To GoldenEye Fans

CasinoChris75

Watch Gene Siskel Bash Your Movie.

bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html?sec=6&subsec=GoldenEye

Hardyboy

That's quite a chip you've got on your shoulder, Chris. Did a "GoldenEye Fan" kick dirt in your face at the beach?

Surrie

That guys an idiot.

taity

Its funny, but to me there are just some people who dont get the idea of James Bond. Its not there to be taken seriously, its there for a good laugh.

Surrie

Well said!

Lazenby

Well he was expressing an honest opinion, and I for one agreed more-or-less with the general spirit of it (though I certainly don't count myself among the Connery-or-nothing hardcores). I will admit to a little guffaw when he remarked, tinged with a little disgust that "Roger Moore has a more commanding physical presence than [Brosnan]". )

Jamesbondjr

He's entitled to his opnion just as much as we are. But at the end of the day what does it matter what someone else thinks?

Just because a 'famous' film critic didn't enjoy it, why can't I?

Reading a review that disses a film I like doesn't wind me up, nice try though. {[]

Goldeneye has been one of my favourite films in the series since I first saw it and it will remain so, no matter what anybody else thinks.

CasinoChris75

I don't have a chip on my shoulder when it comes to GoldenEye. It is not a bad film as the cast is excellent. I don't agree with Gene Siskel's comments on GE, especially when he stated something like, "if one likes James Bond they will not like GoldenEye."

I am not really a fan of the film because it takes very long to get started and is kind of boring until Bond meets up with Alec.

The movie I really detest is YOLT. It is the film that puts a chip on my shoulder.

actonsteve

CasinoChris75 wrote:

I, especially when he stated something like, "if one likes James Bond they will not like GoldenEye."

.

I tend to agree with him. I thought at the time it was Bond by numbers. Playing safe after the Dalton years with secret base operating with satellite and a generic female friendly Bond.

Still some of the lines are sharp, the theme tune by TT is wonderful and I like the leading ladies. The Brosnan era stunt casting (ie Hatcher and Richards) hadnt kicked in yet. You can still detect the Cubby Bonds with this one. Soon to disappear.

But it still languishes in my bottom five along with the other Brosnans.

Napoleon Plural

I could have gone along with it had the script been wittier. I liked the spectacle and didn't care for the plot (or understand it too much) but DAF I don't get either but still enjoy it. Bits of it I enjoyed when watching on Sat night.

Alex

I'm probably one of the few fans who isn't particularly emamored with the Alec Trevelyen role. I'm a big fan of Sean Bean's excellent Richard Sharpe series and others. (The Jack Ryan-Ford film he did for example) His Boromir in LOTR, also top tier.

However, lines such as Natalya, "tasting like strawberries" sounds a little too "forced" for my tastes. Still a very enjoyable 007 entry. No denying that

Dan Same

I love GE and I consider it to be the best Bond film since TSWLM. However I think that all of the psychoanalyzing prevents it from being an absolute masterpiece (which is how I would describe the first four Bond films, OHMSS and TSWLM.)

Honey Rider

Dan Same wrote:

I love GE and I consider it to be the best Bond film since TSWLM. However I think that all of the psychoanalyzing prevents it from being an absolute masterpiece (which is how I would describe the first four Bond films, OHMSS and TSWLM.)

I agree with Dan however I would like to add one extra criticism of GE. I found Natalya to be quite annoying at times. Other than that and the psychoanalyzing which Dan mentioned, I think it's a terrific Bond film.

taity

actonsteve wrote:

I tend to agree with him. I thought at the time it was Bond by numbers. Playing safe after the Dalton years with secret base operating with satellite and a generic female friendly Bond.

Ive always loved Brosnan as Bond, I think he is the perfect generic James bond. That said, I felt all his movies were strictly by the numbers. TWINE is a great example - bond falls in love with the film's central villian. then for no reason, he hooks up with some skank he meet who had a funny name. If they had really wanted to do a movie that broke all the rules, why not have him end up alone at the end?

Ive never been that fond of GoldenEye - Ive always felt that between when Bond visits Russia and the tank chase nothing happens, yet it takes about 30 mins of screen time. And too much time is spent at Servanya. I always wish they had cut those two elements down, just to get a better pacing for the film.

TonyDP

Gene Siskel was rarely kind to Bond, or most films with even an inkling of commercial appeal for that matter; be they Bond, Star Trek, Star Wars or their ilk. He was a snob, plain and simple, and always looked down his nose at such films as his criticisms were often very petty, inconsistent and sometimes downright nasty - leading to some pretty spirited disagreements with Roger Ebert (Octopussy comes to mind; as does another show where he actually panned Bambi).

As far as Bond goes, when reviewing the Roger Moore Bond films, he would always revert to comparing Moore to Connery and finding him lacking. When Dalton took over, he derided the actor (even saying he looked like a horse in his review of LTK) and said Brosnan would have been a better choice. When Brosnan finally did get the part, Siskel said he wasn't as good as Moore. About the only way Siskel would have ever given Bond a second look would have been to make it a Merchant and Ivory production.

Personally, I enjoyed Goldeneye; I thought it was a solid effort (Brosnan's best IMHO) although like Dan I could have done with a little less pyschoanalysis. But as far as Siskel is concerned, his opinions meant nothing to me. I pretty much tuned him out after the horse comment in his review of LTK as that really crossed the line.

Napoleon Plural

TonyDP wrote:

I pretty much tuned him out after the horse comment in his review of LTK as that really crossed the line.

What, in a photo finish?

Alex

TonyDP wrote:

Gene Siskel was rarely kind to Bond, or most films with even an inkling of commercial appeal for that matter; be they Bond, Star Trek, Star Wars or their ilk. He was a snob, plain and simple, and always looked down his nose at such films as his criticisms were often very petty, inconsistent and sometimes downright nasty - leading to some pretty spirited disagreements with Roger Ebert (Octopussy comes to mind; as does another show where he actually panned Bambi).

As far as Bond goes, when reviewing the Roger Moore Bond films, he would always revert to comparing Moore to Connery and finding him lacking. When Dalton took over, he derided the actor (even saying he looked like a horse in his review of LTK) and said Brosnan would have been a better choice. When Brosnan finally did get the part, Siskel said he wasn't as good as Moore. About the only way Siskel would have ever given Bond a second look would have been to make it a Merchant and Ivory production.

Personally, I enjoyed Goldeneye; I thought it was a solid effort (Brosnan's best IMHO) although like Dan I could have done with a little less pyschoanalysis. But as far as Siskel is concerned, his opinions meant nothing to me. I pretty much tuned him out after the horse comment in his review of LTK as that really crossed the line.

Total agreement.

I hate to speak ill of the deceased but I rarely agreed with Siskel's reviews. Petty is a good way of describing a few of his arguments towards the merits of "genre" films.

Ebert, on the other hand, was more a forgiving sort, giving credit for enthusiasm and heart in right place if a film lacked in other areas or wasn't "serious" enough. (which appeared at times where Siskel's appreciations primarily went towards)

My favorite Siskel & Ebert memory was a very spirited argument over the merits of Clark Gable! (of all people)

Honey Rider

TonyDP wrote:

as does another show where he actually panned Bambi.

He panned Bambi? That's horrible. )

I'm of the view that critics who judge films based on what genres they are of (for example, it's a horror film so therefore it can't be a good film) are not particularly great at their job as films, like literature, should be judged on whether they achieve their objective and wether they are simply good films, rather than what genre they are.

CasinoChris75

TonyDP wrote:

Gene Siskel was rarely kind to Bond, or most films with even an inkling of commercial appeal for that matter; be they Bond, Star Trek, Star Wars or their ilk. He was a snob, plain and simple, and always looked down his nose at such films as his criticisms were often very petty, inconsistent and sometimes downright nasty - leading to some pretty spirited disagreements with Roger Ebert (Octopussy comes to mind; as does another show where he actually panned Bambi).

Gene Siskel was a snob and rarely gave a light entertainment film a thumbs up. Among those rare times was when he placed The Blues Brothers on his ten best list for 1980, putting Die Hard 2 on his ten best list for 1990, and praising Tomorrow Never Dies.

Here is their review of TND:

bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html?sec=6&subsec=Tomorrow+Never+Dies

Sweepy the Cat

How dare he bash GE! My fave Bond film ever. It features all the main elements. Fast cars, beautiful girls, exotic locations, spectacular stunts etc. It's fast, furious, funny and fantastic. A real spy thriller (unlike 21st centuary tripe like the bourne series)

Steed

I personally think 'Goldeneye' is so far ahead of all the other Brosnan Bonds as a film, it's unfair to compare them. It's definitely in my top 10, whereas the others are usually near the bottom.:(