GOLDENEYE
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1995 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule: Yet another super-criminal has a
nefarious plot that James Bond has to thwart. This
was really a test episode to see if the series
should continue now that almost everyone who made
the original series what it was is gone.
Unfortunately, Bond is already an anachronism and
this film makes matters worse than they need to be.
Rating: 0 (-4 to +4) [This review contains
discussions of film flaws that are minor spoilers.]
As James Bond films go, GOLDENEYE is some distance from the bottom of the pack, but more importantly it is also a long way from the top. As an attempt to jumpstart the stalled series with an almost entirely new crew of talent on both sides of the lens, it is a failure. Without Richard Maibaum's view of who Bond is, without the tension of a John Barry score, with an almost entirely new cast including a new actor in the role of Bond, GOLDENEYE comes off like an imitation of a Bond film. And there is no shortage of imitations. CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER is a better spy thriller and has more of a feel of authenticity than any of the Bond films certainly including GOLDENEYE. It doesn't help that the film is trying to have as much sex and violence as ever while paying lip-service to feminism and an anti-violence philosophy. The new distaff head of staff puts Bond down as a sexist, mysogynist dinosaur and the woman that he saves puts him and the villain down as a "boys with toys" and criticizes their violence. Bond just takes it as if to say of course it is correct. If even the script says there is nothing to admire about Bond, why should the audience feel any different?
The film's biggest thrill is the gunsight-iris opening that is like a trademark seal. That says that what follows is a GENUINE JAMES BOND FILM. And it may be just from habit, but the beginning of a new Bond film is still an exciting moment. Unfortunately the thrill is not sustained. Replaying scenes of Bond winning in a casino against a villain and then identifying himself as "Bond ... James Bond," and recreating scenes from previous films are obviously trying too hard to move Brosnan into the role. The famous Bond wit has never been so strained, with Bond making comments after a near-death in one close call in a helicopter about "the things we do for frequent flier mileage." And wearing thin is the usual convention that the villains kill people right and left, but cannot bloody their hands by putting a bullet between Bond's temples. Instead they time and again leave Bond in shaky death traps from which he escapes.
And in spite of the new post-Cold-War setting, the basic plot is not so different from those done in the 1970s. In fact, it probably would have worked better then. In GOLDENEYE the former Soviets have a weapon that nullifies computers. The weapon is stolen by an unknown super-criminal with plans to use it on a major city. Bond (played for the first time by Pierce Brosnan) has to stop the criminal, but first he has to determine who it is that he has to stop. (It is not a tough guess for the audience.)
The film starts in flashback from nine years earlier with a Pyrrhic victory for 007. Bond destroys a Soviet nerve gas factory, but in doing it loses personal friend 006 (Sean Bean). Now back in the present the death of 006 hangs over Bond and the events of the film. After the pre-credit action sequence, the first part of the film deals with the theft of the Goldeneye device. This is a long sequence that involves little participation from Bond. It does, however, introduce Bond to a new assassin, Xenia Onatopp (Femke Janssen) who gets a sexual charge from danger and murder and who mixes love and death by crushing men between her legs during love-making. Bond is dispatched to St. Petersberg to investigate the destruction of the base that might have controlled the Goldeneye device.
So how is Pierce Brosnan as the fifth James Bond of the United Artists series? In a word, disappointing. He is a Bond in the tradition of Roger Moore, which is just what the series does not need. I will conclude this review with some comments about casting the Bond role. Femke Janssen is not entirely believable as an assassin, but she plays so offbeat and enigmatic a character that she makes herself the center of attention in all her scenes. She certainly is one of the better Bond villains. Gottfried John is, like Brosnan and Sean Bean,a TV veteran having had the most interesting role on the abortive series "Space Rangers." Here he does not have enough to do, but he is a good actor. Joe Don Baker is a bad choice for a CIA agent having played a memorable villain in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS.
There are some serious problems with the script, but none worse than in the pre-credit sequence. That sequence is usually a throw-away but here it sets up the whole story. Also, it involves two very impressive stunts. The problem is that one of the stunts requires that the sequence take place at a very large dam; the other requires that it take place high in mountains where you do not generally find huge dams. And when you see the mountain base from above there is no dam in sight. It seems unlikely that the villains' dish could be built particularly where it is without attracting a great deal of attention. And it does not take much knowledge of history to know that this particular local government is very edgy about what can be seen from overhead surveillance. Nor could the antenna be hidden where it is without damaging it, nor could it be brought out of hiding and so quickly not show the signs of where it was hidden.
I would complain that the Internet address that is mentioned in the film does not follow the correct naming convention, but it is just nice to see computer nerds as important figures in a James Bond film. But not even a computer nerd types on a standard keyboard one-handed while he fidgets with the other hand.
There is just too much that is too silly about GOLDENEYE and too many mistakes in the making. It is not as actively stupid as some Bond films have been, but it is well below average in intelligence for the already not too cerebral series. I give it a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Just so the reader can know what my values are in Bond films I
would rate the Bond film best to worse as:
1. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
2. ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE
3. THUNDERBALL
4. DR. NO
5. LICENSE TO KILL
6. GOLDFINGER
7. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY
8. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE
9. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS
10. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME
11. OCTOPUSSY
12. GOLDENEYE
13. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER
14. THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN
15. A VIEW TO A KILL
16. MOONRAKER
17. LIVE AND LET DIE
A comment about the casting of Bond: As close as Sean Connery is identified with the role, the actor who best embodies the character as created by Fleming is Timothy Dalton. Brosnan and Moore are too smooth. James Bond is at heart a thug for the Secret Service. He needs a sharp, hard, flinty edge. He can dress up in evening clothes and appear charming but he never turns off the animal instincts just below the surface. Only Dalton brought out that aspect of his character. If Dalton is not going to take the role any more, perhaps they have the right actor in this film in the wrong role. Sean Bean did a very impressive job in the two Richard Sharpe stories that have been shown in this country. He did a good job as 006 and should be at least considered as 007, if it doesn't take too much time from the Sharpe series, which frankly is better than the Bond series. And they could do a lot worse than to bring in Brian Cox, also from the Sharpe series, to play M.
Mark R. Leeper
mark.leeper@att.com
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews