"The things we do for frequent flyer mileage"...GoldenEye Appreciation and Discussion.

145791014

Comments

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    doubleoego wrote: »
    On another note, GE is criminally underrated.

    Really? Not an impression I ever got here.

    GE is massively overated IMO on here.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 11,189
    GE is flawed but I have a soft spot for it. It was the first Bond I ever saw in its entirety and watched it so much I can, to this day, recite ALL its dialogue.

    It's influence on me as a young Bond fan is undeniable. To hell with those who say its crap.

    If people can be nostalgic about the objectively fairly poor AVTAK (which I watched last night in honour of Roger), I can be nostalgic about GE.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Watched it again the other day. It's fresh and vital with a great cast of characters, excellent action, classy cinematography and one of the best finales we've had in the last 20+ years. I can see why it might not be everyone's cup of tea, but never understand the flat hatred. If you can't find anything to like in it you've got no soul.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 11,189
    I will agree that parts of it do look dodgy and obviously filmed in a studio, but I like the liveliness of the editing, the action and the characters. It definitely feels like an update for the action blockbuster era of the 90s.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I will agree that parts of it do look dodgy and obviously filmed in a studio, but I like the liveliness of the editing, the action and the characters. It definitely feels like an update for the action blockbuster era of the 90s.

    The model work is dated, but on the whole it's a film that is made with a lot of love and energy. That's what you get with Campbell. CR and GE share the same DNA in that sense. They never feel directionless.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    No Bond film is perfect, but this as close as they've got to a crisp, light hearted formula entry filled with energy since the 80's. I subjectively prefer it to anything made since. It has the old school DNA in it.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,426
    RC7 wrote: »
    The model work is dated, but on the whole it's a film that is made with a lot of love and energy. That's what you get with Campbell. CR and GE share the same DNA in that sense. They never feel directionless.
    bondjames wrote: »
    No Bond film is perfect, but this as close as they've got to a crisp, light hearted formula entry filled with energy since the 80's. I subjectively prefer it to anything made since. It has the old school DNA in it.

    Agree with all of this, gentlemen.

    The real takeaway is how alive the film feels. That's what we need back now, IMO.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 676
    A couple points about this movie - not really appreciation, but hey, my criticism comes from a place of love. ;)

    First, I despise that "frequent flier" line referenced in the thread title! It's obviously overdubbed and completely unneeded. It stinks like Bruce Feirstein's writing in TND.

    Second, I wish the film had found some time to explore the relationship between Trevelyan and Onatopp. I assume she's just a gun for hire, but they're both very different people and I would have liked to see how they relate to each other. They barely speak in the film. NSNA does this a lot better, with Largo and Fatima Blush.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,426
    Milovy wrote: »
    First, I despise that "frequent flier" line referenced in the thread title! It's obviously overdubbed and completely unneeded. It stinks like Bruce Feirstein's writing in TND.

    I like that line. It reminds me of a time when the series didn't take itself too seriously, but it wasn't too campy either.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Milovy wrote: »
    Second, I wish the film had found some time to explore the relationship between Trevelyan and Onatopp. I assume she's just a gun for hire, but they're both very different people and I would have liked to see how they relate to each other. They barely speak in the film. NSNA does this a lot better, with Largo and Fatima Blush.
    Yes, I noticed that. They're in the same scene in the train, but that's about it and little words are exchanged. It is a little strange, but I suppose they didn't want to suggest that they had a sexual relationship, given that Onatopp's weapon of choice is her thighs. Having said that, some explanation of how two so different characters hooked up wouldn't have gone amiss, even if it was done by Bond, M or Tanner back at MI6.
  • Posts: 676
    @bondjames In the movie, it's just like "of course they're working together, they're the bad guys, what else needs to be said?"
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Yes @Milovy, that's exactly how it came across. Having said that, old henchmen like Gobinda didn't have any backstory or reason for being there except to kill good guys either. I suppose they didn't want to draw any more attention to her as a 'female' villain as necessary, perhaps to avoid comparisons to May Day in AVTAK, who had a relationship with Zorin.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited May 2017 Posts: 8,426
    It's another one of those "holes" in the story which doesn't really trouble a Bond film. We don't need backstories for every character, or to know how they all came to know each other. Something things can just be inferred by how they interact, or simply left to the viewers imagination. Maintaining momentum is key for any Bond film, and not getting bogged down or distracted is a big part of that.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 676
    I don't need a backstory for Xenia's involvement with Janus - she kills people, presumably for money, and she's very good at it. Good enough. But I would have liked to see more interaction between these two personalities (think Nick Nack and Scaramanga). For entertainment's sake, not to fill a "hole." I don't care how they met.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Another thing I noticed with Goldeneye is that it is a very self-aware film; Martin Campbell is a master at knowing how long to make certain shots, how long to pull certain jokes, and each reaction feels genuine and how the audience is feeling as opposed to fake, predictable reactions. Even the puns are pretty damn funny, because it's very subtle and cut quickly very soon after.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,426
    Another thing I noticed with Goldeneye is that it is a very self-aware film; Martin Campbell is a master at knowing how long to make certain shots, how long to pull certain jokes, and each reaction feels genuine and how the audience is feeling as opposed to fake, predictable reactions. Even the puns are pretty damn funny, because it's very subtle and cut quickly very soon after.

    interesting.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    No Bond film is perfect, but this as close as they've got to a crisp, light hearted formula entry filled with energy since the 80's. I subjectively prefer it to anything made since. It has the old school DNA in it.

    Funny, regardless of liking or disliking it, GE always felt to me like a distinct break with the past. The point where continuity ends and a completely new era begins. So much is different from the pre 1989 era in tone and detail. And the loss of Maibaum is acutely felt. The introduction of a new Bond upside down in a toilet is just something I feel Cubby would never have allowed had he been fully in control. And the fake 'stunt' with the plane. It's completely out of keeping with everything Bond stands for in terms of action. Ditto the tank chase with Bond smashing his way through St Petersburg - again just not something pre 1989 Bond would ever have done.

    To be fair the 'break' is already becoming evident with LTK, but with hindsight that film has so much more in common with the first 25 years of the series than what came after.

    Despite being a reboot, the Craig era has more in common with pre 1989 Bond than the Brosnan era. Tonally GE feels like a radical change IMO.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 11,189
    Whether we like it or not GE came on the back of True Lies and the style of action is somewhat similar.

    I think the tank chase was intended to rival the Harrier jet sequence.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 11,425
    It's perfectly fine as a generic action movie idea. Could see Arnie doing it. Just not in a Bond film.

    I know a lot happened in between but think how much different the character is in GE and even LTK, let alone DN.

    Bond is more an international playboy action superhero in GE. Cravat, bouffant hair, hairdresser's car. Gone is the Walther and in is a tank and machine guns blazing. He can even fly and defy the laws of physics. It's a completely different character.

    Brosnan's Bond is about as dangerous as a National Trust cream tea.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    No Bond film is perfect, but this as close as they've got to a crisp, light hearted formula entry filled with energy since the 80's. I subjectively prefer it to anything made since. It has the old school DNA in it.

    Funny, regardless of liking or disliking it, GE always felt to me like a distinct break with the past. The point where continuity ends and a completely new era begins. So much is different from the pre 1989 era in tone and detail. And the loss of Maibaum is acutely felt. The introduction of a new Bond upside down in a toilet is just something I feel Cubby would never have allowed had he been fully in control. And the fake 'stunt' with the plane. It's completely out of keeping with everything Bond stands for in terms of action. Ditto the tank chase with Bond smashing his way through St Petersburg - again just not something pre 1989 Bond would ever have done.

    To be fair the 'break' is already becoming evident with LTK, but with hindsight that film has so much more in common with the first 25 years of the series than what came after.

    Despite being a reboot, the Craig era has more in common with pre 1989 Bond than the Brosnan era. Tonally GE feels like a radical change IMO.

    Actually I find more similarrities between Brosnan and Craigs era. The M arc, dodgy cgi, same dialogue (some of M's lines almost word for word), lack of consistent direction. i think it's partly down to lack of Maibaum
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,426
    Getafix wrote: »
    It's perfectly fine as a generic action movie idea. Could see Arnie doing it. Just not in a Bond film.

    I know a lot happened in between but think how much different the character is in GE and even LTK, let alone DN.

    Bond is more an international playboy action superhero in GE. Cravat, bouffant hair, hairdresser's car. Gone is the Walther and in is a tank and machine guns blazing. He can even fly and defy the laws of physics. It's a completely different character.

    Brosnan's Bond is about as dangerous as a National Trust cream tea.

    No way near as bad as Craig in CR smashing through walls and leaping from girder to girder.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    Funny, regardless of liking or disliking it, GE always felt to me like a distinct break with the past. The point where continuity ends and a completely new era begins. So much is different from the pre 1989 era in tone and detail. And the loss of Maibaum is acutely felt.
    I agree that Maibum was definitely a critical element whose loss had a big impact.
    Getafix wrote: »
    To be fair the 'break' is already becoming evident with LTK, but with hindsight that film has so much more in common with the first 25 years of the series than what came after.
    Yes, it's evident with LTK for me too. That was the first film made after the 25th anniversary entry (TLD), and it certainly looked like they wanted to go in a new direction. I even recently watched some interviews commenting on that fact. Nevertheless, now it seems more similar to the earlier entries, most likely due to it having the same cast and director.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Despite being a reboot, the Craig era has more in common with pre 1989 Bond than the Brosnan era. Tonally GE feels like a radical change IMO.
    In terms of character perhaps (on account of Craig being a far superior actor for James Bond). Not in terms of tone or execution in my view. The Craig era has been quite different in this regard. Very personal. Sure, that all started with GE, but they've taken it to whole new levels now.
    w2bond wrote: »
    Actually I find more similarrities between Brosnan and Craigs era. The M arc, dodgy cgi, same dialogue (some of M's lines almost word for word), lack of consistent direction. i think it's partly down to lack of Maibaum
    I agree. The consistency is gone and the writing has been all over the place in both tenures.
  • Posts: 11,425
    The 'this time it's personal' thing actually started with LTK.

    I agree that there are a lot of similarities between the Brosnan and Craig era. Poor writing and sketchy direction. But as you point out the character as portrayed by Craig feels closer to Connery, Dalton and perhaps even Laz.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    The 'this time it's personal' thing actually started with LTK.
    Yes, that's true. I forgot about that. It's interesting that all of this personal stuff began with the first entry after the 25th anniversary. Almost like they intentionally wanted to take a new approach.

    GE tried to blend that firsthand mission aspect with the more carefree & less intense Bond of the past. I think it succeeded but recognize that there were some cliched elements. I think these were deliberately inserted to recall earlier films on account of the long break & don't have a problem with it (just like I don't mind it in TFA for similar reasons).

    They tried to blend the personal with the carefree in SP as well, but I thought it was poorly handled, and actually think that Brosnan is much better in this kind of environment than Craig, who almost subliminally calls out for an intense & personal story (like Dalton).
  • Posts: 11,189
    w2bond wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    No Bond film is perfect, but this as close as they've got to a crisp, light hearted formula entry filled with energy since the 80's. I subjectively prefer it to anything made since. It has the old school DNA in it.

    Funny, regardless of liking or disliking it, GE always felt to me like a distinct break with the past. The point where continuity ends and a completely new era begins. So much is different from the pre 1989 era in tone and detail. And the loss of Maibaum is acutely felt. The introduction of a new Bond upside down in a toilet is just something I feel Cubby would never have allowed had he been fully in control. And the fake 'stunt' with the plane. It's completely out of keeping with everything Bond stands for in terms of action. Ditto the tank chase with Bond smashing his way through St Petersburg - again just not something pre 1989 Bond would ever have done.

    To be fair the 'break' is already becoming evident with LTK, but with hindsight that film has so much more in common with the first 25 years of the series than what came after.

    Despite being a reboot, the Craig era has more in common with pre 1989 Bond than the Brosnan era. Tonally GE feels like a radical change IMO.

    Actually I find more similarrities between Brosnan and Craigs era. The M arc, dodgy cgi, same dialogue (some of M's lines almost word for word), lack of consistent direction. i think it's partly down to lack of Maibaum

    one thing I have noticed is M says the line "what did you expect, an apology?" In both eras. Once in DAD (with Bond in the tunnel) and again in SF (Bond confronting her in her flat).
  • Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote: »
    The 'this time it's personal' thing actually started with LTK.

    I agree that there are a lot of similarities between the Brosnan and Craig era. Poor writing and sketchy direction. But as you point out the character as portrayed by Craig feels closer to Connery, Dalton and perhaps even Laz.

    I'd say this was true up until SP, where I think Craig feels more like a Connery/Moore/Brosnan hybrid.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    Actually I find more similarrities between Brosnan and Craigs era. The M arc, dodgy cgi, same dialogue (some of M's lines almost word for word), lack of consistent direction. i think it's partly down to lack of Maibaum

    one thing I have noticed is M says the line "what did you expect, an apology?" In both eras. Once in DAD (with Bond in the tunnel) and again in SF (Bond confronting her in her flat).
    Absolutely. I noticed that on my last viewing of DAD as well. Some of the themes in the Bond/M relationship during the Craig era (particularly trust and betrayal) were started in DAD and even before that in Brosnan's era.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Very true. So sick of that lame trust thing with M. One of the reasons I was glad to see the back of Dench
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,001
    Getafix wrote: »
    Very true. So sick of that lame trust thing with M. One of the reasons I was glad to see the back of Dench

    The same thing happened in SP with a new M, and I see no signs of it stopping. Can't be that hard to return to a straight-forward mission, hasn't Bond more than proved himself by now?
  • Posts: 11,425
    I know.
Sign In or Register to comment.