The World is Not Enough (1999)

Reviewed by Simon Drake

Directed by Michael Apted
Starring Pierce Brosnan, Robert Carlyle and Judi Dench.

    When Robert King, an Oil tycoon industrialist, is inconveniently exploded in the lobby of the MI6 (or MI5 I forget which) building. Bond has to protect his daughter Electra (Sophie Marceau, with a bizarre 80's throwback wardrobe that makes her look as if she's just wandered off a Kate Bush music video) from Renard (Bobby Carlyle) who had kidnapped her several years previously. Renard is now impervious to pain thanks to a lodged bullet in his medula oblongata (as 009 can't shoot properly) and vows to kill Electra as she escaped his clutches after a botched money drop negotiation from M (Judi Dench). Or something.
    Renard and his team of the worlds crappest terrorists try to kill Electra for the first half the film (and still find time to steal a nuclear warhead to hold the world to ransom). Then it turns out, Gasp! Electra is the evil one instigating the whole thing and kidnaps M to explain the plot to (yes we've all seen Austin Powers!) and Bond and "Dr" Denise Richards have to save the day.
    As you would probably guess, they do which in turn leads to the worst double entendre kiss off line since "I think he's attempting re-entry Sir?"

What's wrong with it?

    I'll just say before I start, I love Bond films! (even the shite ones) However they do tend to fall into three categories.

  1. Really great (usually the ones with 'Gold' or 'Golden' in the title)
  2. Really bad (Moonraker, For your eyes only, Dr No)
  3. The ones that just fail to work (On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Licence to Kill)

    The world is Not Enough falls into the third category. It has some of the best ideas, the best actors and the best Bond for years, but just doesn't gel.
    I think the problem with Bond films now is that they were so perfectly parodied by Austin Powers, it's left them a little unsure where to go in terms of plots and narrative. The makers have done themselves no favours at all by just hoping we'll all forget the Powers franchise. Having a bald 'lazy eyed psycho' as the megalomaniac villain (there is even a scene where he steals the 'Krablacistjan Nuclear warhead') and having terrible puns that even Mike Myers would deem too cheesy. The plot is a bit of a mish-mash and has several head scratching 'Why are they doing that?' moments.
    But worst of all (other than Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist, either the best in-joke, or the worst piece of casting in film history) is the wasting of what could have been one of the best baddies ever. Robert Carlyle playing an anarchist terrorist that can't feel pain. He will get stronger every day until he dies. WOW we are going to get a Terminator/Jaws (not the shark) type of unstoppable foe that Bond will endlessly fight, but he just keeps coming. Which is like well psychological man.
    What do we get?
    Robert Carlyle looking like Dr Evil from Russia (clearly from the same Russian/Scotch district as Sean Connery in 'Hunt for Red October') and getting in a tiff as he can't get an erection. Then has a nuclear reactor pipe through the chest. Wow he sucks!
    And he doesn't even have a punch up with Pierce Brosnan!

What's right with it?

    Brosnan has perfected the role to become one of the (if not the) best Bonds ever. With a mixture of suave arrogance, offhandedly jocular and unexpected brutality he remains endlessly watchable throughout. Judi Dench gives the whole proceedings a touch of class and lends some much needed gravitas to the limp story. Plus she does a little more in this film than her previous roles of showing up and barking a mission at Bond. Now she goes all Macguyer and turns a bargain bin alarm clock into a radio locator transponder (with Internet access). Plus she lamps Electra King in the face (although Bond goes one step further and shoots Electra in cold blood).
    The stunts (one of the reasons people are going to show up) are good, but not great. The opening boat chase down the Thames is a real highpoint (but as usual they've shot their bolt by having the best scene in the pre-credits sequence).
    There is something almost comforting about Bond films…You know where you are, you know what you're going to get and this rattles along leaving its plausibility at the door…And isn't that what it's all about?

How bad is it really?

    Not terrible at all, but in terms of Bond films; you could say a bit of a damp squib. A convoluted plot, mis-cast actors and touches of seriousness is not what Bond films are about. In my opinion a 'madman with a weapon of mass-destruction living in a hollowed out volcano with a team of Ninjas' says it so much better.

Best Bit?

    The stunt sequences seem too easy to point out. So I'll go for the cracking bit where Robbie Coltrane as the Russian entrepreneur Valentine walks into his office to find a semi-naked Denise Richards sitting on a sofa. 'Russian' Robbie does the finest impression of 'Roger Moore doing an impression of Sean Connery'.
    "Huw did you get phast schcurity?"
    Hilarious…Was it meant to be? I couldn't honestly tell you.

What's up with…?

Ratings:

Production Values - Top notch really. Stunts, explosions, sets are all great. Although Robert Carlyle's facial scars tend to move around (or disappear completely) and that hand that the glass shards are pulled from is fooling no one. The wardrobe designers could do with shifting it out of the 80's too. Bond dressed as Lovejoy; Electra dressed as Kate Bush and Renard dressed like Citizen Smith…Power to the people! 9

Dialogue and performance - The script clangs big style. Disjointed plot explanation and terrible puns galore. The performances fare better (Brosnan, Dench, Marceau). One feels that Carlyle could have more to do, and whoever thought John Cleese as a half assed Basil Fawlty would be a good idea to replace the late great Q is sorely mistaken. 10

Plot and execution - Michael Apted, not exactly noted for his action movie credentials (Gorillas in the mist anyone?) he elects good performances, and clearly lets the other guys direct the action. But they don't exactly make the screen sizzle. The plot is a bizarre hybrid of Broken Arrow and Austin Powers and is often hard(ish) to follow. But at least it doesn't have fat bastard in (although Pierce is looking a little tubby these days…Snigger snigger) 13

Randomness - Pretty random. Many pointless sub plots and distractions (what's with the Beluga factory shoot-out?). 17

Waste of potential - This is where the film scores big! Goldeneye proved that there was still life left in the Bond franchise. Tomorrow Never Dies showed that Pierce could shine even during moribund plots. And now you've got Bond who's found his feet. A bad guy with a great angle played by an excellent actor. Judi Dench with an expanded role. Robbie Coltrane reprising his 'comedy Russian' role (with a slightly wobblier accent than Goldeneye). This could have been the best. However they then got Denise Richards and a pointless script on board. Big mistake. 19.

Overall 68%

*

The Rock (1996)

Reviewed by Simon Drake

Directed by Michael Bay
Starring Sean Connery, Nicolas Cage and Ed Harris.

    Mad as hell veteran, Colonel Hubbell (Ed Harris) armed with a troop of supporting actors and a deadly virus takes a bunch of hostage's erm…hostage on Alcatraz Island. So a team of supporting actor Navy Seals is deployed who are, as usual, really pants and get killed instantly. This leaves only chemical weapons expert nerd Stanley Goodspeed (Nicolas Cage) and ex-SAS pensioner John Mason (Sean Connery) - who is the only person to escape Alcatraz - to battle the bad guys and save the day.

What's wrong with it?

    It's a Jerry Bruckheimer film. Which means, high production values, a script written on a stamp, lots of wobbly cameras and fast edits and a 'Power' score from Hans Zimmer or Mark Mancina…Or both.
    Following a standard computer game narrative 'They run they jump. They fight a bad guy and move up a level to reach the main bad guy'.
    It is completely implausible and pointless.
    All Bruckheimer films have a firm mission statement.

  1. Never let anyone say anything profound when there is an excruciating pun to be made
  2. Never let anyone use a door when there is a wall to be smashed through or blown down.
  3. Never let someone just stand up when there is a slow motion 180 degree camera swoop to be used.
  4. Never let the heroes just run down a corridor when there is a flaming fireball there to chase them in slow motion.

What's right with it?

    It's a Jerry Bruckheimer film. Which means, high production values, a script written on a stamp, lots of wobbly cameras and fast edits and a 'Power' score from Hans Zimmer or Mark Mancina…Or both.
    Following a standard computer game narrative 'They run they jump. They fight a bad guy and move up a level to reach the main bad guy'.
    It is completely implausible and pointless.
    Nicolas Cage makes a corking comedy action nerd, perfect foil to Connery's grizzled tough guy (and Ed Harris's over emoting)
    The gags are pretty good and the action is great.

How bad is it really?

    It's great stuff, complete popcorn movie trash at its finest and it knows it.

Best Bit?

    Sean Connery calling people "Fucking idiots" all the time in his Scottish brogue.
    Or "The feet thing?" joke.

What's up with?

Ratings:

Production values - Super slick, as one would expect from a Bruckheimer film. Crazy coloured filters, cars going boom, the heroes outrunning a flaming fireball and to the sounds of a Hans Zimmer score. "And the blood spurts out in slow motion". 2

Dialogue and performance - The script had to be 'Punned-up' by the writers of Porridge (oh the irony!) and Auf Wiedersehen Pet. The actors acquit themselves, but are hardly given much character development (unless you count "Hey you met my Mum at a Led Zeppelin concert" as character development). 10

Plot and execution - The plot is pretty ropy, madman with a deadly virus meets Die-Hard. However it's all handled with Michael Bay's usual sledgehammer approach (fast edits, fast action, fasted plot). And all the better for it! 7

Randomness - Most of the good/bad marines you recognise from the actors rather than any discernible characteristics. Bu the randomness comes from the John Woo School of "Oh come on That wouldn't happen!" exclamations rather than plot holes. 8

Waste of potential - Probably the best ever Sean Connery wizened philosopher/Ex SAS agent action film about a madman with a deadly virus set in San Francisco (with obligatory car chase throw in!) EVER! 0

Overall 27%

*

Portmortem (1998)

Reviewed by Simon Drake

Directed by Albert Pyun
Starring Charles Sheen and Gary Lewis.

    Washed up Ex-criminal-profiler James Macgregor (Charles Sheen) leaves America to live in Glasgow (for some undisclosed reason). After plugging his book about his capture of a serial killer in America on TV he keeps getting messages from a Glasgow based killer who has a habit of leaving naked dead woman around the city.
    Macgregor decides to join the Police in the detection of this killer (who sends in obituaries to Newspapers before he kills the woman), quits drinking and goes on a sort of moral redemption quest (but this being an Albert Pyun film it's not so much L.A Confidential than T.J Hooker).
    He tracks the killer down and erm…That's it.

What's wrong with it?

    Seeing as it's an Albert Pyun film it's typically a little bizarre in it's narrative and pacing.
    The first half is very dull, too much time is spent showing how much of a washed up maverick alcoholic Macgregor is, but then giving no real background to his character. There are numerous random cutaways making it difficult to fathom whether they are dream sequences, flashbacks or present time. The lighting is complete Pyun, lots of turquoise rooms that look like they were filmed at the bottom of a swimming pool or someone shinning a red torch at the actors from off camera.
    The serial killer's motives are never fully explained (even with a bunch of pointless flashbacks) it seems his justification to carrying out a bunch of intricate and time consuming murders (and toying with the police) is to spite his Dad for not leaving him the family business. The actor they've got to play the killer just isn't scary or creepy at all, he looks like he wouldn't say boo to a goose let alone murder a bunch of woman.

What's right with it?

    Mr Pyun seems to have actually learnt some filmic ability finally, There is something resembling a cohesive plot and the actors don't all look as if they are reading from cue cards (although there is a few wobbly Scottish accents from obvious American actors).
    And on several occasions there is actually some suspense and atmosphere created (mostly due to the fairly impressive 'Seven'-esque soundtrack and grimy Glasgow locations)
    Charles Sheen actually gives an okay performance, no Oscar winner sure, but at least he can actually emote (and strangely enough seems at home playing a drunken, womanising maverick!).

How bad is it really?

    It's actually one of Albert Pyun's better (best?) efforts. Having a semblance of a plot, a smattering of acting and a side ordering of effort it is not terrible, but hardly great, and I doubt it'll give the makers of 'Seven' or 'Silence of the Lambs' any sleepless nights.

Best bit?

    A seedy journalist offers to pay for Macgregor's bar tab in exchange for a scoop
    "Put your money away Son" says the barman when two £50 notes are placed down "that's not nearly enough!"

What's up with?

Ratings:

Production values - The film looks as if it was filmed on a camcorder (which it probably was) and has opening credits that look as if they were made through 'PhotoShop' (also probably was) with some crappy 'Gothic' font.
The lighting is as usual really bizarre, lots of crazy reds, blues and yellows in the most unlikely places (interrogation rooms, seedy dive pubs, and Highland retreats). 18

Dialogue and performance - Hardly David Mamet stuff, but there are a smattering of good lines and enough to keep you interested, although the detection itself relies to heavily on complete chance to catch the killer rather than actual police work. Performances aren't too bad, Charlie Sheen still has an iota of screen presence, and the several of the Scottish detectives swear with vigour. 6

Plot and execution - Watching an Albert Pyun film that doesn't make you want to vomit blood; surely this can't be right?
    He actually seems to be giving a damn about what's on screen, there are several moments that could almost be tense and while the characterisation sucks and several of the more interesting sub plots aren't developed, it still is actually quite watchable. 7

Randomness - Sadly, just as a leopard can't change its spots, Pyun can't prevent randomness overflowing from the story. Not only do we have continuity gaffs, there is plot contradictions, random characters drifting around and a plethora of 'huh?' cutaways. 17

Waste of potential - Considering the "creative" output of the film, I was prepared for the worst, but I was surprised (hardly pleasantly though) that it didn't suck completely. 9

57%