IMDb > The World Is Not Enough (1999) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The World Is Not Enough
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The World Is Not Enough More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 8 of 67: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [Next]
Index 667 reviews in total 

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

A fantastic film, up with the best Bonds.

Author: Andy Smith from Bristol, England
3 December 1999

Now this was more like a proper movie, after GE and TND failed to do much for me and since most other films this year have failed to live up to the hype IMO (star wars1, sixth sense and the abysmal blair witch junk), TWINE is a shining sparkle not only in terms of James Bond films, but also films of 1999.

This is definetly the best film I've seen this year at the cinema and I think the last time a performance moved me so much as Sophie Marceau's wonderful portrayal of Elektra King was with Titanic. Let's hope this is a good portent for future James Bond films in the new century.

Pierce Brosnan is FANTASTIC as James Bond and this is now more his character than Sean Connery's, but it will be such a shame if he gives up playing the character after one more film. Nice to see M with such a good part, and although by no means awful, the only weaker elements were Denise Roberts and Robert Carlyle, but neither was THAT bad, just sidelined to the shadows by the performances of Brosnan, Dench and obviously Marceau.

Definetly in my Top.3 James Bond films, maybe even No.1 or No.2.

Go and watch the film now if you haven't !!!

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Once Is Not Enough

Author: rnblover from Tustin Ranch, California
30 November 1999

Overall, I thought that this movie was excellent. I am a die-hard James Bond fan (I own all the videos) and have most of the soundtracks. It is definitely one of the more well-rounded James Bond films, with a nice balance between action, drama, and plot. I saw it three times in one week, but I think it takes that many viewings in order to fully understand the complicated plot.

I think that the acting (with exception of Denise Richards) was superb all around, although I could never grasp how a villain like Renard could come across as so frightening that he could drive one of his henchman to suicide (You'll know what I mean when you see the film). He seemed very diminutive and sometimes I even sympathized with him when he couldn't feel any pain.

Even so, I enjoyed Robert Carlyle's performance, as well as Sophie Marceau's. There was talk about Sharon Stone playing the role of Elektra, but I don't think that Sharon Stone could have played the part any better. I wouldn't have been able to generate sympathy had she played the part. Sophie Marceau played a tortured Bond Girl with conviction. Now that's what we need, some good Bond girl characterization!! She's the best bond girl since Octopussy.

Denise Richards was good to look at, but many of my friends couldn't help but giggle every time she said a word on screen. As a nuclear physicist she sounded very Teeny-Bopperish.

Pierce Brosnan? What can I say? The credits are wrong. They show "Pierce Brosnan AS Ian Fleming's James Bond 007". The "as" should be an "is". Pierce Brosnan IS James Bond 007!!

By the way, did anyone notice in the opening credits scene that John Cleese was NOT credited. Now that is an injustice considering that he is the most popular star, save Pierce Brosnan and Desmond Llewelyn, in the entire movie!!!!! He needed more screen time. I think he was perfectly cast considering he had very little to work with.

Go see this one more than once. It's worth it each time!!

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Just what the world needs...

Author: Pete Hazell (Penguin-17) from Nr. London, England
29 November 1999

It's good to know that you can always rely on the Bond films to pick you up when you're feeling down. Everything you would expect from a Bond film is here, from the standard exotic locations and excellent cast, through a marvellous plot. The pre-titles sequence alone has enough in it to make most other action films hang their heads in shame - someone has finally found a reason for the existence of the Millennium Dome.

Once again the producers of the Bond series have left the competition miles behind, and full marks must go to Pierce Brosnan for shaking off the ghost of Connery once and for all.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Third time lucky for Brosnan

Author: adam jezard
28 November 1999

Bond is back in action – finally! After the lacklustre ‘TND' and the truly awful ‘GoldenEye' Pierce Brosnan has at last put his own stamp on the character, as opposed to looking like a cut-price Roger Moore attempting to impersonate a cut-price Sean Connery. Director Michael Apted has rightly eschewed the flash-bang-bonk style of Martin Campbell and the ‘I can't think of anything, so let's have a fight here' approach of Roger Spottiswoode. What emerges is a more thoughtful Bond pic, in the style of the greatest entries in the series, such as ‘From Russia…', ‘OHMSS', ‘For Your Eyes Only', ‘Living Daylights' and ‘Licence to Kill'. What ‘TWINE' has in common with these is fully-rounded characters and a plot that makes basic sense. In ‘GoldenEye', Sean Bean had the scarred face, so had to be the villain, while in ‘TND' potentially interesting characters such as Paris Carver and Dr Kaufman were killed off almost as soon as they'd appeared. Not here. Sophie Marceau is the most fully developed Bond woman since Diana Rigg and, while Denise Richards's character isn't developed in the same thoughful way, she has a vulnerability reminiscent of some of the better Bond heroines (Tania in ‘From Russia…'). Brosnan has matured, put on weight and has developed some of Timothy Dalton's burnt-out assassin approach to the role. Once or twice there are ‘death-defying' leaps more reminiscent of the ‘Bond is indestructible' approach that ruins the Connery films for me, but 2nd unit director Vic Armstrong (a series veteran in a variety of roles and fight arranger extraordinary) ensures his action sequences are in keeping with the humanity of this new Bond. If Brosnan has still not quite captured the humanity and fears of the Fleming Bond, he's probably come as close as modern audiences will allow the screen Bond to go. This is a pity as Fleming's Bond is so much more interesting than the screen version (Dalton, Lazenby and some parts of Moore's characterisation aside). As M, Judi Dench has a larger than average role and is very convincing, while the supporting players (Colin Samson, Michael Kitchen, Samantha Bond and John Cleese) are all up to par. It will be particularly interesting to see how the Bond, Tanner, Robinson, R relationships may develop in future. For the villains, they are mostly an expendable lot, and they are expended violently and often. Cutting down the Rambo-style shootouts that wrecked ‘TND' would have been a good idea given the character-driven approach, but never mind, maybe next time. As villain in chief, Robert Carlyle is excellent (even if his accent isn't consistent throughout the film) and the final confrontation between him and Bond is worthy of anything in Fleming's canon. Meanwhile, Robbie Coltrane gives an excellent reprise of his ‘GoldenEye' role, Zurkovsky. With a little creative effort on somebody's part, Coltrane could become the new Sydney Greenstreet. Let's hope Apted decides to do the next Bond instead of ‘49 Up', for he has made the most interesting contribution to the series since John Glen left the series a decade ago.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Wow! What A Movie!

Author: J. Watko ( from Pittsburgh, PA
27 November 1999

I went into this movie not knowing what to expect. I'm not as familiar with the previous Brosnan Bonds as I am some of the rest, however this blew me away. The flow of the movie and dividing between action and slower scenes was perfect.

Judi Dench, Robbie Coltrane, Sophie Marceau and the lovely Denise Richards all put in great performances. A perfectly blended movie with action, comedy, romance and intrigue. Worth seeing twice. Surprisingly great title song by Garbage, as well.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

This is a great movie!!!!

Author: Chris-774 ( from Elkhart, Indiana
27 November 1999

This is probably the most "bond-ish" James Bond movie yet to come. The sarcasm in the movie, and the sex scenes of course, were very very good. The gadgets Bond uses are some of the best if seen yet. I hope you all enjoy it too. >

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Awesome movie

Author: Patrick Dempsey (Sammy-29) from San Francisco
27 November 1999

I am a Bond fanatic. I own all the movies and have seen them multiple times each. Although this does not make me a true "expert" I do know a good deal about Bond and I have to say that this was one of the best Bond films in years. I personally disliked the past two (having fear that Bond's days were numbered) but have since recanted that view. This movie by far makes up for any past problems. It had amazing action, phenomenal plot twists, great characters, and (as any Bond film should) wonderful women. I highly recommend it for any Bond connoisseur.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Maybe the best Bond film ever

Author: Ottofan1 from Slovakia
23 December 2012

Vow, I don't know where to start. I always thinks that Casino Royale was the best Bond ever, but I was in mistake. This movie is absolutely awesome. Pierce Brosnan is one of the best Bonds and Sophie Marceau is a perfect nemesis, and the best Bond girl in the series. I think she is the second best Bond nemesis behind Javier Bardem. The plot is the only weak point but you didn't care about it because you concentrate to the action sequences, music and the characters. It's humor is surprisingly good because of R(John Cleese) and Q(Desmond Llewelyn).

I am not a big fan of Bond but I like watching these movies. This is definitely the best Bond ever.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Worst Bond Movie Ever

Author: chaz2050 from LA, CA
4 December 2000

This was the worst bond movie i have ever seen. I saw this movie in theaters and could not stand the cheesy lines and the boring dialogue. Plus the villain of this movie was completely stupid. He did not seem very evil or intimidating at all. He was just a guy who was of a small challenge just because he can't feel pain and is gonna die anyways. This guy did not compare to any bond villain in any of their movies. The only thing that was remotely good about this movie was the action. And even that lacked.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

This movie was dull and boring

Author: marsh-9 ( from Kansas City, MO
1 December 1999

This movie was very difficult for me to sit through. I am sorry, but the action shots were very inferior.

What was so great about the Sean Connery James Bond movies is that you could escape into a lush film, european atmosphere, many scenes of around the world which took you far far away in a glamorous venue. This movie did not have any of those attributes except for two rooms with nice decor. That was it for me.

The backdrop for the nuclear laboratory was the tunnel that went under the water that was built several years ago. Everyone had already seen it. I could not believe that was the best they could do on this movie.

The movie was excruciatingly long with the same old comebacks from the almost gone James Bond in a pinch. There was the same old ticking away of the bomb with ever so unrealistic situations. At least with Sean Connery's unbelievable "get-aways", you accepted them with delight because of the scenery, cinematography, and Sean's wonderful sense of humor (only because he really was gorgeous).

Please do not waste your time on this movie. Toy Story 2 was TEN TIMES better in my opinion.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 8 of 67: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history