ups, particularly exploited for the benefit of Mr. Brosnan, who is well a rather attractive man, in fact Pierce I think really looked his best here, its seems very obvious why the women want to get near him, his charisma is evident on the screen.

As for the performances, it seems right to start with Pierce, once again its a solid turn, maybe at times slightly one note, but its stoic, and certainly charismatic. TND needs Pierce Brosnan, it’s a film that hinges on its leading mans charisma, had a plank played the part the whole film would feel a hollow affair, bit there’s something about Pierce, he’s just cool, its his voice, the way he holds himself in a suit, or even a shabby shirt for that matter, he makes it all look so easy. Though there is a clear display from Brosnan of the vulnerability of this man, but more on this later. One of the key skills Pierce has, is his ability to create chemistry with his cast. He has such brilliant rapport with both Pryce and Michelle Yeoh, in particular with Yeoh. The pair play off each other so well, chewing up the dialogue they share together, there’s real chemistry between the pair, a playful nature between the characters. Yeoh is great as Wai Lin and gives a terrific female lead. Hatcher is stunning and makes for great female fodder. But I think its Pryce who really steals the show, he seems to have a whale of a time as Carver and all the best dialogue seems reseversed for him, at time bordering on the hammy. Carver is a great villain, and possibly one of the best in Bond history.

The script, for all the issues the production had with it, is in parts very well written, I loved the wordplay in the ‘white knight’ scene, as well as all of the stuff on the HMS’s. Though the script seems to have a Jelkl and Hyde persona. Having begun strongly, for instance there is such great wordplay with Q (in fact the Q scene has such great energy to it, helped along by Arnold’s score underplaying the insurance quote interchange), and the dialogue between Kaufmann and Bond is dark humour at its best, not to mention Bond’s bitter-sweet final line to him. But the script soon descends into the silly slapstick comic one-liners, bordering on the cringeworthy. Its a shame, the same though happens with the plot, while its there in strong doses in the opener it seems that he film really lacks punch till at the end its decided to unravel some more plot points, and even then it all seems a little feeble, a war for ratings? Really? It all seems a little bit an afterthought. Its a shame the plot is quite so flat, it really gives the film an injustice, as the villain is so strong he deserved better, this is the real flaw of TND, and sadly its the sort of flaw which is very glaring.

Word must be given to Elwitt’s cinematography, which makes such great use of the light, and is very well done. Arnold’s score really works in parts, at other ends it does seem rather uneducated, blaring the Bond theme too often, almost as though to settle the inner child in him. I’m glad he’s matured since. Final respect to Spottiswoode who really conjures up some impressive single visual shots, especially with Carver and the omnipresent television screens. In particular the whole HALO jump scene is magnificently shot, mouth-opening awesomeness. Wow indeed.

Finally on to Bond, as discussed this is a classic Bond movie, but with that added touch of vulnerability. Bond is very exposed at times, as he sits in his hotel awaiting Carver’s men, vodka and walther at hand, its Fleming’s Bond. He’s bitter over Paris marrying such a mad man. There’s great inter-change between Hatcher and Pierce, ‘Why did you marry him?’ ‘He said he loved me.’ ‘That always sounds good’. The fact he ran over her getting too close, this is Fleming’s Bond. There’s an interesting vulnerability Pierce gave to Bond, he’s moved by Paris’s death, he seems genuinely heartbroken, shards of man who has seen too many innocents die because of him. Its almost so typically un-Bond to lay his head next to hers and kiss her corpse, but there’s something tragic about the whole affair. Bond maintains this through the movie, the way he looks upon Wai Lin anew in her warehouse, or the pact he refuses to break between the pair on the stealth boat, it’s very much a romanticised 007 Pierce portrayed and it comes to a crux with that final underwater kiss between Wai Lin and Bond. I found in the final showdown, Spottiswoode is unafraid to show Bond at his weakest, and most bloodiest, it feels as though this is a man at rock bottom. He’s bruised and almost beat, typically at that point in a Bond movie, 007 is coming out on top, but here, as the British bomb Carver’s boat its quite the opposite.

So in conclusion, it seems than that TND does what it says on the tin, it’s a Bond movie, in every sense, almost in its detriment, and considering the issues surrounding the making of it, it’s a stellar outings, which really is a love letter to Bond fans, doing what people have expected from the series and at times adding its own nuances, in particular the ponderous moments into Bond himself.

[Binyamin]

Yes! TND has always seemed under-rated and under-appreciated. Speaking of the "chess pieces" wordplay, wasn't there a line in the script about "tell the Admiral to shove his white bishop up his black rook" or something that didn't make it in the film? Always thought that was a much better final line of the PTS.

[Captain Tightpants]

Sorry, but I disagree. I think TOMORROW NEVER DIES is a film full of wasted opportunities. The plot is fairly generic, but is completely unrealistic - Carver is not a very convincing villain. He has no real power other than transient power, because his ability to influence hinges entirely on his audience. If he loses ratings, he loses power. He is, at best, a glorified henchman - General Chang is the real villain in all of this (but he needs a way more original name; like General Pheng or General Gao).

If I had the chance to revisit TOMORROW NEVER DIES (with the original title, TOMORROW NEVER LIES, restored), I'd probably rewrite it with Pheng - I'm going to rename him - as the villain. Upset at the way China is steadily drifting away from the "principles it was founded on". He envisions a China that is self-sufficient (kind of like North Korea before North Korea was North Korea! and something to be feared; we are, after all, in 1997 here) and decides to launch his coup. He approaches Elliot Carver to finance his plan because Pheng is facing criticism from his peers and is under careful scrutiny. Carver agrees, because he would have the exclusive broadcast rights in the new China under Pheng's rule.

The film would largely progress the same way, though with the action toned down and more espionage as Bond tries to work out who stole the GPS encoder (and we see how it wound up on the black market). Carver sends the HMS Devonshire off-course to start a war between England and China, while Pheng lobbies for Beijing to go to war since he is the one who "proved" the ship was in Chinese waters. Bond catches onto the plot and confronts Pheng with Wai Lin's help; in this version, Wai Lin has been placed inside Pheng's organisation, not Carver's. They set Pheng up to be guilty of a crime like embezzlement, taking him out of play. Carver is enraged that Bond has overcome Pheng and decides to launch his missile at Beijing, figuring that if he can't have the exclusive rights to broadcast in China, he can at least get coverage of the single biggest event in human history - a nuclear warhead detonating over Beijing. Bond, of course, stops him.

That, I think, would have been a much better film.

[00 Brosnan]

I love how people complain about certain elements in these films being "unrealistic." The whole premise to this series is unrealistic.

Edited by 00 Brosnan, 19 September 2011 - 01:56 PM.

[Lachesis]

I guess it always comes down to what you want from a movie but you do hit on the same point that really consigns TND to the lower portion of any list for me - It is very much a checklist movie, it lacks any real soul or passion to make it work on anything more than the most superficial of levels. The script is the single biggest problem imo, try as they might the characters just lack any form of anchor to make them seem real, if Jonathon Pryce can't make it work what hope for the rest, so it ends up delivering a series of generic cyphers thrust into generic scenarios. The scenes between Brosnan and Hatcher tend to make me squirm and the comedic Dr kauffman just seems out of place given the death of someone supposedly meaningful. The action and locales are decent enough, I think Spottiswood may have been ok with a decent script but all in all TND is a sterile misfire losing any and all momentum that Goldeneye had given Brosnan's Bond (although I think his next film recovers a lot of ground).

[Guy Haines]

Part way through the writing and re-writing, and re-writing of the script for TND, something must have dawned on the writers and producers - they have a villain willing to start WW III to improve TV ratings. I think even the most megalomaniacal of media moguls might have spotted a flaw in that plot - or, to quote Blofeld in the film YOLT, when unveiling his plan for global war on an unimpressed 007 "You can watch it all on TV. It's probably the last thing you will ever see."

Exactly. I think it dawned on the writers - "Why would Carver want to start a world war to grab the headlines and TV ratings, when the end result would be his audience share would be reduced to radioactive dust?" A Stromberg or a Drax from the movies saw the end of everything as the beginning of something else. Starting a global conflagration would do Carver no good at all. And we were promised, in all the pre-release publicity, a plot involving a media tycoon willing to start WW III to boost ratings.

The TND script always struck me as being riven with too many re-writes and compromises - as if, for example, when this flaw in the main plot became obvious, they still wanted Carver to push the UK and China to the brink of war, but had to come up with another reason PDQ as to why. Hence the promise of 100 year exclusive media rights in China. But why would a media mogul need to start a war to gain that?

Raymond Benson's TND novelisation differs in so many ways from the finished film - in particular it retains the ldea of starting wars made for TV, with Carver planning even more of them - that it seems that, enjoyable though TND is - and imho, it very much is - the screenwriters were stuck with an intriguing idea of a media baron as a villain, but couldn't look beyond the typical super-rich Bond villain's methods of gaining power.

Oddly enough, the power of the media to topple governments has been ably demonstrated this year in the Middle East. But that involved 24 hour TV and the internet reporting spontaneous revolt in one place, only for it to inspire the same elsewhere. Which leads me to an idea. Suppose, in Bond's world, something similar to the "Arab Spring" occured, but with events and the TV/internet coverage being manipulated by the very man whose outlets are doing the reporting, who stands to gain a lot financially if certain governments are toppled? Not as dramatic as firing a stolen cruise missle into Beijing, I'll grant you, but probably a better reason for having 007 take on a media tycoon.

[Mr_Wint]

Part way through the writing and re-writing, and re-writing of the script for TND, something must have dawned on the writers and producers - they have a villain willing to start WW III to improve TV ratings. I think even the most megalomaniacal of media moguls might have spotted a flaw in that plot - or, to quote Blofeld in the film YOLT, when unveiling his plan for global war on an unimpressed 007 "You can watch it all on TV. It's probably the last thing you will ever see."

Exactly. I think it dawned on the writers - "Why would Carver want to start a world war to grab the headlines and TV ratings, when the end result would be his audience share would be reduced to radioactive dust?" A Stromberg or a Drax from the movies saw the end of everything as the beginning of something else. Starting a global conflagration would do Carver no good at all. And we were promised, in all the pre-release publicity, a plot involving a media tycoon willing to start WW III to boost ratings.

I don't think there is any flaw in the main storyline. Carver doesn't care much about a new World War. He will only kill the leaders in China so that his ally (General Chang) can take over and, in turn, give Carver 100 year exclusive broadcast rights in China. It is an absurd, yet ingenious, caper. Perfect for Bond movie, IMO.

[00 Brosnan]

It is an absurd, yet ingenious, caper. Perfect for Bond movie, IMO.

I completely agree. That's what I don't get about certain people's call for a "realistic" style. The entire premise to this franchise is unrealistic. There are scenes, plots, concepts in just about every film (save for maybe the Craig era...so far) that are totally far-fetched.

But, to be honest that is part of what I love about the series. It gives me a unique feeling no other series can give me.

[Guy Haines]

Part way through the writing and re-writing, and re-writing of the script for TND, something must have dawned on the writers and producers - they have a villain willing to start WW III to improve TV ratings. I think even the most megalomaniacal of media moguls might have spotted a flaw in that plot - or, to quote Blofeld in the film YOLT, when unveiling his plan for global war on an unimpressed 007 "You can watch it all on TV. It's probably the last thing you will ever see."

Exactly. I think it dawned on the writers - "Why would Carver want to start a world war to grab the headlines and TV ratings, when the end result would be his audience share would be reduced to radioactive dust?" A Stromberg or a Drax from the movies saw the end of everything as the beginning of something else. Starting a global conflagration would do Carver no good at all. And we were promised, in all the pre-release publicity, a plot involving a media tycoon willing to start WW III to boost ratings.

I don't think there is any flaw in the main storyline. Carver doesn't care much about a new World War. He will only kill the leaders in China so that his ally (General Chang) can take over and, in turn, give Carver 100 year exclusive broadcast rights in China. It is an absurd, yet ingenious, caper. Perfect for Bond movie, IMO.

The main storyline underwent a few changes from the one which appeared in the Benson adaptation. In that book the plot was clearly about starting wars for TV ratings. And, as an adaptation, it had to have been based on the "script" at that time. The flaw was the idea that one could start a nuclear war and get the whole world to tune in and watch - a TV event to die for, presumably! Makes no sense to me at all. Probably didn't to the film-makers, hence the change to the story which we saw in the film. Except that triggering a war between Britain and China over TV rights seems a bit unlikely. A sledgehammer to crack a nut?

I rather like the version suggested earlier on this thread which has the Chinese general as the main protagonist, who offers to sell the TV rights to Elliot Carver. To paraphrase William Randolph Hearst "I'll provide the war, you provide the pictures!"

[DR76]

Sorry, but I disagree. I think TOMORROW NEVER DIES is a film full of wasted opportunities. The plot is fairly generic, but is completely unrealistic . . .

I have to agree with assessment. Mind you, TND had some memorable moments and a first-rate leading lady in Michelle Yeoh. But it has always struck me as a "by-the-numbers" Bond film with very little originality.

[Captain Tightpants]

Wai Lin was pretty strong, but there was no sexual chemistry between her and Bond. So it was a bit weird when they started making out in the ruins of carver's stealth boat.

[DR76]

Wai Lin was pretty strong, but there was no sexual chemistry between her and Bond. So it was a bit weird when they started making out in the ruins of carver's stealth boat.

I never had a problem with the screen chemistry between Brosnan and Yeoh.

[Pierce - Daniel]

I don't agree that Bond and Wai Lin lacked sexual chemistry. Brosnan and Yeoh have great chemistry together, one of the great sellingoints of the movie is the rapt they share together in the 3rd act

[00 Brosnan]

I never had a problem with the screen chemistry between Brosnan and Yeoh.

Neither have I so I can definitely say there is some chemistry there. However, I also agree slightly with others that it isn't as strong as say the chemistry between Brosnan & Sophie Marceau or Brosnan & Famke Janssen or Izabella Scorupco. In my opinion.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Spottiswoode did an admirable job of making a watchable movie of what could have been the series' tombstone. Take a look at how MGM screwed it up with the new Pink Panther movies. Sure the first one made enough for a sequel to be greenlit (face it, Hollywood would make sequels of every single movie if they could) but it's all dead after the disastrous PP2.
I recently had a conversation with a guy who styled himself a "James Bond scholar" (eyeroll). When I pointed out that had Eon made a TND instead of a GE, it'd have killed the series after such a long wait, he insisted TND was stronger and better than GE. I can understand that not all films can be masterpieces and that most people do enjoy run-of-the-mill efforts but I take offence when people try to convince you that mediocre films are great just because they happen to like them. TND could have never been that much better with its greatest hits script.