|Page 14 of 69:||               |
|Index||688 reviews in total|
I'm kind of surprised at all the negative comments this movie is getting. This is not the best Bond film or even best bond film of recent times (Tomorrow Never Dies was the best Bond Film of the 90's), but I still liked it. It did make a mistake in having it's best action scene, the boat chase, at the begining because none of the other scenes can compare. Still I found it to be whity and entertaining. It's one of the more original Bond films I've seen in a while (helecopters with spinning blades on the bottom, who would of thought). This movie does have a little too many explosions but what the hell, it's fun. This movie also has Pierc Brosnan's best Bond performance yet. Not as good as Tomorrow Never Dies but better than Goldeneye. I give it a 7 out of 10.
Or maybe not, the filming locations in some scenes, anyway, were close to
actual countries which Pierce was visiting. They always look better than
those cheesy theatrical sets which ruin the plot.
In the construction area scene, the crowd cheering for salvation of a Russian Orthodox Temple is wearing Muslim dresses and waving Iranian (or were they Hungarian?!) flags which makes the whole scene ridiculous. If this temple was real, not many people would care, well certainly not many people of other religions. The Azeri government would have never allowed a foreign company (let alone a woman) to monopolize an oil pipeline project. In fact, the major part of this business is state-controlled. When displaying Bond her pipeline on the map, Elektra says that it passes Turkey, while on the map it is clear that it goes in opposite direction.
And where in Turkey can you find fireworks on Christmas?
Otherwise, it was fun, but ending was a little too long.
Despite high production values and much that is interesting, this movie was a failure in my estimation. Denise Richards won a well deserved Razzie for the worst performance in a supporting role (she plays a nuclear scientist who looks and like a 20-something model and sounds like a valley girl). The talented Judi Dench, who plays M, is trapped in the wrong part in the wrong movie for the wrong reasons. The movie is far too long and has some flat places. Nevertheless, Pierce Brosnan gives a good performance as Bond, as does Sophie Marceau as the femme fatale. This film is decent, despite the fact that it could have been a lot better. 6 out of 10.
I have always been an avid James Bond Fan from my younger years so I I
haven't quite figured out why the movie did not appeal to me as much. It
has the ladies, the action, the totally unrealistic plot like any other Bond
movie..Brosnan is a good Bond (but not in the class of Connery or Moore).
Maybe that's it. Modern technology makes the Bond stunts not as stand
outish as they used to be.
Maybe its the female M...or John Cleese coming into the fray as the "replacement Q". Or maybe, just maybe after 19 Bond movies the novelty has worn off.
That said this is still a good Bond movie as far as Bond movies go, and the James Bond in this movie is a little more ruthless and callous in nature (watch to see as he doesn't always have to kill in this movie but does).
For those of you that watch this movie, don't expect a Bond classic, but it is one of the better Bond movies of recent times.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
NoTiCe: MAny SPoileRs AheAd DON't gO AnY FurTHEr!!!!!
You know the plot, what you don't know is that James Bond is getting old, the fans are tired of watching Jimmy shagging Babes. The only new stuff is always the gadgets, which are not getting old. The sense of humor is good but when you 've got a James Bond who actually does Bruce Willis(in Die Hard), you can't have good results. A bunch of sexy actresses, a bigger part for M and Pierce Brosnan isn't Enough! The movie is just a very very very very BAD replica(immitation) of Die Hard.
The first part has a very Bad and very not convincing but very sexy Richards(Dr. Christmas! what in the earth name is that!), a cool Brosnan(not need to talk about him!) and Elektra King(Marseu, or whatever her name is spelled like) who doesn't seem very notorious and finally the greatest thign this movie has a BAD GUY WHO CAN'T FEEL A THING! Robert Carlyle is very good but can really one actor save the titanic called James Bond! How the hell did he do that thing with the boat! Q is dead so he will rest from Bond's character!
The second part has some good jokes, some good action scenes(who are totally unconvincing) and some sex in the end! R is the new Dude who will make us have a good time(maybe!), he is good but does John Cleese deserve that kind of treatment! If you haven't seen any James Bond watch Dr. No first. If you wan't to see Pierce Brosnan watch GOLDENEYE for a change! Don't even take a look here you'll be very sorry!
To add into my coments i would like to say that i am a huge fan of Bond but wathing him collapse isn't what i love to see! I'd rather remember him with the characteristicks of Sean Connery who really shows who James Bond is! FORGET 'EM ALL! ROGER MOORE, GOERGE LAZENBY, TIMOTHY DALTON.................. SEAN RULES!!!
hello MISS MANYPENNY....I HOPE THE NEXT WILL BE BETTER!!! i am looking foward for it! he will be back!
Yes. It does have some *terrible* puns. Yes. It is still a fairytale of
v. Evil. Yes. It still ultimately sticks with the tried-and-tested working
formula of a Bond adventure. It may not be groundbreaking, but it's still
The World Is Not Enough is, in the opinion of many, the best 90s Bond film. An apparent difference from past Brosnan efforts is the great acting. Bond is sleek and smooth, justifying the critics who compare Brosnan to Connery. The villains, Robert Carlyle and Sophie Marceau, are manipulated so genuine audience dislike occurs. Also, our old friend Valentin (from Goldeneye, 1995), played by Robbie Coltrane returns, bad-accent and all.
TWINE is set mostly is the oil-fields in ex-Communist Asia, the scene changes are smooth and, along with the plot twisting, keep you watching. Broccoli has worked out the perfect ration of action to romance, making the film enthralling to the last.
The final verdict? One to watch, for Bond fans old and new. Smooth and polished, The World Is Not Enough will keep anyone watching, and feeling thrilled.
This flop brings shame to the legend surrounding the classic 'James Bond'
films. Once adorned with sophistication and dignity, this plot was clearly
devised late one night by a group of drunken no-hopers who thought of
releasing it in the hope of being famous. And yes, this film is going to be
remembered- but for all the wrong reasons.
I'm not going to waste much time filling you in on the dire script, but basically one man saves the world from a group of terrorists who've been let loose with a nuclear bomb. Yeah right. The word unrealistic doesn't do this film justice-why can't a group of trained snipers with hi-tech guns not capture armed only with a bad hairstyle and a corny smile? Clearly the villains are as mentally challenged as the scriptwriter.
The classic wit of Bond has been replaced in this film by a blend of 'dry and subtle humour'. Or so the makers claim. It seems to me that they've just randomly inserted punchlines from '101 Jokes for Nursery School Kids'. Laugh? No, I didn't.
In a vain effort to save this film, some privileged individuals with more money than friends splashed out to provide it with some admittedly stunning special effects. To be honest though, these only serve to highlight what this film could have been as they are so out of context with everything else displayed.
In short, I don't recommend that you get off your couch to see this disaster. Instead, go to the video shop and pick a random film off the shelf. It's bound to better than this. Oh, and while you're there, save others from the pain that I went through and trash all other copies of this junk.
Pierce Brosnan's third and so far best Bond film - a powerhouse action
adventure combined with driving characters and story, all polished with
sleeker than sleek Bondian style. The cracking Brosnan means business as
007 here bringing all the elements the fans, audiences and critics love to
see from the character and bringing back memories from the four guys who
went before him, as well as the flair he brought to the role in his previous
The story sees Bond investigate into the murder of an oil tycoon, which leads him into the path of his haunted daughter, Elektra King, (an excellent Sophie Marceau) and her terrorist ex-kidnapper, Renard, (Robert Caryle), who plans to gain unlimited power by siezing control of the King pipeline.
Regulars Judi Dench (M) and Desmond Llewelyn (Q) are on hand with particularly memorable and fitting appearences this time around and the bankable cast is further expanded with the presence of Denise Richards, Robbie Coltrane and John Clesse (stepping in as Q's successor). All this and some of the series' most amusingly over-the-top and spectacular action ensures that this Bond is up there with the best of them.
I feel for Brosnan, he's had 3 stabs at Bond, but everytime he has to work
with a bad script, or a director who doesn't understand
Goldeneye wasn't bad, but not great, Tomorrow Never Dies was just Die Hard
and this one is boring.
This Bond movie features Brosnan's best acting as Bond, he has a lot more to do, and gets involved with his character, but the script fails him, the film's structure is lacklustre.
The film has way too many locations, it becomes a little silly. Bond can't be everywhere! Brosnan could be a great Bond, but please give him a great script ! The opening pre-title sequence is the longest I've seen, and it's quite good, not the best, though.
The love interest is good, but sometimes feels sloppy. The villain, Renard is terrible, he has nothing to do here.
Pierce plays Bond well in this one, he's got all the characteristics of Bond near perfect. Dalton and Connery are my favourite Bonds, but Brosnan isn't far behind. Denise Richards was terrible in this, totally miscast, she's way too young for this movie. Robert Caryle is wasted here, but he did the best he could with a bad script. Sophie Marceau is quite well developed, she plays her role well. Judi Dench is good, but her character seems very awkward in the film, terrible writing for her character.
The director, Apted, understand the Bond character, but his direction was hampered by a script which was structurely lacking.
The score by Arnold is okay, but way too much electronics, and the end credits scoring was terrible, really bad!!!!!
Overall, not the best Bond film, but Brosnan's best work as the character yet.
First of all, let's just say that I want to be James Bond! He is so cool and his adventures are awesome: exotic locales, beautiful women, hi-tech gadgets. Who wouldn't want to do that for a living? I have always thought that Pierce Brosnan would make the best James Bond and was so disappointed when he wasn't able to do it back in the '80's (due to his 'Remington Steel' gig). Then they chose that hack Timothy Dalton. But when Brosnan was finally able to take the chair, I was thrilled because I knew he'd be perfect. And I was right! He is the penultimate Bond: dashing, debonaire, intelligent, and he has the accent which is just the icing on the cake. 'The World...' fits in perfectly with the Bond formula. You have Bond, the beautiful femme fatale Bond girl who is not who she seems (the amazing Sophie Marceau), the brainy Bond girl (the luscious Denise Richards), the villain with a certain weird quirk (Robert Carlyle) who in this case is unable to feel any pain or emotion due to a bullet lodged in his brain, severing all of his senses, and big, splashy, over-the-top action. And kudos for making Judi Dench's 'M' more than a cameo in this one. She is always a pleasure to watch onscreen. Under Michael Apted's extremely capable direction, 'The World Is Not Enough' will satisfy any Bond fan's craving for the best spy-guy movies around!!
|Page 14 of 69:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|