Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

When it’s on: Saturday, 20 December (8.00 pm)
Channel: ITV2
IMDb Link

I’ve watched Tomorrow Never Dies three times – once upon release, second when I bought it on DVD and finally for the purposes of this write-up. Three viewings is a healthy total for most films, but not for Bond, many of whose entries I’ve seen on numerous occasions.

It took me a little while to work out just what the problem was. After all, Tomorrow Never Dies ticks most of the boxes – a charismatic lead, really strong heroine, a decent plot that presents media moguls as villains (and not before time if you ask me), some fantastic action scenes, topped off with a blistering chase across the rooftops of downtown Saigon.

But then it hit me – Tomorrow Never Dies is nothing if not safe. It’s made as though by committee, working on the findings of endless focus groups all tasked with discovering what people want from their 007 adventures. Set piece stunts – yes. Gadgets – indeed. How about, oh I don’t know, a car that can turn invisible? Well, that’s a real stretch, maybe for a future film, but can we suggest a car driven by remote control instead? There’s an evil henchman, but he doesn’t do very much until the film’s closing stages and only then because Bond has to see off someone beyond the usual string of foot soldiers.

It’s all a bit of a shame, because Goldeneye promised so much in terms of reviving the franchise after the post-Dalton wilderness years. In Pierce Brosnan, they seem to have stumbled upon the ideal man for the job – handsome, suave, one of the few actors who continued to look the part in beautifully tailored suits, old enough to have Connery levels of authority yet not too long in the tooth to fall into the trap of the later Moore entries. He made it look so effortless, as though he wasn’t even acting but had in fact become James Bond, and in Goldeneye that was a real strength as he needed to convince audiences there was still life in the old Saville Row. One of the main accusations against the series, that Bond had become something of a misogynistic relic in these politically correct times, was turned into a strength as Brosnan was matched with Judi Dench as an M who was licensed to take no nonsense.

Looking back, however, one wonders how much of Goldeneye’s success was down to the superb performance by Sean Bean as the film’s villain. Bean played a former British agent who’d turned rogue and offered up the perfect mirror to Bond’s hero, with all the emotional fallout such a character suggested. In Tomorrow Never Dies, we get Jonathan Pryce as a psychotic media baron, creating international diplomatic crises in order to get the news scoop and full coverage. Pryce, made up to look like a slightly unhinged Sven-Goran Eriksson, has very little to work with and seems to be on hand solely to give the film a villain, no matter how two dimensional he may turn out to be. Again a pity, as Pryce is a fine actor, his schemes have diabolical potential, and the chance to turn Rupert Murdoch into a megalomaniac mastermind should have turned into a real crowd pleaser. Instead, his threat is dealt with all too quickly.

There’s even less screen time for Teri Hatcher, playing Pryce’s wife and having a history with Bond that is used to gain our man information and access. Once that’s done and her part in the plot is over, she’s out. Instead, the main Bond girl is Michelle Yeoh’s Chinese agent, Wai Lin, kind of their version of Bond himself, and she turns into one of Tomorrow Never Die’s genuine highlights. Already a star in Eastern cinema and making her breakthrough here, Yeoh is a fantastic action hero, every inch 007’s equal and far more graceful with her Karate fighting techniques that make Brosnan’s fist-first style look a little lumbering in comparison. Both are involved in the film’s best scene, a chase in Saigon that involves Bond and Wai Lin pursued by cars and a helicopter whilst on a motorbike. Handcuffed together, Yeoh continually has to maneuver herself around Brosnan as the action demands, making for great fun and increasing levels of electric tension between the pair.

Perhaps the real problem with it is Brosnan himself. He makes it appear easy to be Bond, to such an extent that he more or less floats through the production, fired at with endless bullets but never hit. Obvious it becomes that he will never be hurt, damaged, cracked or spilled on any level, a far cry from Goldeneye’s story that pitted him against someone who was just like him, in many ways facing himself. It’s no fault of the actor, but Brosnan has to make minimal investment with a hair rarely out of place.

Canadian director Roger Spottiswoode at least keeps everything moving at such a pace that it’s possible to get swept along without worrying about the paper-thin plotting and weak characterisation. Fans of poor CGI will be satisfied with some rather terrible special effects (the miniature work is noticeably better). There’s a string of cameo appearances from British actors – playing cut-glass accented seamen or government officials – to savour, unless you blink and miss them – Gerard Butler, Julian Rhind-Tutt, Michael Byrne and Hugh Bonneville all pop up fleetingly on the screen.

Tomorrow Never Dies: **

11 Replies to “Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)”

  1. I agree with a lot of what you say here, Mike. I liked Brosnan as Bond and thought he was an excellent fit for the role, but the scripts he was handed didn’t serve him well. I don’t find any of his films bad, even the maligned DAD has points in its favor, yet there is a flatness to the tone of them.

    1. Thanks so much Colin. The scripts during the Brosnan seemed to be all about poking fun at the earlier films, referencing the franchise itself in a jokey, knowing way, it seemed to me, so that there was very little weight to them. I thought they got away with it with Goldeneye thanks to the dynamic between Bond and Bran’s character, but when that went there wasn’t a lot left. A pity, as you say, because Brosnan clearly had ‘it’ and as we know he’d been considered for the role when Dalton got it.

      Thanks again for visiting these here parts 🙂

  2. Have to say, I rather love Tomorrow Never Dies, though I acknowledge there’s an element of nostalgia in that as it was the first Bond I saw on the big screen. I can’t disagree with a good many of your points, though.

    That said, while it’s not among the upper echelons of the Bond franchise, I think it does enough right to be high-middle.

      1. True story: I commented on your review while I was on my way to see the family for a Christmas thing, and by complete coincidence my dad mentioned he’s been re-watching all the Bonds recently… and he now reckons the “old ones” (i.e. Connery and Moore) are all rubbish, with bad acting and dreadful effects. Horses for courses, I guess.

  3. I like this more than you I think but when it comes to Brosnan (who I liked a lot), GOLDENEYE and TWINE are the only ones that stand out for me. This had huge production problems apparently and at the last minute had to change the plot and locations (originally set around the handover of Hong Kong) and a committee of writers, all uncredited and including the likes of Nicholas Meyer, were literally flown in for a brainstorm over a weekend and then Spottiswoode’s frequent collaborator Daniel Petrie did a big re-wrote. no a surprise that after the decent set-up, they just fell back on the YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE / SPY WHO LOVED ME plot when they ran out of steam. I think the videogame style opening, and the ‘backseat driver’ setpiece in the car park and Wai Lin getting in ahead of the game all the time suggest a rather passive Bond, which also makes it less appealing.

    1. Thanks Sergio. I think most of us agree that Brosnan looks and acts exactly right as Bond but was ill served by some of his entries. I completely agree that the two you mention are the stronger films – really, really liked much of the build-up in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and felt even Denise Richards’s daft character didn’t ruin it. I’m hoping that GOLDENEYE will be on telly again soon (it will be) so that I can fill in the blank when it comes to reviewing the Bonds.

      You mentioned the passive Bond; personally I liked the interplay between the two heroes and felt it suggested two equals, which is an element I always like when the films dare to suggest the female agents can be anything like as skillful as Bond.

      1. I agree that the rivalry / antagonism works best with a specular image of the ghero (as in GOLDEYE, which is made explicit with the reference to the ‘Janus’ group. It’s just that in TOMORROW he is literally too much in the back seat and not enough in control, forever being pushed around and told what to do (even his car tells him off!)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s