The World Is Not Enough (1999)

Remember that cliff I talked about earlier? You know, the one that the Brosnan Bond series took a nose dive off of after "Tomorrow Never Dies?" Yeah. Yeah, this is the cliff. It's a pretty steep one, too. And as much as I thought myself "Perhaps it's not as bad as I remembered" before rewatching it, as I'm pretty sure I hadn't seen it since it was in theaters, there was always that little voice in the back of my head recalling all the things about it that made me remember yes, it really was that bad. And as I watched it, all that terribleness came flooding back like water into the submarine sinking at the end of the film. This was the first truly, unmistakably bad Bond film since 1985's "A View To A Kill." And that hurts. I was enjoying the streak we had going.

"The World Is Not Enough" is about an oil baron being assassinated, and his daughter, Elektra (Sophie Marceau) taking over his business and completing his dream of building a massive pipeline. Bond is sent to protect her from the people trying to kill her, led by Renard (Robert Carlyle), a terrorist with a bullet in his brain that prevents him from feeling any pain. As Bond investigates, it's clear that Elektra, who had previously been kidnapped by Renard, isn't quite as innocent as she appears. With the help of a nuclear scientist, Christmas Jones (Denise Richards), Bond sets off to get to the bottom of what's going on, and prevent the terrorists from taking out Istanbul in a nuclear explosion.

Oh. Good. Skiing. That's a new one. Thanks, Bond series.

That's the official story, but to be honest I found this to be one of the most confusing, nonsensical entries the series has ever produced. Yeah, "Octopussy" was kind of confusing, but that's because there was a lot going on in it. In "The World Is Not Enough," it's more of a matter of things not being explained very clearly. It's hard to explain, but for example that whole plot with Elektra being kidnapped by Renard is not told to us until about 25 minutes into the film. That's after 25 minutes of things going on during which that information would have been relevant. Because of that not being mentioned, not only did I have no idea as to why the opening scene (as admittedly fun as it is) was going on, but when the whole kidnapping thing is revealed I thought that was a new development that occurred suddenly off screen. Suddenly she's kidnapped and I'm asking "When the hell did that happen? Just now? She was in the last scene!" It's very confusing, and the film has a tendency to do stuff like that fairly often. It's a rather poorly told story, and it's hard to care about anything happening since little of it makes any sense.

It's also boring. This film makes the mistake of having far too much talking going on, which isn't helped by the fact that, like I mentioned earlier, the dialogue is confusing at the same time. When the action does happen it's of the over-the-top zany kind more akin to a Roger Moore entry. Too much wackiness is brought in, be it the parachuting ski-mobiles or the helicopters with giant saws on them. Now it's true that outlandish, impractical things trying to kill Bond is nothing new to the series, but there comes a point when you've got to ask "On what planet would anyone be trying to kill him with saws on a helicopter?"

Keep in mind: This was Plan A.

Like the rest of the lesser Bond entries, "The World Is Not Enough" also suffers from weak villains. Sophie Marceau as Elektra is difficult to pin down, for a couple of reasons. The first is that we don't know she's a villain until the movie is more than halfway over. We have our suspicions, but it's nothing concrete. Secondly, it's hard to tell what exactly her motivations are since the film gives us a number of them to choose from. First they say she's suffering Stockholm Syndrome and under Renard's control. Then they tell us she's enraged at M and wants revenge on her and her father for suggesting to not pay Renard off when she had been kidnapped. Then she wants a monopoly on the oil, so that leads her to blow up Istanbul. Then she's just kind of insane. It's like we're pulling motivations out of a hat until we get one that we like.

And Renard is as bland of a bad guy as you could find. Yeah he's got a bullet in his head, and that's pretty hardcore, but it doesn't mean jack squat. His inability to feel pain never amounts to anything. There's a scene were he picks up a hot rock and is all "whatevs" about it. That's roughly the extent to which he displays his "superhuman" powers. Oh no. Truly I'm terrified of this man. He's going to take a pie out of the oven quicker than Bond because he won't need to put on oven mitts first! The suspense!

In all reality Renard would be an incredibly pathetic villain to go up against, especially in combat. The fact that he has no feeling anywhere in his body means that he would constantly have to be vigilant to not sustain any kind of injury. He would be running away from a fight faster than you could blink. Do you know why? Because of infection. If you don't know, pain is the body's way of telling you you're hurt. If you don't know you're hurt, you don't take care of the wound. It becomes infected. The body part rots and falls off. You die. It's called leprosy. That's who James Bond is up against in this film: A dude who got shot in the head and became a leper. Take that, Scaramanga.

I think we're confusing "Not feeling any pain" with "Being invincible." There is a difference.

Brosnan is still great as Bond, though. Nothing much changed in that regard, and he seems very comfortable in the role. I did like the fact that we get to see him angry and rather more cold-blooded on occasion than usual here, although he does do some really, really stupid things that make me want to smack him. Like that one time he had Renard at gunpoint and could have easily taken him out but was duped by a horrendously transparent lie that made no sense in any context? Yeah, oops on that one, James. Idiot.

Yeah, I've got this same rig in my house. They have to use it on me every time I watch another "Resident Evil" movie.

And finally, it has to be addressed. Denise Richards. Oh boy. The words escape me somewhat, but I'll try my best to convey my thoughts without descending into a frothing, spit-filled spasm: She is not very good. In fact she is quite terrible. Not only her character, who is as helpful as knees on a fish, but also her as an actress. She is awful. Arguably the worst Bond girl ever.

Huh. That was easier than I expected it to be. I'm not even going to get into the fact that all this accused brilliant scientist does when she's in danger is to stand around gape-mouthed until James grabs her and pulls her to safety over and over again like she's a cardboard cutout. It's not worth it because all you have to do is look at her name and it's clearly obvious that this whole thing was a mistake. Denise Richards as Doctor Chri...no, you know what? You don't even have to say the whole name. "Doctor Denise Richards" is far enough.

Here's the thing. I'm not saying that Denise Richards can't portray someone who is smart. I'm not saying that. I'm not saying pretty women can't be smart. That would be laughably ridiculous. But if you're going to cast someone who is supposed to have a doctorate in nuclear physics, the very least you could do is to get an actress who can at least give the appearance of not being two seconds away from having a stroke at the effort of pronouncing a word like "plutonium."

Lots of nuclear physicists wear hot pants, do they? Is that standard lab equipment?

There are a total of three good things I can say about "The World Is Not Enough." First, I like the opening 15 minutes. That was really good. Second, I like Pierce Brosnan. Third, Sophie Marceau is really hot. And that's all I've got. Now bring on Halle Berry. I'm...not looking forward to this.

"Larry. I'm so scared, man. Would you please hold me?"

Well, at least the trailer makes it look interesting.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The World Is Not Enough" would be forgettable if it weren't so bad. It's still forgettable, but the crap factor makes it memorable simply for things like Denise Richards saying her lines with the practiced skill of a stand-in for a middle school play. It tends to overshadow any of the small amount of good contained within, which was merely standard random 90's action movie stock to begin with. I'd seriously watch *certain* Roger Moore films over this one. This sucked.

JAMES BOND

WILL RETURN IN

DIE ANOTHER DAY

GoldenEye (1995)

Common consensus dictates that your favorite Bond is the one you grew up with. Older generations will only acknowledge Connery, Gen X-ers have a soft spot for Moore, people my age are supposed to like Brosnan, the kids like their Craig, and nobody remembers Lazenby or Dalton. Of course that's subject to change depending on the person, and Connery usually gets reverence placed upon him even by people who prefer the other guys. But while the theory is not 100 percent true for myself, as I enjoy all the Bond actors with the exception of Moore, there is a part of me that will always have a special place for Pierce Brosnan.

The reason I have an affection for Brosnan's portrayal of James Bond is because to this day he remains the closest representation of the image I have in my head of the character. That's not only referring to his physical presence, but also his voice, the cadence with which he speaks, the way he carries himself, the way his hair looks, the way he shoots a gun, the way he delivers a quip, the way he wears a suit and even the way he drinks a martini. Everything about this guy is spot-on the way he would look if you pulled him out of my head and put him on screen. And I say this while having first seen Bond played by Sean Connery, although I can't for sure recall when I was first exposed to 007. The important thing is that even though I can't remember the first Bond movie I saw, I know for a fact it was pre-Brosnan since there's no way it took till I was 12 years old to see a Bond flick. So even with another actor establishing the character in my mind, even as a kid I took one look at Brosnan and said "Yes. That's what James Bond looks like."

In 1995, after a six year hiatus during which Timothy Dalton got fed up with waiting and quit, the world was introduced to a new, sleeker, shinier and, if I may be so bold, sexier James Bond with the casting of Pierce Brosnan.With him the modern Bond film was introduced, starting with "GoldenEye." This new style of 007 films had a faster paced, very 90's feel to them. Everything was very glossy and slick, and they didn't take their time getting going. And as far as look goes, this was about as far away from the grit of the Dalton films as you could get. They do still harken back to the 60's with their sense of fun, however, and in many ways they are delightfully retro, albeit with a much more expensive and polished appearance.

FANCY.

When talking about the Bond series, often "GoldenEye" is listed as one of the greatest movies the franchise has produced, and while it does have its issues it's difficult to find much reason to not include it among the best of the best. It has arguably the most instantly likeable Bond actor giving a fantastic performance, the villain was the first memorable main antagonist the series had seen since 1974, the action is plentiful and exciting, the stunts in it are jaw-dropping on occasion, the Bond girl is, in my humble opinion, the best one the franchise has ever seen, and it's legitimately fun and even funny when it needs to be. "GoldenEye" has, quite frankly, all the ingredients to make it the best Bond movie ever made. Unfortunately it's not the best, due to some odd bunglings, but that's not to say it's not a fantastically strong showing, and in my opinion it's the best debut any of the Bond actors have had.

The story begins with 007 infiltrating a chemical weapons plant in Russia with the help of 006, Alec Trevelyan (Sean Bean). During the mission, an alarm gets tripped, and Alec gets taken out. Blowing up the facility and jumping off a cliff to catch a plane (Oh my god so awesome), Bond escapes, completing his mission but losing his friend in the process. Cut to 9 years later and we find him investigating Xenia Onatopp (Famke Janssen), a woman with a name so absurd that Pierce had to slightly break the forth wall when he first hears it, much like Connery did upon meeting Pussy Galore. Xenia is a suspected member of a shadowy group known as the Janus Crime Syndicate, and Bond has been sent to check her out in order to hopefully find leads to bring him to Janus, the head of the organization. All this ends with Xenia killing a dude with her thighs and then stealing a prototype helicopter.

BOOM.

Meanwhile at a satellite control station in Russia, computer programmer Natalya Simonova (Izabella Scorupco) is the lone survivor when her complex is attacked by a rogue Russian general, Ourumov (Gottfried John). Ourumov then destroys the place using a secret Soviet space weapon code named GoldenEye, which emits a powerful EMP, causing all electric circuitry to be destroyed in the blast radius. Making her way to St. Petersburg, Natalya goes on the run until Bond, following the trail of the stolen helicopter, finds her, hoping to use her knowledge to stop any further use of the weapon.

And who is behind all of this? Why, of course it's Janus, and unless you're very unobservant you'd rightly guess that it's Alec Trevelyan, who is not only alive but also is the villain of the film. One could easily anticipate that since Sean Bean is nearly always a villain, but hey, the man is damn good at what he does. So by all means, make him a bad guy. Far be it for me to ever complain about that.

Sean Bean is, naturally, dynamite as Trevelyan, and I really like his character a lot as the bad guy. He's the closest match Bond has ever gone up against. He's a 00 agent with the same training, and he's able to guess Bond's moves since he knows him intimately. It's to the point where, were this not a Bond movie, there would be a good chance that Alec could beat him. It's a great match-up, and Bean plays Trevelyan with the same smug confidence and swagger that Bond himself possesses - a mirror image of himself he has to battle. So the name Janus, referencing the two-faced Roman god of change, functions on multiple levels here, both as references to Alec's scarred face, to his betrayal and hidden identity, and to the dualistic nature between him and Bond.

It doesn't mean anything, true, but it's a nice touch of cleverness from a series that gave us such intellectual powerhouse ideas such as naming a character "Holly Goodhead."

The second villain that 007 must contend with is Xenia, and I have to say that of all the bad guys in the Bond series, she is arguably the most depraved of the bunch. She's obviously a psychopath, as is any action movie villain, but she actually gets off on killing people. And I mean that in the most biblical sense. Watching her face as she mows down a dozen people with a machine gun, you'd swear she was ready to start filming a porno right then and there. In fact her preferred method of killing involves crushing people with her thighs until they suffocate while she's having sex with them. We see this. It's disturbing. And yes, killing put Scaramanga in the mood so to speak, but it's really far more creepy to see Xenia in action since you actually see her do it instead of the depravities simply being vaguely implied, and Famke Janssen is really playing it completely unhinged, perhaps more so than any other Bond villain I can remember. Frankly I greatly enjoyed her character because she is so off-the-wall insane. And also because Famke Janssen is absurdly hot.

Is it inappropriate to get aroused by this? I'm so conflicted right now.

But as awesome as Xenia is, I absolutely loved Izabella Scorupco as Natalya. She is, and I stand by this, the best Bond girl they've ever had. For one, she's not stupid. As a computer programmer of some respectable skill, she manages to save the day on numerous occasions, including figuring out Trevelyan's location and stopping the GoldenEye from firing - two things that Bond wouldn't have been able to do jack about otherwise. Second, she can handle herself, or at least attempts to. She's not picking up a gun and going John Rambo on anybody, but she doesn't just stand there and wait for James to save her while she does nothing. True she does get captured a couple of times, and Bond does rescue her, but trust me - the mere fact that she's fighting the whole way and moving her ass when she needs to puts her LEAGUES above the rest of the useless bimbos who would simply stand there and shriek "JAMES!" over and over again like they're a basket full of helpless kittens incapable of even attempting to preserve themselves. At least Natalya's trying.

And lastly, she's the only Bond girl to completely give James a hard time. She comes across less as a lustful, helpless, doe-eyed treasure and more like an angry Russian bear whose cave you just made the mistake of camping in. She doesn't take any level of crap from Bond, not falling for his charms and treating him like the jerk he rightly would be treated like if that character existed in anything like the real world. She yells at him, she calls him on his crap, tells him he's a heartless bastard, kicks him in the shins - it's actually very entertaining to see a women give James the business. I was actually pissed when she decided to lock lips with him since it was out of absolutely nowhere. It seemed like the writers forget they were writing a Bond girl and were writing an actual person there for a minute. Oh well. But that's what a Bond girl is there for I suppose. At least she's pretty badass while she's doing it.

I hated you so hard in the N64 game, though. Nightmare fuel hatred.

The rest of the supporting cast is also quite fun. Joe Don Baker pulls a Charles Grey and returns in a completely different role, this time playing a CIA agent named Jack Wade, who I guess is supposed to be our Felix Leitner equivalent. And Jon Don Baker is always fun to have around. Robbie Coltrane is also entertaining as an eccentric Russian mobster, and provides one of my favorite bits in the film - a scene where he identifies Bond by the sound of the hammer of his Walther PPK cocking back. That's so badass. And naturally it would be remiss to not mention the introduction of Dame Judi Dench taking over as M, a role she would play a commendable seven times. In fact, and this is maybe because I kind of grew up with her as M, it's difficult for me to think of anyone other than her in the part, despite Bernard Lee being the reigning heavyweight champion. I think it's because her role was given far more room for characterization.

So why don't I consider "GoldenEye" the best Bond? Well, the main reason is what would appear to be rather trite: The music. I'm not exactly sure what composer Eric Serra was thinking when he wrote it, in fact he's a great composer who did the soundtrack to "The Professional" and one of my favorite movies, "Wasabi," but his synth-heavy score simply doesn't work for a Bond movie. It's not enough to kill the mood or anything, in fact sometimes it works just fine, but more often than not it kind of beeps and boops in the background, very unassuming and easily neglected. More often than not it's so forgettable that you almost forget it's even there, which makes it seem like there's no soundtrack at all. And that's a real problem because the music of the Bond franchise has always been like another character in of itself, and its absence is sorely felt.

Imagine if Sigor Rios did the soundtrack to this. It would be 007 shooting people to the sound of whales singing. Then only wind and a single note on a keyboard held for half an hour.

The best example of why this works can be found in the only scene from "GoldenEye" when you hear the Bond Theme in its fully glory (for all of twenty seconds). When Bond is in Russia, escaping from a bunch of soldiers, he jumps out a window and into a parking lot full of tanks. Up to this point the action has been great, but the score has been enough to put you to sleep, making it feel about 75% of the way there. Then Bond steals a tank and blasts through a concrete wall with it, chasing the bad guys down the streets of St. Petersburg like a armor plated monster. At that moment, the John Barry score flares up in all its glory, and you suddenly realize what it was that was missing the whole time. It's the best single music cue, and one of the best moments in the film. If the rest of "GoldenEye" had followed suit, I would safely call it a serious contender for best Bond film.

Also, as much as I loved Sean Bean here, and as great of a job as he does, he's not really given enough screen time. Part of this is because his reveal as the villain doesn't happen until probably an hour or so into the film. And that's far too long. The parts leading up to that are fine, but up until then it's dealing with Xenia and Ourumov, who aren't our main antagonists. It's clear they're sidekicks, and we're waiting for the Big Bad to show up for quite some time. While Bean kills it in the time he has and the dialogue he provides, giving a lot of characterization with very little, the fact that he had to be jammed in there so quickly due to time spent with everyone else makes him feel not as fleshed out as he should have been. Trevelyan has a great story, but it's clear we're only getting the novel's synopses written on a post-it note. It makes him seem stock when he's really the most interesting villain 007 has ever gone up against.

Best. Reveal. Ever.

On a side note, I'm not sure why I got such a kick out of Boris (Alan Cumming) when I was a kid. Me and everyone else used to think he was the best character in the movie, and shouted "I am in-VIN-sible!" all the damn time. Watching him again all those years later, I'm not sure the of the reason why. He's kind of obnoxious, honestly.

The Brosnan movies did a great thing by modernizing Bond. If anything, they provided a balancing act between the silliness of the 70's and the more gritty tone of the (very) early 60's and the late 80's. They did go downhill rather quickly, to be honest. But man did it start from high heights.

NICE.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "GoldenEye" is damn near one of the best Bond films ever made. It's not the best, but it's at the very least in the Top 4. Easily. Taking an old-school vibe of fun and over-the-top adventure from the Connery era, a sprinkling of grit from Dalton, keeping the humor of the Moore era while actually being funny and not stupid, and then giving it all a sleek makeover and a fantastic new actor to play 007, "GoldenEye" created the modern Bond film. It's action packed, it's fun, it's sexy, it's everything a Bond movie should be. One of the greats.

JAMES BOND

WILL RETURN IN

TOMORROW NEVER DIES

Brave (2012)

I'm going to make a new rule for myself right now, and hopefully it will take. I'll just go ahead and try my best to not assume anything about any movie from now on.

Over the years I've proven to myself that I have a pretty good sense of prediction for what a movie is going to be like, and whether or not I will like it. When you see enough films I guess that's an inevitable side effect. And based on the facts that not only was "Brave" a Pixar film, which I generally find pretentious, the reaction to it had been lukewarm, and also that I was also able to correctly guess the plot nearly point for point after an employee at Blockbuster merely told me the setup, can you blame me for not really wanting to give it the hour and a half it asked of me?

Perhaps the fact that many Pixar fans found it to be weak-sauce should have been foretelling in what wound up happening, which was that I actually enjoyed "Brave." It's possible that the fact that it lacked that classic Pixar manipulation and preachy nature, the reason I enjoyed it, was the reason everyone else said it was a weaker entry in their body of work.

Let me explain a little about what I mean by "preachy and manipulative." In a Pixar movie, they always seem to have to go out of their way to make it sad. Now, this is a staple in animation. All you have to say are the words "Littlefoot's mother" and I know grown men who will start openly weeping. But with Pixar they really like to crank up the tear factor. For instance, the whole "Toy Story" series is basically about abandonment. It's a downer. I think "Up" was the one that irritated me the most, though. The bit in the opening scene that showed that the wife couldn't have children just seemed unnecessarily sad, because it didn't have anything to do with the rest of the story. It was just there because well...sad.

I just don't think you've earned this at the 4 minute mark of the film, you know?

For me the story of "Brave" contained far fewer of those moments that may just as well have flashed "BE SAD NOW" on the bottom of the screen. It seemed much more organic to me, and the characters were much more believable because they weren't being set up in classic "tear-jerker scene" scenarios. To be fair, those existed, but they never felt superfluous to me. They hit you with those moments when they mattered, not before in an attempt to draw more emotion from you.

Maybe it was the fantasy setting that really did it for me, which I'll admit that I'm partial to, being a nerd. I just think animated movies should be used to showcase fantastic things, not mundane everyday things like toys in a kid's room, as good as the animation is. So when our heroine Merida tears through the woods on horseback and shows off what she can do with a bow, that's the kind of thing I want to see in an animated film. That's why I loved "How To Train Your Dragon." I mean, as thrilling as seeing Mr. Potatohead lose his nose is, it really can't compare with a redheaded chick drilling an arrow dead center through a bullseye while her horse is in mid-leap going full tilt. But that's just me.

Yeah, that's pretty cool I guess. But where's the Barrel O' Monkeys? #notasgoodasToyStory

The story of "Brave" is another cautionary tale of overreacting to problems, and always reading the fine print. Merida, a young tomboy of a princess, is told by her mother, Queen Elinor, that she must be a lady and choose a suitor from among three other clans for political reasons. In typical movie fashion, Merida is mortified at the thought and refuses to go along with it, to the point of "competing for her own hand" in the contest that was to determine the suitor. And of course she kicks their butts. So I guess she's going to marry her own dang self?

Once that plan ends up not holding water and Elinor lays down the law, Merida runs away and stumbles upon a desolate hut in the middle of the woods. There she meets a witch, who can create powerful magic and essentially grant wishes.

 And I think you can see where this is going...

Merida does a silly thing and wishes "that her mother would change." Merida needs lessons in performing pacts with dark entities. The key is specificity. Long story short, Elinor is a bear now.

 That's not what she meant at all, really.

And the rest of "Brave" is really just about Merida and Bear Elinor trying to fix things and you know, make Bear Elinor not be Bear Elinor anymore. There's also the whole thing about loving your parents and realizing that sometimes they do things that are in your own best interest, even if you don't understand it yet. That last part seemed weak though, since the compromise made at the end between Merida and Elinor isn't so much a compromise, and more that Merida gets her way. I mean, it's only an unprecedented upheaval of the ruling class line of succession in a feudal society. What's the worst that could happen?

Oh. Right. Bloody, violent, power struggles.

And for all you medieval history people, think about this. After Merdia, the next ones in line for succession are TRIPLET BROTHERS. Have fun with that, am I right? Truly this land is in for some wonderful times with absolutely no chance to have wars for the throne.

There was also the issue of some of the character designs, which I wasn't a fan of. This was mostly relegated to the leaders of the other clans. On the plus side they were voiced by Craig Ferguson and Robbie Coltrane.

Seriously, is that his head or a boil on top of his shoulders that grew hair and eyes?

Those are just little nitpicks I objected to. Other than that I really liked "Brave" a lot. Surprisingly so, actually. I really liked almost everything about it. It was beautifully animated, it's pretty funny, the setting has a great atmosphere, and it can be pretty intense at parts, especially when the giant evil bear shows up. I really liked that bear, as that character design was unusually morbid for Pixar, what with the spears and arrows hanging out of him. That was pretty sweet.

It's also really touching, and the dynamic between Merida and Elinor is realistic, heartfelt, and very well acted by Kelly Macdonald and Emma Thompson, respectively. Billy Connolly also get props for being awesome, although he really just had to show up for that to happen, since he's Billy Connolly.

And ohmygodDDDDD'AAAAAAAWWWWWOVERLOAD!!!!

So I was very impressed by "Brave," and while I'm not willing to do a turnaround and say that I'm a fan of Pixar, I will give it to them that they now have more than one film I'd care to sit through again. Before it was just "Finding Nemo," but I have to say I think I'd watch "Brave" again before that one. It's got to be the fantasy setting that does it for me. Although "Finding Nemo" is admittedly funnier, I think I've got a new favorite Pixar movie.

And once again, my record of being contrary is upheld! I swear I don't do it on purpose.

No, you're right. She's nowhere near as interesting as a talking cowboy doll.

THE BOTTOM LINE - I really liked "Brave." Pixar has made a really entertaining and heartfelt movie with this, and I normally am pretty underwhelmed by their stuff. And shock of all shocks, it's a story about a young girl WITHOUT A LOVE INTEREST SUBPLOT. Freaking finally. Sign me the hell up. And now that I think about it, "Brave" would be a killer double feature with "How To Train Your Dragon." Nice.