There's plenty to like about the eighteenth installment of the MGM/UA James Bond series, "Tomorrow Never Dies." And, as always, there are also some things not to like. For myself, having grown up on James Bond films in the sixties, and having suffered through the series in the seventies and having my hopes alternately raised and dashed and raised again in the eighties, I'm glad to report that the newest 007 film is not a screw-up.

I don't mean to damn with faint praise. I keep a certain line of demarcation in my mind for a "minimally acceptable" level of faithfulness to the spirit of Ian Fleming and early EON Films tradition ("The Spy Who Loved Me" is that minimal level;) TND is much above that line.

Here's the good stuff:

Pierce Brosnan has truly arrived as the screen 007. He carries a certain weight, both physically and in demeanor, in his sophomore effort. There's no longer a feeling that he's trying to play Sean Connery playing Bond. Comparisons are odious, but if anything, I'd have to say that he's put together a mixture of Connery's physicality and Timothy Dalton's melancholy, with a bit of George Lazenby's cockiness and almost nothing of Roger Moore's dopey unflappability. There are scenes in this film where Brosnan will stun you with his ruthlessness; we haven't seen a Bond like this since "Dr. No."

It can now be safely said that Brosnan is not only the logical, commercial choice to play James Bond, which he's been since the late '80's, but is also the correct artistic choice. 007 fans have every reason to be thankful for Brosnan's decision to portray James Bond seriously, and yet with a dash of roguish charm. He looks great, moves well, can fight like a soccer hooligan, makes (movie) love convincingly, and dresses with panache.

There is a small, but great, scene in TND where Bond is simply sitting in his hotel room, drinking a goodly amount of vodka (neat), and threading a silencer onto his Walther PPK. He is waiting for trouble to show up, and it does, in the form of Teri Hatcher as an old flame of Bond's. She is now the wife of the film's villain. Brosnan ever-so-slightly slurs his dialogue; while Bond is in control of the situation, he is just a little drunk. Drunk enough to let his emotional guard down a fraction, drunk enough to openly and honestly express his regret over their failed love affair. It's a remarkable scene for a '90's James Bond film. In this and other scenes, Brosnan gives the entire film a core of certitude and authority, despite some otherwise silly goings-on.

More good stuff:

Michelle Yeoh is absolute dynamite as Wai Lin, a totally competent and gorgeous Chinese secret agent who can match (and perhaps out-match) 007 in practically every respect. Yeoh just about steals the screen from Brosnan with her vitality and beauty. A veteran of the Hong Kong cinema, she believably pummels the absolute hell out of assorted thugs and baddies, and looks great doing it. It's important to note that at no point in the film does she actually need James Bond to save her or otherwise assist her in her mission. And, despite the lack of any real romantic connection to 007, she is the best Bond Girl since Diana Rigg. A bold statement, but said with certainty.

Gotz Otto makes a satisfyingly scary henchman, Mr. Stamper, a sort-of combination of Red Grant and Jaws. He's sufficiently creepy-looking, inhumanly strong, doesn't mind getting hurt, and comes to an entertainingly bad end. Vincent Schiavelli makes a big impact in a short scene as the sadistic Dr. Kauffman; he provides Pierce Brosnan what may be Brosnan's defining moment as the James Bond of our time.

Joe Don Baker returns as Jack Wade, is genuinely amusing for the audience, genuinely helpful to Bond, and doesn't overstay his welcome. Judi Dench, Samantha Bond, and good ol' Desmond Llewellyn completely inhabit their characters as M, Moneypenny, and Q, respectively. Their scenes with Bond are short, but pithy and to-the-point. Ms. Dench, in particular, will silence the naysayers with her performance.

David Arnold's music score is top-notch, as is Daniel Kleinman's titles sequence. As per usual, all technical aspects of the film are up to the usual Bondian high standards.

Now for some caviling:

Another great potential for a Bond villain is wasted with Jonathan Pryce's Elliot Carver. Pryce is a terrific actor. As he demonstrated in "Something Wicked This Way Comes," he can play scary. With his white brush-cut hair, wire-rim spectacles, and weird clothes, he looks like a Bond villain. But Pryce alternately underacts and overacts his role; the overall effect is in making Carver a less-than-substantial villain. He's got big plans, and the means to carry them out, but in the end, he comes off as something of a dorky goof.

As with "GoldenEye", there is an increasing reliance on big, noisy set pieces featuring lots of explosions and machine gun fire to sell the audience on the notion of a James Bond movie. Roger Spottiswoode's direction throughout the film is rather flat (the actors apparently looked out for themselves,) and the pacing of the film is lugubrious at times. The pacing and blocking of the action scenes in particular, though noisy, are unimaginative. After a while, especially toward the end of the film, you just want a little break from all the frenzy. I fear that this a trend that is becoming permanent. When will EON and MGM/UA understand that a James Bond Film is a breed apart from the usual Hollywood action picture? One less chase scene or machine gun battle, and one or two additional scenes of dramatic character and story development would have gone a long way to improving this film (would've helped with "GoldenEye," too.) It's the small details that make a Bond film unique and fun. We've seen these explosions before.

What to say about Sheryl Crow's theme song? I guess there have been worse ("All Time High" comes immediately to mind,) but not much worse. I'm sure Bond fans world-wide will agree that k.d. lang s "Surrender" should have been the main theme, especially coupled with Kleinman's brilliant visuals.

All in all, a solid effort from Eon Productions. It's (marginally) better than "GoldenEye," it's better than any Roger Moore Bond film, and it's better than a couple of the weaker Connery outings. Put it at about number eight on the list, or in the upper fifty percentile. Out of four stars, I'd give it a solid three. Let's all keep hope that "Bond 19" will get the details right.