TOMORROW NEVER DIES (1997) A film review by Ram Samudrala
As has been repeated several times, the demise of Communism in the Soviet Union is one of the worst things to happen to Hollywood. Dozens of plot devices were no longer available. Some writers, however, kept going, dishing out the same plots, only realising later that they could no longer bank on the anti-Communist tendencies that were present in the general populace to carry the movie. However, a few movies in Hollywood managed to reinvent themselves. Fortunately for us, the James Bond series is one of them.
In the latest James Bond flick, /Tomorrow Never Dies/, not only do we see cooperation between the Imperialists and the Communists, we see a more confident Pierce Brosnan playing James Bond, and the contentment of knowing that the more some things change, the more they stay the same.
Brosnan is definitely the right person to play 007. Neither George Lazenby nor Timothy Dalton were very charismatic, and Roger Moore and Sean Connery are not as young (though it would be interesting to see a Bond movie set in the future (i.e., depicting an old or retired Bond), with Connery returning). To his credit, Brosnan appears to have settled into the driver's seat, making the depiction of James Bond /Tomorrow Never Dies/ one of the best.
The plot in /Tomorrow Never Dies/ is essentially the same as other Bond movies. The movie opens with a great action sequence, even better than the one in /Goldeneye/, which depicts Bond preventing a plane carrying nuclear weapons from being destroyed by a missile. The credits sequence is spectacular, primarily due to the presence of an "electronic figurine".
Soon we switch gears and learn of an evil media tycoon, Elliot Carver (Jonathan Pryce), who seeks to control how information is distributed around the world. Carver is a character who literally is symbolic of people like Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch, but he reminded me of Bill Gates. Of course, the ultimate goal of this control is the epitome of capitalism: acquisition of wealth. How ironic then that a movie series that relied on anti-communist tendencies now relies on anti-capitalist tendencies to sell itself.
Carver's idea of information control involves being the source of information generated, so he can be the "first" to distribute it. To this end, he manages to create a situation, through the use of his technology, where China and the United Kingdom are almost at war with each other. Bond is assigned to stop him.
As Bond goes about his job, he runs into Carver's loyal henchman Stamper (Gotz Otto), Dr. Kaufman (Vincent Schiavelli), one of the most humourous characters in the movie, Wai Lin (Michelle Yeoh), a Chinese agent who helps Bond fight Carver, and Paris Carver (played listlessly by Teri Hatcher) an old flame of Bond.
At this point, the burning questions are: how long does it take before Bond gets to sleep with Paris and Wai Lin? How many times does Carver try to kill Bond and Wai Lin? Who dies first: Stamper or Carver? And so on. For answers to these, you have to see the movie.
So while it may seem like a lot has changed, but in some ways, the Bond movie series has still remained the same.
Brosnan and Yeoh are well-matched. I much prefer Yeoh, who is fairly charismatic, to many of the other ladies Bond has been paired up with. Pryce plays a brilliant over-the-top villain. One of the most amusing scenes in the movie is when Carver mockingly imitates Wai Lin's kicks and punches, ending with "pathetic!"
The main problem I had with the movie was the less-than-perfect production. Perhaps it was due to filming in a foreign country, but there's a lot of awkwardness among the extras, which indicates that not enough footage was collected, or enough attention wasn't paid on the cutting room floor. But since I like Jackie Chan movies, this is only a minor nitpick as far as I am concerned.
The other problems include a suggested conflict between M (Judi Dench) and a British general, which is never exploited fully. The one-liners by Moneypenny (Samantha Bond), whose role entailed little more making little quips, irked me. Finally, there is little inventiveness (unlike in Jackie Chan movies) involved in how Bond gets out of the scrapes he gets himself from.
The premise of the movie isn't that far off from reality. Given the direction intellectual property laws are heading, nothing short of a police state will ensure that the so-called "owners of information" profit from every use of the information. And who said a Bond movie isn't thought-provoking?
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews