Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

TWINE - a re-evaluation


46 replies to this topic

#1 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 26 April 2013 - 05:32 PM

I saw "The World Is Not Enough" on EPIX a few nights ago. It's the first time I have watched it all the way through since its theatrical release in 1999 and imagine my surprise when I actually quite liked it. Sure it has some faults:

 

  • Slowest bullet in the world
  • A limp boring villain
  • All that nonsense in the submarine at the end
  • Worst most uninspired snow action sequence in the series

 

But the pros definitely outweigh the cons:

 

  • Fantastic chase on the Thames
  • Bernard Lee portrait at MI6 base
  • A Scottish castle serving as MI6 base - classic
  • Return of Robbie Coltrane
  • Denise Richards - horribly miscast yes, but very easy on the eyes. I recall one CBNer who claimed TWINE to be his favorite 007 movie purely on the fact Richards was in it.
  • Sophie M. - thank goodness she didn't listen to her boyfriend who reportedly warned her 007 was beneath her.

 

All in all, I surprised myself. This movie ranked at the very bottom of the series in my rankings but now I would place it above "Quantum of Solace".

 

 



#2 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4369 posts
  • Location:Sunny Southern California

Posted 26 April 2013 - 06:10 PM

While I'm to start my Bond marathon and rankings soon, I'll agree for the most part with you here.

 

Currently I too would have  TWINE ranked above Quantum Of Solace. Probably still will for a while.



#3 ViperSRT87

ViperSRT87

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 84 posts

Posted 26 April 2013 - 06:49 PM

Hmm interesting thread. I too feel TWINE is a decent Bond film. For me though Denise Richards takes me out of the movie. While I agree she may be "easy on the eyes" her acting ability is WAY below her co-stars and it shows in almost all of her scenes. I just feel this cheapens the second half of the movie and makes it goofy. Just my 2 cents. I also agree it rates above QoS...but then again QoS and AVTAK are my least favorite Bond movies. 



#4 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4369 posts
  • Location:Sunny Southern California

Posted 26 April 2013 - 08:52 PM

It starts off good, albeit the Snow Chase sequence, but slowly loses appeal towards it's end. It's okay, but not bad, nor is it great.



#5 Hansen

Hansen

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 431 posts
  • Location:Paris

Posted 26 April 2013 - 09:58 PM

very convincing bond imo, except for that parahawk subplot that makes no sense.

#6 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 26 April 2013 - 10:46 PM

But I still think there are so many more cons not mentioned and the pros just don't come close to making up for them. TWINE is still bottom of the barrel for me.

 

Good to have you back, DLibrasnow.



#7 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 26 April 2013 - 11:21 PM

But I still think there are so many more cons not mentioned and the pros just don't come close to making up for them. TWINE is still bottom of the barrel for me.

 

Good to have you back, DLibrasnow.

 

Thanks. After the bone crushing disappointment of "Quantum of Solace" I lost interest in the comings and goings of the 007 universe. It took "Skyfall" to get me energized again :)



#8 freemo

freemo

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPip
  • 2995 posts
  • Location:Here

Posted 27 April 2013 - 01:45 AM


Thanks. After the bone crushing disappointment of "Quantum of Solace" I lost interest in the comings and goings of the 007 universe.

 

 

It seems quite a few people did. I know if it was just that it was a let down following CASINO ROYALE or something else, but QUANTUM OF SOLACE did seem to (for a while) extinquish many fans enthusiam for Bond, in a way that no previous film (and there have been worse in the series than QUANTUM) ever has.



#9 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4369 posts
  • Location:Sunny Southern California

Posted 27 April 2013 - 01:51 AM

Going from Die Another Day to Casino Royale was just phenomenal, as the result was a great film. Then going to Quantum Of Solace, which I don't want to get started on...



#10 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 02:04 AM

Getting back to The World Is Not Enough, I can't say that I'd rank it above any other film in the series with the exception of Die Another Day.  It's just a terrible film, to be honest.  The film holds a lot of potential, but like most of the films in the post-Dalton era, it ultimately ends up being a crushing disappointment.  Having better screenwriters and a better director would have gone a long way towards making the film better, as the overall concept of the story isn't a bad one. 



#11 ViperSRT87

ViperSRT87

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 84 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 03:10 AM

While I can't say I hate the film it is definitely disappointing from the standpoint of wasted potential as you mention tdalton. That does seem to be a common theme in the Bonds that are considered the "weaker entries." Many of them have potential in their stories, but either horrible casting, bad directing, and bad scripts just ruin it. I can't narrow them all down but a few things that come to mind for me are QoS, I hated the super fast action sequences and the movie seemed just confusing, and AVTAK hate a goofy script and bad casting, but had a potentially decent story. For me above all else was casting I feel in TWINE. Again as you stated the story had potential, but better screenwriters and a better director would have improved the film greatly. 



#12 billy007

billy007

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 162 posts
  • Location:Delaware USA

Posted 27 April 2013 - 09:54 AM

IMO PB's best during his tenure. I posted before that the third film is normally the actor's best.

Sean- GOLDFINGER
Roger- TSWLM
Pierce- see above
Daniel- SKYFALL!
What if Timothy did a third?

#13 Hansen

Hansen

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 431 posts
  • Location:Paris

Posted 27 April 2013 - 11:42 AM

I never agreed with th 3rd to be the best - and SF definetely infirmed the theory -. Lately, it was more the first the best with GE and CR, unless it reveals a new theory : for a great Bond, call Martin Campbell

#14 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 12:42 PM

I never agreed with th 3rd to be the best

 

I don't agree with the 3rd film being the best for each actor either.  Generally, I find that each actor's third film ranks alongside the lesser entries in the series.



#15 billy007

billy007

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 162 posts
  • Location:Delaware USA

Posted 28 April 2013 - 03:59 AM

Then why is GOLDFINGER considered the blueprint for all succeeding films?

#16 Hansen

Hansen

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 431 posts
  • Location:Paris

Posted 28 April 2013 - 08:00 AM

Goldfinger is IMO a great Bond. It shows some kind of formula but happily, subsequent films were not just a remake of this one

#17 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 28 April 2013 - 08:16 AM

Then why is GOLDFINGER considered the blueprint for all succeeding films?

 

Because it made a ton of money at the box office.  

 

On that note, it really is a shame that neither Dr. No or From Russia With Love could have enjoyed the financial success of Goldfinger.  I'd much rather have seen a series of films built on that template than the series of films built on the template set by Goldfinger.



#18 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 29 April 2013 - 12:03 AM

 


Thanks. After the bone crushing disappointment of "Quantum of Solace" I lost interest in the comings and goings of the 007 universe.

 

 

It seems quite a few people did. I know if it was just that it was a let down following CASINO ROYALE or something else, but QUANTUM OF SOLACE did seem to (for a while) extinquish many fans enthusiam for Bond, in a way that no previous film (and there have been worse in the series than QUANTUM) ever has.

 

 

I know. After "The World Is Not Enough" I still felt excitement in the run-up to "Die Another Day". After OoS I felt so deflated that I didn't even follow anything related to "Skyfall". I went to see "Skyfall" as a member of the regular movie-going public not knowing what to expect (I had somehow avoided every single piece of news and was astounded to see Albert Finney appear on the screen).

 

However, I left the theater as a James Bond fan once more :)



#19 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts

Posted 07 May 2013 - 06:10 PM

I've also never bought the "third film theory".

GF - one of the best
TSWLM - massively overrated and somewhat weak
TWINE - weak but okay
SF - okay to fairly good but overrated... and not really Bond

On the other hand I like - in varying degrees - each actor's fourth film which the "fourth film theory" holds is over the top.

As for other film theories...

"Fifth film theory" : Bond climbs a mountain YOLT & FYEO
"Sixth film theory" : Bond visits the circus DAF & OCT
"Seventh film theory" : Bond goes to Paris NSNA & AVTAK

#20 Yellow Pinky

Yellow Pinky

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 338 posts
  • Location:Atlanta, GA - USA

Posted 07 May 2013 - 06:31 PM

Getting back to The World Is Not Enough, I can't say that I'd rank it above any other film in the series with the exception of Die Another Day.  It's just a terrible film, to be honest.  The film holds a lot of potential, but like most of the films in the post-Dalton era, it ultimately ends up being a crushing disappointment.  Having better screenwriters and a better director would have gone a long way towards making the film better, as the overall concept of the story isn't a bad one. 

I was going to write a response, but then saw that tdalton had already summed my opinion up quite nicely.  A "crushing disappointment" indeed.  And it holds the added distinction of having the most pedestrian and boring action sequences of the entire series.



#21 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 07 May 2013 - 08:31 PM

 

I never agreed with th 3rd to be the best

 

I don't agree with the 3rd film being the best for each actor either.  Generally, I find that each actor's third film ranks alongside the lesser entries in the series.

 

 

 

Then why is GOLDFINGER considered the blueprint for all succeeding films?

 

Because at the time the 'third film' syndrome was coined, there had only been three Bonds, of which two, namely Connery and Moore, had strong third entries.  Since then, there has been nothing to continue that trend or idea.



...And as for any re-evaluations of this film, I am afraid to say it will only start to dig - from bottom place.

 

All things considered, probably best left to rot, undisturbed.



#22 00Kevin

00Kevin

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 699 posts

Posted 03 August 2013 - 07:45 AM

Yea, twine has potential, a few decisions that prevented twine from being one of the best bonds ever:

The script - a few changes to give more time to interesting characters like electra and possibly even king...and less time on christmas jones, could have made for a very powerful ending

Casting - it's a sad day when bond films hire a hot actress who can't play the part for a huge role like christmas jones. Maybe renard could have been better too. Don't get me wrong through, sophie marceau was fantastic!

The director. I find Michael Apted's 'Up Series' to be some of the most fascinating documentaries I've ever seen. But that's just the thing. You hired a documentary director to do a bond film? The guy had no business being anywhere close to action film of that magnitude. A talented action/thriller director could have made the parahawk chase exciting, for example.

#23 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 03 August 2013 - 09:33 AM

Apted was not "just" a documentary director.  He was an established feature film veteran, with films like "Gorillas in the mist" getting lots of award attention.  True, he was not known for action movies (his thriller "Blink", however, showed he was very good with suspense), but EON probably hired him because he was great with actors, leading Sigourney Weaver to an Oscar nomination.

 

In retrospect, choosing Apted was probably the first step for EON to think outside the box with directors.  Marc Foster and Sam Mendes were in a similar category.

 

Concerning the script - I believe that TWINE´s script had a few cooks too many.  Apparently, the director´s wife, screenwriter Dana Stevens, re-wrote the original draft so much that Elektra and Renard became the focus of the film, so that another rewrite had to beef up Bond again.  It probably was a tug of war between too many opposing sides, and at that time, the fear of losing the Bond audience prevented them all from being more courageous with the material.

 

Still, I consider TWINE to be underrated. It was an important step towards the Craig era, IMO.



#24 Grard Bond

Grard Bond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 518 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 03 August 2013 - 11:38 AM

I Always thought the villian Renard was not well writen and cast. At the beginning of the movie you hear that he doesn't feel pain. Wow! Does that mean we will get to see an epic fight in the ranks of Bond versus Oddjob? Unfortunately the answer was no! The climatic fight in the submarine was a big dissapointment.

I also get the negative criticism about Denise Richards, but don't forget she was forced upon Eon by MGM and this was not negotiable.

Frankly I like her, she's one of those funny, not realy realistic Bondgirls. Did anyone bought Britt Ekland or Gemma Arterton as MI6 agents in TMWTGG and QoS? Or Lois Chiles as NASA scientist and astronaut? Ofcourse not, but that is part of the fun, isn't it?
 


Edited by Grard Bond, 03 August 2013 - 11:43 AM.


#25 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 03 August 2013 - 12:48 PM

Expectations, what else can one say?

 

I thought Renard was well cast because Robert Carlyle was NOT the muscle hunk one would expect but of rather slight, small stature.  And just to know that he could not feel pain made the fight interesting for me.

 

Concerning Denise Richards - I never understood why people got so hung up about her.  First, why can´t a scientist have a great body?  Do they all have to look unattractive?  What a very sexist attitude that is. Also, where were those critics when other highly attractive women were playing government employees, musicians, secret agents, financial advisers, doctors, fishers, airline pilots and so on?  Didn´t they consider the actresses in those parts also too good-looking?

 

The real reason for the criticism was probably Denise Richards´ image as a sex kitten.  They just dismissed her. While secretly googling for naked pictures of her.


Edited by SecretAgentFan, 03 August 2013 - 12:50 PM.


#26 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 03 August 2013 - 01:02 PM

Expectations, what else can one say?

 

I thought Renard was well cast because Robert Carlyle was NOT the muscle hunk one would expect but of rather slight, small stature.  And just to know that he could not feel pain made the fight interesting for me.

 

Concerning Denise Richards - I never understood why people got so hung up about her.  First, why can´t a scientist have a great body?  Do they all have to look unattractive?  What a very sexist attitude that is. Also, where were those critics when other highly attractive women were playing government employees, musicians, secret agents, financial advisers, doctors, fishers, airline pilots and so on?  Didn´t they consider the actresses in those parts also too good-looking?

 

The real reason for the criticism was probably Denise Richards´ image as a sex kitten.  They just dismissed her. While secretly googling for naked pictures of her.

 

I think, regarding Richards, that it has more to do with her limitations as an actress combined with how the part was written.  The part of Christmas Jones was, itself, written in a very sexist way, opting to make more fun of the name that they gave the character (all so they could set up the most crass one-liner in the history of the franchise) and play up the fact that the character was meant to be viewed in a particular way by the audience.  Combine that with Richards just not being a particularly good actress (the science-related lines didn't sound natural at all in their delivery), and what's left is the character that is routinely dismissed by a majority of the fanbase.

 

That said, and this is a point that I've made before, I actually commend Richards for her performance in The World Is Not Enough.  It's not a great performance by a longshot, but she's nowhere near the worst Bond girl in the franchise, and she makes a far more believable scientist than Tanya Roberts.  Plus, she seems to be the only one in the film who is actually giving an effort.  With the rest of them, it feels pretty obvious that the actors know that they're making a terrible film and it shows in their performances.  Richards actually seems to make the effort.

 

Regarding Fields in Quantum of Solace, as previously mentioned, I don't see why it's so hard to accept Arterton as the character she plays.  She's not a field agent by any stretch of the imagination.  She's just someone who works at the British consulate, possibly even an intern.  It's fairly believable that Arterton could portray someone rather low on the ladder at the British consulate.  The far more unbelievable factor at work with regards to Fields is that M thought the character capable of arresting Bond and getting him on a plane back to London.  


Edited by tdalton, 03 August 2013 - 01:05 PM.


#27 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 03 August 2013 - 02:26 PM

I agree with you on Fields.  And on Richards, too.  Personally, I see her character and the one-liners in not such a negative light but I understand why one can perceive it that way.

 

I disagree with you, however, on the other actors.  I believe that Brosnan delivers his best performance as Bond in TWINE.  Marceau and Carlyle impress me also in this film.



#28 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 03 August 2013 - 05:02 PM

I actually commend Richards for her performance in The World Is Not Enough.  It's not a great performance by a longshot, but she's nowhere near the worst Bond girl in the franchise, and she makes a far more believable scientist than Tanya Roberts.

Finally! Someone else who shares the way feel in this matter!

 

There are two in our corner now, tdalton - given enough time, we may even recruit a third!



#29 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts

Posted 03 August 2013 - 05:50 PM

While I don't think Richards is great in the film, I also don't think she's terrible and also don't understand why people get so hung up on her. Admittedly her acting is nowhere near as good as Marceau's.

But there's so much wrong about this film that I don't understand why anybody even bothers mentioning Richards.

#30 archer1949

archer1949

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 171 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 12:39 AM

I liked TWINE. Yes, it had its flaws. Denise Richards was miscast. The pacing and action sequences were a bit slack. It was about 20 minutes too long. The character of Renard was woefully underwritten

 

Nevertheless, I thought it's attempts to tweak the Bond villain conventions and the plot formulas overcome these drawbacks.

 

I am not a huge Brosnan fan. I still think Goldeneye is one of the most overrated installments in the franchise. But I give Brosnan props in TWINE for at least trying to bring some gravitas to his portrayal.


Edited by archer1949, 04 August 2013 - 12:40 AM.