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
I'd really love to hear the panel's view on this additional point.
I'd assumed he was referring to his lineage...
Yes, but they were his father and mother so as they committed suicide, Alec Trevelyan must have at least been born by 1945 and therein lies the problem with the dates...
And Bond would have been 70 by 1995... it's a chronological mess to be sure.
Yes, though that's a whole other can of worms...
The rewrite and younger casting makes a nonsense of that.
Not to mention of course, the 'nine years later' stuff which implies that Brosnan's Bond spent his 30s doing nothing much really, bypassed the whole Dr No-OHMSS stuff of his life... just grieving Alex T.
But Bond in this is a self-referential, iconic figure, almost a bit like he was in NSNA ironically, a film that EON despises.
Interesting indeed. I've seen the early script for GoldenEye. I agree about the n nonsense of the Lienz Cossacks part of the plot with a younger actor portraying Trevelyan.
Since the lukewarm reception of LTK following its release in the summer of '89 and all the brutal competition from summer blockbusters, the decision was made to release new Bond films in the autumn.
Bond films since Goldfinger had used the summers or Christmans release dates but beginning with GE the movies have stuck to a November release date. (I think TND came out at Xmas but I'm not sure...it went up against James Cameron's "Titanic")
1) My response to the stunts in question at the time was: "Is that even possible? Oh never mind -- it's Bond. Just roll with it." I think this is a feeling many of us are familiar with. This reaction must be used sparingly, but is sometimes essential to a proper appreciation of the Bond series. In retrospect, I enjoyed this film so much that I have no problem accepting its more questionable aspects.
2) Brosnan totally made this film his own. I'd have a hard time at this point envisioning Dalton interacting with Xenia Onatopp. Judi Dench's "stern mother" M was a perfect foil for Brosnan's Bond, but would have been out of place trying to work with Dalton's.
3) I never doubted that Bond would be back and commercially viable. It was just a question of how long it would take for sanity to prevail. Sorta like the recent debacle over the US Budget...
4.1) Bad decision on Eon's part.
4.2) Worst. Soundtrack. Ever.
5) I just accepted them as a joke. I love @4Ever's assessment of them as "Chia Marines."
PS: I may very well have undervalued the humor quotient of this film. In my defense, I was trying hard not to just give everything aside from the sountrack a "5" and have done with it!
Okay, deadline's approaching! Gotta post...
1) Being his own Bond. (You think saying "acting" is controversial? How about the people who just label him "popcorn" and copying Moore and trying to a little of everything? Bah humbug to all of that!) I like very much indeed Brosnan as James Bond in GE and TND. Not so perfect in TWINE and although DAD was horrible, conception to finish, Brosnan was not bad in it. Pierce Brosnan took over after a long wait, after a serious and refined actor named Timothy Dalton who nailed the dark tones of Bond but legalities and general public woes piled up; he stepped into Bond's shoes when the series was in desperate need of resuscitating and nothing - I truly believe, nothing - was a given for him. So many folks knew him from Remington Steele? That's nice but it wouldn't hold water for the real deal - playing James Bond in an EON produced Bond film - if he didn't have the acting chops, charisma, charm, versatility, and force to pull it off. He gave a highly credible, enjoyable, and Bond career establishing performance in GE and he perfected his Bond in TND, in my opinion. He didn't try to copy anybody - he is too smart for that. He already had his own charm and style, wit and, for sure, underlying depth. I respect Brosnan's Bond very much and firmly wish (like for Dalton) that he had at least one more film in the canon.
2) His chemistry with other actors: M, Q, Moneypenny,Valentin, and Natalya for examples ~ I think Brosnan had the most delightful chemistry with Q; I love all of their scenes together. He and Samantha Bond clicked, and of course Judi and Brosnan upped each other's games and really brought her character in firmly with just the right nuances between them. Excellent! Brosnan worked well with his co-stars including, I think, a perfect give and take balance with Robbie Coltrane as Valentin and a sizzling, terrific chemistry with Izabella Scorupco as Natalya.
While we are revisiting Goldeneye and about to tackle my favorite, Tomorrow Never Dies, I just wanted to get my pro-Brosnan points up on the board here. :)
I agree with point #2 by the way :)
Brosnan is definitely not any of what you just insinuated, darling SirHenry.
Flagged by the way, for littering this thread with nonsense.
I know you like some things about Brosnan, SirHenry.
I stand by what I wrote, it's that simple.
Onwards: "Circle of life" don't you know? ;)
Conversely, nothing that I honestly haven't consistently stuck by many times over, his versatility in other roles is more of which I wish he'd brought to Bond, because in my estimation the failures to establish a Bond that I saw as unique or better than the others weren't entirely EON'S fault.
@chrisisall- now is a good time to flag yourself again. Nevermind, I'll do it for you ;)
OK people, gather around while the Original geezers start beating each other with canes, walkers, whips, etc :))
My least favorite Bond ever is Lazenby; I get no enjoyment out of him at all, but I don't bash him. Fortunately, on this thread we do not have bashers - at least not the regulars on here. Opinions are what they are; a personal take, a personal interpretation.
I don't have a cane yet, but when I do your name is on it, SirHenry.
(oh just joshing, of course ... or am I?!) ;)
Trying to remember ... but I think my moment of, "Oh, geez, are we back to this?" was the inane female assessor, Caroline, who rode with Bond in the car as the "next girl" came along - and to top it off, Bond set off the bicyclists toppling like dominoes (that was when I really had that comment pop into my head I am sure). But the film righted itself immediately thereafter, thank goodness!
I will admit I wasn't too fond of Caroline, or rather how she was played. Too 'delicate'. A bit more aggressive in her quest of Bond's attention would have been the right note there IMO.
I wasn't bothered by the punch, moreso by the cyclists.
I may have commented on Brosnan's shortcomings often enough, but for me there's one huge factor that makes the difference. In the 90's everyone was very happy with Brosnan. Only after DC took over did we see what was also possible with the role. That and I did see Brosnan in other films (notably the tailor of Panama and the Thomas Crown Affair) in which he was... well.. just better than what he was like as Bond. So I'm still happy he took the role and, and as most, I do rate his first two quite high. Only after his DUD and DC's impressive first did I start to wonder if Brosnan had been any good at all.
1. Casino Royale- 4.33
2. Goldfinger- 4.30
3. From Russia With Love- 4.26
4. Skyfall (6/7 reviews)- 4.17
5. The Living Daylights- 4.11
6. Thunderball- 4.09
7. The Spy Who Loved Me- 4.06
8. Licence To Kill- 4.03
9. On Her Majesty's Secret Service- 3.99
10. For Your Eyes Only- 3.91
11. You Only Live Twice- 3.90
12. Live And Let Die- 3.81
13. GoldenEye- 3.80
14. Octopussy- 3.73
15. Tomorrow Never Dies- 3.63
16. Dr. No- 3.57
17. Quantum Of Solace- 3.42
18. A View To A Kill- 3.31
19. The World Is Not Enough- 3.17
20. The Man With The Golden Gun- 3.09
21. Diamonds Are Forever- 2.99
22. Moonraker- 2.96
23. Die Another Day- 2.70
Good morning fellow originals and guests! After @BeatlesSansEarmuffs recent review of GoldenEye came in with a score of 41 out of 50, the rating jumped up from 3.75 to 3.80, threatening to but not quite displacing Live And Let Die at #12, yet asserting itself as a film preferred to it's closest competitor at #14.
My continuous thanks to everyone who has participated in the thesis questions. Participation seemed more or less as normal levels this week and this week I know that posting a response deadline was helpful. Trivia will continue.
Regarding the polling of the 5 GoldenEye thesis questions, which I must say weren't quite as conclusive and decisive as I'd hoped, here's the consensus-
1. One of the long held and accepted philosophies when it comes to Bond films is that "Bond may go wildly beyond the probable but not beyond the possible". Prior discussions here in this thread have proven that the big stunt in the PTS of the movie betrays this philosophy. In addition, the Brosnan backflip on the satellite dish ladder and Trevalyan's survival of his big fall, let alone the difference in their appearances after such a fight, fit the same premise as far as defying the laws of physics. Now that we are all aware that this is so, do these facts negatively affect your opinion of the overall film, or do you still enjoy the whole experience regardless and dismiss it as merely ill-advised attempts to bring the series back with a big bang after a 6 year hiatus?
Most of the respondents displayed a generally blase attitude towards the PTS and dish fight stunts, even though they've been proven to fly in the face of reality, and some just blew the thesis off altogether. Not what I was looking for as far as brutal honesty here. I guess it would interfere with their overall view of the entire film to nitpick on a few points. We might even term this view as "Moonraker Syndrome", akin to a strangely brainwashed cult of sorts, although at this point unlike what we see here, the Moonraker PTS stunt has at least been physically proven as far as actual physics to work within the parameters of what was filmed. Some though had the common sense to admit that there was a point to be made here, so I've done as much as I could to point out these glaring flaws. Personally, it detracted for me because as I've stated, Cubby's philosophy was dropped in order to wow the viewer. I have no doubt the intentions were good as far as wildly entertaining and making Bond a bigger superhero spy than ever before, but the film is worse for it in my estimation.
2. We know that GoldenEye is the 17th official film in the series. The trivia I released yesterday tells us that the film was originally to have been called "Property Of A Lady", a Fleming short story title whose material was already used in prior films, and up until the time the screenplay had morphed into what it had originally been to what we get for the finished product, the part was still being written with Dalton in mind. And now the obvious question that we have never discussed here- does the movie feel more like a Dalton film with Brosnan playing his part, or do you feel that Brosnan did enough to differentiate the overall tone from Dalton?
Another very mixed response, I guess my questions this week were more thought provoking than usual. We do know from the trivia that this script was intended for Dalton. Many would have loved to see what Dalton would have done with the material. But no one thought less of the film without Dalton, and the prevailing view was that Pierce did a fine job and managed to make them accept the film as his. I agree with all the sentiments made. I could see elements of Dalton in the darker moments, but this wasn't "Property Of A Lady". It was GoldenEye, and it was Pierce's film to succeed with or fail with.
3. This question is more for the originals and for those old enough to remember. The six years between Licence To Kill and this film was the longest in the 51 year history of the canon. Try and think back to that time and tell us, did the thought that Bond films were either finished or would no longer be commercially viable should they return ever enter your mind, or did you steadily keep the faith that Bond would be back and that the public would still be interested?
How nice it was to see that all but one person believed that indeed "James Bond Will Return" as always promised. As did I. By 1993, when the lone dissenter @WillyGalore said he'd given up hope, he must have missed the word that a script was being worked on for the day when the legal issues had been settled. I'll freely admit that I was a little impatient for a new one and frustrated with the legal issues, but I knew Bond would return and always thought Dalton would still be Bond again until he said he wouldn't. For those who don't know, my Dad lost a 2 year battle with lymphoma in February 1992. These issues cost my brother and I one last film in November 1991. Which, knowing my Dad, he would have found the strength to do with his sons knowing it would be the last time he could. Business is business and I get that Cubby was protecting his interests and didn't enjoy depriving us of a new film, but I am still bitter about it. At least I have the comfort of knowing that I made sure I bought Dad all his Bond films on VHS so he didn't want for watching one whenever he wanted, and that he shared my view that if LTK was to be his last, at least he got one of the great ones, and I know he watched and enjoyed his copy thoroughly.
4. Although Bond soundtracks in the past had strayed in part from the Barry formula regarding tones brought forth by different instrumentation, they were always primarily orchestrally based. The soundtrack presented here by Eric Serra is a radical departure from an orchestral base into a synthesized hybrid that nearly all long time Bond fans didn't recognize as "Bondian" past the occasional theme cue. I've given the background of what transpired in the trivia notes regarding the music and what happened, and now a two part question- (1) was hiring Serra and someone of his avant-garde musical style a major mistake all by itself on the part of MGM/UA and EON, or was their failure to convey what they expected of the composer regarding fitting his style to the Bond sound the real culprit, and (2) is this the worst soundtrack in series history or not? If you choose to say it's not, to stir further debate, name one you like even less. And if you would choose to go as far as to defend the soundtrack as a good one and accept the flak you will doubtless get, why is it so great in a Bondian context?
The answers were much more one sided for this two part question. While the facts demonstrate that EON was indeed lax in their assumptions that Serra understood what they expected was a Bondian sounding soundtrack written by Eric Serra, and thus have to share in the resulting failure, the bottom line was that we collectively feel as many do that it was a mistake to hire someone of his then radical style of composing in the first place. As his agent Richard Kraft was quoted for saying in Jon Burlingame's Bond music book, and I was hoping I would get to quote this, "For better or for worse, Eric Serra wrote an Eric Serra score for the movie. And no Bond movie had sounded like that." Serra himself, who had written the scores solely for Luc Besson films such as "La Femme Nikita" and "Léon: The Professional", echoed this thusly in the same book- "They said that they were big fans of my music, so I thought that the best thing was to write MY music, and not to be influenced by the old James Bond. So I just did what I wanted". As to part 2, no one defended the soundtrack as a good soundtrack. Most of us agreed that it was dreadful and the worst in the generally glorious history of Bond soundtracks, although one poster thought the FYEO soundtrack was worse and for me, there is some merit in that argument.
5. Was it me, or didn't those Marine helicopters of Jack Wade's appear too quickly out of nowhere in the final scene, like someone dropped them from a cable and piped in helicopter sounds?
After reading humorous responses such as "Chia Marines" and "drop in choppers- just add water", I think we can safely surmise that someone in the editing room worked one too many sleep deprived hours without a strong brand of caffeine to keep them alert. Between several unrealistic stunts and this gem, those who think the film is the most perfect and flawless film in the series ought to understand why the more discerning crowd are snickering at them from behind our computer, and/or making fun of their statements to this effect in public.
That will wrap up our look back at GoldenEye, and next we will revisit the second of the four Brosnan films and my personal favorite performance of his in Tomorrow Never Dies. It's a film that has it's share of both supporters and detractors, so I'm especially looking forward to reading what @Beatles has to say about it. Have a great weekend everyone!
That came along with Casino Royale - different tone and different aims for sure; CR changed Bond films. Far more realistic, gritty, and with an edge.
GE is a very fine Bond film, one that holds up admirably, and one that was still in the fold of the format of all previous Bond films. I don't look for any Bond film, even with Craig, to be 100% realistic, especially regarding stunts or special effects.
Looking forward to discussing TND again because it is my favorite Brosnan Bond film!
It's good to see it get some love, even if it's sad to see it left outside the top 10.
This is another fairly controversial entry in the Bond series. Last time around, it was the actor playing Bond who was at the center of the controversy; this time, it’s the main villain and his plot. Some people just don’t like Jonathan Pryce as Elliot Carver. They think he’s boring, and that his plot to boost the fortunes of his media empire by causing a war between China and Great Britain is less than Bond-worthy. This reviewer is not at all in agreement with those people.
As a fan of the more “realistic” Bond movies, I was very pleased with Tomorrow Never Dies. I liked the title, Beatles reference that it is. I thought Pierce Brosnan substantially improved on his already satisfactory performance as James Bond. And I thought Elliot Carver was an entirely too believable villain. Carver himself references the historical basis for his very existence: William Randolph Hearst, who essentially created the Cuban-American war as a ploy to boost newspaper sales. In today’s media-dominated political climate, with the likes of Rupert Murdoch driving (rather than reporting) the news to further his own personal goals, I think Elliot Carver is one of the most evil villains James Bond has ever faced!
The film begins with a truly suspenseful PTS that sees Bond racing to avert a nuclear catastrophe nearly caused by his own government. I’ve always enjoyed seeing M defend Bond against the forces of a bureaucracy that doesn’t trust him or understand his methods. It’s a necessary counterpoint to the scenes we’ve seen too often, with M raking Bond over the coals for one perceived shortcoming or another. This film has one of M’s best moments in that regard: “What’s he doing?” asks the brass hat who has foolishly ordered the missile to be fired. “His JOB,” replies M, and the point is aptly made. She may dress Bond down when the situation calls for it, but when the chips are down even this new M knows that Bond is the one man who can be called upon to pull off a nearly miraculous save.
BOND 4.5/5 As noted in my last review, Brosnan does a fine job with most of the standard Bond practices. This time around, he even adds a few of his own. His seems genuinely defensive of Paris even when M and Moneypenny are urging him to “pump her” for information. His momentary grief at her death is something we haven’t seen since Lazenby’s bereavement in OHMSS. And shortly after that, when Bond is piloting his remote-controlled BMW from its’ back seat, we are treated to Brosnan’s supreme moment of “boyish charm.” The look on his face as he zooms around the parking garage, wreaking havoc on his opponents’ vehicles and weaponry, is very much that of a 12 year old boy on Christmas morning, playing with his newest toys. If Brosnan has one failing as Bond in this outing, it is that things seem to come a little too easily for him. Even Connery needed to exert himself sometimes…Brosnan seems to just flail his arms and the villains all fall down. All except for Stamper, but then, Stamper seems conveniently elsewhere during too many action scenes until the very end of the film. Bond is taken by thugs into an empty studio room just before Carver’s big address to his cable audience…and he takes their punches for awhile, obviously playing rope-a-dope for them, before suddenly springing into action, downing them all nearly effortlessly and flipping just the right switch in the studio’s controls at precisely the right moment to make sure that Carver’s big speech produces the maximum embarrassment for the media baron. It’s a little TOO easy, but then, that’s why he’s Bond I guess. He definitely IS the right corrupt, decadent agent of a western power for Wai Lin to get involved with in this movie…so let’s talk about Wai Lin for a bit, shall we?
WOMEN 4/5 Michelle Yeoh is excellent as Wai Lin, the Chinese agent who is the best “female Bond counterpart” this series has ever seen. Her martial arts sequences are just astounding…she has her own stock of gadgets that reminded me of Marvel’s Black Widow long before that character came to the screen in the Avengers…she’s plenty attractive and she’s got a secure sense of how to deliver a quip. Teri Hatcher, however, is far less appropriately cast as Paris Carver. The character is written well enough, even though she might as well have been wearing a sign that read “Sacrificial Lamb” during her scenes at Carver’s party. But Teri herself is just distracting for every minute she’s onscreen. I kept expecting a big guy in a red cape to swoop in and carry her out of this movie, because otherwise she was going to end up dead in Bond’s bed. A suggestion to the folks at Eon for future consideration: some actors just carry their past personas around with them. It’s hard to tell which ones have this quality. Some you can even use to your advantage: Roger Moore = Simon Templar = James Bond. Pierce Brosnan = Remington Steele = James Bond. But in this case, Teri Hatcher = Lois Lane = Lois (enough already) Lane. And not so far in the future, Madonna = Madonna = (what the hell were you thinking?) Madonna. Oh, and for completeness’ sake: Cecilie Thomsen as Professor Inga Bergstrom is window dressing of the most beautiful sort. Totally unnecessary to the story, but well worth brushing up on.
VILLAINS 5/5 As I’ve already stated, I’m a big fan of our villain’s main plot. Jonathan Pryce is quite entertaining as Elliot Carver; fairly subtle as an acting performance but brilliantly written. He’s a show-off who needs an audience…and only the largest audience in the world will satisfy him. Carver has a wonderful support crew in tow with him as well. Ricky Jay is tremendously nuanced as Henry Gupta; sure, he’s a techno terrorist with a background as a student radical from UC Berkeley, but just check his safe at Carver’s headquarters: he’s got the GPS tracking system in there, plus drugs and a syringe, plus a nice little stash of porn. Now this is a man with a wide range of interests! Vincent Schiavelli is tremendously amusing as Dr. Kaufman and doesn’t get anywhere near as much screen time as he deserves. Still, he could have shot his scenes from Stuttgard und still produced the proper effect, yah? Gotz Otto is fairly clichéd as Stamper--he serves the purpose effectively but just wasn’t written as effectively as Gupta or Kaufman. And let’s not forget Michael G. Wilson’s turn as one of Carver’s media minions in the video conference call -- “Consider him slimed!”
HUMOR 4/5 The best humor in this series is character based, and Bond’s interactions with Wai Lin qualify well in this regard. He scowls at her when she sets off the alarm at Carver’s base, then escapes easily thanks to her “widow’s line” (to borrow another Black Widow reference copyright Marvel Comics) leaving him to fight his way out of the facility. They cannot come to an agreement as to who’s in charge during their teamed motorcycle chase through the streets of Ho Chi Minh City. Finally, he tells her “You type” when confronted with a computer keyboard utilizing Chinese figures (and yes, I know he took a first in Oriental languages back in YOLT.) Their romance of convenience is made believable by the laughs they’ve shared during the course of their mission, and when Wai Lin and Bond tease each other over their respective ideologies just prior to engaging Carver’s stealth boat, it is clear that there is a genuine affection growing between them. Carver himself is good for plenty of laughs, and somehow does not lose his sense of menace while amusing the audience, particularly when he's mocking Wai Lin for her martial artists moves. The least effective humor in this series is pun oriented, and the much maligned “cunning linguist” line is testament to that point. Still, even I need to acknowledge that the reference to Carver’s “Edifice Complex” was marginally amusing. As for the “Don’t Ask” moment between Moneypenny & M, I’ll never tell. At least we’ll still got Joe Don Baker as Jack Wade. Just don’t take him into Vietnam with you…
ACTION 4/5 The action in this film never lets up and is largely very believable. Highlights for me are the PTS, the cable station launch party and Bond’s sabotaging of Carver’s speech, Bond’s confrontation with Kaufman and his mourning of Paris’ death, the parking lot chase featuring the remote controlled BMW, Wai Lin and Bond’s leap from Carver’s Ho Chi Minh City HQ building, and their subsequent motorcycle chase through the city streets. I do have to question the helicopter blade slicing through the scenery at the tail end of this chase sequence: frankly, I don’t think a helicopter can approach the ground with its blades at that angle. As with the previous movie, I’m not willing to let my disbelief ruin my overall enjoyment of the story, but I will note the strain on my credulity nonetheless. I’m sad to say that the fight on the stealth boat at the climax of the movie seems a little rote. I don’t think Wai Lin should have been taken prisoner quite so easily…not with the martial arts proficiency she’s demonstrated earlier in the film. I think this last part was just the scriptwriter’s bid towards making Bond the clear hero at story’s end.
SADISM 4/5 This category is largely carried by Dr. Kaufman, and by Mr. Stamper’s intent to use Kaufman’s torture tools to hold Bond’s beating heart in from of him as he dies. This suggestion alone is one of the most sadistic images a Bond film has ever brought to the viewer. Nowhere near as much fun as Xenia Onatopp, but effective nonetheless. Bond shoving Carver into the screws of his own torpedo near the story's end was also pretty brutal, and I'm not certain that this really WAS "what the audience wants..."
MUSIC 4/5 Sheryl Crow’s opening theme should have been replaced by K. D. Lang’s closing song. Aside from that one mistake, the score to this movie is nearly flawless. David Arnold demonstrates himself to be the one true successor to John Barry. It sounds like a Bond film. What higher praise can be offered?
LOCATIONS 3.5/5 Much of our locations here are in the South China Sea -- which could be any watery location, really -- and a variety of indoor spots. The Thailand locations (doubling for Vietnam) are very cool, but we don’t see an awful lot of hardcore location work in this film. It’s one of the few low-scoring categories we have this time around.
GADGETS 5/5 The movie may have the best collection of gadgets for any Bond film of the modern era. From Gupta’s altered GPS device and Carver’s stealth boat to Wai Lin’s wall-walking outfit and entire hidden base of briefly-glanced Chinese gadgets, this film is just chock to the brim with cool stuff. Bond has to dig deep into Q’s bag of tricks to match the rest of the cast. He does just that, and Q comes out the winner by far. His cell phone/taser is just a warm-up…the remote controlled BMW more than makes up for the paltry few moments of screen time BMW’s product placement $$$ received in Goldeneye. This is unquestionably my favorite Bond vehicle since the legendary Aston Martin DB-5. “All the usual refinements of course,” plus an automatic tire-reinflator and a wire-cutter that must have been invented by somebody that had gotten an advance look at the script so he knew just what Bond would be needing this time around. All other specialized vehicles take a back seat to this baby. The Batmobile wishes it were this car.
SUPPORTING CAST 4/5 One of Q’s best scenes introduces this fabulous vehicle. “Will you be needing collision coverage?” Oh yes, and lots more besides. M and Moneypenny have some interesting moments early in the film as they encourage Bond to use his previous connection with Paris Carver to her husband’s detriment. Far from chiding Bond for his womanizing ways, at this point they appear to be egging him on. This may be expected from M, but it’s a little surprising to hear Moneypenny following suit on the topic. Colin Salmon gets a nice appearance as Charles Robinson, but one wonders why Bill Tanner wasn’t used in his stead. Joe Don Baker was his usual amusing self as Jack Wade, and who the heck was playing General Chang anyway? He should have been used a little more -- for his part in Carver’s operation he should qualify as a full-fledged villain, but he doesn’t really DO anything other than walk down the hallway in Carver’s Ho Chi Minh City headquarters.
TOTAL AND RECOLLECTIONS 42/50 I’d like to have given Goldeneye a better score than this one…but I just can’t. I enjoy GE more personally, but this one holds together better logically. Carver’s villainy is far more believable to me than Trevelyan’s faux-Cossack parentage, and if this film doesn’t have the equivalent of a Xenia Onatopp then Wai Lin’s martial artists expertise is a close second. GE doesn’t have a gadget anywhere near the equal of the remote-controlled BMW, and if this film doesn’t have the equivalent of the M/Bond “You think I’m a bean-counter” exchange, then at least we do hear Paris Carver ask Bond if he still sleeps with a gun under his pillow. Both of these are equally-strong entries into the Bond canon to my way of thinking. It’s a pity things started to slip with the scripting of the next offering…
THE END of this review
But BeatlesSansEarmuffs will return
To review THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH