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
Very true. As a follow-up to OHMSS DAF made no sense, plus bad dialogue, useless characters, a bored, visibly aged, out of shape Connery. At least the music was great which cannot be said about DAD, the film that made me feel ashamed of being a Bond fan and caused such a trauma that I didn't watch Bond films for over a year. Such potential down the drain.
So true, again sadly. The 1970s is Bond at his most decadent.
The idea of playing it safe despite having a very popular (at the time) Bond actor in Brosnan.
Aside from that trainwreck of DAD, TWINE really blew it as well. We had our first (and last) female major villain, Elekra King. It was not well handled as well as the great buildup they gave henchman Renaud then to have him fall flat as well. They made a big deal about his not being able to feel pain but they tossed this cool idea aside later. They did not know if they wanted to make him or her the major villain. In the end they seemed to settle on Renaud... fitting would have been to carry Bond's interal conflict with his feelings for Elektra further. The final climax should have been with her and not Renaud. They should have killed him off earlier and had Bond and Elektra's showdown later.
I'd agree with that, though I like the direction that TWINE at least took as something quite new and experimental. It deserves some plaudits for that at least. DAD was the final nail in the coffin of the Brosnan era.
I don't really find the 70s films to be lacking or a decline in regards to quality, but something else entirely. The 70s films all have their staples that make them unique from what came before and after them, and even I can sit and enjoy a Moore Bond film, but there is something missing for me, something that made the character who he is: depth. Sure, the Moore films are huge fun romps, but they really aren't anything more. You couldn't then branch off and discuss Bond and what he is thinking. His doubts, frustrations, pains and more. These things the Moore era had too little of, the moments we connected to 007 beyond all the one-liners, and they were never consistent. We get a mention here or there of Tracy, but that's all and it doesn't feel like this man we are watching was the Bond from 69, I must admit. When it comes down to it, it is the 60s films along with Craig's and Dalton's films that I will enjoy most; the films where Bond is a complex and interesting character who has dimension.
This is the main problem with TWINE: it is unable to focus on one villain. We have one Bond girl that is also a villainess, supposed to be the main baddie, yet the primary antagonist throughout the movie is Renard. I think it was a mistake to make her the main villain and him the henchman: they should have shared the bill the way koskov and Whitaker do. None of them completely dominant, each completing the other and being lethal to Bond on his or her own way. Or look at FRWL for another good example of multiple villains being used: one main henchman, at least two villains in a position of leadership (Blofeld, Klebb and to a lesser extend Kronsteen). Yet they are all memorable, all are well defined.
Yes, but it does not quite work as well as intended. I was never completely convinced by Elektra as the main villain and Renard as the lovestruck psycho.
Carlyle did well with what he was given but I wonder whether he was as menacing as he could have been. This was meant to be one of the world's most dangerous, feared men after all and we rarely see him do anything really dastardly. He's responsible for killing Dr Arkov and a few army/navy men but that's about it. He doesn't really do anything where we think "ooo...this bloke's nasty" other than pick up a scolding rock. It would have been good to have seen him actually kill someone with his bear hands or perhaps brutally kill one of M's bodyguards infront of her. It may have just given him a bit more...umph as a character.
Carlyle is a great actor. He could have been so much more menacing, I agree completely. His character was supposed to be Bane before TDDK in a way. He never quite achieved this level of menace.
Fair enough, but only Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day stand out as truly poor efforts. Don't really have an issue with the other two, one being (TWINE), a damn fine adventure, and Goldeneye for the most part, was almost as good
Mod edit: slightly objectionable comment removed.
QOS:-
Reasons:- film was too short, weak storyline, no character development, but by far the worst was the shaky-cam direction of the action scenes, and the over editing of the film which rendered large parts of the film unwatchable.
Oh...........i nearly forgot that truly dreadful title song, which sounded like a cat screeching.
A big minus point for EON for this effort, well at least they got the next film right, its just that this poorly conceived Bond film should not of happened in the first place.
I mean there have been other weak Bond films, but at least they were watchable!
Rant over.
Seriously? Do you do birthdays?
I think the first 20 was actually overlong, I do not like all that much the PTS everyone seems to praise. Not a bad one per se, but way too long for a PTS.
Anyway TWINE was maybe more disappointing not for what it was but for what it could have been and what it lead to. In TWINE, we have to some degree the failed prototype of CR: a more personal relationship with the Bond girl, terrorism as background... But it has also too much of the formulaic stuff that DAD will later overdose on: heavy implausible gadgetry, a few miscasts (okay, one), and some poor lines. When I first watched it, I loved it, despite its flaws (and for the record I still like it), and I was hoping that the next one would build on what worked and ditch what did not.
This. YOLT is not the worst Bond movie, but he is the first one that is a drop in quality.
YOLT is an interesting study. If you watch it you can see how by this time due to the many imitatiors in the marketplace, Bond had began to blend into the gray area where Bond was now imitating the imitators. We often comment on the trend following of the 1970's and Moore's films but YOLT is actually following a current trend itself.
It suffers from this and the fact that Connery is bored, overweight and was just wanted to get it over with so he could move on with his career.
LTK I thought was marred with 80s action movies cliches. That is why I never managed to really like it.