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
wow! and you LIKE the film?
agree with pretty much everything you say here. and by essentially identifying major faults in every department you perhaps unwittingly point to what's wrong with the film - i.e. it's utterly sh*t from start to finish.
I used to think Dalton would have improved it (he would have) but the root cause of it being so bad is not Brosnan but the script, cast, score and (dare is say it?) directing.
So glad to see someone call out the abysmal tank chase. So un-Bondian and grating.
Campbell utterly shocked me with CR. it was as if he was 2 different directors.
Any way it was a BO success. I still think they could have made a formulaic entry that was just better. But there you go. It is what it is. It's inexplicable that people rate it so highly IMO. If I had to watch a Brosnan entry I'd prefer to sit through TND (better PTS than GE by a country mile) or the 'so bad you have to laugh DAD.
wow! and you LIKE the film?
agree with pretty much everything you say here. and by essentially identifying major faults in every department you perhaps unwittingly point to what's wrong with the film - i.e. it's utterly sh*t from start to finish.
I used to think Dalton would have improved it (he would have) but the root cause of it being so bad is not Brosnan but the script, cast, score and (dare is say it?) directing.
So glad to see someone call out the abysmal tank chase. So un-Bondian and grating.
Campbell utterly shocked me with CR. it was as if he was 2 different directors.
Any way it was a BO success. I still think they could have made a formulaic entry that was just better. But there you go. It is what it is. It's inexplicable that people rate it so highly IMO. If I had to watch a Brosnan entry I'd prefer to sit through TND (better PTS than GE by a country mile) or the 'so bad you have to laugh' DAD.
I believe in a sense the 007 franchise has done well enough being profitable, and it caters to quite a few tastes.
Even the book series and the continuation novels have the various fans disagreeing on about everything.
For me the Brosnan era was one movie short and the Craig era three movies too long, or perhaps I get tired form the EON antics in wanting to be a respectable movie franchise being getting directors like Mendes & Forster who have no or very little with an action driven franchise.
Since GE's script was originally written with Dalton's 007 in mind, I tend to look at it as retroactively putting a subtext into Dalton's 2 Bond films instead, i.e., his Bond is subconsciously experiencing guilt over 006's "death" in both TLD and LTK.
The terrible end credit song
The terrible chasing the plane sequence in the PTS...would have been better if he just jumped into the plane at the last minute before it went over the cliff.
The pointless 9 years later . Would have been better if it had read 5 years later.
Put me in the camp of hating the PTS plane diving. Too ridiculous even for Bonds. The rest of the PTS is fine.
Less Joe Don Baker. I thought he was the weak link of TLD and this was much worse.
I like the tank scene overall, but maybe have it come across like Bond actually would give a rip if he accidentally killed dozens of people driving around town in the thing. I know Bond is a big-picture kinda guy, and he has to be, but this was a bit much.
The whole movie feels very dated - the music*, the techno jargon, etc. Not that it is alone in that sense - but I think it stands out more than many others.
*The soundtrack is subpar.
The Onatop sex-killing stuff gets old sooner than it stops in the film. On a same vein - I agree that the film tries to have it both ways. One of the more overtly sexual Bond films with a literal female sex-villain at the same time preaching about how nonsexist the 90's are supposed to be. Just pick one and stick with it.
Overall, there are 4-5 Bond films that don't feel 100% like a Bond film. This is one of them based on pacing and editing. The first half kinda bores me, but the second half is really strong. I have it in the middle of my rankings.
Anyway, I quite like the film for what it is, but nothing is beyond critique.
-The score is rightly getting a hard time here. In particular the opening car chase needs a page-1 rewrite to either be playful or fun, but not cheesy.
-The 90s were the heyday of the action star who makes a 'quip' at pivotal moments. I think filmmakers were trying hard to develop franchise catchphrases or something. Goldeneye lays these on too thick, trying to turn nonsense into a pun or an innuendo. "I had to ventilate someone"? What does that even mean? Dial this back, please.
-Joe Don Baker is sort of the anti-Zukovsky for me. A garrulous, mischievous, but ultimately loyal ally who's good for exposition and comic relief. But where Coltrane is lots of fun, Baker isn't nearly as effective in this role - he's not Bondian enough, and he already had his innings in TLD. Replace him with Felix and cast/direct accordingly.
-I don't love Isabella Scorupco. The Natalya character is mostly good as written, though as noted we don't really get enough of a sense of her expertise. She screams a bit too much, and Scorupco - who's beautiful off-screen - isn't as beautiful here. Maybe it's her hair and wardrobe? Maybe it was just the 90s? (Brosnan also looks rather 90s, for what it's worth.)
-The Cossack angle falls flat for me. I'm imagining a whole lot of people had to go running to their encyclopedias for that one. It's hard to believe this would inspire Bean, after a career in British espionage, to turn traitor. Plus, even if you buy his devotion to his parents, how many people are that familiar with the backstory here?
-Cumming's Boris takes some heat here, but I don't mind him. I'd simply ask him to rein it in by one notch, and add a bit more malice to the nerdiness.
-Desmond is a saint, as ever, but as has been pointed out aspects of Q's involvement feel rather tacked-on here; the car seems useless.
Things I wouldn't change:
-Robbie Coltrane was one of the best things to happen to the franchise in ages. He falls right into the Topol/Kerim Bey lineage for me. Famke Jannsen is great. Beautiful, fun, convincing in the action scenes. Gottfried John is criminally underrated. Given the script he has in hand, he does wonders.
-The video game tie-in. This was lightning in a bottle, so it may be folly to ever expect another good Bond game. But again, this absolutely cemented a whole cohort of fans.
-Great title song; Tina as the new Shirley.
-Dame Judy. Brilliant choice, for years to come.
That said I would have liked to make Trevelyan's background more believable: Sean Bean was far too young to play the character as written even though he played him so well otherwise. Part of me hoped for a recurring villain/adversary in Janus and havind Trevelyan be a field commander, like Largo, instead of the mastermind. But I understand that's more wishful thinking than anything else.
Obviously now 19 years later there are some things I'd change such as Brosnans haircut and trim down the tank chase. I'd even like to see Bond chase Trevelyan through some underground caverns before going to the antenna that was in the game.
Too much time in Severnaya. I understand the process of stealing the GoldenEye key and Bond, M and Tanner watching it via satellite, but from the time Bond gets captured on the boat to the meeting in M's office just drags for me.
This one I didn't hit on my laundry list but needs addressing. I don't know if it was the writing or the casting that didn't see these two similar cases of middle age actors in bigger supporting roles that didn't help here. The ugly American stereotype who is meant as comic relief, but does it add anything?
And that they'd use Baker just 2 films after appearing as the main villain is even more puzzling. They couldn't use Felix since he was part of the preceding film they were trying to distance themselves from. Too bad Chuck Lee from AVTAK was bumped off.
There’s no denying that it was HUGE when it was released and was somewhat revolutionary for first-person shooter games.
It’s basically a modern version of the toy Aston Martin DB5 with the plastic ejector seat from GF. I bet you a lot of people have fond memories of that film partly because they played with a little toy car when they were kids. The N64 game is the same thing but for a different era.
I saw the film first too.
I loved GE when it came out, and was extremely glad the series was back on track.
Or LTK for the Kentucky Fried Chicken ties.
We all have to start somewhere. Being 11 years old in 99, what else would or should have brought me into the Bond universe for the first time? Surely would not have been The World is not Enough
One thing I'd change is that until the climax it seems that the Janus Syndicate is made of four people, Trevelyan included. I know it's a secret organization but still. There should have been a scene, say in the train, where you see a few more henchmen.
It was fun but couldn't hold a candle to GE64. I do remember the ski level and I would hum the OHMSS theme during every run.
You can't polish a turd.
Whatever you think of GE it did have far more success than Dalton's Bond movies and made the franchise popular again.
I would have also added some more dialogue explaining Alec's motivations regarding his heritage. It's feasible but unlikely, so it needed to be fleshed out a bit.
The tip Bond gives to Zukovsky regarding the weapons could've been explained more clearly.
There's more that could be improved --some of which has been mentioned here-- but for the most part it's inconsequential in the large scheme of things. GE does what any good film should: it achieves "critical mass," meaning its core elements are well-crafted enough that any shortcomings fall by the wayside. I like the tone it aims for-- there's a seriousness on display and one is invested in the characters, but there is also a playfulness and "lightness of touch" on display. In my opinion, a mark of quality storytelling is when you come to a film for one reason and find yourself enjoying it for another. That is the case with GoldenEye and Natalya. Her early scenes are really quite good and one grows interested in her, and Bond's nowhere in sight! One of the best Bond girls.
I feel like watching the film right now, to be honest.
I also love the game, but played it years after watching the film.
I think this complaint about the film is similar to the often-voiced one regarding the clown makeup of Bond in Octopussy. My feeling is both scenes work well in their respective contexts and with their respective purposes. In the case of the GE car chase, it's early in the film so playfulness is especially welcome, and you'll notice the road is mostly empty because one isn't meant to think about other drivers-- it's a bit of a fantasy, with reality being slightly pushed to the aside for the sake of fun. A common resource in the Bond films since the sixties, I might add. The bikers are just comic relief.
Agreed.
In all fairness, I think Birdleson's complaints, while not insignificant, are not truly major ones either. Seems a bit hyperbolic to call the film utterly sh*t, in my opinion. I really wouldn't say that of any Bond film. Just my two cents!
---
Regarding the beach scene, I wouldn't change it. I would perhaps add some dialogue earlier in the film to further flesh out Bond's conflicted feelings regarding Alec, to better set up that beach conversation. But once again, it's not something major.
Fair argument to make. All I would say is was the franchise so unpopular in 87 and 89? TLD seems to have performed better than a number of the Moore entries and certainly got good reviews. LTK was one of those occasional entries that goes a bit off piste, pushing the familiar boundaries. It got an older certificate in many countries, meaning lots of kids didn't see It. It performed poorly in the US but did perfectly well almost everywhere else. It also got good reviews. Had MGM's legal issues not got in the way, there'd have been a more light hearted third Dalton film in 91.
The way things turned out, with LTK being Dalton's last and then a long gap it's understandable the popular narrative became that Dalton had flopped and GE 'saved the franchise' but frankly EON had always wanted to make another film. It was always likely to be more of a light hearted romp. It was also aleays likely to be more successful than LTK - in the US at least (not hard).
Dalton made 2 so it's as if Moore had only made LALD and TMWTGG or Craig had only made CR and QOS and there had then been a 6 year hiatus.
But the franchise has a lot of good will. People want to see another film come out. So yes GE was a success and there's no doubt it laid a strong commercial foundation for reestablishing the franchise but this was not conjured out of thin air - the film benefits from the inherited goodwill towards the series as much as any other entry.
That doesn't make it a better movie!
Far from it imho!
And we all know how wrong they are. ;)