A lot people would claim that the Daniel Craig era Bond movies are the most hyped, especially Casino Royale and Skyfall, but back in November 1995, as a 15-year-old, I felt more hype and anticipation building around the release of GoldenEye. It was the first Bond movie in 6 years, the longest gap in the series, after audiences were turned off by the dark, angry License to Kill (still my favorite Bond movie). The old crew was gone, and a new star, M, Moneypenny, headquarters, and director were brought on board.
While many of the people in the cinema that Saturday evening were thrilled by GoldenEye, I wasn't so smitten. After a summer of Die Hard 3, Waterworld, and Under Siege 2 the poor effects and model-work of this Bond movie failed to impress. But not only that, the script is also poor, the villain is weak, and there are grating contrivances. 17 years on, the mid-90s tech on show and exposition that a 5-year-old could now follow date the film badly.
It begins in 1986 with 007 and 006 (an unconvincing Sean Bean, then 35, playing a 50-year-old for the most part) infiltrating a Russian base. Mr. Bean doesn't make it. Nine years later Bond is on leave, with a psychiatrist evaluating if he's still fit for the job. Meanwhile the Ruskie General he crossed years earlier is now in cahoots with Mr. Bean (you didn't really think they'd hire an actor of that caliber to be killed in the first scene did you?) and plans to rob the Bank of England and reset the balance with the help of a special satellite. You see 006 is actually a Cossack descended from blah...blah...blah. Yeah, that's the villain's motivation.
The harsh, realistic tone of LTK is gone. The annoying fantasy of Moore-era 007 is back. Why the producers thought this was the way to go is beyond me. Thankfully, Tomorrow Never Dies was better. But GoldenEye is quite overrated and I can't find any justification for its popularity.
While many of the people in the cinema that Saturday evening were thrilled by GoldenEye, I wasn't so smitten. After a summer of Die Hard 3, Waterworld, and Under Siege 2 the poor effects and model-work of this Bond movie failed to impress. But not only that, the script is also poor, the villain is weak, and there are grating contrivances. 17 years on, the mid-90s tech on show and exposition that a 5-year-old could now follow date the film badly.
It begins in 1986 with 007 and 006 (an unconvincing Sean Bean, then 35, playing a 50-year-old for the most part) infiltrating a Russian base. Mr. Bean doesn't make it. Nine years later Bond is on leave, with a psychiatrist evaluating if he's still fit for the job. Meanwhile the Ruskie General he crossed years earlier is now in cahoots with Mr. Bean (you didn't really think they'd hire an actor of that caliber to be killed in the first scene did you?) and plans to rob the Bank of England and reset the balance with the help of a special satellite. You see 006 is actually a Cossack descended from blah...blah...blah. Yeah, that's the villain's motivation.
The harsh, realistic tone of LTK is gone. The annoying fantasy of Moore-era 007 is back. Why the producers thought this was the way to go is beyond me. Thankfully, Tomorrow Never Dies was better. But GoldenEye is quite overrated and I can't find any justification for its popularity.