Having just returned from Tomorrow Never Dies, here are my initial thoughts.

First of all, I was saddened to come to the realization that James Bond no longer sets the tone for adventure. Bond has reached the point where he follows the Hollywood action film formula and (at least in TND) never dares explore new ground, one of the essentials that helped make the series popular in the first place.

For a few scenes, most of them carried by Brosnan and Brosnan alone; James Bond makes his appearances. He's dark, he's charming, he's dangerous. He's James Bond.

There is little spying. Nothing one could call suspense. Even less one could label as intrigue, though production values are high and if nothing else the film LOOKS grand.

Brosnan is better than he was in GoldenEye (and I liked him in that film), but he's been given such lame dialogue that his best scenes are played in total silence. Brosnan is much more Bond-like this time, keeping his performance carefully tethered somewhere between Connery's brusque, manly Bond and Moore's English gentleman who happens to be a secret agent. He even at times comes close to the serious Bond that Dalton gave us in his two films, but, in a move that should keep him in Bondage for quite a while to come, he layers those most serious moments with a sense of personality. Dalton's total immersion into character, while excellent for fans of the novels, completely lost the general public, who were used to attaching James Bond to the personality of the man playing him.

Is Pierce Brosnan James Bond? For the time being, and I don't mind it a bit. He has the confidence to pull it off and his performance is the best thing in this film. I'll come back to this in a moment, but for the time being

On to the film itself.

Where to begin? The pre-credits sequence. Well done. Brosnan's first appearance is a delight, giving the film a feel that returns to the best of the series. Bond is a secret agent once more, and it's about time.

The credits? Where does one go after 35 years? Although the computer animations look all right now, in five years there won't be a thing in the sequence that won't look dated other than the x-rays. Nice, but not nearly as thrilling as GoldenEye's update of Maurice Binder. But, given the proper music

The score is fine if a bit excessive on the James Bond theme. I worried that Bond would have to go to the bathroom and there, coming from the closed door However, having experienced the opposite with Goldeneye, I was more than glad to hear Arnold put forth the effort.

The theme. Horrible. Easily the worst of the entire series. What were they thinking, relegating an absolutely perfect Bond theme to the end credits? Apparently, the strategy was to get a popular singer to bring in record sales. Well, their strategy certainly backfired as Ms. Crow hasn't performed the theme once on American television, thereby giving this misguided attempt at a hit theme song the quick death it most heartily deserves.

As to k.d. lang, I must say that right now there's not a better voice out there for a Bond theme, and there very well may never have been. Brava.

The plot? There isn't one. Not at all. While the shreds of a plot line zigzag aimlessly throughout the film, there's no motivation for any of the villain's schemes to go anywhere. Is anyone out there truly afraid of Ted Turner or Bill Gates? Are we so terrified of computers and technology that we FEAR cable TV? Yet, this is where the film points us.

When Bond villains become too topical, too trendy, they tend to dissolve away quicker than others. I have the feeling that in another five/ten years we'll be looking back at this media villain with the same ennui most of us still have viewing Sanchez, the evil Hispanic drug lord from LTK.

Apparently, we're supposed to believe that Eliot Carver wants to start WW3 in order to sell more newspapers. To whom? The survivors? He also wants cable rights to China, one of the two countries most likely to be destroyed first in his scenario. This isn't a plot, it's a bad excuse for all the action sequences that follow. And follow they do, leading us from one scene taken from earlier Bond films to another. I counted six films cut together, while a friend of mine pointed out two more that I found unconfirmable without a second viewing.

Best scene? Bond waiting in his hotel room. Worst? ANYTHING on the Stealth boat.

The model work in this film is terrible. I kept wondering where the masters who managed to create Stromberg's Liparus from TSWLM were when this one was being put together.

The underwater scenes are predictable and contain some of the worst forced perspective work I've ever seen. Also the business with Bond, Wai Lin, and the scuba gear. Since another reviewer has already dissected this sequence, I refer you to his comments and move on. But once again, why is it that this ship rests on the bottom of the ocean until the combined weight of two people wearing scuba tanks inside it's hull causes the ship to shift precariously.

Fine, it's another stolen atomic missile finale, only this time (somehow), a group of fuses manage to blow up the armed missile without atomic explosion. Ah, I see. Moreover, no wreckage from the exploding ship manages to bother our heroes under water just below. What luck!

Villain? What villain? Jonathan Pryce is much better than this. He's shown himself an actor of great range with films from Something Wicked This Way Comes all the way to Terry Gilliam's Brazil. Here, he minces, tries to look interested, and hopes for some decent characterization to save him from a place in the role (sic) call with Michelle Lonsdale. He doesn't get it.

Instead, he's handed the same useless dialogue that has begun to permeate action picture after action picture. One liners that purportedly show how tough or intelligent the character is but really end up showing that the writer's taking shortcuts instead of sticking to character. Bond's throwaway at the printing press for example. That spinning sound? It's not the press. Richard Maibaum and Cubby Broccoli have apparently reached warp speed.

But Carver's greatest crime is that of ineffectuality. There's not a moment in the film where his character seems competent enough to pull off his initial scheme and to top that off he's surrounded himself with the most useless group of henchmen in the series. He can't even get his dullard of a henchman Stamper (a total waste of framespace) to try to kill an insignificant British Agent without constantly reminding him what he's being sent to do. And Carver himself gets the drop on James Bond? Who thought this up?

There are loose ends all through this film, the sudden appearance of "General Chang", the Chinese connection to Carver, the murder of Paris with no resulting consequences, the sea drill miraculously reappearing in a horribly placed establishing shot just before it's needed again, etc. These are all hand waving, things meant to keep us thinking it all makes sense, although what's really happening has no motivation.

While in most cases I try not to blame the writer (self-preservation I suppose), this time is an exception.

Bruce Fierstein's dialogue kills most of the film. While there are good moments, once again they're action moments or subtle scenes played with little or no dialogue. His one-liners are obvious enough to make Roger Moore wince. His best scenes? Bond alone, then with Paris in his room and the Dr. Kaufmann scene. While Kaufmann could have been a serious threat he sadly sidesteps and becomes parody. We're being shown how funny the writer thinks he is. Although I liked the Stuttgart line (and Kaufmann's exit), it stands out because it doesn't fit. Kaufmann is too busy being amusing to kill Bond. This is the worst kind of character overload, and the film is full of it.

How many times do we have to hear one character call another character insane only to have the same tired "thin line between insanity and genius" rationale thrown in our faces? It's in Brosnan's face when he says the line. "You're insane" AND? He throws the line away because it DESERVES to be thrown away. One of many.

Moreover, just how many weapons do these superspies have? There's not a moment that finds our heroes lacking in weaponry. Even after being captured by the enemy, Wei Lin still manages to secret away ninja stars and extra fuses while Bond manages to find a handy gun or cable cutter or missile launcher when he needs one.

We've been returned to the days of You Only Live Twice, where Bond HAPPENS to go on a fishing excursion, escape death, climb a volcano, while accidentally already being dressed (beneath his fisherman's clothes) in a ninja attack suit complete with suction cups to allow him to scale the inside of the villain's lair inside the crater.

The film is fun, and definitely entertaining, but refrigerator logic only carries one so far before any film turns into a cartoon.

Paris Carver is interesting, but what better place to bring in a heroine from one of Bond's earlier missions. This is film, don't stand there and tell us about their past relationship, give us a hook to hang our interest on. What if Paris Carver was Tatiana Romanova or another Bond woman whose past we have an inkling of? Make a connection and that character flies. Don't, and you have a fifteen minute cameo leading to the inevitable. Ms. Hatcher gives it a good try, but she's trapped in the thankless role of sacrificial lamb. It's sad to see her try to round her character with so little to work with.

The Direction by Roger Spottiswoode is adequate. His framing is predictable, his editing technique the same as a hundred other directors. Once again the EON series has belittled itself by not choosing a director with a feel for the characters and situations. While Campbell seemed caught up with movement, Spottiswoode seems to be entranced with scale and sudden stop-motion close-ups, even at inappropriate moments.

Even the best scene, Bond waiting Carver's response in his hotel room is badly framed, putting our hero in the middle of a room with his back apparently to an open window. I know it's "just" a movie, but Bond is supposed to be a thinking secret agent, not a target.

Scale? Just how big is the stealth ship? From one angle (and inside) it's huge and multi-leveled. From water level it's about the size of a garage built for a large motor home. From above, it's big enough to run a media empire and STILL have room to fire a nuclear missile by all appearances FROM THE BRIDGE AREA!

There are some incredible sequences in the film, the most intriguing being a helicopter chase through downtown Saigon. While there's almost no possible way a helicopter could stay airborne four feet off the ground while chopping away at a crowd of frightened people, it's something we haven't seen before and that adds a certain style to the sequence.

This of course comes in the midst of the much vaunted motorcycle chase. What rubbish. When James Bond movies were written, not paste ups of earlier Bond efforts, there was no way an action sequence this mindless would end up onscreen. A thousand shots, no one injured, not even bystanders. This is the A-Team with a big budget.

Although well done, yet again it points out that Bond no longer leads action trends, he follows.

The sinking of the Devonshire is good, but sadly leads back to the ridiculous model work.

The BMW melee in the parking garage is great fun, but ultimately serves no purpose. Better still are the moments beforehand, with the sledgehammer wielding henchmen. Excellent good humor and well done.

Now, lest this review come across as a pan, it isn't. I enjoyed quite a bit of TND, and easily rate it above a number of films in the series. Unlike some members of the media (villains all), I can let go, suspend disbelief and put "my brains under the seat". However, I was raised on Bond films that turned on well crafted plotting, carefully designed characterization and dialogue. This prejudices me against Bond movies that barely "fit the bill". I want more.

TND was an enjoyable action picture, but most of what I enjoyed comes down to casting.

The regulars have been quite spiffed up this time round. M is superb, Moneypenny is approaching the present day, and Q, well, I love Desmond dearly. He's become such a staple that I don't want to replace him, but sadly feel it's time. He's the last connection we have with the other films in the series and when he's gone, I will definitely feel the loss.

Michelle Yeoh is incredible. She brings a competent beauty to the series that we haven't seen before. While her character comes DIRECTLY from Agent Triple X in TSWLM, and indirectly from others, she's the Bond girl taken to a new level. Her scenes as Bond's equal/partner are among the most inventive of the series. Her escape from Carver's building is exciting and greatly appreciated, and her headquarters is also a blast if somewhat expected.

Gone are the Stacey Suttons of the Moore era and good riddance. Wai Lin would bite her own tongue off before she'd scream "James!" (In this context of course )

And lastly, we return to Brosnan.

I've always felt that Bond is a two picture test. Connery was good in Dr. No, perfect in FRWL. Moore was adequate in LALD, lacking in TMWTGG. Dalton was perfect in TLD, betrayed in LTK. (Lazenby isn't rated for obvious reasons, but how I wish he were) I've been waiting for Brosnan's second before seriously looking at his Bond. In GoldenEye, he was good, but seemed trapped in a desire to emulate Connery. While it worked, it wasn't enough to tell me he would be a good, lasting Bond.

In TND we get glimpses of a Bond I can easily live with. He's hard edged, serious, yet fun to romp around with for two hours of screen time. This is the first Bond film in years that I hoped would be longer because I felt comfortable with the character. I found myself disappointed once I realized our heroes were on their way to the final showdown. I wanted more. I only wish they'd spent time on substance instead of a plethora of explosions and gunfire.

Others have described Brosnan's best scene. Sitting in the hotel room, drinking, putting his silencer on the trusty PPK and waiting. Taken almost verbatim from Dr. No, it's one of the few times since OHMSS that I feel James Bond himself showed up onscreen. It's magic, a reminder of the kind of moment James Bond was meant to have and hasn't for such a long time.

It's good to have the old fellow back. Next time, throw in a plot and some dialogue and we're in business

Using the star system, I have to give TND 2 1/2 out of 4.

©1997 by Robert Cotton