Pros and Cons: Goldeneye

Absolutely_Cart

Released in 1995, starring Pierce Brosnan, it was a big comeback from the 6-year hiatus induced by legal disputes. Brosnan was originally supposed to be Bond after Moore, but couldn't due to contractual obligations. With Dalton resigning, Brosnan was the natural choice. It got positive reviews and it grew to be an iconic entry in the series. The N64 video game strengthened the legacy.

PROS:
[list=*]
[*]Brosnan's performance balanced the Connery's charm, Moore's camp and Dalton's aggressiveness[/*]
[*]Strong independent women characters for a change & Bond's misogyny is critcized[/*]
[*]A unique kind of story for a post Cold War world.[/*]
[*]Great cast all around. Alec, Xenia, Boris, Natalya. And of course, M.[/*]
[*]The last 30 minutes were intense[/*]
[*]Opening gunbarrel sequence.[/*]
[/list]

CONS:
[list=*]
[*]Follows the Bond formula (in an obligatory way) from scene to scene[/*]
[*]Sometimes the serious and camp conflict (Bond driving a tank?!)[/*]
[/list]

Overall Thoughts:
While other films fawn Bond, this one is more self-deprecating and has a little commentary to it. This film modernizes Bond while still holding onto its traditional elements. It's a really refined well-made film, definitely representative of a new generation of viewers.

AlphaOmegaSin

Pros -

Brilliant Theme Song
Interesting Villain Concept
A reinvention of the Bond Character
Amazing Locations
Tank Chase -{

Cons -

In my Opinion, there are none for GE

broadshoulder

My least favourite Bond film..

....hold me back

Barbel

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Lacked personality of other Bond films. Soundtrack, maybe?

Soundtrack, definitely. If not the worst score in Bond history, it's right up there with NSNA.

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

Cons -

In my Opinion, there are none for GE

In mine, the score!

Thunderpussy

Oddly enough I think the " Cold percussion" feel to the music
Suits the Russian locations.

Number24

I enjoy GE a lot, but the soundtrack and the car (BMW )were misteps. A special mention for Tina Turner and the title song.

Moore Than

Goldeneye is my favourite of the Pierce Brosnan era by some distance. It is the only one that pretty much holds my attention from start to finish. Principal characters such as Alec Trevelyan, Natalya Simonova, Xenia Onatopp, and Valentin Zukovsky are all memorable and portrayed very well. Likewise with the new MI6 staff, M, Tanner, Moneypenny, and not forgetting Bond himself. Brosnan, though totally not relaxed in the role, looks good. Another highlight to mention is the Bond/Q scene.

The action scenes do not always work for me. For example, the bungee jump from the dam is great, but I then find it difficult to suspend disbelief when Bond chases the plane off the mountain top, not helped by poor effects when he gets into the plane.

The score is one of the weakest of the series. Having said that, I am not distracted by it in any way while watching the film. Brosnan's introduction as Bond is not in the best possible taste, upside down in a toilet already occupied. The special effects are generally not up to standard, most likely due to budget constraints.

hehadlotsofguts

It's a great film, but i don't understand Trevelayan's back story. If his parents killed themselves just AFTER WW2, wouldn't Trevelayan be in his 50s? He looks as if he's in his 30s. That's my only problem with GE.

David Schofield

Like LTK, GE manages a "personal" adventure with none of the aimlessly insular naval gazing of Craig's brace.

That sense of unabashed adventure is enough to overlook some shortcomings. These days at least.

Absolutely_Cart

I enjoyed the over-the-topness, like the tank scene. I also enjoyed Brosnan's performance. Maybe time will make memories grow fonder. I remember not being impressed with Skyfall at first and then loving it soon enough after. I was surprised to read mixed critical reviews of it. I always thought Goldeneye. Maybe it was more of a cultural phenomenon than an excellent movie (i.e. You Only Live Twice). Right now Goldeneye is a "like" - not a "love". But that is certainly subject to change.

Absolutely_Cart

David Schofield wrote:

Like LTK, GE manages a "personal" adventure with none of the aimlessly insular naval gazing of Craig's brace.

Interesting point.

But Goldeneye is every bit as insular navel-gazing as Craig's films. Just in a different sense. In recent films, it was Craig's introspection on his character. In Goldeneye, it was the writers introspection on previous films in the series.

David Schofield

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

David Schofield wrote:

Like LTK, GE manages a "personal" adventure with none of the aimlessly insular naval gazing of Craig's brace.

Interesting point.

But Goldeneye is every bit as insular navel-gazing as Craig's films. Just in a different sense. In recent films, it was Craig's introspection. In Goldeneye, it was a matter of writers trying to look at the flaws their previous films and trying to write a correction-film for the series.

I'm not sure you "get" what I mean by "insular naval gazing".

Craig-Bond feels sorry for himself even from the get-go (remember, he ludicrously feels sorry for himself early in CR because he can only foookk married women ). After that its downhill from there, even though most of the "problems" (ie Vesper) are not of his creation.

In LTK and GE, Bond has personal issues but never once seems to feel sorry for HIMSELF but just gets on with the job.

broadshoulder

I have never been a fan of the bungee jump. For precisely the reason that it IS a bungee jump. There’s no real danger to someone at the end of a piece of elastic. But to be fair there is not much danger in Tim dangling from a helicopter on a piece of elastic at the start of LTK. The plane/dive/catch up in midair didn’t work and I was rolling my eyes and I am someone who doesn’t mind the hovercraft gondola. To be honest there is OTT stuff in each of the film. I can roll with it.

The below I can’t

“Closing time James..”

“Buy me a pint..”

This was a problem all the way through the film. A long time ago I used to live with a lot of unemployed actors up in Islington. They used to have a saying called “It says here” whenever an unnatural piece of dialogue occurred on screen. As if the actor had no choice but to say the dialogue. It was often dialogue so bad it kicked you out of the story. This kind of dialogue had no basis in reality and you could almost see the script out of shot. GE had a lot of dialogue like this.


They were apologising for James Bond all through this film.

Absolutely_Cart

David Schofield wrote:

I'm not sure you "get" what I mean by "insular naval gazing".

Craig-Bond feels sorry for himself even from the get-go (remember, he ludicrously feels sorry for himself early in CR because he can only foookk married women ). After that its downhill from there, even though most of the "problems" (ie Vesper) are not of his creation.

In LTK and GE, Bond has personal issues but never once seems to feel sorry for HIMSELF but just gets on with the job.

Craig was a self-conscious Bond. Goldeneye was a self-conscious movie.

While Brosnan was unapologetic, the writers of Eon were really concerned with what other people thought of the Bond series. They wanted to modernize it and apologize for its past mistakes (like misogyny). It also wanted to flat-out state that Bond was not a perfect hero, and it used characters as devices/mouthpieces for it.

I really appreciate Eon taking a second look at their franchise, but perhaps it was how they did it that felt artificial. With movies like The Living Daylights and Live and Let Die, they didn't really care a ton about what certain sects of fans thought. They just went out and did it. With Goldeneye, it feels like they calculated the right formula for pleasing everybody. Just the right amount of darkness, just the right amount of charm, some big-budget action, some adherence to the formula, a primal caveman Bond with a suave gentleman actor on a tight leash. This degree of equilibrium had to be more than just a coincidence.

Absolutely_Cart

broadshoulder wrote:

This was a problem all the way through the film. A long time ago I used to live with a lot of unemployed actors up in Islington. They used to have a saying called “It says here” whenever an unnatural piece of dialogue occurred on screen. As if the actor had no choice but to say the dialogue. It was often dialogue so bad it kicked you out of the story. This kind of dialogue had no basis in reality and you could almost see the script out of shot. GE had a lot of dialogue like this.

They were apologising for James Bond all through this film.

Exactly.

A lot of the times the characters felt like they were saying things they wouldn't normally say in order to advance the plot or make commentary. It breaks viewer immersion. It was funny when Lazenby said "This doesn't happen to the other fella", but not advisable for the duration of the entire film.

I would keep M's fantastic introduction and I would keep the line about Bond's martinis silencing the screams, but I'd cut out most of the other mouthpiece lines. For example, I love the fact that Moneypenny stands up to Bond, but the way she did it felt stilted.

Asp9mm

I watched Leon last night. Same soundtrack pretty much.

Sir Miles

Asp9mm wrote:

I watched Leon last night. Same soundtrack pretty much.

It is...and it's a better film -{

Virgil37

PROS:
* Tank chase
* Famke Janssen, great villain.
* Title song.
* The fact that it managed to bring the franchise back to life after what seemed like the end.
* Judi Dench as M.
* Izabella Scorupco is pure eye candy.
* Pierce Brosnan in GE is quite acceptable as Bond. He plays him more serious than in the rest of his movies.

CONS:
* PTS.- Utter nonesense. First, a gratuitous jump for spectacle sake. Then, the worst introduction of a new Bond ever (hanging upside down in a toilet, and saying the line "I beg your pardon, forgot to knock". WTF?. Then another gratuitous and totally unbelievable stunt jumping after a plane (where is the dam he just jumped a few minutes ago?). They couldn't do it in real life (because it's impossible), so they used Superman flight FX. Ridiculous.
* Joe Don Baker.- I never like him in TLD. In GE as comic relief he's even worse.
* The villain's lair is ridiculous, very YOLT.

Overall, an average movie with some fun scenes, but disappointing .And worrying, because it paved the way for disasters as TND and DAD.

Absolutely_Cart

I found the toilet scene quite funny. But I agree there were better ways to introduce Bond.

Virgil37

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I found the toilet scene quite funny.  But I agree there were better ways to introduce Bond.

Quite an understatement, my friend.

Colonel Shatner

And it was replayed brilliantly in the famous hit N64 game. )

The Cuban lair strained credibility a bit with the artificial lair turning into a dish, but I really, really dug the sprawling Janus command centre beneath, combining 1960s Ken Adams with 1990s techno thriller kistch.

I always liked the gravely underrated TND more than DAD.

Gassy Man

Overall, I was disappointed by Goldeneye, wanting something big and colorful. I'd waited six years for Bond to return, and I'd had high hopes for Brosnan.

But the whole film felt underdone, from the awful rear-projection work and hokey "stunt" to catch the Russian airplane to the pay cable movie production quality to the uneven performance by Brosnan, who here lacked much of the natural charm that had made him seem perfect for James Bond. I didn't find the villain interesting, though Sean Bean is a capable actor. The mediocre script was paint-by-numbers. Imagine how thrilling one double-O against another could have been, and what we got instead was just another version of villains we'd seen before. I did like the Bond girls, though Famke Janssen was doing a poor man's version of Fatima Blush from the unfairly derided Never Say Never Again and the bird-faced psychologist didn't do anything for me. The soundtrack was odd, though the theme song was pretty good. The set pieces were for the most part unimpressive and poorly used -- I recognized the telescope from an astronomy course. Judi Dench's M was a highlight, but, again, the writing was middling. The worst occurred when after properly dressing Bond down -- shades of Bernard Lee's M -- rather than just let him leave, everything was undercut by her "Do come back alive" line or whatever. It was cartoonish, juvenile writing. We can't figure out she's just being tough on him? Speaking of bad writing, Alan Cumming's campy computer nerd almost made me leave the theater. So did the scene where Onatopp blithely executes the colleagues -- rather than scare, it made my stomach turn. Joe Don Baker's appearance in a completely different role was just strange. Brosnan's off-the-rack wardrobe was bland, and the film couldn't figure out if it wanted to be hard-hitting or silly.

Brosnan was good in some parts. When he fights Onatopp in the sauna, he is James Bond.

I'm not sure having Brosnan make his first full-on appearance in front of a Russian soldier defecating is Bond's finest hour.

I didn't leave the theater with high hopes for the future of Bond. I did think the follow up was more like a Bond film, though it suffered from another of the problems with Brosnan's Bonds -- unimpressive adversary.

raptors_887

broadshoulder wrote:

My least favourite Bond film..

....hold me back

Haha what? You would rather watch Diamonds are Forever if someone gave you the choice?

AlphaOmegaSin

Virgil37 wrote:

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I found the toilet scene quite funny.  But I agree there were better ways to introduce Bond.

Quite an understatement, my friend.

Bond jumping off the Dam is an impressive Scene though -{

Thunderpussy

) it impressed the hell outta Me ! {[]

Absolutely_Cart

I liked the opening scene too

Virgil37

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

Virgil37 wrote:

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I found the toilet scene quite funny.  But I agree there were better ways to introduce Bond.

Quite an understatement, my friend.

Bond jumping off the Dam is an impressive Scene though -{

I agree it makes a great youtube video, but in the context of the movie it makes no sense. Why does he jump? What's the motivation? is he followed by several russian agents trying to kill him? is he pushed by Jaws? No, he just jumps.
And perhaps more important, if he jumped the dam, how come he jumps again a few minutes later from a mountain top?

AlphaOmegaSin

There is a deleted Scene which takes place before the Jump, so it explains things a bit more clearly.

Absolutely_Cart

Virgil37 wrote:

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

Virgil37 wrote:

Quite an understatement, my friend.

Bond jumping off the Dam is an impressive Scene though -{

I agree it makes a great youtube video, but in the context of the movie it makes no sense. Why does he jump? What's the motivation? is he followed by several russian agents trying to kill him? is he pushed by Jaws? No, he just jumps.
And perhaps more important, if he jumped the dam, how come he jumps again a few minutes later from a mountain top?

Quite forward-thinking actually. That's precisely the reason why The Dark Knight was a classic and the Dark Knight Rises was underrated.

Virgil37

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Virgil37 wrote:

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

Bond jumping off the Dam is an impressive Scene though -{

I agree it makes a great youtube video, but in the context of the movie it makes no sense. Why does he jump? What's the motivation? is he followed by several russian agents trying to kill him? is he pushed by Jaws? No, he just jumps.
And perhaps more important, if he jumped the dam, how come he jumps again a few minutes later from a mountain top?

Quite forward-thinking actually. That's precisely the reason why The Dark Knight was a classic and the Dark Knight Rises was underrated.

Why?

Thunderpussy

Why build a death star, with a big flaw in the design ?
To make entertaining for the audience. )