TND vs. TWINE
DieAnotherDay
Glasgow, ScotlandPosts: 460MI6 Agent
Think it's fair to say that GoldenEye is pretty often considered Brosnan's best 007 outing and my username is undoubtedly the biggest black sheep of the franchise but what about the 2 "mediocre" movies in bwteeen.
Which is better - TND or TWINE? I know there's a minority on here who actually prefer these films over GoldenEye so let's get a discussion going about which one actually stands out more.
Which is better - TND or TWINE? I know there's a minority on here who actually prefer these films over GoldenEye so let's get a discussion going about which one actually stands out more.
....and the best he ever managed was a sermon on the mount.
Comments
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Oh, interesting ... What makes you say that about GoldenEye?
Tomorrow Never Dies has a potentially interesting story idea (Paris Carver) which is barely signified and completely lost amongst all the action sequences. The villains plot should be new and relevant (and more relevant than ever today), yet still plays out exactly like the old Lewis Gilbert formula. Very by the numbers. Michelle Yeoh I really liked in Crouching Tiger, but find her distracting here, and I do not believe there is any chemistry between her character and Bond. That all said, the long action sequence that begins when they escape from the villains office while handcuffed is mighty awesome stuff, lots of circus stunts to keep it interesting for a long chunk of time. I might like this film better than Die Another Day, but not by much.
Would have to say, though, in terms of tone - TND is far more consistent throughout. Plus, I think the humour lands a lot more than in TWINE, with far less forced quips.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Too true.
While the soapy elements in TWINE are not to be taken seriously, I really don't take anything seriously in TND.
"Better make that two."
TND is, as I've said a dozen times, its the 90s Lewis Gilbert film. Fun, action packed, and doesn't take itself too seriously. The first half is basically perfect and the second half is almost as good but it's just missing something. The film also has a great score and cinematography. Also, I think it has the best action of the Brosnan era. Stamper, with the exception of maybe Zao, was the last great henchman until Hinx. Hatcher has never bothered me. Pryce is a good villain. He's not one of my favorites but he does a good job of portraying Carver as totally insane. The only real downsides for me are the sound effects during the fights and that the finale drags a little, just like the Gilbert films.
TWINE is good but most of its best sequences are in the first half. The PTS, Scotland and Baku scenes are top class. And I love the scene at the Devils Breath. Marceau and Carlyle give great performances. Marceau is gorgeous and Elektra is possibly the best female character of the Brosnan age. Richards' is pretty bad but her role isn't very big and she's pretty hot. It's great to see Zukovsky back again. I was bummed to see him die. The finale is a little underwhelming and there's some pretty cringeworthy lines too. The score is solid but it's definitely Arnold's weakest. 8/10
I'm gonna go with TND as I can pretty much watch it anytime. I have to be in the right mood for TWINE. The same goes for SF. It might have something to do with their M centric plots.
-{
:x
"Better make that two."
The boat chase in the Thames at the beginning of tWiNE is the only one of the Brosnan era that comes close, and that's a bit shorter and doesn't have the acrobatic circus stunts. (it does have geography though which I always like)
I'm trying to think of an action sequence from Goldeneye I liked, and none is leaping to mind. Instead, I keep thinking of sets which are introduced, a few minutes of exposition, then everything blows up for fifteen minutes. Introduce another set and repeat. Sorry, still cant think of anything I like from that film.
From DAD, the swordfight is the keeper. That's a hoot, and I appreciate Madonna's cameo too.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Which isn't to say there aren't good elements. At times, Brosnan is inspired (spa scene), Tina Turner's ballad is good, the idea of a female M is inspired/Judi Dench gives another great performance, Isabella Scorupko is lovely. But the film feels half baked. Perhaps if Timothy Dalton had done it I might have felt differently, but production was still a letdown to me.
I have to say I have no problem at all with how the film is lit but can see exactly what you mean by your Segal comment
I agree with most of this, and while I rank the film quite low, I don't think even I would be this harsh. I save that for the other Martin Campbell Bond film.
A lower budget doesn't always translate to lower quality, though. They could have been more imaginative and written the script around the budget limitations -- good dialogue scenes in an interesting locale, for instance. The early Bonds had relatively low budgets but did fantastic things with them.
It is not so much just a harsh look to me, though -- the film often has cold, amateurish, high contrast lighting that doesn't flatter so much as look obviously badly staged. It's not like 50s or 60s production where the lighting, while not always realistic, nonetheless created a wonderful atmosphere for a scene. GE's lighting often looks like they just put a few spots here and there, especially in the night scenes, like here:
It's not particularly flattering, either, and the whole film has a weird contrasty but still somehow washed out quality:
A lot of times, the screen is relatively empty, too. Instead of using the lighting to fill the emptiness in some creative way, it's just there.
Now, in full disclosure, I much prefer the warmer, more colorful lighting of older films than the harsher and more realistic lighting of modern films. But I can at least appreciate the effort it took to do both, while GE seems to be something done very quickly and cheaply, like a cable TV movie.
I appreciate the point about the Blu-Ray version, but I recall thinking the same in the theater, too.
Star Trek V definitely felt like a made-for-TV movie, in all senses. But the bad story, bad direction, poor dialogue and cheap sets—but fantastic music (which saved the film a bit, as opposed to the mess GE has)—made it exactly like the TOS episodes that I love. But Star Trek is not like James Bond.
If you don't think Campbell directed both GE and CR, which one do you think he directed? They both have the same kind of dialogue scenes that are painful to watch. While GE is poorly lit everywhere, CR is only poorly lit indoors.
GE has a similar feel to me, though overall it's better film, in part because it has a much stronger cast and in part because it sticks to the Bond formula. It, too, though, seems half baked, with generally unimpressive special effects, an unimaginative visual sense, and a story that promises a lot more than it delivers.
I like Casino Royale a lot more than you do -- I'd say it's the best Bond film in the last 30 years. Previously, that distinction would have gone to The Living Daylights, but they pretty much knocked it out of the park by going back to the roots of the character. The story suffers from short-handing the romance, but then all of the Bonds since OHMSS pretty much do. Campbell's direction is far better in this film than in GE. His visual sense is more acute (though that may have more to do with the storyboard artist), and his command of the action sequences is much stronger. I agree that some of the dialogue scenes in Casino Royale are clunkier than they should be, but I've mostly given up on writers these days understanding anything about dialogue other than to either provide exposition or merely advance the story. Purvis and Wade aren't titans of the literary field, and neither is Paul Haggis.
I wouldn't agree that Casino Royale is poorly lit indoors. It's a modern film, so there are limits to its artistry, but I can't think of any scenes that are poorly lit. In fact, the lighting is often far warmer and more flattering than a lot of modern films -- especially in the 2000s, when cinematographers seemed to like to cast everything in a cold gray or green palette -- take the time to do. The look is similar to what Campbell used in his Zorro films. What I find most interesting is that in scenes where the lighting is darker, Craig's hair and complexion are a lot less pale, and he looks even more like the classic depiction of Bond. It's one of the reasons I wish they'd dyed his hair darker -- a shade of brunette, perhaps, to compromise between blond and black -- and used makeup or tanning to give his skin a ruddier tone. He washes out too much in bright light.
Shatner talks about this in "his" book Star Trek Movie Memories, saying that contractually he had to get whatever Nimoy got therefore since Nimoy had come up with the story for ST4 and then directed it (as with ST3) then if the studio wanted Shatner to play Kirk in ST5, which of course they did, then he got to think up the plot and be the director.
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Craig 5. Lazenby 6. Brosnan
TND
White Knight
The DB5 parked up in Oxford and brushing up on a little Danish
Bond taking out Elliot's henchmen in the sound booth
Bond sipping his vodka waiting for Paris
TWINE
Bilbao
Boat chase
Final and poignant appearance of Q
Bond torture scene and bumping off Elektra
Pierce looked great in all his films.
So, it doesn't surprise me that his story idea would essentially ape "The Way to Eden," an episode about a megalomaniacal cult leader on a doomed search for paradise, while raiding elements of that first movie -- the music, the not-ready-for-flight Enterprise, the question of logic over emotion, etc. What does surprise me is that someone at Paramount approved it, haha. If they gave Shatner carte blanche on the story, I'll bet they really regret that now.