(directed by Roger Spotiswoode)
Few would dispute the usefulness of easy and accessible transmitted
information from one region of the globe to another through various
media. The only possible point contention is the person or entity
exercising said transmission. He who controls the flood of information
can control a whole lot more, and such was the central issue of 007’s
(Pierce Brosnan) latest mission, which began when both Chinese MiGs and
the HMS Devonshire were attacked at sea, with each country accusing the
other of belligerency. The first media outlet to cover the story was the
Elliot Carver (Jonathan Pryce) owned newspaper, The Tomorrow. It seemed
to many that the story leaked just a bit too fast, a bit too early. How
did Carver get his information so quickly and what have he to do with
this international incident? Time was of the essence as communication
between Great Britain and China heated up, with the potentiality of war
growing by the minute.
007 was commissioned with the
investigation of Carver and his enterprise during the latter’s much
hyped about launch of a 24 hour news television station to take place in
Hamburg. It was there that our agent came in contact with a former
flame, Paris (Terri Hatcher), now Carver’s wife, as well as the
beautiful Wai Lin (Michelle Yeoh), an Chinese secret agent posing as a
journalist seeking an exclusive interview with media mogul. Bond’s
snooping, running and shooting shed more and more light on his target,
thus making it abundantly clear that the British ex-pat did indeed have a
hand in the international incident, aided by a techno wizard named
Gupta (Ricky Jay). His goal? To increase television ratings as well as
newspaper and magazine readership. Control the content by creating it. The euphoria felt by the fans as a result of
Goldeneye was
always going to be difficult to live up to. Having one Bond film in
which the story deals with the post-Cold War world is one thing, but if
the producers were going to make more films, and we all knew they would,
new ideas for threats would have to created again and again. What could
be considered a danger to the world? It needs to be plausible both in
the world of James Bond and in our real world. The Roger Spotiswoode
directed
Tomorrow Never Dies does address a fascinating issue
that many do indeed consider to a problem: the domination of news media
by a select few. After all, when so much information is selectively
delivered by so few, it is understandable for certain ethical to arise.
The consensus surrounding
Tomorrow Never Dies
is that it isn’t very good. A meandering, very middle of the road Bond
film. While I don’t think many can make the case that is raises the
stakes even higher than its immediate predecessor, watching
TND
for the first time in a couple of years reminded me that it does have
quite a few positive characteristics, although it never amounts to much
in the end, by virtue of some poor writing, dubious acting and even some
questionable action choreography, something that hasn’t been criticized
about the franchise in this marathon since, well, possible ever.
The
question of the Bond villain is always a contentious one. Should the
character take on more realistic qualities or outlandish ones? Maybe the
worst case scenarios are those which try to create a hybrid of those
two possible qualities, when the writers and director want to have it
both ways. For instance, the seed for the idea of Elliot Carver is
interesting. Have a media mogul control the news in less than honourable
ways, thus sending major nations into a tailspin of fear and paranoia,
Great Britain chief among them. MI6 launches 007 into action and
subsequently discovers the horrific acts Carver is engaged in. Mass
media, in our day and age, is a concern for how ironically limited and
heavily censored the information can be sometimes. Owners of such media
conglomerates are frequently accused of biased reporting and, possibly,
stifling the entire truth. Taking that notion and creating a Bond
villain out of it sounds like a great idea and in some respects it works
in
TND. The threat is real as is the ludicrous strategy that
Elliot Carve goes about his plan. However, in never plays out in
completely satisfying manner. For one, when Carver reveals that he
really is just doing all of this to ensure exclusive television rights
in China for years to come, it comes off as too silly. I mean, that’s a
long way around just to acquire some tele rights. Maybe if he had become
enamoured with creating the news and went mad, unable to stop himself
anymore, or if he created bad events to then provide in false in depth
coverage to come off as some sort of ‘good Samaritan’ reporter to gain
fame and fortune. Just tv rights? Sounds pretty flimsy. Jonathan Pryce
simply does not feel entirely comfortable in the role either. He does
not look or sound threatening at all. He’s just a skinny guy in glasses.
Pryce is too classy an actor to be a convincing villain. If you want to
go British for a Bond villain, you have to go bad ass. Sean Bean
(Irish) was a great example of that.
Someone who isn’t flimsy in
TND
is Pierce Brosnan, returning for a second outing as James Bond. His
performance here is just as good, if not possibly better than it was in
Goldeneye.
He is very good at playing ‘cool,’ of that there is no doubt, but after
watching this movie so many times you start noticing fun little
details. One of these neat moments arrives when 007 is remote
controlling his spruced up BMW in the hotel garage lot in Hamburg.
Pursued by a gang of baddies, Bond is sunk into the back seat, driving
his vehicle with his miniature control pad. His car rolls over some
spikes, thus piercing the tires, but fear not, for with a press of a
button the tires are repaired and the vehicle can continue thrusting
along. That ingenious little life saver is so awesome even Brosnan can’t
help but give a wide smile. Another is when he is trying to escape from
the print factory in Hamburg. Bond has beaten up a bunch of guards and,
thinking the coast is clear, calmly walks around, looking for an exit.
Suddenly, a burst of bullet fire roars by him, forcing him to take
cover. It lasts only a second, but I swear Brosnan has an ironic grin
when ducking for cover, as if saying to himself ‘Yeah, I should have
known it wouldn’t be that easy!’ If there is one thing that holds his
performance back, it is some of the lines he has to deliver, some of
which are rather brutally unfunny, such the ‘we’ve formed an
attachment,’ quip when he and Wai Lin are cuffed together. Overall
though, Brosnan is very good in
TND, clearly growing even more comfortable in the role.
The run of hit or miss Bond girls continues. How long has this sequence
lasted, in which each Bond film with a memorable, strong female lead is
followed by a letdown. Well, in
TND, director Spotiswoode gives
us not one but two letdowns. The first comes in the shape of Terri
Hatcher of Desperate Housewives fame. There are several problems with
this character, the most pressing being where her character’s
relationship with Bond stems from. Few details are revealed, but the
film does share the fact that she and Bond have a past. That in of
itself is interesting, especially since Paris is now Elliot Carver’s
wife, thus complicating matters when 007 shows up at the Hamburg event,
masquerading as a banker. Rather than remain content with the notion
that Bond and her had a fling, the film really hits home that they were
madly in love with each other. What? Where is this coming from? Bond
tried that once in
OHMSS and his wife to be was murdered on
their wedding day, so I find it surprising that he’d fall for the same
trick twice. Granted, the movie tells us that he left her before things
might have gotten too serious, but still. The second problematic aspect
of this thankfully brief plotpoint is the actress, Terri Hatcher. There
is about as little chemistry between her and Brosnan as I’ve seen in a
while in a Bond film. She tries to play it with a sense of cool and
sexiness, but for whatever reason it doesn’t work properly, maybe
because she plays it with a sense of overconfidence, almost like a
parody of a Bond girl. Brosnan is fine in these scenes, demonstrating a
vulnerable side to Bond audiences are not privy to often, but Hatcher
simply doesn’t cut it. I’ve heard stories of these two actors not
getting along on set and, I don’t know, I feel it plays out on screen.
For what it’s worth, we get a fantastic scene after her death involving
Bond and the odd, funny, memorable Dr. Kaufman.
Then enters
Michelle Yeoh, an actress gifted with a lot of charm (Tai Chi Master
makes an argument in favour of that statement) and obviously impressive
martial arts skills, playing Wai Lin of the Chinese secret service. Here
again the plot point begins with an interesting idea, in this case the
partnership with a British spy and a Chinese spy, operating for the
exact two countries who might go to war with one another if Elliot
Carver has his way. While I think Yeoh fairs better than Hatcher, there
isn’t enough time for her and Bond to ever develop anything more
serious than sexual attraction. We see her all too briefly in the early
going, only to have her reappear shortly after Paris’ death. So this
Paris woman whom Bond loved so much has been brutally murdered, but he
sort of forgets it quickly when Michelle Yeoh’s sexy tush shows up. It
all feels rather odd. It isn’t as though they have great dialogue scenes
with each other either. The writers try for a few snappy things, but
few land as they should.
In the same vein of
TND
containing a mixed bag of tricks, some of the action is spectacular,
while other moments which hope to thrill land flat on their proverbial
faces. The pre-title sequence is solid for the most part, with Bond
snooping in closer and closer into a rogue arms dealers’ bazaar while
under guidance from home base (codename: White Night!) and then creating
absolute mayhem once his target is in sight. Following a fun little
chase through a The Tomorrow print factory in Hamburg (in which Bond
uses one of the silliest methods for escaping gun fire) is what many
consider to be the highlight of the picture: the remote controlled BMW
car chase. I actually disagree. It reminds of the
Goldfinger Aston Martin scene and the Little Nelly scene from
You Only Live Twice.
It’s essentially Bond pressing a bunch of buttons. A lot of what
happens is fun, but I’m always under the impression that a bit less
skill in on display. Great stuntwork and pyrotechnics, but not much in
terms of how great James Bond can be. For me the highlight of the film
is the helicopter-motorcycle chase through the shantytowns of Hanoi.
That scene has some freaking fantastic stuff happening, both by the
stunt people playing Bond and Wai Lin on the bike and by that damn
helicopter. Beautiful Bond action.
However, there are some real
downers in there as well. Is it just me or is Bond mowing down an
especially large amount of faceless goons via machine gun? That climax
must have about three or four shots of 007 simply walking around with a
mean look on his face, machine gun in hand and just letting her rip. Not
very 007-esque if you ask me. I also find the entire climax to be a
huge dud. The set design is awfully boring, there’s nothing interesting
that can happen in a series of mundane industrial style corridors of a
submarine. There are even some especially weak slow mo scene of Wai Lin
gunning down baddies yelling ‘Hiiiyyyah’. Oh god, really?
Last
but not least is Stamper (Gotz Otto), Elliot Carver’s right hand man.
Has there ever been a more generic, uninteresting, uncharismatic heavy
in the franchise? That ridiculous bleached hair,that stare, the
atrocious dialogue, etc. I don’t even want to talk about this guy.
Tomorrow Never Dies
is an unfortunate case when one really thinks about for a moment. There
are plenty of phenomenal ideas on the table. A media mogul turned
insane, British-Chinese international relations, Bond running into an
old flame...but almost none of them amount to much. Some of the more
traditional Bond elements save the day, as the fun factor of tagging
along with a cool 007 and specific action sequences which impress. A
missed opportunity if you ask me, even though it isn’t all that bad.
B-
No comments:
Post a Comment