Is Tomorrow Never Dies Underrated?

ZorinIndustries

I always feel that TND never gets its credit for the good film it is. I always enjoy it and I feel Jonathan Pryce does an excellent job playing Carver and the storyline is very intriguing. David Arnold's score also contributes to the film immensely. It may be a little far-fetched, but it's a James Bond film and should be taken as one. What do you guys think about the film?

Hardyboy

A decent time-killer, but not much else. It's The Spy Who Loved Me done on a smaller scale; and, as a friend of mine once pointed out, Pryce is a bit too "chipper" to be entirely menacing. (And what's with the Blofeld suits? Dude, the sixties are SO over!) Still, there are some good scenes and moments in it. Like I said, a decent time-killer. . .

SilentSpy

I like the movie for the most part right up until Bond drives the BMW off the garage. After that it becomes action scene after action scene.

Moore Than

Tomorrow Never Dies is not underrated, in my opinion. I do enjoy the Hamburg scenes, the Q scene, and David Arnold's score, but not much else. The characters are generally weak except for Admiral Roebuck and Dr Kaufman and they are on screen all too briefly. Bond has never been more invincible with just about all weapons known to man aimed in his direction and not a scratch. As Hardyboy said, a decent time-killer.

Napoleon Plural

It loses points because its key action scenes - the BMW in freefall, the bike jump over the helicopter - are CGI though admittedly you wouldn't know it to look at; nothing amazing about a bike jumping over a bike without any propellors though then again I wouldn't wish it on a stuntman.

But the new Expendables movie shows a similar stunt and that really delivers, going by the trailer.

Face/Off came out around the same time, now that's an action movie. Of course, TWINE then tried to rip off the boat chase but as with LALD and that Dutch film, to much lesser effect.

thesecretagent

I think there's plenty of classic Bond moments in this film. I don't think Carver is dark enough, but Kauffman is pure class, Stamper is a bit one dimensional, but a tough guy for Bond to fight. I liked much of the film, but Brosnan seems to cruise through without acting and I think he was better in TWINE. It's not a bad film though, and I love the pre title credits.

walther p99

TNDs is my all time favorite Bond film, and i do realize all of its flaws and shortcomings as well things i dont like about it myself, like i dont really care for the Saigon scenes. that said, its always been my favorite to watch out of all of them, its pace is never slow, it has a razor sharp focus, never getting dull, and has a certain aura of "fun" to it that i think alot of Bond films lack and always make it a joy to watch, i consider it a nearly perfect Bond film. I do think its underrated in the fact that most Bond fans now need to have the ultra-gritty and serious take of Bond and seem to forget that TNDs is very much a product of the 90's, where all action films had loads of machine guns firing and often silly stunts compared to now where its all quick-edits and intense violence.

chrisno1

I'm in much agreement with all of the above posters.
I have never understood why fans are so against this film - not all fans, but I have detected a general malaise against TND - for me it shows PB at his very best. Like Moore in TSWLM or MR, like Connery in TB, he doesn't have to act very hard, the movie doesn't require it, what he has to do is inhabit the role and become James Bond. This he achieves excellently. He is aided by a series of set pieces which (CGI or not) are startling and never dull. The film looks flashy and has a very good set of supporting characters. OK, so the screenplay could do with a little tightening and doesn't fill in all the gaps, and the climax is a trifle disappointing, but then many 007 adventures suffer these problems - look at OP or TLD. Overall it has many more plus points and is far shorter than the two films which followed it. TND feels like a traditional Bond film. It isn't trying to do too much and that was and still is very refreshing.

zaphod

I think it is possibly the only time that we see Bond laugh (in the car park with obvious joy in using the remote control for the car)

As most have acknowledged it is seriously flawed in places but I can only think of one Bond film that isn't, and of course the villain is beyond weak, but once again...
It does have a pace that I like, and some truly standout scenes ( the Kaufman exchange with Bond barely able to contain his rage to speak is one of PB's highlights, like wise the waiting for Paris scene) I also particularly like the on the move briefing.

For me it's not a highlight, but it's a lot better than middling, and in some ways better than the slightly laboured TWINE.

Next topic, is TWINE overrated ? :007)

James Suzuki

A worthy Bond entry... when i was becoming a Bond fan this was one of the later films I had left to watch, one of the last. A friend ( not much of a Bond fan) let me borrow it and I enjoyed it, I hadn't seen TWINE either so I was looking forward to seeing that one as well. I liked PB in that one, and the gadgets.

Thunderpussy

It's one of my Favourites. -{

Mr Martini

I remember reading a snippet in the paper about the casting of Jonathan Pryce as the villain and then another snippet that the Pre-Title sequence was done filming in (I think) The Swiss Alps (please correct me if I'm wrong). I didn't have internet at the time so this was big news to me. At that point I only knew Jonathan Pryce from the Lexus commercials. I enjoyed TND a lot. I still do. Why? Because I don't take any of the Bond movies seriously. Bond movies are two + hours of entertainment. They don't have to make sense at all. That's why I like TND and I also love the invisible car from DAD.

IcePak

It was the first Bond film I saw at the cinema, so it holds a special place. I think the film is quite good: it has great baddies, some good action scenes, great Bond girls, and a good plot. Overall, it's a middling film for me: there are better Bond films, but there are also a lot worse. I think it's Brosnan's second best after Goldeneye. I do feel it is underappreciated.

jasper_lamar_crabb

No, in fact it receives undeserved praise. Objectively it's one of the weakest films of the series, but on a personal level I do find the first half enjoyable to watch before the whole thing goes down the toilet in the second half.

Blackleiter

Your opinion pretty much sums up my view as well. Not a bad Bond film, but some significant weaknesses, especially Carver as the main villain. And I definitely concur with your statement that Brosnan gave a better performance in TWINE. His best turn as Bond, in my opinion.

thesecretagent wrote:

I think there's plenty of classic Bond moments in this film. I don't think Carver is dark enough, but Kauffman is pure class, Stamper is a bit one dimensional, but a tough guy for Bond to fight. I liked much of the film, but Brosnan seems to cruise through without acting and I think he was better in TWINE. It's not a bad film though, and I love the pre title credits.

SpectreBlofeld

The action scenes - especially the climax on the stealth boat - felt like watching someone play a video game. Run and shoot, run and shoot. And for some reason, someone allowed David Arnold to put techno beats in his scores in those days. A 90's thing, I guess.

I found the parkour-versus-brutishness cleverness in Casino Royale backed by a more traditional score refreshing after all that.

Mr Martini

SpectreBlofeld wrote:

The action scenes - especially the climax on the stealth boat - felt like watching someone play a video game. Run and shoot, run and shoot. And for some reason, someone allowed David Arnold to put techno beats in his scores in those days. A 90's thing, I guess.

I found the parkour-versus-brutishness cleverness in Casino Royale backed by a more traditional score refreshing after all that.

Speaking of the Stealth Boat, not sure if this was posted on the forum or not. Didn't know where else to put this:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/195-million-sea-shadow-stealth-sub-sale-only-172525837.html

ZorinIndustries

That's pretty cool! Looks just like Carver's haha, thanks for sharing!

RJJB

I had always been a big supporter of TND. I tried to watch it again the other night and turned it off. It has not aged well and presents itself as a slow, weak, derivative Bond movie. I doubt that I'll ever watch it again.

Sir_Miles_Messervy

I see TND as the film that tries to hard; the film that knows it's a Bond film. For me, it's the most obnoxious Bond and almost a parody of itself and the entire franchise.

my full thoughts: http://ajb007.co.uk/topic/35368/the-bond-that-went-too-far/

hegottheboot

Saw the film on original release at age 7, turned to my mom after it was over and we immediately agreed that it was pretty uninspired.
That notion has remained in my head ever since, because this is really a studio's blueprint of what a Bond is and not a true Bond film. It was for many years my least favorite Brosnan Bond.
Then I began reading about the backstory of production, the recasts, budget, and all kinds of panic. Plus this was the first film that Cubby did not actively produce so there was a lot of added weight on Michael and Barbara.
Then I decided to take another look, this time with a fresh attitude.

TND is really the last great old school action film. It's not supposed to always make sense and it at least makes an attempt at style despite it's flaws. It is incredibly well made, and in this day an age of increasingly bad production this makes revisiting the film a welcome pleasure.
Roger Spottiswoode was Sam Peckinpah's editor. Thus TND is so tightly cut that you could use it to teach editing courses in film school. It's almost getting at Peter Hunt level. The sound mix is perhaps the best 5.1 track around for dynamics and surround. The UE DVD mixes dilute this to a degree. (Can't wait to find the DTS Laserdisc!)
It's a movie meant to take you for a ride. Not really a true Bond film, but enjoyable while it lasts.

So...yes and no. It's a good movie, well-made but flawed. As a Bond film it falls short but still a worthy effort.

Willard Whyte

jasper_lamar_crabb wrote:

No, in fact it receives undeserved praise. Objectively it's one of the weakest films of the series, but on a personal level I do find the first half enjoyable to watch before the whole thing goes down the toilet in the second half.

One of the weakist in the series 8-)

It's a good film.

Napoleon Plural

The finale is a drag of course, when it should be strongest, a bit like DAF in that respect. Very poor to have Bond evade the rescue boat to snog the gal, I mean what's the thinking behind that? That aspect of it is just formulaic, I know it was done in Dr No, but that was fresh and original. They weren't stuck on some rubble in the night sea, perhaps it was an unintentional homage to Titanic which came out the same time!

Agent007jamest

No it is the worst of the Brosnan era. I still like it better than any Moore outing

Blackleiter

Me too!

Agent007jamest wrote:

No it is the worst of the Brosnan era. I still like it better than any Moore outing

chrisisall

TND is great middle of the road Bond. But Brosnan & Yeoh make it greater than it should be.

Peppermill

I watched TND yesterday with my girlfriend after a long time of not having watched it. Halfway through the movie I realised why I don't like it as much. Bond gets shot at by pistols, machine guns, rockets, helicopters etc. etc. allt thrpughout the movie without being hit once. I know it's a Bond movie so the hero should stay alive but to me it was a bit over the top to fire 16238362873 rounds at a guy without actually hitting him. I think that is harder to do than actually hitting him once or twice by accident.

BIG TAM

It knocked me for six when I first saw it & I've always found it a very entertaining film. It has a lot going for it. The plot's pretty good, offering a neat twist on the usual megalomaniac-wants-to-rule-the-world format. Brosnan's very assured. David Arnold's score's good & ballsy. Production values are high & it all moves at a fair old lick. My one gripe is it's so incident-packed it seems to run a bit out of steam by the time it gets to Vietnam, at which point it turns into a John Woo style bullet-fest. I prefer it to GOLDENEYE anyhow.

chrisisall

I submit that Brosnan & Yeoh's chemistry makes up for the bullet-festing. B-)

Dalkowski110

To both my Dad and myself, this was the second weakest of the Brosnan Bonds, and fell apart after the BMW crash. When Dad and I walked out of the theater afterward, aside from his brimstone directed at Dr. Kaufmann (which I'll get to in a minute), he summed up the movie as follows: "It alternates between The Spy Who Loved Me [one of Dad's favorite Moore films] and a John Woo film [VERY low praise from Dad]." It was quite frankly priceless to literally hear Dad curse in German at Dr. Kaufmann IN THE THEATER (Dad comes from a long line of Prussian Jews). But afterward, he made some good points, and he cited him as "quite possibly the most poorly-executed German stereotype since the end of World War II" and "like watching a southern [US]-born assassin talk like Buddy Ebsen and trying to get a menacing feeling out of that."

chrisisall

Dalkowski110 wrote:

he cited him as "quite possibly the most poorly-executed German stereotype since the end of World War II" and "like watching a southern [US]-born assassin talk like Buddy Ebsen and trying to get a menacing feeling out of that."

LOL, the accent sucked, I'll give you that, but the movie as a whole had, as Bruce Lee would say, emotional content. -{