Pierce Brosnan admits he can't bear to watch himself as Bond

1568101119

Comments

  • I don't get the reason why people hate on the mans tenure as Bond. Now yes the man had the luck of starring in 3 of the franchises mediocre-bad installments, and precedes Craig who blew everyone away in the role once CR rolled around, but the mans performance is just perfect. People always say Craig is the closest thing to Connery in his portrayel, well I would argue the exact opposite, and say Brosnan. Lazenby was very very close, but lacked the acting chops to make it work. Moore focused more on the humor and lighter aspects (despite seeing a few Connery trademarks throughout his tenure.) Dalton was the Shakespearean Bond in my opinion, he gave very dramatic performances, had the presence and intensity needed, but lacked the swagger, and charm. You never felt as if Dalton's Bond was a womanizer like the previous ones. Craig's Bond is a more human character than Connery, he has many of the characteristics of Connery's Bond, but much like Dalton, Craig plays the role with a more dramatic energy, especially since his era of Bond is the one that we have seen go in completely different directions than the first 20 films. Now getting on to Brosnan, I thought Brosnan was the best since Connery because he had all those elements nailed perfectly. He had the swagger, toughness, cold-blooded nature, womanizing elements of Connery's Bond I feel. His era was just ruined by mediocre-bad movies with the exception of Goldeneye (despite my love for TWINE)
  • Posts: 11,189
    GoldenEye is 11 years old than CR, people tend to forget that. Also with CR EON stepped up their game considerably production value wise.
    If you take this in account, GE is a true timeless gem.

    That is very true.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    I don't get the reason why people hate on the mans tenure as Bond. Now yes the man had the luck of starring in 3 of the franchises mediocre-bad installments, and precedes Craig who blew everyone away in the role once CR rolled around, but the mans performance is just perfect. People always say Craig is the closest thing to Connery in his portrayel, well I would argue the exact opposite, and say Brosnan. Lazenby was very very close, but lacked the acting chops to make it work. Moore focused more on the humor and lighter aspects (despite seeing a few Connery trademarks throughout his tenure.) Dalton was the Shakespearean Bond in my opinion, he gave very dramatic performances, had the presence and intensity needed, but lacked the swagger, and charm. You never felt as if Dalton's Bond was a womanizer like the previous ones. Craig's Bond is a more human character than Connery, he has many of the characteristics of Connery's Bond, but much like Dalton, Craig plays the role with a more dramatic energy, especially since his era of Bond is the one that we have seen go in completely different directions than the first 20 films. Now getting on to Brosnan, I thought Brosnan was the best since Connery because he had all those elements nailed perfectly. He had the swagger, toughness, cold-blooded nature, womanizing elements of Connery's Bond I feel. His era was just ruined by mediocre-bad movies with the exception of Goldeneye (despite my love for TWINE)

    SPOT ON
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,019
    I pretty much agree. I never had anything against Brosnan (he was actually my No. 2 until Craig came along and I also appreciated Dalton more afterwards), but they gave him shitty material to work on in at least two cases (TWINE and DAD). Had the movies stayed on the quality level of GE or even (only) TND, I'm sure Broz wouldn't need to feel ashamed for his performance. It certainly wasn't his fault.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Brosnan does have to take some of the blame as his performance isn't always up to speed. The hospital scene in DAD for example is particularly poor. As an actor I admit he's limited and needs a director to tell him when to tone it down.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    GoldenEye is 11 years old than CR, people tend to forget that. Also with CR EON stepped up their game considerably production value wise.
    If you take this in account, GE is a true timeless gem.

    CR is superior in every way. Plot, cast, score, direction and action.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Both are equally great.
  • suavejmf wrote: »
    GoldenEye is 11 years old than CR, people tend to forget that. Also with CR EON stepped up their game considerably production value wise.
    If you take this in account, GE is a true timeless gem.

    CR is superior in every way. Plot, cast, score, direction and action.

    You may think so yeah, but I don't think Casino Royale has left such a huge impact as Goldeneye has. When you look at the legacy of Goldeneye, it lead to the N64 game, the remake, four of the most memorable Bond villains, and it got a hell of a lot of people interested in Bond. Whereas with Casino Royale, it may be the film that made Bond click with audiences to a much larger degree than usual, but that's the only thing about about it. It's lasting impact isn't really anything compared to Goldeneye. Yes both films are great, and it's all down to opinion, but I just personally think Goldeneye is a better film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    They're both great. I rate CR higher objectively because it's arguably a more accomplished film, but I much prefer putting in GE whenever I need a Bond fix. I think GE is much more entertaining. Damn good film and Brozza is not half bad in it.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited April 2017 Posts: 9,020
    @007ClassicBondFan

    Nice to see some sense on here for a change :P

    couldn't have said it better myself...


    +1
    SPOT ON
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Brosnan does have to take some of the blame as his performance isn't always up to speed. The hospital scene in DAD for example is particularly poor. As an actor I admit he's limited and needs a director to tell him when to tone it down.

    Very good point. It takes a world class director like Boorman or Pokanski to get the best from him.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 12,837
    I was reading something online hyping up Brosnan's TV series and it said that he was a "character actor trapped in the body of a leading man".

    I don't think I agree but I do see what they mean. Most of his more acclaimed performances have been in colorful supporting roles, usually as dark/immoral characters. But I think he works equally well as the lead. It's not just his looks, it's his mannerisms, his charisma, the way he moves. He's just cool. He's perfect as the suave, flashy action hero, but you do also get the sense that there's someone more dangerous underneath. There are moments where the assassin comes out and Brosnan gets to show off his dramatic side, but it's different to Connery: Connery made it look cool, but when Brosnan does it it comes across as unsettling. He's not cold blooded, he's angry, emotional, etc. That's the character actor in him coming out. He could be a bit over the top in these moments but on the whole I think he's very good at reminding us through these moments that it's sort of messed up that we're rooting for him. A wolf in sheep's clothing sort of thing.

    He's probably still my second favourite Bond (after Dalton) and GE and TWINE are still two of my all time favourites.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    GoldenEye is 11 years old than CR, people tend to forget that. Also with CR EON stepped up their game considerably production value wise.
    If you take this in account, GE is a true timeless gem.

    CR is superior in every way. Plot, cast, score, direction and action.

    I seem to be in the minority but I actually much prefer the last two Craig films to the first two. CR I've always respected but never really, really enjoyed. It didn't blow me away in the same way GE did. I appreciated the change in direction and it is stunningly well made, cast, acted, etc.

    But I've never been a fan of the reboot angle. One of the strengths of Bond is how, in the novels and the films, he came as a fully formed character, imo. It's amazing how well DN set things up for the next 50 years just by showing how he exists. We didn't need to see his origin story: the book wasn't one.

    I also think it's pretty poorly paced at times. The first half starts off great but once we get to Miami it becomes a bit of a slog imo. Then the film hits its stride again but at the end what should have been an epilogue becomes a big bloated finale complete with CGI destruction and a melodramatic ending. I really hate Vesper's death, with him trying to save her and the dramatic emotional music, because I can't help but compare it to Tracy. When Tracy died it wasn't a big telegraphed moment. It was sudden, quick and came out of nowhere. It was much more understated and I think that made it a lot more affecting in comparison to Vesper, and I also thought Vesper's relationship with Bond seemed pretty rushed.

    GE doesn't take as many risks but it still feels fresh. It's not perfect (the score is pretty terrible, the effects have aged badly, it does look cheap at times) but it's like TSWLM: a 'classic' Bond film but a modern take on the formula that actually plays around with it and subverts it at times (GE does this even more than TSWLM). You just get the sense that everyone involved is firing on all cylinders to make it a hit. Even watching it now it feels really fresh and exciting. One of the very best for me. Top 5 for sure.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I was reading something online hyping up Brosnan's TV series and it said that he was a "character actor trapped in the body of a leading man".

    I don't think I agree but I do see what they mean. Most of his more acclaimed performances have been in colorful supporting roles, usually as dark/immoral characters. But I think he works equally well as the lead. It's not just his looks, it's his mannerisms, his charisma, the way he moves. He's just cool. He's perfect as the suave, flashy action hero, but you do also get the sense that there's someone more dangerous underneath. There are moments where the assassin comes out and Brosnan gets to show off his dramatic side, but it's different to Connery: Connery made it look cool, but when Brosnan does it it comes across as unsettling. He's not cold blooded, he's angry, emotional, etc. That's the character actor in him coming out. He could be a bit over the top in these moments but on the whole I think he's very good at reminding us through these moments that it's sort of messed up that we're rooting for him. A wolf in sheep's clothing sort of thing.

    He's probably still my second favourite Bond (after Dalton) and GE and TWINE are still two of my all time favourites.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    GoldenEye is 11 years old than CR, people tend to forget that. Also with CR EON stepped up their game considerably production value wise.
    If you take this in account, GE is a true timeless gem.

    CR is superior in every way. Plot, cast, score, direction and action.

    I seem to be in the minority but I actually much prefer the last two Craig films to the first two. CR I've always respected but never really, really enjoyed. It didn't blow me away in the same way GE did. I appreciated the change in direction and it is stunningly well made, cast, acted, etc.

    But I've never been a fan of the reboot angle. One of the strengths of Bond is how, in the novels and the films, he came as a fully formed character, imo. It's amazing how well DN set things up for the next 50 years just by showing how he exists. We didn't need to see his origin story: the book wasn't one.

    I also think it's pretty poorly paced at times. The first half starts off great but once we get to Miami it becomes a bit of a slog imo. Then the film hits its stride again but at the end what should have been an epilogue becomes a big bloated finale complete with CGI destruction and a melodramatic ending. I really hate Vesper's death, with him trying to save her and the dramatic emotional music, because I can't help but compare it to Tracy. When Tracy died it wasn't a big telegraphed moment. It was sudden, quick and came out of nowhere. It was much more understated and I think that made it a lot more affecting in comparison to Vesper, and I also thought Vesper's relationship with Bond seemed pretty rushed.

    GE doesn't take as many risks but it still feels fresh. It's not perfect (the score is pretty terrible, the effects have aged badly, it does look cheap at times) but it's like TSWLM: a 'classic' Bond film but a modern take on the formula that actually plays around with it and subverts it at times (GE does this even more than TSWLM). You just get the sense that everyone involved is firing on all cylinders to make it a hit. Even watching it now it feels really fresh and exciting. One of the very best for me. Top 5 for sure.

    Great analysis of CR and I've felt pretty much the same way since I first saw it. Admiration, appreciation. But never blown away.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Even as a die-hard CR fan, I understand the views expressed. It has a GF/SF thing going on where many don't want to even dare look at it critically, but that's not an honest practice, is it?

    An example being how the latest Bond films get picked apart for not explaining this thing or that thing, when much of CR is left unexplained too. Very little of Vesper's motivations are shared, and we're left to wonder when and how Quantum got to her, when she fell for Bond, if she was working with White and not Le Chiffre or both, etc. That's a big deal, considering the betrayal is so heavily a part of the film. That's one thing I think many pro-CR folks don't want to pay attention to.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Every Bond can be picked apart. CR is amazing. Simple as that.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    GoldenEye is 11 years old than CR, people tend to forget that. Also with CR EON stepped up their game considerably production value wise.
    If you take this in account, GE is a true timeless gem.

    CR is superior in every way. Plot, cast, score, direction and action.

    You may think so yeah, but I don't think Casino Royale has left such a huge impact as Goldeneye has. When you look at the legacy of Goldeneye, it lead to the N64 game, the remake, four of the most memorable Bond villains, and it got a hell of a lot of people interested in Bond. Whereas with Casino Royale, it may be the film that made Bond click with audiences to a much larger degree than usual, but that's the only thing about about it. It's lasting impact isn't really anything compared to Goldeneye. Yes both films are great, and it's all down to opinion, but I just personally think Goldeneye is a better film.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    GoldenEye is 11 years old than CR, people tend to forget that. Also with CR EON stepped up their game considerably production value wise.
    If you take this in account, GE is a true timeless gem.

    CR is superior in every way. Plot, cast, score, direction and action.

    You may think so yeah, but I don't think Casino Royale has left such a huge impact as Goldeneye has. When you look at the legacy of Goldeneye, it lead to the N64 game, the remake, four of the most memorable Bond villains, and it got a hell of a lot of people interested in Bond. Whereas with Casino Royale, it may be the film that made Bond click with audiences to a much larger degree than usual, but that's the only thing about about it. It's lasting impact isn't really anything compared to Goldeneye. Yes both films are great, and it's all down to opinion, but I just personally think Goldeneye is a better film.

    The remake? Launching a computer game off the back of the film doesn't mean much to me. GE is average in everyway, a buy the numbers Bond film that does a job but doesn't really impress on any level ( satellite in space.....yawn). CR is near perfect.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I suppose there hasn't been enough Brosnan bashing lately, so the bumping of a dead, nearly three year old thread was warranted.

    Yeah, we have been too lazy on that front for far too long.
  • Posts: 1,052
    I'd take GE over CR any day. DAD is the only really poor entry of Brozzer's tenure and really that's just a bit of easy to watch nonsense. The era has a whole is actually not bad!
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,108
    GE is top 5 for me and I prefer it, albeit slightly, to CR.

    I think both Pierce and Dan have quite comparable tenures. Started both with a great entry and an instant classic, followed it by a good action flick, then appeared in a slightly too melodramatic entry and their fourth turned out to be a bit of a mixed bag with an equal amount of great and terrible moments.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    GoldenEye is 11 years old than CR, people tend to forget that. Also with CR EON stepped up their game considerably production value wise.
    If you take this in account, GE is a true timeless gem.

    CR is superior in every way. Plot, cast, score, direction and action.

    You may think so yeah, but I don't think Casino Royale has left such a huge impact as Goldeneye has. When you look at the legacy of Goldeneye, it lead to the N64 game, the remake, four of the most memorable Bond villains, and it got a hell of a lot of people interested in Bond. Whereas with Casino Royale, it may be the film that made Bond click with audiences to a much larger degree than usual, but that's the only thing about about it. It's lasting impact isn't really anything compared to Goldeneye. Yes both films are great, and it's all down to opinion, but I just personally think Goldeneye is a better film.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    GoldenEye is 11 years old than CR, people tend to forget that. Also with CR EON stepped up their game considerably production value wise.
    If you take this in account, GE is a true timeless gem.

    CR is superior in every way. Plot, cast, score, direction and action.

    You may think so yeah, but I don't think Casino Royale has left such a huge impact as Goldeneye has. When you look at the legacy of Goldeneye, it lead to the N64 game, the remake, four of the most memorable Bond villains, and it got a hell of a lot of people interested in Bond. Whereas with Casino Royale, it may be the film that made Bond click with audiences to a much larger degree than usual, but that's the only thing about about it. It's lasting impact isn't really anything compared to Goldeneye. Yes both films are great, and it's all down to opinion, but I just personally think Goldeneye is a better film.

    The remake? Launching a computer game off the back of the film doesn't mean much to me. GE is average in everyway, a buy the numbers Bond film that does a job but doesn't really impress on any level ( satellite in space.....yawn). CR is near perfect.
    Like 007ClassicBondFan said, whether you think GoldenEye is inferior, superior or makes you yawn is purely subjective and downright to your opinion. I don't remember anyone going utterly hyped and talking about it with Royale the way they did with GoldenEye. To this day, it still keeps gaining accolades, praise, and nostalgia, whereas all Royale has is a critical acclaim and the usual box office gross which already has been made regular with the Bond films. The only time Bond got a similar hype to GoldenEye was with Skyfall, and the way they marketed it. These are facts. Not down right to opinion. Now, what are your thoughts about what film as entities, that's down to you. A matter of taste that varies with everyone. But, to ignore the massive impact GoldenEye left upon the pop culture? That won't do, sir. That won't do.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 11,189
    I have to confess the first thing I did after watching CR in 2006 was stick on my GE DVD.

    I've since discovered though that, while I love GE for nostalgic reasons, CR is a far more polished film.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I'm confused as to whether some people are talking about the film or the video game
  • Posts: 11,189
    Loved both as a kid.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    GE was the first Bond film I watched at the cinema and I found Brosnan and adequate enough Bond. What never ceases to puzzle and amuse on a personal level is when this film is rated highly by Bond "fans." Ultimately, it provides little more than a flashy, over-hyped, selection of greatest hits moments which don't add up to a satisfying whole. It's like one of those mediocre compilation albums where you simply flick through to the songs you like, enjoying the few good bits, and arbitrarily disregarding the rest. The pre-title sequence being the best part.

    Casino Royale on the other hand......is amazing. The best Bond since 1965. From the black and white pre-titles, to arguably the best title sequence ever. From the African free-running chase to the beautiful interiors of London. From Judi Dench's harassed M, to the sinister Le Chiffre. From the stone-cold government killer, to the heart broken lover.

    Style, sophistication, direction and Fleming are in abundance.
  • Posts: 11,189
    For a lot of people it was their introduction to Bond...myself included.

    Like it or not I've always found it an admittedly flawed but highly entertaining film with some great standout scenes and characters.

    I hate this snobbish way certain fans seem to look down on those introduced to Bond through the 90s films.

    I do agree though that CR is definitely superior in terms of pretty much everything.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Like 007ClassicBondFan said, whether you think GoldenEye is inferior, superior or makes you yawn is purely subjective and downright to your opinion. I don't remember anyone going utterly hyped and talking about it with Royale the way they did with GoldenEye. To this day, it still keeps gaining accolades, praise, and nostalgia, whereas all Royale has is a critical acclaim and the usual box office gross which already has been made regular with the Bond films. The only time Bond got a similar hype to GoldenEye was with Skyfall, and the way they marketed it. These are facts. Not down right to opinion. Now, what are your thoughts about what film as entities, that's down to you. A matter of taste that varies with everyone. But, to ignore the massive impact GoldenEye left upon the pop culture? That won't do, sir. That won't do.
    GE was my first Bond theatre experience, like with many and I can vouch for your comments. That film was a pop culture experience in 1995, just like SF was in 2012. Sure, the gross wasn't quite the same, but it was a film that was on everyone's mouth when it was released. Bond was back and he was on fire. The worldwide gross was phenomenal compared to the last outing (not even close). The last time I think that happened (someone can correct me) was when TSWLM hit the market in the summer of 1977 and restarted the Bond machine.

    CR was more of a relief. After the debacle of DAD and the disgrace of TWINE, things had taken a decided turn for the worse in the land of Bond, especially as the market had changed. CR showed us that EON was serious about getting back on track. It was also a relief because everyone was comforted to see that Daniel Craig wasn't going to be the disaster many thought he would be. The situation was different with Pierce, who had been the man in waiting for 8 long years in 1995. However, nobody doubted that Bond would survive in 2003-2006 (unlike the period of 1989-1995). DAD was a massive global smash (although I make no comments about how it was critically received. I was ashamed of it, but I have read that some noted critics thought highly of it at the time).

    So, from what I remember, GE was by far the more significant moment in Bond pop culture.
  • Posts: 11,425
    suavejmf wrote: »
    GE was the first Bond film I watched at the cinema and I found Brosnan and adequate enough Bond. What never ceases to puzzle and amuse on a personal level is when this film is rated highly by Bond "fans." Ultimately, it provides little more than a flashy, over-hyped, selection of greatest hits moments which don't add up to a satisfying whole. It's like one of those mediocre compilation albums where you simply flick through to the songs you like, enjoying the few good bits, and arbitrarily disregarding the rest. The pre-title sequence being the best part.

    Casino Royale on the other hand......is amazing. The best Bond since 1965. From the black and white pre-titles, to arguably the best title sequence ever. From the African free-running chase to the beautiful interiors of London. From Judi Dench's harassed M, to the sinister Le Chiffre. From the stone-cold government killer, to the heart broken lover.

    Style, sophistication, direction and Fleming are in abundance.

    Well said @suavejmf. There is so much guff written about GE. A thoroughly mediocre entry - at best. I remember thinking TND was a significant improvement actually, although TWINE and DAD sealed the deal in terms of defining the Brosnan era as the worst in Bond history.

    I understand that it was the first film lots of guys on here saw in the cinema but even so...
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote: »
    I understand that it was the first film lots of guys on here saw in the cinema but even so...

    Funnily enough it wasn't my first cinematic Bond (that wasn't until TND).

    But to this day I can quote the dialogue to use the phrase of a fellow online fan "down to the music cues"

    The claim that its not re-watchable means absolutely nothing to me. It may be nostalgia talking but nonetheless I can't deny the influence the film had on me. It was probably my most watched film - let alone Bond film.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    GE was the first Bond film I watched at the cinema and I found Brosnan and adequate enough Bond. What never ceases to puzzle and amuse on a personal level is when this film is rated highly by Bond "fans." Ultimately, it provides little more than a flashy, over-hyped, selection of greatest hits moments which don't add up to a satisfying whole. It's like one of those mediocre compilation albums where you simply flick through to the songs you like, enjoying the few good bits, and arbitrarily disregarding the rest. The pre-title sequence being the best part.

    Casino Royale on the other hand......is amazing. The best Bond since 1965. From the black and white pre-titles, to arguably the best title sequence ever. From the African free-running chase to the beautiful interiors of London. From Judi Dench's harassed M, to the sinister Le Chiffre. From the stone-cold government killer, to the heart broken lover.

    Style, sophistication, direction and Fleming are in abundance.

    Well said @suavejmf. There is so much guff written about GE. A thoroughly mediocre entry - at best. I remember thinking TND was a significant improvement actually, although TWINE and DAD sealed the deal in terms of defining the Brosnan era as the worst in Bond history.

    I understand that it was the first film lots of guys on here saw in the cinema but even so...

    I'm not sure it's so much because it's the first many saw in the cinema, more that it was, as @bondjames notes above, a significant moment in Bond pop culture, not dissimilar to SF. I'm aware you also dislike that movie, so perhaps your subconscious won't allow you to embrace the more mainstream successes. Both films resonated with audiences in a way that goes beyond mere film making Imo.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    GoldenEye is 11 years old than CR, people tend to forget that. Also with CR EON stepped up their game considerably production value wise.
    If you take this in account, GE is a true timeless gem.

    CR is superior in every way. Plot, cast, score, direction and action.

    You may think so yeah, but I don't think Casino Royale has left such a huge impact as Goldeneye has. When you look at the legacy of Goldeneye, it lead to the N64 game, the remake, four of the most memorable Bond villains, and it got a hell of a lot of people interested in Bond. Whereas with Casino Royale, it may be the film that made Bond click with audiences to a much larger degree than usual, but that's the only thing about about it. It's lasting impact isn't really anything compared to Goldeneye. Yes both films are great, and it's all down to opinion, but I just personally think Goldeneye is a better film.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    GoldenEye is 11 years old than CR, people tend to forget that. Also with CR EON stepped up their game considerably production value wise.
    If you take this in account, GE is a true timeless gem.

    CR is superior in every way. Plot, cast, score, direction and action.

    You may think so yeah, but I don't think Casino Royale has left such a huge impact as Goldeneye has. When you look at the legacy of Goldeneye, it lead to the N64 game, the remake, four of the most memorable Bond villains, and it got a hell of a lot of people interested in Bond. Whereas with Casino Royale, it may be the film that made Bond click with audiences to a much larger degree than usual, but that's the only thing about about it. It's lasting impact isn't really anything compared to Goldeneye. Yes both films are great, and it's all down to opinion, but I just personally think Goldeneye is a better film.

    The remake? Launching a computer game off the back of the film doesn't mean much to me. GE is average in everyway, a buy the numbers Bond film that does a job but doesn't really impress on any level ( satellite in space.....yawn). CR is near perfect.
    Like 007ClassicBondFan said, whether you think GoldenEye is inferior, superior or makes you yawn is purely subjective and downright to your opinion. I don't remember anyone going utterly hyped and talking about it with Royale the way they did with GoldenEye. To this day, it still keeps gaining accolades, praise, and nostalgia, whereas all Royale has is a critical acclaim and the usual box office gross which already has been made regular with the Bond films. The only time Bond got a similar hype to GoldenEye was with Skyfall, and the way they marketed it. These are facts. Not down right to opinion. Now, what are your thoughts about what film as entities, that's down to you. A matter of taste that varies with everyone. But, to ignore the massive impact GoldenEye left upon the pop culture? That won't do, sir. That won't do.

    Maybe it is down to memory and a bit random as well? I remember a lot of buzz for CR, both from the populace and media.With GE there was a lot of media buzz, but I don t remember anyone talking about it.

    None of it comes close to TSWLM back in 77, though.
Sign In or Register to comment.