GoldenEye

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. (10/03/2014)

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. (11/04/2002)

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. (27/05/2006)

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. (26/07/2006)

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... (25/02/2013)