The World is Not Enough

Brosnan is still not my favorite James Bond, but like Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough proves much better then I remember. I only ever saw it once (on DVD back in 2001) and I honestly didn't remember much about it, so seeing again gave me a fresh perspective.

TWINE continues the trend of strong, capable women which seems to typify the Brosnan era. The teaser gives us a ravishing female assassin who leads Bond on a spectacular boat chase through the Thames (though one not without a few silly, Moore-esque moments). The "strong woman" motif also results in a very distinctive twist for a Bond film -- this time the evil maniac bent on destroying the world is not a corpulent middle-aged man but a young woman, Sophie Marceau's Elektra King. Marceau is superb in the role -- an antagonist with a sadistic streak as long as any male villain Bond has come up against. She is matched by Robert Carlisle's fatalistic and equally twisted Renard, who rates as one of the best villains of the Brosnan era.

I also like that M is given a larger role this time, and like Bond she is hoodwinked by Elektra's "damsel in distress" act (though it's a bit implausible that the Minister of Intelligence would travel abroad without a far-larger retinue, and thus be so easily ensnared).

I even like Denise Richards, who, although obviously cast for her looks, delivers a performance that is certainly more than serviceable. I think she was criticized more for her appearance in Wind Things and other schlocky movies rather than her the actual substance of her work here. Robbie Coltrane (a favorite actor of mine) is also entertaining in his second appearance as Zukovsky (a very good character I wish they hadn't killed-off).

Another nice touch to the film is the way it temporarily transfers MI6 to its "Scottish headquarters", with it's large, rustic medieval sets (though I can't see how MI6 could remain under cover very long operating out of Eilean Donan Castle -- one of the most popular tourist destinations in Scotland!)

The introduction of John Cleese as the new "Q" was a great idea, and promised years more of amusing contention between 007 and the head of Quartermaster (so why did they get rid of him? ).

David Arnold tops his work on Tomorrow Never Dies, starting with a first-rate title song in the classic Bond tradition (with lyrics by Don Black no less), which also makes for a strong main theme which informs much of the score. Arnold's music is an incalculable asset to the picture, and this time he is more able flex his muscles and yield a more foreground score that provides much of the atmosphere and sense of danger -- and also lends enormous gravity to Brosnan's performance.

Although I've compared Brosnan to Moore, I appreciate Brosnan's willingness to show 007 as somewhat less than superhuman, and capable of being hurt. Bond's shoulder injury (incurred in the teaser) isn't something that just goes away when he straightens his tie, and serves as a kind of "Achilles heel" (as it were) throughout the film (and one plausibly exploited by his adversaries).

But please, enough with the BMWs already. Bond belongs behind the (right hand) wheel of an Aston Martin or Jaguar, not a car for "people who are psychologically unfit to drive anything more sophisticated than an electric razor" as Jeremy Clarkson so scathingly put it.

In all, I have to say that as much as I enjoyed Tomorrow Never Dies, I found The World Is Not Enough more entertaining, and an improvement on its predecessor in every area. Not a classic Bond adventure, but a very enjoyable movie and worthy entry in the series.

I also thought that TND was a vast improvement on GOLDENEYE, with the twist of having a woman as the villain being one that caught me by surprise, as well. Carlysle did not impress me that much, and I think he is a terrific actor, but Marceau just eclipsed him so much that he might as well have been only on a video screen from some remote location until his last scene.

But this film had another one of those moments that almost made me just stay away from the franchise-the "grand finale wisecrack" that has become a trademark of Bond films and many an action film. The line "I thought Christmas came just once a year" literally almost made me choke, and as soon as Richards' characters' name was mentioned, I KNEW Brosnan was going to say it, even though I hoped that he would not or at least come up with a twist on it so that audiences would not groan, and the one I saw it with didn't just groan, they BOOED! It reminded me of that boorish friend who thinks they are so witty that they not only overemphasize the punch line, but they feel that they have to poke you in the ribs with their elbow and say "Get it? Get it? (like the Monty Python sketch "Nudge-Nudge")." I know that lines like this had been present in the Connery Bond films, the best being the one in GOLDFINGER-"Shocking-shocking," but by this film the "wisecrack" was starting to feel like the producers were bringing in some Catskill tummler to throw in a funny line that was as subtle as a hand grenade in a barrel of offal. I know that lines like these were meant to relieve tension and show that the Bond character had a human side, but this one was so godawful that when it came out on DVD I almost expected to hear a rimshot after Brosnan said it-really. This is another reason I really like the Craig films-when one of these pop out from him, they don't sound forced or like someone cut out the line "Wait for it" just before he says them.

This problem has really plagued a LOT of action films, with TERMINATOR 2: JUDGEMENT DAY probably being where it began (I could be mistaken) with "Hasta la vista-baby," but the LETHAL WEAPON franchise, THE LAST BOY SCOUT and lots of others of that ilk really made either the smart-ass sidekick or "witty" bad guy such standard issue that I longed for someone to dream up an action film where one plot device would be a villain wiring the hero or their partner/sidekick with a bomb that would go off if automatically if they made a smart-ass comment, although that probably would have resulted in a movie with an ending where the hero, after finally defusing/getting whatever disabled, would do a stand-up routine for the finale.

Anyway, this would be the last of the Brosnan films to have some sort of gimmick, like some form of stunt casting...you know, having a very famous face in basically a glorified cameo role, who also just happened to write and perform the title song....

I look at it this way: not everyone who goes into an action film is looking for realism -- they're looking for an escape. DIE HARD and LETHAL WEAPON aren't trying to be ZERO DARK THIRTY or THE HURT LOCKER. One-liners are part of the fun of most of the action films I happen to enjoy. They get the audience involved and if you are watching the movie with other people, they're a prime part of the entertainment.

I remember watching the otherwise dull Kurt Russell-Ray Liotta thriller UNLAWFUL ENTRY with a packed audience when it opened years back. When Russell gave his one-liner to Liotta near the end of the film, the entire audience erupted in laughter and applause -- it absolutely MADE the movie entertaining. Watching it back at home without that component, the film was just plain ordinary. Same deal with SPECIES, which threw in the obligatory one liner when Michael Madsen took down the alien near the end. Ridiculous? Sure. But fun. I don't think anyone going into see it was hoping for a by-the-book chronicle of what FBI agents would do when tracking down a female extraterrestrial trying to mate with most of L.A.'s population.

I mean, you could make the charge that EVERY Bond movie from GOLDFINGER on is plagued by scenes in which the villain, instead of simply killing 007, takes an hour to describe his scheme to Bond and give him the time to make an escape...but why bother...because it's a fantasy.

As it is, I think far too many genre films take themselves seriously today, but it's a sign of the times of the world we're living in. This culture, which is so quick to develop faux outrage over the slightest indignation, takes itself FAR too seriously.

I agree with you Andy-many of these films take themselves way too seriously. My contention was when there is a joke and instead of letting the audience discover it, the filmmakers hit you over the head with a sledgehammer to let you know "HEY-there's a joke coming! You're gonna laugh! It's hysterical!" I would rather discover it myself, thank you very much.

It's also how I feel about the vast majority of Oliver Stone's films. I have explained it to friends using an analogy of Stone teaching a Kindergarten math class:

OS: Johnny-how much is one plus one?

Johnny: Two, Mr. Stone.

OS: No, Johnny, it's two.

J: That is what I said, Mr. Stone-two.

OS: No, Johnny, I said it is two and I MEAN it!

J: (Lip quivering) OK, Mr. Stone-it is two.

OS: Listen, you little f***! IT'S TWO!! GET IT THROUGH THAT F***ING LITTLE HEAD OF YOURS!!

J: (Sobbing) I'm sorry, Mr. Stone-it's two.

OS: (Gets up, grabs little Johnny and starts smashing his head on the floor while the other kids look on in horror) YOU LITTLE F***ER! HOW MANY F***ING TIMES DO I HAVE TO F***ING TELL YOU IT'S F***ING TWO? HUH?? DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME YOU F***ING PUNK?? I WAS IN F***ING VIETNAM AND I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THIS BULLS*** FROM YOU, YOU LITTLE P****! IT'S TWO!! (Runs over, grabs his Oscars and runs out the door)

Oh wow, Oliver Stone. I picked up a cheap three-pack on Blu-Ray of his movies recently to get ANY GIVEN SUNDAY (one of his few movies I liked at the time) and sampled both NATURAL BORN KILLERS and JFK again for the first time in many years. To say his movies have not stood the test of time -- especially when they were overrated to begin with -- is being kind. NATURAL BORN KILLERS may be one of the most purely unwatchable films I've ever seen, and JFK is just ludicrous, though it's interesting to see that cast together.

I HATED NATURAL BORN KILLERS from the first time I saw it; have always enjoyed JFK mostly as a good whodunit but no more (Vincent Bugliosi's book on the assassination brought me back from the dark side with all the conspiracies) and with a cast like that, who could blame me? Always thought that Costner's performance is one of his more animated although Sissy Spacek has one of the most thankless roles of her career. Have never seen ANY GIVEN SUNDAY-will have to check it out. As of now, I think his most human and decent film is WORLD TRADE CENTER, but then he did not write the script for it, which might explain that.

Re: JFK -- the scene with Tommy Lee Jones and Kevin Bacon "having fun" with one another was one of the most laughable I'd seen in any film at the time. lol.

ANY GIVEN SUNDAY isn't great but it's entertaining. I agree on WORLD TRADE CENTER, though even there I didn't think it was a GREAT film.

Along with Spike Lee, he's someone who was just so vastly overrated, even though the kool-aid drinking critics -- Siskel and Ebert among many others -- made an "event" out of every film he made. Decades later and it's a whole different story.

Now that Stone has fancied himself some supposed expert on American history in the documentary realm with the junk he calls "Untold History Of The United States" (a love letter to the Soviet Union and all those who ruled it), I refuse to even revisit the one film of his I managed to tolerate "World Trade Center".

Quick round up of what I've watched this week:

FLIGHT 6/10
Slow going and not very likeable Robert Zemeckis film (which often strains to be "edgy" and "adult") boasts a solid performance from Denzel Washington in a downbeat domestic drama about substance abuse. The film's main plane crash sequence is harrowingly shot, but I laughed at Paramount's back of the box description which calls the film "action packed." In reality, the film is slow going and predictable in its dramatic beats. Washington is good, but Zemeckis picks up his live action career in the same way he left it with overly slack pacing that takes forever to get where you just know the film is going to end up.

THE MAN WITH THE IRON FISTS 3/10
Juvenile, trashy, would-be "drive in" film presented by Quentin Tarantino and friends must've been a heck of a favor to "The RZA," here given a small studio budget to make a laughable debut as writer/director/star/composer of his own martial arts epic. Pretentious and poorly executed across all levels. Even given his terrible recent appearances, you'd have to imagine Russell Crowe will be leaving this misfire off his resume.

The Odd Life Of Timothy Green (2012): 0/10 (or 10/10 on the Ed Wood reverse scale)

Oh...my...God, where do I even begin to describe this howlingly wrong-headed hunk of rancid wish-fulfilment?! I almost feel bad about picking on this, because it was obviously heartfelt and presented in the most sincere manner, but that's what makes it the most barkingly hilarious movie of last year. Joel Edgerton and Jennifer Garner play a childless couple who cannot conceive so -- instead of simply pursuing the option of, I dunno, adoption -- they bury a box full of wishes in their backyard garden and, whadaya know? A ten-year-old boy (the gratingly cheerful CJ Adams) with leaves imbedded in his legs(!) grows out of the ground. Now, I can believe a lot of nutty things in movies...I can believe that an Iowa farmer can build a baseball diamond in his cornfield and that the spirit of Shoeless Joe Jackson will come back to play there. I can believe a potato-shaped alien can make a bike fly across the face of the moon. I can believe that a pig can become a champion sheeepdog. But what I can't choke down is a fantasy where a childless couple can literally will a son into existance, or that no one in their immediate family or circle of friends seems even slightly curious where he came from. The film is full of howlers, but the one that had me laughing the longest and hardest was the obligitory "our son is finally off the bench and on the playing field!" soccer match, where the physically-inept kid suddenly and inexplicably becomes a prodigy, charging across the field and kicking the winning goal...for the other team. Intentional comedies don't have punchlines that good, and I was laughing so hard my face started turning red. The film is shameless, gooey, saccharine, filled with horrible messages, badly-acted by all...but it's so unintentionally hilarious I may actually sit through it again, just for sheer WTF?! mirth.

You know, my wife and I were absolutely insulted by the premise of this film. As I think anyone would be who is trying to have a child, or is going through the adoption process, or anyone who already has. The central message? Ridiculous, and insulting. It's the kind of "fantasy" that doesn't exactly impart a "feel good" message. I totally agree it sucked -- though I did think the cinematography was nice and the performances tried in spite of the material. That's about it though...a horrible picture that kind of brought me back to when Disney used to routinely make craptastic live-action films in the early '80s. I should probably have downgraded it another star...I was overly generous simply because Jennifer Garner was in it!

I know I'm going to hell for laughing at this, but...



And you gave it TWO STARS, Andy...that's two too many.

EDIT: Noticed you edited your post while I was making mine. Even ONE star is too generous.

And did you find it kind of disturbing that the 10-year-old Timothy was crushing on a girl who was about a foot taller and dressed in age-inappropriate outfits than made her look about fourteen at the youngest?

To quote Crow T. Robot, "There's a buffet of loathsomeness in this movie..."

There were so many things "wrong" with that film, that in hindsight, it actually bothered me more after watching it and letting in sink in for a day or two. I just never showed to Joanne because she wanted to throw something at the screen when we watched the trailer!

That Youtube video was initially hilarious but I start getting creeped out by parents who tape their kids reacting to things like that (or the kid who went to the dentist and was acting loopy). At some point, it's like -- just be a parent. Is it really necessary to keep the video rolling through that kind of thing?

Plus, they should've told them that not only was it a movie, but a particularly awful one at that!

AndyDursin wrote:That Youtube video was initially hilarious but I start getting creeped out by parents who tape their kids reacting to things like that (or the kid who went to the dentist and was acting loopy). At some point, it's like -- just be a parent. Is it really necessary to keep the video rolling through that kind of thing?

Hey, those kids will find that video as hysterical as we do when they're in their mid-20s and watch Timothy Green again for a rush of childhood nostalgia...only to find out how terrible this "heartbreaking" film truly is.

Grrrr, normally I can "shake off" bad movies, but this might be the most maddeningly, assaultively awful film I've watched since the remake of I Spit On Your Grave, or even Transformers 2...and this is intended for family audiences?! No wonder Doug Walker was inspired to bring his "Nostalgia Critic" character out of retirement just to review this movie. I can't wait to see him tear it to pieces.

Speaking of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, did you ever see the original? My friends and I rented it one night when we were in college, became so bored and disgusted, that I grabbed a stack of my TV themes CDs and tracked in music for the film (since it didn't have any score). We used the "Andy Griffith Show" theme for the end credits, "Hawaii Five O" for the climactic boat attack and the "Jetsons" theme during one of the rape sequences. It definitely makes the film more entertaining -- certainly we couldn't stop laughing during it.

One of these days I should upload it to Youtube, though the producers of the movie may not care for our editorial work, lol...