Il mondo non basta

'The World is Not Enough' fixes many issues with the previous entry in the franchise 'Tomorrow Never Dies'. The prior film was criticized for having goofy villains and a silly story. 'The World is Not Enough' re-aligns the franchise by bringing back better villains, a more interesting story, and adding much more substance to the characters. The film throws a few curve balls and misdirections at the audience as well, so you'll be kept on your toes. All of the actors put on a great performance, with the exception of Denise Richards. She plays Dr. Christmas Jones and she is not believable in the slightest as a nuclear scientist. But she's such a gorgeous bombshell I can overlook her crappy acting. M is also much more involved in the plot, which is quite welcome because she really dominates her scenes. Overall I enjoyed 'The World Is Not Enough', it's much better than the prior Bond film, but still not quite as good as 'Goldeneye'.

A lot of people have already commented intelligently here on the general suckitude of this movie. I would just add a few thoughts.

It's true that the recent Bond films are choking on the formula. But it's not the idea of a formulaic Bond film that's at fault here. Indeed, the Bond formula is the most established, specific, franchised formula in film history, complete with obligatory plot twists, locale changes and even obligatory dialogue in mandatory scenes. But that's not the problem. The problem is that the inbred idiots in the Broccoli family who own the Bond franchise and who have final script and creative authority, choose (I think deliberately) to give us Bond films of the lowest common denominator, trying to maximize bottom line profit by making the films as dumb and over the top as possible. They choose to remain faithful only to those aspects of the formula that would seem to guarantee commercial success. Those formula points are:

1) Action set pieces that are determined to one-up all previous Bond action set pieces in terms of craziness, speed, and death-defying stunts, but to the point where they lose all credibility.

For example, Pierce's speedboat chase in TWINE, or his motorcycle leap off the cliff into the plane cockpit in Goldeneye are so ridiculous that you have to laugh at them. I just shook my head in disbelief when I saw that speedboat chase, which was way over-the-top to begin with, morph into a hot air balloon stunt, I could almost hear the Broccoli family having a round table discussion, saying "Hey, then we could move the action into a balloon! Huh? Isn't that nuts! Who wouldn't love to see Bond in a hot-air balloon!" By contrast, just about any car or boat chase from the Connery era is much simpler, more plausible, and ultimately more fun to watch on repeat viewings because it won't dissolve into farce.

2. A beautiful woman with a funny name.

Hey, I love Bond girls as much as anyone else. And the funny names are great. But didn't they use to act better? And have more to do? And be sophisticated? Denise Richards seems to be best suited for a poster. She's a respected nuclear physicist like I'm an Olympic figure skater.

3. Updating the Bond "look" to reflect whatever is currently on top of the charts.

The mangled version of the Bond theme was disgusting. Giving him a German car because BMWs are cool is stupid. He's a Brit for Gods sake. Bond is cool because he's COOL. He has actual Mojo. It's not the brand of Vodka he swills, or who designed his suit. Leave well enough alone.

Basically, this franchise is headed down the toilet. It's circling the bowl as we speak. They'll always make money, but the experience is changing. These days, going to a Bond film is like going to a Circus. You're going so you can Ooh and Aah at something, not to watch a coherent movie with things like characters and plot.

Remember when these films were spy movies first, action movies later? Remember the whole train sequence in From Russia With Love, where Bond plays a game of wits with the evil spy? Remember the great chemistry with Connery and Honor Blackman in Goldfinger? Remember how Connery or Moore could make a line classic just with great delivery, instead of having "great" one-liners scripted in advance?

In short, remember when these movies were good?

The last James Bond film of the 20th century began in spectacular fashion. Now, a lot of the Bond movies have great openings, so that's nothing new, but this one outdid itself. This 15-minute opening may be the best ever with an amazing boat race and opening credits. It gets my vote, anyway.

After that, frankly, it slowly goes downhill. (That's the problem with too good a start!).

In the end, it's okay but hardly a memorable Bond picture. It has the usual assortment of heroes and villains, wild and improbable action scenes, tons of sexual innuendos, sharp DVD picture and great 5.1surround sound. New actors to this series included Sophie Marceau, Robert Carlyle, Denise Richards and Robbie Coltrane. None of them are big drawing cards who are going entice people to see the movie.

I didn't find any of the characters particularly memorable, unfortunately, so I can't rate the film higher than a "7," but that opening was a "10."

The World Is Not Enough is ranked as one of the weakest of any of the Bond films, but it does have many positives. The action is very strong in this one, like the caviar factory and the ski chase. Pierce Brosnan is joined by two very good actors to be the villains, and are some of the vest in the franchise. The locations are good, and it gives the films a different dimension, particularly in terms of the role of M. It is badly underrated, and is a great film, but just has some issues in the actual story.

The first time I saw this in the cinema in '99, I remember actively disliking it - the first time I'd had that reaction to a new Bond release. I saw it a second time at the cinema, and disliked it less - but still wasn't keen. Now, in the dying days of 2002, and quaking with hatred for - and disappointment at - 'Die Another Day', I re-evaluated TWINE for a second time. And I have to say, compared to this year's farce, TWINE is bathed in a golden glow. In terms of character development, plausibility (always tenuous in Bond films, but still), acting, and script, TWINE is far and away and without a shadow of doubt superior to 'Die Another Day'. Above all, this is a Bond film that does occasionally treat its audience like they have brain cells, rather than a ghastly exercise in sci-fi pretensions with MTV production values.

The opening sequence reveals itself to be one of the very best in the series, taut and exciting, flawlessly directed and perfectly executed. There's nothing else in the film that can quite top it, but some inspired casting helps immeasurably. Sophie Marceau is superb, and it's great to see Robbie Coltrane reprise Valentin Zukovsky, who bags many of the best lines. Judy Dench as 'M' is given a high profile in this entry, which is all to the good as she's clearly the best thing to happen to the Bond films in the Brosnan era. Alas, Desmond Llwelyn makes his final appearance as 'Q' - it would be thus even had he not died the following year - and his exit is well-handled.touching, even. On the downside, Robert Carlyle is not quite convincing as Renard, but it barely matters as Marceau is so firmly in control. Denise Richards isn't as bad as she's been made out to be - indeed, she actually seems smarter and less bland than Halle Berry in DAD.

Plot and action sequences throughout the film are deftly handled, but there are some areas where TWINE seems a little derivative, cheerfully looting the Bond back catalogue, for example in the Caucasus skiing sequence which fuses together action setpieces from YOLT and OHMSS. There are also moments of alarming silliness more redolent of the 1970s and '80s, such as the scene with John Cleese making his debut as future-'Q' and all scenes with Goldie in as Bullion. And for those of us who aren't fans of Pierce Brosnan, there's plenty to annoy - excessive jaw-clenching, lots of posing, inherent charmlessness. I'm sure he's lovely in real life, mind.

Generally, though this is a competent entry in the series, and its attempts at depth just about succeed. It is also the most `how'-and-`why'-proof Bond film since the 1960s, a refreshing change from those Bond films that arrogantly command the audience to suspend their beliefs and do all the maths themselves. Quite why it all went wrong three years later is anyone's guess, but I blame 'XXX' and a continuing adoration of 'The Matrix'.