132 replies to this topic

[Royal Dalton]

Like Cliff Richard, he was older than he looked. His secret? Oil of Ulay.

[tim partridge]

I didn't and still don't buy that GOLDENEYE brought Bond into the "shiney 90s" or whatever. Quite the opposite. I remember even Barry Norman and Mark Kermode at the time ripped it one for being so jarringly old fashioned and out of date. Judi Dench's presence aside, it was weighed down heavy by all of that out of date Cold War politics, too much attachment to the past (even the opening is implied to have taken place in 1986!) too many (almost delibertately) unfunny innuendos and endless checklist iconography. TRUE LIES was very much still heralded as the shiney Bond of the 90s, but I am glad Bond didn't chase the bandwagon (unlike the whole Bourne thing now, cough), and instead remained true to itself, which is to say a traditionalist relic of nostaliga.


Natalya's look was VERY Britpop, wasn't it? Somewhere between her from SLEEPER (remember them?) and Zoe Ball!

[Kristian]

Still, a decent way to pipe Jimmy Bond right into the 90s. Not perfect, but very entertaining

A nice way to describe it. I do feel that younger fans may not realise that Goldeneye felt shiny, new and very modern when it was first released. It was 1995, and some people still owned T-shirts from the 1980's. The 80's were still in our nostrils, and yet we had this new modern 90's Bond. It was great.

The so called "90's Bond" was a cheat. Brosnan in GE and his films onward was just the old sterotypes the public knew.

Mr. E, I don't think that's necessarily accurate. Yes, they obviously dug up the old stereotypes. But I really do think there was a sincere effort made to try and do something different:

1. The 90s Bond girls seemed to be more involved in the plotline and action. Melina and Pam Bouvier really paved the way for this, but I think their 90's counterparts were more active.

2. For better or worse, more action.

3. For better or worse more emotional resonance in each film - in GE we had the 007-006 "love that dare not speak its name" (Oh, Alec! You broke my heart...), in TND we had the doomed Paris connection, in TWINE we had the Elektra encounter that turned, well, electrifyingly bad, and in DAD we had whole "locked up for 14 months and emerging hornier than a 3-balled tomcat."

So, yeah, I think that the stereotypes were given enough of a 90's polish that they came off as, well, fresh.

I'm just saying...

1. The modern Bond girls were just as hollow as the bimbos in the old days. They had nothing to them but fighting skills and attitude. Not really step up.

2. The action in the 90's films was not only bloated, it generally failed to be creative. None of the Bond flavor you would associate with the series, just generic stuff.

3. Those are all gimmicks. Not a single one of those ideas were used to there full potential. They never really effected any of there respective films and they were only used for temporary shock value.


What I have said is on the mark really. In the 90's, Bond was a generic action hero in generic action films. A nice safe, bland, product for the masses.

I'm sorry, Mr. E. But again, I must disagree.

1. The Bond Girls - Yes, even the most fully-drawn Bond Girl is not as dimensional as the heroine of a conventional thriller. Fine. We expect somewhat sketchy characterizations in a Bond film. The focus is obviously on the Bondian Espionage Formula. However, as you yourself so ably described, the modern Bond girls have more attitude and fighting-skills than their predecessors. You say this is not a step up. However, how could this not be seen as anything but? I'd rather have a hollow Bond girl with attitude, active and involved in the plotline - who stands up for herself - instead of a hollow Bond girl that stands around like window dressing and faints at the slightest hint of danger. That's why Christmas Jones is more preferrable to me than Tatiana Romanova who, let's face it, was a wimp (James, never leave me.... *cringe*). Jones, the most vilified of the 90' Bond girls, was spunky, skilled, capable, and rescued Bond a couple of times. It's only Denise Richards' acting that clouds people's judgement. Imagine if Carrie-Anne Moss or Natasha Henstridge had gotten the role. In conclusion, if you're not convinced that an assertive attitude and the capability to take care of herself is not a step up, ask any woman what she thinks.

2. Bloated Action scenes. I will agree with you on this one. As I mentioned in my original post, the direction the action took was dubious and questionable. Not worth discussing further.

3. Emotional Resonance. Yes, I'm well aware that these are gimmicks. But let's face it - what movie out there doesn't have a gimmick? It's all about gimmicks. Everything is a gimmick. Fiction is gimmick - make no mistake. And you, me, and everyone else that watches movies falls for them most of the time. The key is in the execution. Yes, they didn't flesh these elements out as much as they could, but let's remember the limited universe that the Bond films exist in, shall we? In the end, THE FORMULA reigns supreme. That formula can be tweaked, embellished, or manipulated a little, but it cannot be changed. In the end we are not watching KING LEAR or HAMLET, which is why they couldn't take these emotional arcs to their fullest extent - they had remain true to the other elements of the Bond formula. But I (and a lot of others) appreciate the effort made to add some nuance and depth to what is essentially escapist entertainment. Now I understand there are others who didn't. I guess it comes down to something Roger Ebert said in one of his interviews from awhile back, which I will try to paraphrase: "When I go into a movie, I go in with a Positive Attitude, and not cynicism and negativity. I go in wanting to like, even love, the movie. I understand that people have taken the time to put this product together for me. They didn't set out to make a bad movie. Their livelihoods depend on it being good and me liking it. They want to entertain me, surprise me, move me, and I surrender myself to them." And that's how I feel anytime I go into a movie - Bond or otherwise. I surrender myself to the gimmicks. Of course, there are some gimmicks that are so badly handled that you can't help but just roll your eyes. I don't think the emotional gimmicks in the Brosnan films are among those. They may not have been fully-realized but in no way are they at the bottom of the barrell.

In the end, though, I think the real barometer of acceptance of the 90's Bond movies falls to that time-tested gauge - the box office. GE kicked , financially and was first Bond film to gross over $100 million in the U.S. Yes, I know. Tickets were also more expensive, but you get the idea. Maybe it was the mindless masses that made that success happen, as well as the financial success of TND, TWINE, and DAD. Maybe it was just people flocking to a "generic action movie". But let's be honest - all of us CBNers contributed to that success in one way or another - whether through video or theatrical attendance. So I guess that makes us mindless, too.

I'm just saying....

[broadshoulder]

. The focus is obviously on the Bondian Espionage Formula. However, as you yourself so ably described, the modern Bond girls have more attitude and fighting-skills than their predecessors. You say this is not a step up. However, how could this not be seen as anything but? I'd rather have a hollow Bond girl with attitude, active and involved in the plotline - who stands up for herself - instead of a hollow Bond girl that stands around like window dressing and faints at the slightest hint of danger. That's why Christmas Jones is more preferrable to me than Tatiana Romanova who, let's face it, was a wimp (James, never leave me.... *cringe*). Jones, the most vilified of the 90' Bond girls, was spunky, skilled, capable, and rescued Bond a couple of times. It's only Denise Richards' acting that clouds people's judgement.

I am shocked at this..

Tatiana Romananova went on a "proper" emotional journey - not some half baked crap that Electra King went through. She must choose between country and duty and James Bond and its a tansformation that happens over the course of the film. She doesnt have to be a "kick " Bond girl because that would upset the balance of the film.

The problem with the Brosnan era Bond girls is that too oftent they upset the balanceo of the film with their cartoon ways.

Xenia Onatopp - a cliched vamp with a silly name
Natalya Simonova - a Tatiana for the nineties without the character progression. Not needed in the last twenty minutes
Paris Carver - didnt work
Wai Lin - Cartoon action figure that became embarassing as Elliott Carver said
Electra King - Too erratically written for the character to work. A mess.
Dr Christams Jones - a cliched bimbo played by a cliched bimbo
Jinx Johnson - a cartoon embarassment played badly
Miranda Frost - better but nothing done with her.

The Brosnan Bond girls are the worst of the lot.

[Kristian]

. The focus is obviously on the Bondian Espionage Formula. However, as you yourself so ably described, the modern Bond girls have more attitude and fighting-skills than their predecessors. You say this is not a step up. However, how could this not be seen as anything but? I'd rather have a hollow Bond girl with attitude, active and involved in the plotline - who stands up for herself - instead of a hollow Bond girl that stands around like window dressing and faints at the slightest hint of danger. That's why Christmas Jones is more preferrable to me than Tatiana Romanova who, let's face it, was a wimp (James, never leave me.... *cringe*). Jones, the most vilified of the 90' Bond girls, was spunky, skilled, capable, and rescued Bond a couple of times. It's only Denise Richards' acting that clouds people's judgement.

I am shocked at this..

Tatiana Romananova went on a "proper" emotional journey - not some half baked crap that Electra King went through. She must choose between country and duty and James Bond and its a tansformation that happens over the course of the film. She doesnt have to be a "kick " Bond girl because that would upset the balance of the film.

The problem with the Brosnan era Bond girls is that too oftent they upset the balanceo of the film with their cartoon ways.

Xenia Onatopp - a cliched vamp with a silly name
Natalya Simonova - a Tatiana for the nineties without the character progression. Not needed in the last twenty minutes
Paris Carver - didnt work
Wai Lin - Cartoon action figure that became embarassing as Elliott Carver said
Electra King - Too erratically written for the character to work. A mess.
Dr Christams Jones - a cliched bimbo played by a cliched bimbo
Jinx Johnson - a cartoon embarassment played badly
Miranda Frost - better but nothing done with her.

The Brosnan Bond girls are the worst of the lot.

Again, too easy. Mister E maintained that the old Bond girls were as hollow as the new Bond girls. My point was, if this is true, then a little attitude and self-reliance goes a long way. This is all subjective. Not every 90's Bond Girl is a success, and I'll grant that Tatiana had some complexity to her - but she was still a wimp. Overall, the 90's women are more independent than their predecessors. And it's too easy to dismiss CHristmas JOnes as a bimbo. Did you happen to miss that short exchange between her and Bond wherein she admits to avoiding questions or a personal nature. That simple statement deepened her character a little. Sadly, they didn't develop this.

[Kristian]

. The focus is obviously on the Bondian Espionage Formula. However, as you yourself so ably described, the modern Bond girls have more attitude and fighting-skills than their predecessors. You say this is not a step up. However, how could this not be seen as anything but? I'd rather have a hollow Bond girl with attitude, active and involved in the plotline - who stands up for herself - instead of a hollow Bond girl that stands around like window dressing and faints at the slightest hint of danger. That's why Christmas Jones is more preferrable to me than Tatiana Romanova who, let's face it, was a wimp (James, never leave me.... *cringe*). Jones, the most vilified of the 90' Bond girls, was spunky, skilled, capable, and rescued Bond a couple of times. It's only Denise Richards' acting that clouds people's judgement.

I am shocked at this..

Tatiana Romananova went on a "proper" emotional journey - not some half baked crap that Electra King went through. She must choose between country and duty and James Bond and its a tansformation that happens over the course of the film. She doesnt have to be a "kick " Bond girl because that would upset the balance of the film.

The problem with the Brosnan era Bond girls is that too oftent they upset the balanceo of the film with their cartoon ways.

Xenia Onatopp - a cliched vamp with a silly name
Natalya Simonova - a Tatiana for the nineties without the character progression. Not needed in the last twenty minutes
Paris Carver - didnt work
Wai Lin - Cartoon action figure that became embarassing as Elliott Carver said
Electra King - Too erratically written for the character to work. A mess.
Dr Christams Jones - a cliched bimbo played by a cliched bimbo
Jinx Johnson - a cartoon embarassment played badly
Miranda Frost - better but nothing done with her.

The Brosnan Bond girls are the worst of the lot.

Again, too easy. Mister E maintained that the old Bond girls were as hollow as the new Bond girls. My point was, if this is true, then a little attitude and self-reliance goes a long way. This is all subjective. Not every 90's Bond Girl is a success, and I'll grant that Tatiana had some complexity to her - but she was still a wimp. Overall, the 90's women are more independent than their predecessors. And it's too easy to dismiss CHristmas JOnes as a bimbo. Did you happen to miss that short exchange between her and Bond wherein she admits to avoiding questions or a personal nature. That simple statement deepened her character a little. Sadly, they didn't develop this.

I am sad to say that the 90's and 21st century Bond Girls are just as inept as the 50's 60's and 70's BG's, well at least when it comes to men. Yes some are more ballsy, some are more independent but on the whole they have legs like ally baba's cave when either Bond or the supervillain looks down at them with lecherous eyes. I have my favourites, Vesper for example has a go during the stairwell fight but then gets all wishy washy in the shower. Wai Lin is probably the best good example but she only went and got stuck in that frozen hotel thing and needed saving. That's the problem with Bond Girls, they always need saving!! But then I would rather be rescued by Bond than save myself anyday! Wouldn't you?

Hi, Missy. Agree with you totally that even the most confident Bond Girl goes all mushy and speads 'em like I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S NOT BUTTER when Bond comes a-smirkin'. And if Danny Craig would come to save me, I'm fine with that - as long as I made an effort to save myself first. And what the f#@k was up with Jinx having to be rescued TWICE within the same sequence? Which idiot overlooked that part - Purvis or Wade? They should've scrapped that character entirely - or made her the villain instead of Miranda (a far more intriguing girl).

Alas, it seems like the BOND FORMULA will always dictate that an otherwise smart, capable, tough-minded broad will want to have Bond tickle her Sweet Spot in the end. That's why I am so glad to hear that Camille in QOS

Spoiler

won't even kiss him.

Go girl. You can always go back to your hotel after filming wraps and do it for real....

Edited by Kristian, 14 October 2008 - 12:14 AM.

[Mister E]

I'm sorry, Mr. E. But again, I must disagree.
1. The Bond Girls - Yes, even the most fully-drawn Bond Girl is not as dimensional as the heroine of a conventional thriller. Fine. We expect somewhat sketchy characterizations in a Bond film. The focus is obviously on the Bondian Espionage Formula. However, as you yourself so ably described, the modern Bond girls have more attitude and fighting-skills than their predecessors. You say this is not a step up. However, how could this not be seen as anything but? I'd rather have a hollow Bond girl with attitude, active and involved in the plotline - who stands up for herself - instead of a hollow Bond girl that stands around like window dressing and faints at the slightest hint of danger. That's why Christmas Jones is more preferrable to me than Tatiana Romanova who, let's face it, was a wimp (James, never leave me.... *cringe*). Jones, the most vilified of the 90' Bond girls, was spunky, skilled, capable, and rescued Bond a couple of times. It's only Denise Richards' acting that clouds people's judgement. Imagine if Carrie-Anne Moss or Natasha Henstridge had gotten the role. In conclusion, if you're not convinced that an assertive attitude and the capability to take care of herself is not a step up, ask any woman what she thinks.

Tatina Romanova was anything but a wimp. Let's start off with the fact that she worked for the state and accepted a mission that may have not been dangerous but would have catosrophic if she blew it. Also you seem to forget that she shot and killed Rosa Klebb at the end of the movie. Now let's look at *snicker* Dr. *snicker* Christmas Jones. She is definetly written as a doctor but she had the personality of cardboard, is that a postive role model for women ? How about Wai Lin ? What personality did she have ? You just prefer these PC women with attitude because they did stuff, unlike some of the Bond girls of the fast but they have something in common, they are equally hollow. You can make a character a bad by making her kick and take numbers but it means nothing unless you establish depth.

3. Emotional Resonance. Yes, I'm well aware that these are gimmicks. But let's face it - what movie out there doesn't have a gimmick? It's all about gimmicks. Everything is a gimmick. Fiction is gimmick - make no mistake. And you, me, and everyone else that watches movies falls for them most of the time. The key is in the execution. Yes, they didn't flesh these elements out as much as they could, but let's remember the limited universe that the Bond films exist in, shall we? In the end, THE FORMULA reigns supreme. That formula can be tweaked, embellished, or manipulated a little, but it cannot be changed. In the end we are not watching KING LEAR or HAMLET, which is why they couldn't take these emotional arcs to their fullest extent - they had remain true to the other elements of the Bond formula. But I (and a lot of others) appreciate the effort made to add some nuance and depth to what is essentially escapist entertainment. Now I understand there are others who didn't. I guess it comes down to something Roger Ebert said in one of his interviews from awhile back, which I will try to paraphrase: "When I go into a movie, I go in with a Positive Attitude, and not cynicism and negativity. I go in wanting to like, even love, the movie. I understand that people have taken the time to put this product together for me. They didn't set out to make a bad movie. Their livelihoods depend on it being good and me liking it. They want to entertain me, surprise me, move me, and I surrender myself to them." And that's how I feel anytime I go into a movie - Bond or otherwise. I surrender myself to the gimmicks. Of course, there are some gimmicks that are so badly handled that you can't help but just roll your eyes. I don't think the emotional gimmicks in the Brosnan films are among those. They may not have been fully-realized but in no way are they at the bottom of the barrell.

Yeesh, you like to ramble on. Also you use the layman's excuse for half assed characters and plots, "We aren't watching (insert random great movie) we are watching Bond". You may accept half assed ideas but I don't. When you present an idea, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THROUGH. Just like those early Bond films, they were more then just gimmicks. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE had a brilliant plot and OHMSS and CR had brilliant emotional motivations that worked. So your point of the Bond universe being so limited is entirely obtuse and nonsensical. Those films are still escapist films but they weren't brain dead like the Brosnan films. We got alot of talk from characters, interesting storylines that could have been great but instead we got one explosion after another. What the hell is the point of presenting a complex idea if you aren't even going to use it ? It doesn't make anysense.

In the end, though, I think the real barometer of acceptance of the 90's Bond movies falls to that time-tested gauge - the box office. GE kicked , financially and was first Bond film to gross over $100 million in the U.S. Yes, I know. Tickets were also more expensive, but you get the idea. Maybe it was the mindless masses that made that success happen, as well as the financial success of TND, TWINE, and DAD. Maybe it was just people flocking to a "generic action movie". But let's be honest - all of us CBNers contributed to that success in one way or another - whether through video or theatrical attendance. So I guess that makes us mindless, too.

I'm just saying....

Its' obvious that alot of CBNers went those movies because they are fans of Bond and not because the movie was good. Have you seen the posts around here ? Alot of people prefer the ones not so lauded by the masses and hell, CASINO ROYALE proved people were tired of the crap from the mindless Bros-yawn era.

. The focus is obviously on the Bondian Espionage Formula. However, as you yourself so ably described, the modern Bond girls have more attitude and fighting-skills than their predecessors. You say this is not a step up. However, how could this not be seen as anything but? I'd rather have a hollow Bond girl with attitude, active and involved in the plotline - who stands up for herself - instead of a hollow Bond girl that stands around like window dressing and faints at the slightest hint of danger. That's why Christmas Jones is more preferrable to me than Tatiana Romanova who, let's face it, was a wimp (James, never leave me.... *cringe*). Jones, the most vilified of the 90' Bond girls, was spunky, skilled, capable, and rescued Bond a couple of times. It's only Denise Richards' acting that clouds people's judgement.

I am shocked at this..

Tatiana Romananova went on a "proper" emotional journey - not some half baked crap that Electra King went through. She must choose between country and duty and James Bond and its a tansformation that happens over the course of the film. She doesnt have to be a "kick " Bond girl because that would upset the balance of the film.

The problem with the Brosnan era Bond girls is that too oftent they upset the balanceo of the film with their cartoon ways.

Xenia Onatopp - a cliched vamp with a silly name
Natalya Simonova - a Tatiana for the nineties without the character progression. Not needed in the last twenty minutes
Paris Carver - didnt work
Wai Lin - Cartoon action figure that became embarassing as Elliott Carver said
Electra King - Too erratically written for the character to work. A mess.
Dr Christams Jones - a cliched bimbo played by a cliched bimbo
Jinx Johnson - a cartoon embarassment played badly
Miranda Frost - better but nothing done with her.

The Brosnan Bond girls are the worst of the lot.

Great points about the Brosnan Bond girls. Really, they all failed miserably as characters. They were all hollow and bland.

[Kristian]

I'm sorry, Mr. E. But again, I must disagree.
1. The Bond Girls - Yes, even the most fully-drawn Bond Girl is not as dimensional as the heroine of a conventional thriller. Fine. We expect somewhat sketchy characterizations in a Bond film. The focus is obviously on the Bondian Espionage Formula. However, as you yourself so ably described, the modern Bond girls have more attitude and fighting-skills than their predecessors. You say this is not a step up. However, how could this not be seen as anything but? I'd rather have a hollow Bond girl with attitude, active and involved in the plotline - who stands up for herself - instead of a hollow Bond girl that stands around like window dressing and faints at the slightest hint of danger. That's why Christmas Jones is more preferrable to me than Tatiana Romanova who, let's face it, was a wimp (James, never leave me.... *cringe*). Jones, the most vilified of the 90' Bond girls, was spunky, skilled, capable, and rescued Bond a couple of times. It's only Denise Richards' acting that clouds people's judgement. Imagine if Carrie-Anne Moss or Natasha Henstridge had gotten the role. In conclusion, if you're not convinced that an assertive attitude and the capability to take care of herself is not a step up, ask any woman what she thinks.

Tatina Romanova was anything but a wimp. Let's start off with the fact that she worked for the state and accepted a mission that may have not been dangerous but would have catosrophic if she blew it. Also you seem to forget that she shot and killed Rosa Klebb at the end of the movie. Now let's look at *snicker* Dr. *snicker* Christmas Jones. She is definetly written as a doctor but she had the personality of cardboard, is that a postive role model for women ? How about Wai Lin ? What personality did she have ? You just prefer these PC women with attitude because they did stuff, unlike some of the Bond girls of the fast but they have something in common, they are equally hollow. You can make a character a bad by making her kick and take numbers but it means nothing unless you establish depth.

3. Emotional Resonance. Yes, I'm well aware that these are gimmicks. But let's face it - what movie out there doesn't have a gimmick? It's all about gimmicks. Everything is a gimmick. Fiction is gimmick - make no mistake. And you, me, and everyone else that watches movies falls for them most of the time. The key is in the execution. Yes, they didn't flesh these elements out as much as they could, but let's remember the limited universe that the Bond films exist in, shall we? In the end, THE FORMULA reigns supreme. That formula can be tweaked, embellished, or manipulated a little, but it cannot be changed. In the end we are not watching KING LEAR or HAMLET, which is why they couldn't take these emotional arcs to their fullest extent - they had remain true to the other elements of the Bond formula. But I (and a lot of others) appreciate the effort made to add some nuance and depth to what is essentially escapist entertainment. Now I understand there are others who didn't. I guess it comes down to something Roger Ebert said in one of his interviews from awhile back, which I will try to paraphrase: "When I go into a movie, I go in with a Positive Attitude, and not cynicism and negativity. I go in wanting to like, even love, the movie. I understand that people have taken the time to put this product together for me. They didn't set out to make a bad movie. Their livelihoods depend on it being good and me liking it. They want to entertain me, surprise me, move me, and I surrender myself to them." And that's how I feel anytime I go into a movie - Bond or otherwise. I surrender myself to the gimmicks. Of course, there are some gimmicks that are so badly handled that you can't help but just roll your eyes. I don't think the emotional gimmicks in the Brosnan films are among those. They may not have been fully-realized but in no way are they at the bottom of the barrell.

Yeesh, you like to ramble on. Also you use the layman's excuse for half assed characters and plots, "We aren't watching (insert random great movie) we are watching Bond". You may accept half assed ideas but I don't. When you present an idea, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THROUGH. Just like those early Bond films, they were more then just gimmicks. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE had a brilliant plot and OHMSS and CR had brilliant emotional motivations that worked. So your point of the Bond universe being so limited is entirely obtuse and nonsensical. Those films are still escapist films but they weren't brain dead like the Brosnan films. We got alot of talk from characters, interesting storylines that could have been great but instead we got one explosion after another. What the hell is the point of presenting a complex idea if you aren't even going to use it ? It doesn't make anysense.

In the end, though, I think the real barometer of acceptance of the 90's Bond movies falls to that time-tested gauge - the box office. GE kicked , financially and was first Bond film to gross over $100 million in the U.S. Yes, I know. Tickets were also more expensive, but you get the idea. Maybe it was the mindless masses that made that success happen, as well as the financial success of TND, TWINE, and DAD. Maybe it was just people flocking to a "generic action movie". But let's be honest - all of us CBNers contributed to that success in one way or another - whether through video or theatrical attendance. So I guess that makes us mindless, too.

I'm just saying....

Its' obvious that alot of CBNers went those movies because they are fans of Bond and not because the movie was good. Have you seen the posts around here ? Alot of people prefer the ones not so lauded by the masses and hell, CASINO ROYALE proved people were tired of the crap from the mindless Bros-yawn era.

. The focus is obviously on the Bondian Espionage Formula. However, as you yourself so ably described, the modern Bond girls have more attitude and fighting-skills than their predecessors. You say this is not a step up. However, how could this not be seen as anything but? I'd rather have a hollow Bond girl with attitude, active and involved in the plotline - who stands up for herself - instead of a hollow Bond girl that stands around like window dressing and faints at the slightest hint of danger. That's why Christmas Jones is more preferrable to me than Tatiana Romanova who, let's face it, was a wimp (James, never leave me.... *cringe*). Jones, the most vilified of the 90' Bond girls, was spunky, skilled, capable, and rescued Bond a couple of times. It's only Denise Richards' acting that clouds people's judgement.

I am shocked at this..

Tatiana Romananova went on a "proper" emotional journey - not some half baked crap that Electra King went through. She must choose between country and duty and James Bond and its a tansformation that happens over the course of the film. She doesnt have to be a "kick " Bond girl because that would upset the balance of the film.

The problem with the Brosnan era Bond girls is that too oftent they upset the balanceo of the film with their cartoon ways.

Xenia Onatopp - a cliched vamp with a silly name
Natalya Simonova - a Tatiana for the nineties without the character progression. Not needed in the last twenty minutes
Paris Carver - didnt work
Wai Lin - Cartoon action figure that became embarassing as Elliott Carver said
Electra King - Too erratically written for the character to work. A mess.
Dr Christams Jones - a cliched bimbo played by a cliched bimbo
Jinx Johnson - a cartoon embarassment played badly
Miranda Frost - better but nothing done with her.

The Brosnan Bond girls are the worst of the lot.

Great points about the Brosnan Bond girls. Really, they all failed miserably as characters. They were all hollow and bland.

Clearly, you are misunderstanding me. By saying the Bond Universe is limited I am not implying anything negative. I am merely saying there is a Formula that sometimes constrains the proceedings. And just because you say something is so, doesn't mean it is. Not any more than just because I say something is so. Just because I don't think too highly of ROmanova doesn't mean I think less of FRWL. But since you are obviously perturbed, let me make additional points of my own.

1. OHMSS? Trenchant emotional motivations? Not really. It was a well done soap opera, but soap opera nonetheless.

2. Bond films being the same as a mainstream film? Not really. A Bond film has to deal with the FORMULA, the Mythos, and the baggage that comes along with an ongoing series. Therefore it has its inherent limitations. That is so glaringly obvious.

3. What you term as half-assed ideas are, in my opinion, decent attempts to embellish the formula.

What you term "as rambling on" is my attempt to explain where I am coming from with regards to my attitude when going to films. I really think a positive attitude helps and open mind helps. You go into something convinced you're going to hate it - guess what happens? I don't think the Brosnan Bonds are perfect. But given that the series had to contend with a new generation, and interlopers like Arnie and the MI series, I think any compromises that the producers had to make were necessary for the longevity of the series. Let's be honest here - this is a business, and you do what you have to do to survive. Ditto the Bond Girls - they had to be shaped in a way that made them attractive to modern audiences. Whether that is a sell out or not is up for debate. But I would rather have the Bond producers occassionally make concessions than have a series of flops that will kill off the series for good.

The Brosnan Bonds allowed the series to survive until now. They paved the way for the Craig Bond that we're all mad about. It was a stepping stone in a learning process that will ensure art and commerce always merge in the Bond films...

Edited by Kristian, 14 October 2008 - 03:16 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I give it a 4. I think is pretty overrated, I never understood what's the supposed greatness of this film, that according to many, makes it shine between the others Brosnan movies.

For me it is as average (or should i say mediocre) as the rest of the Brosnan era. It's just a compilation of cliches, with nothing original to distinguish from other action movies of that time.

[Mister E]

Clearly, you are misunderstanding me. By saying the Bond Universe is limited I am not implying anything negative. I am merely saying there is a Formula that sometimes constrains the proceedings.

And looking at the better Bond films like DN,FRWL,OHMSS, and CR you are 100% wrong.

1. OHMSS? Trenchant emotional motivations? Not really. It was a well done soap opera, but soap opera nonetheless.

It wasn't entirely emotional but the emotion was eons more genuine then the nonensensical crap the Brosnan era had, especially compared to that turkey TWINE.

2. Bond films being the same as a mainstream film? Not really. A Bond film has to deal with the FORMULA, the Mythos, and the baggage that comes along with an ongoing series. Therefore it has its inherent limitations.

The only constraints it has is not dealing with consequences that are long term or senstitive political issues. Good story telling and character acting is not a restraint, those are basic requirements of any film making. They held that mentality in the early films which were BTW, still actually remain the highest grossers of any of the modern day Bond films.

3. What you term as half-assed ideas are, in my opinion, decent attempts to embellish the formula.

That's like making a car and not putting in an engine. That isn't a "decent attempt", that's nothing.

What you term "as rambling on" is my attempt to explain where I am coming from with regards to my attitude when going to films. I really think a positive attitude helps.

I call it like I see it.

I don't think the Brosnan Bonds are perfect. But given that the series had to contend with a new generation, and interlopers like Arnie and the MI series, I think any compromises that the producers had to make were necessary for the longevity of the series. Let's be honest here - this is a business, and you do what you have to do to survive. Ditto the Bond Girls - they had to be shaped in a way that made them attractive to modern audiences. Whether that is a sell out or not is up for debate. But I would rather have the Bond producers occassionally make concessions than have a series of flops that will kill off the series for good.

This is, again, a tired old layman's argument "this is a business and no room for art" BS. There was and is abosulutely no reason why a good idea can not be promoted well enough and make millions at the box office. Most producers and executives who run this industry today intend on stealing money raised for the films and half the results. They also spend money on useless expenses that aren't even related to making a film. I found this out from someone who used to be in the business.

The Brosnan Bonds allowed the series to survive until now. They paved the way for the Craig Bond that we're all mad about. It was a stepping stone in a learning process that will ensure art and commerce always merge in the Bond films...

So I can't say anything bad about the Brosnan Bond's because it made the series go on ? Bull crap. By the way, did you ever look at the attendance for the Brosnan films ? They progressively dipped. The reboot was not just an artistic decision, it was a financial one as well.

[Kristian]

Clearly, you are misunderstanding me. By saying the Bond Universe is limited I am not implying anything negative. I am merely saying there is a Formula that sometimes constrains the proceedings.

And looking at the better Bond films like DN,FRWL,OHMSS, and CR you are 100% wrong.

1. OHMSS? Trenchant emotional motivations? Not really. It was a well done soap opera, but soap opera nonetheless.

It wasn't entirely emotional but the emotion was eons more genuine then the nonensensical crap the Brosnan era had, especially compared to that turkey TWINE.

2. Bond films being the same as a mainstream film? Not really. A Bond film has to deal with the FORMULA, the Mythos, and the baggage that comes along with an ongoing series. Therefore it has its inherent limitations.

The only constraints it has is not dealing with consequences that are long term or senstitive political issues. Good story telling and character acting is not a restraint, those are basic requirements of any film making. They held that mentality in the early films which were BTW, still actually remain the highest grossers of any of the modern day Bond films.

3. What you term as half-assed ideas are, in my opinion, decent attempts to embellish the formula.

That's like making a car and not putting in an engine. That isn't a "decent attempt", that's nothing.

What you term "as rambling on" is my attempt to explain where I am coming from with regards to my attitude when going to films. I really think a positive attitude helps.

I call it like I see it.

I don't think the Brosnan Bonds are perfect. But given that the series had to contend with a new generation, and interlopers like Arnie and the MI series, I think any compromises that the producers had to make were necessary for the longevity of the series. Let's be honest here - this is a business, and you do what you have to do to survive. Ditto the Bond Girls - they had to be shaped in a way that made them attractive to modern audiences. Whether that is a sell out or not is up for debate. But I would rather have the Bond producers occassionally make concessions than have a series of flops that will kill off the series for good.

This is, again, a tired old layman's argument "this is a business and no room for art" BS. There was and is abosulutely no reason why a good idea can not be promoted well enough and make millions at the box office. Most producers and executives who run this industry today intend on stealing money raised for the films and half the results. They also spend money on useless expenses that aren't even related to making a film. I found this out from someone who used to be in the business.

The Brosnan Bonds allowed the series to survive until now. They paved the way for the Craig Bond that we're all mad about. It was a stepping stone in a learning process that will ensure art and commerce always merge in the Bond films...

So I can't say anything bad about the Brosnan Bond's because it made the series go on ? Bull crap. By the way, did you ever look at the attendance for the Brosnan films ? They progressively dipped. The reboot was not just an artistic decision, it was a financial one as well.

You can say anything you want about the Brosnan Bonds. I don't think they're necessarily the best in the series. But I don't regard them as the worst either. And just to clarify - a significant constraint for the Bond series is that the producers not only have to keep their films from being anachronistic, but they also have to keep from duplicating themselves too much - 22 films is a load to drag behind you. Most mainstream films don't have this to contend with. This is so painfully obvious.

And I'm not a layman. I'm actually in the business....

Edited by Kristian, 14 October 2008 - 04:30 AM.

[Mister E]

And I'm not a layman. I'm actually in the business....

After this little exchange, that doesn't surprise me.

[Kristian]

And I'm not a layman. I'm actually in the business....

After this little exchange, that doesn't surprise.

But of course, it shouldn't. Have a great time at the movies. Or try to.

Edited by Kristian, 14 October 2008 - 04:28 AM.

[Kristian]

I didn't and still don't buy that GOLDENEYE brought Bond into the "shiney 90s" or whatever. Quite the opposite. I remember even Barry Norman and Mark Kermode at the time ripped it one for being so jarringly old fashioned and out of date. Judi Dench's presence aside, it was weighed down heavy by all of that out of date Cold War politics, too much attachment to the past (even the opening is implied to have taken place in 1986!) too many (almost delibertately) unfunny innuendos and endless checklist iconography. TRUE LIES was very much still heralded as the shiney Bond of the 90s, but I am glad Bond didn't chase the bandwagon (unlike the whole Bourne thing now, cough), and instead remained true to itself, which is to say a traditionalist relic of nostaliga.


Natalya's look was VERY Britpop, wasn't it? Somewhere between her from SLEEPER (remember them?) and Zoe Ball!

Bournefying the Bond series is yet another attempt for the Bond films to stay current. This time, though, it looks like they are on the right path. As long as they remember to remain true to the Bondian spirit, at the same time.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Now with the credible action of CR (and we can expect the same with QOS) they're true to the Bond spirit of their origin, from the Fleming literary source, and also with the style of the first movies (mainly DN, FRWL & OHMSS).

CR is the kind of Bond movie that I would expected for the nineties, but we never get it, old style elegance but with an (new) edge, just like the best of britpop and cool britannia was.

Brosnan era was more of a late answer to big budget action Hollywood movies from the eighties, like Die Hard or even Terminator, with a style of a videogame, replacing the sophistacion that makes unique to the EON series for pure corniness, speacielly reflected in the affected and charicaturistic version portrayed of Bond.

[Mister E]

And just to clarify - a significant constraint for the Bond series is that the producers not only have to keep their films from being anachronistic, but they also have to keep from duplicating themselves too much - 22 films is a load to drag behind you. Most mainstream films don't have this to contend with. This is so painfully obvious.

You can make all the excuses you want, coming up and executing good ideas is a basic principle of story telling for any film or series. Not every single last one of them had to be revolutionary, they just had to be good.

[Union Bond]

My post is going to look rather out of place following the 'essays' above, but I gave Goldeneye a 9. It was my first Bond film, and the first in my lifetime apart from Licence to Kill which was released when I was 1.

I loved Goldeneye, the way it had quite a simple story in Trevelyan betraying Bond but also quite a complex one shadowing it with the whole Cold War backstory was well portrayed.

Watching it after I had watched the series up to that point it felt like a return to Connery's era, a smooth but serious Bond in a dark and fun story.
I must admit, I don't remember the soundtrack which has been mentioned a few times in this thread.

[solace]

My wife and myself watched Goldeneye last night and I don't know why but I saw this film in a whole different light. I like to say it was great but I actually found myself cringing during the pts and it didnt get any better. I've always liked this film but have'nt seen it in quite some time
(pre-CR) and saw a very different film. Since starting on cbn I've always thought what is the problem with PB but after my negative reaction to GE last night I might have to watch the others to see if its just this film or him as bond or what?

[Ravenstone]

I loved GoldenEye. It's one of my favourites (in that ever changing list!). If Brosnan had only made one Bond film, and that was GE, he would have been perfect in my eyes. It was only with each film after GE that Brosnan went down and down in my estimation.

GE did something I had always longed to see - more than one Double-O in action. I love the slick to-ing and fro-ing between 006 and 007 in the PTS; Brosnan's scripts were never so amusing; there's an Aston Martin, so I'm prepared to forgive the bloody awful BMWs that I hate so much. Okay, Moneypenny is cringeworthy, but isn't she always? Personal preference, but I've never liked the Bond/Moneypenny dynamic. She's too desperate.

But - ah - it may be a guilty pleasure, perhaps, but I don't care. I love GE.

[Harmsway]

Okay, Moneypenny is cringeworthy, but isn't she always?

Not when Lois Maxwell was in the part.

[dodge]

It's still an 8 for me, though I've come to agree with many hear that Brozza was shaky in his first outing. Even at first viewing I was put off by the hammy Boris...the tank chase scene...Bond's "Sorry, I forgot to knock"...the occasionally too-heavy dialogue. But Campbell's direction, Serra's score, the rousing action sequences and the elegant cinematography...these and other high(de)lights keep me coming back for more.

[Ravenstone]

Not when Lois Maxwell was in the part.

When the character was less desperate, yes. None of the diamonds comments or stuff.

[JimmyBond]

Not when Lois Maxwell was in the part.

When the character was less desperate, yes. None of the diamonds comments or stuff.

The only time the character of Moneypenny came off as desperate was in Living Daylights when she practically threw herself at Bond. How Bond could turn down someone as pretty as Caroline Bliss is beyond me though.

[Ravenstone]

Hmmmm....she always struck me as rather desperate. There were times when it was closer to baiting, and that was just right, but my abiding memory is Moneypenny carrying a torch for Bond, which I always felt was just embarrassing to watch.

It's difficult to imagine someone else as Q, despite John Cleese in DAD.

[dodge]

Hmmmm....she always struck me as rather desperate. There were times when it was closer to baiting, and that was just right, but my abiding memory is Moneypenny carrying a torch for Bond, which I always felt was just embarrassing to watch.

It's difficult to imagine someone else as Q, despite John Cleese in DAD.

Stick Edward Fox in the part, then give him his comeuppance for his rabid remarks about Craig.

[Mister E]

Hmmmm....she always struck me as rather desperate. There were times when it was closer to baiting, and that was just right, but my abiding memory is Moneypenny carrying a torch for Bond, which I always felt was just embarrassing to watch.

She never was desperate, all she did was flirt really. She knew deep down inside she could never have Bond and settled for what they had already, a great friendship.

[[dark]]

So I was watching GoldenEye last night for the first time in a couple of years (actually, the first time since I caught it on the big screen at the Empire Leicester Square). It - or rather the video game it inspired - was the reason I became a Bond fan. GoldenEye is the film I've seen probably more than any other 007 movie, and I've always considered it a favourite.

Yet last night, it left me strangely empty. Even disappointed. I'm a bit floored at my reaction. This is GoldenEye! The (first) second coming of Bond! The reason I'm here (on CBn, I mean - I don't owe my very existence to Pierce Brosnan's debut outing). It was a bit like catching up with an old flame and realising it wasn't as great as you remember it.

I watched it with my girlfriend, who, with the exception of Casino Royale, had never seen a Bond movie before this week. On Sunday, we watched Goldfinger, which she enjoyed. GoldenEye, however, left her cold. Maybe this is why I had a similar reaction - I was essentially watching it through the eyes of a first-time viewer. After the brilliance of Goldfinger and Casino Royale, I was showing her a movie that simply doesn't compare (even though few films in the 007 canon compare to those two greats).

Speaking of Casino Royale, it's the first time I've watched GoldenEye since Martin Campbell's triumphant return to the franchise. Is the man who directed the energetic, vibrant Casino Royale really the same person who helmed the enjoyable but really just adequate GoldenEye? I accept that GoldenEye had an entirely different mandate to Casino Royale - it was an update, not an upheaval - but the two movies are eons apart.

Perhaps GoldenEye hasn't aged well. Last night was the first time Eric Serra's score bothered me in parts (I've always been a strong advocate of it). It was the first time the references to Bond being a Cold War relic seemed somewhat forced. It was the first time I was troubled by Bond machine-gunning baddies like it troubles me in Tomorrow Never Dies. Most damningly, it was the first time I thought Pierce Brosnan gave an at-times forced performance; he's at his best when he's laidback and lets it come naturally, like in - dare I say it - The World Is Not Enough or Die Another Day.

The villain's caper is interesting, but the way it's revealed is anticlimactic - am I right in saying Bond deduces Trevelyan's scheme by glancing at a computer monitor? Where's the token villain speech where he lays out his grand plans to Bond?

GoldenEye is also a really dull-looking movie. It's very claustrophobic - the movie is shot so tightly, like the whole thing was filmed with a pinhole camera. The only set you get a real sense of is the chemical plant in the pre-titles sequence. Take a look at the casino scene - it's shot so tightly you can only see about five extras in the background. There's no scope.

Virtually everything is dark and grey. St Petersburg ain't the Bahamas, but is GoldenEye the least exotic of the Bond films?

It's not without its plusses, though - the notion of a rogue 00-agent is appealing and I love the three-villain dynamic between Trevelyan, Onatopp and Ourumov. The tank chase is good fun, while the destruction of Severnaya is impressively done. Zukovsky is a great ally - not just another Kerim Bey rehash. Both the pre-titles sequence and the final battle are one of the best in the series' history. And Daniel Kleinman's wonderful title sequence update can't go without a mention.

It's probably still Brosnan's best (even though The World Is Not Enough sometimes jostles for that position on my list), but I find the Brosnan films slowly slipping in view of the whole franchise. It pains me to say it - I still think Brosnan was a great Bond. But I'm still taken aback that I've had these realisations.

Or maybe I just had an off day and GoldenEye is still as awesome as I remember.

[SpyGal006]

Voted a 9. It could have been much much darker!

[Hitmonk]

No more than 3 - its never been anything more than an overgrown TV movie for me. There's very little in this one to suggest that the same Director would also later come up with Casino Royale. The only reason why I think it was remotely successful was becasue of the 6 year gap and people being grateful to see Bond back on screen. It's other saving grace was that Brosnon was not quite as bad in the role as I expected him to be.

As you can probably tell, I'm not a great fan...

[Thunderball302]

I gave it a solid 6. A well-made action film, but not even close to the really good Bondfilms (FRWL, TB, OHMSS, TSWLM, FYEO).

i'd give Goldenye a solid 7.5 - not bad - it could have been better - but it could have been much worse. Brosnan showed that he could pull off playing Bond - Famke Janssen as Xenia Zirgavna Onatopp, one of my favorite Bond henchmen.

that being said - FYEO is hailed as one of Moore's best - bringing the series back to reality after the awful Moonraker. i tried to rewatch FYEO the other night and i could only make it halfway through it - it was very boring.

give me GoldenEye over FYEO anyday!