Goldeneye in Review

Just about everything in Goldeneye, from its nuclear-weapon-in-space plot to the recitation of lines that sound like they're being read off stone tablets (''Shaken, not stirred!''), has been served up with a thirdhand generic competence that's more wearying than it is exhilarating. Pierce Brosnan, for all the blitheness of his throwaway style, has a presence that's as light as balsa wood. You never really believe he's James Bond. He's just a spryly presentable British preppie — the empire's new tux.

In one regard, Goldeneye does try to nudge Bond out of his anachronistic rut. Sprinkled throughout the movie are references to the new power of women. Bond gets accused by his latest flame, Natalya (Izabella Scorupco), of being cold and scared of commitment. He has to endure Moneypenny's japes about sexual harassment. And, most entertainingly, he comes up against the Russian assassin Xenia Onatopp (Famke Janssen), a psycho vamp who combines the lethal movements of Bruce Lee with the sexual fantasies of Madonna, crushing victims to death in the midst of orgiastic S&M bouts.

Even a middling entry in the Bond series — and that certainly describes Goldeneye — is sure to feature all the stuff that lures us, over and over, to the latest 007 extravaganza. Really fast cars! Exotic games of baccarat! Amazing gadgets! All those naughty double entendres that might have been cribbed from a 20-year-old copy of Playboy! Are we having fun now or what?

As you've probably gathered, I think the Bond series, after three decades and 17 films, has entered a near-terminal state of exhaustion.

(Owen Gleiberman)

Rebooted after 6 years with Brosnan in the title role in Goldeneye. Write your reviews here.

rebooted? The franchise was rebooted with Craig, Fields. :|

DAF is considered a reboot, FYEO is considered a reboot, I think it's safe to say GE was too. Not only that, a 6 year break - new Bond, new M, new MI6, new crew and new era.

Learn something new everyday...

I'm not sure whether GE was intended as a "reboot", though it may as well have been. It feels like the start of a completely different Bond era to me, very different from when Dalton took over from Moore. Too many of the "regulars" were gone I guess - Robert Brown, Maurice Binder, John Barry, another change of Moneypenny etc. Plus technology had moved on six years, which kinda put GE in a completely different world from it's "analogue" predecesors IMO.

It is more of an update. Remember, it was written originally with Dalton in mind, plus the flashback shows the cold war era, which all the previous Bonds occupied in. It's supposed to be the same matured agent (albeit poorly cast) not a "green" recruit. I'd say it's just another installment in the franchise. Updated, of course with new cast, technology, etc.

GoldenEye (1995) - 8/10
Ask me my opinion on GoldenEye a month ago and I would’ve told you it was one of my top four Bond films, without hesitation. So it comes as a surprise to me to see GoldenEye so “low” on my list. Let’s get a few things straight though: GoldenEye is still a strong Bond picture. The action is truly top notch, with a special mentions going towards the tank chase throughout St. Petersberg and the ending fist fight between Bond and 006. The supporting cast is strong throughout, too. Natalya is a strong, intelligent Bond girl and is very well played by Izabella Scorupco. Xenia Onatopp is a truly unique character as well; Famke Janssen is great in the role as she makes Xenia disturbing and attractive at the same time. And Sean Bean plays an excellent villain in Trevelyan. (One of my favorite villains in the Bond films.) But the one obstacle that holds GoldenEye from being a great, near perfect Bond film comes as a huge shock to me: Pierce Brosnan. Upon watching again, I found Brosnan stiff and rather bland. He didn’t really play the part like anything; Connery started off the role and was the established Bond, Moore was a sillier Bond, Dalton was a darker Bond and hell even Lazenby was unique in his mannerisms. Brosnan is just there; he rarely says his lines with emotion or flair of any kind in GoldenEye. It also doesn’t help that Sean Bean upstages Brosnan in every scene they’re in together. Apart from looking good in a tux and having some physicality, Brosnan is tragically (gulp) forgettable. GoldenEye is a good Bond film but...and I’d never thought I’d say this...Pierce Brosnan prevents it from being great.

Just curious, on MI6 someone (Jack Wade?) had put up the Michael France draft of Goldeneye. Does anyone still have this lying around? I've lost it and was keen to read it.

Here ya go: http://www.yousendit.com/download/UFh0VWRqQ0NOQnl4dnc9PQ

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Here ya go: http://www.yousendit.com/download/UFh0VWRqQ0NOQnl4dnc9PQ

Cheers mate.

I still think the script as it stands, is one of the finest the series has ever encountered, right along with FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, THUNDERBALL, OHMSS, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, MOONRAKER and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS.

I generally respect Glieberman, but think he's totally wrong here. The part of GE he seems to like (Bond being "pulled from his anachronistic rut") is the aspect of the film I despise, while the feature he pillories (the recapitulation of traditional Bond tropes) is the feature I most admire.

Glieberman, like most film critics, views Bond's relative stasis with disdain and disbelief. "How can Bond remain stuck in 1962, when we progressives have demonstrated the ecstasy that comes from advancing into the brave, new world?", they seem to be asking. My answer is that Bond's at least partial rejection of postmodernity is what makes him unique and appealing. To the extent that he offers up his posterior to feminist harridans and anti-American stooges, he ceases being Bond and becomes yet another bland Hollywood drone. And that is why the prominence of Babs, Dench and the Haggfish is so worrisome.

Bond must adapt to some extent, and shed his skin. The question is - by how much? How far do you go with updating the character before he begins to lose his identity, and become David Webb?

GE treads that line pretty damn well. After all, he lifts up the girl onto a US gunship, with his marine allies, before the end credit fade in. That's hardly a hand wringing liberal Bond. All our hero does, is accept that the world has changed, but doesn't try to alter himself in the process.

No, the deconstruction by-rote only starts with the following films. They're created by writers and producers who respected GOLDENEYE, but didn't understand it.

Sharky wrote:

GE treads that line pretty damn well. After all, he lifts up the girl onto a US gunship, with his marine allies, before the end credit fade in. That's hardly a hand wringing liberal Bond. All our hero does, is accept that the world has changed, but doesn't try to alter himself in the process.

If he did he wouldn't have been called a "sexist, misogynist dinosaur"

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Sharky wrote:

GE treads that line pretty damn well. After all, he lifts up the girl onto a US gunship, with his marine allies, before the end credit fade in. That's hardly a hand wringing liberal Bond. All our hero does, is accept that the world has changed, but doesn't try to alter himself in the process.

If he did he wouldn't have been called a "sexist, misogynist dinosaur"

He should've responded by telling M to douse her beaver in her bourbon and then stalked out of the meeting. Connery's Bond may have done something of the sort. Dalt's, too.

Moore's Bond would've just shagged her on the spot with 'Make It Last All Night' playing in the background.

Scratch that, I don't wanna give Babs any ideas...

Connery would have smiled in amusement and nodded thinking to himself "you bet your shagging arsh"
Lazenby would have resigned on the spot.
Moore would have raised his eyebrow, which would be enough to have Dench surrender to his charms. She even calls Moneypenny in for a three way.
Dalton would have just rolled his eyes and lit a cigarette.
Craig would have ignored her whole diatribe and jumped out the window as his own casual way of leaving the office.

I like to think that his going on to bone an old flame who's now another man's wife in TND and someone who he's been assigned to as a bodyguard in TWINE shows that there wasn't much sincerity in Bond's 'Point taken' after M's little GE diatribe.

Stilicho Bias wrote:

I generally respect Glieberman, but think he's totally wrong here. The part of GE he seems to like (Bond being "pulled from his anachronistic rut") is the aspect of the film I despise, while the feature he pillories (the recapitulation of traditional Bond tropes) is the feature I most admire.

Glieberman, like most film critics, views Bond's relative stasis with disdain and disbelief. "How can Bond remain stuck in 1962, when we progressives have demonstrated the ecstasy that comes from advancing into the brave, new world?", they seem to be asking. My answer is that Bond's at least partial rejection of postmodernity is what makes him unique and appealing. To the extent that he offers up his posterior to feminist harridans and anti-American stooges, he ceases being Bond and becomes yet another bland Hollywood drone. And that is why the prominence of Babs, Dench and the Haggfish is so worrisome.

This problem will persist for as long as they keep Bond trapped in the 21st century... :(

And based on the review in the OP, this individual likely never truly loved Bond.

Yes, Glieberman doesn't sound like much of a fan. Probably should recuse himself from doing Bond reviews.

Sharky wrote:

I still think the script as it stands, is one of the finest the series has ever encountered, right along with FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, THUNDERBALL, OHMSS, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, MOONRAKER and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS.

Not sure if I agree with the inclusion of THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, but I also haven't watched it in a long time. In general I agree. After reading the France script, I rewatched it and it's gone up considerably in my estimations. I still don't particularly rate Brosnan's performance, though.

Along with The Spy Who Loved Me, this is the film I'd kill to see all the drafts for.

France's draft is miles away from resembling the final film. It's not bad, it says a lot that just about every action sequence he wrote that was in any way filmable has shown up in some form of another in TWINE, DAD and QoS. That said, I'd say most of the changes were good ones. Except making Trevelyan Bond's Best Mate instead of his mentor. I've never really been able to buy that.

Vesper wrote:

Except making Trevelyan Bond's Best Mate instead of his mentor. I've never really been able to buy that.

GoldenEye's fatal weakness.

I also think Xenia is way better in France's draft.

We need Blueblood here to defend his baby... oh and to piss off Khan.

Leave Khan alone. He's having a good day as France has banned face veils. (I believe an underwear ban is on Berlusconi's agenda.)

GoldenEye. Yes. It's not too bad.