It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Bond 26? :-D
Have you seen how good he looks Torg ?
Haven't seen him in anything after Foyle's War, but he still looked like he could play Tanner in those later seasons!
Exactly x this is one of the things that annoy about the later era x if u can bring the M from the past then why not probably the best Tanner we have ever had x just doesn’t make sense
It would certainly have been a possibility. Kitchen and Craig on screen together would have been great!
Yep ...especially with Tanner and Felix !
Unfortunately so!
Imagine if Jack Lord featured in all the 60's films, and David Hedison in all the 70's and 80's films as Felix Leiter, for example. I think the films would have benefited from it.
Loved this video!
I'm shocked that one dude got hit by the car.
Also, the motorcycle jump after the plane is an amazing stunt that doesn't get talked about enough! But contrary to what the video says, surely the laws of physics dictate that a man can't catch the plane.
Surely.
There is zero chance they did this for real. The reason it cuts is because the stuntman needed to open his parachute.
Also very surprised to learn that Izabella Scorupco – aside from a few film credits - initially had a brief but successful career as a pop singer in Sweden. What an obscure casting choice.
Even more surprised to learn that Famke Jansen had studied at the University of Amsterdam and has a literature degree from Columbia University. She was a successful model before Bond with only a few minor credits.
bit.do/goldeneyeworld
goldeneyedossier.blogspot.com
It appears we share the same passions.
The opening of GE after the PTS is all about tone.
It's about establishing a sense of mood and atmosphere. That feeling of exoticism, exclusivity, jet-set life. it's what Hitchcock did so well in films such as To Catch a Thief.
I know the opening is a little strained in terms of plot. But it's classically Bondian - you have the vintage cars, the French riviera, mysterious and potentially deadly femme fatales, casinos, glamour, etc.
It's all about tone. These days it's a tone that is really exclusive to the Bond films.
(Also, I think it's Campbell's way of giving Brosnan a nice easy hand to play as he wants audiences to accept him as Bond - so laden him with casinos and DB5's....................you could argue that they were cheating a little, but Brosnan sells it so well.)
It needed flair,suaveness,a smiling,playful Bond..right down to the little bottle of champagne chilling in the compartment in the DB5.
It gave the opening a light,exciting,colourful start to the film,with a Bond actor who can handle the quips nearly as well as the master himself (Sir Roger).
I'd debate that. Brosnan always seemed to undersell the quips. I figured when he started he'd be a natural coming off of Steele, but they never seem to flow off his tounge the way I felt they should've. Maybe it's just me or maybe Connery and Moore had it down so well nobody else would compete in that area. Then again, maybe it was the lines that were underwhelming.
Agree on Brosnan. He made a huge impression on his debut. Of course the quality of the film helped. Bloody shame his tenure petered out in the way it did.
Brosnan looks stunning. He looks fabulous in the clothing. Though, I feel the pattern ties were a misstep.
*ahem*
*turns on full colour printer and searches for the laminator*
I'll be in my bunk.
Haha....she is stunning. Such a brilliantly subversive and inventive character. I don't think the series has ever had such a sexually liberated character who so unabashedly embraces her sexuality. It's immensely bold.
The fact that Famke is quite so sexy really makes the character that bit better.
I finally got around to re-watching GE last night and have to say that I had a total blast. I last saw it in 2012 (I think) and the film never fails to impress.
I was really struck by how well the film balanced tone. It really is a very 'full meal' in that respect and that is a testament to Martin Campbell's direction. The film is a fun adventure, it's romantic, it's funny, it has genuine drama, actual plot and all importantly fantastic action. It's a difficult plate-spinning exercise to ensure that all these elements work together in tandem and Campbell carries the task off with real elegance.
In no small part is he assisted by Pierce Brosnan. The James Bond films are primarily led by the strength of their leading man and Pierce does an exceptional job. But more on him later.
Campbell is able to balance out and address the cultural baggage of the Bond character whilst delivering on escapism. This is a film that is self-reflective and comments on the Bond myth.
GE is clearly a sign of the franchise attempting to move with the times. Here Bond struggles with his place in the world now that the USSR has been broken up. Meanwhile, the villain has been betrayed and seeks revenge against the very thing Bond believes it his duty to protect. This notably forces him to deal with the impact of his past demons.
Whilst there is certainly room to naval-gaze, GE is aware its a 'Bond movie.' Considering the identity crisis the Bond series suffered in the 1980's where competitors were denting its credentials, this movie is pleasantly sure of itself. The opening scene, the car, the villain, the nuclear threat, Q's labs, the Russians, the good girl, the bad girl, the impossible lairs, explosions etc. All the ingredients are here, though it's my belief that they are introduced with added dimension.
First Act
I think the first 15 minutes of GE are flawless. The PTS has some of the best staged action that I've seen committed to film. The whole tone of that sequence is moodier and grittier than I remembered. The darker cinematography and chiaroscuro lighting from Phil Mehuex being perfectly utilised.
Here, Campbell does not short-change Brosnan and gives him a big entrance scene. Followed by some genuine sleuthing and some brilliant interaction with Alec Trevelayn. In this sequence, Campbell expertly modulates the tone between the set-pieces and the quieter and more intense moments to ratchet up the tension. It all ends with (one of my all time favourite stunts) the jump off the motorcycle to catch the plane. I mean that has to be one of the most glorious shots committed to film. Surely?!
The moment where Pierce saves the plane from going over the edge is electrifying. The explosion is perfectly timed, Daniel Kleinman's titles and Tina Turner's song are perfect. There is truly no better way to introduce a Bond film.
However, I will nitpick at this junction. The first act of GE is a little shaky. The essential plot is that an EMP device has been detonated and a criminal organisation in Russia are linked. But there is an awful lot of build-up to get to the point. In a film this fast-paced, it's odd for the filmmakers to take such a leisurely approuch at this juncture.
I suspect it has something to do with adding a 'Bondian feel' to proceedings. After the titles, we get to see the Aston Martin DB5 (in a rather impressive and nifty chase scene), meet a sexy albeit ruthless femme fatale, head to a casino in Monaco, see 007 in is tux order his martini and say 'the line.' In some respects, it couldn't feel anymore Bond-by-numbers. These elements don't fit neatly into GE's plot and instead are shoehorned in. There is plenty here that doesn't quite hold up narratively. Why is Bond in Monaco? Is he there tailing Janus? On some kind of evaluation from an MI6 admin bod (who seems to have strolled out of a Roger Moore film)? Does Bond know about the Tiger launch? Etc.
GE only really gets its into its groove again when Bond gets back to London and the story moves to Russia. Even then the editing back from Severnaya to MI6 can be a little jarring.
Despite this, GE still works. In most action films, there is always a need to establish the players and the plot - which often means exposition-laden opening acts. Sometimes this can feel a little ham-fisted and inorganic. But GE mostly papers over those cracks by being entertaining and embracing those James Bond moments. As I've said the Aston Martin chase is a fun, lightheaded action scene - but Campbell shoots it with total authenticity and as if it was the main set-piece of the film. Also, it's never not exciting to see Bond in a casino meeting a villainess (and what a villainess she is!).
Furthermore, the Severnaya attack is terrific and full of intrigue. I quite enjoy how you meet a bunch of office drones who really don't (at first glance) seem to belong in a Bond film. They all mostly seem rather drab and uneventful. But when the action kicks in, once again, Campbell goes for broke and films the whole thing with such confidence and bravado. You also meet a genuinely sympathetic character (emphasis placed on the word 'character') who guides us through this sequence.
We even get to see the central macguffin of the plot do what we are told it is capable of. The Goldeneye itself is essentially the 1990's upgrade on the nuclear bomb. GE updates the 'world is in danger' format by having a technological weapon - known as an EMP bomb. The science here is real but still far from reality (I think). As recently as 2017, the Trump administration shut down a Congressional Commission that was established to assess the threat to the United States from EMP devices after it had been in operation for over 16 years. Members of the former commission appealed to the administration to get things back on track. They suggested that the US’s infrastructure was not prepared for an EMP attack, especially after such attack was threatened by North Korea.
I'm unsure exactly why we had to see the EMP attack on Severnaya, but boy, I'm glad we did (there is some plot about two satellites and the plan to mislead the Russian government as to why the attack took place). The intercutting between Derek Medding's miniatures and the actual action filmed on set action is outstanding.
The Second and Third Acts
The second act of the film is terrific and from that point onwards GE just keeps getting better. I think the M and Q scenes are probably two of the best in the entire series. Then when we get to St Petersberg, I had forgotten how much fun and quite how funny GE was at this point. The scenes with Jack Wade as the initially curmudgeonly-cum-charming CIA contact is great. The scene with Valentin Zukovsky is brilliantly funny and Robbie Coltrane is evidently having a blast playing a villain.
It's here as well when the real drama begins and we have the brilliant confrontation scene with Trevelyan in the haunting field of forgotten Soviet relics (an ingenious idea). The tank chase is a little overblown but the sets by Peter Lamont, the use of miniatures, real action and editing is an example of prestige filmmaking. I much preferred the preclude in the Soviet archives office. It was moodier and more claustrophobic.
The third act is the film's real asset. The Puetro Rico location adds real colour and the satellite set is awesome. Here there are still some really good dramatic beats between our hero and villain. There is such a sense of scale but also intimacy to that finale and it works expertly. Mainly as Campbell is able to escalate the stakes whilst making it feel personal. It's all rooted in the characters and the dynamic between 007 and the former 006.
I got such a kick out of seeing Trevelyan always being a step ahead of Bond and Campbell's uses it excellently to set up the grenade pen sequence. It's a taunt, lean piece of filmmaking that is very dramatic. He presents a problem for our characters and essentially paints himself into a corner. However, the real fun for the audience is seeing how our heroes will get out of the debacle.
The finale on the antenna is terrifically staged. Mainly because I honestly believed that Bond was vulnerable and broken (Campbell in both his Bond films loves showing Bond bleeding and on the edge of defeat). He seemed his most human in those scenes. Plus, at times I did feel Trevelyan was better than Bond. He could read his every move and rarely missed a step and fell behind. This dynamic is nicely complemented by Boris and Natayla's interactions; where the low-level programmer has to outsmart the self-stylised 'genius' and corrupt the Goldeneye. Once again, despite Natayla's talents she still isn't a match for Boris. This is simply great storytelling. It's not as easy as saying 'our heroes are the best at everything', they fail and have to confront the implications. All the while, the stakes and drama increase.
The Bond
As I stated early, a Bond film is defined by its leading man. Pierce Brosnan was never better than in GE.
He just has that classic 'movie star' look (he's gorgeous, self-assured, sexy, mysterious, dresses immaculately, has perfect hair, a great jawline, masculine three-o'clock shadow, etc). It's as if Cary Grant and an Armani model were genetically-engineered to become a adult human.
Pierce is undeniably as gorgeous as Fleming depicted Bond to be. So when you see women fall into his arms you believe it. At times, Campbell's camera is more interested in fawning over him than the women. Brosnan has the 'tall, dark and handsome' thing going for him, albeit with that slight air of mystery. There is something cruel and stern lurking beneath those eyes. I think people forget some of the more assertive aspects to his character in GE. Bond is tougher and crueller in this film than I suspect many give Brosnan credit for. In fact, he's exceptional in those moments.
There is a soft purr to his voice and in the scene with Natayla after they are arrested, he simply says "trust me". Instantaneously, not only did I trust this man implicitly but I melted in my seat.
But what really works for Brosnan is his charm. Brosnan does play Bond with a slight knowing wink (but only when the script gives him room - he doesn't go full Roger Moore). It's at these points his natural Irish charm shines through. At times it feels as though he has chemistry with every actor on this film. Even Desmond Llewelyn seems to be having a blast working next to Pierce.
He's also a more vulnerable and human Bond (though we do see the genesis of the 'Brosnan-is-in-pain' face acting in this film) and he sells this part of the character very well. Also, being such a seasoned action director, Campbell makes Brosnan into a action leading man. Something none of his other Bond directors could do. Brosnan is terrific in the fights and when he pulls a gun out it's totally convincing and absolutely lethal.
Make no mistake, Brosnan's performance can feel a little stiff and forced at times. But based off this performance alone, Brosnan has skyrocketed in my perception as Bond again.
The Cast
The great thing about GE is that there are actual characters in this film.
Firstly, let's discuss Alec Trevelyan. Sean Bean is obviously having a great time playing the dual nature of the role. He screws the scenery to some extents but he never compromises the complexity of Alec as a villain.
There is a brotherly dynamic to him and Bond. They are essentially Cain and Abel. One fighting for destruction, the other fighting to prevent it. The real stroke of genius was making him a fellow 00 agent. Alec has had all the same training as Bond and is - arguably - a better agent. He understands everything that is going through Bond's mind and can anticipate his every move. Trevelyan is always one step ahead and ready to taunt Bond. His backstory also has a real world political connection as he is identified as a Lienz Cossack. It gives his backstory and plot of revenge that bit more strength by linking it to a childhood trauma (Also, he has undeniably one of the greatest villain deaths of all time).
Then we have Natayla Simonova. I have to say when I watched this film s a boy, I always thought she was dowdy - but I was obviously a fool as Izabella Scorupco is stunning. They deliberately try and de-glam her as it seems the filmmakers are intent to play against the 'Bond girl' archetype. There is a serious attempt to make her a real and sympathetic character. She feels betrayed by the Russian government and after the attack is paranoid to go to the authorities. After all, she likely suspects they were behind it at that stage. Then when she meets Bond she admits to being scared and unsure what this entire situation is about.
Now, I could now go on to say that romance between her and Bond is forced (and part of me wants to). However, I'm not going to, because for some reason the critical impulse in my brain won't let me. Mainly because - for some reason - I believed it. I think this has everything to do with the chemistry between Izabella Scorupco and Pierce Brosnan. They have a genuine spark and work so well together. In the end, when they are on screen together they truly bring out the best in each other. They are both sexy, charming and funny. It's a great pairing.
I also fully expected to come here and say that Famke Janssen's Xenia Onatopp was the scene-stealer of the film (that honour actually belongs to Judi Dench). However, I was a little unimpressed by Xenia. In what is a much more grounded film, Xenia felt like a bit superfluous and cartoon-y. she has an amazingly fun conceit - getting off on killing - but in the end her character runs her course. On previous watches, she has always been the stand-out performer. But for some reason I was happy to see her leave the film when she does. Nonetheless, Famke Janssen looks bloody gorgeous and is well cast as the Soviet assassin. She is a brilliant femme fatale and her sexual kinks are an example of the film pushing itself against more conservative tastes (I'd imagine many of the red-blooded audience members who may have thought they'd be titillated by the idea of character like Xenia, probably left more afraid than aroused).
The supporting case are terrific. I enjoyed the choices made by Gottfried John in what could have been an thankless villain role (can we all acknowledge some Putin-esque character resemblances here?). Though the best supporting performance comes courtesy of Judi Dench who is fabulous in the film. She has the best written scenes of the film and steals the entire movie. Dench’s M provides a rare counterpoint to 007’s caddish brutality – providing a critical feminist voice.
Her character is emblematic of this new era of Bond. This film still has the classic template at play (in many ways, its an update on the Sean Connery era's style), but instead of making Bond 'woke' and suddenly alive to the political and social times, it drags Bond into the 1990s kicking and screaming. He is consistently met with strong women who are giving the orders. Not to mention the sexually liberated Xenia.
(There's also some oddly timely aspects to the plot, including Russian hackers infiltrating US intelligence computers and the American government's relying upon CNN for intelligence.)
Technical Contributions
Once again, I fully expected to be filled with superlatives for Eric Serra's score. Whilst it is avant-garde and more sound design than soundtrack (which I'm very into), it actually has dated a little and some scenes just feel as though they have been incorrectly scored. For example, why is a slightly romantic and cheesy number playing during the confrontation with Trevelyan in the park? The score does have some terrific moments, but I remembered it being better.
I think this film is severely underrated from a technical perspective. As I have mentioned this is a A+ production with incredible sets, amazing stunts, terrific editing and a real polish. In fact, it's the finest put together Bond by that point in 1995. Despite being only 25 years old, GE represents a virtually lost era of action movies that insisted on doing things practically.
In particular, I want to give a shout out to the cinematography. This film has numbers amazing examples of great widescreen photography especially in the action scenes. In so many action shots, you can pause the frame and just be in awe by how much is being accomplished in camera. There is also a darkness in the lighting that lends the film an eerie quality that is very fitting for the post-Cold War story.
I also appreciated how the film didn't hide away from being a post-Cold War movie. Many questioned Bond's relevance in such a time and by confronting that period of history head on and making a delicious character-led action film, I think they more than justified why. It's helped by a terrific script thats funny and thoughtful.
Another nitpick would be the helicopter explosion in the graveyard and the escape. It is explained later as being a set-up by Trevelyan (putting an English spy and the computer programmer in the getaway vehicle pretty much gives the Russian government an answer to the Severnaya attack) but still feels excessive.
There's an interesting motif that reoccurs in each act of GE where someone gets a gun placed on their head to encourage another party to do something (first it's 006, then it's Natayla and finally it's Bond). It's a neat trick used very effectively to create drama and makes things very personal for the characters.
Conclusion
It's rare to watch a film that you've seen numerous times and still have it genuinely give you goosebumps. After watching GE, I was buzzing with excitement. I think there is no better way to end this review. I'd give it the full 5-star treatment.
The ending is in many respects a replay of the opening sequence from a different perspective. There is some nice symmetry to having the opening being 007 and 006 working together and the end being them having them as enemies.
The 'For England, James' line also plays back here nicely. Instead of words of encouragement, they are used tauntingly. Bond had no choice but to drop 006, but part of things he would have wanted to save him.....but the Trevelyan he knew was long dead. Was it purely revenge that motivated him at that final point???? Thoughts?
I think its 'kill or be killed' in that moment. There is also a potent sense of betrayal simmering in that moment. Bond doesn't want Trevelyan to be his enemy, but sadly the former 006 has made this inevitable. The 'No. For me' line is almost Bond acknowledging that Trevelyan has broken his heart......
Oh for sure he broke his heart. You have to remember that Bond carried the guilt of 'getting him killed' with him for 9 years, as per his briefing with M when he tells her 'you didn't get him killed'. At the end though he realizes there is nothing redeeming about his old friend anyway.
Very interesting...
I think Trevelyan as a character is fascinating. He is a 'dark mirror' to Bond.
When Bond asks him "why" he became a traitor, Trevelyan responds by saying "Hilarious question. Particularly from you. Would you ever ask why? Why we toppled all those dictators, undermined all those regimes? Only to come home ‘Well done! Good job, but sorry ol’ boy! Everything you’ve risked your life and limb for has changed!"
He goes on to ridicule Bond for being an obedient dog and overly trustworthy of MI6. The same MI6 who led Alec down the path of him becoming Janus. He ends by saying: "I did think of asking you to join my little scheme, but somehow I knew 007’s loyalty was always to the mission, never to his friend."
Bond's heart is always on the mission. But in that final moment with Alec on the antenna, he makes an emotional decision as Alec has truly broken his heart and his faith.
I think Trevelyan is a marvellously written character. The conceit that he feels betrayed by England and seeks revenge is key to his character. He must have felt filthy all those years having to work for the enemy and be one of "Her Majesty's local terriers." But I do agree with him that he is right to question his authority figures and Bond's blind trust in the system....
I've always wondered how good a friends, Bond and Trevelyan were. Do we reckon he was at Bond's wedding? Perhaps we can retcon on it, so the guy behind Q's shoulder is 006.....
Another thing I love about GE was quite how realistic the tone of the film is. it's clear that visually Campbell is trying to ground the film in reality. One way he does that is present a 'Bond girl' who is effectively a real person who happens to find herself in a terrible situation. She is basically the audience avatar of the film.
Natayla comes with a sensible wardrobe and human flaws. She does eventually take the 'Bond girl' mantel, but has genuine chemistry with Pierce which makes their relationship feel authentic. I know it’s a weird comparison, but I recently watched ‘Wonder Woman’ and that film works because of the charisma and chemistry of the leads. GE is not dissimilar.
Xenia on the other hand is basically a cartoon character. I recently re-watched 'Kill Bill' and she feels like character from that kind of universe. An overly stylised vixen who is larger than life. She’s slightly incongruous with the rest of the film. Though her appearance is far from unappreciated….
Xenia works even more to me because she stands out amongst the straight face that the film posits otherwise. She's fantastic, and I would be both attracted to and terrified of her in real life. Fiona Volpe but with an even greater sense of being sexually unhinged.