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
Watching Goldeneye for the first time (yes, I haven't watched it since).
I don't think it's the best that many people making it out to be.
I'm already at the middle of my viewing.
The score wasn't Bondian, the actor playing General Ourumov was a bit corny (particularly his facial expressions), the transition of some scenes also wasn't good or is it the editing?
Also Brosnan's performance here was a bit stiff, his performance improved in his later films.
Natalya was a realistic character, but I find her voice a bit weird (it's deep and her voice was quite manly).
GE didn't immediately pop to mind, but, yeah. It was almost like a new season of a TV series where they have to reintroduce to the possibly newer viewers the whole structure of the show. My favourite Brosnan was always TND, anyway.
The film goes a bit hard on Bond in some aspects. We get the 'sexist, misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the Cold War' line from M. I get why some people don't like that line and have a hard time squaring this view of Bond compared to how the films of the past depicted him (let's be honest, there was a tendency to glorify and arguably simplify the character in the earlier instalments). If I'm honest though, it's really not an uncommon view of Bond as a character, especially today. It's not as much that Bond is this horrible character, but this is simply how he's viewed by this version of M. We ultimately get the little line from her at the end that implies that Bond is still needed - the 'come back alive' moment, that ultimately implies he's still that hero we can depend upon, and that beneath all her contempt for Bond's womanising, his outdatedness etc. this is how he's viewed by her.
I do think SF handled some of these broad ideas better than GE - the idea of Bond being relevant in a changing world, how such a man can even conceivably be a 'hero' at all... It helps that Craig's Bond is depicted as much more cynical and jaded than the rather fresh faced, youthful Brosnan.
Oh yeah. It takes the "is Bond still relevant?" thing and actually does it beyond some totally anachronistic monologues. When Silva talks (and talks) about M's cruelty, or he and Bond being the last two rats, or how much of a wreck Bond is, it actually describes the characters we're watching. Same for Mallory wondering why Bond didn't just get out, and talking about having lost a step. It's connected to James Bond in the movie.
The reason I don't like "sexist misogynist dinosaur" is simply that it's another case of a character in Goldeneye describing a different James Bond to the one in the movie. Pierce's Bond doesn't really come off as a sexist misogynist dinosaur. And the guy before him didn't either. And Rog ended his tenure turning down figure skater sex and making quiche. It's just not really connected to anything. (And is a pretty weak answer to Bond cataloguing M's many failures in her job)
"Why are you so cold?" "It's what keeps me alive." Yeah, that doesn't have anything to do with Pierce's Bond. "I might as well ask you if the vodka martinis have silenced the screams of all the men you've killed..." No, this Bond is clearly without any emotional burdens. When 006 complains about being told, "Well done, good job, but sorry, old boy, everything you risked your life and limb for has changed," he would seem to be alluding to the end of the Cold War, which happened after he faked his death and had therefore left the service.
It's just substance-free rubbish, speaking ideas out loud that don't relate to anything going on with the characters.
Skyfall actually takes its characters and themes seriously, and makes them work together. To bring it all back around to the original question in this thread, that's what makes it a movie that one could consider sort of serious.
It's interesting in the sense that these ideas were there early in the Brosnan era, and how they fed through into Craig's tenure. I won't go into it too much, but like I said, I do think that the idea of Bond being a sexist relic of a past era is quite relevant today, and I suspect it was there when GE was made (I know watching it for the first time there was that sense of Bond as a character, albeit not as prominent as it has been in the recent past. Take this with a grain of salt though as I'm a bit younger/didn't watch it when it first came out). It doesn't matter in a sense how youthful or charming Brosnan's Bond is because that's how his womanising, his sense of adventure, his approach to his job etc. are perceived in this new world. It's a film very self-referential to the series as a whole in this way - just as much as its inclusion of the DB5 - much like SF. At the end of the day though, Bond in both SF and GE ultimately have the virtues of bravery and patriotism as Fleming once said (despite their many vices), and ultimately they prove themselves heroic because of this.
Anyway, I think SF takes a lot of the ideas of GE (including the concept of a former MI6 agent 'back from the dead' now out for revenge against the Service) but handles them in a much more thoughtful, mature way. I think SF has the benefit of being made at a time in which we can accept Bond's flaws and the film is able to lean into them more. It also was Craig's third film, and didn't have to establish a new Bond in the same way GE had to with Brosnan. I enjoy both but I've always said that SF is by far the stronger film of the two. But I'm not sure if they could have gotten to that point without a film like GE.
I love both films for how they deal with it.
Yeah, you definitely wouldn't have a Skyfall in 1995, that's for sure. But Goldeneye did the Cold War stuff just fine, I thought. They just could have done without inflating the depth of the Bond character through dialogue alone. A case of "show, don't tell".
It's like when Helga jumps out of the plane in YOLT. It's looks awful, and okay, it's 1967, so maybe they didn't have any better ways to do it, so guess what? Just don't do that shot at all! Think of something else, something you can pull off! :))
I have to say, YOLT is the one that looks most dated in terms of the visual effects and backscreen projection used throughout. FRWL had that awful moment on the gondola at the end, when Bond throws away the roll of film, and DAF has that terrible bit with the mushroom cloud and weapons turning red by lasers (topped off by that bad acting with the guy keeling over in front of it), but overall YOLT seems to have suffered the worst.
Zoom in to Connery's face, somewhat astounded, as he clearly watches her exit, and the plane interior gets windy..."Leaving so soon ?" he might have asked. Of course, the scene made little sense. It was an unnecessary and expensive way to kill him. It could have been explained with some bit of setup, such as wanting the British Secret Service to find him and thereby know (something)