The World Is Not Enough
Dir: Michael Apted.

Whether you�re a fan or not, the release of a new Bond film is undeniably a major media event, and this, the 19^th �official� release by Eon productions, has seemed even bigger than in previous years. So questions concerning the enduring appeal and continued success of the series after 37 years are often asked and the problem of trying to create something different to previous outings without it seeming tired or cliched is as big a challenge as Bonds saving the world from a crazed megalomaniac. So how do they do it time after time and what is the secret? Well the answer is basically that they stick to the formula of action, adventure, exotic locations and beautiful women, whilst being aware that a few new ingredients are needed to keep audiences interested. These new ingredients take the form of added depth, both in story line and character, the result of which is a much more complicated and dark Bond film than we have seen in recent years. If there could be any criticism of the makers of this film, it would be that they have tried too hard. But I feel this will only add to the longevity of the story which involves Bond (Brosnan) being sent to protect Elektra King (Sophie Marceau), who is attempting to build an oil pipeline under the Caspian Sea, from a terrorist called Renard (Robert Carlyle). Needless to say the plot is far more complicated than that, and there are many twists and turns along the way, but I don�t wish to give too much away. What I will say is that this is one of the best casts ever assembled for a Bond film, with Robbie Coltrane, Dame Judi Dench and even John Cleese all putting in an appearance. But particular credit must go to Marceau and Carlyle who both put in superb performances that are intriguing and at times quite menacing which helps make this film a bit special. The final word however must go to Brosnan who really has made the role his own. Much has been written in the press of late stating that he is the best Bond since Connery, but I feel that each actor has brought something different to the role and Pierce stands out on his own as an individual Bond that is very enjoyable in his own right. Having watched him in this latest adventure I doubt any previous Bond has had to endure a more gruelling production or publicity schedule. In this film they really do seem to put him through it, even though much of the burden is shouldered by his doubles, it is obvious that he does much of the action himself and it is one of the few times that your not envious of Bond. He certainly is one of the wettest Bonds on film, as Pierce seems soaked from start to finish much to the delight of some of the ladies in the audience. On the evidence presented here I�m sure Bond will continue into the next millennium for quite some time as this latest adventure manages to be very contemporary and yet still retains that element of pure escapism like no other type of film has managed to do for so long. Truly, nobody does it better, even after nearly 40 years!
Jim, Nov 99

Die Another Day
Dir: Lee Tamahori

Due to both the 50th anniversary of the 1st Bond novel 'Casino Royale' & the 40th anniversary of the 1st Bond film 'Dr. No' in 2002, the release of 'Die Another Day' was delayed to coincide with these anniversaries. This meant that by the time of release it had been 3 years since 1999's 'The World Is Not Enough'. The previous two times there was a gap greater than two years was due to legal wrangles. The departure of producer Harry Saltzman after 'The Man With The Golden Gun' in 1974, and the following legalities, meant it was 1977 before 'The Spy Who Loved Me' hit the big screen. Further legal disputes meant there was 6-year gap between 89's 'Licence To Kill' and 95's 'Goldeneye', during which time Timothy Dalton left the series as he felt he was too old to play the role, and the franchise was re-invented for the 90's. In both of these situations Bond returned bigger and better than ever, but would this be the case considering that the delay of this, the 20th instalment in the series, was self imposed? Well, the quick answer is No. The time taken to make the film, from writing, to filming etc. was much the same as the usual for a Bond film. Usually filming for a Bond film starts in the 1st quarter of the year the film is due for release if that is to be during the Christmas period. With casting and writing being done before. Which is a shame, as one would have hoped that more time might have been taken considering it was available. This is not to say 'Die Another Day' is not a great Bond film. It merely means it is of a similar level to the last, rather than greatly surpassing that which went before. Which in it's self is a great compliment as all of the Bond films under Brosnan's tenure have been a joy.

The film begins with the usual pre-credits sequence, this time in the de-militarised zone of North/South Korea. Following a breathtaking surfing sequence Bond proceeds to cause havoc with hovercraft's. Although this may not surpass the previous film's attempt on location alone (how could you beat the Thames?), this is the usual action packed affair we have come to expect. It is also, like many of the pre-title sequences, better than much that appears in the rest of the film, thus adding to the opinion that these are the best parts. The difference this time however is Bond does not heroically escape and the titles show scenes of his torture intermixed with the usual amazing imagery. All of this to the backing of the Madonna theme that has proved to be a bit of a 'Marmite' song in that people seem to love it or hate it. Those against seem to be the same people who liked Tina Turner's 'Goldeneye' as it was 'classic' Bond and a bit like Shirley Bassey's 'Goldfinger'. Those who are for it acknowledge it's originality, whilst realising it's place in the present musical climate, much like Duran Duran fitted in '85. Personally I felt it accompanied the sequence perfectly, as it was more of a dark journey, rather than a celebration of all things Bondian. This brings me to the 1st aspect that left me feeling uncomfortable with DAD. Because although torture is something Bond often endured in the novels and is a useful device in demonstrating Bond's character and his relationship both with his captors and his employers. I found it hard to accept the length of his capture, days or weeks is believable, months are a little harder to swallow.

Bond is a resourceful intelligent man, who although ultimately human and susceptible to capture and imprisonment, would have found a way to escape eventually. Instead we have a bearded, dishevelled man who is freed by MI6 as part of a hostage exchange 14 months later. Suspecting Bond to be a traitor he is held captive once more, but it isn't long before he escapes and sets off to prove his innocence and find out who set him up. We'll ignore the fact that the Koreans held him captive for over a year and he escapes the British within hours. This merely helps to set up Bond as a man damaged by both his enemy's and his country, therefore having to rely on himself and his wits to gain revenge and spurned on to prove his innocence. This allows Brosnan to play Bond as Fleming had intended, and he does it masterfully. When Bond is in Cuba, self sufficient without the aid of MI6, on the trail of the villains is classic Bond.

Along the way he hooks up with CIA agent Jinx (Halle Berry), a great Bond girl and one in the latest trend of being an equal to Bond. Although to be fair Bond girls in the novels and many of the films have rarely been subservient to Bond in both story and character, as they have always been central to the plot, it's just now they shoot more guns and fight more along with Bond. Jinx is just a further development on Michelle Yeoh's 'Wai Lin' character from 'Tomorrow Never Dies' who herself was made more important when it was announced that Teri Hatcher was pregnant during filming and therefore had her role reduced. None the less Jinx is a much more fully developed character (quite literally) and although I'm not a big fan of Ms. Berry she is undeniably excellent and extremely sexy in this role.

Once Bond has enough evidence he heads back to M and despite misgivings of his earlier treatment he is soon working under the fold of MI6 again as he would have been unable to complete his mission otherwise. Bond may not like it, just as M may not like his methods, but neither can deny their need of one another. Bond is soon on the trail of Gustav Graves (Toby Stephens), a Richard Branson type entrepreneur, who although seemingly out for the benefit of mankind is in some way linked to Bond's betrayal. Stephens is the best of Brosnan's foes thus far, even if his youth makes the nearly 50 Pierce look a tad old. Although reminiscent of some of the classic Moore era megalomaniacs such as Drax, Zorin, Stromberg, etc. he still pales in comparison. A Bond is said to be only as good as it's villain, and although that is true in part it is a mark of Brosnan that his Bond's have been among the best despite having had some of the weaker ones to deal with. Bond is assisted by Miranda Frost (Rosamund Pike), undercover as Grave's publicist and fencing coach having been an Olympiad herself. Although under strict orders not to be distracted by Bond's charm she seems to succumb all too quickly, but not before Bond's preliminary fencing with his adversary literally leads to a duel with Grave's. The scenes of the two viciously attacking one another as they tear through a gentleman's club with sword in hand is very reminiscent of the savagery of Fleming's writing as only he who draws first blood can be declared winner. This is sure to go down as one of the best sequences in any of the Bond films.

Bond is soon off to Iceland where Grave's demonstrates his 'Icarus' satellite supposedly built to help give light where there is none, but Bond soon discovers that Zao, the North Korean agent he was exchanged for, is under Grave's employ. DAD is very reminiscent of the last Bond film TWINE, in that it has many twists and turns, unsurprising, as the screenwriters are the same. This has the effect of occasionally making the story difficult to follow, and it is definitely a film that one might not fully appreciate on first viewing. This also means that like TWINE, it is likely to benefit in longevity. Then again it could also be said that this 'throw enough mud and some is sure to stick' approach may not be the best. After 'Tomorrow Never Dies' Brosnan, in reference to the product placement, stated that 'less is more' and this could also be true in terms of the plot. However, the task of delivering a film that delivers in terms of satisfying modern action hungry audiences along with die-hard Fleming aficionados is a decidedly daunting one. This is definitely a Bond film that has enough for both. Criticisms aside, including those of the CGI used, which have as much to do with traditionally not being used in a Bond film as they do not up to the standard required, this, the 20th Bond film, is a great one.
Jim, Jan 03