80 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

As I sat down to watch another Bond film tonight, I decided to go with Brosnan's debut film (and coincidentally, the next film in the series seeing as I watched LTK a few days ago).

I've dogged this film a lot over the years, finding new things in it to gripe about, but tonight when I watched it it felt like a whole new film to me (thanks in no small part I'm sure, to the fact that I haven't seen it in a few years). From beginning to end this film is entertaining, while it's been said that this film seemingly plays like a greatest hits package, what a package it is. One thing that surprised me was the look of the film, this film looks so different than the rest of the films of Brosnan's run, due to Campbell no doubt. While the film takes place after the end of the Cold War, those tensions are still evident in the film, and it's this atmosphere that really gives the film it's edge. While I don't care for the over saturated look he gives the Cuban beach scene (a complaint I hold with CR as well) the Monte Carlo scenes are beautifully shot and really...well really look grand (for lack of a better word).

Brosnan has also gotten a lot of flack for this film, and while I still hold the complaint that he's not given a whole lot to do in the first half of the film. I feel his performance here is much more grounded than we got in the films to follow. Why the Brosnan era had to have such an inconsistent tone I'll never know. If only Campbell came back for the follow up.

Lastly, while I know the Brosnan films get a lot of flack for favoring action over story (a complaint I've made time and again as well). What surprised me the most is how talky the film really is. Aside from the teaser Bond doesn't see any real action until the second half of the film. And while I still feel the tank chase is a little silly, it's undeniably a well put together sequence and pretty exciting. It's also nice to see Bond doing some real detective work here as he has to follow the leads to get to his goal, rather than just having everything fall into his lap. I'd also be remiss if I didn't give props to the Ken Adams inspired satellite control room in the finale. It's a real shame this is the only Brosnan film with a villian's lair. While I don't have any particular problems with the stealth ship, sub, and airplane finales of the next three, it's a little disappointing nonetheless.

I like to say it's a real shame Brosnan's films didn't follow the formula of Tomorrow Never Dies, and while I still hold that belief. What's a real shame is that they didn't use Goldeneye as a template for the Brosnan erea.

[Gothamite]

I also re-watched GoldenEye a week or so ago and was blown away by how much I enjoyed myself. Everything I usually scoff at (the dull pace, Serra's score, the uninteresting characters) surprised me. Serra's score really is quite appropriate and interesting for a new-age "90s" Bond movie. It dares to be different than John Barry and in a lot of cases, it succeeds. The only times it truly fails is in any of the scenes where Bond is having a conversation with romantic or sexual undertones. Serra uses the same theme for all three Bond girls in the film! Pretty ironic when this Bond film made a big point about how Bond wasn't as sexist anymore.

The tank chase was basically sublime. It may have been a bit silly, but it was never ridiculous. Also, the use of the Bond theme in full force was basically perfect here and possibly one of my favourite uses of it in the whole series.

EDIT: I have just discovered that Serra's original score was replaced in that scene by a more traditional Bond theme by a different composer. Well...well done to that different composer. In this case, tradition wins the day.

The only thing that almost lets down the scene is Bond's adjusting his tie at the end. An awkward return to Moore-ish sight gags and an uncomfortable reminder that this was not going to be a whole lot like the Dalton era.

I certainly believe Campbell's direction was what gave this film the edge the other Brosnan's didn't have (not that I'm one of the far-too-many Brosnan haters on this forum; I love the guy). Brosnan's performance is a little bit more calm and careful than the over-smarmy performance that came in his subsequent outings. It really is a pity Campbell didn't get Tomorrow Never Dies. TND is a good film even in spite of its apparently massive production difficulties. I would have loved to see what Campbell could have achieved on that film. Although that may have meant that we wouldn't have gotten The Mask of Zorro, which to me, wouldn't have been worth it.

Also, I just can't express how much I love the Tina Turner song and its accompanying title sequence. This has always been my favourite part of the movie and continues to be. The fact that there are so many people who don't love it...troubles me.

Edited by Gothamite, 04 January 2011 - 01:39 PM.

[00Twelve]

Goldeneye's charming, no doubt.

I'd still take it over his other three any day of the week.

[Murdoc]

Goldeneye was a great bond film for the bronson era. IMO, the best one; the second being TND. And Campbell's direction is needed for future bond films I think. He did a fantastic job with CR. I'd like to see him tackle future bond movies again.

[quantumofsolace]

Easily the best film of the Broz era,mostly because of the supporting cast and the standard but more than competent direction. However, Broz himself was at his best as Bond in TND.

GE: nervous,skinny
TND: fit,confident
TWINE: drama queen
DAD: fat, old and bored

[Mr. Blofeld]

Personally, I would have loved to see a GoldenEye directed by Campbell, starring Timothy Dalton, and staying a bit closer to the original Michael France script... but we can't always get what we want, can we?

[The Shark]

I like to say it's a real shame Brosnan's films didn't follow the formula of Tomorrow Never Dies, and while I still hold that belief. What's a real shame is that they didn't use Goldeneye as a template for the Brosnan erea.

They did that, and that's the problem. While GOLDENEYE was unique in its deconstruction of Bond and his relevance today, the remaining films merely tried to use GOLDENEYE as a template rather than tackle new issues - globalisation, commercıalısation etc... They merely took superficial features (now tropes) from GE - super-long PTS, personal angle to each plot, 'Bond equals' (none as compelling or down-to-earth as Natalya), repeating them with none of the wit, intelligence and sheer guile of the original. Watering them down. Novelty becoming the new formula.

Kind of like the experiment of the pigeons (B.F Skinner's Operant Conditioning Chamber) fed with food at random intervals. Each time the bird demanded more food, it repeated whatever actions it performed at the last time it was fed. Whether that was turning, swivelling its head, pecking the walls etc... Superstition in action - associating unconnected actions with random events.

The only difference is that GOLDENEYE'S main strength isn't random, or down to chance - Michael France's screenplay. The filmmakers just didn't know what exactly worked, and what caused the films success. They replicated trivial elements (re-hiring Bruce Feirstein could be considered on of them, since the guy only contributed to a minute portion of the script), hoping they could strike lucky twice.

[blueman]

I thought GE made for a nice comic book movie. Not a Bond movie, that's something different, but good enough for the kiddies.

[Aris007]

Goldeneye was a brilliant movie for Brosnan's era as far as I'm concerned, but it had one drawback to be honest. In the second half of the movie there's a big reference to computers, technology, satellites and so and it seems that Bond goes to the backgroung of the movie and plays more in a supporting role. In the first half however the plot, the scenes, the atmosphere is brilliant! A fan of the movie in the end!

[Zorin Industries]

Broz himself was at his best as Bond in TND.

Agreed.

[O.H.M.S.S.]

Everytime when I realize how great GoldenEye is, I always feel bad for the missed opportunity of the rest of the Brosnan era. I mean Pierce was really excellent here, they should have done more with him. TND is a bloody videogame, TWINE is neither here nor there and DAD is a complete bastardisation after a promising start. But GE, wow, I love GE. Hanging around in the fancy Monte Carlo casino, the (post) Cold War atmosphere in the PTS and St-Petersburg, the exotic Cuba scenes. Bond being funny without overdoing it, he finishes off his own past so to speak. Also the fantastic cast is a must: Sean Bean, Robbie Coltrane, Tchécky Karyo, Gottfried John, etc. Every single character in this movie is worth remembering. The brilliant title sequence, the beautiful cinematography which provides the movie with a comic-like feel. And let's not forget Eric Serra's underrated music score which accentuates the Russian motif.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Rare pics:

http://www.moviepict.../GoldenEye.html

Search for other films too, there are rare pics (particulary from the Brosnan and Craig era)

[sharpshooter]

Thanks for the link, Nicolas. Quite a few good ones there I've never seen before.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

img20.imageshack.us/img20/1103/goldeneye1502594d.jpg

My gave one in HQ. Thanks to forum member Marketto.

[Publius]

From beginning to end this film is entertaining, while it's been said that this film seemingly plays like a greatest hits package, what a package it is.

For some reason, I've always found it to be rather unique, although clearly they were going for a "generic" approach (as opposed to a true "greatest hits", which DAD is more of). Between the weird score, which I do like, and the often "grungy" look, it just feels very different from most Bond films. Cap that off with the strangest song to ever close a Bond film, and it really is in a world of its own at times, for better or worse.

I love it personally, but I do ding it for the whole "everybody disses Bond all movie, and he just takes it" undercurrent.

[The Shark]

I love it personally, but I do ding it for the whole "everybody disses Bond all movie, and he just takes it" undercurrent.

He's indifferent, but eventually takes action toward the end of the film, from the hotel spa onwards.

[Publius]

I love it personally, but I do ding it for the whole "everybody disses Bond all movie, and he just takes it" undercurrent.

He's indifferent, but eventually takes action toward the end of the film, from the hotel spa onwards.

Well, the fact that they wrote it like that at all bothers me, he should have been defiant from the beginning. And although Brosnan didn't write the script, I like to think Dalton would have at least given M, Moneypenny, Zukovsky, etc. his infamous evil eye to state his case in defense of Bond, whereas Brosnan just kind of had a sheepish gaze. I always got the impression Brosnan was so happy to be Bond that he wasn't willing to rock the boat for at least one more movie.

[jaguar007]

Easily the best film of the Broz era,mostly because of the supporting cast and the standard but more than competent direction. However, Broz himself was at his best as Bond in TND.

GE: nervous,skinny
TND: fit,confident
TWINE: drama queen
DAD: fat, old and bored

I agree with you here. I think GE is the overall the best film of the Brosnan 4, but he came off a little insecure in the part. His best performance was in TND (which actually happens to be my favorite of the 4).

Oh how I would have loved to see Dalton in GE.

[The Shark]

I love it personally, but I do ding it for the whole "everybody disses Bond all movie, and he just takes it" undercurrent.

He's indifferent, but eventually takes action toward the end of the film, from the hotel spa onwards.

Well, the fact that they wrote it like that at all bothers me, he should have been defiant from the beginning.

That's missing the point entirely. The aim is for Bond to be questioned, put to the test. In order for this to work, Bond has to be a cinematic (not literary) archetype of Bond. More ice (Connery) than fire (Dalton). The arc of the film, is Bond's relevance being doubted, until Bond is finally sent on the mission. From here onwards, but becomes more and more proactive, less reactive. If Bond were defiant from the start, he'd have nowhere to go.

[Publius]

That's missing the point entirely.

Not quite. How it could, and should, have been:

Everyone around Bond: "You're an irrelevant, misogynist, relic of the Cold War."
Bond (defiantly): "Not irrelevant."
*events of the movie transpire*
Everyone around Bond: "...damn, you were right."

Bond doesn't have to doubt himself or agree with his critics for the movie to work as a vehicle bringing the character up to date with the times. If anything, it would have worked better for Bond to have been the lone dissenting voice - it would have added a wrinkle to his otherwise strictly professional (until he meets "Janus") motivation in the movie.

Although admittedly, that whole angle would have made the most sense with Dalton as Bond. Brosnan could get away without asserting himself early on because he had yet to establish his Bond anyway.

[The Shark]

That's missing the point entirely.

Not quite. How it could, and should, have been:

Everyone around Bond: "You're an irrelevant, misogynist, relic of the Cold War."
Bond (defiantly): "Not irrelevant."
*events of the movie transpire*
Everyone around Bond: "...damn, you were right."

Well, Brosnan effectively does the same without the signposting dialogue. Image should always been given predominance over dialogue in film. All it takes is a weary but knowing stare from Brosnan. No theatrics required.

Bond doesn't have to doubt himself or agree with his critics for the movie to work as a vehicle bringing the character up to date with the times. If anything, it would have worked better for Bond to have been the lone dissenting voice - it would have added a wrinkle to his otherwise strictly professional (until he meets "Janus") motivation in the movie.

But the icon has to be self-aware aware of his past, in order for the deconstruction to take place. The deconstruction of identity isn't at odds with Bond - he still is a "Sexist, misogynist dinosaur. Relic of the Cold War" but relevant, nevertheless.

Ideally this shouldn't be Dalton's Bond, but a more anonymous face for which Bond's cinematic legacy can be projected onto. The re-establishment of his identity and relevance to the changing world must require an everyBond figure who self-reflects. Otherwise the questioning is meaningless if it's only external. It must hit home with Bond, who should ruminate rather than reject these opposing arguments. Without that internal conflict, there's no arc.

This wouldn't work with Dalton - an entirely different (but no less effective) approach.

[Publius]

Well, Brosnan effectively does the same without the signposting dialogue. Image should always been given predominance over dialogue in film. All it takes is a weary but knowing stare from Brosnan. No theatrics required.

And that first point is where we differ. To me, Brosnan came across as tacitly accepting the various lobs thrown at him. He just sported a misplaced grin or a blank stare in those moments. Maybe you and I just read that differently into his acting, but I never saw any fire in his eyes or even a sinister glare, never did he brusquely cut through the distracting nonsense to get back to the business the world still needed him for even if it was too ashamed or blind to admit. Again, a lot owes to the writing forcing Brosnan into those situations, but I just never got the impression he was even trying to elevate Bond above all the over-the-top posturing by his critics.

By the way, I wasn't actually demanding the dialogue I used as an example in my previous post. Hopefully that was obvious.

But the icon has to be self-aware aware of his past, in order for the deconstruction to take place. The deconstruction of identity isn't at odds with Bond - he still is a "Sexist, misogynist dinosaur. Relic of the Cold War" but relevant, nevertheless.

That last sentence is exactly my point. He shouldn't dispute the rest of the criticism (although he might laugh to himself about how overblown it is), he should be disputing the claim that he's irrelevant. Mostly by his actions and how he carries himself. I just wasn't satisfied with the nuance of Brosnan's acting in that regard.

This wouldn't work with Dalton - an entirely different (but no less effective) approach.

I think it would because he would have been an actual Cold War relic confronting a new political landscape and changing bureaucracy. Dalton's Bond had the authority and resume to carry the character over into the 90s. I always felt something like TND would have been better for introducing Brosnan, since it made no apologies about what it is and thus the confidence (bravado?) was palpable.

[The Shark]

Well, Brosnan effectively does the same without the signposting dialogue. Image should always been given predominance over dialogue in film. All it takes is a weary but knowing stare from Brosnan. No theatrics required.

And that first point is where we differ. To me, Brosnan came across as tacitly accepting the various lobs thrown at him. He just sported a misplaced grin or a blank stare in those moments. Maybe you and I just read that differently into his acting, but I never saw any fire in his eyes or even a sinister glare, never did he brusquely cut through the distracting nonsense to get back to the business the world still needed him for even if it was too ashamed or blind to admit.

Towards the end of the film, that's exactly what happens. Bond faces his cultural and socio-political demons. As I've said quite clearly several times - that's the arc of the film.

The final epiphany can be boiled down to one exchange:

"For England James?"

"No, for me."

Thus Bond is now re-constructed as a hero for our globalised, commercıalısed world. For better or worse.

But the icon has to be self-aware aware of his past, in order for the deconstruction to take place. The deconstruction of identity isn't at odds with Bond - he still is a "Sexist, misogynist dinosaur. Relic of the Cold War" but relevant, nevertheless.

That last sentence is exactly my point. He shouldn't dispute the rest of the criticism (although he might laugh to himself about how overblown it is), he should be disputing the claim that he's irrelevant. Mostly by his actions and how he carries himself. I just wasn't satisfied with the nuance of Brosnan's acting in that regard.

But he must doubt his own relevance. That's where the conflict lies, the film's tension. If Bond brushes it off aside and gets on with the job, then all of the (necessary) obstructions in his way become meaningless - mild irritations rather than genuine provocations.

This wouldn't work with Dalton - an entirely different (but no less effective) approach.

I think it would because he would have been an actual Cold War relic confronting a new political landscape and changing bureaucracy. Dalton's Bond had the authority and resume to carry the character over into the 90s. I always felt something like TND would have been better for introducing Brosnan, since it made no apologies about what it is and thus the confidence (bravado?) was palpable.

But Dalton's Cold War of the Gorbachev Regime is a very different animal to that associated with iconic Bond (Connery and Moore). Dalton's landscape of the crippled and liberalised Soviet Union was already a 'changing world.' As I said, a blank slate was needed for Bond's iconic past to be projected onto it, before any deconstruction and re-assembly could take place. Dalton Bond's poor reputation with the critics and general public would be detrimental to that aim.

[jaguar007]

But Dalton's Cold War of the Gorbachev Regime is a very different animal to that associated with iconic Bond (Connery and Moore).

But Connery and Moore's Bonds were very much different animals from each other, not just the actors portrayal of Bond, but the elements of their time as well.

[The Shark]

But Dalton's Cold War of the Gorbachev Regime is a very different animal to that associated with iconic Bond (Connery and Moore).

But Connery and Moore's Bonds were very much different animals from each other, not just the actors portrayal of Bond, but the elements of their time as well.

You're right, but I wasn't conflating them. I was simply making the point the point that their tenures and errors were more iconic in the public's consciousness than Dalton's Bond and the late 80s. Nothing more.

[JimmyBond]

This is a very fascinating debate you two are having, but I think I'm going to lean towards Shark's side.

I've always felt Bond was too reactive in the beginning half of the film, but it does work based on the ideas that Shark is conveying. I never really noticed the arc there before but after reading through the posts I can see it now.

[Publius]

Towards the end of the film, that's exactly what happens. Bond faces his cultural and socio-political demons. As I've said quite clearly several times - that's the arc of the film.

The final epiphany can be boiled down to one exchange:

"For England James?"

"No, for me."

Thus Bond is now re-constructed as a hero for our globalised, commercıalısed world. For better or worse.

That doesn't change the fact that not only am I disagreeing with that approach, I'm also criticizing Brosnan's acting. You said it yourself, great films show rather than say, but the way Bond is "deconstructed" is by having a female M, an empowered Moneypenny (despite Lois Maxwell having done it better 30 years earlier), and buffoonish characters like Zukovsky and Wade verbally bash the Bond mythos with a litany of cliches. Even Trevelyan gets in on the fun, although at least Bean delivers it well, and he has the added benefit of the "bitter 00 turned rogue" angle.

But he must doubt his own relevance. That's where the conflict lies, the film's tension. If Bond brushes it off aside and gets on with the job, then all of the (necessary) obstructions in his way become meaningless - mild irritations rather than genuine provocations.

Why MUST he? It's enough for those around him to doubt his relevance and even for us as viewers to question it. If you want to peel back the layers even further, fine, but demand more out of Brosnan (I'm not doubting he's capable) and write something more along the lines of Casino Royale. Goldeneye was caught in a bizarre limbo, trying to be both a celebratory "welcome back" and an introspective modern thriller, although not quite as bad as The World is not Enough would later handle its own identity crisis.

And even then... Bond could question his relevance without coming across so unsure of himself. Again, this being Brosnan's debut, in a part he apparently always dreamed about and later was almost robbed of, didn't help matters.

But Dalton's Cold War of the Gorbachev Regime is a very different animal to that associated with iconic Bond (Connery and Moore). Dalton's landscape of the crippled and liberalised Soviet Union was already a 'changing world.' As I said, a blank slate was needed for Bond's iconic past to be projected onto it, before any deconstruction and re-assembly could take place. Dalton Bond's poor reputation with the critics and general public would be detrimental to that aim.

Obviously, the Cold War changed in nature even over the course of Connery's time as Bond. Tensions were at their highest before Goldfinger was even released.

And my arguments have nothing to do with box office, they're about which actor would have given Bond the greatest weight in a movie where he catches so much flak - the incumbent Bond and veteran thespian, or the fresh-faced neophyte. In a lot of ways, GoldenEye had great potential to have been a sort of "Licence Renewed" to Dalton's Licence to Kill. Shame they didn't go down that route.

[The Shark]

Towards the end of the film, that's exactly what happens. Bond faces his cultural and socio-political demons. As I've said quite clearly several times - that's the arc of the film.

The final epiphany can be boiled down to one exchange:

"For England James?"

"No, for me."

Thus Bond is now re-constructed as a hero for our globalised, commercıalısed world. For better or worse.

That doesn't change the fact that not only am I disagreeing with that approach, I'm also criticizing Brosnan's acting. You said it yourself, great films show rather than say, but the way Bond is "deconstructed" is by having a female M, an empowered Moneypenny (despite Lois Maxwell having done it better 30 years earlier), and buffoonish characters like Zukovsky and Wade verbally bash the Bond mythos with a litany of cliches. Even Trevelyan gets in on the fun, although at least Bean delivers it well, and he has the added benefit of the "bitter 00 turned rogue" angle.

Well, I'd say the supported cast is top notch, and handle all of the provocations with the appropriate conviction, wit and sense of irony.

But he must doubt his own relevance. That's where the conflict lies, the film's tension. If Bond brushes it off aside and gets on with the job, then all of the (necessary) obstructions in his way become meaningless - mild irritations rather than genuine provocations.

Why MUST he? It's enough for those around him to doubt his relevance and even for us as viewers to question it.

It's not. Otherwise Bond and everyone else (including the viewer) would be on an entirely different plane, and simply wouldn't gel with the rest of the film. Those comments need to resound with Bond, otherwise they'd might as well be talking to a brick wall.

Self-reflection is also a key trope of Fleming's Bond. Often he doubted his own usefulness to the service, and whether or not the double-o section might be obsolete - as does M.

If you want to peel back the layers even further, fine, but demand more out of Brosnan (I'm not doubting he's capable) and write s
omething more along the lines of Casino Royale.

Well, I'd say CASINO ROYALE's a considerably less coherent and profound film in its construction of Bond. But it's also an entirely different approach, since it chronicles Bond ascent from man to icon. Golem to to man to ubermensch. GOLDENEYE isn't an origin's story, it's purpose to is de-construct 33 years of Bond's legacy, along with his cultural impact, and help redefine him for the 21st Century. And IMO, succeeds incredibly well at that.

The following films were simply botched, compromised, and poorly written attempts at recreating GOLDENEYE's success without ever understanding why it hit a chord with the public consciousness. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH is ultimate realisation of that trend. A hopeless tragico-comic farce.

Goldeneye was caught in a bizarre limbo, trying to be both a celebratory "welcome back" and an introspective modern thriller,

I'd argue that it keeps the celebrations and 'greatest hits syndrome' to a bare minimum, compared to the Baby Boomer reverie/'Cool Britannia'/Hong Kong Action Movie-fest orgy that is TOMORROW NEVER DIES.

And even then... Bond could question his relevance without coming across so unsure of himself. Again, this being Brosnan's debut, in a part he apparently always dreamed about and later was almost robbed of, didn't help matters.

I could agree, but the film wouldn't work. At least the entire script would have to be drastically altered.

But Dalton's Cold War of the Gorbachev Regime is a very different animal to that associated with iconic Bond (Connery and Moore). Dalton's landscape of the crippled and liberalised Soviet Union was already a 'changing world.' As I said, a blank slate was needed for Bond's iconic past to be projected onto it, before any deconstruction and re-assembly could take place. Dalton Bond's poor reputation with the critics and general public would be detrimental to that aim.

And my arguments have nothing to do with box office

Mine are more to do with popularity with the public and critical reception than simply box office results, which rarely tell anything - other than how well a film was marketed.

they're about which actor would have given Bond the greatest weight in a movie where he catches so much flak

But that's what the film requires. It needs levity, and someone with more of a cool detachment than what Dalton honed. A blank, fresh slate (free of associations with the 80s Bond films) for those 30 years to be cast onto it.

In a lot of ways, GoldenEye had great potential to have been a sort of "Licence Renewed" to Dalton's Licence to Kill.

But the public (for the most part) didn't want Dalton's "License Renewed". They wanted a replacement.

[Publius]

Well, I'd say the supported cast is top notch, and handle all of the provocations with the appropriate conviction, wit and sense of irony.

The supporting cast was interesting and fun to watch, with some good actors among them... but that doesn't make the Bond-dissing any better.

It's not. Otherwise Bond and everyone else (including the viewer) would be on an entirely different plane, and simply wouldn't gel with the rest of the film. Those comments need to resound with Bond, otherwise they'd might as well be talking to a brick wall.

...or to someone who legitimately doubts the bull the world is feeding him. Again, where is it written that your protagonist has to be brooding or introspective? He can disagree fervently with what those around him are saying, and his motivation can stem from a desire to prove everyone wrong.

Is 12 Angry Men less of a great work because Juror #8 is the lone dissenting voice, who never strays from his conviction, ultimately converting the rest of the jury? Or any of the countless movies and novels where only one person knows a Deep Dark Secret and has to convince everyone around him of the veracity of his claims?

Self-reflection is also a key trope of Fleming's Bond. Often he doubted his own usefulness to the service, and whether or not the double-o section might be obsolete - as does M.

Not really sure why you're bringing Fleming's Bond into a movie like Goldeneye (aside from personal preference). While not straying the most from the source material, it's also very clearly a rejection of many of the things that defined Fleming's Bond. Remember that this movie's angle is "it's the 90s now, EVERYTHING is different, plus women are people". Fleming's Bond, on the other hand, was a creature of post-WW2 Britain and the EARLY Cold War (as opposed to it being over altogether) and his mentality was very much a product of the 50s.

Well, I'd say CASINO ROYALE's a considerably less coherent and profound film in its construction of Bond. But it's also an entirely different approach, since it chronicles Bond ascent from man to icon. Golem to to man to ubermensch. GOLDENEYE isn't an origin's story, it's purpose to is de-construct 33 years of Bond's legacy, along with his cultural impact, and help redefine him for the 21st Century. And IMO, succeeds incredibly well at that.

How did it actually redefine him? Even forgetting everything that went wrong in the following movies, Bond was fundamentally the exact same man at the end of Goldeneye as he was at the beginning. And there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, if the movie is, as I suggested it should have been, about Bond validating his conviction that politics could change but he was still, and always would be, needed.

I'd argue that it keeps the celebrations and 'greatest hits syndrome' to a bare minimum, compared to the Baby Boomer reverie/'Cool Britannia'/Hong Kong Action Movie-fest orgy that is TOMORROW NEVER DIES.

Obviously it doesn't go over-the-top to the extent TND does, but to me it was clear that the powers that be (understandably, given the circumstances of Bond's return) wanted Goldeneye to be everything to everyone. Or as much as possible to as many as possible. That included numerous nods to Bond cliches, which are more celebratory (or if you really hate the approach, generic checklist) than "greatest hits". There's a big difference between the approaches. It wasn't trying to remake or channel a past Bond movie, but you could tell they wanted to have fun in welcoming Bond back (and rightly so). The only problem was that they also wanted to make a slightly dark spy thriller that people would take seriously. It's a testament to how good of a movie it is that it still worked.

Mine are more to do with popularity with the public and critical reception than simply box office results, which rarely tell anything - other than how well a film was marketed.

...

But the public (for the most part) didn't want Dalton's "License Renewed". They wanted a replacement.

Again, box office, popularity, whatever... not my point. I'm arguing from a critical standpoint. Dalton, through of a combination of his personal style and what would have been two movies plus eight years in the role, would have given Bond a greater weight. Brosnan was new to the part, with a background in TV (and a secondary character in Mrs. Doubtfire), and he had the pressure of trying to resurrect Bond. I give him credit, but all those factors still come through in his performance. They were not present in the rest of his movies, though.

But that's what the film requires. It needs levity, and someone with more of a cool detachment than what Dalton honed. A blank, fresh slate (free of associations with the 80s Bond films) for those 30 years to be cast onto it.

I'm not saying that approach is wrong or inferior, just that the way Brosnan actually performed under the circumstances makes me think Dalton would have been better, even though it would have to be slightly different. I think the fresh slate was more important for characters like M (now a female, and a number-cruncher rather than Cold Warrior) and Moneypenny ("girl power" instead of the harmless, girly Caroline Bliss) than for Bond.

[Baccarat]

Easily the best Brosnan film, due mostly to the triumvirate of Campbell, Bean, and the man himself. And unlike most, I like Serra's score and find it almost wholly complementary to the action; it's certainly more adventurous and memorable than anything Arnold has produced.

Despite some annoyances (Alan Cumming, silly Q sequence, Bond's miraculous leap from the dish antenna to the helicopter, the Marine helicopters that silently appear out of nowhere at the end, Serra's awful "song" over the closing titles), I always enjoy it. Unfortunately, Brosnan's talents were done a considerable disservice by subsequent scripts and directors, and it was all downhill for him after GE.