29 replies to this topic

[SecretAgentFan]

"Goldeneye" (re-watch)

 

I love Pierce Brosnan as Bond.

 

 

Still there?

 

On my first viewing in 1995, the theatre was packed, the audience cheered, everybody including me loved the new Bond.  And when the tank chase went full throttle, it was one of those moments when people actually shrieked with enjoyment.  I rarely experience that kind of appreciation in the cinema anymore.  "Goldeneye" achieved that, and I saw the film three times during its initial run - which is a LOT for me.

 

Afterwards, "Goldeneye" was one of my favorites.  Strangely, during my last re-watch I found the film not as impressive anymore, and the photography even dull.  

 

Weird.  This time I absolutely enjoyed it again.  And on blu-ray, the film looks splendid, and the darker coloring and some tight framing fit the atmosphere very well.  The actors are effective, even great, the dialogue sparkles (despite trying too hard to challenge the Bond persona and its fit within post-Cold War-times), and even Eric Serra´s score with its metallic sounding percussion fits like a glove (although I do appreciate the re-scoring of the tank chase).  The fight scenes are magnificent: tough, brutal, quick.  And Brosnan delivers on every account: he is hard-edged, amusing, emotional, cruel - a perfect combination of Connery and Moore.  

 

By the way, I think his voice is great (sorry, Mr. Stewart...) and he manages to bring something new to the franchise: an awareness that this is a well-loved character that has been established by four actors already and therefore has to played with more passion than ever but with noticable enjoyment.  It´s no wonder that Brosnan appealed to a new segment within the audience that Bond films had lost during the previous decade: women.  His great looks aside, Brosnan is just loved by the camera, he brings a charisma that screams MOVIE STAR, and although that turns off some male viewers, it undeniably is and was winning over others who did not bother with Bond before.

 

When watching "Goldeneye" after LTK it became especially apparent to me why people loved this one and turned their back on the latter.  Audiences wanted Bond to be fun.  They wanted a Bond film to be an adventure, not a revenge thriller, and they wanted the main actor to have that twinkle in the eyes that assured them everything would turn out fine.  Of course, the long absence did make the heart grow fonder, but another film that would have followed in LTK´s vein probably would not have worked.  It was time to signal to the audience that everything old was new again.

 

Brosnan´s era, as we all know, polarizes on this board a lot, and although I never really disliked it I do admit that the negative vibe about it has influenced my memories of it.  Re-watching it now I can re-evaluate that as well.  Concerning "Goldeneye" I can´t find any fault with it that takes away from my viewing pleasure.

 

So far, "Goldeneye" rises to the top 10 if not top 5 on my current ranking.

[Call Billy Bob]

Still there?

You know it! Look forward to your thoughts each day.

Brosnan´s era, as we all know, polarizes on this board a lot, and although I never really disliked it I do admit that the negative vibe about it has influenced my memories of it.  Re-watching it now I can re-evaluate that as well.  Concerning "Goldeneye" I can´t find any fault with it that takes away from my viewing pleasure.
 
So far, "Goldeneye" rises to the top 10 if not top 5 on my current ranking.

I can feel the negative vibe regarding the latter 3 Brosnan's, but never this one - too many joyful memories and experiences here! This is probably my most viewed Bond film (first I saw in a theatre, first to own, etc.). And, yes, many happy nights playing the N64 game with my friends... but to me, it all boils down to Pierce and his damn fine portrayal in this one. He never played Bond better.

I have GE in my personal top 5 as well (and, for some reason, all the "Gold" titled ones are in my top 5! Don't ask me to try and explain how that happened!)

[SecretAgentFan]

 

You know it! Look forward to your thoughts each day.

 

Thanks a lot, CBB!  Mighty kind of you to even read my amateurish blabbering.

 

Since I´m totally hooked right now, I´ll try to finish re-watching the Brosnan era soon with my take on TWINE and the notorious DAD.

[AMC Hornet]

Like everyone else, I welcomed Brosnan as Bond, and GoldenEye ticked all my boxes (except for M's new office and her criticism of 007's 'cavalier' attitude).

 

The only thing that diminished my subsequent enjoyment is the amount of time spent playing the N64 shoot-'em-up game. After that, the film reminded me too much of the game. Now that it's been a few years, I should put the film on again...

[David_M]

First off, SecretAgentFan, I want to say it's awesome you've enjoyed such a protracted, uninterrupted run of positive viewings of, let's face it, some very different styles of Bond films.  More amazingly, you've been able to watch them all in close succession without getting sick of the whole enterprise.  I know my limitations, and there's no way I could do that.

 

I had a fairly positive first impression of GE and I still view it pretty much the same way all these years later: a pleasant enough distraction.  There's nothing glaring wrong with it, but it's not particularly remarkable, either.

 

In his first outing, I found Brosnan stiff and tense, really.  He certainly looks terrific, but he seems to be trying too hard to project a "tough" or "serious" air, and to me it comes off like a runway model's "pouting" face.  He's much better when he relaxes and seems to be having fun.  For instance, in the car chase with Xenia, he's obviously having a blast, which is completely in character for Bond and besides that, just cool to see.  The places where he DOES pull of the "cool customer" routine include the fight on the yacht (where he kills a guy with a hand towel...!) and the bit near the end where he's setting a bomb in 006's bunker, ignoring the bullets flying past his head as if they're gnats.

 

It wasn't until TND that I thought Brosnan relaxed into the role and didn't feel like he was in some prolonged audition.  Even then, for me, he rarely exuded any charisma in the role, which was surprising considering the tremendous appeal he'd had on Remington Steele.  He'd always seemed like someone "too big to be wasted on TV," but once he got the 007 role, I don't know what happened, but for me he just never quite "clicked."  It didn't help that he got so many bad scripts, but as Sean and Roger showed, it is possible for a Bond actor to charm us even when the scripts stink.

 

Never cared for the tank chase; these things work best when there is at least some element of danger to Bond, and in the tank he's invulnerable.  Plus I don't dig all the collateral damage to bystanders.  

 

Other than that, my only gripe is the ending, with the helicopters that lower down to "surprise" Bond and Natalya.  Even if a fleet of choppers is off-camera to US, there's no way Bond and Natalya wouldn't have heard and seen them overhead.  That was just silly.

And then there's that song. =:-0 

[glidrose]

"Goldeneye" (re-watch)
 
I love Pierce Brosnan as Bond.
 
Still there?

Absolutely. Brosnan doesn't get enough love on these boards. I still think he gave his best Bond performance first time out. Exactly what I wanted in Bond.

Shame about the film, tho'.

Loved the gun barrel and Serra's music. Still think it's one of the series' best. Good enough PTS even if the special effect fakery showing Brosnan free-falling ranks as one of the worst special effects ever. Didn't think much of the title song. Tries too hard for the Bond sound and is too tonally monotonous - i.e. barely changes keys. Maybe John Barry can come back for the next one. Didn't like the title sequence either. Still don't understand why. I know almost everyone else thinks it's great, but it leaves me cold. I guess it's just me. (Oddly, the credits play better for me when cropped 4x3.)

Unfortunately a couple of minutes later I knew the film would be no good. The idiotic, entirely too comic and unexciting car chase with lousy Euro-trash synth music. Where did they get that actress? She belongs in a British chick-flick movie, not a Bond film. After the sequence played out, I remember wondering if the only Bond film its makers had seen was NSNA! Then the Tiger helicopter theft. Finally I thought as Bond jumps off the yacht we're going to get a big action sequence... and... nothing. What? No John Glen-style action sequence? What gives?

Also like NSNA, the cinematographer's preference for short-focal length lenses (wide angle lenses) really stood out, and not in a good way.

Then that endlessly protracted chunk of the film cross-cutting between those overwritten M scenes and the glib un-Bondian Soviet satellite research center sequences. Again, too broadly comic, like something out of NSNA. I can't tell you how much I hated Boris at the time. Belongs in a Woody Allen film. (Anybody notice how close his name resembles Woody Allen's character in "Love and Death"?) Say what you want about the Roger Moore era, they would never have stooped this low. At least J.W. Pepper in TMWTGG is only a cameo.

Oh yeah, and Bond only gets his mission underway around 50 minutes into the film - almost half way through the movie.

Okay, so maybe the movie will finally get its mojo now. Nope. All Bond has to do to find this Janus is talk to Robbie Coltrane. Something about Kirov's funeral parlor, four o'clock this afternoon, explosives hidden in a casket. Whatever. I didn't fully understand it at the time. Don't care any more. Show, don't tell. Bond constantly reacts to his situations, rarely initiates the action.

Bond and Natalya locked in the grounded helicopter. So finally we're going to get a big John Glen-style action sequence? Nope. Says much about the film that apart from the opening sequence, this is the closest I sense anything even vaguely resembling excitement in the film.

And why do the film's sets look so crummy? Alas, I miss the good ol' days of Ken Adam. Shame the film also looks so bland, dull and boring. Where's the color? Jeez, the first Bond film shot in Russia and it looks like it was shot entirely on a Shepperton studio backlot.

Ah, the tank chase. I'd heard about that. Finally, that big John Glen-style action- NOPE, DAMMIT! What a boring, underwhelming sequence. To this day I still don't understand why it falls so flat. Give me the AVTAK firetruck chase any day over this. Give me any part of AVTAK over this, well maybe not the geriatric Bond. I have said how much I love Brosnan in the role. Shame he didn't get the part earlier, say in 1985.

Oh no. More overwritten dialogue scenes on some beach somewhere. Florida? Cuba? Puerto Rico?

Well, hopefully the climax lives up to Bond standards. (Yeah, right.)

But first, folks, a missile comes out of nowhere and knocks Bond's plane down. Shades of YOLT here.

Oh, no. More Boris. And why does 006's lair look so cheap? The film aims for a tough, gritty style, but the sets look like they belong in a 1960's Bond parody.

All that stuff with the clicking pen is sub-par Bond. Is that the best they could come up with? Oh yeah, that's right, new screenwriters. Young new screenwriters. Looks like I can kiss goodbye any hope of a John Glen-style action finale.

I was truly caught off guard by those brutal, entirely repellent fights on top of the dish. What happened to those stylized, family friendly fights in the Connery era? Okay, so the fights in the Moore & Dalton era weren't very good but at least they weren't ugly.

Who the f..k let that song through? Sounds like somebody's strangling a cat. It's not even original. Serra swiped it from one of his own movies.

I saw the film again a week later. Had my fingers crossed it would improve. It hadn't. Still think it's one of the worst films. Don't understand what almost everybody else sees in it. Greatest highlights package? It's like they went out of their way to take almost everything that worked in past Bond films and make sure it didn't find its way in here.

Okay, in case you couldn't tell I hated the film. Still do. Still think its one of the series' weakest films.

But I did/do like a handful of things. I still think Brosnan gave an iconic performance. One of the greatest Bond performances ever. Famke Janssen is a great villainess. Gottfried John is excellent. Michael Kitchen makes a great Bill Tanner, even if he's too short and nothing like Ian Fleming's Bill Tanner. Don't care for Sean Bean, his line readings too pantherish, mannered. Exactly what I didn't like about Timothy Dalton. I think you all know how I felt about Alan Cumming (tho' his performance doesn't bother me any more). Despite my complaints about how dull and underwhelming the film looks, it is a hell of a lot more polished than the two Dalton Bonds. And Martin Campbell - despite his having no clue how to direct an exciting action sequence - is otherwise a far more capable technician that John Glen. A much better director of actors. And the film has more superficial style and lots more confidence than anything in the John Glen era. Tho' even watching it the first time I couldn't help feel it was nothing more than a big-budget direct to video movie.

Imagine my surprise two years later when for at least the first 90 minutes I got exactly what I'd been waiting for. Better than I could have anticipated. Shame about the remaning twenty five minutes, tho...

[SecretAgentFan]

Very well argued, everybody!  I enjoy debating the films again!  Keep it coming!

[DaveBond21]

20 years on and still enjoyable as ever. It features 3 of the most memorable action scenes of the entire franchise - the bungee jump, the leap from the bike to the plane and the tank chase.

 

Looking back, there are far too many PC references about women's roles in society and Bond's role in the world, but this is a great adventure, with amazing stunts, excellent characters and some good lines. Poor score lets it down.

[S K Y F A L L]

There is something about the Cube setting and the antenna cradle that is just so unique and interesting to me. Its one of my favorite locations.

[Emrayfo]

Thanks SAF for starting this thread. Also thanks to Glidrose and David_M for your thoughtful contributions.

 

I will not share a critique of Goldeneye so much as my experience of first watching it.

 

I was 18 when this came out and it was my first cinema Bond experience. I was already a massive Bond fan, having grown up on Roger Moore on video, and had been looking forward for some time to the fabled Remington Steele finally making his mark as James Bond. I had somehow completely missed Tim Dalton and would have to rediscover his Bond later on as an adult (Probably for the best; young me would not have 'gotten' his take, whereas now I greatly appreciate it). Connery I was getting to know through TV repeats of his films.

 

Oh, the anticipation!! The cinema that Goldeneye was to play in was a brand new and very modern cinema (at the time) that had just opened in my home town - the first multiplex. The poster on the cinema wall of the BMW Z3 looked amazing and tantalised me for months (Such a pity the real car disappointed both in real life and on the screen). Damn I was so excited.

 

So how did I feel as I watched it that first time?

 

A lot of people criticise the quality of the effects in the PTS (not to mention the believability) when Bond uses the motorbike to help start his dive to meet the plunging plane. Well I noticed none of those oft mentioned weaknesses and for me it was the most exciting thing I had ever seen!! That stunt was literally breathtaking. This was exactly what I expected from Bond. From that moment I was hooked. 

 

I liked Alec Trevelyan, Xenia Onatopp and General Ourumov. I liked the use electromagnetic pulse weapons in the film. Tevelyan's backstory worked for me - just enough real history to make it plausible; just like how the Goldeneye satellite had just enough real technological basis to be plausible. Brosnan's Bond was his own (hybridised) take, but struck me as a true Bond. I was carried along by this film, all the way through. The finale and denouement worked for me and I left the cinema a very satisfied camper. 

 

Sure there were bits I didn't love: I hated the Tina Turner song = faux Dame Bassey's no thanks! I wasn't a huge fan of how the caricature-like Boris was overacted by Alan Cumming and I didn't think Izabella Scorupco was sexy enough as Natalya. Unlike others, I didn't and still don't particularly like the tank scene in St Petersburg either. Both appearances of the Z3 were annoying in their clumsy genuflection to product placement over relevancy. Stinger missiles? Puh-leese! But I enjoyed the general narrative and all other action and fight scenes. I even think the exploration of Bond and sexism is fine, though I know many feel it is heavy-handed. It was necessary at the time, and while getting a little dated, it doesn't weigh down the film too much even now. 

 

And then I had many, many years and hundreds of enjoyable hours of playing Goldeneye the game on N64. Good times!

 

When I first watched the movie again about five years after my first watch I found it over-long and that it dragged on with poor pacing. The bits that annoyed me before still annoyed me as much or more so. The bits I liked I still liked, but maybe not as much. It didn't grab me like it once had. So I didn't watch it again after that for a long time. Then I kind of forgot all about Goldeneye for a while and just focused on each new Bond film as it came out. I did get very used to Brosnan, however, and couldn't imagine any other in the role. I was disappointed when it was announced he would not be doing another film after DAD. He had become Bond to me.

 

Then of course Daniel Craig came along and the rebooted series knocked my socks off. I am glad there were no further Brosnan films, or rather further Bond films the way they were making them in the Brosnan era. Since the Craig era when it comes to classic Bond films I have mainly re-watched early Connery and Moore and OHMSS, but no Brosnan.

 

Now Brosnan is back in the mix. I recently re-watched Goldeneye about three weeks ago. To my surprise it has arisen once more in my estimation. I even found Izabella Scorupco sexy! I also didn't even mind Boris as much - in fact I could sort of appreciate him. It was fun. The action was entertaining. Pierce was very good. I was surprised by how well it held up as a now 20 year old film. (Bloody hell, it was 20 years ago I first watched it!?). Guess what, Goldeneye works. 

 

I think Brosnan's first two Bond films are his best and they comfortably sit among my top ten Bond films. To me TND may be his best. I really disliked TWINE, which seemed like one continuous action scene at the time; more like a Die Hard sequel than a true 007 adventure. And DAD? Well I enjoyed the first two thirds in the cinema (much more likeable than TWINE), but hated the car-fight on ice and the interminable plane crash at the end.

 

For Goldeneye, I have to agree with DaveBond21: 20 years on and Goldeneye is still entertaining!

 

 

[Edited for typos and spelling mistakes]

Edited by Emrayfo, 08 July 2015 - 06:47 AM.

[Professor Pi]

I alwas found GoldenEye to be a bit overrated, especially on these boards.  It seems to get a pass for being the first Bond film seen by a new generation.  But it did usher in the Bond blockbuster, being the first to gross $100M in the U.S.  I give it and Brosnan credit for revitalizing the franchise commercially, if it is artistically mediocre.

 

Everyone wanted to see Pierce as Bond.  Women were into Bond again.  GoldenEye also successfully fought off the critics and competitors who derided Bond as out of date, and past his prime.  Ironically, the elements that brought Bond back to modern times now date it as of its time. 

 

Like TSWLM, it checks off all the greatest hits of previous Bond films--opening PTS with Bond flying off cliff, villain's master plan involving satellites in orbit, rogue Russian general, Aston Martin DB5 car chase (presumably acquired at MI6 garage sale?), stolen military aircraft, Felix Leiter du jour, new femme fatale, fake lakes, and evil operations center.  But it also has enough new to keep it fresh--tank chase, abandoned Soviet statue scene, 00 agent gone bad, the Arecibo dish set piece, and a female M.

 

It probably has the most well rounded cast of any Brosnan Bond--Sean Bean is great as the villain, John Gottfried as Ourumov, Famke Jansen, Robbie Coltrane, Michael Kitchen as Tanner (finally got that right), Alan Cumming, Judi Dench of course, and Izabella Scropuco as maybe the best Bond girl of Pierce's run.  Ironically, I think Brosnan's best performance came later in his worst film--Die Another Day. 

 

GoldenEye can't quite decide if it wants to be something new, like Casino Royale did--new Moneypenny, new M, new Bond, or cling to the familiar and old, like The Living Daylights did--Desmond Llewelyn's Q.  As such, it doesn't really belong in the canon of the first 16 films, and its confusing Bond predates M dialog ("Your predecessor kept Cognac") prevents it from being part of the Craig timeline.  Still, without it, we probably wouldn't have the Craig era at all.

Edited by Professor Pi, 07 July 2015 - 06:02 PM.

[tdalton]

I alwas found GoldenEye to be a bit overrated, especially on these boards. 

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

It's a serviceable Bond film and it does have its moments, but it's not the all-time great it's made out to be.  I think the videogame has a lot to do with its enduring popularity.

[Call Billy Bob]

I think the videogame has a lot to do with its enduring popularity.

Perhaps. However the game wasn't actually released until '97, two years after the film. At that point, I had seen the film three or four times and (never having played video games before) it was the main reason I begged my parents for an N64 that Christmas - I enjoyed the film so much. And even though the game itself is great, I always get the urge to watch the film when playing it. In a nutshell (though both are great), GE the film trumps the game in my view.

[Trevelyan 006]

As some may or may not have already gathered,

 

 

I BLOODY LOVE THIS FILM!

Edited by Trevelyan 006, 14 July 2015 - 08:40 PM.

[B. Ret Smythe]

GOLDENEYE is the best bond film because it has control mines.

 

Bond made a makeshift control mine out of a jar on the stealth ship at the end of TOMORROW NEVER DIES. But it was no where near as good as the official, real, control mines from Q Branch that were in GOLDENEYE

 

I hope they bring it back in SPECTRE

[ChickenStu]

Anyone on here who knows me knows that this is my favourite. I'd seen Bond movies before of course, but this was the first one I saw at a cinema. I was 17, had my first ever real girlfriend - and we went to see it after a day of Christmas shopping. A couple of years later after I'd seen Tomorrow Never Dies and before I saw The World Is Not Enough I got a Nintendo 64 for Christmas with the Goldeneye 007 video game and that just did it. 

So I'd say it's a combination of the movie and the videogame that made me the fan I am today. It will always be my favourite and Brosnan to me will always be the best. He's MY Bond. And Goldeneye is my Bond film!

[DaveBond21]

The Den of Geek has finally gotten to this one.

 

http://www.denofgeek...iting-goldeneye

[AMC Hornet]

It's because of that uncomfortable 'tea break' moment that the author doesn't remember that Xenia wasn't thigh-strangling a Russian general, but a Canadian admiral.

Also, Misha & Petya were space lasers? OK. I always thought they were nuclear EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) devices, but then, I'm not a den Geek.

[Surrie]

As some may or may not have already gathered,

 

 

I BLOODY LOVE THIS FILM!

 

My sentiments exactly. This is my No.1 Bond film. First one I ever saw and have watched over 50 times. Hours spent playing the N64 game, and having dived into the franchise since a youngster I still stand by this movie. For me, it epitomises everything a Bond film should be. 

[DaveBond21]

I watched it again last night.

 

It's unusual now because while some of it looks very dated, some of it also looks fresh.

 

The editing during the action and fight scenes is excellent - I especially enjoy the climactic battle between Bond and Alec

[sharpshooter]

Nostalgia plays a part in my Goldeneye love, but I still think it's a great Bond movie. It will always have a very special place in my heart. It has a bunch of memorable set pieces and in my opinion, some of the best characters in the franchise. Especially Xenia. Famke took what was already a sexy and dangerous character on paper and truly made it come alive. It's an unforgettable performance. Ouromov has presence in every scene he's in, and Sean Bean could've been Bond himself - so naturally I like what he did with Trevelyan. The score is either loved or hated, but I love it. 

 

The film has aged but the core strengths remain. 

 

I especially enjoy the climactic battle between Bond and Alec

That's a great scene. The whole showdown on the ladder is creative and tense. 

[Tiin007]

Growing up, GE was my favorite Bond film. (Like many, I was first introduced to the series via the N64 game.)

 

For years, it was always the quintessential Bond movie, the benchmark of the series. But soon after watching CR in 2006, I realized that GE had to be demoted in favor of Campbell's newest entry. So I had Craig's debut as #1 and Brosnan's debut at #2.

 

Sadly, in the decade since CR's release, GE has slipped from #2 to somewhere in the middle of the pack (maybe around #12). While I recognize many of its strong points (villains and henchmen, action, Cuban lair, locations, Q scene, Kleinman's title scene), I cannot help but notice its glaring flaws-- Serra's horrendous score, an outdated feel to basically the entire film (even more so, oddly enough, than earlier entries in the franchise), and arguably the worst pacing in the whole series (after the PTS, the entire first half is incredibly slow, consisting of almost nothing exciting other than the destruction of the Severnaya facility, only to be followed by nonstop action until the end of the film). 

 

TND still feels fresh and modern 20 years on. But GE, made just two years earlier, feels like it came a decade before it did. 

 

Nostalgia had kept GE so high in my rankings for longer than the film probably deserved on its own merit. That being said, I still feel that tingle of nostalgia every time I watch it, bringing me back to my childhood. And even aside from that, I still think GE is a very respectable entry in the canon, nowhere near the bottom of the pack. It's just sad to think that GE has arguably had the biggest shift in my rankings-- going from #1 (a position it held for almost a decade) to around #12. 

 

(And I still rank CR as highly as I did when I first saw it.) 

[Surrie]

I struggle to see how GoldenEye will ever fall below my number 1. The characters, set pieces, rivalry are just too perfect for me. 

[Professor Pi]

GoldenEye was one generation's introduction to bond, just like Casino Royale a decade later.  For me it was The Spy Who Loved Me.  As such, fans of those films are sentimental toward them, oft ignoring their flaws and deaf to the older fans saying how great Connery was. GE and Spy were successful in large part because they repeated/celebrated/were derivative of classic Bond formulae and tropes. 

 

The new things GoldenEye brought to the table were a post-Soviet Russia setting, the great statue scene, the awesome tank chase, and it introduced Daniel Kleinman's titles.  Zukovsky was also a good ally, far better than Wade, and Natalya is a top Bond woman.  Also, Dame Judi Dench.  But it's hard to reconcile Brosnan's Bond with the classic ones, and it's not part of the reboot canon either.  Bond's comment about her predecessor's cognac and M's speech about not going after revenge always frustrates me as it washes away Licence to Kill from history, while implying Pierce is the same Bond we've always known onscreen.

 

However, I am thankful for Pierce and GE for updating Bond and once again making him a cinematic force (his four were the first $100M Bonds.)

[DavidJones]

Bond's comment about her predecessor's cognac and M's speech about not going after revenge always frustrates me as it washes away Licence to Kill from history, while implying Pierce is the same Bond we've always known onscreen.
 
However, I am thankful for Pierce and GE for updating Bond and once again making him a cinematic force (his four were the first $100M Bonds.)

I don't get what you mean by erasing LtK.

[billy007]

PB is the same 007. Every actor from Dr. No to DAD is the same 007 in a "sliding timeline" during different parts of his career. Sir Roger visits Tracy's grave.

Felix tells Della "he was married once, a long time ago." in LTK.. It's implied he was married during first love scene with Electra in TWINE. DC was the rebbot in CR.

[DaveBond21]

I still think that, as with the books of course, all of them are the Bond who loved and lost Vesper.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________

[sharpshooter]

Nostalgia had kept GE so high in my rankings for longer than the film probably deserved on it own merit. That being said, I still feel that tingle of nostalgia every time I watch it, bringing me back to my childhood. And even aside from that, I still think GE is a very respectable entry in the canon, nowhere near the bottom of the pack. It's just sad to think that GE has arguably had the biggest shift in my rankings-- going from #1 (a position it held for almost a decade) to around #12. 

I know what you mean. Changing my mind some time ago that Tomorrow Never Dies was the better Brosnan Bond outing overall was quite a big deal for me. I still love Goldeneye - just not as much as before. 

[Tiin007]

 

Nostalgia had kept GE so high in my rankings for longer than the film probably deserved on it own merit. That being said, I still feel that tingle of nostalgia every time I watch it, bringing me back to my childhood. And even aside from that, I still think GE is a very respectable entry in the canon, nowhere near the bottom of the pack. It's just sad to think that GE has arguably had the biggest shift in my rankings-- going from #1 (a position it held for almost a decade) to around #12. 

I know what you mean. Changing my mind some time ago that Tomorrow Never Dies was the better Brosnan Bond outing overall was quite a big deal for me. I still love Goldeneye - just not as much as before. 

 

 

I also now view TND as the better entry. Weird, because I became a Bond fan when those were the only two Brosnans, and GE was my preferred entry by far; and upon the releases of TWINE and DAD, respectively, each of those shot to the top of my list rather quickly for about a week or two until the novelty factor wore off. TND had always been the neglected child of the Brosnan era. It's only in recent years that I've realized it was actually the hidden gem the entire time-- it's now the only Brosnan film that makes my top 10, and the only one I can watch without feeling even a semblance of regret about what the era could have been. 

 

Yet Brosnan will always be my Bond. He was perfect for the role, even if his films were tainted with other issues. 

[Professor Pi]

 

Bond's comment about her predecessor's cognac and M's speech about not going after revenge always frustrates me as it washes away Licence to Kill from history, while implying Pierce is the same Bond we've always known onscreen.
 
However, I am thankful for Pierce and GE for updating Bond and once again making him a cinematic force (his four were the first $100M Bonds.)

I don't get what you mean by erasing LtK.

 

 

M tells Bond that should he encounter General Oruamov, "guilty or not", she doesn't want Bond going off on a mission of revenge.  Bond replies, "Never."  But that was basically the plot of Licence to Kill. It could be that Bond is just hiding his feelings and intent, but the PTS scene was set "nine years" before 1995, harking back to Brosnan's first abortive casting, implying neither Dalton mission existed.  Then there's the whole Dame Judi Dench thing, which could be explained away as her playing two different M's.  I don't want to get into the whole reboot timeline contradictions (though I think there's some merit to the notion that DC's Bond perished in either Skyfall's PTS or Blofeld's torture chair and the rest of the films are his dying fever dreams,) but I've always found GoldenEye a little out of step with the rest of the canon.  Its helicopter ejector seat stunt was lifted from Die Hard 2, and the villain lair under a lake thing wasn't original at all. 

 

Tomorrow Never Dies has always been my favorite Brosnan, and with fake news and media conglomerate power, it's probably more relevant now than it was in 1997.