#1  
Old 02-12-2001, 06:08 PM
(VIDEO) "GoldenEye" (4/10)

"GoldenEye: License to Bore" A Brock Landers Overview of A Bond Flick That Sucks...(4/10) [Gratuitous Censored Profanity/Slang Version]

"GoldenEye" introduced Pierce Brosnan to the role of the British secret agent who made the 60's swing, the 70's snore, the 80's irritate and the 90's nauseate. Bronson is a handsome devil, looks great in a tux, carries a gun with believable authority, has a much lower mousse budget than Roger Moore and is quite an enjoyable presence...my only problem...he seems to think he's in a real movie. Thus foolishly, Brosnan, his actual f**king talent getting in the way, actually attempts to give the secret agent man an inner life...a hint of regret...a minute sense of melancholy. It is this "naturalistic"-style of acting that feels somewhat out of place amid the 351 explosions, 56,789 gunshots, the 14 vehicular catastrophes and the final shuddering collapse of some kind of structure that looks most like the antenna of most major radio stations...and I must admit that they blow s**t up really well in this film, which seems to be the only thing done well at all...

The plot is a total clusterf**k. It seems to have to do with some sort of f**ked-up "conspiracy" by some retarded Russian group...or not, it's never made clear...to electronically rob (how else?) the Bank of England before hitting the city with a blast of electromagnetic energy (from a commandeered killer satellite), which will erase all computer memory in the British Isles, as well as making all the f**king stoplights go berserk. But as we all know, based on films, the British don't obey their traffic laws anyway, Nick Leeson wrecked the banking system years ago and on a side note, do the Brits really only watch Benny Hill and shows about making cheese?

Anyway, what we are left with is a kind of water torture, except instead of water they use muzzle blasts, until we have become numb. It doesn't help matters much that the movie lacks a vivid villain, with poor Sean Bean (still playing the bad guy from "Patriot Games") trying so hard to appear interesting. He suffers from the same setback as Brosnan...too much f**king talent. (As a general rule, sometimes really great actors are completely thrown off by the whole "Bond" thing...think Christopher Walken and Klaus Maria Brandauer, both of whom registered on a slightly less-than-dim level in their respective Bond outings.)

Also, in the known Bond universe, admittedly not the most rigorous of invented worlds, there are some rules that should not be broken. One involves promiscuous death. It's OK to kill bad guys, kill them in the dozens, the hundreds, even the thousands, but this movie blurs a moral line (see "Bond Morality 101") to its own disadvantage, I mean, much of it takes place in the post-breakdown USSR, but it goes ahead and kills Russians by the s**t-load, up-to-your-knees in it-style. This is especially true in the long sequence where Bond steals a tank and chases a car through the streets of St. Petersburg, gunning and crushing Russians endlessly. It doesn't bother me terribly, but since I'm picking nits, don't you think that the vodka-swilling Russkies are tired of being stereotyped? The poor commie bastards...Of course, on the other hand...because of all the death, we get to see a T-74 Soviet main battle tank do a wheelie! Phantasma-f**king-goric!

Martin Campbell, the director, stages the action well, otherwise he's a useless piece-of-steaming-s**t. He's not good with actors, or at the very least he has a brain-fart everytime the occasional screen magic appears. One sequence involves Bond's meeting with his new boss, Ms. M, played in no-nonsense style by the distinguished actress Judi Dench. Damn, is she good, and damn, does the electricity crackle between her and Brosnan, lighting the screen up like a mother-f**king bolt of lightning. Yet, she's barely in the film. Why, you ask? Because Campbell has a head like a leaking civ...

Now, with all that said, there are two tasty McChickwiches in the film, namely Famke Janssen and Izabella Scorupco. Cast as the good and bad femme fatales, the two former models are far more comfortable in their cartoon-like roles than is Brosnan in his. They seem to get "it" in a way he doesn't, and both performances are based around the sort of extraordinary physical confidence that beauty seems to endow without complication upon those blessed enough to receive it. Scorupco is a, how do you say, I think the technical term is "hottie". She is strangely compelling and her radiance on-screen outshines even most of the destruction throughout.

(Note: I wrote this overview as a major fan of James Bond and the entire series...well, most of it. Also, just so no one asks me, there is no "Bond" Morality 101...I made it up...it only exists in my head...so sue me. By the way, I gave it 4/10 for the number of delicious ta-tas.)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-13-2001, 03:25 PM
Hehehe..

There's only one thing though.. Did you happen to notice way back in the beginning of the movie that there is this amazing stunt being performed by however his name is, sorry dude, youknow, that bungee jump! I thought it was amazing!! I mean, I really held my breath there, and also because of the sound editing on that particular part of the film..

What always interests me as someone who is in the movie/TV business herself, are practical questions; how long did it take for them to shoot that particular shot? How many takes? Is that dam really in Switzerland? How many camara's where used? Who the hell IS that stuntman (I'm not gonna look it up now)??
These days DVD supplies you with wonderful extra's such as watching the complete movie with added audio tracks from the director/actor(s)/producer. I like watching those parts. It gives me a lot of answers on what I was just talking about.

I did this with Goldeneye. I watched with the commentary's of Martin Campbell and Micheal G. Wilson. As you listen to them it (again) comes clear that James Bond is an institute by itself. It's all about flashy Brit James, gorgeous women, an international element and incredible mindblowing stunts. So they directed a lot of their attention to action. They got the absolute best.
The stunt I just described was a one-taker. To me this is incredible. The guts and teamwork are amazing. One of the best stunts ever. Especially because it tunes in with the character so well, James can do anything right? But it also has a kind of stylish way of breaking in some bloody f***ed up building of some f***in sort.. Hehehe..
There also features a stunt in which a Cessna has to land within a few metres in front of a driving car, doing fast! You gotta admit: That's a tough stunt.. I mean, just think of all the things you have got to prepare and arrange before shooting a thing like that!? Stunts are really really hard to shoot..
Anyway, the pilot of that Cessna was a 73 year old man. They did nine takes, but all of them weren't because of him, they all had to do with either the driver of the car or light. He landed that plane exactly on the spot where they told him to land it NINE times. Don't you think that is just stunning?

To me James Bond is al about 'don't wrap your brain about it too much and just enjoy'. That kind of movie. Just relax and enjoy next time you watch a James Bond. They are fun! But you MUST know this right?

On a personal note; recently I was involved in shooting a car crash. It was a high speed car chase in which the second car bumped into a pile of wooden pellats. Thanks to the driver we used it was a two taker.. He was perfect. Damn, it took a lot of time to get them all piled up again!

Film is sooo much work..

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-13-2001, 06:09 PM
Thanks for the different perspectives mafia, you brought up a lot of great stuff I pretty much avoided because of my hatred towards this film, ok, hatred is pretty strong, how about f**king contempt...I never got around to checking out the commentary on this one, but I usually love DVD commentaries...I just lost interest after watching it. Besides, a lot of classic Bond films (which I love) are so phenomenally better than this one, I just sort of wrote it off the books, so to speak. Like I said, the action sequences are well-shot, it's just the whole lack of anything else that bugs the s**t out of me...(you know...censored profanity can be just as therapeutic as the real stuff [sly smirk])
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-13-2001, 06:57 PM
Cant agree with you more Brock. Im a massive fan of Bonds but the newer contributions to the series are absolutely pitiful.
They seem to be consciously trying to restore a little of the original Fleming Bond back into the stories. It just doesnt fit though because its all done so half assed. All the PC crap that dominates the script just makes the scenes with a Connery feel to them laughable.(Not in a good way)
My disdain for these latest additions is so much that I flat out refuse to complete my collection which is complete up till & including For Your Eyes Only, all of which I have watched 100s of times. From Octopussy on I find that the quality just slipped into an eventual plummet that culminated with GoldenEye.

Connery is Bond.

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-14-2001, 06:47 AM
I hear ya Mr Landers, and you too Deckard (nice nick you got there), but when it comes to Bond, I'm a positive ol' broad. Looking for the up-parts in the movie.. Maybe a bit too much.. Forgive me guys [img]/ubb/tongue.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-14-2001, 03:18 PM
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. True, the latest Bond's haven't exactly been the best, but I prefered GoldenEye to TWINE and TND. I felt the acting was very good and some of the stunts (bungee jump etc.) were very impressive. I would most likely rate it 8/10. I'm also a massive fan of Bond, and I'm curently building up the collection. Sorry to feel differently.

[img]/ubb/smile.gif[/img] [img]/ubb/smile.gif[/img] [img]/ubb/smile.gif[/img] COOLKID [img]/ubb/smile.gif[/img] [img]/ubb/smile.gif[/img] [img]/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

"Just keeps getting cooler"
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-16-2001, 11:46 AM
Pierce Brosnan...prrrrrrrr.....
Ok, with that being said,I guess I look at Bond as great cheese. I don't ever really watch them to rate them...if I did that, it would take away the fun, and I would probably pick it apart. I love the action, the not-so-clever lines, the UNBELIEVABLE stunts, and the fact that he could escape any situation with a pen. BOND IS THE MAN!!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-17-2001, 09:29 PM
here's some extra crap...

- The satellite dish used in the end of the film is the same one used in the film "Contact".

- First completely original James Bond film, without reference to any Ian Fleming novel or short story. (which would explain the failure)

- Continuity: Bond carries a black rope along the dam, then bungee jumps with a white one.

- Revealing mistakes: When the dish is being drained, it is obvious (when the water is at its lowest) that the scene is only being rewound. The water flies UP in the air as it drains out.

- Factual errors: When M offers Bond a drink during the meeting in her office, Bond mentions that her predecessor used to keep a bottle of brandy. M states that she prefers bourbon, before producing a bottle of Jack Daniels. Jack Daniels is a whiskey, not a bourbon.


[This message has been edited by Brock Landers (edited 02-17-2001).]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump