Directed by:
Martin CampbellCinematography:
Phil MéheuxComposer:
Eric SerraCast:
Pierce Brosnan, Sean Bean, Izabella Scorupco, Famke Janssen, Joe Don Baker, Judi Dench, Robbie Coltrane, Tchéky Karyo, Gottfried John, Alan Cumming (more)VOD (4)
Plots(1)
Pierce Brosnan ignites the screen in his first adventure as the unstoppable James Bond. When a powerful satellite system falls into the hands of a former ally-turned-enemy, only 007 can save the world from an awesome space weapon that -- in one short pulse -- could destroy the earth! (20th Century Fox UK)
Videos (2)
Reviews (11)
Brosnan’s and my first Bond. Back when I was a nine or ten-year-old squirt, I liked seeing 007 demolishing Russia in a tank, using a watch to drill holes in the floor, reeling out one perfect line after the next. And you know what? I still like it. That’s one thing that hasn’t changed and probably won’t change. And it stands to reason, Martin Campbell is simply good at Bond movies. He began with GoldenEye and then brought Bond back to the top with Casino Royale and that deserves some recognition. As a bonus, we see my personal favorite BondGirl Famke Janssen, ravishing, unhinged. I have a soft spot for her.
()
GoldenEye is a colorful, spectacular Bond movie packed with great action and sexy women. And an excellent cast. There’s no trace of the traditional Bond atmosphere of the classics starring Sean Connery, but I don’t have a single complaint in terms of its entertainment value.
()
The new Bond concept is decent. Campbell serves up some ethereal action that gives the agent a respectable coat. Unfortunately, it loses steam in building the dramatic arc, and thus the plot drags on for a long two hours. But who cares. The Soviet Union fell, leaving Bond a respectable legacy. The new era demanded a sharper dose of action, which GoldenEye fulfills to a tee, and I enjoyed that tank in St Petersburg more than anything I've seen in a long time!
()
Since I'm gradually watching all the Bond films, we naturally got to GoldenEye, although I skipped ahead a bit in chronology because my girlfriend wanted to see the Brosnan Bond movies. After Roger Moore, this is a terrible disappointment where there are so many inconsistencies that it's sometimes very annoying. I can't help it, Pierce Brosnan has charm, but he lacks the right charisma. His Bond is quite uninspiring, and Natalya Simonova only succumbed to him because it was in the script. It’s action-packed and has an interesting plot, but the execution is nothing special.
()
I have a rather warm relationship with this Bond film because it brought me back to my childhood love in 1995. However, when I look at it from a distance, several problems arise. Firstly: Timothy Dalton set out on a whole new conception of Bond that would free the series from the from the yoke of the shackles of the Cold War before the fall of the Iron Curtain. But GoldenEye acts as if this whole stage (excellent and productive, in my opinion) does not exist. In the mid-1990s, it returns to a long-overdue question: does Bond still make sense at the end of the millennium, or is he really just a relic of the end of the war of ideologies and the old model of entertainment? This theme resonates in the recurring motif of the "communist lapidary", but above all in the triple questioning of the characters. Natalia asks Bond about his coldness and shyness in "boyish" deadly gun games. Villain Alec questions Bond's iconic role as "Her Majesty's servant" as a relic in a world that loses its clear contours. Finally, the new M, more or less a tough and indiscriminate technocrat compared to the conservative and traditionalist predecessors, calls Bond a misogynistic dinosaur. He's right, in this role Brosnan (in all his efforts) really does give the impression of a stubborn relic of the Moore era. Although he is much more persuasive in action and tries to profile Bond humanly at the same time, his character is still more of a "vessel for a fiery action" than an impressive character with "Craigian" inner tension. But it's not just him - Martin Campbell is also struggling with the Bond concept: the middle part of the film is tedious and lengthy, lacking distinctive humorous moments and more imaginative action (everything is done in scale rather than execution). The conclusion finally cleverly incorporates a quick and functional edit, even reaching for a more physically rough Bond clash with the villain. The problem is that Brosnan is hard to believe in these transformations, even if he has the proper ironic look, his face and voice are constantly too blissful, and he really fits the "Moore" action combine harvester the most - he (just like Woody writes) seeks an unlikely fusion of all the existing elements of this character. The ambiguity of the sound (it is a Bond drama, comedy, melodrama) is highlighted by the appalling music of Eric Serra, which misses the atmosphere of individual scenes and would be more suited to a slightly erotic film or soap opera. Positives? An excellent villain who breaks the tradition of megalomaniac destroyers of the world with personal revenge for the historical sins of the Empire. A finale that shows Campbell can bring a great deal of adrenaline and dynamism to Bond by not having the "bombastic mowing down of dozens of enemies". The series will wait another seven years to answer the question of the old Bond's "legitimacy," and the answer is not very favorable after all. The Brosnan era has become a bit of a lapidary over time, which offers a lot of pleasant memories to nostalgic people, but the dust settles here too mercilessly.
()
(less)
(more)
Ads