Hey, you’re preaching the choir, there, buddy. I for one hated the pseudo-dramatic pretentious claptrap of the Brosnan entries, especially since the “deep psychological ponderings” were usually punctuated by action scenes with less of a hold on real-world logic or physics than a Warner Bros cartoon. I remember walking out of TWINE asking my wife, “When did James Bond turn into Peter Parker”? I was first attracted to Bond as an object of wish-fulfillment, and it’s hard to admire a “hero” who’s more miserable than I am.
I’m just saying that once EON decided to go down that road, they should’ve had the courage of their convictions. Instead we get yet another Brozza flic that’s neither fish nor fowl.
And even the characters seem to know it, hence that exchange: “Someone’s going to have my ass,” “First things first.” Bond himself is saying, “I’ve been in this movie 19 times already, and I know the part you’re here to fill.”
Arguably, the “big reveal” is out the window the moment Jones shows up. We already have our misgivings about Elektra based on her various hang-ups. As soon as as another girl shows up, one so one-dimensional it’s impossible to imagine a deeper motive, we can guess how it’s going to play out.
I agree that a nuclear scientist can look like Denise Richards. I think my problem with it is that Denise Richards just isn’t very good. That’s my issue with Christmas Jones (and her name, cringe, that was made solely so Bond could say "I thought Christmas only comes once a year). A better actress would’ve made the role better.
The casting director has said that there was a list of actresses who American teenage boys would likely fancy, and she was chosen. If that’s misogynistic, I can’t say.
Christmas Jones is along the lines of Holly Goodhead, Stacey Sutton, and Natalya from GE. All highly educated professionals, but Richards has the hardest time pulling it off (I’m going easy on Tanya Roberts here, I know.)
TWINE’s script seems like a rough draft of Skyfall, or SF a remake of TWINE. As others suggested, it may have been better if the Jones character was eliminated, and then we’re shocked to see Bond take out Elektra, the only girl in the movie. One way to make this work, have Renard take the abducted M onto the submarine with him. Then when Bond saves M she begins to view him less harshly than what was established in GE, now that she’s been “in the field.” The parallel with Bond losing Tracy can be made (they hinted at this during the ski chase), only Bond was the one that killed her, not the bad guy. This he has to reconcile between his personal and professional life.
To be fair, back in 1999 this could have been a commercial disaster, as EON no doubt feared. But if done right, it follows up on the plot thread the Paris Carver character was meant to establish with Bond.
I agree with eliminating Christmas (or should that be “cancelling” Christmas?). They could’ve replaced him with a young male, perhaps a semi-comical geek in the way that Alan Cumming was in GE. Maybe an American, like Jay Mohr. That way, Bond still has someone to bounce off and explain the plot.
Broccoli gave a great quote at the time: “Bond thinks he’s found Tracy, but he’s really found Blofeld.”
I don’t mind the 3 year gap either. However, they don’t need that much time. Not too mention, Spectre had 3 years and it was just so mediocre. Die Another Day had 3 years and well yeah. Actually, come to think of it, the only other Bond film that released on a 3 year schedule was The Spy Who Loved Me. So, 1 spectacular one, 1 so-so one, and 1 vomit inducing one.
Yes, that was supposed to be in a different thread. This is the problem I have when I try and do this on my phone. It doenst help that my phone has been going off the rails today. I sent a text message that autocorrected with the word saturday in it 3 times to the point where the message didn’t make sense. The sentence qasnf supposed to have Saturday in it even once.
I don’t think it’s a terrible film, but I think it suffers from the problem that beset Brosnan’s final three films as 007. The opening half in each film is solid and sets things up very well. The set-up is great, it’s the resolution that’s the problem. In all three character - and particularly the 007 flavour - is sacrificed as the films become generic action thrillers. I’d also say some of the casting - particularly of the female leads in the latter two - was off the mark. Denise Richards just gave a really poor performance, but the character wasn’t particularly well written. It felt like the set up was given all the thought and the end was viewed as “just action stuff and kill the villain”. I also dislike that Brosnan’s Bond always took a hiding in the final fights of his films and looked weak, only getting the win by pulling the Grave’s rip cord or ejecting the fuel rod. It would have hurt for BOnd to kick Graves out of the plane into the engine. I like Brosnan’s Bond and I like his films for the most part. However, I do think the writing of the final acts of his films really needed more work. ACtually. DAD needed work from the moment he went to Cuba, but Brosnan remained good throughout. Just my opinions, of course.
There was clearly a requirement to have an American actress in each of Brosnan’s last three. The lack of prominent Americans in the Craig era showed confidence, I think.
I understand the marketing value of a high profile US actress in a movie like a Bond film. However, I think they got their casting wrong in at least two of the cases. They got away with Teri Hatcher. I didn’t like her performance all that much but that was on a matter of taste. She gave a serviceable, professional turn. Denise Richards didn’t. Her performance was really poor, and in her film Halle Berry sounded like she was playing in a parody or a spoof. Coming off of winning an Oscar I expected something great from Halle Berry, so I was more disappointed by her than I was by Denise Richards who is unlikely to ever be chewing her fingernails wondering if she’s got the nod on Oscar night. There are a lot of really good actresses in the States. They just picked the wrong ones for these films IMHO. As for there being no American actresses in the Craig flicks, I don’t know if it’s coincidence, confidence, swagger… but the casting in the Craigs has been really pretty good so I tip my hat to them on that.
Teri Hatcher and Denise Richards were “high profile” actresses? Hatcher was on a(n admittedly popular) TV show and Richards was in…what?..Wild Things and Starship Troopers? I’m not sure I understand what they added in terms of box office appeal, let alone “prestige”.
I agree Halle Berry was worse than both of them put together, though, and since I’m not a JW Pepper-hater, Jinx is my least favorite character in the entire series. I also think she was awful in “Swordfish”, “Catwoman” and all the X-Men movies and to be honest, no great shakes in “Monster’s Ball,” either. I never could figure out how she got the Oscar for that unless it was for having the “courage” to do nude sex scenes AFTER becoming famous. (Though in fairness, the fact that she did them opposite Billy Bob Thornton does show true courage).
There were a few scenes that required exertion. Fighting, running or just gasping for breath after having held it under water for so long. Brosnan did the ‘out of breath’ bit and gasped, realistically and as the scene demanded. Richards, bless her, just stood around as though the most exertive thing she had to encounter then was just, standing up. The contrast between Brosnan and Richards was actually awkward in this respect. It made Bond look unfit, and Jones erm, super fit.
Check the surfacing from the submarine scene out to illustrate.
They were high profile in the terms that if you go back and look at the magazines of the time they were all over FHM, GQ, Loaded, Maxim and every other magazine on the shelves… I was a journalist at the time and they were both everywhere for a while. Their profile wasn’t necessarily to do with their acting work but in the amount of column inches they guaranteed the films, and in fairness they delivered on that. They got press interest. Personally I think Bond would have got enough of that anyway but the women in Bond films have always been part of the marketing. Whether that can or should continue is an entirely different matter. And I certainly don;t think any amount of guaranteed media coverage was worth Denise Richards’ performance.
I watched it a few weeks ago and was reminded of a thing Michael Caine talked about. Even if an actor isn’t talking in a scene they have to still be acting - paying attention, listening, giving little reactions. There was none of that, abd I did see the sub bit and winced.
Of the young actresses who were having a bit of a moment at that time, I think Alicia Silverstone would have been better. Richards, by her own admission, didn’t even know what James Bond was before she was cast.
As for Halle Berry, she seemed to play Jinx as though it was a Jinx film. Admittedly, this was something which Purvis & Wade wanted. I’m not against the female lead having a lot of screen-time, of course, but for such a milestone film it was a little strange to see Bond having an equal partner. It was his party, after all.
It took me ages for me to see any of Berry’s non-X-Men films, but those I did recently see - The Call and Kidnap - are darn good suspence thrillers and ones I can easily recommend.
How about Helena bonham-carter? Totally plausible as a scientist and very attractive (see Fightclub).
However, with a name like Christmas jones - obviously christened solely so they could have that horrendous ‘once a year’ orgasm joke at the end, there was never any chance of attracting an actress of her calibre, or any calibre come to that.
