sedalethreatt Reviews

The World Is Not Enough (1999)

Very good Bond

[1 February 2002]

When I first saw The World Is Not Enough, I did not think much of it. On repeated viewings, it is now one of my favourite of the series.

Brosnan is growing nicely into the role of Bond, and lets hope he sticks around for a few more films after this one.

The latest Bond outing has very strong writing and character development. Fans finally get to see 'M' in action, although that element of the film is a bit of a let down to say the least.

While both Denise Richards and Robert Carlyle fail to pull off their characters, Sophie Marceau is one of the best Bond girls in recent memory.

Sadly, this will be the last Bond outing that features 'Q', who will be sadly missed from the series. RIP!

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

Simply does not work

[1 February 2002]

The second Bond film of the Brosnan era is nothing compared to the first.

The film as a tremendous look and feel about it, more so than any other Bond film. However, looks are very deceiving. Jonathan Pryce looks the part of a Bond villain, but does not pull it off. Teri Hatcher looks the part of a Bond girl, but is lifeless and boring. Michelle Yeoh breaths some life into the movie, but is ultimately unappealing.

Overall, a fairly interesting story is destroyed by poor writing and uninspired casting choices.

GoldenEye (1995)

Excellent Bond film

[1 February 2002]

After the loss of Dalton to the role of James Bond, Pierce Brosnan took over the role and did a commendable job. To me, Brosnan represents the best qualities of many former actors who played Bond. He has the style and charisma of Connery, the wit of Moore but more appropriately used and the viciousness of Dalton.

While the story is not as strong as License To Kill, Bond really enters the world of *modern* movie with a bang. Great action and appealing cast from top to bottom.

Licence to Kill (1989)

Dark, realistic, vicious and compelling Bond film, one of the best in the series.

[1 February 2002]

License to Kill stands out as one of the more radical and impressive Bond films. Dalton continues what he started in The Living Daylights by making Bond even darker, even more human and ultimately more dangerous.

Bond is no longer the guy you root for because he embodies everything that we want as a hero. We root for Bond in this film because he has become someone you would not want to cross.

Dalton's last outing in a very short career as James Bond. While the series has backed away from the changes made during the Dalton era, more recent outings have not returned all the way back to the Moore type Bond. Dalton changed the face of the series, and it can never go back to what it was. Dalton was a revolutionary choice as Bond. the character will never be the same again.

The Living Daylights (1987)

Very Good Bond Film

[1 February 2002]

With Roger Moore retired from the Bond role, the makers of the series began putting the series back on track. The two elements that made this possible was vastly improved screenwriting and the casting of Timothy Dalton as Bond, one of the few actors to play Bond that were actually well received and respected before taking on the role.

Dalton threw away the comic book virus that had infected the Bond character over previous years, and cured the ailment with a more serious Bond, one that is closer to Fleming's original character. Under Dalton, James Bond evolved into a more human, darker and mysterious character, something that Bond fans either embraced or rejected.

The story line is greatly improved over previous Bond films, and while the film runs out of steam a little towards the end, the modifications made to the series were a welcomed change.

A View to a Kill (1985)

The end of the torture

[1 February 2002]

Mercifully, the Moore era ended with this film and the series soon got back on track. However, before Moore road into the sunset, he had to pull out his now too old body for yet another dull, lifeless Bond outing.

The only redeeming feature in this outing is Christopher Walken, who is easily one of the better Bond villains.

By this stage, the character of Bond was little more than a guy in a suit firing off trashy one liners. Thankfully, Bond was about to be re-born.

Octopussy (1983)

Ho-Hum Bond Film

[1 February 2002]

Nothing special here. This is typical of the Moore era. Octopussy is high on action and low on logic and character development.

A weak story line, unappealing supporting cast and after a wonderful performance as Bond in the previous outing, Moore returns to the cardboard cut-out comic book hero type approach this time around.

Ho-Hum.

For Your Eyes Only (1981)

Brilliant Bond film, easily in the top 4 of the series.

[1 February 2002]

After the disgrace of Moonraker, the makers of the Bond series returned to a more realistic Bond film, not as much in the style of From Russia With Love and Goldfinger, but more in the mould that would be repeated 6 or 7 years later by Timothy Dalton. Sadly, this approach was not to last, and the series returned upon its rather tragic path it had been heading during the Moore era.

A rather rough and tough Bond film, showing more character development in the main hero and a good collection of villains and sidekicks. While not backing off from the epic nature of the Bond story, this time around the plot is more thoughtful and believable. Moore is in top form as Bond in this one.

A shame more Bond films are not as good as this one.

Moonraker (1979)

Very weak Bond film

[1 February 2002]

Not the worst Bond film, but very close indeed.

Before Bond heads into outer space, the film is OK at best. Once Bond is in space, the film becomes more laughable by the moment. What amazes me is that this film was nominated for an Oscar for its special effects, however, when comparing it to Close Encounters and Star Wars (films released around the time as Moonraker), the special effects are really rather ordinary, so say the least.

No logic, no appeal, just big action at the expense of good screenwriting. After two really good appearances as Bond, Moore seems like he just didn't care about this one. I can see why.

Gettysburg (1993)

Did people really talk like that in those days?

[1/10 · 26 August 2001]

I doubt it.

I am not sure, but I don't think that ordinary people during the Civil War era would have spoken to each other like they were addressing an audience at a political rally or a church congregation.

Absolutely appalling dialogue spoils what could have been a OK movie. I can usually take the good with the bad with most movies. I understand that no movie is perfect, and that you have to look past negative aspects of films to enjoy them. However, the dialogue is so bad I just could not look past it. From start to finish it is just horrible! Whoever wrote the script should be shot.

The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)

Greatly entertaining film, but ignore everything it tries to tell you

[26 August 2001]

This film is a great piece of fiction, and it will no doubt entertain most people who see it. However, it could not be more historically incorrect and considering what these prisoners actually lived through, it is nothing short of a crime that their story has not been told to a general audience and they are left with this sad piece of fiction. If you can, find a few of the Australian, British, American soldiers that lived through this horrible, horrible experience and ask them what they thought of the film. Most will tell you that it spits on the memory of the soldiers that did not return. If you are really interested in this story, pick up a history book and leave this film alone. If you watch it, don't take it seriously and ignore everything it tries to tell you.

As a piece of entertainment: 8.5 / 10 As a piece of history: 2.0 / 10