It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
:P
I enjoyed it too. It feels like SP again, I feel like I've watched a different movie than almost everyone else. TWINE needs more love.
The World is not Enough is my favorite Bond film
I loved Pierce's performance in it, i loved the chemistry Sophie and Pierce had and the twist of who really was the main villain.
I also loved how it has all the Bond elements in check but with a good story and with the classic Bond happy ending.
Sorry I know this is a negative thread but somone asked for more love to this film and im very happy to give it.
Anyway very nice picture as the poster where did you get it ?
@Szonana, It's fine, Being positive is being negative towards negativity so it still counts. :D As for the picture, I made it myself recently. I made one for every Bond movie, you can see them in the Fan Posters thread. :)
Loved this thery works very nice for me, so no more guilt
I will check your other posters.
You did a really nice job with it and i can't wait to see the others, this one looks even better than the real one and more colorful
This, but I don't try to avoid TLD. I watched TWINE back in cinemas, when I thought it was decent. It's hard to find something TWINE has going for it nowadays. A couple of positives, scattered throughout, as others have said, a rather drear and dull film. With the exception of the story, it's a bit like a worse version of Licence to Kill.
-It's far better shot and makes the most out of it's locations.
-though I think Dalton is be a bit too theatrical sometimes (his movements and expressions when he has the netting over his head in the cargo plane for example) his performance is stronger than Brosnan's, who overacts in some critical scenes and comes across as hammy.
-John Rys-Davis. Fantastic ally for Bond and a great actor. Shame he was only in one film. I think he may give the best overall performance in TLD (just watch his face when he thinks he's about to die in the hotel room).
-most of the first half feels like a traditional espionage thriller with shady characters in a romantic European city.
-the funfair sequence.
-the plane fight
-John Barry's score.
All these aspects still impress now.
The main problems I have in TLD I realise (now) are in the humour and the fairly weak villains (common criticisms). Otherwise, its a solid film.
The same here :)
Dalton, despite what some folk here say, was a breath of fresh air back in 87. I liked the simmering menace he portrayed, though it might have been better if the writers had given him more oportunities to showcase his fighting skills rather than a few grapples sprinkled here and there. Dalton really needed a DC stairwell fight moment around the midway point, like the one seen in CR, to make his mark.
With regard to TWINE, I have a little confession to make. I saw this four times in the cinema before it went straight to DVD. I admit, it wasn't a perfect Bond movie, but there was something there that I glimpsed which I believe tried to capture something of the classic Bond that I quite liked. Sure, on multiple viewings the Brosnan "overacting" was more predominant and the direction somewhat flat, but it didn't spoil my enjoyment too much at the time. It was a decent enough Bond caper for 1999.
So what makes a perfect Bond movie for me? Well, less cheese and more grit is the main ingredient I look for in a Bond picture. When Roger Moore was playing Bond I'd say the Cheese Factor was probably running at its highest. Then when Dalton took over, the Cheese Factor dropped, though there was still elements of Gorgonzola that prevented TLD from being a perfect Bond. As soon as Brosnan took over, the Cheese Factor increased again. The only times Bond has had a low Cheese Factor (in my mind) has been the 60's and the Daniel Craig era.
*For the record, I saw TLD five times at the cinema before it went to VHS.
I certainly agree that Dalton does inject a lot more credibility back into the Bond character after AVTAK (I've always considered that to be one of Roger's weaker portrayal's of Bond, although he has some good moments). As much as I love Roger in the part, you could never really imagine him being sent to kill someone like you could with Dalton (he's excellent in that scene with M). I just think that sometimes Dalton's theatre background shows a bit too much.
In relation to TWINE I saw it twice in the cinema back in 1999. I also remember it being the second ever film I brought on DVD rather than VHS so maybe I do have a bit of an affection for it.
But can I ask, if you weren't aware of Dalton's background would you still have the same opinion of him? Or is it because you now know that he has a theatrical background that you've allowed it to taint your view of him? Personally, I don't think it should matter, so long as the actor portraying Bond sells you the notion that he is James Bond.
I recall reading an excerpt from Ian Fleming's movie memorandum on how the cinematic Bond should be portrayed, which he gave to Broccoli and Saltzman, and in it he stated: "He is quiet, hard, ruthless, sardonic, fatalistic. Neither Bond nor his Chief, M, should initially endear themselves to the audience. They are tough, uncompromising men and so are the people who work for and with them."
The contents of this memorandum can be found in Broccoli's When The Snow Melts. It's not complete, but Broccoli makes a point of using a large portion of it to justify the direction they took with Connery's Bond. Sadly, I think most of this was largely abandoned by the time Roger Moore and Brosnan came along, with the exception of Dalton and Craig's 007. This is probably why I prefer Moore's earlier take on Bond to his post TSWLM Bond, as it's closer to Fleming's template.
To answer your question, maybe my view of him has been influenced a bit by knowing his background in the theatre. I've noticed his style is more "dramatic" when compared even with Craig and it's something that's made me feel a little unsure about Dalton overall. I used to prefer Dalton to Craig funnily enough, but after re-watching CR a couple of years ago I changed my mind based on Craig's more low-key style.
Don't get me wrong, I know it takes A LOT of skill and discipline to work in the theatre so don't think I'm intentionally undermining theatre actors.
Regarding Dalton, he was ok. Sure, there was a little more menace than later Moore (how could there not be?) but no where near the levels of early Craig. Dalton was sort of stuck in the middle, with too much of the old school 'cheese' in the scripts and some of the new school 'grit' in the performance. An unlikely balance. As I've said before, the timing was a little off for many with respect to his interpretation. Unlike some, I prefer LTK, because I think he really gets to inject his own Bond persona into that film, while he appears to be 'straddling' in TLD.
With Moore, I have to make a distinction. He had such a long and varied run that is sometimes tarred by his later, more humorous and light hearted portrayals. I personally think Moore was at his best and firing on all cylinders in LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM & FYEO. I'd take him in any one of those films over Dalton personally. There was limited 'cheese' in the depiction at least there. OP is a difficult one, because there are parts of the film where Moore is arguably at his best, but it's tempered by all the tomfoolery. MR & AVTAK are his low points performance wise imho, where he does appear to be phoning it in for the most part.
TWINE was the big disappointment for me as well, seen every Bond at the cinema since OP while TLD was the first one I got what it's all about. Was too young for OP (9) and AVTAK I went to see solely for Duran Duran :))
While TWINE left me disappointed, SF left me depressed.
Both are a chore to watch but I do it nonetheless, as loyal as I am to the whole franchise :)
I have heard comments about it being depressing but I don't understand why that's the case personally. I was quite happy that Dench's M was finally dispatched (although now I long for her return and realize I was too harsh), so the film actually ended on a high note for me. Of course the cinematography and acting were top notch as well.
Unlike you, I really liked Newman's score for SF and Bardem's acting too, so that may be the clincher for why I enjoy it more than you do.
But I agree that Moore was firing on all cylinders in LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM & FYEO. However, I'm not what you'd call a huge fan of FYEO due to the PTS smokestack nonsense, Maggie Thatcher, Bibi, and that bloody awful parrot; exorcise these elements from the movie and FYEO would be a vastly improved film, in my eyes (only!!) at least.
I do think it depends on when and how you first got to view Roger Moore as 007.
As I've mentioned previously, Moore was The Saint to me long before he was Bond, so it's only natural that it's from that perspective that I judge him on whether I was sold on his portrayal or not. I think Roger made it look effortless beyond the first two movies, because it was effortless. Basically, he stopped playing it as the "hard, ruthless, sardonic, fatalist" seen in LALD and TMWTGG and began to play it his own way; that of a suave and witty playboy assassin. Of course, this worked as the BO numbers prove audiences liked that sort of thing in the late 70s and early 80s, but it had moved quite a distance away from what I liked to see in a Bond picture.
This is why I give Dalton kudos for recapturing what Moore abandoned after 2 and a half movies.
I shirk my duty regularly then. I have a tough time getting through SF & AVTAK, and I avoid MR altogether...
I am not knocking Dalton's portrayal (apart from the occasional dramatic overacting in my view, which I would have preferred if he had toned down a little now and then, especially in scenes with the ladies). I think he was quite serviceable as Bond and even exceptional in some places (Austria & Tangier scenes in TLD & most of his scenes with Sanchez in LTK for instance).
Regarding Moore, my father has the same view as you. He had seen Moore as the Saint first and always felt that he was being more 'Templar' than 'Bond'. To him, Connery was definitive. Strangely, he never took to Dalton but thinks highly of Craig.
On my last Bondathon, I thought Moore was absolutely excellent in TSWLM. While I know many think he had begun to 'ham it up' a little by then, I still think he was right on the money with his Bond portrayal here. None of the 'wink's' and 'nods' except in his Anya scenes. With FYEO, I agree on the film itself lacking a bit of balance due to the silly bits, but to me Moore is more serious here than in any of the other films. In fact, I wish he would have lightened up a bit because it was quite a different Rog to what I had come to expect.
I think one of my biggest bugbears has got to be the current protracted times inbetween each new Bond movie coming out.
Quote it Brother!
Amen to that ^:)^
Agreed, and I grew up in the Brosnan era. It must've been such a far cry for the Connery and Moore kids.