44 replies to this topic

[gkgyver]

So, I am sitting in my hotel room in Austria late at night, zapping into the beginning of GoldenEye on Austrian television. Of course, I stuck with it and watched it all, since in my head, I always remembered it as Brosnan's best outing by far. It was the first Bond film I saw in the theatre.
I found me quite surprised - about myself - because the movie felt very out of touch with James Bond. Not just out of touch with the early films, but also, strangely enough, with the Brosnan flicks that followed.
There is something about the scripting that completely annoys me.

The most uncomfortable scenes to watch are the ones with Bond and Natalya, especially the closing scene - that is not James Bond! Brosnan flashing his teeth and laughing like a ? It feels like out of a Bay movie!
Also, the friendship story with Trevelyan surely was new at that point in the series, but even though later films (TWINE) also featured heavy psychological gibberish, it still feels worse, and more melodramatic, in GoldenEye.
Saunders' death in TLD gets the same message across.

Did you also have to re-evaluate a Bond movie after some time has passed?

[Lachesis]

Nope completely the opposite - I thought it was tremedous fun, as good if not better than my original viewing. the character emphasis was very welcome. Chasing the plane in the PTS is still annoyingly unnescessary of course and I still bemoan the fact that Dalton wasn't on board - because I'd have loved to see him work that kind of script. As for Brosnan, he is definitely finding his feet but actually seems to be enjoying the role, he doesn't labour any overwrought and unconvicing angst this time around and the overall film is much the better for it imo. still a solid 8/10 for me.

[quantumofsolace]

I don't like any Broz film much but this is the best one. It has the best set design , cinematography and direction. It also has a great supporting cast. Broz is okay but too skinny and looks desperate to impress(he peaked in the next film).
There's a lot to like but it has dated the most quckly of all the Bond films. It came at a time when action films were in flux , and it also has the internet stuff which dates it. Watch it for what it is though and it's still a lot of fun. It did well at the box ofice so we've a lot to thank it for. If it had failed then the series would probably have finished.

Edited by quantumofsolace, 31 August 2010 - 09:02 PM.

[Turn]

GE feels very much a Bond film as far as trying to be too familiar, sometimes to a fault. It ticks off several trademarks in an attempt to bridge the old with the new:

-Signature stunt in the teaser
-Bond in a tux
-Bond in a casino
-"Bond, James Bond" introduction
-Bond in an Aston Martin DB5
-Female henchman with a sadistic streak
-Mad Russian general
-Russian villains
-A satellite with deadly capabilities
-Q gadgets
-Exotic car with gadgets
-High-tech hidden villain's lair
-Villain's exotic personal transportation (deluxe train)

There's probably a few others, but these were just off the top of my head.

Before you say "all of the films have these" consider that LALD was something of a reboot and dispensed with several things such as the tux scene, casino scene, Q scene, no Aston Martin and a few other familiar trademarks. CR also didn't depend on most of those items.

The only things really different were a female M, new Mi6 and a non-traditional score by Eric Serra.

[zencat]

I'm still a big fan.

[DamnCoffee]

I feel the only thing different about GoldenEye is the soundtrack. If it had a more traditional score, then It would probably wouldn't sound as dated.

Still a fun film though!

[The Shark]

I feel the only thing different about GoldenEye is the soundtrack. If it had a more traditional score, then It would probably wouldn't sound as dated.

Then it wouldn't fit the film.

[Matt_13]

Never really liked Goldeneye. Choice aspects of it, yes. Valentine was great fun, as was Joe Don Baker. But the plot is a disaster. The whole 006 getting "shot in the head" thing, and Bond not realizing it was faked is ridiculous (if Bond had not seen the incident directly it'd be different). However, Martin Campbell certainly knows how to shoot a film, and it is one of the more interesting Bond movies to look at. Dam jump, tank chase, and Robbie Coltrane aside, there really isn't all that much for me to like in Goldeneye.

[tdalton]

GOLDENEYE still comes across for me as one of the strangest films of the entire franchise. I do find it amazing that, for as much criticism as LTK gets in regards to looking like a TV movie, that GOLDENEYE looks every bit as much like a TV movie, and gets little criticism in that regard. It's not a great film by any stretch, and it completely wastes the whole idea of having a rogue 00 Agent and Bond squaring off (which is a great idea, but not in this film). To me, the only particularly redeeming aspects of the film are Sean Bean (who should have been Bond in this film) and Eric Serra's underrated score.

Looking back on it, I find it very difficult to understand why this film was so wildly popular. The only factor that I can see is that it was the first Bond film in 6 years and the first one back after people thought that the franchise was done forever. If this had been just another Bond film, it would have been met with a great deal of indiference and would have probably ranked as, at the very best, a mid-tier Bond film that failed to capitalize on its intriguing premise.

[Lachesis]

I feel the only thing different about GoldenEye is the soundtrack. If it had a more traditional score, then It would probably wouldn't sound as dated.

Still a fun film though!

Oddly imo all the non Barry scores feel 'dated', whereas Barry's sound just feels timeless...but maybe its my nostalgic ear ^^.

I do find it amazing that, for as much criticism as LTK gets in regards to looking like a TV movie, that GOLDENEYE looks every bit as much like a TV movie, and gets little criticism in that regard.

I love LTK but do recognise a sense of 'made for TV' in its cinematography, its sets (probably the lighting) and the somewhat inconsistent acting. I don't feel any other Bond has that same TV style atmosphere, certainly not GE, but you know despite this 'perception' there are some great TV movies, so it really is not the most serious of criticisms.

[jrcjohnny99]

Always thought GE was one of the weaker Bond movies (right down there with DAF + AVTAK for me;
Serra's score is just horrible and the whole thing feels quite forced.
It's easily Brosnan's least comfortable performance.
Like all Bond movies, it does have some nice touches, but overall it doesnt hold up well.
It's also my least watched Bond movie.

[Colossus]

Sorry but i'm not part of the revisionist criticizing of Goldeneye, it earns all the cred it has just like Goldfinger.

[AMC Hornet]

Eric Serra's score was about all I didn't like about GoldenEye. That and how some of the dialogue sounded like the screenwriters were working on a Bond pastiche like Flint or Matt Helm and asking themselves "what would James Bond say in a situation like this? 'Is this your idea of coming through in a clinch?' Great! Well have our guy say that!" This of course was because they were working without the late, great Richard Maibaum, who had a longtime flair for genuinely witty dialogue. Those were my complaints when the film was new, and they remain my only complaints.

The only time my opinion ever changed was when I grew up and decided that Moonraker wasn't as brilliant as I'd originally thought. Plus I was influenced by John Brosnan's review of You Only Live Twice, which he described as "a gaudy but effective spectacle." Later I decided not to let other people's opinions influence my own, and I remain to this day a proud defender of TB, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, OP and DAD.

No one has to agree with me. I respect your opinions as well (unless you're a defender of that dreadful AVTAK...).

Edited by AMC Hornet, 01 September 2010 - 09:27 PM.

[Turn]

Sorry but i'm not part of the revisionist criticizing of Goldeneye, it earns all the cred it has just like Goldfinger.

The only thing linking GoldenEye to a true classic of the series like Goldfinger is they have a character named James Bond, an Aston Martin DB5 and gold in the titles.

That's not revisionist. I feel pretty much the same about GE as I did after seeing it the first time nearly 15 years ago. Some good stuff, some awful stuff, but nothing groundbreaking or really above average that would merit it's mention with the top films of the series.

[elizabeth]

I love this film. Not Broz's best (to me), but it is terrific. And I agree with you that Broz smiling so widely is impish, but it is still a great film and I love all the nerds I can relate to.

[The Shark]

Really don't get all the hate of Serra's score. Unsurprisingly, and rather predictably it often seems to come unanimously from Arnold fans.

[Publius]

I'm still a big fan, although I like TND better, but I think it's biggest fault is casting a new actor in the first Bond movie in over six years and having just about every character give Bond a "this is the 90s, you misogynist dinosaur" speech while Brosnan just grins and takes it. Either bring Bond back with something proudly bombastic like TND, or have Dalton (or Sean Bean) be the defiant Bond in a new world that still needs him.

[jrcjohnny99]

Sorry but i'm not part of the revisionist criticizing of Goldeneye, it earns all the cred it has just like Goldfinger.

Nothing revisionist from me; was hugely dissapointed when it came out, had so much higher hopes.
I thought TND was significant;y better but overall Brosnan's era never got to the heights i'd hoped for.

Comparing it to Goldfinger is like comparing 'Family Plot' to 'Rear Window'.

[captnash2]

having just about every character give Bond a "this is the 90s, you misogynist dinosaur" speech while Brosnan just grins and takes it.

yes, brosnan's bond takes this criticism on the chin but the rest of the movie sees him dish out the kiss, kiss, bang, bang, just like 007 always does so well.

they were wrong to doubt him.

and so were those who thought the bond movies obsolete in the 90s.

Edited by captnash2, 03 September 2010 - 09:14 AM.

[David_M]

Really don't get all the hate of Serra's score. Unsurprisingly, and rather predictably it often seems to come unanimously from Arnold fans.

Well I for one can't stand David Arnold, and I think Eric Serra's GE score is the worst in the series. (If NSNA was an official entry there might be a contest, but it isn't.)

I agree with other posters here that GE feels "low rent" and TV-ish compared to other entries, that Bond does some jarringly off-note things, that Brosnan seems way too stiff in many scenes ("Hey look, I'm a ruthless killer! You can tell by my fierce pout!") and that the plot is a shambles. I never could figure out, for example, why Ouromov stages the fake killing of 006 for Bond's benefit, then tries his damnedest to kill Bond before he can escape. Why put on the show if you're just going to kill Bond anyway? Or on the flip side, why try so hard to kill him if you want him to run back and tell the world Alec is dead?

But then, that was all stuff I felt at the time, so I guess it doesn't count as "re-evaluating." I realized just the other day GE is the only Bond I still haven't bothered to get on DVD, so I guess it's not surprising I haven't seen it in a while. I'm not sure my VCR even works any more.

Edited by David_M, 02 September 2010 - 12:23 PM.

[Lachesis]

Really don't get all the hate of Serra's score. Unsurprisingly, and rather predictably it often seems to come unanimously from Arnold fans.

Well I for one can't stand David Arnold, and I think Eric Serra's GE score is the worst in the series. (If NSNA was an official entry there might be a contest, but it isn't.)

I agree with other posters here that GE feels "low rent" and TV-ish compared to other entries, that Bond does some jarringly off-note things, that Brosnan seems way too stiff in many scenes ("Hey look, I'm a ruthless killer! You can tell by my fierce pout!") and that the plot is a shambles. I never could figure out, for example, why Ouromov stages the fake killing of 006 for Bond's benefit, then tries his damnedest to kill Bond before he can escape. Why put on the show if you're just going to kill Bond anyway? Or on the flip side, why try so hard to kill him if you want him to run back and tell the world Alec is dead?

But then, that was all stuff I felt at the time, so I guess it doesn't count as "re-evaluating." I realized just the other day GE is the only Bond I still haven't bothered to get on DVD, so I guess it's not surprising I haven't seen it in a while. I'm not sure my VCR even works any more.

I don't see a problem with the pts plot tbh the point was Orumov was determined to catch 007 not kill him, I wouldn't be surprised to find all the guards were firing blanks (oooh errrr misses) but he certainly denies his men the ability to take bond when it might have been possible. Bond captured and traded back elevates Orumovs role in Russia and sells the death of 006 even more substatially than the eventual outcome. Its Bonds tenacity and wits that actually see him do the unthinkable ie escape (also doing 6 impossible things before breakfast) almost literally killing 006 along the way - hence the face scars.

[Jim]

Dullwitted gutless piffle of a film.

[plankattack]

No it's not one of the greats of the series, but because of the circumstances GE should be judged more on how it seemed "at the time."

GE to me was about making sure that Bond was back after six years away. It did that very well - sure it's full of homages and perhaps "feels" like a Bond film, rather than actually "being" a good Bond film. But that was the point. In '95 we all went in with anticipation and felt great about the series and the character when we came out. Which is different from coming out and thinking it's a great film.

I think GE was an exercise in, and I can't believe I'm saying this ( ), emotionally reconnecting. It's nostalgic and feel-good, rather than being good. I don't think it's a bad movie now, but it definitely has lost it's sheen because the series has moved on. Remember, '89 to '95 felt like forever for some of us, so Bond's return was beyond just being a "good" film - it had to feel like Bonds had always felt, which is sometimes completely disconnected from the former.

As a film, then yes, my opinion has changed over the years. But as a comeback moment, GE was, and in my mind still is, a success. (and on the homage thing, GE pays better tribute to the series than DAD ever did, IMHO).

[Turn]

No it's not one of the greats of the series, but because of the circumstances GE should be judged more on how it seemed "at the time."

GE to me was about making sure that Bond was back after six years away. It did that very well - sure it's full of homages and perhaps "feels" like a Bond film, rather than actually "being" a good Bond film. But that was the point. In '95 we all went in with anticipation and felt great about the series and the character when we came out. Which is different from coming out and thinking it's a great film.

I think GE was an exercise in, and I can't believe I'm saying this ( ), emotionally reconnecting. It's nostalgic and feel-good, rather than being good. I don't think it's a bad movie now, but it definitely has lost it's sheen because the series has moved on. Remember, '89 to '95 felt like forever for some of us, so Bond's return was beyond just being a "good" film - it had to feel like Bonds had always felt, which is sometimes completely disconnected from the former.

As a film, then yes, my opinion has changed over the years. But as a comeback moment, GE was, and in my mind still is, a success. (and on the homage thing, GE pays better tribute to the series than DAD ever did, IMHO).

But when it comes down to it, and though it was two years less in coming to after the previous film, doesn't what CR did diminish the feeling of GE in retrospect now all the more? It does for me.

[Colossus]

CR was big but the Bondmania following CR cannot be compared to how big GE's Bondmania was.

[plankattack]

But when it comes down to it, and though it was two years less in coming to after the previous film, doesn't what CR did diminish the feeling of GE in retrospect now all the more? It does for me.

Without a doubt Turn, yes - I couldn't agree more. The feeling I had during the opening credits of CR trumped how I felt about GE after the final credits. For me, CR was the film I'd waited thirty years for. GE doesn't hold up as well as a film, not by a long shot but I will, fairly or no, give it somewhat of a free pass.

[sharpshooter]

I still like it, but not to the extent that I once did. Casino Royale changed everything.

[Lachesis]

I think Goldeneye was in effect a celebration of the series to date, relaunching the franchise after an extended break but determinedly retaining the previously establised identity, Casino Royale deliberaly abandoned that identity to reimagine the series we went from (unique action adventure to superior but more generic actioner imo). DAD for all its criticism was actually a massive success and Casino's springboard was consequently much more energetic than the six year derth GE faced but the literal commercial gain from one film to the next is probably a lot closer than might be expected.

[Turn]

CR was big but the Bondmania following CR cannot be compared to how big GE's Bondmania was.

GE was greatly helped by having an established star many people already associated with Bond and, probably most of all, a groundbreaking video game, although it came later on. For sure it helped relaunch the series and brand for the public and helped bring in a new set of fans.

CR's reception was rather different, though, as it took what was already a successful product, rolled the dice and came up huge, especially in light of a lot of negativity about the new Bond before anything was even filmed.

Instead, expectations were exceeded. CR launched a new star and arguably had more people eager for the follow-up film. I don't recall nearly as many tie-ins to the two Craig films as I do with the Brosnan era, where he was showing up in everything from credit card commercials to cell phones, watches, etc. to promote the films.

In summary, they were two fairly different eras separated by a decade. One was supported as much by market hype and the other by word of mouth and critical interest.

[Colossus]

Yes they have different backgrounds as to why they were big, having an established actor for GE and an established story with CR. Whichever movies are better makes no difference that the latter 90s Bondmania was was far greater than the latter 2000s one. The hype and aftermath of CR was great but i cannot forget how HUGE it was with GE.