Having seen the film in its entirety with my family fairly recently, I think I mostly agree, but I also think there are two major points you failed to cover, probably due to word count.
The first one is just the fact that it’s a given actor’s first Bond movie, and the first one is almost always a bit of a tuneup.
The second is, it’s the first post-Cold War Bond movie, and the people making it had the bright idea of making the question of whether or not there’s a place for James Bond in the post-Cold War world a pretty central theme. I don’t think they did as good a job as they would do in later films, but in that sense we can say it’s a bit of a trailblazer.
@Spectral Time So here\'s the weird thing about the whole post-Cold War element: it doesn\'t actually change the series that much. If you look through the Bond films that came before this, there\'s really only one movie where Bond is working against the Soviet Union. It\'s For Your Eyes Only, and even in that one the Soviets are more indirect enemies who are using independent contractors to achieve their goals. But the rest of the time he\'s either fighting a global terrorist organization or rich industrialists. Bond teams up with Soviets more often than he faces off with them. GoldenEye didn\'t really have to change that much about Bond\'s M.O. because the movies were never dependent on the Cold War in the first place. That said, the way the film incorporated elements of it into its story, visuals, and themes was well done. I don\'t know that the series ever quite captured the way the world was changing better than it did in this movie.
Also, because I want to talk a little bit more about it than I did in the review proper: the casting in this movie was perfect. Sean Bean plays one of the best Bond villains ever, Isabella Scorupco is one of the most well-rounded and useful Bond Girls, Cumming and Janssen are extremely fun henchmen, Pierce Brosnan nails Bond right out of the gate, and Dame Judi Dench is Dame Judi Dench. But I\'ll at least get to talk about those last two in more depth later.
I'm a geek.
I agree that it’s less of a problem for Bond than, say, Tom Clancy, but I guess I just see spy games stuff as a Cold War thing, before 9/11 meant terrorists were the new enemy of the people.
Anyway. I agree about the cast. Janssen in particular does much to elevate a part my brother wasn’t super fond of.
Leave a Comment:
Doesn't Quite Keep Its (Golden)Eye on the Ball
The early 1990s were a rough time for Bond. Legal issues prevented the making of another movie until six years after Licence to Kill, by which point Timothy Dalton decided to step down. I’ll briefly say that I’m disappointed he never got a chance to come back. He could have been a true powerhouse, but the timing just didn’t work out.
Anyways, let’s talk about the film we did get. To take over the role of 007, Pierce Brosnan was brought in. He’d been a favorite from the fans to step into the role for years, so there was plenty of buzz about him. His time in the role isn’t looked on as fondly these days, but I’ll go ahead and say that I do think he was a good Bond. He definitely shines in this movie, effortlessly pulling off the most debonair of the Bonds. He does still have some edge to him though, and to Brosnan’s credit he pulls that off well too. He’s no Timothy Dalton in that regard, but he’s certainly more intimidating than Moore and Lazenby.
As for the film itself, while the general consensus among Bond fans is that this is one of the all-time greats, I’m personally more on the fence. It’s got plenty of good elements, but they don’t all come together for me. The cast across the board is terrific, but the writing for the characters can feel a little weak at points. The concept of Bond’s former partner being the main villain is great, but in practice it feels like Trevalyan (Sean Bean) is a typical Bond villain rather than someone who knows all of Bond’s tricks. The action is exciting, but feels a bit too much like the movies of the time rather than a genuine Bond film. The tank chase in particular, while a spectacular sequence in general, just does not belong in a Bond movie. The tone can also be really hard to pin down. Characters like Boris (Alan Cumming) and Xenia Onatopp (Famke Janssen) are practically cartoons, while Trevalyan is an orphan out for revenge over a dark chapter in world history.
It’s because of this constant back-and-forth that GoldenEye never fully gels with me. The best way to sum it up is that while it has a lot of great parts, the sum is greater than the whole here. There doesn’t seem to be a singular vision of what this film was supposed to be. So in the end, I’m left with a film that I like, but I can’t honestly say that I love. While it was the film the franchise needed at the time, it doesn’t quite hold up for me. But that’s okay, because next time we’ll have a movie that most definitely knows what it wants to be, and I’m happy to enjoy watching it. See you then!