44 replies to this topic

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

I think it is different from other Bond movies...it's better than them all! Goldeneye's been my favourite Bond movie for a number of years now, I think because I love the style of it all. It feels very 1990s, and the action scenes are some of the best in the series, particularly the fight between Bond and Trevelyan on the dish.

[plankattack]

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.

For sure. But after nearly fifty years, I'm always pleasantly surprised that there is still Bondmania at all. It say's something to the character's longevity.

[Gogol Pushkin]

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.

That's actually true. Having went through the 90's with only television screenings and videos, having a brand new Bond adventure in 95 was a big, big deal, I remember having went through my childhood obsessions with the movies in an almost quiet way, with only the previously mentioned television viewings to go by only to be confronted with Bond everywhere, in television, in the papers, on billboards was amazing. It truly felt like an event. Don't get me wrong, I can remember the palpable sense of excitment for CR as well, but we knew we were getting a Bond movie in 2006. Back in 1995 we had gotten Bond back when there was the possibility the series was dead in the water.

[Colossus]

Yep and i still remember the gigantic GE poster draped covering most of the wall where escalators were going up in that theater like something from ancient rome.

[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.

Then it wouldn't fit the film.

... right, so?

I wasn't debating whether or not it would improve the film. I was merely stating that the only thing different about GoldenEye from any of the other Bond films is the soundtrack. It's the only reason I thought it was different as a kid. If it had a more traditional soundrack, with a lot more Bond theme, then it probably would play out as more of a traditional Bond picture. Sure GoldenEye looks and sounds dated, but it isn't a bad thing. Honestly, one states their opinion, and it is labelled incorrect.

[Harry Potter]

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.

you got it in one; not the best, but at the time it was a great indicator of what was to come

[The Ghost Who Walks]

I re-evalued this movie myself recently, in that I now really like it. It's not perfect (a bit too long, frankly), but Brosnan is good in it (if a bit unsure in a few scenes, but he "fixed" that in his other films), but this is a very good film even without T-Dalt. And that Jim VS Alec fight near the ened is still fantastic.

[Gogol Pushkin]

I re-evalued this movie myself recently, in that I now really like it. It's not perfect (a bit too long, frankly), but Brosnan is good in it (if a bit unsure in a few scenes, but he "fixed" that in his other films), but this is a very good film even without T-Dalt. And that Jim VS Alec fight near the ened is still fantastic.

Definitely ranks as one of the best fight sequences in a Bond film for sure. If I remember correctly, the scene was actually cut in several places here in the UK until the release of the Ultimate Edition DVD. Surprisingly brutal sequence actually and both actors throwning themselves into it very well.

[freemo]

The film is one big tease.

Constantly promises things but fails to deliver on them. We're introduced to a gadget-filled car in Q's lab, like we have so many times before, but no car chase comes from it. Wade's remarks about "sending in the marines" wets ones appetite for a You Only Live Twiceesque "mass assault on the villains lair", but instead all we get five army guys in a gag at the end.

Don't get me wrong, not every Bond film needs to have a gadget-car chase, or the big raid of the villains lair. Hell, I could do just fine without them. But to imply that we are going to get those things, and then not deliver? Odd. Some may argue that's the secret of it's genius: that it turns the envelope on it's head and pushes all the dusty old Bond cliches into new envelopes. But for me, it feels cheap somehow.

The pleasure is all yours.

[jaguar007]

Yep and i still remember the gigantic GE poster draped covering most of the wall where escalators were going up in that theater like something from ancient rome.

While the public enthusiasm for GE was big, it still pales in comparison to the public enthusiasm for TSWLM and MR (which pales in comparison to GF and TB).

From my recollection, GE did have the most public enthusiasm than any Bond film since Octopussy (at least in the US). CR was off to a slower start partially because of the negative press surrounding Craig. However CR had much longer box office legs than any Bond movie in recent memory due to the great word of mouth.

[Colossus]

"While the public enthusiasm for GE was big, it still pales in comparison to the public enthusiasm for TSWLM and MR (which pales in comparison to GF and TB)."

While i wasn't around for the 70s i can believe it. For the 60s i'm willing to bet Bond was bigger than even Star Wars was in the late 70s/80s. The Bondmania scale would probably go:

1960s>1970s>1990s>2000s/1980s? Don't know when it was bigger in the 80s with a mummy Moore and dour Dracula or mid 2000s with aging Broz and spunky Putin.

[Turn]

1960s>1970s>1990s>2000s/1980s? Don't know when it was bigger in the 80s with a mummy Moore and dour Dracula or mid 2000s with aging Broz and spunky Putin.

Don't discount 1983, when the Battle of the Bonds had everybody talking about Moore and Connery having competing films.

[Colossus]

Oh that's right, also Lazenby during that same year coming back for UNCLE, that does up the ante and previously i thought 00s slightly edged out the 80s but now it's even thougher to pick.

[_JW_]

... 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?

From what I gathered, Ouromov isn't just staging the killing of 006 for Bond's benefit, it's more for the benefit of all the soldiers at the facility serving under him. He doesn't want to give away his traitorous plans and activities to the entire Russian army, right? The only other insiders in on the evil plans are Xenia and later Boris.

But I do wonder about Ouromov 'shooting' Alec with what was presumably a blank but then only moments later shooting down one of his own soldiers (the man with the itchy trigger finger who almost blasted the explosive barrels Bond was hiding behind). I'm certainly no gun expert, so maybe someone can educate me on this, but I wasn't aware you could load an automatic pistol with a clip with only one blank in it (please don't mock me too bad if I'm dead wrong about this ).

[AMC Hornet]

I'd say that all Ouromov had to do was miss Trevelyan, and make sure the riccochet didn't "blow the gas tanks."
Let's not over-think the details, people - we've had fifteen years to think about the results, they had one year to get the product to us. I know we all nitpick because we care about the series, but I am always just happy to have a new entry. They don't ask me to vet the finished script or rough cut of the film and I'm glad, because:

a) I don't want to know all the details before I see each new film on opening day, and
Who knows what I might overlook? I wouldn't want to be the one one responsible for not noticing the plot holes. The writing/directing team take enough heat as it is.

Roll on #23 - I'll be happy enough to see it, before I start nitpicking it to death....

Edited by AMC Hornet, 14 November 2010 - 05:51 AM.