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
May be later on. But he had the luxury of parodying himself. And even his self parody was damn entertaining.
I don't understand your response. I rate Brosnan. Highly. You don't and that's cool.
To me he's the best. GoldenEye was my introduction to the franchise. It's not delusion or hyperbole. It's how I feel. When people say he didn't do anything with the role, What does that mean? Is there something every actor who plays Bond has to do as a requirement? Say what you will but He and GoldenEye saved the franchise. Dalton wasn't cutting it. And Campbell was right, Dalton was looking ticked off most of his run. His stiff performance wasn't as good as some think it is. Craig took what Dalton couldn't and excelled and came off Natural and not forced. It's not Pierce's fault Die Another Day took things too far, It's Lee Tamahori's fault. Pierce's first three films tick all the right boxes and that's what they needed to do. The 1990's weren't about Innovation, it was about survival and relevance. Could Bond still exist in the 90's? Yes and he sure did. 2002 was the time for the Era of Innovation and reinvention began.
Would GoldenEye have worked with Dalton? No.
I've got my own issues with Dalton and don't think he's quite as perfect as some - but I do think now it is a shame he never got a third film shortly after LTK given how committed he was.
@Murdock, I grew up with GE too and have watched it more times than you would believe. I'm still very fond of it but I'm not going to pretend its without flaws. If you actually listen to some of the dialogue it is pretty corny and sounds like it was written by teenagers who wanted to play Spies. A lot of the questionable lines actually come from Sean Bean.
"ready to save the world again?"
"finish the job James...blow them all to hell"
"closing time James...last call"
"why can't you just be a good boy and die"
Would real spies actually say lines like that to eachother?
@BAIN123, I listen to the dialogue everytime I watch it. Those lines are perfectly fine with me. Their fun and not to be taken 100% seriously. Would real spies say that? Nope, James Bond isn't a real spy so I don't mind if the dialogue is cheesy. For me, GoldenEye is a flawless gem of a film. But that doesn't make me delusional. I'm sure we all have a Bond film we hold dear and don't see a single problem with. For me, A Bond movie is about having fun and GoldenEye delivers on all fronts. I wouldn't change it for anything.
The likes of @Thunderfinger and @Cowely would be disgusted haha.
I can forgive most of the cheesy dialogue though and see it as a product of its era. It was, after all, released the same year as Batman "I'll get drive-thru" Forever.
GE remains the only Brosnan entry that had any grit - but therein lies it's problem: Brosnan doesn't 'do' gritty at all well. Which is why Dalton would have been a success, from an artistic & quality point of view.
Box office-wise the benign Brosnan would always have had the edge because people prefer their movie stars to be unchallenging & affable.
I never thought about that before. You're right, and that may be why I like it so much. The Russian angle also pulls me in.
I loved GE when I first saw it in Jan '96, mainly because of it's slightly adult-orientated grittiness (Brosnan's very vanilla 007 didn't bother me back then). The cold-war remnants also added some gravitas.
Which is why TND really threw me - it just seemed like a complete U-turn, far too placid and 'nice'. Totally different direction, and an altogether different tone.
Looking back I can see why - they knew a 'TSWLM'-lite would suit Brosnan far better than the (originally) Daltoneque GE...
I actually always felt that any actor could have done GE....it felt as though it was written for a generic placeholder Bond imho. It's the strength of the supporting cast that really carry that film, along with the throwback elements (Russia etc.). There's a definite nostalgia to it, and it's intentional. However, it was overseen by the masterful Campbell, who knows how to do these things.
The problem I find with TND, despite its brilliant pacing it, is that it all seems too deja vu.....too reminiscent of the superior (imho) & benchmark TSWLM. I put this down to Spottiswoode not being able to 'homage' properly without creating a deja vu feeling.
Bar the pre-title sequence and tank chase. I hate the score, it sounds cheap and nasty like a channel 5 TV movie. Serra's 'Experience of Love' is laughable........the male vocal is amatuer.
Spot on. And then TND was written with Brosnan in mind, who defaulted to 'homage' mode. I quite like TND, but in the way that I quite like Def Leppard... an occasional run-of-the-mill pleasure.
Have always regarded GE as pretty woeful.
It's just far more watchable than GE, i.m.o at least. The supporting cast isn't as good and it feels a lot more cartoonish, but TND looks & plays like a well put together film... which is ironic, considering the amount of production set backs and problems they had during filming.
Wheras GE has an aura of 'tv movie' about it that irks me.
I forgive them, because they really were working under incredible budget constraints in 1994/1995. They didn't think Bond was viable any more and so MGM had a tight leash (and were under financial pressure themselves).
The one thing GE has, for me, is flair. There is verve to that film. Every one has audacity and pluck - it's larger than the sum of its component parts. That's what I like so much. It sort of recalls OP in that respect (another one of my faves).
Really? I find it rather bleak. Lacking in flair, if you will.
Which is why I also find it out of place in the Brosnan 'canon'. TND to DAD are far more suited to his cavalier, bubblegum 007.
I really feel GE would have benefitted from a Dalton performance (especially vs. Sean Bean)
I agree with you though that GE is a transition film. Dalton could have pulled it off easily, but as you said, Brosnan cold deliver the box office, particularly in the lucrative US market.
Yes, I agree again that TND is where they started to try and 'define' the Brosnan 007. Interestingly, he is the only 007 that didn't get a dark sophomore outing. All the others did (including Moore).
Personally, I think that LTK, has more of a TV feel to it than GE does. True, both look quite cheap at times, but LTK has a cast that were - and still are - known for mainly TV roles. Plus you have the Miami location (how many times have we seen that on TV?) and the cheap interior sets.
Does it really matter whether people are known for TV or film? What matters at the end of the day are the performances.
Any way at the time the GE cast were mainly known to me for TV work - Sean Bean, Robbie Coltrane, Cummings, Minnie Driver, Serena Gordon, Dench etc. And Brosnan was Mr TV incarnate.
The LTK cast may have also been drawn from TV, but as a Brit I didn't know any of them, so it didn't bother me.
A classic response @Getafix Most of Goldeneye's cast I knew from television.
And Peter Lamont's sets looked just fine in LTK. I sure would not have a problem visiting the casino set he built. Looks luxury to me and I live in London, where we have luxury to compare against.
And most of LTK was filmed in Mexico, not Miami. Miami features at the beginning.
Indeed, but all have made a name for themselves on the big screen.
I was just trying to make a point that people moan about the TV feel to GE when LTK had it just as much, if not more.
I actually had a nightmare after watching GE where Bond had become a made for TV series.
When I saw LTK, I thought it looked cheap (in comparison to previous 80's fare, particularly FYEO etc.).
However, on recent rewatches, GE appears the more 'tv like' to me these days, while LTK has actually risen in my estimation (in regards to the set designs etc...).
Having said all that, in the 'acting performance' dept, I think GE wipes the floor with LTK. The GE performances may be exaggerated, but they are Bondian exaggerated to me. The LTK performances do have a tv feel (particularly useless Lowell and Soto), except for Davi and of course Dalton/Del Torro.
LTK looks like a miracle considering the severe budget cuts they had. It was made at a time when the studio was made up of management accountants who knew little about film making.
But both films Goldeneye and LTK are fine entries Mr @Bain123
In all honesty, I though Spectre looked visually not that amazing considering the phenomenal budget. OHMSS on the other hand is spectacular. And to me, Goldeneye is a better made film than Spectre. I know I have gone off tangent slightly!
All the best, and no hard feelings!!!
$25m on that car chase? Bonkers.
Just goes to show how easy it is to waste money on a big movie.
I am going to be honest, and say that it was a letdown. John Glen did an amazing job with his run as director, and knew how to do a great story. He was original with action. He was the man who filmed the PTS of TSWLM.
And you knew it was a Bond film with John Glen. I agree with Brozza's comments about Spectre "Neither fish nor fowl." Most people I know did not think Spectre was a good film. Sure has some good moments, but structurally all over the place.
Skyfall on watching it again, looks so pretentious, and too much filler. Craig looks like a British right-wing thug with that hairstyle. I was bored. Yet, I can watch DAF hundreds of times and enjoy it. Big budget does not equal great Bond.