My review of "Goldeneye"
actonsteve
Posts: 299MI6 Agent
Goldeneye? is a very successful James Bond film.
It is not classic Bond, it doesn?t have you back at the cinemas paying your money to see it twice but it works well. Mainly due to Pierce Brosnan acting his little heart out and the absence of 007 for six years. By that time we were desperate to see 007 back on our screens. It has got everything you expect from a Bond film sharp script, loads of action, big explosions, sleek women, menacing villains and a couple of good oneliners.
At this time there is enough links to the Broccoli classics for the film to work, but as the Brosnan series continued the threads to Fleming and Broccoli disappear and Hollywood takes over, the seeds of the mess the series will become are sown in Goldeneye.
That is not say it is not a very enjoyable film. The budget must have been enormous and the scale and extravagance of the Bonds is still there. It also finally addresses the final demise of the Cold War. By 1995 the Soviet Union no longer existed it had been replaced by the democratic Russian Federation. It was not the threat it once was, the British Secret Service no longer solely directed its efforts against the defunct KGB but also against new enemies now rising from the carcass of the old Soviet Union namely the Russian mafia. The best thing about Goldeneye is that it drags Bond kicking and screaming into the modern world.
It also attacks Bonds sexism head on. I've always felt a little uncomfortable with this but then realised this is just as much a part of his character as the vodka martinis and Aston Martins. But the world had changed again and M the head of MI6 is now a woman who takes Bond sexism to task. There is also an attempt to inject more female elements into the script. When Bond and Russian Defence minister Mishkin are slandering each other across the table at St Petersburg police headquarters, the girl Natalya Simonova interjects accusing them of being Boys with toys!. Ouch.
However, there is something missing from Goldeneye. The plot is extravagant with enough twists to keep John Le Carre on his toes and the first half hour is explosive as we watch the villains raid a Siberian radar dish and fire off the 'Goldeneye' satellite on the surrounding area. Massive devastation and superb special effects follow and combined with Eric Serra's music the segment is very enjoyable. The script is good with some superb lines for Sean Bean, Pierce Brosnan and Judi Dench. In the above mentioned interrogation scene "No chit chat. No threats. That's the problem today. No one really takes time to do a really good interrogation"
The director is Martin Campbell who does an exciting sharp job on the film. His romantic scenes, especially in Puerto Rica/Cuba are lush and beautiful and he handles the action scenes with aplomb. With the James Bond character he handles the revenge/dark side very well and certainly puts Brosnan though his paces. But the problem is that 007 is now competing with all the other action heroes in Hollywood. The advertising campaign announced that he was the "original action hero" and in the nineties he was competing against Swchazzenegger, Stallone and Willis. Therefore he tears around blazing with machine gun and this really does not work. Moore would have used his Walther PPK and Connery a necktie to despatch his enemies. But Brosnan blasts away with a machine gun. It's Rambo with a dinnerjacket - all you need is a "yippee yiyay motherf*cker!" and he turns into the cliche Hollywood hero. James Bond becomes a shoot 'em up computer game. This situation will get worse in the following films.
Pierce Brosnan as James Bond 007
I will hereby go on record and say that I think Pierce Brosnan is excellent. I'm not sure how he fits into the favourite actor pyramid, above Lazenby for me but I have such affection for Moore and Dalton; and Connery is the first and the best. But I will say that Brosnan is a pleasure to watch and let's face it we cast him in the role mentally long way back in the eighties with Remington Steele. A new Bond and an updated one at that was a gamble for the producers ?and one that worked. Brosnan looks utterly at home in a dinner jacket as well as running around shooting the villains minions. The wit rolls easily off his tongue and he has to be the most gorgeous James Bond since Sean Connery (sorry Rog, Tim etc). No wonder the women fall at his feet. But what does he add? He has the machismo of Connery, the flippancy of Roger Moore and the edge of danger that Dalton had. He is probably the ultimate Bond. And if there is a reason for me to continue paying my money over at the cinema ? he is probably it.
Izabella Scuporo is the Russian computer programmer Natalya Simonova. She has a reasonably meaty part as the only known survivor of the Goldeneye attack on the Serveneya radar dish. She gives a sterling performance as a woman who misses death by inches and see's her friends killed about her. She shows fear, remorse, bravery and terror in equal measure. As she is the only one who knows Onatopp took the ?Goldeneye? that means everyone is after her. She spends the film being captured by all sides until she hooks up with our James. She also has the worse wardrobe of any Bond girl to date as a Russian computer clerks salary means she can only afford dowdy cardigans.
Xenia Onatopp is much more fun and is in the tradition of the great James Bond vamps. This Georgian femme fatale kills her victims by crushing them between her thighs during sex. A fabulous way to die.Sean Bean as Alec Treveleyan 006
Could you name Sean Bean?s character if it wasn?t typed above. I bet you could not. And there lies the problem, the villain is so unmemorable, which is a feature of all of the Brosnan films. When referring to the villain you would probably call it Sean Bean?s character. The name Alec Trevelayan just doesn?t stick in the mind like Goldfinger or Mayday. Here he has the charisma of a bowl of porridge. Physically he is impressive and the fight scenes between him and Brosnan are terrific particularly when they are battling each other above the moving dish at the climax. But the problem is that the actor is not menacing despite having a scar and a practised leer. The main menace in this film comes from Xenia Onatopp. When they cast well established actors/actresses ? which do you see the actor or the character? From Bean onwards the producers with pressure from the studios would hire ?names? to play the villains ? Robert Carlyle, Sophie Marceau and Jonathan Pryce ? the kids in the multiplexes of the mid-west won?t remember their names but they might have seen their faces before. The studios would never hire another Gert Froebe or Lotte Lenya again.
All in all, Goldeneye delivers what it promises ? good escapist fun. But I would rank it as one of my least favourite Bonds as I feel the series is getting more and more ridiculous and gung-ho. Bond films should be about wit and charm rather then competing with other Hollywood schlock. It was inevitable I suppose, Cubby Broccoli had the studios looking over his shoulder since A View To A Kill in 1985 but he was always able to keep them at bay.
Now that he has gone the studios have truly got their claws into the franchise and they have become the equivalent of the Die Hard films. And the term ?franchise? is so blatantly commercial any originality will soon be ironed out and they will become blander and blander. With a myriad of directors, wirters and producers and without a single continuous hand on the helm the series has become a mess. Hollywood will achieve what Blofeld and Trevelyan could not the demise of credible 007.
In times past they would announce that James Bond will be back. After the Hollywood Brosnan efforts ? I?m not sure it is a good idea?
It is not classic Bond, it doesn?t have you back at the cinemas paying your money to see it twice but it works well. Mainly due to Pierce Brosnan acting his little heart out and the absence of 007 for six years. By that time we were desperate to see 007 back on our screens. It has got everything you expect from a Bond film sharp script, loads of action, big explosions, sleek women, menacing villains and a couple of good oneliners.
At this time there is enough links to the Broccoli classics for the film to work, but as the Brosnan series continued the threads to Fleming and Broccoli disappear and Hollywood takes over, the seeds of the mess the series will become are sown in Goldeneye.
That is not say it is not a very enjoyable film. The budget must have been enormous and the scale and extravagance of the Bonds is still there. It also finally addresses the final demise of the Cold War. By 1995 the Soviet Union no longer existed it had been replaced by the democratic Russian Federation. It was not the threat it once was, the British Secret Service no longer solely directed its efforts against the defunct KGB but also against new enemies now rising from the carcass of the old Soviet Union namely the Russian mafia. The best thing about Goldeneye is that it drags Bond kicking and screaming into the modern world.
It also attacks Bonds sexism head on. I've always felt a little uncomfortable with this but then realised this is just as much a part of his character as the vodka martinis and Aston Martins. But the world had changed again and M the head of MI6 is now a woman who takes Bond sexism to task. There is also an attempt to inject more female elements into the script. When Bond and Russian Defence minister Mishkin are slandering each other across the table at St Petersburg police headquarters, the girl Natalya Simonova interjects accusing them of being Boys with toys!. Ouch.
However, there is something missing from Goldeneye. The plot is extravagant with enough twists to keep John Le Carre on his toes and the first half hour is explosive as we watch the villains raid a Siberian radar dish and fire off the 'Goldeneye' satellite on the surrounding area. Massive devastation and superb special effects follow and combined with Eric Serra's music the segment is very enjoyable. The script is good with some superb lines for Sean Bean, Pierce Brosnan and Judi Dench. In the above mentioned interrogation scene "No chit chat. No threats. That's the problem today. No one really takes time to do a really good interrogation"
The director is Martin Campbell who does an exciting sharp job on the film. His romantic scenes, especially in Puerto Rica/Cuba are lush and beautiful and he handles the action scenes with aplomb. With the James Bond character he handles the revenge/dark side very well and certainly puts Brosnan though his paces. But the problem is that 007 is now competing with all the other action heroes in Hollywood. The advertising campaign announced that he was the "original action hero" and in the nineties he was competing against Swchazzenegger, Stallone and Willis. Therefore he tears around blazing with machine gun and this really does not work. Moore would have used his Walther PPK and Connery a necktie to despatch his enemies. But Brosnan blasts away with a machine gun. It's Rambo with a dinnerjacket - all you need is a "yippee yiyay motherf*cker!" and he turns into the cliche Hollywood hero. James Bond becomes a shoot 'em up computer game. This situation will get worse in the following films.
Pierce Brosnan as James Bond 007
I will hereby go on record and say that I think Pierce Brosnan is excellent. I'm not sure how he fits into the favourite actor pyramid, above Lazenby for me but I have such affection for Moore and Dalton; and Connery is the first and the best. But I will say that Brosnan is a pleasure to watch and let's face it we cast him in the role mentally long way back in the eighties with Remington Steele. A new Bond and an updated one at that was a gamble for the producers ?and one that worked. Brosnan looks utterly at home in a dinner jacket as well as running around shooting the villains minions. The wit rolls easily off his tongue and he has to be the most gorgeous James Bond since Sean Connery (sorry Rog, Tim etc). No wonder the women fall at his feet. But what does he add? He has the machismo of Connery, the flippancy of Roger Moore and the edge of danger that Dalton had. He is probably the ultimate Bond. And if there is a reason for me to continue paying my money over at the cinema ? he is probably it.
Izabella Scuporo is the Russian computer programmer Natalya Simonova. She has a reasonably meaty part as the only known survivor of the Goldeneye attack on the Serveneya radar dish. She gives a sterling performance as a woman who misses death by inches and see's her friends killed about her. She shows fear, remorse, bravery and terror in equal measure. As she is the only one who knows Onatopp took the ?Goldeneye? that means everyone is after her. She spends the film being captured by all sides until she hooks up with our James. She also has the worse wardrobe of any Bond girl to date as a Russian computer clerks salary means she can only afford dowdy cardigans.
Xenia Onatopp is much more fun and is in the tradition of the great James Bond vamps. This Georgian femme fatale kills her victims by crushing them between her thighs during sex. A fabulous way to die.Sean Bean as Alec Treveleyan 006
Could you name Sean Bean?s character if it wasn?t typed above. I bet you could not. And there lies the problem, the villain is so unmemorable, which is a feature of all of the Brosnan films. When referring to the villain you would probably call it Sean Bean?s character. The name Alec Trevelayan just doesn?t stick in the mind like Goldfinger or Mayday. Here he has the charisma of a bowl of porridge. Physically he is impressive and the fight scenes between him and Brosnan are terrific particularly when they are battling each other above the moving dish at the climax. But the problem is that the actor is not menacing despite having a scar and a practised leer. The main menace in this film comes from Xenia Onatopp. When they cast well established actors/actresses ? which do you see the actor or the character? From Bean onwards the producers with pressure from the studios would hire ?names? to play the villains ? Robert Carlyle, Sophie Marceau and Jonathan Pryce ? the kids in the multiplexes of the mid-west won?t remember their names but they might have seen their faces before. The studios would never hire another Gert Froebe or Lotte Lenya again.
All in all, Goldeneye delivers what it promises ? good escapist fun. But I would rank it as one of my least favourite Bonds as I feel the series is getting more and more ridiculous and gung-ho. Bond films should be about wit and charm rather then competing with other Hollywood schlock. It was inevitable I suppose, Cubby Broccoli had the studios looking over his shoulder since A View To A Kill in 1985 but he was always able to keep them at bay.
Now that he has gone the studios have truly got their claws into the franchise and they have become the equivalent of the Die Hard films. And the term ?franchise? is so blatantly commercial any originality will soon be ironed out and they will become blander and blander. With a myriad of directors, wirters and producers and without a single continuous hand on the helm the series has become a mess. Hollywood will achieve what Blofeld and Trevelyan could not the demise of credible 007.
In times past they would announce that James Bond will be back. After the Hollywood Brosnan efforts ? I?m not sure it is a good idea?
Comments
BTW there is another topic located here: http://www.ajb007.co.uk/index.php?topic=27678&cpage=1
I think GE gave the audience what they expected. There were surprises like the female M,but it was pretty much wish fullfillment on every level.
Brosnan is sort of a mixture of all the previous Bond actors. This is usually a pluss, but it can make him less distinct than the others. Perhaps it's his ability to seem vulnerable (sometimes?) without appearing weak that sets him appart.
I liked the women in GE. They are inteligent and have real plot reasons for being in the film.
Bond girls should change with time, but Bond shouldn't (not that much, anyway)
I don't like it when Bond is critizised by women without having a comback line. The scene seems to hang in the air and Bond sometimes looks weak.
All in all I think GE is clearly above average and an enjoyable film.
Everything about the film was right and it delivered everything the audience wanted. It brought back Bond in a huge way, considering it was 6 years since the last bond film before this was made (Licence to Kill).
To date Goldeneye is still my favourite Bond film, and I dont think any Bond film can change that.
Author of 'Pussy Galore - A Representation of Women in James Bond Films'.
Active tweeter and tumbler - https://twitter.com/surrie_fullard
The one thing that has always stuck out for me about this film is how little Bond has to do in it comparatively speaking. Stuff happens to him (or he's a bystander even) more than he happens to stuff (lol), should be the other way around in a Bond film. Brosnan came off as rather passive for the most part IMO, a couple nice scenes but not like he took the bull by the horns or anything. At least in TND he got to steal stuff and run away a lot. That was cooler.
In many ways, the film is both a beneficiary and a victim of the six-year hiatus. After that long, any Bond film, particularly one with a new lead actor, was going to appeal to the segment of the population that was starved for another one. And for many younger fans, GE was their introduction to the series and will therefore always be special. On the other hand, the long layoff -- during which the Cold War ended -- meant that the filmmakers probably felt pressure to conspicuously update the character. Hence, you have scenes like the "sexist misogynist dinosaur" conversation and Trevelyan's speech near the end, which feel terribly out of place to me.
All in all, a so-so member of the canon.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
He meets Xenia several times throughout the film.