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
This has been a perception since he left the role. It doesn't jibe with those who the era was more fun and all that and wasn't TWINE supposed to represent that?
Why doesn't it jibe with that? The early Connery films are also fun and Flemingesque, I feel. The books are a fun read. The Brosnan flicks were fun (well, the first few certainly were, I think) but I don't see too much Fleming in them bar a specific nod here and there.
I'd agree with this. I don't think Apted was the right man for TWINE, in retrospect. The script itself is pretty decent. There's just something very flat about its execution when it comes to the big story beats. It still gets by just on thrills though, I think; I never had too big of an issue with the action - other than the awful choreography of the submarine fight, where Bond and Renard look to be hugging each other to death at one point.
Agree that the ideas/concepts behind TWINE are better than the film ultimately turned out to be, though. I would have much rathered the submarine sequence not be the finale, and Bond killing Elektra be the final sequence - perhaps taking place after her plot has been foiled. Also - and this has been noted by others before - but Christmas should have been more like Severine or Lucia. She's there for a sequence or two but then she moves on.
I think TWINE is very Fleming in its script, which is why I love it as much as I do, but on film and in execution? It’s no FRWL.
I think P&W planned for Brosnan’s 5th to be more rooted in Fleming than his previous outings, which is why I’m so disappointed we didn’t get that 5th film, but at the same time, we wouldn’t have gotten Casino Royale with Daniel, which sadly I could never trade or give up.
I'm half convinced they accidentally used the footage from a dress rehearsal for the final cut... it's just that bad!
Yeah that fight between Bond and Renard is pretty weak, especially when you compare it to Bond and Trevelyns fight in Goldeneye. The fight scenes got weaker and weaker at the Brosnan films went on unfortunately, that’s probably another reason why CR packed as hard a punch as it did.
It's really atrocious stuff. People can mock Brosnan's facial expressions all they want, but at least he's actually trying to sell it as a fight.
I always thought the face criticisms came from the torture scene. Thats the one time where I’ll criticize Brosnan’s acting in his entire era.
To be fair, I'd probably look pretty awful in that situation too. I can't even imagine the expressions I'd pull! It's always been a criticism of him though, and I get it - it pops up in all of his films. But, to me, it's no more or less egregious than Roger's "Oooooooh" that he uses to sell a painful moment.
David Arnold worked double time to try and sell the intensity of that fight and he just can’t accentuate what isn’t there.
I’m fact, it’s really less of a Bond meme and more of a Brosnan meme because he actually did it several times in other movies like THE FOURTH PROTOCOL.
https://www.google.com/search?q=pierce+brosnan+painface&sxsrf=AOaemvIlp17ZG9ogIJJOADadTLqwNNyCNQ:1635657918266&source=hp&ei=vih-YZ6EDtq85OUP2tG_KA&iflsig=ALs-wAMAAAAAYX42zk09Od7raz6usGl6w5l9i-t-Q7GH&oq=pierce+brosnan+painface&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAM6BwgjEOoCECc6DQguEMcBEK8BEOoCECc6DQguEMcBEKMCEOoCECc6BAgjECc6CAgAELEDEJECOggIABCABBCxAzoOCC4QgAQQsQMQxwEQowI6CwguEIAEELEDEIMBOg0ILhDHARCvARAnEJMCOgUIABCRAjoLCC4QxwEQrwEQkQI6CwgAEIAEELEDEIMBOggIABCABBDJAzoFCAAQkgM6CAguEIAEELEDOgUIABCABDoFCC4QgAQ6CwguEIAEEMcBEK8BOgoILhCxAxCDARAKOgoIABCxAxCDARAKOgQIABAKOgcIABCxAxAKOgcILhCxAxAKOg4ILhCABBCxAxCDARCTAjoGCAAQFhAeOgQIABANOgQILhANOgYIABANEB46CAgAEA0QBRAeUO4NWNhiYK9maAJwAHgAgAGyA4gB0zCSAQowLjYuMTIuNC4ymAEAoAEBsAEK&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwie28LJ9PPzAhVaHrkGHdroDwUQ4dUDCAo&uact=5
https://i.imgflip.com/1cnpav.jpg
The bit where he’s crying at the footage of Electra’s kidnap always makes me laugh. A lady he’s met very briefly just once. This is James Bond is it? :)
Imagine him on his own in his flat each night, dramatically downing shots of vodka whilst watching the news in floods of tears.
I think he gets in one of his patented lip wipes there, or I’m sure at least there’s a fingerlips move of some kind. That means Brosnan’s Thinking ;)
No, hell no!!
I really like Pierce’s swagger, but I’ve got to agree here. Even what I consider his best films, GE and TWINE, two entries that I really love btw, have a few too many shoot-‘em-up moments. Too “actiony”, maybe, if that’s a word…
So if the Brosnan era was more fun for fans, then good on you, as a fan of Pierce Brosnan.
It's badly shot, directed, the cinematography is near TV show level (and that would be insulting to many current TV shows of the time), M behave totally irrationally, (Dame Judi said she didn't even understand the film while seeing it, if I'm not mistaken), the bad guy is this bothering guy you would knock with one light punch in a pub, he exudes no threat or menace, and the Scientist Bond woman is literally a laugh. The whole film is abandoned, it's like the director is just present on the set to cash his check. The burial, the fight in the submarine, even killing Elektra, all those scenes are miss instead of hit.
GE & TND were the best, and yes, they had action which was what Bond was about then.
DAD, has only one scene that is great, and that is the moment 007 walk waist naked in the HK hotel. All the rest is just filling in footage.
This was No Fun at all. Lucky us, the Craig era saved this sinking ship from oblivion.
Yeah this is a big one for me; a few months ago I think I fancied watching a Bond and put TMWWTGG in, then decided to swap it out for TWINE - and the shock of that opening sequence in the banker's office after watching a bit of TMWTGG was quite surprising. The cinematography is flat (opening the gunbarrel on Pierce crossing the road..??), the sets are dreary and ordinary and even feel a bit depressing, and the dialogue is pretty poor and delivered with schoolboy winks ("I'm sure your figures are perfectly rounded" SQUINT, NOD, SMIRK), and the music is a big downgrade too. And that's compared to TMWTGG, which is far from my favourite Bond film, but it feels so much more stylish and elegant. I can't help but feel the Bond films lost their way a touch around here and became a bit thin and plasticky. And Michael Apted -who was undeniably a brilliant filmmaker- was perhaps not the right man for this particular gig.
I agree, each Brosnan film managed to make more than its previous entry, and Die Another Day got decent reviews back in 2002. It was only when Casino Royale came out that I think the mass public perception of DAD changed. As I mentioned before, I’m a big fan of Brosnan’s Bond, I understand the criticisms of him, but I still think he managed to embody all the elements of the character, and made the role his own. I mean if we really start nitpicking, we could find flaws in all the Bonds acting throughout their films.
Yes, I always need lots of WINE to watch a Brossa Bond movie!
On the topic of TMWTGG, cinematography and the Brosnan era: It's striking how Ha Long Bay/ Phuket can look so glamorous and inviting in Gun and so, by comparison, bland, cold and lifeless in TND. The same goes for Istanbul in FRWL vs in TWINE. It is very peculiar, but in TND and TWINE in particular they make the locations look less interesting than they actually are. It is so systematic that you have to wonder whether it was deliberate...