georg-2

(13 May 2013)

I had to fight sleep

The sloppiest Bond I've ever seen. It would have left a good impression ifIhad left the cinema after the opening sequence, which contained nearlyeverything one can expect from a Bond movie. What followed was more of thesame, only less convincing. Towards the end the sound system was the onlything that kept me from falling asleep. I noticed that some other peopleinthe audience had less problems with the noise though.

stiv-7

(13 May 2013)

The best Bond in years.

I caught this one on opening night, and it is still with me, which is reallysaying something for an action film. Bond is back with a vengeance, andMichael Apted's masterful direction of what could have easily been anotherroutine entry in the series raises it to the same classic status asGoldfinger. I was initially annoyed at the prospect of Pierce Brosnan asBond, but he seems to have slipped quite comfortably into the role, andholds his own with such acting luminaries as Dame Judi Dench,Robert Carlyle,and the always interesting Robbie Coltrane. I appreciated the depth given tothe stereotypical Bond girls this round, particularly Sophie Marceau, who isone of the great finds of this decade. I'm definitely going to see this oneagain, and waiting with baited breath for the next one. One last note: lovethe casting of John Cleese, but for those who haven't seen the film, I won'tspoil the surprise.

thefan-2

(13 May 2013)

If you know what to expect, you won't be disappointed

Back when Roger Moore was nearing the endof his Bond career, Johnny Carson quipped that Moore was getting so old that prettysoon he'd have to start carrying cyanidesuppositories. That's the stage Pierce Brosnan is at. Still, it's fun imagining him as Bond (James Bond) and even more funimagining a nuclear scientist who looks like Denise Richards. (It could happen.) Plus there are lots and lots of explosions and lethal gadgets. It's hard to get too curmudgeonly about such a movie: if you didn't know what you were getting into when you bought the ticket, you need to get out more. It has some respectably tense moments, and the FX are okay. (This movie is a good litmus test for the sincerity of your feminist feelings, btw. The more it outrages you, the more sincere you are.)

Alec Trevelyan

(12 May 2013)

A Modern Classic!

In the Bond series, each actor that has stayed on for three or more films,has had number three be one of their best entries. For Connery it wasGoldfinger, Moore and The Spy Who Loved Me. Brosnan (like Connery) had hisbest entry, GoldenEye, before number three. And with GoldenEye being thefirst Bond I ever saw, it was near impossible to top it in my opinion. Butwith TWINE's bold plot twists and great character insight, it in the endwashard to say. What makes TWINE so good, well it is not just an actionadventure, it has a great spy plot with a thriller emoitional subplot. Itaffects how 007 treats his mission and what he does in it. Brosnan in myopinion IS James Bond, and while has been the best since GoldenEye, hereally perfects his portryal in TWINE. Brosnan really sinks into the rolehere, blending all the Bond elements required to give a perfectperfromanceas Bond. And with a great supporting cast, including the series firstfemalevillian, this movie is one of the best. And while Densie Richards (soohot!!) and the way the plot is twisted around slightly drops it fromDethroning GoldenEye as the best Bond film, this is a true modern classicand a film that once agian continues the Brosnan Bond tradition ofexcellence!

Christopher Messina

(12 May 2013)

Not Excellent, Not Bad

OK, I have to admit I was not that fond of this movie. I am a huge JamesBond fan, having seen almost all the movies more than once! Maybe that itwas I was displeased with it. I don't know why. It is driving me crazy! Iguess I set my expectation too high with this one. I would have thought thedirector/producers/actors would have seen the comments made on GoldeneyeandTND and made the appropriate changes. I thought wrong. It just doesn't havethat classical element that I am sure many of us miss. The car wasn't usedthat much, and I felt that Renard had potential, but was not in the movieenough. And also I didn't think many of the things in here were thatoriginal. But I guess after 19 movies it's pretty hard to keep it original.All the actors/actresses were fantastic, with the obvious exception ofDenise Richards, who I liked only because of the.....ehem...close-ups.I guess what I am trying to say is that it better be better nexttime!

(11 May 2013)

Bond, Bond, Bond

This review is from: The World Is Not Enough [VHS] (VHS Tape) I am amazed at the bad reviews this movie got here. I thought it was fantastic (with the exception of Denise Richards - that girl can't act to save her life!) I was never bored and I loved the (slightly predictable) plot twists. The video was good, the tribute to "Q" was excellent. I even enjoyed the ads (lol). For a brief moment, I thought that Sophie Marceau should have been the girl Bond ended up with. But reason prevailed. Richards couldn't be twisted and maniacal (or happy, sad, aggrieved, sympathetic, needy...you get the idea) to convince me or anybody. I have liked Sophie Marceau since "Braveheart" and she hasn't disappointed me here either.A must buy and see over and over again.PS Denise Richards was REALLY bad ...

Yin-Co

(11 May 2013)

One of the best of the Bond series!

I've seen all the Bond movies (except for "View to a Kill", and including"Casino Royale" and "Never Say Never Again"), and I feel that this one isone of the best. Strong performances, a classic Bond formula, anot-so-indestructible Bond actually showing emotion-even YELLING (somethingI don't think Bond's ever done in any other movie), a villain with aBondiangimmick (but not a cliche, two-domensional mastermind), plus two of themostbeautiful women in the Bond saga (Denise Richards and SophieMarceau-WOW!)!!This is Bond at it's best, and deserves to stand side-by-side with"Goldfinger" and "Thunderball" as classic Bond movies!

Eva Ionesco

(10 May 2013)

Very good film in most respects, Brosnan is competent.

The James Bond films have become well-known for their exciting butunbelievable stunts, their attractive women, their serious flaws in theplot, and those amazing gadgets that get Bond out of tight situations,always in a hair-raising way.To be fair to each new Bond film, you have to completely push out of yourmind the fact that Sean Connery, the only real James Bond, is not init.It is a welcome surprise that they have a very well-thought out plot thistime. They also have some excellent actors, including the elegantlybeautiful Sophie Marceau, who plays Electra King, and Denise Richards, whoplays Christmas Jones. These two, and Judi Dench who plays M, really carrythe movie, and more than make up for Brosnan's merely competent'by-the-numbers' acting.This film is well worthwhile watching, and will probably make you want tosee Richards and Marceau in some of their other films as well. And whileyou're at the video store getting them, you'll also need to pick up SeanConnery's Bond movies as well, to restore your faith in JamesBond!

tj_director

(10 May 2013)

Not Bond as I know and love.

My only real problem with TWINE is there is no big Bond final set piece,just a sunken submarine with a real claustraphobic feeling. I grew up withBond and the big finales, and that's what i loved about Bond, a lot ofpeople don't like Goldeneye, but the Satellite dish ending does it for me,and the N64 game is the cherry on top. What I can say about TWINE is that ithas probably the best starts to a Bond film, it is such a cool intro, butonce the stylish credits are over the film becomes slow, and there isn'tenough action, though there seems to be a lot of gadgets, and did the BMWhave to suffer such an painful death. Critics say Brosnan plays his best asBond in this, but IMHO I didn't see anything wrong with his previous ones.Had this had a big ending, i could have forgiven all it's negative stuff.Friends say they can forgive it purely on the basis of the last line beingso good.

(09 May 2013)

Good, but Goldeneye and Tomorrow... were better

Pierce is good as usual, Sophie is great, probably the best "Bond Girl", Denise Richards was probably the worst "Bond Girl", and Robert Carlysle's character was sort of....stupid, even though Robert did well playing the villian. I guess I just don't buy that whole "superhuman, can't feel pain" thing. As for Denise Richards, her acting in this movie is horrible. Plus, some of her lines are so dumb, you'd think she wrote the script herself. I think Fran Drescher or Amanda Plummer would have been less annoying. Aside from her bad acting and the lame bad guy, it's not a bad movie. Probably for die hard fans only.

Benjamin D

(28 April 2013)

Great Movie!

May not be the best spy film you'll ever see, but it's a good movie considering it's almost two decades old and out of date.So go and see this movie, you won't be disappointed.

yarborough

(28 April 2013)

A depressing entry, especially for Q.

When I saw this movie, the first thing I noticed was that Brosnan wasfrighteningly thin and weak-looking in this movie. Physically, I thinkBrosnan has run his course as Bond, but the movies ran their course over 30years ago and are still going, so why should Brosnan stop? Now the MI6headquarters have higher technology that the Starship Enterprise. The actionhere is unspeakably banal, and the numb villain is possibly the mostforgettable yet. The saddest part about this movie is the terriblydepressing scene involving Q. In his final appearance in a Bond movie,Desmond, as Q, is given the most ridiculously repetitive lines, which he hadbeen saying over and over again and had gotten stale by 1965. Being sostupid as to think he had another 30 years left, the writers did nothing togive him any more reason to return to the Bond set than to ramble to thechildish Bond. The writers continued to let Q pointlessly hang out to dry,and his final shot, in which he is lowered under ground, is just toodepressing. I felt that way even before Desmond died.

(27 April 2013)

Almost as good as Goldeneye

This was one of the best James Bond films. Goldeneye was probably the best of Pierce Brosnan's three and argueably the best of them all, but this had a more realistic since about it. Bond is actually hurt in the beginning of the movie, instead of miracuosly escaping injury. You do have your unbelievable parts(like rolling of a tunnel-car going 60+mph, but this time around Pierce Brosnan gave a good acting performance, and the only truly disappointing actor was Denise Richards. Great movie.

(26 April 2013)

Good, not great...

For those of you interested in action and the Bond that has developed over the last few decades, this edition will not disappoint. TWINE is better than Goldeneye but not quite up to the Brosnan standard of Tomorrow Never Dies- the villian, while played with gusto and verve, is a hackneyed character and totally unbelievable. Sophie Marceau makes up for it as one of the best Bond girls yet and the action sequences, though a bit tired and samey for me, will not disappoint most fans of the series. I recommend this for any Bond fan, it is definately above average, but I must say that after almost 40 years, I would like to see the producers move back towards a more traditional rendition of the character (ie: try to steer away from the gadgets and explosions and interpret Flemmings' characterizations a bit more faithfully). Brosnan, by the way, is second only to Sean as the real Bond.

(26 April 2013)

silly.

This movie was so silly i was laughing all the way throughit. it was just really corny

(25 April 2013)

Not as good as it could have been.

It must be hard to write/star in a Bond film. There are so many expectations to live up to. Connery does not help - setting the standard so high with the earlier Bond flicks. Bronson will always deliver as bond. His supporting cast- Marceau and Carlyle are equally good. The actress who plays Christmas Jones is laughable. She is so wrong for the part, you wish she had stayed home. The plot - not bad- classic Bond, with the fate of the world at stake. I liked it becasue there is always room for a good action film, with no indecent language and (dare I say) excessive violence. Bond delivers. The ending though could use some work - exactly how many Bond films end with Bond kissing the girl? I should know - since I have seen them all.

DPR-5

(24 April 2013)

Brosnan's Best Bond

The World is Not Enough brings back memories of the original Bond films,when Sean Connery was 007. The action is non-stop, the Bond girls arelovely as ever, and the villain is classic. All of the needed elements arehere and done well, thanks to Michael Apted and a delightful cast. Brosnanis the best Bond since Connery, and in my opinion gains on the master witheach film. I can't wait for number 20.

djonin

(24 April 2013)

After two strikes, Bond hits a home run.

A good blend of mindless action, fun, and a good plot. They ever follow thethree question rule explained in "Austin Powers the spy who shagged me" wereyou ask a bad guy the same question three times and he has toanswer.GoldenEye was strike one, Tomorrow Never Dies was a foul ball out of thepark, and this was a barley good home run.

TimBoHannon

(24 April 2013)

Can't live up to the usual high standards

I wanted to love this film, believe me. I wanted to embrace it and likeit as much as Pierce Brosnan's first two Bond movies, which werenothing short of spectacular. I remember all the anticipation leadingup to opening night back in 1999. I thought this was going to be great.Then the day came, the film played, the credits rolled, and for thefirst time since I began to watch these films, I was disappointed.Granted, there are other duds in the history of the long-runningfranchise, as conceivably would be in any that reaches twentyinstallments. "Diamonds Are Forever," "Live and Let Die," "The Man withthe Golden Gun," and "Moonraker" are some examples. "The World is NotEnough," while still earning a recommendation, lacks the magic carriedfrom "The Living Daylights" to "Tomorrow Never Dies."At first I felt I was not being completely fair, that maybe myexpectations were too high after "Tomorrow Never Dies," one of the bestconstructed and most exciting action films ever made. In fact, "Licenseto Kill" and "GoldenEye" before it were also top five efforts. The moreI analyzed it, however, the more I realized that the problem did notlie with my point of view, but with the movie itself. It is not withoutits successes, but its shortcomings overshadow them.Bond feels responsible for the death of oil tycoon Robert King (DavidCalder) after unwittingly delivering the murder weapon. After initiallyplacing Bond on injured reserve, M (the always reliable Judi Dench),assigns him to protect King's daughter Elektra (Sophie Marceau). Mi-6suspects that Renard (Robert Carlyle) a terrorist "whose only goal ischaos," is responsible for King's murder and will target Elektra next.Thanks to 009, Renard has brain-imbedded bullet nullifies pain, butwill eventually kill him. There is great potential there, but it isonly exploited three times: when Renard holds a "scolding" rock, whenhe is shot in the arm, and when he punches porcelain furniture duringsex. When he is shot, he takes notice, but should not since he has nosense of touch.The positives are many. Pierce Brosnan gives a tremendous performanceonce again. He is now playing James Bond with great ease, and he useshis brand of Bond ruthlessness more than usual. The special effects arepristine, and the same can be said the stunts coordinated by thelegendary Vic Armstrong. The action is mostly enjoyable, except for theunderachieving Istanbul climax. There are strong supportingperformances and it is nice to see Robbie Coltrane reprise ValentinZukovsky, whom he played in "GoldenEye." David Arnold, my favoritecomposer, turns in the best score in the series. It ranges frombeautiful, as Bond skis down a mountain slope with Elektra, to tense,as Bond and a companion shoot down the inside of a pipe at 65miles-per-hour, to emotional, when Bond sees a computer reel of Elektracrying and reaches out as if to wipe her tear. Desmond Llewelyn arrivesfor one last time as the legendary and beloved gadget master Q."The World is Not Enough" easily contains the longest pre-creditsopener in the series, including boat chase on the Thames that is thehighlight of the movie. One could argue that it is too long for its owngood, but the problem lies even before that. Prior to the chase, a gooddeal of plot is covered using Backwards Storytelling, a tactic wherethe filmmakers know the whole story, and create the scenes backwardsfrom there. The problem is that the audience does not know the storyyet, so the references are too overwhelming to remember. The rest ofthe plot builds on them, but the poor structure leaves a shakyfoundation.The plot does not unwind smoothly in the first hour. The action doesnot fit in with the ebb and flow of a movie, seeming to be added inbecause too much time had passed without an explosion. Somewhere in themix we meet "Dr." Christmas Jones (fluffy-girl Denise Richards), anuclear physicist in shorts. I remember shaking my head when I firstsaw her on screen. Richards is hotter than the Afghan sun, but takingher seriously requires effort.However, the film's biggest problem is the character moments thatdirector Michael Apted was so staunch about. Most of them involveElektra and her vulnerable side. All too often they occur in bed, whereElektra has this annoying habit of handling ice cubes like a childtesting a new sensation. There is one particularly repulsive sex-sceneinvolving Elektra and the ugly Renard. It ends with Elektra whispering"Remember, pleasure," as if it were an advertisement for promiscuity.Raunchiness in Bond movies is not normally a problem, but in this caseit distracts and detracts. Had Apted toned this down, the film wouldimmensely improve.Then there are the characters themselves. Of course we like Bond andValentin, and Judi Dench is always great as M, but the poorly plannedvillains do not meet standard. Making Elektra draw our sympathy is agood idea at first, but the feeling falls apart when her true colorsare shown. Her whole life is a cruel vendetta, so she deserves hate,not sympathy. The same applies to Renard. Apted at times tries tocreate pathos because of his death sentence, yet Renard is sodespicable, we cannot possibly garner a thimble-full of commiserationfor him.Should the film be seen anyway? Possibly, some good action, acting, andthe great soundtrack provide enough enjoyment; just don't expect it tobe anywhere near the quality of its predecessors. I consideredwithholding a recommendation because it nearly topples under the weightof its many mistakes. It will thrill you early, disappoint, recover,and then bury itself with its poor finale. Don't say I didn't warn you.

LJ Kong

(24 April 2013)

What A Performance By Pierce Brosnan!

I Just came home from seeing TWINEAfter seeing Live Wire i thought Brosnan just wasn't an acting person buthesure proved me wrong here. Bringing emotion and character to Bond thatnobody else could. And the Russian accent worked perfectly.The supporting cast was great. M, with an extended role was justastounding.Sophie Marceau stole the show and Robert Carlyle proved himself a worthyactor. But what about Robbie Coltrane, reprising the role of ValentineZukovsky. He was absolutely brilliantThe only problem, Why the hell did they cast Denise Richards ? She justruined the whole thing.Overall a good Bond. Good complicated plot. Sure it isn't the best Bond buthey, it's sure up there.Shaken, not stirred...9/10