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 (3)
Plots(1)
Armed with his license to kill, James Bond (Agent 007) races to Russia in search of the stolen access codes for "GoldenEye," an awesome space weapon that can fire a devastating electromagnetic pulse toward the Earth. However, Bond is up against an enemy who anticipates his every move: Alec Trevelyan, a.k.a. Agent 006, a mastermind motivated by years of simmering hatred. As Bond squares off against his former compatriot, he also battles Trevelyan's stunning ally, Xenia Onatopp, an assassin who uses pleasure as her ultimate weapon. When the horrifying extent of Trevelyan's plans is revealed, Bond must call upon his sharp wits and killer instincts in a deadly confrontation. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Reviews (11)
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!
()
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)
GoldenEye has pace, a charismatic hero, over-the-top and imaginative action and a traditionally dumb plot. In other words, a proper Bond flick.
()
Fresh and energized Brosnan demolishes the city with a tank, Sean Bean delivers one crushing line after another, and Famke Janssen's iron grip forces nervous squirming in the seat. GoldenEye is already twenty-five years old, but it still remains the essence of everything that made me (and many others who grew up in the nineties) become a fan of 007 and open up another area of film history.
()
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.
()
With a budget of 58 million USD, it is not nearly as eye-catching as the more polished and doubly expensive parts that followed. However, as a kind of basic building block it’s alright. It is still the first groundbreaking “modern Bond film”, even though it seemingly lacks the twists and changes that the previous License to Kill had, at the same time it is not nearly as controversial an addition to the series as its predecessor. Pierce Brosnan is okay, essentially blending all the previous protagonists together, with the closest resemblance to Roger Moore’s nonchalant gentleman. The action is robust, although it has its gaps.
()
The Bond franchise couldn't have asked for a better “resurrection”. The best part of the whole movie is hands down the tank ride. The opening with the bungee-jump is not too shabby, either. Bond literally jumps into a new era - heads first.
()
I don't like Bond movies, and GoldenEye only confirmed that for me. A simple story, a tank ride through St. Petersburg, the gallant Brosnan, the nasty Gottfried John, and a dishevelled Famke Janssen having an orgasm while firing a machine gun, it all sounds and sometimes actually looks awfully cool, yet I couldn't stop shaking my head at how a film with an A-grade production and cast could look so B-grade and unoriginal. I had fun, no question about it, but the pile of clichés and unrealistic heroics kept popping into my head far more often and, more importantly, more unpleasantly than would have been appropriate. I just have to stick with 3* because, for example, Skyfall, which I gave 4* to, is a much better and more sophisticated piece of filmmaking. Otherwise Brosnan is probably the best Bond, Connery fans don't get mad at me...
()
A megalomaniac plot (which is not a bad thing), but Pierce Brosnan is so desperate to be funny all the time, he reminds me of a stand-up comedian.
()
Given that I am gradually watching all the Bond films, it was, of course, time for "GoldenEye," even though I skipped ahead a bit in chronological order because my girlfriend wanted to see the Brosnan Bond films. After Roger Moore, this is such a disappointment, with so many inconsistencies that it becomes annoying at times. And I can't help it, Pierce Brosnan may have charm, but he lacks the right charisma. His Bond is quite dull, and Natalya Simonova only fell for him because it was in the script. The action and plot are interesting, but the execution is not that great.
()