91 replies to this topic

[YOLT]

I really dont like Goldeneye. Its not like a 007 James Bond film, but just like an action movie sttarring Pierce Brosnan. Unlike Tommorow Never Dies it doesnt have the "Bond feel" in it. The music is ugly. Also there is too much boring Natalya scenes, which makes the film less Bondish.

[tdalton]

I agree with most of what you said, except about the music being bad. Granted, it was different from the other Bond films, but I thought it was refreshing to hear something different.

But, you're right, GE really isn't that great of a Bond movie, and I think that it's partially because Pierce Brosnan didn't give that great of a performance in the film. He was far less believable as 007 in GE than he was in TND, simply because, IMO, he still looked too young in 1995 for the role, even though that was a decade after he was almost signed, sealed, and delivered to play Bond in TLD.

I would say that GE is the second most overrated Bond film, just behind GF.

[ACE]

God, not another one of those "I don't like threads..."

I really like Goldeneye. It is arguable that without the success of that film, no one would be posting here because this site would not exist.

In the 6 year "drought" of cinema Bond between 1989 and 1995, I wondered what the studio could do to "commercialize" Bond, if he returned to screens. Here's a list of what I came up with then and it still could apply if Sony really wanted to absolutely milk James Bond.

Cast an American as Bond
Set the Bond movie entirely in the US
Give Bond a young sidekick (think of the demographic spread and merchandising avenues)
Fill up the soundtrack with rock songs by artists who just submit songs with no reference to the films
Delete title sequence (a la Die Hards, Lethal Weapons, action movies du jour)
Cast really big, hackneyed stars as villains to play it over the top (Batman, Dick Tracy)
Have direct to video sequels

There were more but I have forgotten the less good ones...

Goldeneye did NONE of the above.

Brosnan, presenting a character filled, shaded version of Ian Fleming's James Bond, a refinement but definitely following on from Timothy Dalton's masterful incarnation, popularized the character achieving success undreamt of for the character at this stage in his filmic career

The script captured the zeitgeist, was appropriately but not slavishly deferential to the past and discreetly updated the Bond dynamic, with innovations such as:

Judi Dench as M,
The thrilling, kinetic, energizing camerwork
The layered, tonal, atmospheric photography
The wit and style missing from the Dalton films
Dialogue that had pith and quotability
An overlooked, under-rated score which took Bond forward

Campbell was hungry for success and had done his homework. He really nailed Bond in the best directed adventure since OHMSS.

Sure, GE has flaws. All Bond films do.

But judged for what it was at the time, what it achieved and how it could have gone wrong, Goldenye was not a success, it was a MIRACLE

Why does no-one start a "Does anyone else love..." thread?

ACE

[Qwerty]

He was far less believable as 007 in GE than he was in TND...

 

Hench why in my opinion, Tomorrow Never Dies is a better film.

[trevanian]

Amazingly enough, I agree with ACE.

GE really kickstarted things, and it didn't do it by falling into a lot of conventional action copouts. I think there are enough real character moments (mainly in the scenes with Sean Bean) that this feels more Bondlike than just about anything in the Moore era, or even the last couple of Connerys.

Famke is no Lucianna Paluzzi, but GE needed a dose of overthetoppedness for Onatopp, so I guess that is okay too. Maybe lose the romance cover scene of bond and nat on the beach (and definitely dump the skydiving into the plane), but keep the rest. Solid enough movie, too bad it was followed up with TOMORROW NEVER DIES, the movie i STILL can't get all the way through due to its prosaic formulaic boringass mediocrity.

[Bond_Bishop]

I very very much like GoldenEye and it is one of the better Bond movies. It is very much Bondian (well except the soundtrack by Serra) and it is incredibly nice directed by Martin Campbell. If there is any Bond movie that is overrated it is Goldfinger. That movie is very good but not absolutely not excellent.

[Roebuck]

Nice pre-titles (spoiled by the 'plane catching' at the end) and tank chase.Pacing is uneven and Bond somehow manages to get reduced to a subsidiary character in his own movie. Except for Boris, none of the villains gets a particularly memorable ending.
Probably has the best dialogue of any of the four Brosnan films. It's a very flat film; doesn't look particularly good and (musically)sounds worse.

[cvheady007]

I really like Goldeneye. It is arguable that without the success of that film, no one would be posting here because this site would not exist.

 

A very true statement.

Goldeneye is a great movie with a bad soundtrack. Simple as that.

[Spoon]

I don't know if it's "overrated" because I don't know how it's "rated" (by the entire world??); I always find discussions of that type to be spectacularly unproductive But, I do think it is one of the best Bond films. I think Brosnan looks great in it; I don't think he looks "too young" at all, I think he looks terrific. And the film successfully pulls off two things which are very difficult to do in the same film:

• Gives the audience a cool, likeable Bond, and the Bond trademarks (tux, casino, fast cars, glamour) that Dalton refused to deliver; AND
• Fleshes out the character, mostly by means of the extremely well-written interactions between Bond and Trevelyan, and also some of the stuff with M and Natalya.

Bean and Janssen are superb, both two of the best villains in the series, again in the same film. The film has a ton going for it, and I do believe that it saved the series, and deserved to do so. It's one of the best.

[Marquis]

I find Goldeneye very difficult to watch these days, more so than TWINE & DAD actually....and i don't think it's a patch on TND (particularly the first hour). I appreciate the job it did in re-inventing the franchise back in 1995, but today i find it to be a dull, soulless and ugly looking film that hasn't aged at all well. If you look closely enough, it has all the same 'failings' that are evident and constantly highlighted in DAD! One example is Halle Berry's 'Jinx'. Constantly lambasted and ridiculed by fans far and wide, yet Famke Jansen's ludicrous and downright embarrasing turn as the utterly absurd 'Xenia Onatopp' is overlooked for no other reason than..well..it's in Goldeneye, and hey, everyone loves Goldeneye, right!? Were that same character and bloody awful performance in DAD, as opposed to GE, we'd still be hearing about it in 50 years time. The fickleness of the communuty never ceases to amaze.

Anyway, that's just one example and i'm not particulary bothered about getting my teeth into the silly script, terrible casting choices, poor special effects and drab soundtrack at this late hour. But yes, it's fair to say that i think Goldeneye is vastly overrated. For me, it's only other saving grace (aside from giving the franchise a new lease of life) is Pierce Brosnan, who slid straight into the role with effortless ease and gave it a touch of class that just...just elevated it above the mundane.

Edited by Marquis, 04 September 2005 - 10:41 PM.

[trevanian]

Probably has the best dialogue of any of the four Brosnan films. It's a very flat film; doesn't look particularly good and (musically)sounds worse.

 

Doesn't look good? On what standard, the thing has got a seriously dramatic look, with real shadows that stay black. I think the cemetary of statues scene is probably as well-shot as anything since Ted Moore went the way of Terence Young. The followups to GE all have that too-filled look I associate with TV comedies, though in part that is due to DPs relying on newer stocks that have more (too much) latitude, and of course on the digital intermediate, which seems to clip highs and lows while giving more control over a midrange -- a tradeoff I find abominable.

[K1Bond007]

Another.. "I don't like..." thread.

Geez. It's a damn good Bond movie, IMHO. I know people dump on the music a lot, but as tdalton said, I find it refreshing that it wasn't the same ol, same ol. I mean, David Arnold does a great job, but all his soundtracks sound the same to me, all of them are just remixes and techno beats of already established music in other films. It is kind of tiring and it makes the film feel rather 'generic' and 'regurgitated' regardless of how unique or fresh the story is.

The atmosphere/environment of the film is just 1000x better than everything that came after it. I've always stated that Brosnan (as good as he is) would have been even better had they written all his films - not with him in mind, but with Dalton in mind. GoldenEye screams Dalton, but is perhaps better with Brosnan than Dalton (although in an alternate timeline I'd love to see Dalton do this one).

I like how they introduced Dench as M (they didn't really play up the whole "shes a woman" thing that they do in all the others), Samantha Bond is a much better Moneypenny than Caroline Bliss - that was a good takeover. I like how Tanner was actually involved - I hate how all the other films in the series have chastised him to either a more-than-minor character or totally written out (at least here he had a good scene). Introduction of Zukovsky as well as all other characters - top notch.

I could go on forever. Are there some bad things about GoldenEye? Sure. All the Bond films have their cons, but GoldenEye is definitely among the better 007 films and definitely has more pros than cons.

[Bondian]

Hench why in my opinion, Tomorrow Never Dies is a better film.

 

Ditto.

[bryonalston]

I would say that GE is the second most overrated Bond film, just behind GF.

 

You're one of the smartest people I know...and I don't even know you! I find GE fun entertainment, but it's just a film with Bond moments. Now as for GF...that's a whole different thread

[bryonalston]

TND is a better film than GE, but barely.

One thing that TND has going for it is it's brisk pace. It had been a very long time since we had a Bond film with a million twists and turns. TND is very brisk, straightforward and urgent, which is why I love to watch the film whenver I need an adrenaline rush or two. GE offers a lot of intrigue and depth (something that is lacking in TND) but has gaping plotholes and a plot which moves at a slugs pace. Needless to say, the score is definitely a hindrance.

However, one thing that GE has going for it is it's casting. All of the major cast members give tour-de-force performances in their respective roles, particularly Famke Janssen as the most OTT (yet credible) character ever to appear in a Bond film. I actually prefer Xenia's much needed comic relief to Fiona Volpe's sultry sizzle (just barely.) Izabella Scorupco gives a fantastic performance as Natalya Simonova, a "Bond Woman" that didn't just happen to have a black belt or know how to fly a space shuttle. She is far underrated.

[ACE]

Izabella Scorupco gives a fantastic performance as Natalya Simonova, a "Bond Woman" that didn't just happen to have a black belt or know how to fly a space shuttle. She is far underrated.

 

I agree. She is more of a Hitchcockian innocent caught up in the melee, which is what my favourite Bond girls are.

[YOLT]

"Bond somehow manages to get reduced to a subsidiary character in his own movie."

I totally agree with this statement by Roebuck. It is maybe a good action film but it doesnt have the Bond feel. I prefer to call GE a "Natalya movie" than a 007 film. She dominates the film, also Brosnan is not really 007 in this one.

[hrabb04]

Heh heh...Brosnan was Bond in this movie. He was more Bond in this one movie than Roger Moore even attempted in any of his seven. Yeah, Natalya is in the movie a lot. It's called a strong, female lead, someone with a brain, someone who doesn't scream for James when she cannot, for some reason, see the huge blimp sneaking up on her. Sorry, fellas. Goldeneye, for me, is a classic Bond.

[Kingdom Come]

If I can't sleep and want to, I watch TND. Goldeneye is overrated, but very watchable. It is too old fashioned when it came out and looked an embarrassment comparing it to other such films which where technically far superior to it. Goldeneye reminded me of a Bond film made in the early 80s but was never seen until 10 years later. Campbell was a wrong choice for it and the new film. His talent is old and creaking and better suited to an old gentleman's club of Bond lovers!

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

I don't mind Natalya dominating the film....probably because I happen to be in love with her...but that's irrelevant.

I think the movie had very Bondian moments but all in all they don't tie together. I've also noticed many a time how dated it looks, even when compared to older Bonds. As a movie its great...as a Bond movie...well, it's just ok. I'll still take it over alot though.

[00Nothing]

How can anyone not like this movie, it's great. It has a touch of everything; a personal plot twist that would go well with a Dalton Bond, a chase sequence straight out of Roger Moore, a sadistic sense of humour as par of a Sean Connery and an emotional side to the character that one would have gotten with Lazendy. The film has it all for me, I love it, plus Famke Janssen is gorgeous throughout.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

It does have something for everyone...which can be good or bad...Pierce played Bond as the men before him had. He didn't really settle into his own niche. I think Goldeneye shows that the most. Like I said, it's in my top ten but it won't be hitting number 1 any time soon.

[Bond_Bishop]

Perhaps but his mixture of the hard-edged Sean Connery and the funny and glamorous Roger Moore was a very successful thing he did. I really enjoyed Brozzie as Bond.

[Qwerty]

The most overrated James Bond film is Goldfinger. It broke away from the more traditional and low-key spy style of the first two films, and Connery proved to be better in it's followup - Thunderball. A good film yes, but not the glory that most have it represented as in my opinion.

[Glor (009)]

I like it. One of the big reasons I like it is it was Brosnan's first outing so there were no expectations. As he "settled" into the role in later films he seems less comfortable with it. From what I've read I can only theorize that he enjoyed it at first and it became more tedious over time.

I think GE has something for everyone. Everyone has their favorite Bond movies and least favorites and everyone else is entitled to disagree.

[Feral]

Goldeneye reminded me of a Bond film made in the early 80s but was never seen until 10 years later.

 

I love GE, but I have to agree with this. Goldeneye does not look like a high-budget action film made in 1995. In a way, this is positive because you've less flashy 90s distractions. But for younger fans like myself who are used to all the flash, the older look is a distraction itself.

As for Brosnan's look, I will forever have that first image of his steely eyes burned into my mind. What a great moment.

[zencat]

Like you guys, I really love GE. I don't feel it's overrated at all. For me it's the last Bond movie that really worked as a Bond movie. Aspects of the later Brosnan films worked...but GE worked from beginning to end. It's also plays great with an audience.

[rafterman]

It's in my top twenty.

[ACE]

It's in my top twenty.

 

Smart but LOL

Edited by Mister Asterix, 06 September 2005 - 10:10 PM.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]I had a couple of issues with GoldenEye, sure. It tries to hard to be the everything Bond film. Brosnan doesn