In what should prove to be the most intelligent marketing move EON has made in years, James Bond is back and has mutated into an amalgam of all the previous actors who've portrayed the character.

You want tough? We've got Pierce Connery. You want funny, we've got Roger Brosnan. You want cold, let me introduce you to Timothy Pierce. And what does that leave us with?

Probably the most audience pleasing Bond since TSWLM. And not only that, but the film, while delivering the goods quite well, is also an amalgam. Bits and pieces of previous Bond films glued together more seamlessly than usual, but bits and pieces nonetheless.

From OHMSS, Moonraker, FRWL, TND, Goldfinger, TLD, etc., the set pieces in this film come fast and furious, but you know, I don't mind. In my review of GoldenEye I called it a James Bond's Greatest Hits collection. That's what TWINE turns out to be, however, whereas GoldenEye subsisted completely on old material redone, TWINE takes that older material and works it into a plot that for a change wasn't dumbed down for the teenage American action picture audience that will probably find this film a bit too slow for their tastes. Thank God.

Now, lest this hybrid thing appear as a slam on Mr. Brosnan, please don't jump to conclusions. I will get to him before long, and I'm going to say some things a lot of people will be surprised by. But for now, let's get on with the review of the film itself.

The opening sequence is fantastic. Marred only by some seriously staccato editing during the boat chase, I found myself smiling from ear to ear (and then some) at the pacing and style. The sequence definitely set the movie's pace and created the tension the rest of the plot needed.

Although Brosnan's adjusting of his tie was, to me, as useless as the infamous winking fish from LTK, this time I was willing to let it go simply because I had no idea Roger Moore had returned to the role of Bond. Good old Rog

Credits, very good. I didn't like the credit sequence from TND because it was basically boring and unlike the previous film's credit sequence, it didn't really have anything to do with the storyline. This one, on the other hand, so resembled Maurice Binder's work from TMWTGG that I was more than willing to go along for the ride. Then, when it became like GoldenEye, a triptych of the plot to come, I felt handsomely rewarded.

The theme? Much better. Although another hybrid (can anyone sense a pattern forming?) of old and new, the theme is married to a successful credit sequence and has already become one of my favorites.

David Arnold's music is good, much more fitting to its subject, and so absolutely plastered with Barry references that I didn't even notice the usual lack of subtlety in his almost intrusive use of the traditional Bond theme. Much improved over last time.

Onward.

M's castle? Straight out of Feldman's Casino Royale. I half expected someone to challenge Sir James to a wassle. I know, we're supposed to assume that MI6 was so damaged that they had to set up shop in M's garage, but please

However, the portrait of Bernard Lee brings the setting home, reminds us that this is part of a series. This is something that happens quite often in this episode. It's as if the producers have finally realized that holding on to the old fans is as important (if not more so) than playing to the younger action crowd. It's about time.

This brings me to the most emotional moment in the film. Q. Desmond, I am seriously sorry to see you go. It would be wonderful if he could cameo as long as he's up to it, possibly in one of the resorts Bond seems intent on skiing or gondola-ing through on his various adventures. A knowing smile, then on with the plot.

And the introduction of John Cleese as the new Q. Perfect. Cleese is the absolute master of the slow burn, now if only they let him do so. Great casting. And just for the record, he's Q, not R. In a series with five actors portraying the main character with the same name, are people really dim enough to think "R" is any more important than "James Bond"?

The plot is easily the Best since TLD. I, unlike a number of people, like my plots complex. This one turns on one single line late in the film, a line that personally I would have highlighted somehow, but that says more than any handwaving about nuclear fission, plutonium and just about 90% of anything from the previous two films. While there are definite missteps in the plot, most of the problems seem to have been in the editing room, quite a change from the bad writing that ruined TND and held GoldenEye down when it should have soared.

The villain? Uh Well, here come the spoilers, folks.

Renard was good, yet I found him far less menacing than his female counterpart. Even with that patented Bond villain scar that faintly reminded me of Donald Pleasance's absolutely ineffectual Blofeld from YOLT, he never seemed capable, yet managed to present himself AS capable. The difference held him down for me and thus, once the true villain was dispatched, I felt the menace of the film slip entirely away from me.

Elektra King. Finally, a decent villainess and it only took them 19 (21) movies to get one right. I was beginning to think a penis was a prerequisite A bit too pat early on, her presence grows until one major hurdle is reached, that of revelation. When she has to reveal herself, the storyline changes direction and what a direction it takes. When it comes down to it, this is the story of a little girl whose daddy hurt her feelings. Sophie Marceau does a fine job and manages to be both tough and vulnerable at different times. Her dialogue is good, avoiding the usual claptrap about villainy being an "art" because she at heart knows she's not a villain. Her father was a villain; she is simply a means towards retribution.

(Uh, oh, could this be actual writing? Could there be some actual thought processes going on within a character in a James Bond film? Read on, dear reader )

And for those of us Fleming enthusiasts, the sudden appearance of an actual torture device was a thrill. Nice to see that these new villains are willing to learn a thing or two from LeChiffre and his cronies rather than just shooting someone for the effect.

Which brings us to gunfire. There are a number of set pieces in this film, a)Boat Chase, b)Ski chase, C)Chase in the Russian nuclear facility, d)helicopter sequence. Does anyone notice what's missing? No car chase!!!!! That's almost worth an extra star right there. However, what else do these sequences have in common? That's right, a plethora, some would say an overabundance of gunfire. To the left, to the right, all around, bullets miss our illustrious hero from every direction. My favorite moment of course is Brosnan firing his machine gun down a corridor in the Russian nuclear facility and still firing as the blast doors close in front of him. Nice touch. Even ricochets wouldn't dare sting our boy Jimmy.

On the other hand, this film did do one thing I admired, it pushed the incessant gunplay into compact sequences, freeing up a good deal of the rest of the film for actual plotting and some of the best characterization of the series. More, much more, on this later.

I know this won't be popular with the kiddies, but it's time to have Bond in a situation where bullets DON'T fly, where two foes face each other with only a couple of rounds between them. That is suspense, not this raggedy budda-budda-budda straight from the Sylvester Stallone School of dramatics.

The Bond girl? An absolute waste of time. Dr. Christmas Jones, while protruding magnificently from her almost non-existent costume, is one of the worst Bond girls of all time. Certainly she has "assets" but is that any reason to drag this girl along? No. She's a useless appendage, literally coming from the Stacy Sutton school of "lovely to look at" secondary characters. While she manages to prove herself capable, Bond drags her along only because someone in charge demands that he drag her along. She serves no purpose except eye candy, no matter how sweet.

All right, you say, but Bond needs someone to show him how to defuse a nuclear weapon. Since when? Since Goldfinger? All right, we can work with that, but in the interim, Bond has saved the world from atomic devices how often? In TSWLM he even dismantles one in order to get to the explosives inside. Yet now, he can't turn this one off? (An inside joke for those who sat through The Fourth Protocol a number of years ago as Brosnan played a Russian agent who had to assemble an atomic bomb almost exactly the same as the one found in TWINE. A nice inside moment) And how, pray tell DO they get the cover off if the screws are ruined? Aarrgghh!!

Screenwriting rule #478b: If you're going to show it, use it. Give us a struggle to get the damned cover off. (This rule also applies to Renard's demise at the end of the film, but we'll get there when we get there)

M? Excellent. And a nod to Amis' Colonel Sun as well. I even got a sense of a previous relationship for the old girl. Shudder what was that? Could it be

SUBTEXT!!!!!

YES! Actual writing going on here! There is some real plotting going on here, and someone somewhere has realized that emotion and emotional attachment come from characterization. Is it Purvis and Wade? It must be because it certainly isn't Fierstein

There's a great moment early in the film when Bond is asked whether he's ever lost anyone he loved. Now, a bad writer would reference Tracy, or Bond's parents, or the various women/partners/comrades in arms that have passed before Bond's eyes. This time, Bond doesn't answer. He's already answered in TSWLM. He has no reason to hand the person asking the question any information. It's an excellent example of something less meaning something more.

Later, when the plot has apparently begun to unravel, heading this way and that, one line manages to pull almost everything together. It's the most important line in the film and it comes from Bond. When he looks at a character and says (I paraphrase) "Renard didn't turn you, you turned Renard", the entire plot comes together. Not seamlessly, by far, but light years better than TND's excuse to keep the gunfire going so the audience wouldn't notice there was no storyline.

Is TWINE's plot flawless? Not by a longshot. Lapses in logic in order to make room for the various overblown action sequences mar the storyline nearly beyond repair. Why go after Elektra on the mountain? If they were after Elektra, why could Bond lead them into the trees? If they were after Bond, who were they and where did they come from with enough advance notice to know he was going to be there? And why WOULD they be after Bond in the first place?

The second worst sequence in the film is easily the helicopter attack on the caviar factory. This is rubbish and comes at the exact point in the film when the pacing falters for the first and only time. The equivalent of the motorcycle chase (also involving a helicopter) from TND, while entertaining, it does nothing to further the storyline or characters other than give Brosnan the chance to show us he can still run in his forties. As an interesting experiment, when TWINE hits videotape, when the helicopter sequence begins, fast forward to Zukovsky giving Bond information at the end of the sequence. True, you miss a fun action sequence, but you will find that you have missed none of the plot, that no character moments have passed, that you are witnessing a brazen example of action without purpose. An unnecessary waste of time when drama and action can come out of character and lead back into it.

I also have to ask if the fellow with the gold teeth had seen Bond's car before. I honestly can't remember. If he had, fine. If not, how does he know Bond is alive?

The absolute worst aspect of the writing is the ridiculous finale aboard the submarine. No tension whatsoever and even worse, no technical clarity even within the story itself. An air hose kills the villain? How? How does a plastic yellow air hose attach to the inside of a nuclear reactor? Are we building submarines so badly that this plastic tube is the key to the ejection system for plutonium rods AND it's flimsy enough to be knocked loose (and put back) by minimal pressure from a single man? What is this, Star Trek? Even taking into account the rest of the film, I would rank this finale with the worst of the series. Technological gobbledygook is no match for well-written tension. Sloppy, damned sloppy.

Now, having said that, I must point out one of the best aspects of this film. Bond's shoulder wound. Perfect. This is just the kind of thing that the series has been begging for from the beginning. It grounds our hero for a change and keeps reality just around the corner. Brilliant.

Finally, in discussing the writing of TWINE, we come once again to Bruce Fierstein. First of all, the one-liners in this one are fun yet obviously harken back to the Roger Moore-isms of the 70's. No doubt. However, I have to admit, after the essentially witless clinkers of TND, I was more than willing to enjoy the humor in TWINE and I did. While I still don't find Mr. Fierstein's puns anything to write home about, I did find this script's sudden lapses into juvenile humor fewer and farther between. Much better to have a real script FIRST, then add humor LATER rather than subsist on puns and action sequences. As a matter of fact the x-ray glasses SHOULD have played a further role in the film, another example of if you show it, use it.

Moneypenny is back and a fine presence. I must admit to finding her quite attractive in this one. The little snippet of cattiness between her and the doctor was just what, well, the doctor ordered. Now if they'd just give the dear girl a decent sized office so Bond doesn't look like he's talking to her in a closet, we're in business. And where the hell is her hat stand?

The return of Valentin Zukovsky was excellent. Finally a nod to an earlier film in the series although the dyed hair and moustache was a bit much. Better staging and less handwaving and we would have had a Kerim Bey for the 90's. Zukovsky's "shot" in his final scene was perfect character-wise, yet ruined by bad blocking. Once again, it's the little things that add up and I'm already wishing his denouement had led in a different direction.

I've saved two of the principle players for the last section of this review.

Whereas usually I take on the director early, this time I've saved him for consideration with the lead actor. Why? Because this time, we've finally got a real director and his "feel" is what makes this movie work.

Michael Apted is the first director in years to give Bond a reason to stand face to face with another character. What an absolute plus. While I enjoyed Martin Campbell's work in GoldenEye, Apted brings a confidence to TWINE that I had not expected to see. I cannot imagine a better choice to continue the series at this point. Why? Apted gives his actors room. It's a hard thing to describe to non-actors, but there are scenes in this film where the actors literally become their characters. There's no Pierce Brosnan reading, no Dame Judy Dench "look"; for once, the actors become almost transparent and the characters step into the foreground.

An example? Brosnan and Marceau discussing the Stockholm syndrome. John Glen would have had Middle Eastern terrorists break in or utilized some gimmick to take the scene away from the actors. The same applies with most of the rest of the directors who've helmed the series. Apted, on the other hand, holds on the two characters. He sets the scene up so that Bond has a surprising amount of information to impart, yet, while Bond is saying what he needs to say, Apted stays essentially on him, letting the character take the impetus of the scene. And when Bond has his sudden moment of doubt, instead of leaving Bond all knowing, he, and we, see Bond put out his theory and watch him get shot down (more or less).

The last time Bond was this human was TLD and that was in spite of Glen's direction not because of it. Apted shapes this film and molds it around Bond's humanity, giving his actors what they need yet keeping them all on a fairly even keel. That's direction, (and acting).

Biggest problem? Editing. Yes, I know the old adage, "Cut on action", but there are some absolutely awful cuts in the opening sequence, the horrendously overdone helicopter bit, and the embarrassingly bad finale with the audience unable to tell which way the submarine was facing, up or down. This is a concept known as persistence of motion, (among other things) wherein a direction is established (up/down/left/right) by a set basis. In other words, if a car is shown going left to right, it should remain in motion left to right for the entire sequence. This removes any confusion an audience may feel and gives a scene a set of rules that it can follow.

However, because of some seriously awkward cutting, there's no sense of direction in the submarine sequence even after we're shown an establishing shot of the nose of the submarine heading for the bottom. While this can be seen as an editing problem, it could also be the fault of the second unit or the director himself not making certain his angles matched up during shooting. A minor point, but a point that could have been taken care of before release.

So, my advice to Eon? Let Apted helm the next one. Don't let him slip away, he's got the right feel, all he lacks is the sense of glamour that the early films flourish like a glass of fine brandy. He picks that up and we're talking classic.

And that, as usual, brings us down to brass tacks. The man himself.

Pierce Brosnan.

In my opening paragraph I chose the phrase Hybrid on purpose. Why? Because it fits. Brosnan, in making the role his own, has chosen to combine elements of the previous Bonds with his own personality. And finally, FINALLY, it works.

After three movies, Pierce Brosnan is James Bond. That's it. But the big news is he plays James Bond for an entire movie! Not once does he fall back on his patented Sean Connery impression. He's got it down and now that the hybrid Bond has been put together, it fits him like a glove.

Within Brosnan's performance are moments of toughness, of compassion, of calculation, of subtext (there's that damn technical term again ) that come together so well that to me it makes the part his. Connery could not have pulled off some of the scenes in TWINE. The same with Moore. And the biggest news of all is neither could Dalton.

This, for those of you who know me, should come as quite a shock, but at this point in time, Brosnan has stepped quietly into hallowed territory, that of Fleming's Bond. How did he manage this? In earlier reviews I've said that Brosnan needed a good script if he was ever going to show us what he could do. Well, he got it. While he's still a bit too slight physically, he's finally developed the screen presence that the character needs and not a moment too soon. I am officially laying down my arms. Brosnan's Bond is now comparable to Dalton's and Connery's portrayals. Quite a step up and one I'm glad to see him take.

So, all in all?

With TND I was truly willing to give up on the series. Action for action's sake is not James Bond. This time, however, the action sequences flow much more naturally from the storyline. It's as if the story existed and then the set pieces were placed within the script, not, like TND, the other way round.

Does that mean I'm willing to pronounce the series saved? Almost. It comes so close to succeeding that I'm tempted to throw caution to the winds, but the same feeling came over me during TLD and I was rewarded with LTK and six years of silence. If Eon and company continue onwards with the same energy that they put into TWINE, then I'm happy to say James Bond will continue to thrill. If not, then they've made the horrendous mistake of showing us how capable they can be and any step backwards could be fatal. Let's hope for onward and upward.

As to a star rating on the four star scale, this is a difficult one. I gave GoldenEye a solid 3 and TND a 2 . If there were only a gradient between 3 and 3.5 Therefore, if there is, TWINE is a 3.25. Solid. If not, then because of the howlingly bad finale, we're back to Goldeneye's 3. So, if the editors can figure out the graphical representation (and I'm fairly certain they can), 3.25

Copyright ©1999 by Robert Cotton